The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 07/28/2009 Item #16I , 16 11.." l BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE July 28,2009 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Districts: 1) Big Cypress Stewardship District: FY 09/1 0 Meeting Schedule. 2) Verona Walk Community Development District: Proposed FY 09110 Budget. B. Minutes: 1) Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of May 4, 2009. 2) Airport Authority: Minutes of April 13, 2009; May 11,2009. 3) Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals: Minutes of April 30, 2009. 4) Collier County Citizens Corps: Agenda of March 18,2009; May 20, 2009. Minutes of March 18,2009; May 20,2009. 5) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of April 23, 2009. 6) Collier County Planning Commission: Minutes of April 16, 2009; May 7, 2009. 7) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of March 18, 2009; May 20, 2009. 8) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of May 6, 2009. . .. ""~._- _""'_"''"''"_'~_"''''''""-'___~_',"_."~.,,.._,_...,..~_,,_._._"_m__",_."._ . , 16rt 'II 9) Floodplain Management Planning Committee: Minutes of August 4, 2008; September 8, 2008; November 3, 2008; November 17, 2008; March 2,2009; April 6, 2009. a) Sub-Committee: Minutes of September 19, 2008. b) Staff Sub-Committee: Minutes of April 1,2009. 10) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of March 10,2009; April 14, 2009; June 9, 2009. Minutes of March 10, 2009; April 14, 2009 Special Meeting. 11 ) Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee: Minutes of May 1,2009. 12) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of April 23, 2009. 13) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency: Agenda of May 20,2009. Minutes of April 15, 2009. 14) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda of May 20,2009. Minutes of April 15, 2009. 15) Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee: Agenda of May 20, 2009 joint w/CRA and Immokalee MSTU/ Beautification Committee. Minutes of April 15, 2009 joint w/CRA. 16) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Board: Minutes of April 2, 2009. 17) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of April 13,2009. "._,.....<<'^.""'._._-~" . ,.,'- ,..-, ..-.--",-.-..-." ".--"-' , 161 1 II. 18) Library Advisory Board: Agenda of May 20, 2009 regular meeting; May 20, 2009 Annual Meeting; June 17, 2009. Minutes of April 15. 2009; May 20, 2009 regular meeting; May 20, 2009 Annual Meeting. 19) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of April 15, 2009; May 20,2009. 20) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of June 11,2009. Minutes of April 21, 2009 Special Session; May 6, 2009; May 13, 2009 joint w/Landscaping Sub-committee. a) Budget Committee: Minutes of April 1, 2009. b) Management Review Committee: Minutes of March 23,2009; April 1, 2009; April 21, 2009. c) Ordinance Review Committee: Minutes of January 27,2009. d) Safety Committee: Agenda of May 15,2009. 21) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee: Minutes of March 26, 2009. 22) Utility Authority (Water and Wastewater Authority): Notice to Customers; Affidavit of Publication / Note of Final Order No. 2009-04. C. Other: 1) Clam Pass/Clam Bay: Minutes of Workshop - Navigational Markers For, and Navigation On, Clam Pass/Clam Bay. 2) Collier County Public Safety Coordinating Council: Minutes of March 19,2009. 3) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate: Minutes of February 20, 2009; March 6, 2009; March 20, 2009; April 3, 2009; April 17, 2009; May 1,2009; May 15,2009; June 5, 2009. ~"'''''''-''''-'-'~'-- --"-,,,,'---',- -. ,~.......",-"'""......._-,-,.., 161 1M! . Big Cypress Stewardship District 1415 Panther Lane - Suite 346/347- Naples, FL 34109 - (772) 345-5101 RE(~EI\/ED HJN 2 2 2009 ~-\O;HO at C>"HH'HV (~~crnnl;ssiont~rs June 17,2009 Board of Collier County Commissioners 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Clerk of the Circuit Court Finance Department 2671 Airport Rd., Court Plaza III PO Box 413016 Naples, FL 34112-3016 RE: Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Meeting Dates To Whom It May Concern: In accordance with Chapter 189 of the Florida Statutes we are required to provide to you at the beginning of each fiscal year a notice of our public meeting schedule. Please find attached Fiscal Year 2009-2010 meeting schedule which will be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation. If you have any questions, please contact me. SinCerelY~ ~ ~1t1r1'[ t1cL Nanc ' . Vogel Assis t District Manager enclosure , Misc. Corres: . DaI8:5lll~1S A~ . Item #.t~J= C t 1:rJ ~_A' "~O~,.,",""'" "'."--,"" T --- ~,",~,",,-,. ~_M~,"_~ 16'll~1 ,~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATES BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 October 7, 2009 November 4, 2009 December 2,2009 January 6, 2010 February 3, 2010 March 3,2010 April 7,2010 May 5, 2010 June 2, 2010 July 7, 2010 August 4, 2010 September 1, 2010 All meetings will convene at 3:30 p.m. at the Encore Bank Building, First Floor Conference Room, 3003 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 100, Naples, Florida 34103. '---- __,"~M" 'O_"'_.~ , ","".,"--..,.. . ~ - .-.........",...-,,'. - ,.....- , - 1611~'1I -VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT . J 'E 1\ ' - c/o Special District Services, Inc. JUN 1 6 2009 . 2501 Burns Road, Suite A - ~"~;OHrrj of COllnt\i r.;OrTHnISsion8rs Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (561) 630-4922 Fax: (561) 630-4923 June 11,2009 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Clerk of the Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building L, 6th Floor Naples, Florida 34112 Re: Verona Walk Community Development District To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Florida Law, enclosed please find a copy of the following document relative to the above referenced Community Development District: 1.) Proposed 2009/2010 Fiscal Year Budget (Oct. 1,2009 - Sept. 30, 2010) If you have any questions or comments, please contact our office. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. [~fiuL1A- Laura J. ArcfuJ Enclosure Misc. Corres: '::Gpies to: ...__.'~M',",,_" 1611~2'. Verona Walk Community Development District Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2009/2010 October 1, 2009 - Septentber 30, 2010 ._-- ~....... CONTENTS 16/1"A2 ~ I PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET II PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (SERIES 2004) III PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (SERIES 2006) IV ASSESSMENT COMPARISON V DETAILED PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET VI DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (SERIES 2004) VII DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (SERIES 2006) vw Proposed Budget Contents 2009-2010 5/13/2009 10:02 AM .-."------,.'" PROPOSED BUDGET 161 1~2 ~: VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 October 1, 2009 . September 30, 2010 FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 REVENUES ANNUAL BUDGET ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 94,691 DEBT ASSESSMENTS - SERIES 2004 600,579 DEBT ASSESSMENTS - SERIES 2006 693,890 OTHER REVENUES 0 INTEREST INCOME 720 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,389,880 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 0 ENGINEERING/MAINTENANCE 20,000 MANAGEMENT 33,984 SECRETARIAL 4,200 LEGAL 7,500 ASSESSMENT ROLL 10,000 AUDIT FEES 7,300 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE - SERIES 2004 1,575 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE - SERIES 2006 1,575 INSURANCE 4,000 LEGAL ADVERTISING 2,000 MISCELLANEOUS 800 POSTAGE 500 OFFICE SUPPLIES 700 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 TRUSTEE FEES - SERIES 2004 3,500 TRUSTEE FEES - SERIES 2006 3,500 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE - SERIES 2004 1,000 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE - SERIES 2006 1,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 103,309 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 1,286,571 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (SERIES 2004) (555,536) PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (SERIES 2006) (641,848) BALANCE $ 89,187 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR FEE (47,926) DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS (56,261 ) EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ (15,000) CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 15,000 NET EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ - VllroneWalk WI Budgets WI Budgets 2009-2010 \/IN PropoMd Budg<< 2009-201a I \IIN Operating Fund Budget 2009-2010 511312009 10: lOAM .,--, ... ._'N_..'" -,"-'~,,,~-,,-~~ ...... "'-,,--_. 1611t\2~ PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (SERIES 2004) FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 October 1, 2009 - September 30, 2010 FISCAL YEAR 2009/201 0 REVENUES ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income 5,000 NA V Collection 555,536 Total Revenues $ 560,536 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 125,000 Interest Payments 428,366 Deferred Cost Expense 7,170 Total Expenditures $ 560,536 Excess/Shortfall $ - Verona Walk VW Budgets VW Budgets 2009-2010 VW Proposed Budget 2009-2010 II VW Debt Service (2004) Fund Budget 2009-2010 5/13/2009 10:02 AM "-" ~-",~--, PROPOSED BUDGET 161 1 A2 VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (SERIES 2006) FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 October 1, 2009 - September 30, 2010 FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 REVENUES ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income 5,000 NA V Collection 641,848 Total Revenues $ 646,848 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 145,000 Interest Payments 493,291 Deferred Cost Expense 8,557 Total Expenditures $ 646,848 Excess/Shortfall $ - Verona Walk VW Budgets VW Budgets 2009-2010 VW Proposed Budget 2009-2010 III VW Debt Service (2006) Fund Budget 2009-201 0 5/13/2009 10:02 AM ._~.,"---, ",-_.,,,, , -',-' 16 I 1 A2 Verona Walk Community Development District Assessment Comparison Original Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year FIaclII V.r Lot Projected 200512006 200512007 200712008 200812009 200912010 Size Assessment Assessment Assessmenl Assessment Assessment Prolected _men! Phase One Townhome 26' Administrative $ $ 119.05 $ 103.59 $ 43,93 $ 49.13 $ 48.21 (Cayman) Debt $ 600.00 $ 587.83 $ 585.71 $ 589.49 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Phase One Total $ 600.00 $ 706.88 $ 689.30 $ 633.42 $ 649.13 $ 648.21 Duolex 36' Administrative $ $ 119.05 1$ 103.59 $ 43.93 $ 49.13 $ 48.21 (Capri/Carrington) ~ $ 600.00 $ 587.83 $ 585.71 $ 589.49 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Phase One Total $ 600.00 $ 706.88 $ 689.30 $ 633.42 $ 649.13 $ 648.21 Sinole Familv SO' Administrative $ $ 119.05 $ 103.59 $ 43.93 $ 49.13 $ 48.21 (Oakmant) ~ $ 706.00 $ 691.56 $ 689.07 $ 693.52 $ 706.00 $ 706.00 Phase One Total $ 706.00 $ 810.61 $ 792.66 $ 737,45 $ 755.13 $ 754.21 Single Familv 50' Administrative $ $ 119.05 $ 103.59 $ 43.93 $ 49.13 $ 48.21 (Ca~yle) ~ $ 812.00 $ 795.30 $ 792.43 $ 797.55 $ 812.00 $ 812.00 Phase One Total $ 812,00 $ 914.35 $ 896.02 $ 841.48 $ 861.13 $ 860.21 Phase Two Du lex 36' Admnistrative $ $ $ $ 4393 $ 49.13 $ 48.21 (Capri/Carrington) ~ $ 600,00 $ $ $ 589.63 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Phase Two Total $ 600.00 $ $ $ 633.56 $ 649.13 $ 848.21 Sinole Familv SO' Admnistrative $ $ $ $ 43.93 $ 49.13 $ 48.21 (Oakmant) Debt $ 706.00 $ $ $ 693.67 $ 706.00 $ 706.00 Phase Two Total $ 706,00 $ $ $ 737.60 $ 755.13 S 754,21 Single Familv 50' Administrative $ $ $ $ 43.93 $ 49.13 $ 48.21 (Carlyle) Debt $ 812.00 $ $ $ 79789 $ 812.00 S 812,00 Phase Two Total $ 812.00 $ $ $ 841.82 $ 861.13 S 860,21 Includes 2% County Tax Collector Fee, a 1.5% County Property Appraiser Fee and a 4% discount for early payment of taxes. Notes: There are 1,964 units in the Verona Walk Community Development District. There are 925 Units In Phase One Of The Community. There are 246 twenty six foot townhomes in Phase One. There are 344 thirty six foot duplex homes in Phase One. There are 240 fifty foot single family homes in Phase One. There are 95 sixty foot single family homes in Phase One, There are 1.039 Units In Phase Two Of The Community. There are 546 thirly six foot dupiex homes in Phase Two. There are 321 fifty foot single family homes in Phase Two. There are 172 sixty foot single family homes in Phase Two. Verona Walk VW Budgets 'WI Budgets 2009-2010 VW Proposed Budget 2009-2010 IV 5/13/2009 10:02 AM VW Assessment Comparison ,.-.".., - A2 . ~ PROPOSED BUDGET 16 I 1 VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 October 1, 2009 - September 30, 2010 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 REVENUES ACTUAL ANNUAL BUDGET ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 87575 96,496 94.691 Exoenditures Less Interest & Carrvoverl.925 DEBT ASSESSMENTS - SERIES 2004 588 293 600.576 600,579 Payment To Trusteel.925 DEBT ASSESSMENTS - SERIES 2006 674999 692,919 693 890 Payment To Trusteel.925 OTHER REVENUES 0 0 0 INTEREST INCOME 3,474 1,800 720 Interest Pro'ected At $60 Per Month TOTAL REVENUES $ 1 354341 $ 1 391 791 $ 1 389 880 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 0 0 o Suoervisor Fees ENGINEERINGIMAINTENANCE 6,598 20 000 20 000 COD Owns Water Manaoement & Drainage Structures MANAGEMENT 32 652 33,984 33,984 No Chanoe From 200812009 BudQet SECRETARIAL 4200 4,200 4,200 No Channe From 200812009 BudQet LEGAL 681 7,500 7,500 No Channe From 200812009 Budaet ASSESSMENT ROLL 10000 10,000 10,000 As Per Contract AUDIT FEES 7300 7,300 7,300 No Channe From 200812009 Budaet ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE - SERIES 2004 1575 2,000 1,575 $425 Decrease From 200812009 Budaet ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE - SERIES 2006 3,150 2,000 1,575 $425 Decrease From 200812009 Budaet INSURANCE 4.000 4,000 4000 No Chanae From 200812009 Budaet LEGAL ADVERTISING 705 3,500 2000 $1,500 Decrease From 200812009 BudQet MISCELLANEOUS 563: 1000 800 $200 Decrease From 200812009 BudQet POSTAGE 349: 500 500 No Channe From 200812009 BudQet I OFFICE SUPPLIES 451 i 900 700 $200 Decrease From 200812009 BudQet DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175' 175 175 No Channe From 200812009 Budae! TRUSTEE FEES - SERIES 2004 3,2331 3500 3,500 No Channe From 200812009 Budae! TRUSTEE FEES - SERIES 2006 3,231 ! 3,500 3500 No Chanae From 200812009 Budget CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE - SERIES 2004 1000i 1,000 1,000 No Chanoe From 200812009 Budget CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE - SERIES 2006 1,0001 1,000 1,000 No Chanoe From 200812009 BudQet I I TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 80863 $ 106059 $ 103 309 . REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 1 273 478 i $ 1 285732 I $ 1,286 571 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (SERIES 2004' 1545,760) i 1555,533 1555,536 2010 Princ,oal & Interest Pavments PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (SERIES 2006' 1630,706) I 1640,950 (641,848 2010 Princloal & Interest Payments i BALANCE $ 97012 $ 89 249 $ 89 187 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR FEE 125.699 147955\ 147,926 Three And One Half Percent Of Total Tax Roll DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS 142810 I 156,294\ 156,261 Four Percent Of Total Tax Roll EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ 28 503 $ 1150001 $ 115 000' I CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 01 15,000 15,000 CarrYover From Prior Year NET EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ 28 503 $ $ Verona Walk WVBUOgetI VW BudgN 2009-201 0 WV Proposed BOOget 2009-2010 V 5/1312009 10:15AM Wi Operating Fund Budget 2009-2010 -,~, n~. " ...,- -"._,,-,--- 161 I ~2 '. . PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (SERIES 2004) FISCAL YEAR 200912010 October 1, 2009 . September 30, 2010 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 2008/2009 2009/2010 REVENUES ANNUAL BUDGET ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Interest Income 10,000 5,000 Projected Interest For FY 2009/2010 NA V Collection 555,533 555,536 Maximum Debt Service Collection Total Revenues $ 565,533 $ 560,536 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 120,000 125,000 Principal Payment Due In 2010 Interest Payments 435,533 428,366 Interest Payments Due In 2010 Deferred Cost Expense 10,000 7,170 Deferred Cost Expense Total Expenditures $ 565,533 $ 560,536 Excess/Shortfall $ - $ . Verona Walk VW Budgets VW Budgets 2009-2010 VW Proposed Budget 2009-2010 VI VW Debt Service (2004) Fund Budget 2009-2010 5/13/2009 10:02 AM 161 1~2 f. PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (SERIES 2006) FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 October 1, 2009 - September 30, 2010 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 200812009 2009/2010 REVENUES ANNUAL BUDGET ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Interest Income 10,000 5,000 Proiected Interest For FY 2009/2010 NA V Collection 640,950 641 ,848 Maximum Debt Service Collection Total Revenues $ 650,950 $ 646,848 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 140,000 145,000 Principal Payment Due In 2010 Interest Payments 500,950 493,291 Interest Payments Due In 2010 Deferred Cost Expense 10,000 8,557 Deferred Cost Expense Total Expenditures $ 650,950 $ 646,848 Excess/Shortfall $ - $ - Verona Walk VW Budgets VW Budgets 2009-2010 VW Proposed Budget 2009-2010 VII VW Debt Service (2006) Fund Budget 2009-2010 5/13/2009 10:02 AM . . vi H~ ,,~ ~ Henning -r / I . Coyle v. Coletta ~ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECEIVED Naples, Florida, May 4, 2009 JUN 0 5 2009 t30ard of County C.ommissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby Vice-Chair: James Warnken John Cowan Cormac Giblin (Excused) Brian Goguen Christine Jones Kenneth Kelly Sally Masters Patrick Peck (Excused) James Pusateri (Excused) Bradley Schiffer Chris Spencer-Alternate (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing & Human Services Frank Ramsey, Housing Manager Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor Mile. CorTes: I :c.pies to ",_.,..".._.~ ,..,. .,- -~._""',"-,~-~,,, ", ,_",_~-,,',.'..-""- , May 4, 2009 .~ 1 16 , 1 ~B 1 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hruby at 3 :03 PM. Chairman Hruby read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting. 2. Introduction of Committee Members and Staff The roll was taken and a quorum was established. Commissioner James Coletta attended. 3. Approval of Minutes The following corrections were noted: . Page 3, under Item B (2), "NPS Program" was changed to "NSP Program" . Pages 6 and 7, the motions were passed by 7 votes, not 8. Christine Jones moved to approve the Minutes of the April 6, 2009 Meeting as amended. Second by Sally Masters. Motion carried, 7-Yes/I-Abstention. (Mr. Kelly abstainedfrom voting since he did not attend the April 6th meeting.) 4. Approval of Agenda Vice Chairman Warnken moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Kenneth Kelly. Carried unanimously, 8-0. 5. Information Items A. Presentation by the Shelter for Abused Women/Children on Transitional Housing- Rosa Leon, Manager - Transitional Living Program Copies of the Shelter's 2008-2009 Fact Sheet and brochures detailing the programs and services offered were distributed to the Committee. Points covered: . The Emergency Shelter is a 60-bed facility . All victims of domestic violence are served whether physical or emotional . There are separate rooms to house male victims . Maximum stay: 32 days . Women lack the economic means to afford housing and, in most cases, return to their homes (and to the abuser) after the deadline . There are four houses available through the Transitional Living Program . Funding: 80% through HUD Grants and 20% through thrift store and private donations . Residents may stay in houses up to 24 months (strict HUD deadline) 0 Must pay rent (30% of income) - "real life" experience 0 Residents learn economic self-sufficiency 0 Counseling is available to develop healthy relationships A Committee Member asked what the AHAC could do to assist the Shelter. Ms. Leon stated the availability of affordable housing is critical to give more options to the women who must leave the Transitional Housing Program. She stated the four Program homes are owned by the Shelter, hut acquiring more would allow the Shelter to assist more women. 2 <"_.''""'~'-" ....~ ,,._...,~..,,.~ .'_. _M.'_~~.~_",,_ 16 11 B 1 ~~~~ May 4, 2009 Marcy Krumbine stated she will contact HUD for a determination as to whether or not the Shelter is eligible for inclusion in the Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP"). B. Subcommittee Update: Frank Ramsey The Housing Incentives Subcommittee was reformed by combining the two previous Subcommittees. Members: Chairman Hruby, Bradley Schiffer, Christine Jones, Cormac Giblin and James Pusateri. The first meeting is scheduled for May 20,2009. Kenneth Kelly volunteered to serve as a "substitute" member in the event there is a question of quorum for a Subcommittee meeting. C. Update on NSP ("Neighborhood Stabilization Program") - Marcy Krumbine/Frank Ramsey . The Board of County Commissioners accepted the NSP funds on March 4, 2009 and executed the Agreement with HUD for $7.3M. . 119 properties were inspected . Offers were made on 86 properties; 16 offers have been accepted and 26 are pending . Acquisition costs: $1.0+M . Total rehab expenses: approximately $275,000 . 20% of the Grant funding has been spent to date Frank Ramsey stated there has been tremendous cooperation between the various departments within the County. . An RFP ("Request for Proposal") has been opened for General Contractors to submit their qualifications and experience to work with the County in the Program and will close on May 15,2009; . A selection committee will review the applicants' proposals and select eligible Contractors; . The contracts will be approved by the BCC; . Contractors will be reimbursed as the work is completed - similar to a "construction loan draw"; . Renovations will begin in June and the target date for sale of the first rehabbed property is August, 2009; . All of the foreclosed properties under consideration are 3-bedroom, 2-bath houses; . Any Code violations will be corrected prior to sale; . Rehab fees cap at $50,000 per property; . All offers made were within 85% of appraised value of the property; . The houses will not be sold at a profit - only to recoup the money placed in each property; . Goal: to rehab 60+ properties; . NSP Funding must be obligated by September 4,2010. 6. Barry Goldmeier - Impact Fee Deferral Request (to be presented to the BCC on 05/12/09) - Frank Ramsey 3 _~""m."_ ",u --...,. '.'''"'~.'- 161 tyP,21 '4 Chairman Hruby cautioned the Members to not stray into the purview of another County Committee since the subject matter will also be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He stated the Committee's discussion is centered solely on how the Request affects Affordable Housing policy. Frank Ramsey clarified that no prepared presentation would be made; the issue for discussion was the application for development of "Davis Reserve." The issue concerning the Committee is the Density Bonus component of the proposed development and the calculation of the total density that is to be allowed. The parties disagree regarding how the calculation is computed: is it based on the total acreage of the development (combining commercial and residential) or is it based solely on the residential component? Davis Reserve: . Will be located on Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road . The Application will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 7, 2009 . A presentation will be made to the Board of County Commissioners on May 12, 2009 The applicant was represented by Robert D. Britt, Esq., from Roetzel & Andress, and Robert Andrea, Planning Consultant, from Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Staffs opinion was presented by Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner, for the County's Comprehensive Planning Department. Discussion ensued. A Member stated the AHAC is empowered to review re-zoning applications. The applicant presented the following Action Items: 1. Is the project eligible to be considered for an affordable housing density bonus? The Committee's consensus was "yes." 2. Is the project a single unified development or 2 separate parcels and 2 developments? The Committee's consensus was the issue will be determined by the Planning Committee. 3. Do the affordable/workforce units have to be identical to the conventional units or can there be a different unit design for the affordable units as long as there is at least one unit identical to the affordable units to be rented or sold conventionally? Reference was made to Section 16( e )(1) of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. Marcy Krumbine pointed out "the square footage, construction and design are to be same as market-rate dwelling units." Chairman Hruby stated "best practices" from around the County indicated that the affordable/workforce housing units should be "indistinguishable" from the market- rate units, not necessarily "identical." Consensus: the intent is to give developers flexibility while not "identifying" the affordable housing units as different from market rate housing. It was suggested that the Subcommittee review the language contained in the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement and propose changes to same. 4. Can all of the affordable/workforce units be placed in the same section as the commercial component is located and not interspersed with the market units? 4 ,.-.. . ",^,,,~ '--'"~~-""'''''''( .' ~. .- 16 ~ay~.ft' . The project was designed to locate all of the affordable units over the mixed-use commercial component. The consensus was the affordable units should not be located in one area, but dispersed throughout the entire project per the Density Bonus Agreement. Concern was expressed for the concentration (or ratio) of the affordable housing vs. market rate units over the commercial component. If a development is to be considered "integrated," the units should not be concentrated in one specific area. The intent of the Density Bonus Agreement is not segregation, but inclusion of affordable units within the community. 5. Can all of the bonus unitsfrom whatever source be spread around the entire project? That would then enable the additional market rate units to be built in a separate section for market rate units. A Member pointed out that Section 2.06.00 of the Density Bonus Agreement referred to "units per gross acre:' The consensus was that the issue should be determined by the Planning Commission since an interpretation of the County's Growth Management Plan will be needed. It was also suggested the Committee draft a statement encouraging the BCC and the Planning Commission to allow maximum flexibility within the project. Marcy Krumbine suggested Frank Ramsey draft a response to the Action Items on behalf of the AHAC for review and signature by Chairman Hruby. Chairman Hruby asked if a resolution of AHAC's position that the Committee supported maximum flexibility and the greatest density of affordable housing legally allowed could be sent to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners The consensus for the resolution: to support that the entire project is eligible for calculation under the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement even if a section of the project ~i18 Met €nehuiing thee MRit8 theM had already received a density bonus ("layering" effect). ~ Chairman Hruby moved to accept the responses to the five points as drafted. Second by Christine Jones. Carried unanimously, 8-0. 7. Review of Member Attendance and Recommendation of Changes - Chairman Kenneth Kelly moved to declare Christopher Spencer's seat on the Committee as vacant due to his absences. Second by John Cowan. Carried unanimously, 8-0. The Committee's recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. 8. Nomination for HPRP ("Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program") Applications - Chairman Sally Masters volunteered to serve on the committee to review applications. Public Speaker: Sheryl Soukup, Executive Director, Immokalee Non-Profit Housing, Inc., stated there are very few units for low income individuals who are not farm workers. She also stated Immokalee Non-Profit Housing has the ability to manage affordable housing properties (single family and 5 ~ ,~",""'.' ^ ~,.."'_..c - ___~_,'~<.w,.__. ....'.."" ..""""," 16 fly 4'J;lJ .. ~ multi-family) in perpetuity in all zip codes, and will partner with other non-profits to fill that need. Next meeting: June 1,2009 at 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:00 PM. Collier County Affordable Housing Commission .~ I I d 00 CJ The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on vUnt , v' , as presented , or as amended 6 . ct. "-,,'''''.-.-._.,,---,,,.,. Fiala /. E'VED Halas Henning -r , " 1 2009 COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORl~ ~ ."",.",~Ji~~~SOFREGULARMONDAy,APRlL 13,2009 I I 1 R 2 MEMBERS Byron Meade Michael Klein Steve Price Dave Gardner PRESENT: Lloyd Byerhof Jim Murray STAFF: Theresa Cook Debbie Brueggeman Colleen Greene PUBLIC: Wayne Arnold I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 1 :00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting. III. APPROV AL OF AGENDA In Agenda Item X.B, Resolution No. 09-20, the amount of the contract for the "Everglades T- hangar construction" was changed from "$140,700.99" to "$299,984.50." The following was added under Agenda Item X. New Business: D. Resolution No. 09-31 recommending the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the Authority's Chairman to execute Master Joint Participation Agreement 2009-A between the Florida Department of Transportation and the Collier County Airport Authority. Mr. Klein then made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. Mr. Byerhof seconded, and the Agenda, as amended, was approved by a 6-0 vote. IV. AWARDS AND PRESENT A TION No awards were presented at the April 13, 2009 meeting. V. APPROV AL OF MARCH 9,2009 MINUTES Mr. Klein made a motion to approve the March 9, 2009 minutes. Mr. Murray seconded, and the March 9, 2009 minutes were approved by a 6-0 vote. VI. FINANCE REPORT - QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31, 2009 Ms. Cook addressed questions regarding the proposed Authority 2010 budget and fuel pricing strategies. She also indicated that the Authority will be establishing a ramp fee at the Immokalee Regional Airport. No action required. Misc. Corres: Date: OJ~ ten. # t le~lL jS3J- ,....'"'_..,.._~. .., ,~",_..., '"~">-- .",-.-. <_'m"'__'.,_'~_',~""_,_',,,_,,__.~,,_ 161 1 ije? CCAA Minutes April 13, 2009 VII. 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. VIII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Updates and discussion ofthe following took place: Immokalee Regional Airport. Submittal of the Site Development Plan for the USDA Manufacturing building was delayed because the Fast Track application previously completed by Mr. Salazar expired and a new application needed to be completed. The Authority delegated Mr. Murray to work with Ms. Cook, and coordinate with the Economic Development Council, to create marketing materials that will help dispel perceptions that the Authority does not have any development opportunities to market at the airport. These materials should specifically identify parcels of land that are available for development, the size of each parcel, and the status of any permit requirements and infrastructure. Construction of the apron expansion is underway, and should be complete by the May CCAA meeting. The Authority is discussing adding the 103 acres required for the extension of Runway 9/27 to 7,300 feet to the PUD with Community Development. Negotiations are in progress with Collier Enterprises for the acquisition of the 103 acres, and a purchase contract is being negotiated. Marco Island Executive Airport. The apron expansion construction and parking lot relocation is in permitting. The project will be bid concurrently so construction can start as soon as the permit is received. Everglades Airpark. Funding for the Hangar construction will be on the BCC April 28, 2009 Agenda. No action will be taken on the Sheriffs dwelling at this time because funding is unavailable. IX. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Price made a motion to revise Resolution No. 09-19 from "contingent upon grant funding from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Board of County (BCC) Commissioner's approval to fund the match in the amount of$15,000." to read "contingent upon the BCe's approval ofFDOT Master Joint Participation Agreement 2009-A. Mr. Murray seconded, and the revision to Resolution No. 09-19 was approved unanimously. Y: IAdministrationlAA BoardIMinutes\04-13-09 minutes.docx '.~"'~e'.,,_. -", "~_.,,,",..__.,, F 161 1 a~3 f <;CAA Minutes Aprill3, 2009 X. NEW BUSINESS A. Mr. Murray made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-28 approving and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Change Order #1 to Passarella & Associates, Inc. Work Order #PAS-FT-4168008-04 reducing the amount of the Work Order by $2,000 for environmental consulting services for the Immokalee Regional Airport through September 30, 2009, and increasing the amount of Work Order by $2,000 for environmental consulting services for the Marco Island Executive Airport through 1 September 30, 2009. Mr. Byerhof seconded, and Resolution No. 09-28 was approved unanimously. B. Mr. Klein made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-29 recommending awarding Bid #08-5209 for "Everglades T -hangar construction" to the lowest, qualified, responsive bidder meeting specifications, CORALSANDS, and authorizing its Executive Director to execute a contract in the amount of$299,984.50, pending BCC approval to provide funding for the project. Mr. Gardner seconded, and Resolution No. 09-29 was approved unanimously. C. Mr. Byerhofmade a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-30 approving and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Change Order #1 to Q. Grady Minor & Associates Work Order #QGM-FT -3969-08-17 in the amount of $8, 190 to obtain parking exemption permit required for the apron (north) construction and parking lot relocation at the Marco Island Executive Airport, increasing the total amount of the Work Order from $25,100 to 33,290. Mr. Price seconded, and Resolution No. 09-30 was approved unanimously. D. Mr. Price made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-31 recommending the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the Authority's Chairman to execute Master Joint Participation Agreement 2009-A between the Florida Department of Transportation and the Collier County Airport Authority. Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 09-31 was approved unanimously. XI. ADJOURNMENT Before adjourning, the Authority agreed to hold the May 11, 2009 at the Immokalee Regional Airport. The meeting was then adjourned "without objection." COLLIER COUNTY AI COLLIER C Y B Y: IAdministrationlAA Board\Minutes\04-13-09 minutes.docx ..,..".,., 'l'll' n ..,__,,__,....,._. ,,~ Fiala ~ii1ii Halas .. IZ. Henning J / v" n ("" tV' \ VE 0 Coyle v "",.r:. COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITV;oletta jUN 1 Z ~~~~:~TES OF REGULAR MONDA Y, MAY 11,2009 MEETING 8 2 ~~(I(-I!-('J i it i."OLlllty ~---- u MEMBERS Michael Klein Steve Price Frank Secrest Lloyd Byerhof PRESENT: Jim Murray STAFF: Theresa Cook Debbie Brueggeman Jim Kenney Tiffany Mendoza Jimmy Mullins Chris Wiggins Steve Zakany PUBLIC: Mark Minor Tom Conrecode Pat Utter Tammy Nemecek Brooke Gabrielsen Tim Parker Steve Fletcher Ralph Hester Bill Garrett Aaron I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 1 :00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Under Agenda Item IX.A., Resolution No. 09-32 was changed from "'...for approval and recognition in the Collier County Comprehensive Land Use Plan." to ".. .for approval in accordance with the Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan." Under Agenda Item IX.B., Resolution No. 09-33 was changed from "'.. . for approval and recognition in the Collier County Comprehensive Land Use Plan." to "'...for approval in accordance with the Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan." The following was added Under Agenda Item IX. New Business: E. Executive Director's Contract Renewal. Mr. Murray then made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. Mr. Byerhof seconded, and the Agenda, as amended, was approved by a 5-0 vote. IV. AWARDS AND PRESENTATION Collier County Airport Authority Staff members James Kenney, Jimmy Mullins, Christopher Wiggins, Steve Zakany and Robert Mendoza were recognized for exception performance in completing the Marco Vegetation Clearing Project in 70 days vs. previo,us contr<;lctor's 319 days, and at a cost of$54,027 vs. the $215,854 to outsource the projec~'An<f~'ented certificates for their outstanding teamwork. Date:__.. .. _ tern #' ."..._'_- ~"___""~_~"_~"__''''''''''' II "".-.".._.",~...._-~_. ~.__~.~'" ".,",_O,~_____ '-".'..',,' ~._-~..~~--- . 161 IpaB 2 CCAA Minutes May 11,2009 V. APPROV AL OF APRIL 13, 2009 MINUTES Mr. Price made a motion to approve the April 13, 2009 minutes. Mr. Byerhof seconded, and the April 13, 2009 minutes were approved by a 5-0 vote. I VI. FINANCE REPORT - QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2009 Ms. Cook indicated that jet-A fuel sales at the Marco Island Executive Airport for the month of March were about fifty percent below budget. Fuel sales at the Immokalee Regional Airport are within about 1,000 gallons of budget. No action required. VII. 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. VIII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Updates and discussion of the following took place: USDA 20_000 Square Foot Manufacturing Facility. The USDA has approved the Plans and Specifications and Contract Documents for bid for the 20,000 square foot manufacturing facility at the Immokalee Regional Airport. It is anticipated that the award of the contract will be on the August 10, 2009 Agenda. Immokalee Regional Airport Apron Expansion. The contractor is waiting on asphalt to complete the apron expansion. Staff will paint and add lights after construction is completed. Immokalee Regional Airport Runway Extension. The Collier County Transportation Department and Collier Enterprises are finalizing the agreement and payment schedule for the purchase ofthe 103 acres required for the extension of Runway 9/27. Closing on the 103 acres is not expected to be complete until the beginning of Fiscal 2010. Airport Master Plans and Airport Layout Plans. The FAA approved the Master Plans and Airport Layout Plans for Immokalee Regional Airport and Marco Island Executive Airport on April 15, 2009. After the Authority approves the plans, the plans will be presented to the BCC for approval in accordance with the Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The costs presented in the plans represent the engineers' best estimate at that time; the actual cost for each project will be determined by bid. Everglades Airpark T -hangars. The BCC approved the funding for the reconstruction of the T-Hangars on April 28, 2009. Development at the Immokalee Regional Airport/Marketing Plan. Mr. Murray reviewed past marketing efforts aimed at development of the Immokalee Regional Airport, emphasizing that the Authority needs to continue to foster its relationships with the County Commissioners, Collier Enterprises and the Economic Development Council of Collier County. Y:lAdminislrationlAA Board\Minules\05-11-09 minUles.docx ""'~---"""---"""'-'~' "."".".. .1>...1:>.4 . iIill ~ __._o,"',_""_,,,,~,'~~"."~". 161 1 82 I CCAA Minutes May 11, 2009 Page 3 IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Mr. Price made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-32 recommending that the Immokalee Regional Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan, approved by the FAA, be submitted to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for approval in accordance with the Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 09-32 was approved unanimously. B. Mr. Price made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-33 recommending that the Marco Island Executive Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan, approved by the FAA, be submitted to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for approval in accordance with the Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 09-33 was approved unanimously. C. Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-34 approving and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Change Order #1 to URS Work Order #4500105394 with CCAA Tracking #URS-FT-3889-09-01 to deduct $15,000 from the work order for general consulting services up to September 30,2009, decreasing the total amount of the work order from $22,000 to $7,000. Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 09-34 was approved unanimously. D. The Executive Director's Contract Renewal was tabled until the June 8, 2009 meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was then adjourned "without objection." UTHORlTY Y: IAdministrationlAA BoardlMinutesl05-J 1-09 minutes.docx -~- ..~. -"""~,"''-'-~',"".-..,,..... u.,.._._....''" -""-~""~",,, 16 'A~~~ / RECEIVED MAY 29 2009 Henning 'I ~ Coyle ~ Board of County Commissloner~ Coletta ~ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS Naples, Florida, April 30, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Board of Adjustment and Appeals in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Community Development Services Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Ken Rech Aaron Hokanson Bill Silvestor John Melton Randy Anderson ALSO PRESENT: Bob Dunn, Building Director Ed Riley, Fire Code Official Jeff Wright, Assistant County Atty. Paula Brethauer, Operations Analyst Joe Schmitt, CDES Division Administrator Mise Corn~$: Jategll~'1 1 fe"~ r tV; ILL b ~ ,,-- - ,,___,_"_e..u._ - _,0.--__ April 30, 2009 161 1 83 j I. Call to Order Chairman Rech called the meeting to order at 1 :00 pm Bob Dunn, Building Director noted the purpose of the meeting is for the Board to review his interpretation of the Florida Building Code. Specifically, that a County permit is required for the installation/replacement of gas or electric hot water heaters. He noted the following: . His interpretation is based on the 1011/2007 version of the Florida Building Code (FBC) was adopted on March 1,2009. . Section 105.1 and 105.2 of the FBC outlines the requirements for permits and exemptions for the replacement and installation of water heaters. . Beginning March 1, 2009, the County began requiring permits for replacement of hot water heaters. . Members of the public and County Commissioners expressed concern over the interpretation and the requirement was temporarily suspended pending investigation. . On April 21, 2009, an "Informal Interpretation Report #6136" from the Department of Community Affairs, Building Officials Association of Florida was issued to the County, which states, "It is the intent of Florida Building Code - Building section 105.1 to require permits for the replacement of gas and electric water heaters. Water heater replacements are not exempt from permit requirements. H . Staff is also requesting an Official Declaratory Statement from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) regarding this issue. . Upon receipt of this document, an Executive Summary will be provided to the Board of County Commissioners for a determination of the requirement. Under Board discussion, the following was noted: . Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney noted he has reviewed the applicable Sections of the Code and in regards to the issue if permits for replacement of water heaters are required, is not clearly stated. It would be helpful if the DCA issued an Official Declaratory Statement clarifying the intent of the Code. . A permit will not be required for "repairs" of existing water heaters. . A homeowner replacing his own water heater will not be exempt from the requirements. . The permit fee is $50.00 for a commercial contractor permit ("convenience permits"); and $75 for a homeowner permit. . Any replacements will require the installation comply with current building codes. . All units will be required to be installed under manufactures specifications, including electrical service. . The requirement will primarily affect unlicensed individuals and single-family homeowners installing/replacing hot water heaters. 2 " --....-"....," ,",,'M.",_,'."""""'_'_ 161 A!13~~9 .~ - Joe Schmidt, CDES Division Administrator addressed the "permit burden" on a homeowner replacing his own water heater. He noted a separate class of permitting cannot be established for exempting a homeowner from the requirement as the County Attorney's Office indicated this exemption would not meet "equal protection" under the law. Bob Dunn noted some code interpretations, that involve pre-existing constraints, may need to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. He concluded, requesting the Board support his interpretation of the FBC to require a permit for the installation and/or replacement of a hot water heater. Mr. Anderson moved to accept the permit requirement based on the information provided, (that the installation/replacement of hot water heaters requires the issuance of a permit by the County). Second by Mr. Melton. Motion carried 4 'yes" - 1 "no." There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 1 :35 PM. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS L~~ Chairman Ken Rech These Minutes w~roved by the Board/Chairman on #a>5. as presented , or as amended . / 3 P ,;-"''''''''''''~''''''-'''-'._--- 161 1 \34 , Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda March 18, 2009 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance Chairman -Opening Remarks -Roll Call Sheriff's Office CERV Fire Chiefs CERT CAP lJSCGA Red Cross Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army Chamber of Commerce EMS EM Health Dept Medical Examiner City of Marco lsland City of Naples Everglades City Neighborhood Watch Cleveland Clinic NCH 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman 3:10 Threat Update Sheriffs Office 3:15 New Business Chairman . 2009 Hurricane Seminars Emergency Mgmt . Freedom Memorial Jerry Sanford . 2009 National Community Rick Zyvoloski Preparedness Conference . Recent Sky Warn Training Rick Zyvoloski . CERT Exercise Results Russ Rainey . Hospital's Exercise Kathleen Marr 3:50 Old Business Chairman . Local Mitigation Emergency Mgmt . ESC Update Emergency Mgmt 4:00 Next Meeting/Adjourn Chairman (April 15, 2009) Misc. Corres: CIa: D1/~ ~D~Lr ItIm .. J to"J. ~ l ~ Copier.- -- - ""~ M.~'II iI\;>_".'~ ..,-", ~......, ...'>'----- . Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail (239) 252-8848 ~aples, FL 34112 www.colliergov.net March 6, 2009 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDA Y, MARCH 18, 2009 3 p.m. The Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, March 18'h at 3 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners chambers, located on the third floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building, Building F, Collier County Government Center, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples. In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board of County Commissioners or quasi-judicial board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05, as amended, requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to partIcIpate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380, at least two days plioI' to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Joe Frazier at 252-8000. -End- --.,-,--.'.......".-..,- 161 1~4 ~ Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda May 20, 2009 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance Chairman -Opening Remarks -Roll Call Sheritl's Office CERV Fire Chiefs CERT CAP USCGA Red Cross Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army Chamber of Commerce EMS EM Health Dept Medical Examiner City of Marco Island City of Naples Everglades City Neighborhood Watch Cleveland Clinic NCH 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman 3:10 Threat Update Sheriff s Office 3:15 New Business Chairman . 2009 National Community Joe Frazier Preparedness Conference . Tropical Disturbance # 1 Rick Zyvoloski . LMS Update Rick Zyvoloski . Citizen Corps Awards Joe Frazier . Future of Citizen Corps Joe Frazier 3:50 Old Business Chairman 4:00 Next Meeting! Adjourn Chairman (TBD, 2009) ,.~~--_. _____.,~_'_...m~...__"w. --~".~ 16 I tP ./ . . RECEIVED . i.; JUN 0 4 2009 Collier County Halas Boanj 01 cour&~i~I?ftQ~Advisory Committee Henning March 18, 2009 g~r~~a =~ fr- Voting Members Present Reg Buxton, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Floyd Chapin, Community Emergency Response Volunteers Lt. George Welch. Collier County Sheriff's Office Walter Jaskiewicz. Coast Guard Auxiliary James Elson. Collier County Veterans Council Maria Ramos for Salvation Army Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol Bill Nuber for RSVP Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team Voting Members Absent: Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire (Excused Absence) Captain Castillo, Salvation Army Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross Expert Consultants Present: Joe Frazier. Collier County Emergency Management Joe Irene. Neighborhood Watch Group Voting Members Absent: (Non-Excused Absence) Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. Approval of Minutes Motion to accept the minutes of the February 18. 2009 meeting made by Floyd Chapin. and seconded by Doug Porter. Approved unanimously. Threat Update Per Lt. Welch. we are still at the Elevated Threat (Yellow) at the National level. For domestic and international travel, it is at High level (Orange). Recommend everyone remain vigilant. New Business 2009 Hurricane Seminars Jim vonRinteln said that Emergency Management is trying something new this year, hoping for more attendance. The large seminars in the evenings at the high schools have not been successful the past few years. This year they will be taking the Mobile Command bus to some of the larger libraries on specific days and use this forum to make All Hazards Guides and other materials available to folks. Copies ofthe updated version of the hurricane DVD will be made available for people to take. Individual groups will be done if they can guarantee at least 50 people (will do the presentation at Marco, since approximately 200 people attend). Jim said he would support what has a guaranteed impact. EM is trying to avoid evening trainings. since it does cost the County money and not many folks attend. Walt Jaskiewicz and Russ Rainey will look at holding seminars at some ofthe major shopping centers. Jim Elson asked about a shortened version to send out as a bulletin to the Old Naples area group. Rick Zyvoloski reminded everyone that the video is on the EM website. Freedom Memorial Per Jim Elson, the ground breaking will be held tomorrow at 10 a.m. at Freedom Park on the comer of Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette Road. Commissioner Coyle is the lead person - the media and various VIP's will attend. The site is cleared and ready for construction of the memorial - just waiting for donations to come in. 2009 National Community Preparedness Conference Per Joe Frazier, the National Conference is being held August 9-12, 2009 in Alexandria, V A. It's a great venue to show how other Citizen Corps groups operate. sharing best practices and volunteer management practices. etc. He needs to know by the May meeting if anyone is interested in attending - there is some grant money available. Mary Ann will add this to next month's agenda. ,~~". ..- . "" --.".-_..~---_.._~.;-",.,."...;.,--~......~..,..", -,----~ ~_. .__.,~ " 1611"B11z' Recent SkyWarn Training Rick Z. reported that approximately 30 people attending the training in February. Golden Gate Fire District Chief Metzger moved his firefighter training and let Rick use his firehouse - he was a great host. If you can guarantee 15 people, Rick can offer SkyWarn training again. Let him know - this training runs approximately 4 hours and is held all in one day. CERT Exercise Results Russ Rainey shared information on a county-wide exercise for all CERT teams for training purposes. A tabletop was held for managers and coordinators and a field exercise was held at the County Fairgrounds on February 28th. There were 7 CERT units who worked as a whole group and individually. The exercise was a fire at a school function, with children and others injured. The capabilities tested were fire suppression, first aid, triage, search and rescue and cribbing. It was a great day, albeit long - 7am to 3pm. Russ would like to see an exercise like this every year. Joe commended the CERT team managers - Russ, Jerry Sanford and Greg Speers - for setting this up. Teams were used in Immokalee to help find the child who was missing. Naples Daily News was there to capture the information and had a well-written article in the Sunday paper. Two new CERT teams are being started, which will help expand the volunteer base. A reminder that their homes and communities are the first priority for the CERT teams. Lt. Welch asked where CERT teams go when they want to help out - Joe said someone at the Sheriff's Office is contacted. They will meet after this meeting to discuss after-action. Russ said he just found out about an Advanced CERT event on March 27 and 29th. He included the material as a handout to the group. Will allow a maximum of 48 people. Per Lt. Welch, lodging (4 person dorms) and meals are provided - you are responsible for transportation. The second training coming up is in Pinellas County. This is a hurricane seminar which attracts CERT units throughout the state. He attended last year and enjoyed it. This will be held May 1 and 2. Joe said he received approval to release $777 per CERT team from the grant - contact him for using any of these funds for travel. Hospital's Exercise All hospitals received grant money, with some requirements to be fulfilled. This exercise worked on Incident Command, Interoperability Communications, fatalities management and evacuation procedures. It helped all involved grasp ICS 100 and 200. If there is an event, Joe said the hospitals will do a good job handling it. There will be an airport exercise next month to test capabilities and practices. Old Business Local Mitigation Per Rick Z., $1 million was cut from this budget. There will be a meeting this Friday to prioritize the list of projects to go to the State. Don't be discouraged, continue to put in your applications, which need to go to the State by April 6th. ESC Update Jim V. will meet tomorrow with the State for final inspection of the new ESe. He is still waiting on the CO. It appears the building is on schedule and on budget. The ribbon cutting is scheduled for Thursday, May 28th at 2 p.m. Citizen Corps group will be invited. Will look at this group meeting there mid-summer. Lt. Welch asked if there will be a tabletop exercise for the ESP's. Per Jim V., will use it for the State hurricane exercise - not sure what ESP's will be there. Everyone will be oriented to the new EOC prior to any activation. There are many more systems there than we currently have, more assets and more space. Other Walt will be out the next meeting (April 15th), as he will be teaching ICS 300 and 400 at the USCG in Fort Myers. He does have 2 or 3 openings available. Joe said he may have a coufle people from PMRC interested and will have them contact Walt. Lt. Welch will not be available for the April 15 meeting as well. Joe is reaching out to the homeowners associations for hurricane seminars - he has 6 of these seminars coming up. Next Meeting/Adiourn Motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:35 p.m. made by Russ and seconded by Lt. Welch. Approved unanimously. NOTE: AprillSth meeting has been canceled. Next meeting to be held Wednesday, May 20th at 3 p.m. in the BCC Chambers. Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole. ./ ..// //. / // Approved by Chair: _.L;;;..- /.-;;;</ ~/ ~/ -< 0/0,/ Reg Buxto Date 161 1 l 8~ '" . . . ,. STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT CHARLIE CRIST W. CRAIG FUGATE Governor Director FOR RELEASE Contact Mike Stone March 13, 2009 850-413-9883 Participants sought for the Advanced Community Emergency Response Team Academy to be held March 27-29 at Camp Blanding TALLAHASSEE - The Florida Division of Emergency Management Citizen Corps and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program is seeking participants for the second Advanced CERT Academy to be held March 27-29, 2009 at Camp Blanding in Clay County, Florida. The multi-day session will teach skills in advanced disaster preparedness and provide "hands- on" training in Communications, the U.S. National Grid, Urban Search & Rescue and CPR. Following the training sessions, participants will engage in a mock exercise where they will be tested on the practical skills obtained during the academy. This will include "real-world" field applications to demonstrate understanding of disaster medical operations, disaster psychology and team organization. The training is open to the public. Space is limited to the first 48 approved, registered participants. Lodging and meals will be provided by the Division of Emergency Management, however travel and per diem expenses will not be covered. At the discretion of each Citizen Corps and CERT program, the cost of travel for participants may be funded through their Citizen Corps and CERT agreements. All interested persons can submit an electronic application at the link provided below: http://www.fl 0 ridad isa ste r. 0 rq/tra i n i nq ca lend a r/i nd ex. as p For further information, please contact the Citizen Corps office at CitizenCorps@em.mvflorida.com or Donna Ray at 850-413-9966. For more information on the Florida Division of Emergency Management and to GET A PLAN!, please visit: www.FloridaDisasterorq. All students, teachers and parents can find educational information and free downloadable materials at: www.KidsGetAPlan.com. And for the latest daily situation and flash reports go to: www.YouTube.com/FloridaSERT. ### LO~G TERM RECOVERY OFFICE' DIVISION HEADQUARTERS' STATE LOGISTICS RESPONSE CENTER 36 Skyline Drive 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2702 Directors Row Lake Mary. FL 32746.6201 Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100 Orlando, FL 3n09-563l Tel' 850-413-9969' Fax 850-488-1016 ~~\~_,-tJ~;IDlsa~ -_. . II _... ,..""___",_e<..-",_",,.__,e'_._' ,,-~.._---_._"'---- . 161 It~ 84 i FrazierJoseph From: scribnerj Sent: Friday, January 30,20094:19 PM To: Frazier Joseph Subject: FW: Citizen Corps Announces Conference and Nsltr. Judy Scribner Human Services Program Manager Collier County Emergency Management 239-252-8095 W\vw.colliergov.net ~__~~_"_~,_,______,_~~_,=""..,,,,""""',,,,,,",_..__""_"'<'____;_,'''~~~n,._,,,__,.,,,.,",,,_~=',",-,M'"-0>_"^ '''=''''''~m",,-.w_~'''m''''''';''''''''''''''_,,"'''';_;';';_.'''''''''''> ,,,,,,,,,,,,",,,,,<~,,,,,,,~____.~_-,,,,,,,,,,,__,,~;--,,,,,,,,",,,;,""";,;"'-;..,~"__;"_"'*'*<';_0^'.,'<_'^''''.,w.''",,~,~,~ From: info@iaem.com [mailto:info@iaem.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 2:09 PM To: scribneU Subject: Citizen Corps Announces Conference and Nsltr. Save the date! 2009 National Community Preparedness Conference August 9-12, 2009 CALL FOR SPEAKERS AND PRESENTA TlONS DUE MARCH 2, 2009 The 2009 National Conference on Community Preparedness: The Power of Citizen Corps, is being hosted jointly by FEMA's Community Preparedness Division and the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) on August 9-12,2009, at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel in Arlington, VA. The conference is open to all who are interested in making their communities safer, stronger, and better prepared for all types of hazards It will bring together approximately 600 state and local elected officials, emergency management, fire and police services, public health and emergency medical services, non-governmental organizations, private business and industry, advocacy groups, and members of public Attendees at the 2009 National Conference on Community Preparedness will: . Share best practices on collaborative emergency planning . Discuss preparedness outreach and education for targeted populations . Learn innovative approaches to funding . Hear updates on DHS/FEMA initiatives . Get upda tes on findings from citizen preparedness research . Hear about successful training and exercises . Share volunteer management practices . Network with other Citizen Corps participants The conference planning team is currently soliciting proposals for presenters. We encourage Citizen Corps members, partners, and others who are interested in sharing their experiences with increasing community preparedness to visit the conference website and submit their proposals. Call for Presenters submissions are due by March 2. More information on the co nference and the Call for Presenters submission form can be found on the conference website: http://www.iaem.com/NCCP2009.htm 1 . - "v'~_"""'__' .'''", 161 1 'Slt . , . '-{", THE COLLIER FRlJITGItO>>,~~,<lN~ INVITES YOU To'.THEIR'" ,,~jrj: FRUIT TREE "g~tdIF. , . , . · '....... .. .,..'.... .. " ,<,h "jo!&l}j~i:/'~i '. .. . ' .' .'Yi ','" """ :~'!~\i ,'.. SATURDAY MARCH 21ST.2009;" ' "':~'il!t':i'" , - - -- -- - " - -- - - ''-- - . ~-,;tJ I . ~.. 9:00 A.M. TO 3:00p.M. , " .. .,~~,~ > '. ,. .". i 'i i . '.',' , ..'. ... .... ...r,t",t"tl', NORTH GOODLETTE FARME.RSMARKEJ AT".j~j' ',_ .'., '_:_,/,;::,:i _:: ,,_:__:,::,~:,.:-, _ -__._.;:<:;~;:--',<?'~'i( '.: NORTH NAPLES UNITED METHODIST CHURCH~m 2-;i 6000 GOODLETTE RD N 'c,'d NAPLES, FL ~,.1, . :',_~l'-;Jl::: '<t,t' FEATURING MANy VARIETIES OF ,;-1' FRUIT TREES INCLUDING: ;'( "';j' ;,'i-'::; - ATEMOYA -GUAVA - ALLSPICE - rllQ11;BA - AMBARELLA - ACK FRUIT - AVACADO - APAYA', - BARBADOS - HOG PLuM CHERRY -LONGAN - BANANAS - LYCHEE - BLACK SAPOTE - MANGO - CARAMBOLA - PASSIQN FRUIT (STARFRUIT) - PERSIMMON, - CITRUS - POMEGRANATE - FIGS - SUGAR-ApPLE THE COLLIER FRUIT GROWERS COi\J.NCIL IS AN ACTIVE NON-PROfIT ORaM'Uv..T'10N ," DEDICATED TO INTRODUCING. PROPAGATING AND DIS'rRJBUTING THE MANY RA.lU! TROPICAL AND SUBTROPICAL FRUIT TREES GROWN tHROUGHOUT THE WORLD. AS WELL AS OFFERING EDUCATION IN THESE AREAS AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO EXTEND THl!lfl CULTIVATION. CFGC FUNCTIONS WITHOUT REGARD TO MCE. COLOR. OR NATIONAL ~. ORlGIN.- REG' 47226058 WWW.COLLIERFRUIT.ORG I -- . R "'1.>11. .. __""""""_~_llllt. ". ,,~,"-'~-".,. ,.".",,'~,".- ..,...._~~._...."', 161 1 ~B. i ~ , ColeMaryAnn From: ColeMaryAnn Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 20094:53 PM To: TorreJohn; BowmanDan; Capt. Alejandro Castillo; CC-Dan Zunzunegui; CC-Debbie Horvath; CC-Jerry Sanford; CC-Jim Elson; CC-Joe Wilkins; CC-John Brown; CC-Mike Murphy; CC- Nfn11555; CC-Ted Soliday; CC-Walter Jaskiewicz; ColeMaryAnn; 'DanAnderson@fdle.state.fl.us'; David Baer; DeArmasMaribel; Doug Porter (dporter143 @comcast.net); foord_m; FrazierJoseph; Kathleen_Marr@doh.state.fl.us; Lt. George Welch; Maria Bernaldo; Phil Reid; reg buxton; Russ Rainey; Ryan Frost; schapin43@aol.com; scribner.j; TeachScott; veitj; vonrintelnJ Subject: Cancellation of April 15th Citizen Corps Meeting AII- Per Reg Buxton, Chair of the Citizen Corps Advisory Group: Due to the fact that all Emergency Management personnel will be unavailable, I have decided to cancel the April 15th meeting of the Citizen Corps. We will meet again on Wednesday, May 20th at 3 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners chambers. Mary Ann for Reg Emergency Management 252-8000 Effective April 20, 2009 our new address will be 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway Naples, FL 34113 Phone 239-252-3600 Fax 239-252-3700 1 <iI'l'..1ll , --"'"......,.._- ,., . ..,"""~'~...;e'_~"'.'.. ....".. ..........__"" """"'"~,--... . / rVEO Fiala 'I''''''"y: r~'J, Halas '\;>~l Henning JUN '2. '3 2009 Collier County Coyle Ot-- -= Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Coletta =- ." mrnissioflers ~ count'/ '...JO May 20, 2009 84 ,. B03.fC O'j -..I 16 r I Voting Members Present Reg Buxton, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Lt. George Welch, Collier County Sheriff's Office James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross Voting Members Absent: Captain Castillo, Salvation Army (Excused Absence) Floyd Chapin, Community Emergency Response Volunteers Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary Expert Consultants Present: Joe Frazier, Collier County Emergency Management Greg Speers, East Naples Fire District Voting Members Absent: (Non-Excused Absence) Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. Approval of Minutes Motion to accept the minutes of the March 18,2009 meeting made by Reg Buxton, and seconded by Doug Porter. Approved unanimously. Threat Update Per Lt. Welch, we are still at the Elevated Threat (Yellow) at the National level. For domestic and international travel, it is at High level (Orange). Recommend everyone remain vigilant. New Business 2009 National Community Preparedness Conference Per Joe Frazier, this conference is being held from August 9-12 at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel in Arlington, VA. Items to be discussed will be best practices in emergency planning, innovative approaches for funding, updates on DHS and FEMA initiatives, findings from citizen preparedness research, training and exercises, as well as networking with other Citizen Corps participants. Joe would like to send someone from this group to attend. There is a $777 grant available for someone from the board to attend. If there is any interest, let Joe know. Tropical Disturbance #1 Rick Zyvoloski said that this tropical disturbance should not be a problem for us. We are, however, entering the rainy season pattern. Remember the lightening safety tip to keep low to the ground if you are not near any cover. When you see lightening strike, count to 30 and if you hear thunder before you reach 30, seek cover as you are too close. They calculate 5 seconds per mile. We expect a lighter than normal season this year because El Nina is creeping back, which inhibits the creation of storms. Weare expecting 12 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes. LMS Update Per Rick, the LMS group is now on their quarterly meeting schedule. There are still opportunities to get Tier 3 monies for the other disasters in the Panhandle area. If you have an application, the closeout is in August. The next meeting is July 171h at the new ESe. Rick is currently updating the plan, with a contractor doing the vulnerability analysis. Misc. corres: Date: \ tern #- ...-,. s..,."__.~._----' .~-, T --"'- -''''--''''-'''''' __~__O<"'~";_'_"" 16 I 1'" B4 2 . Citizen Corps Awards Joe received information from Jim vonRinteln that FEMA is announcing a National Citizen Corps Achievement Award. This award is f to recognize National Citizen Corps, including Outstanding State Citizen Corps Initiative Award, Outstanding Citizen Corps Council A ward, Collaborative Preparedness Planning A ward, Preparing the Public A ward, Preparing Community Organizations A ward, and the Voluriteer Integration Award. The application process must be in no later than June 12th. If there is any interest, Joe has the information - he will send the application and information to Reg. Future of Citizen Corps Some of the Commissioners are questioning if Emergency Management is too involved with the advisory boards. Joe does set up the agenda, but all information should come from the board members themselves. Emergency Management is the focus area for the Citizen Corps. Please let Joe know if there are any issues from your organizations that need to be brought to the group's attention. He will send out a reminder a week prior to each meeting. April was skipped - does the group want to meet quarterly or every other month? The group agreed to meet monthly, keep the meeting short if there isn't much going on. Jim Elson said he feels it is a good opportunity for the various groups to meet and share what is going on in their individual groups. There were no major storms in the recent years, but when we had small storms, things worked well due to the communication of the panel. Believe the panel needs more advertising. Deb Horvath asked if the logo for the Citizen Corps is on the EM website. Per Rick, there is a place on the EM website. Deb asked if documents, i.e., agendas and minutes could be downloaded to the website. Rick suggested folks look at the website and see if they want more added to it - he can supply a link to the individual organization's websites. There are many things that can be done, Reg said he can publish a column each month. but needs to be fed the information. Joe will come up with something, get it to all members for their input and ask that it be returned within a few days, in order to get it to Reg for publication. Deb said Joe could do the first one on the history of the Citizen Corps, after that, let all the other groups write a column each month. Include threat levels, etc. Reg needs info by June 15th, look at the July and August publications. Rick suggested that people sign up for a month they are interested in. Reg suggested 300 or 400 words for the first article from Joe, then 200 thereafter. This item will be added to the next agenda Reg asked if the Citizen Corps group should wear their uniforms and/or their white shirts for promotion during the Grand Opening on May 28th. Joe to send out a reminder to all of the group. Joe said EM wants to show off the building - we can move the Citizen Corps meeting to the new building as well. June meeting will be held in Building F, and we'll discuss what we want to do for future meetings. It is a public forum, do we want to allow all in to the secured building. Other Deb has 40-60 volunteers taking a tour of the new ESC - other organizations may want to plan on this as well. Lt. Welch is leaving the Citizen Corps group and Lt. Mike Jones will replace him from the Sheriff's Office (he will need to take the Sunshine Law training). Lt. Jones is a 26-year veteran with the Collier County Sheriff's Office and has worked in the EOC during emergencies. In the reorganization of the Sheriff's Office, Lt. Jones and Lt. Welch have traded responsibilities. Lt. Welch will work during the emergencies as well. He will remain a member of the Citizen Corps until Lt. Jones is an "official" member. Per Jim Elson the Memorial Day event will take place on Monday, May 25 at 9:45 a.m. at Veterans Memorial Garden, III Avenue, just north of Naples Park. The Vietnam Memorial WalL unveiled in September, was a well-attended event. Four local people will be speaking about this Wall. There will be a band performing, Fire and Sheriff's office will be in attendance - expecting about 2,000 people there. Prefer folks to wear their uniform. Per Joe, he received an email today that all crosses have been banned from Federal property. Per Jim. about 1% of the American population is involved in military service, as opposed to wwn where pretty much everybody was. To get elected into Congress after WWII you pretty much had to have served - it was the minority who did not serve. Today, less than 24% of Congress has served in the military. June 14th is Flag Day - we want to make this a community effort, in replacing flags between Memorial Day and July 4th. A flag-burning ceremony will be done. There will be a number of vehicles in the Memorial Day parade - should include the Citizen Corps banner on one of them for advertising. A banner will work just as well, if not better, than an actual float (lots of work involved in putting one together). Old Business Freedom Memorial Ground-Breaking Per Jerry Sanford, the ground breaking ceremony was wonderful. Held in March, and the complete outline of the United States, which is Phase I of the project, has been started. Over three-quarters of it has been finished and the middle of it with the waving flag has the outline already. With additional funds, this will move along. The pouring of the concrete for the flag will use up the $250,000. The group did very well this winter, selling tee shirts as fund raising. 16 , 1 ~'1B 4 3'4 Other On June 2nd at 7 p.m. the NN CERT group will have Jim Reif, weatherman from Channel 7 come and speak. All are invited. Per Rick, a free training course is coming in mid-July, 3 days, 2 classes per day for 2-3 hours, to look at snake hazards and Africanized honey bees. Good training - will check with SO to see if anyone can sign up. Held in the EMS training room at the ESC. Per Joe, ifwe can sponsor an Advanced CERT Academy, the State will pay for it. The criteria is at least four classrooms that can accommodate at least 50 people. It would be advertised across the State. Joe has sent the info out to all CERT team managers and is looking for input. Rick suggested a high school or Lorenzo Walker Institute. Next Meeting! Adiourn Next meeting is scheduled for June 17 at 3 p.m. in the BCC Chambers. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:50 p.m. made by Russ Rainey and seconded by Lt. Welch. Approved unanimously. Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole. " ~ I j '1 J d ~ Approved by Chair: !{L1j d\'L~\ Reg Buxton Date ,~""" .~ f ill Ill'! n '..">1il4.A ,,",,-- ..--- 16 , 1 84 CERT Advanced Academy Training Requirements Facilitv Reauirements: Choose and coordinate the training location carefully. It must meet the following minimum standards: . Four classrooms able to accommodate up to 50 participants each. . Audio visual support in all classrooms, to include overhead projectors, sound systems, laptop connectivity, login and password information and laser pointers. . If flash drives are not permitted and operators are not allowed to log on to facility computers, then qualified operators will be required on-site to support instructional needs. . One assembly room that will accommodate 75-100 participants for registration, graduation, networking and team building activities. . The training facility manager/coordinator must be on-site during all training and exerCIses. . Four dry erase boards with markers OR four flip charts with markers. . Dining facilities able to accommodate 100 participants. The facilities must be close to the classrooms. . The dining facility must be able to accept delivery of bag lunches on Sunday mornings. . Participant may share restrooms in lodging facilities. Example: two males sharing one room sharing a restroom with two other males in an adjoining room. . Master keys to all facilities being used must be available for the CERT contractor for emergency and safety assistance and in the event a participant loses a key. . A field location able to accommodate a full-scale land navigation exercise. Instructional Support: . All instructors must have Florida CERT Coordinator and Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) Training Unit approval. . Training objectives, programs of instruction, instructor/student manuals and graphic presentations must also have CERT/FDEM approval. . The exercise scenario, master scenario event list, injects and controller handbooks will be provided by the State CERT Coordinator. . The contractor's local search and rescue will facilitate Urban SAR activities and training. . The American Red Cross will facilitate basic first aid and CPR training. . Communications will be facilitated by ESF2 or the equivalent. Field Exercises: At a minimum, all field exercises will include: "'",,".- rr_'''';'.~"'''''''-o; - ~- "l"__""""~'_''''<'''''_'"'''''"'''''_ '~'-",~- 161 1 R4 , . One evaluator (subject matter expert) per team. . A command post or mobile command vehicle. . Two roaming vehicles equipped with SLERS/800 Mhz radio per vehicle. . One command communications network for Ham radios. . One first aid unit per team. . One Ham radio operator per team. . Requisite amount of CER T kits. . A stretcher/litter with tie-down straps. . Three bottles of water per team member. Course Manaeement: Course management records, at a minimum, will include: . Printed participant registrations. . Sign-in roster. . Participants' evaluations. . Participant welcome package. A sample of this will be provided by the State CER T Coordinator. . Completion certificates will be provided by the FDEM Training Unit. . Team assignments must be balanced by age and gender for safety considerations during field exercises as heavy victims may require extrication. . State field audit teams will be included for lodging and meals with prior coordination from the CERT Coordinator. ,.....""'- ~~~..--,..,<-~".~._......_"_...__.".~'..r -,-,--_.~_.._";.,,.,-----"'".~., ,..,~--*- ~~--""'~--'-' ~ - ttrt1"1r4 -r .~ "."-':.:- .i. , .~. "" ORDINANCE NO. 2009-16- ." ~ i!" ':f:AN 'INANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ~...;,.:>~",_.,.:-".-.J):<C IER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55, . ~~. -,;,::",;':1' NDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED STANDARDS FOR CREATION -'. 61 REVIEW OF COUNTY BOARDS, BY AMENDING SECTION FIVE, - "QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP ON BOARDS," TO ALLOW SERVICE ON MORE THAN TWO COUNTY BOARDS SIMULTANEOUSLY, BY AMENDING SECTION SEVEN, "TERM OF OFFICE," TO ELIMINATE TERM LIMITS; AND BY DELETING SECTION NINE, "REVIEW OF BOARDS" IN ITS ENTIRETY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. --4 :;:>c::: ~ . r- r--! c:::;) WHEREAS, in keeping with its policy to promote economy, efficiency anf~pr~ . " ;; =! ::0 service in the transaction of the public business by County Boards, the Board !~'9Y r= M-i Commissioners, through adoption of Ordinance No. 2001-55, established standards ffm~ali:)D Om o '-'~ \.0 :::0 --. . . and revje.w...of County boards; and a ~ en )>M N WHEREAS, Ordinance 2001-55 was subsequently amended through the adoption of Ordinance No. 2006-39 and Ordinance No. 2007-58; and WHEREAS. the Board of County Commissioners desires to further amend Ordinance No. 2001-55, specifically. Section Five entitled, "Qualifications and Requirements for Membership on Boards," to allow persons to serve on more than two County Boards simultaneously; Section Seven entitled, "Term of Office." to eliminate terms limits; and to delete Section Nine, "Review of Boards" in its entirety. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION FIVE OF ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55, AS AMENDED. Section Five is hereby amended to read a follows: SECTION FIVE: Qualifications and Requirements for Membership on Boards. Words Underlined are added; Words Stmek 'fl:B:ellgB are deleted. Page 1 of5 -~, ----~..,."--,~--,.,,_.....,- "-'--'-."-- 161 1 a'4 .~~; . A. All members of County Boards shall be permanent residents and electors of , Collier County and should be reputable and active in community service. The foregoing requirement may be exempted, however, if an ordinance creating a board specifies the need for membership outside Collier County's boundaries. In addition, all Board members should have demonstrated an interest in the activity or service, which is the purpose of the Board. The provisions of this paragraph may be exempted, however, if an ordinance creating a board specifies the need for membership outside Collier County's boundaries. B. Any m~ber of a County Board who ceases to be a resident of Collier County during his or her term of office shall immediately advise the Commission of such change in status. Upon such notice, the Commission shall declare the position to be vacant and shall promptly fill same pursuant to the provisions of Section Six, herein. C. The Commission's primary consideration in appointing Board members shall be to provide the Board with the technical, professional, financial, business or administrative expertise necessary to effectively accomplish the Board's purpose. Categories of expertise referenced by County Board's Ordinances as qualifications for board membership are considered to be primarily directory and not mandatory. D. Ne pef5eB shell SefVe aft HlefEl tHan two Co1:lBty Beams simaltaBee1:lsly. If application is ma6e for serviee on a thif'Ei boaM, the &pfJH6lHlt BH!St resigB simH:leeeasly from one af his or her 0l:HTem Board posmoIl5, er the applieatioB for a tlHnl beaM ehaIl he disqualifiea. 11Hs provision, ae'''Ie>'leI', :may he '.vaivea te allow fer servise en atlttitional Beards preyiEleEl the CemmiSsf.OB vetes HBftBime1:lBly te wai'IEl su:ca provision. &D. No member of any County Board shall become a candidate for an elective political office and continue to serve on such board during his or her candidacy unless such Board member/candidate is running unopposed for a non- remunerative elective position or an elective position receiving nominal remuneration, such as the Mosquito Control District Board or a fire district board. Should any County Board member compete for an elective non-remunerative political office or a nominally-remunerative political office on the date applications for candidacy expire, such candidacy shall be deemed a tender of Words Underlined are added; Words Struek Thfeugh are deleted. Page 2 of5 -- - - . .- 161 1 ''lie It '< . . resignation from such Board and the Board shall immediately advise the . Commission in writing of said resignation. No Board Member shall be required .' to resign or deemed to have tendered his or her resignation unless such candidacy is being opposed. The Commission shall deem the position vacant upon receipt of written notice of said resignation. The Board member shall not serve at any meetings after his or her position becomes vacant pursuant to this Ordinance. This provision shall not apply to candidates who currently serve in elected positions and who are seeking re-election. ~E. The commencement of a legal challenge by a Board member as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Collier County shall constitute a conflict of interest with Collier Coimty and shall be deemed a tender of resignation from such Board. The County Board member's position shall automatically be considered vacant and the Commission shall promptly fill same pursuant to the provisions of Section Six, herein. ~F. No member of any County Board, as defined herein, shall print or create, or have ,printed or created, or use or distribute any business or informational card depicting the County logo or in any way representing such Board member as a representative of Collier County or as a County Board member. The County Manager or his or her designee may, upon request and prior approval in writing, authorize the County Board members to obtain a County photo identification card identifying such members as a County advisory Board member. SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO SECTION SEVEN OF ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55, AS AMENDED. Section Seven is hereby amended to read a follows: SECTION SEVEN: Term of Office. A. Terms of office shall be staggered. B. Terms of offiee for Board memhem shall he IimiteEl to two 6aB5eeUGVe terms of serv.ioe OB my ODe BOai'd; provided, Ao'Jl&\.'er, that appoimmeBt of a Boare member to an iBitial tarm of 0Be ye8l" shell Bot he 6oB:BitleI'oo a "term of effiee" for pmpose of the limitatioBS set forth in tlHs seetioB, aBd SUefl memBefS Bhall he eo.titled to serve m,'o adttitiOBal terms if so appomteEl. Words Underlined are added; Words Stru.ek Thfeugh are deleted. Page 3 of5 AlIIJ1 _"-_"_~,_..._,~,,,,,,.....,., _.,~.-..._""-,_..,,.. .""~"....",--",, ,. --- "'.,-~, ... 0__,,__ -,. ","-" "_."""',.,~~._- v 161 1 . I C. !..pf'lomtaumts te fill a ';ae&Bey for the remamaer ar bal&Bee af a tenn of office . shall he cORsidered a ti..UI1 of office for the f>tiFf'Iose af the limitaticms set forth in Sllbsectioo (h), aheve, eRly if the remainaer ef the t,-1.I'b to be seryed exceeds 50 percent af the full term. D. By 1:IB8Bimal:l5 'late of ilia eammissiaa, the limitations set fenh. iB subseetioB. (b) aho'le may he Ylaiyed. E. NetIHBg set fortH m this seetioD shall preJH9it &BY iBEli'.'itltial ftem heiBg reawointeEi te a haaro after a matus af two years. Ji::.B. All members of Boards created by the Commission shall serve at the pleasure of the Commission and may automatically be removed by a majority vote of the quorum of the Commission. SECTION THREE: DELETION OF SECTION NINE, ENTITLED "REVIEW OF BOARDS," OF ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55, AS AMENDED. Section Nine, entitled "Review of Boards," is hereby deleted in its entirety and the remaining Sections of Ordinanc.e No. 2001-55, as amended, are renumbered accordingly. SECTION FOUR: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of the Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION FIVE: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinances may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," Words Underlined are added; Words Stmek Thr-eugh are deleted. Page 4 of 5 161 1 1 B4 ! , . or any other appropriate word. All references in the Code of Laws and Ordinances to Ordinance . No. 86-41 and its amendments shall be changed to reflect the number assigned to this Ordinance. SECTION SIX: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective upon receipt of notice from the Secretary of State that this Ordinance has been filed with the Secretary of State. , 2009. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY:~ DO , ow This ordinance filed with the 5ecnllllary of Stote's Office the ...1.1!!\taY of ~ , , 2w9 and aeknowledgement of that filavelved this 2'~ clay . ., ~ 01 Jly~ L;:';~ Words Underlined are added; Words 81mek Threllgh are deleted. Page 5 of5 I .._" IIf '1'11" ~_,.._..~.," "'w,.,,,-,. K~"_~". /;I 161 1 '84 ~ , , . . STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2009-16 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 14th day of April, 2009, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 15th day of April, 2009. By: Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail (239) 252-8848 Naples, FL 34112 www.collien!ov.net May 1, 2009 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, MAY 20,2009 3 p.m. The Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, May 2o'h at 3 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners chambers, located on the third floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building, Building F, Collier County Government Center, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples. In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board of County Commissioners or quasi-judicial board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05, as amended, requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Joe Frazier at 252-3600. -End- '_~_""__'_'"~O__~_.,..._","_ _.,'''''''''-. ----~-" _1 <~..<O.,_.____._.,._.~_._...___ ".~~- 16Airi~23 2.ao9 "- RECEIVED I .L e, V" . JUN 0 1 2009TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF !HE ,J V ',ft/.:1 :lo3f(:nIC,)UntyCNTllT\lssiOners CODE ENFORCEME~T BOA~':::S 0/1 Naples, FlorIda Henning5il~ April 23 2009 Coyle z.:t::==- ' Coletta I _ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen Richard Kraenbring (Absent) Lionel L'Esperance Robert Kaufman (Alternate) James Lavinski (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist. Mjlifl CQrrOl: I gllto:2J.P- ~ I oC]._ ~'i#l~~(~~ Page 1 t,.), ,,,..,--~ --,~.,,-~.- ~. ,. """",,"..,, - ..... .. --.-- 16 'Alii \3~~9 III CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceeding pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Roll call, please. MS. WALDRON: Good morning. Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ed Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just for the record, all members Page 2 ,....,* "",",c._ .. '_'''_~,~.m _..,.,we".", _',__..h < April 23, 2009 currently here will be voting members. 1611e5'~~1 And changes to the agenda? MS. WALDRON: Under motions, we do have two additions. We have two motions to dismiss. And the cases will both be BCC versus Alfredo Martinez, Case No. 2007-47 and 2007-48. Under stipulations, we have three stipulations. Under hearings, Item C.I, BCC versus James Bachmann, CEB No. CUTU20080003953. Under hearings number five, BCC versus Capri International, Inc., CEB Case No. CELU20080005078. And number six under hearings, BCC versus Robert K. Toski, CEB Case No. CEPM20080014037. Under old business, motion for imposition of fines/liens, item number one should state BCC versus John Cowden. And old business, motion for imposition of fines/liens, number five, BCC versus Melkys Borrego, should be -- is being withdrawn by the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are those all the changes? MS. WALDRON: Yes. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? MR. LARSEN: I just want a clarification. Under 5 old business, A.I, BCC versus Spina, that's going to be changed to John Cowden? MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir. The notices were sent correctly, it was just noted wrong on the agenda. MR. LARSEN: How do you spell Cowden? MS. WALDRON: C-O-W-D-E-N. MR. LARSEN: All right, I got it. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) Page 3 . ._..~ ,"",---._.... -_..,--~- ---~"-- April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? 1611eS II 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. Approval of last month's meeting minutes. Do I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any 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're going to start off with public hearings. Motion to dismiss. And the first motion will be Alfredo Martinez. MS. W ALD RON: This is the county's motion to request that these orders be dismissed for Case 2007-47 and 2007-48. Page 4 T_'........."..",.. <~-,. ^.....,~"'~''',.,''''''-- ...-".~--_._.. April 23, 2009 , f fit The county would like to dismiss these orders, 2 ~l clsesB 5 have been opened on both of these issues. There was a mixup in the process, and these orders are no longer being used, and we're going to start the cases over. MR. KELLY: Question. MR. LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KELLY: So in other words, since these will be completely dismissed, there will be no reoccurring fines or fees -- MS. WALDRON: Correct. MR. KELLY: -- it will be starting from scratch? MS. WALDRON: Correct. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion to dismiss. Do we have to do them one at a time? MS. WALDRON: I would probably do them one at a time. MR. KELLY: In Department Case 2007-47, I make a motion to dismiss the case. 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. MR. KELLY: And in 2007-48, I make a motion to dismiss the case. Page 5 _.-..,.- ...'" -"._~ -..~..-.._",," . . ,,__ow_ow April 23, 2009 1611185 'r p-'\.; CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No discussion. Do I hear a vote? 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. MS. WALDRON: Just for clarification on those cases as well, what had happened was these properties had been foreclosed on during the enforcement process, and it wasn't caught at that point. So we didn't notice the right people, and now the bank owns it. The bank wants to take care of it, so -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next one will be a motion for extension of time, BCC versus Raymonde and Bolomin Charles. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. CHARLES: My name is Bolomin Charles. THE COURT REPORTER: And could you spell Bolomin. MR. CHARLES: B-O-L-O-M-I-N. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir, you're looking for extension of time? MR. CHARLES: Yes, please. Page 6 -,.,.".,---_..,.~ - 'l~ ~ L.....,ll _.-c""'_,".__e......____'. April 23, 2009 161l,S ~ CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you explain the reason w you're looking for extension of time. MR. CHARLES: The reason why, because, you know, I was looking for the engineer, you know, I said -- got a friend. But just now you called me right here, he says he's (inaudible). THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I'm not understanding what you're saying. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I can't understand what you're -- MR. CHARLES: Okay, the reason why I'm asked for the request, I can't find the engineer, you know, to help me to get the affidavit filled out by him so that I can go get the permit. MR. LARSEN: All right, Mr. Charles, you submitted a letter to the board dated April 6th, 2009; is that correct? MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: And that explains why you want an extension of time? MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: And it's because you weren't able to get an engineer to view the property before April 12th; is -- MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: -- that correct? And you want 45 days additional time? MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: And you think you'll be able to take care of that . Issue -- MR. CHARLES: Yes. MR. LARSEN: -- within that 45-day period of time? MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir, yeah. MR. LARSEN: All right. Does county have any position on this? MR. WALKER: Not at all, sir. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And has Mr. Charles been cooperative? Page 7 ^ .__..,.~.,,"" ,'- ,-'~,"-~"-"""-""",,,,,~",",,,~,-,,,,,,,,--,,''''''.. -.......-- ---.-.'.... --"~-""-- April 23, 2009 MR. WALKER: Extremely cooperative, sir. 1611 85 MR. LARSEN: All right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions from the board? MR. KELLY: If we were to grant the extension of time, would that then extend all of the points in the original order? I want to make sure that he doesn't get into further problems complying with the rest of the order and then have to come back or face additional fines. MR. LARSEN: Well, we appear to have an order dated 3rd of March, 2009 and then a prior stipulation dated 2-26-09. MS. WALDRON: The hearing date was on the 26th. MR. KELLY: Right. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Since the county seems to have no objection to the request for an extension of time, I move that we grant his request. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. KELLY: Point of discussion. The 45 days we originally gave him was to not only get the required inspections and completion, but there was an alternative for a demolition and so forth. I'm worried that if he doesn't even have the engineering approval at this point, it might be longer than 45 days. I'm just concerned that a gentleman who's been so cooperative, just having a hard time getting the paperwork that he needs, will run into future problems and then have to come back in front of us. I'm thinking that maybe we should extend it a little further than 45 days. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Kelly, do you have a suggested number of days? MR. KELLY: 90 days. MR. LARSEN: I'm fine with 90 days, Mr. -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: That would be acceptable with my original motion. Page 8 ...__._~,,-- . .. ...,~ . _n__ April 23, 2009 MR. LARSEN: All right, I would second the ameldl>d rl~ ." then for 90 days. 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. You have 90 days. MR. CHARLES: All right, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to move on to stipulated agreements. First one will be BCC versus James Bachmann, CEB No. CETU20080003953. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SCA VONE: Good morning. For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. This case is in reference to Case No. CETU20080003953, dealing with a violation of an expired temporary use permit for a mobile home on agriculturally zoned property located at 1180 Dove Tree Street, Naples, Florida, 34117. I had a pre-hearing conference with the respondent today, April 23rd, 2009. We reviewed and discussed the stipulation agreement. The respondent agreed that the violation was accurate and stipulated to the existence and signed the documentation. The Page 9 --'-~"'--"-' ,,-- ---.."",,.~ -'.---- "'~_""".""'''''"_'''1 OM,___'_'.""__"'_", April 23, 2009 respondent agreed to pay the operational costs of$86.7116 lIB 5 .. All -- to abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County temporary use permit for the mobile home and keeping permit up to date by renewing permit when required. Or applying for and obtaining a demo permit to remove the mobile home and all related debris, as well as obtaining any and all inspections and certificate of completion with a demo permit within 60 days, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed for each day any violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, with all costs assessed to the property owner. And it was signed by Mr. Bachmann. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you state your name for the record, please. MR. BACHMANN: James Bachmann. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you agree to all the terms here? MR. BACHMANN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Any other questions from the board? MR. LARSEN: Mr. Bachmann, it's just an issue that you didn't renew the permit; is that the -- MR. BACHMANN: Yes, sir. And I'm currently going through a divorce and having a hard time gaining access to the documents that I need to renew the permit. MR. LARSEN: All right. But you think that the time frame is something that you can work with? MR. BACHMANN: I think it is sufficient. I've got about 13 of the 15 items. I need to go out there and take some pictures and some Page 10 ,....... ----..,.._~_...._"_.~-,-.----,,- , ~P' .R '" ~'_lI:4 M'_,._.'~'"" '~_~"..R""_' ~ ... -"'~'~.'- 1 tPtf~~9 . other documents, which my attorney's in the process of allowing me to do that. MR. LARSEN: All right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we accept the stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LARSEN: I 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? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. LARSEN: Have a nice day, Mr. Bachmann. MS. SCA VONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one will be BCC versus Capri International, Inc., CEB No. CELU20080005078. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MAST: For the record, my name is Christopher Mast; I'm the attorney for Capris International. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Mast, would you spell your last name. MR. MAST: M-A-S-T. Page 11 _..',," ~ '--"'"__""'""__ T , ._.,,_._u~_ April 23, 2009 THE COURT REPORTER: And your name, pleal!> J 1 85 MS. HASSAM: Jenna Hassam. H-A-S-S-A-M. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Maria Rodriguez. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jen, is that focused as best as we can focus it? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I was wondering the same thing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It even helps by doing that, too. MS. WALDRON: Is that good? MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Investigator Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20080005078, dealing with violation, a storage container, aluminum pipes and a large amount of metal beams on a vacant lot located at 711 Broward Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142, folio number 63863762001. We have agreed to a stipulation. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $86.14 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of the hearing; abate all violation (sic) by removing the container and any construction material on unimproved lot within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Property must only be utilized in compliance with the accordance (sic) to the Land Development Code and Codes of the Laws and Ordinances of unincorporated Collier County. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of this violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed by the property owner. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have a concern about the Page 12 .~-~. , ... ."""-....-_.,.... ..ill... _._"..~"~-~- 16Ifi13,W~; ~ $100 per day fine. I don't see the per day in this particular rendition of the agreement. You read it per day, but it doesn't say per day in the stipulation. MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, it says amount of fines will be imposed -- yeah, it doesn't say per day. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just make sure you add in there per day. Have them initial it, please. MS. WALDRON: Also, can I make a recommendation that on the first paragraph it says dated the 24th day of April. It should be 2008, not 2009. MR. LARSEN: So I understand that basically we're talking about some construction related equipment and a trailer on the property? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. LARSEN: And Mr. Mast, you're pretty sure your client is going to be able to get that stuff removed and be in compliance within 120 days? MR. MAST: They have a store at 111 th Fifth Street North which burned down about two years ago. The material would have been removed already, but the former president of Capri International was murdered, so unfortunately that caused a little bit of a delay. We have architects sched -- we have retained architects, we're ready to start going. As soon as construction starts, all the material will be moved immediately. And I anticipate that will be done before 120 days. And if we can't do it, then we'll figure out something within 120 days. It's not scrap metal, it's steel girders is what's stored there. MR. LARSEN: Oh, we just want to make sure that basically it was a sufficient amount of time for you to take care of the problem. MR. MAST: It should be. It should be. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you also agreed to $100 a day versus what -- Page 13 ~,.'~->-~--- . ' - 0- ....". __'~''''~'''"-<'''''_'~'"'''___''''''''_''~''__ -~-,-~-- April 23, 2009 MR. MAST: After the 120 days, yes. 16 I 115 \, ~ CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. And the other minor change, the 23rd of April, is that correct, 2009? Is that what you-- MS. WALDRON: Yeah, it should state 2008. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 2008, okay. I think that's it. All right, do I hear -- go ahead -- any other questions? MR. KELLY: I make a motion -- MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Is there any safety problem with the stuff that's stored out on the lot? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Not at all. It's fenced in and it's chained up. They can't open up the gates. So I don't see anybody going in there. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. 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. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. MAST: Thank you. Page 14 '_~w_~ - ~_."-"" . April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. 1611B~r The next case will be BCC versus Robert K. Toski. CEB No. CEPM20080014037. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is a violation of Ordinance Physical Safety Pools, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article 2 of the Florida Building Code, Sections 22 through 26, 103.11.2, Article 6, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22 through 23112N. The description of the violation: The protective barrier surrounding the swimming pool is not in good repair and sound structural condition. Location of the violation: Is 3465 Antoine Court, Naples, Florida, 34109. Folio No. 69143800001. Therefore, it is agreed that the parties -- between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of 87.57 that occurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. Two: Abate all violations by submitting a complete and sufficient application for all Collier County building permits for the protective barrier surrounding the swimming pool. Request inspections and obtain a certificate of completion within 30 days of this hearing or pay a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: Respondent must notify the code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Twenty - four hour notice shall be by phone or fax and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not Saturday, Sunday or that legal holiday. Page 15 ,'--.-..-.-.-.- ..... .. ~"..."~....-._._,._,._....."-,._.,-.,._~ ''-''-, ,..---...- --..- April 23, 2195 \ 1611 .;1 Four: The respondent -- that if the respondent fails to abate the' , violation, the Collier County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. And I would like to add -- it's not on the bottom of number four, but I would like to add with the cost being assessed to the property owner, with your approval. MR. LARSEN: Is the respondent here? MR. BALDWIN: No. He had to work. He just started a new job. MR. LARSEN: It's kind of tough to amend a stipulation after he's left. MR. BALDWIN: I can call him after this. He's compliant. He also has submitted an application for a permit. And there is no health and safety right now because the protective barrier has been put up. MR. KELLY: So basically he's already abated the violation? MR. BALDWIN: No. He's applied for the permit and it hasn't been C.O.'d yet. But he did put it up because of the health and safety issue of the violation. MR. LARSEN: What kind of barrier is it? MR. BALDWIN: Screen enclosure. MR. KELLY: I have a technical question. Y ou're citing the 2001 building code for a building that was built long before 2001. At the time the building was built, what did the code say then? Did it require a protective barrier? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. KELLY: I thought that was added in 1994 in the '94 edition. And this home was built in the late Eighties. I'm just throwing something out there. MR. BALDWIN: It was a screen enclosure that went down during Wilma, and-- MR. KELLY: So it had to have been brought up to code. Page 16 ,._" _. ,._,..,,, ""-"'""-"'-"~'_._"'_""#O""" .a._..._.~__ April 23, 2009 16 11 ~5 F'. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. KELLY: Very good, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions from the board? MR. LARSEN: Well, we haven't addressed the amendment that's been requested by the county. What specifically do you want to amend in the stipulation? MR. BALDWIN: I would just like to add a number four, with the cost of the abatement to be assessed to the property owner. The property owner is aware that the cost -- he would be getting the cost. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But that wouldn't be relevant in this case ifhe's already fixed the screen. He's just waiting to get at C.O., correct? MR. BALDWIN: Correct. Ifhe doesn't get the C.O., then it's still his responsibility to get the C.O. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, but you're not going to have to go on to abate the violation if the violation has been abated, technically. MR. BALDWIN: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All you'll need is to have someone go on with you to make sure it's inspected. MR. KELLY: If I may, I don't see that it's really a conflict, since the order is against the property owner, was signed by the property owner, therefore, it's going to be assessed to the property owner anyways. So adding the language I don't think is a conflict. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: At the same time, can we amend the stipulation without the property owner being present? MR. LARSEN: Well, let's ask our counsel. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you can add a further condition to your order without him being present. He knows the hearing is scheduled today and he has the opportunity to be present. Page 1 7 "..,^"~"""" - --",,",_.,,_... "'<:i7T'I v,"" ...-",--- April 23, 19 16 I 1 5~ I" Plus Mr. Kelly indicated that operationally, you know, it wou apply against the property owner, so I don't see a problem with that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Ifhe shows any resistance to the amended stipulation and doesn't choose to initial or sign the amended stipulation, I guess he has the option to come back next month? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, he could request a rehearing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Which I doubt would happen, but -- MR. KELLY: If it makes the board feel better, the language really isn't necessary, since it's going to go against the property owner anyways. MR. LARSEN: That's the way I feel about it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I feel about it the same way. MR. LARSEN: I'd prefer not to be tinkering with a stipulation previously signed by a respondent who's no longer in attendance. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I agree. MR. KELLY: Is there -- unless there's another reason why you wanted that in there. You feel as though he's going to be selling immediately or anything like that? MR. BALDWIN: No, he's been pretty cooperative since January of this year. MR. LARSEN: And additionally, if they're in compliance, there's still a penalty per day. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Good point. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 18 ,.,~.,.,,--_.--..- .....,,- ....- ",''-'''''';'~"'''.'"",--,-,, ^'.....~..._--""-,~"'.~ '"" _ ~,~.,__....,......_.."O_.~~_" April 23, 2009 MR. KELLY: Aye. 1611189 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. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, I think we're done with stipulated agreements. We're going to move on to hearings. Next hearing -- or the first hearing will be BCC versus Rey and Edith Martinez, CEB No. 2007080603. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is the interpreter outside in the hallway? (Speakers were duly sworn. Interpreter Lupita Locano was duly sworn as interpreter.) MS. WALDRON: This is violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(ei). Description of violation: Multiple additions built onto structure without first obtaining proper Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 1410 Apple Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio No. 30680880005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Rey and Edith Martinez, 602 New Market Road West, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Date violation first observed: August 16th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 28th, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 22nd, 2008. Page 19 -_.-,...,~- -~ April 23, 2009 Date of reinspection: February 20th, 2009. 1611;~5~ Results of reinspection are that the violation remains. I would like to now present Investigator John Musse. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Jonathan Musse, M-U-S-S-E, Collier County Code Enforcement. On August 16th, 2007, observed a mobile home with multiple unpermitted additions on to the home and also observed the structure in the rear of the property that appears to be a shed at one point that was converted into a dwelling unit. I do have pictures that I would like to submit into evidence. They have seen the pictures, correct? INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yes. MR. KELLY: I make a motion to accept the exhibit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any 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. MUSSE: I'll go on while you guys are looking at the pictures. Called the property owner, Rey Martinez, and advised him of the violation. He stated that he purchased the property in that condition Page 20 ~ ,," '~M_~._._ 1Ir_1II I _. .~...". ~. ......."..,~."""."...'"...'_.,-...,, ~..~ ,--_..~ {t12l85 , and wasn't aware of the unpermitted additions. I then informed him that I would have to conduct some search on the property and find out what was permitted and what was not. Pulled the property card and found no permits for the additions. Checked CD Plus, no permits were issued as well. September 14th, 2007, on-site. Spoke to the property owners, explained the violation and referred him to the building and permitting department to ask them exactly what he needed to do to apply for these building permits. Notice of violation was served and signed by the property owner, Mr. Martinez. October 15th, 2007, checked CD Plus, no permits have been issued. Called property owner and spoke with Edith Martinez and asked what was the status. She stated that she has done nothing at this time, but will go to the permit department and obtain the permit in one week. On October 16th, 2007, Rey Martinez came into the lmmokalee office and stated that he will go to the permit department and arrange a meeting with the permitting staff. He informed me that he did remove the people that were living in the rear of the property. October 23rd, 2007, spoke with Maria Rodriguez of permitting. She stated that Ms. Martinez came into the lmmokalee permitting department last week and attempted to schedule a meeting about their property. She stated that property owner will have to wait until Carol Stachura returns from vacation next week. A meeting was never held. Continued to conducted numerous rechecks. Violation remains. . June 30, 2008, prepared case to appear before the Code Enforcement Board. On August 22nd, 2008, after reviewing the case, a second notice of violation was issued for a more appropriate ordinance and was Page 21 ^",...._-~~ '" . April 23, 2009 given an additional 30 days to abate the violation. 16 J 1 1 B 5 September 23rd, 2008, conducted a site inspection. Violation remains. Resubmitted the case to appear before the Code Enforcement Board. April 8th, 2009, posted notice of hearing on property and in courthouse. And as of today violation still remains. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When was the last time you were out there? MR. MUSSE: The 17th of April. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So as of the 17th-- MR. MUSSE: Those photos are from April 17th. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: As of the 17th the violation remains? MR. MUSSE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Go ahead. INTERPRETER LOCANO: I get that property. I never had nothing. The only bad what I do, I buy it. And this person, they sell that house like the same the way it look. I want to ask you to please, you can help me, because I pay a lot of money for that place. And my family is big. I put my house in the bank so I borrow money so I can buy that place. I lost the house. I lost my house, my property, both houses. I promise, I never did nothing. The only one, you can help me. I have to pay money. Whatever you say, I'm available to do it. I never work to do something bad, only I work in the fields. I come from Mexico working in the tomato, and I work clean. That way I don't damage nobody in the loss. So you think I'm bad, please tell me what to do. And see I have to pay something, just give me a chance to pay. The economy is really bad. Page 22 , ~.,.. "'-"~'."~"'~-".=' . .. --'. , -"--"'.''----'.-- 1 frf t' tios h So you think I can do it, just give me three or four months so I can fix this. Inspectors have been going and check. And is no way they can say this is bad or this is not. Everything is right. And that's something that's not good. The only -- I start doing this business and progressed to buying properties. And this person is sell the house very expensive. I think I pay $1,000 a month for the house. And for me right now my family is big. We're six in the family. And it's going to be hard for me. And it's going to be hard to pay. And I ask you, please take compassion for me. And see I can pay it, I do it. Everything depends on you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Investigator, I have one question. When did the respondent purchase the property? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 2006. MR. LARSEN: July 31st, 2006. MR. L'ESPERANCE: July 31 st? Thank you. MR. KELLY: Ma'am, if you could ask him, does he know when the additions were put on the original trailer? I know that he only bought it in 2006, but I'm curious to know how long before he bought it were the additions made. INTERPRETER LOCANO: About 13 or 14 years. He have a survey. They show that -- he never know when. He talk to the person when he bought the house. And he don't know English, so he have to put somebody to help him to interpret for him. One day he meet this Jonathan and he ask him is it legal, and he say yes. I see him and I talk to him, see if we can fix something. He want to get a lawyer so he can fight the house, because they talking about 7,000 that he owes on the house. Page 23 "-.- . ~ '",._'",..~,._,",,--- 'L'~~''''''''_'...''',__", April 23, 2009 16 11 B! MR. KELLY: Sorry, you want to go ahead and catch up? INTERPRETER LOCANO: He talk to the person when he bought the house, and he ask him why he lie to him. And I ask, you see that everything was legal, and he say yes. Because the way till right now, I'm working with the right law, and I'm paying permitting for the taxes, and check the house, I see the persons, they live right. I pay my tax to the government. I've been living 14 years here and I feel bad because I don't speak English. And all my life I been working, and my family's poor. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? MR. LARSEN: I have a question of the officer. The structures on the property present a health and safety issue? MR. MUSSE: I have not inspected the inside, but judging by the outside I would say yeah. MR. LARSEN: And what would that be? MR. MUSSE: I would just say it doesn't look stable. I mean, mostly made of plywood. And the rear structure, which he claims there was no one living in there, there's no ventilation, just the front door. MR. LARSEN: But nobody's living there anymore? MR. MUSSE: I went there and it doesn't appear vacant, but I mean, I knocked on the door, they never answered the door. MR. LARSEN: Ma'am, could you ask him whether or not anybody's living in that rear structure? INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yeah, somebody live there. MR. MUSSE: I think he's getting confused with the question. In the back, in the rear. INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yes, somebody living there. One person. He's not going to lie to you, yes. Just a couple. And they have a little girl. But sometimes I have five in all the place. Sometimes five, sometimes seven. And the people, they don't have money to pay the Page 24 ^""'-.-,"-,-.-_--.-. .._.......-..0 ,-,.._- -'~ ,- .--,,"''''',.-,.-''' -~ , .._ ~.. ."..'M~_.'_ rent. APr12l; ,01 a 5 '~ MR. LARSEN: Sometimes five, sometimes seven what? INTERPRETER LOCANO: People. MR. LARSEN: In that building? INTERPRETER LOCANO: No, in the other one. In all the property . MR. LARSEN: Total. INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yeah, in the little, right now it's a couple in the other -- I guess it's another -- MR. LARSEN: There's three people living -- INTERPRETER LOCANO: Right now is the couple and the baby. MR. KELLY: I'm just going to make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. LARSEN: Let's just take a look at the statement of the violation. Says multiple additions built on to structure without first obtaining proper Collier County permits. Now, you're talking about the main structure? MR. MUSSE: Yeah, main structure. MR. LARSEN: All right, not this one here. MR. MUSSE: No. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that potentially a separate case in the future? MR. MUSSE: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How corne it wasn't brought? MR. MUSSE: New to the area, 2007. Fairly new. And I just thought it would be all added to the same area. Now I'm figuring out that it's not. But the case would definitely be opened. Page 25 -_.".~"-~ lIU,," ,-_.. >-~.,.~.~- Argl' 1~ 5 'I INTERPRETER LOCANO: The couple, they live in that place, the small one they're talking about, they've been living there about a month right now. MR. LARSEN: Mr. and Mrs. Martinez, you understand that basically what the county says is that that main structure, which is the house you're living in, not this structure, doesn't comply with the codes of Collier County. And even though you bought it after the structure was changed to add on those additional living areas, that you as the property owner are responsible. And you understand that -- basically we understand that it's not fair to you having bought this property from somebody that told you that it was legal. But what the county is saying is that basically there's a code that they have to follow. You understand? INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So motion and second. We're in discussion right now. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor a violation -- say aye. 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. You want to just explain what we just did? We just made a motion that a violation does exist. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question for the officer. Page 26 ^"'.--~~--" In R"""'~'>_____",".'~__""'''''.__ .... H_.__'_"_ _ April 23, 2009 Have you tried to see if you could reach some comm~~Jo~1pj " ~ I as to either what needs to be done, timing, et cetera? MR. MUSSE: Well, as I said in the presentation, I spoke to them on-site while I was serving the notice of violation and urged them -- at that point the permitting staff was in Immokalee, so they could have easily went to lmmokalee. And he actually did go to lmmokalee. And he came to the office. And I again informed him where to go. He said he was going to do a meeting. He never attended the meeting. As per the conversation that we just had outside, he said that there was some sort of meeting. I wasn't invited to the meeting, I was not aware of this meeting, but there was some kind of permitting meeting that he had apparently. But again, as the conversation -- it seems like he understands what he needs to do right now, so we'll be more than happy to help him. He just needs time. MR. LARSEN: Well, do you have a recommendation? MR. MUSSE: Yes. Respondent is to pay operational costs in the amount of $87 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit for all unpermitted additions to the structure with all the inspections, certificate of completions within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" amount of dollars will be imposed until violation is abated. Or obtain a Collier County demolition permit certificate, inspection, certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of "X" amount of dollars per day will be imposed until violation's abated. If owner fails to abate the violation, the Code Enforcement Board may authorize code enforcement to abate the violations at the owner's expense. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator Page 27 e__w.'_ ~ "_.. April 23, 2m i 1 J within 24 hours of abatement in order to conduct the final ~~e~ti!n 5 to confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you know what has been an addition? I mean, is that easily identifiable at this point, or no? MR. MUSSE: Yeah, you can iden -- because you can see the existing mobile home and you can see all the plywood additions that are added. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. In your discussion with the permitting people, I guess that you weren't at, did they give you an idea of what needs to be done? INTERPRETER LOCANO: I understand the law. He went and talked to Carol. And he told me to send me a person (phonetic) from '85. He leave papers for her, copies from the trailer. I'm going to help you and I'm going to call you back. She never call. At that time I have an accident in the family. My brother pass away. And he absent for -- my brother die in the fields. And I have to leave because my mom, she was real sick. And I thought my mom, she was going to die. So after that when they come back and I ask and see somebody call or something, and they told me no. And that's when I get the paper from John. But I never forget that case and I was waiting and fix it. I've been living here for 27 years -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. INTERPRETER LOCANO: -- and I never have a problem. The Carol call him and tell him the computer show that he have to do something. But the lady, she don't know about what, that she was going to try to find out. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Martinez, earlier you asked for a period of time of three to four months in order to -- do you think you'll be able to have this issue resolved with the county within that 90 to 120-day Page 28 ~_"'<W"k'""'''''''''_ r .. ..-I!.:. lI' '~'__"'_"_"""'M".^_~.._,.' _',',...~"..._'_"n , ---,_.~,-_.~". April 23, 2009 period? 1611185' J INTERPRETER LOCANO: 190? MR. LARSEN: No, from 90 to 120. INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yes, I'm going to do everything I -- I do everything I can. So you tell me do this and this, he's going to do it. MR. LARSEN: And you do know that there's going to be a financial penalty, a monetary penalty for every day after that period of time? INTERPRETER LOCANO: He knows -- I know. MR. LARSEN: You do know that this officer over here has personally represented that they will help you, the county will help you in any way they can. So if you stay in contact with them and tell them if you're having any problems, they may be able to help you. INTERPRETER LOCANO: I promise, I do it. MR. LARSEN: Is that correct, Officer? MR. MUSSE: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's work on the agreement. Any comments? MR. DEAN: I have one. What about the safety issue, renting out a building with no windows? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But that's not part of the case. That secondary building it is not part of the case at this point. MR. DEAN: He showed me a picture of it, we accepted the photos. There's a problem here. The man admitted under oath that he rents it out, there's no windows, there's a little girl living there. What do we have here? This is not right. I don't know where to go with that. But certainly the code enforcement officer should be checking. What do you suggest? Page 29 "-"~,"-.- "ITn -..r _ ~_.... ... W *_"_<'~'_'''"",m . ..-.......""'" .,"-.._,",,--"-, April 23, 2i ' MR. MUSSE: It would be addressed immediately. Aa? Jas~y S ': error. I thought it was all lumped together. MR. DEAN: Maybe we can address it now. When you walk out that door today you can address it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. But here as a board, we cannot address it. MR. DEAN: Okay, that's just my point I want to get across, that when you walk out of this room today, that's my main concern-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Will be addressed. MR. DEAN: -- there's a safety thing there. MR. LARSEN: Just for the record, I believe that we lack jurisdiction over that issue in the secondary structure; is that right, Counsel? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, I don't believe he's received proper notification of the second violation and opportunity to cure. MR. LARSEN: So the board is not charged with the responsibility of dealing with that issue today? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. And I believe Ms. Flagg's department will look into that. I mean, there is an opportunity for the county in emergency situations to take down buildings under our current ordinances, and I think that that will be evaluated. MR. LARSEN: Supervisor Snow, I think -- you want to comment on that? (Supervisor Kitchell Snow was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Let me assure the board that this is the district that I work in up in lmmokalee, and we will be on that property today. And we will work very, very diligently to make sure that this health and safety issue is addressed. And let me also mention that we have worked very hard. We have permitting in lmmokalee now, two days out of the month, the Page 30 "."~-~~" 11 r ....""'. ,-;,~"..,- -'._"""~",_._"".",,",~-,,, ..... _.,_._~.,~._.~ April 2312~'5 I 16 I ~ second and fourth Friday, and I want the respondent to know that they can go to Immokalee to get permits, they don't have to come to Naples anymore. So we can work on doing that and expedite this matter to try to get it resolved. But we will be on that property today looking at -- Mr. Dean, we will take care of that, sir. MR. DEAN: I appreciate that. Thank you. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's get back to the recommendation. Anyone like to take a stab at it? MR. KELLY: I'll take a stab. It might not be popular. But operational costs of $87 in line one. 365 days and $200 per day. The same with the demolition, 365 days, with $200 per day. The original NOV was in 2007. It's already almost been two years. MR. LARSEN: Is that the form of a motion, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I'll make it a motion. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Could I trouble you to repeat the time periods? I was trying to get that down. Sorry, I'm not that fast. MR. KELLY: No problem. Basically what we're doing is accepting the recommendations from the county. The operational costs for $87. The first line would be 365 days. The second line two be $200 per day. Third line would be again 365 days for a demo permit, and then $200 per day. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a comment on that. Is there any way that we can -- I have no problem with extending it 365 days, as long as Page 31 v_ _. _.___'u.,,~. ~ ,'~ """~... ..-- ..........-..--- -..---...--- April 23, 1ffs ,. 1611' ~ there is some cooperation with the officer and we know that some progress is being made, not to wait one year and be back here again in the same situation that we are today. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Well, would you like to incorporate the request for periodic progress reports? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I mean, the other way of doing it is breaking it down. Must have permits by a certain period, or must apply for permits, must receive permits. I mean, that's the only other way we can do it where we know that there's strict time frames. MR. KELLY: That's the way we used to do it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think 365 days is very lenient. But, I mean, that's the only other way we can do it is we break it down that they must apply for permits within a certain period, and then when they receive permits they have a certain period to complete the work. So that's one way of -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Investigator, in your opinion is this a demolition permit request? MR. MUSSE: Yeah. MR. KELLY: I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We had a second on that, so we need the second to be withdrawn also. Correct? MR. LARSEN: Why do you feel it's a demolition? MR. MUSSE: On one side of the -- it's encroaching on the property line. And it just -- to me, I'm not a building inspector, and I haven't been inside the structure, but it just looks unstable. I wouldn't let my family live in there. MR. KELLY: If you're talking about setback issues, that's a whole nother can of worms. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you saying the additions are encroaching or the actual structure is -- MR. MUSSE: Additions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Additions, okay. Page 32 .--",~-" 4. ...",..,---.., -... . April 23, 2009 All right, do we have a -- the second has not bee~~l.1!d lr B 5 \. "'~ withdrawn. MR. LARSEN: All right, Supervisor Snow? MR. SNOW: Sir? MR. LARSEN: Now, if the Martinezes appeared at the Immokalee facility for permitting purposes, how -- if they made an application, say by the end of April, when would a decision be made by the county as to whether or not to issue a permit in regard to either the renovation or the demolition of this structure? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, once a determination has been made concerning setbacks and issues and can it be permitted and things like that, and a lot of research is going to have to be done on the property. If the structures remain for 13 years or 14 years, which the respondent claims, then I think some leniency should be granted to find out. Because there are other issues, more issues that are involved. I know that's not what you want to hear, but a lot of research needs to be done on this property to determine what's available and what's not available. If they submitted a complete permit and it was determined they couldn't do the setbacks and they want to submit a variance or try to keep the structure or can they remove the structure and place another structure on the back, that's all going to have to be determined by permitting. They have to bring the surveys in and look at it. And she can normally tell them that day is it feasible for them to do what they're asking. And that's what you're asking me, is it going to be feasible for them to do what they're asking to do. And I can't answer that question right now because I'm not familiar with the logistics of this case. But they can usually render an opinion that day if it's feasible and press forward and know this is not going to work. MR. LARSEN: All right. Well, thank you very much. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: That's exactly what I wanted to know. Page 33 -~ ... - ~ . "'<17 V ~'_..,-,.,.,,-._-" April 23, 2009 MR. KELLY: So just to recap, you're talking aboJaqJ.vlr 13 5\ site plan, you're going to have to have some kind of drawing done with the existing structures. Then you're going to have to have an engineer or a building official go into the structure to see what needs to be done to bring it to the code. In this case maybe 94 is code. So the research would be to go back to that code and find out where the violations exist, specifically. Then have a contractor come in, give them bids, setback and get the work done. It is a good time frame. MR. LARSEN: Right. And what I'm afraid of is basically if we be too punitive in nature what we're doing is removing them from their home prematurely. MR. KELLY: What I'd like to do is withdraw my motion and create a new motion breaking down the times of the process in ways that are quantifiable so that we can ensure that there is progress. MR. LARSEN: And would that be in line with what Supervisor Snow just stated? MR. KELLY: I believe it -- yes, I believe it would. And it also in the end ultimately gives the 365 days for C.O. MR. LARSEN: All right. Okay, on that basis, I'm going to withdraw my second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: My new motion would be to -- that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $87 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: One: Applying for a building permit for the unpermitted additions to structure within 90 days, or a fine of $200 per day. Number two: To obtain building permit within 180 days of today's hearing or a fine of$200 per day. Number three: To obtain a certificate of occupancy/completion within 365 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day Page 34 ""'.'-".'_'"""~-.' . WII' W 'W"W "If . '"",......>_."._._~.,. irg2f'io~5 ~ will be imposed. And then the last one would be: The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would second that motion. MR. LARSEN: Just point of clarification, Mr. Kelly. That 180 days for the permitting, that's either for permitting the unpermitted additions or a demolition permit? MR. KELLY: Correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. All right. MR. KELLY: This -- if there is type of setback issues and the respondent needs to submit for a variance, the time between 90 days and 180 days I think is sufficient to go through whatever motions are necessary . MR. LARSEN: Now, from the county's point of view, does that create any problems? MR. MUSSE: Not at all. I check it monthly anyway. MR. LARSEN: All right. So we're not going to run into any problems with the county and their time line for appearing I guess wherever they want to appear to apply, whether up in Immokalee or down here, and it would be fine? MR. MUSSE: That would be fine. MR. KELLY: I think that will be simple. Because CD Plus will show an application submitted, and then it will show the approval whether or not he picked up the permits. So it would be easy to track. MR. LARSEN: All right. And in regard to oversight, you I assume work for Supervisor Snow out in the Immokalee area? MR. MUSSE: I don't currently work in lmmokalee right now, but I do go there periodically. Page 35 '-"...,..-.-1" 11 If 'III" ,.....'..^'.L." . "" ~_''''''<w,..,,,.,,,~.._,,,....,..,... -- April 23, 21 1~ 11 5 \ MR. LARSEN: And you can monitor the situation on t e property? MR. MUSSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion, we have a second. We've had discussion. Any further discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: Just a clarification on the fines, that they're not cumulative. In other words, 200 doesn't add to 200 doesn't add to 200 as time goes by. MR. KELLY: I don't think we've ever had that question posed, but it's a good one. Once you get to the second one, does it now become $400 a day? And then if we go more than a year does it become -- MS. WALDRON: Well, in order to get to the second one, they would have had to complete the first one, so they'd be in compliance of that first section. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Right. I understood it was $200 per day, and it wouldn't be a -- they wouldn't run concurrent, they would run consecutive. So you'd have 200 and just per day. And they wouldn't be doubled the fines. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If you'd prefer, we can place in the order that it's a maximum of200 per day, if you'd like. MR. LARSEN: Does that satisfy your criteria, Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 36 ..'''O''''___''''O''~___ . .....,-_., ..... .. v- ....~ T "",,," ..,.,'",.-,,'.. '.'~"'.'. ,. ,.'.'...n..__.....,~"",....""__ """- ,-- April 23, 20ti . MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. 1611' 5. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. LARSEN: Do you understand what happened, Mr. Martinez? INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yeah, I explained. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'll go through it and if I miss something, Mr. Kelly will catch me. Eighty-seven dollars you have to pay as operational costs within one month. You have to apply for a building permit within 90 days of today, or $200 a day fine. They'll give you a -- obtain the building permit or demolition permit within 180 days or a $200 fine per day. And then he will have 365 -- total from today 365 days to complete all work or a $200 fine per day will be assessed. And he has to notify code enforcement when he's completed the work so they can come out and inspect. MR. KELLY: Just to add, the board would like to see some kind of progress, so please do not wait. MR. MARTINEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Entiendo? MR. MARTINEZ: Okay, thank you. Have a good day, everybody. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case will be BCC versus Jose Rodriguez, CEB No. CESD2008003864. Cherie', you okay? We'll see how long this one goes and possibly take a break around 10:30; is that okay? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, that's fine. Thank you. MS. WALDRON: The investigator has just told me that they would like to work out a stipulation agreement, so if we could bring Page 37 ,.'''''-' ,"~~---- . , _ ~.""_ u_ - . III V ._._,._-_.,-"~- April 23, 2009 this one back? 1611 85 ,~ CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to amend the agenda. And we can put that at the very end of hearings? MS. WALDRON: That would be good. MR. KELLY: To the end of hearings. MR. DEAN: I'll 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 nay? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Okay, we're going to move on to number four, BCC versus Ivan and Marjorie Bloom and Charles T. Kennedy, CEB No. CESD20080011995. Sir? What we're going to do is you agreed to try to work out the stipulated agreement, correct? No entiendo? Can you translate for him, what we just did? Well, what we did .is -- can you translate for me? Very good. He agreed to try to work out the agreement. So what we did is we pushed his case to the end of the hearings, this section here. So we're not going to hear him right now. You're going to go out with the investigator and try to work on an agreement. MR. BARERRA: My name is Juan Barerra (phonetic.) Page 38 --".,',..~..,.~._._- . - ..-- - ....- --.". "'^ April 23, 2009 I looked at the project or at the structure and-- 16 I 1 B5 THE COURT REPORTER: I haven't sworn him in. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This isn't -- MR. LARSEN: Is that Jose Rodriguez? MR. BARERRA: This is Jose Rodriguez. MR. LARSEN: Okay. We were just informed by the county that Mr. Rodriguez wanted additional time to speak with the officer and to work something out, rather than going to a hearing right now; is that correct? MR. BARERRA: Okay. Or we can go into the hearing. We have a solution for the problem, that's the only thing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, why don't you go work it out with the investigator. It'd be much quicker. Then you can come back. At the beginning, if you saw, that people came and stipulated, they agreed to certain terms. That's what we're going to have you do. And then you can come back after the hearings are all heard, okay? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You need to stay -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go out with the investigator in the hallway -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- until the end. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and then work it out and you can come back to us. MR. LARSEN: Recall the case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, again, we're going to go to BCC versus Ivan and Marjorie Bloom and Charles T. Kennedy, CEB No. CESD20080011995. Are you the investigator for the last case, too? MR. MUSSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. All right, is this going to be -- THE COURT REPORTER: Let me just swear you in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 39 --"~ ~"'.- .l "a -.-"_...,,-~~,....- tgi~212fr CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can just sit down, we'll be 5 with you in a minute. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06 (B)(l)(a); 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e); and 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e)(i). Description of violation: Permit No. 86-2172 for a room addition was expired without obtaining all the inspections and certificate of completion. Location/address where violation exists: 660 94th A venue North, Naples, Florida, 34108. Folio No. 6270764002. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Ivan and Marjorie Bloom, Charles T. Kennedy, P.O. Box 12379 Aspen, Colorado, 81612. Date violation first observed: August 12th, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October 21st, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 6th, 2008. Date of reinspect ion: February 17th, 2009. Results of reinspection is that the violation remains. I'd like to now turn it over to Investigator Jonathan Musse. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And just for the record, the respondent is not in the room, correct? MR. MUSSE: No, he's not. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And after this case, you're all set, you don't have any other cases, correct? MR. MUSSE: Well, besides that one. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. So you could work on the agreement. MR. MUSSE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, good, good. MR. MUSSE: For the record, Jonathan Musse, Collier County Page 40 -- .,-~.~..,;~~- ... ,,"'_._..,,,,,,. ""~"","",'''''''__.''''_~~'' ,._.n".' ..---." _,_.~~.__"U_._ April 23, 2009 Code Enforcement. 161185' On August 12th, 2008, observed a single-family home with an unpermitted dwelling unit. Spoke to the tenant who lived in the main house. She stated the unit is being occupied by another tenant. She gave me the number to a Mr. Bob Chapman, a realtor. Attempted to call Mr. Chapman. No answer. Let a message. I then got in contact with Mr. Charles T. Kennedy. I explained to him the violation. He then referred me to Mr. and Mrs. Bloom. Attempted to call. No answer. Left a message. Checked CD Plus on property card and found Permit No. 9200008363 for a storage building which was the original plan for the dwelling unit that was issued on June 22nd, 1992 and expired on December 30th, 1992 without obtaining a certificate of completion. September 26th -- I'm sorry, I do have pictures of the dwelling unit that I would like to submit into evidence. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the exhibit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. 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? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. MUSSE: On September 26th, 2008, met with Mr. Chapman Page 41 __'_"","".'''~^>','''''~"._.;.,..,-__.,.", "Ill *1..1 1:>.... -... _"'~""""""O,__. April 23, 2009 161 ~a5\ at his residence located at 567 101st Avenue North and gave him 11 the copies of the permits and documentation I had for this property in question. Referred him to the building and permitting department to ask him precisely what he needed to do that would bring the property up to code. October 16th, 2008, checked CD Plus, found no permits for the dwelling unit. Sent Notice of Violation certified mail. November 10th, 2008, sent out an e-mail to Alamar Finnegan of building and permitting, requesting a permit meeting with Mr. Bloom and Mr. Chapman. December 18th, 2008, permit meeting was held at the main office. I came to the conclusion that a dwelling unit was not permissible due to the fact that this property was just over 1,700 square feet. And in order to have a dwelling unit, you would need at least 2,400 square feet. The only option was to convert the dwelling back to its original plan and get it permitted for a storage building. January 21st, 2009: Received a call from Mr. Chapman. He stated that he's hired a contractor and is in the process of obtaining the permit for the storage building. February 17th, 2009: Had a second permit meeting with Mr. Chapman and Rodney Moulder, the contractor of Royal Construction, and the permitting staff. Went over again the details of the case and explained to Mr. Moulder what he needed to do to reapply for the storage building. February 18th, 2009: Prepared the case to appear before the Code Enforcement Board. April 18th -- April 8th, 2009: Posted notice of hearing on property and in courthouse, and spoke with Mr. Chapman, which is the realtor. He stated that they're just so close to getting the permit by affidavit for the storage building. So it should be done -- I think he Page 42 ........--..,.",,'...-,,- "II ~ - "",., ._-',_.'--- ~ --..........."',.,-- ~",..~_._.- April 23, 2009 1611~5 \ requested like 60 days. ." MR. L'ESPERANCE: When you say get a permit for the storage building, do you mean to convert it to a dwelling or -- MR. MUSSE: No. MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- keep it as a porch? MR. MUSSE: To convert it back to a dwelling unit. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. MUSSE: Or I'm sorry, to a storage building. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there anybody there now living in there? MR. MUSSE: He says no, but if you see the pictures, there's a bunch of clothes everywhere. MR. LARSEN: Am I correct in assuming that Mr. Chapman is the realtor? MR. MUSSE: He's the realtor, yeah. He's actually very helpful. He helped me a lot with the case. MR. LARSEN: But you've had previous discussions with Charles Kennedy? MR. MUSSE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: And what was Mr. Kennedy's position? MR. MUSSE: He referred me to Mr. Bloom. And I've spoken to Mr. Bloom once. And Mr. Bloom just said speak to Mr. Chapman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Who's Mr. Bloom? MR. MUSSE: He's the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. MR. LARSEN: All right. No other questions. MR. KELLY: Investigator, do you know if this is in lis pendens or foreclosure? MR. MUSSE: No, it's not. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. Page 43 ~_._- April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?16 I 1 1B~ (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. Recommendation? MR. MUSSE: Respondent is to pay operational costs in the amount of $87.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case, and obtain a Collier County building permit for any constructions, addition or remodeling, and obtaining all inspections and certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or fine of "X" amount of dollars will be imposed until violation's abated. Or obtaining a Collier County demolition permit to remove this illegal construction addition. Remodel to include inspections and certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" amount of dollars per day will be imposed until violation's abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. All costs of abatement will be assessed to the property owner. Page 44 "'.-.> -,,,,"--,;, , .----- 16r~ 21' 2f09 B 5 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The permit that you state here in the description of violation, was it for a room addition or for storage? MR. MUSSE: It was for -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It says for a room addition. MR. MUSSE: It was for the -- well, when I issued the permit, I was under the assumption it was a room addition, which it was, because it was an added storage building at one point. But he converted it to a dwelling unit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anyone want to -- MR. KAUFMAN: Let me take a stab at it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Operational costs of$87. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And 29 cents. MR. KAUFMAN: And 29 cents. Sixty days to abate the violation, and $200 a day after that. Sixty days. MR. KELLY: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it's 60 and 60? MR. KAUFMAN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a second. Any further discussion? (N 0 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 45 ^~-- . ". 't f7R. .. , "~-=.,. ...._,..<~- April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank ~p. , 1 . B S MR. KELLY: Break time. MR. KAUFMAN: Break time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Take a 10-minute break. Nice and clean, from 10:20 to 10:30. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to call CEB metting back to order. Next case is BCC versus Kenneth C. Hill and Elizabeth J. Lefebvre Hill. And just for the record, there is no relation, even though there's not too many of us down here. But there's no relation. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I should ask how she pronounces it, that will tell if there's any relationship. Because we all pronounce it differently. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: Lefebvre. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: See, no relationship. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No. 2007100809, violation of Ordinance 2004-41, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a); 10.02.06(B)(I)(e); and 10.02.06 (B)(I)(e)(i), Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Section 105.1. The description of the violation: Unpermitted additions made to existing permitted carport in an unpermitted storage shed. Unpermitted electrical in the storage shed. Location/address where violation exists: 1392 Henderson Creek Drive, Naples, Florida, 34114. Folio No. 00725200004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Kenneth C. Hill and Elizabeth J. Lefebvre-Hill, residing at 5806 Tollman Terrace, Madison, Wisconsin, 53711. Date violation first observed: October 24th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: Page 46 w., --.,,"-,-.,""'''-'''''.-''''''. "'__''''W_'''_~_'''''''''''_ )ij, ',. l IT 17 . .,.~~ April 23, 2009 November 5th, 2007. 1 6 lIB 5 ': Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 27th, 2007. Date of reinspection: December 3rd, 2008. Results of the reinspection is that the violation remains. I would now like to present Investigator Azure Sorrels. MR. OSSORIO: Good morning. For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. 2007100809, dealing with the violations of unpermitted additions made to the existing permitted carport and unpermitted storage shed with electrical, located at 1392 Henderson Creek Drive, Folio No. 00725200004. Proof of service date was for November 5th, 2007. And I would like to present Exhibit B, which would be seven photos. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the exhibit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? MR. LARSEN: Have they seen it? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you seen the photos that she's going to present? MS. SORRELS: In the past, but not this morning. I can -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could, please. MS. SORRELS: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make a note on the record that they were shown to the respondents. Thank you. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those if favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 47 H. '_._p'~_~"", - . -,....-..... ...... _("1 _.~".~.--. ., April 23, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Aye. 1611R5\ MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. SORRELS: Sorry about that, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No problem. MS. SORRELS: I'll show you the pictures first and -- to kind of explain what we're looking at here. But on the 24 -- yeah, the 24th of July, I had made a site visit to address a complaint about rental units. And while I was on the property, I had observed what we're going to look at right now. This is a carport that was permitted back in 1993, and it was for the measurements of 30 by 31. On the north end of the carport, this is an addition that has been obviously added onto. And then the next, please. And in the back of that addition you just saw was another addition. And that is actually completely enclosed. And the door that you would access that from would be inside the first addition. On the south end of the carport is another addition. And as you can see, it's completely enclosed with a door. And here is a standalone shed that is also located south of the carport and the additions that's on the property. The next two photos are aerial shots from GIS. This one is for 2008, showing you what's existing there as of right now. Right here is the standalone shed. What she's pointing at is the standalone shed. And that -- like I said, this is a photo of what's there at this present time. And the next aerial is going to be from 1995. And it's not as Page 48 ->.~",..~--~- _ "P"'""' -. . -,._..._._--,."._-,--~.~",.,... ~ ..... ~,~....'n._~ April 23, 2009 clear. But you can kind of see a structure of some kind sitt![> I 1 85 approximately in the same location back in 1985. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Which property are we looking at? Could you point it out? MS. SORRELS: Oh, sorry. This one right here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. SORRELS: And this -- you'll understand why I presented these two aerials here in a second. Upon research, as I had mentioned, we found a '93 permit for the big carport. I could not find any permits for the additions or any of the electrical. This property had a lot of other things, so I did a lot of research on it. And we had found permits all the way back to 1962. Unfortunately none of those permits are for the standalone shed. I do believe Mrs. Hill is going to state that, you know, from her understanding the standalone shed has been there for quite some time. In '75 I also -- I didn't bring in the photo, but in '75 there's an aerial and it appears that there could very well be a shed in that same location. However, it's very blurry and not clear enough. Back in '68 the property was zoned -- well, let me stop here, I'm kind of getting out of order here. Sorry. The additions that are to the carport, Mrs. Hill has already hired a contractor, she's willing to fix all the additions to meet the Land Development Code and have them permitted. Basically the reason why she wanted to have the hearing today is she would like to keep the standalone shed. I have served the Notice of Violation stating that it needed to be permitted, because I could not find any permit. So we told her her best venue was to come here and let you guys hear and make a decision on the standalone shed. She's been very cooperative. There's -- like I said, there was many other issues on this property. She has done everything we have Page 49 -,"'-~~ ~ 'l' _W'f 1II_'i1lW"ll"~ '___'._,,~~,,"m_"" ...u --""._-,_.- April 23, 2009 asked her to do. 1611135 1 And again, like I said, she has a permit that was issued back in March of 2009 for the additions to the carport. They have two rejections on them, which I have informed Jim of today, and he's going to -- and Jim being the contractor that she's hired -- and he is going to address those rejections to get the permit issued for that. So back to the standalone shed. In '68 the property was zoned R-4, and the setbacks at that time were seven and a half feet. Through other research, our setbacks -- excuse me, that's from the side property line. In other research, we have found that our setbacks from side property lines have never been less than five feet. They had a survey conducted in February of 2009, and the survey shows that it's 2.8 feet -- the standalone shed is 2.8 feet from the property line. Therefore, that's probably why we did not find a permit, because it would never have been permitted with that setback. And that's where we're at today. We've had several meetings. We've been in communication. And, you know, she would like you guys to make a determination on that. So that's really all I have for you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The large structure towards the bottom of the picture, is that the 30 by 31 carport? Where's the carport? MS. SORRELS: On that photo, it would not be there, because that carport was not put in until '93. That's an '85 aerial. And I actually tried to pull up those, but they go by 10-year intervals. So it was '85 to '95 and then that was it. So all you see in '95 is the big carport with the additions. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: Good morning. Azure's already supplied so much information it's -- I'd better shorten mine up a little bit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you just state your name for the Page 50 "..,," . Ii, ~",-"'~~ .'""."m'.__""'__;'_._"_........~''','',.. April 23, 20tL record, please. 161 I 85 - MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: Betty -- Elizabeth Lefebvre-Hill. I appreciate the opportunity to present my case. We purchased this property in May of 2005, did an enormous amount of cleanup on the property. It used to look like a junkyard when we started, now it's cleaned up and well kept. And we've been very excellent and welcome neighbors. Unfortunately, though, we inherited this zoning difficulty. As Azure has mentioned, we've been very cooperative thus far doing much of what was required, in addition to removing two travel trailers -- or excuse me, two trailers that cost us an income of approximately 1,000 month. Financially it's been a very, very difficult process for us. We applied last year for a demolition permit for my husband Ken and I to remove the two unpermitted storage sheds that were built on the property, added on to the carport. We didn't argue the fact. Our demolition request was denied because we weren't general contractors and we didn't live on the property. It would have cost us about $500 to have the materials hauled away, but that probably would have been too quick and easy of a solution and financially manageable for us, so we were told no exceptions to that. So we started getting our estimates, realized we didn't have the funds at that time, and so that's been the reason for our delay. And now we finally have some funds to take care of it. Hired Jim here, and he's been doing a great job pursuing getting what needs to be done. As Azure mentioned, we had the paperwork in, but twice the permit has been rejected. So we're asking the board to grandfather in the standalone shed on the property. As I mentioned earlier in my letter at the last hearing, it's an old metal shed/storage building that was there before the permitting Page 51 .'"^- ........ .'" , ,-," -~.,."..,,_.~""'-,,"~"._~.- . ~.. . -',,,,""-- April 23, 2009 process was even formalized in Collier County. 1611 85 1 I have signed letters -- and I apologize I didn't get them to you five days ahead, but I have signed letters from two old timers that have been in that area for some time. And they both have signed and dated to the effect that that shed's been there since at least since the 1960s. So I am asking you to rule that you -- rule to grandfather in that standalone storage building, given the evidence or lack thereof by the county and taking into account these signed statements. And we're certainly willing to bring the electric up to code on that storage building, or remove it. This whole ordeal has been very, very difficult with the negative cash flow, the repairs and the zoning requirements. It's getting more and more expensive for us. Recently with this back permitting issue on the two additions, it's getting more complex, becoming exorbitant for us in terms of finances. So I'm asking the question, is it possible not only to ask to grandfather in the standalone shed but also these two additions? And I'll let Jim tell you a little bit more about what's been going on there and the difficulty and our increasing costs. My flights down here. What I think we could have resolved at $500 has become just enormous and ridiculous. MR. LARSEN: Have you shown those letters to the county? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately I don't think this is the venue to grandfather something in. MR. LARSEN: Why don't you show the letters to the county. MR. KELLY: I'm willing to stipulate that the letters exist, as it's part of her testimony. MR. LARSEN: I'd like to see them. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: I did mention that I had them in hand. I didn't specifically show them to her. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think the Chairman has a good point, Page 52 .'~-' _. .,~..~ ~"--'-''''''''.'~'''-'' . ~--,-"-- -..... April 23, ~O5 though. If this is any type of a zoning issue, then I don't t~ltht is our bailiwick. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. I mean, the testimony is that it's not within the boundary survey. It's encroaching. We're not -- we cannot tell you to keep that there if it's encroaching. We're not a variance committee. So -- and that -- I think you're at wrong venue if you're looking for approval to keep it with the current -- that would be a variance committee. Go ahead. MR. KELLY: This may be a discussion amongst the board, but respectfully I disagree. I believe that we do have the authority to decide whether a violation exists or does not. The testimony of an investigator -- no offense, Azure -- is not the zoning department. There's no letter, there's no surveys showing me that two and a half feet is accurate. No offense again. But so far I've not been shown enough testimony to say that that particular shed is in violation. MS. SORRELS: Mr. Kelly, if I could answer just that. I do have a survey, a copy of it that I can show you that the 2.8 feet is there. And I can also show you the '65 zoning regulations that would show that would be seven and a half feet for setback lines. MR. KELLY: Well, I apologize for my rant. And I'd like to admit that into evidence. If that's okay, I'll make a motion to admit. That will help just prove a point then. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can we all second that? MR. LARSEN: Ms. Waldron, can you put the letters up, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we have to accept that as -- MR. LARSEN: Well, you just said it was part of her testimony. MR. KELLY: Well, which one is this? Is this the -- MR. MOYER: The letters. MS. SORRELS: The letters. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to accept that? MR. LARSEN: Would you like to put that into evidence, please? Page 53 "I~ ~ -. '<T_ -rT ~_.m_.'_~_~ April 23, 2009 16 , 1 85 ....,1 MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: Yes, please. t-. . MR. LARSEN: Okay, do you have any objection? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move we accept the evidence. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any 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 first thing that I'll put on the screen will be the survey that was given to me by the contractor Jim, and it was dated February 23rd, 2009. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Well, we're looking at the letters first. MS. SORRELS: Oh, sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has everyone read that? MR. LARSEN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need to have this entered as evidence? MR. KELL Y:Unless it was marked for original -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to enter this as evidence? MS. SORRELS: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has the respondents -- have they Page 54 "~~""- . 1 11 T'1 -,,,,,"'..'--'~-'.""'"""'''''''''='._' ~ - ..~"""'~-'.""- April 23, 2009 seen it? 161185 - MS. SORRELS: I'm assuming so. This is the same survey that was provided to them from the contractor Jim. So I believe she has a copy as well. .CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that correct? MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. We'd like to have a motion. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any 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. KELLY: This is a much better view than those aerials. MR. LARSEN: So Jim, what are we looking at? MR. MOYER: What we're looking at here in this lower section is the building that she is talking about. The standalone shed is right here. It's 21 by 8 feet. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Moyer, excuse me, could you speak on the microphone. MR. KAUFMAN: Could you give us your name and the Page 55 ~--- '<.-._' _._^._~, . -...... _....._,~'".._~ April 23, 2009 1611 85 ~ company that you represent? MR. MOYER: My name is Jim Moyer. I represent Florida Built-Rite. What we're looking at here is this is the standalone shed that's used strictly for storage. It does have electric to it. They could either be brought to code or eliminated. That's a pretty easy situation. These two -- this building here is an attachment to this original building that was permitted. And I am under the belief that the building -- this attachment that we're now permitting was built at the same time, but they just didn't apply for the permit. You can tell by the age of the concrete, the stress on the steel, and it has all deteriorated in the same fashion. So it isn't anything new that has been added. This too is just used for storage. It has an enclosure on this end but it's just strictly storage. There's no one -- no occupants or anybody Ii ving in that storage. MR. KAUFMAN: How close is that corner to the property line? MR. MOYER: This corner here? MR. KAUFMAN: No, on the other side. MR. MOYER: This corner here is -- I think it's 4. -- 4.7 is this corner right here. From this property line to this corner is 4.7. What we are doing now is -- in the permitting process is what we've done is we've hired Cronin Engineering to establish that the buildings will meet wind load and the current code now. If we are unable to permit this little section here, we will remove it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further testimony? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. Maybe I'm missing something. But ordinarily on a title search, don't they show on title searches any encroachments on property on that survey? MS. SORRELS: That I could not speak for. I do not know. Page 56 o_,__.~ " Ilo.-~_ --",~,..- -,' ""'''^''~>~''''''>-''~'''''''.'''''~''-'' ~_'T"'If'"'l .....'.,...,-""...~._.,.-..- April 23, 2009 MR. DEAN: Absolutely. 1611 85 MR. LARSEN: Jim, this building, the large building with the unpermitted extension, can you estimate the age of that? MR. MOYER: They have said that it was permitted in '95. It looks like it's older than that to me. MR. LARSEN: All right. And the small standalone shed, could you estimate whether or not that exceeded, you know, construction in the 1980s? MR. MOYER: In my estimation this standalone shed has been there a lot longer than this building that was permitted. MR. LARSEN: Okay. What's the -- what construction materials were used in that standalone shed? MR. MOYER: It's a metal corrugated shed, metal roof. Metal corrugated shed. MR. LARSEN: Is it on a concrete slab? MR. MOYER: I believe it is. Is it on concrete -- no, it's not. It's not. These are on concrete slabs, this is not. This is just on a dirt floor. MR. LARSEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman, are you all set with your questions? MR. KAUFMAN:Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other further discussion, questions from the board? MR. LARSEN: Well, I mean, discussions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Questions. MR. LARSEN: Well, I have some discussion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, go ahead. MR. LARSEN: I guess the question is whether or not the code requiring permits required that small standalone shed to have a permit prior to construction. Now, you're saying in that standalone shed there Page 57 ,~-" ... ., -~,----,-,_." April 23, 2009 is electrical? 16 I IBl5 I MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: All right. So my question to the county is, if it was actually built in the 1960's, would it have required at any point prior to or after construction of that standalone shed a permit? MS. SORRELS: Gentlemen, if you let me present 1965 zoning regulations, that will answer both yours and Mr. Kelly's questions. MR. LARSEN: Okay. MS. SORRELS: Would you like me to read it and then present it on the thing, or would you like me just to put it down there and let you guys read it? MR. LARSEN: Why don't you put it down on the ELMO and then we'll -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, it might be good to read it into the record. MR. LARSEN: Yeah, but she could put it down so we can read along with her. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. SORRELS: Okay, I will try to do that. Let me get the microphone from him so I can stand over there. The first sheet you're going to see is the actual cover of the 1965 coding zone -- county zone regulations. The next page that you're going to see is R-4-A, which is circled on the paper, use regulations. This is indicating what the uses on the property can be in 1965. I just wanted to show you that that was the section for that . zonIng. And then the next page would be C, which is the area regulations. Minimum lot size shall be 4,000 square feet. Number two that is circled it says, minimum lot width at building line shall be 40 feet with front yard of 25 feet and a minimum size yard of seven and a half feet. Rear yard must be sufficient to take care of septic tank and Page 58 "'.-"'-'-~--' ,""""-"_Y<--,, , ",. n .="~^,..,,._" April 23, 2009 16 , 1 85 ~. ~ drain field. And I do believe if you go down -- give me a second to scan. On this page it's number seven. It states -- can you see it -- a permit shall be required for installing mobile and/or trailer home and for the construction of any structure thereto. Said permit shall be obtained by county authorities who shall be authorized to receive a fee for the issuance of said permit. The county shall have the authority to revoke or refuse -- to issue a permit to any mobile home trailer that's -- or attached structure. But I guess what I wanted to point out is that it does say the construction of any structure. Does that answer your question? MR. LARSEN: Well, it says any structure per tenant thereto. Is this a mobile or a trailer home? MS. SORRELS: No. Correct, it's not attached to that, no. MR. LARSEN: But is the main structure on the property a mobile home or a trailer home? MS. SORRELS: There was at one time. MR. L'ESPERANCE: But these appurtenances aren't attached to a mobile or a trailer is what he's saying; is that correct? MS. SORRELS: No, they were not attached, no. MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's the intent of this paragraph. MS. SORRELS: Okay, understood. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I feel it is. MR. LARSEN: Right. But the main house, is it a mobile home or a trailer home? MS. SORRELS: No, the main house is not. Gentlemen, I'm sorry, I'm just trying to scan through here to make sure that I can't answer your question further. MR. LARSEN: Well, look at number lOon the area regulations. Could you move that up a bit. MS. SORRELS: This one? Minimum lot size for single-family Page 59 ~.".,,'" ..."" -_.~.,.., ,-~".~" .' ._.~-..,-,.. t . ~_".__A._'~_ April 23, 2009 residence for the minimum building size living area. 16 lIB 5 MR. LARSEN: So the setbacks apply whether or not it's a mobile home or not. MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. LARSEN: Same setback. And your contention is on a survey it shows the storage shed to be 2. whatever feet from the property line. MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. MOYER: If I could add something. How I see that when I read -- and maybe you could tell me if I'm wrong. We were reading for mobile homes and anything attached to the mobile homes had to be seven and a half feet from the property line. This is a standalone shed that's not attached to anything. MR. LARSEN: Well, my understanding of the word appurtenant is something that is in conjunction with or on the property associated with the other mobile home or trailer home. Does not necessarily have to be attached. Maybe the counsel for the board has a different interpretation but, you know, I question the applicability. Because that was for mobile or trailer homes and it's not a mobile or trailer home. But the area regulations with the setback don't seem to pertain just to mobile or tenant homes, because they talk about a family residence. And that was the -- what I was trying to key in on on number 10 where it said for single-family residence, which would be in the same article or chapter. MR. MOYER: Right. And how I'm familiar with commercial or more than residential property is that there are some situations, and I don't know whether this is the situation, you can build right to the property line on commercial property. MR. LARSEN: On commercial property, I agree with you. MR. MOYER: This is a -- the residence is a four-plex is what it . IS now. Page 60 .,,,._...~..,,.,~,_., . "''''---'-_''''''~~"".,.,.",~ '-''"~'----- April 23, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Was it always a four-plex? 16flB5 MR. MOYER: Originally I think it was built as a shelling house, converted to a four-plex. MS. SORRELS: To clarify that, a '62 permit was issued for an oyster house. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you're looking correctly at the issues. It appears that the principal structure is a house. And the question is whether or not the 7.5 setback applies to an accessory use. And it appears to me that the language is unclear. Ms. Sorrels put up the R-4 standards, and there's also a reference to the R-1 standard, I don't know that you've seen that, as to the main residence. And frankly, I don't recall whether or not it said attached appurtenant, you know, attached to the trailer or mobile home without her putting it back up. But again, I think the issue that you're identifi -- you seem to be identified as the accessory use in setback. MS. SORRELS: Can I make a clarification on something? I think the confusion came into play when I had read that the county would require a building permit. And it was into the statement stating that it was in conjunction with a travel trailer. Set that aside, okay. So as right now I'll say that I don't have in front of me any proof saying that it would need a permit in that time frame in 1965. But the setbacks -- again, I'm holding it up and I'll put it back on the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're not looking at setbacks. That's not the case. MS. SORRELS: But I think the setbacks were -- my understanding, you guys are questioning the setbacks as they are connection -- if the shed was being in connection to a travel trailer. And that would not matter in 1965. Because the use regulations on this, any use permitted in R - 3 Page 61 -~~'"' "".~""..,- .-., ,,"~,., ,', ....,.. ","._~"...' -,-~._.._-- April 23, 2009 district, the installation of mobile home and travel trailers 106 lIB 5 ! residential use, adjacent structures are to be limited to those which complement trailer and must exceed 25 of the lot area. Cotnmercial trailer parks, horticulture nurseries, tourist camps, motels, fish houses and marinas. The very next section is going into the minimum lot line. Lot width at building line shall be 40 feet with front yard of 25 feet and a minimum side yard of seven and a half feet. So if the shed was put there in '65 with, let's just say the oyster house, it would have to meet the seven and a half setback lines. Because that is an approved use for that property . MR. LARSEN: Right, I understood that. I'm just -- you know, I'm trying to match it up with the violation that they were noticed on, which was basically an unpermitted addition made to an existing permitted carport and an unpermitted storage shed. Unpermitted electrical and storage shed. So the question now is in regard to the storage shed whether or not a permit was required. Now, in regard to the violation, that's all we have to go on. It says unpermitted. It doesn't say unpermitted for setback, it doesn't say unpermitted for, you know, uses of storage shed or for construction. And, you know, it's unfortunate in that regard, because basically they may have intent to say that you can construct it without a permit. Now they have a full back argument which is that basically it's too close to the property line. And they've shown us evidence that back in 1965 there was at least some requirement that it be set back from the side of, what is it, seven and a half feet? MS. SORRELS: Correct, sir. MR. LARSEN: Seven and a half feet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's not what we're looking at here. We're not looking at setback here. We're looking at strictly is it permitted or unpermitted. Page 62 ,--... '" --.>..""....._,.._""..........."-,"."'..'.0_ ...------ April 23, 2009 - MS. SORRELS: Understood. And can I make a c~JnW that? With the regulations being written for 1965, the only way for us to ensure that the regulations were being followed would be that a permit would be required for inspection. So with that being said, it would need a permit. That would be the only way we would be able to verify that those regulations from 1965 were being followed. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: And may I make a statement at this time? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: I just wanted to say, when I had asked Azure about when historically did the permitting begin to be something that was required in the county and pretty formalized, and she responded she thought about the 1960's. So when I approached these two people that had been there for a long time and took me a long time to find them, I really just asked them to make a statement from the Sixties. My belief is it was there even longer than that. So I just went to the Sixties for that purpose. And I could certainly go back to them and ask them how far prior to that time they thought it was there. But I think it's been there a long time. I think the house was built in the Forties. So I just think it was there before the -- before a lot of the permitting requirements were necessary. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, Mr. Kaufman. MR. KAUFMAN: My question is along the lines that you just mentioned. If this was built before '65, then the '65 regulations that you have here, they probably don't come to play. Do we have any idea what regulations existed before 1965? MS. SORRELS: The zoning regulations that I have found go back to '65 is the most complete zoning regulations that I have found. If there's others out there, I'm not aware of them. Page 63 -.. __...___....'i 16Ar123, 205 1 I have researched everything that's been available to me, anJ3tlie only difference in setbacks were very minimal. And in 1975 the side setbacks only went down to five feet. That I do not have with me, but that was the only difference that was in the setbacks from that time until now. MR. KAUFMAN: So then it is possible that if this was built in 1950, for instance, there were no rules at that time on where this structure could be located. And do we know when the main structure was built? MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: From an insurance document I looked at recently, it was in the Forties. MS. SORRELS: Understood. We have --like I said, I've done extensive research on this property, and I have a permit from '62 showing an oyster house. Do I have anything prior to that? No, I do not. But I can only also talk about what I can prove. And an aerial is -- I have an aerial showing that there was some kind of structure at least on the property in the same general area back in 1975. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion from the board? Questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have to separate now that storage building from the other parts -- the other buildings that need to be permitted and completed? MR. MOYER: Right now we are not even addressing the standalone storage shed as permitting. We're not addressing that as in the permit process. MR. KAUFMAN: No, but as far as this complaint is concerned from the county's perspective, is this two items or is this one item? MS. SORRELS: It's going to be one item. They're both accessory structures that are not permitted. The distance that sets between that structure and the other structures on the property, those setbacks are fine. So it would -- as for Page 64 n^"'.__..'_ - . "'_.-...,;,._,.-^',-,,,..~ ~'W_."~'__".._ April 23, 2009 being too close to another structure, it would not be a pr!b~l. tIs ~s~ " the property line is what's prohibiting them to obtaining a permit to today's standards or even to the standards of 1965. MR. KAUFMAN: So if we were to find that that structure that's in question now was built in the Forties and there were no permits at that time, et cetera, what would that do to the other buildings as far as this particular case is concerned? MS. SORRELS: It would -- we would pursue the other building. Because the other building is clearly put in place in '93 with a permit and the additions were done either at the same time, shortly after the construction of the carport. So we would still pursue that. MR. KAUFMAN: So then taking that further, an existing -- the existing buildings, excluding that, I guess everybody is in agreement that there is work to be done and they need to be permitted. So from that perspective, you have to find that a violation does exist. And I'd like to make that as a motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Further discussion. I just want to make it clear, these are not residential buildings, these are storage buildings? MS. SORRELS: That is correct, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, Mr. Kelly. Go ahead. MR. KELLY: My discussion would be if that standalone storage building -- if we felt that that was not in violation, how do you separate the two out on this particular case? MS. SORRELS: We would continue -- the case would remain open until the other violations were abated with being permitted or removed. And that would just be noted on the case that the ruling of the Code Enforcement Board was of this. And that would basically say the violation according to your rule is there or is allowed to stay or you don't see it as a violation or whatever. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman, could you restate your motion? Page 65 "'" --_._,,-- April 23, 2009 MR. KAUFMAN: I find that being the other bUilln~s 'arlin'B 5 violation, that we find it in violation. And then I guess when we get to the point of what are the remedies, I guess maybe then at that point you can separate it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I think you need to separate it now. Because is it in violation or not? What is in violation, what is not? So that has to be separated. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, the whole scope of the complaint shows several different things. If one of those things is in violation, then you have to find that it's in violation, I would think. Otherwise, if you find it's not in violation, everything is removed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think what the investigator was just saying is that let's say you make a motion that the storage said is not in violation, but everything else is in violation, they would work to remedy the other items that are in violation, but not the structure. MR. KAUFMAN: That would be fine. I would modify my motion to that effect. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So there is not a violation in regards to the unpermitted electrical and storage shed and the unpermitted storage shed, but there is a violation regarding the permitted carport. MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: With the addition. Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, and that's correct, we can proceed that way and either find no violation or dismiss the charges as to the storage shed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. LARSEN: Yes, I'd like to have some further discussion. Are you saying that the electrical as well in the storage shed is fine and that basically anything to do with the storage shed? Because I don't think there any testimony about the age or the quality of the Page 66 ^~-, -.""'" -,~'..."<<~_...- tt;i]2! 2009 t4 electrical or whether or not that required a permit. And that I'm a l~~ concerned about. I understand not finding the storage shed, but in regard to the electrical in the storage -- because I read this as being unpermitted additions made to an existing permitted carport; second, an unpermitted storage shed; and third, an unpermitted electrical in the storage shed. So I just want a clarification on the motion. Does that include or does not include finding a violation as to the electrical in the storage shed? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, further discussion. If the shed required no permitting, say it was built in 1949, anything that was done in there didn't require a permit. So how do you now -- I would assume that that would be grandfathered then. MR. LARSEN: Unless they added the electrical at a later time. MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. I don't know that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The contractor stated that it wouldn't be a problem to disconnect the power to the shed, correct? MR. MOYER: That is correct. The power into the shed looks to be -- it appears to be to code. It appears to be in excellent condition, that there's no harm or safety issue there. But if it's the board's wishes that we disconnect the power, we would do that. MR. LARSEN: Or get a permit for it within the time permitted by the board. MR. LA VINSKI: Yeah, I would agree that the electrical is a separate issue, and especially in a metal building, it makes me a little more nervous, that that ought to be dealt with, either permitted or removed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The first would have to be amended to include that. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That the shed is permitted, but the Page 67 .,",~,.'."~ ];.41&. ..... .... .----"-.-_.~_....-."._---"...>_.._-"'"-".,~....~ ~..._.._"...,"..".-." April 23, 2009 - unpermitted electrical in the shed has to be brought up 10 ~o~e~r B 5 removed. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LARSEN: That there's a violation with regard to the existing carport. There's no violation in regard to permitting of the storage shed but there is a violation as to permitting of the electrical in the storage shed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Amended first, do I hear an amended on the second? MR. KELLY: Amended second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, any further discussion? Lionel? MR. L'ESPERANCE: None. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a vote in favor? 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. MOYER: Thank you. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Recommendation. MS. SORRELS: I want to first make sure I understand what you guys just did. Weare claiming that there is a violation to the additions Page 68 T_"~'"__""~ ._-_..'...._~- ._..,~.."h.._"_ April 23, 2009 of the carport, correct? 1611135 1 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MS. SORRELS: We are saying that the standalone shed it is not a violation, correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MS. SORRELS: We are questioning the electrical that is going to the storage shed, correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MS. SORRELS: Okay. Before I proceed with a recommendation, I need to present something to you. I'm not a permitting technician, but I want to make you aware that there is a possibility if you ask them to permit the electrical to that storage shed, that it might be declined because the permitting department's going to question why the electrical going to that shed is not permitted. MR. KELLY: I don't think it's an issue. They'll just have it removed then. MS. SORRELS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that was at least brought to your attention that there is that possibility that if you had asked them for electrical permitting that it could very well be declined. MR. KELLY: That's a very good point. Thanks for bringing that. That is a good point. MS. SORRELS: All right. Now, with the little altercations (sic) of what you guys ruled on, I've got to adjust my recommendation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I kinda figured that. MS. SORRELS: First we'll start out with of course the operational cost of $87.29 paid within 30 days of this case -- or excuse me, I should say 30 days of this hearing. I apologize. The respondents are to obtain all required building permits, inspections and certificate of completion within whatever you guys rule on days and the fine. And that will be for the unpermitted additions to the existing carport -- permitted carport. Page 69 , -"._""'~-' . April 23, 2009 1611 J ~ Is that all agreed? Okay. 185 They will have whatever time frame you guys issue. The fine ;. will be imposed for each day the violation remains after that time. Obtain -- the respondents also have the opportunity to obtain a demo permit, demolish unpermitted structures and obtain all required -- and let me go back and say unpermitted additions to carport. Because we're not going to require them to do anything with the standalone shed, correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Except for the electrical. MS. SORRELS: Except for the electrical, okay. So do you want me to go back to the first one then and put in electrical permit? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. SORRELS: Okay, back to number one, obtain building permits, inspections and certificate of completion for all unpermitted additions to carport, and obtain if possible an electrical permit with inspections and certificate of completion for the electrical going to the standalone shed within so many days and the fine that you guys have issued. Back to -- MR. LARSEN: Or remove same. MS. SORRELS: Correct. And that would be number two option would be to obtain a demo permit -- demo the unpermitted addition structures and obtain a demo permit for removing of the electrical that's existing to the standalone shed. MR. MOYER: You won't need a demo permit to remove the electrical. They won't require that. MS. SORRELS: I can't speak for that. I know in past cases it has been to ensure that the electricity is capped off properly to wherever it leads to. MR. MOYER: Okay, well, that's fine. We'll leave it like that then. Page 70 "'.~,_. . It. '"--,.~-..... April 23, 2009 MS. SORRELS: If they don't need a demo pennit~B.tt Jne~ " that's not for me to say. That's the building department. The third part would be the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order and assess all abatement costs incurred by the county . CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you put that up on the screen, please. MR. KELLY: Sir, do you know approximately how long it's going to take you to get all of the setback information, permits and everything taken care of on those additions? MR. MOYER: We have applied for a permit 3/31 of this year. We have ran into several difficulties of issues of -- and it's mainly communication issues. I mean, I get most of my information from Azure, that she seems to be able to have the information quicker than I can get it or receive it. We've -- I can't tell you that. I would like to have it done tomorrow. I don't know that that's feasible. MR. LARSEN: How much time do you think you're going to need? MR. MOYER: I think she would request 90 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that a recommendation, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I was thinking 120, just because these are storage sheds and in case there's any other additional snags. MR. MOYER: You know, I think you're very wise in that decision. Even though that we have went through the permit process, we still have -- we have done this through affidavit by engineering, and we were required to do some work on the premise just to bring Page 71 .'P-'--'-- .. .. '." ,-,-_..__",... 'I" ..,......-.".."" April 23, 2009 them up to the current code. So I appreciate that. 1611185 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How about a fine, per day fine? MR. LARSEN: I was thinking $100 per day. 120 days sounds satisfactory . CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I hear that in a motion, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that a violation exists to the additions to the carports, and electrical service to the standalone shed. The recommendation: The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay $87.29 in operational costs that have been incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: Number one, obtain permit, inspections, certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days or a fine of$100 per day until all -- will be imposed each day the violation remains to the additions to the carport. Number two: Or obtain a demo permit, demolish unpermitted additional structures, and obtain all required inspection and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $1 00 per day will be imposed each day the violation remains. Number three: Permit or remove electrical service to the standalone storage shed within 120 days, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed each day the violation remains. N umber four: Notify -- the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. And all -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Agrees all costs -- MR. KELLY: -- agrees all incurred by this abatement will be charged against the property owner. Page 72 r' .I,' .~,""--'" .-'--''"'--' ... ~,..,_._.- April 23, 2009 ~ 16 I 1 ~5 MS. SORRELS: I apologize for my chicken scratch. It just s , and assess all abatement costs incurred by the county to the property. MR. KELLY: To the property owner. Did you get that, Cherie'? THE COURT REPORTER: I did. MR. DEAN: Yeah, sure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. 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. LEFEBVRE-HILL: Thank you, gentleman, and ladies. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to be moving on to BCC versus Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A. Davis, CEB No. CESD200800 1 0447. And there's one other case, too. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case CESD20080010447. Violation of ordinance Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1, and Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06 (B)(l)(a), and 10.02.06 (B)(l)(ei). Page 73 -,.---, - -,'-'- April 23, 2009 t "I D .. f' I. R.d . I ~ 6 I 1 ~ 5 escnptlon 0 VIO atlon: eSl ence on agncu tura property as been altered, added to, converting structure to a two-story duplex structure with structural plumbing and electrical alterations without obtaining required building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio 00730160003. Name and address of opener/person in charge of violation location: Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A. Davis, residing at 265 Price Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Date violation first observed: April 16th, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: July 17th, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 11th, 2008. Date of reinspect ion: February 26th, 2009. The results of the reinspection is that the violation remains. I would like to now present Investigator Azure Sorrels. MS. SORRELS: For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to CESD200800 1 0447, dealing with the violations of a stilt residential structure that has been altered, added to, converting the structure to a two-story multi-family duplex structure with electrical, structural and plumbing alterations without first obtaining all required building permits, located at 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio No. 00730160003. Proof of service was July 25th, 2008. And I would like to present Exhibit B, with six photographs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have the photos been show to the respondent? MS. SORRELS: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ma'am, you might want to bring the microphone down so we can hear you. Just bend it. That's it. That's fine, it won't break. Page 74 -._..".".,,,,",^,~'...""'-'''''' -;-,._~"'-,.", April 23, 2009 Okay, do I hear a motion? 1611 85 MR. DEAN: Motion we accept the photos. 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. MS. SORRELS: I do apologize again for that, gentlemen. On 4/16/08 I was on the property addressing another complaint about rental units on the property that were not registered as rental units. In addressing this complaint, it evolved into the violations that we're going to be talking about today, which is again the unpermitted alterations/additions to an existing permitted stilt home that is on the property . I met with Mr. Fuller, the husband to Mrs. Fuller. And on my initial visit -- and I explained to him what I -- what violations I had observed. He provided me with some of the history on the property. I would like to say that they had informed me that this property was bought by him and his wife as-is, so this is something not of their doings. He did inform me that the stilt -- or the residential structure that Page 75 '..............' ,..^.x_.. -,-- 16rij2i 20~ 5 was on the property had been put there in approximately 1985 and he had informed me that it was actually moved from another location to that location. Upon research of all the computer programs and the property cards that we have accessible to us, I found an '85 permit for the relocation of the structure. I believe it was moved from Lakeview Drive to Price Street. The permit shows that it's a 994 square foot structure. And the property card indicates that it's a stilt home with piers and wood frame. And actually, can you go ahead and show the picture? I'm sorry. The first picture you're going to see is a distance shot. Sorry for not being able to get a clearer picture. But it's a beautiful piece of property with lots of vegetation. But as you can see, there's two sets of staircases going up to the second floor, and you can see that the bottom floor is completely enclosed. And again, this was a stilt home. The next picture. This is just showing the stairs and then the entryway to the top floor, which was being rented at the time. And this will be the doorway entrance to the bottom floor. And at the time was also being rented. And this is a photo showing two AC units that are providing central air to both floors. Thank you. Being that I found the '85 permit, our permitting is pretty well organized in the Eighties, and I was unable to find any permits indicating that the bottom part of the stilt home had been enclosed, turning it into residential living space. Also, being that the flood zone that they are in, FEMA would not allow livable space on this property. Therefore, permits would not have been issued anyway. I kept Mr. Fuller and his wife up to date as much with the Page 76 ~ .,". ,_,h~_._"" April 23, 2009 progress of the case, the research that we found. 1611 85 Unfortunately this case has caused them a financial hardship and I'll let her explain that. But they pretty much informed me that there would be no way they could abate the violation, whether it's to permit it or remove the unpermitted additions. So that's what I have for you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: My name is Barbara Davis-Fuller. My husband was here this morning, but because we didn't know what time we were going to be called, he needed to get back to work. And I've got all the paperwork here. As to what Ms. Sorrels has said, when we bought the property I left my job and I stayed on the property one year and worked it myself. All these buildings that were there on the property were there. It was an elderly woman and her son. She was confined to a wheelchair. Her son was in a wheelchair/walker. He had a terrible motorcycle accident. Everything that you see on the property was there. I did not enclose -- her husband was a plumber. I don't know when the man passed away. He did all the plumbing on the property. The son lived in a trailer. He wouldn't let us in the trailer to see it prior to buying this piece of property so I had no idea what the inside looked like. The main house -- picture two people incapacitated and the place is a disarray, mess, filthy. They had farm animals on the property. Some we found homes for, some we kept. And, you know, cleaned it. It took a good year to clean it out. What brought about this catastrophe was we had another piece of property in River Wood where we are living now. I had some irate neighbors that lived next door to me and this is what caused and brought Ms. Sorrels out to this property. We live there all year. And the only way we could stay on this property was to rent -- now she, the elderly woman, had all these Page 77 ,..."'.".....,...~,..-. -, "'.'...."~.._~"....,..'.,' . - , . ..,.._,"""-,.."..,",."~,..,,,,,,"""'. "-~'"'...,." April 23, 2009 places rented. Like I said, her son lived in the trailer, she\~! JuJJ 5 couple in the back. Downstairs in the bottom floor was not rented because whoever was there left and the son collected garbage, wheelchairs; it was just loaded with garbage from top to bottom. It took me months to clean it out. Put new peel and stick tile on the floor, cleaned it up, painted, corked, that I could rent it. And that was the only way we could survive there was renting all these little houses plus the trailer. When Ms. Sorrels came out and she said, you know, it's a violation, she got a phone call and this is agricultural, you cannot rent. Told all my tenants, everybody had to get out. I got the papers on July 10th. July 16th we went to the lawyer, Richard Hollander, Miller and Hollander on Shadowlawn Drive. He told me -- we told him what happened. He said immediately take your house off the market in River Wood, because it was up for sale. Immediately take it off the market. I had to give him a $1,500 retainer right then and there. He said and move to River Wood. And everybody has to leave the property . So we informed them that everybody has to leave. So it is in bankruptcy. We were at the lawyers yesterday. And it would have been done yesterday and I would have had a case number, but we had to go through this little counseling thing that's on the telephone in order for them to give you a number. And the girl did not fax it in yesterday. So after sitting at the lawyer for an hour yesterday, he had still not received it. So we have to redo it again. But all the papers are filed. I have all the lawyer papers here. MR. LARSEN: Are you saying that a bankruptcy case was filed? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Foreclosure, bankruptcy, yeah. We've been out of there since July 16th. Whatever the lawyer told us to do, that's what we did. Page 78 ^m~<"""""_ . --. 1IfIi"-"'_'i _.._.- April 23, 2009 .. MS. SORRELS: Can I make a clarification? The ! ~et Je n~ 5 actually in bankruptcy, because it has not been filed with the Clerk of Courts. There's no case, there's nothing saying that there is an open bankruptcy case. As for the foreclosure, there's only a lis pendens at this time. MR. LARSEN: Y Oil understand what the officer said was that basically when she checked -- and when did you check? MS. SORRELS: Yesterday. MR. LARSEN: That as of yesterday there was not a bankruptcy case filed. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: No. MR. LARSEN: So did you file it between when she checked yesterday and this morning? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Well, I have to go there today because I received more papers yesterday. MR. LARSEN: Because what's the situation if there's a bankruptcy case filed on your ability to move forward with this case? MS. SORRELS: I'm going to let Ms. Waldron answer that. This is what her job is. MS. WALDRON: If the bankruptcy is filed and we do have a case, we can't move forward at this time. MR. LARSEN: And that's because there's an automatic stay in the bankruptcy court, right? MS. WALDRON: Right. MR. LARSEN: So how do we confirm whether or not she's in bankruptcy? MS. WALDRON: Well, I believe Ms. Sorrels has talked to the attorney yesterday and said that the hearing was pushed off. So there is not officially a case at this time. So as per our policy, we move forward. MR. LARSEN: All right, you understand what they said? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I've got a question for you. Did you Page 79 . '._N -",~-~._,.._~,_.,."--,"-",.".,...-....._"",,",,,,"--~ fril 23, 2009 II r d h. d I r 16 ) B 5 Ive next oor to t IS property, or 0 you current y Ive next oor to this property? MRS. DA VIS-FULLER: On Price Street? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: No, we owned a home in River Wood Estates. 278 River Wood Estates. And then we bought this property on Price Street, 26 -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 267, correct? MRS. DA VIS-FULLER: 26 -- yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But is your address 265 Price Street? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: It's two pieces of property. It's two and a half acres. And that's -- it's two addresses, but that's -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. That's what I was-- MR. LARSEN: Where is Price Street located? MS. SORRELS: It's off Barefoot Williams Road. It's over in East Naples. Probably to say Eagle Creek, it would be behind Eagle Creek. MR. LARSEN: Behind Eagle Creek. MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Are we hearing this case and the next one -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: -- separately? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, I'd like to make a motion that the violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) Page 80 . '",""....,.._w_.",..".. ,.--- April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? 16 , I 85 ~ 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. Order -- not order. Do you have a recommendation? MS. SORRELS: Yes, sir. The county recommends that the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of $88.14 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. Respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy for described structure/improvements within however many days. The fine will be imposed each day the violation remains after the compliance date's passed. Two would be to -- respondent to demolish said improvements, returning the structure to its original permitted state by obtaining a Collier County demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion. And then the rest would be days and fines. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when a violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order and assess all abatement costs incurred by the county to the property owner. Page 81 ~,._.~- ,~"",,",,_.,.," -_._,,,,,,-- . 16Y3t200S 5 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anyone lIke to take a shot at this? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a stab. Given the fact that the paperwork that you have in front of you hasn't been processed yet, I think that 90 days would certainly give enough time to work whatever is going to happen out. So I'd like to submit 90 days and $200 a day fine after the 90 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. For both of the -- MR. KAUFMAN: For those two fill-in-the-blanks. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: I'll second it. 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. MRS. DA VIS-FULLER: Okay, could you explain to me now? I have to go to the lawyer today after I leave here, so I'm going to get paperwork from -- how does this work? I don't understand. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, actually, the paperwork, you'll receive it probably via mail, correct, after I sign the orders? MS. WALDRON: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Which would be next week. MS. WALDRON: And I think what she's referring to is her bankruptcy, correct? Page 82 0_' ".~^.'_'_'___ '.--,' . .. "...M_.,..'..,....__. "'-,-"- April 23, 2009 MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Right. 16 11'.~B5 '" CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. WALDRON: If you could provide Ms. Sorrels, with your information. MRS. DA VIS-FULLER: Okay. So because yesterday he didn't have this faxed paper from the counseling thing that we did, if he has it today, today's Thursday, say he says to me come in Monday and sign the papers. MR. LARSEN: Okay, what the board has done is it approved the motion by one of its members. And in that motion it said that you have 90 days to get a permit for the use of the premises as it is. If you can't do that within 90 days, then you have the option of going in and getting a permit to demolish it within 90 days. If you don't do either one of those, then what's going to happen is you're going to get fined $200 per day until there's some compliance with the order. But that young lady standing next to you is actually an attorney -- sitting next to you. She's an attorney. And she's going to prepare an order. And that order is going to be signed by the chairman. And then a copy of the order is going to be served on you by mail, okay? So what you've got to do is you've got to bring that down to Mr. Hollander and give it to him. So it's not going to hold up filing your bankruptcy. And he'll know what to do with it from that point. Okay? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Even if we per se go say Monday and sign these papers, when I receive this paper I just hand it to Mr. Hollander? MR. LARSEN: That's correct. And he'll know what to do with it. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Okay. MR. LARSEN: All right, it will be part of your bankruptcy case. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Okay? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, an oral decision has been made Page 83 ~"''''",-''.",,.~...~'_' l_........... ....~'-- -",--_."- April 23, 2009 and I will be placing that in the form of an order wh~~ll1le m~~ . to you. So you do need to let Mr. Hollander know what transpired today. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Is there a number that I need to give him or something, a case number? MR. KELLY: Azure, can you-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Do you have a copy of your notice of the hearing? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That has your case number. MRS. DA VIS-FULLER: Should I give him -- I got these papers in the mail. Should I give him these? MR. LARSEN: Yes. MR. KELLY: Azure, can you give her the recommendation? Just write in the Ope costs, the days and the fine per day? MS. SORRELS: Absolutely. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: I got the two things here. So when I go today, I just hand him these? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. She's also going to give you what we have right in front of us. If you look right up there on the screen -- MRS. DA VIS-FULLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- that's what you're going to get. She's going to fill it out, write out what we just -- it would be $88.14 incurred in the prosecution of the case, and then it's going to be for number one, 90 days from the date of this hearing or a $200 fine. If you want to look up there, you can follow along with me. And then number two, the first blank, you have another 90 days or $200 per day will be imposed. So she'll fill that out in -- she'll write it out, what -- fill in the blanks, and then you can take that to the attorney. Page 84 ,_._--"- _, l> _ _ -~.. _~- --"",~-_.,~,"...- '.. .,'- ~... ...,,,._-.,......,.,,-,,,*......-.-,,._ ''1" _...."_~_H 16 Y12112~9 .. But then additionally will be mailed to you more information. You'll probably receive that next week sometime, end of next week, beginning of the following week, correct? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: So should I tell him this is coming-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, with this-- MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: No, that he waits for me to sign? I mean -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I can't advise you on how to proceed with your bankruptcy. It's -- MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Oh, okay. I don't know. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Your attorney will advise you, but you need to inform of what transpired. MRS. DA VIS-FULLER: Okay. All right. So I give the attorney this paper also? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. And then your name. The investigator's names on it, correct? MS. WALDRON: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: On a notice and everything, your name's on the notice. MS. SORRELS: Correct, yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So if there's any further questions, you can -- he can contact code enforcement, all right? We're going to proceed on to the next case. And everything we just said would apply obviously to this case, too, regarding notifying your attorney and so forth. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: I'm the next case, too? MR. LARSEN: Yes, the mobile home. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have two cases. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case CESD200800 10474, violation of Ordinance Florida Building Code, Page 85 ..,.,.---'. ~-. " ~",,"'_M_'___ .. '.~",'_"~''',,_-" tri123,2009 6' 1 B5 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1, and 04-41, the Land . Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06 (B)(l )(a). Description of violation: Mobile home placed on property with utility connections without first obtaining all required building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio No. 730160003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Allen Fuller and Barbara Davis, residing at 265 Price Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Date violation first observed: April 16th, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: July 17th, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 11th, 2008. And date of reinspection: February 26th, 2009. Results of reinspection is that the violation remains. I would like to now present Investigator Azure Sorrels. MS. SORRELS: Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080010474, dealing with the violations of a mobile home placed on property with utility connections without first obtaining all required building permits. Located at 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio No. 00730160003. Proof of service was received July 25th, 2008. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibit, Exhibit B, which is five photographs. And the respondent did see them. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the exhibit. MR. LARSEN: I second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) Page 86 .__.-""- '"...._..~,.._- -.'.-.- April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? 16 I 1 11, II 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? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. SORRELS: On the same day that I had made the site visit regarding the other case, which was the 16th of -- here the case was broken off, so this date doesn't really comply to what she said. But since the case was broken off, we put that date it was broken off. 4/16/08 was on the property. I had addressed the -- spoke with . Mr. Fuller, met him on-site, had spoken with him regarding the violation of what I observed, which was a mobile home that was on the property. The reason why I questioned if it was permitted or not was because the property is zoned agriculture. Agriculture property does not allow a mobile home on the property when there's already a principal structure on the property. In which there is, which would be the two story multi-family home you saw in the prior case. The only other time they're allowed to remain is if the mobile home is being utilized in active, agricultural use, which it was not, it was being as the residential unit rented out. I informed him of the violation. I also did my research to verify . there was no permits issued for the placement of the mobile home. The aerial photos that I have -- well, actually, let me show you the mobile home. This is just the front part where the entrance is for the residence. Page 87 .,_~~,"~._.w , ...... "__.'__"""_H' ...",^_^.~_.~ .'-_."~ April 23, 2009 The rear of the mobile home with the addition. An\~IJo ~ote B5 that you can see the plumbing and everything. And then the picture showing the sewage pipe running from the property -- or excuse me, from the mobile home to its location and a septic tank. This is -- I do apologize, it's kind of small. This is the current view, aerial view of the property, 2008. And I'll point out with my finger where the mobile home is located. Where my finger's at is where the mobile home is in place. I want to also make note, because it actually had come up prior about if she resided. The property that's highlighted is 265 which is where she resided. This property was broken into two separate parcels. This is 267 back here where the two-story structure was. And this is the mobile home, which is actually located by the driveway for 267. This is an aerial photo from 1985. And in the location that we just saw the mobile home, you can see there is no -- there's a bare spot, but there is no mobile home on-site. So I am estimating that the mobile home was put in place somewhere between -- after 1985 to 200 -- actually, I do apologize, I think that other aerial was 2001. Is that correct? MS. WALDRON: 2002. MS. SORRELS: 2002. My apologies, 2002. And again, at research I have no permits showing that it's allowed to be on the property, and plus the use would not allow it to remain either. And the same situation as what I had said with the Fullers, it's a financial burden. And you know the process that she's already going through. And that's all I really have. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is the -- where is the two and a half acres? What's -- is it just the highlighted part? MS. SORRELS: That -- I highlighted that to get to the location. I should have taken that off. But that's 265. Page 88 "-- ,... w -- April 23, 2009 At one point in time, and I don't know when, but at 1.6 Joilt in R 5 time that was all one parcel. And then -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What was all one parcel? I mean, there's three or four different -- MS. SORRELS: From this point, and continues on back to wherever it ends, just a straight line back. Of course it would come over to this line and straight down. So what has been broken off is this -- it's been basically divided in half. This is 267, this is 265. This little section that you see right here does not have an address. It's part of 267. It's their access. It's an access road. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But it looks like that mobile home, as it stands right now, is the -- the property line dissects that mobile home. MS. SORRELS: The property lines on the GIS aerials unfortunately are not completely accurate, correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: May I say one thing? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MRS. DA VIS-FULLER: The picture that you had shown before, Azure, remember I had that little tiny travel trailer? MS. SORRELS: Yes. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: That's what that piping was for. Not for the blue trailer. Because the husband -- like I said, that was there. I had a guy, he lives in his little travel trailer, and he loved it there so much, he asked if he could rent a little spot. So for a few hundred dollars he rented. We did hook him up electrically to the trailer because it had electric. We did hook him up with a big pipe. I don't know if we were supposed to do that or not but my husband said oh, yeah, we can do that, whatever. So they did it. But that, when Azure came out, she said he can -- the trailer Page 89 ~'-" . ~..._^'_.,- fbi' 2t 2009 could stay but he cannot live in it. So we thought, oh, my God, we 85 don't want to get in trouble, I'm sorry, you've got to go. So because that that was the man's home, he left. So that picture that you see, that was a sewage pipe for that little travel. It was not -- because the husband, I told you, the lady's husband, before he passed away did all the plumbing and -- because he was a plumber. So whether he had permits for anything, I don't know. But the trailer had plumbing for washer, dryer, plumbing for dishwasher and all the water utilities inside the trailer. So that big long pipe that you see there, that was for that little travel trailer. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could you tell where that pipe was going to? What structure? MS. SORRELS: There was a similar piping that did go to the travel trailer that was on the property. I'm not a plumber so I wouldn't know -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But this up here -- MS. SORRELS: It passes right by the mobile home. I'm going to say that it -- their sewage from the mobile home probably connects into that and follows to the sewer -- the septic, excuse me. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Because once we did -- the man left, then we removed that pipe. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any further statements to make? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: No, thanks. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? Page 90 ,-,._- - ..~ _.',.d__'_._ April 23, 2009 (No response.) 161185 - 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. Recommendation? MS. SORRELS: County recommends that the respondent pay all operational costs of $87.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Respondent obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy for the mobile home within however many days of the hearing, or a fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent may obtain a demolition permit and demolish said structure, followed by required inspections and receive certificate of completion within the days given of this hearing or a fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. All abatement costs incurred by the county will be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman? Page 91 "-""- - NIIlI. T - .,----,,_.,---- --....... _.~.~.~"",, 16,ilf' ~05 MR. KAUFMAN: Fill in the blanks. Ninety days, as we did in the past case, $200 a day fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What was the operational costs once again? MS. SORRELS: 87.57. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. MR. LARSEN: And you broke out the operational costs between the two different violations, or is that a -- MS. SORRELS: Broken out in two different violations, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: No sales. Two for one. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. We have a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: I'll second it. 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. If you can just fill in the blanks and hand them to her so she can hand them to her attorney. MS. SORRELS: Yes, sir, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. We're all set. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to bring up again BCC Page 92 ,"".._-,,'"-_....... .. r _."' T W 4..... .c.,.._, ... ..~....... '-, "-...,~__.,,.."~_,__,,~._"',"""'" , ____._... _'~"~"h..~" April 23, 2009 verse Jose Rodriguez, CEB No. CESD20080003864. 16r185 (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Were you able to come up to a stipulated agreement? MR. MUSSE: (Indicating thumbs up.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, very good. Would you like to read it in the record? MR. MUSSE: Sure. This is in -- for the record, Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080003864, Board of County Commissioners versus Jose Rodriguez, in dealing with a bedroom and bathroom addition located at 607 Glade Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio No. 6385740007. The respondent and the county has entered into a stipulated agreement, and has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $86.71 incurred in the prosecution of this case. And abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit, inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until violation's abated. Or obtaining a Collier County demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until violation's abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request investigator to perform site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. All costs of abatement will be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One thing I don't think I heard was number one, that it would be paid within 30 days of this hearing. I don't think that was -- Page 93 I .....,,,..,_',...--~,, ~ .... . ----~"~ {gi~212~'5 MR. MUSSE: So repetitious that I just said it unconsciously. So if it's not on there, I could add it and have him initial it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That would be very good. MR. MUSSE: And again, all costs will be assessed to the property owner, I have to add that as well. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Make sure they do initial both of those. Any further discussion -- or any discussion? MR. DEAN: Well, I guess I'd like to ask if this property is occupied. MR. MUSSE: No, it's not. MR. DEAN: Nobody lives there at all? MR. MUSSE: No. MR. DEAN: Why is that? They built it for that purpose, now you're telling me nobody's there, but -- MR. MUSSE: Because it's in really bad shape. The roof is falling off. MR. DEAN: Okay, so it's not habitable. MR. MUSSE: No. MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And he has agreed to the stipulated agreement? INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yes, he has. I explained it and I read it over, so he understands what needs to be done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Any further discussion, questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation and stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: With the few changes -- MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. Page 94 v__,..,,~,'__ w-"i" "~'_".^_""'_""''"V'__'___~ u~_ April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? 16 , 1 85 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. Before you leave, if you can have -- there's just a couple minor changes we made. And the one change -- two changes we made. One was that the fine would be paid within 30 days, okay? And the other one was -- if you can just repeat for me the last one? All the costs -- MR. MUSSE: All costs will be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. I'd just like to have him init -- if you can explain it to him and then initial. INTERPRETER LOCANO: Okay. Will he receive the recommendations by mail or-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. INTERPRETER LOCANO: -- writing, in writing? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. INTERPRETER LOCANO: That way it's clear and we don't have to come back. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. What happens is the attorney writes up the orders, I sign them, and that's usually done by beginning to mid next week. And then they're sent out. So you'll probably see Page 95 ""^.,"--,,._~ -,~--._- . "'t........,~.,,,.__._ --, April 23, 2009 them by the end of next week or the beginning of the fotoq,i~~eBS all right? But you will have 90 days from today. INTERPRETER LOCANO: Okay. We went this morning and applied for a demo permit, so it will be taken care of. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's in the works. Okay, excellent. Thank you very much. INTERPRETER LOCANO: Thank you. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, can we take a 10-minute break? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We can. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. Next case is BCC versus John Cowden, CEB No. 2007050845. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a); 10.02.06(B)(1)(e); and 10.02.06 (B)(l)( e )(i). And the Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Section 105.1. Location of violation: 413 San Juan Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio No. 52454760009. Description of violation: Electrical boatlift added to existing boat dock without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. On March 27th, 2008 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 violations. See the attached order of the board OR 4347, Page 0590 for more information. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 13th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien for fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between April 27th, Page 96 ".,,<~, , -w .""-'-"-"'~"~"'.""""'",,"" --~."-~-~ April 23, 2009 2008 to February 13th, 2009, 293 days, for the total oflk,JdJ.' TJJ 5 operational costs of $328.52 have been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $58,600. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you just explain, that original lien, we have a stipulated agreement between BCC and Brien Spina, and now we have -- the case is John Cowden. Was it a transfer, property transfer? MS. SORRELS: Yes. The property was sold after the order was . gIven. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Go ahead, sir. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. For the record, Rocky Scofield, representing John Cowden. This is a -- this was a violation of a dock -- boatlift that was added onto an existing dock that was permitted back in 1980. The boatlift was put in without a permit under the previous owner. As you heard, the code enforcement took action against Mr. Spina, the previous owner. And while he was trying to permit this without any outcome out of that, the home was for sale. It was sold to Mr. Cowden. Mr. Cowden was made aware of the violation. And so while the action -- while everything was going on, Mr. Cowden purchased the home. And at that time, right as he was purchasing the home, while he was going through the motions, he contacted our office, Turrell, Hall and Associates. We do a lot of these things. We do a lot of the marine permitting. And I do a lot of cases in this which are after-the- fact or violations, not only through the county but the state and the federal government. So this is a common thing that happens. So Mr. Cowden says, I need to get this thing corrected. We've been in contact with the county the whole time saying that we're working on the DEP and Corps of Engineer permits, which we have to get first. And then we come to the county and apply for a boat dock extension petition through the Planning Commission. Page 97 ... "_"".....,,.,.."~."'"'.M_'._.__~. ~,..."......___ iI' April 23, 2009 Well, these things take a lot of time for the DEl6.J c1rps~ thought we had our permits back in October of last year. The state at that time said you don't comply with the proprietary issues, because it's in an aquatic preserve, that part of Isles of Capris. It's the sovereign submerged lands. So we dealt with the sovereign submerged lands issue with them; finally got a permit January of this year. In February -- so this thing obviously drug out a long time. The county said it's time, it's gone on too long, we need to bring this to an end. So the first part of February, Mr. Cowden removed the boatlift. We're still in the county. We're right now in the cycle to have a hearing for a boat dock extension so we can put a lift back. We've had to do dock modifications because of the state requirements in aquatic preserve. We're going to have to do that. So that will all come under the same thing. And hopefully in the next month or two we're in the queue here. We'll get the boat dock extension heard and be able to put the lift back. The problem has been abated. The operational costs have been paid. The owner has always acted in good faith trying -- the new owner, in trying to get this done. We've been undergoing -- which I just explained to you. And we're requesting that no fines be imposed on Mr. Cowden. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's the county's position? MS. SORRELS: We don't object to the fines being waived. MR. LARSEN: Let me ask. I'm sorry, I didn't get your name. MR. SCOFIELD: Rocky Scofield. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Scofield, when were you first retained? MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me? MR. LARSEN: When were you first retained? MR. SCOFIELD: When we were first retained. I believe it was March of'08. MR. LARSEN: March of '08. And our order is April of '08, Page 98 -,.,,,",,,,.,,--~ -'--~_'" . ""III. . ....11.. !if -",,~"~'~" April 23, 2009 right? 1611 B5 MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir, that was for Mr. Spina. MR. LARSEN: Right. And when did you first make application? MR. SCOFIELD: To the state and-- MR. LARSEN: Any entity to obtain permits. MR. SCOFIELD: Do you have that information here? MR. LARSEN: Just generally. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Well, he contacted us in March of'08. We start -- it usually takes us about a month to get the permit applications ready to go. And then we applied to the state probably within a 60-day period after that. MR. LARSEN: Really, my question is geared towards, you know, this order was dated April 2nd, 2008. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. MR. LARSEN: And that's when the time started to run. And my question is, is basically in and around that time was application made in good faith by -- MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: -- either Mr. Spina or Mr. -- MR. SCOFIELD: By Mr. Cowden, it was. MR. LARSEN: And it was just a matter of processing and that's why the delay occurred? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. Normally it takes us five to six months to get a state and federal permit. And this time it took longer because of the aquatic preserve issues. MR. LARSEN: All right. And I'm not sure the board, when we issued this ordered, had a sufficient amount of information pertaining to the process or the number of entities that needed to be applied to. MR. KELLY: Actually, we did. If I can comment to that. I remember it was either Todd or Mr. Hall was here himself and commented and told us ahead of time this is going to be a long Page 99 -- w. -_.-~,.."_.' . .-...,,~ . "~ ... ',._-, April 23, 2009 1611 85 process. MR. LA VINSKI: Do you know, sir, if there was any compensation between the seller and the buyer, knowing that this thing was hanging out there? Did they -- did the current owner get any ability to back charge this to the current owner? MR. SCOFIELD: Not that we're aware of. I'm sure -- you know. MR. LARSEN: Well, my point being, you know, we gave him 120, and it doesn't seem like 120 days was sufficient. MR. KELLY: Not at all. MR. LARSEN: And, you know, I just want to ascertain whether or not they acted in good faith, and it seems like they have. MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. As I said, we do these things a lot of time, we contact the DEP because normally they put us into a consent order. And they say they want to impose fines. As long as we're working on application, they're okay with it. We kept the county informed, but obviously this drug out so long. And in February, we just ripped the lift out to abate it. MR. LARSEN: And I think that's reflected in that Ms. Sorrels is not really vigorously, you know, contesting your application here. So my motion would be -- I'm sorry, if there's not anymore discussion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: My motion would be to abate the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 100 -.. "'- ..._Hh.'.._.."."'._'_..,...__............ ._._"_..._-'~.- April 23, 2009 MR. KELLY: Aye. 1611 85 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. SCOFIELD: Thank you. MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus Florida Metal Master's, Inc. CEB No. 2007094640. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violations of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 10.02.03(B)(5). Violation location: 4443 Arnold A venue, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 00279520007. Description of violation: Airplane fuselage, granite marble slabs and dumpster in parking area intended for vehicular parking, violating Site Development Plan 99-125. On September 25th, 2008, 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 4398, Page 3846 for more information. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 1 st, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien for fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between March 21 st, 2009 to April 1 st, 2009, 12 days, for the total of $1,200. Page 101 ~~.,-,- -...._.-..__.~- April 23, 2009 Operational costs of $87.44 have been paid. 1611 85 1 The total recommended lien amount is $1,200. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir. MR. TRAPASSO: Basically we removed the fuselage. The dumpster was in an unused drive area, and we inadvertently didn't have that moved to the other side of the property. And that's basically what happened. As soon as we were informed by code enforcement, the dumpster was pulled out of there. MR. LARSEN: Good morning, Mr. Trapasso. I must admit, I kind of miss the fuselage when I drive by there. MR. TRAPASSO: I miss the parking under it. MR. LARSEN: Yeah. All right, I'd make an application to abate the fines on this, because I think they acted in good faith, and especially when contacted. MR. BOX: We have no objection to that. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, what is your name? MR. BOX: My name is Investigator Box, Code Enforcement, Collier County. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. Page 102 , . ~-_._."~ - '.,~,..~""-"".~,.,,..-~",.---~,' "'.. "'"-~''''~''"~o'_''''.''''''''''''''_''''_''' A..$._w--...r -"~. April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? 16 I 1 85 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. TRAPASSO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next one. There was discussion of pulling it, correct? BCC versus Washington Mutual Bank? MS. WALDRON: Yeah, I think that we are okay. We did serve Washington Mutual Bank and we do have a certified mail return receipt signed by them. MR. DEAN: Did they pay the money? MR. McCARTHY: I'm here. MS. WALDRON: Oh, okay, come on up. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. CEB No. 2007050259. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. McCARTHY: Daniel C. McCarthy. M-c-C-A-R-T-H-Y. Like Senator Joe. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violations of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 10.02.06 (B)(l)(a), and 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e)(i), and the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22, Article 2, Section 106.1.2, and the Florida Building Code, 2004, Section 105.1. The location of the violation: 6061 Painted Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida. Folio 38163440003. The description of the violation was improvement of property without valid Collier County building permit. On July 31st, 2008, 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 4385, Page 0719 for more information. Page 103 "'.~~"-< .._~",-,.,...... .- ,_.~.,._- April 23, 2009 The respondent has complied with the Code Enfo~~m~n1sBS ., orders as of February 24th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien in the amount -- for fines at the rate of $1 00 per day for the period between September 30th, 2008 to February 24th, 2009, 148 days, for the total of$14,800. Operational costs of$89.75 have not been paid. The county's recommendation is to impose a lien for the total of $14,889.75. . CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. McCarthy, your relationship to Washington Mutual Bank, please? MR. McCARTHY: I represent Watson Title, which is Washington Mutual -- actually it's Fannie Mae. They're the ones that currently have the property. They have a buyer for this property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. McCARTHY: We just -- we need to clear the lien. The lis pendens in this case was -- this obviously is a foreclosure case. You folks have been through this enough time to already know this. The lis pendens was filed on the 14th of February of2008, well before your lien was imposed. The prop -- the Washington Mutual finally got title to the property on September 16th of2008. I have copies of the -- they have the recording information on them. I don't think there's any dispute about that. The board's lien was issued in the interim period of time there, subject to the lis pendens. They'd like to deliver the property free and clear. They'd -- like I say, they have a contract on it. They're prepared to pay your operational costs, they don't have a problem with that at all. Otherwise, they just have to go back to court and get an amended foreclosure order, which is not very effective for Page 104 "........ ~ ",.,...___.......,. ,,,.,,.....,,.... ,..M~__.L."'___...,.,; ...... April 23, 2009 16 , 185 - . anybody. MR. KELLY: Are you prepared to pay the operational costs today? MR. McCARTHY: I can't, sir. I don't write the checks, if you will. But I have authority to make that assertion. And that's already proposed in the application, I believe. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, that would have to be made at closing anyways. MR. KELLY: Right, I was saying if that was paid and we decided to waive the fines, you would have a completely clear title. Because nothing to this point has been filed against the title. MR. McCARTHY: It's -- for whatever reason, they think there is a -- the lien's actually been placed at this point. MR. LARSEN: Yes. Ms. Flagg, that's my understanding is that there's, you know, a cloud on the title because of this, right? MS. FLAGG: That's correct. Once the fines are accruing, which the fines are accruing, they can't provide a clear title. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Mr. Morad, what's the nature of the underlying violation on this? MR. MORAD: I'm sorry? MR. LARSEN: What was the nature of the underlying violation? MR. MORAD: Okay. For the record, Ed Morad, Code Enforcement Investigator. It was improvement of property without permits. MR. LARSEN: Was it a structure or addition? MR. MORAD: It was a carport that was enclosed and a standalone shed type structure. MR. LARSEN: And that's been taken care of? MR. MORAD: Yes. MR. LARSEN: And Ms. Flagg, in regard to the banks that -- they're called REO property now, what's the county code enforcement Page 105 - ~ ,.-,,,,"H'''''_ ~_.,,_._, ;r^ _'0_'''_- tril 23, 2009 ffi' . . . h d h . . . ffi ? 6 lIB 5 o lee s posItIon WIt regar to t ese ImposItIon 0 Ines. MS. FLAGG: What the respondent will need to do is to pay ops costs, because that is something that cannot be waived by the board. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And is the county objecting to the abatement of fines in light of the fact that this is going to be sold? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. MR. LARSEN: I'll make a motion to abate the fines. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. KELLY: Should we put in that motion that the operational costs still remain? MR. LARSEN: Yeah, we're just abating the fines, not the operational costs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We can't abate the-- MR. LARSEN: I guess you were saying that for clarification for the attorney preparing the order, correct? MR. KELLY: Correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. MR. McCARTHY: Could somebody kindly -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Did you want to put a time period by which they're to pay the fines -- or the operational costs? MR. KELLY: It's going to be a lien on the property. I don't think we can put a date on it. MR. LARSEN: On or before closing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. McCARTHY: Can somebody tell me how much they are, by any chance? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: $89.75. MR. McCARTHY: Thank you very much. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 106 "",,.,,. ..... ~ ._..... ,",,_,,"_'H'''_'"''__.'''_~_~' April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. 16 1 I 95 MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. DEAN: I oppose. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay. MR. DEAN: One nay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, at this time I have a prior engagement and I'll have to depart the hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Make a notice of record Mr. L'Esperance has left the building. MS. FLAGG: If I may bring a point to the board. Heidi, at this point, once a lien is imposed, it would require the Board of County Commissioners to give approval to remove that lien for the operational cost. Is there an option that this gentleman could pay the ops cost before the lien is imposed? Otherwise, if you have a buyer, it's going to significantly delay the sale of the property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Why would it delay? MR. KELLY: That's what I was trying to say, they have to go in front of the BCC to -- MS. WALDRON: Every time a lien's filed, we have to bring it to them. We have to set it on an agenda. They have to give us permission to release the lien. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But a release of the lien would be at least closing if they -- MS. WALDRON: No. MR. DEAN: If it's paid. MS. WALDRON: No. Because it's still part of our orders and it's still on the Clerk of Courts' records, and we have to release that. MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question? If a lien is paid at closing, Page 107 ~._".. . ",... """,,-_:.. .._",-~-- Ap.ril 23, 2009 dollar amount, okay, that's satisfied. You're obligated t! ~Il~! if i~ 5 paid. MR. KELLY: Right, but they won't-- MS. WALDRON: But what we're saying is in order for us to release it, we have to bring it in front of the Board of County Commissioners. They have the ultimate authority to do that. MR. LARSEN: But what we're saying is, Watson Title Company can collect the money on or before closing. MR. DEAN: Right. MR. LARSEN: They can then ensure title, and they basically follow up and get a release at a later date, correct? MR. McCARTHY: Yes, sir, that's exactly what happens. MR. LARSEN: Okay. MR. McCARTHY: As long as we know it's happening, that's all that really needs to -- MR. LARSEN: Okay. MR. McCARTHY: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're all set. Next case will be BCC versus Frank Paz. CEB No. 2006081159. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Respondent's not present, correct? MS. O'FARRELL: No. . MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violations of Collier County Ordinance 04-41 of the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 3.05.01(B). Location of violation: 2864 10th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida. Folio 4098650006. Description of violation: Property has been cleared in excess of one acre without required permits. On October 31 st, 2008, 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 Page 108 "" T """"'" ~.,~_..' -"<~"~o"""'_"""'''''''Il'R' . <=""'~'~'~-~"" April 23, 2009 the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 4J,~JaJ I ~~ p~ for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 23rd, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at a rate of $100 per day for the period between January 30th, 2009 to April 23rd, 2009, 84 days, for the total of $8,400. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $86.43 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $8,486.43. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, may I? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Ms. O'Farrell, you submitted an affidavit of noncompliance to the board and everything in that is true and correct? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: All right. So they're not in compliance. They didn't pay their operational costs and they didn't pay any of the fines, right? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. LARSEN: Okay. I make a motion basically find -- to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: And the lien. Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: One point. Have you been in contact with them at all? MS. O'FARRELL: No. They have not made any contact with me and I have not been able to find them. The house is not in foreclosure, and the last time I was there I posted the house and got kind of creeped out because there were cars parked right up to the door. So I wasn't going to knock on the door and find out if they were at home. Page 109 '."",""e__" .,-->>_...._..tr, - April 23, 2009 . 161185 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next one would be BCC versus Baby Boy Gallegos, CEB No. CEPM20080016779. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, 200458, Section 12. Violation location: 2401 Eden A venue, Immokalee, Florida. Folio 30731920005. Description of violation: A derelict home declared to be a hazardous and dangerous building through property inspection by a certified official. 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 1371, for more information. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 1 st, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $500 per day for the Page 110 .- ..,..."'''''....---''1'' ------......--.---- -,._,..~..,,-~ I (rill' 285 period between March 14th, 2009 to April 1 st, 2009, 19 days, for tne total of $9,500. Operational costs of $87.57 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $9,587.57. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You had some work that was supposed to be completed by the 13th of March; is that correct? MR. GALLEGOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's your reason for not having it done by then? MR. GALLEGOS: Well, two reasons. We were here about nine months ago for a different project on 1318 South Bridge Street, which has become a financial burden. We're getting that wrapped up. The second reason, we tried to get someone in a reasonable amount of time within the laws and everything to get it knocked down. We finally got a construction company to knock it down. So we pulled a permit. We met with Mr. Snow, or -- I can't remember her name. Marsha, the lady -- MR. SNOW: Maria Rodriguez. MR. GALLEGOS: Maria Rodriguez. We met with her out in the office in Immokalee. We got the permit in sufficient enough time for us to get the money to knock the building down. I think we've complied, you know, in the amount of time that we had to knock it down. You know, we tried to knock it down as fast as we could with what money he had in getting a construction company with a reasonable amount of money to knock it down. MR. KELLY: We only gave them 15 days. MR. LARSEN: Right, I remember this case. This was -- we imposed a heavy fine and a short period of time to get action out of them. It seems like we did get action out of them. It's no longer -- it was mulch, right? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, that's correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And everything is in full compliance? Page 111 -- ~. . ........-- ""'",'~'''''N'_'''' ".._. """'-"-,, ..,1f ~,,-~ April 23, 2009 MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, that is correct. 161185 MR. LARSEN: All right. I make an application -- MR. SNOW: The operational costs, sir. We just need the operational costs in their fine. MR. LARSEN: Okay. MR. KELLY: Is there any way you could pay those today, 87.57? MR. GALLEGOS: Yes. Where would I pay them and I'll pay them today. MR. KELLY: If we see a check go across, we don't have to -- we can just abate everything right now. MR. GALLEGOS: Okay. I mean, can I run to my truck and get the check? MR. KELLY: What do you want to do? MR. GALLEGOS: Or can I pay cash for it? Where do I pay cash? Or you can't pay cash. MR. SNOW: Sir, we recommend -- the county recommends-- obviously anything the board -- we agree with anything the board does. But they tried to be compliant. And again, with the financial situation, they got them out there as soon as they can, and they were keeping an eye on the property also, so we have no objection. MR. LARSEN: You have to pay the operational cost. You have to pay them now. Otherwise what we'll do is we'll abate the fine but you could still have the lien for the operational costs until you pay them. Can you pay those operational costs now or within the next 10 or 15 minutes? MR. GALLEGOS: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Okay. So what we'll do is we'll hold in abeyance the motion, we'll go do the rest of the calendar, go take care of your business and we'll just pass you to the end of the calendar. MR. GALLEGOS: Okay. Page 112 """"~""--- -"'-"...~",.."'- . W .1Il' ~,,~-"-,.- April 23, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Or the agenda. 1611 85 MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we move the ruling on this case to the end of our agenda today. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any 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. Next one would be BCC versus Horse Creek Partners, LTD. CEB No. 2005090022. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 9.03.03(D)(I)(d), 9.03.03(D)(2A+B), 9.03.03(D)(5), 10.02.06(B)(2)(a), and 1 0.02.06(B)(2)( d)(ix). Location of violation: 102 Palm River Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Folio 65220000100. Description of violation: Nonconforming sign erected prior to 1991 and exists beyond the amortization schedule regarding conformity to current code and not properly maintained according to code. On November 29th, 2007, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was Page 113 """'~'O'" , , ,," ..__ "'1Jl>,..c. IJ ~'"'''''' "'""'.'~" - ,,,,.~.. "', ,_" 11 -<<11I_ April 23, 2009 found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordeJd~o Ll~ the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 4309, Page 1 , for more information. ~ And a note, there are some changes on this executive summary that I will read. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 17th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between December 1 st, 2008 to April 17th, 2009, 138 days, for a total of $20,700. Operational costs of $536.32 have been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $20,700. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Code Enforcement Board. Many of you may recall we stood before you in December of 2007 and you provided us 12 months time to bring a sign into compliance that was constructed in the Sixties. We proceeded with that, filed the necessary variance applications. Due to two delays in the review process, that matter was not heard by the Board of County Commissioners until January of this year. The board did hear and approve on January 27th necessary variances to replace the sign. My client applied for a sign permit two days later on January 29th. The permit was issued on February 12th. The former sign was taken down and a new sign installed 30 days later, completed on March 12th, and the sign was C.O.'d on April 17th. This has a four-plus year history. Mr. Snow is anxious to get this file off his desk. My client is anxious to stop paying for my time to appear before you. And what we seek today is an abatement of the fines, because we have proceeded over a long course of time in a very difficult situation. At one point the county attorney's office and the Page 114 '~"'-'",-'~- _"__,._...,,v'_..,,__ , j- --""-~."...,,...,,_._.- April 23, 2009 planning staff didn't even know how to handle this. We ~~i!d leiJ 5 ~ waters and there was even a change to the Land Development Code that affected what variances were being requested while we were in process. So we simply request abatement of the fines. The issue has been addressed. The new sign is up. The material effect is something that looks exactly like what used to be there but five feet shorter after only four years and tens of thousands of dollars. MR. LARSEN: Sir, what's your name? MR. HANCOCK: My name is Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. MR. LARSEN: How say ye, Mr. Snow? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, I'll tell you, Mr. Hancock and his firm were very, very diligent in what they were trying to do. This had to go before the CCPC, it had to go before the Board of County Commissioners, they had to go for variances, and it was just -- took longer than the board initially thought. And they were diligent in what they were trying to do. And as always, we would agree with anything the board decides, but we would recommend abatement also. MR. LARSEN: In that respect, I would make a motion to abate the fines in this matter in light of the fact that the operational costs have been paid and they're in compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 115 ~ ~ . n ._._""....~ ."." .'.._.__'.H._.........,.._.... .. ~.--.. ..- April 23, 2009 1611 85 . MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. SNOW: Thank you, the board. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Snow, we thank you. MR. LARSEN: Sorry to keep you all morning. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And part of the afternoon. MR. LARSEN: And part of the afternoon. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any new business? MR. LARSEN: Yes. I've got to alert the board that for the June meeting I shall be absent. MR. KELLY: Unacceptable. MR. LARSEN: So I'm asking permission to be excused. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You don't need permission from us. MR. DEAN: The secretary will okay you, I'm sure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you want to talk about the program you're working on? MS. FLAGG: Sure. We're actually -- if it would please the board, we're working with a couple of different groups. The community task force are up and running and the community members participation in all the agencies has been just phenomenal. We're over 300 foreclosure cases that we're working right now, and we have many more than that on the community caretaking list, cases that have been abated that were previously code violations by. the banks. In addition, the cases that you saw today, just the six hearings that you had today, four of those six, 67 percent of the cases, were cases wherein the violations occurred prior to the purchase of the Page 116 -~..,~ ~ ",->~..-, .. .. ..- ........ -_.,,-, <.---, April 23, 2009 property . 1611 85 Recognizing this as the -- early on when we met with the board to talk about this, subsequent to that we've been meeting with community members, and also Naples Area Board of Realtors, to share with them the experience that both the Code Enforcement Board and the special magistrate have had with this where people are spending their life savings in a lot of cases, purchasing a home, thinking that that three inches of paperwork that they signed covers them in terms of their buying a home that is within code requirements, and then finding out later, sometimes as early as 24 hours later, that the home is not in code compliance and they're facing tens of thousands of dollars of abatement costs to abate the violation. The good news is that after explaining the situation to a sub-committee with the Naples Area Board of Realtors, they all agreed and the board subsequently passed a motion to support addressing this issue. So the final conclusion about how the issue is going to be addressed will ultimately be made, probably by the Board of County Commissioners. But the big picture is that everyone involved that we've talked to, once we've presented the case, fully understand now that there is a significant issue with people purchasing homes in good faith, not realizing that all that paperwork that they're signing and the title search that they do and the home inspection that they receive doesn't cover the inspection of a property as to whether it meets code or not. So we anticipate at the end of next month that there will be right now tentatively scheduled a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners about this situation. In closing, the code enforcement investigators have been divided into districts. There are five code district supervisors. And so in the county there's five districts and they each now have a team that reports to the district supervisor. Page 11 7 Ilr__ ,-,,-,--- April 23, 2009 dh . h f.. .16hll ~5 I An t e cases -- we're In t e process 0 transItIonIng t e case , so that if you have a case in Immokalee, it will be handled by the Immokalee district supervisor and the assigned team members. So that change has taken place. It's worked really well. And now the district supervisors are working with their team members to get all the cases properly transitioned over to be handled by district. MR. LARSEN: Excellent. MR. DEAN: Very good. MR. LARSEN: Now, if I had a client who wanted to buy a property and I wanted the code enforcement officers to inspect that property, who do I contact? MS. FLAGG: We have the ability and we are doing it for some folks. They can call the code enforcement department to request a code inspection. They would just need the approval of the current property owner to conduct that inspection. I would tell you, one of the other things that we're working with is encouraging a private market solution to this situation where there's lots of folks that with some training could also conduct a code inspection. And so we -- in speaking with NABOR, we've also been encouraging a private market solution. The goal is, is to make sure that no one purchases a piece of property that has code violations on it, at least without them knowing. MR. LARSEN: Great. MR. DEAN: You know, when somebody gets a mortgage, isn't that culled out, any of that? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. There's nothing unfortunately -- what happens is if there's an open code case when they do the title search, they do contact code enforcement to find out if there's an open code case. If there's an open code case, it does stop the transaction. And then typically what we're finding now is that the banks have to abate. I'll share with you that a year ago we were doing probably five to eight lien searches for code cases a day. Now we're over 60 lien Page 118 ...., . ---"-,~.,-" ,".- ........--...--- <~.o..,......._._ . 1~113i 20085 searches a day. What that means IS that the foreclosures -- we're over 10,000 foreclosures in Collier County right now. We had more than 1,000 new foreclosures in January, more than 1,000 new in February, and more than 1,600 new foreclosures in March. So we are in what was anticipated a second wave of foreclosures. The number of foreclosures in Collier County is . . IncreasIng. However, what we're also seeing is that people are buying these foreclosed properties from the bank. If the -- if somebody through the community task force teams, which is really where these calls are coming in, the community task force teams. There's five teams that are assigned to each district which correspond with the code enforcement districts and the sheriffs office districts. If a property is identified, such as a vacant, abandoned property is identified by the task force team, we open up a code case. If the bank at that point finds a buyer for that property when the title company calls code and says are there any open code cases, we respond yes, everything stops until the bank abates the violation. But if there is not an open code case on the property, the property will get sold with code violations on it. And that is what -- these cases, 67 percent of the cases that you saw today, because there was not an open code case on the property, they bought the property thinking it was fine and then later learned that there were code violations on the property. MR. DEAN: And in Florida it's the buyer's responsibility. MS. FLAGG: In the -- there are many communities throughout the United States that have taken and created local laws to address that. Collier County does not have one. One of the things that NABOR is looking to do is to do a voluntary by informing. Our biggest challenge was to work with folks to get them to understand that this really is an issue in Collier County. And code enforcement's developed a brochure, it's in draft form Page 119 ""~"'.~"- .. _.'~' r. '"'<l1llll'lfl~ . ....__~"'...,. -_~__, .''1 ... -- .--,,--,.~- tt\ 2120~ 5 right now, but what it does, we're going to work with the community to explain to them that when they purchase a piece of property that there's no guarantee that there aren't code violations on it, and to be informed before they purchase the property. Because what we're finding, these cases that you heard today, when you ask them such as the one case where they've had to declare bankruptcy as a result of this code case, you asked them, they said but the paperwork we signed was three inches thick and we thought that in that was covered verification that the property was in compliance with code. And in that case it was structures on an ago zoned property, so they would have never been able to get permits for that property. MR. DEAN: See, a lot of states have seller disclosure. And that's where these people come here from other states thinking they're protected and they're not. Because where they come from, a lot of them have that seller disclosure and they have recourse back to that seller. Where here it runs with the land and it's not -- MS. FLAGG: Well, there is disclosure requirements. And maybe Mr. Lefebvre could speak to that, because I know this is his profession. MR. DEAN: I've heard that too, but I heard they're not very good. MS. FLAGG: Well, there are disclosure. I think that the big picture is that everyone seems to be on the same page now, that we do have an issue and we need to work hard to educate potential buyers that they need to be assured through a pre-sale code inspection, preferably a private market solution, to have that inspection done before purchasing the property, or they may face code issues in the future. MR. LARSEN: A lot of the communities up north that have this kind of trigger mechanism is that basically before a transfer can occur you have to get a new C. ofO. And so at that time they have inspectors come out and they look at the structure, and they won't Page 120 T ,._.,."',,.~,.,'----- 17 IT ~ .M'".~'.~~~ r~rf t 2009 ~ issue a C. ofO. if there's any violations. Unfortunately that's not thJ3 5 way it occurs here. Here we've got more of like a New York standard where they issue a C. ofO. on a structure, the C.O. could go back to the original date of completion, you know. And I think it has to change. MR. DEAN: Also, I might add, where I come from you don't go to closing unless you have an attorney. And it's unfortunate a lot of people here go without an attorney. And it doesn't make sense representing yourself. MS. FLAGG: Well, I think for us, we're not trying to solve the issue. We -- our goal was to bring the issue forward. Whether it's solved through a voluntary code inspection or some other means, that's not our call to make. What our goal was, after seeing the number of cases come before the Code Enforcement Board and the special magistrate where more than 50 percent of the cases that you all consistently see are cases where folks bought property believing that it was within the requirements, code requirements, and then later learning. And what we're also seeing is that the folks that are being foreclosed on, knowing that they made illegal additions, they're actually calling code once that house sells. Because it's an interesting economy we live in right now and there's some pretty angry folks. So our code cases are going off the charts in terms of the number of cases that are getting reported. So we're just spending a lot of time helping people understand that that massive amount of paperwork they signed does not include verification that the property is in compliance with the codes. And the most often things we see, which is what we're putting in the brochure, if you step four inches down and it looks like it was a garage, it most likely is not permitted, even though it's been made into a bedroom or made into a family room. A more difficult one to pick out is a lot of the cases that you've Page 121 """ - ~-'""-._"^-.._--""._"._",,, ,." ,._~~~,,~, April 23, 2009 seen, it was a lanai and it was permitted as a lanai, but tle ~i~a~on a 5 is that they've run electric in there, bought the blocks, blocked it in, put trusses over it, typically all unpermitted, and created a family room out of it. And it's -- particularly for new home buyers to walk in, if you're not familiar with that, you wouldn't really necessarily pick that out. Certainly stepping four inches down into a bedroom or a family room, that should send out some signals. We've seen cases that the garage door is intact on the outside of the structure, but when you walk into the -- what is permitted as a garage, they put drywall around, sometimes even leaving the garage rails in place and then just dry walled around the rails. So the main -- certainly our main focus is to work with our community members, particularly now, because we have so many foreclosures happening in selling that folks need to understand when they're buying these foreclosures to be very careful to make sure that the property is in compliance with the codes. MR. LARSEN: Thank you very much. MR. KELLY: Did Baby Boy Gallegos pay the Ope costs? MS. WALDRON: He's on his way getting a money order as we speak. MR. KELLY: I have to go. See you next month. MR. LEFEBVRE: We still have a quorum, so -- MR. DEAN: Keep 'em flying. MR. LARSEN: I've got to get going, too. MS. FLAGG: There's one item, it's under reports, the rules and regulations. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. FLAGG: There's one minor change that needs to be made to that. MR. LARSEN: Do we have anybody speaking on that today? MS. WALDRON: Jeff Wright will be-- Page 122 -,-.~~., .. . ... --. -.. ...^....._.__..",.~ __~."c;..,..._.>_..,..c April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You need to state -- 16f1 85 MR. DEAN: What page is that? MS. WALDRON: The issue in question is on Page 6, I believe. Am I correct, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. MS. WALDRON: Yeah, Page 6. MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Jeff Wright for the record, Assistant County Attorney. As you know, there's a workshop held on your rules. A joint workshop, I believe, with the special magistrate. And there are a few what appear to be minor changes. Specifically the board -- this board recommended a change to their order of business, which was not deemed problematic at all. And a couple of other changes that were not problematic. The only one that I want to focus on is on Page 6, and it was the change of one word, from will to may. And it was brought to our attention that the list that follows, letter A through S, does not contain items that are always discretionary. Just as an example, the administration of the oath I believe is on there. And once this was brought to our attention, we felt kind of obligated to get it right. MR. LARSEN: So Mr. Wright, do we have to change it back from may to shall or will? MR. WRIGHT: Well, the recom -- I spoke with my boss, the County Attorney, before this and I asked what's the best way to handle this. And he said, well, since the original rule change was done in a workshop setting we could -- the best way to do this is to put it on the next agenda, call it another workshop, notice it as we would any other workshop, and make sure that we get the same level of public input on this change. And in going through these, it might actually be good. And my recommendation would be to have the workshop focused specifically Page 123 ....._.,~ - - , '..-.-.""...."r~...,"..'.,...,_,,_"..,.,__-___ _,___w..,.."~.". April 23, 2009 on Items A through S, beginning on Page 6. And I guess~ !t1lr B 5 changes. I don't want to preclude the board from making it better. But that would be the recommended focus. MR. LARSEN: Can we take a vote right now to leave it the following procedures will be observed at hearings before the board, or we can't do that? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I'm not going to prohibit it. I don't have that ability. But I think that the safer way to go, now that this is on our radar and we've noticed some flaws in it, would be to really give it a good look. And there's a lot of mays and -- for example, L, the right to present rebuttal evidence is discretionary with the board. All these things should probably be sorted into these are the things that are required and these are the things that are discretionary. So you can vote as you suggested, but it might run into the same -- MR. LARSEN: No, I just thought ifit was just that one issue. But if you have other issues to address, I agree with you that it's better to do it at an opportunity when we have more members here and of course when we have more of an opportunity to discuss it. MR. WRIGHT: So in the meantime, until the BCC is okay with the changes, the existing rules and agenda format will apply. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: And also, if there are no other questions on that, I just wanted to let you know that we're available if there's any questions about the procedures for foreclosure, how we handle this, the disclosure requirements. One thing I wanted to make the board aware of, Chapter 162.06, Subsection 5 contains disclosure requirements for somebody who's been cited and has a hearing coming up and they want to convey the property. And there's potential for fraud there if they don't make these disclosures. So I just wanted to highlight that and piggyback on the last conversation that was going on. MR. LARSEN: Thank you. Page 124 """ ""'".~" ,~.._,-.-.,.--.,-<<,^-- R___ April 23, 2009 MR. WRIGHT: Thanks very much. 1611 85 MR. DEAN: Thank you. MS. WALDRON: So we'll set the discussion for the rules and regulations for the May 28th -- MR. DEAN: Yes. MS. WALDRON: -- meeting? MR. LARSEN: Fine. MR. DEAN: Very good. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need to swear him in again? (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have received the check? Okay, very good. MR. LARSEN: All right, I renew my motion to abate the fines, now that the operational costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: 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: Congratulations. MR. SNOW: Thank you, Board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we already consented to move the cases to county's office. Page 125 . --_.^--_.,.,--_.~ """"""U.'. "'~ ^-"-~'"__'~""_"'_ v ~ .....0_ April 23, 2009 16 11 85 1 The next meeting -- any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next meeting will be May 28th. Do I have a -- MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. DEAN: Mr. Chairman, you're seconding my motion? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm -- no, I didn't. I'm sure there's no discussion. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:49 p.m. TBOARD These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 126 ""_"_0___'____'" -,~-'" -,~-- - - . 161 i 186 I Fiala April 16, 2009 Halas Henning TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE RECEIVED Coyle ~ COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29 2009 Coletta Naples, Florida April 16, 2009 BOord of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Misc. Corres: Date-911 :l- <6 ~ Item #. t~.J_~_\..6lo Page 1 L, d'. .,~.,~ ..~". - """ "'_ ,___.,_.""""~..","~.u<_.,, ...."~,,,""-- """"."..",,,",_..,,,.. A;i ~ 6~ 2'O~ 6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 16th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Koltlat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chainnan Strain'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Woltley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I Iere. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak'? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I almost thought you were going to say Commissioner Ditropa, but -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, exactly what I was thinking. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to the agenda. Does anybody know of any changes to the agenda that are needed? Okay -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I don't have a change, but I'd like to talk a little bit about this agenda, and that's the one coming up on the agenda about the boat dock. And I'd like to make a reference to Petition ADA-2008-AR-13 73] , which was a petition before the Collier County Commissioners to appeal a ruling that we had made about -- in December relative to the Monte Carlo boat docks. And the conclusion of that was that that motion to remand this item back to the Planning Commission with a request for fom1a] interpretation and the reasons for initial denial in accordance with the LDe. During the discussion of that session. there was quite a conflicting argument about the criteria and Page 2 I \ April 16'QOg I the application of criteria. And it's difficult for me to understand how we shalll~l cl1ntil t at issue is resolved. And to the best of my knowledge, it has not commissioned us orders to have it remanded, and it has not been executed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's true. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if -- the County Attorney was the one that provided us with the -- I guess the interpretation at that time. Jeff, is this something that you could respond to if we were to put it off for a little bit and take it right after the consent agenda items? MR. KLA TZKOW: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you'll need time to refresh your memory on it and it might have caught you off-guard. Because I didn't know anything about it -- MR. KLATZKOW: He talked to staff: not me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager. Ashley Caserta has informed me that that petition has been rescheduled for the May 7th Planning Commission. And in regards to criteria, staff is under the opinion that it's -- as the LDC states, that it's a percentage of the criteria, and that all questions should be answered in regards to the criteria provided in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but I think the issue at hand -- and if you guys are prepared to discuss it now and since it was brought up now, that's fine. We're going to discuss it one way or the other before the first case this morning. I think the issue was that during the Monte Carlo boat dock request, the County Attorney I think told us that we didn't have to stick strictly to those criteria, meaning that if someone -- if we had other criteria we want to enter into it for denial or acceptance or whatever, we could weigh that in as well. Is staff in that position now, or has that position changed or have I not stated it correctly? MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, from what I heard from the Board of County Commissioners, they wanted clear evidence of the Planning Commission's recommendations for denial. I think they were confused as to what criteria applied or didn't apply. And so I think it was remanded back to clear the record of what the vote was. And if you have new information or reasons that you're objecting to, I agree with the County Attorney's position that it can be stated, but that's an opinion and not a reason for denial, necessarily. It should be code-related issues that result in an actual formulation of a recommendation of denial. So my opinion, I think the criteria contained in the boat dock staff report presented to you should be what you use to base your criteria for either approving or denying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: We have no option but to apply the code as written until one, the LDC is amended or two, the board gives us direction on how to apply it. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no, no, this is not about changing the code. This is about the way I read the code and the way staff reads the code. Okay? We're all following the code here, Joe. Nobody's saying that the County Attorney's saying to veer off the code or not, all right? So unless we have an official interpretation by staff of the code, I haven't seen one, okay. At this point in time it's just Ashley saying how she reads it, I'm saying how I read it. MR. SCHMITT: I beg to differ. It is not Ashley, it's the interpretation of zoning director. You Page 3 .l>- ~_""~"_""."'''''''_';''''__'~__''_''"'''''~''_'''''_"*'''~'"",'.,. , ."'",~,~,,~_,~~.__."b"'" ~'",-----_._... 161 1~B62~~_ .. made an interpretation, Mr. Klatzkow. You brought this up. Staff disagrees with you. Staff is applying the code as written in the LOe. And it's written based on the way it describes, and we've got no further direction. And until we bring that back to the Planning Commission for discussion, we're going to apply the code as interpreted by the zoning director. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. but part of the code -- the code is -- there's extensive issues in the code. You're focusing on the boat dock extension portions. or the boat dock requirements of the code. Part of the code also is compatibility requirements and a myriad of other requirements. I think what we understood from our last meeting is we certainly can weigh in on all the boat dock criteria. But if we want to bring another part of the code in into our analysis, such as compatibility, such as what -- as long as we base it on a reasoning within the code. we have the right to do that. Is that a fair statement? MR. SCHMITT: No, it was an issue on the way the code is wTitten, and it's three of one and five of the other. The interpretation was that anyone of them could be deemed a reason for denial, and that is not the way the staff applies it. If you meet as written. then \\,e determine that staff reviewed it and it was acceptable as the code is written, not because of only one issue creating a denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolt1at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, I'd like to cite back from the meeting notes of that commission meeting. On Page 162, Commissioner Halas: Yes, let's send this back to the Planning Commission with guidance so that we can get this thing taken care of once and for all. Commissioner Coyle then said: And I'll second it and ask that it be made clear to them that they not only list the criteria they use in accordance with their ordinance, but list any other criteria which they think is important in their decision; is that okay? Now, it was not prepared here, it was directed to come back to the Planning Commission. We've not heard a thing about this. And that was back in December 2nd. It's been four months. My question is, why haven't we had something up till now and why are we talking about other boat docks? MR. SCHMITT: The question is why haven't you heard that one? It's because it was up to the petitioner to bring that back to the Planning Commission. And that was a discussion with the petitioner. And after resolving it, it's scheduled for a forthcoming meeting. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 1 beg to disagree. This was a direction to the staff from Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coyle in the notes. MR. SCHMITT: WelL it's still up to the petitioner whether they want to withdraw it completely. And so we have not brought that back yet until we've resolved it with the petitioner. It's scheduled for a meeting in May. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The impression I got, that it wasn't petition specific, it was the issue of this criteria has become a problem. When we added that to the LOC. which I think is in 2006, we had a lot of discussion as to whether this was just going to be checking off the scoring. And the staff stated at the time that it wasn't. Yet, you know, Ray just now said yes, it's purely a scoring method. So I think we have to go back to the hearing where we brought it into the code. MR. SCHMITT: We added at that time the criteria for compatibility on -- when we were talking about the impact on surrounding property. And that had to do with. if! recall, boathouses and the impact that boathouses would have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way it was worded is that staff had this criteria that they used. Page 4 16 1 tril1l~009 .\ . And actually with this new hearing you can see the older method, it's stuff that they've added. And they wanted to bring that into the code. The concern was it just became a score card. And, you know, the staff assured us at the time it wouldn't. Ray today actually said it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, in our review of any boat dock application, I understand what the primary and secondary criteria are, what the requirements are in regards to how many questions have to be positively answered and others that don't. But aren't we allowed then to additionally take into consideration any of the elements of the LOC in regards to that boat dock or extension or application? MR. KLATZKOW: I think in reaching the determination you can go beyond. There may be exceptional circumstances that may warrant a certain recommendation decision by you guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, my question then is how do we as staff evaluate it and how does the applicant apply if all they have in front of them is the primary and secondary criteria? And that's the way it's reviewed, based on a staff review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I don't -- first of all, I wish this question had come up prior to the meeting here today so both parties could take -- I don't mean the applicant, I mean the county staff and the County Attorney could have gotten together to provide us with an answer rather than surprising it on you today. I did not know this was coming up. It does put a twist in today's meeting, unfortunately. We will still have to plow forward. As far as what criteria staff would have to go by, Susan Murray is the interpreter of the code, if I'm not mistaken. If she has not opined how those criteria apply to date, it would be helpful if she did. MR. SCHMITT: Wait a minute, the criteria apply. It's what you're-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said limited to just those criteria, though. Because my question is if we can apply the code to boat docks, it goes beyond the criteria. In the code there are compatibility sections and everything else, and there may be issues that we could apply outside the criteria. And if that's not the question at hand today, fine, but it seemed like it was. Because we went outside the criteria last time to apply -- MR. SCHMITT: I thought the question at hand was -- MR. KLATZKOW: The prior discussion I had with the board last time was this: Look, it's not a score sheet. There may be one criteria there that is so overwhelming that you would deny it. For example, let's say you had a waterway that was 100 feet in length that somebody wanted to put a 90-foot dock in, okay? Well, it doesn't meet that one criteria but it might meet every other criteria. So if you're just using a score sheet, okay, approach you would approve it, but that's senseless, because the dock is just blocking the whole thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a very good example, and thank you for refreshing my memory at least on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'd really like -- Joe, you should go back and look at the public hearing where staff brought this criteria -- the criteria was there. The scoring method staff brought in as an example of how they come up with a recommendation for this board. If we're purely to check whether they did the score method right, then why are they having a public hearing at all? I mean -- and obviously the reason these boat dock -- the extensions come here is to have a public hearing. So if the public hearing is just to check to grade the staff on their homework, then that's not a public hearing. Page 5 ,~-,~ _"!'IV .. '. '~_'~"'~'_'."''''''__''''~_'_'''''_"'''''__''''._''''''''_-"''~_ ~ --...'" 16 I 1 "B ~ t.. ~ April 16, 20 9 MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. And we've had that debate before, whether some of these should even come to a public hearing and should they just be an administrative approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But read the minutes from when it got into the code, the LDC. I would guess 2006. And I think the conversation stall'had then with us, the assurances staff gave us of our concern over the score card method is contrary to what Ray said today when he started the conversation off. Ray today believes it's purely a score card. And that was -- MR. SCHMITT: Let me -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- assured that that would never happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you guys-- MR. SCHMITT: Let me go back to the issue about the dock protruding over 100 feet. If that were the case, it's not going to meet criteria three. it's not going to meet criteria four and it's probably not going to meet criteria five. So, you know, that's the way the evaluations are done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Joe. I think what the County Attorney has left us with for today is that if any ofthe criteria are so overwhelming we feel it should not move forward, then we can make that as an exceptional statement and say so. I think that's what the BCC is looking for from us in reverting -- remanding it back to us. And with that, I think we know enough to proceed in today's hearing with the two we have in front of us. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only exception is I did watch that hearing. And the impression I got was is because the BCC is getting stuff and it appears like we didn't do our job. And I think what Frank was saying is they are doing their job. And I think Coyle, maybe in reading -- Commissioner Coyle reading specifically we may feel like we're doing our job weakly, we're not explaining these issues. And it was to go back and decide how we're going to do these boat docks. If it is a score card method, let's just make it staff. It's the only tinal decision this board makes, it's the only reason this board is an official -- you know, we're ot1icers of the county. and this would free up a lot of members to be on other boards, so let's just resolve that and get it over with. MR. SCHMITT: But it still requires -- thc public still has the right to come in and present its view as to whether they believe it's going to -- you know, it's going to create a navigational issue as far as existing docks or the waterway. That's why it's still a public hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you -- MR. SCHMITT: And then you make a decision, you make the final determination. What that was was an appeal. And when we presented the appeal to the board, it was staft's position that though it was denied, there were certain criteria in the way the code is written that though there were grounds for the appeal, we supported the position that the appeal should be upheld. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you guys aren't going to come to a meeting of the minds here at this meeting today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we -- we have a standard established by the County Attorney. I think what it basically says is we have the criteria. If even one or more criteria are so exceptional to us, are so abhorrent that they want to get to a point where we feel it's deemed not passable, then we just so state our exception for the record clearly as to why that one is such a strong issue. And that will get us to the BCC with hopefully the information that they need. Is that close in everybody's mind to what we -- MR. SCHMITT: And I think that was the board's intent, so they would know exactly why you disagreed with it. And if it were appealed. then we could articulate to the board why this panel recommended disapproval. Page 6 - 16A!ri~A~9 f .~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Joe, we've done that. And the problem with it is we've made our opinion, and it's only one of the criteria and then it goes to the board and the staff is discussing how it still wins because, you know, there's still the other four that passes or something. So that's not what happens. I mean, the conversation with the commissioners gets confusing to them even, because how can they reject it when it only failed one item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I really think the intent was is to bring it back and have us study how we do boat docks. And I think when you bring it back, bring it back to when the criteria score method came in to the code. Because that's when the problem occurred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, did you have something you wanted to-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. All I'm trying to ascertain is today how should I view this petition? Should I view it on like the score card method that's been established as far as being in the code and should be followed, regardless if there's any extenuating circumstance, or should we use our judgment and possibly interdict considerations which we think are relevant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My thought is that we're not limited to anything. But we have to be explicitly clear as to why we have either found one of those score card elements more appalling than others, or if we bring in other circumstances we have to so state it on the record and state it clearly. It goes then on to the BCC. Statf will have their position, their position is already as it's stated to us, and the BCe will have ours as well as theirs. And the BCC is there to make a decision if there's an impasse. And that's what I think the outcome of this will be. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I'll go to the first petition on your Page 4. And it's clear. In order for the Collier County Planning Commission to approve a boat dock extension request, it must be determined that at least four out of the five primary criteria and four out of the six secondary criteria have been met. I mean, that -- MR. KLA TZKOW: But it says at least. It doesn't mean if all four are met they have to do it, okay? There's a difference, Joe. Which is why I'm saying, ifI can get an official interpretation out of this from Susan, it might be helpful rather than having this back and forth. Then the board can make a policy decision. MR. SCHMITT: I don't understand. I mean, to me at least four out of the five primary and at least four out of the six. Now, how you apply that, you make -- you provide us. If you deny it, we need to know what your basis of denial is. Because if it's appealed, we need to present that information to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. KLA TZKOW: What at least means is that if only three are met, you can't do it, okay. But if five are met, maybe you can, maybe you can't. There's some discretion. If there's no discretion, they shouldn't be hearing it, it should be purely administrative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHMITT: All I want is for them to articulate if they deny it so we can present it to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to get to, Joe. And you guys want to debate this. It's the wrong time to do it. I think we've got to establish what we have to do. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to say, Joe, go back and read your staffs testimony when they brought the numbering part of the criteria. The criteria has been in the code. Your staff had a method of numbering it so that they could have a vote to see whether it's good or bad. Page 7 ....._'" -. - -~'-'-"__"".I"'.'''. ~ .... ~--"'''''''---'-~"''~,.,_.~-~---,,--- 16 \ 1 B 6 '\ e1 April 16, 2009 They brought that into the LDC in 2006. At that time there was great concern that it would become just exactly what you described. And it was assured to us that it wouldn't. So if it is exactly what you described. then it becomes an administrative thing, we check your homework, the public, the only option they have is to check your homework and that's how it goes. But we've got to figure this out sometime. CHAIRl'v1AN STRAIN: WelL and I would suggest before another boat dock application comes before this board, between the staff and the legal department you guys get it resolved somehow. And for today's meeting, we have an overriding health, safety and welfare concern for the public in our LDC, and if anything else we certainly can apply the rules to fit that need. And I think that's how we ought to be proceeding today. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Can we make a request of the staff that they withhold any other boat dock applications until this issue has been discussed and resolved during the Planning Commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just asked them to resolve this before any are brought forward. So rather than withhold something, which is more like an action I'm not sure we can take. because it may be a semi moratorium, before anything gets back to us on a boat dock extension, be sure to have this resolved, and that would settle it. Okay? Mr. Kolflat, thank you for bringing it up. Next time if we know a little ahead. we can be better prepared, but I do appreciate you bringing it up. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I worry about the Sunshine Law. Can't ever communicate with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. no. no. I mean to staff. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. CHAIRl'v1AN STRAIN: I mean, it's good to prepare statT for hard questions like this, then they can have some time to do research if needed ahead of time. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRl'v1AN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. This one's going to be as long as the last. We have a whole pile of schedules that I have been handed over the past week to talk about today. As you all know, we have commissions from GMP hearings that David Weeks' department -- or Randy Cohen's department. I'm sorry. And they are in January of -- ClE -- no. they're in January and February of this year. And on top of that, I got a request for the CIE review. Now -- and on top of that I got a request for LDC reviews. I have a series of piles and piles of meeting dates here. What I have done is gone through a year long plus calendar, laid out what we have already okayed for dates. and then went back and saw what available dates were presented in the documents that were sent to me to see which ofthose dates fit best for this commission, not piling one meeting on top of another. It would be really hard to prepare for a regular meeting and have an LDC meeting the same day. Where they are even the same week that's difficult. In some cases, though, unfortunately that cannot be prevented. So here's what I have I think are the best dates. If you all want to go over all the dates, we can do that, but trying to save time, I'll give you the best dates that I was able to coordinate out of these. The CIE adoption hearings would need to be -- welL we have the adoption and we have the AUIR process. We're looking at two different dates. One was starting in December and the other was starting in Page 8 161 1 ~6 . Apn 16, 2009 January. December Christmas period a lot of people are out of town. We also have meetings already scheduled for December in close proximity to the ones that they had suggested. The two dates that I think would be the best for the Planning Commission are Tuesday, January 5th and Tuesday, January 19th. Does anybody know on their calenders if those are objectionable to them? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, no, you'd have to give us the dates and we have to come back. I mean -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I wasn't prepared for a meeting prophesy today, so -- but give us those dates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: January 5th and January 19th. So we'll have to put the decision off then till next meeting. On the LDC hearings, if you were to take in those dates as well as the other dates we previously approved and our regular meeting dates, there are three dates that would be in between some of the others that would probably work for us for LDC. The first one is Thursday, January 28th, the second one is Thursday, February 25th, and the third one is Thursday, March 25th. That's not the order that staff had preferred them in, but by stretching them out a month apart the last Thursday of each month it gives us some time in between our regular meetings. Because the LDC is pretty difficult to get through. MR. SCHMITT: May I ask those again, January 28th, February 25th and March 25th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Those are -- I had gotten more dates, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, we've got a lot of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they're all intermixed, though. And some are conflicting with the CIE, some are right after another meeting or before another meeting, and I know that's going to make it real difficult for this panel. MR. SCHMITT: And I know some of those dates were -- CIE and transmittal dates were double booked, based on either availability of this room or continuation dates. So you give us those dates, we'll come back with a hard calendar then and we'll lay it all out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the hard calender is still going to show that we have two meetings in some weeks. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with the number of meetings we have scheduled for that part of the year, there's no way to avoid it. But this separates them, I believe, as best they can be separated and still give us time to do our reading. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The dates you've given us are dates that we're going to be here, not choices of them, correct? So we're looking at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, those are the dates that if everybody can work with that, those are the dates that are most separated by other dates that we have. And they're all in this room. And those are the ones that I have gone through thoroughly, and hopefully those would be the best we could come up with. MR. SCHMITT: And they're spaced so that there's distance between you and then the board meeting and all those kind of things, so we're just-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, that's fine. If you worked them out, I'm okay with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there's the dates, if you all could think about them in your-- Page 9 . - ~ . ~",_,'.-..w,._,..,.",..._ ~"-~".-..,~-,.",,,_.,----_. -- April 16, 2009 for our next meeting. 161 1'8& t \~ Go ahead. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mark, do you have the GMP dates that we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I do. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- talked about last week? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You mentioned the CIE and then the AUIR. And if the AUIR is in this room, is it likely that we're not going to meet in conjunction with the Productivity Committee? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. that's the CIE as a result of the AUIR. It's a coordination. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The AUIR I'm assuming will still be over in CDES. The other dates that we chose for the transmittal hearings for the 2007/2008 cycle of the GMP was October 19th and October 20th. The adoption hearing was July 19th and July 20th, if we even need those two days for adoption. For the Immokalee area master plan. the dates that were previously accepted were January 29th and February 16th. And then for the adoption hearings. they were October 28th and October 29th. I hope I got that right. But that's as close as I can read off of this one paper I got from our last meeting. Joe, if you could-- MR. SCHMITT: Then yet to be determined will be the RLSA transmittal and adoption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that one in itself will take a long time, depending on how much the commission accepts or does not accept from the Planning Commission. MR. SCHMITT: Our proposal is -- will be discussed next week with the board. And so I want to preface by it will be the board's decision on what takes precedence as far as the GMP amendments. We have the 07/08 cycle, which currently has 10 private petitions, and then we have the Immokalee Area Master Plan. and then we have the RLSA, all of which are GMP amendments. All we want to keep separate. The Immokalee Area Master Plan of course is going to be a document in and of itself. We're going to need at least two days for the GMP amendments, you'll need at least a day or two for the Immokalee. And then the RLSA will be based on where we can -- where the board wants that to fit in. But that's the order we're at we're going to recommend to the board. Now, they may decide and put the RLSA first, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: W el L when the RLSA schedule. the transmittal hearing of that, will be as a result of the data and analysis that n MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: n your departments do. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. That will be a normal submittal and then it will go through staff analysis and presented just like any other GMP amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what I was going to say is that that amount of analysis and data, as well as the magnitude of what we reviewed last time versus this upcoming time will be probably as lengthy. Because the analysis and the data in itself will take a lot of time just to read and digest, so -- MR. SCHMITT: Just so you can put your arms around everything, 2010 is also the start of another EAR process. Hard to believe, but we'll be going through the evaluation and appraisal report, which is the report then follows the GMP amendments then follows the LOC amendment So it's hard to believe we're already into beginning evaluation and appraisal reports. Page 10 April 16, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're going to need a raise. 161 1 ~ 86 , MR. SCHMITT: You're going to need more staff, but I don't think that's going to happen. So we may end up delaying that EAR. And if we delay the EAR, we're going to be prohibited from submitting any GMP amendments. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Okay, well, let's just move on. MR. SCHMITT: And then one other twist which I'll bring up, since we're talking about it, the legislature may limit GMP submittals of only one a year from the county, only one cycle a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. SCHMITT: So that may stretch these out even more. So it's just -- we're scheduling them, just so you know what's coming up, because we want to present to the board how we believe this thing should sequence. And of course there may be some outside influence wanting to change that order coming before you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #5 APPROV AL OF MINUTES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes. There are no minutes with this agenda. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - APRIL 14,2009, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on April 14th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the three sign variances for Port of the Islands, and that was approved on their summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And our next regular meeting is going to be on May 7th. Is everybody that is here today know whether or not -- does anybody know they're not going to be here on May 7th? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Possibility I will not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have a grand child about to be born, so I'm not certain for myself either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can bring him. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That would be her. That would be the mother. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll still have a quorum. Mr. Eastman, let the record show you're here. I'm not sure, did we catch him on -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. You sit over there smiling all the time, I just want to make sure we know you're there once in a while, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. Page 11 r.. IIV '_'''<'.''"''''"''''''''''''-~-'~'_''''__''''''__-.;_'''r ..""'........... ill ',~~ .....,-..-....- April 16, 2009 Item #7 161 1 -'d6!1 ~1 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. Muni. Code. I've read the data that was supplied to us last time, and Muni. Code had expected supplemental changes twice a year, January and July. And they charge by page, which is kind of interesting. I also know that they're supposed to be supplied the data. They were supplied all kinds of pages of stuff, including PUD's. I'm so glad they did not go ahead and implement those into the code, because it would have made it even more confusing. But I know Mr. Klatzkow, I understand you're working on this? MR. KLATZKOW: We are very close to having this finalized and done with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll just keep checking with you on regular -- until it's -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, right now what we're doing is we're going back to the recodification. We're making sure that every amendment from that point on is adequately reflected in the code. I'm not going back before then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. but I do know that part of their contract was for us to review the drafts of how they implemented it into the code, so I think that's good. that's what we should be doing. MR. KLA TZKOW: That's what we should be doing, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Thank you, sir. Item #8A PETITION: VA-2008-AR-I3977, TIM CHESS OF MCDONALDS USA, LLC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have three consent agenda items. First one is Petition V A-2008-AR-I3977, Tim Chess of McDonald's. USA, LLC. for the McDonald's at 2086 Tamiami Trail East. Are there any changes needed to consent agenda on that item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. is there a motion to approve the consent agenda for that item? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: [ would move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. seconded by Mr. Murray. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAf: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 12 April 16, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? 161 1-' 86 I (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #8B PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-13792, NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDEN, INe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next consent agenda item is Naples Botanical Garden Petition PUDA-2008-AR-13792 at 4820 Bayshore Drive. Any corrections needed to that on a -- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any corrections, anybody? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the motion's made to approve, Mr. Kolflat. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #8C PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-13048, NADESHA RANASINGHE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next consent agenda item is Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-13048, Nadesha Ranasinghe for Singer Park CPUD in Golden Gate Estates. Are there any corrections needed to that item in the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- consent agenda? Mr. Wolfley made the motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 13 - ... _,"_"".,_,,,_._.,.",>,,~_,_'w'"'''''''''''' __"..__ '1>;n ..-~.._.", April 16, 2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. 161 1 1 86 ~'1 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously 8-0. Item #9A and #9B PETITION: BD-2009-AR-14138 AND VA-2009-AR-14139, HUSSEIN WAFAPOOR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Advertised public hearings. Mr. Klatzkow, we have two on the same property. One is a variance and one is a boat dock extension. Can we discuss them simultaneously and then vote separately? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the applicant have any objection to that process? I see the head shaking no. So with that in mind, we'll open the hearings for Petition BD-2009-AR-14138, for Hussein Wafapoor. and that's for a 1 O-foot boat dock exception. And Petition V A-2009-AR-14139, same gentleman, and that is for a variance for a setback. Both of them are at 140 Conners A venue. 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? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I had conversations with Bruce Burkhard and also asked Ashley to send the application for the adjoining property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had conversations with statf, I had conversations with Mr. Scofield and also Josh, I had conversations with Mr. Burkhard, and have gotten letters that I think we all received bye-mail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine were also, I had similar conversations with Mr. Burkhard and with Josh and Rocky. So that's all. With that in mind, we will move forward. Rocky, it's yours. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. For the record, Rocky Scofield, representing Hussein Wafapoor at 140 Conners A venue, Vanderbilt Beach Estates. We are here this morning. On the overhead is a location map of where the lot is located near the end of Conners A venue, tucked back in a little comer. It's pretty unique to Vanderbilt Beach. The owner -- there's currently a small dock there that will be removed, and -- that's the current dock that's on the property right now. The adjacent property doesn't show the whole dock. I have other drawings that will show the next door neighbors in more detail on aerials. Page 14 161 1 -, 86 q April 16, 2009 But when the surveyors go out and -- they only do what's very close to the property line, so they don't give you the whole picture. Obviously there's docks on both sides, we'll show you those on aerials. This is an aerial I believe you had in your packets that we try to do. We take all the neighboring docks, and on this aerial we give their distances out. And sometimes on this one we gave the square footage and then the distance across the waterway, which is all required distance -- you know, this distance across the waterway doesn't mean a heck of a lot here because it's such a great area. But this shows you -- this is the uniqueness of this lot, how tucked back in this comer it is. The applicant only has 50 feet of seawall, and it's on a curvature. And this is what we're proposing. This is the proposed dock here. This shows the neighboring dock in its entirety on this drawing. The applicant wants to pull in a boat straight in as the neighbor is. They're proposing a 10-foot boat dock extension. The boatlift is located here in the center, which is the longest part that we have to utilize to bring his boat in. There's an access dock proposed on each side of the lift. And since we're discussing this boat dock extension with the variance, they both go together, they can't be separated. So I'm glad we're hearing both of these together. We're asking for a lO-foot boat dock extension out from the property line. Now, this is measured from the most restrictive point. If you see this dark line and the seawall cap, that's the property line. That's where we have to measure from. So from that dark line near the middle of this boatlift area out to the riparian line out here is 30 feet. And you're losing about a foot here due to the cap that the property line comes back in. The proposed catwalk on the north side of the boatlift is also 30 feet long. The variance on this comes into play on both sides. We -- when you're doing boat docks, you have to do variances from the riparian lines. Riparian lines, as you know, you've all been through a bunch of these, they're extensions of the property line into the waterway that go to the cord of a channel or, in this case, this is a specifIc case, and riparian lines are dealt with. And I'll tell you again how they're done. When you have an inside radius, especially one tucked back in a comer like this, the way the riparian lines are determined is they impose a circle or a wheel in this area. And then you have the hub of that wheel. And the property lines are drawn out from -- the property lines on this one is drawn to this circle. The circle would be right here. This being the center of it. So this property line is extended to this point, the center of the circle. This property line extended to here. Those are your riparian lines. We're here today asking for the variance of seven and a half feet, this lot being only 50 feet long, the setbacks are seven and a half feet on this property. So we are -- we're asking today for a seven and a half foot setback. And that would be for both sides. Even though this dock, where it hits the seawall here, is about -- oh, it's further than 15 feet away, maybe 18 feet from this property line. When you take this riparian line out to here it hits the riparian line. That's where the variance of seven and a half feet comes into play on this one. On the other side, on the north side, the riparian line extends directly out from the property line to the center of the circle. So that proposed finger dock on that side would be along the riparian line, which we're also asking for a seven and a half foot variance to go over there. This is an aerial view of how the dock will look, the proposed dock will look if it's built this way in conjunction with the neighbors. And as you can see, it's quite a ways away from the neighbor to the south, and away from everybody else. There's only one person in this scenario that's affected, and that is the neighbor to the north. We've had extensive conversations with this neighbor, the Zieglers. They're quite aware of what's Page 15 ,-..,,_.- -,..,.,........, w --"",,---""'-"'-"~-- - ""~,..."_..""'-;~_._-,.._-,,~-.. .-,. _._-~,._.~..'^",._"'^-'.-,.._-~,.""--~...",.,~- 161 1 ~6" pn116,2009 going on here. They did sign a waiver. In your packets -- I don't want you to be confused, there was a DEP waiver, which is not required for this property. by the way, but we did get one signed by them so they know what was going on. The plan was revised since then to decrease the deck area. So this is the plan that's being proposed. what you see right now. The Zieglers have no objection to this. They're aware of what's going on. I have a letter -- I brought a letter today that I'll enter into the record from the neighbor which says, we will be removing the floating jet ski lift. On your -- this has been brought up on the plan. There's a little note by that floating jet ski lift, which was not permitted. It says, to be removed. I know better than to put that on there now. Anyway, we're dealing with that today. This letter that will be entered in is an e-mail we got last night from the neighbors. and it states. we will be removing the floating jet ski lift on Friday, April 17th. We have no objections to Mr. Wafapoor's proposed boat dock extension or variance petition, as long as it stays within the limitations on the proposed plans that we signed. So that's basically what we're asking for here today. What I want to show you, and I'm sure you're going to hear some -- you're going to hear some discussion today on this variance. The variance is necessary to do this proposed installation. On this -- on the overhead map that shows up in the yellow right here, that's the lot. I wish I could zoom out a little bit more, but that's good enough. I want to bring your attention. this lot is the only lot in Vanderbilt Beach Estates that is like this. It is very unique. There is no other lot like this in the entire Vanderbilt area that has the limitations and restrictions that this does. And when you're considering variances. you're always going to hear that this may be precedent setting, we can't allow this for certain reasons. And I understand a lot of that. However, there's no other lot like this in Vanderbilt. So my estimation, there is no precedence that would be set by allowing what we are proposing here today. There's only one affected party. The views are not affected. We haven't heard anything about views. The neighbor to the north is the only one that's going to have a view of this dock. The neighbor to the south comer of their screen enclosure around their pooL they can see back into the comer. And I'll put the aerial -- there's the view. The next door neighbor around to the north on the other side, they're looking at the dock next to them, which is -- obscures this dock. The views are into the waterway. This is a tucked back comer again. So I would contend that precedence will not be set by allowing the setbacks to go to zero on this proposition here. (At which time, Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.) MR. SCOFIELD: So the criteria -- if we want to get back to that. the criteria in the boat dock extension. Everything has been met except one criteria, which is number three of the secondary, and that is, is the boat longer than the length of the waterfront property. Well, in this case it is. We have 50 feet of waterfront property. The boat we're proposing here is 27 to 28 feet in this area overall length. So that does exceed half the water frontage, the length of the water frontage on this property. There's no effects to navigation. Again we're tucked back in this comer. No one is affected by this except the next door neighbor. So that's what we're proposing here today, and I'll be glad to answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First off~ let the record show that Mr. Midney is here now. And I'm sure you probably ran into that wreck on Oil Well Road or something. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I had another appointment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I understood there was a pretty bad traffic jam up there. Page 16 . 161 I" 86 April 16, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeab, luckily not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Rocky, looking at the adjacent or the next door neighbor's boat dock arrangement there, do you happen to know the depth of that, what size boat could fit in there? MR. SCOFIELD: The neighbor to the north? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes. MR. SCOFIELD: It appears about a 30-foot boat; 28, 29, somewhere in that range. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That could fit in there or is already presently there? MR. SCOFIELD: No, that could. I did the extension on this property back in '93 for the owners at that time; their name was Newsome. It's now owned by different people. And that dock was put in at that time with the size boat that they had. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So they could have a boat equal to the size that would be -- the one that you're currently representing, the people? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rocky, what's the reason you need a variance? What's the hardship I guess is the magic question, MR. SCOFIELD: The variance is basically, what I was discussing before, is from our riparian lines. Because when you get into the waterway, then that's what you measure from. It's simple on land, you go from the side property lines or the front and back setbacks. The riparian lines are the property lines, so to speak, extended into the waterway. When you look at this riparian line on the south side, this line right here is the riparian line. These docks extend out -- the variance on this -- there's variances on both sides. Because the docks extend out to this line, that's where we're into the seven and a half foot setbacks from the riparian. Also on this side, it's easier to see, the property line is directly extended out as the riparian line. And that skiff dock, little finger dock, goes along the property line. You know, when we're asking for seven and a half feet -- when it's built obviously it's not on the line, it's back a few inches from the line, So that's the variance request. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And J'm not really focused on the first one you described. And I think the hardship there is the way you measure the riparian line, But you didn't really define a hardship. So what essentially what you're saying is the way the subdivision was platted is your hardship. I mean, for example, your neighbor had no problem and you actually did the layout honoring the seven and a half teet. MR. SCOFIELD: He's got quite a different configuration also. He doesn't have the -- he's got more of a sweep in the way that lays out onto his property line. We can't begin to do that on ours. He's got quite a bit more distance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he can go further out measuring 30 feet off the seawall. Because he does have some boundary that comes out of the radius of that circle. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. You know, back when those were done, you know, I would -- this riparian line is as a result of -- not my result, but of the surveyors. I would contend that that riparian line, the center of the hub, how it's measured would be out further, probably toward the end of the neighbor's dock. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Page 1 7 ,,,,.,,,,,. "I -j!. ". 1!l~n II -. 1 ... "'__""~~'_".~_'" - " ,~. .~.. -- 161 1 A~~;~ 219 MR. SCOFIELD: But that's not what the registered survey shows that we have to get and present to you with our packet. It's much more restrictive on this property now, and that's what we're dealing with today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I agree with you on that. You're asking for two, you know, variances: One on the -- let's call it the northeast boundary, the one running northeast, and the other one's running northwest. It's the northwest that I'm focused on. I think that you're right, actually if you extend the neighbor's property line straight out this thing would never get in the way of anybody. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's the other one that I have a problem with. And I don't see any hardship, I just see it's just the way the subdivision was platted, it's the way the lot was bought, it's the way the building was built. The neighbor was able to design around it. Why can't you just build the exact same dock? I know it can't be as long because of the measurement of the 30 feet out, but why can't you build a similar dock that has that seven and a half foot gap, and then the dock as you show on the northern property there? MR. SCOFIELD: Because you can't put a boat in there. You would be restricted to n I understand what you're saying. The problem is, this boatlift, if you focus on the boatlift, that boatlift needs to go where it is. If it's shifted over into this area, if I were to come seven and a half feet over. the boatIift would be in here and the person would probably be restricted to, oh, let's see, welL probably a 20 -- somewhere in the neighborhood of a 24-foot boat in this area. This is n and it's also closer to this property, which shouldn't come into effect unless this person wants to build a dock down here near his setback lines in the future. The only -- the thing is, on this dock here I have to have the -- you're in agreement with this side; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me even say further: The dock you have your pointer on is fine with me. I think the problem is that if you eliminated the other dock, you don't have to have docks on both sides. And then you reduce the size of that lift, that's a pretty big lift, 12 and a half feet. So if you just made it a 10 and a half foot lift and got rid of the other dock, you're in compliance and it's a happy world. MR. SCOFIELD: Well. we'd still be into that side setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The southwest n or the northeast property line we can discuss. But again, my hardship is not that one. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, the 12 and a half feet is a standard width of lifts. That's what 99 percent of the people get. A 12 and a half foot lift will handle up to a 10-foot beam boat. And that's a standard thing. Can they be cut down? Yes. That narrows your scope of which boats you can buy as far as beam goes. And that's the reason the owner wants this particular lift, which is a standard lift of 12 and a half feet in that area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, obviously your neighbor to the north doesn't have it. So he's one of that one percent or whatever, five percent. The-- MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, then you could move the dock two feet and he'd have it, if he really wanted it. MR. SCOFIELD: The owner to the north could have easily had a 12 and a half foot lift at that time. They wanted a lot more deck area. And today that probably wouldn't n that situation wouldn't ny. Staff would call that -- criteria Page 18 161 1136 . April 16, 2009 would say that's excessive deck area. So we're limited to what we can do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But again, there is no real hardship. 1 mean, the point you pointed out, just to make sure I'm clear this is your hardship, is the way you have to measure a riparian line is the hardship of this variance. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is essentially the fault of the subdivision. MR. SCOFIELD: Well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we are getting into the heart of the issue. All I've heard here so far is that because this gentleman wants this boat, which is probably not appropriate for the lot he bought, I think he wasn't thinking about a boat when he bought his lot or he would have chosen a different lot in this area. I think that when you buy the smallest lot for boat area that we're talking about, you have to think about the boat that you buy for that lot. Mr. Schiffer is right, if we go back to the criteria, and we'll go back to the criteria which says that variances should be the minimum that's needed, what you're showing on this plan isn't the minimum. Certainly at minimum, I mean just at first blush would be to say to take out that second pier, the northern pier, I guess is what I'd call it. That's not necessary. It doesn't affect whether he can have a lift or not. It doesn't affect a southern pier and making it to that riparian line. So obviously right now what we're looking at is not the minimum variance. And that's very clear a criteria. So, I mean, I'm not sure, Rocky, but I think this plan needs to be reworked. I mean, I think you can work it for these people, but it certainly looks like it needs to be reworked in order to make it a minimum varIance. MR. SCOFIELD: So ifl'm hearing you correctly, the three-foot wide finger dock along the riparian line on the north side there is -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, drawing that out would certainly get you closer. I mean, it would be less of an encroachment on to that side. What -- I mean, ifl just look at simple math, if you take three feet off, then you're not asking for a 7.5-foot variance, you're asking for a 4.5. So obviously we can see that we can make this variance less than what you've shown on this plan. And that's just me, that's not you as the siter (sic) and planner of these docks. You could probably make this even better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Who owns the property here, and the submerged land there under the docks? Is that owned by the state or the owner? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir, this is not, this is not state owned. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's owned by the owner? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct -- well, no, it's not owned by either one of them. This is just -- was a dredged area. Is that correct, John? This was dredged and filled area. The state does not lay claim to this property. The owner does not have title to that property. So like a lot of properties around, it's there. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So there is no known owner. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. Page 19 'e~"n __...'''It """,,,,,-,,-,,<,-~,,,,,, -....<_..','-~.....,,".,,'..~._...- -- 16 11 ~ 86 ~ Apn 16, COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What is the distance from the end of the dock back to the road, approximately? MR. SCOFIELD: Say that again, please? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The distance from the end of the dock, the seaward side of the dock back to the road. MR. SCOFIELD: To the road? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: To the road. MR. SCOFIELD: I'm not understanding what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL I think he wants to know all the way to the edge of curb from the-- Mr. Kolflat, can you tell us where you're going with this? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, I can tell you where I'm going. Many people that have boats and lots like this are filling them from trucks with a long hose. They have hoses up to 300 feet long which they transport out to where the boat is. And what I'm trying to ascertain is what is the distance between the road where the truck might be parked and where you'd have to fuel the boat. And all I'm looking for is approximate numbers in that 300 range. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's only a 26-foot boat. Wouldn't they be able to just drive that over to a gas pump? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, you can, but it's a more convenient way to get your yacht fueled is to have them come to your lot, basically. You have them put it where it's moored. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see a 26-foot boat as a yacht. But, I mean, that seems like a pretty small boat to be filled up. But that's good, I mean, if you -- hopefully Rocky has an answer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: WelL the size ofthe boat has nothing to do with where you buy your gas. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the answer to your question, looks probably about 130 to 140, probably 140 feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. So it's within 300 feet. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's what I wanted to know, thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, very -- I don't know too many people -- I know there are, but for boats this size, most people don't have the, you know, motor fueling system, the people that deliver to your house, for this size. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, my experience difTers from yours then, that's all. MR. SCOFIELD: I know they do on larger boats where there's a big savings, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, do you have anymore? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, you're asking for a boat dock extension for what? I mean, I know that seems like a silly question. Could you show me on this plan the boat dock extension you're asking for. MR. SCOFIELD: The boat dock extension we're asking for is 10 feet. If you look at this line which represents the seven and a half foot setback? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, you're just saying you want 10 feet for that 30-foot proposed dock, the one that's been mostly focused -- MR. SCOFIELD: No, no. I need the 30 feet. If you look at this line right here, it says seven and a half foot setback. If you come down here and you measure from the property line out to the end of this line, that's 30 feet. Measured from the property line. That's the extension that we're asking for. The skip dock Page 20 16 I ,t~ ft,~OO9 . happens also to be 29 feet within that 30 foot that we're asking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand that. That's where I was trying to save you the time. But I understand your explanation. The proposed -- the dock that is to the south is 26 feet. Why didn't you ask for a boat dock extension for that? MR. SCOFIELD: Say that again? Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't 20 foot the standard length ofa dock? MR. SCOFIELD: That's what's allowed without a boat dock extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How's the one to the south at 26 feet not asking for a boat dock extension of six feet? Or is it and I just missed it? MR. SCOFIELD: Are you referring to this dock? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Go back to the other plan. You have two docks: You have one that's shown at 30 feet and one that's shown at 26 feet. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, that's within the 30 feet, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but do you need a boat dock extension for each dock or just one boat dock extension -- MR. SCOFIELD: The boat dock extension covers the property. And what you all approve or disapprove is on this plan. If an extension is granted for "X" amount of feet out, what's ever on that plan is covered in the boat dock extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you really need a six-foot extension if you didn't have the dock to the north, the northeast dock. MR. SCOFIELD: No. No, that's what I've been saying before, I need a 30-foot extension to put the boat in the lift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Even though -- because it goes to the outside of the lift? MR. SCOFIELD: Because if you go through the center part of this lift on this line right here, that's 30 feet long measured from the property line. And the boat usually is a foot, foot and a half from the seawall, so you don't damage it. The outboard motors, the outside will be right at that line. That's the furthest we can stick out. That's why we're asking for that extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Ray, from staffs perspective, the one extension request covers both docks? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only question I had. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rocky, one thing. What is the radius of that curve; do you know? Because essentially -- and you measured this way on your application for the northern dock. Wouldn't you just offset that curve 30 feet and it's only those elements that are outside of that that are required to be extended? In other words, you're going to measure to the property line. You would essentially -- to the closest property line. Does it give you the radius of that curve? Is the radius of that curve 24 feet? MR. SCOFIELD: You can turn it around. Could you say that again, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the radius of the curve property line at the bulkhead? It's C-2, so go to the -- MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, that C-2 is 49.84 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So essentially if you offset that, anything that -- if you offset that, you're 20 feet. Anything outside of that is what you need a variance on, correct? Page 21 -. - ~ ,_."""""""".."...."---......" '---'-'--~~'-'"~'~-'"'''''''''~''' . 16 ~iiiiB09 . MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. Whatever you put in -- the dock that is currently in there now would need a boat dock -- actually, it would need a variance, because it sticks out to the riparian lines within the seven and a half foot setbacks. It's a small dock that was there, it was permitted. But way back when that wasn't looked at. The dock was built with a regular permit. Anything you put in here n you can put a vel)' small dock in that wouldn't comply, but if you put a boat there, then you'd be violating setbacks and distance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any further questions of the applicant on either application, the boat dock extension or the variance? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staff report, please. MR. SCHMITT: Ashley? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, neither one of you -- you can fight over it later, just someone come up and make a staff report. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner. And I worked on the variance for this particular boat dock, and staff is recommending approval of the variance for the boat dock. And I just had one comment I wanted to make about regarding whether or not this was the minimum variance that would be needed for this particular boat dock. And in staffs opinion it is. And that's because the actual boat dock lift is located in the deepest area of water depth. And in staff's opinion, the dock to the north is needed for maintenance of the other side of the boat. And they've held that to a minimum three foot width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now you're addressing just the variance, and I'm assuming Ashley is going to address the boat dock extension? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So are there any questions of the staff in regards to the variance portion of it only? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to let Nancy know that it is not necessary to have that pier to the north in order to have the lift and have it operate and be maintained. Only one pier is needed to do that. You can look at multiple docks in the area. It's just not a necessary thing. They can lessen this variance by taking out that northern pier and it will just make it a lesser variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER CARON: They still will require one, but it will be less. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is to Jeff. Jefl: is the way the subdivision laid out a hardship? Throughout the variance part of this thing, it's discussing yes, it's trying to overcome the layout of the subdivision. MR. KLA TZKOW: I'm going to tell you that that's a very subjective question, not an objective question. There's some people who might say that just because you want a bigger boat doesn't mean you have a hardship. There are other people who would have to say well, this lot itself causes, you know, an inherent hardship. It's very subjective. It's up to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But isn't the main thing is that this is a known condition -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's one argument n COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: n from creation, and that the person who is buying the dock has this known. They use that same logic a lot in their report. For example, they're saying the only property Page 22 April 16, 2009 161 1 '~B6 " . that's impacted is the one to the north -- MR. KLATZKOW: A denial here-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and he's okay. MR. KLATZKOW: A denial here is legally defensible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have a question from staff on the variance application? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go with the boat dock extension. MS. CASERTA: Good morning. For the record, Ashley Caserta, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I did receive a call from a homeowner I believe across the street, 1259 Conners A venue. And they are in support. I haven't received anything in writing, however. And staff is recommending approval. If you have any questions, I'd like to answer those at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on the boat dock extension portion of it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you, Ashley. MS. CASERTA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we do. First speaker is Bill Eline, to be followed by Bruce Burkhard. MR. ELINE: I'm coming slowly. Good morning. My name is Bill Eline. I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. We have about 900 members in the association. And I've been a resident in the county for 20 years. It was very interesting -- and I want to assure you, I wrote these notes before I got here. Because as president, I must get four or five calls a week, why do the staff constantly consider variances to very good codes? It's very, very expensive. It takes not only everybody here, the staffs time and our time. Now, the problem is my experience in that 20 years, and I've been on all kinds of committees, once a variance is given, the County Commissioners every time we're there will say to the staff, have you granted a variance like this to somebody else? And every time the staff has to say yes. Therefore, when you get a variance, you really have changed the code. And I think our citizens are saying if you want to change the code, make an application, but don't do it through the back door. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Bruce Burkhard. MR. BURKHARD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Burkhard and I'm the chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association Zoning Committee. And what I thought I'd do first is just show you a couple of overheads of the current situation and then go into what I have to say. This is what we have now. You can see the docking to the north. You can see the present conforming dock that's on the property right now. And then I just have a couple of shots of approaches, just to familiarize yourselves a little bit more Page 23 ..... - ...._",-,,'........,....- _ _M'_,~.__.. ~ -~ <-- 161 141 16a!_ . with the area. We're coming in here with a boat. The Wafapoor property is straight ahead of you. This brings us in a little bit closer to the property. And then that's the existing dock and the waterfront that we're talking about. I mentioned in an earlier e-mail to all the commissioners that the working philosophy of our association is that we want to see the LDC enforced as closely as possible. And then in the case of a need for a variance or an extension, we should be trying to obtain a minimum number of feet, not a maximum. If the principles of the code are routinely bypassed, it soon has no value, as Mr. Eline just said. In the case of this particular site. it certainly appears that we have a self-created hardship of sorts. The owner bought a somewhat marginal pie-shaped lot with minimum water frontage. Nevertheless, the original owner found it possible to construct a conforming dock. As designed, the present two-pier dock system creates problems with setbacks and also yields an excessive deck area, we feel. We're all aware that the majority of docks in the area with boat hoists have only one pier. I'd add that most of them also have 80 feet of frontage, not the 50 feet that we have here. By removing one pier, we'd get rid of some of the decking and most likely eliminate the need for a site setback variance in the first place. We don't think any of us want to see a recreation of the excessive dock situation to the north. In fact, there's a current code enforcement complaint being investigated right now relating to setback violations on that dock system and also excessive dock length. Again, our desire is to see the LDC followed as closely as is reasonable, allowing for hardships not created by the property owner. It certainly shouldn't be our role, all of us, to make possible for anyone to have everything that he or she might want even if it's at the expense of their neighbors giving up their rights, which is essentially what's happening. We urge you to deny this extension and recommend that a less obtrusive design be worked on. About seven years ago we had a situation again with the same design firm, a property called Liberty Ventures on Vanderbilt Drive, and we were told at that time, and the Planning Commission was also told, that the only possibility was the design that was being proposed. We disagreed. The CCPC also disagreed. The dock extension was denied. And very shortly after that the attorney for Liberty Ventures came to us and was looking for a compromise situation. We worked with that attorney and also this design firm working for the attorney came up with a much, much better design that was less obtrusive. And it turned out that what they asserted was the only way to design the dock at 60 feet, it turned out they were able to design the dock at about 30 feet instead by just simply turning the dock and shortening a little bit. That achieved everybody's goal, we were satisfied, and ultimately the customer was satisfied. And perhaps we can head in that direction with this as well. As Mrs. Caron indicated, a lot more work needs to be done on this dock, we believe. Going to the criteria, primary criteria, we feel that criteria A, the proposed dock facilities are not appropriate in relation to the waterfront location, the length and the configuration, vis-a-vis the property lines. It's too much in too small a space. One dock hoist would be appropriate, and one dock pier, rather, also would be appropriate, not two. B, the water depth as shown in your staff report does not create a problem if the dock is canted somewhat to the side and moved in closer to the shoreline and the hoist moved to the opposite side. And it would put the hoist in deep water. If any variance is needed with that configuration, it would probably be very minimum. We think the extension fails on item B as well as A, C doesn't apply, D we don't think applies. E, the proposed dock is also on top of the adjacent dock Page 24 16 I A\ri~~200~ to the north, due to the placement of the property line. The neighbor could not bring a boat along his dock on the south side. As to the secondary criteria, we think it fails on A. There's no special depth condition that isn't faced by virtually everyone in the Vanderbilt Lagoon area. By going to one pier and probably canting the hoist, that should put the hoist in a relatively deep water situation and make the whole thing operable. Secondary B is proposed with two piers. We do have excessive deck area. There are other means of reasonable safe access for loading and servicing. Item C, by canting the proposed vessel -- by canting, the proposed vessel length should present no problem. D and E probably don't apply, nor does F. So as to primary criteria, we believe the existing configuration fails on A, B and E. On secondary criteria, it fails on A, B, C and E -- rather E actually never applies in the inner lagoon, since there really are no sea grasses that we're aware of anywhere in the lagoon area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you need to start wrapping it up. We're getting-- MR. BURKHARD: Okay. Well, I also had prepared and thought we were going to handle this as two separate issues, as it was listed, both in the agenda and also. So I have a spiel on the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then could you move it -- you've already doubled your time on the first one. We usually let that happen. We understand the criteria, the primary and secondary. I suggest you might not want to waste time on that. We certainly know how to review those. But if you want to go into your variance issue, then after that we'll entertain questions that you may have -- that we may have of you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before he does that, it's relevant to this current issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's all the same, Mr. Murray, but go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, he's making a distinctive-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- difference, that's why I'm saying that. That's fine. Mr. Burkhard. MR. BURKHARD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Did you take the pictures here? MR. BURKHARD: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you plumb the depth to determine the depths that are there? MR. BURKHARD: No. You know, we tried that once before. We actually devised a pipe and we measured two feet, three feet -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you didn't do that. MR. BURKHARD: We didn't do it because the Planning Commission told us we weren't experts and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, you didn't do it. MR. BURKHARD: -- our testimony couldn't be considered, so we just don't do it anymore. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So then it's conjectural as to what will or will not fit there and what depths are appropriate there. MR. BURKHARD: Well, based on experience ofliving in the area also, I have a boatlift and I know about -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, you've answered my question. I think conjectural-- you've testified to something that's conjectural, not really valid. MR. BURKHARD: Okay, but I'm also pointing out, Mr. Murray, that the package includes depths, a depth chart. And it's asserted in the package that the placement ofthe lift at that position allows the boat Page 25 .-. ..... r_.._. 'il.."'fI1"""" ,,~"___,.,. c,.,.","......,.,~^.,,_.'....-.,'"..., .^~',.."'~,..._.._"""""'___ 16 I 1 ~1 "\. . April 16e69~'<, that's proposed to work. And what I was suggesting as far as canting would put the hoist in approximately the same position. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you. MR. BURKHARD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bruce, if you want to go to the-- MR. BURKHARD: On the zero setback, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BURKJIARD: Our zoning committee and board all agree that the request is excessive, precedent-setting and unnecessary. It's precedent-setting because later on when somebody else comes in and asks for a zero or a two or a three-foot variance, it's not -- the board is not going to distinguish between whether this variance was granted at a unique location. It's going to simply be stated to you that a variance was granted in the past. And all they're asking is the same consideration. So precedent-setting is an important issue. And to our knowledge right now no such pennit's ever been previously approved in the Vanderbilt Lagoon area. The way we read the application, and I think Rocky confirnled, that he's askjng for a setback of zero feet from both property lines, or riparian lines, if you will. Ifpernlitted, this facility would or could encroach on the neighbors, right to the very property line. I've got good neighbors, but a little distance kind of helps make them better neighbors. And I think that would be the case here. People should not be living right on top of each other. Although a waiver letter apparently exist for the neighbor to the north, that's not the case for the south neighbor. In fact, 1 was told yesterday that that south neighbor has sent an e-mail to staff and it objects to the zero setback on his property line. The new zero lot line concept being floated here is completely at odds with the existing neighborhood, which already has some very large houses packed on to relatively small lots. This idea sets a precedent that we're very concerned about as a neighborhood organization. And the last thing we need is even further density and the virtual elimination of any side yard separations. This request should be unequivocably denied. Now, what I did was I took the staff analysis and I went down point by point, Mr. Chairman. And I've listed that, but let me just I guess suffice it to say if it's okay with you that we totally disagree with their analysis. And if you want me to list our disagreement, I can certainly do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you've had a lot of time. If you can list it in one minute, then go for it. MR. BURKHARD: No, I won't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BURKHARD: Yes, sir. ClIAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? MR. BURKHARD: Yeah, one other thing. I had a conversation with Mr. Wafapoor yesterday afternoon by phone, and he indicated to me that he's talked to Turrell & Associates and indicated that he's very willing to compromise, and that he has directed them to try to work out a compromise so that it's agreeable to the neighborhood. He doesn't want to be a bad neighbor. So I'll just enter that into the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think a compromise is probably whcre we're going to be heading in our discussions. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker, B.J. Savard-Boyer. MS. SA V ARD-BOYER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is BJ. Savard-Boyer. I live in Page 26 1611' ,.._~ April 16,86 the Vanderbilt Beach area. I sell real estate. And when this petitioner bought this property two and a half years ago, he was fully aware of the dock and the seawall configuration. There are pictures that are put in the MLS listing, and ifhe went out and looked at the property, he knew what it looked like. There was a dock there. Obviously at that time they were satisfied with having a boat that would fit. Now, to suit their needs they want the neighbors and the community to change the codes that we all live by. Kind of reminds me of people who buy homes by an airport and later complain about the noise. The noise was present when they purchased the home, but afterwards want the government to correct the problem. We don't see that we have to correct a problem that he agreed with when he bought the property. We would like you to deny this approval or redo it somehow so that it suits all the needs of how we live up there. We have big houses on little lots. We don't need big boats on little seawalls. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And that's the last public speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rocky, if you don't mind, I've got a question, Ms. Caron has a question as well. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead, ask the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate to bring up a subject we've dealt a lot with in the past, but the riparian line. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, the neighbor to the south, his property line goes east and west. Why wouldn't the riparian line go east and west? Why would it cut across that little piece of property to box it in like that? MR. SCOFIELD: Across the applicant's property? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the applicant doesn't own that property. Why would that east/west property line between the southern property of the applicant and the applicant's property, why wouldn't it just extend further into the bay, straight east and west? Why does it take a jog to the northeast like that? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, that's what I tried to explain before, how riparian lines are measured there from placing a wheel in these radiuses, and then you put a hub in the center of that wheel and you extend the property lines from the seawall to that center point. That's how this is done. It works great when you have a big area. This is a very small, tiny area, and that's why he is extremely limited in here. I would have -- my riparian lines would match more closely to the neighbor to the north where the end of his dock is. This is what the surveyor gave us, his interpretation of the statutes, and that's what we had to deal with, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Rocky, I'm going to ask it: It seems from testimony that we've heard and conversations that I've had with you that it may be possible to reach a compromise here. And my suggestion to you is that you continue this until our next meeting and that you meet with your client and with the neighborhood and work on some of the configurations. I suggested one yesterday, but I don't know that that's the best one or the right one. And we proceed after that. That way you don't have to have a denial, Page 27 ,,- __'-c<"__..__>___._' --_._"".....-..,..~,,~~'.'"''"_''' . '1 .. tIf 1611"'1 ~~ Apn I 16, 9 you don't have to -- and everybody can perhaps be a lot happier than they are today. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, I think I'd like to hear some more discussion on that. The owner, I did talk to him, as Mr. Burkhard said, yesterday. He was very upset over all of this. He said, but if I have to give up the dock on the northeast property line along that riparian line, then he said he would go along with that. Now, if that is acceptable, then I'm willing to offer that right now. Couple of things that was brought up by Mr. Burkhard. If you look on the overhead, the existing dock is not in conformity. I said this in my testimony earlier. It hits the riparian line. So there's a lot of things that 1 can say. Water depths aren't an issue. Whatever I put in here, a boatlift in this area and a boat is going to violate these seven and a half foot areas which you come in from each side. So we have to get a variance here to put a boat and lift in this area. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and I understand that. I think everybody can see that. You know, that's not -- but it's minimizing whatever variance is needed in order to accomplish the goal for everybody. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. I understand that. And again, I don't see any affected parties. You know, we hear that oh, these other things, which were given in testimony. But this is an area where nobody even knows exists probably when they're boating by. You look back in this corner, you're not going to know if a dock is 10 feet long or 30 feet long. You can't visually see that in this area, I mean, unless you go and poke your boat right in this little nook. So if it's the board's -- if they care to discuss and consider the removal of the skip dock, that would reduce the setbacks along that side. the requested variance to four and a half feet from seven and a half feet, I can today offer that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', how are you doing for time, if we wait? THE COURT REPORTER: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You going to be okay for about another 15 minutes if we wait? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rocky, would you put up the Conners subdivision again where you're pointing out that there's no other property that would have similar situations? Rocky, see the dead end canals? Why wouldn't somebody from one of those dead end canals come in here and say the same thing? MR. SCOFIELD: The code specifically deals with dead end canals on 90-degree angles. There's very specific riparian lines that come out at 45 degrees. But a lot of these properties, though, on these dead end canals wrap halfway around the end of the canal. So they're not subjected to that. Where the property line ends right at the corner, the 90-degree turn, the code deals with that specifically. So a lot of these properties that go halfway around the end of the canal-- and it's not a problem. We deal with that all the time. This is very specific. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this may be somewhat unique, but the point is the same logic might apply here. I mean, that's -- why wouldn't somebody come in and want a zero there? In other words, I do think that a precedent could be set here. MR. SCOFIELD: Because I design a lot of these docks and they don't need it. Nobody wants to come to a variance unless they have to. Believe me, they don't want to go through this experience, they don't want to go through this pain. This is a very specific situation, and we think what we're asking for is an okay deal. Page 28 161 r" fJ April 6, Bt6 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the need, the hardship you described is the way the subdivision was laid out, which means -- MR. SCOFIELD: And that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that's the value of that lot, that means that owner paid less. That means a lot of things that everybody is purely aware. This is not a hidden defect. So, you know, everybody along the line knew that this was there, they knew that that setback would be there. And that's the same condition on every lot in there, I guess, but -- okay, thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, if you were to take out that northern proposed dock and you'd only have the one dock to the south, you'd have your boatlift and where the northern proposed boat dock is, instead of all the piling that would support that proposed dock you'd only have two piling that would be remaining there that would end up supporting the outside limits of the proposed boatlift, is that -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you'd take out the deck area, you'd take out all the other piling -- MR. SCOFIELD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There would only be two piling between the existing dock and all the way to the property line. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, that just may work as a compromise. And I'm not sure why we just couldn't do that today, if everybody feels comfortable with it, and then they can come back on consent. So that's just a -- it's just a suggestion I'm making to the panel here. Are there any other questions of staff or of the applicant at this time before we close the public hearing? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. No, the only reason I had suggested doing a continuation was that while that seemed like a logical move to me to take out that pier, and that's what I had discussed with Rocky the other day, you know, I don't know if that's really the best thing to do. And if that minimizes the variance to the max. I mean, we didn't sit there and play with different configurations. I just tossed out a suggestion. So -- now, maybe you've had a chance to look at it in the meantime, but that was my reason for saymg -- MR. SCOFIELD: Well, we have looked-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- after you've looked at it. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, we have looked at different configurations. Trying to lay a dock along the side here on this curvature and bringing a boat in that way and getting it into a lift is just not plausible. Straight in and straight out like the neighbors. You can see the shape of this thing. There's only really one way to get in and out of there, unless we were going to an I8-foot little boat without a lift in that area. Obviously it lessens the impact if you take that dock out. We're staying three feet away from the property line there. We're 18 feet -- as the seawall goes, you're about 16 to 18 feet away from the neighbor to the south along the property line. The current dock, existing, sticks out almost the same as that dock on the south side. So the only thing you'd be allowing here basically is to put the boatlift in, and today we have to get the variances in order to do this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One of the big concerns I have is really voting for a variance that Page 29 ,-,_. ........ 11ll'1lIl1 ...._--"","''"'~.,._.. "" ,....-.--,'".....," -~ ~ -- 1~ 6 I l' ~ ~~ 86; I April 16, 2009 allows zero. Because while those things always appear to be case specific, they're always used someplace that hurts us. What I would kind of like to do is if -- I don't know if we could do this, but allow you to use the extension of the southern property line as the riparian line, stay seven and a half feet off of that, and then deny the variance requirements. You're going to lose it on that center line. And then let you redesign a dock that fits within that. I'm not an expert on riparian lines. I did read a book on it. We had all these debates -- and I don't want to provide testimony, but I'm not sure the centroid applies here. And obviously you're not sure of it yourself. And in those corner lots, those end of canal lots, they do let that line bounce off at a 45, which would be about exactly that. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, the lot line ends at the corner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: Now. you can do what you want on this. We're -- you know, we're restricted. We have to show rip -- I can't arbitrarily say where a riparian line is. If you all want to do that, that's fine. If you extend that line out, straight out like you're talking about, you're seven and a half feet. It's a matter of words here. If that makes -- the dock's going to be in the same place. But ifit's more pleasing to say that it's seven and a half feet off because you're adjusting that line n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL before you go there, Mr. Klatzkow, are we a jurisdiction that can change riparian lines? MR. KLATZKOW: We're going to go by the survey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's not -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Let's not get into this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that if we were willing to change a line to accept the dock, that means the dock in that location's acceptable. So let's just move forward and try to resolve this. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman, I agree with your suggestion, it's a good happy median, both sides wins, and I support your suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions before we close the public hearing? Are there any questions of anybody from this panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. \vith that we'll close the public hearing and we'll go for discussion. The suggestion earlier was that we recommend approval with the removal of the northeastern proposed dock, leaving only the two piling to provide for the outside extension of the boatlift. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't think he's agreed to that. I think unless he agrees to that, he's entitled to a vote up or down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He just agreed to it a minute ago. Mr. Scofield, would you come back up and tell us your thoughts on that? I asked you very clearly, but I don't know if it was clearly responded to, so let's just get the response. MR. SCOFIELD: The owner has agreed to remove from this application the three-foot wide by 30 -- actually, 29 feet walkway on the north side of the boatIift. The boatIift would stay as-is, reducing the variance request from seven and a half feet to four and a half feet. MR. KLA TZKOW: So w~e're removing that from the petition right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, before you go any further, you'd be reducing the variance request from seven and a half feet down to -- okay, down to four and a half feet. Page 30 ,. . 161pl j,,B~ . MR. SCOFIELD: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But for only two piling. The two outer piling of the boatlift. MR. SCOFIELD: And the beam. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, I understand that. MR. SCOFIELD: Right, right. Yeah, the drawing you have in front of you, you just remove the shaded dock area, the boatlift stays there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So he has agreed to that proposal. Is that sufficient, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. I just want it on the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand, understand. Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Shouldn't we vote on the variance first? Because if that fails, the conversation is a lot different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine. The variance then pertains strictly to the -- now, Rocky, while you're there, the variance that you're now asking for would be only for the extension -- the two of them: The extension of the southern dock as it goes close to that riparian line and the outward extensions of the boat lift that would remain after the proposed dock was removed, the northern proposed dock was removed. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. To the north the boatlift will extend into the side setbacks four and a half feet. On the south side only to the riparian line that's shown out there, it would come right close to that riparian line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So for discussion purposes from the Planning Commission, is that -- what do we have? If we make a motion to recommend approval for only the south -- the southernmost dock at the zero setback or close to the riparian line setback as shown here, and with the only portions of the boatlift that go beyond the -- go four and a half feet into the variance for the north, we would be taking out the proposed walkway dock. Is that consistent with everybody's thoughts on this? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's going in the direction, but there could be more. In other words, I'm taking the word variance to be a powerful word. And, you know, it isn't the least amount you could do. You could move the whole thing out of that variance. So, you know, I really think the variance should be discussed by itself, should be voted by itself. Rocky says, you know, it is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're doing that now, Brad, that's what this is about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm still talking. Rocky said it is all words. And the word that I don't want is that we voted for zero setback for a dock. And it's not just -- you know, this is going to reign throughout the whole county. There could be similar lots like this all across the county, we don't know. And -- MR. SCOFIELD: This is a zero setback to the riparian line is how it should read. To the riparian line. Which is -- riparian lines are lines drawn in the water that aren't, you know, basically in stone as you were talking about earlier. So the variance should read a zero setback to the southern riparian line, as opposed to side yard setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know riparian line is a line in water, a property line is a line in the woods. I mean, they're all invisible, we don't see any of them. But anyway, that's my point is that I really think we should focus on what the variance is and Page 31 ,. ~-."; .. . r . . ....,;~. " ......_=-'"' 1611~. ~. April 16, R~ whether we want to do that. If we want to do that, then we can go back from the top. MR. SCOFIELD: Again, if I were here today to just permit the existing dock, I'd be asking for the same thing, because it comes right to that riparian line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let me suggest something then. We're considering a zero setback to the riparian line -- to the south riparian line for the dock only. And we're considering a four and a half variance (sic) to the north riparian line for the boatlift only. Is that a good summary? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any further discussion on the variance aspects of this case? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion regarding the variance aspects of this case from anybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll move-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- approval of the variance as outlined just now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded. Motion's been made to approve, motion's been seconded for the variance under the terms that we just discussed. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those that oppose, raise their hand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just two. Okay, so the motion carries 7-2. Now we'll go on to the boat dock -- MR. KLA TZKOW: Before we do that, sir, could we get the reasons for the objections? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Doesn't meet the minimum variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it doesn't meet the minimum variance and the platting ofa subdivision does not cause a hardship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that -- does that answer your question, Mr. Kolflat --I mean u MR. KLA TZK 0 W: I just want the reasons on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Klatzkow, I'm sorry. Page 32 161 1 86 \ ~ April 16, 2009 Okay, with that, the variance is over with. We'll move on to the boat dock extension. Is there a motion on the boat dock extension? And before we make the motion, I guess we should have discussion. The boat docks extension in this case would only be for the southern proposed boat dock, as shown on this plan. The northern one is eliminated from that discussion. MR. KLATZKOW: And ifIjust may, this is a little bit quirky. If it's approved, it's going to be conditioned on BZA approving your variance, all right? MR. SCOFIELD: At BCC, right, I understand. MR. KLATZKOW: So normally on these things you vote and that's the end of it. But this one's going to be conditioned upon ultimate approval of the -- MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so-- MR. SCOFIELD: But Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCOFIELD: Excuse me. If! can -- the boat dock extension is not just for -- well, if you want to look at it that way. But if you look at that southern dock measured out, it's only 27 feet from the property line. We're asking for a 10- foot extension. This is where the boat sits. And to deal where the boat sits, which I explained before, it's 10 feet out measured from the property line in this area right here where the boat sits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. So you're -- the boat itself will have a longer extension, due to the shape ofthe shoreline, but you're still in no case are you going beyond the riparian line. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that's -- MR. SCOFIELD: And we lose a foot to foot and a half because the property line's inside the seawall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the boat dock extension approval would reference the full 10 feet, but only to the extent that it does not go beyond the riparian line, as shown here. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the northern dock would be eliminated. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you offset that property line 30 feet, obviously inside, would any of this boat or lift or anything be outside that? MR. SCOFIELD: I'm not following you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Offset means that you take a circle -- I mean, it's a good computer term -- where you offset the circle inward. So it would create another circle within that that's 30 feet away from the property line. Got that? I mean -- MR. SCOFIELD: I'm not sure where you're going. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me say it this way: Is there, from any measurement whatsoever, that property line going to be longer than 30 feet to any part of this boat or boat dock? MR. SCOFIELD: It can't be. That's what we're asking for. And if it's approved, then 30 feet measured from the property line to the props on the outboard motor, if that's what he's getting, can be no longer than 30 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the boat dock extension, based on the discussion that I just heard, will be limited to 10 feet up to the riparian line and would limit -- and the southern dock is the only Page 33 - ---.--, .... "",~,,-~""'>.~'""'-'~'"-"'-.'^""'''- .l><l>.1>. 16 , l"f .r.~"" Apri I 16, 200~ 6 dock that it would apply to. And that the -- it's all conditioned upon the BZA approval of the variance. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot. is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Recommend BD-2009-AR-14138. boat dock extension be approved based on the statements made by the Chair. which reference the comments made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Everybody clear on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm going to vote against it too, so here we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the boat dock extension passes 7-2. You guys want to state your re -- oh, do we need to for this one? Do you want to state your reasons for the boat docks extension denial? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They'll never appeal it so do we have to -- I mean, I'd love to have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He just nodded his head yes, so that's the only reason -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd love to hear your reasons for approving it myself. But since we have to do it, we have to do it. Primary condition number one tails because it's inappropriate to the waterfront length. Primary condition number two fails because the dock could be redesigned as everything else in the neighborhood to comply. Primary condition number five fails -- no, it does not, I'll leave that one go. Secondary condition one fails because these conditions are typical to the neighborhood. Secondary condition two fails because this would be an excessive dock facility. Secondary condition three fails -- I'm sorry -- yeah. secondary condition -- that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kol11at, do you have any reasons? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. My reason is that on Petition ADA-2008-AR-13731, the Collier Commission had a mandate after a vote by all five members of the commission that the issue of criteria be remanded to the Planning Commission for further review and discussion and action. And until that is done, I do not feel competent to judge what is in the petition before me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we will -- that's the end of that particular hearing. We'll take a break until 10:30 and we'll resume at that time. Thank you. (Recess.) Page 34 161!" ~ II Apn 16ij 9 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please resume their seats, we'll move on. i Item #9C PETITION: PE-2008-AR-1407L SANDBANKS, LLC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up for discussion is Petition PE-2008-AR-14071. It's called Sandbanks LLC. It's at 3114 and 3126 North Tamiami Trail. It's for a parking exemption. All those wishing to testifY on behalf ofthis item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, the applicant may proceed. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez with Planning Development, Incorporated, representing the petitioner on this parking exemption. The site is located on U.S. 41. It borders the boundary with the City of Naples. There's existing commercial. There's a restaurant, if any of you visit this site, and strip commercial to the right of it. The land behind it is vacant and there's an existing home. On the view screen, if you'll take a look at that, you'll notice that the -- you'll notice that the commercial zoning is all C-4 along this perimeter. And you'll see that the C-4 undulates, goes in and out and does not run parallel to U.S. 41. In most cases where you have less depth of C-4, you'll notice that they had C-l T as a nice transition between the higher intensity C-4 and the residential district that's behind it. In our particular case we don't have that. Our client owns all the property that's in question, including the lots that are proposed to be used for the parking exemption. What we've proposed is the design that we believe provides a nice transition between the more intense commercial area and the residential area that this area abuts. What we're showing here is a well landscaped parking lot with 63 parking spaces that would be utilized to aid in supporting the development that's in the C-4 portion of the site. We wish to note that we've also made some additional commitments that we volunteered. One is that those parking spaces can only support office use. So we're not asking it to be used for restaurant use or retail use. It can only be used for office use; that it's limited to the hours -- regular business hours, which we've suggested be between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. So essentially it's a weekday parking lot that would support office use, and it will be further designated for use by employees. So again, we see it as a nice transition. The code requires that we have a wall, six-foot wall adjacent to the residential to the east, and a four-foot wall adjacent to the public right-of-ways to the north and south of that parking exemption area. And of course the landscaping that goes along with it provides for significant landscaping and a nice buffer. In addition to that, we added the requirement that all internal spaces will either abut the perimeter buffer or will abut some form of landscape island or tree installation so that again that area feels more landscaped. Now, the entrance to this parking exemption area is going to be of course as required by the code, well within the C-4 parcel, and so that there's no access to the residential areas that abut the parking exemption area. And you can see the two access points that -- one on each side: One on Rosemary and one on Ridge Street. Page 35 ..,"'- .'. .. ",..--~.<-,"-,.-,..._,.,"~,.,> ,.>"_...,,,..;.~,....,,,, ......,.......... ."'-- 16 I ~.. ~~ " I Apn 16, 0 If you were to go out and look at the site today, you'd see that it's very nonconforming. There's a lot of asphalt, there's no buffers. Cars actually back out onto the roadways. We see this as a significant improvement. It would allow us to do a significant improvement to that area, to that corridor, and join some of the other redevelopment that's happened over the years in that segment of U.S. 41. We also did a study that showed that we could actually accommodate more development that we're proposing just on the C-4 portion by use of the parking garage. In fact, we'd be able to accommodate approximately 85,000 square feet. But also, the parking garage would itself be approximately 95,000 square feet plus the additional 85. So now you're talking a very huge building. And we chose not to do that. We think this is a much nicer, more user friendly, more neighborhood friendly concept. There are other projects. One was recently approved. We referenced that in our materials at the corner of -- across from the Northern Trust building. And they have indeed proposed a five-story building with a parking garage, and they have their SDP approved. So, you know, it may be an economically viable alternative for them. We chose to go this route to set ourselves apart from that type of development. The criteria in the LDC has 13 standards that form the basis of review for staff and the Planning Commission. We reviewed that in our application and we went through and we believe we've satisfied all of those requirements and in many cases exceeded them. We note that in the county staff report they too reviewed those same 13 items, and they were fairly consistent with the same conclusions we came to, and again found that they were able to support the petition as proposed. With that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, reference number nine, which states that there's a IS-foot width buffer area adjacent to residential use. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Collier's term for adjacent includes, you know, for residential uses across right-of-way. Your buffers on that side are not 15 feet. Is that something we should address here? MR. FERNANDEZ: You know, our past experience in the code was that this was the interpretation, that it would be 10 teet adjacent to that right-of-way with the incorporation with the wall buffer. If that's the interpretation that. you know, when we go through the SDP that staff tells us we have to utilize, then we will. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should we resolve it now? I mean, it's a nice layout. I'm not using it as a hammer, I'm just saying, it's something that -- you know, it is essentially adjacent to residential on those north-south properties also. At least part of the thing is, obviously not the whole thing. So anyway, we don't want to address it? We can wait. But would you then adjust your site plan to fit that or would you prefer to -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, yeah, it would be a minor adjustment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: And it would only impact that area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The hours, the 6:00 p.m., I think that's nice, but is that reasonable? So does that mean everybody in the office who's going to work late that night's got to run out and move their cars, or what's going to happen there? MR. FERNANDEZ: We don't see -- you know, it's only a small portion of the parking that's being Page 36 . 16IAl-il\B,609 utilized this way. By 5:00, especially in our community, the vast majority of the parking, they'll be gone. And yes, if they have to move their car, they move their car. But in most cases we don't see that that's going to be a problem at all. You know, we're off U.S. 41 and the -- and we've done a number of office buildings on that u.s. 41 corridor, and we don't see that being an issue at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then how are you going to control that back parking? Because essentially it's not the whole back parking that's affected here. So, you know, you're not going to go out and -- I mean, for example, there's going to be one drive lane which has the boundary between C-4 and the residential is in the middle of the drive lane. So you can park on one side of that drive lane but you can't park on the other, or what's going to happen there? MR. FERNANDEZ: What -- you know, we found it effective enough that basically those areas are designated for use by employees. And the hours of operation, that's reinforced by the lighting and that there'll be no pole lighting in that area, it's only 42-inch bollards back there. If it became a problem, the opportunity there is to chain off those -- the two drives that go to the back of the rear, and that would take care of that issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. I mean, is that something you came up with? Does staff require that? I mean, it's not the way you've buffered this, it's not the way you landscaped it. Why is that an issue to restrict the hours? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's something we've offered. We think that it's reasonable. If there had been objections by the public, that's something we would have offered. We were just proactive and feel that that's something that we can live with very easily. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes,just one quick question. You're going to tear down the existing building and displace those retailers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. They're aware of what's going on, I take it? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, they are. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is there a -- are you giving them assistance? I think they're probably all renters, aren't they? MR. FERNANDEZ: They are renters. There are leases in place. The provisions -- those leases do provide for what we're proposing. We don't anticipate -- we still have to go through the SDP process, bidding process. We've talked to some tenants, but we're still not there yet. So there's a significant period between now and then to address those items. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, Ijust -- you know, there's so many retailers going out. I'm hoping that they find adequate locations. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, in fact, if you go out there now you'll see that there's a for lease sign out there. And it would be a short-term lease, but it's available for lease right now. And if you go up and down 41, there's quite a few vacancies. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: And, you know, so it's there, and the prices have actually come down. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I saw that for lease sign there. And that was my question, you aren't going to lease it out to somebody that's going to be immediately displaced. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, again, just like the project that already has its SDP approved across-- the Northern Trust. They have a for lease sign out front and it says short-term lease. And so, you know, that might work for some particular tenant. If it doesn't, obviously it won't lease out. But otherwise it may work perfect for somebody trying to start a business and looking for a short period. Page 37 ...........-- ...-...,- ... "'''''-_.'''"'~-~...''''"..~''._'-'-_.",.' .>II>-" -"" 16 11 f 86 f Apnl 16, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Very good. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's common in these redevelopment transition areas. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It looks like a great improvement, thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll hear the staff report. MS. ZONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. I'd like to just state for the record that this application is for an approval of a parking exemption pursuant to LDC provisions. And the applicant is seeking to allow 63 parking spaces of a proposed 195 parking spaces to be placed off-site on the residential single-family RSF-4 zoning district. And this has been reviewed by staff. And the subject 2.55-acre lot is designated urban -- in the urban mixed use district in the urban residential subdistrict as identified on our Future Land Use Map. And the principal site, which has the commercial -- general commercial zoning district is 1.86 acres. And I don't know ifthere are any questions that the Planning Commission has for me that I might be able to clarifY. I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? Mr. Schifler? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Melissa, it's that number nine. There's a requirement for 15 feet if you're adjacent to residential. The back part of that is adjacent to residential; don't you agree? MS. ZONE: It is definitely adjacent to residential, and that's why they have those buffers. And if this Planning Commission would like to enhance that requirement, staff will make sure that it is placed in the commitments that are contained, Exhibit C. I believe, of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not exactly where I'm going. MS. ZONE: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The little bit of it that's north-south, they too are also adjacent, because across the street the right-of-way is residential. And they're only 10 feet. MS. ZONE: Would you like us -- and I'll make sure that it happens that we extend that bufler to the residential property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, actually my point I think this is a really good layout. There's a lot of landscaping, a lot of protection. My concern is actually that you'd -- it would be no benefit to anybody to enforce that on each side of that little area. So does this site plan, which culls it out to be a Type B right-of-way buffer, does that overrule the code requirement that that be 15 feet? MS. ZONE: Necessarily they were looking at it as the right-of-way bufler, and that's how our landscaper reviewed it. Again, this is something that is interpretation. We were looking for a nice linear line, and because there was enhanced buffer we didn't see that there was a great concern. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, 1 mean, my question is he's in SDP. Somebody else reads this, they say, whoa, wait a minute, you need 15 feet. Can they say no, we don't because we approved this plan with 10 feet? MS. ZONE: No, if you look on-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me continue a second. And if they can't, what can we do now to make sure that it is okay in my mind that that stay at 10 Page 38 1611 April 16, 2ft~ I feet? MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you spend a lot oftime on this, we -- if we approve this today, we're going to be approving it subject to the Exhibit C commitments. The commitments spell out the width of that buffer and how it's going to apply. Do we -- wouldn't that then be the dominating criteria for review is the commitments made by the -- because if not, then that changes the whole ball game today, and it'd sure be a good question to know. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I think that's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we approve it, it's locked in based on the commitment of Exhibit C, which is detailed out to be a 10-foot buffer there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But nothing in this presentation discusses the fact that they are doing something contrary to the code. So the scary thing about what you said is that in any application, if somebody can get something by us without noting that by the way, guys, I'm doing something less than code, that means that that's going to reign? I mean, that's -- I'm not happy with that condition. But I do -- where I'm going with the 10 feet, if the 10 feet's fine and everybody's happy with it. But my concern, Jeff, was that if we just approve any site plan and the applicant fails to point out deviations from the code, that us approving that accepts that deviation. MR. KLATZKOW: No. I mean, I would strenuously argue that unless there was an expressed deviation made, nobody's going to go through the back door like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And they didn't express this deviation, so that's -- I guess I have enough and it's on the record and -- MR. KLATZKOW: We're good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, I have one. In your recommendations, assuming that this is approved subject to the recommendations, your second one, I might suggest some clearer language. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest it reads, the parking exemption commitments (Exhibit C), and as depicted on the conceptual site plan (Exhibit B), of the resolution. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that gets the site plan pulled into it as well as the commitment page. Both the exhibits then would be shown as correct references. Because here it wasn't sure that -- I didn't see B being specifically brought in. I'd rather they both be brought in. Does anybody have any problems with that? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MS. ZONE: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Do we have any public speakers, Ray? I imagine we don't. MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further -- go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ray, there was a public speaker. Was that for this item? Page 39 v .. --,,,,-~.~-'.;-,,,,,,--,,,,.,,- 161 1 .,' .... 1 ~, ~~ 1 April 16, 0 MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir, he was for this item, but he could not stay for the entire meeting. However, I gave him my card and he just had some concerns on drainage. and I am going to work with him with Stan Chryznowski to answer his questions. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is that his house on Attachment 1, Page 2 at the bottom? MS. ZONE: I could show you the area where he's at. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just wondering if that's his. MS. ZONE: No, he's much farther down. He's several blocks down on Rosemary Lane. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of stafl any other questions of the applicant, of anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If none, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion -- or discussion. Does anybody have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. now, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward PE-2008-AR-14071, Midtown Point, with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Wolfley. You're going to need some clarification. Number one is do we accept staff recommendations? Number two, I suggested some clarification of staff recommendation number two that would bring in the Exhibit B, as well as clarifY how Exhibit C played out. I need to know if you're going to accept that or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second approves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- accepted, Mr. Wolfley did. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And the petitioner offered 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. I think that needs to be in n CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's in both the Exhibit C and B. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. It's the first one on Exhibit C. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh. yes. I'm sorry. Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had the same note, Ms. Caron, but since it was there, it covered everything. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 40 1611 ~ , , APrillB,~09 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #9D PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-1380L WOLF CREEK, RPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moving along. Next petition is PUDA-2008-AR-13801, William L. Hoover, involving the Wolf Creek Estates LLC for a modification to their RPUD. 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? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had discussion with Mr. Y ovanovich by phone regarding this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich by phone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's a real popular guy. I guess I spoke to him too. And I needed some clarification on what it was he was trying to do, and he provided that and I'm sure he'll do it again today. And there was an error on -- or at least what I thought was an error in one of the documents. Mr. Y ovanovich told me he'd send it out to us. I had not received it, so hopefully we're going to have it today or clarification today. COMMISSIONER CARON: It was sent. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ms. Deselem sent it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I checked yesterday and I hadn't gotten it yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I haven't either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer hasn't either, so-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll go over what the change was then during my presentation. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. I also have with me George Shapiro from Prime Homebuilders to answer any questions you may have. What we're simply trying to do is amend the transportation stipulations N and 0 in the existing PUD. The reason that those stipulations were included in the PUD in the first place was actually to provide access to Palermo Cove, which was the exhibit I had on the visualizer. And this is Palermo Cove right here. And the Palermo Cove PUD had a requirement that they could not go forward with their project until either 951 was complete with the six-Ianing or they had access to Vanderbilt Beach Road. At the time we were coming through with the PUD amendment for Wolf Creek, 951 was not Page 4 ] - 'llf __''\'IlI~__>''_''''''''~"'~"O._,.,~._;.,=-<~. ~ lOT -,- 16 1 r,:4 'Q\", I; April 16, fdo~ complete, so they asked for a timing stipulation for the completion of Pristine Drive so they could get to VanderbiJt Beach Road. Well, since that all occurred, the economy has slowed dO\\-TI a little bit. Palermo Cove has not moved forward with its project. Sales have gone a lot slower in Wolf Creek than had been expected. 951 is now complete, so they do have access -- Palermo Cove has access on Wolf Road to 951, so the need for Pristine Drive to serve Palermo Cove no longer exists. And also, the future final subdivision, which will be called Pristine Lakes, which is in this portion of the PUD, which will be served with the extension of Pristine Drive, will be not needed at any time soon. So we've requested to change the stipulation to tie the timing of construction to Pristine Drive to the future projects within Wolf Creek. The existing subdivisions, which is Black Bear Ridge, which is a 100-unit subdivision, already has access to 951 -- has two access points, actually -- and the Portofino Falls project, which is a multi-family project, also has access to Collier Boulevard off of the existing portion of Pristine Drive. Pristine Drive, the future expansion has been designed, has been permitted, and has not yet been constructed, obviously. It didn't make any sense to spend that kind of money for infrastructure when there's really nothing to be served by it any time soon. So our request is to tie the future phase of Pristine Drive to future development within Wolf Creek. And that's what those stipulations say. The language that was omitted in your version ofthe ordinance are the following words. And I don't know how that happened, but that language was omitted. It says -- your version doesn't include the phrase, within 30 days of the adoption date of this RPUD rezone. That was dropped off in your version of the PUD. It's been added back in. I can tell you that all of the right-of-way for the Pristine Drive extension has been dedicated to the county. So the county has all of the right-of-way necessary to complete Pristine Drive up to Wolf Road. And the permitting -- the plans have been permitted for the construction of that. We're just trying to delay the timing to when the economy comes around to necessitate the construction of that road. And we're requesting that you recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for this reVISIOn. One other change. Sorry. In speaking to Commissioner Caron on this project, Condition 0 basically says that no further SDP's or plats shall be approved for any individual owner within the PUD until Pristine Drive from its current terminis to Wolf Road is under construction and all the necessary right-of-way has been dedicated. We've met the dedication portion already for the extension. She had raised a concern that that's fine, but, you know, Rich, you really need to have the road completed before anybody gets any COso So I've talked to Kay Deselem and John Podczerwinsky, and we would like to add the following sentence to that section that would say: No certificates of occupancy shall be issued within new SDP's or plats until Pristine Drive trom its currents terminis to Wolf Road is substantially complete. So that would tie in that the road would actually be open and usable for building permits that have been issued for projects that rely on that road. So with that change, which is acceptable to both Ms. Deselem and Mr. Podczerwinsky, we are requesting your recommendation for approval to the Board of County Commissioners. And I'm available to ans\ver any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow, Richard, this might be the easiest one that you've had. Except I have Page 42 I' 16At}I'~Q ~ n. a question. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two questions, actually. Palermo, the one to the north that had to have access through Pristine Drive or through 951 six-Ianing, how do they get to 951 if they don't go down Pristine Drive? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They have an obligation in their own PUD to -- they front 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you put that back -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I'll put that back up there for you. Here's a -- Palermo Cove is here and here. And this is 951. So they have access this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They'll have to construct a little portion of Wolf Road. But this is Palermo Cove right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See that cross point where the two meet? Let's assume they're like a section line crossing. They're finitely touching points. How do they get enough -- do they have easements so that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's enough distance. This is not -- there is land between this point and this point. They don't really physically touch like that, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there easements on your property to provide enough -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, they have direct land that connects this piece to this piece. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Trust me, this is not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trust you? We don't even need to have public hearings then, do we, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm glad to see we're finally coming around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, that's obviously for illustrative purposes, not the exact configuration of the land. Their two portions of their project physically connect and there's room for an interconnecting roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that solves one question. Second question: The Falls of Porto fino, where is that or what is that in relationship to Wolf Creek? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, that is within Wolf Creek. And that's basically right here. And then-- whoops, then it goes up here and back down here. About to this point right here is Falls of Porto fino. This is the multi-family portion that has been currently constructed, and there's an SDP for it. It is a multi-family project within the Wolf Creek PUD. Black Bear Ridge is this area right in here. That is a 100-unit single-family home subdivision within Wolf Creek. And Pristine Lake, as I was discussing, is the future -- this area right here is the future -- also going to be a single-family subdivision within Wolf Creek. There is a second phase of Portofino Falls that will be coming in; we'll need to have a subsequent SDP issued for it. And as you can see, it's hard to tell on this aerial, but Pristine Drive has been constructed to roughly this point that provides access to Black Bear Ridge, to Pristine Drive. They also have access to Buckstone Drive. And then Portofino Falls has access here down to Vanderbilt Beach Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a project that had come in a long time ago trying to get a CDD for a very small area of acreage in this general vicinity. Is that -- Page 43 -"--~-" ~ --"""'....,..,,_..~... - .' ...~""'" ~ ..."V"_~ 161 ~~ ~6 Apri 6, 20 9 MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is was the Falls of Porto fino? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just trying to understand where all these pieces are. Thank you, that's the only questions I had. COMMISSIONER CARON: Seriously gerrymandered piece of property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll talk to staff. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. You do have the staff report that was submitted to you, the revision date on the first page of 3-26-09. As noted, this is a fairly minor amendment to a PUD, just amending two particular paragraphs within the developer commitments. It doesn't affect the proposed uses either to type, kind or amount. Therefore, the recommendation and the analysis is limited in that scope. Weare recommending, as beginning on Page 3 of the staff report, that the petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. You do see on Page 4 the different reviews that were -- the review entities that were given an opportunity to review the project. Some did, some did not provide comments, based upon the scope of the request itself. Staff is offering the rezone findings beginning on Page 4 and continuing through to the PUD findings that begin on Page 8. And finally, our recommendation then is that this petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval of the petition. And I did send a revised ordinance to you yesterday. I apologize if some of you didn't get it. I sent it to everybody. But you know how that stuff is, sometimes it takes longer for some people to get it than others. But it does correct what Rich showed, and it is dated at the bottom the 15th of April. And Rich and I did talk briefly about the additional sentence that he wants to add to O. And as he stated, I am in agreement with that condition. With that n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of staff? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I actually have a question for transportation staff. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. COMMISSIONER CARON: Hi. This has to do with PUD's and PUD commitments. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CARON: When this was originally put in to this PUD this road was supposed to be completed within two years from May 01'2007, which would mean essentially another month from now. What kind of monitoring goes on so that you know whether things are proceeding or not proceeding? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We do have PUD monitoring staff within transportation, as well as over at the CDES offices that do keep track of these. Typically they're tracked at the time ofPPL application, SDP application, that sort of thing. We look for the applicable commitments to that parcel within the PLJD. Page 44 161 1 1 86 ~ April 16, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So just on a parcel-to-parcel basis? I MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. When they're-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So when there's a commitment in a PUD that says this road must be -- shall be completed within two years, that doesn't mean anything to you except on a parcel-to-parcel basis? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, it does. It's a commitment of all ofthe members of the PUD -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- in general, and that's the reason that we've been rejecting many of the SDP's and PPL's that have come in within this PUD -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- up to this point. And this is-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I'm just trying to figure out how this -- because essentially this is coming sort of at the 11 th hour. I mean -- but if you've been monitoring this and basing approvals or non-approvals based on that, then that's fine. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, we have a commitment tracking system. I'll call it interim. Our new program will even make that more interactive. But yes, to answer your question, there's -- between PUD monitoring, the specific staffs that entered those stipulations and the tracking system, we track those commitments. Now, that's not to say in the past there's -- it's been missed. And that's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand. That's why I asked the question. MR. SCHMITT: The manager over a year and a half ago, shall I say, was direct and to the point and made it clear to the administrators they would track these, and we are. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, just a quick aside question, almost. But the commission at the last meeting voted to extend sun setting ofPUD's, correct? MR. SCHMITT: They voted to bring back an ordinance to extend the sun setting ofPUD's. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And within a PUD, ifthere was commitments like this, would they also be extended, or what will happen-- MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- because this -- MR. SCHMITT: The sunserting only is extended to the period of time that they can come in and ask for a local development order. Doesn't do anything else to the PUD. If there's a commitment and an applicant wants to change that commitment, one of two ways, either come to the board and get some kind of relief directly from the board -- but the preferred method is to do exactly what happened here, amend the language in the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will close the public hearing and have discussion. If there is a motion, we want to make sure we reference the correct sheet, which would be Page 3 of 4 would have been revised to 4-15-09, with number (sic) N having some language added to the beginning of it. And then there was an on-the-record reference to a new sentence added to O. I won't try to read it Page 45 -~-" ......._" . l' _.-..-...""-< ,. ._'-_'~'._'_'""_'"""'->'.,'''- III ._ . - 161 r~1 86 pril 16, 2009 verbatim. I believe everybody has it. But it's to the effect that no COs shall be issued or new SDP's or plats until Pristine Drive is completed. So that's just the gist of it. Is there a motion or further -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRA.lN: Motion made by Commissioner Caron. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded the motion. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER CARON: With the two n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the two changes. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 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 9-0. And that wraps up -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. That wraps up our agenda f{)f today. Item # I 0 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRrvlAN STRAIN: Is there any old business of the Planning Commission? (No response.) Item #11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any new business? (No response.) Item #12 Page 46 '; 16lptl1~Bo d.~ . ~;' ; PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM t CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No public comment unless Mr. -- oh, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I dread bringing the subject up, but for clarification of earlier discussion by Mr. Kolflat, just for the record, just so the other commissioners are aware, Mr. Kolflat brought up the Monte Carlo Club petition, and that has been remanded back, as you noted. And regretfully we didn't get a heads up, so I had to do an analysis so I could give you an updated information. That amendment has been somewhat amended by the petitioner, and that's the reason why it was scheduled -- it's coming back to you, for all intent and purposes, as a modified request. You denied that request. It went to the board. The board then remanded it back. Now, that doesn't clarifY the issue about the application of the code. We need to deal with that; you all need to deal with that. There's no argument that that's what the board's intent was. But the issue regarding the Monte Carlo Club boat dock extension, the application has actually been modified based on some recommendations that came out of this body. The petitioner actually made some modifications. So I've got to ask you, how do you want to deal with that? That petition is scheduled for you at your next meeting, coincidentally, May 7th. We could include a part of that meeting a discussion on the application ofthe code, or most likely would be probably best to delay that petition until we resolve the issue on the interpretation of the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Schmitt, I think Mr. Kolflat's pointing out and coming prepared with the data he had come prepared with was a good reminder that that issue needs to be resolved, that there's still a discrepancy out there. And I don't know how we could hear another boat dock application of any kind without that being resolved between your department and the legal department first. And I would strongly suggest to you, I don't care how we get there, but I think out of honoring the BCC's request which started the whole thing to begin with, it wasn't simply to have it changed and come back for us to rehear it under new criteria. We've still got the issue of the disagreement or let's say not -- a lack of clarity between your department and legal department on how that is to be interpreted. And I honestly think we need it before we can go further. MR. SCHMITT: Understand, our -- when the board remanded it back, we may have gone down the wrong path here, no argument. When the application was changed, we determined that the complications had been resolved. But that doesn't -- it clearly has not resolved the applications of the code. Mr. Schiffer had raised some -- certainly some salient points that need to be reviewed, as well as Mr. Kolflat did. So I will discuss with my staff. We probably will -- I will look at this -- but most likely delay the Monte Carlo rehearing, because that's essentially what it is. You're almost hearing a new petition until we sort out the issues on the application of the code. I don't think that will be done by May 7th. Ijust -- Susan's on furlough till Thursday. I've got rolling furlough ongoing in my organization, week long furloughs, based on insufficient revenue to support the expenses. And so I'll look at where and when I can schedule that. Now, I need to also ask this body, do you want to address that or do you want to look at other issues as well in regards to that criterion? Are you looking to add additional criterion? As you know, we've been down that road when we talked about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, before you go any further, all we need to do, and Mr. Kolflat pointed that out very well, let's just meet the absolute intent of what the Board of County Commissioners requested Page 47 ._~ ...~.. .-'" . , , r_._"'" , .. 161 l.~ 'ijQ. - Ap~'il 16, 0 ' in their review of this matter, and let's not go beyond that for now. We can always go beyond that for later. We need to get by that issue. And the priority on that issue was what the BCC recommended. They're the people in charge around here. That's got to be resolved first I believe before we can go on with any more boat dock reviews. Especially if that criteria would come into play again. And it certainly will. MR. SCHMITT: But just so you know, I mean, we're discussing here, Tor did bring up an issue about length from the street and refueling and some of these other issues. And if we're strictly sticking with what's in the LDC now and if somebody comes up later we'll deal with it through an LDC amendment. Is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Joe. I don't -- I think the outcome of the analysis that you would provide with the legal department would tell Mr. Kolflat or anyone of us on this board whether the other criteria that we want to bring in can be brought in. That's the whole point. So I don't think we need to change the code any further, we just need to understand the current interpretation of the code. And if we have to change later on, then so be it. MR. KLATZKOW: We have a process in the code. If staff comes forward with a written official interpretation, that will be the end of it, until the Board of County Commissioners rule otherwise. MR. SCHMITT: Or until an appeal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So let's just get that done and -- Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I was hoping to leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We were hoping you would, too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand, but I represent the Monte Carlo petition, and Ijust heard that there's a potential of a continuance n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- of that hearing. And I'm a little concerned about this, the use of the phrase official interpretation, because my understanding is is that staff doesn't just do official interpretations unless directed by somebody to do an official interpretation. Staff has given their interpretation of what the code says. They believe that you look at the criteria, and if the applicant meets four out of the five and four out of the six and they provide evidence that they meet those criteria, it needs to be approved. What I don't understand is what's the of1icial interpretation -- what further interpretation needs to be done by staff for you all or for anybody to consider future petitions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. the Bee, when they heard your appeal, remanded it back to us with criteria and conditions. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to know how to meet their conditions, and we don't know how to meet that if there's two interpretations from two different departments in the county as to how the code's to be interpreted. I think that's where the crux of the problem lies. Ifwe listen to the legal department, they have a little different standing than the CDES does. So which one do we go by, Richard? And if we're going to be put back in the same dilemma, again, it only seems logical to resolve it before we're put there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And 1 don't know how to -- I guess my question is how does it get resolved? Someone's got to change an opinion. MR. SCHMITT: Well,just for the record, we do internal interpretations. And we've done staff clarification notices, which are internal documents for staff clarifIcation. Now, we've got a recent case where one of those was appealed. I've also had internal opinions, code enforcement asking the zoning director through an official interpretation. Page 48 . . 1~!il~6,B6 Now, we can do a staff clarification or we just do an interpretation. And most likely in this case it would be -- because it's internal, certainly between the County Attorney's office and my staff, we will meet and discuss where the concerns are on this. And most likely what will result of it, the result will be a staff clarification. Which is -- and then we will discuss that with this body to see ifthere are any concerns. Because the board has asked -- and Mr. Kolflat correctly quoted, the board ha<; asked for this body to make a determination and advise staffhow they best review a boat dock extension, how they apply the criteria and are they clear in applying the criteria. So with that, we may end up coming back and modifying our staff interpretation, or our staff clarification. So I think that's where we need to go first, and that's what I hear the Chairman basically stating, let's get it resolved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe's, here's what I think we do. And this is maybe really simple, is if you could get the minutes for all the LDC hearings on that code change -- MR. SCHMITT: I will do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- of all of the different meetings and let us read that. Because the only problem I have with it is that when we had concerns at that time and when we left the gate, everybody went different directions. So the problem we have is this is clumsy. If we could maybe,just the board, read those minutes and see if in fact what is happening with the score card method is what in fact was presented to us. MR. SCHMITT: Some of that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because prior to that the criteria was there. The score card method is what was added at that time. MR. SCHMITT: And some of that was discussed when we talked about boat houses. So there was boat houses and boat dock extensions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't you just for now send us those minutes so we can do the research. If the research is clear that it's a score card method, then we're not going to change the LDC, so that's -- MR. SCHMITT: But I just want affirmation now, that because you don't want -- now, what -- I've heard you, and that's what we're going to comply with, you don't want to hear any boat dock extension requests until we resolve the issue with you all, and that's where I'm going with this -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Amen. MR. SCHMITT: -- so we will do that first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have to agree with you. I think that Mr. Kolflat's bringing this forward and pointing it out right through the minutes that he read, I don't see any way around it at this point to do it right. And I think we need to keep doing it right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just so I can tell my clients not to come back into town on May 7th, when can I expect for them to be able to have their petition heard? Because we did -- after the board considered the matter, we submitted a new application, and we modified the application. What the board directed you all to do was to explain why you turned down the original application. You have a totally different application in front of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you pay for a second application? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Klatzkow, do we have any legal right to hold up their application? Page 49 --><-'''''' -~- _."._.".,_._---,-,,~-~ ~ 161 1 ~'~ 86. s,.' , I April 16, 2009 MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. You control your docket. Just like the board controls their docket. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm not saying that you don't. I'm just asking, can I -- when can I tell my client that staff will come back, you'll discuss what the law is and then we'll get our petition heard? MR. SCHMITT: Most likely we'll -- just looking at your agenda, we'll probably be back, it will not be till May 16th for our discussion on the boat dock. So I'm -- I'm sorry, May 21 st. Probably June 4th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. SCHMITT: Which is the following meeting after the 21 st will be June 4th is the -- we'll be looking at your boat dock extension hearing. So it's a month -- little less than a month later. I've got a meeting on the 7th of May, which is the next meeting. I do not think we will have anything prepared for your reading. And to try to address that issue for your meeting on the 7th, I'll look at the 21 st for that discussion on boat dock extensions, and then we'll delay the Monte Carlo till June 4th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's work with those dates until anything disrupts it in May, but we'll know by then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm assuming this isn't going to cost the petitioner any money. MR. SCHMITT: No. No, it's our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just their legal representative. MR. SCHMITT: Unless of course you want to volunteer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not volunteering. I just didn't want to get a bill for any new advertising or anything like that. I just wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any comments or questions as we wrap up this meeting? (No response.) Item #14 ADJOURN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, let's look for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Page 50 14.Jri~6, 2&6 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:18 a.m. These minutes approved by the board on 5"-19-0; V as presented 1/ or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 51 ~.~" --,,,,,."-'-~' ..,...~.,. "_.~~."'~,,--"'" , """""'....., . ""'<t,..___"'__ "Idla ~ . Hala~ ~ ..... .' tl,( '1/ . .. Hennmg ... ~ '. ' Coyle .-':'. -~ May 7, 2009 Coletta ~/ = - I\YE-D 16 J 1".86 .. ,~ " ~ ,I " " '" ' . . 'ii"'~ TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE . ;i lu09 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION .. ,',t,. (~(;\,'(liiCS,()nGb Naples, Florida iJ .'~." Jl f ., . May 7, 2009 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" ofthe 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 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Susan Istenes, Zoning Director Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Misc. Cones: Date: Item # - Page 1 - ,) "_m ,^'" __ v- _;.'l_',,^"~'--"--'''"''''''''''''___'___'~'_'^_'''_ -'-__~ l -.,,-.t ..~.... ----" 161 l' R62609 PI CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the May 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all rise to be -- not to be sworn in, but to pledge allegiance. ~ (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if the secretary will please make the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman, you just showed up. MR. EASTMAN: Here. Yes. 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 here. Commissioner Murray is absent. Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here, present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray's absence will be an excused absence. He had other business. He notified us, so everything's fine there. Addenda to the agenda. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did. I'm going to ask for a letter of support for something from the health department for a Smart Growth grant they're going for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you want to put that on new business? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would like to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mulhere, before the meeting you mentioned you may have an issue on the agenda that you want to talk about? MR. MULHERE: Good morning. Yes, for the record, Bob Mulhere, representing Collier County in Page 2 ... May 7, 2009 161 1 I 86 ~ , ." the Research Recovery Park conditional use. I'm not sure the agenda item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Item B, 9.8. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. We'd like to ask for a two-week continuance. We've got a couple of issues that we'd like to try to work out before we come back to you. I don't want to specify what they are on the record here, but we'd like to try to resolve a few issues and then come back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We normally grant such requests. Anybody have any problem with that? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just have a motion for a continuance of two weeks to Petition CU-2008-AR -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 13245. Made by Mr. Wolfley. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. All 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: Thank you, Bob. For the members of the audience, the Collier County Solid Waste application for the resource recovery facility north ofI-75 near Golden Gate Estates, that will not be heard today. It's been continued until the 21st of May. So if anybody's here for that particular one, we will not be hearing that today. However, if you are here and you can't make it on the 21 st and you need to speak today, we can certainly accommodate your ability to do that. If there's anybody in that position, please let me know by raising your hands. Okay, then the 21st of May is when that one will be heard. Any other changes to the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I'd like to mention. Our next meeting is the 21 st. Does anybody here know if they're not going to make it at that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we'll have a quorum. Everybody's here. Planning Commission absences. That's what I just asked about and we don't have any. Ray, on our new schedule that we just received, I thought we had on June 2nd a sign ordinance meeting. It's not on this schedule. Is it still on June 2nd we're going to have that? MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, Zoning Director. Yes, that is currently scheduled for June 2nd. I apologize it's not on the calendar. Page 3 ....-,.., ~"~_C' _.".-._".....,,~-... "~~""'~-' ._-,'--"....".,,"...,..~-._".... . -- .._,~._" 161 1 8 6~:409 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was for here in this meeting room at 8:30'1 MS. ISTENES: To the best of my recollection, yes. I'll check and confirm that later. But it's definitely the 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #5 APPROV AL OF MINUTES - MARCH 19, 2009 REGULAR MEETING; APRIL 2, 2009 REGULAR MEETING Minutes. We have two sets of minutes that were distributed electronically. First one is dated March 19th, 2009. Is there a motion to recommend approval or any changes? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti motioned to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. 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. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. The second packet was April 2nd, 2009. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti again. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak second. 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. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 4 '. May 7, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. 161 1 !B6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. I don't know what to do about Tom sometimes. BCC report and recaps. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - APRIL 28,2009, REGULAR MEETING MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners met on April 28th. They approved the PUD amendment to Longshore Lakes by a vote of 4-1, subject to the Collier County Planning Commission recommendations. They also heard the PUD rezone for the Mirasol amendment, and that was approved 4-1. And on the summary agenda, the board approved the variance for the buffer requirements for the McDonald's restaurant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Were all the approvals, including our stipulations, on all the projects; do you know? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's -- any time if you happen to catch any points, Ray, where they don't agree with our stipulations, it would sure be nice to point those out to us so we know what direction they're going in. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, it's been pointed out to me that the item was on the summary agenda but it was pulled and continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one is that? MS. ISTENES: McDonald's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was pulled and continued? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody know why? That seemed like a pretty easy -- MR. BELLOWS: I think one of the commissioners had a question or concern, and the applicant decided they wanted to address it before going back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Okay, Chairman's report. I have one item. I want to thank the people in the recording office for the, I guess part breakfast that they provided to us this morning. We appreciate it. Thank you very much people up there, you certainly do a good job. And whoever's that home cook, they do a great job of cooking, too. Item #8A PETITION: BD-2009-AR-14138, HUSSEIN WAFAPOOR Page 5 ,,'_',~u;.,..,,_ - - .., .,,---","^,., '-'--~..,-- 161 1 ~1 B6~ ~'1 i.t: . " May 7, 2009 Consent agenda items. Moving into our first petition for consent is Item 8.A. Its companion item is 8.B. First one is BD-2009-AR-14138, and it's a dock extension at 140 Conner's Ave. Does anybody have any problems with the submission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval of consent agenda Item 8.A? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 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. Item #8B PETITION: VA-2009-AR-14 I 39. HUSSEIN WAFAPOOR The second petition is the companion to that one. It's a variance 2009-AR-14139 and it's for the side yard setback changes. Any changes -- or any recommendations, corrections on this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Ms.-- MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: I do believe there is a correction staff is going to make on the -- unless you got the revised one. But the one I had, there was an incorrect setback for the northern riparian line, and we are making that correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you tell us -- show us where it is. Ms. Caron, you're going to hold your motion until this is clarified? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, absolutely. MR. BELLOWS: It currently says the resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition No. V A-2009-AR-14139 for a variance from the Land Development Page 6 . 161 1 · B 6 May 1,\09 Code, Section 503.06.E6, to permit or reduce side yard riparian setback from seven and a half feet. And it says in the version I have 4.5 feet, and it really should be 3.0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The diagrammatic works, that's what I reviewed. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we got the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thanks. That's a technical question. Thank you, Ray, appreciate it. MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that correction, is there still a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. 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. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #8C PETITION: PE-2008-AR-14071, SANDBANKS, LLC Next one is a petition, again consent, PE-2008-AR-14071, Sandbanks, LLC. It's for a project on North Tamiami Trail. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If none, is there a motion to recommend approval based on consent? Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the motion. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 7 ,-~.- -,.,..~.~--- . -'--"-'~"-'-'''-~.'''' 161 1 'ay 7, 20e 6 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. Item #8D PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-13801, WOLF CREEK ESTATES, LLC And the last consent item is Petition PUDA-2008-AR-13801, William Hoover on Wolf Creek Estates. Modification on 167. 96-acre section. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, ladies first, Mr. Vigliotti second. 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. And Cherie', I'm going too fast. I'm sorry, I wanted to get through consent. Okay, now we get down to the meat of the meeting. We'll get into our advertised public hearings. Item #9 A PETITION: SV-2009-AR-14140, RED ROOF INN The first petition on today's advertised public hearings is Petition SV-2009-AR-14140, and it's the Red Roof Inn at 1925 Davis Boulevard, for sign variances. All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Page 8 May 7, 2009 161 1 1 86 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't look like there have been any, so the applicant, you might proceed with your presentation, please. I MR. CLEMENTS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kyle Cleme ts. I'm with Site Enhancement Services. We're here on behalf of the Red Roof Inn at 1925 Davis Boulevard. With me is the general manager of the hotel, Dawn Hughes. Weare here today respectfully requesting the use on the sign variance for three signs: Two wall signs and one freestanding sign at our site. As you can see, the freestanding sign, it would be culled out as sign C. Sign A and B are the wall signs. Currently there are two wall signs and one freestanding sign existing at the property. Red Roof Inn is going through a national re-branding, hence the request. And for both of the wall signs we're going to be decreasing the total amount of square footage quite significantly. And the freestanding sign, we'd like to maintain the same size and height, but just essentially reface it with the new branding image. One of the issues that we're here today is because there is an IHOP that is located on the same parcel as the Red RoofInn and it requires a 1,000-foot separation between freestanding signs. Currently the IHOP sign is located here and about 254 feet away from our Red RoofInn sign, so we require a variance to allow for both signs to exist on the property. As you can see, there's no way that we could meet the 1,000- foot requirement. So without the approval of that variance, Red RoofInn would not be allowed to have its own freestanding sign, which would be very detrimental to the business and to people's ability to find the entrance. We've done some overlays to show the sign that is currently out there with the Red RoofInn, the old logo implemented in the mid- nineties. And here we are showing the new logo with the accent roof marker and the new letter set that will be implemented nationwide. The signage is just one part of kind of a changeover for Red Roof Inn to kind of update to kind of a new brand and a new image. The sign that's currently there is 34 square foot. Our request is to drop that sign to 22 square feet or reduce the sign by about 11 and a half square feet. On the side elevation here, on the western elevation, we currently have a sign that is about 235 square feet, again, the old letter set. We are proposing to utilize the new logo at 108 square feet or reduce that side sign by 126 or 127 square feet. So again, some significant reductions in the wall signs. And again, the freestanding sign, we would like simply to utilize what's currently there; not increase it in any way, just simply reface using the new letter set. So there would be no change. So kind of to give you a breakdown: What's currently at the site, 364.95 square feet of sign age. Our request coming to you today would reduce that number all the way down to 226 square feet, or approximately a reduction of 138 square feet, or reduce the overall signage by about 38 percent at the site. Now, looking at what code currently allows for: Code allows for one wall sign at 200 square feet max, and a freestanding sign at 15 feet in height and 80 square feet, or 280 square feet. So again, our request coming in at 226 square feet, we're actually 53 square feet under what code allows. We're just asking to allocate it in a slightly different manner. And the main reason that we are here for the freestanding sign is because our building is set so far off of Davis, there's really no way that we can implement wall signage to be used as a building identification tool. We're set back over 170 feet from Davis, and we're only three stories tall. Unlike the Fairfield that's next to us that's five stories, they can put a large building sign and be seen. We can't do that. Here's the sign on eastbound Davis. As you can see, this is taken from a driver's perspective. There's trees blocking it everywhere, there's a road sign here. You cannot even see the Red Roof Inn sign at Page 9 r . ,~.c".,,,,..,,.,..,_.~_ ,_~,,"_e"''''_ r 161 1 ~raYlj5 ~ its current size and height. So we understand that we won't be gaining any visibility from eastbound Davis, but westbound Davis, this is currently what's there. And I apologize, with the sun in the way a little bit. But again, this is from the driver's perspective. You can see the -- there's Capital Pawn Shop sign right here. And then here's the Red Roof Inn sign. So you can still see the sign on westbound Davis; however, if we're forced to come into compliance we're going to have to drop that sign eight feet and shrink it by about 15 square feet. As you can see from the photographs, that sign's going to be completely blocked. So because of the site setback, the buildings that block our hotel and coming into compliance with all the landscaping and the other signs in the area, without this variance the Red Roof Inn would be essentially completely invisible to people along Davis and Tamiami Drive. So we're here requesting that we be allowed to essentially just reface our signs, shrink the signage that's currently there, but implement it in a manner so that people can still safely navigate and find our hotel. So at this time I'm more than happy to answer any questions that the board may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. On the pylon sign-- MR. CLEMENTS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you have a red background with white lettering. MR. CLEMENTS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you also have a version of that with a white background and the red lettering? MR. CLEMENTS: I don't believe so, because it's -- the logo itself is a federally registered trademark, as well as the colors. So the registered trademark is red on white -- I'm sorry, white on red. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But on the building you're going to be red on white-ish beige? MR. CLEMENTS: Yes. When it comes to freestanding signs, they implement it in one way, wall signs are implemented in another. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're not available to reverse the color on the pylon? MR. CLEMENTS: I don't believe that that is something that we can do at this time. It's something that we could check into. We'd have to check with Red RoofInn headquarters and see what implications that has through marketing, through diflerent registered trademarks, but that's something that hasn't been implemented in Red Roof Inns nationwide as of yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll hear from staff. Thank you. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a different context for you. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, something different. Ray Bellows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This must be a very serious one. We've not taken this one serious enough, I guess, huh? MR. BELLOWS: No, no. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ray, how many hats do you have today? MR. BELLOWS: Just two. Page 10 . ',yo" ,< . " May 7, 2009 For the record, Ray Bellows, Department of Zoning and Land Developmlt evi~W lm :',Bg6 '~ for Nancy Gundlach today who couldn't attend today's meeting. The applicant has done an excellent job explaining the variances to you, so I won't go into any more detail. I think what I'd like to do is just talk about staff recommendation. And staff recommendation, we are supporting the wall signs. However, we are not supporting the size increase -- or retaining the same size pole sign. It's staffs opinion we're in a redevelopment area and that the large sign is not in keeping with what is being intended for that redevelopment area. It has a good visibility. And I do have a sign -- or a little better photograph to show you. Not much better. When -- I discussed this with Nancy. The sign appears to be visible from a certain distance. And as the applicant showed, further out it's hard to see, but it's hard to see any sign along Davis Boulevard. What we're trying to do is make the signs a little more conforming in size within the general keeping of reducing the blighted kind of look of large signage above and beyond the code requirements. One of the things that we're trying to do is when redevelopment occurs in this area is bring them into conformance wherever possible. I'll be happy to answer any other questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had a question, Ray. Part of the problem here for these people is the IHOP sign. Why is it that these out-parcels even had monument signs granted to them in the beginning? I mean, it would have seemed logical that the people from in behind needed the signage, not the person sitting on the street. MR. BELLOWS: Are you referring to the pole sign for IHOP? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. BELLOWS: I did have Nancy check and there was a building permit pulled and issued for the IHOP sign, so I assume that they as an out-parcel are allowed their pole sign. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just -- because we have these separations and we have-- obviously nobody looked at this except in isolation here, once again. MR. BELLOWS: Well, this is an older sign that may have been before that 1,000-foot separation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer, and Mr. Wolfley after that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, the concept of out-parcel, and this is essential one parcel. The two buildings, one is the IHOP, one is the -- so don't we look at this thing in kind ofa unified sign planning, or -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, these are all signs that date back over 15,20 years, and prior to the current sign code requirements, and so they're preexisting nonconforming in that regard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But if we were doing this project today, we would want all the signs on that one site -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- unified together -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and working together. Okay, so in the consideration of these signs, we totally ignore the existing IHOP sign? MR. BELLOWS: That's the purpose of one of the variances, to get the distance separation. So it's not totally ignored, but it's a preexisting nonconforming sign that has a valid building permit for that sign, Page 11 ,,-.. 'III" - '1" ",._,~..",.._....-.......",~_,,_......__ 161 1 B6bJ so it's allowed to remain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I can appreciate your picture here, but the other one really shows a more -- a real picture. When you're looking for a Red Roof Inn and, you know, not necessarily looking at addresses but looking for the sign, that pawn shop really does block it. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. And I drove it myself just to see, when I knew I was going to be filling in for Nancy. It is a little bit more difficult to see. But as the photograph tries -- we tried to convey with this photograph, the closer you get, you are able to see the sign rather well. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: WelL which may cause cars to immediately -- because the driveway's right there to get to it. And my concern is that for the sake of traffic flow and not slamming on brakes that -- you know, I'm more in agreement with the Red Roof Inn, with all due respect. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the only reason that they're in here for this sign variance on this one in front is because they're changing the copy: is that right? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they weren't changing the copy, they wouldn't have to come and that sign could stay up there forever. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the copy I think is an improvement, based on what I'm seeing. And they're also reducing the size of the signs on the building itself, which is a plus. So my perspective, I think we're gaining on this. Even with the granting of the variance, we're still ahead. So -- and I personally don't see a problem with it, but that's my thoughts. MR. BELLOWS: 1 understand what you're saying. And I think staff debated the issue at length. And you're right. You know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys got to stick to the-- MR. BELLOWS: -- an existing sign. But we also were thinking that we are trying to improve the area in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I also know that's best, to adhere to the confinements of the code and make the recommendations pursuant to that. But a variance is something that is up for review by this board, so we have more latitude maybe than you have. So-- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers? Oh, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one thing. The sign A on the side of the building, when I did my drive-by and drove by both ways, I'm not sure that anybody can even see that sign from the road. You certainly can't see it -- I mean, it looks like you can see it here, but when you're out on Davis making that turn to head toward the Red RoofInn -- MR. BELLOWS: I agree, it is difficult -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- you see trees. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yau don't see anything on that side. I'm not sure why we even have it Page 12 . 161 1 "4 gr)' 200. there. I mean, why wouldn't they just save the money. CHAIRMAN 'STRAIN: In the document I thought it was internal direction more than anything else. MR. CLEMENTS: Obviously the wall signs are all for internal direction. It's a very complex corridor. There's a couple of different restaurants, couple different hotels. So all the building signs are so that once you're kind of in the complex you can identify the building. That's really what they're there for. COMMISSIONER CARON: There's no way to get lost on your site. You drive in by the IHOP and you're right there. I mean -- MR. CLEMENTS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- there's no place to go. MR. CLEMENTS: Once you enter the actual site, there's really no way to get lost. But what it helps people do, is a lot of people are corning at night. They want to be able to -- it establishes right where the office is. So people see a sign, they know that's where the main entrance is, so it's something that helps people with directional in that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Sign A helps -- is by the office? MR. CLEMENTS: The office is right below it. Right here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sign A? MR. CLEMENTS: Yes, ma'am. Let me make sure. Yeah, sign A, right here on the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's B. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's B. MR. CLEMENTS: I'm sorry, I apologize. I have a different rendering. There we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're not so bad after all. MR. CLEMENTS: I was like -- so, no, I apologize. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, sign B. MR. CLEMENTS: And honestly, we feel that with dropping all the wall signs under the 200 square feet, it's something that we've worked hard to stay within the intent of the code. But in all honesty, if -- the freestanding sign is obviously paramount for us. It's obviously the most important. So if the board felt that for whatever reason that sign -- the west wall sign was overkill for whatever reason, we would be more than happy to look at other alternatives for that sign, if we can just please keep our same size freestanding sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The relationship with Red Roof and IHOP is in other places, correct? This is not the only site that has IHOP sitting with a Red Roof; is that true or not? MR. CLEMENTS: I'd have to ask the general manager to speak on that. MS. HUGHES: Good morning. We actually-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to identify yourself for the record, please. MS. HUGHES: I'm Dawn Hughes. I'm the general manager of the Red RoofInn there on Davis Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. HUGHES: We actually own the building but lease it to the IHOP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially it's the food for the hotel. Did you ever think of combining your sign with the IHOP sign so you did have one sign on the site? Page 13 "",.,..."_..,-."".,.,-,, ._~.._-""" 161 186" . ay 7:' 2009 MS. HUGHES: Not to my knowledge, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. MS. HUGHES: But that could be a possibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? MS. ISTENES: May I make a comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ISTENES: I appreciate you bringing that up, because I think that is an ideal situation to resolve the problem. We are always looking to try to in these redevelopment areas find opportunities to bring things back to code, the current code. Otherwise, why bother, we might as well apply the code 15 or 20 years ago, which is essentially what you're doing. So maybe that's an opportunity they would be willing to explore and we could maybe see some benefit to that as far as the intent of the code and be able to recommend approval. I'm not promising, but I certainly would be willing to explore it from staffs perspective. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the location of the IHOP sign would prevent your pawn shop from blocking you. So maybe -- you know, I would be more favorable to the size in the IHOP location than I am what you're trying to do today. MS. HUGHES: Ifwe combine the IHOP and the Red Roof, then the Red Roof would not be at the main entrance. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There you go. MS. ISTENES: But you could have a directional, a small directional sign by code at the driveway to assist with that. MS. HUGHES: We do have a small directional there at the main entrance, but it's not seen because of the bushes. MS. ISTENES: It could be relocated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, you'd be already past the driveway at that point is my thing. And let me just talk about what's up there. The west facing signage I think to me is critical. I mean, it is branding, and that which would then be visible from Tarniami Trail. And I don't see an issue at all with keeping that branded sign on the west side. Besides, it's facing their competition, so -- MR. CLEMENTS: And pointing out the directional, we do have this photograph as well. And as you can see here, there is the directional sign currently -- currently we do have the directional sign that is placed right here next to the tree. And as a condition of the approval, as statfhas recommended, we're out of -- it's only about a five-foot setback right now. Code requires 10 toot. So we would have to set that further back in within all the landscaping. And as part of the condition of staffs approval we agreed to remove that sign, because we wouldn't need a directional sign being able to utilize the exact same sign, the size that's currently there, just re-facing it. We feel that that monument sign would give us the visibility at our main entrance, which is very much needed for patrons to, you know, safely identify the site, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers, other than the applicants. MS. HUGHES: I would like to mention one more thing, if I may, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. HUGHES: Being the general manager there tor five years now, we are constantly called, where are you located. And we have to use the Capital Pawn sign and the IHOP sign as reference. And as a Page 14 . . 161 1 ~B67,200. ... couple of you did mention, there goes our branding. And if we combined the IHOP sign with the Red RoofInn sign, I mean, yes, we do have a business relationship, but we'd like to separate ourselves as a hotel with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Separate brand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll comment on that. I mean, I actually do support working with staff to bring all the signs in compliance. The fact that what you just said there shows that your location for the existing sign's not that good if you still have to point it out to everybody. MS. HUGHES: But to update it with the colors and the scheme that we have, it could and will be visible more from Davis Boulevard. MR. CLEMENTS: And honestly, sir, there's -- and I apologize, I put all the photographs away. With the -- we need to be at our main entrance so the people can identify our main entrance. Also, with the amount of landscaping and all the trees along there, there's not a better location. If you drive up and down the corridor, either the IHOP sign's blocked -- honestly, the Fairfield Inn sign is blocked because of the amount oftrees as well. This is -- there's not a great location. This is the best location, because it gives you westbound visibility to Davis and also keeps you out of the tree line as well. So that's something that we're trying to do. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments from the Planning Commission, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything -- no further from the public, Ray? We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a recommendation for approval approving both variances, even though staff recommended to disapprove one. Again, I'm going to approve both variances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your motion is to make recommendation for approval, but not using staff's recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: There are four variances, aren't there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Four variances. He said two. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti is recommending approval of all four variances -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but not incorporating staffs recommendations. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that correct, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Now, is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair, ifl strongly disapprove of one of the variances, do I vote no for this and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you, Brad. Page 15 . * ~ ,",.~"O'.U' ..~...-...._._.,~"._.........,__... t'. - ."........-... 161 1 ~Ao; '. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- pull it off of the summary agenda? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I can't --I think if we take them one at a time and they end up with the two and not the one that they need, then I'm not sure that they've gotten anything out of it. So either way, it may not be beneficial for them. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: I'd also like clarification on the motion. There's also an additional item number one below which talks about the directional sign E. So it's -- that was being requested to be removed by transportation department. That is basically this -- transportation has asked for this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the other recommendation by staff -- staffhad recommended acceptance of the first and fourth variance. but not the second and third. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second thing that staff had recommended was the removal of the directional sign. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Vigliotti, your motion included a variance approval for all four variances. Would you accept the recommendation to remove the directional sign? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I recommend approval for all requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The directional sign isn't part of the variance, it's a separate issue. This number one isn't part of the variance request, it's a separate issue that came up in reviewing the variance request. So basically they're saying, and the applicant has agreed, that he would remove that sign. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine then, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, you got any problem with that? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Sorry for the confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, back to the question. Mr. Klatzkow, this is applied for as one variance, variance number 14140. There's four categories to it, but it's applied for as one variance. Is there n what's your thoughts on breaking it up? MR. KLA TZKOW: I'm trying to think what I would do if I was representing the Red Roof Inn on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably go to another county. MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, but that's where I'm coming from on this. Yes, you can vote for these separately, I'm okay with that. But I will tell you that ifl'm representing the Red Rooflnn and you give me my other three variances and say no to the big sign, I just keep the big sign as it is, and I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I kind of was heading in that same direction. I think that there's -- no matter what way we look at it, this is an improvement, both on the walls of the building and on the copy on the big sign. And I think it's real difficult to expect an applicant to tear down a large sign to put a smaller one in, just because they changed the copy, and in essence they really improved the copy. So I don't see any problem with the motion as made, and I'm certainly going to support it. Brad, does that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I'm -- I mean, just the fact that they had to add this entry sign means the sign in its present location isn't working. The changing of the branding is not going to change the impact of that sign. If anything, it might even make it less visible because the letters are smaller. So unfortunately one out of the four I'm going to vote no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. KolfIat? Page 16 . 161 1 B 6 May A09 ,. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Since we're asked to express the reasons we go for a denial of staff recommendation, would the -- would the one thing in the proposition please identify what would be the reasons we're denying the staffs recommendation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you ask him to provide that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Beg your pardon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who did you ask to provide that information? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Whoever made the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, we're recommending -- no, no, we're not -- we don't have to recommend why we're denying staffs recommendation. We're recommending a motion to approve the request. But we're not incorporating staffs recommendation into that approval. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anybody else have any comments, discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With all that, we'll call for the vote. All in favor -- I think we'd better do this by a show of hands as well -- signify by saying aye and raise your hand. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess it's going to be -- let me vote yes so it stays on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, which way do you vote? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's unanimous, 8-0, motion carries. Thank you all. MR. CLEMENTS: Thank you very much for your time, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Our next petition would have been CU-2008-AR-13245. That was continued. I'll just say that again. So if anybody came in late, that's the Solid Waste Management Department's Resource Recovery Facility that's been continued to May 21 st. Item #9C PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13679, MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH. INC. So the next petition up is CU-2008-AR-13679. It's the Messiah Lutheran Church at 5800 Golden Gate Parkway. All those wishing to participate in this hearing, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had -- Mr. Nadeau called me. I think he called me, or e-mailed me. But I Page 17 ""."..'- _w rP'T -"'"'_.~~'"" ~"0_',' 161 1~ 86 .- May 7, 2009 had a conversation, I told him I'd try to get back to him if I had any concerns. Since I was on vacation last week, I didn't get the time I needed to get back to him. I did talk to Bob Mulhere and asked him to relay my concerns to Mr. Nadeau, which were to do with the child care and the variance request, along the lines of staffs comments. So we'll discuss that more today for sure. Okay, with that, Mr. Nadeau, it's all yours. MR. NADEAU: I had to run up the stairs, Commissioner. Bear with me to get my stuff together here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Elevator not working? MR. NADEAU: Oh, the elevator was working. Mr. Mulhere failed to let me know he was going to request a continuance this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He did that on purpose. MR. NADEAU: As 01'6:00 last night he told me no, we're going forward, so-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I see, he failed. MR. NADEAU: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name's Dwight Nadeau, I'm planning manager for RW A. And I'm very happy to represent Messiah Lutheran Church this morning for this conditional use 2007-AR-13679 (sic). I was hoping to have a transportation consultant here with me this morning. He apparently didn't get word that the meeting was moving forward quicker than we thought. We do have Pastor Tony in the audience, and he may offer any answers to questions that you may have. The project requests a conditional use for the expansion of the existing church facilities. The subject property is zoned Estates, had an original provisional use at that time, now known as conditional use PU764C, which permitted the church and place of worship. The existing church facility is on a 5.15-acre parcel and has a seating capacity of 80 persons in the congregation. The expansion is proposed to construct a new sanctuary building. It will accommodate a seating capacity of 300 parishioners. And additional church related buildings, multi-purpose buildings, classrooms would also be included in the expansion. Messiah Lutheran Church estimates that their congregation size is approximately 170 English speaking members and about 150 Spanish speaking members. The English speaking services occur at 9:30 and 11 :00 a.m., and the Spanish speaking services occur at 12:30 p.m. We are requesting as a part of this conditional use process the opportunity to have a private school. Private being it's funded by the State of Florida. It's for pre-kindergarteners between the age of four and five. And we can get into that further. I understand I have a staff recommendation of denial on that. Further, the primary access to the site is from 58th Street Southwest, which provides direct access to Golden Gate Parkway. Site provides two full movement access locations to 58th Street. And that given church services are offered Sundays, local weekday traffic will not be disrupted or affected. The addition of220 seats to the church capacity will increase traffic on Sundays. The increase will be proportional to the size or the growth of the congregation. The -- there would be some existing grass parking, which is currently being used in the southern portion of the site. That's going to be rehabilitated to comply with county standards, but will remain to be grassed, as is provided for in the Land Development Code. For those of you that aren't familiar, the Land Development Code allows for church land uses to have 70 percent oftheir parking as grassed. We were also requesting a sign height that is commensurate with the conditional use standards Page J 8 . 161 1 8 Q7,JI . , " along Golden Gate Parkway. The subject property, the first 300 feet, does fall within the corridor management overlay. We were directed by staff previously that we could request additional signage as a part of our conditional use request, and that additional signage would only be in the form of height from the CMO restriction of four feet to a fence height of eight -- excuse me, a wall sign height of eight feet. We did have our neighborhood information meeting. It was very productive. We are ensuring the compatibility with the adjacent land uses to the west, being the Step By Step day care, will be ensured through greater setbacks than that which is provided for in the Land Development Code. And the single family home to the south will be ensured compatibility with a setback of225 feet with a Il2-foot wide native preserve that would be located on the southern portion of the property. As you can see on the visualizer in the large plan that I put up there, in addition to that there would be a six foot masonry wall that would be associated on the north side of the preserve area, and that would also provide the compatibility. Really, Commissioners, that's the crux of what our conditional use petition is. The church does have expansion plans. They will be doing a phased building construction. The first building would be a multi-purpose building for gymnasium classroom opportunities, and then they would ultimately transition into the larger sanctuary. And while I still would like to request potentially some discussion on the additional sign height and the BPK pre-k schooling program, I'm open to comments and questions from the commission. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got one, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dwight, the setback up at the front, if there is the proposed right-of-way dedication, what is that setback to the facade of the church going to be? MR. NADEAU: To the side of the church or the new sanctuary on Golden Gate? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The new sanctuary, how close would that be to the right-of-way? MR. NADEAU: It would be approximately 35,40 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, I mean, what's the existing setback now? MR. NADEAU: Seven -- well, the proposed sanctuary is being set back from the original property line before the easement was taken. It's 75 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right. So it's going to be -- the answer is 34 feet would be the new -- all right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: This building that is up closest to Golden Gate Parkway, that's a sanctuary? MR. NADEAU: It would be the new sanctuary, yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CARON: That will be the new sanctuary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dwight, the preschool that you want to do is not one that's going to be limited to operating when the parishioners are in mass or in service of any kind? MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to be opening it up to the public and other times during the week, operating it much like a regular preschool; that's what your intentions are? Page ] 9 - -'-"~-~~'" .,,- '~'~"",""",-- " ....... --- 161 1 't . a6~ ,2009 MR. NADEAU: It would not be associated or an accessory use to the church facilities. It's a state program. They look for space to have these brief training periods for our youngsters, and that's the opportunity we were looking for. I realize that we did not get the support of our comprehensive planning staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I'm just curious, how were you planning to get around that? MR. NADEAU: We were going -- at the pleasure of the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Because it's not a -- it's a GMP issue, which means you normally would have to amend the process to get here. And this isn't the process you would normally use, that's why I'm -- MR. NADEAU: That is accurate. Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And likewise with the sign, it's a variance request and you're trying to get it down under a conditional use application. I'm a little -- that's different. I'm not -- I give you -- if you can get it through, good luck. But I'm not sure how the legal process makes that possible. MR. NADEAU: Sure. We were just n if! may, Commissioner, we were just looking at 5.06.02(A)(8) of the Land Development Code where conditional uses within the agricultural and residential districts, the board may approve additional signage as may deem appropriate during the conditional use approval process. We were trying to insert this extra sign height as a part of this process, understanding that there is a variance process and then there is a post-take plan process also available to pursue. We just thought that it may be the pleasure of the Planning Commission and the board, given that the old eight foot high site (sic) was removed as a part of the Golden Gate Parkway improvements, that there may be some latitude on the part this body and the board to grant that extra height. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL but the additional signage referenced in that conditional use language may be referring to additional signage, not the same signage modified at a higher height. And that could be the difference between a conditional use of that application and a variance application. MR. NADEAU: I understand, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Chairman, on item six, do we have the abil -- let me explain. Do we have the ability to allow a full-time child care facility, or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my concern. Because the GMP would have to be modified in order to get there, and that's not what they're doing, they're going through the conditional use. So I'm not sure you can do that under a conditional use process. That's why I thought it was interesting in the way it was applied. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So we can't. The answer is no, we can't approve a full-time -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My opinion is, but that -- that's what I would believe, but I guess that would either be up to staff or to the County Attorney to clarify. MR. KLATZKOW: You as a board would need to find it to be consistent with the GMP, okay? You don't have the power to grant exception to the GMP. And what I'm hearing from the applicant is they're admitting that it's inconsistent with the GMP, but they're looking for some sort of dispensation. You can't grant that dispensation. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So we cannot do it, okay. MR. KLATZKOW: You cannot do that. The process is to amend the GMP. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other thing, the church is not intending to operate during the week days? MR. NADEAU: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only reason, that your TIS did not show any indication of weekday traffic. Page 20 . . 161 1 B6 2009 .' .'1 MR. NADEAU: That is correct. The Sunday schools are held on Sundays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no other questions. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dwight, thank you. MR. NADEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll hear from planning staff at this point. MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Staff is recommending approval of the church expansion, fmding it consistent with both the GMP and with the LDC, subject to the provisions -- or excuse me, the conditional use conditions that have been provided in the exhibit to the resolution. As you've already noted, staff is not supporting the sign variance from the CMO or the expansion of a child day care service on the site, finding it to be inconsistent with the GMP. That's all I have. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you, J.D. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any final comments by the applicant? MR. NADEAU: Yes, Commissioners. I would not want to jeopardize the unanimous recommendation of approval for this conditional use for the church expansion based on any objections to the sign request or the BPK school request. We would like to have your unanimous recommendation for the church expansion as well, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had one question. You made a comment about a gymnasium. So if they're going to build a gymnasium, that gymnasium is only going to be used on Sunday? MR. NADEAU: Well, it's a multi-purpose room. So I'm not sure if you're familiar with these type of facilities, Commissioner Caron, but really what it is, it could be a half court basketball court that has carpeting on it and the striping on it. But it can also be used as classrooms or social gathering places for the congregation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But in answer to a question about how the TIS was done, you stated that there would be no weekday activities. MR. NADEAU: No, there would not be any formal weekday activities. I'm sure if some of the congregation's kids wanted to come in and shoot some hoop, I don't think that that would be an issue during the week. But no, there would not be any formal activities. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant, planning staff, anybody at all? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and there's no public speakers, so with that we'll close the public hearing and discussion before a motion. I think the applicant kind of presented it very well in regards to the conclusion that they'd like a unanimous vote. I certainly would not favor child care or the sign variance, as staffhas recommended. So I Page 21 -- "'<17"'<1 ....."" _.....'~""-'"-_.-. ._'---~---,-- -'^-- 161 1 MB609 vIII would think an approval of the expansion, based on staffs recommendations, with staffs recommendations would be sufficient, if that works for everybody on the commission. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number six is prohibiting child and day care. If the GMP was ever changed in that area to allow that, this would override a GMP. So could we somehow either eliminate that and word it such that if the GMP ever changed they would be able to come back with that option? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the GMP did change, they could come back with that option. So I would rather leave it in and force them to come back with the option so the neighborhood would be adequately notified. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the fact that we're going to strictly prohibit it here -- MR. KLATZKOW: The only motion that's being made is that you're approving the expansion of the existing church use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the staff recommendations. MR. KLA TZKOW: The rest of this is off the table, okay, so there's no ruling here as to the signs, there's no ruling here as to the day care. So that if the GMP changes down the road, they can come back at that point in time and ask for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But staff's recommendation that no school or child care shall be permitted on this site, would that -- MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't even think you need that, because this is superfluous. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I'm saying. MR. KLA TZKOW: The only thing we're approving here is the increase to the church. They can't do anything else. MS. ISTENES: I agree, I think we can take six out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does the-- MS. ISTENES: Making it clear, understanding your recommendation as it currently stands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the motion maker accept the staff recommendations, excluding number six? Who made the motion? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No one's made a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no one's made a motion, okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to recommend approval of the expansion of the church pursuant to staff recommendations, with the exception of striking number six. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Is there any discussion now? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, 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. Page 22 . 161 1 867,20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 8-0. Thank you. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have an issue. Where's Mr. Pritt? Ah, there we go. Bob, we weren't sure you caught the advanced schedule we had, so I was looking for you. MR. PRITT: I am here, but we're inquiring as to the location of my client. I know he's on the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take a few minutes to sign some papers, and so we'll shuffle around here for a few minutes, then we'll get back with you. Everybody on the Planning Commission, that last petition was a conditional use, so please sign the form and give it to Mr. Vigliotti. Okay, you know, I think what would be a good thing to do would be to take a break right now, because this next one is going to be long, and I know that the applicant is still searching for some of his people. So why don't we come back here at 9:45 and resume at that time. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back to (sic) the break. Item #9D PETITION: PUDZ: 2004-AR-6829, COLLIER DAVIS, LLC When we left we were anticipating a collection of people to discuss Petition PUDZ-2004-AR-6829, the Collier Davis, LLC, MPUD at the southeast quadrant of intersection of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road. Mr. Pritt, has everybody arrived? MR. PRITT: Yes, sir, they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we are ready to go. All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one disclosure. This was heard before the Portable Housing Advisory Committee, which I'm a member. That was done purely in the sunshine, but -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You were outside? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I received correspondence from Tony Pires' office. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All of us did that. Do we have to disclose that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Tony went from killing trees to killing the Internet. Yeah, I think all of us have received information from Tony Pires. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, he's still killing trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, killing trees too? Go ahead, Ms. Caron, did you have any more besides Tony? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-uh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I met with Evan Steingart from Napoli. And the e-mail from Tony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? Page 23 -- 1>:_ - , ... -~"." '~""',"'"'-,~'-,,",,,,,,, W"~ ... -"- "-"--~- 11'1 86 .. 16 I . . May 7, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, no discussions with anyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I met with Evan Steingart. I talked to Tony Pires and got numerous e-mails, as all of us I think have, and I met with Mr. Pritt. The issues I went over with everybody will be the same issues that I will be going over today. And with that, we'll move forward. Mr. Pritt, it's all yours. MR. PRITT: Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, good morning. I'm Robert D. Pritt, I'm with Roetzel and Andress Law Firm. I'm here on behalf of Barry and Lee Goldmeier. Barry Goldmeier is right here today. They're the owners of Collier Davis, LLC, which is the owner of the property in question. Also with me is the project team, Robert Andrea; he's also the agent and the planning consultant with Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Brian DeLony from Coastal Engineering, next to him. Tammie Lyday, who's an environmentalist with Earth Balance. Traflic engineer Ted Treesh from TR Transportation Consultants. Some of you know Ted, I believe. And Matt Polak of Chisholm Architects. I'd like to reserve the opportunity for cross-exa -- or I would like the opportunity for cross examination and reserve a few minutes for rebuttal. I think that that's part of your rules and regulations anyhow, but I just wanted to put that on the record. I'd like to talk to you about this project which is one of the oldest projects probably in the -- pending in the county. This is a culmination of a planning and zoning process that's been going on since 2004. It's a proposed mixed use PUD with affordable housing elements. The petitioner requests the Collier County Planning Commission consider rezone of the subject site from Estates zoning district to the mixed use planned development MPUD zoning district for a project to be known as Davis Reserve MPUD, and we'd also ask for the approval of an affordable housing density bonus agreement. We'll have more details on the subject property, but it consists of22.83 acres. It's located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road. And Robert Andrea will cover the details of that, but we do have that up on the visualizer. Thank you, Mr. Bellows, for doing that. The good news is that except for the calculation and dispersion of allowable density, we concur with the staff report. We believe that the staff report is overall positive. Unfortunately for both parties, I guess, there is a disagreement about a math situation and interpretation of language having to do with a density calculation and what is allowable. I would like to concentrate my comments -- before we turn this over to the real experts, I'd like to concentrate my comments on that issue and explain what the difference is and why we think that our interpretation is the better interpretation. We hope that this single issue does not override or override the proceedings here today to a point where we lose focus of the fact that on almost everything else n I think everything else we're in concurrence with the staff. As a background, you have to understand that the sub-district has some distinct features. Primarily it's a product of the wishes of the county commission to provide for affordable housing. And I know that seems very remote in 2009, but it was not remote in 2005, I assure you. And you probably remember, most of you were on this commission at that time. Fortunately the Goldmeiers were then and still are familiar with and involved in developments that consist of or contain affordable housing. They made a commitment to the board for an affordable housing component. In doing so -- and this I'm talking about here is in the GMP amendment process. In doing so, they based the commitment on discussions and the actions that were taken at board Page 24 . ,., . . 161 1 137(,09 hearings. The transcript of those hearings from the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing were not included by the staff in the staff report appendix. We ask that those be included, and we appreciate the County Attorney indicating to the staff that that ought to be sent to you. And hopefully you have the transcripts of January 25th, 2005, and June 7th, 2005. Both ofthose were board hearings. I'm going to ask today that those be admitted into evidence in this hearing, and I'm going to talk very briefly from at least one of those appendices. As much as I dread -- being a little bit of a math phob, as much as I dread doing math and doing it on television, I have to do a little bit of math. And anybody here can correct me on the math calculations if I've made them improperly, but I don't think so. Fortunately we have Mr. Eastman here from the school district, maybe he can help. Staff says we're entitled up to 234 units. We calculate that we're entitled up to 302 units. However, we're only asking for 286 units. Importantly, since the sub-district commits 20 percent ofthat differential to affordable housing, there are 10 units of new affordable housing at stake. And the difference of course is 286, what we think we're entitled to, minus 234, what the staff thinks we're entitled to, times 20 percent is 10.4 affordable housing units that would be lost under the staffs interpretation. Now, I know from attending the Affordable Housing Committee meeting the other day that the county is busy purchasing existing foreclosures and paying to fix them up at a pretty large cost. However, but there's not much if any new affordable housing being built, to my knowledge. And we think that that is an important factor for you to consider. The basis of the staffs calculation is that the project is not entitled to the additional units, it's at the bonus density, which is calculated on three units per acre times 22.83 acres, or 68 units, is not available since the sub-district requires affordable housing. And that's where we get into an interpretation of the law. Nowhere in the sub-district provisions or anywhere else in the code does it say that we forfeit our right to bonus density by committing to a minimum affordable housing allocation in the sub-district. If you look at the language of the -- I presume you have, but certainly I'm happy to go over it with you. But looking at the language of the sub-district itself in the Growth Management Plan -- it's a little bit unfortunate because the way it was written, some of which was written on the fly at the Board of County Commissioners meeting. And I'm sympathetic to that problem. But if you look, if you take a look at it, you will not find anywhere in there, that we could find, anyhow, that says that just because it's a required density calculation that we forfeit the right to those units. And essentially that's what the issue is. The matter did come up in the January 25,2005 hearing, and the assistant county attorney at that time stated to the board that the project would qualify for the density bonus. And that's in the transcript from that meeting. I could read it to you, if you'd like, but it's in the transcript. That assurance was correct. It was part of the board's understanding. It was critical to my client's being amenable to agree to provide affordable housing. That statement went unchallenged until the staff interpreted differently. A review of the June 7th, 2005 transcript of the Board of County Commissioners indicates the staff had other problems interpreting the actions of the board. Again, as a long-time governmental attorney, I can attest that this happens. However -- and by the way, that's why we have tapes and CD's and things like that and transcripts. However, the bottom line is the actions of the board were intended to require this type of housing, affordable housing, and they were talking about minimum number of units, but that nowhere in there is an indication that we know of that they intended not to allow the density bonus provisions to apply. Page 25 .,-"..... ~....... ---- , 161 1 J B6 t"1 'tii ,2009 . We asked that this be brought to the attention of the legal staff. The staff concluded that the interpretation of the board's intent is inconclusive. Under principles of statutory construction, when there's an ambiguity the intent of the legislative body is the pulstar -- and the Supreme Court of Florida uses that word -- the pulstar of statutory or ordinance interpretation. Both sides agree that the board in the final analysis should make the determination. Now, since I'm talking about statutory or ordinance interpretation, the staff seems to imply that somehow if our proposed interpretation is accepted, the development violates the Growth Management Plan. Well, that is impossible, since the sub-district regulation is in the Growth Management Plan. If there were a conflict between the provisions of the GMP itself, which there are not, that had to be resolved in the process of review and adoption of the GMP by the county staff, by the Planning Commission, by the Board of County Commissioners or the Department of Community Affairs. And there's no indication that there's an internal conflict between that section and anything else in the Growth Management Plan. Even if there were, the n under rules of statutory interpretation, the specific governs over the general. And this is very specific as to this sub-district and, therefore, those rules would trump any rules to the contrary that are generalized in the GMP. If Mr. Goldmeier would have been notified when the county unilaterally without his knowledge amended his sub-district, as happened in 2007, he probably would have challenged the whole thing at the time. However, that's water over the bridge, under the dam, or whatever you want to call that, whatever the metaphor is. And we're here with a document that can be interpreted and is capable of being interpreted and should be interpreted to allow the density that we have asked for. Now, the second quibble that we had with the county's staff position on density is that it is improperly confusing the term component with the term parcel. The sub-district n GMP sub-district regulations refer to a residential component and a commercial component. It does not say anything about there being a separate parcel for each component. These are just components of one parcel, one 22.83-acre parcel. And there's a reference to the component in the GroV\-th Management Plan, but that does not mean that density has to be allocated only as to one portion versus the other portion. It's an overall calculation, and there's a methodology for that. And it's our position that the calculation of density should be done for the entire parcel, and that the location in the parcel is not a function of the density calculation process. Again, this is a single parcel. Mixed use is specially permitted in the sub-district regulations, and allowing residential development in the commercial component with an interrelated traditional neighborhood plan. The sub-district regulations do not promote inflexibility, and neither should the staff analysis. I think that you received a report from the Affordable Housing Subcommittee -- or Committee. And if so, I would ask that that be made part ofthe record in these proceedings. I do want to -- before I turn this over to Robert and the analysis of the rest of the plan itself: I do want to refer you to language in the -- I'm sorry, in the plan document itself. There is a reference -- bear with me just one second here, I'll find it. Oh, thank you. Yeah, there's a reference in the plan -- in the Growth Management Plan where it says eligible density shall be as determined by application of the density rating system. Now, as I said, unfortunately that shows up in the residential component. However, if you look further down, you'll find that there is a further discussion of the density rating system as it applies to Davis/County Barn sub-district, and there's nothing that prohibits that calculation from applying also in the commercial component. Again, we could all go back and draft it better if we had lots of time, but that's a little bit of the problem. We're not faulting staff for their interpretation, but we just think that the interpretation that we Page 26 . S6 ~~~ . . " 161 1 7,2009 ' have based upon the transcripts and the intent of the county commission are the better interpretation of this ambiguous issue. So again, I don't want to beat this horse any more than we need to. I'd like to get on to the presentation itself. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to entertain them on the density issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, I think there's going to be a lot of questions, at least on my behalf, but I know that staff is planning to present their side of it too, so it might be beneficial -- at least I will hold my questions until I hear everybody's side of it before I start trying to understand it better. MR. PRITT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? As long as that's okay with everybody on the panel? One question I'd like to ask the County Attorney before we go too far. Mr. Pritt brought something up in the beginning, I didn't want to interrupt his presentation, but he wanted to reserve the right for cross examination. We have not done that in the past typically. Normally residents and people come here to address this commission, they don't come prepared to defend themselves with an attorney's questions, nor do they bring attorneys themselves. I don't want to put an air of concern or stress unnecessarily on the public from speaking, so I don't want to start something that isn't going to give us a free flow of information. So Mr. Klatzkow, is that something that we're obligated to here? MR. KLA TZKOW: In this context I think it's probably not a bad idea to allow Mr. Pritt to question people. Because I think we all know where this one's going to be heading, given the amount of e-mails and phone calls I've gotten, anyway. And just to get a full record before the board. So in this context I think it's not a bad idea. I would say that the Chair has some latitude in keeping the time on this down, all right. This isn't going to be a three day hearing. But if we have pertinent questions and we can get them done fairly quickly, I don't have an issue. Especially ifMr. Pritt wishes to question staff. If staffs going to take a position, I don't have any issue with them being questioned on that position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about members of the public? MR. KLA TZKOW: They're just here as witnesses. I don't think cross examining them would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you. Okay, with that we'll move forward. Go ahead, sir. MR. ANDREA: Good morning. Robert Andrea, with Coastal Engineering. As Mr. Pritt said, we're here today requesting a rezone of22.83 acres from the Estates zoning district to a mixed use planned unit development known as Davis Reserve MPUD. The location as you see on the map is located on the southeast corner of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road. The property is surrounded on the west with Napoli condos; to the north Glen Eagle; to the east, Seacrest Schools; and to the south, Berean Baptist Church and Seacrest Schools also. The subject property lies within the urban land use designation area, and it also has a designated (sic) with its own location specific sub-district within the urban mixed use district since June 7th, 2005. It is known as the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use sub-district. It was then later amended by Collier County in January, 2007. Policy 7.1 through 7.7 under Objective 7 of the Future Land Use Element were approved on October 26th, 2004. This objective and its policies adopted certain Smart Growth provisions into the Future Land Use Element. Since the adoption of Objective 7 and its policies, methods to encourage such planning, the county has gone into implement them further. (Sic.) The future land development regulations were formulated, then adopted as future land use element Page 27 "_."~.- . - "".._.,"'_' -".-<"""""'0"'-- ,'"~"',_= -- 161 1 ~6009c' provisions for this specific Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use sub-district. This is one of Collier County's earliest opportunities to apply more of the practices found in the towered better places, the community character plan for Collier County. The community character plan provides that the county with the policies document featuring the most useful aspects of traditional neighborhood design, smart growth, traflic calming, new urbanism, and other planning contemporary planning practices. These policies are implemented and referenced generally by this mixed use sub-district future land use provISIOns. The Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use sub-district is comprised of 22.83 acres. The intent of this sub-district is to provide for development that incorporates the traditional neighborhood and mixed use design features, as well as recommendations of the Collier County community character plan. These include pedestrian friendly and bicycle friendly streets, parks, small plazas and other open spaces, and a mix of residential and neighborhood commercial uses. Integration of residential and commercial uses in the same building is encouraged. The commercial component shall be interconnected with the residential component, and the commercial component shall be conveniently located to serve residents in the nearby surrounding area. Additionally, this sub-district is required to develop a percentage of its units as affordable workforce housing, and was the first in the county to volunteer to do this. This specific requirement reads: A minimum of 91 residential units shall be developed in the sub- district. This reflects the density rating system base density of four dwelling units per acre applied to the entire site acreage for the project total density, whether it is a minimum of the 91 dwelling units or a greater amount, as allowed by the density rating system, density bonus provisions and approved via rezoning. A minimum of 10 percent must be affordable workforce housing units, provided for those earning less than or equal to 80 percent of the medium household income. For the Collier County and other -- I'm sorry, for Collier County. The other 10 percent must be affordable workforce housing units providing for those earning greater than the 80 percent, but no greater than 100 percent of the medium household income for Collier County. What we are proposing for this sub-district is the mixed use planned unit development where we will be applying the new urbanism design principles, along with the traditional neighborhood design and mixed use features. This includes a denser design with pedestrian friendly and bicycle friendly streets, buildings that are closer to the streets, achieved by reducing setbacks, sidewalks along the roadways, parking along the streets, small plazas and turnabouts, which are all traffic calming techniques, public open spaces, and a mix of residential and neighborhood commercial uses. It will be similar to other recent most popular developments in Naples, like Bayfront or the Mercado. We envision people being able to work and live in this community. They will be able to bike or walk to work. The proposal includes up to 35,000 square feet of commercial uses, which will be located in the northwest corner of the project. Let me put a site plan up. And we also propose 286 multi-family residential units, which equates to 12.5 units per acre across the entire 22.83 acres. There will be a mixture of buildings with residential over commercial and strictly residential buildings, 20 percent of which will be affordable workforce housing, as required by the sub-district. There'll be 5.29 acres of preserve. And you can see it located there in the southeast portion of the project. There'll be one point of access on Davis Boulevard, which will be a right in and right out. And one on County Barn Road, which will be shared with the Berean Baptist Church, with (sic) the shared access is encouraged. Page 28 '. 161 1 B67,200~ \ We'll provide all the required landscape buffers, the open spaces around the lake, as well as other public spaces and a community center. The architectural theme, as required by the subject, will be common throughout the project. We believe this project is an excellent location for this type of development. It provides much needed affordable and workforce housing within close proximity to employment opportunities within Naples. And attending the Affordable Housing Committee meeting the other day we learned that they are also looking for this type of affordable housing close in. It's been very difficult for them to find it this close in to Naples. We appeared before them, and they seemed to agree that this was an excellent location, and they did seem to support the project. The project has been going through this county process for many, many years. We've done as many as eight reviews, and we have worked closely with staff and also reached out to the surrounding property owners. We've held at least three neighborhood information meetings, as well as met with individual groups, as requested. We feel we are in compliance with all county requirements. And other than the outstanding density issue, we believe that we do meet all the requirements and they will have a recommendation of approval once that issue is resolved. At this time we ask for your approval and your recommendation of approval to -- for this rezone of Estates to mixed use planned unit development. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions of the applicant? And I might suggest to the Planning Commission members, on this density issue I know that staffhas got a side of it to present in regards to how they calculated it. Mr. Pritt has provided us with the way their applicant calculated it. So before we get into that one, maybe we ought to wait till staff here presents their side of it to us on this issue. But certainly we have other issues in this document that we normally would ask questions about concerning the PUD and other things like that. So are there any questions at this time within the PUD document? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. But let me just ask one question about density. It's a one number answer. In the affordable housing bonus system, in the package you're showing, you were asking for five units based upon what was circled in that application? MR. ANDREA: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yet Mr. Pritt mentioned three units. What is the exact -- the right number? MR. ANDREA: Well, the eligibility we believe is five, but we're requesting the three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll carry exactly the next one. In terms of the layout of this thing, one of the major parts of this thing is, you know, new urbanism, new towns, traditional, all that stuff, yet we're not seeing anything other than a vin diagram for a plan. Do you have anything further that could actually -- in other words, there's nothing here that shows that. I mean, the cul-de-sac kind of -- the circles, giving some hints, but -- MR. ANDREA: Right. At this time I'll let the architect stand up. MR. POLAK: Good morning. My name is Matt Polak, senior vice-president of Chisholm Architects. I have an overlay here. What we've gone ahead and done is gone ahead and attached to the plan that you're seeing there, based on Robert's kind of bubbled diagram a potential layout for the units in keeping with traditional Page 29 , ,....... ." "~.lllI._ 1'-""~_,.,_"~",<"",,,,,,_ - _._, 16 I 1 I a6 .,. M , 09 neighborhood design concepts. As you can see -- I'm not sure ifthere's a way to point to anything here. One of the basic concepts here is that we have a main entry that's coming off of Davis that leads you down a main boulevard, which is fronted by units on both sides of the street. And, you know, one of the design concepts that we're trying to do is to create a neighborhood design where we have eyes on the street, as well as eyes into the parking area. What you're seeing here is basically a ground floor layout of the plan, where these would be two and three story buildings. The ground f100r would be predominantly made up of two and three bedroom flats. And along that street, corridor here, you circle down along a main boulevard, which terminates into a circle, and from there you can either go enter into the parking areas which are hidden back from view, so you have a very formal front facade to the buildings in creating -- where you're going ahead and creating a streetscape design. In that we create a section where you also have a side-walk along here. We've allowed for parallel parking along the street here. One, it acts as a street calming, it provides street calming there. It also allows for visitor parking, people can park, they're going to visit, they can park nearby to the people they're going to see. Again, like I mentioned, we went ahead and are tucking the parking behind, and those are being buffered by the wetland area along the perimeter of the project. Then that residential component then terminates into a commercial component, which also has residential units on top of it. We foresee those commercial uses being very -- you know, very small neighborhood uses, predominantly maybe a small convenience store, a lot of professional offices, graphic artists, architects, lawyers, accountants could utilize that space there in acting as a live/work opportunity there. And then we've created focal points. You know, we have a -- we're taking advantage of the lake as a focal point, and also we're taking advantage of the wetland area too to add as a focal point. One of the other issues, you know, you get with going with a traditional neighborhood design concept is the walk-ability. The -- from this unit to the commercial complex is less than a five minute walk. So it really promotes people to walk along and through the neighborhood, as opposed to just kind of coming in and going into their unit. It allows interaction between people. Most -- all these units will have terraces facing the street. They'll either be terraces from the living units or private terraces from bedrooms, so that you begin to get an interaction between people. And it also is a very, very good passive security in that people are looking at all -- around the entire perimeter of the building. You have people looking down the street, you have people who are able to look out into the parking areas. So you take care of a lot of issues where you -- where people could cause problems, typically where you have with some other apartment complexes where the building is kind of surrounded by parking. And then in keeping with the scale of the buildings, like I said, these would be two and three story buildings. We did bring some photographs of projects similar in scale and appearance. Although this is not a fait accompli, and certainly not presenting it as such, but to get an idea of what it could potentially look like. Basically what you're seeing here is a streetscape. The streets a bit wider than the one we're proposing but you have your parallel parking along the street, you have your sidewalk, you have a green strip. And I think our particular instance is about t 5 feet deep where you have landscaping, as well as some private terraces. You're seeing the f1at buildings along here, and then these units on top are two story sort of I like to call them like a townhouse type unit where the living areas are on the second floor and then there's a set of stairs that takes you up to the bedrooms that are up on the third floor. Page 30 16~ '" 86 ~1 . . " May 7, 2009 There's a few more pictures here I can go through. Again, this is kind of a shot of a -- this is a bit of a larger boulevard option there. But the buildings are sort of going down in scale. You're seeing the units here. And the access to the units is actually not from the street but actually internalized in the building itself. Again, a similar shot. This is actually access to the second floor units. And then we have another picture here just to give an idea of what the commercial component could look like, taking advantage of providing -- actually, can you go to the picture -- that one's mostly just trees. What you're seeing here -- that's good, thank you. What you're seeing here is there would be-- you'd have your commercial component here, which could be offices, small minor neighborhood related retail components. And then above that you have apartment units, either rental or ownership. One of the things we like about having a mix -- in a mixed use and a traditional neighborhood design concept is that by having units above, you don't -- that area doesn't shut down at 5:00. You have people there all the time. So again, you're increasing the security, you're giving it more life, you're giving more things for the residents to do in allowing them to kind of go around the neighborhood. It really -- you know, the key component is livability and walk-ability, and allowing -- giving people kind of a neighborhood that they can walk around and through and get to know their neighbors. We find that that, you know, is one of the things that makes these plans successful is that people tend to interact more often with people as opposed to other types of apartment buildings where you tend to park, go into your unit and not see anybody. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do me a favor, would you put up the site plan again? MR. POLAK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is a representation of the ground floor? MR. POLAK: This -- yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the only commercial is that white area that you're talking about? MR. POLAK: There -- currently what we're showing right now, we have a commercial component here and a commercial component here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what's the square footage of that? MR. POLAK: I believe it's somewhere between 13 and 14,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason I'm bringing that up is for the mixed use concept of that, you know, we had kind of higher hopes than that. I mean, 45,000 square feet is what we were setting as a cap. Thirty-five is what you're capping your application. But providing 15, 16 is not exactly fulfilling the other half of the traditional neighborhood, which is the commercial. MR. POLAK: Well, I think there's a couple of issues here specific to this site that make that number ambitious. One of the reasons is really very -- we don't have the access here to County Barn because of the intersection and the future widening of County Barn. So it turns that commercial -- you know, the idea of bringing in a commercial component where people from outside are going to have ease in getting into the site makes it very difficult to promote that at that particular intersection. So the mixed use here is more of a live/work mixed use idea in that you could live here and you could also work here and promote that, as opposed to trying to promote a large number. It would be ideal if that would be possible to get a higher number. I don't know -- and in fact, Mr. Goldmeier can probably speak to that. But I don't know how realistic it would be with the -- given the fact of the access to the commercial site from Davis and from County Barn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Both of those roads are pretty major arterial roads, yet you're putting housing right up at the corner where most banks would die to have their branch situated. So what's Page 31 "'-~'^-"'-" ,-_., ~_._- ,--" -'''-''''''.'--'"''''"''''~ ..-.- 161 1 M~a6 I the logic of putting in -- and I hope the answer's not that's the affordable housing up there. MR. POLAK: No, the idea here was that we tried to turn the commercial component inward to support the balance of the site. Because as I said before, that although it would be ideal to have a bank on this corner, the fact is is that getting into that bank is not going to be possible. Access to that bank would have to occur all the way down here, and typically that's not very good for banks that -- trying to get there, you either have to get there from here or you have to circle around and get there from -- I believe that's about 1,800 feet down Davis Boulevard, which I think is one of our closest cuts because of the Davis Boulevard intersection. And Davis is a divided road, so you're only picking up traffic heading east on that. So that's one of the reasons why, although it seems like an ideal commercial parcel, access to that parcel is very limited. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think, you know, we're limiting other parcels that same way. Did you -- so essentially the only commercial you have here is what you feel would be supported by this -- MR. POLAK: That's what we are -- we've done a lot of different kind of ideas with this. This was -- this is one of the concepts that we were working on that we've developed. And I think part of that development had to do with some takings of some land for easements and for buffer areas. So this is a (sic) option. It's not obviously the final option or -- but it is a option to consider. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, let's not hang here. I can talk a lot about some of that, but let it go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL no, I've got a question. If you never really intended to do commercial but only as a convenience for the units inside the development, which is minor, and you even said it was going to be a convenience store, why didn't you pursue a GMP amendment for the amount of commercial square footage you wanted, even going so far as dividing it up into one section, saying you wanted 20,000 square feet possibly for a grocery store, when you never really seems like (sic) you intended to use any of that? MR. POLAK: I'm going to allow Mr. Goldmeier. MR. GOLDMEIER: Barry Goldmeier, representing the developer. This was a process. We recognize the same elements that Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Strain pointed out, that this was a prime corner. However, when we began the -- and that was our intention originally. But when we began dealing with the right-of.-way department and found out that we had to locate our entrance I think 1,300 feet from the intersection of County Barn and Davis in the residential portion and we could not have a direct access into the commercial portion, that we were forced to have a shared access with the commercial -- with the Baptist church next door, this became less of an attractive commercial situation. So what we did was we responded to those limiting factors by having a mixed use project that would be more or less self-contained within the spirit of a traditional neighborhood design project rather than a commercial project and a residential project. Now, as far as why it was divided up into two sections, that was at the request of planning staff. It was not our idea. This project was one 23-acre project with one application, one, you know, environmental study, one traffic study, et cetera. But staff gave us some rationale as to why they insisted on having a different designation for the commercial project than the residential project. And we just followed their-- the request. But it was not intended to differentiate the project in any way as being a different -- entirely different project, as some may now contend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're an experienced developer. MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes. sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At what point along the road did staff inform you that your entranceways Page 32 . , 161 ~ay~,&6 were going to be such that they are to a point where you realized it wouldn't be good commercial? MR. GOLDMEIER: I think it was -- was it in 2006, Robert? It was -- at that time the right-of-way department was planning an expansion of County Barn Road. They had -- they were in the -- they were in the design process. They were not complete with the design process, so it was a work in progress. And as I said, this thing evolved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only reason I'm bringing this up is because in 2004 when you applied, you knew then that the entrance had to be on the church's -- sir, I have a master plan from your application right here when you first applied for it. It's done by Coastal Engineering, it's dated 4/23/04. It's close to what the master plan is you're using now, and it was part of the adoption package given to us. MR. GOLDMEIER: Then I stand corrected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then again, it goes back to my original question: If you knew that this was a difficult entry for commercial, why would you go for so much commercial under the premise to us that you wanted to have a mixed use process that we envisioned as what we have always expected to be, like Mercato and others where you have a mix of residential above and below and side by side with the commercial, when in this case you're basically putting a convenience store in with apartment housing. And I'm just wondering where the change came. Because that's not the way this was conceived, or at least it doesn't appear to be the way that it was presented to us back in '04 and '05. MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, what happened was we -- when we had our initial meeting with staff to prepare for zoning, for a zoning application, we had presented them with the opportunity to build a traditional neighborhood design community, which we had done elsewhere in the state and which we thought would be very well received in this market. And we were informed by staff that they had a newly enacted traditional neighborhood design friendly statute that included both a commercial and a residential component, and that we should tailor our project to fit the -- that recently passed statute. So we tried to take our traditional neighborhood design concept and fit it into the statute that we wanted to follow. And that's how it evolved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I know that part of the density calculation for this property -- or at least even for the -- I think it's for both sides of the property was the fact you're going to have what we were presented as a bona fide mixed use project with up to 45,000 square feet of commercial. And that's not what we're seeing here. Yet I still think you're utilizing the bonuses, or possibly you are -- and I'm sure that I'll hear more on that as the meeting goes on -- that were created as a result of the intention of doing the mixed use that we thought you were intending to do back in '04 and '05. MR. GOLD MEIER: You are correct. And that was held out to us as a reason to apply under -- you know, to fit our project to the already existing statute. And -- but what we've found out as the project developed and the entranceways became set in stone, that it was less -- from a market point of view less attractive. And also we also became aware at some point that the parcel at the corner of Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevard, which is very close by, was being developed for major retail usage. And that would sort of remove the appeal from a retail point of view. And we had looked for the -- we had looked toward the professional offices, which were being developed to the west on Davis Boulevard just down -- you know, down the road, and were being well absorbed at that time as a model rather than a strict retail model. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, Davis and Santa Barbara is a long-standing activity center-- MR. GOLD MEIER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so the commercial was always going to go in there. MR. GOLD MEIER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you've done with 22 acres here, especially in the plan that's in front Page 33 .....- ~__>..-......~""..,....__._'"<.w___.1I' 161 1 Bb " May 7, 2009 of us now as one concept that has been presented, you're more or less a residential community with some commercial, convenience commercial for the community as a typical PUD might be. And I'm just wondering, you went to great length to go in a different direction that you ended up being in a direction that was probably a lot simpler. And I'm just surprised at it. And I don't understand all the reasons why it went that route. And I'm sure before the day's over we might understand more. MR. GOLDMEIER: It was an evolution that wasn't our original intent. I can show you drawings in which we had the 35,000 square feet. But it became increasingly -- we became increasingly aware that it was less attractive as a retail location than the Santa Barbara location, and that it would be -- we should orient it more toward a professional office situation from a market standpoint, and that's the evolution that took place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Any others on this matter before we go back to the architect, I guess. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question. So the commercial that you are planning on here is to be office? MR. POLAK: As a potential use it could be office. It would be, you know, neighborhood related retail uses, whether n you know, whether you would have -- I use the term -- I don't want to say a dry cleaner. I mean a dry cleaner in the sense that you wouldn't have actual dry cleaning going on there, but it could be a -- a dry cleaner could be there also. You know, fundamental uses like that that the residents would be able to take advantage of. You could have a small -- you know, I don't know if you'd have a small cafe of some sort, ice cream or some sort of use like that. But, you know, your predominantly small neighborhood retail type uses. That's why we see more of a, you know, insurance agentJrealtor/attorney/designer type of use where it's not so site specific for walk-up traftic. COMMISSIONER CARON: It definitely looks like instead of a genuine mixed use project we're getting a couple little strip malls stuck inside this PUD, this residential PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While you're up there, sir, the -- in the commercial parcel or the parcel that was supposed to be commercial, the very south end of it that abuts that out-parcel, you show a driveway going out to County Barn Road. MR. POLAK: Yes, that's -- you know, that is inaccurate. Basically I think what Robert was showing on the PUD plan where the actual entry is actually down -- is happening down here. It's a shared access plan with the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. POLAK: That's the actual connection that's -- we're showing it here. It's actually happening -- it's actually going to happen down here adjacent to the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're the architect, so n MR. POLAK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so you're not necessarily the land planner. The land planner is the other fellow? MR. POLAK: We've been working together on this for several years, so we've sort of been working hand-in-hand developing that, along with the environmental issues that have come up on it also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because we have -- I'm sure -- I have more questions and I know some others might. Are you guys done with your presentation then at this point and ready for questions? MR. POLAK: Sure, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 34 . . c 161 1847,20!l . . ., - '" MR. PRITT: I do want to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to come to the mic, Mr. Pritt. You know that probably better than I do. MR. PRITT: Yes, I'd like to have Ted Treesh, traffic engineer, come forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PRITT: There are just a couple of issues that have come up lately and I would like him to address those. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have the spelling of your name, please. MR. TREESH: T-R-E-E-S-H. For the record, Ted Treesh with TR Transportation Consultants, just briefly. I know there were some questions raised and discussions previously, and I just wanted to make a few points. Our analysis was completed utilizing the shopping center land use code for the trip generation of the retail uses, and we do in fact feel that's a worst case analysis for this facility, based on the proposed schedule uses that are included. Shopping center land uses are a very diverse group of land uses that are included in the ITE trip generation report that includes out-parcel uses; for instance, fast foods, gas stations, convenience stores that might be on out-parcels of shopping centers, of which this parcel does not have. As you can see from the plan, there's no -- gas stations are specifically prohibited from the site plan, as are fast food. So we feel the trip generation in terms of the retail uses were perhaps over-analyzed in this analysis, but in any case a worst case impact. Also, the report that was prepared was dated back in February of '08. Since that time, the new AUIR has been put out and the volumes on Davis have dropped just about six and a half percent since that time. County Barn is right about the same as it was when we first analyzed it back in '07. So I just wanted to put that on the record that the volumes have decreased. There wasn't any capacity issue on Davis in our analysis. The analysis did show future deficiencies on County Barn, but what we did in the supplemental analysis that was submitted to the county was looked at the impacts that the four-lane extension of Santa Barbara would have. That project's currently under construction. Basically what that will do is provide parallel relief to this two-lane segment of County Barn, providing a new four-lane facility that would extend south of Davis down to Rattlesnake. And again, that segment is currently under construction. Our analysis, looking at the modeling of how traffic would shift when that new roadway opens, indicates that County Barn will be -- there will be capacity available on County Barn to accommodate this project, but we do have conditions in our zoning that accommodate both of those projects, both the widening of Davis as well as the Santa Barbara extension. That's really all I had to offer, and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions either now or at the conclusion of our presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of transportation at this time? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. In your negotiations with transportation, they would not allow you a right-in/right-out on County Barn Road? MR. TREESH: Not between the church access and Davis, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they would not allow you the same thing anywhere until you hit that intersection that you show? MR. TREESH: On Davis? Page 35 -, ~_.- ..-.- .. -- ..... .""'- .....01:_~-,.... ,."-,.,...,----- , 161 1 86 ..,. , May 7, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, on Davis. MR. TREESH: Davis is a Florida DOT roadway, so we have to meet their access spacing standards. But I don't believe there was anything asked for on Davis in between County Barn and that access that's currently sho\\-TI. If there was, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps another member of the team would be able to address that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So maybe there could have been a right-in/right-out up closer to the mixed use area. The lake is manmade, so n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, from a traffic spacing standpoint, did the FDOT standards allow a point closer than the one on Davis Boulevard from County Barn Road that you currently show? I think that's the crux of the question being asked. MR. TREESH: I'd have to defer to your transportation staff on the exact spacing standards. I haven't looked recently what they are on Davis, but on what -- it depends on what access management class that roadway has been classified as FDOT. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure we'll get John Pod -- John up here. I can't hardly say his last name, but we'll get John up here at the time staff presentation is -- anybody else have any questions of the applicant's transportation engineer at this time? (No response.) MR. TREESH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, don't go away. I've got several. I hold off till last and let everybody else ask first. Your use of the shopping center code, that sets a certain level of service component for traffic. Every time you use one of those codes it gives you a different outcome. The fact you could have a 20,000 square foot freestanding shopping -- or grocery store, grocery store has a much higher intense traffic component than the 820 category for a shopping center does. Is that a fair statement? MR. TREESH: I haven't specifically looked at a 20,000 square foot grocery store to be able to answer that. Most food stores that I work on. Publix, Albertson's, I mean, they're 70, 80, 90,000 square feet. I don't know what it is on a 20,000. But typically you are correct, a standalone grocery store would generate more trips than a shopping center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You had -- in your TIS you used 35,000 square feet. MR. TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You used it under the shopping center category. And today we're finding out we're basically going to have a convenient store and maybe possibly some others on this one concept the plan had. So you wouldn't necessarily need 35,000 square feet. But at the time you used the 35,000 square feet, your daily trips were 5,000, reduced by internal capture and some pass-by, so a net of 3,520 external trips. MR. TREESH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this property wasn't -- doesn't function for that kind of traffic because of the commercial -- to support the commercial that 3,520 trips would have supported, why did you even do this TIS in that manner? MR. TREESH: I have to do the TIS consistent with the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we're finding out the application, even though it said they're requesting 35,000 or 38, whatever the number is, they're only going to be using a substantially less amount. So that would correspondingly lower your daily trips and everything else. Page 36 . 4 . 16 I t&6 " ; MR. TREESH: Ifthat's the way it was ultimately developed, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you look at the entrance access through the church's property? MR. TREESH: We looked at it in terms of the assignment of trips and the analysis ofthat intersection in that manner in terms of this analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the stacking capabilities, the turning radii and the width of the lanes and the number oflanes, both left-hand turn and right turn on the church's property, did you check to see what sizing and capacity that area would have to take in order to accommodate the 3,520 external trips going into that property? MR. TREESH: At this stage of our analysis in the zoning, no, we do not look at those detailed issues. Those are issues we look at at the site development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you given the graphic of the easement for that church's property to look at? MR. TREESH: No, I was given this graphic that's on the visualizer, the master concept plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have anything of the transportation -- the applicant's transportation engineer? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. TREESH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we can go back to the other -- the applicant's presentations. Does anybody have any questions from either the architect or the planner in regards to the PUD document or the rest of the issues from the applicant's perspective? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got a few of the planning side of it. Let's start with the PUD. In your Exhibit A is where I'll be working from. MR. ANDREA: For the record, Robert Andrea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2, under B, section 1.2, number three. It says -- number three reads, allowable commercial uses permitted by right and conditional use approval in the commercial mixed use component shall be limited to those uses permitted in C-l, C-2 and C-3. The language approved by the Growth Management Plan under A-5 says, allowable commercial uses and commercial component shall be limited to those uses permitted in the C-l, C-2 and C-3 zoning district, as contained in the Collier County Land Development Code. Those uses permitted. Conditional uses are a permitted use. And I'm just wondering why -- how is that consistent with the GMP? MR. ANDREA: I believe that was just put in there as the LDC reads, that if someone were to apply for a conditional use that is permitted as a conditional use in C-l, 2 and 3, that it would be -- they would be able to apply for that conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope Mr. Weeks is making notes, because I'll have to ask him why the interpretation of the GMP -- why the GMP says very specific that it would be the permitted uses in C-l, 2 and 3, and if then the conditional uses can be allowed. But I'll wait and collect my numbers of questions for him then. The last part of that, it says, unless otherwise provided in this section. That again is inconsistent with the GMP language. It's very specific; it's C-I, 2 and 3. And then if you get into the other sections that you have there, it says 3-A. And then 3-A, B and C read the same way in the beginning parts. It says, commercial, professional and general office district in effect at the time of the SDP approval. And those same languages occur in each one of those. Yet in the GMP it says, the zoning districts as contained in the Collier County Land Development Page 37 - " .---,,,---,,. ,,- ,-, ~"..<"-" -- 161 1 86 '. May 7, 2009 Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of the sub-district. Ordinance No. 2005-25, adopted June 27th, 2005. I'm not sure ifthat's the same as what you're trying to say here. Because one says in effect at the time of the SDP and the other says in effect at the time of the adoption of your sub-district. And I'll have to ask David Weeks his opinion on that. I'm sure that you probably don't have -- that's just boilerplate language from your perspective. MR. ANDREA: Yeah, to be honest, it's been worse so much over the years that at one point it was being viewed for consistency -- or redundancy, rather -- with the LDC. So a lot oflanguage has been moved around and taken out so we wouldn't get redundancy. How it came to be this particular way, I honestly don't remember at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about under your accessory uses, under B on Page 3. B-4, you talk about recreational uses. And most of them are typical things, pretty passive. Then you get to one called the band shell stage. That produces a lot of noise. And that will be heard probably down to the activity center. Where do you think you're going to put this band shell stage? MR. ANDREA: Again, I believe it was originally put in the there when the original concept of the PUD came along and they wanted the flexibility to be able to have neighborhood functions and create something in a little park area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure before this is over today we'll probably explore that a little more. Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Since he brought it up, where is the little park area? MR. ANDREA: They would be -- well, again, with the other concept, up there by the community center would be one. And to be honest with you. I don't know where the other ones are now. Around the lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 5, your Exhibit B, development standards, how are these units being sold? You've got a series of townhouse, multi-family and clubhouse, recreational buildings. Are they fee simple or are they condo; do you know? MR. ANDREA: I believe both. We're doing both -- condo? Condos. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your minimum floor area, 600 square feet? I don't know of many projects I've ever seen come through Collier County with 600 square feet. Do you know of any others? MR. ANDREA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's not much bigger or about the same size as a two-car garage. MR. ANDREA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't typical to Collier County. Would those be the affordable units; is that what you're aiming for? MR. ANDREA: I don't believe so. A small one bedroom unit is what the architect tells me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL small's the right word. It's not a very comforting thought to think we're going to be introducing 600 square foot units. I don't know how that's really compatible with other projects in Collier County. But I'm sure we'll -- I'll ask staff about that. From your -- there's a minimum yards. It says from MPUD boundaries, 10 teet. And that's where you can have your principal structures. Can you show me on this plan where the MPUD boundaries are that you're referring to? I think I understand, but I'd like to know where you think you can be 10 feet back from. All your external boundaries? MR. ANDREA: It would be the external boundaries. And basically as this plan sees, there's no 10 Page 38 . 161~B' - " feet there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. But the ability for you to put it there for a three -- well, let's see, the height is going to be -- could be 55 feet and 65 actual. So you want to put at 65-foot building 10 feet off of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road? MR. ANDREA: Well, it wouldn't be 10 feet out. We'd still have our -- actually, now I look at it, it's -- but we'd still have our buffer areas that we have to contend with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to get to the buffers, because I don't agree with your buffers either. But let's just keep on this. This says you could have a building 65 feet high, 10 feet off of Davis Boulevard. Now, is that what your intentions are? MR. ANDREA: It said from external roadways would be 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but see where it says minimum yards external from MPUD boundaries, 10 feet? MR. ANDREA: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're -- where are you talking about? You must be far ahead of me. MR. ANDREA: Just above that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right above that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, the 20 feet's still a disaster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, so is the 10 feet. I didn't mean -- now we're in conflict, because one is in conflict with the other. But on your -- you've got preserves on two sides of your project so you don't need the 10 or the 20 feet there. On the south side facing the church you've got a buffer requirement there that is greater than -- I know your plan says 10 feet, but I think you've misconceived the -- or misread our landscape buffer requirement, so we'll talk about that. But I think you're going to need at least 20 feet there. And then to have a 65-foot building that close, even at 20 feet. We just got done discussing a Target in here not too long ago that was going to be less height than this and we wouldn't allow it on a six-lane U.S. 41 in East Naples. I don't know how we would think this is practical for an application in this particular program you're producing here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually, they run it through the center ofthe building, which is even more confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Explain that to me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, look, the MPUD boundary. In other words, what they're saying is that the boundary between the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- mixed use and the residential is a 1 O-foot setback, but it's running right through the center of the unit. So I don't think -- first of all, I don't think that setback's necessary, but I do think we should focus on the 20 feet on the property line. MR. GOLDMEIER: Mr. Strain, can I clarifY one point you were just asking? And that was about the 65-foot tall building within that setback. This is something that we found ourselves pushed into by staffs interpretation of some of the elements of the PUD. Because one of staffs interpretations is that if we're going to obtain a mixed use bonus, we have to utilize the entire amount of that bonus in the commercial portion ofthe project. That means it would be 111 units on a five acre site, one acre of which being a lake, forcing us into a tall and dense solution, which we do not want to go into and which is not what we're trying to demonstrate on that Page 39 "",,,,'~ 'Vv -,' ..._...._._"'~"""'-~-- , 161 1 May 78(, , plan. But if staffs interpretation is adhered to, then that leads us to all of these other requests. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL sir, I mean, there's a lot of options available to you to offset the concerns of staff. And I'm not sure the concerns of staff are interpreted in the same manner that you've just said them, based on their findings -- their understanding. But we'll certainly find out later today. I think there are other options that you could have gone to, and we'll just have to, as the day goes forward, explore those. MR. GOLDMEIER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're going to have a serious concern, at least me as one member of this panel, with the setbacks you stated there. So before the meeting's over, I would suggest to you that we will be providing some standards that might be a lot more appropriate. MR. ANDREA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The minimum yards internal, can you tell me how that zero foot front yard fits? Show me on this plan, for example, where that would apply. MR. ANDREA: For accessory structures, you mean? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're on principal structures. And our minimum yard's internal. Says minimum yard zero feet for a townhouse and zero feet for multi-family and zero feet for clubhouse/recreational building. I'm trying to figure out where and how that applies. Zero feet where? You're going to have no setback? MR. ANDREA: Again, that was done for flexibility in the original design to bring the buildings closer to the road. The other -- MR. POLAK: Currently on the graphic that's up there, the setbacks from the sidewalk are between 10 and 15 feet to the main -- the principal part of the building. Terraces may in fact infringe upon inside that setback, but the principal building itself would be between 10 and 15 feet set back from the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the roads would be -- because it's a condo they won't be platted, but they will be then a common area to the condominium? MR. POLAK: Yes. If it was a condo, yes, that would be the case. The intention there from a design standard was to set the principal part of the building back from what we call the common sidewalk area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's a reference that's missing. When it said zero, I can't tell where you're talking from. And ifit's from the ending of the common area, that includes the roadway parking -- well, is there any parking spaces in front? MR. POLAK: There are parking n there is parking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Parallel parking. MR. POLAK: -- on the street. There's parallel parking on the street. The street section you're looking at there, you -- from the center line of the street, you're probably, you're looking at a lO-foot drive lane with a gutter with probably an eight or nine-foot wide parallel parking lane, a curb, a five-foot sidewalk, and then the beginning of what would be the setback area or green space back to the building, anywhere between 10 and IS feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the zero would actually be a setback from the edge of the common area, which would include the sidewalk, the parking spaces and the roadway; is that correct? MR. POLAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe an asterisk identifying where the zero measurement comes from would be more appropriate. The same with the side yard -- go ahead, Brad. Page 40 161 1 iOO9 '1 . . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one thing, Mark. Should we deal with these now? I know we want to come back. But if they're saying they've got 10 to 15 feet, why don't we just change that, get their agreement now and move on and be comfortable with it? Or are we going to come back and try to remember all these things? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. I mean, I was going to get through -- I wanted to get staffs opinion on some of these as well, but I don't mind detailing it out now, Brad, if we can save time. Based on his comments, what would that zero -- well, see, Brad, what I'm suggesting is, is zero feet is acceptable if it's to the edge of the common area that includes the sidewalk, parking spaces and roadway. So then they would just need an asterisk identifying where the zero feet comes from, where the zero feet is measured from. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what you're saying, you'd be comfortable with a unit right on the sidewalk. In other words, that could be a front porch, it could be -- but there'd be no yard whatsoever. MR. POLAK: Well, you could -- in fact, you could have the front porch on the sidewalk. That's not the intention, but you could have -- it could step back. You could have a wall, a small wall area enclosing it and then it could step back and have some green space. So the building could get some movement popping in and out along the -- we'll call it the zero foot setback. It's not how we're showing it right now, but it's a potential possibility. We've done it in some other projects where the terrace wall, if you will, is on the -- would be on the property line, for lack of a better term. But it doesn't need to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the wall wouldn't be included in the yard dimension. MR. POLAK: It would be in the yard dimension, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I have is that what he's describing could be 55 foot and then obviously there could be elevator components higher right on the sidewalk on both sides of the road. I mean, we have to imagine worst case. MR. POLAK: Yeah, that is -- that's not even -- that's like a nightmare. So yeah, you're correct, the way it would be worded now would -- I think it needs to be worded a little bit better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we got to the height, Brad, my next -- I mean, I certainly have questions about the height. They're limited to three stories. 55 feet gets you a heck of a lot more than three stories. So I don't know why you need 55 feet, because that dictates your actual height, which is 65 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But even a three story building on both sides that close. And essentially this is the roadway that since it is a mixed use somebody could be visiting that shop or that architect's office and driving down that road to get up on Davis. So it's essentially a public access to Davis from the little -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, this is for just the R tract now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the R -- I mean, what -- isn't that -- it's a mixed use -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the only -- the R tract is the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is not mixed use, but the roadway's connected. I mean, is there going to be a gate to not let the people out of the mixed use? No. MR. POLAK: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway. And then I think the other thing is we really have to discuss how close we want to let somebody build a house to Davis Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree with you. I'm pointing all these out because they need to be thought about, they need to be discussed, they need to be resolved. But at the same time we've got a lot of other issues to go through on this project today. I'm not sure where this whole thing was headed. I mean, we could spend hours working on all these Page 41 "'---""~--' ....~ -"-'_.-.'~'~- -........ -~._~- 161 1 B6 .. May 7, 2009 various standards and still not come to a conclusion on the balance of the project that's more important and end up wasting a lot of time until we get through the whole discussion today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we'll come back later and walk through the PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's -- if this thing gets to a point where it's starting to work through all the analysis we have to have on the density and all that, then we may want to spend more time on this to try to fine tune it in the form of a stipulation. But I'm just trying to put everything on the table that's problematic. And then when we get into discussions with staff and other people, they can at least express their concerns about the things that have been pointed out. That's where I'm going with this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm good. As long as we come back, and we traditionally do walk page by page, I'll be happy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to do that with the applicant as we traditionally do right now, but no one else had questions, so I was going into mine. If you want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, no, no. If this is not the walk-through, I'll keep quiet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL it was. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, we normally, when the applicant makes a presentation, we ask all our in-depth questions at that time. The only thing I haven't gone into is focusing on how to correct all this until we hear what the density resolution's going to be. That's the only thing I was holding off on. If that isn't something -- if you want to go into it further, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. as long as we come back. I mean, I don't want to walk away from, for example, the setback on Davis. But we'll come back. Let's hear everybody, you're right, we'll come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your side yards, could you describe to me how your zero foot side yards fit in? And let's put that other plan back up as a concept for discussion. I understand it's just one concept plan, it's not your final, but it is a little more easier to talk from than a bubble plan. Your side yards of zero feet, how would you apply those? You're a condo, so that means you don't need the fee simple separation of a property line, so you don't need distance between structures like a -- like internal structures where you have a four-plex or something like that, you just need separation between buildings. And you're looking at zero feet between buildings? MR. POLAK: Well, the separation between the buildings, what would drive the separ -- for example, what's going to drive the separation between this building and this building is going to be driven by the building code is going to drive it. The fire rating required between those buildings is going to drive that. So you're looking at anywhere from 1 5 to 30 feet, depending on the type of construction for that building. I think maybe a more -- a better way of looking at it from a traditional neighborhood design is how long do you want a building to be before you want to put a break in it. And then what do you want that distance of that break to be is probably a better way of wording that. And I'd have to take a look at the plan again but, you know, I think our long -- I think this building here -- well, probably could use a -- this is probably 400 feet, I think here. I think these are -- we have a break here. So I mean, there's an opportunity to provide a -- set a standard as to where you want to occur -- you know, a maximum distance on the length of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you ever designed a project like this in Collier County before? MR. POLAK: Like this in Collier County, no. No, I have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because your standards are real hard to follow. And maybe -- and I don't mean to keep badgering with my questions, but I've got to understand this myself in order to understand how to go through the day. Page 42 . 161 1 B 6ay7, 2! '. MR. POLAK: I think kind of how we worked it is we were I guess trying to adopt the standards, kind of a working back and forth to try to get it. So what I'm really trying to do is to I guess convey to you some of the principles that we use when we design with traditional neighborhood design concepts in mind, some ofthe kind of the rules of thumb that we typically use when we go through that process. So trying to assist in that kind of looking at it from another perspective as to see how we could address to make sure, you know, you're kind of getting, you know, what you think you want or what the intention is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before the day's over, we'll probably come back and visit all these standards. I just want to get it noted now so that when staff and others come up, they'll know where the questioning's been focusing on and we'll hear some response to it. Your minimum rear yard -- well, first of all, your minimum side yard is zero feet. I don't believe that's a practical way to reference it, so at some point we'll have to come back and figure that out. I don't -- as a Planning Commission member, I don't rely on the vertical building standards to dictate distances between buildings or separations. Those are a different set of codes reviewed by a different board. We have to look at it from a planning perspective, and our development standard tables set the codes that we abide by, as does the LDC. The minimum rear yard of five feet, where is that five feet measured from? Let's take the -- well, your parking spaces, for example, where would you measure that five feet from? MR. POLAK: I think in this particular, in the plan that we're showing now, we don't really have a rear yard idea here. What you have is you have units that front both the street and also front the parking area. And you have a similar situation here where you would have a sidewalk and a setback from that particular building. So there's really not a rear yard concept in this particular layout that you're seeing here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in this layout you would -- if you were to go into an SDP with this one here at Collier County, you would argue you don't have a rear yard, you've got two fronts. And you would do that and your intention would be zero and zero, basically. Is that -- MR. POLAK: The way we addressed it with the front setback issue on how we are addressing it would be the same concept that we used here. How we get there, I'm not quite sure. I'll defer to Robert on that. But in concept the idea was that we have units fronting -- we have units looking at the parking area, we have units looking at the street, and we created a similar sidewalk situation here for pedestrian connectivity that connects all the way through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So these units aren't even through units, they're front and back units. They're split in the middle. MR. POLAK: There are some through units. The units on the corner are through units. And then the townhouse units, actually as you go to the second floor, the townhouse units in some instances are through units. On the second floor units there's a variation of units. So not all the units are through units and not all the units are not through units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in effect there's no back yards in any of these units. I mean useable back yards. You've got -- if you have any -- I mean, you don't have any grass areas or a place that could be put up where a family could have a barbecue unit or small pool -- MR. POLAK: No, that would all be part of the -- it would be part of the common area concept there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So all units in this project then would have to, for those type of things, go over to that common area up on Davis Boulevard? MR. POLAK: That's a potential area. Whether we could identifY other areas throughout the site, we haven't done that yet. I'm sure that as we get further along in the design we could identifY other areas that Page 43 ........,. l7 ......-.---. -.... _c~..'_,_" ".<.~'_'_ ~ 'III --- 161 1 ~'i~B6 Pf~ May 7, 2009 could be used for common areas for the residents, whether it's a tot lot or a playground or a barbecue area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, when you come into an area where you're trying to introduce I think a fairly new concept in regards to the standards you're using, the more detail as to the functionality and how it fits and works, the better success rate you may have. Because I'm having -- I'm learning a lot as you're talking regards to how you laid this thing out, and it's quite different than anything I've seen before. Anyway, I think the more detailed of study before today's meeting would have been more of an advantage than a bubble plan that we received. Let's move on down our list of issues on the setback table. When you say the maximum yards internal. Maximum fronts yard, 16 feet. Now where would that apply? How does that fit into a plan like this? MR. ANDREA: The explanation is number one there, Page 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still on Page 5 -- oh, I'm sorry, the explanation is on Page 6'1 MR. ANDREA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying this -- your intention is to move the buildings back and forth, but if they move back and forth, they'll move no further back than 16 feet? MR. ANDREA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any regular -- is there any parking in front ofthese buildings -- well, yes, you do, now that we know the fronts are in the back. On your parking lots for your parking spaces -- are there any garages on this property? MR. ANDREA: No garages. MR. POLAK: No garages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll move past my 16-foot question, now that I-- MR. POLAK: The concept behind the 16-foot is so we kind of get uniformity in how the buildings n in setting the buildings back. So you're not setting buildings back 30 feet. It was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. POLAK: -- in order to allow movement in the building at the same time. So that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, r understand. I just needed a little clarifying and you did that, thank you. The minimum distance between structures is 10 feet. I believe -- most of the time we're looking at half the sum of the building heights. You're looking at 10 feet between 65-foot buildings? I know you nod your head yes. Okay. Well, again, it's -- MR. POLAK: Well, I think what we're saying, a minimum there. And obviously the idea there is that some buildings are n you know, ifthey are smaller in scale, they're not 65 feet high, that would set a mInImum. Now, perhaps we need to set a maximum or set it to a standard on height. But the idea was they wouldn't be any closer than that. And in fact on that plan there, I believe we have them. I want to say somewhere between 15 and 30. I don't have it right on the tip of my tongue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've got to look at this under the worst case scenario, because we do have some people that would come in and try to build the worst case scenario and then we're struck with it. So my previous statement that three stories doesn't need 55 feet. How do you get the 55 feet for three stories? I mean, you're looking at each story being almost 20 -- I mean 17 feet height high. How are you doing that? MR. ANDREA: Again, we were looking at the closest -- next closest zoning language is where that came from, and the flexibility to do diflerent peaks in the roof line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that would be under your actual height. Page 44 . 161 lyQl~ ' ~ . . . . '. MR. ANDREA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why do you need a zoned height of 55 feet? MR. ANDREA: Again, that was -- I believe that carne initiated from the next adjacent zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My concern's going to be to keep you to three stories, and logical three stories in regards to what height is. And I don't know how you can justify at this point 55 feet. But again, I'll be talking to staff about that, and before the meeting's over we'll get to that point. Under your accessory structures, all the same concerns from above apply there that we already talked about. I'm not going to get redundant; we'll get into those further. Your zoned and actual height for accessory structures, what accessory structures will you have on a project like this? I mean, if you've got two front yards, what are you going to put out front that's an accessory structure? MR. ANDREA: Again, when the PUD was originally created, it was to give the flexibility. At one point it did not look like this when we started this project. So again, that was put in there for flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to Page 6. In your footnote one it says buildings shall primarily front public right-of-ways in order to create a sense of place in relationship to the street. What do you mean by that? I mean, how do we measure primarily? MR. ANDREA: I don't know. The design of the concept here is you can see all the buildings mostly do front the public right-of-ways, except where they do make the turns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but your -- you have the ability in your language, from what you described, to vary the front setbacks from zero to 16 feet, right? MR. ANDREA: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess it really doesn't matter, if that's the way you want to build it. But I just couldn't understand what the word -- how you determine what's primarily fronting public right-of-ways. Because usually it's a distance that halfthe building's going to front the public right-of-way or so many lineal feet will front the public right-of-way. But I'll let it go. Under -- well, C, same kind oflanguage, but it's fine architecturally. Let's go to Page 7. All the same issues I just brought up on this development standards table generally apply to this one here. I know it's got some commercial components, so it's a little different. But I'm going to have the same questions of staff as comparison to compatibility with all the standards that are there. On your master plan, I went through the buffer requirements in the landscaping buffers that are shown on your master plan, and the one to the south by the church, you have a Type A. From what I can determine, it takes a Type B, because your uses against an Estates zoning -- I know there's a church there, but the zoning is still Estates. Do you know why you've got a Type A or who determined it was a Type A? MR. ANDREA: Yes, that was determined early on, probably -- well, a few years ago. The area there by the church, that originally was a IS-foot buffer, and it was switched to a 10. Through conversations with Nancy Gundlach, that it was determined that the church had enough there in their preserve to compensate for the area that we needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's funny, because they don't have preserve there, they have a parking lot. So I'll talk to staff about that when they get up here. I'm just trying to get past my staff questions to get into any more that I have of you. That's it for now. Anybody else have any final questions of the applicant before we start staff presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 45 --- ,~,..._.", ~~,___"'~'...;.'"c_~ - 161 1 Bb'~. May 7. 2009 MR. ANDREA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, we generally break for lunch sometime between 11 :30 and 12:00. So we'll see how much of staff section we can get through before we break for lunch and we'll have to resume afterwards. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I am a principal planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. With me I have several staff members that will be addressing their certain areas of expertise, including David Weeks, who is the manager ofcomp. planning. Corby Schmidt, who is also a principal planner in compo planning. Susan Mason, who is working as part of the environmental staff. John Podczerwinsky for transportation. And Frank Ramsey is also here from housing, so he can help address any affordable housing issues you might have. Two things I wanted to mention. One was the fact that the artistic renderings that were submitted today, just to -- you know, we've seen some. They were originally attached as part ofthe PUD document. It was determined by the county attorney that was working on the project at that time that it wasn't appropriate to include them because they weren't scaled, they weren't reviewed for compliance with any code, they were just ideas of what could possibly be. And so the ones that are submitted today are just that as well, they could possibly be what it looks like, but it could possibly look diflerent. So they may comply with code, they may not. We don't know. The same way with the option A that is currently on the visualizer, I have no idea if that particular document complies with the PUD regulations that they're proposing or that might get adopted, or whether it complies with the GMP requirements for this sub-district. And we've not seen this plan, we haven't reviewed it, so I don't know what it might comply with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And Kay, I think I tried to make that clear. This is -- we -- I was using that for a talking point trying to get an example of how their standards fit. I think they said it was one of several plans that they were going to try to come up with. It wasn't complete. And that's -- I think all of us realize that. And I appreciate you making those statements for the record, so thank you. MS. DESELEM: I just wanted to make that point. Okay, for the record, you do have the staff record that's been submitted. It is document dated revised 4/28/09. It's a 24-page document. And I'll just hit the high points, since we have had an extensive discussion from the applicant, that explains where the project is, description of the project, who the agents are. Going on to Page 2 of the staff report it talks about the surrounding land uses and zoning. And there is an aerial photograph. This has all been provided by the applicant as well. The Growth Management Plan discussion begins on Page 2, identifYing what sub-district this is in. That's also been discussed by the applicant. Corby Schmidt is prepared to make a presentation that will help explain the Growth Management Plan issues for this particular project, understanding that that is a large part of the dissention between staff and the applicant. Going on through the GMP analysis, you do have the transportation's recommendations for the transportation element, and they do discuss the Davis Boulevard impacts, the County Barn Road impacts, and the Santa Barbara Boulevard impacts. And they discuss the mitigation that's been agreed upon between staff and the applicant to bring this particular project into compliance and, therefore, staff can recommend consistency for our recommended density for the project, based on the mitigation being provided. There is a discussion also on Page 10 about the conservation and coastal management element of this project and the recommendations as far as consistency with the applicable elements of that. Environmental staff is recommending that the project be deemed consistent with the CCME. Staff provides a GMP conclusion on Page 12, noting that our particular recommendation for this Page 46 161 1 6a~ 2009 , . , project has a consistency caveat in that we reviewed and our analysis shows a certain amount of density is appropriate. We are holding that only our recommendation can be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Staffhas also provided you analysis from the other reviewers; again, environmental review, transportation review. There is a brief synopsis from utilities, and emergency management and parks and recreation staff. Those are on Page 13 of the staff report. There is a synopsis from housing review on Page 14 that talks about a waiver that's being requested as a separate action that would be applicable to this project, should the board approve that. Staffhas provided a zoning review that looks at the findings of fact that would be required by the Land Development Code, both for a rezone petition and for a PUD petition, which this is. These particular findings address consistency with the goals and objectives and policies of the GMP. And as I mentioned, staff is recommending a certain portion of it be consistent, limited to our review and analysis. We have reviewed the existing land use pattern. We believe that this project, as limited, will be compatible with the surrounding area. Based in part because any other use other than a school and a church are separated by two major roadways, County Barn and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Staffhas also evaluated the possible creation ofthe isolated zoning district. We believe that it will not. We have also provided an analysis of the existing district boundaries, believing that they are logically drawn. We've noted particularly that changed or changing conditions do warrant this rezoning, based on the fact as noted throughout in other sections as well that there is a specific sub-district that's been adopted for this particular parcel in the rezoning to PUD in some fashion as is proposed today would bring the land more in compliance with that adopted sub-district than what the existing Estates might be. On Page 16, item number 17, as far as findings, talks about the increased traffic. And again, as staff has noted earlier, with the mitigation being provided and agreed upon by county staff, we believe that this is consistent and should not create an excessive increase in traffic or create congestion. Going on to some of the more pertinent things, the others still being included, obviously, is Item No. 12 that talks about whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner, as contrasted with the general public. Again, this gets into the idea of how you calculate the density. And we believe that if the petitioners' proposal of density were to be adopted, that that could be construed to grant a special privilege. We believe that staffs is the correct rendition of how it should be interpreted. There's other findings of fact as far as the adequate public facilities and services. That falls again into the mitigation that's being provided. We have evaluated compatibility of the proposed uses and we believe it will be consistent, again, going back to the fact that any other residential uses are separated by major roadways. Finding number six on Page 19 talks about the timing and sequence of development, and there is a specific condition as part of the transportation element that relates to timing, to which the applicant has agreed upon. And this talks about the Santa Barbara extension, and that has to be substantially complete before COs will be issued for this project. On Page 20 of the staff report is the Environmental Advisory Council's recommendation. This petition was heard on February 4th, 2009, and recommended for approval by a vote of 8-0. And there are conditions that they had asked be included, those are on Page 20, relating to the site development plan or final plat/construction plans, asking that this project go back to the EAC for approval to make sure that the hydrology of the preserve area is maintained or enhanced and that the storm water does not discharge below the existing seasonal high water level. Page 47 "~'-. - . " ,-- UIIII'~ ,_._~~. .......-.. 161 1 86 May 7, 2009 On Page 21 it notes the information contained in the several neighborhood information meetings that this project has had. On Page 23 is the staff recommendation -- oh, I'm sorry. If! may, before that, related to the neighborhood information meeting, there have been two letters from surrounding property owners that have been submitted. Those I have e-mailed to you. I do have them, if you'd like me to enter them into the record. Plus there have been several letters and e-mails going back and forth, as noted earlier, from Andy Pires -- not Andy, Tony Pires, sorry about that -- and you have that, as far as I know also. Staff does have a recommendation for approval. Weare recommending that you approve the rezoning, and its companion affordable housing density bonus agreement, but subject to the two things -- either of two things must occur. Those are on Page 23. One: That the petitioner has to amend the PUD document and the affordable housing density bonus agreement to reflect staffs interpretation of how the density should be taken care of in this petition. Or number two: The board makes a policy decision regarding some of the areas of contention between staff and the applicant. The only other thing staff would note, that two separate motions would be required for this petition, because you are acting on a PUD rezone and an atlordable housing density bonus agreement. With that, I can address any specific questions you have for me, but I think it would be better to go on to Corby Schmidt's presentation, because he's going to go into the Growth Management Plan analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Corby's going to take a lengthy period of time with a lot of questions and answers. I don't want to start it before lunch, being dropped and then having forgotten most of what happened by the time we come back. So I would rather we focus on questions other than that right now. We'll come back from lunch and we'll focus on Corby's. Is that okay with everybody here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of Kay. Go ahead, Mr. Schjffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, anywhere in the code, is there any kind of a threshold that establishes when a mixed use is a mixed use? We've had a conversation similar. Remember how the open space requirements, if you have commercial on it for residential are different. And sometimes people put a tiny bit of commercial, maybe a phone booth, and then they get the benefit of that. But is there anything that would establish any kind of a minimum as to when this becomes mixed use? MS. DESELEM: I'm personally not aware of any. I would refer to either Ray or Susan, they may have more information about the issue than I do. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager. To be deemed a mixed use, you have to have uses allowed in commercial and residential units. That is the two uses that it qualifies a mixed use. There is no minimum square footage, however, and that is something that has come up on several occasions in the past. Especially the last one I remember was the one down in Goodland that had a postage stamp size commercial lot. But it technically met their criteria and was approved as a mixed use project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the best of your knowledge and belief, this is a mixed use-- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- development within that mixed use area? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Kay, going back to the criteria number 11, says whether the Page 48 161 tY~2~ t" ..1 " " proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. .~ Because there now has to be shared access with this project and the church to the south, is that any kind of deterrent to them to be able to redevelop their property, should they want to move the entrance, for example? MS. DESELEM: Not to my knowledge. And there is an agreement that's been accepted by the church and the applicant to allow for that joint access. So I assume that they would have evaluated their needs. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So they've essentially abdicated that situation, okay. On the criteria in the sub-district, one of the criteria is for there to be parks. MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, for there to be what? COMMISSIONER CARON: A park. MS. DESELEM: A park, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not seeing any park on this master plan anywhere. I mean, I'm not seeing much on the master plan, I might add, but -- MS. DESELEM: I might direct your attention to ironically almost where the arrows pointing. There is an area that's shown as community center. My understanding is that is the area that is to function to meet the park requirement. COMMISSIONER CARON: So now in this county we're going to consider a pool and a clubhouse a park? That's how we're going to define parks in this county? MS. DESELEM: In this particular instance, I mean, the park would not necessarily be open. It wouldn't be a neighborhood park that would be open to other people. And I don't think that's the intent of the sub-district. I'm sure David Weeks is here and he can actually testify to the intent. But I think the idea behind the park is to require -- or to provide some amenities for the persons who may live here or work here, rather than to be a full-scale park, what we're accustomed to that the county provides. It's not anything that the county would run. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, I'm not expecting it to be the water park. But there is a difference between a clubhouse and a pool, which is an amenity for the people who live there, and the park that was supposed to be included as part of this mixed use development. I think they're two different things. If staffs going to interpret it differently, I sure would like to know. MS. DESELEM: We didn't get into the specifics as to what the park would provide, not knowing what the age of the people might be, what needs might be. Oftentimes that's something that's determined by the developer. I can speak to sometime in the past where Parks and Recs has asked for tot lots to be provided wherein there isn't really any criteria that requires any developer to put in a tot lot. That kind of leaves it open-ended for the developer, whomever that might be, to provide the amenities. It would be most coveted by people that live in the development. For example, ifit were adults, it might be golf tee kind of things; or ifit had children, it would be playground equipment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that Ms. Caron's referring to a sentence on the general criteria in the GMP, and that's what makes the difference. The tot lots and other issues that we have stood against in a lot of ways because their exactions were the requirements that weren't in the LDC for tot lots that Parks and Rec was putting on all the processes that came through here. But in this particular case, and it's an accepted part of the GMP, so it's a different animal. And it says that some districts shall include a park, small plazas and other types of open space. And I don't think Page 49 , ~~''''-'~''~--''_II/.'''~ 161 1 M18,69 t:,. that that's been clearly defined on this site plan. So to give us a level of knowledge that that's there. MS. DESELEM: I think perhaps what would fix the situation would be to call the area designated as community center, change that designation to a park and it would be clear that that is where the park's going to be. The master plan does include the areas with plaza notation, but I guess through the evolution it was determined that the community center would fit the bill as a park and allow them some flexibility in what they were providing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to continue with Kay until!! :45, by the way, and then we'll take our break for lunch. You had mentioned something I wanted to catch before it's forgotten. You had responded to Ms. Caron about the access way where the church is. That access way is established by Memorandum of Agreement that has four exhibits, Exhibits A, B, C and D. Exhibits A and B are legal descriptions; Exhibits C and D to my knowledge have not been seen by anybody at county staff that I know of. Have you seen those? MS. DESELEM: No, sir, I do not believe I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then you don't know if the graphics attached to that Memorandum of Agreement are adequate enough to provide any kind of access there, just that there is a Memorandum of Agreement that says they have access there. MS. DESELEM: That's true. sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Kay, where are you with the lack of detail on these plans? Are you comfortable with these? Because as far as I'm concerned there's a whole lack of detail that I just can't get comfortable with. MS. DESELEM: And I understand that that's been a discussion point on this particular project. A lot of it, we looked at the master plan, bearing in mind -- although it's no excuse and I don't mean it to be -- this particular project's been in the work since 2004. And as Robert Andrea testified, it's been evolving. It's gone through several staff people, several county attorney staff. And in trying to come up with something and not having to knee-jerk the applicant around every time we change, we tried to come up with something. This particular plan I think was accepted, if you'll use that term, by the county staff back in October of2008. I did go back through the criteria after this issue came up for this hearing and I looked, evaluating it I think fairly carefully, as to what was shown and what isn't shown. True, there are no typicals. That is one thing where you don't have building footprints, you can show typicals. We don't have those. But many of the details, you kind of have to put it together as far as here's the master plan and you look at the PUD document and hopefully from that you can extract what the buildings would look like. Again, a PUD gives a good deal oftlexibility. You don't want to so regulate that PUD document that anything they want to do would require an amendment to the PUD. That's counterproductive as well. But yes, there could be more detail, it would be helpful. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, you lost me at the word hopefully, okay? That's where you lost me. I would think after all these years we'd get more detail, not less, and I don't like to hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, during the discussions that we had over the development standards table, were you aware that they were considering the buildings having two fronts? MS. DESELEM: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm just using that as one example ofthe detail that has been Page 50 16 I 1 M,a, 69 ' .~ lacking in the presentation today. Because even if staff didn't anticipate that, it's equally as hard for this board to anticipate such things. And we're learning a lot about what those details are, based on the questions that we've had today. Again, more detail on a unique project such as this would have been much more helpful for all of us to understand better. Under your rezone findings, there are two issues on this project involving density calculations: One comes out at 12 and a half units per acre and the other comes out I believe at 10 and a half. The basis of your rezone findings, on which acreage did you do your analysis? MS. DESELEM: The smaller of the two, which is the one that staff is supporting in our recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your rezone findings are based on 10 and a half and the applicant accepts your rezone findings, as he stated earlier in the meeting. MS. DESELEM: Ours was based on 10.25. And I can't speak for what the applicant accepts, other than to say that I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I heard that in the beginning of the meeting, but I just wanted to double check what you based your findings on. Environmental Advisory Council recommendations. They have two, actually three in a way. They want to review the site development plan. And I am extremely objecting to that. And I certainly won't support anything any time their review of an SDP is sought, because I don't know the basis for it in the Land Development Code. Do you know of one? MS. DESELEM: No, sir, I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know any of the members of the Environmental Advisory Council have the credentials equivalent to all the different departments in Collier County that review SDP's? MS. DESELEM: I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other; I truly don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just don't see what's gained by such recommendations. I don't see when they're positive without LDC references saying why they can be utilized. And I'm disappointed that whoever was monitoring this from a legal viewpoint at that meeting didn't advise them that unless they can provide an LDC reference to require such, and possibly the standards that they would have to have as credentials in order to review such, that why they're even allowed to make such a recommendation. So whether this project is approved or not, that particular issue is one that will always have a problem with me. I just don't understand it, so -- I have a lot of questions on the GMP, but I think we'll wait till we get back and we get David up here for that. On that buffer, the buffer between the church and the project, both commercial and residential. I have done review of the LDC and the buffer requirements, I can see it's a Type B buffer. Can you explain to me why staff decided not to go with the Type B and allowed a Type A? Especially when there isn't a preserve on the church's site, there's a parking lot with a driveway. So how does that fit? MS. DESELEM: I can testify that since this came up yesterday and I was made aware ofthe issue, I did go back and try to find e-mail messages, and I called the applicant to try to have him go through his mind to see what he could come up with. I found two different staff reviewers that were involved in this particular project. Both reviewed the buffer requirements. And at one point the applicant was seeking a deviation from the buffer requirement. And if! may, I'm going to put his information on the visualizer. I draw your attention to item number two. And at that time the petitioner was seeking a deviation from the IS-foot buffer requirement, seeking to go down to 10 feet. And the e-mails I was able to find from review staff at that time indicated that okay, you've proven to me that there's enough green space there and Page 51 -~ ~ -- . . ",..~....._- If'. ...~ --. 161 1 867: 20. you wouldn't need to provide IS-foot buffer because as you explained to me it does exist; therefore, a 10- foot would be all that was required. Based on that interpretation from that staff person, the applicant withdrew this deviation. So in fairness to the applicant if it's determined that they do need a deviation, they did seek it. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does staff have the latitude to make those kind ofl guess subjective decisions in regards to deviations in our code? MS. ISTENES: In PUDs there is a provision that allows us to do that. I'm guessing that is perhaps what the staff person at the time -- again, this was a while ago -- probably used. But I can't say for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MS. ISTENES: And it has to be relocated on another part of the site. So that may -- I may be wrong on that, I'm just guessing at this point without actually talking to the staff person. COMMISSIONER CARON: So what you're saying to us is that ifl have a PUD and I'm adjacent to somebody else who's got really nice landscaping, I can use their landscaping? MS. ISTENES: The Land Development Code does provide for in PUDs the ability to administratively change the requirement through the review process. For example, a plat or an SDP, and relocate it onto other areas of the site when certain conditions exist perhaps on a neighboring property, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get back from lunch, can you have those conditions available? Because I'm looking at the aerial, and it's clear that it's barren property almost up to the property line. So I'd like to know what conditions someone waived this -- MS. ISTENES: Honestly, Commissioner, I'm guessing at that. And I'm also making you aware of that provision. 1 have e-mailed Mike Sawyer. Nancy's out and I've e-mailed -- my question to him was how, question mark, question mark. So I am trying to get the answer to you. And I actually won't be here after lunch, but Ray certainly will be, and we'll get that. And honestly, if you don't agree with that then just make it a Type B buffer or more, if you think there's a consistency issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that, we will take a one-hour lunch break, we'll be back here at 12:45 to resume with staff. Thank you. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, David Weeks walked in the room, we can start the meeting. Corby cautioned me, he said please don't ask me up here until David gets up first, so -- Kay, thank you. I think we'll move right into David and Corby and start getting into the other issue that we have. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Well, I know not to be late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, a minute is a minute, you know. MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department. Commissioners, I thought I would give a little bit of additional background information and some responses to perhaps some things that the applicant had stated. I realize you have some specific questions, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps other commissioners. My suggestion will be that I make a few remarks and then Corby will walk through the density analysis for the site and then go back to your questions of whatever they may be that might deal with density or commercial or other aspects of the project. The first thing I wanted to stress to you and really remind you, because I think you're aware of this, density is not an entitlement. The only density this project is entitled to, or I should say this property, is Page 52 . . 161 1 May 86 . , " based upon its existing Estates zoning. This has historically been the case since the Growth Management Plan has been adopted in 1989, that's the way it's been applied; that is, density is not an entitlement. And a few years ago we amended the density rating system to explicitly state that density is not an entitlement. When you review any given project, part of your analysis of course is compatibility, infrastructure impacts and some other considerations that are identified in the Land Development Code, any of which could ultimately result in a determination that the eligible density is not appropriate for the given site or given project. FLUE policy -- Future Land Use Element Policy 7.5 does encourage mixed use development. However, it goes on to explicitly state that this policy is implemented through specific provisions in specific sub-districts in this Growth Management Plan. The point merely is that the policy does encourage mixed use development, but in and of itself it is not a basis of reliance for why a project should be approved. This specific Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use sub-district was patterned after the residential mixed use neighborhood sub-district. And Mr. Goldmeier had made some reference to that sub- district, without naming it, referring to some existing legislation that was in the Growth Management Plan. And that's what he was referring to. And I certainly would concur with him that staff did suggest, when this Growth Management Plan amendment was submitted back in 2004, that that other existing sub-district should be the foundation, should be the starting point. This subject sub-district complied with most of the requirements of that existing residential mixed use neighborhood sub-district. Two notable exceptions were the spacing criteria for commercial. A commercial tract could be no closer than a half mile to the nearest commercial. And in this particular case it is closer to a half mile; that is, less than a half mile to commercial zoning at the Santa Barbara/Davis Boulevard intersection. And secondly, the ratio of residential to commercial acres, this project does not comply with that existing sub-district provision, hence the need for this particular amendment. And that was discussed way back at the pre-application meeting for that plan amendment. I think I'll stop there, Commissioners. Some of the other comments I have pertain to some specific questions. And again, I would suggest that Corby -- unless you have questions of me right now, allow Corby to walk through the specific analysis that staff went through for our determination of the eligible density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question that is more generic. Does this project or any typical project receive additional density bonuses for declaring themselves a mixed use? MR. WEEKS: It's a case-by-case determination. And most -- in some specific sub-districts, and this is an example, there is specific text within the sub-district that does provide for additional density for doing mixed use. In this particular case the commercial tract is allowed to have residential density on that tract at four units per acre. But based upon the acreage of the entire sub-district, not just that commercial tract, that is the incentive built in to try to get people to do mixed use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this project did benefit from the incentive for doing a mixed use project. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, then I will have certainly another question when Corby is done. Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon. Corby Schmidt, Comprehensive Planner with the Page 53 - -.-.""",.,, "'~." w__ 161 1 6a~ 2:09 t Comprehensive Planning Department for Collier County. I was one of the staff members involved in preparing the consistency review and going through the evaluation of the proposal through all its iterations or, as characterized by the applicants, its evolutions. What I'm going to begin today, trying to simplify and clarify the assessment that the staff did, and especially the calculations for density in this sub-district as one of the points of disagreement between staff and petitioner. And I'll be doing that with some illustrations. All right, thank you. I'm simply providing here a generalized image of the sub-district. And the entire page is all 22 some acres. And that's what you have. I've divided it up between two parts. But first I want to start with what would be the entitlement or the base density on this property in the Estates district. And that would be four units per acre. And that's the base on this property. With the introduction of a commercial component, some of that base density is lost to those five acres in the calculation. In order to regain some of that residential density, another allowance or a mixed use allowance inside this sub-district language was provided for. And I've simply drawn the bubble over the line to illustrate that that calculation for those additional mixed use allowance units is based on all 22 acres. As a requirement in the sub-district for allowing for those additional units -- and the four units on the base is 71 and the four units on all of the acreage is 91. In order to derive those 91 units, a requirement was to provide or is to provide 10 percent of the -- of all the density or the total units on the property in affordable housing, and the category is given there, from 80 to 100 percent of median household income. And additionally, another 10 percent for below 80 percent median household income. That 20 percent is consistently applied to that calculation of the total number of dwelling units for the remainder of what I'm about to show you. Again, in this sub-district the density is calculated to begin with with the base on those 17 point some residential acres. And that's four units per acres, which derives 71 units. From the last sheet to this, of course conversations and presentations during the creation of the sub- district and testimony led that well, what about additional density. Those 91 and 71 may not be enough to make this a feasible project. And I believe that's 162, and you'll see a common theme in some of those board minutes of numbers around this 162. 71 and 91. In order to achieve additional density the offering was and the provision in the sub-district language is that the density bonus system would be applied. It's applied throughout the county and that's the method to do so for any project like this, how do I derive additional density. Not me personally, but-- The density rating system allows for a number of bonuses. And in order to derive density, the first bonus that applied to this sub-district was the access bonus. And an additional unit per acre, again calculated on residential portion only, is given as a bonus for being on major roadways, access to both County Barn and Davis. The next applicable bonus offered by the density system, or the density rating system is that density band or proximity bonus for being near enough to another or a mixed use activity center. And that bonus is applied at three units per acre, again in accordance with the density rating system and language in the sub- district to the residential portion, that three units per acre. Then back to the mixed use idea with the sub-district. The calculation again we see for providing additional housing in the commercial component afforded an additional density allowance as part of the sub-district by the county board. And I've again drawn that bubble on the line to illustrate that the calculation is done over and using the entire acreage more than 22 acres. And a reminder that again, there were 10 percent of the total dwelling unit count and 10 percent of the dwelling unit count required for two different affordable housing Page 54 161 1 May 86 ,. categories. And those affordable housing categories were part of what the petitioner's agent presented to you as being one of those changes during the many years this has been in process. I'll go into that a little bit later. This is the calculation that you see just illustrated here, but you see many times in your staff report and the consistency review that results with the total dwelling unit capacity or density of 234 units. Here is a representation of the petitioners' calculation and how they attempt to derive their density, we believe, of286. Again, the base density, the access to major roadways and the proximity to a mixed use activity center, giving us those initial and bonus units. In this case the petitioner has used the calculations for the mixed use allowance of those four units per acre, and provides the 10 percent and 10 percent. And if this were shown in color, you would see that the 10 percent and 10 percent that they're proposing is different than the 10 percent and 10 percent affordable housing that's required by the sub-district. You saw that in your consistency review in the staff report. There's a consistency problem with the kind or the types of categories of affordable housing being offered. Plus from the same number of units, they're asking to derive an additional three units. Their calculation goes to five, but they're only asking for three of those to approach 286 units overall. But the same 20 percent and -- of the affordable housing is being used to derive seven units per acre for their bonus density. And certainly this bonus on bonus activity is not encouraged or written into any of the sub-district language or the density rating system or the density bonus program. And what the staffhas found, this is inconsistent. The sub-district language clearly says, and I believe the cite would be the language for the sub-district under A-8, and I'll turn to that page myself: I can direct you to it. This I believe might be on Page 4 or 5 of your staff report, because the language is rewritten there. This is that sub-district text itself. And under the commercial component it states, residential uses are allowed and may be located above commercial uses in the same building or within an attached building. Residential density within the commercial component is allowed at four, four dwelling units per acre and shall be calculated based on the gross acreage in the sub-district. That's not what you see represented here. You see seven units per acre attempted to be derived from those mixed use or that commercial component. And the same limitation is found later in the document so that you're also looking at C-11. And that's the general criteria I believe earlier referred to by the applicants. And there, part ofthe statement is for the project's total density, whether it is the minimum of91 dwelling units or a greater amount allowed by the density rating system, which has been applied consistently by the staffs example. Bonus units -- I'm sorry, bonus units -- bonus provisions and approved via the rezoning, a minimum of 10 percent and 10 percent shall be supplied. Again, that brings us only to the 234 units. The staff was asked to provide the applicant back in February with alternatives or methods by which they could reach those 286 units, and they certainly can, by continuing to apply the density bonus program by which they've derived some of these bonus units, to apply it further. And how to do that? Well, the last remaining bonus available to them is with affordable housing. So through applying the density bonus system and providing additional affordable housing, they can derive those necessary or required three unit per acre -- or three units per acre. Again, because it is part of the density bonus program, that calculation is applied only to the residential portion of the property. And by providing additional -- that's additional residential units of affordable housing instead of double dipping into those units already being provided as part of the requirement for their mixed use allowance, they could derive additional density to reach that 286 units. However, that's not what they've asked you to do. Page 55 --~,~.,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,..,.~,~.._........~.,- . -- 161 1 B~7'20~ I think I'll pause there. If there are questions about just the bubble diagrams I have used to simplify what seems to be a complicated and confusing calculation to some -- and it may have been for you when reading the staff report --I hope that the illustrations assisted you with some better understanding of how the staff arrived at numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of Corby at this time? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, in the affordable housing calculation, they allow you to increase the base density. And they give you a little example, that the maximum allowable density equals base plus affordable -- the density bonus, right? When they refer to base, what do they refer to? Let me just say something, do they mean the four units per acre or do they mean four plus any other things you might get for location, access and other things? Does that derive the base? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not familiar with that cite. Can you direct me to it first? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's in our report, Page 17 of29 is the table we have. I think it's an old table, but it is the one in which they derive the ability to get five additional density -- it's in our staff report -- MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- attached to the back of it. It's the form they're using to calculate the density. Now, I know you stated they only really want three, but they're circling to get the five. I asked them in the hearing how many they were entitled to and they said five. So -- but the question is not that. The question is the word base density. Does that mean after you take the four units, which is the county-wide base, add to that what other things they're eligible for, you could then on top of that use this density bonus? Or does this mean this is only available on top of the four units? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks again for the record. Commissioner, the answer is the base density is referring to the four units per acre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Now, make sure I'm clear, that doesn't preclude other bonuses being applicable. But specifically with this table, when it says base density, that's that four units per acre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this equation could read base density plus affordable housing density bonus, plus -- and you could list other bonuses to come up with what is the maximum allowable density then. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: But of course the focus of this table is only affordable workforce housing-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Agreed. MR. WEEKS: -- that's why there would be no mention of those other bonuses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I wanted to make sure the confusion wasn't that if you use affordable housing, you only can use the base and add affordable to it. That was my concern. I guess, you know, we can go through it. I guess we're comfortable now that the word component really defines site, since it's referencing acreage as the component. Are you comfortable with that too? I mean, there was some testimony that is component a physical description of a site or is it a use. MR. SCHMIDT: I believe the question has been asked and answered a number oftimes by a different number of staffers and different bodies that the petitioners have come before us. And I have always said that's an unanswerable question the way it's asked. It's both, because the calculations are based on one or the other. And other calculations are based on Page 56 . 161 1 MS,69 " all of the acreage. But that's never been -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: It's one of the contentions ofthe applicant, that the calculations can be adjusted according to a definition they prefer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other thing, in the mixed use component, or whatever it is, the four dwelling units that they reference there, do you interpret that to be a maximum or do you interpret that to be a base? MR. SCHMIDT: It's a calculation, so it's a given. It's neither. It's both the maximum and the minimum. It's an allowance that was given as part of the sub-district language because they would provide housing for the acreage lost in the residential area that is now -- was then proposed to go to some 35 to 40,000 square feet of commercial. And it was a reasonable provision or an allowance to add density back in for those lost acres. And that is four units per acre. It can't be additional under that provision. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So do you think -- but could that also mean that that's the most number of units you are allowed to put on that site? Regardless of what you calculate the site to hold, does that statement maybe mean that the greatest density you can put on the mixed use component is four dwelling units, essentially the 91'1 MR. SCHMIDT: It's been interpreted that way by a number of people to say that there is a maximum number of units that can go on the commercial portion of the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SCHMIDT: Staffhas given you a number of options, especially in the consistency review sheets only. There were supplemental pages that do not appear in the staff report that's just part of the commercial -- or part of the comprehensive planning staffs report. And those supplemental pages attempt to show you that we expect a minimum actually located on the commercial portion, a minimum nunlber of residences. And there's a maximum. We do consider that maximum to be 91. But it's a flexible number, based on the way the density blending or the transfer of units is applied upon the ultimate decision for density. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the reason I asked that is that could -- we're never calculating the density based on the total sub-district acreage, we're always calculating where we split it up; is that right? In other words, why wouldn't we just run a calculation for the gross acreage and then take that sentence to say you can't have more than four units on that mixed use site, the rest of them obviously can be left behind on the other site. MR. SCHMIDT: There is no other provisions in the Growth Management Plan or in the LDC that would allow us to do that. The sub-district's specific allowance for density in the commercial portion of it through that mixed use allowance is specific to the sub-district, and it's the only way to get a calculation that includes the commercial acreage. The density rating system does not apply to the commercial portions or industrial portions of mixed use developments. And the LDC has a backup provision that copies that. The only way to provide additional density reasonably to the applicants, when this sub-district was created, was to have this sub-district specific allowance that is the only calculation based on all of the acreage. And that way they do account for the five acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything of Corby? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I've got a few questions. The four units per acre that you had overlapping the two different uses, commercial, residential, if they did not agree to do a mixed use project, could they have gotten that four unit per acre? MR. SCHMIDT: They would not have. Page 57 ._"..., ~. r ~lIr- -......_t,_ __I'm ...."'''..,~-- ~ - - ""'''-- 16 I 1 M:Y 1;106 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMIDT: It is only-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL I'm just trying to get you to say yes or no, that's all. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the fact that they produced a mixed use/commercial/residential project on a portion of their property, they got the benefit of four more units per acre on the overall property. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You've seen the presentation as an example. And I will absolutely tell you, it was a one concept, it's not necessarily the one they will end up building. But if they were to try to submit the concept plan that we saw here this morning with that few areas of commercial made to service the inside of the project, meaning the residential units there, is that considered a mixed use project? Would it have been considered a mixed use? Was the intention that that was the form of mixed use project that would have generated a four unit per acre density bonus? MR. SCHMIDT: In a diminished form, I believe so. Although their original intent was to provide some 35,000 to 45,000 square feet of commercial floor area on about five acres, now your request is for only -- or your evolved proposal has now reduced that to somewhere around 13 to 15,000 with the same five acre calculation. So the calculation would still apply. There'd be other reasons why that evolution Exhibit A wouldn't be acceptable, but that's not one of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the original transmittal of this project through this Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners and in the adoption process, collectively in those two documents -- and they're packaged as documents, and this is them -- that were provided by the applicant in part and in staff by part. In both circumstances, both by the applicant and by staff, the capping of the number was 238. And at some points in ranged from I think it was 164 something or 146 to 238. But that was the range that was always told to us at the time of the transmittal and adoption. And then when it got to the BCC through adoption, obviously there were some changes. But the purpose of this mixed use bonus was also spelled out in some of that documentation, and it's a short paragraph, so let me read it to you. The proposed district will be in harmony with surrounding development and land use activities and will actually support them to some extent by the proximity of proposed facilities. Residents of the apartment development and the PUDs across Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road will be able to walk across the street to find a variety of goods and services. Faculty for the nearby school may live there and both school faculty and church members may dine in cafes and restaurants and use services. Local residents will benefit as well by not having to leave the village to purchase goods and services. This proposed mixed use sub- district is compatible with nearby land uses and activities. I read that because that seems to have a lot more intention of commercial component than the example we saw here this morning. And I think that's what's got, at least myself and maybe other of us a little bit surprised. Because when we envisioned mixed use, we envisioned it, as a lot of references have been made, that they're going to have a commercial component with residential up upstairs. And instead what we're seeing is a convenient store with some residential buildings attached to the back of one side of it and then nothing -- and of course to the south a separate building. That just doesn't seem to get us where we thought the intent might be when we originally saw this thing coming through. And another thing, I think it also is clear that during the Board of County Commissioners' hearing on May 19th, 2005 -- and there were a lot of discussion concerning the density. I've got several examples, Page 58 . 161 1 MaY7,\!6 but this one is the most telling. Commissioner Henning spoke and he said, well, yeah, that's okay, but I just want to tell you that above your base density, it's 143 units. And Mr. Goldmeier said, yes, sir. And Henning went on to say, 10 percent of that or 14 units will be affordable and 10 percent will be workforce, and then they went on with that kind of discussion. But it was 143 units above the base density, and the base density has been noted as 91. And I think that's how you got to your 234. But originally at transmittal it had 238, so those numbers are relatively close. That's why I'm having a hard time getting to their density of 286 or wherever it is they're up to now. MR. SCHMIDT: Let me help with that a little bit, if I may. MR. PRITT: Mr. Strain, what was the date-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the mic, please. MR. PRITT: Mr. Strain, Bob Pritt for the record. You're apparently reading from some documents that are not part ofthe record, as far as I know. You said this was from a May, 2005'1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one are you talking about, the quotation from Commissioner Henning? MR. PRITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a one -- I'm sorry, January 25th, 2005 BCC-- MR. PRITT: The January 25th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- meeting. MR. PRITT: Okay, that is in the record. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, May 19th is also as well, May 19th, 2005. But that's two pages back. I was two pages forward. And the one I have is May -- MR. PRITT: Okay, the one I have is June 7th, 2005. That's why I was wondering what the May 19th -- what meeting was that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says right here, document named BCC minutes, January 25th, 2005. MR. PRITT: Yes, that one I understand. But you said May 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: May 19th is -- would be the Planning Commission meeting. MR. PRITT: Oh, Planning Commission, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PRITT: We'd be happy to respond to that question when-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, when we get done with staff, then we'll certainly get you back up here and try to straighten out your end of it, too. MR. SCHMIDT: Let me address the question for the numbers. Somewhere near 143, 144. When you consider the number of affordable units that are being requested by the petitioner, 57, those numbers reflect the 10 percent and the 10 percent, or the 20 percent of the total count of dwelling units that they intend to development here. And from that they would derive 144 bonus units, more than half of the density. That may include some of the other bonuses, but from that 20 and -- from that 10 and 10 percent, more than half of the density is derived from bonuses. And I think that may be the way that that commissioner was referring to the base there. What was -- what is calculated by staffs version is that at a minimum you already have the 10 percent and the 10 percent of the required affordable workforce housing. And in order to obtain the three additional units per acre to reach their desired number of total dwelling units, again at a minimum, Page 59 ,"'''''''.. """II J1'- H- 1I!r.~'l'rr ..._._,~-.....,_" "MII'1 ".,__-w 161 1 i B6 , May 7, 2009 depending upon the mix of the kinds or the categories of affordable housing they propose, that would be an additional 10 percent and an additional 10 percent, about 40 percent of the units, to derive the same 144 bonuses. And that's where that 143.144 comes in. So by most calculations in other sub-districts where we've done these kinds of calculations, 40, 50, 70 percent of the project is affordable housing to derive that density. And here they propose just 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a couple of other questions, and one is can you explain the comment made by the petitioner earlier about some issue involving the change was made during the EAR, they felt it was un -- I don't know if unfair is the right word, but there was something they felt was inappropriate in the way that was done in regards to their subdivision. Could you explain that change and -- MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how we did whatever we did? MR. SCHMIDT: Sure. I'd like to put part of that on the visualizer for you, if! may. What occurred during the length of time that this proposal has been in front of us, other changes have taken place, including EAR based amendments. Part of what took place in those EAR based amendments is a re-categorization or the addition of gap housing to what we used to call the Cormac matrix. Those categories shifted. And I believe the EAR based amendments -- and you'll see in the struck through, underlined version here -- simply clarifies, does not change anything, does not revise anything, does not require anything different of the petitioner than was required of them before EAR based amendments took place. This simply points out what the categories were at the time the sub-district was approved and accounts for what was required then. So that their expectations would be the same. It's all it did. I'm not sure what other contention they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, I have a question of you, since -- and maybe I think you'd be the most appropriate one. What was your intent of the meaning ofthis sub-district's language as it was written? Is what -- the staffs analysis your intent? Does that meet your intent of that understanding of what this sub-district is supposed to be? MR. WEEKS: If! understand the question, you're asking does the staff analysis reflect what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You 'wrote the sub-district language. MR. WEEKS: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to find out, does your -- MR. PRITT: I need to object then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. -- MR. PRITT: -- his opinion's irrelevant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, it's my question. I can ask him whatever question I want for the public record. MR. PRITT: I have to protect the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you can do so in just a minute when I finish my question. The intent of the sub-district language that you wrote, was the intent of that language reflected in the staff analysis that's presented to us in regards to the density calculation? MR. WEEKS: With regards to the density, let me answer it this way: The version of the sub-district that was presented to the Board of County Commissioners is not the version that they adopted. It was at -- as you referenced minutes a few moments ago, read from some. At the County Commissioners' hearing for adoption of the sub-district is where this new provision came about that required the minimum 01'91 dwelling units and most specifIcally this 10 percent and 10 percent provision. That was not something that staff had drafted. Page 60 1 f 161 !...Y7,a96 So I would answer the question this way: The analysis that was provided to you by the comprehensive planning department reflects what we believe the language says and that language I believe reflects the intent of the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the language that you wrote, that you interpreted from the Board of County Commissioners, do you believe that's also the intent of the Board of County Commissioners? MR. WEEKS: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Pritt, did you want to make a statement? MR. PRITT: No, I object. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next thing. David, I had some questions concerning the permitted use language, some very specific references in here. And I had reiterated earlier and called it to your attention while you were sitting back there. If you're not familiar with what I'm referring to, I can read it again, if you'd like. MR. WEEKS: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Once you posed that question or that issue earlier, I took the time to look through the various sub-districts in the Future Land Use Element and Golden Gate Area Master Plan, which allow commercial development to see what terminology was used there. Most of them use a phrase allowed or allowable as in uses in the C-1, 2, 3, whatever commercial zoning districts are allowed or are allowable, or those are the uses, uses shall be similar to, similar types of phrases. This is the -- one of the few -- I believe this is the only one that specifically uses the term permitted, permitted uses in the C-I, 2, 3 zoning districts. There are some that are very explicit. One in particular that says uses permitted by right. That is very clear. That's in the downtown center commercial sub-district in the Golden Gate Master Plan. And then there's I think a couple of examples, more recent ones, where the terminology says uses permitted -- excuse me, permitted or conditional uses of the so-and-so commercial zoning districts. The point I'm trying to make here, I'm walking through some examples, but to show that more recently staff has been recommending and then the board adopting language that is explicit that it does says permitted and conditional, if that's the intent. And if the intent was just to be permitted uses; that is, those allowed by right, that it would explicitly state that. But most of the sub-districts, and this goes back to the original adoption of the plan in '89 and then some amendments to create individual sub-districts since then, most of them use the phrase allowed or allowable, which is vague in the sense that well, does that mean permitted by right, does that mean conditional, or could it be either. Historically staffhas recommended, and in most cases I believe the Board of County Commissioners have approved, zoning to implement these sub-districts on a case-by-case basis where the determination is made what uses are appropriate, what uses are permitted by right in the allowable zoning districts and what uses, if any, that are only allowed by conditional use. And I'll quickly make this point. You go through the same public hearing process as far as the notice requirements, the number and type of hearings for a conditional use as you do for a rezoning. So that when in this case this petition is before you now to rezone the property, they're asking for some conditional uses from some of the commercial zoning districts. You and the Board of County Commissioners will have the ability, do have the ability through this hearing and theirs, to evaluate those requested conditional uses to determine if you think they're appropriate for the property. The big distinction, though, is that you're reviewing them en masse; whereas an individual Page 61 - ~ ---"'"",_.",."-,_.,,,,~---~ 161 1 M~yB6 conditional use petition, when it comes before you, that's the only thing you would be focused on for that project site, and you would have a lot more details. You would have the details of the conditional use being considered. In this case there's a whole range of conditional uses being proposed and you're considering them en masse as to whether or not they're appropriate. But I think I'll boil it all down to the short answer, because I think that's what you're looking for. This language says permitted. Did that mean permitted by right? I do not think it did. I think it meant permitted in a generic context, not permitted as it is defined in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're saying that even further then by the word permitted but not permitted by right we could actually go in and weed out certain C-l, C-2 and C- 3 uses that may be deemed -- that we may feel are inappropriate for this particular site. MR. WEEKS: I certainly do. I mean, the Growth Management Plan sub-district is establishing what uses -- the range of uses that are allowed on the property. But it's through the specific analysis of the rezone petition that comes before you that you determine which of those uses are appropriate. Because you're looking at more detail now, morc specifics of the project that you would not have at the GMP amendment stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my other question would be the language involving the effect at the time of SDP approval. Whereas the language that's in the GMP, I seem to read, it says in effect at the time of adoption of the sub-district. Which is it? Because their PUD is trying to hook it to SDP approval? Is it that or is it specifically what the GMP says? MR. WEEKS: In this case I would have to say the GMP is explicit and it's clear that it's based on the adoption date of the sub-district, not some future date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Now, questions any further on the density? David, did you? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have any, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, just bear with me a second. And maybe David, you could -- Corby, let's run through the available density on this site, okay? Let's forget which component we're on right now, okay? MR. SCHMIDT: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the first one, where available, every site in town's available four units, correct? That's the base density of Collier County. MR. SCHMIDT: It is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. They would be allowed the access density of one. MR. SCHMIDT: They would. MR. WEEKS: I need to interject. I don't agree with the first scenario, unless you meant it hypothetically. Because in this partic -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- MR. WEEKS: Did you mean it hypothetically, just a general piece of property? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Finish your sentence, because maybe I didn't. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Because in this particular case this is not a general piece of property governed by the urban residential sub-district. There's a very specific sub-district on this property. And its only provision to allow residential density to be generated from that commercial tract is that provision that allows for four units per acre, based upon the entire site acreage. Otherwise -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How do you come to that conclusion from the words in the sub- Page 62 .. 161 1 86 " '. May 7, 2009 district? MR. WEEKS: In the sub-district language, Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use sub- district, paragraph A-8 states residential uses are allowed -- excuse me, 8-A is commercial component. And then number 8 is residential uses are allowed and may be located above commercial uses in the same building or within an attached building. Residential density within the commercial component is allowed at four dwelling units per acre and shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage in the sub-district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, when I read that, how come I get the feeling that they're limiting 91 units in the mixed use segment of the site -- MR. WEEKS: Well, because that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- not adjusting how we calculate the base density? In other words, how do you determine that that means -- forget about our normal ba<;e in this case, we're going to go by this. MR. WEEKS: Sorry, but I don't understand the question. To me it reads clearly that they are eligible for four units per acre on the commercial tract, but the density of four is based on the entire sub- district acreage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What it says, within the commercial component and it says residential density within the commercial component is allotted four dwelling units per acre and shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage of the sub-district. So that's the 91 units. So to me that means you're not going to have more than 91 units in that sub- district. It doesn't mean that don't calculate the base any different. Let's pretend I understand, you know, I'm right. So what you're saying is in this case the four units base density that Corby started his presentation with is that four units. MR. WEEKS: That base density of four units per acre is not applicable to the commercial component. The base density of four units per acre is only applicable to the residential component. It states so in the sub-district and it also provides reference back to the future land use -- excuse me, to the density rating system which also specifically provides that residential uses are just allowed on noncommercial and nonindustrial portions of a project. So it's saying when you look at a mixed use project such as this, don't look at the commercial tract, just look at the balance of the property for the acreage to use to determine density. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean -- okay, but let me -- let's go back then. You can do that -- okay, so let's go to the residential tract and then maybe I can walk it over. So the residential tract, it's a base of four units based upon the LDC; is that what you're saying? MR. WEEKS: Based upon the density rating system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The base density starts at four. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They get the one, correct? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They get the proximity three, correct? MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Now, if they did the affordable housing calculation -- and the one we're that provided with that we're supposed to approve today has a density of five. I know you stated they said three, but it's five in the paperwork. So would they be allowed that? In other words, that gives them an additional five units per acre. MR. WEEKS: They would be allowed to request it be eligible for affordable housing density bonus. You mentioned three or five, they could go as high as eight, but only on the residential portion of the project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Well, that's what I'm doing. I'm going down that. So in Page 63 _........~".,.~". ~-_._----_.__.._-_._... .._.,~. 16 t~,20~9 B 6 other words, the residential portion, based upon their application, could have 13 units per acre. I mean, doing -- MR. WEEKS: Based on their five requested. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Using their five. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, 1 agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. What you're saying then, in addition to that they would be allowed 91 units on the commercial, forget the conversation of base and everything else; is that right? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions of David or Corby on this density issue or any of the GMP issues? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The two types of housing that are required in this sub-district for the affordable workforce housing are meant to be O\vner occupied; is that correct? MR. SCHMIDT: Not necessarily. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: If they're awarded with a bonus? It's not a right. This must -- Brad said this is an old chart, the numbers are different here where he's getting the five units per acre. But they're including the low income, 51 to 60, and that says -- MR. SCHMIDT: We'll talk about their categories -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- and that doesn't have to be owner occupied. MR. SCHMIDT: n in a moment. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is that right? Because there's an asterisk next to it, in this old one anyway. It says the gap in the workforce need to be owner occupied. And anything below that I guess can be rentals. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I'm going to suggest we defer -- it best for us to defer specific questions about the affordable housing density provision, specifically to your question of ownership, to Frank Ramsey, to Buddy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Mr. Ramsey comes up to try to answer her question, if this project doesn't utilize the density bonus of the affordable housing category but uses the 10 and 10 percent requirement by the county commission, are they then restricted to owner occupied, based on the affordable housing density bonuses? MR. WEEKS: That's not clear. Because when the county commission added that requirement -- if the real question is did they intend for those units to follow the LDC pro -- otherwise follow the LDC provision, I would tend to think so, but I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Ramsey's going to respond to Karen. MR. RAMSEY: For the record, Frank Ramsey, Housing Manager. To answer the question about whether these would have to be owner occupied units that received affordable housing density bonus, I'm looking through the agreement for the petitioner right now and I do not believe that it is a requirement that they're ownership units, so long as they're maintained affordable rental units. But I'm going to confirm that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if you'd have -- would you let us know before too long, your confirmation on that? MR. RAMSEY: Five minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 64 . . 161 1 86 May 7,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before -- Buddy, don't run away. Go ahead, ladies first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, who's got the question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I do. Buddy, what is the density based on the new chart, which we don't have in our application? How many units per acre is the maximum they could get? They say they want three, but the application we have says they can have -- they're entitled to five. MR. RAMSEY: Let me see if! have the most recent here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me ask you a question this way: Since this application is so old and they started it, are they entitled to the older application, or will they have to use the updated one? I guess the EAR changed the wording to match the updated one, so -- this really shows how we have to really pay attention during the GMP cycles. So they're entitled to five. MR. RAMSEY: According to the application, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the application is in error. That's not the grouping that they're supposed to be applying for. They're supposed to be applying for gap, I believe, and then something below gap. But isn't gap a requirement of the subdivision? MR. RAMSEY: I don't believe that the gap is the requirement of the affordable housing density bonus application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't my question. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It is of the sub-district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In No. C-ll of the general criteria it talks about 10 percent must be affordable workforce housing units provided for those earning greater than 80 percent, but no greater than 100 percent of the medium of Collier County. And then the other section is 10 percent of those less than or equal to 80 percent of the median household. So those are the two numbers. So now how does that fit into the affordable housing bonus agreement? The one that they supplied, it doesn't seem to. They've got one of the categories missing. MR. WEEKS: I'll ask the question on the record of the staff that's here. I believe this goes back to the staff's position in reading this language that the board adopted that there is a requirement to provide the 10 percent and 10 percent of certain housing types. And then beyond that is where the density rating system bonuses would come into play, which means the affordable housing density bonus is -- would apply as usual for everything above the two 10-percent categories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but at a minimum they've got to have the 10 percent and 10 percent categories to begin with, and then anything beyond that can fall under the affordable housing density bonus program. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me say that back to you. So what you're saying is that the affordable housing requirement that they have in here now does not entitle them to the bonuses, the bonus density? In other words, if they did the minimum that's in 11, they get no further entitlement of density based on the affordable housing bonus program? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And that's one of the key areas I think of disagreement between the Page 65 "..~... UJI. >_""...,....,"...~....'o._..,.,,~_... ,. - 16 I l' 86 I May 7, 2009 two readings of the language, what was the intent ofthe board, and obviously ultimately the board's going to have to determine that. But I believe that the board was saying you have to provide the 10 percent and this 10 percent, period. It's only -- it's strictly the applicant's choice if he wishes to ask for other density bonuses, whether they be affordable housing or any other type. But mandatory must do the 10 percent and 10 -- must develop 91 units and must develop 10 percent and 10 percent of those as the affordable and workforce, respectively. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you say was resolved is that you have to build a base density of four units, thus 91. You can't put any more than that, by the way, in the mixed use, so essentially you would build nothing on the other side if you did that. And you have to build the 10 percent, 10 percent. MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What good was -- I mean, they didn't get anything in that deal. MR. WEEKS: No, they didn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In fact, what they got is the ability to not develop the residential and thus -- what do you read that comes to that conclusion? What, II, is that where you get that? You don't have to read it now, I'll read it -- MR. WEEKS: C-ll, that's correct. Paragraph C-ll. And that certainly is what is unusual about this sub-district as staff believes the board intended, is that they were imposing, they were mandating an affordable housing component in the sub-district, whereas usually it's strictly left up to a choice of an applicant to request the afJordable housing density bonus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But didn't they mandate it because the applicant wanted to get a density bonus of four units per acre? Wasn't that the point of instilling upon them this 10 percent and 10 percent? If you want more density, you do it by their terms. Their terms were you can have it, but they want 10 and ] O. MR. SCHMIDT: That's more accurate than what Commissioner Schiffer characterized it as. It's not that they don't gain anything from doing so, it's that they've doubled their density from four to eight per acre on 17 of the acres, plus they were awarded four tmits per acre on the commercial component for doing so. So they lose nothing. Nothing is lost whatsoever. They've more than doubled their density with that mixed use allowance. And they've got it on the commercial component, or calculated it there, where it could not be before. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me say this back to you, and I'll do it quicker now, because we've got a lot of practice. Four base they're -- I'm on the residential only. Four base they're allowed. One for the access, three for the proximity, and then you're saying they get four additional because of 11 in here. So you can add those up in the residential and that's their density. Because you had -- earlier conversation you told me that they don't get a base density because of the four. Now you're saying they get the eight. So they do get the four. Why is this so confusing? MR. WEEKS: I phrased it that way because we're not talking about base in the sense of when we usually look at a residential project or a portion thereo( we've walked through the density rating system as we're discussing now. In this case, though, I'm focusing on the commercial tract when I talk about the four units per acre apply to the entire 22 plus acres to generate a density that will be built on the commercial tract. So I'm segregating that from the residential. I see it as that's on the left, the other calculation is on the right, and the right being the residential portion of the project. I think we're saying the same thing in two different ways. In my mind I try to keep the residential and commercial segregated, because that's what the sub-district text does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See, I don't think we're saying that, because what I'm saying is, I think that four units was establishing a maximum you could put on the commercial. It had nothing to do deriving units. It had to do with don't put more than four units per acre, as derived by the whole site on this Page 66 r '. f May 7, 2009 .'L.6 I 1 86 particular component. MR. WEEKS: I agree with that statement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Now, you're using that also -- I mean, I guess whatever's the opposite of double dipping, you're double not dipping or something, you're using that to say that that's also their base density in the residential area, which I don't think is fair. But let's just use numbers in horse trade, because this isn't going to get us -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. MR. RAMSEY: Mr. Chairman, just to confirm your past question, the affordable units may be owner occupied or rented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I do want to go back to that. Wait a minute. According to the chart that is here, the workforce level housing has to be owner occupied. I think that was Ms. Homiak's point. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. The gap and the workforce have to be owner occupied. And I think that was probably the intent of the BCC too, because Commissioner Fiala mentioned McCabe's project in Bayshore. And that's -- MR. RAMSEY: Absolutely, and-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- what the whole thing was about. MR. RAMSEY: I should have been more clear on the low units. As you can see on the -- what I put on your projector, may be eligible for rental so long as they conform to the affordable rental limit. So the gap housing units may in fact need to be owner occupied while the lower income units may be rental units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this an absolute or a maybe? MR. RAMSEY: That's an absolute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby, did you have anything else you want to throw in to mix it up even more? MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. If you'd like, I'm prepared to present to you some of the discrepancies between the proposed affordable workforce housing density bonus agreement and their other materials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: So please, pull what would be your ordinance and its attachments, or its exhibits. And somewhere I think behind Page 13 of that handful begins their agreement paperwork. And then the numbers begin to be numbered as 1 of29, 2 of29 and so forth. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 13, Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: I believe that's about where it would be. If it's in another location in another handful, it just is their proposed housing agreement. All right? Depending upon your recommendation today and the finding of the full county board, many of the numbers in this agreement are inconsistent with what should appear. Let's begin on the first page under recitals. And their density provision is just an overall number of 12.5. Certainly depending upon the method they arrive at their full desired density, or whether they're limited to 234, as staff has calculated, that number would change. In the very next line where it states the gross acreage of property is 22.83, because all of the affordable workforce housing density bonuses are calculated only on the residential portion of the sub- Page 67 liI"lRW "T" ... r '-">'""""";""~'-- .-- --- 161 1 M'; J~ 6 district, all of your acreage figures in this document reflecting 22.8 are in error and they should be 17.8. That is one of the points of disagreement and differences between the applicant and staff, but it is one of the glaring examples of it. MR. PRITT: What page are you on? MR. SCHMIDT: One. In the very next line where they propose 57, which is their 20 percent of their total unit county, then they state 100 percent of the approved bonus units. Actually, 57 is about 40 percent of all the bonus units, but they are 100 percent of the affordable bonus units. On the next page -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, how can you say that the gross acreage is not 22.83 units? They're going to be putting affordable housing on the other components. So, I mean, I know you're trying to make this work with the density conversation we had but, you know, the gross acreage has to be that, the 22.83. MR. SCHMIDT: It has to be that if you're the applicant. But since the density rating system, you have a handout and you've heard a presentation from staff before this. And the language in the sub-district, these bonuses do not apply for the commercial component acreage. And that commercial component acreage, when subtracted from 22 point something, is 1 7. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I get the simple math there. But the fact is, though, the affordable units are probably going to be on the other acreage. This gets more and more -- I mean, are they allowed to build affordable units in the mixed use side of the property? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The acreage you just excluded? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's me, I guess. MR. SCHMIDT: The calculation includes those acreage, so it's not being missed or excluded. I'm confused by the question even. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know, I'm just con -- I mean, we have a clumsy density system; we're trying to fill this form out with a clumsy density system, so we're going to have a clumsy form before we're done, so -- MR. WEEKS: If I might interject, and hopefully this will be helpful. It seems that the agreement form does not contemplate a project for which only a portion of the acreage is used to calculate the affordable housing bonus. I mean, certainly the gross acreage of this property is the 22.83, but not that total of22.83 is used to calculate density -- the density bonus for affordable workforce housing. And that's the context in which this acreage is located. Because you identify the gross acreage and then you talk about the number of units you're going to build that are affordable. And that's part of the calculation of the density. I think what needs to occur in this case is we need to modify the form. And to say, well, the gross acreage is the 22.83 but for calculating the affordable workforce housing density bonus, the proportion of the site acreage is 17.83. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we are going to have units built that are going to become part of the gross number of units. Part of what we take our percentage against, right, that didn't get calculated from the residential side? Am I wrong there, or -- MR. SCHMIDT: You may be wrong there. Page 68 . 161 1 May B6 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I hope I'm wrong. MR. SCHMIDT: The proposal as is, is to put all of the affordable units in the commercial components. And they're awarded bonuses for that from the mixed use allowance. It's not been overlooked. MR. WEEKS: Maybe if! could answer it differently. Kay just whispered in my ejrr. From the staff perspective we need to segregate that 10 percent and 10 percent that we believe is mandated, and therefore is not part of the density bonus agreement. The density bonus agreement is only going to pertain to the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me make it easier, I'm slowing -- I'm going to hop in the back seat. These guys can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: David, maybe I can clear it up for my own self. Irregardless of the total gross area, total gross acreage, the formulas are written on the residential only, and that's what we have to deal with is the residential only. Whatever commercial is irregardless on the gross end, correct? MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Does that simplify? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's roughly correct. MR. WEEKS: I mean, all the density-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty units are -- MR. WEEKS: -- all the density bonus calculations only apply to the residential acreage of the project. That base density of four units per acre only applies to the residential portion of the project. The only calculation of density that involves the commercial acreage is that specific provision that says for that commercial component, they get four units per acre based on the entire site acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: But other than that, all the discussion about how many units that they get through bonuses and whatnot, that should only be applicable to the residential -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's only in the residential side. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, you said it better than I could. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's see if we can move a little bit further past-- MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't -- try to stick to something we can understand, okay? MR. SCHMIDT: Same document, Page 2. MR. PRITT: Can I object? I really need to have a mic over here. I'd like to object to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you get closer to the mic then? And Bob, there's a mic over here, you could stand at that podium and object every five minutes if you want. MR. PRITT: Really? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we're still going to continue on. MR. KLATZKOW: This is the mic, Tony. MR. PRITT: Maybe it will actually be helpful. This discussion that you're about to have is predicated upon the calculation that the staffhas of the density and the allocation. It seems to me that that would not be relevant unless and until you get to a determination as to what the density calculation ought to be. As I feared this morning when I first spoke, we're getting all into this density calculation stuff. You've heard every permutation combination you possibly can hear on that. This follows that, this doesn't direct that. And it would seem to me that we could hold this off until such time as you make your Page 69 , ..~.. M'lt- ..... 1!O<f'_.1ll11'11 1I1_,....y".,,,*,,,,"<,,. ... ~~ .11 ,.",.-.........'"".,.. " III 161 B6 l ~ lay 7, 2009 determinations. Just a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we certainly could hold off some of the dialogue, if some of us can survive that way. But for the record, I'd like to know that if there are any discrepancies needed in these documents, we get it on the record, so -- MR. SCHMIDT: I'll finish with just the second page example. Under number two, developer agreements, the language they propose is the developer hereby agrees that he shall construct up to 57 units. I believe he'd want a commitment for no less than 57 units or. again, depending upon the entire density of the development, whatever that number would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Corby. Are there any other questions, dare I a<;k, about the density issue or the affordable housing issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, are there any other staff presentations? MS. DESELEM: Hopefully I grabbed the right thing when I came up here quickly. I just wanted to clarify one thing, and offer another thing that might help things. In the PUD document, the part that you were just talking about on Page 2 where it talks about the permitted uses, in Section 1.2(A)(3), it's important to make a clarification on the reference parenthetically to Ordinance No. 2005-25 where it states it was adopted on June 27th, 2005. Further research indicates that that was indeed adopted on June 7th, not the 27th. And that has a bearing on which C-l, 2 and 3 uses are the appropriate uses. And I would offer that it might be a good idea, because this date is in here, that we include as an additional exhibit those uses as identified within that document so there isn't a question later about what the C-l uses were in June of2005. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL unfortunately your statement opens up another can of worms. David Weeks, if you could, the GMP is explicit in its reference to this date. The fact that we've now been told the date may be in error, what does that mean in regards to the statements in the GMP? MR. WEEKS: I don't think it has any material impact, because the specific ordinance is referenced, Ordinance 05-25. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the date ofthat adoption is what it is, regardless of what the date may be in error in the GMP or otherwise? MR. WEEKS: That's -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Kay, is there anything else you wanted to say before I moved to John? MS. DESELEM: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's sitting back there thinking he's going to get out of it here today. MS. DESELEM: At this time I have nothing, but I would like to reserve the right to come back if we have anything that comes up as a result of any other testimony that's provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Pritt, I'm holding off until all the staff gets done, then I'll let you do any cross you need to do, to a reasonable extent. John, if you could come up, we -- there's two questions I'm going to have, and there may be others. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. And you had some questions, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. The easement to the church next door, the traffic count as proposed had the -- if they utilized the full commercial they're looking for is 3,500 plus trips a week I think it is in their TIS. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Perhaps daily? Page 70 , 161 1 86 " May 7, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, daily, I'm sorry. 3,520 daily two-way trips. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you seen the actual size and graphic configuration of that easement? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, I have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do know there's a document out there, there's a Memorandum of Agreement to have an easement. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: This is correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's pursuant to a series of exhibits. And I think in conversations with you earlier, you've got two of the exhibits, A and B, but the two that show the graphics and the actual easement you don't have either. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: This is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't know ifthat easement will provide adequate access to this property. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point no, I'm not positive ofthat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The TIS that was provided, let's assume they were going to use their 35,000 or 38,000 square feet they're asking for in this application. In previous meetings we had asked -- I know I have and I think other members of the board -- when a TIS is done, do you do it on the least intense use or the worst case scenario use? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Worst case scenario use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the worst case scenario use on this property I think would be grocery store or restaurant or other uses that could be in the C-l, 2 or 3 districts. But that's not how this TIS was written; it was written using the 820 use. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you guys accept that? Is that -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we typically do accept the 820 use, because the 820 use, as Mr. Treesh had noted earlier from TR Transportation, he had noted that within that 820 use, it does also list as out-parcels you can have shopping centers, gas stations, restaurants. There are a lot of included uses within that square footage, allowable uses within that square footage. One of the core differences is that the land use codes applied by ITE do not match the SIC codes that most planners typically use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the trip generation count for a 20,000 or any square foot grocery store is going to be greater than the trip generation of LUI what, 820 I think it is that you guys use for shopping centers. So how is using the shopping center trip count worst case scenario? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For a 35,000 square foot grocery store if it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 20,000 is the maximum allowed by the subdivision for a grocery store. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay, I would have to verify that by looking at the ITE to make sure that it's higher trip generation rate for the p.m. peak hour, which is what we typically base our analysis on. But if there is a higher trip generator that is applicable specifically to the site, then it should be used, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody have any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, we talked a little bit about this earlier is that would they be able to have a right-in on County Barn? Just purely a right-in, somewhere above the church access? Let's-- you know, there is a turn lane. The road has room for further development in that area too, so even the turn lane could have a turn lane. Page 71 -. .~ - .-""",. ....'~_...... ---"-'~'--"''''''"~'''''''-''- 16 I la}7'2~6 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. As I understand, the answer to that question right now is no. Per the current access management policy that we have, the minimum required distance for the 45 mile per hour road would be 440 feet. The current driveway that they have is 630 feet. There is one problem, though, that precludes us horn looking at a secondary -- or at a driveway directly to the site. At their frontage to County Barn is that the County Barn plans that have been developed by Collier County that were previously in the five-year plan, those have a turn lane that extends almost the entire length of this site. I do have a graphic with me, if anyone would like to see that, I can put that on the visualizer, if it's necessary. Anybody? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't offer any more than we don't ask for, to be honest with you, today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my question, John, is that your concern was; is that somebody slowing down to make that turn would slow dovvn that turn lane. But you could make a turn lane off of that turn lane, there's enough room there for that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: You could. It would probably be a substandard length turn lane. And the perception is is that it would create a safety issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. We'll go with no. On the Davis road side, could they have a right-in/right-out up there without having to go through the whole residential? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'd have to look at the plan again, but as I recall, and I've confirmed this with FDOT this morning with their access management staff. a right-in/right-out, the minimum distance spacing from the County Barn intersection. County Barn and Davis, as you travel eastbound on Davis is 660 feet for a 50 mile per hour posted speed roadway. The 1,320 that has been required would be for a directional median opening would mean a westbound left in would be allowed at that point. If there have been further restrictions placed on that by FDOT, I have not confirmed those yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But based on what you're saying is they do own the property, they are in control of the shape of the property, what's developed. So there would be maybe the potential of a right -in/right -out. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And John, one more thing. Were you aware of the acquisition of! think it was a 20-foot easement in the front of the property along County Barn Road for utility and drainage? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was 20 feet; do you remember? Is it? Or is it 30'1 I think it might be 30. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe it's 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty? You guys paid $225,000 for that little strip. Why? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good question, sir, I wasn't involved in the acquisition of that parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know that in 2004 when this came through for transmittal and adoption, they had already noted in their master plan that they had reserved 52 feet of that for that right-of-way? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's on the pages in the documents that I received for adoption and Page 72 86 ~ 1 . 161 1 May 7, 2009 transmittal. And I was just wondering why we would pay that kind of money for a smaller easement when we already had a reserved 52-foot right-of-way there. ~ MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, I believe that -- if! recall correctly, I believe that t ere was a LASIP stormwater -- Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Plan project that connected in at that -- the easement that was purchased, which I think was called parcel 131. And there were some concessions made when we purchased that about sharing landscape of some kind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does your department do any of the LASIP projects? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's our stormwater division, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they communicate very much with the-- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We try to communicate as often as possible, and sometimes we miss a communication here and there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one might have been costly. Okay, thank you, sir. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other staff presentations? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. We have nothing else to offer you. If you have questions -- other than that, we're happy to answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're done, but I -- yeah, before we go into Mr. Pritt's questions, if he has any, we'll come back after a break. We'll take a 15-minute break and at 2:20 we'll resume. Or actually 2:25, I'm sorry. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob walked in, we can now start the meeting. Sir, I think you at some point reserved the right to cross-examination. Do you have any such questions you'd like to ask? MR. PRITT: No cross-examination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: A question for Mr. Pritt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, there is one question of you, though. It's not a cross, but it will be Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Earlier in conversation when we were talking about the square footage of units, the 600 square feet. MR. PRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: The minimum floor area. It was stated that it is that size for a one bedroom unit? MR. PRITT: It's my understanding that it is, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I'd like to call your attention to Page 21 of 24 in the staff report. The neighborhood information meeting stated that they would be three and two bedroom residential townhomes, not one bedroom. We're pretty fussy here about what we say in public at neighborhood information meetings. MR. PRITT: I'm sorry, did I say that? Page 73 ".......,...... -"'''''''''''''- ..".--;." l""V'1' ......_._.. ..l"'___" I61 1 i I May &6 COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know who said this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I brought it up as a question. COMMISSIONER CARON: Agent and applicant. MR. PRITT: Yeah, I don't know which meeting that was. I attended one of them, but there have been so many over so many years, I don't know which is which. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, this apparently was the first one. This is the first meeting. I don't know, who was the agent or app -- you know, agent speaking. We can probably ask that of staff. But that's what it says here, that was the commitment, three and two bedroom residential, three stories. MR. PRITT: There have been a lot of -- this has been a long road and is a long road. There have been a lot of changes since 2004 -- I almost said 1904, but it seems like it. And that's one of the problems you have when certain things are on people's minds and then economics change. And what was on everybody's mind in 2005 was how are we going to get some affordable housing density. And so I'm not sure what was said when, but we do have some changed circumstances. And I'll talk about that, if} remember at the end with regard to the commercial component also. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Kay, can up shed some light on what staff member attended the NIM and if they may be able to respond if it wasn't you? MS. DESELEM: Yeah, I was trying to follow that conversation. If you're talking about the March 2nd, 200S NIM, it states at the bottom -- or if you go down it says project planner Mike Bosi. So he was the staff person at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's quite a while ago. Okay. Well, that doesn't help us today. COMMISSIONER CARON: I wasn't -- yeah, so we have no idea. MS. DESELEM: So I can't shed much light. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and we've had the staff presentation, we have the applicant's presentation. The applicant will be able to have a rebuttal at the end of the hearing. So let's entertain the public right now. And who is -- do we have any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: One speaker. Evan Steingart. MR. STEINGART: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Evan, I believe you were sworn in? MR. STEINGART: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you'll have to state your name for the record to begin and then we're set to go. MR. STEINGART: Good afternoon. My name is Evan Steingart. S-T-E-I-N-G-A-R-T. I am representing Napoli, Glen Eagle, and now I've been informed Countryside has also joined us. That would give you about 2,SOO residents that are opposed to this project in its present form. Let me be very clear that we are not opposed to the development of this project. However, what Mr. Goldmeier has proposed is not compatible or complimentary to the surrounding area. And let me be specific about that. I also have a letter of objection horn Countryside. She could not be here. I will give it to you at the end. What I mean by the project not conforming with the surrounding area, when we look at this it's like trying to stuff ten pounds into a five pound bag. I think ifhe could have a petting zoo and a fireworks stand he'd put it in there as well. It's a very high density, east coast style end design, and it goes against our communities. Our communities are resort style communities, low density with resort style amenities. Page 74 . . 161 1 Ma~26 -0 '. The density of this project is more than double what the density is in any of the surrounding communities. I also think the developer may not have as much knowledge of the demographics in Naples by building this type of community. I think he is limiting its appeal. And I think he's also using a 2005 market plan. And the market as we know has changed 180 degrees from what it was. As you can see, I've put one of his fine developments up there. He builds low-end tenement style developments. And that is his corporate D.N.A., if you will, and that's what we're going to get on a prime piece of property in Collier County. And that's what we're against. All of our quality oflife in that area will suffer because of increased congestion and density. The project will also have a negative impact on already poor property values in that area. I think we also believe that this affordable housing is a ploy. It's to increase his density so he can increase his profitability. Affordable housing is abundant within a one-mile radius of this project. We have an e-mail from the county showing that over 4,200 affordable housing slots have been approved, and only 500 have been built. And that sort of leads us to believe that there's really not a necessity for that designation. Recent compo sales on Zillo.com, anybody can get on Zillo, and it shows that condos are selling for less than $100,000, townhomes for the mid ISO's, and single-family homes in the low 200's. I don't think we need any more added density; the county is flooded with affordable housing. It may have been necessary during the bubble of'04 to '07, but the market has changed, and it's no longer relevant. We're back to a normal market. I think the market that we saw where affordable housing was in such great demand was indeed an aberration. And now we're back to probably below normal, to be honest. But the Wall Street Journal says that 30 percent of homes are under water, and one in 77 are in some state of foreclosure, which leads us to believe there will be more foreclosures coming and more affordable housing coming. And the other thing to note is HUD has designated our zip code, 34112, as one of the three zip codes in Collier County that has a major foreclosure issue. They've invested to buy almost 60 homes, and they are rehabbing those homes and putting them on the market for low income individuals. The other issue that we have of course is the commercial space. And the last thing we saw was 35,000 square feet of space he was looking to have approved. Although I hear now that that's changed. But I will point out that within a one mile radius; occupancy rates are abysmal in retail centers. The Wal-Mart shopping center, which is one mile down the road, is not even leased. I think it's maybe three or four percent leased. And most shopping centers are at 50 to 60 percent and heading south. And there's more capacity coming on line. Within the next two years we're going to have several million square feet of retail space in that area not needed. Any retailer will tell you, they have a difficult time surviving in the Collier County market, which has a part -time population, and it drops 40 percent during off season. With the fixed costs of being in retail, you simply have to have business year round, and it is very difficult to make it in this county. The other thing is major retailers have stopped expanding and are increasing their presence on the Internet, because more people are choosing to shop on line. Therefore, commercial space is kind of ridiculous at this point. Another point I'd like to make is, you know, County Barn right now -- I think this project is a nonstarter unless County Barn gets widened. The traffic there is still very difficult. It's a dangerous intersection. And I would say there's at least one accident there every day that I see. And to add more capacity to that is -- again, is detrimental to quality of life. In conclusion, I would like to say for full disclosure, we have hired an attorney, Anthony Pires. Anthony is concentrating on the technical flaws ofthis proposal, of which there are many. I'm certainly not Page 75 ,"",,---- _..- 11"""".. 'It.. ,ljlln .,.. .. - 161 1 ~6 ~<~. , 09 qualified to speak on the technical flaws. I mean, we've heard quite a few of them today. I also wonder why this meeting occurred during this time of year when most of our residents are not around. I don't know if that's by coincidence or by design. But in conclusion, over 2,500 homeowners in the surrounding area are against this. We think this project needs major revisions. The quality oflife for all of us will suffer because of this project. Surrounding property values will suffer. And, you know, Mr. Goldmeier has no ties to this community. I think his legacy will be that he leaves us with another Whistler's Cove with an unleased strip center on one of East Naples' most strategic comers. And I think we must force him to do better, we deserve better, and Naples deserves better. This is not Dade County. I urge Mr. Goldmeier, get back to the drawing board. We extend an olive branch to work with him to get this project in conformity so that we can all live with it. And I would urge him to take what I say very seriously and work with us so we can make this a better project. Because as it stands now, I and the residents of the surrounding area would ask the County Commissioners to vote no against the rezoning of this property. And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Evan, before you leave the mic., Ijust want to make a couple points. A lot of the details of this property were laid out in 2004 and 2005 with the approval of the GMP. Those conditions in the GMP this board cannot change. And they -- neither can the applicant, neither can the staff. They have to abide by them. What is at stake here today is the interpretation of those conditions. But I just want you to know, the affordable housing aspect of it has to be there. It cannot go away. The commercial component, it's probably not what we expected, what we saw today. Maybe through further discussion there's an opportunity for more there. But some of the things that you've seen are going to happen, whether the neighborhood wants to accept them or not because of the 2004 and 2005 approvals. So the project may not go forward exactly as it is today, it may, I'm not sure until we get to our vote. But I want you to know that something's going to go in there, but in some of it we cannot -- it's beyond our ability to say no to at this point, so -- MR. STEINGART: Yes, and I understand that, Commissioner Strain. I think we're trying to be as reasonable as we possibly can. And that's why] offer to work with the developer to, you know, try and prevent something like that happening. That is not in any of our best interests. And what I am seeing now is that with a strip center. And so really, let's just try and get this thing cleaned up, get it palatable and, you know, I think we'll be on board as long as it enhances the community and is not detrimental to it, as we believe it is now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MR. STEINGART: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Pritt, do you want to have a short rebuttal? MR. PRITT: Yes, Mr. Goldmeier did want to address the board for rebuttal before my closing statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you very much. And I appreciate your patience. A lot of this has been confusing to you, and I have to admit, it's been confusing to me. This process has been going on for six years now. Many elements have changed. We've had different interpretations. And there's been an evolution of the project and unfortunately an evolution of the market as well. Page 76 . 161 1 MayB' , So -- and, you know, we want to create a good product. We want a product not only that's pleasing to the surrounding community but one that will be an economic success, and we can't have that without having a good product. There's a couple of points that I just wanted to briefly touch upon. The one area that we -- the one opportunity we're sorry that we missed in dealing with staff was when they proposed the change to the language to our compo plan amendment without informing us that they were in the process of doing so. We were in the process of having conversations with them about our different interpretations, density and other elements of the project, and I view that as a missed opportunity because we could have discussed and worked out some of these other things which need clarifying now, had we known that there was a compo plan amendment in the works by them and taken the opportunity to use that compo plan amendment to bring more clarity to the situation. The idea of the affordable housing and workforce housing was not our idea. It came directly from the Board of County Commissioners and was requested that we consider including. I don't want to say it was imposed upon us because we agreed to it, but it was made clear to us at the Board of County Commissioners' hearing that they wanted to see that as part of the project. And having built about 1,000 units of affordable housing myself, I -- and being an affordable housing advocate -- and by the way, when it comes to having ties to the community, this is my fourth project in Collier County, and I've done affordable housing in Collier County. But we found that we did not object to the request of the Board of County Commissioners, and we tried to accommodate their wishes. The disagreement that we had with staff was solely about the fact whether we would be given an affordable housing density bonus for the affordable housing we agreed to. That issue was discussed specifically and clearly in front of the Board of County Commissioners. It was discussed -- and we have transcripts to indicate our point of view. And that disagreement as to whether we get a density bonus for having provided that affordable housing basically has distracted the entire attention of us and staff away from some of the smaller details that you might have brought out, which we'd be glad to work with, we'd be glad to modify. But those details were not addressed in the process, because we're all busy arguing about the affordable density bonus, to term it that way. The project was always one project on 22.83 acres, with two components. And those components should not be distinguished as being two separate projects or two separate properties, they're two different components of the same project. And viewing them as two separate properties or two separate parcels brings I think more confusion to the situation than need be. It's one project with two different uses on the same property. Ifwe were offered the opportunity by the right-of-way people to have a road entrance closer than 1,000 feet from the intersection of County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard, we would have taken it. We were not offered that. If offered that today as an additional option, we would gladly take it. But we were not offered that prior to -- I didn't hear the possibility of that happening until this meeting today. We made it clear from the beginning that this could be a rental or home ownership project. And especially in a market -- under market conditions today where it is difficult for a purchaser to get a mortgage, the rental option has to be available, because otherwise the property will have no chance of moving forward. We did plan to build more commercial, we intended to build more commercial, but that's not the way things worked out as our access seemed to be less -- make it a less desirable commercial site. And, you know, that's basically -- we built -- we put in the amount of commercial that we had room for and we had parking for, and that's how the amount of commercial was arrived at. Page 77 - ~ .,<lA-I>.- . T II "'i!l"'II_ -~'",.~,<......"- ,-~,-"'~-"'" _..-,- 161 1~~ 86 May 7. 2009 The type of commercial, we became increasingly concerned about the other shopping centers going up in the area with superior access and superior visibility, and basically migrated to a more live/work situation where you can have a professional living above his design studio, shop or something like that. So the concept did change horn the beginning, but it did change in response to market forces and other trends. To address Evan's concern about the property that they had up that he put up on that, I built 1,000 units of affordable housing; that's only one of the projects. I'd be glad to show you my other projects, including one new Collier County, that I get a lot of compliments on, and I think Mr. Midney could tell you that my project in Collier County is well received. That property was -- you know, I put 10 pounds in a five pound bag on that admittedly. That was built in the City of Key West at the request of the City of Key West. And the Key West authorities love the project, because I'm providing affordable housing in a close-in location, convenient to everybody. And I only had two acres to build on, because I had a wetland concern on the site. So that is a very successful project that is being -- you know, I continue to receive support from the City of Key West for that project. And we do not intend to build that kind of product here. Building costs are different We didn't have to truck in concrete and truck in water and deal with the construction costs that we had to deal with in Key West. So we had constraints in Key West that we don't have here. And we of course intend to build the type of projects more similar to the pictures we showed you than the pictures that Evan showed you. I would be glad to work with the neighbors. I called Evan several times, was not able to speak with him. We did have some e-mails back and forth. And I think Kay can tell you, we've reached out to all of our neighbors at Falling Waters and at the other communities, and we've found a lot of support in the other communities. When we had our two neighborhood information meetings, people came out objecting to the affordable housing -- affordable and workforce housing. That was their primary objection. Now, again, that was not my idea. That was not what we requested. That's what the Board of County Commissioners asked us to include. But just so you understand, the affordable housing requirement that we have now is between -- is no lower than 80 percent of median income and no higher than 120 percent of median income. Eighty percent of median income is $40,000 for a family of one and maybe $45,000 for a family of four. That's the lowest income we're talking about. And 120 percent of median income for a family of four, that would be 80, $90,000. So these -- this is not what you'd consider quote, unquote affordable housing, and it should not be characterized as producing the kind of problems, property management problems that people are fearing. Because you're talking about people with incomes between 40,000 and let's say $80,000. And that's our requirement. And these people could easily be homeo\\tners as well as renters. We would appreciate your support and want to work with you as far as any of your concerns. And we have a lot to -- you know, a lot of ideas as to how to move forward and want the opportunity to do so. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Goldmeier. MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me suggest something to you, because I have great respect for your attorney, Mr. Pritt. You have a talented group of people working for you, and you have all the tools to have done what I think would have been a more thorough job in telling us what's going to happen with that property than what I personally have seen today. The concepts you're introducing are somewhat new to the way we've seen standards before. In order to support those concepts, in the past every time something new comes forward there's a lot more Page 78 . 161 1 Ma~ 86 -, detail. The site plans are more detailed along -- I know you can move into those as you go further, but just for the fact we had it used as a talking point, the concept site plan that your -- one of your team members brought here today to try to understand your standards is an example of what we could have used to sink our teeth into to better move forward today. MR. GOLDMEIER: I have floor plans with me, if you'd like to see them. I just didn't want-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, if we sat here today and tried to go through and rewrite this PUD document in a manner that was more understandable to terms and acknowledgments of what you wanted to build, we're going to be here all day, and that's not what our job is. I would suggest that after we finish further down the road and you hear our concerns during discussion, if you want to ask for a continuance, you don't have to peg a date to it, to provide you to come back with more time to get with the neighborhood and try to work out your differences and get back with staff and work out the situation, you might find that another avenue, rather than if it looks like this is going to be not positive for you to go to the BCC with that kind of recommendation. And I know -- like I said, I know you've got all the good people working with you. But there's no mileage in all of us getting into court to settle this when I think it could be done in much more friendlier terms. And you have options out there that if you wanted to apply them, they may get you a little bit closer to where you need to be and at the same time produce a better product for the neighborhood. MR. GOLD MEIER: If you may recall, we had this discussion when I had presented a project across from the casino in Immokalee -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. GOLDMEIER: -- that we wound up going back, because we had not created a site plan because we weren't required to do so. And we wound up creating a site plan and it was supported unanimously by your board and went on the consent agenda, the BCC, and it worked very well. And of course we'd be willing to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think part of this whole process is the sales and the tools to make the sale, from my perspective, having been here today. And Ijust wanted to express that to you, because I still have some hope. Maybe we don't go forward with a negative vote that this can be pulled, you guys could reconsider your position, get together with the neighborhood, take your time, find out where all the problems are. And I certainly think you'll get a reading on the density issue with us today. We do provide recommendations to the BCC. Our recommendations are many times honored by them. So if we tend to concur with staff, that may be an indication you may need to work harder towards a resolution of that density that's in line with staff as well, so -- MR. GOLD MEIER: Well, we'd be prepared to get together with staff and neighbors and even members of the board, because we actually do have full-blown drawings of the identical product that we're planning. We can give you -- we can give you whatever you want, basically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think that's something that ought to be considered the next time around. It's a little bit late today. We've got to have time to review it, it's got to be on record. But I think that's an opportunity that is open to you as we finish up with this -- MR. GOLD MEIER: Please, if we can keep this moving and not delayed, because I've been through six years of delays so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as we get done with discussion today and you hear our input, ifit looks like it may be something you might want to continue, I'll make that offer before the vote. MR. GOLD MEIER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up to you and Mr. Pritt then. MR. GOLD MEIER: Thank you very much. Let me turn it over to Bob. Page 79 ,. - 1III..r-_ _~... ilII , J.--_ 161 r~ 86 ay 7, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Goldmeier, let me ask you one question, and I'll try to be quick. Essentially what you really want is the density number, a unit number. Why don't you reduce the area of the mixed use site? The five acres is a maximum. So based on the testimony, you've heard everybody describe the density, can't you corral 91 units and shops in a smaller area, giving you the other area to use the other density to bring your count up? I mean. it's -- eighth grade algebra equation would give you what you need. MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Schiffer. There is one issue that is basically a killer which, you know, that staff was creating an interpretation which would create problems for everyone, including us. Because their interpretation that we have to place 91 units on that small little area would force us into a much more dense, you know, tall urban project than we want to build. We wanted to be able to take whatever the density was and spread it around the site so that it doesn't impact one particular area, especially the area that's the most visible at that major intersection. So by putting -- you know, by handcuffing us and saying if you get a bonus you have to use this bonus in this one tight little place, that's not beneficial. And that's just one of the issues we need to have your guidance on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's resolve that issue right now. Because that's not how I read this. And I'd sure like Corby or someone to come up and opine on that particular point. Because if that's a stumbling block, maybe one we can resolve quickly. Corby, the question is does he have to put 91 units on the five-acre commercial area, or could he reduce the five-acre commercial area to less and put less units there ifhe wanted to? MR. SCHMIDT: The answer to the first half is no, he does not have to put all 91 in the commercial component. And the answer to the second half is yes. The flexibility is built into the sub-district language so it can be no larger than five acres. I f it reduces that area, the calculations also change along with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe wanted to put two acres of commercial with 10 units, would that be acceptable? MR. SCHMIDT: It may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then Mr. (ioldmeier, I think we're a good portion of the way for you to take a closer look at what you're designing here. Thank you, Corby, appreciate it. Mr. Pritt, did you want to make any final comments? MR. PRITT: Ijust told my client I can't say it any better than he had, and that probably anything I would say would be not helpful, so I'm going to waive any closing statement. I think Ms. Deselem was waiving anyhow. And I asked her a little while ago, so I'll waive anything further. Obviously we'd be interested in hearing what your discussion is today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Ray, we're done with public speakers, so we'll close the public hearing and go into discussion. Mr. Klatzkow, you're looking kind of puzzled. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I am. This is a mixed use development and I'm kind of concerned we're going to be shrinking dov,'l1 the commercial to the point that this is now a residential development. I mean, when the Board of County Commissioners approved this on your recommendation, there Page 80 . . 16 1..1 M~yB6 . . . was a certain concept in mind. And I understand that the economy has changed and things have changed, but this was approved as a mixed unit development, and we're starting to talk about this is now almost purely residential development. He's getting, what is it, four units per acre because this is a mixed unit, but it's not a mixed unit. So I'm just raising a concern here that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think it's a valid concern, but as I had asked -- and Corby or David, maybe one of you need to come up here and address this specific issue. When I asked you if this meets the mixed use conditions in which the bonus would be provided, you had said earlier it does. And the fact they've reduced the commercial to what it was -- MR. KLATZKOW: You can't put in a peanut stand on 22 acres and now call it mixed. There has to be some rationality here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we need some minimum guidelines to know what that rationality is. And if -- and that's exactly what the question earlier was asked for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mr. Chair, it was really Ray that gave the answer that yes, there's no limit as to the mini -- I mean, you can put the joke was a phone booth and you got it. So that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand all that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- why we asked the question. Once Ray gave an absolute answer, that's the condition we have to deal with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand all that, but Mr. Klatzkow's raising the question again. I want to get as firm of an answer and a consensus on this, because if this goes back into re-discussion again and comes back to another time, I want to make sure it comes back in a manner that everybody has gotten a fair shake at how they've analyzed it and designed it. MR. KLATZKOW: And I was just going to say, sooner or later this is going to be Board of County Commissioners. And if they don't have an issue with it, I don't have an issue with it. But they may raise this as an Issue. And I'm supportive of that. I mean, when you go through a compo plan analysis, when you go to the communities, when you're making promises this is what it's going to look like and we're giving you special densities because of that, when you come back and you put up a peanut stand and now you say aha, it's mixed use, no, that's bait and switch. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree. MR. KLATZKOW: Now, it's-- MR. PRITT: I object to that. MR. KLATZKOW: -- as simple as that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show Mr. Pritt objected to that statement. MR. PRITT: Come on, Jeff, now I object to that-- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no, no, no. MR. PRITT: -- there's no bait and switch -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, one at a time, one at a time. MR. KLA TZKOW: You cannot come to the board and ask for four units of extra density and then a couple years say well, you know what, we don't really want the commercial but we're going to still keep it anyway. It strikes me as inherently wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, based on the language in the GMP and the way you guys would have to interpret it, where are we limited in the amount of commercial and/or residential that goes in the commercial tract, both size and quantity? MR. WEEKS: I have to agree with what Ray had stated earlier and that is there simply is no minimum. All we have is a maximum. I agree with Jeffs comment. And staff in the back of the room, we had some discussion about this Page 8] ~M~ _'..'T'" . ",-,-'.''''~ ,. il .._ fiaT wn'f' , , ..... --...-- ~"-'-~- 161 l.a609lt as well, we have some concern about how small the actual commercial development is getting in rela -- I mean, I won't use the same words as Jeff, but it just seems inappropriate at some point that the amount of commercial being provided is so small. Is this what was envisioned when we considered a mixed use proj ect? But the black-and-white answer is there is no minimum here, there's none stated in the sub-district, it's only a maximum. So if they narrowed this down to 1,000 feet of commercial, it's still mixed use as the definition would apply, a mixture of commercial and residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, which is the problem that I think I'm -- go ahead, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But you said before that this sub-district was patterned after the residential mixed use. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And in there it says that the mixed use is -- I think it said to be residential above commercial, not to create strip malls. This is creating strip malls. MR. WEEKS: I think it uses the ten'll strip commercial, perhaps. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, whatever. MR. WEEKS: Well, I'm not splitting hairs, there is a difference. A strip mall is a particular type of building. A strip commercial refers to a pattern of development, typically shallow -- commercial development, shallow in depth, long, you know, linear, and frequently with many access points. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer -- are you done, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, you know, and since we're the board that actually reviewed it, if the they describe something, they're using words like new urbanism, new to\\-'Il, smart growth and all that other stuff. Can't we interpret it, based on the words they're using? I mean, can't we say we think those words have meaning and maybe it was sold to us as being something else? I mean, you know, new urbanism is not just, you know, putting all the units on the hont of the street. There's a lot of things -- we've had a community character plan. That plan has been, you know, referred to in this. That plan had certain expectations of walk-ability and all that other kind of stuff. The neighbors are actually saying they wish they could walk across the street to a coffee shop or something. So can't we make that judgment, even though you don't have a technical way to do it? MR. WEEKS: Sure, I think you can. I mean, in your capacity as a recommending body to the Board of County Commissioners, as the local planning agency under state law, I believe you do have that authority to make the recommendation, just as staff makes the recommendation. And ultimately the board will decide, should they be interested in approving this project, they would decide is this the appropriate mix of uses, the appropriate amount of the types of uses as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the words that Mark read out of the past minutes, can't we hear those words and determine whether this is fact meets that description and decide whether in fact it met that -- you know, it's what we intended it to be? MR. WEEKS: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at the same time, though, I think what led to this discussion is Mr. Goldmeier was under the impression that he had to put some number of units on that commercial piece. It was 91 was the word. He doesn't have to put 91 units there, though, is that correct, David? MR. WEEKS: I'm reading over the language again just one more time. I know Corby's already answered it. Page 82 I . 161 lay 7, &6 . " CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it says 91 units in the sub-district, which to me means the entirety 22 acres. 91 residents shall be developed in the sub-district. And I saw that as a minimum for the overall development. And if they put some above the commercial to get the mixed use, that works, but they could still have some in the other parts of it, but that was a minimum they had to create. MR. WEEKS: I would agree with that, that they do not have to place the 91 units all on the commercial component. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now it would up to them to produce a plan that meets a balance between what is truly mixed, or acceptable as mixed use to this board's impression, as well as the BCC, but they don't have to pack in 91 units on that commercial property to get there. They could put a nice commercial plaza in there with some professional offices and residential above, and they would still meet a mixed use complement of some type. I don't have quantities in mind, I'm just talking about concepts. MR. WEEKS: I missed that that was actually a question. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay, it wasn't a question, it was a statement that I guess is just an idea. So anyway, I think with that we've heard enough of this. Does anybody have any more questions of David or anybody of this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I would like to open it up for just discussion amongst the Planning Commission members now about where we see this going and standing, and based on that discussion, when we finish with discussion I'll ask the applicant ifhe wants to continue. And ifhe doesn't or if he does, this board can then make a decision on whether they want to vote on it and we'll go from there. Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think it would be a real disservice to both petitioner and to the neighborhood if this was not continued. I think it needs to be continued. There's lots out there that needs to be settled. I think a lot has been aired here today that now can be settled, and we need to move it forward, and I would suggest that we do continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask each member, if they're not uncomfortable with it, to comment on this. But as you're including your comment, I'd like your thoughts on the density. And it can be real brief, it can be do you believe the higher density is the right calculation or do you believe staffs interpretation of density is the right calculation. COMMISSIONER CARON: I believe that staffs interpretation of the density is the correct one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll -- why don't I move right to left. I'll go Mr. Midney and then on that row, and then I'll come back over to you, Mr. Vigliotti. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Now I wish I had asked the developer ifthe staff density would be something that he could live with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you can still ask the developer that. Any planning commissioner member can ask questions, so we'll -- but it will be strictly limited to that response, if you could, Mr. Goldmeier. MR. GOLDMEIER: If I have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do believe that the applicants' density is the one that's good. One of the benefits of it is you get more affordable units from it, based on the percentage. Page 83 . ,...'....'ll'fl - ra 9'"" __.."..,.~''''."'''H..'_..''''''_....,.'IIII. 1lll 11 It ~ ........ ....,.. -- 161 1~ '1 86 May 7, But my biggest concern is really with the site plan. I would never support a site plan that puts all those units up on the intersection of a road and then puts the stores in a better spot. This to me is -- I would never support this site plan. So I have bigger problems than density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Koltlat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I support the staffs determination of density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also support the staff regarding density, but my big problem is lack of detail, and I said it before. Based upon the detail giving to me here, there's no way I could approve it or vote for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Again, after a lot of confusion and thinking about this, I finally get staffs interpretation of density. But I agree with Commissioner Schiffer that I don't necessarily agree with that comer packed in with units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But as far as the density goes, do you think the calculation produced by staff, which is 234, or the calculation produced by the applicant of 286? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The 234, without a doubt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree with the staffs interpretation of the density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I too agree with staffs interpretation of the density. I also have problems with the buffering on the south side: the adequacy of the unknown easement to the south that wasn't provided in any of the backup documentation; the development standards table that I went through in detail. I think that the compatibility of the development standards can be -- to the neighborhoods and across the way could be looked at a little bit more and refined to better standards than what were presented today. I think that the inconsistencies with the affordable workforce housing density bonus agreement and the other documents need to be corrected. Staffs findings were based on 10.5 units per acre, not 12.5, so the findings, if there was any changes in that, would have been off. And for all those reasons, and all the ones we went through today, I could not support this application. Now, Mr. Pritt, if we go to vote on this, it looks like it would be a no vote. And I want to ask you, would you like to continue this to another time? And can be time indefinite. And you'll need to use the microphone to respond. And if so, fine. If not, we're going to vote on it, so -- MR. PRITT: May I check with my client? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. MR. PRITT: We would like to ask for a continuance. I do have a couple of questions, though, as to how long that would be. I know that the staff is going to have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they wanted to do a continuance, any particular length of time, is there a minimum and a maximum that they can go? MR. BELLOWS: I was discussing with the assigned planner Kay Deselem, and given the workload and vacations mixed in through the intermitting time, we were thinking that August 6th, Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the earliest that they could come back? MR. BELLOWS: I would believe so. MS. DESELEM: If I can jump in, too. A lot of it depends on when they get something back in to us to review. And then we're going to need time to review it and prepare it. Page 84 . . 161 1 M1j'609 . 'i ' ' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why my second part of the question was what's the maximum. Is there any limitation to how long they can continue for? MS. DESELEM: Six months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six months. So any time from August to six months? MS. DESELEM: But the deal is in the Land Development Code a project has to be ongoing, actively seeking something, or it's deemed withdrawn due to inactivity. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I'd like to make a clarification on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do. MR. BELLOWS: And evidence can be submitted to go longer than the six months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if they're interacting with staff and submitting paperwork -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and meeting with the neighborhood to try to resolve their issues -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I think that's what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think that's surely significant that -- okay. So Mr. Pritt, so what it boils down to, I think you have -- the earliest, if you could get everything accomplished, would be August, but it's indefinite past that. So we could at your request grant you an indefinite continuance. The idea would be that you would be meeting with the neighborhood on the premise of trying to work out your differences, as well as with staff: transportation and others. And I would tell you that all the discussion here ought to be weighed into your new considerations. MR. PRITT: August 6th is fine. MR. BELLOWS: And if we could get some typicals of what the setbacks would be for the structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think to come back without the detail that this board needs would be just a waste of their time. MR. BELLOWS: Ijust wanted to make sure that the typicals are-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I believe they know what we want or what we're looking for at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we've expressed all our concerns here today, yeah. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: David correctly reminded me to inform you all that after five weeks it would have to be re-advertised, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would expect that, yeah. Okay, so -- go ahead, Kay? MS. DESELEM: If! may, that kind of assumes that they're going to be submitting within 30 days -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. DESELEM: -- so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I think what we're going to suggest is that there be -- a continuance would be granted with no -- we're not going to put a time frame on it. When it happens, it happens. IfMr. Pritt wants to make it happen by August 6th, he's got to do it faster. It ifhe takes more time to work with the neighborhood and everybody else involved, then it just takes more time. But I wouldn't want to hinge it on too short of a period and not have accomplished the communications that are needed to get this done right. Because this is a good location, and this could come back as a really good project. I just think you need more time to work it out, to be honest with you. Page 85 ..,....... "<lll"ll _....""/10"" T ........_.""',_.......""_.._ ...q~. . -"-,~._- 161 ij6 1 M:Y 7, 09 So with that in mind, Mr. Pritt, are those statements generally in agreement with you? MR. PRITT: That would be fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to accept a request ofindefmite continuance on this particular project? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Is there any other discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, are we good? MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're very good, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that in mind, all those in favor of the motion, 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. And I want to thank you all very much for your time and patience, the public as well. Please get together and work things out before you come back to us again. That would be very helpful. Thank you agam. Okay, we still have another case here today. Mr. Wolfley is going to be departing. We'll move into the other issues. (At which time, Commissioner Wolfley exited the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item up -- and by the way, Cherie', we'll take a break around 4:00 for a little while, if we're not -- and we shouldn't be too much long after that, I would imagine. Item #9E PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-12804, AVOW HOSPICE, INC. The next item up is Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-12804. It's the Avow Hospice, Inc. on 1095 Whippoorwill Lane. It's a rezone from community CF and agricultural to CFPUD. 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: Arc there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Hancock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 86 . . 161 1 MaBb i j 0, " COMMISSIONER CARON: And I spoke to staff as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had a conversation with Mr. Hancock as recently as I think this morning, wasn't it? No, yesterday morning. And everything I discussed with him will certainly be discussed today. Thank you. Tim, it's all yours. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering on behalf of A vow Hospice. The petition before you today is a rezone that seeks to in essence incorporate a recently acquired parcel into two other parcels that were already owned by Avow Hospice and currently are zoned CF, community facility. To orient you with the property, for those of you that are not familiar or haven't been back there, the subject property or PUD consists of three parcels: A parcel here that's just a little over five acres, a piece that is close to five acres, and a piece that's slightly less than five acres. The top two parcels, the two toward the north side here, are currently zoned CF for community facility. They were rezoned in 2001 and were previously before that rezoned as a provisional use for the A vow Hospice in 1991. The surrounding land uses are rather varied. To the north is commercial. The Kraft office buildings are well known here, as well as newer office construction further to the north. To the north and east lies the Naples Nissan building, which now is complete and operational. I think everyone's familiar from earlier discussions today with the Dudley Drive area, the gas station, the -- and everything up here. We have Seagate Baptist Church to the south. To the east we have Whippoorwill Lakes which is a residential project with a density of just under seven units per acre. To the south is a parcel that has a unique zoning characteristic; it's RSF-5 with a density cap of.4 units per acre, allowing for two residential units on approximately five acres of land. And then we have immediately to the south, just beyond that piece, the Arlington Lakes PUD, which is at six units to the acre. And then directly abutting the west side of the property is the Brynwood project, which is at 5.47 units to the acre. So the project really is in one of those typical transitional areas where you've got moderate densities to the south and to the west, and you have higher densities and intensities lying to the north and to the north and east. The purpose of this exhibit simply is just to highlight the existing zoning and how it applies to the property. Again, the yellow part, the two parcels to the north, are currently zoned CF for community facility, which is where Avow Hospice sits currently. And the parcel recently acquired, formerly owned by Steven Dellacav (phonetic) is the orange parcel, currently zoned A, agricultural. This is the site plan that was included in your packet. And I certainly refer you to that, since the resolution is going to be better than what you're going to see on the visualizer here. But the purpose ofthis exhibit really is to confirm and show the existing level of development on the parcel. Currently the A vow Hospice facilities, the primary administrative functions, are located here, with the primary parking up on Whippoorwill. The unit extends all the way down the northern part of the property and then wraps the rear part of the property to this location right here. And again all of that existing development is within the current CF, community facility, zoning. This portion of the project right here -- and you'll notice in your packet it talks about a planned expansion of over 5,000 square feet. At the time we filed this, that's precisely what it was. In the recent months a site development plan has been approved for an additional facility here, which is really a multipurpose facility of approximately that size. Page 87 ""-,. - - -----,"~.,~-~,...<~,..."~-,."..-..-- ,""....-.-- ---_.. 16 I 1 , a ~ ".. av 7009 ". .; ,- And so on this parcel in the existing CF zoning you will see in the coming months moving forward a multipurpose facility that's intended to provide things such as bereavement counseling, services for family members, quiet meditation areas for those that are utilizing the facilities at Hospice, as well as parking for the same. What that really leaves is the parcel that is being in essence added, the third parcel here, is approximately 1.3 acres of net usable land here adjacent to Whippoorwill. Not a lot of property. The lake which exists here and this piece over here are not going to be altered. In fact, the piece back here becomes the required preserve and will actually have additional plantings made to it. When we had our neighborhood information meeting, the folks that showed up were all from Brynwood to the rear. I don't think we had anybody from Arlington Lakes. And their primary concern was, they asked if buildings would be located back here. And once they found out that this was going to be the preserve and that we in fact were going to be enhancing plantings, their concerns went away and it was a fairly short neighborhood information meeting from that perspective. The exact plans for this 1.3 acres really are not knmvn. Originally the existing home was thought maybe to be used for additional administrative function, but it appears to be the goal now to raze that facility and just allow the property to sit until the expansion plans and future plans for Hospice are better known. The primary reason we're before you today with a PUD rezone, instead of coming in with either a conditional use or straight community facility rezone, is that we felt it would be at least helpful to have uniform development standards over all three parcels. And really the focus is just to allow for the future expansion on a very small 1.3-acre piece right up here. We're not asking for any deviations in the PUD with respect to buffers or fencing, and we will be complying with the LDC standards on those areas. There are two areas of the PUD I'd like to point out that you may want to incorporate in any action you may take today. Number one is that in a further review of the listed uses, and going to the PUD itself, Exhibit A under permitted uses, we made an error. Under number nine with parks, public or private, including play areas and playgrounds, we then included Group 7999. The purpose for including that group was that parks and playgrounds are a part of 7999. \Vbat we failed to do was limit the balance of that group. There are things in that group that we do not deem to be appropriate, things such as indoor shooting ranges, we certainly don't expect to have that. So what we would like to request is the removal of just the parenthesis with group 7999 and leaving parks, public or private, including play areas and playgrounds as the sole element of item number nine. Secondly, on Exhibit B under development standards -- and Mr. Strain raised this issue yesterday morning -- is that the definition of zoned height is no longer necessary and can be removed from the bottom of the table under the development standard. Beyond that, the only issue that we have discussed, and it may arise today so let me at least put on the record the basis for this. The only planned purpose we have for this property is for the expansion and accessory use of Avow Hospice. I have asked that the client retain some flexibility of those uses that are commonly allowed in CF zoning to give the opportunity down the road, should Avow Hospice find relocation necessary, that there may be something other than a hospice use that may be an appropriate and reasonable use for the property. When you have such a specific use and if you limit everything to that one specific use, you then reduce the usability of that property for anything else. What we've included in the PUD are uses that I feel are both complimentary to and compatible in Page 88 . . 161 1 1 . t609 this area, when looking at its transitional nature from C-4 to the north to moderate density of residential to the south and to the west. And that's the primary purpose for leaving those in there. What I would not like to see happen today is I would like to see the fact that CF zoning currently exists on two of three of the parcels, I would hope that we don't adversely affect that zoning. If it is the desire of this body that the expansion of the facility in the future should be limited to A vow Hospice and we want to limit that to the southern parcel, my client has agreed that that would be appropriate, since they have no other intended use for that. But I wanted to at least state the reason for the listing, the CF uses broader than just A vow Hospice. It is a way on my part to try and make sure that should my client have to sell the property in the future for relocation that there be some viable use to the property beyond that which they serve. That is the Reader's Digest version of my prepared remarks. And I know you've had a long day, and with your permission, I'll turn it over to you for any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been a long day, but it's been interesting. Do you have any density issues you'd like to talk about? MR. HANCOCK: I'm proud to say we don't have even the slightest density issue. And staff is in total agreement with our proposed density for this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any questions of this project? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. And Mr. Hancock's last remarks were because of an issue that I had brought up to him and to people on staff. So I will just bring it to everybody's attention here. And first I'm going to ask a question. Do you know, Mr. Hancock, how the CF zoning was granted in 2001? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. I went back and reviewed the record of the Planning Commission hearing on that hearing, and then it was on a summary agenda item for the board, so the board had no additional input. Hospice, like a lot of organizations that are funded by donations, grow as, one, as they're needed and two, as they're funded. And as a conditional use, what they found is that they were having to redo the conditional use every time they had the next phase of a project. And they came in in 2001 and requested CF zoning for the purpose of basically not having to come back and redo the conditional use over and over again. And that was the extent of the testimony provided in 2001. In a sense we are asking for something similar on this third parcel. I can't -- I could draw a fictitious building on that piece and a fictitious parking area, but I think any use that is associated with A vow would deem to be compatible in this location, and I think the uses listed under Exhibit A are equally compatible or else I wouldn't be here making the request. COMMISSIONER CARON: The issue, as I'm sure everybody else found when they reviewed this, was that CF zoning only allows nonresidential uses. And so I had asked how they could have gotten this when the A vow property is -- probably can be most clearly like a nursing home. So then you discover, as you look at our code, that while the text of our code says no -- nonresidential uses for CF zoning, when you go to the chart, the chart lists things like nursing homes as acceptable as permitted uses. So it became an issue of, you know, how does that happen and what do we do? Should we in point of fact be going back to conditional use for this? This is what it had been, it's probably what it should remain today. I understand and exactly what I thought happened in 2001 happened was that, you know, we're doing the work of the Lord and, you know, we don't want to have to come in and pay the fees every time we Page 89 d.iIll' "0 . I' _~_..""",,.,... r - ----""-^ 1,6 I 1 fS6 t ~. .L May 7, 2009 need to make a change. So -- but the simple fact of the matter is that once you go down this road the code gets interpreted-- if we find a discrepancy, which is what we have here between what the code says in one place and the other, we're supposed to, according to the zoning director, for the most part go to the most restrictive of uses, the least impactful, most restrictive uses. And that's why my question was, why are we still at CF and why are we further lessening those standards by going to CFPUD? So at any rate, I think that if you are willing to limit it to A vow, then the problem is solved. And I have no problem obviously with what you're trying to do there and certainly not with A vow Hospice. They're fabulous people. I spend time with their volunteers almost on a daily basis. So that's not -- you know, that's not my question. My questions were of getting you into the proper zoning for this. MR. HANCOCK: We appreciate that. And I only offer it as a way of maybe expediting what may have been your concerns. I would like to limit that limitation to the parcel being added. And the reason I like to do that is when the middle parcel was rezoned to CF, it was RMF-6 at the time. The trips generated for the potential units under RFM-6 zoning for that property far exceed that ofthe Avow Hospice. So in essence they gave up, from a transportation standpoint a more intensive land use for the CF zoning district. So I think there was something more than just -- in other words, it's a win/win in that situation. I would hate to see them actually go backwards from that. So I'd like to leave the CF uses for the two parcels that currently enjoy that zoning. The simplest way may be to restrict the southern 165 feet to uses that are related to nursing home, ALF and support uses for the Avow Hospice. And if we do that, then we're really not getting anything more than what we have to have. And again, I only offer that as a -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And I would say that you would certainly have to take out of that equation the continuing care retirement community portion of it. Because if you don't, then we need to add something to this PUD. And that's all the restrictions that we've placed on everybody else who's come forward with a continuing care retirement community. Because in our code, once again, Mr. Hancock, we don't have any stan -- we didn't have any standards until we finally established them, because we've had, oh, I don't know, three or four of these things come through on rezone. So we developed a list to -- MR. HANCOCK: As I stated, it is our in -- it would be our hope that the list of uses is permitted for all three parcels. I'm offering this is a fallback, if it's required to gain support of this board, because I would like to have unanimous support of the board. But quite honestly, I find those uses to be consistent in this location with the surrounding uses. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I'm not saying that they're not. I'm just saying something -- if you want on this -- if you want assisted living and nursing homes to be added, that's fine. If you also want continuing care retirement communities, that's a different animal. And we've found that it was a different animal in three or four other PUD's that have come before us. So we created a list. And you can add that list and you'll be fine; leave continuing care communities there. But we'll have to find the list from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a list. I mean, before you concede to everything, this is Ms. Caron's position, and I understand it, but I went and pulled all the data on all the uses you asked for. You were asking for III uses on that piece of property. Now that you've excluded 79-99, with the exception of the playgrounds. Now, of the III uses, how many of those are really objectionable to this site based on the site's location, what it's up against and the road system that is there? I don't know if you have to limit that south parcel to just A vow. Because some of these are as equally nonintrusive as A vow is, so why would we care Page 90 . 161 1 I ~009 if you put them there? And maybe that is -- that might be a solution to approaching it. So under 8059, for example, you can provide -- the following are in the SIC Code: Convalescence homes for psychiatric patients with health care; convalescence homes with health care; domicile care with health care; homes for the mentally retarded with health care, except skilled; and nursing homes, except skilled and their immediate care facilities; personal care facilities with health care; personal care homes with health care; psychiatric patients convalescent homes; and rest homes with health care. So as far as your continuing care goes, how does that go into one of those? Because it's 80-59 is always asking for-- COMMISSIONER CARON: If you remember the definition -- we've been through this with I believe it was at least two of Mr. Y ovanovich's clients who came forward with affordable -- I'm sorry, assisted living facilities and continuing care. And what we discovered, and all of us agreed to and we put the -- a list of requirements on it, is that we have no definition under continuing care. So continuing care could be converted just to a multi-family operation. MR. BELLOWS: For the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not according to Group 8059. MR. BELLOWS: I just want to make a clarification. I'm familiar with the two projects Commissioner Caron is talking about. I think the issue at hand for those was more of the fact that they were asking for almost entirely independent care living units, which is more like a residential dwelling unit, instead of the skilled or more assisted living. If they were trying to do an entirely independent living, which is more of like restricted to 65 and above housing, then we wanted to make sure that because the LDC wasn't clear on how those independent living units are to be handled and not just a way of getting additional density, that we wanted to provide additional criteria. Unified group eating areas and common areas, facilities to take care of them. I'm not sure he's proposing independent living facilities with these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm --let's go back to the -- he's asking for SIC Code 8059. That gives you nine uses, period. So what of those nine uses are we objecting to? And let's just ask if those can be removed or left off. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, do you have any objection to those nine uses? COMMISSIONER CARON: If it's going to be limited to those then, you know continuing care doesn't make any sense either, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, if it says here, principal uses: Community facility, assisted living facility, including group care facilities, family care facilities and continuing care retirement communities, parenthetical group 8059. I read that as however that's textually defined, he's stuck with whatever is in group 8059 and not beyond that. Does the grammar in the sentence give him anything beyond Group 8059 from a legal perspective; do you know? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think it does, but we can make it very clear, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: We aren't requesting anything beyond 8059 under number one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's just work our way through these, because I won't read them all off, I'll save Cherie' 111 typing. But 8661 is religious organizations. Now, a church in that location isn't going to probably have any more of an impact, especially since it operates mostly on the weekends, than the uses that he's asking for. And it's church, covenants, shrines and temples. 8641 is civic and social and fraternal organizations. They're like booster clubs, membership Page 9] """.._. "-_~_i.1'I ~_'W^."..- -,_._"""->.~-><~....".~--,,..._-,. . .~"~~. ... ......-~_._,.~~ 16 I 1 ~'B6 I May 7, 2009 organizations, civic associations, homeowners association, singing societies, taxpayers associations, things like that. I'm not sure those are objectionable to anybody on this board. If they are, just speak up, because we can talk to him about them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's some rascals in there, but I don't think the -- MR. HANCOCK: You have to keep an eye on those masons. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, do you have -- are you okay so far? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, part of the problem here comes in what is a community facility? If suddenly we're at a profit-making assisted living facility, not with Avow now, because they've sold it off, they've decided to go somewhere else, then we've given community facility zoning to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we've given the PUD zoning to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the PUD zoning-- COMMISSIONER CARON: We've given CFPUD zoning to a profit-making corporation. How does that qualify as a community facility? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fact that they came in with a PUD and they labeled it CF for what they're doing isn't really any differcnt than if they just left it PUD and came in and put the CF forward. They're simply -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Precisely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL what does it matter? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just let it do a straight PUD then. I mean, that's what it should be. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, maybe this will help. Section 2.0304 of the Land Development Code says -- they grouped the zoning districts into categories. And under civic and institutional zoning the P zoning district and the CF zoning district are listed. And under the CF it says, the purpose and intent of the CF district is to implement the Gro\\'ih Management Plan by permitting nonresidential land uses as generally identified in the urban designation of the FLUE. These can be characterized as public facilities, institutional, which these are, so those are kind of quasi commercial oriented, nonresidential uses. So it's really not a residential zoning district, so you can have these commercial oriented assisted living facilities, group housing; all of those are consistent with community facility zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: Ifwe just call this a CPUD rather than CFPUD, does that resolve the issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it matter to staff? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the LDC says we have to classify them. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. HANCOCK: Therein lies the problem. We had to come in under either an RPUD, which we couldn't be, a CPUD commercial, which -- CF was the one we most closely resembled and that's -- MR. KLATZKOW: You know, sometimes we just tie our hands up so needlessly. This -- why don't we just call this a PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think we have that choice-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think we have that choice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifit's not in the LDC we can't go that way, from what I'm hearing. I mean, if it's not in the LDC as a choice, how do we add it? MR. KLA TZKOW: Oh, Lord, how many PUD's do we have in this county that it's not labeled CF for? MR. HANCOCK: None in the last few years. In the last few years we've have to put the R, the Cor Page 92 161 llij6 , . . . . May 7, 009 the CF in front of the PUD, which it's taken me a long time to-- MR. BELLOWS: There was an LDC amendment about four or five years ago that put in the language that says you have to classify it these ways. MR. KLA TZKOW: It's your opinion that we can't simply make a recommendation that we just call this a PUD and be done with it? MR. BELLOWS: I don't even think it matters one way or the other, really. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't either. MR. HANCOCK: Personally, I like the Avow PUD, but that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on with the uses and then we can figure out what you want to call them afterwards. Okay, the 8299 is schools and educational services not elsewhere classified. And it's like art schools, baton instruction, Bible schools, modeling schools, survival schools, tutoring, stufflike that I'm not sure that is any more harm than A vow in that location. 8211 is elementary and secondary schools. That's high schools, kindergartens, military academies, prep schools, schools for the elementary and secondary. This is general schools. Then colleges and universities are 8221, and that is seminars, universities and colleges. Libraries, that's pretty simple. Museums and art galleries, 8412, are pretty simple. It's just what they are. We have the one after that, which is 8051, skilled nursing care facilities has four. Convalescent homes with continuous nursing care, extended care facilities, mental retardation hospitals and nursing homes, skilled. The only one that might be more intense is mental retardation hospitals. Tim, do you need that there? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, as long as we're clear that that does not restrict Avow from serving someone in their capacity that may have those similar afflictions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you already have that covered in your other groups. So I think this is just for the hospital itself. MR. HANSEN: We're comfortable with removal of that with that understanding, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then down in vocational-- intermediate care facilities, there's only two, nursing home and intermediate care facilities under 8052. 8249 is vocational schools. Now, that lists a whole bunch of things, some of which aren't even practical. They're like aviation schools, banking schools. I don't think it really matters. But one I wouldn't want to see there is construction equipment operation schools. That could get a little noisy. MR. HANCOCK: We are happy to remove that, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And truck driving schools, do you want that there? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of them are trade schools, vocational schools, real estate schools, restaurant operation schools, nursing schools, stuff like that. Then the amusement one had another -- practically 100 -- I have almost three pages for that amusement one and you took all those out and just left it parks. I think that simplifies that. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 8211, elementary and secondary are just that, high schools, kindergartens and academies, parochial schools and seminars. That sums it up. So if the board is comfortable with those uses, with the exception of the few we've just struck, I don't know ifthe uses are any more intense than A vow would be. Is that okay with everybody? How do you feel about it, Donna? Since you had the most concern about this. Does that give you a Page 93 w"..,,__ .~-----""----_.. W ... ,__..,~'".~.,.,....M_'.';.,,,'","".... OR ,_. 16 I 1 136 ~ " May 7, 2009 level of comfort, or not? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I have a problem. I have a problem with us taking a community, what's supposed to be a community facility designation and then just entitling this piece of property with all these other uses. I mean, it's very nice of us to do that for Mr. Hancock's client, because we've just increased the value of his property enonnously. Otherwise it was just A vow Hospice. That's what they had under their conditional use and that's -- you know, that's what they -- when they made the plea in 2001 was just so that they didn't have to spend money changing A vow. And now we've just gone and entitled this piece of property for lots of other things. And if you all are fine with that, then you're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if they came in for a CFPUD and they weren't Avow, it was a blank piece of property and they wanted to include in the PUD all the CF uses listed with the exception of the ones we object to, they still would have gotten probably a PUD approval with the development standards and the restrictions similar to what are in this document. I'm not sure we're hurting it by letting them have it. I don't understand what the flexibility problem is going to hurt the public in that regard. So that's probably where I'm coming from and that's my issue on it. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At this point I think we have to agree to disagree and I'm going to move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL let's just -- we're not done yet. We've got quite a few -- do you have any questions of Mr. Hancock? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Where do you stand with staff's recommendation number one? Are you in disagreement with it, are you okay with it? MR. HANCOCK: That's with regard to the fair share contribution? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. The -- no, this is the operational impact with the a.m. peak hour, and staff recommendation. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, we're fine with that. A vow Hospice participated financially in the improvements to the Whippoorwill intersection already. Any future improvements to that we think a fair share -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So you don't have a problem with it? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, we're okay with that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Mr. Hancock? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll have the staff report. Thank you, Tim. MS. ZONE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. I'd like to read into the record that the petitioner as we know is requesting a community facility planned unit development. I'd like to have on the record that this is in the urban mixed use district and the urban residential sub-district ofthe Future Land Use Map. And those -- in that sub-district it allows for a variety of nonresidential uses, essential services, parks, recreational uses, community facilities and child care centers. And one of the things I've noticed, that under -- on Page 1 of my staff report, and I'm ashamed to have to admit it, but under geographic location I have the word south of, and that is a typo. And I would like to remove that for the BCC record. If this board is okay, I'd like to remove it. So it was a south of, and Page 94 . .. 161 1 "9609 ~ .. . . again, it's a typo. Staff is recommending approval for this petition with staffs recommendation for the proportionate share be based on the highest peak operational impacts produced by this site. And one comment on the community facility zoning. If the applicant today, if they did not include this additional parcel and A vow was to leave, the community facility standard zoning allows for the uses that are found under Exhibit A, permitted uses of the PUD ordinance. So they could abandon that current structure and sell it and one of these uses would be able to come in by right under community facility, which is the standard zoning for that. Again, I've been taking the notes of where this board would like to take uses removed. And if you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Ray, any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were there any objections to this project either sent in bye-mail, telephone, anything at all? MS. ZONE: Thank you, Commissioner Strain. I did not receive -- I received one phone call and it was from a woman whose father lives in the area. And when he found what A vow was doing, the expansion, they wanted to send that they were behind the planned unit development, as opposed to keeping it as is. I asked if! could put -- ifthey wanted to send an e-mail to me I would have it in the record and they just said they were just curious from the letter we had sent them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. No public speakers, we'll close the public hearing. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ijust want to say, they probably were pleased that there was no travel car business going in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had discussion on this, and I'll just reiterate some of the discussion, in case there's a motion that might want to incorporate those. That the use of 7999 would all be removed except for the -- reference of that would be removed and it would be simply read the text, which is parks and playgrounds. The zoned height definition will be removed. And under category 8249, they remove construction equipment, operation schools and truck driving schools. And under 8051 they remove the mental retard hospital use. I don't have any other notes on that. I don't know if anybody wants to have any discussion any further. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there isn't, is there a motion? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve based on staffs recommendations and the recommendations you had just mentioned and written down. Melissa, I believe you have them all? MS. ZONE: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Page 95 .-~-" . "~.,, lrft ~4.__~_,=""_""'''''''"'''''''.-' .'. -....-.--.~~-< ~ "II- - " - ~ .. .._~- 161 1 , Ma609 ~~~ ,F , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Koltlat seconded. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, and there's six of us left. 6-0. With that, we will go into our last business. Thank you, Mr. Hancock -- MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's a pleasure seeing you again. You're a stranger too much around here, Tim. You do a good job. MR. HANCOCK: Blame the market. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I agree with that. Item #11 NEW BUSINESS Okay, I don't think we have any old business, but we do have new business. Mr. Schiffer had an issue he wanted added to new business section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a letter being passed down. And Ray, you can put one up on the -- what it is, Stacy Revay from the Collier County Health Department asked if we could support a grant she's going for. The grant is for Smart Growth. And essentially it's to develop healthy living in Collier County. It's from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It's a $360,000 grant. We've made the first cut list so we do look good on it. If anybody doesn't have an objection, she claims this would help her application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this something that can be provided at our next meeting so we have time -- I don't know what this is. It says regulatory commitment to Smart Growth Principles. And honestly, if you ask anybody what Smart Growth is, you get a different answer from every person you ask. So I'd like to know what principles they're specifically referring to. Because if it means higher density and more congestion, I'm not in favor of that kind of smart growth. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. actually, what this is, the grant will do -- it would give her the money to start studying what regulatory principles would help smart -- I mean, it's not going to cause regulatory, it's just going to cause them to study it. Actually, I think she needs to send it out Monday, so if we could take a second to read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I haven't read it, that's why-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not going to commit anything to us other than the fact that we believe in Smart Growth as a Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's I guess maybe where I differ. I don't necessarily think it's the right thing for Collier County, from what I've seen of it by some people's interpretation, so -- Page 96 . 161 1 MaY7B6 . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hence, but we don't -- again, she's studying Smart Growth. So maybe her interpretation would be the one you favor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we say encourage the county to study its regufatory commitment to Smart Growth prin -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. You can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if! want to strengthen something that I don't know enough about. But I think it should be studied, if it's got possibility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Agreed. And Mark, if we do agree to this, I'll send you the word file. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I also have how to contact Stacy to -- and again, the grant is actually to reduce obesity. The obesity epidemic in Collier County's children and low-income families, that's where the money will be focused. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the second sentence, if we stop the period after the word changes, and then instead of saying related to Smart Growth, would that cause any problem, do you think? COMMISSIONER CARON: Where are you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what's the thing -- how can you be -- Smart Growth, first of all, is becoming a trite word these days anyway, so it doesn't really -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm worried about, Brad. I mean, everybody -- I listen to some people say that we should have smart growth every time we want to turn something down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm worried about that. So I don't want to have them come back to me and say, well, you signed a document that said you support my principles, how can you turn it down? And that's exactly what I'm concerned about in our position here on the Planning Commission. I'm not trying to say no to your request, I'm just trying to make sure that we don't put ourselves in a box. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, obviously I think Smart Growth's an important part of the community. But again, the words don't have that precise a meaning that we'd get in trouble. Smart growth to you, Mark, might be to tear down half the houses in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But smart growth to you is, and I've heard you say it many times, higher density and more height, and I disagree with you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Appropriate density at the appropriate places. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I disagree with your -- I don't want to be put -- and Brad, I mean-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what I'm trying to save, I'm trying to save your rural community by that. Anyway, you can change it. I mean, she needs something to -- it would help her that the Planning Commission will listen to her, I guess is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We also understand Smart Growth may have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we can skip it if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Skip what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The whole thing. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, Brad, if you're trying to do something, we're not trying -- personally I'm not trying to not do it, I'm just trying -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If I'm at the foundation and I get a thing where Smart Growth may have a positive effect, then why am I funding this girl for a Smart Growth study? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you're studying it to see if it does happen. If it does happen, that's Page 97 - - ,._- 'F'" ,,,-""""-'''---'''-~'''''''''''''-'''''''''---'''''-~-'--- ~ ".."",,,,-.~.,"~~~-".,.-^ 161 1 j 66 - , May 7, 2009 a good thing, and then those parts of it that address that issue may have value. But those parts of it that say more of us ought to be in a tuna can in a 50-story high-rise building, that to me isn't a good thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL I think the effect on obesity among children is not going to be based upon high-rise density. I think you'll find walk-able parks, I think you'll fmd anti-sit in your apartment and play video games. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you're okay if you just do the study in the first paragraph. I think the second paragraph is okay. It's talking about active living; healthier eating and active living -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Walk to the comer store. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as opposed to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it says by the adoption of -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm with you on Brad's-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Smart Growth doesn't mean high-rises in Golden Gate Estates, I guarantee you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL it says by the adoption of environmental systems policy changes, if they're related to Smart Grovv1h. And if we just drop those words, I think anybody on this board ought to be happy to promote any of those things. I just don't know if the Smart Growth connection is the right way to do it in this county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It shows the need for people to study Smart Growth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we said that in the first one. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Commissioner, as a brief add-on to this discussion, transportation, particularly pathways transportation reviewer, he's heavily involved with Smart Growth and in fact is partially funded by Smart Grovv1h. It promotes walk-able communities. Also the Complete Streets Program which includes sidewalks, full medians and pedestrian facilities on the streets, ADA facilities being pre-planned into those roadways. But I do believe there is also a tie to I want to say a slightly higher density when it regards -- I think there's a tie to it, when it regards transit uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is he the same guy that's putting in that multi-million dollar, filling the canal and move the road along 951 that's got to be costing us millions to put in a 10- foot wide asphalt path up and down 951 ? I mean, that's a huge cost right now when we have such little money. I cannot believe the way we're doing that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I would have to refer that over to my director. Unfortunately I can't answer that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, if your fear of Smart Growth -- put the period, kill related to Smart Growth. It doesn't change the sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's why -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know, but the evil Smart Growth is not sneaking in here. I mean, it's -- and then the last thing is Healthy Kids. Healthy Communities grant. I mean, that's all it's for. It's a grant for them to make 260 bucks, hire a staff member that's just going to study how we can make our community better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we say in the last sentence, I also understand Smart Growth can have a positive effect on obesity? Does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. I mean, if you think it may not have. I mean, the letter states it has a positive effect. I don't know how Smart Growth would hurt the commun -- but you're fine. Page 98 . 161 !ay 7,206 6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I am so used to dealing with attorneys about everything I write, so I'm just trying to be real careful. Other than that, I think that if we can make those couple of changes, personally I have no problem with it, but I'll do what this board tells me to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's what you do, mark the changes, I'll send you the word. You don't even have to show me what you send. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I can't send it back to you because we can't communicate off record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I said you don't have to show me. Just send it to Stacy -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can assure you, the most changes I would have would be just what I suggested. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you have Stacy's address. Between you and Stacy from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so what I would -- if you can send this to me, I'll send it out as soon as I get it from you, the same day. Is that okay with the Planning Commission. Anybody object? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Whatever the chairman wants to do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, without offending the conservative right neighbor, I wonder, does our job specification allow us to be an advocate for any of these causes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Mr. Klatzkow's call. MR. KLA TZKOW: I wouldn't do it, but I'm not going to tell you that you shouldn't do it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You wouldn't do this? MR. KLA TZKOW: No, I don't think this is your role. But that's just personal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Just like the EAC, we don't want to go outside a role that-- MR. KLATZKOW: That's personal. I mean, I don't think this is setting a good precedent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To support a grant application for the county? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but then everybody and their mother is going to come down here with a grant application and now you're going to have to say what you like, what you don't like. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't the BCC do this? Just out of curiosity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, I think the mistake -- I'll tell you what, I mean, I can do it as an individual. I'll do that. Let's just skip it then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. New business is concluded. Public comment? Heidi, do you want to say anything at all? Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. We're all in favor. Aye. We're out of here. ****** Page 99 -".~ ---,~"- - ~-<-_ IU U" , .- '-"'-~'.~~-""--'--'''''''-~"'---''-' - _.....It.-........_" 96 ';'. 161 1 May 7, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:02 p.m. i COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ~J\ ? JJb~ MA STRAm, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on V as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 100 16 I 1 81 jl March 18,2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE Fiala ~ CONTRACTOR'S LICENSING BOARD ~:~~ng J..' - OF COLLIER COUNTY RECEIVED g~~~a F Naples, Florida MAY 2D2DD9 Marc h 18, 2009 Board of County Comm . ISSloners 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 9:00 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' Lee Horn Terry J erulle Thomas Lykos ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the CLB Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Mise Carres Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervi~~JJ d-~OO item# l~I:CUB1- Page 1 . IT'I't' T 17 ;_"'___..''''"~ -~,.."" -.. 'II w,.,..."~."....,,.._ ~ 16'1"2). Marc , 2009 .. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call the meeting of the March 18th Collier County Contractor Licensing Board to order. 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 which the appeal is to be based. I'd like to open the meeting with roll call starting to my right. MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle. MR. L YKOS: Tom Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd. MR. QUITE': Eric Guite'. MR. HORN: Lee Horn. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good morning, everyone. Just for an opening statement real quick before we get too far into this, I've been asked to just mention real quickly that all the members on the board, please make sure that you are speaking clearly into your microphones, number one. And also, the Chair will recognize any questions that you may have from some of the respondents. Because what we're doing is, we're getting into too many questions going on at one time and answers are being sent and the court reporter has a very difficult time trying to transcribe all this information into the minutes of the recordings. And as you know, we have to have this in verbatim, so let's be very careful on how we ask the questions. If you have a question, just you can either hit me or nudge me or raise your hand or something of that nature and we'll recognize you for the questions, okay? Also, it makes it easier for the TV cameras, which we're on media. Everyone knows that we are on camera, and for the cameras to Page 2 " h...___....,._~___~. ---~.....,.- """"",--_._"",,."'.___" _ 1 . .... "'<f~ ",,- 1611137 I . , March 18, 2009 zoom in on the person that is asking the questions. Okay? All right. Is there any additions or deletions to the agenda? MR. JACKSON: Good morning. For the record, Ian Jackson, Collier County Contractor Licensing. Under new business, Cedric Eckenrode, contesting a citation, will be dismissed. Again, under new business, Alberto Trevino requests a continuance for the hearing to be moved to April. And under public hearings, Case No. 2009-06 will be withdrawn, please. And that's it for staff. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Anyone else have any additions or deletions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If not, I need a motion to approve the agenda as amended. MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a section. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Everyone has read the minutes from last month, I assume, board members. Ifwe have found anything wrong or any changes we need to make; otherwise, I need a motion to approve the minutes from the Page 3 ,._,---- 1__ --",-",~-,.- -' ."....~.~.~-".. . .. "_""""'_~<_<F> 1611 187 March 18, 2009 February 18th meeting. MR. L YKOS: Motion to approve, Lykos. MR. GUITE': Second, Guite'. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Under discussion, we have an end of the month report given to all the board members regarding contractor licensing activity and unlicensed contracting, a lot of different things. Mr. Ossorio, would you like to comment on this at all? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Mike Ossorio, Collier County Contracting Licensing Supervisor. Not really. It is what it is. You'll see on the date October, November, December, January and February and the year to date is 265,980. And you'll see on the left-hand side, starting with October, new licenses. And November -- and this is pretty well being steady. You'll see an increase probably in June and July and August for reinstatements from -- and also you're going to see a spike in renewals in August and September. So it looks like we're doing pretty good. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: By looking at this, looks like licensing's bringing in quite a bit of revenue. This is only for a five-month period; is that what it is? October through February? Page 4 "'~"'-'~'-"'- ---- """"_.....--.,'...._-_. --.. - ..0,..--.'--' 16 It r'~ B 7 March 18, 2009 MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Pretty good. Okay, any questions, discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, I'm going to switch things around just a little bit here this morning, only because we have some people that are here that need to probably get to work. And I'm going to go into public hearings at the moment, if we will, and I'm going to ask that in Case No. 2009-05, Charles C. Willey, d/b/a B& W Paving Contractors of Southwest Florida, Inc., please be represented, come to the podium and be sworn in, please. MR. BRYANT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. David Bryant. I'm Mr. Willey's attorney only for this motion that I'm going to make to continue this matter. I do not represent Mr. Willey in the case in chief because of the fact that in the past, distant past, I did some legal work, just minor, for one of the people involved in this matter. So Mr. Willey has retained William Hazzard to represent him in this case. Mr. Hazzard could not be here today because he's taking his daughter to visit several schools where she's been admitted to law school. But he has retained Mr. Hazzard. Mr. Hazzard will be representing him. I've discussed this matter with Mr. Zachary and also Mr. Neale, and provided them a copy of my letter to them requesting the continuance. And I'd like to make it a part of the record. I don't know if I need to introduce it with the Chair or if Mr. -- MR. NEALE: Introduce it to the Chair. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. BRYANT: Thank you. I'd just like to make that part of the record, showing the reason for the continuance and that Mr. Hazzard will be representing Mr. Willey. Like I said, I'm only here for the limited purpose of requesting a Page 5 ,',_. - --- ___lIV~ ; ",_,~_" o-'~M_ , .....""-..'~-- -,..."""'~-"." 1 I ~ rParCh h, ~ continuance in this matter. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I understand. MR. NEALE: Board will need to move that into the record, so make a motion and -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. I'll motion that we bring this letter dated March 9th, 2009, attention Mr. Zachary, into evidence please. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Okay, and also then you're asking -- requesting a continuance of this until next month? MR. BRYANT: Until Mr. Hazzard can represent Mr. Willey. And I assume that he will be here prepared to represent him in April. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, then we'll go ahead and I'll need a motion to make a continuance for this case of 2009-05 and postpone it until the meeting of April 15th, is it? MR. NEALE: Uh-hum. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So on April 15th, all people will be ready to go and the case will be heard. We all understand that, okay? A motion thereof? MR. BOYD: So moved, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion. MR. GUITE': Second, Guite'. Page 6 --.,.,-._,e__..,_H ""---'~"'-'-- "-,, .~--,,~~" 16 11 197 ~ March 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a second. Motion and a second on the floor to continue the Case No. 2009-05. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. MR. BRY ANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for taking it out of order, too. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Not a problem. You're welcome, sir. MR. L YKOS: Michael, do you want us to hold these till next month, or are you going to reissue this packet? MR. OSSORIO: I believe that we're going to pick it up and we'll distribute it back in April, so -- MR. LYKOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One last question. This letter for evidence, should this go with the packet or, Mr. Neale, do you need this, or Mr. Zachary need this? MR. NEALE: The court reporter. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Court reporter? Okay. I'll give it to you after the meeting. Okay, now we can go back to business. New business. Is a Mr. Earl A. Carron, III present? One last call, Mr. Carron? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, we'll postpone that one maybe until a few more minutes. Maybe he's running late in traffic. Page 7 -"-'-. " o,_.w_~ -~,-- -. _...,._~".._... March 18, 2009 How about Noel Agosto, Jr. Are you present? 16 11 87 11 MS. AGOSTO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you please corne to the podium and be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Agosto, you are corning before us today. It appears that you have applied for a tree trimming license. MS. AGOSTO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And that you have passed the test. But unfortunately there are some issues on your credit report that we're here to look at. MS. AGOSTO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Does (sic) the board members have a chance to look over the packet to have any questions or discussion you'd like to ask, or would you like to open with the reasons of what's on this credit report? Which we have all looked at it and there are some things that are derogatory, for sure. MS. AGOSTO: Yeah, that's for sure. I've had some rough times in the past. I mean, personally I didn't think that would count against me for my licensing in the future. I didn't know -- I mean, I'm working on everything little by little as I can. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well-- MR. JERULLE: Michael, is he applying for tree trimming or tree trimming and landscaping? Mr. Ossorio? MR. OSSORIO: He's actually applying for two licenses: One is landscaping, one is trees. So he's requesting two certificates. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: As I see now you're licensed in several other counties. Or let's just say that I see business tax receipts. I'm not sure that they're licenses or if Lee County's tax receipts allows you to work in what you do. lt says on the Lee County business and tax, it shows a lawn and/or landscaping service. Page 8 WAn\' ._''',,'-~, -,....." ,~"'~,- .-- 161il Bic It March 18, 009 Now, Mr. Ossorio, are you familiar with Lee County's licensing as far as does this allow him to do the things we wants to do today? MR. OSSORIO: In Lee County it's just a business tax. They decided not to regulate tree service and landscaping. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: They did. MR. OSSORIO: So -- and that's where he's got his experience, over in Lee County, working and doing trees and landscaping. We didn't take a look at the medical, just at the whole application itself under his credit and forwarded it to the licensing board. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. AGOSTO: Yeah, that's -- well, every time, like we started off in Miami, Dade County, and moved up. I got -- eventually I took the courses for Broward County, because I had to take some exams also for Broward County. And then eventually my father moved up here and he wanted to move, so that's when I got the Lee County. And then I started applying for Collier County. But supposedly those licenses is what they've always -- like they've always told me what I've needed in those other counties to do what I do, which is mainly tree trimming, lawn maintenance and a little bit of landscaping here and there. In the sense of like whenever a tree's removed, sometimes people want a tree to be replaced or two, depending on the situation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long have you been in business in the other counties? MR. AGOSTO: In Miami, has been for 10 years. I started back in 1999, September. And a few -- like two or three years later, I got it in Broward County. And in Lee County has been I think back in '07 I got it, '08, around there. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think you're going to have to give me a little advice here, Mr. Neale. I'm looking at the credit report from him Page 9 ,.-,,,,,,-, --<i ",~_,,,-,,,,"~",'~~"'--' """'."'''''-~-''''''-''''_ - 'r___-"-, -,~".- 16 I ~ar~ ls, 201 personally, and then I'm looking at a corporate report or a corporate entity return. And I'm not seeing anything on the corporation, but I'm seeing a lot on his personal. MR. NEALE: Well, the way the Collier County ordinance reads is that if he's applying for licensure as a partnership corporation, business trust or other legal entity, and he is applying as Noel and Jf. Tree Services, Inc., I believe. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: Then the requirement is that a credit report from a nationally recognized credit agency, if the business has been in existence for more than one year. If it's been in existence for less than one year, a credit report on every business organization which the applicant/qualifier/agent was required. If neither of the above is applicable, a personal credit report on the applicant/qualifier is required. In truth, his personal credit report shouldn't even be in this packet. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right, that's what I thought. In reality, we're looking at his corporate return. MR. NEALE: The business one's the only one to look at. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Any questions from the board? MR. JERULLE: Yeah, did you take deposits from your customers? MR. AGOSTO: Deposits? MR. JERULLE: Yes. MR. AGOSTO: In which sense, like before I start a job? MR. JERULLE: Correct. MR. AGOSTO: No, I prefer always to just -- once I'm done, I get paid in full once the job is done. I don't like dealing with deposits. Depending on certain situations where then I do a whole contract, they've given me a certain amount in front. Because it's a Page 10 1III11UI "W'"",....." .._'."" _'_"',_,",m U ilIIll . ~.- ="._..",-, " 16viu-~ 1 S~09 r4 large -- because I do a lot of work for golf courses sometimes in Miami and also in building complexes and personal. And the golf courses, I've done work for them so many years where I have to trust already that I know that within the month or so I receive a check. But like when it's small houses or person to person, I'd prefer to -- if it's a large amount, I take a certain amount up-front, everything's signed and whatnot, approved by the owner of the house and whatnot and everything. Nothing just under the table, none of that. I don't like to work like that. I prefer to have all my papers for future references, so -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Does staff have any recommendations? MR. OSSORIO: I recommend we approve his license. MR. JERULLE: Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I just -- if he's in a position where he has -- now we're not supposed to talk about the debt that he has because it's not on the business, but ifhe's not taking deposits and he's in a business where he's performing a service and then he's getting paid for it, I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Any conversation with probation as far as for a period of time just to monitor, or no? Hold on. MR. L YKOS: If you look at his business report, it's pretty clean. There's a couple of minor, very minor problems on his business report. But looks like he keeps his business and his personal separate and he looks like he takes care of his business. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Then if there's any (sic) other discussion, I'll entertain a motion. MR. GUITE': I'll make a motion that we approve. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion on the floor to approve. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second, Jeru11e. All those in favor of approval of this gentleman's license to be Page 11 ......,,";". u.. ,",,-"'-""-~~'~' ""'<'-"~"'-I""""; ,,- . _~__.n 16 il 1 B 7 ,. March 18, 2009 granted, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Good luck. MR. AGOSTO: What process do I go -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, you'll have to go down to Collier County, but you can't do it today, okay, because all your records will still be here. So probably first thing tomorrow morning you go down there and see either Maggie or if you don't, you can find Michael in there somewhere and he'll direct you on the procedures you need to go through to continue it out and validate your license, okay? MR. AGOSTO: Thank you. Appreciate it. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You, too. Okay, next, I have a Dennis Gibbs is on the agenda, contesting a citation. I'm showing a contest of a citation. MR. GIBBS: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you come up and be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: From what I can gather from this -- Mr. Jackson, would you like to be sworn in also, if you haven't been yet? MR. JACKSON: Yes, please. (Ian Jackson was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm gathering this was a citation that had been issued by yourself -- Page 12 " ~ ~.~~ ilII If ,..."_.",,,~,-,.,,...,,.," '^'''''''''''~~' . ...,' .4. ,~.-...._ 16 ~ 1 87 f:1 t> ' March 18, 2009 MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- in an investigation you did? MR. JACKSON: Right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And found that this gentleman was in-- was not in compliance when you issued a citation? MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And this gentleman decided to appeal this and wrote a letter to James Mudd through Collier County management, and he's here today to contest that. Would you like to explain, first of all, what happened in the case or what happened in the citation, why it was issued? MR. JACKSON: Certainly. I've got a little summary that I've drafted. On February 9th, I observed signs of flooring installation at 166 Palmetto Dune Circle. I approached the front door and spoke with the homeowner, Mr. Roth, explained who I was and what we do, regulate the licensing of contractors. I then asked Mr. Roth if I could come in and talk with the contractor installing the flooring. Mr. Roth led me to the rear room where I met with Mr. Gibbs. While speaking with Mr. Gibbs, it was discovered that Mr. Roth was in contract with Home Depot for the flooring. Home Depot then hired a company by the name of U.S. Installation Group, Certified General Contractor. U.S. Installation Group then hires independent installers with their own licenses and their own workers' compo exemptions. While speaking with Mr. Gibbs, it was established that Mr. Gibbs had his own company, Dennis M. Gibbs, LLC, a business tax receipt from Lee County for installation of carpet and vinyl or wood flooring, which in Lee County is the requirement. The business tax receipt, that is. Page 13 , ~ ..,......,-.......-.,,---...' ~~-..,..;~...'...."',..... ... _._,->-"~ 1 ~lrJ 1 &109 II Mr. Gibbs also has an active workers' compo exemption, valid through December of this year. I then explained the license requirement in Collier County for the installation of floor coverings, according to Ordinance 2006-46, Section 1.6.3.20. At this time, per the ordinance, a citation in the amount of $300 was issued to Mr. Gibbs, and a general stop work order was verbally issued, explaining that Mr. Gibbs is not permitted to contract for flooring in Collier County until he obtains the required license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Were there any other people on the job at the time? MR. JACKSON: No. Given the fact that the installation of the flooring for Mr. Roth, the homeowner, was substantially complete and the possession of a current workers' compo exemption held by Mr. Gibbs, and most importantly to not adversely affect the homeowner, I did allow this particular job to be completed. And that was a case closed at that point. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: When you gave the citation, or when you saw this information happening, what percentage of the job completed would you say was in your opinion? 80 percent, 90 percent? MR. JACKSON: Going by a visual recollection, at least 60 percent. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say at least 60 percent. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Any questions from the members of the board? MR. GUITE': What type of flooring was it? MR. JACKSON: Carpet. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Gibbs? MR. GIBBS: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you like to give us a little scenario on the letter that was written by you and why you're here. MR. GIBBS: Yeah, I was hired by Home Depot or U.S. I&G. I Page 14 -, -," j." 'I T -_ 1flff "'_'.__..' ...."..-..~.,.~.,"".,-".,,- _._, 16 I 11 IB7 I March 18,2009 work about 20 hours a week and I'm supposed to do the minor repairs. If guys forget or are short on closets, I do little closets, little bedrooms and things like that. And I usually work about 20 hours, because I'm trying to slow down. I get Social Security this month for the first time. And they're supposed to keep me supposedly in Lee County. But when they give me the work orders, I never really look. I just go out to the job. If I had known I was in Collier County, I wouldn't certainly -- because I'm making $400 a week, I'm not going to go for a $300 fine. But when he told me about that, I said fine. I took the fine and I'm okay with it. I shouldn't have been out there. But what confused me was when the homeowner came out and yelled at Mr. Jackson that you can't do this to me, you're upsetting my home, he said to me, all right, now go back in there and finish the job. I said, you're kidding me. You just gave me a $300 fine, and you want me to go back in there and finish it? How do I know you're not going to give me another one? He said, I won't. I said, so you're telling me to do it now? And he said, yes. I said so, then I don't get the fine? Yes, you still get the fine, but you can do it. That confused me. So then I went back in and the homeowner says, well, I'm glad to see you here. And I said, I don't know if I should do this because he's still sitting outside. He said no, he came knocked on the door and said he gave you permission to do it. And the homeowner felt the same way I did, how could you have permission to do it and get a $300 fine? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I believe, Mr. Gibbs, that you're-- in some sense of the word you're correct, but in other senses, maybe Mr. Jackson was I guess doing a favor to the homeowner. MR. GIBBS: Only when they yelled at him. He didn't care. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I don't really think I can believe all of that. I mean, I can understand him being upset or the homeowner Page 15 n'l l'""lI" ~ ,,-.,.....~..., ........, N' ." . .. -'",'-- 1 ~L!I~lo9 . being upset, because now they have someone that technically is unlicensed -- MR. GIBBS: I'm saying he wouldn't -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- doing the job. MR. GIBBS: -- have changed his mind. He wouldn't let me go back in. He said, well, you get -- I called up U.S. I&G, and I said, you have to get a licensed Collier licensed guy out here to finish the job, he won't let me back in. He called me back and he said, we can't find anybody. That's when the homeowner asked me, what's going on here? I said, I can't go back and finish the job, I'm getting a $300 fine. And that's when they read him the riot act. After they read him the riot act he came back to me and said, hey, could you do me a favor? Now, he wants me to do him a favor, and I'm asking him to do me a favor. I only work 20 hours a week. You know, I'm just doing this -- no big deal. I don't have any employees, nothing. I said, do me a favor, I won't come back to Collier County, I'm not even supposed to be here. But $300 is going to kill me. He said, I'm doing my job. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, that's the terminology-- MR. GIBBS: And then changed it to say okay, now you can do it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That is the terminology-- MR. GIBBS: And if I can do it-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Excuse me, Mr. Gibbs. MR. GIBBS: -- why? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I understand what you're driving at and I can understand the fact that yes, Mr. Jackson was doing his job and you were unlicensed at the time. He could have very well closed the door and told you to get off the property, put a stop work order on there and made you leave. Page 16 """... ~ j .,."~ -....'".--.,..-.. IlMLJ lQ 7009 . MR. GIBBS: That would be fine and that's what I was going to do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But again, you have to understand, the meeting of this board is to protect the interest of people in Collier County . MR. GIBBS: Exactly. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. And this is what probably he was trying to do. He was trying not to damage these people because they had half their carpet down and half their carpet not down. In his opinion he had more than 50 percent of the carpet finished, so he was kind enough to allow you to go ahead and do it this time. MR. GIBBS: No, that's -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: However, in the future, ifhe was to get caught here in Collier County again doing it, yes, he would get the $300 fine. MR. GIBBS: Home Depot said we shouldn't have sent you out to Collier County, we'll keep you in Lee County. But what I'm saying here is what is it? Either I can't work or I can work. Only according to Mr. Jackson says I can work? Then why give me the $300 fine? He said you can do it. You have my permission to do it. And I did it. And now you're giving me a fine. It's just not right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, you paid the fine, correct? MR. GIBBS: Yeah, and I accepted it. Until he said, well, now it's okay to do it. Well, if it's okay to do it, why am I getting fined? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's kind of like let's say a sheriff goes out and gives a driver a ticket for a seat belt, right? Don't have a seat belt on, so he gives you a citation. Go down the street two miles and another sheriff gives you another citation. He's not telling you, you can't do it, but he's telling you if you do it, you're going to get a citation. MR. GIBBS: Well, if I got stopped for a DUI and the police Page 17 -',,-,,-_....... ... . ,..,_...'"""".."....',h. "" -.."._,.".~--""'- "'..... -.",.-....."....--.'" .' _..,~........_- -"..,;~..~>..~"'- 16 111487 II March 18, 2009 officer said to me, I'm going to give you permission to drive home, you go wait a minute, what did you stop me for if it's okay to drive? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, we're going-- MR. JERULLE: Excuse me, may I ask a question? Why are -- are you contesting the fine, is that why you're here? MR. GIBBS: I'm contesting the fact that he said that I couldn't do it and I agreed with it and I said fine, and I paid the fine. But then he said you can do it. Well, if I can do it, I don't deserve a fine. You're telling me to do it. MR. JERULLE: So you're contesting the fine? I'm just confused. MR. NEALE: The issue with the board is if you contested the fine prior to the time you paid it, this board would have some authority. At this point since he's already paid it, this board has no authority to say to the Clerk of Courts, to tell Dwight Brock that he has to issue a check back to this gentleman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Correct. MR. NEALE: So while, you know, the board I think is good in hearing what he has to say and everything, as far as the board having any power to effect him having pay that fine, it's a moot point, frankly. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Exactly. We've heard your comments and we've discussed the letter that you wrote, giving you the courtesy to do that. But again, like Mr. Neale said, it is out of our hands. If you'd have contested the fine -- or the citation before you paid it -- MR. GIBBS: You mean I shouldn't have paid it? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, you didn't have to. You have 30 days to do it in. You could have contested it and came in here and then maybe we could have backed it off. But at this point you've already paid it. Like Mr. Neale said, we can't go back and tell the Clerk of Courts to refund your money, because that doesn't happen. So we appreciate your comments. Page 18 -- ___.IIl_,'.L _"""C"_,_M' --<_.,....,~'..'..~- -- ____Me' 1611 B7 II March 18, 2009 And Mr. Jackson, I think you did a great job and we'll go to the next case. Thank you much for coming in. MR. GIBBS: Thank you. MR. L YKOS: For the record, I would have upheld the citation. If you would have not paid it and came in and contested it, I would have upheld it. You were operating in Collier County without a license. I would have upheld the citation. I think maybe, Mr. Ossorio, you need to just have a meeting with your staff to discuss when they make a subjective decision like that what's appropriate, if you don't have a policy in place. MR. OSSORIO: There is a policy. The building director and I, we do talk about it on issuing the stop work orders, and we have to apply real common sense in the field. If there's an unlicensed roofer and he's putting, you know, sheeting on the roof, whatever it is and it's going to rain, we let them go ahead and continue up to the point till it dries in. In this particular case, it was a minor infraction. He had workers' compo insurance, he had the exemption, he was 60 percent done. I think Ian Jackson did the right thing. Now, ifhe just started, we would have probably issued the stop work order and we probably would have -- Home Depot would have probably had to bring someone else out there. So we do have a policy out there-- MR. L YKOS: Thank you. MR. OSSORIO: -- and we try to go ahead and outweigh the means and the ways of the homeowner and the consumer and the unlicensed contractor. So we try to do as best we can. MR. L YKOS: I think you did a great job, Ian. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, thank you so much for coming in, though. You're free to go. All right, we'll go to the next one, which is another item under new business. A Mr. Alberto Trevino? Page 19 ",-----"" """"-"""""~"" ,~-,..,,,,,,,",-,, -.,.,,--. 16M~J 18,Ql9 I MR. L YKOS: That's moved to April. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Oh, I'm sorry, it is moved to April, you're right. Okay. Well, let's go back up then. Is there an Earl A. Carron, III? Have you come in? Please come to the podium and be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Carron, you are contesting a citation that was issued to you? MR. CARRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The citation was issued on February 3rd for carpentry, engaging in business or acting in the capacity of a contractor, right? MR. CARRON: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Kennette, please, would you come to the podium, be sworn in. (Mr. Kennette was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Kennette, apparently you issued a citation to Mr. Earl A. Carron, III on February 3rd for engaging in business in carpentry. Would you like to explain the reasons and what happened that day that you gave him the citation, please. MR. KENNETTE: For the record, Allen Kennette, Contractor Licensing. On February 3rd I received a call from the code enforcement in the City of Naples that on Kingfish Lane that he had observed a handyman putting in an exterior door on a garage for a homeowner. When I arrived there, there were two gentlemen there: The gentleman here that's protesting the ticket, Earl Carron, III; and a Robert Thomas. The homeowner was also there. I asked the homeowner what was taking place. He said, I have a handyman, Mr. Earl Thomas, that Page 20 I -... ~;""""I~"' _a. ""...,."......". _~, . ..._...^.~ """>n." ~ " . ........~ 1~t11e~09 . does a lot of my work for me around the property and is replacing an exterior door for me. The home is right on the bay. The exterior door would need a permit from the City of Naples before any work would be done on it. At that point I informed him that a permit would be required for this door. The door was basically almost installed; all that was left was just some molding around it. The other gentleman was there- with him, Mr. Carron, and he informed me that he was here just to take away the old door. Mr. Thomas said that he was here to help him install the door and he had a van that he would remove the products. He was out of work, he decided that he would give him a little extra money to help him install this door on the homeowner's home. And that's where we're at. So both persons were issued citations: The handyman himself, Mr. Robert Thomas, was issued a citation for working out of the scope of his license, along with Mr. Carron for assisting in the carpentry work of installing an exterior door in the home. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do we know that Mr. Thomas paid his fine already? MR. KENNETTE: Mr. Thomas is making payments. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Making payments. MR. KENNETTE: Right. Because he also said that he was slow on work, that he would make payments on it. And so did Mr. Carron, said that he was out of work, that he would also make payments on it, but he didn't feel that he should get it because he was just here assisting Mr. Thomas. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Carron, would you like to -- you've heard the comments. Would you like to tell us your reason for wanting to contest the citation? MR. CARRON: What he said is basically true. But someone just called me up and asked me to give him a hand for a couple of hours, Page 21 -. ,.._", "...-~.._. .'. ='~.,," - -_...._-,.._~" 1 ~a!c!l~~~ 1 and I did. I didn't really check for a permit or I didn't know what license who had. I was just giving someone a hand, you know, because it was too heavy for him. You know, he asked me to give him a hand because it was too heavy for him so I did. And next thing you know, I was getting a ticket. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. So obviously then you do admit that you were wrong. MR. CARRON: If it's wrong to give someone a hand, pick up a door for him, I guess I was wrong. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, the terminology that you've said is not really true, because you were probably putting in the door, correct, or helping put in the door? MR. CARRON: I really was just there because the door was heavy, to give him a hand. I picked up the door, I was supposed to bring back the old door. I didn't know there was a permit, I didn't know anything about the job. I was -- you know. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I think in the future it would be a very good thing for you to do would be to check with the county or City of Naples or county to see in certain things that you are going to go do as a friend, or whatever you're going to do them as, to see if it requires a license to do it and to see if it needs a permit to be issued. MR. CARRON: I figured that had all been done, you know. I really just didn't know. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, no problem. Any other questions from the board discussion-wise? MR. BOYD: I don't have any questions, but I have a comment. I have a problem with this one in the fact that we fine the person that has a license. This gentleman was just along helping out, making a few dollars. He didn't solicit the job, he wasn't acting as the supervisor. You know, he was trying to make a few bucks. And I don't think he had any ulterior motives in helping this guy out, so I don't Page 22 17_".......,~.<."..ffi..,.,.,'""',.,,',__..,"<I' ~- 1 ~rlll7009 . think this one's right. MR. GUITE': I feel the same. MR. KENNETTE: He does not have Workmen's Compo either. If he got hurt on the job, who was at fault would be the owner. MR. BOYD: Well, that would be Mr. Thomas that contracted for the job. MR. KENNETTE: Mr. Thomas does not have workers' compo MR. BOYD: Well, then he's the one that should be getting the fine. MR. KENNETTE: He was. He did. MR. BOYD: Did you fine him for no workers' comp.? MR. KENNETTE: Not for that type of job, no. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But the fact is that ifhe was on that job and if Mr. Thomas did get hurt, then there's no way that the other gentleman could pay a workman's compo payment for him, and it would go right to the homeowner, which again would be damaging someone in Collier County. So I think it is a serious offense, and I think the ticket, you know, is something that was issued correctly. MR. GUITE': Did the homeowner hire Mr. Carron, or did the homeowner hire Mr. Thomas? MR. KENNETTE: The homeowner is a -- hired Mr. Thomas. Mr. Thomas is his caretaker. He does the maintaining of his property. At that time he decided to have the door changed, asked Mr. Thomas if he could change the door out for him. Which he said yes, I could, but I'll need to get somebody with me. And that's when Mr. Carron came into the picture, he got him to help him do the door. MR. GUITE': If I was doing ceramic tile on a condo and somehow my license lapsed and I didn't renew my license and you stopped me, would you give my helpers a ticket too? MR. KENNETTE: No. Because you're licensed. He wasn't licensed to do that job. He needs to have a permit. He can't get a Page 23 ..,-"""""""",,,~.U;''''<_'' - - ",,-,~.--~-.~---""-"----' .. '-'--""--''"'''~'''~-' _._---~ 16 Llh@'?oo9 . permit. That's a permitted job. It's an exterior door on the Gulf. You need to have wind loads and engineering. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Guite', it depends. If you were in a high-rise and you didn't have a license and you had your workers out there and we established that you got some monetary money with those workers who got a 1099, they were independent, we would give you -- not your workers a ticket, but your subcontractor a ticket. MR. GUITE': Exactly. MR. OSSORIO: And that gentleman is a subcontractor to Mr. Thomas. MR. GUITE': Just because he asked him for some help he's a subcontractor? MR. OSSORIO: He got paid. MR. GUITE': I mean, I think we're walking a real fine line here where -- especially in today's economy. I just don't think we can do this. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, but we also-- MR. GUITE': I will not go for this in any way. I mean, just to hire somebody to help you, you've got to get a $300 fine? If I hire somebody to help me move some stuff around my house, you guys are going to come and give him a fine? I mean, this isn't right. I mean, it's not like he has -- he wasn't even contracted with the homeowner, Mr. Thomas was. Mr. Thomas should be in front of us right now. Mr. Thomas and the homeowner. The homeowner is the one that hired the people. As far as I'm concerned, if the homeowner hires an unlicensed contractor, the homeowner's at fault, just as much as the unlicensed contractor. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other comments, questions, thoughts? MR. L YKOS: I agree with Eric. I think the problem here is Mr. Thomas was acting as the contractor. I think what happened was Mr. Page 24 ,,-, ""'-"1" I'l'll .""-,<---,,,--,--,,,, ,,-.....--' -,-._-- 161 ~ . March , 009 Carron was acting as an employee of Mr. Thomas and Mr. Thomas should be the one held liable for this. He had an employee working for him without workers' compo And I think this is a situation where an employee was given a citation and not the contractor. And I agree with Eric, Mr. Thomas should be up here, because he had employees without workers' compo I'll make a motion that the citation be rescinded. MR. GUITE': Second, Guite'. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion on the floor and a second that the citation number 4307 be rescinded. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. You're free to go. Motion was 5-1. All right, what else do we have? That takes care I believe of all the new business. We haven't missed anyone? We'll go into old business. Old business. I'll call up to the podium Calvin Courtney, II, please. Be sworn in, Mr. Courtney. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Courtney, how are you today? MR. COURTNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You were to, I guess come before us again today and bring a third-party balance sheet and profit-and-Ioss statement. MR. COURTNEY: And I made a commitment that I could not Page 25 ..._.. __.r. '4_...'.'. .-...".-.,,,~-.,,.,,.- --. ,,- -.-,..-. l~Lct 1~Z09 . honor. I didn't realize the financial ramifications of that document. I've contacted three vendors, three accounting firms, and the fees are beyond my ability to pay. I didn't realize what was going to be involved in that. When I explained the nature of what I needed, they were wanting to do 12 months worth of review and review the schedule of assets, and it got into thousands and thousands of dollars. And I frankly don't have that to pay. So I didn't realize that or I would not have made that commitment. My intent is to comply with the board. I simply don't have the ability. We were going great guns for 10 months. I was absent for 60 days from Naples due to a change in responsibilities and a death in the family, and the business just came to a stop. There is currently no activity on any of the licenses. I don't have any pending contracts on the segmental paving nor on the landscaping. I am under a business tax receipt doing grounds maintenance. So I really don't have the ability to create the document by a formally educated accountant. My hope is that that changes very quickly. I'm in my tenth month on a 12-month probation. And I'm willing to do whatever you ask, if I'm capable. If we could extend it until I can accrue these funds. They're looking just under $5,000 to do what I'm asking them to do for a CPA or an accountant to sign this, for it to have any validity. And I can't just do that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think I'm going to have to go and have Mr. Neale, if you would bring up the charges or the license that we put on probation and the reasons for all this, just so I understand it again. This is going on for now what, three different times, three months? MR. NEALE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So see if we can't get to the bottom of it. Page 26 '--... - ~ .,-"..,,--=-,_.~-,'"' " 1611 87 . March 18,2009 MR. COURTNEY: Actually, four, I think. Two of them you give me a buy because I was out of town from the death. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I know this is something that Mr. Lykos had asked for, and I think his asking was quite correct. MR. COURTNEY: He's trying to make sure there's not debt being accrued, what he's looking for. I understand. I understand the request. It's a fair request, I just don't have the money. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Courtney, how is that complainant? Are you paying the individuals off? MR. COURTNEY: Yes. Everything is current, or you would know. I think they're set up to contact you if that is not happening. MR. NEALE: The latest order issued by the board was in May 21 st of '08. At that point in time the board reinstated his license. He was on probation for a period of one year. He was to report to the board in October of last year on his activities during the intervening time. Then he was to present to the contractor licensing supervisor a balance sheet and profit and loss. And then at the last meeting the board requested that he come forward with a -- he had come forward with that. And then in October he came with more information, I believe. And then at the last meeting, the board asked him to come up with a third-party compiled statement. The original request was for an audited statement, which I think everyone realized was pretty much out of line. And, you know, at this point he had presented information. The board had asked for it in a different format. The original order did not require audited reviewed compiled statements of any sort. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: From the original order that we gave when the penalty was issued? MR. NEALE: Well, this is the order that was issued after -- when he came back for review, after his first year's probation. Then he came back and this was the order issued last May, to put Page 27 ,-..- '.""",,"" , ~ lIII"'_W_ ....,.........,',._-~ ^'_~'h_'''''..~,~, -- ----- 16/'1 B7 arcli 1 , 2009 him on a year's probation after he was reinstated. So his license was revoked, it was suspended, then he was reinstated in May, he's been on probation ever since May. And subject to the board's review of his financials. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So he's on probation until May of this year. MR. NEALE: Right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And this is now April-- March, sorry. MR. L YKOS: The problem I have is the financial statement that was presented to us initially, the profit-and-Ioss statement, there was no balance sheet presented. The profit and loss had incorrect allocations. Customer deposits were counted as an asset and his income, and they should have been a liability, which was what prompted my request for a balance sheet. My concern is that if you don't understand your financials, then you don't know if you're making money or not and you could be creating the same problem that led you to the reason that you got your license suspended. So I understand it may be expensive to get a balance sheet and a profit-and-Ioss statement that is -- approximates generally accepted accounting principles, but I won't be comfortable allowing you to continue to do business in Collier County until I know that you have a basic understanding of financials and that you can prove to us that you're operating profitably. So that we don't put the community at risk for you to create debt with customers or with vendors again. So maybe you need to take a class on accounting and learn how to do it yourself. But I am very uncomfortable with the fact that you don't understand the financials and that you come here empty handed. MR. COURTNEY: Mr. Lykos, I understand your concern. The last document that I brought, my father and I who is an 81-year-old retired accountant, we did. And the primary problem with that was we cut one customer deposit in cash on hand. And we did a Page 28 .-~~.-- ... ..._ U'~""""-'_',--""i _..",._._", ....Il._~ --,._------~ 16 I I ~?o .r~ Marc 1 , 009 very short form, not understanding quite what you were looking for. I believe that I could get -- and you mentioned the company, and that was one of the three that I contacted -- for them to take a look at the QuickBooks. And I don't pretend to be educated in accountancy. And they're wanting to prepare a tax return. Obviously we now have an extension. But they encompassed a lot of services, and I don't know if that was marketing effort on their part or if they just didn't want to sign it without the comfort. I didn't realize they were going to out and value the trucks before they put their name on it to find a fair market value for dump trucks and trailers. I don't know what document that I'm going to be able to produce for you by a CP A -- I am not one -- that will come any time soon. So I was thinking when I agreed to do this before that there was some intermediate level of bookkeeper that could look at my QuickBooks and say here's what they need. But because it's going before you the board, they're wanting to be very detailed and to get a CP A signature on it. MR. NEALE: I think that's the hang-up, if I may, is that I think the board is requesting that it's a statement that is actually signed by an accountant. I think we all know that if somebody's going to put their professional license on something, they're going to charge a lot more. Whereas if he just has a bookkeeper, just reorganize the books so that they're in proper order, that they don't have to put their signature on, it may be something that Mr. Courtney could afford to have done. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think that would still fall into the same play, though, as far as being something that we could look at that would show Mr. Lykos and the rest of the board members that have concerns over it, that he is legitimate trying to work this out. I know he's been here four times. And I understand Mr. Lykos' concerns, for sure, I have concerns also. Page 29 -- -"". . " _ _!fr',. ^;l_,_..,.....,;~~,._;..,.._..'"'^,,_...u.~.,~_~."""'_..,......"""... 'lI' '. IU1OIO' l!: '41 '101I__",__", .-.._"._,.~"._." 1611 B7 ~ March 18, 2009 Has -- staff, have you heard anything negative or positive about his business or how he's been running it or any other negative comments come in? MR. OSSORIO: None. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: None. The motion that we put him on, the order that was given, is he to report jobs to staff? No. And right now you have no jobs ongoing; is that correct? MR. COURTNEY: No, there -- when I was here before, there was one that I had a deposit on that has been permitted. The permit is closed. It was with the right-of-way department, a homeowner in King's Lake. And that was the only pending thing or any trail of evidence that I have. I have nothing now active on either one, no permits pending on either one of those licenses. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is it because of the economy that's being bad or because of the fact that you're not looking for work? MR. COURTNEY: Two things. Gone for 60 days. I had a great stream, you know, a pipeline moving. And I had to unannounced, go for 60 days from Collier County because of the death. And that, combined with the slow economy, has not been conducive to picking up new work. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So as it stands right now, though, you still have an active reinstated license that is -- MR. COURTNEY: Segmental paving and landscape, restricted landscape. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And restricted to a degree or not restricted at all? MR. COURTNEY: It's restricted. MR. OSSORIO: When you get a restricted landscaping license, you can't do irrigation. Versus if you're unrestricted, unlimited Page 30 -,--~- ,... ..~ T "" .~ .f', "III jlb4ll. . . 1 ,~~" .....". ....-,,_ .r.n_ ,~,-"-~_.--..~'.-'^ ""'---.,..- 1611 87 II March 18,2009 landscaping, you can do irrigation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I'm not real fond of the idea of it, but I would entertain someone's ideas other than myself, to -- he finishes his probation in May. At that time I would like to see, yes, him come back before this board to see exactly how he is doing. And that will give you a couple more months to try to put something, as Mr. Neale might have suggested, something from not necessarily a signed, sealed CP A document, but something that's a little bit more user friendly as far as this board is concerned, as far as reading into what you are actually doing. MR. COURTNEY: May I propose something? I've got to file -- to pay and file an '08 tax return, and I've gotten an extension. And it's not my intention to go to the full length of the allowable extension. If I pay the accounting firm to do the '08 tax return and bring that in here by the end of my probation, will that suffice, Mr. Lykos? MR. L YKOS: You said that you use QuickBooks software? MR. COURTNEY: I do. But let me be forthright. It is not -- I haven't had clerical help, other than my wife occasionally, in a long time. And there is a lot of posting that needs to be done. And I haven't reconciled it to the statement in a while. And that's one of the reasons at 65 to 75 an hour for an accounting firm that the fee is so high. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: They're taking all your information from the past year and trying to enter it into QuickBooks so it comes up with a real readout of what you're doing. MR. COURTNEY: And it be accurate. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It makes sense. I mean, I can understand that for sure. MR. L YKOS: How are you running a business if you're not entering your accounting information on a regular basis? MR. COURTNEY: It is so simple and slow right now, Mr. Page 31 ".-,.....-.....," ~,~~,-...~ --<II' ""_F"~"""_"~ ^'-'""-~'.~.___-.r ,. ....."-- 16 t 1 B 7 0,,1 March 18, 2009 Lykos. It's not as complicated as the general contractor. Right now it's in grounds maintenance. I do the work, my son and I, and we send the bills out on a regular basis. It's very simple. MR. L YKOS: If you call Intuit, who's the proprietary company for QuickBooks, there are local accountants that do technical support. And you can call QuickBooks, call Intuit, find out who the local accountants are to do technical support. You may be able to make arrangements with one of the local accountants to not do the data entry, which is menial work, but get the data entry done, have them come in, look at your books and produce a profit and loss and a balance sheet. And if you can provide for us a report off of QuickBooks -- now, it can still be manipulated, but if you can't figure out how to do your books, I don't know that you could figure out how to manipulate it. But if you could bring in -- MR. COURTNEY: It's not my intent to ma -- MR. L YKOS: If you can bring in a QuickBooks generated, profit and loss and balance sheet, then I know I would consider using those forms and those reports to check up on your business. Okay? So that won't require somebody to audit the value of your vehicles or verify the value of your assets, but it will require you to get the data entered and then bring in one of those technical support accountants to produce those reports and verify they're correct, and that shouldn't cost you $5,000. MR. COURTNEY: And that's through Intuit? MR. L YKOS: That's through Intuit, that's correct. MR. COURTNEY: I'll seek that avenue. That's the best option I've heard yet. MR. L YKOS: And to be very frank, I'm not comfortable with the fact that you can't get your paperwork done and manage your finances. That's the whole reason you got here to begin with. And to use the excuse that you can't afford or have the time or Page 32 ....",'~'""...',_._- '-'_"0'_'<_"-<'."'''''""<1'" r ~ ....-.,......,-- *--,,~. 1611 1ft1 . March 8, 2009 understanding to manage your finances doesn't make me comfortable in allowing you to have your license at all, let alone with the restrictions that we've placed on it. So don't come here anymore and tell me that you don't understand or don't have the time or have the wherewithal to manage your finances. Okay? Don't use that excuse anymore. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: As you can well see, the board's not going to let you off very easy. I mean, only because of the past. Now, you've been on probation since May. Actually, there's no activity been going on, so there's nothing really I guess to worry about the public being damaged. But it's just the fact of you knowing how to run your business. And it sounds to me like you're kind of flying by the seat of your pants. And this is something that I think Mr. Lykos has a concern over. I'm not sure if any of the board members got any comments or suggestions or thoughts? Are they all in agreement? (Nods of heads affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So you can see it's not just him. I just want you to know that, it's not just one man here. We're all on the same plain. So I think it would be good for you to go and do exactly what his thoughts (sic). I mean, try and get someone that can help you do the QuickBooks, try to get some of these entries made, and then bring something back that is viable that we can really look at and we can really see who Mr. Courtney is and how he runs his business the correct way. And I'm sure that this board will go along with something that's maybe not a signed and sealed document by a CP A, but at least something that we can really look at. And again, you're still on probation until May. N ow one last comment I'll make and see if this goes. After May, what happens, Mr. Neale? Is he off probation now and then this is a Page 33 n- -"'" -~.." ,- ."-----.__,.".__""'..~,, 1I. -_..~.-----_..'-- 1611 87 I March 18, 2009 done tabled item? MR. NEALE: Well, at that point the board reviews that -- the probation and determines whether either A, to continue the probation, B, to revoke his license or suspend it, or C, let him go. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. So we have an opportunity in May to make another decision, if need be. Okay. MR. COURTNEY: So I'm unclear. On what date am I to bring that document back? Is it Mayor is it April? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I would say as soon as you can get it to us. It's going to more or less prompt this board to be able to allow you to work much quicker without this being hanging over your head. I mean -- MR. JERULLE: If you're not-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- we're not going to give you a time and date. MR. JERULLE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. JERULLE: If you're not busy, Mr. Courtney, you have plenty of time to make your journal entries. And Mr. Lykos is right. I mean, you have a responsibility as a contractor not only to your clients but also to yourself and your employees by keeping your books. That's part of being in business. MR. COURTNEY: I'm not new to the business world, fellows. I'm a little angry at the wrist slap. And frankly, I've had some very large organizations. I have a Master's Degree in horticulture. I've never made it a focus of mine to be in accounting. I understand the responsibility, and I've always had somebody to do that. And frankly, a lot of the problems I'm experiencing are a result of a son of mine who's had some problems and it all trickled down. So I am not a babe in the woods in this and have had as many as 300 employees and 200 acres of greenhouses. So I understand what you're asking for, and I will diligently seek it. I thought it had a Page 34 ,. .~... "_~M"""_" "~"...~....,,~"....-~,~....,,,"__ . If. ".-... "-""""-'" 1611 B7 March 18,2009 signature. I didn't know that my entering the data on the QuickBooks, the receipts and the fuel charges and all that was pertinent. Today my life is simple. I mow about 30 yards and I send out the bills, and it's really very easy. It's not a lot to manage. So I understand what you're asking. I'm not an irresponsible fellow, and I will do it, I'll be glad to comply. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Like I said, the sooner the better. And when you have something that you can bring before us, all you have to do is give Mike Ossorio a call and he'll put you on the agenda for the following month and we'll get a chance to look at it again. Otherwise, yes, you will definitely be back here in May. If we don't do it between now and then, May you will have something. I would suggest you have something by then. MR. COURTNEY: Thank you all. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. Okay, so much for old business. The public hearings, both of these hearings, 2009-05 and 2009-06, have been tabled, one continued. So those are gone. Any other reports anyone needs to make or wants to make? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. The cones were still in the way when I parked this morning, but I moved them, so I hope I don't get a ticket. Anybody else parked in the same place I did? Okay, good. MR. GUITE': Well, A couple of spaces down. Not in the same space. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, the next meeting is on April 15th, right here in the same building, same seats. Anybody else have anything else? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. Okay, appreciate it, good meeting. And I need to entertain a motion. Page 35 k'~"" ".," lilt P' ~_."'-~'_<"'''_'''_'_"'U_'''''~'''_';''__'''''_' v w-. . 16 I 1 87 March 18, 2009 MR. L YKOS: Motion to adjourn, Lykos. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. All in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let's go to lunch. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:58 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD kt~ Richard Joslin, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 36 o. _~..d_ . ..."...."--,, "-- ~".._---".".--.,~ 1,gk,1<i7 " TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE R.E.cCE.IVED CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD. fli... jUN 1 7 2009 OF COLLIER CC?UNTY ~1:II:s -D.~_l ,~L_ '!"" C'Hln\v Commissioners Naples, Flonda Henning -r It- May 20 2009 Coyle r!!. ' 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 9:00 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' Lee Horn Terry J erulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Patrick White ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer . MIsc. Corres: Date:_ _" Page 1 Item #" _'___ }pies to ~_"'..n_" __~.._._.._- ,- ."....'_~......... . "_ 1"1" ", "...,_,..._N"'~__""'. ~_'''bm 401l4~4>._~.'_""""_ 1611 B7 I May 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'd like to call to order -- good morning, by the way -- the May 20th meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board. 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 start the meeting with my roll call to my right. MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle. MR. LANTZ: Kyle Lantz. MR. L YKOS: Tom Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. MR. GUITE': Eric Guite'. MR. WHITE: Patrick White. MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd. MR. HORN: Lee Horn. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Staff, is there any additions or deletions to the agenda? MR. JACKSON: Good morning. For the record, Ian Jackson, License Compliance Officer. We have a number of additions and deletions, if the board would bear with me. Under discussion, an addition. We would like to discuss a new member orientation for the board, if so inclined. Again, under discussion, a deletion of William C. Daubmann, Mr. Shower Door. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Can we move the discussion for the orientation till maybe later in the meeting? MR. JACKSON: If that would please the board, that's fine with me. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That way we can move the meeting Page 2 --.- , ~ -~ ~ 'I. ~",,;._.....~...-c-_..'M" .".._'...........-,~"--"":........., ".. '....---"," 1611 87 - May 20, 2009 along. Okay. I need a motion to approve the additions or deletions. MR. JACKSON: We have more. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: More, I'm sorry. MR. JACKSON: Under new business, we need to add an order to pay civil penalties. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: An order to pay civil penalties? MR. JACKSON: Correct. The citations that weren't paid that we did a couple months ago. A deletion of Roger P. Boucher, the contesting of the citation. And an addition of Sonia Pajaro, a review of credit report. And if approved by the board, I have documentation to distribute to the board members for that review. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What was the name again? MR. JACKSON: Sonia, S-O-N-I-A. Pajaro, P-A-J-A-R-O. And again, that's a review of credit report for a new license. And under public hearings, Case No. 2009-05, there's been a resolution where the board would still have to hear the resolution, and it's requested that we move that before new business so we can get that out of the way, if so inclined. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: And those are all the additions and deletions. MR. L YKOS: Motion to accept the additions and deletions. MR. GUITE': Seconded, Guite'. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. Page 3 ~-,.",,,,.~,....,-,- -.....- .."",..-..""_l>...... , _..",",-,....,-'~."'.- .,,_."'"_.,.___,_,-,~,._,.~.".._._.,____'_..w.,..."_.._.. 'T"T,,~~M'. Ja~2tJoa7 ~I' MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Moving right along. I need approval to -- motion to approve the agenda (sic) from the March 18th meeting. Any additions or corrections anyone has found? MR. L YKOS: The minutes? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The minutes, I'm sorry. Agenda. MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I need a second. MR. GUITE': Second, Guite'. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. All in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': 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. Under discussion, is there a William C. Daubmann? MR. L YKOS: No, that was-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Oh, I'm sorry. New member orientation. We'll move right into new business then. MR. L YKOS: We approve the resolution for Case 2009-05 at this time. That was one of the approvals that we made. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. Page 4 _ ~M"__'".___ .~'H_,_",,"L,.,'..,<...__" -- 1II1n ...- ,~._._,.__....,." . ".~.,~ --~..~,- ,.~-,- .- MaY2J~ot 1 B7 I MR. JACKSON: Where that will be heard briefly by the board, however. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: In front of everything else? MR. L YKOS: Right. MR. JACKSON: In front of everything else, if so inclined, yes. MR. WHITE: I certainly would like to hear it, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would Mr. Willey, Charles C. Willey corne before the board, please. Corne to the podium, be sworn in. MR. HAZZARD: Good morning, board members. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bill Hazzard from Coleman, Hazzard and Taylor, and I represent Mr. Willey and his company, B& W Paving. Thank you all for your time here this morning. Good morning, Terry, how are you? MR. JERULLE: Good. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, Robert Zachary, for the record, with the county attorney's office. Mr. Hazzard and I have an agreement that Mr. Willey will admit to a violation of the workers' compo provision in our ordinance, and that in exchange for that admission he will be on probation, and staff will supervise his payroll for a year on probation and he would pay a $1,000 fine. That would be the resolution for -- if it's acceptable to the board. MR. HAZZARD: And gentlemen, if I just might comment, that's consistent with the fact that Mr. Willey and his company went through a comprehensive workers compo audit last summer, the conclusion of which was that they found that one employee, none of the complaining parties, that one person who was a part-time person was not appropriately classified as an employee, and they administered a $1,000 fine, which has since been paid. MR. JERULLE: Who is they? MR. HAZZARD: The workers' compo audit. Page 5 --"". ~.."._"-- ",,,~.,,"., <-""~'- 16/1 87 I May 20, 2009 MR. JERULLE: The state? MR. HAZZARD: The state, right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And that was only one employee that was involved in this? MR. HAZZARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Only one? MR. HAZZARD: Yeah, A part-timer. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This is approved by the county, right, in agreement? MR. ZACHARY: Yes, that's acceptable. MR. JERULLE: So just to sum up, you did a state workmen's compo review, one violation, a $1,000 fine, an agreement -- so-called tentative agreement with the county now for one-year probation, and a $1,000 fine? MR. NEALE: And just I would make a suggestion, one further addition, that the board also incorporates a recommendation, no further action to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board as well. MR. HAZZARD: Thank you, Mr. Neale. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Neale, can you recall previous fines that we've levied for workers' compo violations? That $1,000 doesn't seem in line with what we've been doing in the recent past. MR. NEALE: In the past -- I could look at what we've done, what the board has done. In the past, the board has ranged -- depending on the severity of the infraction, I believe the fines have ranged anywhere from the 1,000, $1,500 range up to the maximum of 10,000. But typically they've been -- in a single violation type of incident they've been at the lower end of the range. It's on the more egregious cases where the board's gone to the higher end of the range. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: At this time it's probably in recommendation that we take the county attorney's advice. Page 6 .- . ~ ""'.,....,-.'."..-> ~ ..~""~...,., ".~...'o~.'"_ T ".."-- - - ._~ -. L6 Jo,lodB 7 . MR. WHITE: One question, Mr. Chairman. Question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. MR. WHITE: Being new, not familiar whether it's typical to inquire of the staff as to whether there were any costs relative to the prosecution of the matter and whether consideration of payment of those are part of the process or not, I just look for some direction either from counselor the staff in that regard, as well as the other board members. MR. NEALE: Mr. White, what -- typically that's one of the penalties that's reviewed by the board in an action. Typically when there's a stipulated settlement, the staff has also looked at what their investigative costs have been and decided that those are either incorporated in the fine or small enough that they waive the cost. So it would be something if this was a full hearing, they would put it on. But typically for costs to be put forth there has to be evidence on the record by the county staff as to the costs incurred. MR. WHITE: Understood. That would be essentially then part of the workout and resolution of the matter. MR. NEALE: Right. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If this is all agreeable to the board members, then I'm going to need a motion to accept the resolution. MR. L YKOS: I have another question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Neale, typically the purpose of the fines that we levy are -- let me make sure I say this properly -- our intention is that the fine is in excess of what the defendant would have had to pay had they followed up with their workers' compo in a proper manner, so that it's a deterrent for that contractor and any other person that might hear about this case to avoid paying workers' camp. and misclassifying their employees or whatever it is that led them to be in Page 7 -_."."."'.~------- C_"~'_""~ I , ... """-,,,~~,,".,..~~ ,,-, ,.,~"..,,-,.,;... , ~,,---,,"-"_.' " ','-"--"-""",^ 16 I ~ B7 I May 20, 2 09 front of us. Is that the situation in this case? Is the fine in excess of what Mr. Willey would have paid had he filed his workers' compo reports correctly and had workers' compo on that employee? MR. NEALE: You know, my view on this one is that there's been no evidence put on either side as to what the cost was. I think when the board views a stipulated settlement, which the board has done in the past numerous times, they typically look at that as being a manner in which both parties, both the county staff and county attorney's off -- well, all three parties, county staff, county attorney's office as their counsel and the respondent have all negotiated a settlement that all parties feel is a fair disposition of the matter, that the punishment fits the crime and that it resolves the matter in a way that is just to all parties. MR. JERULLE: When you say the county, that included staff? MR. NEALE: I would imagine. I think staff is certainly -- MR. JACKSON: I was included in the discussion. MR. L YKOS: Ian, is it your recommendation that we accept this settlement? MR. JACKSON: It is. MR. L YKOS: Thank you. MR. WHITE: Point of clarification about the amendment that Mr. Neale proposed with regards to the Contractor Licensing Board making a finding or determination with respect to no action. Would that be made at this point in time or would it be at the conclusion of the year's probation? Just again not familiar with the process. MR. NEALE: That typically is done at the time the original order is entered. As part of the entry of an order in a matter like this, one of the findings the board has to make is what recommendation to make to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. In this case they would make no recommendation. Now, if it was reopened because of a violation of the probation, then the board can Page 8 "--",- -",.......- ......,..""'.<<. -'"''''''''''''''- -''''--'''''-'''''''~ " " "....-~'" 1611 87 II May 20,2009 reopen the case in full and also look at whether there's another recommendation he may make to the state. MR. WHITE: I appreciate the clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Then I will need a motion to accept the resolution that was provided by the county and the respondent B& W Paving Contractors. MR. L YKOS: I make a motion to approve the resolution proposed by the county, with the amendment that we recommend no further action be taken by the State Department of Building and Professional Regulation. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. All those that accept this, please signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': 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. HAZZARD: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're quite welcome. Good luck to you, Mr. Willey. MR. WILLEY: Thank you, sir. Page 9 '~""-'-"'"-' ,,_.."d___C'_.., "'~','_'-'''~-~'''' "" ....".0.._,,_....._.. ,-,-"~,_.,,,.,,;.- M! ~O,12J,9B 7 . CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is there a Mr. Vecchio? Michael Vecchio? MR. VECCHIO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Could you please come to the podium to be sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Also, would I bring to the podium Mr. Ian Jackson, be sworn in, please, if you have not been already. MR. JACKSON: I was. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Jackson, you issued a violation -- a citation, I'm sorry, No. 4567 to a Michael Vecchio? MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you please describe what the citation was involved with, what was to be found? MR. JACKSON: Mr. Vecchio had a contract, a written or unwritten, with a homeowner, Mr. Thomas Ingram, at 8386 Indian Wells Way, where I observed Mr. Vecchio pressure cleaning a roof, which requires a competency card, which Mr. Vecchio does not have. Based on the information at the job site, I issued the citation, and stopped the work. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Vecchio, would you like to respond to that citation charge? MR. VECCHIO: Yes, sir. Everything he said was correct. I was there working. I have been doing this off and on as kind of a part-time thing on the side for the last couple of years, mostly doing jobs for neighbors within my development, within my neighborhood. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If I could stop you one moment. Could you get just a little closer to the microphone, please. MR. VECCHIO: Sure. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you very much. MR. VECCHIO: Is that better? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's better. Page 10 ~- ",',"""~~ _~_'c_.._-._ --,-,-" <r...... 16 I 1 'B ,~ May 20, 2009 7 MR. VECCHIO: As I say, I've been doing this off and on for a few years, small time jobs, mostly for residents in my neighborhood, a lot of elderly people that live in my neighborhood. It's a small community, 44 homes. About four or five years ago I initially took out the license to do the business. At no time I was never referred -- you know, related to me that I needed to have a special license to do -- to be up on roofs, as Mr. Jackson told me. As I found out after the fact when he -- when we did speak after I came off the roof he said, you can do anything you want from the ground as far as pressure washing and cleaning and things like that, but once you step foot on a roof, you need to have a special contractor's license for that. I had no idea. I've been doing this, like I said, off and on for about four or five years. When I initially took out my license, nothing was ever mentioned to me in the licensing form that I filled out, nor was anything ever mentioned to me subsequent to that time. And I've been paying my normal county licensing fee every year through the county just to keep it going. Like I say, it's only a part-time thing. I have, you know a real -- I have a real job. This is just something that I do mostly just to help out the neighbors, more so than anything else. So once he told me that, I stopped, got off the roof. No complaints. I understand. But -- and I'm not -- you know, ignorance is not an excuse; I'm not making an excuse for what I did. What I did was wrong. He pointed out -- Mr. Jackson pointed out to me that what I did was wrong. I really absolutely had no idea what I was doing was wrong, because I thought I had been doing the right thing all along all these years by when I got my letter in the mail every year to pay my licensing fee, I just kept paying it and thinking I was doing the right thing. It was never relayed to me that I needed to do more. So that's -- I just thought I was doing the right thing all along. Page 11 .,.~ --,.."-,-.,, ~,.,~._'d'.._..____ ......-.~,._,.,,~'.,,_.- Ma~ ~, ~JJ3 7 " CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let me ask staff real quick. Does staff have a way of recommending what the license is when they go and apply for it? MR. JACKSON: When Mr. Vecchio is describing the license that he's kept up, I don't want the board to mistake the term license for a business tax. Mr. Vecchio has a business tax, which is, as we know, a tax to conduct business in the county, which has been kept up. So I want to make sure that the board understands that there is no license, it's a business tax receipt. And specifically it shows for a detailing service. I hope that -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's what I read into it also. MR. JACKSON: Okay. MR. WHITE: May I ask staff? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. MR. WHITE: Are you referring to the business tax, is that something that might otherwise be known as an occupational license? MR. JACKSON: It was previously known as an occupational license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Which in realty was never a license or an occupational license. MR. WHITE: Understood. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Always been a business tax. MR. WHITE: I'm glad it's been clarified, believe me. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right, okay. Any other comments from the board? MR. LANTZ: I'm just wondering, have you obtained a license now or in the process of obtaining one? MR. VECCHIO: I had thought about doing that, but I've gotten to the point where I've decided to not even -- I have another job. I'm a firefighter by profession, so that keeps me very busy. I have a newborn child at home; I have a lot of things going on in my life, so -- and plus with the -- you know, I just decided at this time it was time to Page 12 v.~~ . -"""",,.,,~ "'~.'."..~,,, -~",-"",--- 161187 .,.1 May 20, 2009 step down and stop doing it, because being up on roofs and doing that kind of stuff is dangerous, it's dirty work, it's -- you know, can be potentially dangerous. So I decided -- when I spoke to Mr. Jackson at that point, me and my wife sat down over the next couple of days or so and we made the decision that we're not going to -- I'm not going to do any more pressure washing at all unless it's my own house. Other than that, I won't be doing anything else. I have no more desire to do it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But you stated that you did it for the past three or four years without knowledge or without understanding the knowledge of what license you needed to have in order to do that? MR. VECCHIO: That is correct, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm waiting for a motion. MR. L YKOS: I make a motion to uphold the citation. MR. GUITE': Second, Guite'. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion and a second to uphold the citation No. 4567. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': 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. The fine is in line. MR. VECCHIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I believe there is a 30-day time span in which to pay this also. Page 13 '-" ..... - r . '''._u__''''....,..._ ."~,,,,",---"" . 1 ~Llo,~9 It MR. VECCHIO: Yes, okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is there an Alberto Trevino present? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. Mr. Trevino was served properly as far as to be here, or he contested the citation? MR. JACKSON: Mr. Trevino initiated the hearing due to a citation that was issued. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Then I'm going to need a motion to uphold the citation then. MR. GUITE': I'll make a motion to uphold. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second on the floor to uphold the citation for an Alberto Trevino. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': 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. Can Mr. Trevino have some type of a letter or -- sent to him? MR. JACKSON: When Mr. Trevino -- typically when he would come into the office and deliver the letter asking for the hearing, he would be given a letter stating that he is on the agenda for this meeting. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Page 14 ...,,_..,--~"..__.....- ".-.,. ,-"",-"--",,,""---,",~,,,_,,,,,,,,,--,,-"."-""- ~"_'N__"" " -"._- -- M\P2J, ~o~ 7 . MR. NEALE: And actually, in the packet there's a copy of the agenda of the letter to him saying that he was advised. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: He was advised, okay. Just for the record. All right, we have a Scott Billings. Scott S. Billings, sorry, are you present? Please come to the podium to be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Billings, you're before us today to reinstate a license without retesting for a tile and marble -- no, I'm sorry, excuse me, Elite Flooring Company of Naples? MR. BILLINGS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you like to express a little bit of why you're here? MR. BILLINGS: Yeah, approximately five years ago I ran into an issue with a contractor not paying me, which hurt me for about $400,000, so I had to declare business bankruptcy. So in turn I just started a new business. My wife owns this business, Kelli Eastman. And in turn, I just really wasn't keeping up watching what my staff was paying the bills, paying the occupational license or business tax, and didn't realize my actual competency card wasn't kept up for the last couple of years. We do mainly high-end hotel/resorts all over the country, and just didn't catch that I wasn't paying this one, so I'm just trying to get it reinstated without retesting. We continually do lots of work all over. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: When's the last time the business was actually licensed? MR. BILLINGS: In this county? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Vh-huh. MR. BILLINGS: I think we've just missed a year. And I went to see that it was up to date and found out it was not. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Staff, what's the normal procedure, Page 15 .,~"-".~ <_~._.,"~..,""";."<,,..,.,, 8.. pew--,.. , __ ~. "'l'll"J'l - _,.,.""..-...0....."...__"_._ ."""'","~_,__...o. ..~." '-"~'.-"- . 4,QY/2J20tt7 " normal time span for a license to be reinstated without retesting? Is it two years? MR. JACKSON: The license would be considered suspended for one year where it could be renewed with penalties. If the license holder had tested within three years, testing would not be required. But the entire application process would have to be completed: Credit report, experience affidavits, everything excluding testing. Mr. Billings tested in 2000, which is obviously more than three years, and per the code testing is required because of the over three years since he tested. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. I'm seeing in the packet that there is a test score section in here, but there's nothing filled out of the test scores that he did take. When that was, in 2000, I guess. I have a blank page. Unless I have a blank page that no one else has. MR. QUITE': How long have you lived in Naples? MR. BILLINGS: I've been here 12 years. Just to kind of fill in a little more, I do -- currently my license is active in Lee County, Charlotte County, Monroe, Dade, Broward County. I've got my license in like 12 or 15 counties and do work there. I just haven't had it in -- you know, sometimes I have the opportunity to do work here, and it just happens to be that I haven't in the last few years here. MR. QUITE': And this is your home county? MR. BILLINGS: Oh, yes, sir. MR. GUITE': And you've renewed it everywhere else except here. MR. BILLINGS: My staff was taking care of it, our girl in our office. And I just didn't realize -- actually, Lee County was (sic) at the same time didn't get renewed, but I went in front of their board and they just reinstated it, so -- and that was a month ago or two months ago. MR. NEALE: Just for the board's information, what I would suggest is the relevant section of the Collier County ordinance, and Page 16 - --..."".....-"'......,....-.'....,.,....--''''''"' 161187 I May 20, 2009 this is Section 2.5.3, which reads in part, the Contractor Licensing Board shall take testimony from the applicant and shall consider other relevant evidence regarding whether the applicant meets the requirements of the ordinance. Upon the evidence presented by the applicant and the Contractor Licensing Supervisor, the Contractors Licensing Board shall determine whether the applicant is qualified or unqualified for the trade in which the application has been made. Findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the approval or denial of the application shall be made by the Contractor Licensing Board. The board may consider the applicant's relevant recent experience in the specific trade and based upon such experience may waive testing requirements if convinced that the applicant is qualified by experience, whereby such competency testing would be superfluous. So that's the relevant point for this matter. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Also, Mr. Neale, if I can ask you, in the packet we have several items on here that are very derogatory regarding tax liens. Can you iterate a little bit on why or -- MR. BILLINGS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- what's going on with those? MR. BILLINGS: That -- as you see, I've gotten a lawyer involved with that too, and actually he's supposed to be here today so we can just write him a check and be done with it. But that happened when a contractor here locally didn't pay me roughly $380,000, and I had to declare business bankruptcy five years ago. And at that time, I think it was really in the last two quarters that it was on the payroll taxes. And so they filed liens and then I've been dealing with that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: My only concern is that I'm seeing tax liens that go back to 2002, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2007, which shows kind of a pattern of nonpayment. MR. BILLINGS: 2007? Actually, there's nothing past '04 that Page 1 7 -._-~. "'.' ~->,,-_,"""__'<.,.'~"~- , M , "-'-'''--"'-''-'~''~"'-'-'''' .r JAJ JoP7 ~'""1 we're even dealing with them. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm showing one on mine that shows 4 of '07. MR. BILLINGS: Yeah, I did see something -- yeah there's -- there should be absolutely nothing. I mean, because I haven't -- like I say, I don't even own this business. My wife is 100 percent owner of this business, so I don't know how I -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But you still qualify the business, correct? MR. BILLINGS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do you realize that you are responsible for that business? MR. BILLINGS: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: In all aspects-- MR. BILLINGS: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- tax liens, bills paid to run that business. MR. BILLINGS: Yeah. Where are you seeing an '07 tax liens, if it's something I -- you know, I know the ones that I've been dealing with the IRS, but -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm showing it as a type number Z5064180, 4 of '07, a federal tax lien for 53,700K. MR. BILLINGS: Only thing, I -- you know, sometimes I get things in the mail that I can -- the only way I can testify against this is I get things in the mail where they just reinstate it or add a penalty to it that quarter or something. But in '07, I haven't financially been involved with anything and/or since Stonehenge Tile and Marble, if you see, that's the business I had prior. MR. L YKOS: Two questions, Ian. How long has it been since this license was renewed locally? MR. JACKSON: Mr. Billings qualified two companies, one Page 18 .,,'" ""-'---'~'-"~""".'- , '-'",.'.~."",,,-' nr 'l ""...~_.'-""'~'"--~- MaY~!,>2!O~ B i being Stonehenge and one being Elite Flooring of Naples. And at this point they are both not active or canceled in our system. The last license that was active was the qualification for Elite Flooring, and that expired in '07, which then would have been suspended in '08, January of'08. MR. L YKOS: So it's been over a year. MR. JACKSON: Correct. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. JERULLE: I'm just now recalling, I think my past company -- previous company had dealings with this gentleman. I think I came out on the wrong end of one of his bankruptcies. I think I'll excuse myself from this. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I understand. MR. L YKOS: With regard to the personal credit report, if I remember correctly, Mr. Neale, the ordinance says that we are not to take personal credit information into account with regard to the business. MR. NEALE: If the business has been in business for more than one year. MR. L YKOS: I think based on the letter of the ordinance, that we can approve the renewal of the license without testing. That being said, I don't like the fact that this is going on for more than a year and several months. We get people that come in and they're only a few months behind and that's a lot easier decision to make. The ones that are a year behind, two years behind and longer, it's a little bit harder to accept I forgot to do it when it's gone on for several years. What we're finding, Mr. Billings, is that people weren't working here locally and because of the market they decide they want to come back here and work, and then they realize that they haven't maintained their license locally because they haven't had any work here, and all of Page 19 . .~,.,,, ._~. , "",_.'_,"_,~"_..~__o,....._..,,._.,._..,__._.~.,.~...,",'_'"' .... ._._._~,-- ~~o! 2309 B 7 I a sudden there's an opportunity for work and they decide it's time to re-up their license, and they try to get any additional requirements waived by saying that it fell through the cracks. Now, it appears that you've maintained your license in all your counties. I just -- you know, by the letter of the ordinance, we can approve this without testing. I just want to go on record as saying that I'm not comfortable with the excuse that it fell through the cracks when it's been almost two years. It will be two years this fall. That's a little bit more than it fell through the cracks. MR. BILLINGS: Yeah, I think my main issue here is, you can tell we mainly do high-end hotels/resorts. We've done a few here in the county. And my -- I guess my biggest concern here is when I have to rec -- get my license transferred to another county, all my testing scores are in this county, so if I don't have it in this county, I can't even get a license in another county because of the reciprocity. You know, you have to provide everything to them. So I can't even come here and get them, even though I can have a license in all these other counties. That's my main issue. You know, I've got to be able to somehow do that with the contractors I work for all over the state. MR. L YKOS: Everybody that comes in front of us needs their license to work, so you're not unique in that situation. MR. BILLINGS: No. MR. L YKOS: Okay? Mr. Jackson, what are the total amounts that will have to be paid by Mr. Billings to renew his license? Doesn't the amount start to get a little higher once you've gone to the level that Mr. Billings has in terms of his delinquency? MR. JACKSON: I don't have a hard documented number. Roughly what would be -- 135 to reinstate. Roughly $250. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are there any other fees that are paid in other counties that you have to pay to reinstate or to keep that license that you reciprocate? Page 20 ~_'w" ,,-..... 1..0. r .......~,,'___,"_c....,_<.,' . "......."."""'--...... -.. .. ,._-""-~,~<-"~,._'-~_.'-', -".,- !~ !o,~oa 7 II MR. BILLINGS: Yes. Like I said, my staff just overlooked this one and Lee County, and I haven't done work in either of the counties for a good couple of years, but -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But yet you use this license and this testing requirement to be able to work in the other counties. MR. BILLINGS: Originally when you first reciprocity send it over there five years ago, then you just keep it up. Don't have to keep sending it yearly. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So you paid those counties but didn't pay this one. MR. BILLINGS: Yeah, she -- it's the office staff girl. And I just wasn't keeping up with it myself. They were paying. This one we've had the tax kept up as -- you know, and saw that on the board posted up there and just didn't see my competency card and didn't even think anything of it. MR. WHITE: Question. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Again, kind my newness here, I'm not sure what the board's latitude is and prior considerations may have been in a situation like this, but based on what I've heard, I'd be comfortable potentially waiving the testing, but would want to consider perhaps a conditional license to make sure that when the time comes for renewal it's actually done and we have the gentleman come back here. And if it's not done, we'd be able to look over his file at that time. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It would have to be a probationary license or probationary allowance for him to go ahead and be in business without a test. But he only does this once a year, so it would be a year before he's due again. MR. BILLINGS: Isn't it due in October, September, something like that? MR. NEALE: Yeah, he would pop back up. Renewals are September, Mr. Jackson, I believe? Page 21 <- ."""'~~ ---.. T _..~"'-".,_..,,"'..,,'''" -----~-- lk !o~?O>> 7 II MR. JACKSON: Correct. MR. NEALE: So he would pop back -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Pop back up. MR. NEALE: -- up again in four months. MR. WHITE: I don't know if it's poss -- MR. NEALE: And it certainly is within the power of the board to create a probationary license where, you know, if he doesn't renew by the renewal time that he would have to show back up here or the license would be revoked. MR. JACKSON: If I may, contractors are notified of the renewal requirement. And if I'm not mistaken, and you may be able to elaborate, if they do not renew they are again notified. Due to the volume of contractors in the county that are regulated by our staff, it's not realistic to hold one file to make sure this one contractor renews. MR. WHITE: But the point is that I think he would come back up -- if he had a probationary license, you'd know he would be coming back potentially to this board on an agenda say six months from now if the conditional or probationary period was for a six-month period. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's possible that we could allow the testing requirement, I suppose, except for could we require to have a business and law -- I mean, that would pretty much I guess' put him on a page as far as remembering to put his license on where it's supposed to be each year, and then also put him on a probationary period until September. MR. JACKSON: That's definitely within the latitude of the board. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm just real uncomfortable because of all the tax liens that are still out there and he's got attorneys that are working on tax liens. And if these don't get taken care of and we allow him to go without testing, he's going to be out there working with all these little things over his head, and I'm not real comfortable with that. Page 22 ..~,.~_...._-- . '_M --- M! ~,'20t9 87 I MR. GUITE': Well, especially, he's -- you're doing like 12 million a year in sales? MR. BILLINGS: We actually did -- you know, understand, the company is -- Elite Flooring, which I don't qualify Stonehenge for, that's the one I declared business bankruptcy on, and that was five years ago. So that's been out of business. Only company I qualify is Elite Flooring. This year we just finished up the whole F ountainebleau Hotel. We actually did about a little over $15 million worth of marble work in that hotel. Did one up in Connecticut. Did the Delano Hotel in Miami. Doing a 120,000 square foot church up in Clearwater right now. We're very upstanding. Like I said, this company is very strong, it's very, you know, well financed. It's just me personally, I got married to my wife -- so you understand, my wife and I got married after these tax issues, so there's been no tax issues since we've been married. MR. LANTZ: I just have a question. Ifhe were to -- if we were to not waive the testing requirement, he'd take the test and automatically he's approved for a license, or would then he would possibly go on a probationary license? MR. JACKSON: The -- if you do not waive the testing, obviously the testing would be required, the entire application would be required. And if there were deficiencies in the application, being credit, experience, whatever the deficiency, Mr. Billings would then have the opportunity to come back in front of the board for that to be reviewed. MR. NEALE: One thing the board may consider doing, just as a thought, is that if you were to schedule Mr. Billings to come back at a date certain in the future, say the October board meeting, then staff wouldn't have to fight to look through his files, he would come up to be back at the board meeting, his file would come out, and if he had Page 23 .- -~.,~-~..--,. _'~..,,,-'.'~' 'l''Ii' - 16 '1 p7 . May 20, 0 renewed he could come back and everything -- you know, you can bless him and send him on his way. Ifhe hadn't renewed, then the board could bring them back and decide what they were going to do at that point. So Mr. Jackson, would that be something that your staff could do? MR. JACKSON: It could be done. MR. NEALE: It would be easier than trying to track the file itself. MR. JACKSON: Like I said, it's not realistic whatsoever to hold on to one file to make sure this contractor renews. MR. NEALE: But ifhe popped up automatically, then you'd go for the file. It's just a suggestion to the board. MR. BILLINGS: Just so you know too, regarding the tax liens, we are supposed to know today from the attorney out of Michigan. And we're just prepared to write a check and be done with it. They just won't accept -- haven't accepted one at this point, so -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I would have thought, though, in that particular comment that you would have had this already taken care of before corning to this board. MR. BILLINGS: It's just the way the IRS works. I've been dealing with it for four and a half years at this point. It's been very frustrating. But the 20th is today and they're supposed to corne back to the attorney and say we want 90,000, we want 60,000, we want whatever, and we're just going to write a check and it's going to be over with. MR. GUITE': Are these personal tax liens? MR. BILLINGS: They were actually on the business. But because -- MR. GUITE': The payroll taxes? MR. BILLINGS: -- I was sole owner of the business. MR. GUITE': The payroll taxes. Page 24 - ".~ M ",,__,-~.,~-,~,-..,,"..,.,,_.. - 'M,'''~ 1611 ~7 ~ May 20, 00 MR. BILLINGS: Yes. MR. GUITE': Okay, I'm going to make a motion that we do not waive the testing, and I'd like for him to fill out a full application, and we're going to start from square one. There's a couple of reasons why. One, you've been through bankruptcy in your business. You have a lot of IRS liens on here. And you're dealing with that type of flooring and that caliber of work, at $12 million a year, I just can't let you go and just be done with it. Especially when this is your home county, and you forget to file for your license in your home county. And I went through the phone book last night and I couldn't find either you or Elite Flooring in the phone books. MR. BILLINGS: It's just listed under my wife's name, Kelli Eastman. Because we work out of our house. And like I said, everything's imported. I import from around the world, just job specific. All we do is -- MR. GUITE': You don't have a business phone at all? MR. BILLINGS: No. We have our offices on the back side of our property. We have two and a half acres, and we have separate buildings that has office staff in it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Isn't that one of the requirements for a business, to have an active phone, active communication? I'm pretty sure it is. MR. JACKSON: Well, in our database we should have an active phone. Could that be their home phone? Of course it could. MR. L YKOS: Second the motion, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion and a second on the floor to deny retesting. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. Page 25 ""~..,.~ - ........"--~, --,.~. _..."".._~~.",,-_..' -_. '" -- 16 I J 117 . May 2 , 2 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? MR. L YKOS: Wait a minute, can you restate what the motion was? The way you said it, you said deny retesting. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Deny retesting, right. MR. L YKOS: That's not what Eric's motion was. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Dh, I'm sorry. What was your -- I'm sorry . MR. GUITE': It was to not waive the testing and go through the full application process and then come back. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: To not waive the testing requirements. MR. GUITE': To not waive the testing. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': 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. Sorry. You understand now, you have to go and take the test -- MR. BILLINGS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- bring the packet before us and we'll start again. MR. BILLINGS: I'll do that. All right, thank you. Page 26 "'~...".~ -_.~.- ....,._'~"""'- " ~"'",m.. .-- ".,-.-~;" ...." -....-.....^..- 1611187 J May 20,2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. JACKSON: I believe Mr. Albert Trevino has showed up. He was contesting the citation, and he was not present at his time. And I do believe that he is now here, if the board would want to reconsider hearing it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. We'll need to motion to reverse the motion to uphold the citation. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Neale, we already had a motion and acted on it. MR. NEALE: And what the board could do, since the hearing's not been closed at this point, the public hearing is still open, is the board could essentially move to rehear the matter. That's essentially what you would be doing is doing a rehearing, since there was no one in appearance at the first time. The Florida statute on this reads that if someone doesn't appear, it's automatically found to be valid. The fact that they have appeared late, you know, I think the board has within its discretion to reopen the matter for rehearing. But that's totally up to the discretion of the board. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think that would be something that could be in line, because we could have moved him to later down the agenda. So either way, I think we could reopen it again to rehear the case. MR. NEALE: So we need a motion to reopen. MR. WHITE: So moved, White. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We need a second. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to rehear the case on Michael Vecchio (sic). All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. QUITE': Al Trevino. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry Albert Trevino. Page 27 "~'--~- ,--"....~."" ".-.....---...., .....=..~ "'_.'"-~--^_..__..__._,...- 1611 B7 " May 20,2009 Signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': 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. Too many changes on this board today. Got me all confused. Mr. Albert Trevino, are you here? MR. TREVINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you please come to the podium and be sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ossorio was actually the investigator on this particular violation, No. 4473; however, he is on vacation, so Mr. Kennette's going to I assume take over? MR. KENNETTE: Yes. Allen Kennette, Contractor Licensing. This is a case that -- a lot of cases that we've been running across with people that do lawn service are getting involved in doing sprinkler and irrigation service. We have taken action against a lot of companies that are doing irrigation on a lawn service only license. A lot of them are advertising on their trailers that they do irrigation repair, also new irrigation installation. Which is the case here for a Mr. Trevino at Trail Boulevard. He was observed by Mr. Ossorio out there doing work with that number on his truck. Asked him where his license was for irrigation, which he did not have one at the time, no competency card for irrigation, just Page 28 -''''''--'.'---'''~''-"' ..-- ~----."..,," -~ .~~- ."---,'"-,,,, " '.-..~-"._~..".,- ....F""' ....",-_.-",., --.......---..- \Pay '2J20~ 7 II lawn service, but that he does do irrigation repair. He was involved informed that it's a violation, that he does need an irrigation license if he wants to continue, and remove the lettering off the trailer that shows that he actually does irrigation, because he's advertising that he is an irrigation contractor, which he is not. Citation 4473 was issued and we're here now because he wants to protest it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Trevino, could you elaborate a little bit on what happened. MR. TREVINO: Yes. Good morning. I just got a new sign built by Razor Graphics. We were trying to fill up space. I personally have not done any sprinkler work. I let Mr. Ossorio know that I don't do it, that it's advertised that I did. It is advertised. When I was doing the work, I was doing -- cutting trees, trimming trees. I am a full landscape, I'm not a lawn service, I'm a full landscape. And I just asked him if he would give me a warning. He asked me -- he told me if I could correct the problem, I said I would. And I had Razor Graphics go out there that same day and take care of the problem. The truck did not move from there. Did I tell him that I do it? I don't do it. I haven't don't any sprinkler work. I just do bobcat service and tree service, that's all I do. I take plants out and put them in. And basically I'm just here to see if we could maybe waive the fee. I have since then gone to go see Jennifer and see if I can get my sprinkler license, even though it's something that I don't do. Basically it was a mistake on my part, trying to fill the board, trying to fill my sign up. And it did have it on there. And for that I do apologize. But basically I'm here before the board to see if they could waive Page 29 .."~,_._~ --.-""',.- --_...~- ,-..,...^", - ...... .........._.~..".- -"~'----- N.... _....-'-~~---- 1611 87 May 20, 2009 the fee, it being that I paid almost what the fine is just to have the signs recovered up when I just had them done. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sir, just trying to fill up the blank spaces on the sign? MR. TREVINO: That's all that was. And I apologize for that. And I was not aware that it was, you know, to that extreme. But like I say, I have not done any sprinkler work. I don't do any sprinkler work at all. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Why didn't you put general contractor and roofing and AC and all that-- MR. TREVINO: Like I say, it's-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- and fill up the lines, too? MR. TREVINO: -- not part of landscaping. But like I say, for that I do apologize. And I apologized to him that day and I told him that I would take care of it ASAP. And like I say, I think I even provided a copy of the receipt where Razor Graphics went out there on the spot that same day and we got it taken care of. And that's basically what I'm -- you know, times are really tough for us and we're just trying to see if you could waive it and that's all. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Filling up the sign you're talking about. MR. TREVINO: And that's all it was, sir. That's all it was. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You do realize -- then you do admit that you were wrong. MR. TREVINO: Oh, no, I admitted to him that same day. I admitted to him that same day . And like I say, all I'm trying to do right here is trying to see if I can get it waived. And like I say, I'm trying to get it fixed. I've already got the application, I've got the testing sites and I've purchased the books already to get the restriction off to get the sprinkler license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you can have Razor come back and put it back on your sign. Page 30 .."~,, "-- ",,,,",,,,..,,.-...,.,,. .. ".-.. _...~_.'-",._..._.._- 16A~yl~OoB7 - MR. TREVINO: And I could have them put it back on. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, great. MR. TREVINO: And that's all I'm asking. Because then it would be probably over a 600 and some dollar fine, plus what it's going to cost me to get the sprinkler license and do the test and everything else. So I'm thinking it's going to be well over $1,000. And all I'm asking is to see if you guys could please waive the 300. I am in the process of trying to get the sprinkler license off, and the problem has been taken care of as far as having the sign still on there saying that I do sprinkler work. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long has that sign been on there? MR. TREVINO: As far as what? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: As far as the sprinkler portion of the sign that you filled up. MR. TREVINO: I'm not sure what date was that that was on there. It had been at least maybe a month. But like I say, I go out every -- I go out once a week, twice a week, if that. And I'm basically local. I mean, that's if I'm lucky I'll get called twice a week to come out and do some trimming. But as we all know, work is very scarce right now for us. And if anything, it's going to start to pick up hopefully with the rain. But as of yet, you know, it's very, very competitive out there. And if I go out once or twice, it's way too much. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. I'm going to make a motion that we uphold the citation, 4473. MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second on the floor. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. QUITE': Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. Page 31 ._,""'" -<""..-.., ..~-,.. "--....".----... ..,.-..",-...... .. - .. . ~"-~""'~""-"-"'~ ..~~,~..- -<- 16 11 87 . May 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Sorry. Take the test or get the license. Thanks. Ronald Palmer. I'm looking for a Ron Palmer. (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Not here. Okay, I'll miss it for a moment here. We'll just put it on the table for a second, see if he shows up before we do the same thing we had to do a minute ago. Sonia Pajaro? Please come to the podium and be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: Please spell your name. MS. PAJARO: S-O-N-I-A. P-A-J-A-R-O. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Give us just one second. Say your name? Pajaro? MS. PAJARO: Pajaro. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. We're here to review your credit report for a license that you are trying to obtain for American Painting; is that correct? MS. P AJARO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Being this is a thick packet and we just got it, it's going to take us a second to at least go through it and see why. But would you maybe start by just giving us a brief synopsis of what the problem is with your credit, what items that you want to discuss. MS. P AJARO: One of the main things that it's in there is civil judgment, which I have been taking care of. I have some Page 32 ,- ."'0._"- IIIl -~--""......,-,.~,""._,-, T 1 IV _...,~.,~ ---.,-, Jyqol, JoP 7 l1 correspondence from my lawyer that shows that I have already make arrangement for payment. They have been talking back and forth. And I have made a payment of$500. I have a copy of the check and a letter from the lawyer. So they have decided to accept not 500, as they have talked before, they have come up with an $800 settlement. Which I have a letter for, too. And the others -- the other derogatory stuff that I have in there, I am working through my lawyer, too. You need my lawyer's name? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Not at this time, no. MS. PAJARO: Okay. I want to add that the problems that I have with my credit, it's due to lack of employment, which you know that everybody's going with that. And it's been going on for a while, too. It is not a recent thing, it's been going on. And it's really hard to just sit in your house and wait for somebody to call you. Instead of that, that's why I decided to apply for the license, because I think I can go out and get some work. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm showing a verification for your construction experience that shows that you apparently worked for Day Break Construction? MS. PAJARO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Were you doing painting for them also? MS. PAJARO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Were you working for the company or just painting on the side? MS. P AJARO: No, I was working for them painting. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Under payroll? MS. PAJARO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: They paid you every week? MS. PAJARO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any discussion from the board, any Page 33 ..,,~-, -".,- ~-""',,-~,,'--' ... . ...._-_.~..'----""'."'._,,,. -, ."."'_..... ~'ll","lf ."...~~w, 1611 B7 a May 20, 2009 questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll give you a minute. MS. PAJARO: I also work for S&S Painting on the east coast and here. And also for Dominic Painting Services, but he passed away so I couldn't get any verification. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So you actually get up on a ladder and paint or -- MS. PAJARO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- whatever you do? MS. PAJARO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Run the guns and all that kind of stuff? MS. PAJARO: Well, yes, that too. MR. L YKOS: Ms. Pajaro, when did you work at Naples Community Hospital? MS. PAJARO: Many years ago. MR. L YKOS: Can you give me some idea of the years that you worked there? MS. P AJARO: I worked for Naples Community Hospital nine years. MR. L YKOS: From when till when? MS. P AJARO: 1980 -- I can't remember. Eighty something to 2000 -- '99, I think it was, 1999. And then I worked for Trinity Medical Services for five years, and I got burned out. MR. L YKOS: So when did you leave Trinity Medical Services? MS. P AJARO: 2002, I think it is. 2002, I believe it was. MR. L YKOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If the board would want to look at I guess it's Page maybe 2 of the in balance sheet, I'm showing a couple things that were -- that are at least showing some kind of a history from '07. It appears that all the bad stuff that happened to her was back Page 34 .' .,-..-----., . --."-' ~......_-" , ~~,'-~- 16 11 87 i May 20, 2009 in the -- I was going to say six, seven years ago or longer, which there were several. MR. L YKOS: Two questions, Ian. First one, Ms. Pajaro is here because of her credit? MR. JACKSON: Correct. MR. L YKOS: Correct? MR. JACKSON: Correct. MR. L YKOS: Does that mean you're satisfied with her experience and her testing scores? MR. JACKSON: To say that I am satisfied is probably not the most accurate term. MR. L YKOS: She's met the qualifications? MR. JACKSON: Apparently she has met the experience qualifications. To my knowledge the issue is the credit. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I don't think I would have a problem with maybe granting her a six-month probationary license and see how the credit goes. And if you're working on trying to payoff the rest of the remainder of the balances that you have, at least making payments to them, maybe a review in six months and then we'll see how you're doing. MS. P AJARO: Yes, I'll be happy to comply with any restrictions that you apply. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Since you have passed the test and you actually do have experience to do the job. It's just my thought. Any other discussion from any of the other members? MR. WHITE: Just as a point of information for the applicant, it would be of interest to me, I think one item that I see that's still a collection account out there that hasn't otherwise been charged off or just delinquent is -- it says CACV of Colorado, LLC. The original creditor was MB&A, American Bank, and it's a collection account, but it looks like there's over $7,200 outstanding. I don't know what the status of that is, but it shows a balance Page 35 -" -_,'-' - <<___', '_"'_~' M . ",.,~'..-'- 161t 87 ~~ May 20, 200 date of 2/15/09 with that dollar amount still past due of over $7,200. So that is an item that in looking at it in the future I'm thinking probably needs to be considered by you and dealt with. MS. PAJARO: Yes, I am working with them with a lawyer and my lawyer. And the last communication that I have from my lawyer was that they agree to make a $100 payment every month on that. MR. WHITE: That's not the Capital One matter? MS. PAJARO: No. MR. WHITE: Correct. Because your lawyer's letter for Mr. Lago only specifically referenced the Capital One account. So it's just your testimony that you're looking to work that off with your lawyer at $100 a month. MS. P AJARO: Yes, but I have a letter here. MR. WHITE: Okay. That's it for me, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other discussion? MR. L YKOS: I have another question. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. MR. L YKOS: The letter from the attorney has your last name as Ortega? MS. PAJARO: Yes, sir. I used to be married to an Ortega person. My single name -- my maiden name was Vasquez, and now my new married name is Pajaro. MR. L YKOS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If there's no further discussion about this, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion that we allow Mrs. Pajaro of American Painting, LLC a license of a six-month probationary period and after the six-month period she's to come back before this board with a new credit application and indicating on it how she has paid off some of these debts or at least how the terms of payment are being made. Page 36 --'~"'" - ,- ,'- ~-'--...'-",~,- O-'_'_'___'''~_ ,- 16 I 1 87 . May 20,2009 MS. P AJARO: Okay. MR. GUITE': I'll second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': 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. Good luck to you. MS. PAJARO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You can't be able to get your license today, because everyone at the county is here. But by tomorrow you can go down there and file your paperwork and then you'll be all set. MS. P AJARO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Remember, it's a six-month probationary license, okay? So after six months you will come back before the board, you will bring us another credit report, and we're going to review it again. If something should go wrong and nothing happens on it, then we have the power to be able to take that license away again. Okay. MS. P AJARO: Thank you. I understand. And I thank you again for being magnanimous with me. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No problem. You're welcome. Okay -- MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman? Real quick. I do apologize, Page 37 ,-.".- . .'""'-~.~ "...<...-.."'-,..,....- ,..-,-,.,_...,- --~--,"--~ 1611 87 " May 20, 2009 there was a deletion that was overlooked by me. Mr. Calvert Courtney had a medical emergency where he's not able to attend our meeting today. MR. GUITE': I was looking forward to seeing him. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I was too. MR. L YKOS: His one-year probation ends this month. MR. NEALE: Yeah. It was May last year. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yeah. So-- MR. WHITE: In inquiry, Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. WHITE: -- to staff. When did you get that notice? MR. JACKSON: I was notified I believe yesterday. I'd like the board to understand that I was out of work last week, so it took me a couple of days to get up to speed with all the intricacies of today's meeting. But I was notified within the last two days of Mr. Courtney's absence. MR. WHITE: Was that by a phone call, a fax, an e-mail? MR. JACKSON: I was notified by staff. And how our staff was notified by Mr. Courtney, I'm not very sure. MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that Mr. Courtney's license be revoked. And if he wants to get it renewed, he can come back in front of us again. He needs to come back in front of us again. MR. HORN: Second-- MR. L YKOS: My patience is exhausted with Mr. Courtney. MR. WHITE: Just a point of clarification. Again, I apologize for not understanding some of the history. And I fully appreciate how you feel about it, but if I understood correctly, his license was otherwise · going to expire already. So I don't know whether -- I mean, can you just help me to understand where we are procedurally with the status of his license? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, Mr. Courtney's case has gone on for Page 38 .'."._,.- __0..-0_-,- ........", ..'<*~..__. 'T. i V .'-"''''''''''-.'".,,,-,.,. ,-,-,.,,<._-- _..,. "-'-''''''''''''''''-~''-'''''-'--.'-'~'~ -- _16 11 97 t May 20, 2009 about -- this is about the fourth time he would have been here before us for a case that he was found guilty of. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Courtney was found in violation one year ago and placed on a one-year probation, which obviously would have expired at this meeting, had Mr. Courtney attended and supplied the board with what was requested of him. MR. WHITE: We may have decided to give him a full or extend his probation or not. MR. JACKSON: The board would have made a ruling on whether to relieve Mr. Courtney of his probation, extend the probation, revoke the license, suspend the license. Any number of actions could have been taken by the board. MR. WHITE: My point is if we do nothing, what happens? MR. NEALE: If the board takes no action, it will be my opinion that the license would then be invalid, would be inactive. That it would be as if he had not renewed it, essentially. MR. WHITE: So the point of revoking wouldn't be then that -- MR. NEALE: The point of revocation is-- MR. WHITE: -- he'd have to reapply completely. MR. NEALE: He would have to reapply with a revocation on his record. And the board would at that -- I would opine that almost certainly the contractor licensing supervisor would then refer his new application to the board for review, at which point in time the board would take into account all of the previous factors, including his revocation and whether to grant him a new license. I would suggest that Mr. Lykos' suggestion of making a formal motion to revoke and having the board vote upon that is probably, in an excess of caution, the appropriate route for this board to take. MR. WHITE: I merely wanted it on the record and my own information. I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. GUITE': I'll second. Page 39 ...-. '......~._..- -- .-..,'--,-~-,-"." .>> ."'""'"'. . ,--,~..'-".~ 1611 B7 ~ May 20, 2009 THE COURT REPORTER: I think there was. already a second. MR. HORN: Yeah, I seconded it. MR. GUITE': Did you? MR. HORN: Yeah. MR. GUITE': Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any further discussion? MR. JERULLE: I think I'm lost a little bit. Would you repeat what your recommendation was, Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: I would recommend that the board follow what Mr. Lykos appears to have suggested, which is make a formal motion to revoke based upon a failure to comply with the terms of the probation. MR. JERULLE: I understand. MR. NEALE: And I think that basis needs to be put into a motion and put on the record. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The only other cause of action that would come up is he was seriously or there was a serious problem in the family as far as medical or whatever, he could appeal this and come back later on. MR. NEALE: You know, this is a public board and he certainly has the ability to petition the board for a review. MR. GUITE': And he could have actually faxed Ian the profit-and-Ioss statement and we'd at least have that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. NEALE: That was his only requirement at this is to show the balance sheet and P &L. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Kennette? MR. KENNETTE: Yes, just one thing on Mr. Courtney. I was the one that he called. He called yesterday morning about 10:15. Of course I didn't get back to the office till almost 3:00. That he said that he had forgotten that he had a bone marrow checkup. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Kennette, could I please swear Page 40 ..._____n"____..' '.-..'...-,.....".. """"'" 1611 '87 I May 20, 2009 you In. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KENNETTE: For the record, Allen Kennette, Contractor Licensing. Two things: Mr. Courtney was at our office about three weeks prior to this meeting today, asking again about what he needed to bring in for verification. Still not sure. He was informed again that he -- what he needed to bring in to clarify it, and he said he would take care of that, but it's very costly at this time, that he's not working heavily like he used to. So he was aware of it, he had no recognition of any type of appointment. Yesterday's message was that he forgot that he had an appointment for a bone marrow checkup is what he left on my answering machine, and that he would not be here. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Well, if that is true, he'll still have the right to appeal, if that's the case. But at the moment I think Mr. Lykos' motion is on the floor. We have a motion and a second to revoke Mr. Calvin N. Courtney, II license. I need a motion -- I mean, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The motion carries. Okay, there's one last thing under new business. You want to Page 41 .--. -',^-,,- .._-".._""~,,, T . ~ ~_ '" ."......._..."""_.~.,~._,,,...'"~.,',., -,- 1611 .B 7 ~.. May 20, 2009 move this down the road for a little later time, the order to pay civil penalties, so we can discuss it further, or you want to do it now? MR. JACKSON: That's entirely up to the board. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let's do it now. Because this case is going to get involved, I'm sure. MR. NEALE: Essentially that's just an administrative act by the board. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Do we have a copy of the order? Again, kind of just apologize for my lack of knowledge. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I don't believe any of us have at a moment. MR. NEALE: What this -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Just going to read this. MR. NEALE: -- is, just for your information, Mr. White, is the board adopted a procedure whereby on citations that were issued, not appealed and failed to pay, the board, as I say, inaugurated a procedure whereby those would come to this board for a recognition of the failure of order to pay and entry of an order that they had failed to pay so that that order could be recorded in the public records. And that it would constitute a lien on the person's property against whom the citation had been issued. So this authorizes the county to enter that lien on -- to record that lien. MR. WHITE: So we have a series of orders that we're being asked to consider, and we would, under the procedure, approve the chairman to sign them and have them recorded? MR. NEALE: Yeah, effectively it's a consent agenda item, yeah, where it's just a whole stack of citations that were unpaid. And it was determined several meetings ago that it was required that the board make a finding and actually accept these so that the -- so that the liens could be recorded. Page 42 -. ....,_,_.'...~h "_.<,._..^~. .-_.__... 1611 87 May 20, 2009 This is under Florida statute. When these go unpaid, they constitute a lien on the property and they can be foreclo -- they can create a lien and then the lien can be foreclosed on. But certainly it's not financially rational for the county to foreclose on $300 liens. MR. WHITE: Understood. Do you feel we need to have some degree of notice at least of the names of the individuals that these orders pertain to in some aspect of a record, or will they -- MR. NEALE: They will become part of the record, so -- MR. JERULLE: So we're not voting on individual liens, we're voting on all -- MR. NEALE: All of these that have been issued. And it's really an administrative act. Because they automatically by terms of statute become liens. We're just authorizing the county to go -- the chairman to sign those orders so that they can be recorded. MR. WHITE: Understood. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: In a motion? MR. L YKOS: Do you need to do a formal motion? I make a motion to authorize the chairman to sign the orders to pay civil penalties for the official record. MR. WHITE: And I'll second it. Your motion includes having the county record them. Do you agree, Mr. Lykos? MR. L YKOS: I believe that's what my -- I think I said that in my motion, for them to be signed for the official records. MR. WHITE: Okay. Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. Page 43 ,-,-, "--~-_. . .. ....r ._____......'"..,~.~_ ,.~,..."'""'...... .~ , '----"""'-" 1611 87 May 20, 2009 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. I won't sign these right now, I'll do it later. All right, that pretty much closes new business and old business. MR. JERULLE: Ron Palmer. MR. WHITE: You have Mr. Palmer. MR. JERULLE: Ron Palmer. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Oh, Mr. Palmer. Is he here? Mr. Palmer? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Still not here. MR. WHITE: He was seeking a waiver of an exam? MR. JACKSON: I could elaborate, ifit would please the board. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Palmer has a stump grinding business in which grinding of stumps would fall under a tree removal license or a landscaping restricted license. All Mr. Palmer does is grind stumps, so we were going to put some options out there for him to take a business and law test, waive the tree test and issue a restricted tree license that would restrict him to only stumps. So that was what the board was going to hear. And the board would have ruled on the waiving of the actual tree exam, because staff does not have the ability to waive an exam, only the board can. So that was the reason for Mr. Palmer to be here. With his absence, I would assume that he's going to have to go through all of the testing at this point. MR. WHITE: Do we have -- Page 44 ',"~_.''''' _.",-- '~',_._'-"___c"._..'__"_'_ -,. "w._,.. '_-1" ,o.~..., May 20~~9111 .~ B ~ CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So we don't have to hear this at all then. MR. NEALE: No. MR. WHITE: Well, just point of procedure, do we have an option to table it for a month? MR. NEALE: That certainly is an option of the board is the board could table this for a month for him to reappear. MR. WHITE: I mean, I don't know what the notice he was given, but I'm assuming he was notified that he was going to be on the agenda today? MR. JACKSON: Again, this was a hearing that was initiated by Mr. Palmer. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. We didn't bring him before the board, he brought himself before the board. MR. JACKSON: He would not have been -- the process of service would not have been a factor in this, because he initiated the hearing. MR. WHITE: But there's nothing in his letter that says I want to come and talk to you on today's date. I mean, I'm just trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, realizing that if he wanted to come talk to us, we probably should have let him know when it was. MR. JACKSON: Typically when we receive the letter from a respondent, for lack of a better term, when they initiate a hearing, if they do it in person, they're given a letter. If we receive it by mail we would mail -- we being staff would mail a letter indicating the date of the hearing, the location of the hearing, the time of the hearing. MR. WHITE: Well, I saw those for other applicants but I didn't see one for him, so that's why I raised the question and wasn't sure. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If he's coming here to waive an examination, he's asking us to do him a favor, in a sense, to waive the testing requirements and do something else in his behalf. And if he doesn't show up here to present that, then there's no reason to hear the case. Page 45 ~'"."".o>_.. ~..-"'-"".'--'-'-~-~"-""~-- J. _""",',--""'-'-"~- ._A,'~~_" MaY2f.Rot 1 87 MR. WHITE: My only point was to have some assurance that he actually knew he was supposed to be here today at 9:00 a.m. That's all. MR. GUITE': There's no letter like this in the packet. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right, I understand. MR. L YKOS: Well, we're not denying him the opportunity, we're just saying that we can't do anything about it because he's not here. MR. NEALE: Yeah, essentially the board's taking no action. MR. WHITE: That's why I inquired about tabling it for a month and -- MR. NEALE: It really -- I mean, it could be done as sort of an excess of caution. But, I mean, ifhe comes to the county staff and says gee wiz, I couldn't make it, can you put me back on the agenda next month, there's no prejudice to him because he didn't appear this month because there's been no finding. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Okay, we're going to move right along. We have one public hearing. MR. NEALE: Take a break. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You want to take a break for just a few minutes? MR. GUITE': Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, we're going to recess for, let's see, how about 15 minutes. Would that suffice? 10:35, be back in your seats. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, I'll call back to order the May 20th meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board. First question is, did Mr. Palmer -- he's not going to be here; is that correct? MR. JACKSON: Mr. Palmer, he was here, he will not be heard today. He elected to come back in June. Page 46 ~-<"_... "''''''''->''''---''''''''- '"_...H"'.....""...",.,._..~'" "'^,"__.,~..",.,c.,.,. ,~".. ""'~_'_""_N "- 1611 1B7 '.;J May 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Oh, okay, whatever he likes. All right, we have a case under public hearings. The case is No. 2009-06, which is Bobby 1. Phillips, Jr., d/b/a Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc. Are they present? MR. GANGULI: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Please come to the podium and be sworn In. MR. PHILLIPS: May I please, with respect -- can you please give me one like you do in the courthouse over there without swearing? It's against my religion, I promise. Can you do something like that? (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: First I need a motion to enter the packet for Case No. 2009-06 into evidence, please. MR. WHITE: So moved, White. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': 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. This is a case by the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County. This is the petitioner versus Bobby J. Phillips, Jr., d/b/a Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc., Case No. 2009-06, under Page 47 . ,.,-".,.".,,, " "'"..._,....,~._"" 16 11 87 '" May 20, 2009 license number 16193-CAC054717. It's an administrative complaint with the Contractor Licensing Board of Collier County files an administrative complaint against Bobby J. Phillips. Under count number one, Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4-2-2, willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city or Collier County. Just for the record, I'm going to read in the proceedings exactly how this is going to run. Asked by Mr. Neale. The hearings are conducted pursuant to the procedures set out in Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Chapter 489. These hearings are quasi judicial in nature. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and governs the proceedings. Irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative evidence shall be excluded, but all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the courts of the State of Florida. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or eXplaining any evidence, but shall not be sufficient by itself to support findings unless such hearsay would be admissible or objection (sic) in civil actions in court. The rules of privilege shall be effective to the same extent that they are now or hereafter may be recognized in civil action. Any member of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board may question any witness before the board. Each party to the proceedings shall have the right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits, to cross-examine witnesses, to impeach any witness, regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. Page 48 -" ._...~. ,..- , "'~.".," '~."""",,- Ml~,~kB7 I A chair person, or in his or her absence the vice-chair person, shall have all powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the hearing in a full, fair and impartial manner and to preserve order and decorum. The general process of the hearing is for the county to present an opening statement which sets out charges and in general terms how it intends to prove them. The respondent then makes his or her opening statements, setting out in general terms the defense charges. The county then presents its case in chief, calling witnesses and presenting evidence. The respondent may cross-examine these witnesses. Once the county has closed its case in chief, then the respondent puts on his or her defense. They may call witnesses and do all the things described earlier; that is, call and examine witnesses, introduce exhibits, cross-examine witnesses, to impeach any witness, regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to refute 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, which the county getting a second chance to rebut after the respondent's closing statements (sic). The board then closes the public hearing and begins deliberations. Prior to beginning deliberations, the attorney for the board will give them a charge, much like a charge to a jury, setting out the parameters on which they base their decision. During deliberations the board can ask for additional information and clarification from the parties. The board will then decide two different issues: First, whether the respondent is guilty of the offenses charged in the administrative Page 49 1 V' ...~.,."",,. -"."~,,..,._- -,,,.,-- 16 L12b~rZ9 r'i complaint. A vote will be taken on this matter. If the respondent is found guilty, then the board must decide sanctions to be imposed. The board attorney at this point will advise the board of the sanctions which may be imposed and factors to consider. The board will discuss sanctions and take a vote on those. After the two matters are decided, the Chair, or in his absence the vice chair, will read a summary of the order to be issued by the board. This summary will set out the basic outline of the order, will not be exactly the same language as the final order. The final order will include full details required under state law and procedure. With that said, I'll need to have some opening statements from county . MR. GANGULI: Investigator Ganguli, Collier County Contractor Licensing. Good morning, gentlemen. Mr. White, Mr. Lantz, welcome aboard. I'll try not to bore you too much. This is Case 2009-06, Board of County Commissioners versus Bobby 1. Phillips, Jr., doing business as Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Incorporated. On April 2nd, 2009, I, Rob Ganguli, Collier County Contractor License Compliance Officer, received a preliminary complaint form submitted by the homeowner of 6901 Compton Lane South, Mr. William Koenig, regarding an air conditioner installation performed by Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Incorporated, state certified contractor CAC-054717. The complaint was: On September 3rd, 2008 the homeowner hired the above mentioned contractor to replace the condenser and air handler. The initial installation was performed without a building permit being issued prior to commencing the work. In addition to this, the homeowner also observed the roof trusses of the home being structurally modified without a building permit by the respondent in order to accommodate the installation of the air Page 50 . ~"'d_' ,- ~.'---"'" .....,......-" 1611 B7 May 20, 2009 handler. The homeowner paid the contractor in full, but no active permit is issued and no inspections have been done for any type of work. These activities and the failure of the contractor to remedy these issues result in a violation of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Section 105-1, regulating obtaining permits, as well as Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.2.2, governing misconduct by state certified contractors, specifically for willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city or Collier County. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you, Mr. Ganguli. Mr. Phillips, would you like to give an opening statement on the charges that are against you? Briefly just explain what went on. MR. PHILLIPS: Can I hear the date again or get a piece of that paper? He gave me a sheet this morning. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The date was April 2nd, 2009. MR. PHILLIPS: That's when they filed this thing, or the homeowner did? Can you tell me that? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, preliminary complaint. MR. PHILLIPS: I guess so, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The complaint was actually on September 3rd of '08. MR. PHILLIPS: So the homeowner filed something on September 3rd? I'm just curious, if I may ask. I missed that part. When did they file with the county, sir, if I may ask? MR. GANGULI: We received the complaint on April 2nd, 2009. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you for that. MR. GANGULI: The installation was done on September 3rd, 2008, per the contract. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay, may I ask, when did he contact the county, please? Rob, can I ask you when you contacted the -- MR. GANGULI: Again, we received the complaint from the Page 51 -. R 4'> _____-,......,.-.,,-,.,'.~-~' --.. ,- ._-~~."'. """,,,,,,,"_..-.>, 16 11 a7 I May 20, 2009 homeowner on April 2nd, 2009. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay, so that's when he signed it? MR. GANGULI: Signed what, sir? MR. PHILLIPS: The complaint. MR. GANGULI: That's when he filed -- MR. PHILLIPS: That's when he filed the paperwork. MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. And you didn't have any contact with him prior? MR. GANGULI: No, sir, that's when he came to our office. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. I mean, I understand that, but did you have any contact with him prior? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Excuse me one second. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'd like to have just a synopsis of what the case is about first. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, this -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Just an opening statement. Then we'll get into the questions and answers. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. I am a state cert -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I understand what you are. I'mjust telling you the way we're going to do it. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir, absolutely. Please. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you. MR. PHILLIPS: The homeowner had a heat complaint during the winter on about one of the coldest days. And he didn't believe I installed the heat properly. So I did do my very best to explain to him. I went out several times -- well, I should say that, about the heat two times. Afterward he just wasn't convinced. See, the system only had a 10 kw service. That's all I could put in it. I replaced the system with the same system. Page 52 '"~~'^ , - ~''''__M.__.''~ , MaY~O~2loJ 97 He had another company in and they told him that I cut the trusses. Now, I go on a lot of air handler installations, and these trusses are cut everywhere. Fire walls down and so forth. I mean, man, all over town. Now I'm getting charged for this one. I mean, really, okay? Now, this homeowner, he's out to get me. I'm being as -- I have not been nothing but nice to him. And that's all I will be. He even broke my little boy. (Phonetic) And I am nothing but nice. He made me -- he said, I'll tell you what, Bobby -- I hate to say that -- I'm going -- if you don't give me the $250 that the company charged -- and by the way, they charged him 1,900, okay? And the problem with that, the reason I pulled my permit off before the work was done, because he's traveling back and forth, okay, is that the other people come in and told him certain stuff and charged him. They took over that job and they had the heat working with the cooling. So when that place bums down, I'm in front of the state board and Rob says you can't do that, I said -- what am I supposed to tell him, Rob told me to? He didn't even tell me his last name. He calls me on the phone, says, you better get that -- I get in there, he's spitting on me, he's talking so fast. These people did nothing but threaten me. I'm like, man, I didn't do it. He said, well, you're going to get a lawyer. I said, Rob, my defense is I didn't do it. Now, if you gentlemen have any questions, I'll be glad to answer it, okay, I promise you. I mean, a lot of stuff sounds pretty bad. But I'm like, no. Where did this assumption come from. My permit I revoked because a company come in there, okay, rigged it. This is a very high tech air handler. Now, one thing please remember, they said I cut trusses, okay. I took that unit apart and put it in about a 17 and a half inch opening in an attic pull-down staircase. There's the bigger opening all around. Why would I cut a truss when I folded it up in pieces, squeezed the Page 53 ~-'--'---"-"'_. ""0_- 11 .._" ~ ..."".."~,....ti,_""__,,,,_,.__,,,_,,,,__,,,, ,...........~_.._.'"._."."y~._.,___ May 20~2~OJ 1 B~ coil tight without breaking any welds, put it back together. It took me three days. I had to put him in a hotel for $50 a night because his wife was flying in because it took me so much longer. Now, see, somehow or another he got embarrassed or something about the heat. It was a recommendation -- well, he called me about a year and a half ago, they were supposed to replace it, okay, they had a burned wire in the air handler. I fixed it. So he said he trusts me. But something happened with that heat call. I mean, he got so mad his wife had to talk to me. I mean, they were -- I mean, I don't know why he got so -- but I was nothing but respectful to that man. I know I'm here to make sure that consumer is happy. That is my job. I've been here, sir, since 1986. I've done over 15,000 houses. Not one complaint. I'm an air conditioning contractor. When people do air conditioning work they put a little bitty duct in these houses, okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a question for you. MR. PHILLIPS: I've always done my job, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Phillips, did you get a permit for this job? MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. MR. JERULLE: What date did you get the permit? MR. PHILLIPS: It was 2009. Probably, I don't know, May, something like that before the job was done. I finished everything that was required of me, the installation. But I will not -- I mean, I can't be responsible for that job. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, basically that's the synopsis that what happened to -- of why. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir, pretty much so. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Mr. Ganguli -- MR. PHILLIPS: May I say one -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- do you have any questions? Page 54 ..... "1__ "'''''"",-".,-,,-_.,,~-- --, . ,~,._"-,~~~,-.._"-_.,,,~~ 1611 87 May 20, 2~9 ~ One question. I'm going to go back to the county. Do you have any questions to ask or any evidence that you want to present? MR. GANGULI: Not at this time, Mr. Joslin. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do you have any questions of the county? MR. PHILLIPS: May I make a statement? Can I make a statement about what's been -- no? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, thank you. I want to say, sir, the way they present themselves now, he's a very good man. I respect this. But the way they do their self out in the field is so disrespectful, it ain't funny. I'm a customer of his. Really, they spitting on me, they're threatening me so much. I told his boss, the guy -- what I did to make him so mad? I told his boss, I said, man, you need to get your boy's panties out of a wad. He's so tied up, man, it ain't funny. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Excuse me. MR. PHILLIPS: And it's serious, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Keep it on a nice-- MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry, but I mean, sir, he is not this nice cool man right there. You know what it's like to be threatened and blackmailed? I'm a licensed contractor. I've been in this town doing business for years, sir. Really. I mean, really. I never done nothing wrong. I'm a -- MR. NEALE: If I may point out to the board, one of the things that is specific is the board is to exclude irrelevant and immaterial evidence, and I believe his personal comments about county staff are -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Exactly. MR. NEALE: -- at least that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I would question you again, keep your comments to yourself as far as derogatory remarks of anyone. Page 55 ,...----- ,<-._"_..".~,,,,,.. ~_lill. --~<~,~....~-,-- 16 I 1 87 . May 20, 2009 MR. PHILLIPS: So it don't matter ifhe was threatening me? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Excuse me? MR. PHILLIPS: I'm just saying, it don't matter if he was threatening me? I'm just curious. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I just asked you a question -- I just told you a question (sic), I'm not going to say it again. MR. NEALE: I'd just like to caution-- MR. PHILLIPS: I got in an accident, man. I got a little frontal lobe damage. That's the reason I shut my eyes. Please. MR. NEALE: I'd like to caution the board that everything he's saying is hearsay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Exactly. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other questions from the board members? MR. L YKOS: We just need Rob to present the case. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli, would you like to continue now? MR. GANGULI: Yes. Gentlemen, I'd like to emphasize two things: One, that we are dealing with a state certified contractor. I'm going to present to you the facts of the matter. But this -- the bare bones is that it's working without a permit, okay? I'd also like you to turn to the table of contents. You have a multitude of evidence in your packets, and you can peruse through it while you listen to my presentation so that you have a clearer understanding of what I'm referring to. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One second, Mr. Phillips. (sic). Mr. Phillips, would you mind having a seat right there in the first seat right there just for a moment. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you very much. Go ahead, Mr. Ganguli. Page 56 "~".."" , '<W" ~T mml' '"<Ii":rq ....~~-,. . .-"."'--'''_'''_~'_'__J ,,.,.v,,............ ,- ~ ~o~o~7 . MR. GANGULI: All right. On April 2nd, 2009, the office of i::* ~ ", contractors licensing received a complaint from homeowner William Koenig regarding several issues that had developed after he hired the state certified air conditioning contractor Bob's Air Conditioning Refrigeration, Incorporated to perform a replacement of the air conditioner -- air handler and condenser. From the time of the initial installation the homeowner experienced problems with the unit resulting in multiple service calls made by the qualifier, Bob's Air Conditioning, Bobby J. Phillips, Jr. Despite his efforts to resolve these ongoing issues, the homeowner finally had to resort to hiring a second air conditioning contractor who succeeded at getting the new system functioning properly. In your evidence packet is a sworn affidavit made by the qualifier of the second air conditioning contractor outlining the relatively simple measures taken to repair the unit. Through this repair process it was subsequently discovered that the initial installation of the unit by Bob's Air Conditioning was never permitted and therefore never received the required county inspections that would have revealed the flaws that caused the unit to be dysfunctional. Upon learning of this unpermitted installation, the homeowner spoke to Mr. Phillips regarding this, resulting in his finally obtaining an after-the-fact permit only almost six months later, but never calling in the required inspections to get it C.O.'d. When this office contacted Mr. Phillips about getting his air conditioner installation inspected and C.O.'d, he claimed that because the second air conditioning contractor had since worked on the unit, he was no longer responsible for any issues and consequently canceled the permit for his installation. When the inaccuracies of his perceptions were factually explained to him, Mr. Phillips maintained his position on the matter Page 57 ,...,.. -....-..-" ~._c. .,_._"...c . --,..., rvrL~o! 2Jo9 ' 87 ,I and was informed that this violation alone was worthy of a hearing in front of the Contractors Licensing Board. In addition to these issues it was also discovered that in order to accommodate the installation of the air handler above the garage area, several roof trusses were structurally modified in a manner that required the homeowner to hire an architectural engineer firm to establish their integrity. Photographs of the modifications, as well as the evaluation of the engineering firm, are also included in your evidence packets. These activities, in conjunction with the unwillingness of the contractor to rectify these matters, result in a violation of the 2004 Florida Building Code Section 105.1 regulating the obtaining of permits, as well as Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.2.2, which addresses misconduct by state certified contractors for willfully violating the applicable building codes of the state, city or Collier County. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Phillips, do you have any questions that you'd like to ask Mr. Ganguli regarding the comments he's made? MR. PHILLIPS: Well, sir, may I stand up? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Come to the podium, please. MR. PHILLIPS: I wish to really take in the fact, sir, that as the work I've done, I know the law, okay, I really do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We're talking about not what you've done or not what you're going to do or not what you have already finished, we're talking about questions that you may have of Mr. Ganguli in response to what he's -- his allegations against you. MR. PHILLIPS: This ain't like a closing statement? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No, sir. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We're just trying to get to the evidence right now as far as what happened and why. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. Now, the air handler -- let me please Page 58 -- . """'-""""'-.-.....,...-,.-..."--......."....,,-.,....-..... .'"._~,'..'"...._'~--.-.....".,.._'_..~_._...;"~ Ma~ ~Jol 87 'i state again, I installed it through an opening that was a good I would say 15, 20 inches smaller than where it was placed. Also, it was not the first air handler installation, okay? I don't know how -- I don't think this homeowner had been in there very long or else he wouldn't have complained about the heat. Now, I will say, all my jobs would be 15 kw on that job. I would always make sure. I would say over 98 to 99 -- yeah, about 99 percent of all contractors put a 10 kw in there. Now, I can't -- now, the homeowner didn't want to pay for another electrical service. Now, I did not have any problems with the cooling. If he wants to submit an electrical bill or something, you'll find that out. It was very efficient. Now, it's according to how this turns out about what this gentleman is going to do to me and my livelihood. Now, you know, it ain't -- he's got me up here, man. It ain't right. I didn't do that. If you guys want pictures of all -- I mean, like you guys brought up the hospital today. I did a lot of work for the hospital over the years. You'd be surprised what's happened to those rental buildings. I didn't do that. I do everything -- I mean, I'm always -- my whole life, since -- I've been doing this here since 1980, '82. I started out when I was 16. And I -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Again, Mr. Phillips, I'm going to warn you again. We're still talking about hearsay. We're talking about things that you did 20 years ago or when you were a child. We're not interested in that. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We're interested in the facts of the matter. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. The homeowner has made statements, I mean, that are -- I mean, I just can't believe that he's saying that. I don't know if it's hearsay or not, you know, I don't know if you guys considered that, that he's bringing in from a homeowner the -- I mean, Page 59 ,--.' ..... ... ,"",..,,' .....~-'". .-.> .." ",.-.,,~- .~_.."--""..... - 1&J 2~ 2(~l II if you -- I hope -- as far as what Rob's accusations are, that he don't have nothing to back it up. He don't -- yes, sir? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Phillips. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. MR. L YKOS: You signed a contract with the owner on September 3rd of 2008; is that correct? MR. PHILLIPS: I would assume so, yes, sir. MR. L YKOS: And when was the work completed -- when was the work started? MR. PHILLIPS: Work was started right after that. He needed it real quick. MR. L YKOS: Okay, I understand. And based on the packet that we have, the permit was applied for and issued March 26th of 2009. MR. PHILLIPS: I would assume so, sir. MR. L YKOS: Based on that time line you applied for and received a permit about six months after the work was contracted and started; is that correct? MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. Not completed, yes, sir. He traveled, SIr. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Ganguli? MR. GANGULI: Sir? MR. L YKOS: There's statements in here about the trusses being cut. MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir. MR. L YKOS: There's pictures that look like trusses have been cut. Is there any way that we can verify for sure that it was Mr. Phillips that actually did the cutting of the trusses? MR. GANGULI: Mr. Lykos, the verification comes through the homeowner who bore witness to it happening. Page 60 ... . .-.,,,.,.,. " ,..,.> '",."'.",,,~-,-....-' P' . 1 - ' 1 ~Jy 10, ~l t1 MR. LYKOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It is possible then that someone else could have cut these trusses before he got to the job? That is a possibility? MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin, anything's possible. But likely, I'm reluctant to say. MR. L YKOS: We do have a statement from the homeowner saying that it was Mr. Phillips that cut the trusses. MR. GANGULI: In your evidence packet it's E-17, Mr. Lykos. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, I may be able to elaborate somewhat. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: For the record, Ian Jackson, Contractor Licensing. (Mr. Jackson was duly sworn.) MR. JACKSON: The county database shows this is the second air handler in the home, the first being during initial construction, which obviously passed inspection. No other air handler's been installed, according to the county database, since the initial construction. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So those trusses were cut by -- MR. JACKSON: This is number two. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- someone after the initial installation. MR. JACKSON: Correct. MR. WHITE: Just a question on that, a follow up. When was that initial construction? MR. JACKSON: I don't have that date in front of me. MR. GUITE': So it is possible that somebody could have replaced it without getting a permit. MR. JACKSON: I can't say that it's not possible. The database shows no previous building permit. We have the initial construction and Mr. Phillips' permit. Page 61 -- I"'. J.""'" - --",'-....--.. ..,..,.... -,.,~--.....",.'. ... 1 ._~_"'.~~.~..""." - --- M!~,~~~17 I MR. WHITE: But you don't know what the initial construction date was. MR. JACKSON: I don't have the building permit for the initial construction in front of me, no. MR. WHITE: It would be helpful for me to know if it had been, say, 15 years as opposed to five. MR. GUITE': Right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli, do you have any further questions for the respondent? MR. GANGULI: Mr. Phillips, how long have you been a certified air conditioning contractor? MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe since '86. MR. GANGULI: Okay. And are you aware that air conditioning installations require permitting? MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, sir. MR. GANGULI: No further questions. MR. PHILLIPS: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One question for you then. Why did you not get a permit for this job? MR. PHILLIPS: I did, sir, once -- I didn't -- I figured it this way, that when I called the -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No, the question is why didn't you get a permit for the job before you started the job? MR. PHILLIPS: The homeowner was out of town a lot and he didn't want to pull the inspection. And there's a code about if you have a permit out too long. Now, this man was traveling. And even Rob -- I mean, even when I pulled it, I was working with Rob and the guy kept putting it off. Okay? I mean, you pull a permit -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Who pulled the permit? MR. PHILLIPS: I did. And after you pulled it, you only got like six months, right, Rob? If you don't call it in -- Page 62 .,,"'.......... - n'1ltP'"'f w '..--...,,-- 1611'\87 May 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You can extend the permit. There is an extension you can get. You can get permits extended months after months after months after you pull a permit. Because you haven't started the work yet. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, sir, I guess what my thinking is, when I showed up down there and talked to those guys, I messed up. And I don't like messing up. I want to make sure everything goes right. I know those head men down there, I don't want to be bringing anything to them. Anytime I bring something to them, I got to -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let me ask you this-- MR. L YKOS: Mr. Phillips. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. L YKOS: Previously you testified that you started the work shortly after signing the contract on September 3rd. MR. PHILLIPS: Absolutely. MR. L YKOS: So obviously there was no delay in you starting the work like you claim. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, sir, he needed to quit. His wife was coming back. MR. L YKOS: Well, you're testifying to two different things. MR. PHILLIPS: What's that, sir? MR. L YKOS: You're testifying that you started the work right away and you're also testifying that you couldn't get a permit because the job was going to be delayed. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, no, sir, I didn't say I couldn't, I said I didn't. Excuse me. That's what I meant to say. MR. L YKOS: That might be my misunderstanding. You're saying two things. You're saying that you started the work shortly after signing a contract. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. MR. L YKOS: But you didn't get a permit because the work was delayed. Page 63 ~"""'. . "II .. g f"'''''_.'^'''~'_'' .. '-. "--"~""~.','.- ~ - Mah~ loJ 137 MR. PHILLIPS: Well, sir, I didn't get a permit I would say because I did not want to fail or have to go back and do something at the county that to me wasn't straight up. When I pulled the permit, it should have been inspected. From my understanding, when these things happen, okay, he -- when these things kind of happened, they put a fine on individuals and they don't have to come up here. I know peoples it happens to all the time. But anyway, gentlemen, please keep in mind that I put that air handler in to a smaller space. And these homes over there in this particular area were installed by a contractor that did a great deal of mass building. These jobs over there drain out of what's called an emergency drain line. The homeowners have always believed that the emergency drain line is the primary line. It's because of the installation these men have done. Now, these air handlers don't last long because they rot out. The air handler I put in has the variable speed motor. It's a computer -- you know, it's really nice, and a very good operational thermostat for that. Now, this particular motor will not slip when it's moving air. I set it up so that when it's rotating, it does not pick up water so that it slings it around the air handler. So that when -- if I couldn't have set that thing up properly, I wouldn't have did it. But with that particular unit, it's a two-stage condensing unit, and with me being able to adjust that fan I could make it work properly. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Phillips. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I understand you're telling me the mechanical ways of how you're doing the job, but this is really irrelevant to the case. It's irrelevant to what we want to hear. We're asking you a few basic questions. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: First of all, number one, did you get a Page 64 ""_.",,, --"""""^"'"~ -~-<..._"",,,, ...--",., 1 b I 1 '87' May 20, 2009 permit for this job? MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: When did you get the permit? MR. PHILLIPS: Sometime I would think in May, maybe April. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long before that did you install this air conditioner? Did you get the permit before you installed the air conditioner? MR. PHILLIPS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Why? Answer. MR. PHILLIPS: The gentleman wanted it quick. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long have you been in business? MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, sir, I've been in business since '82, and my father licensed me back in those days, if I may say, and it was legal. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We're not talking about your father, I'm talking about you. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I just wanted you to know it was legal. Sir, the reason I didn't pull a permit? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. PHILLIPS: I was in a hurry. MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: In a hurry. MR. GANGULI: I'm sorry. I stated that I had no further questions. May I ask one more? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You sure may. MR. GANGULI: Mr. Phillips, what's the status of the permit? MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I pulled that thing away. I can't pull that permit. I mean, that thing bums down, I mean, I'm not going to take that thing. And that's not -- I mean, all those lives? God's going to take care of that, man. MR. GANGULI: So your installation of the air conditioning unit doesn't have an active permit that was ever inspected; is that correct? MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, no, sir. What I did is I went to the county Page 65 ^ ^-,~ I N. ._---"",- -,- -~"'-"~ } ~ ! ~;8 7 I May 20, 2009 and I told them that another contractor was on the job and I wanted to pull mine off. Homeowner has the right to do that. MR. L YKOS: Did you ever get any inspections done on the permit that you did pull for that installation? MR. PHILLIPS: No, sir, I was delayed by -- MR. L YKOS: Okay, thank you, that's all. That's enough. MR. GUITE': Mr. Neale, what are the penalties for what has -- what the charges have been brought up against him? MR. NEALE: Well -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let's hear the evidence and find out first of all -- MR. GUITE': I'm going somewhere. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- we need to prove ifhe's proving him guilty or not guilty, first of all. MR. GUITE': I'm going somewhere -- MR. NEALE: This is something Mr. Guite' can ask, I mean, as to what the specific penalties are. The penalties that this board can impose on this respondent in this matter, because he is a state contractor, is that this board can deny the issuance of permits or require issuance of permits with conditions for his license. And then this would be reported to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board within 15 days as well. MR. GUITE': Any fines at all? MR. NEALE: And the board cannot recommend any fines or any other penalties other than just deny the issuance of permits in Collier County. MR. WHITE: So for someone who thinks he understands, what I heard you say was that the only authority we have is with respect to his permit pulling privileges. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Correct. MR. NEALE: That is the only authority that the board has on a state contractor. Page 66 ,... > nr 'N~_ . . .....- - . . - JyqJ Jo; B 7 t MR. WHITE: Understood. MR. NEALE: Then the board would refer this matter to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board for further action. MR. GUITE': You realize what he's saying? MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. I'd like to state this: Because ofactual-- I get nervous when I get in front of something where I can get in trouble. MR. GUITE': Well, that's where I'm kind of going. Do you think you might want to have somebody represent you? MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, no, sir. I mean, I didn't do-- MR. GUITE': Okay, that's all I care about. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, sir, you said a statement that do I comprehend stuff. And it seems like you guys -- I mean -- MR. GUITE': No, I just asked if you understood what Mr. Neale said, that we could restrict your permit pulling privileges, which would basically put you out of business in Collier County. MR. PHILLIPS: Absolutely. That's where I always do business. And -- MR. L YKOS: Mr. Ganguli? MR. GANGULI: Sir? MR. L YKOS: Was Mr. Phillips provided with a copy of the packet that we were given? MR. GANGULI: I hand delivered it to his home of record at 23 Hastings Place, yes, sir. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Phillips, do you have a copy of that packet with you today? MR. PHILLIPS: No, sir. That's my ex-wife. I'm getting in my place down at Marco. She won't -- I mean, I won't go around there, I guarantee you that. She took it. I can't get that. MR. GUITE': So you weren't notified of this hearing? MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I was told on the telephone it was going to be next month on the 20th, and I got a piece of paper from Rob this Page 67 --" l~ --'''',._."".......~ ..---~ ......... 16 f 1137 I May 20, 2009 morning, I went down to the county. Said it was 9:00. MR. GANGULI: Mr. Guite', there were two certified letters sent to two different addresses of record. Again, I made drop service to the address of record. And coincidentally Mr. Phillips was in our office this morning, I greeted him and he was very pleasant and seemingly unaware that he had a hearing today which I informed him of, and handed him another copy of the notice of hearing. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Therefore, I think that he was properly served and knew about the case today -- MR. GANGULI: That's for you to decide if I've done enough. I feel that I may have -- MR. HORN: I have a question for county staff. Do we have a record of how many permits Mr. Phillips has pulled in this county in the past year perhaps? MR. JACKSON: In the database we do have a record of that. MR. HORN: Any ballpark figures on that? MR. JACKSON: I could look into it. MR. HORN: Just out of pure curiosity. MR. JACKSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, I'm going to go to closing statements. I think we've heard pretty much -- MR. BOYD: I have a question first. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- everything that's gone on. MR. BOYD: What inspections are required on an air handler replacement? MR. GANGULI: Mr. Boyd, we're fortunate to have the chief mechanical inspector for Collier County here. May I call him as a witness to answer your question so I don't provide any inaccuracies? MR. L YKOS: Please do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You sure can. MR. GANGULI: Mr. Turner, would you -- (Mr. Turner was duly sworn.) Page 68 '''~...." -~'- "'...... 16 1 1 187 May 20, 2009 MR. TURNER: Jim Turner. I'm the chief plumbing mechanical inspector for Collier County. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli, do you have questions you'd like to ask of this witness? MR. GANGULI: I do. I'll let Mr. Boyd ask his. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. BOYD: Good morning, Jim. What inspections are required on an air handler and condenser replacement? MR. TURNER: On a change-out we just do a final inspection -- MR. BOYD: Okay, thank you. MR. TURNER: -- for a change-out. MR. WHITE: Could I inquire as to whether a separate building permit is required to alter trusses? Or is that something that typically would be within the scope of the building permit to install the air handler? MR. TURNER: No, that would require a separate permit. The trusses are a structural item and that would have to come under the structural inspections, not under the mechanical. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would that also require a different contractor or a general contractor to do this work, or could an AC contractor pull this permit? MR. TURNER: Most trusses come with a repair form with them. As long as they're repaired the way the truss manufacturer says it has to be repaired, it can be done that way. And we would just inspect to see that it was done the correct way. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: At the address that's listed on this applicant's complaint form, was this air conditioner ever finalized? Did it ever have a final inspection. MR. TURNER: Not that I'm aware of, no, sir. MR. JERULLE: On a replacement, is a notice of commencement required? Page 69 ....__""_.__~,_.v_..,_. ..,. ,. .__.,,,.......""~_ a.. -- 16 11 a7 J;~ May 20, 2009 MR. TURNER: Over $7,500 requires a notice of commencement for AC change-outs. MR. BOYD: What specifically do they do on the final inspection? Do they get up in the attic and actually inspect? MR. TURNER: Yes, sir, we check the connection, check the breakers and the wiring, make sure that they got what they paid for. MR. WHITE: With respect to the repairs that were done by the second contractor, was a permit necessary for that work? MR. TURNER: I do not know what he did, so I don't know. If it's just repair work, no. MR. GANGULI: Gentlemen, I'm showing Mr. Turner Exhibits E-22 and E-23, which are the invoices of the second air conditioning contractor and the monetary amount that he charged in order to rectify the issues. MR. WHITE: It was very hard for me to read those copies. They were very faint. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, me, too. MR. WHITE: Perhaps if you've got a copy there, Mr. Turner, that under the details of work to be performed and you can read yours on E-22 and E-23, that would really help me. MR. TURNER: I'm not sure what it says either. MR. WHITE: Does anybody have a legible -- MR. BOYD: It looks like it's, found only one stage of the heat was wired to turn on. Add a jumper from WT, whatever, to W2 to allow all stages of heat to run. MR. GANGULI: Mr. Boyd, E-24 is a sworn affidavit from the second air conditioning contractor. It's relatively clear in comparison to the numbers on the invoice, if that happens. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One quick question. Also the charge to do that jumper wire that it was put into was 6995; is that correct? MR. GANGULI: That's what I could gather from the invoice, yes, sir, Mr. Joslin. Page 70 ,"...., . "'-'.~-"""-'-'~" ~_,,,~,,_..,.h,.....,,,. "'" . - ~ " !g lo,~S7 ~1 MR. WHITE: I see there's a statement in there by that contractor on E-24 that the simplicity of the corrections did not require any permitting. Would you agree with that statement, Mr. Turner? MR. TURNER: Yes. Just a repair, yes, it would not require a permit. MR. HORN: Sir, when an air handler's being inspected by a county representative, if they notice the truss is cut, they would put that into their findings or report at that time? MR. TURNER: Yes, they would. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Also, it says in the actual complaint services -- or the compliance service from Joseph Trapanese, qualifier of Anytime Air Conditioning and Heating. He says states at the bottom, in the process of this service call I noticed modifications made to the roof trusses. And he informed the homeowner who said he was already aware of this. So the homeowner must have gone up in the attic and looked at the trusses that were cut? MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin, the homeowner told me that some of the work Mr. Phillips did ran well into the night and involved noise that would coincide with what you observed in the photographs. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Any other questions from Mr. Turner, board members? (No response.) MR. PHILLIPS: May I please -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you like to ask some questions of Mr. Turner? MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry, Mr. Turner -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Come right up to the podium. Come to this side for just a moment, please. Short and sweet. Questions only, please. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Turner, I'm sorry -- Page 71 ".."""" "'--,- W -<.,-,..".,.,,,." H""",,<" 1611 87 May 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Excuse me, a little closer to the microphone. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, sorry. Sir, on a 15 kw system do you not require another circuit of at least a 30-amp, sir, used to be average? Two circuits on a 15 kw heat -- MR. TURNER: On a 15 kw? MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. The 80 amp don't work anymore for years, SIr. MR. TURNER: No. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. So the first circuit is for 10 kw. That is one relay, sir. The next relay will be for the other 5 kw heat, if I installed a 15 kw, which I did not. There's one relay that turns on all the heat. I showed even the homeowner the -- I mean, I showed him amperage drawn on that heat. I showed him outside when he turned it on, he could see that meter turn. I did the best I could. Now, that 10 kw has one relay action that turns on every bit of that heat. So how could they go and jump it out if he had heat at all? I mean, these guys are lying. I'd like to know if they have a license, Rob, down here in Collier County. They're from Cape Coral. Did you check that out? MR. GANGULI: I did. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, easy. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm just asking. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, you can have a seat over here. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Turner, I think we're done with you. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, if I may answer Mr. Horn's question regarding Mr. Phillips' building permits. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, go ahead. MR. JACKSON: The county database is showing one building Page 72 ......'".. .. . . . ....-,.,."..<.".. '~_"_"._.,'M"~"""" .- 1611 B7 I May 20, 2009 permit in 2009, zero building permits in 2008, five building permits in 2007. And the database also shows that Mr. Phillips was able to obtain building permits in 1992. The database only goes so far back, however. But that will give you the last three years. MR. HORN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Phillips, if you'll pardon me, I have one question for you. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. MR. HORN: I apologize -- MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, no, man, thank you. MR. HORN: -- if I misheard you, but I think you said you've done close to guestimating 15,000 homes in this county or so? MR. PHILLIPS: I would think so. Does the gentleman have the information that would be -- now, I would like to say in 2006 on Thanksgiving Day, I took out about five feet of Marco Bridge, all the concrete. And one piece of rebar held me back and a truck run me over. And he was petering (sic) off the bridge. They pronounced me dead. I could hear 'em. So I broke my back in two places, I crushed my hips. I hit that thing so hard because I was in a Shelby Piper. I wasn't going fast. There's a lot of power, 730 horsepower. MR. HORN: If you'll pardon me, Mr. Phillips-- MR. PHILLIPS: I mean, I was out of work, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One time. Hold on-- MR. HORN: I understand. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- hold one. One at a time, here. MR. HORN: My question is, if you've done let's say thousands and thousands of air conditionings, how come we only have a couple dozen permits on record for you in this county? I'm a little confused. MR. PHILLIPS: He -- for some reason his records only -- I mean, he said since 1992 I had the possibility, but he didn't say what the permits were pulled after that for per year. Page 73 ~-,,-- _ .11I.,......11 '"'...~"'...,-, ........""""'''''.-. 16 I 1 87 I . May 20, 2009 MR. HORN: I understand, but he has one permit last year, a couple the year before. I'm a little confused here. MR. PHILLIPS: Sir, I broke my -- I couldn't move. I didn't have the ability to do jobs. COMMISSIONER HORNIAK: So you haven't really been working that much in the past -- MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, no, sir-- MR. HORN: -- couple years? MR. PHILLIPS: -- I'm just getting fired back up. I still got to have surgery, sir, okay? I mean, may I say that when they went through my shoulder, I got cadaver bone, I got synthetic bone, I got synthetic bone mass, I got steel and I got screws because I would not take an operation, because I was going to take care of my son. I stayed in traction for my back to heal. I re-broke it in six months working. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, that will do that. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you for your medical history, appreciate that. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm serious, sir, that's the reason I didn't work. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Ganguli, did you get the opportunity to go up into the attic -- MR. GANGULI: I did, sir -- MR. L YKOS: -- and inspect the area. MR. GANGULI: -- I was present when the photographs were taken. MR. L YKOS: It looks like from the photographs that some of the wood that's fastened to these trusses looks new compared to the material that the trusses are made out? MR. GANGULI: I would agree. MR. L YKOS: Is that your opinion, that some of the scabbed on Page 74 n .. .-."'......".,..-. '.-- ja~2!JooJ37 ~'i material was new relative to the existing material that the trusses were made out of? MR. GANGULI: I'm flattered that you have so much faith in my observations, but that's what I would say, yes, sir. MR. L YKOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It appears also that -- I'm looking at the pictures and I'm seeing like -- I'm looking at possibly half-inch or three quarter inch plywood that are holding some of these trusses together that have been nailed severely. That's part of the repairs that were made or adjustments that were made to the trusses? MR. GANGULI: Again, when I was in the attic I was with another Collier County building official, Mr. Fleming, and I can't on the record tell you some of the things he said while he was taking the photographs in amazement of what he was seeing, sir. MR. PHILLIPS: May I? MR. GUITE': Mr. Phillips, did you observe these trusses being patched back together? MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir, absolutely. MR. GUITE': And you didn't say anything? MR. PHILLIPS: No, sir, I assumed it was because whoever put the second air handler in knew about the problems in the development. MR. GUITE': You didn't show the homeowner? MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, he -- I mean, sir, I don't know if I showed him or not. We looked at the -- I was on the ladder, okay. And what was wrong with the system, actually, sir, was not the air handler but the compressor. So we -- I don't know if we sat and -- MR. GUITE': I understand that. MR. PHILLIPS: -- talked about the air handler. And may I say also that wood that is put onto a truss repair, I would say for most of the time, excuse me, is like white pine. The trusses are made out of like a hard pine, I don't know why that would be, so it would be a different color, okay? Page 75 -';""'..~, ...., -.. """~~_O" .... "~""."_..,,_,"_"",.,"" - Ja~J, 10J3 7 ' . Now, if it's new wood, Rob would be able to tell, but it would be new wood, okay? Also, the reason, I had to put decking in to make it legal. And also, may I say that one of the trusses were cut. The home -- I mean, I forgot this. The homeowner had a little piece of wood on there so that he could get up in the attic; otherwise he couldn't store stuff. So yes, sir, he knew the trusses were cut. I have to say that's -- so, yes, sir, he knew or else he couldn't get in the attic. And the second -- see, he didn't say nothing until the second AC contractor got there, and he couldn't find nothing, so they come up with the truss thing. My system was right. I will say one thing, that I told the homeowner this: If he didn't want to run a new thermostat wire -- because it cost more money to put a wire down a wall, you know, 150 bucks or so -- that what we could do is take the fan that would circulate air through the whole house and nothing else worked out of the circuit. Therefore we'd have enough wires to make the heating and cooling work properly. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Phillips, you're going off on a tangent again. Again, we're talking about the charges that are against , you, we re -- MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- not talking about the installation-- MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- or the methods. I mean, I hate to keep interrupting you but, you know, this is getting to be hearsay and old. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry. What is hearsay, may I ask? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let's try to stick to the case itself and the charges. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir, absolutely. Please keep in mind, gentlemen -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing -- I mean closing statements, I'm sorry. Page 76 "~'.,"" "-'"'~""-"""""""""'. ~-"."'- 1611 I 87 May 20, 2009 MR. WHITE: Just one specific question. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. WHITE: Have you seen this packet? MR. PHILLIPS: No, sir, I haven't got it. MR. WHITE: I would ask if you could -- someone show him E-16. MR. PHILLIPS: Absolutely, thank you. MR. GANGULI: Only E-16, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Yeah, that's fine. You see the piece of white lumber? MR. PHILLIPS: Absolutely, sir. MR. WHITE: Do you recall installing that, or not? MR. PHILLIPS: I don't -- no, sir, I wouldn't -- MR. WHITE: It goes horizontal. MR. PHILLIPS: -- did that. No, sir, I don't even know what -- that white pine is there. I mean, if you see the other board, it's old. Okay, I mean, I don't know why it's cut, sir. MR. WHITE: My question is do you remember putting that piece of wood there or not. MR. PHILLIPS: No, sir, this particular truss was the way the gentleman got in and out of the attic. I know I -- the air handler sits right down here, sir, in the bottom of this. This is the truss. The air handler had the little wooden latch to get up in the attic. He could not have accessed -- oh, excuse me. He could not have accessed the unit without this thing being cut. So when the second AC company comes in, they see that. I mean, he had a latch on it. MR. WHITE: Okay. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: That's what I was thought you were referring to and why I asked. Thank you. Page 77 ....."''''"."., . .. .--.,,-.... lAJ. 1,09 87 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. You can see that white pine. I mean, it's got a screw in it or something. It's probably so he could move it and get it -- see, it's only got one attachment. See it could be moved? Please. MR. WHITE: Yeah, I see that. It looks like a bolt at the bottom or a screw. MR. PHILLIPS: The bottom? That's a knot, sir, from a tree limb. MR. WHITE: Oh, okay. MR. PHILLIPS: Excuse me. It's not attached; it's made to move. MR. WHITE: And it rotates from the top? MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. That way he can remove the truss and he can get up in the attic. MR. WHITE: I got you. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay, thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So in essence you did cut that truss in order to get that air handler up in that attic. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, no, sir, that's the homeowner's way in the attic. I cut that thing in little pieces. And this is a bigger area than -- everything in the attic is bigger than the hole I put it up in. And I didn't remove nothing out of that hole. I put it in a 1 7 and a half inch area. This area is bigger underneath there with the air -- the air handler is approx -- I think it's 26 by 21 installed. So see, this area down there is bigger all the way around. I can get it in there. This opening here, sir, okay, this board is going up. It's going up to the ceiling. This one's coming down. When this comes down, it's big enough to put that unit in probably three, four inches on one side. I make sure it's paping (phonetic ). And on this side I don't know, I don't know how much, but I had some room. So I put it up through here. And I'd bring it down and install it in the air handler. There was -- this goes up into the roof, sir. This is a larger area. I could climb through that easily. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So how did that board get there? Page 78 -_..-. II _ ~w... _,,,..,.,," -'.'.'-""'c'_''''''.'..''''''1'' r T "'"= ~g 10,~oJ~ 7 :. I. . " MR. PHILLIPS: The home -- I don't know, but that's the homeowner's way in the attic. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you didn't do that? MR. PHILLIPS: See, I can't say the homeowner cut it. I don't know who cut that thing. But I know it's the way the homeowner-- see, there's no -- he uses that to get in that attic. I don't know who cut it. I mean, this truss is cut all over town, sir. I mean, I didn't know I was supposed to be telling actually about all these things cut and these fire walls and stuff, you know. I don't report this stuff. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long have you been an AC contractor? MR. PHILLIPS: The license -- I guess Rob said 1982. And-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And 1,500 ac unit conditioners -- MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, sir-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- and if you went up there and saw a whole bunch of trusses cut you wouldn't tell anybody about that? MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, it'd be common practice. Everybody knows about it when they go up in the attic. The electrician knows about it. I mean, this is -- I'm not saying -- well, you don't see a lot of newer stuff now, sir, but you see -- I mean, in all these buildings around town you see it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I think I've heard enough. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you so much. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you so very much. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli, do you have any closing statements to make? MR. GANGULI: I do, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you like to elaborate on them, please. MR. GANGULI: Again, gentlemen, we've heard a lot this Page 79 ^'~. _0-",>-'" ....,~,"_.... ." ..."".--."..-..... ~ -. lJayI2J,.20~ 7 morning. And I want to reemphasize that we are dealing with a state certified contractor, which imposes some limitations on us. And the subject matter we're dealing with is working without a permit, once again. MR. PHILLIPS: May I -- I'm sorry, may I add one thing? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. Continue. MR. GANGULI: One of the missions of the contractors licensing office is to provide a viable recourse to homeowners when there is reason to believe that a job performed by a contractor was not done correctly. In this case it appears that numerous facets of this air conditioning installation were not done in accordance with the standards set by the Collier County Building Department. The most fundamental of these responsibilities is of course acquiring a building permit when necessary to provide validation of the work performed to the required inspections. In this case the respondent was not only inadequately licensed to do frame carpentry but also failed to obtain engineering and permitting for the modifications to the roof trusses. The failure of Mr. Phillips to obtain a building permit prior to commencing work within his own licensed profession provides reasons for concern. The simple explanation attested to by the second air conditioning contractor of why the unit failed to operate correctly in the first place also raises questions about the capability of Mr. Phillips' installation to successfully pass inspection. The culmination of all these issues has resulted in the homeowner, Mr. Koenig, having to endure unnecessary financial expenditures and inconvenience that could have been easily avoided. Since Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Incorporated is a state certified contractor, the Collier County Licensing Board has limited jurisdiction -- I'm sorry, limited jurisdictional authority in this Page 80 T .'" 1III"q'll __.... .~_..,,- ~..".,_.,~...... .. 11 ...-.--- ~AJ,zloe7 matter. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now, Mr. Phillips, I'm going to ask you for a closing statement. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I don't want to hear no more about how you did it, what you did. Closing statement on the charges that are against you. MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. It's been brought up about my past history and the amount of work I did. I just paid off a $1.42 million house that I bought in Miramar Lakes that actually is worth about 3.5 now. I've only been employed by myself and I've only done air conditioning work. You have heard IRS problems in this room. I've been audited and they went deep, sir. They were after me and ended up giving me back 30 -- no, $24,000. I overpaid -- I make sure I always do my job, thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, if you want to have a seat, please. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir, thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm going to go ahead and ask for any kind of other questions from the board before we close the public hearing. (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No other questions, I need a motion to close the public hearing. MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion. MR. JERULLE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second, Mr. Jerulle. Motion and a second to close the public hearing on Case No. 2009-06. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. Page 81 ,..-. .",,__ .... _1 ~,"--""""'''-'".'''''~,"''' ,-,,,"",.,,,-,,,,,,,,..~. 16' l~B7 May 20, 20 9 MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now, just to let you know, Mr. Phillips, just so you know, we're going to go into deliberations here where we're going to discuss what was heard and the case. And then we're going to discuss that between the board members up here. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All comments now are closed. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You'll hear what we say. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, thank you, sir. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli, you can have a seat, if you'd like to, unless you have anything else. MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin, I have a recommendation, if you'd care to hear it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'd like to hear that, sure. MR. NEALE: Well, it's not appropriate to make any recommendation at this point -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry. MR. NEALE: -- in that first you have to find -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: After deliberation. MR. NEALE: -- him in violation and then -- so let me proceed. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You can have a seat for just a minute. We'll call you back. MR. NEALE: -- I'll charge the board and then, you know, should Page 82 . - ~,,~>....,,_.. , ""'-'~"~""'-" - 16 11 97 May 20,2009 you find him in violation. As Mr. Joslin noted in the introductory remarks, I'll give a brief charge to the board at this point and then the board will make its deliberation. That the board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process have been afforded to the respondent. However, pursuant to Section 22-202(G)(5) of the Collier County Ordinance, the formal Rules of Evidence as set out in Florida statutes do not apply. The board shall consider solely evidence presented at the hearing in the consideration of this matter and shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony. It shall admit and consider all other types of evidence commonly relied upon by a reasonably prudent person in the conduct of their affairs, whether or not that evidence would be admissible in the court of law or equity. Hearsay in a case such as this may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence, but by itself is not sufficient to support a finding in this or any other case, unless it would be admissible over objection in civil court. The standard established for sanctions in a case such as this, since it does not affect the license of the contractor directly, is that a preponderance of the evidence must be found to convict. The standards in evidence are to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the complaint, which is Section 4.2.2 of the ordinance, and the charge specifically here is willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city or Collier County. In order to support a finding that the respondent is in violation of the ordinance, the board must find facts that show the violations were actually committed by him. The facts must show to the preponderance of evidence standard the legal conclusion that he was in violation of the relevant section of the ordinance. Page 83 ~..~.. ~--- .. ..... -,'~-~,."., ..-,. --"" -"^'.,.--.~- - M~y90,1219B7 As these charges are the only ones to which the respondent has had the opportunity to prepare a defense, these are the only ones that the board may decide upon. Any damages that may be found, should the respondent be found in violation, must also be directly related to the charge and may not be for matters unrelated. The decision made by this board today shall be stated orally at this hearing and is effective upon being read. The respondent, if found in violation, has certain appeal rights to this board, the courts and the State Construction Industry Licensing Board as set out in Collier County Ordinance and in Florida Statutes and Rules. If the board is unable to issue a decision immediately following the hearing because of questions of law or other matters of such a nature that a decision may not be made at this hearing, the board may withhold its decision until a subsequent meeting. The board shall vote upon the evidence presented on all areas, and if it finds the respondent in violation, adopt the administrative complaint. The board shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the charges set out in the administrative complaint. The board now should go into deliberation on whether he is in violation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think it's -- pretty much as far as I can see, he's pretty much guilty as far as the permit goes. It's something that's definitely within the count of the 4.2.2. And I think it's a little bit open as far as whether the trusses were cut by him or not. We have no definite proof that he did it. We've got a lot of hearsay that says so. We can act on hearsay, correct? MR. NEALE: You can act on hearsay, but again, the only charge that he is really brought forth on is whether he willfully violated the Collier County codes. And failure to pull a permit -- Page 84 -,.,--- lilT .._~,-"'-".-.,._. ."-"""- -,.-.--",- 1611 87 May 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is a willful violation. MR. NEALE: -- is a violation, if you found it to be willful. MR. JERULLE: We have an affidavit from the owner saying that he cut the trusses. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yeah. The trusses I think don't really get involved in it right now. Basically the permit is the issue and the fact he didn't get inspections and he didn't get a final inspection. Which he's pretty much admitted that. And pretty much it's obvious he didn't get a permit. MR. WHITE: I think those facts are fairly clear. And although I have some understanding of his rationale for canceling the permit, based upon the work done by the second contractor, and it seems to be his professional belief that by putting a jumper across it may have created a circumstance that would in his opinion not comply. But without an inspection of that, we're kind of left to wonder. But the fact of the matter remains, in my view of things, that it's his own admission, including the cancellation of the permit, that makes clear that there's a willful violation, that it's his intention to not obtain and comply with the permitting requirements. I don't believe that there's a preponderance of evidence that demonstrates he's the one who cut the trusses. It was either hearsay or it was testimony on both sides, sworn testimony on both sides, that one side said he did and he says he did not. Certainly, you know, looking at the photos seems to help. I don't know what the spacing of the trusses may be, but it certainly seems compelling to me that if it took three days and he disassembled the air handler, that it wouldn't make much sense to cut the trusses. But I think the clear thing for us for a finding of fact is in regards to the willful violation of the permitting requirements. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: After he's put in 1,500 so-called air conditioners throughout the year, I'm sure that there would be more permits out there in the field. Page 85 ,-- """.,,-^.-~>"._- 16 I 1 91 -- May 20, 2009 MR. WHITE: I kind of ignored that. He's not here and no one's alleged that he did other work without a permit except this one, so I'm kind of not going to give that much weight. But for this one I'm pretty certain he's willfully violated the permitting standards. Even though I understand why, I don't agree with him. The only way he could have kind of kept himself from being here today would have been to gone and get the inspections and deal with whatever needed to be done to correct it. MR. GUITE': Well, he should have pulled the permit before he even started the job. MR. WHITE: Oh, I absolutely agree with that. Absolutely agree with that. MR. L YKOS: Well, I'll tell you that the three guys at this end of the bench, that truss cutting's a pretty serious situation. MR. WHITE: Well, absolutely, no doubt about it. MR. L YKOS: And even if he didn't do it, I've had some projects where I've seen some things. Not only do I bring it to the homeowner's attention, but I will not continue until there's a solution for that. MR. GUITE': Exactly. MR. L YKOS: If I go up in somebody's attic and there have been trusses involved, been cut up and there have been repairs that I question, I will bring in an engineer and I will determine if the repairs are correct and I will provide an estimate to the client for the proper repaIrs. So in my mind that's even worse than the air conditioning issue. Because that roof structure was -- MR. JERULLE: Compromised. MR. L YKOS: -- compromised several times. MR. WHITE: Is there an affirmative responsibility of a contractor to report some prior violation or belief that there was a structural alteration that may not meet code? I don't know. And I don't remember anybody saying today that that's why he was here, because Page 86 -,'.',,-- . i" T. 17J7 .-.._,,".,~ ._'.-- ~ 1611 ! 87 May 20, 200 he failed to report it. What they I believe alleged was that he did it. I mean, that's a different thing that's not part of this case. But I understand your concern, and I agree with you, I think it's a dangerous circumstance, especially in regards to not only load ratings but also hurricanes, so -- MR. GUITE': Now, if we do find him guilty and turn this over to the state, does this packet become part of what goes to the state? MR. NEALE: It's part of the record that goes forward. MR. GUITE': Pictures and all? MR. NEALE: Pictures and all. Because it's part of the record in this case, so it all goes forward. MR. GUITE': We really can't do anything about it. MR. L YKOS: We can't fine him. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Be aware that the only thing that we can actually do, being a state certified contractor, is stop his permit privileges here in Collier County. The rest will come from the state board. If the board deems to allow that information to go there, or sends it there. MR. L YKOS: Well, it doesn't seem like -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I didn't say we weren't going to. MR. L YKOS: It doesn't seem like if we pulled Mr. Phillips' permit pulling privileges -- MR. GUITE': That wouldn't matter. MR. L YKOS: -- that it would affect his business very much. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. MR. GUITE': No, I think you're right on that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: There's probably 1,499 without permits. So I'm looking for an entertainment for a motion to find Mr. Bobby J. Phillips -- MR. WHITE: I think we have-- MR. L YKOS: Mr. Chairman, excuse me for a second. I know I'm not ready to go there yet. Or maybe I -- under the count, which Page 87 ._~"..... "" .......t.. ~ .nlt'~-q ...._...~_,...,""..........~......,,__.....,"~ _ _ " ~. _0'__""'''''- .... --. l~A, 109B 7 I says he willfully violated the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city or county, I don't know that we can't interpret that that includes the situation with the roof structure. Because if -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I don't see how you're going to be able to do that, Mr. Lykos, because -- MR. L YKOS: I know, I'm trying -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- you have no definite proof. Now if -- MR. L YKOS: -- to figure out a way -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- you come up with a way-- MR. L YKOS: I'm trying to figure out how we can -- because we're limited in the disciplinary action that we can take, here's kind of where I'm coming down on this. If we are forced to exclude the roof truss situation to whatever level of culpability he has, if we're forced to exclude that, then I want the disciplinary action to be as harsh as possible on what we hold him accountable for, okay? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. L YKOS: Ifwe can find some way to hold him responsible for some part of what happened to the roof trusses, then I want to thoroughly investigate that before we make a decision on what we find him guilty for and then subsequently what the disciplinary action is. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, then I'll go to Mr. Neale. MR. NEALE: If I may, the-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Neale? MR. L YKOS: So we need to defer to you on that. MR. NEALE: The real issue is there is only one disciplinary action available, period. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Period. MR. NEALE: And so whether you find him guilty of kidnapping Lindbergh's baby or cutting up roof trusses or whatever, the sanction's going to be the same. Unlike in numerous other cases on this board, you know, if you Page 88 _ ~~I_~~' n --'-">"~ ".-,.-..-..- 1611 B7 May 20, 2009 find him guilty and you determine based on the facts that he is to be sanctioned, there is one sanction available. So -- MR. L YKOS: Okay. MR. WHITE: What I'd suggest, Mr. Chairman, in order to make sure that this case is as airtight as possible, that we propose to take a vote on finding him guilty or not and what we would find him guilty of I'd propose should read something like this, that failing to timely obtain the required building permit for air conditioning work and to obtain the required inspections and C.O. MR. L YKOS: We have to find him guilty of the count. MR. NEALE: Yeah, really-- MR. WHITE: My point is -- MR. L YKOS: Yeah, we can't do that. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, there are a lot of you talking at the same time. MR. WHITE: My point is that you find him guilty of the count, but that the finding of fact is basically that he had failed to timely -- as I just read it. MR. NEALE: Typically the finding of fact, the way this board typically finds, is the board incorporates as a finding of fact what is contained in the administrative complaint. And so therefore that would incorporate what you've suggested so -- MR. WHITE: The only thing that's in the complaint is Count One, and all Count One says is he willfully violated the applicable building code, et cetera. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. WHITE: There is no -- MR. GUITE': You have to read the summary, yeah. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But that Count One is going to lead to the rest. MR. WHITE: That's not incorporated by reference. It's -- I don't know what the summary is relative to the complaint, but it isn't the Page 89 Jy~O~ 2Jo9 B 7 I complaint. And that's why I was looking simply to say that, you know, if there's a necessary finding of fact, it's going to go forward and be what the CILB looks at. I think we've got to give them at least something that they can certainly agree with as at the minimum why we found him to have violated Count One. Without any debate, without any -- MR. NEALE: Well, the findings of fact, the way this board typically finds, is that the allegations of fact as set forth in the administrative complaint are found to be supported by the evidence. So what that does is incorporate all the allegation of fact within the administrative complaint. MR. WHITE: Is the administrative complaint the first two pages? MR. NEALE: No, the administrative complaint is the administrative complaint and all attachments. That -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This entire package. MR. NEALE: -- whole packet is adopted as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Everything inside that packet goes together. MR. NEALE: So that all goes in the evidence. MR. WHITE: Okay, there was nothing in any of these documents that connected it to. And I apologize for not knowing that that was what was represented by the evidence packet. MR. NEALE: Yeah, it all constitutes what is really Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's just that being a state certified contractor, our hands are somewhat tied as far as penalties or sanctions we with can put on him here. But once we provide the guilty factor or not guilty factor of the count, then this whole packet will go to the state board, in which then they will open it up and then they can go further with it, if they need to. MR. NEALE: And the -- as it goes forward to the state board, the finding of fact will say that this board has found those allegations Page 90 -. ,._~,-~. ,"- ._,,.,,,_. ~.. III"~ T I" 11 I" 1611 87 May 20, 2009 of fact contained within the complaint are found to be supported by the evidence at this hearing. MR. L YKOS: All right, I'll make a motion that we find Bobby J. Phillips, Jr., d/b/a Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Incorporated guilty of Count One, Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.2.2, willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city or Collier County. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: There's a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Zero opposed. Motion carries unanimously. MR. NEALE: All right, the second section here is since the board found the respondent in violation of the ordinance, the board shall consider and order sanctions under the parameters that were discussed, which is since he is a state licensed contractor, the only sanction available is the denial of the issuance of permits or requiring issuance of permits with conditions. Those are the only two choices. In imposing the sanctions, the board shall consider the gravity of the violation, impact of the violation, actions taken by the violator to correct that violation, any previous violations committed, any other Page 91 """-~.<<--'" ,-" .- ~ _...,--~.... 1611 ~B7 I May 20, 2009 evidence presented at this hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction that is appropriate for the case, given the nature of this matter. Then the board also shall issue a recommendation to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. Recommendations of: No further action, suspension, revocation or restriction of the license, or a fine to be levied by the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. So the board can make other recommendations to the state board. MR. WHITE: Is it possible in terms of restricting permit pulling privileges to confine that to a period of time or an event certain? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The privileges are suspended, period. He's found guilty of the charge. The only way he can do this was if he was (sic) somehow in an appeal form come back and found not guilty of this charge. MR. NEALE: Or the board -- Mr. White brings up a good point. The board could set out a time certain for the -- you know, that the issuance permits are denied for a period of a year, two years, five years. MR. WHITE: Well, what I was thinking, gentlemen, was that we would certainly kind of pull all his permit pulling privileges until such time as the CILB comes up with its findings, one way -- MR. L YKOS: We don't know how long that is. MR. GUITE': It's like four years out. MR. WHITE: That's fine with me. But the point is I wouldn't think we'd want him pulling permits during the time period in which we're not certain that the state's going to ultimately come to a conclusion one way or the other. I'm satisfied he's violated it and think that one of the recommendations we might make to them would be in the form of a fine. But in the interim I think the point is that I don't know that it makes sense to have him allowed to be able to pull permits. I think Page 92 "'-~.....-_,-- -,,-"_.. ..-.'--- ,- .,..,.........'" MaY~~2~0! 87 we've all heard enough to say that -- on whether it's just a willful violation of not getting a permit or getting the inspection and CO or the failure to address the truss issues, whether he caused them or not, are adequate enough to say that he ought not be in a position to pull permits in Collier County, and that the recommendation to CILB ought be one that indicates we felt it serious enough that we withheld his permit pulling privileges until they made a determination. And that if they believe on the other side of things that no further discipline is warranted beyond that period of time, so be it. But I still think that a recommendation of a fine to CILB would be in order as well. MR. NEALE: And the board can make that recommendation. They can recommend -- this board can -- you know, even though they can't do it in this forum, they can recommend to the Contractor Licensing Board, this board can recommend, that they revoke his license, that they fine him up to the statutory maximum of $10,000. So those two penalties are certainly within the purview of this board to make that recommendation to the state board. MR. JERULLE: Does the county staff have a recommendation? Before we make a decision, I'd like to hear what they have to say. MR. GANGULI: Gentlemen, I'm somewhat parroting here. It is a recommendation of the county that the permit pulling privileges of Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Incorporated be revoked against Mr. Phillips' State License CAC-054717, and this finding of fact be forwarded to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations for further action to be taken at their discretion. MR. LANTZ: Can I just ask a question? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. MR. LANTZ: Ifhe has no permit pulling privileges, that's not putting him out of business. He can still do service calls and repairs where you don't need a permit. So we're not doing very much, realistically. Page 93 *,,~. --'~~ ~"w . -, r . '1 -'''''--~'''---'-''.'''"-'''''-~-''-~-"'''-''- .--. 16111 87 May 20,2009 MR. JACKSON: You're correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Unfortunately that's the hands that are tied. MR. LANTZ: I just want to make sure -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're absolutely correct, he can, yes. He can also go put air conditioning systems in like he maybe has been doing without a permit, but we have to catch him in it. MR. L YKOS: For our new members, I remember one of my first couple of sessions I was eager to revoke somebody's license, and our previous chairman, Mr. Dickson, said remember, when you do that, functionally you're taking away somebody's ability to earn a living. So we need to be careful how we act in terms of going to the fullest extreme of our abilities, which is revoking somebody's license. If this were a situation where he built a home, didn't get a permit and there were severe structural problems and somebody got hurt and when that homeowner tried to get satisfaction from the builder and the builder skipped out of town with money, that's a severe situation where revocation of a license would seem appropriate. My opinion is that this offense is something less than a revocation of a license. Probably a suspension. Your point is very well taken that if we suspend his license for 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, whatever it is, he can still do service. He'll probably do some replacements that we won't know about. And if we revoke his license, he'll probably do the same thing. But I think in keeping with what we've done historically and in keeping with what a worst case scenario is in terms of a crime against the community, revocation is probably not appropriate in this situation. MR. WHITE: Are you speaking, Mr. Lykos, in terms of a recommendation to CILB or something within the scope of our authority to limit his permit pulling privileges? MR. L YKOS: Within our authority. Page 94 , ........."_;..,"".....'_,..,...~,".",.H'._.""~_~ . ,,_,.. ,_ __.. m--"';'''m'',' 16 I 1 iB 7 fI1~ May 20,2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We can't go any farther than that at the moment. We can make recommendations-- MR. WHITE: So we're not going to revoke his license, we're simply going to restrict his permit pulling privileges to some degree or not. MR. L YKOS: Right. Perhaps suspend him for 30 days, 90 days. Which would limit his -- the work that he can do to service work and maintenance and those kind of things. But it would in theory prevent him from replacing air conditioning units or installing new air conditioning units. Assuming that he actually abides by the law and doesn't do it without his -- without pulling permits. MR. GUITE': We've only revoked I think maybe one since I've been here. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Maybe five in my nine years. MR. GUITE': Yeah, so it's-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's got to be pretty serious and right now -- MR. GUITE': -- it was really serious last time. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We can't prove the seriousness of this case. Not getting a permit, not getting an inspection, okay, it's a serious factor, but it's not detrimental to -- as it is to not have trusses cut in your home. But we cannot -- physically I don't think we have the evidence to prove that. So it would be very impartial of us to take a man's license because of evidence that we can't prove. MR. GUITE': And if somebody came in and rewired it and did it wrong, probably it's putting the homeowner in more danger than cutting the truss, so -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And I'm looking at the charges on this also of $69 and $200 for a bad thermostat. Now, being a contractor myself with brand new air conditioners and brand new heat pumps, that they come right out of the box bad. So it's not saying that it was Page 95 -- '"- eM"__.__...' .._".~,,__,_ ..~,.w,,",..,_~.. "" l~2!, 10P 7 .., his fault that it was bad. And then we're theorizing on the trusses. So I think I agree with Mr. Lykos, I don't think this is a case where we should be trying to really take away his livelihood, only restrict his livelihood to a degree of going out and trying to put in new systems again. MR. WHITE: So it's a question of time I guess between what I was suggesting it be that his permit pulling privileges be withheld until the CILB rules. If that's going to be a matter of years, then we have kind of a large gap of time between what seems many of the board members are thinking and what I was suggesting. I was under the impression that this thing would get to the CILB and probably be heard within a matter of months and decided -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No, no, no. It would probably take, ballpark I'm thinking two years, the back log they have. MR. L YKOS: The busiest time of the year for the AC guys is coming up, summer. Ifwe limit his permit pulling privileges for -- or remove them for 90 days, that would get through -- it would be his busiest time of the year. That I would hope would be pretty good punishment for somebody that can go get a permit basically over the counter. So, you know, I'm not making a motion yet, I want to throw here that 90 days during the busiest time of the year is probably pretty good disciplinary action. MR. JERULLE: Listen, I don't think we're going to be -- by 90 days or nine years, I don't think you're going to affect his business. And the reason I say that, he can always act as a subcontractor. He is still a licensed -- Florida state licensed contractor that can have another AC contractor hire him to do the work and the other AC guy pull the permit. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. JERULLE: So you're really not going to affect his license, besides the point that you said that he could still do maintenance and Page 96 ,.......~.." - ~.,.,"."""_,,~.._... ''''0" ,,,. ....... MJ2~ Jo~ B7 service calls. So -- MR. L YKOS: That's a great point, Terry. MR. JERULLE: -- I don't know that we're ever going to affect-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is there -- how about another way to restrict his -- the permit pulling privileges, yes, but as far as to put him on some type of a -- MR. L YKOS: One-year probation? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- a probationary period of maybe every 90 days or every three months for a period of a year and have him -- allow Collier County staff to be able to monitor his permit pulling privileges. That will restrict him from being able to just go in and pull -- and then monitor those inspections and monitor those permits. MR. NEALE: I don't think that falls within the purview of what the sanctions are the board can -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What we can do. MR. NEALE: -- impose. I mean, it's -- in a deny or permit-- have permit pulling privileges with restrictions. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: Now, that -- what those restrictions might be, I don't have any good information on what that power is, but -- MR. WHITE: I would imagine potentially -- in other cases I've seen they would limit the scope of work, for example, that you might be able to do, dollar limited jobs, I don't know -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I mean, we've had other contractors with the same -- not the same scenario but something similar to it where they have to report every job that they do. MR. NEALE: But that was -- those were locally licensed contractors. MR. L YKOS: Yeah, those were workers' compo MR. JERULLE: Can -- MR. NEALE: And those were locally licensed, not state licensed. Page 97 ",._._-,- 1611 87 f' May 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I gotcha. MR. NEALE: You know, the question would come to what this board's interpretation of the phrase requiring issuance of permits with conditions would be. MR. JERULLE: Ifwe did suspend his license -- and it's a question -- can we make it contingent upon him coming back before us before -- MR. NEALE: Well, you can't suspend his license. MR. JERULLE: Right, excuse me, I misspoke. Pull the permit -- MR. NEALE: Well, you know, as I say, it really turns on how the board interprets the phrase requiring issuance of permits with conditions. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, that would stem into the fact of being able to put him on a probationary situation where the county, every time he was to go in and, say, pull a permit, he would be under the supervision of the staff monitoring that permit. And if he was caught doing any other work in any other job, in any other complaints, the license would then go to the state board as far as being a willful violation of that? I mean, I'm trying to put words together here to see if we can't put him on a real page, but-- MR. JERULLE: See, I want to pull him into the fold, so to speak. I want him to come back and recognize the board and recognize the county and be a good honest contractor. I don't want to push him away and have him go out and do work without pulling permits. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, you have to look at it this way, too, he's been here since what, 1986 he says? Now, that's a long time to be a contractor here, a state certified contractor. And I don't know if staff can come up with any other penalties or any other violations that he's had or any other complaints he's had on record. And ifhe hasn't-- MR. L YKOS: Well, in 15 years he's pulled seven permits. What if we do this, 90-day suspension of his permit pulling privileges and one-year probation. If he gets caught on a job where he Page 98 ,.- -...----,,- " ..,' "."_.~" " 1611 87 f~i May 20, 2009 doesn't pull a permit, he will be on probation when he gets caught and he'll have to come back in front of the board. And if he does a job without a permit in the next year, well then we can actually revoke his license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We can't-- MR. HORN: Permit pulling-- MR. L YKOS: His -- you know, functionally -- that's why we keep getting caught up in it, because functionally it's -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's what we'd like to do. MR. L YKOS: Right. I mean, that's what the net result is. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, may I? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, you may. Sorry. MR. JACKSON: If Mr. Phillips is found in violation today and in two weeks or six months Mr. Phillips performs another installation with no building permit, that's going to be considered another willful violation -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Correct. MR. JACKSON: -- and he'll be back in front of this board no matter what, probation, no probation. It would be considered another willful violation and again he would be in front of this board. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I understand that. So we wouldn't have to set up all the extra rules. I mean, that's automatic. MR. JACKSON: I think the concept of probation is redundant, because if he does it again he'll be here. MR. L YKOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So it's either deny his permit privileges or it doesn't matter. MR. JACKSON: Revocation or suspension is the way I'm looking at it. And a suspension with a stipulation, perhaps. MR. WHITE: You're again talking about of permit pulling privileges. MR. JACKSON: Of his ability to obtain a building permit and Page 99 .. ....'''.--......-.'...----.. -,<,-".-..."._- . Ma}2~ JoJ B 7 nothing more. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Jackson, I'll ask you then, what's your recommendation? MR. JACKSON: First of all, the county would certainly like to see the installation of this unit permitted. And if that doesn't happen, certainly it would not weigh well on Mr. Phillips. MR. WHITE: So are you suggesting that we would withhold his permit pulling privileges, for example, until he obtained the necessary -- reopened the permit, obtained the necessary inspections and got a CO for Mr. Koenig's unit? MR. JACKSON: A suspension would be -- MR. WHITE: At least that long? MR. JACKSON: -- would be far more reasonable, provided he permitted what brought him here in the first place. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This job. MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Very good. MR. JACKSON: If that is not permitted, I think a revocation would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, so the other contractor that came in and finished the job actually did not then get a permit for it? MR. NEALE: They didn't have to. MR. JACKSON: The installation to this date is not permitted. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I thought they -- that's what I thought they did. MR. NEALE: And the board does get caught in a Catch-22 if they suspend his permit pulling privileges but then he has to pull a permit to get this job finally permitted and inspected, he doesn't have the ability to pull permits so -- I think what Mr. Jackson's driving at, give him the window to pull this permit, get it -- MR. WHITE: Well, certainly -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Can we given him a time span of-- Page 100 .".-., -,,,.--..-,,. ,-.,' ,. ",.,.....-""-,~,,-,.,.'-- - 16 J 1 I 87 ~ I May 20, 2009 THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, can we speak one at a time, please. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry. MR. L YKOS: Sorry. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Can we give him a time span of say 30 days or 15 days? I don't know how long it would take to get an AC permit, but it shouldn't take that long. And to get the final inspection. If it's already inspected and running and working, it shouldn't take too long. MR. WHITE: May I make a-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Can we give him a IS-day grace and if it doesn't happen within the 15 days, or even a 30-day period, then his permit privileges are suspended, period. MR. WHITE: May I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. MR. WHITE: And maybe this makes more work for us, I don't know. But certainly in terms of restricting his permit pulling privileges, we could restrict his permit pulling privileges to this address only, number one. So I think that solves the question of timing and it puts in Mr. Phillips' hands whether he's going to come in and get that permit issue resolved, get the inspections and get the CO. And then I don't know whether we have the ability to carry this case forward to a point in time where once that permit is obtained and hopefully C.O.'d that we would make a further determination at that point in time as to a period of time to reconsider the scope of restriction on his permit pulling privileges, meaning that they would be suspended indefinitely, with the exception of this address, until such time as we would come back and further consider. My point being simply to be able to evaluate first whether he's going to get the permit and fix the problem for Mr. Koenig, and then secondaril y, depending upon what is done from the building department's point of view that's needed to fix it. Page 101 ""_,.,"""'''M' ".'~~'~4_ 16 I 1 B7 " May 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: For the final inspection. MR. WHITE: Right. MR. NEALE: I would think, following Mr. White's suggestion, I certainly think it would be in the purview of this board to -- you've already found him in violation, that's already done. The ,board could -- it's permitted within the ordinance and within the statute that the board could suspend or delay the determination of sanctions until such time as he performs or does not perform certain actions. So therefore you could say, you know, that he has a certain period of time to get the permit, get it inspected and then come back before this board at a time certain, 30 days from now-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thirty days. MR. NEALE: -- next meeting. If he has done that at that time, then you -- or not done it at that time, then you could at the next meeting determine what the sanctions are that are appropriate and the recommendations to the board. Is that -- MR. WHITE: Practically I think it achieves the same end and I'd be comfortable with it. MR. LANTZ: I just have one more question. If I were the homeowner in this situation -- I assume they're not on good terms at all. And if he came into my house, I would say I don't want you coming to my house, I don't want you to come on my property, I don't want you to come to my attic. So I'm just curious as if the homeowner -- what happens if the homeowner says I don't want you here, get somebody else to pull the permit and get -- I would not be surprised if that was the homeowner's response. They may have the other company come back, whoever did the repair, permanent-- MR. GUITE': But what's going to happen with the roof trusses? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. GUITE': When they go for final inspection, they're going to kick it back to the -- Page 102 ----;",,-- . 161il 87 t"~. May 20, 2009 MR. LANTZ: I wouldn't let him in my roof, in my attic. I mean, regardless of what the board said. MR. GUITE': No, but -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But again, though-- MR. GUITE': -- I'd probably just get somebody else to fix it -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Again, though-- MR. GUITE': -- and just move on. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're theorizing though again that the roof trusses were his -- was his fault. MR. GUITE': No, no, no, I'm not. That's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And we can prove that. MR. GUITE': That's what I'm saying. Because we don't know he did it. But when he pulls the permit and they call for an inspection and they go up there to look at the unit, they're going to see the roof trusses have been cut and they're going to fail the inspection. So he's in a Catch-22. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I don't -- go ahead, I'm sorry. MR. L YKOS: If I remember right, there was a state law that passed, I think it was in '08, giving contractors one year with right of first -- first right to come in and repair any defects. The owner has to provide written notice of construction defects and the original contractor has one year to effect those repairs or offer a financial settlement for the value of those repairs. So even though the homeowner may not really like to have Mr. Phillips back in his home, there is a state law that gives Mr. Phillips one year to go back and make those repairs. MR. LANTZ: Does that give him access or that gives him the homeowner doesn't have financial repercussions if he does? MR. L YKOS: The law is that the contractor has one year to make the repairs or offer financial remuneration. So in this situation we're requiring that he actually make the repairs. He can't give the homeowner a check for the cost of -- the value of those repairs. He Page 103 ~'-''''''''-'''._'' ....~~,- 1 ~a! 2~, 20~ 7 l'1 actually has to go back and complete the job and make the re -- to our satisfaction. So there's a state law that would allow him on the property to do that. MR. WHITE: One of the things that was in the packet was a statement from an engineering company that dealt with what were the neces -- or what were going to be proposed as the necessary steps to repair the truss. I don't know that we have that information yet or how long it's going to take to get that information. It could be a fairly simple matter to get those things repaired, I don't know. And we won't know. But I think the point is that if we put Mr. Phillips in the position of having to take responsibility for it to complete the job and he chooses not to, that's in his hands. We're not saying that he did it, we're not saying he's responsible to take the blame for them having been cut, but certainly there's an understanding it seems in the county's permitting staff that a contractor, regardless of AC, electrical or otherwise, has some responsible duty to notify the homeowner and potentially the county that there have been trusses cut. And that certainly seems to be a concern of this board. So I think we put the keys in Mr. Phillips' hands to address the matter. And if there is a financial consequence of doing that, I think he's going to have to weigh that, and he's going to have to look at what the subsequent costs are going to be in appearing before the CILB if a month from now our recommendation for sanction is potentially more severe because he did not step up to the plate. And so I think the idea that we've made the finding, as Mr. Neale indicates, we table the determination of the sanctions till our next meeting, and I think Mr. Phillips is probably aware that what we're expecting he will do is renew the building permit, get on up there and -- well, I don't even know if he has to go back, but certainly county inspectors go in and look at it, see what needs to be done and address Page 104 , ..... _. -"-",..-...--.,, ]JaylzJ,zoa 7 ~1 those issues. If another permit is necessary to repair the structural aspects of the trusses, hopefully the engineering firm will have made its recommendation shortly, and they'll have adequate information on how to fix it. And if he bears the cost of doing so, I'm going to be far more inclined a month from now to be a bit more lenient. And I would ImagIne -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So we suspend his permit privileges for 30 days except for this particular home address permit, allow him 30 days to be able to go in and make the repairs -- MR. WHITE: So long as Mr. Neale-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- or at least act on it and try to get a final permit and then report -- or come back before this board and we hold sanctions until the next meeting. MR. WHITE: Further sanctions. And if I understand what Mr. Neale was saying, I think we have the latitude to do that. MR. NEALE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Rather than actually act on it today, other than make the act of we found him guilty -- MR. McNALL: Found him guilty, and then the sanction that would be imposed is a 30-day suspension of permit privileges, except for this residence. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: And then he would come back here at the next regularly scheduled board meeting for review and final imposition of sanctions and recommendations to the CILB. So any recommendation to the CILB is held in abeyance until next month. The only sanctions being imposed is he's suspended for this month, except for this address. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And then should he go ahead and finish all the permits, get the final inspection and possibly make the truss repairs or whatever has to be done there to make this thing pass Page 105 ~ ",_",,"~_';" -,<_._._. . --...-..___.._......"00.. -.jil lU 16 I [~;"~' 87 May 20, 2009 inspection, then he is basically off the hook, or -- MR. NEALE: No. MR. L YKOS: No, no, no, we'll make the determination next month. MR. NEALE: All you do next month -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's what I mean, after that 30-day period. But then when he comes back, then we can make our final determination. MR. NEALE: Then you make the final determination. Board makes the final determination at that time as to what if any other sanctions are imposed. MR. L YKOS: I can agree with that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I can agree with that. MR. GUITE': Is that truss cut? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry? MR. GUITE': Is that truss cut? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Where? MR. GUITE': I don't know, show me. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: There? MR. GUITE': No, anywhere, I don't care. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I can't tell. MR. GUITE': It's not. MR. JERULLE: Ian, are we having a board meeting next month? MR. JACKSON: Yes, we will be here in June. MR. GUITE': On this one you can't tell. MR. NEALE: Okay, we're going to need-- MR. L YKOS: A motion. MR. NEALE: -- a motion on that sanction. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, we're going to -- one second. We're going to suspend -- MR. L YKOS: Thirty days suspension, with the exception of that Page 106 --" .11 "'''',. .,,,_~o,_ ~,,,,,_.u..,,, . 1611 87 ~<.. May 20, 2009 address. MR. WHITE: May I attempt one, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure, go ahead. MR. WHITE: I move that we suspend Mr. Phillips' permit pulling privileges in Collier County until June 17th, 2009, or such time as this board next meets, with the exception of those permit pulling privileges being allowed at the address of Mr. Koenig's residence, and that we withhold making further recommendations on sanctions to CILB until that June or next meeting date. MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': 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. PHILLIPS: Gentlemen, may I ask -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So the order of the board is findings and facts. This cause came before -- came on for public hearing before the Contractor Licensing Board on May 20th, 2009 for consideration of the administrative complaint filed against Bobby J. Phillips, Jr., d/b/a Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc., license number 16193/CAC054717. And the complaint, No. 2009-06. The board at this hearing heard testimony under oath, received Page 107 --~_... - 1611 87 ""1 May 20,2009 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: Findings and fact are that Bobby 1. Phillips, Jr., d/b/a Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc., is the holder of record of license number 16193/CAC054717. That the Board of Collier 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 Bobby J. Phillips, Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc., was present at the public hearing and was not represented by counsel at the hearing date on May 20th, 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 Ordinance No. -- Section 4.2.2 in a manner that -- in violation of Collier County ordinance and is one of -- who committed the act. The allegations of the fact as set forth in the administrative complaint as to Count One, Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.2.2, willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city or Collier County, are to be found and supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. Conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the administrative complaint as to Count One are being Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.2.2, willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city or Collier County are approved, adopted and incorporated herein. To wit: Respondent violated section -- willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city or Collier County in Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the section set out in the administrative complaint with particularity. The order of the board: Based upon the foregoing findings of Page 108 -,-~,._._.~'"--" ~ -.--',-"'.- , A. -';- lAJ,2!OP7 ~. facts and conclusions 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 8-0, eight in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote of the board members present, respondent has been found in violation as set out above. Further it is ordered by a vote of eight in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote of board members present, that the following disciplinary sanction and related orders are hereby imposed upon the holder of contractor's certificate of competency No. 16193/CAC054717. That Bobby J. Phillips, Jr., d/b/a Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc. has been found guilty and his permit privileges in Collier County have hereby been suspended with the exception of the address of -- MR. WHITE: 185 Berkshire Lakes, unit five, I believe. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: 185 Berkshire Lakes, a Mr. William Koenig, spelled K-Q-E-N-I-G. MR. L YKOS: No, that's not right. It's like 690 Compton Lane or something. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, it is -- homeowners -- sorry, reverse that. It is 6901 Compton Lane South. That is Mr. William Koenig. K-()-E-N-I-Ci. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That his privileges be suspended for a period of 30 days, except for that particular permit. And he will be brought back before the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board after that 30-day period to see if the permit has been completed and finalized and all items regarding that permit have been satisfied. He will return before this board in 30 days for the sanctions, but these sanction will be held in check. MR. NEALE: In abeyance. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: In what? Page 109 ,-, .~ ',"._.""-"''''--'" ,.".--,..". 16 hI ~7 .:4 May 20, 200 MR. NEALE: In abeyance. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Advanced (sic) until the 30-day cycle when he comes back for the next board meeting, which will be on June 17th. Does that pretty much leave nothing out? It is hereby ordered. That's it. MR. PHILLIPS: You guys are elected, right? Do I get to go around town taking pictures? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Phillips, at this moment I think I would consider myself very lucky. MR. PHILLIPS: Sir, I don't know, you guys are -- you guys are -- you don't think I pulled that many permits and you don't even check it out? I mean, you guys are -- I'm serious, man. I mean, you take my license away when I've been perfect -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you, sir. No, wait. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I don't got to wait, you're not my judge. MR. NEALE: Well, yeah, you sort of are. MR. GUITE': Maybe we should have -- MR. NEALE: Yeah, you really sort of are, guys. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We tried not to. And we didn't. MR. GUITE': I was trying to get him to back down and hire an attorney. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, there are all kinds. We tried to do a guy a favor and maybe it didn't work. Maybe that's just what needs to go on TV and be heard because -- MR. NEALE: Well, the thing is you do get to see him again June 17th. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. Aren't we lucky? MR. ZACHARY: And you can tune in tonight and-- MR. NEALE: And watch yourselves again. MR. GUITE': Now, would that be considered the new member orientation? Page 110 -"..- . -_..~..-"".._"""~. , 1611 ~7 t May 20, 200 MR. L YKOS: Orientation? That's a pretty good orientation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. Everyone got their feet real wet real quick, huh? MR. NEALE: Yeah, the new member orientation, what I was going to suggest is that we have a brief session prior to or after the next meeting to orient the new members on how the procedures work and everything. But I think unless they have specific questions, they can certainly ask Mr. Zachary or myself, but I think today's meeting was a good indoctrination to every possible procedure we've ever had and then some. So-- MR. ZACHARY: Or to paraphrase the ordinance, orientation would be superfluous. MR. NEALE: Yes. MR. WHITE: It's the mid-evil practice of trial by fire? MR. NEALE: Yeah, pretty much. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Chair, before we adjourn, couple of comments and then a request. For those that don't know, I'm also president of the Collier Building Industry Association. We have a group that meets with Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Dunn on a regular basis. And due to some of the budget constraints that have arisen in the last year, the CD ES staff, including the licensing staff, has been on furloughs. And according to Mr. Schmitt, very soon they'll be going to a four-day work week. If you've been paying attention to the quantity of citations that have been issued, in March there were nearly 100 citations issued, and then in April after the furloughs started the citation number dropped to less than 70. I have serious concerns about the amount of unlicensed activity going on in Collier County, about the number of licensed contractors who might be letting their insurance lapse or their workers' compo lapse or might be doing work without permits. And I think it's a time we should be ramping up our licensing investigations and even adding Page III ---. ..,~- l>"l__'II r~". '1111I .......""".,.._.~.o<". .~,.. 161<-1 B7 I May 20, 2009 to our staff, which is opposite of what's been going on. So I wanted to make you aware of that, number one. Number two, I don't know how we do this, but I would like for the board to pass a resolution recommending to Mr. Schmitt and to the County Commissioners that the licensing staff be maintained at full staff, at full working hours, and to also consider adding another investigator so that we can address the life safety issues and the best interest of the consumers of Collier County under these difficult economic times. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's a good idea. A resolution I don't think is possible, but we can make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners and they probably can act on it. I know I have been in discussion with Mr. Henning and Ms. Fiala for the past two months now about the same situation. They're doing their best to be able to try to keep the licensing personnel on staff all the time. And I think probably maybe this conversation will add another little cog in the wheel that hopefully we can do something about that. It's very difficult right now as far as finding out who works and who doesn't work. I agree with you 100 percent, though, that licensing should be at full force right now plus. Because we're going to have more and more and more of unlicensed activity going on. And I just don't think it's going to be a good thing to be laying off people or going to a four-day workweek. And so you're absolutely correct. MR. L YKOS: Well, the other thing is the City of Naples laid off their code enforcement officer, so Mr. Kennette now has to spend his time in the city. So it's almost like we lost a person to begin with, because the city laid off their person, so we dropped -- functionally we dropped an investigator when we had to pick up for the city's loss. And when we go to furloughs and four-day work weeks, I mean, it won't take long for the people that want to skirt the law to figure out they can work Fridays, Saturdays, Sunday, they can work at night and Page 112 '''p .., "'""'"'" ....".,~".._.,_._-, Aa~ zt, ~Jj 7 t staffs already overworked. I mean, we have a responsi -- we come here to protect the community from bad contractors, from unlicensed activity, and the actions of the people in charge here are only promoting that. So I think we need to make sure that Mr. Schmitt knows that Mr. Mudd knows and the County Commissioners know that we need the licensing board to be fully staffed. If not, add more people. MR. GUITE': We also need to let the consumers know that they need to report any suspicious contractor activity. If they do enter in a contract, make sure they do have a licensed contractor with insurance, and use licensed subs. As you know in the past I've come down on the homeowners for hiring an unlicensed contractor. I think they're just as much at fault as the unlicensed contractor. So it is up to the homeowners to, you know, just check it out. You see some -- hear some sawing or banging or something going on, just it doesn't hurt to give the licensing a call. MR. WHITE: Just a question. I have some familiarity with the way that the fee structure and budgets work with respect to other areas of the county, but I'm not as up to speed I think on how permit fees and other aspects relate to the enforcement arm for contractor licensing. And if there's someone who can either give us a kind of brief presentation on it, I think that could help us in making a recommendation. I don't mean to supplant our role, but -- MR. NEALE: Mr. Ossorio's done that in the past, and I'm sure he will again, is he has provided this board with a revenue summary of what the contractor licensing staff generates in terms of permit fees and fines and so forth. And it's a fairly revealing number in that based on what this board has seen in the past, I believe it would show that the contractor licensing staff more than carries itself in terms of revenues. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: More than carries itself, exactly. Page 113 "~,_.,.... lIIW - " ",..... . 1611 87 , May 20,2009 I think it probably -- it may be in line if the board so decides that either myself and maybe Mr. Lykos as chairman and vice chair can go and try to have a meeting with Mr. Dunn and Mr. Mudd and see if we can't come up with some methods of being able to come up with an answer of keeping these people on staff and tell them the reasons why in person, if need be. MR. NEALE: Yeah, and I would -- MR. L YKOS: I know Mr. Schmitt would be open to that conversation. But I think it's important that this board, if it's not a resolution, that something come from this board to let them know how important it is, how important what they do is and how important it is to keep them fully staffed. MR. NEALE: What this board has done in the past is authorize the chair and/or vice chair to draft a letter to transmit to the Board of County Commissioners reflecting the sentiment of the board. So that's something that certainly could be done. MR. L YKOS: And they have a meeting next Tuesday. MR. WHITE: Would a motion at this time in that regard be appropriate? MR. NEALE: It would be totally appropriate, yeah. MR. GUITE': So moved. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So moved. I got a motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. Page 114 - ....,"" _~".'"M~"".__'~""'" ~,.."M Ml ~0,12~9 87 . . CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Fine, I guess you and I will get together and we'll put a letter together and go have a meeting and see if we can't keep licensing working anyway. MR. LYKOS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think it's a good thing. I think these gentlemen do one heck of a job out there. MR. WHITE: If I could encourage you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lykos, to have the latest of those statistics that Mr. Ossorio has provided. I think that would be compelling. And I only mention that so that the staff will have an opportunity to work on that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I believe probably Jennifer would be the best one, because she probably pulls it up on the computer and hands it to Michael. So she's got the word. MR. JERULLE: You'll provide a copy of that letter next month? MR. L YKOS: I'll make sure we get it to the commissioners Tuesday. I'll be there talking to them anyway about other things, so -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, any other discussions? Any other thoughts from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other-- MR. GUITE': I'll make another motion. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One more? MR. GUITE': Yeah, that we adjourn. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. Page 115 '''.-. . --'"-^<"-' 1~!l2i7 I MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Adjourned. See you next month. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:28 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS Llc;,ENSING BOARD ~ > hdvL ~~ cR. 'RlCHARD OSLIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on /17111 ?t) as presented ./' or as corrected . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 116 ~. ",", ___".w ,._--.._.,,--~.,,~--" I RECEIVED 16 I 1 'B 8 vii 1 May 6, 2009 JUN 0 2009 1-$0<110 of CClJnty CommiSSIoners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 6, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3 :00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610 in the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian Vice Chair: Thomas Masters Charles Abbott James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon Dejohn Dalas Disney David Dunnavant Marco Espinar (Absent) Blair Foley George Hermanson (Excused) Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere (Excused) Reid Schermer (Excused) Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator, CDES (Excused) Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES - StatI Liaison Bob Dunn, Director, Building Review and Permitting Nick Casalanguida, Director, TranspOliation and Planning Phil Gramatges, Interim Director, Public Utilities Division James French, Operations Manager, Operations Support Ed Riley, Fire Code Official Misc. Corres: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager Date: ~ 1/ ;L2; 1 09 Robert Wiley, Principal Project Manager, CDES 'tem#:L~lLt) b_% I ,\lpies tD ~'."<.""",, ,"v " ",,,","'"" ",.-,.'"" "._._"_."""."."",, ^',,-... , ""-.,.,^-""'"..,,._.~~- 'V~.. ....",,,,.,.... .__ ~--_._. . 16 I 1 iB8 May 6, 2009 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 3 :04 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 Chairman Varian suggested the following changes: . Under Item VI, "Old Business," change "C" (Microfilm surcharge) to "A" . Under Item VII, "New Business," move "A" (Asbestos training) to be heard following Staff Announcements. Tom Masters moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Charles Abbott. Carried unanimously, 8-0. III. Approval of Minutes - Aprill, 2009 Meeting Clay Brooker moved to approve the Minutes of the Aprill, 2009 Meeting as submitted. Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 8-0. IV. Public Speakers (None) V. Staff AnnouncementslU pdates A. Public Utilities Division Update - Phil Gramatges Mr. Gramatges stated he had nothing to report but will answer questions. A Member commented that his interactions with personnel in the W ater/W astewater Departments have been very positive and he complimented their responsiveness to Deviation Requests which have been reviewed within two weeks. B. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley, Fire Code Official Mr. Riley stated his report indicated an increase in reviews (approximately 100) over the previous month. He anticipated even higher numbers for next month. A question was asked concerning the possibility of assisting Lee County with its Fire Reviews. Mr. Riley stated he was approached by a Lee County Fire Chief about conducting reviews for either portions, or all, of the Lee County Fire Districts, but nothing definite had been worked out. The Collier County Fire Code Steering Committee directed him to perform a study and analysis. The study determined service could be provided to Lee County without negatively impacting Collier County, but additional staff would be needed. There are legal issues to be resolved, and District agreements to be signed. C. Transportation Division Update - Nick Casalanguida . The 951/41 Consortium is on line . A new $18M capital project is being brought on line . Bids for design and construction of the 951/41 Intersection Project will be accepted in the near future 2 ~-., n I^i ,~. ~" "',"~_.,---",., - "..., _.",~> -.",-.--. 161 1 88 i~ May 6, 2009 . Budget cycle is in progress . The Immokalee Interchange MOA ("Memorandum of Agreement") with the DOT regarding lanes is being drafted and will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners . The Right-of-Way Handbook has been completed and will be sent to Tallahassee for approval; copies will be emailed to Members upon request D. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt, Administrator (No Report) (Laura Spurgeon DeJohn arrived - 3: 15 PM) VII. New Business A. Asbestos Training Brochure - Bob Dunn . The Florida Department of Environmental Protection will conduct Asbestos Training on May 28,2009 from 8:00 to 10:00 AM in the CDES Conference Rooms. Copies of the brochure were distributed to the Committee. . Additional topic: removal and disposal of Chinese drywall A Member requested an update on the Collier County Building Permit Fee Study. Mr. Dunn stated a study will be conducted for the Building Department for permit fees. The County Manager and Mr. Schmitt will review the submittals and will report to the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Varian suggested including a member ofDSAC on the review committee. It was also suggested to include a member of CBIA ("Collier Building Industry Association") on the review committee. Gary Mullee stated the purpose of the Study is to match each individual fee with the actual cost of the activity. The Study will review/assess each fee, and will not be completed until Fall, 2009. VI. Old Business A. Microfilm Surcharge on every Building Permit & Allocation - James French (Note: Agenda change: was originally "C") . There is a $3.00 microfilm/scanning charge that is allocated to Fund #113 . Marco Island increased the fee from $3.00 to $5.00 . One person is dedicated to scanning but also must assist when necessary at the front window (due to personnel shortage) . County has not updated the "WebXtender" license and films cannot be viewed by the general public (unless in the Records Room) due to lack of funds . Is a backlog of scanning it takes I 1fz hours to scan a Construction Master Plan into the database . Fee may be eliminated after CityView is on line (iV/ario Valle arrived ..~ 3:20 PM) 3 - -'"""'-"",""~",-.,_';',-",_.,.,."",-,,,, n.... 1'1I'I """""""'-""'-'-'.''-'''--'.-'", _.".....,._,------- 161 1 B8 May 6, 2009 . Fee does not support actual cost to provide the service - it is a per project fee (project may involve 100 pages but will only cost $3.00) . There is a desk in the Records Room for use by the public to view the documents . Hard copies of documents are stored off-site at a vendor's facility Suggestions: . Rename the fee to "Imaging Fee" . IT Department and the County's Records Manager give presentations at a future DSAC meeting (David Dunnavant arrived - 3:25 PM) VI. Old Business C. Discussion of the FY 2010 Proposed Budget - Gary Mullee Overview of Budget Process: . Material was distributed containing raw data for # 113 and # 131 Funds . Data is being compiled for # 111 Fund . Initial meeting with County Manager - May 14, 2009 . Meeting with the Productivity Committee - May 19,2009 to review budgets and segregate enterprise funds from costs for #111 Fund and #001 Fund . Meeting with CBIA ("Collier Building Industry Association) - May 27,2009 to review allocation methodology and inter-fund transfers (Fund # 113) . Update presentation to DSAC - June 3, 2009 . Initial Workshop with Board of County Commissioners - June 29, 2009- general discussion of on-going fee studies, reserves, and potential for further CDES staff reduction - seeking guidance from BCC . Budget Hearings - September, 2009 - final decisions will be made regarding potential fee increases and staff reductions Fund #113: . Proposed Budget will be reduced by 25% from FY 2009 . Reserves range from $1.7M (beginning ofFY) to $67,000 (end ofFY 2010) . Reserves will be depleted by June/July, 2010 . 3-mo. basic reserve level is $1.2M (minimum reserve level) . To maintain an adequate reserve level, a 20% increase in fee revenue is necessary . Fee Study is being conducted to determine which fees are reasonable and which can be increased (in Funds # 113 and # 131) . Option in # 113: further reduction of 14-15 positions in CDES - will maintain only minimum State standards regarding review turn-around times . Option: cap on daily inspections Fund # 131 : . Proposed Budget will be reduced by 52% from FY 2009 . "Reserves" range from $1 M to $200,000 at end of FY 2010 4 ,"..",,"'" '~.11.~'_'" "'D'" _., _'w.,.,..,...._. --"'-', '-";.""""'-'~""" - '''1'' -- --- "- ...~-,., 161 1 88 f,' May 6, 2009 . The General Fund (Fund # Ill) will loan, this year, $1.45M to Fund # 131 as an operating loan because Fund # 131 is depleted . Adequate reserve: approximately $800,000 . Loan will be repaid to Fund #111 - numbers are to be worked into Budget . 35% across-the-board fee increase is being considered and Tindale-Oliver is conducting a fee/rate study . Staff reduction is also under consideration (approximately 10 positions); current staff is 37 (down from 100) . Partial subsidy from Fund #111 for Planning (Zoning and Engineering operations) . Correction of reserve level for Fund # 131 from 2003 - should have been $1.1 M - may be achieved by waiving $966,000 loan from # 113 and refunding $144,000 to # 131- Tindale-Oliver is examining methodology before submitting to Clerk and the BCC Fund #111: (supported by Ad Valorem tax) . May lose between 6 to 20 full-time employees because enterprise fund activities are down; . Millage rates may be reduced Good news: allocations (expenses) have been reduced from last year . Fund #131 - reduced by 73% . Fund # 113 - reduced by 50% Discussion ensued regarding potential cost-cutting measures including streamlining "the system" - costs associated with the time to obtain an SDP or a variance. For example, a permit application for a trash enclosure is reviewed by three different departments. Another suggestion was to rent vacant space within the CDES building. It was noted that Fund # 113 has overpaid to Fund # 131 for a number of years prior to 2003. Question: Fund #131 has provided a large quantity of Fund #111 services (i.e., BCC requests, etc.) - is the General Revenue Fund going to pay for the services demanded from Fund # 13 1 ? Mr. Mullee stated those items are being tracked by Tindale-Oliver and will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. There was another question regarding refunding unused pre-paid services and if the checks were still being issued. Mr. Mullee stated The County Attorney's Office is reviewing the County's obligation and the appropriate amount(s) to be refunded. There may be a 10 to 20% administrative fee/carrying costs to be paid. Chairman Varian stated he had been approached by various members within the Building Industry expressing concern regarding furloughs in the Contractor Licensing department. The Industry is trying to police itself. there is unlicensed and un- permitted activity happening. In January, DSAC asked for an additional inspector to 5 - ...... ~ '""'.;'''.~'''~'''''~''' ~ l~ytlo988 be added to the Department. Will that person now be lost? Bob Dunn stated an additional Inspector was added to the staff of Contractor Licensing. The County is aware of the concerns ofCBIA's members. B. Review & Approval of the Floodplain Management Ordinance - Robert Wiley Mr. Wiley stated he would answer questions and requested a vote to approve the Ordinance. A question was asked concerning flood proofing and the free-board requirement. The Ordinance meets or exceeds FEMA's requirements regarding base flood elevation ("BFE"). Mr. Wiley explained the County currently does not have a "free board" requirement but FEMA is moving to mandate "free board" on a nation-wide basis. A question was asked about the building cost of raising a house by one foot. Mr. Wiley stated the free-board cost would pay for itself in reduction of mandated flood insurance premiums over a 15 to 17-year period for homes located in flood hazard areas. Mr. Wiley stated the County is a "Class 7" Community. If the County accumulates 2,000 points it will receive a class change (upgrade), and there will be an additional 5% discount of flood insurance policy premiums for homeowners in special flood hazard areas. He further stated the original Ordinance was written in 1986. The Ordinance presented is entirely new. There were further questions regarding the definitions: i.e., "shallow flooding." Mr. Wiley stated some of the definitions were redundant. There was further discussion concerning the "one foot" requirement and whether or not the requirement is cost-effective, i.e., cost versus return. Mr. Wiley stated the purpose is to make a house more resistant to flooding. There was discussion about the lack of an effective definition for "water course." Mr. Wiley pointed out there was a definition for water course, but every water course was not defined. Regarding flow way, it was suggested that language concerning lot-specific sheet flow should be precluded from the definition. It was pointed out that Collier County does not have a "building code" - there is a Florida Building Code and a Collier County Land Development Code. Mr. Wiley stated references to "Collier County Building Code" will be removed from the document. There was a question regarding penalties and tines. Mr. Wiley stated the County Attorney's Office approved the amounts. There was further discussion concerning the "49% Rule" and flood elevation 6 "';- - "1""1'" 1I'1I",W_,"'''_<'''''" ''II ",,"""'~'",-;'--"""""""~ -- 161 1 88 May 6, 2009 regarding new and re-construction/improvements for residential and non-residential structures. Mr. Wiley stated FEMA will review the adopted Ordinance and evaluate it to determine if it meets their minimum requirements and for higher regulatory standards. Charles Abbot moved to deny approval of the Ordinance based upon cost and that the payback period is too long. The Ordinance does not make good economic sense. Second by David Dunnavant. Discussion ensued. It was determined that portions of the Ordinance were required by FEMA. The purpose of the Ordinance is to prevent flooding, not necessarily to save money for homeowners paying flood insurance premiums. It was suggested to add an itemized breakdown to the Ordinance detailing the regulations being added, the points being gained, and the costs versus benefits. Mr. Wiley agreed the general public probably does not understand the Ordinance. A question was asked concerning the implications of not approving the Ordinance. Mr. Wiley stated if the Ordinance is not updated as directed by FEMA, FEMA will put the County on probation and there will be a $50.00 surcharge for every flood insurance policy in the County. If the County refuses to update the Ordinance, FEMA can withdraw the County from the flood insurance program and the mortgages within the special flood hazard areas could be called by the banks. He further stated while the Ordinance must be updated, it does not need to contain the higher regulatory standards. It was suggested the Motion be revised to include the reasons why it was not recommended. It was also suggested the Ordinance clearly identify which elements are FEMA-required and which are add-ons. Charles Abbott did not amend his Motion because he stated the Ordinance should be re-written. The Motion failed; 2- Yes/9-No. Reed Jarvi moved to approve the Ordinance with four conditions: (1) remove the one-footfreeboard requirement; (2) change the 49% to 50% in accordance with the Florida Building Code; (3) to include an economic analysis of any change to the freeboard including cost and return, and (4) to identify the FEMA-required elements and the higher regulatory standard elements. Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, J 1-0. (Laura Spurgeon DeJohn left at 5: 20 PM) VII. New Business B. .Jail Impact Fee Update Study - Amy Patterson The final draft of the Jail Impact Fee Update Study and the Executive Summary were included in the packet distributed to the members. A comment was made concerning the population projection and the validity of the numbers. 7 -. _. "V.1l~ --,.""",.".-, "","""'''- . ""..."...,"w 161 1 B8 May 6, 2009 Thomas Masters moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to freeze the Jail Impact Fee as is and not change it. Second by Blair Foley. Amy Patterson stated the Impact Fees are current. Transportation fees are going down on June 8th. The methodology for indexing is being amended. Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Chairman Varian asked the Members if they reviewed the fiscal impact, as requested by Joe Schmitt, concerning moving equipment on a house. He stated he researched the issue and found several issues: the energy calculations will be affected by moving a condenser, and electrical boxes will need to be moved especially if a pool is to be built. The topic will be included under "Old Business" on another agenda. C. Mining - Nick Casalanguida Mr. Casalanguida stated the "final" report will be revised. He stated the final document will be brought back before DSAC before presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. He also stated mining operations in Collier County do not currently pay an Impact Fee. Lee County has adopted an Impact Fee. The only Impact Fee that a mine will pay is a Transportation Impact Fee. It will not be applied retroactively. Active mine sites will be excluded unless there is expansion. A trip length study was conducted. Blair Foley moved to approve the concept of the study pending review oftheflnal document by DSAC. Second by Thomas Masters. The Motionfailed, 5-Yes/5-No. VIII. Committee Member Comments Judy Puig asked the Members if they wanted to continue receiving hard copies or ifthe electronic copies were sufficient. The members requested that she continue to produce hard copies. The next Subcommittee meeting is July 15,2009. DSAC Meeting Dates: June 3, 2009 - 3:00 PM July 1,2009 - 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 5:45 PM. 8 ."'~"'~-"" . -"".._~ - -.- Fiala ~ ~ Halas 'rA . At: . , . ',- Henning . RECEIVED ~'. Coyle v JUN 0 5 2009 Co~r Count Ctt; 9 . Board of County Commissioners . Y Floodplain Management Planning Committee Ray Smith, Chairman Mike DeRuntz, Vice-Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Christa Carrera (Naples) Adorn Kokkinos Herb Luntz Charles Martin Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Clarence Tears John Torre Jim Turner Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 8.4.08 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 10:55 a.m. Location: 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Rm. 609 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Rick Zyvoloski (substitute for Dan Summers), Jerry Kurtz, John Torre, Mac Hatcher, Stan Chrzanowski, Travis Gossard, Adorn Kokkinos, Christine Sutherland, Duke Vasey, Phillip Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Lew Schmidt, and Robert Wiley. Absent: Mike DeRuntz (Excused), Jim Turner (Excused), Charles Martin, Clarence Tears, Herb Luntz (Excused), Joseph Gagnier (Excused), Bob Devlin, Christa Carrera, and Terry Smallwood. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: I. Committee approved the minutes for the 7-7-08 Regular Meeting. Motion to approve by Phil Brougham, passed unanimously. 2. Distribution ofletter to Committee members from BCC chairman - Robert Wiley distributed the letters addressing appointed committees stay focused on the issues for which they were established. He explained that this was a letter sent to the membership of all the advisory committees, and didn't apply to any problems the BCC Chairman has with the actions of the FMPC. The letters will be mailed to those FMPC members not in attendance. 3. Flood zone determination and link to Property Appraiser web site - Robert Wiley briefly discussed the efforts to correctly define the building footprint and the more restrictive flood zone within that footprint using the County's GIS. No real progress to report as the details to get it to work correctly are being resolved. Duke Vasey asked for regular updates on this issue. Phil Brougham mentioned the need to update the information on the Floodplain web site. A discussion on the membership then ensued with Duke Vasey motioning to recommend that the Floodplain Management Planning Committee (FMPC) adopt the standard advisory committee policy for attendance. Discussion on the motion included asking the County Manager to implement that standard policy for the FMPC. Phil Brougham requested that the Misc. Cones: Page I of3 Date: () 11 d-..2l D <j . Item t: llo Ll\) ~ 3- ~'ptes to: nllll'1 ,~-,"-,,-~-- . 161 189 ~ '- County Manager write a letter to the one committee member who has not been attending for months. Duke Vasey accepted the amendment to the motion and the motion passed with a vote of 11 in favor and 1 abstention. 4. Action Items update and report on Sub-committee meeting - Robert Wiley reported that previous membership and chairmanship of the sub-committees was incomplete, and only Sub-Comm. #1 with Mike DeRuntz as chair, and Sub-Comm. #2 with Ray Smith as chair have been established. Ray Smith proposed to get the sub-committees moving forward on the various Action Plan items by selecting 4 actions items for work by the sub-committees with staff being responsible for getting the work product ready for review. Robert Wiley will set up the first of the sub-committee meetings where the chairman will be selected. The chairman will set the subsequent sub-committee meetings until that Action Item is complete and ready for presentation to the full FMPC. Phil Brougham requested that 1 staff person be assigned to each Action Item to avoid confusion as to who is responsible. John Torre volunteered to complete Action Item 6(d) - Library site visits and Action Item 6(b )(ii) - Web site update. The FMPC determined that the two remaining Action Items for evaluation this first cycle would be 5(f)(ii) and 5(f)(iii) which deal with use of perforated drain pipe throughout the County and placement of cross culverts beneath roads in Golden Gate Estates. Robert Wiley will schedule a meeting for these two items to be discussed by a sub-committee consisting of Travis Gossard, Jerry Kurtz, Lew Schmidt, Stan Chrzanowski, Duke Vasey, and Mac Hatcher. 5. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (amendments) - Ray Smith requested the FMPC schedule a special meeting to discuss this ordinance. The FMPC members decided to use the September 8, 2008 regular meeting with a single issue agenda. Robert Wiley will get a written copy of the DRAFT ordinance mailed to each of the members at least 2 weeks in advance along with an e-mail version. He will also notify all those on the FMPC mailing list about the proposed discussion at the September meeting. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion on perforated pipe - Stan discussed how perforated pipe would function in relation to the high water table elevations in Collier County. Lew Schmidt thought the original issue was in Naples Park, and Travis Gossard began a discussion on what was designed and permitted for use in Naples Park. Jerry Kurtz addressed the loss of swale storage capacity if they are piped. He asked the Committee to support the position to not allow filling of swales in old developments. Duke Vasey added that the FMPC had previously requested a standard swale cross section be established and that he also is opposed to enclosing swales. At that point the Committee stopped discussion and recommended that the sub-committee address the topic and bring it back to the full FMPC, perhaps as early as October. 2. Discussion on cross drains in Golden Gate Estates - Tbis issue was jointly moved to the proposed sub-committee level discussion for a later presentation to the full FMPC. 3. Public Comments - Phil Brougham discussed the efforts he and Robert Wiley were doing to develop a flow chart showing the Floodplain Management Plan development and Page 2 of3 . "'.'- .O! " - 161 189 . implementation process. He requested that once the flow chart is finalized and reviewed by the FMPC, it be presented to the BCC to help them better understand the process. 4. Assignments for September 8, 2008 meeting ./ Continued discussion on higher regulatory standards ordinance development (Robert Wiley) Next Meeting (Monday, September 8, 2008 starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 609 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104) y Smith passed unanimously at 10:55 a.m. Ra /1'~ Robert Wile); taft' Coordinator Page 3 of3 . """,".--- ...... Fiala ~ Halas H . .,., ~.-" ..- 'VED enmng PI: \~/cJ .. Coyle JUN 0 5 2llO9 ~. Coletta ~ Boacdofc"mwcommi";o",~.. e:t County 16' 1 'B9 i'i\~ -- ~~ '- -~ Floodplain Management Planning Committee Ray Smith. Chairman Mike DeRuntz. Vice-Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Christa Carrera (Naples) Adoni Kokkinos Herb Luntz Charles Martin Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Clarence Tears John Torre Jim Turner Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 9-8-08 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 am. End: 10:59 a.m. Location: 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Rm. 609 , Meeting Attendance: Mike DeRuntz. Jerry Kurtz. Jim Turner. Stan Chrzanowski, Travis Gossard, Adoni Kokkinos. Duke Vasey, Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham. Pierre Bruno. Lew Schmidt, and Robert Wiley. Absent: Ray Smith (Excused). Dan Summers (Excused). John Torre (Excused), Mac Hatcher (Excused). Charles Martin. Christine Sutherland. Clarence Tears. Herb Luntz (Excused). Bob Devlin, Christa Carrera. and Terry Smallwood. Meeting called to order by Mike DeRuntz. Vice Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Committee approved the minutes for the 8-4-08 Regular Meeting. Motion to approve. as amended. by Duke Vasey, passed unanimously. Duke Vasey asked that a physical letter addressing committee membership attendance be sent to the County Manager. Phil Brougham expressed concern on the lack of attendance and that the meetings were usually attended by about half of the members. 2. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance amendments - Robert Wiley discussed various portions of the proposed amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. After a lot of discussion Duke Vasey motioned to remove Section 24 dealing with the inspection and certification of stormwater management facility components. The motion passed unanimously. In discussion of the Definitions section, Duke requested that it be replaced with a glossary of terms. Lew Schmitt motioned to expand the definitions as recommended by Duke Vasey, but put them in the location where the County Attorney wants them. Motion passed unanimously. Duke discussed the duties of the Floodplain Administrator in Section 8 that did not include all the duties throughout other sections of the ordinance. He asked that data base Coo S' Misc. e. Page 1 of 2 Date: Item #:___. to . r._. _w l'llllPl _,_."-"-~.,_..~,.,-._~__"..,",,_,_.. - 16 , 1~9 - . management be added. Pierre Bruno asked about the fmancial impact of the amendments to the ordinance. There was discussion on clarifying references to fees, fmes, etc, and clarifying the permit applicant from the permit holder. Duke also thought there needed to be a level of dispute resolution with the Floodplain Administrator at no cost to the applicant. Phil Brougham was concerned about the "damage of any origin" statement in Section 21 dealing with cumulative substantial improvements over a five year period. The cumulative issue appeared to be punitive, he recommended the time :frame be reduced to one to three years, and have a mechanism for restricting the matter to damage subject to inflation. He wanted a clarification on "market value" of a structure. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Comments - None 2. Assignments for October 6, 2008 meeting ./ Continued discussion on higher regulatory standards ordinance development (Robert Wiley) ./ Discussion of Sub-committee results on perforated pipe and G.G. Estates cross drains Next Meeting (Monday, October 6, 2008 starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 609 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104) ike DeRuntz, Vice Ch . f~~ Robert Wiley, S Coordinator / Page 2 of2 , -""._,.'"....~,..., ." "~.,..,.,... -- Fiala I 1'-89 Halas '6('-- / - r'.~'\VED Henning f< r.. \~~ t: Coyle JUN 05 2009 it&' Coletta <71::- """e 01 c,"o~ co,"",,,,'oo",'. eo:r County Floodplain Management Planning Committee Ray Smith, Chairman Mike DeRuntz, Vice-Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Christa Carrera (Naples) Adom Kokkinos Herb Luntz Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Clarence Tears John Torre Jim Turner Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 11-3-08 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 10:59 a.m. Location: 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Rm. 609 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Rick Zyvoloski (substitute for Dan Summers, Jim Turner, John Torre, Mac Hatcher, Stan Chrzanowski, Travis Gossard, Christine Sutherland, Clarence Tears, Duke Vasey, Herb Luntz, Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Lew Schmidt, and Robert Wiley. Absent: Mike DeRuntz (Excused), Jerry Kurtz (Excused), Adom Kokkinos (Excused), Bob Devlin, Christa Carrera, and Terry Smallwood. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Committee approved the minutes for the 9-8-08 Regular Meeting. Motion to approve, as amended, by Joe Gagnier, passed unanimously. 2. Action Item Status Report (Stan Chrzanowski) - Stan reported on the sub-committee's evaluation of Action Plan Items 5(t)(ii) [slotted storm sewer usage] and 5(t)(iii) [cross drains beneath roads in G.G. Estates]. The sub-committee agreed that use of slotted drains would not be beneficial in the total annual evaluation. The sub-committee agreed that proper placement of cross in G.G. Estates was important where topography was suitable for continuation of natural flow. It was also agreed that installation of cross drains during roadway reconstructions was desirable, even though the cross drains may need to be plugged to prevent cross flow until downstream conditions were deemed suitable to receive the flow. Duke Vasey motioned to accept the sub-committee recommendations, and the motion passed 14-1. A discussion followed on how to implement this recommendation and make it a County project requirement. There was discussion on Transportation Division road construction projects and who is involved in reviewing the designs for considerations of overland flow. Neither the CDES Engineering and Environmental Services Dept. nor the R9~d f\1wnance Page 1 of2 Date Item t -- r"-,'- ;:r r.... ""-'.-_"".0., -,_.~-"---,--,'~-~~"._.. lff 161 189 . Department typically reviews the Transportation Engineering and Construction Management (TECM) road designs. Committee discussion followed on the need to be specific to floodplain management issues in addressing County internal coordination. Phil Brougham motioned to establish a sub-committee to write the situation specific policy recommendation. The motion passed unanimously with Stan Chrzanowski, Jerry Kurtz, Travis Gossard, Clarence Tears, and Robert Wiley assigned to serve on the sub-committee and to bring the policy back to the FMPC by the January 2009 meeting. 3. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance amendments - Robert Wiley discussed various portions of the proposed amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Phil Brougham motioned to remove the Cumulative Substantial Improvement section from the ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. Recognizing the remaining issues to be discussed on the ordinance, and the need to address the Action Plan items for next month, discussion on the ordinance was stopped with the intention to continue the meeting on 9-12~08 if a suitable meeting room can be located. NEW BUSINESS 1. New Action Items (select four) - Did not discuss. 2. Committee member vacancy (Robert Wiley) - Did not discuss. 3. Floodplain Management Planning Flow Chart (phil Brougham) - Did not discuss. 4. Public Comments - None Next Meeting (Monday, November 12,2008, starting at 9:00 am. with a location to be determined. ) Page 2 of2 .',"'..'" PUI_~ ....,'-_.~_._,- ~_._-,_. _ ~~i:s A 11 89 vJl1 Henning J RECENED ~~_ JUN 05 2009 .'~ Coletta BOJ:d0fSJ:':;;~jCi......,........;:, ColLler County Floodplain Management Planning Committee Ray Smith, Chairman Mike DeRuntz, Vice-Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Christa Carrera (Naples) Adoni Kokkinos Herb Luntz \ Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Clarence Tears John Torre Jim Turner Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 11-17-08 Continuation of 11-03-08 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 12:00 p.m. Location: 3301 Tamiami Trail E., Bldg. D, Risk Mgmt. Conference Rm. Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Mike DeRuntz, Rick Zyvoloski (substitute for Dan Summers), Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Stan Chrzanowski, Travis Gossard, Christine Sutherland, Duke Vasey, Herb Luntz, Phillip Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Lew Schmidt, and Robert Wiley. Absent: John Torre, Adoni Kokkinos, Clarence Tears, Joseph Gagnier (Excused), Bob Devlin, Christa Carrera, and Terry Smallwood. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance amendments (continued from 11-3-08) - Robert Wiley discussed various portions of the proposed amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Stan Chrzanowski motioned to have staff make the requested changes to the ordinance draft and mail out hard copies to the committee members 10 days before the next meeting. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS 1. New Action Items (select four) - Looking at the colored spreadsheet, Ray Smith motioned to drop all the due dates and add a "Completion Date" column, along with specifying completion of Action Item 6(d) [Visit each library to update and replace materials as needed] by May of each year. Action Item l(e) [review Building Code and present recommendations] - Jim Turner is to complete by March 2009. Misc. Corres: Date: Page 1 of2 Item #:.__.__,____ \(" to "..'_.,-......,,',~_"_ .J.J i:i<O.. ...._~ 161 1 89 ~ . ',' - Action Item 4( d) [complete outreach schedule for BMP opportunities] - Ray Smith requested to have a sub-committee meeting. Action Items S(t)(ii) [policy for use of slotted storm sewer] and 5(f)(iii) [policy for placement of cross drains in G.G. Estates] are complete with the sub-committee to develop a new policy for 5( t)(iii) per the motion at the 11-3-08 meeting. Action Item 5{ c )(i) Duke Vasey and Jerry Kurtz to hold a sub-committee meeting. Action Items 4(a) and 4(b) [training and reporting requirements and continued certification as a "Storm Ready" community] are complete according to Rick Zyvoloski. Discussion on Stormwater Management's commitment to address several Action Items led to Phil Brougham motioning that all Action Items related to Stormwater Management be identified in a letter and be sent to the County Manager to get his reaffirmation that Stormwater Management will accept and act on the items in the Action Plan. The motion passed 13-1. 2. Committee member vacancy (Robert Wiley) - Not discussed 3. Floodplain Management Planning Flow Chart (phil Brougham) - Not discussed 4. Public Comments - None Next Meeting (Monday, December 1, 2008 starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 609 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104) ZadjO Ray Smith passed unanimously 12:00 p.m. Smith an ~~~coordIDator Page 2 of2 , ~~'"''''''--'''''''''-'''''' . Fial6 9\1 Halas Henning RECE\VED cJN'er Count;y Coyle Coletta = JUN 0 5 2009 t" C ornrniS$ionNS BO?lfC: of COIJr; j I Community Development & Environmental Services Division Engineering & Environmental Services Floodplain Management Planning Committee Ray Smith, Chairman John Torre, Vice-Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Adoni Kokkinos Herb Luntz Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Clarence Tears f lID Turner Carolina Valera Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland TenySmallwood$ver~ooesCi~) Meeting Minutes for 3-2-09 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 11 :25 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 609 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Carolina Valera, Rick Zyvoloski (substitute for Dan Summers), Jerry Kurtz, John Torre, Mac Hatcher, Stan Chrzanowski, Travis Gossard, Duke Vasey, Herb Luntz, Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Lew Schmidt, and Robert Wiley. Absent: fun Turner, Adoni Kokkinos $xcused), Christine Sutherland $xcused), Clarence Tears, Bob Devlin, Christa Carrera, and Terry Smallwood. Meeting called to order by John Torre, Vice-Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Approval of minutes for the 11-3-08 Regular Meeting and 11-17-08 Continuation Meeting - Motion to approve by Duke Vasey, motion passed unanimously. There was also a brief introduction of the two new Committee members, Carolina Valera (staff member from Comprehensive Planning) and Brooke Hollander (citizen volunteer member). 2. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance amendments (continued from 11-3-08) - Robert Wiley discussed various comments received from some Committee members and the changes made to the DRAFT document since it was e-mailed out to the members. Most of the changes dealt with use of acronyms, but the Committee discussed a few recommended changes as noted below: .:. The definition for "critical facilities" contains a line item for "Sheriff department or law enforcement agency stations/substations". Duke Vasey recommended changing that to "Sheriff's Offices and law enforcement facilities" because those agencies have other Misc, Carres: Page lof4 Date: Item#' ,t", l\i """._"~_____~____._"'_O. ,.......-,., '-""'''''-" III ,"'._~ 161 1 89 , I facilities than stations or sub/stations tbat are important to the overall agency functions. Rick Zyvoloski was asked to check for consistency with other County emergency management documents. (Note: In a follow-up to this matter, Rick Z. provided Robert Wiley with an e-mail recommending use of the State's definition of the "critical facilities" term since it isn't specifically defined in the County's emergency management planning documents. That definition is "Critical facilities" are defined as those structures from which essential services and functions for victim survival, continuation of public safety actions, and disaster recovery are performed or provided. Shelters, emergency operation centers, public health, public drinking water, sewer and wastewater facilities are examples of critical facilities. Though not explicitly included in the definition, supporting life-line infrastructure essential to the mission of critical facilities must also be included in the inventory when appropriate. Since the State definition is somewhat generic to addressing sheriff or law enforcement facilities, Robert contacted the Collier County Sheriff's office to get their input. Chief Smith advised that the preferred statement would be "Sheriff's offices and law enforcement facilities, excluding gun range( s)". .:. The definition for "Floodplain" or ''flood-prone area" was revised to read as follows: "Floodplain or flood-prone area means any land susceptible to being inundated by water from any source (see definition of "flood"). Collier County, Florida, being a coastal community, has land areas susceptible to coastal surge flooding and interior basin and riverine floodplain areas susceptible to flooding." .:. Phil Brougham requested that the definition for "Substantial damage" be revised to read as follows: Substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its most recent Collier County Property Appraiser valuation before-damaged condition would equal or exceed forty-nine (49) percent oftbe market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Duke Vasey motioned to accept Phil's recommendation, and in the discussion on the motion Rick Zyvoloski recommended that a check be made with the Post Disaster Recovery ordinance language adopted by the County. The motion passed with a 14-1 vote. (Note: The Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 38, Article 1 contains the following definition: Building value. The latest total assessment of all improvements on a parcel of land as listed in the Collier County Property Appraiser's records before the structure was damaged by the disaster event. This definition is consistent with the FMPC revised definition.) .:. The last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 25: SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR FLOOD HAZARD DISCLOSURE was revised to read as follows: "The following flood hazard disclosure requirements are required for all real estate transactions:" Following the last oftbe revisions to the text ordinance, Phil Brougham motioned to approve the ordinance as amended. Pierre Bruno provided a statement of reasons that he Page 2 of4 ...,.~---_. -- 16 , 1 89 - would be voting against the motion. The basic text of his objections is stated below and included in the minutes at his request. First, I would like to commend the committee for their hard work. In recent months we have learned some new words, like ''T.A.R.P.'' I have my own new word, ''T.E.F.$s'' which means we are in a Time of Extraordinary Financial Stress. We know that well intentioned government action always has unintended consequences. I commend this committee for their honest well-intentioned efforts to fullfill their assignment. However, this committee has carried the torch of this assignment in a vacuum from fiscal responsibility. The monetary savings on flood insurance for some individuals has not been weighed against the financial burden of additional regulation - and the administrative burden that the County will face with ever dwindling resources. I pray that the unintended consequences of this ordinance do not cost people financial hardship. For this reason, I will be voting against this ordinance. The motion passed 11-1 with three abstentions. Pierre Bruno voted against the motion and Carolina Valera, Brooke Hollander and Rick Zyvoloski abstained. Discussion then followed on whether a member could abstain from voting. For Carolina and Brooke, this was their frrst meeting since being appointed to the Committee the previous week. Rick was a substitute for Dan Summers. It was requested that voting abstention forms and a County Attorney opinion on whether or not the members could abstain be obtained. It was also discussed that one final look at the ordinance will need to be made at the April Committee meeting. 3. Committee membership vacancy - Robert Wiley briefly discussed the one remaining Committee vacancy position for a staff representative from the Zoning and Land Development Department. Both Joe Schmitt (CDES Administrator) and Jim Mudd (County Manager) are in agreement to leave that position vacant for the time being due to staff reductions and work load. 4. Floodplain Management Planning Flow Chart - Phil Brougham provided a background for development of the flow chart. There was good discussion on focusing on 2 or 3 key action items, but there must be County administrative and supervisor support. of the necessary staffing time commitments. The Committee gave direction for Robert Wiley to select a "top 5" action item list and to use a 2-page spreadsheet format to separate competed items from those needing to be worked on. 5. Stormwater Management action item responsibility follow-up - Robert Wiley reported on the follow-up to the motion passed by the Committee in November 2008 to write a letter to the County Manager getting direction on Stormwater Management's action item commitments. A meeting was held 2-12-09 with the County Manager and staff The County Manager provided confirmation that the previous representative from Stormwater Management agreed to the tasks, and they would continue to be responsible to fulfill them. 6. Other department review of Trans. Division road project design follow-up - Robert Wiley reported that it took two attempts to get a legal opinion from the County Attorney Office on the federal language requirements for review of projects in the floodplain. The final CAO opinion indicated the federal language required it, but they could not find any Florida county that was doing it. Therefore, Robert forwarded the CAO opinion to FEMA for their review Page 3 of4 - ".... ff1"'r. "'i"'''_.~"_~_~''"'__''__~''__. 161 1 ~9 '- and reply. No response has been received from FEMA, and the matter in with their legal counsel in Washington, D.C. NEW BUSINESS 1. Tentative schedule for the FMP public information program - Robert Wiley provided a brief discussion on the typical evening public meetings held during this time of the year, and the public attendance. Herb Luntz suggested there would be better interest ifthe meetings were held in the late spring just before the summer ''wet'' season. Duke Vasey recommended the use of civic or community organization program meetings (e.g. HOA meetings) as a way of getting a bettertum-out. We would simply be an item on their program agenda. Stan Chrzanowski suggested the meetings should be held in August or September. There was much discussion, and then Ray Smith motioned to hold the meetings between July and September, with the meetings being separate County-initiated. The motion passed 12-1. 2. New Action Items for sub-committee review in March - based upon previous Committee direction for Robert Wiley to pick the top five action items by next meeting, there was no separate discussion on this topic. 3. Public Comments - There were no public visitors in attendance. Lew Schmidt brought up the issue of the efforts by the County Parks and Recreation Department to make improvements to public restroom facilities in the Vanderbilt Beach area. He discussed the upcoming flood zone variance request that is going to be made for the proposed restrooms at the Moraya Bay site, and questioned how the County could deny other variance applications if it granted itself a variance to not elevate a restroom structure. Robert Wiley provided the anticipated CDES staff response recommending denial of the variance, and explained some of the impacts that approval of the variance would have on the CRS program and the flood insurance program. Next Meeting (Monday, April 6, 2009 starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 609 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104) ~s Gossard passed unanimously 11 :25 a.m. John Page 40f4 ",""",,.-- .. .., "' " ,'.. _.n"_'.._..._.......__......__;,._ 89 ~ 16 f Fiala RE.CE.\\IEO Halas Henning ~ JUN 0 ~\ 2009 ~ Coyle ~ Coletta rnissioners Co leT County t COllO\'! corn Board 0 Communny Development & Environmental Services Division Engineering & Environmental Services Floodplain Management Planning Committee Ray Smith, Chairman John Torre, Vice-Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Adoni Kokkinos Herb Luntz Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Clarence Tears Jim Turner Carolina Valera Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Teny Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 4-6-09 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 10: 15 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 609 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Rick Zyvoloski (substitute for Dan Summers), Steve Preston (substitute for Jerry Kurtz), Jim Turner, John Torre, Mac Hatcher, Travis Gossard, Brooke Hollander, Christine Sutherland, Clarence Tears, Duke Vasey, Herb Luntz, Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Lew Schmidt, and Robert Wiley. Catherine Fabacher attended as a representative for the Zoning and Land Development Review Department Absent: Carolina Valera, Stan Chrzanowski (excused), Adoni Kokkinos, Bob Devlin, Christa Carrera, and Terry Smallwood. Meeting called to order by John Torre, Vice-Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Approval of minutes for the 3-3-09 Regular Meeting - Motion to approve by Duke Vasey, motion passed unanimously. 2. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance follow-up discussion - Robert Wiley discussed the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) quick decision to not discuss the ordinance and put it on the agenda for discussion on May 6, 2009. There then followed a discussion on possibly amending the ordinance to allow for public restrooms to be build below the base flood elevation. This issue is specifically raised as regards public restrooms at the beach. Marco Island is proposing to amend their ordinance to allow for this type situation and eliminate the need to approve a variance. No final language has been developed for presentation to the Committee while staffwaits for a conceptual review from FEMA. Misc. corres: Page 1 of2 Date: Item t:..__ -, .. _M,"."."..'''..~ 161 1 B9 j 3. Committee membership voting requirements - Robert Wiley briefly discussed the information received from the County Attorney Office regarding voting and abstentions. He noted that the forms were available for Committee members to use if they felt there was a reason to abstain for future votes. NEW BUSINESS 1. Selection of "Top Five" Action Plan items for next fiscal year - Robert Wiley presented the results of a staff sub-committee meeting where the "Top Five" were selected. Phil Brougham motioned to approve the list, subject to supervisor level (Director) approval. The motion passed unanimously. 2. New Action Items for sub-committee review in May - Duke Vasey and Clarence Tears discussed Action Plan Item 5( c )(i) regarding the initiation of effort to develop an Interlocal Agreement between the County and Big Cypress Basin to fund the preliminary engineering and design study to divert a portion of the stormwater from the Main Golden Gate Canal to the northern Belle Meade and/or southern Golden Gate Estates areas. The Committee voted to prioritize the Action Plan tasks. 3. Public Comments - There were no public visitors in attendance. Rick Zyvoloski requested assurance that the proposed amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (referenced page 37 of 48) doesn't prevent the long term placement of emergency temporary housing (e.g. FEMA trailers) if the need ever arises. There was also a request for staff to follow up on the current FEMA legal department review of the Floodplain Administrator's responsibility to review Transportation Division projects in the floodplain. Next Meeting (Monday, May 4, 2009 starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 609 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104) rougham passed unanimously 10: 15 a.m. Jo Page 2 of2 "",_._'" ...~ ,"-,,'~'.- . .'"-"" , '1'......,... _.- 161 1:31 ~ H2!a .., l J RriVED . 1f;en~9 -r If. / . ". .. 2fJOO. Coyle i/ .11...., '.' I.i j .J . ,::t Coletta ~ ( _ '30J~(:'JICo:;ntjC:fT::L;:'~::'i::';;. Co . er County ~~.~ Floodplain Management Planning Committee Ray Smith, Chairman Mike DeRuntz, Vice-Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Christa Carrera (Naples) Adoni Kokkinos Herb Luntz Charles Martin Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Clarence Tears John Torre Jim Turner Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 9-19-08 Sub-committee Meeting Start: 3 :00 p.m. End: 4:00 p.m. Location: 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609 Meeting Attendance: Jerry Kurtz, Mac Hatcher, Stan Chrzanowski, Duke Vasey and Lew . Schmidt Sub-committee meeting called to order by Stan Chrzanowski. BUSINESS: Stan provided handouts on perforated, slotted pipes and Cross Drains in Golden Gate. Stan indicated that the problem in Collier with perforated and slotted pipes is that they drain off ground water when the ground water head is greater than the surface water head. There followed a discussion of drainage in the Estates area and damage to roads where the swale system did not drain to the canal or was inadequate and there is flow across the roads. We discussed the placement of plugged cross drains in topographic low spots during road work in the Golden Gate area with the thought that they could be utilized during storm events to alleviate road flooding, and re-plugged if they caused adverse conditions to existing dwellings. Future elevation and hydrologic studies may indicate where plugs are not needed but the pipes should be plugged at this time. The sub-committee recommended the placement of plugged cross drains be brought to the main committee for discussion and also recommended that the use of perforated and or slotted pipes should not be considered by the committee Ma- 4fc~ /- Mac Hatcher ;f'~~ Robert Wiley, S Coordmator Jrres: u 'II"".~3_""__"""""'"_''''' _"ll.'If - .........__ft...."..".,~__,_..~ Fiala QF~ Halas ~ 7/.' e . Henning! If /' Coyle V = R;U~~~~:o,Colt~-.9unt~ Coletta 16' 1 t, 9 _ 503ro .)f Co 1 . Community Development & fj Environmental Services Division Engineering & Environmental Services Floodplain Management Planning Committee Ray Smith, Chairman John Torre, Vice-Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Stan Chrzanowsld Jerry Kurtz Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Adoni Kokkinos Herb Luntz Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Clarence Tears Jim Turner Carolina Valera Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 4-1-09 Staff Sub-committee Meeting Start: 1::00 p.m. End: 2:05 p.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Engineering Conference Room Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Stan Chrzanowsld, Travis Gossard, and Robert Wiley. Also attending: John Vliet, Brandy Otero, Barbara Chesney, and Steve Preston (all from the Road Maintenance Department) Meeting called to order by Robert Wiley. The purpose of the meeting was to select a "Top Five" action items for completion in the next fiscal year, understanding the budgetary limitations proposed by the economy. On~ of the first discussions was a recommendation to separate out the current Action Plan Items by their need, especially identifying those that were mandatory, and would not need to be included in the "Top Five". The following were the selected "Top Five" Action Plan Items: 1. Action Item 6( e) - Develop a flooding "technical assistance" program with a single point of contact, including a web link to that contact point. (Ray Smith to be the team leader) 2. Action Item 6(b )(ii) - Update the Floodplain Management website and schedule the "Agencies" public information meeting schedule. It was agreed to drop the "Agencies" limitation and use this item to schedule all of the public information meetings. (Mac Hatcher to be the team leader) 3. Action Item 5(f)(iii) - Develop a policy for the placement of cross drains beneath roads within the northern Golden Gate Estates area to maintain usage of depressional storage in the floodplain, review this with DSAC and the CCPC, and present to BCC. This action Misc. Co~-r"~ Page 1 of2 Date:_ !terri # .. ",..~.._"._" -- ,-~<""....,.__._- --~'"",...._~.,.._~>"'_. 161 1 89 item should coordinate well with a new program initiative through the Transportation Division for land east of Collier Blvd. (Stan Chrzanowsld to be the team leader) 4. Action Item 5(d)(i) - Prepare grant applications to enhance efficiencies of existing stormwater management systems by seeking alternative funding sources to bring existing channels to higher functional standards. (Jerry Kurtz to be the team leader) 5. Action Item 6(a) - Prepare a map showing the location of existing mobile homes within the SFHA and a map showing the location of existing flood insurance policy holders. (Jim Turner to be the team leader) There was also discussion and agreement to change the coloring on the Action Item spreadsheet to reflect the responsible department. The fmal point of discussion was to recommend the Floodplain Management Planning Committee (FMPC) founding resolution be amended to include a staff member of the Big Cypress Basin be appointed as a FMPC voting member to provide better working coordination with the Basin. Motion to adjourn by Travis Gossard passed unanimously 2:05p.m. !~~coorilinaror Page 2 of2 <,.-,,"',,-----,- -- - ,,_.,,-".._"'~~._-,- 0."'_" 161 ta~,a09 ~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PJ/'-- ' - William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on ~(o/rtr , as presented , or as amended X . I) ... " 'II'Ir .11 ~. -,-' '., -",_...._<._.".,,,.,_.,.",-,...- rrf _._--'-"'._'--'~-'~'''''''---"" 161 1810 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes- January 6, 2009 V. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates A. Landscape Update VI. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget - Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VII. Old Business A. Update on Golden Gate Parkway Bridge - Pat Spencer B. Master Plan Discussion C. Design Process for Hunter & Coronado VIII. New Business IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for May 12, 20094:00 p.m. At Golden Gate Community Center Misc, Cones: I Naples, FL Date: D1 ~2 D Item I: to I l ~ 1 :Gpies to: ,.,.,.-.~.~-~._..~_....,,,,,-""..,-~._._,.,--"-",,~. . '1lI' -,;_..'~- . 161 I~l Qt. ;, RE(~EiVt:,J JUN 1 9 2Gu3 Boar1 of County Commissioners 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. New Business A. Budget FY 2009-2010 B. Hunter & Coronado Project - Mike McGee & Associates Proposal VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Misc. Corres: Date: -,~ tern f' < ,..~~''',,-_..~-,----~ I ~~..,"-_.."'" ~:::s ~~M! RE(~EJVED Hennmg JUN 1 9 2009 Coy\e -= f- := Co\etta ""," 1'6' 'rr'131 0 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes- March 10, 2009 V. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates A. Landscape Update VI. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget - Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VII. Old Business A. Update on Golden Gate Parkway Bridge - Pat Spencer VIII. New Business IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment '-~.~ Itern #" .~~- ---,. 1 :"'In~: to ",.""--",,,,--,,,.__."-",...~~_. , 1 ~.t( ~:::s. ~~~ R~~Et JUN 1 9 2009 I~ommissioners Henning Roard 01 Count'/ '.' , .' Coyle - - Coletta - .# GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 March 10, 2009 MINUTES I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Chairman Richard Sims. II. Attendance Members: Peggy Harris, Michael McElroy, Richard Sims, Barbara Segura (Excused), Pat Spencer (Excused) County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager, Michelle Arnold - A TM Director, Steve Carnell - Purchasing Director, Rhonda Cummings - Purchasing Contract Specialist, Tessie Sillery - MSTU Project Coordinator, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst Others: Sue Flynn - Mancan, Michael McGee - McGee & Associates, Damon Himmel - Hannula, Jim Stephens - Hannula III. Approval of Agenda Add: VI C. Purchasing Update - LA Services Contract Richard Sims moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Michael McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - January 6, 2009 Richard Sims moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. V. Landscape Architects Report A. Landscape Update - Mike McGee report the following issues: . The turf on Tropicana has spotty areas. Misc. Corres: Date: Item#: I :.~pies to, .._~--">,~_._- .._.,_..,-_...-.",_.._~.".- . 16 I 1~1 ci ~ . Two "Welcome" signs on 951 and one "Welcome" sign at Golden Gate and Santa Barbara need to be refurbished. Darryl Richard will request a quote for refurbishment and painting ofthe 3-signs. He requested Mike McGee place stakes where the sign should be installed at Golden Gate and Santa Barbara. Discussion was ensued on the location of the sign and the landscaping and Bahia grass and Mike McGee suggested installing the "Welcome" sign in the 2nd median west of Santa Barbara, sod in front of sign and plants behind for a back drop. VI. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget - Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed the Fund 153 Budget Report. (See attached) ~ Available Operating $135,316.80 ~ Available Improvements General $1,259,400.00 ~ Collected Ad Valorem Tax $349,956.69 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the Golden Gate MSTU Project Status Report as follows: . G-28 - Installation of Lift Station Landscape Plan for landscape improvements is pending from Contractor. . G-26 - Maintenance Contract is current. . G-25 - Golden Gate Master Plan Revision Final Draft Submittal for Master Plan is under review by Staff and Committee. . G-22 - Coronado & Hunter Concept Power Point Presentation scheduled to be given today by Mike McGee. . G-21- McGee & Associates Annual Contract Work Order for continued services until October 1, 2009 in process or being issued. C. Purchasing Update - LA Services Contract Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director stated the Staff has created a fair process on the selection of Contractors and would like the Staff and the Committee to reach an agreement on the "Process". He also proposed the MSTU extend Mike McGee & Associates contract through September 2009 and finish the Hunter and Coronado Project. Rhonda Cummings presented the "Best Value Offer Process". Firms will be scored as follows. (See attached) ". Experience and Expertise of Designated Project Staff - 25 points 2 _.,~.,_..,,,. "",,.,.,,.- -. 16 I 1 ~8io .Ii 1 ". Documented Excellence in Previous Performance on Similar Jobs - 25 points ". Ability to Meet Required Schedule - 25 points "- Price - 25 points " ". Finance Department will send Scope of Work to 5-firms ". The Evaluation Team will consist of3-persons from County and the Committee. ". The Committee can appoint one Member to the Evaluation Team or choose the Staff score. ". Staff will compile the proposals and rank firms accordingly. Discussion ensued on the Contractor Selection Process, the scoring and the Evaluation Team and it was determined the Committee liked the clean process and the scoring was a good place to start. Staff will provide the results to the Committee from the "Best Value Offer Process". Richard Sims moved to ask Steve (Carnell) to proceed (with the Evaluation Process) and have the Staff do it (evaluation process). Second by Michael McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. VIII. Old Business A. Update On Golden Gate Parkway Bridge - Pat Spencer - None B. Master Plan Discussion - Incorporated with VIII. C. C. Design Process for Hunter & Coronado - Mike McGee gave a slide presentation on the Master Plan Development. (See attached) . Recommendations were made to do some curbing. . When the road was resurfaced, the Contractor covered part of the curbing. . Coronado Parkway will no longer have a left turn onto Santa Barbara. There will be a right turn only. . Hunter Boulevard will have a sidewalk on one side of the street. The Proposed Master Plan with Typical Planting Concepts were as follows: . Master Plan "Type I" uncurbed and un-irrigated, median planting with mounding, shrubs and canopy trees. . Master Plan "Type I & 3" partially curbed, un-irrigated median with paver turn lane tapers, palm and canopy tree plantings. . Master Plan "Type 5" curbed and irrigated, median with planted turn lane tapers and ends palm and canopy tree plantings. . Master Plan "Type 5" curbed and irrigated, median with paver turn lane tapers and canopy tree plantings. . Estimated costs were reviewed by the Committee. 3 .,<.,,-.'._0<_..,.,"--' ,-_.',--_.. ,. . ...._..".,.,-~._" _..~,,--.~~-_.,~--~ 16 , 1 131 '0 ~ Discussion ensued on costs for Master Plans for uncurbed and un- irrigated versus curbed and irrigated, without lighting, visibility, pavers versus grass. Mike McGee recommended fall planting and curbing The Committee recommended using pavers in the medians by the shopping center. Further discussion ensued on plant likes and dislikes and using native plants that do not require watering after the first initial year and it was decided that the Committee will email Darryl Richard their plant preferences. Darryl Richard stated the Curbing Design costs can be covered under Mike McGee and Associates proposal. Richard Sims moved the Committee select Type 5 Landscape and ask Stat/to proceed (request a proposal/or Construction Documents/rom Mike McGee). Second by Mike McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IX. New Business The Staff recommended the Committee have a Special Meeting to work on the Budget FY 2010. Richard Sims moved to have a Special Meeting on April 7, 2009 at 4:00 pm on the Budget FY 2010 and review (Mike McGee and Associates) proposal (on Construction Documents). Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. X. Public Comments - None XI. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee R.~'~ IC ar Ims, aIrman 4 ..'"-..,....-.-..- -- ~---- -. " ~.- , _.~ 16 , I ~(O1 These minutes approved by the Committee on , as presented or amended A Special meeting is scheduled for April 7, 2009 The next meeting is scheduled for April 14, 2009 4:00 PM At Golden Gate Community Center Naples, FL 5 -'~. -~.... -..-..,.,".------ 161 l-a 1'0 .- March 10, 2009 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Golden Gate MSTU Project Status t (G-28): ACTIVE - Installation of Lift Station (by Utility Company) on Golden Gate Parkway 1-06-09: Contractor's work continues; re-installation of MSTU Irrigation Mainline completed; re- installation of valve wiring completed: Landscape Plan for landscape improvements pending from Contractor (per ROW Permit requirements) 3-10-09: Request submitted to Contractor for status of plans; ROW Department copied on this request to follow-up with Contractor. (G-26) ACTIVE - Maintenance Contract Committee approved at Jan. 62009; BCC Approved Jan. 27, 2009 meeting; Bid Documents and Bid Tabulation for Bid 09-5153 Golden Gate MSTUlMSTD Maintenance; Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. for $267,418.64 (G-25) ACTIVE - Golden Gate Master Plan - revision; (PO 4500100242; Work Order: TLO- MA-3614-07-04; Original Contract Time-Line: NTP 12/8/2006 to Final Completion 12/30/2007; Original PO Amount: $4,800) 01-06-09: McGee Final Draft Submittal for Master plan under review by Staff and Committee (G-22) ACTIVE - Coronado & Hunter Concept - McGee Work Order PO 45000100643 Work Order TLO-MA-3614-08-20; Original Time-line: NTP 9/19/2008 to Final Completion 11/18/2008; Original PO Amount: $14,560.00 01-06-09: McGee reports draft is in process of development; understands draft needs to be submitted to County Staff. 02-23-09: Staff request update on project from McGee. 03-04-09: Powerpoint Presentation provided for staff review prior to 3-10-09 Golden Gate MSTU Meeting. (G-21) ACTIVE ONGOING - McGee & Assoc. Annual Contract: 04-3614; PO 4500100630TLO-MA-3614-08-04; Original PO Amount: $14,050 01-06-09: McGee Proposal to extend services until Jan. 31 for $785.00 under review; additional time may be added per the recommendation of Purchasing Dept. 2-17-09: Request McGee proposal for new Work Order to be until 'new fiscal year' 3-10-09: Work Order for continued services until Oct. 1st 2009 (New Fiscal Year) in process of being issued. 1 ~-"" ,,..,.._m".,,,~,-_, ,".,-~,"-~# .,,- --."--.- . 16' 1'431( Exhibit A-1 Fixed Term Contract # 00-0000 ''Title'' CCNA BEST VALUE OFFER (BVO) SCORING FORM NAME OF FIRM Experience and Expertise of Designated Project Staff 25 Points Documented Excellence in Previous Performance on Similar Jobs 25 Points Ability to Meet Required Schedule 25 Points Price 25 Points TOTAL 100 Points RANKING FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE THIRD PLACE Selection Committee Member's Signature Date ~"'".."'.'-' T ._.",-"_.'" . en 16 ,I B1:0 f l.L. (!) 1 o 2 :!: 52 ::J2 >< en <( >, 0:: ..c 0> c: l.L. :52 c: 0 en C'Cl O::w (!) L- Q) wu 2 (.) 00<( 52 C'Cl :!:...J 2 Q. ::la. <( ." 2 ex) 0:: M ..c: (.) C'Cl (!) Q) l.L. III Z 0 <n ..... 0 ~ O::w (!) c: 0 wu 2 '0 0 Z 00 <( 52 0. 0 <( :!: ...J 2 g :t:I: 0::: ::la. <( 2r-- 0:: >< 0 ..J >, > <( l.L. ..c CO Z 0 <n 0> U. o::W(!) c: :52 - WU2 c: 0 OOj52 Q) ~ > ~a.~ ...... co Q) en 21D0:: 0 (.) .!!! - 0. 0::: l.L. ." c: W 0 <n N U. 0:: w (!) ..c: U. WU2 (.) C'Cl NO 00<(- Q) :!:...J~ <i:W ::Ja.~ .l!l J!i ......=> 2 I() 0:: Q) c: I1l I- '0 '0 :.o..J l.L. <.9 :J 0...... .- <( ...... ~o> ~> 0 <n Z co >< .!: o::W(!) c ~L- WI- ~ .Q'l en 0 WU2 .....(.) en 00<(- z (f) c: en W :!:...J~ ;? en '0 0> en ::J a. 2 o.c: 2 "<t ~ co >(:52 W .....J C >,C: W l.L. <( .Q ..c~ Q) I- 0 <n Z en 0>..... c: en ...... I- o::W(!) en '- Q) WU2 U. JE ~ ~ I- :! c: 0 00<(- 0 C'Cl- :! :!: ...J ~ I- L- 0 ::J a. <( D... Q)..... 0 (.)..... 2(')0:: 0) C'Cl en U - Q) l.L. C _o...c: Z 0 en en .. 0> ..... .- 0 o::W(!) eu ..c: i= W U 2 0 ..c ..c:Q) 00<(- U (.)..c: U :!:...J~ Z I- C'Cl..... ::Ja.~ I- :J Q)>, W 0 0 D... o>..c ..J 2NO:: (f) 0 0::: .!: "C W 0::: >,Q) 0 W I -c: en LL (f) 0.._ 0 l.L. I- EE 0 0 <n :J L- 0 O::W(!) E's I >,Q) 0 WU2 ..c"C 0 00 <( - "C ,!!! :!: ...J ~ :t:I: ::Ja.~ Q) L- ...... c: Q) 2 T"" 0:: .- "C U E L- eu L- 0 I- .so> ...... c :! Q) c: 0 "C '- ~ U 0::: en c: "- C'Cl E u. Q) L- L-_ o C'Cl l- Ll. (.) c: Q) 0 enlo:: I- O>Q) "'0 W c:..c: Q) :! :521- "~ c: <( C'Cl c..i LL Z 0::0) .. III W..... I-C: - -- 0'- ."~,~ Zg, 11I''Il'_._ . - '......,,>~_.~,,~.- -_._"""",. 16 , 1 !Bl~ ::> I- "E ro en > Q) - :::J... ~ o c: CD ro co Q) ~ ::s "Cs-E +> as "C Q) C- o 'tJ o ... 0 CD "ri (J.) -c:_ +> ~ LL:::JQ) "ri 0 -I > .c: r-i ....... o rz. ~ Q) ..c ~ CO c~o ....., ~ ... :::J ~ c: ";: CD rn (9 Ororo ~ CD cU r-i o~- o ~ s-~a.. rn Z Q) s- s- 'tJ "- ro Q) c: C =a..... cU o en ~ (J.) Ooro "C~ ro -C c: 0 s- o 0 0 (9 -- .."".--..-~ . ..~ ...... T. n -- 161181 <: ~ -J (!) Q <: a:: ~ ~ ~ <: C/) ~ fb ~ -J Q () fi] -J <: t3 0 () C/) - -- 0 ~ Q I--- 0 a:: Q ~-_.," "m~_'"__,,_,___,_,__,,'''_ . ,....".'~>.,'" ."~ .... 16 I 1 ~11 5 . ci ai E .5 ad, of5 Eenca :J ..... .c III( c M E 0 t7) Q.. 0 ::.!.mca G) c::: m i .D .... e 0 U - . 0 2. . III " ~ ~ u '1: c.;C;oo ci d tJ ci d 0 _tni.n :e = , . . 0000 bOOOOO r::: 'u E<"')V :3~ ~ j ~c::: ~M~. u a- CD ::;) . . Mb~bbb c. ::! ~ .~ .2 N C .. - ... ... ~(I')'NMM{'I') 0) f/) en (I) ali- ~ ...: ...: ~ ...: - .r::: Z ~. . III - 0. o.~o.Q. o.~-~~. "'C .... 9! o.~,... ..... ",,:.iS~ en (/J If) (/J"':"':~"':~ c:: D. to- .-...,. -- ---. -- -Q.Q..Q.Q.i ~ C1) S 0.' _I - ' "';":...J ..; Ul r.o en en Z . .r.o <.0 .J:q,t5:C .s:::..s:::..r:::s::. s::;----- "C :5 Ui CO . . ............................. ~ . to ..... b ' . . -= t: , .s;:;: .s:::..r::. ,s;;. s:::. . . ~ (0 ~ '.q- M - -- N. . . . . <I Q.. ...;.s:..l:. OQM,C 'II""" ~ NN ......(0(0 00 00 CO g i .s:: - - N Co . . . <<>...q- !;o .... _ ... ... ... .... - .. .. C I '" a. . "' .. II "' . '" I O......~ ~......~~ mtOmm mm'Mm7aM ~ '11.1 ...... I I )( 1 <<Ii "8 - - - en cnOlCDO'l 0)0)010)0)0> J- .1 ~ N _ a _ (J) 4C( co............ <:O~,...<.O [T')("')I"-t-- ...,... ...... ....... or- ..... ...... 00 d ii <i. ~ l,O eE ''11'"" CI) Z O. . 0 E "0 .2 O.s:::. 0 ;:) E NQ) ~Ii-.r::. e 'II""" c: - ... 8:0:: e o-l- C> W .. 0- 16 "2 Q.. Z ~.r::. (ij E j j cO ~ c co r.o 0.- en~~~~ 't; ~ oJ!'! to . S; (1) C'O 0 EO. CO E G)W c:::~.E 0 Z EE-S.c .- cu t'O 0 =8<.)Ou~ p c j E . ;:: .,t8 _. ft; <<p .s ~"'CL.::S 0 ii;'i~ ~ ::: 0 (1) -I . c:: C'OQ.!ct1 .- -e. Q) ~ a.. u 1: - 0 j 3: E l! t: ::>,e- ~G>-~ Oom_ ~~c~~.: 0 E ""0 u... +;:I m~ m ,en () Cf) (0 Q c.. Q)= ~~i~ 't:"'C~CL. G) - ,ep ctI'l:; C'O If) W xii::;, m r::: ~ I UlE.'!:::.!.cg :.c c (J ~ to 0 ctJ' C'O 3: 0 3:ctJ= G) 0 ~ .S ;:j ctJ ~ Z OW a.. 0 Ou.. 000 en (I) 00,0..00 m t- O U - c:i ! > I ..... w ~=t: CO -I . - - 0 en a: ;:) E ~~ z ~ ~ ~E~ w Q .- ~ ~ . - . )0- W Z ,! 0 ... := _ 1,;,. 00 CQ. 811O'w Z ::I: (f') . - . m.... :I: 0:: c .- ::>> 'ii i::& - _.r:.! c -~ ',111 c: 0 f C) .- C} - e ::z: (J) .2 t!! .. ~.~"i b &: ~ CO ~ Qi :! ::.:: .!!l ~ 01 C I: .cf l'D wWfa::8- - - - ..... Ii ~ '2 Q,) Q,) 0 (Q . U) 'C 1:: c:: " := := :: :.a C'O i as ~= ~~~.s:::.~ ~lm~!!~0===Q,)m~ ... $. ~'=5 c.. G) '- -....:: cp ~ , G) E E E "C :: U) ~ i~i3~IEgl==J!~81~~~~EU)E IX 00 .- .... ('0 .- ... . > :g ~ .~ ::;, ;:, ~ i i= - 0 ~ 1ii -0.. E -.6 ~ ~ ~ QQ). =0....2 a: Z~~~~0:--~=~~1::C::ZF .r:.~r:::~0!~s::. ~ 01 ~ W ~ ~ e ~ ~ is ! -c~ :::J. to ! ~ ::) ;s -a 0. 0. .sg E LL CJ) U ~ W 0 .- ...I .tV ~ ,s;;. .~ ,cB c.. ~ ~ 0 ::I. ::I ::5 :J Q.) fa a: ttl -t :i 0 fI) D.. IX . 0... c( f,/) 1-%' (/) fa:: en w W W :I: N ~ a. ::>> Q -I I- ~ ~ ~ 2 <e( :S ~ z z z z z z ~ 0 S :S ~ :!i :S :S 0:: :E a Q Q C 0 0 w W w W IoU uJ W (.) :::i t:: :i :E :E :E :::i :Ii ~"~- - .. ., - ~v - . (~1 ~ Th ]; 16 I foB j z 1 1 ~...J ~ ~ II ,; ~ =~' l-tIl , f i:; I I :E ~ J .- ~ II ~ it. ~'OI I~'; ~I. l:t:l ~8 ~ ~ '5 \.<.l I 1\ :S~ 1i~1 Ii ~ ~ :g l I III ~.~ ~~" I ~ ~ N ...1 ~ ~ 1~ 000 1 ~! ~~ ~ -~. 9 I Z:= J' 0 ~ 13) ~g i~ O~ ~j ~Q . ~~ ~~ ~I 0 >f~, r ~ :i ~ Q r'l ::c f,' - I I- ...... ~ ' ,..--- ~. ~ r.Y~ I ~I g =-0 ~.ll .... 8 0 ~ 2i ~ I. 'I ~ ~ ,'~ i 2:!i f3 ~ ..I] h,~ ~ ~ 1~ ! <<~z :: \l ,It U to! '5 t 1 ,i ~ ~ ~ ~l II II t Q I J i" :z >- ~ ~ II I . II ...l ~ i3 y ~ f (J.J <: c.. g~ I II 1',061 <1--0 IE ...l I~t- II !to 5 'il IaI ~ ~ 0 Z .8 $ ib \11 .......'<<. S .... !II) j ~'",=,f.I.l..( 'i! ~ I I II" ~ ~ ,& ~ .. ~::; U ;;, ~ ~ ] \:: q p 1"1 ~ ~ ,! I II 1.. ~ 1 ~ 1 Q ~ ,~ ~.: ft Ii.:: ~'. ~H ~ ]. i ;. ~ :i: ~ I II u.~ i ~ :;\ j ~ -< 0 ~ ~ ': II ,~~ I'~. ia J! . U II II !:'l ~ ~;l - ~ ~I II :r: '. ifj~ f II II 1..0' rJ. "'XI a '5.1'''6 11 ~ Iii t/l e ..sl (I::: ~ 'B:~ l' ~ 11 II I- -Ii ti ~ ~ U II: II Q-= 1.~J~ i ,s <f. , II t: ' - ~ ~ '" ~ I II ... ." ~ tl: ~ ,e ~t' II ~:: g g.,..] ~.,I II .. JtII"S li 1 J;!l . Ji II II ~ ' 'Q B'''' J ! 1111 Z a.~~i: Q.~ II II ! lj! i gig i ~ Il II 'f1 Q. y "'P 'E , 'e II .11 . 8.; ~ G ,ii ] II' , - ofi. . - J 'IS I Y''" - .... 1\ II ~ 1i ~ t'~ g" II. II ~ "2 11.:tl 'i I II II S '8 i I ;; t II 11 If [~:! l,ij g 1\ II 1.1. . .5 y \1 II ...:....1 ....; ..; \~J) ".,~,,, ... "_".,.",~.~""~,, ,. .""-'-'.0.,.".. -, j "-" 1611 u ',.. BI0' 0( 11 ~ ~ u ~ tlll ~' ~IJ ~ 11 .f.:: · ~ P' HO it 'H ii!" ll.~'Q~" :: l~]l ~..:lu...t ,~. ~ ~ ~I '" 1!'~ :; ... i a ::! l I'! <IJ ~ t ~ ~'; "I! Oli "'" - '" I II .. ~" ~ 1 II , ~n ~ Q ~ ! N~ .:>1 "'< l:l. .' t:!I ~ c.Q " " ,"u :J' ~'"'", vl f d - ~ ' I ' ____J ;:;J t.? ~ '" ,,' J.-./ u~zz Y,~, :' ' '// ~~~ .~.~~....... " , ~>~ ~,~ ~~'" "~' 1 < ~ ~ . ,<,i 0.. ci = ~ b ;"';.. ~ ~ ~ ~ _zo ~l f. "'::S~ . _ ~ 0 ~1 _ ~ B"'U ii~ i ~ ~:~~, i d t ~ ~ ~ - t ~ 't ,II t j' p ~ ": "', ~ lIu 1i.1 ~~'" "'1'! ' 'II" · '1 "'. ~ "'t' 1I!lI) ;:s: ~' f <Il:I en W ~ ~ i ~ I ~N" 3 a ill ,;' :S ~ ~ , 'I"' 1'"1 -'" ,.. " \\1111 '$~ ~ Pli:hui~l;a ... C/J I i:l .s ,'" 1 ~5 X I I Ji '''p i _U@'IU! ..1 ~ <I I.N ~ ,~ ~ 4'l .!i $1 I a iJ . U1 I ~ IS .~ il!'=! ' ~ ~I I ...g ~ 1 ~ · p ~ 'i ell IJ .,' I ~ " . I I 1 ~ 1:~ i ] -;' I ~:!:~]'1 vi I 8.Q:1f:tl~ e .0( I I ~ ~ s;i '~ .. ~ II &. ,:tI .. ,g ~] .f il f-' I 1 · " i-A _ . II ~ 'ft: Ol ~' ~.~ J:11 I ,13 ~ '0 t .8 "!. i ,~ 1 I I ~ '$ .... ,1:1i j 0 ::;~ II 2-Jda-h ~.... I I j Q, "t; 1 . 'B ::bIJ II ..J~' H 1 I '~-i~ih ,2 ';;! I, ~ l Sl ~ i ~ 8-" 1 I I ] , · · 1 1 -' · ,! ,!j 1 l__. I I ,~,1;; .~ ;os ~ __ I ill 101. is.... \ I r..~ ,....; ..t d --"-..... 101 ~1Il ~ . If 'T ,"_- ~ ~- """ -"-- ...",,_.." 8 16 J::l!! , 1 81 "'$ ;.... ....~ N ... ... .... ... ~ 5 . ... :il ... ... N. ... :' ,8 MOiOlv.~;o:o'oo;o'o,o ~;o:1 I ;,; ~'&ji '~' &;:' ; ".... ~ i ~ 0 ... ... ~ J ~:i ; ~~ ... ~i l!! ~ ..-.""" ..-,,,.... "...."....,,,....,,.... . ~ ,~ :( ... ~~'Mi~i~,~N:O m.... ... ...'~! /;;!~! :8' ~'~;;; P'>:..,.:C\I,vi..-'..... ..... ; '" , .....; ! : at :l co ~:~.~i~l~ N:M!~'NjM'~i.....l~:M:.....:.....i ... ...~., i ~'OiO;~:O 8 ~:~i~' ~:~l~:o,oig 8 , ' , ,;;; ~ ('.I' " I . , I' :.... lil .. N ~ ... ... ... o o:~;~o~.~;~,~:~~:~:~:~!~ ~ ~ ~~,~~;~~;;a~~ ~,~ ~ .... ... .... ... ~ ... ...: = ... ... ~ ~,...N'roN~,~:e'~'...~'M,M~ V!~... ...:~ ro'gmiN:~~ i ~ :~~'~ ~ '~, : ;~~~~, R'~~:~' ~Nia,!@: N . ~' : , 1...........,(\1..... N~ :~ ~;~:o,~:~:~:~,o;o o:o'a:o;t:: 000:0,000'00:0000 ~ ...-. N; (I') "=t. to co'''''' co' <>>: 0 ..... N ("). 'V. ... .. .... N:M v~ ID"'ro m~ ~ ~!:j' ............ -,- J!!j .5, : ~'o -g iii l :r: ~_..",,- T lW"1II I."'" - ...~"""'._~,~.."""._.._-..... -- -- ~ '~ ~ ~~ ~ d ~i 16 II' 811 ~' t ,s. '0 ~' 'C: ~ .... ..J J!,I 40l ..-'.'\'1. 1 ~ :il 1t "~'{": e ti: ~ u" ,{~:~ ,., ~ j .J:J~ t" ,.~.I',.:::.......:.:.:;' 'j! .... ,', g -,.,'.' &: ill _' ...~....~. 100 . i! OJ .J: ,:;~;'r ", - u g g' ><; .0.""" -,.J ., .:l "II ."x.M if; :. ,; -="i L ,.,... '61 ~ g~t Q 1'~ ~.el ~ .~ ~ .. F.l 'lI. gHI i=gJ F- It a. . -<. u.l ~ l.,I'~ ' , ... ~ J I!. ci <.:l V'l V! ~. _ '" f-< , : ,!8 i:.' !l !/; :::! ....;z; " . ,'~ j -~~ :: s' ~ oll.~3 " , ... O..l::J -: J :.i> WZ" . ' , ! ~..:w .'. ~ > ~ $ Bf2~ :... ~ 'li i ~ f..,O~ , : j .' ~ 1 u. tW ~ ~ ~ , '" 'i! jf '" 3< , 'M ,,~ ~ j ..w ~ ',l" '" · zxoll . lSllIJ o/4l ..2 ~t- ~ ..! '" ll, i2 ~ :0 ~ ~ .i" ~ & ... ~ h :ill j l cJ~" 1"-.1 - ~.J lV" )1] i ~ n ';. rl ' ~ ~ i 1 :I ~i",~ l]~ ~ s ~. _ "' h ~ ~ a li f" e ,," t;.;'!fl. r ~ ~ If oj 0. ~l ~ '-. -is, 4 ll! , ~ '" ,,;:;: Ii. 'C ' 1l .. 1 . '.~ II. E ] t ~ .." 1>. " ..:i ; 1 .Ii ....,.._ Jii~ j, ~ ! ,5,'! j:l ,.. ,:: :r: ..] . ,Ii ~ ,,., 1Il I ' , ". ' . 'C - . " ~. ~ ;'.. I ~ ,!.' ~ ~ ,{ ... _ ,,' ' ,,'. a ! g. ,:ji ~ c .. ~ ] ~ 11,'0 if"'.Ii ~h ~ :l '€ 6 '-, ~. "- G ,i ~ jl 19. ~. ~ ~ ',11 ,~ v . ,- > ~ c $ ,:;," 0. ....,. 1 ~ ..J 0 8 - ] ~i :1Il ~~. 8 ' ~ ~.!j .1 ," $1 ~o t Q , 0.' 6' ~ &b'l~ ~ l, ~,~!.t, ~ !II! ..; 'j I Q 'S ~. ~ ~ " ~ :.:l F- ~ - -1 ,9" i a f- ' &0 l:.'~ ) ,S .!S "'R t' _u~ <:$8 b-l't " -J - '" d jell .'1;; ...; f"i ...; '" . v-, "--'- .~--"'"_., 1"0/ "f . . . 't. "~i\. -. ".. ~ " '... Pil~~~-' . .....::' . .". '. ~ ~ .... . ". . '".. ..,~ ., -- '~ilt '- - . ..',' I' " , I _ ' ............ " ~1I...~,.."."....i~"...I...:"." ;' ~-:.;,- ,;. -~ - - - :" "'Y', .; ,i'h- . -', 'v.... ~. . " -,_ ,"'_'. ", .;'- '-. '~*" , . /" \ \ ~::.~::_-/ a.,; ,,~ .'..... .....~,e.....,.\, ~'\~i ..~.....,'" //jI,-< ~~. .if!' "1.' ~ "':''''':i;;'''''_,.,\ .:::..' - - ~ ,)"",. ~~.'. "~\ .. ~,L ',rfl' " ,,,,",, -.... '... :- -. .:;-.. -: h:;;::' . 1611.810 C.9 z - I- Z tn <( tn ....I f! a.. C) z >. <( .c - 0 - ~: ::::J W ,.:~' :E ~ ;"'~~ ~ ,..-:.:1" I C.9 G) - z ~ - >. I- en E - >< >< w ~ "- - 1.(-- "H, 1611 810 h ~ Ui ,~ ~.i 1t v d:~~ ~t ~! ~Q ,Jl,!! ~ Ii: "'Ii l! hq ~~,' 'i ~], ~JS~g6~ ~ ] S- ., '":, ~ n ..:!l:' ~.... "'It ~l' :Jr: .~ .": ~ I;\, U ;EU 1Ji .1!'t: ~ 'I Vl " N ~ Q .....~, rl!.~ [Jjdd '" _ v !J ~ f-t .,...)/ d~ /./ ~ ~ -I- ~1.I..l ffi~ ~~ ~ ::> z .... vi . _ u~~ ' ;a l ::>Cl~ ~d ~ fn,r--<~Z _'~ , C> IJ.l ~ '~ ~ fT, ~ ,!:Ll H! ~ ~~ s J F~~ iU~ [ ~ l~ 1 i ~n :i!jd j ~ h ~ Ii '"~>- la~~ Jl! f H ~ ~ ~ - ~ .' ';>1 " .. CI"~ ",. !h < iil ~ ~ ~ ~ Vl ~~, ~,~ 11 ~,~ ~ ~ u .c~ j ~~ . · ~ 8 J ~, :: .~ IQtC yg Q 1 ( .H 11 , !] ~ ! ~ I t!'~ij e, a t I:l !!<' a U h :! i ] ~ .;; ,J:> ~ 'E 1 j 5 IOD,c:~lil w ,g Iii ,!!I ,- 1i Q i ~ ~ ,~Il ~ ~ .9 g ,f ~ i 1-' ~ j g -= i t 1 ~ <\> I.l .... e- ~ .- i'i @" . 1 ~roJ 1"1l~ ~ J 5 t " 8H ,11. ,i;'i'~ .... ~ l! 6 e ~ '-] i! 6 1 II I ~'JIIJlft l L..''''--- . ',:;1:~ i ,a 1 ~f!! _ -VlI;\,~Sa~~ .,..: , ._ _III "~----"- -- -------~~ ~ - 16 I 1 91 I , I U) ... U) "": . N ~ $. CO') . .,,:;) ~a .,. '" 10 ..... C"! '18 :a N 10 . - .... o .... OCI ... .,. .,. :g ~ '00 N .... "'10 ..... . . N ~ ~ ....,. .,. .,. .. .'---~ o 0 ('t) C! !:! co CO') ..... ('t) OCI U) N"tC'!. I ..... N en ..... ... ... C ... N .,. .,. -c.2 . 8 8 ....... ......... o.....~..... ~~,M ~ M ........... ..... ~ Ol (1;: 8)' ..... co ............... . i ns fa ..... ..... MO' Ol 10' co:..... CO') ~~Oi~'m ,ro : .~ ~ ~ ~...... ~ ..... 10 ~ N N .... NN,~ 8 ~i~ ~ ~ M'~. ~.~ ~ ~'M m ~ ~ > t:i . 00 OCI ..... OCI en ... CU .,. .,. .,. - :I , . I . . . ~! o:~ O'oo!o,oooo:ooooo j,j O~ T- ,0 ~ - 'M ..... ~~ l- i c ...0 :a E CU.... . 0 0 ....~ C"C :leu ~ fci;il;:~ ~;~\~ co ('t)'OliOl!lt'liN'(1;;,MNlCOi 0 ::c.o Ol 10 .. ...... ~im\~!~!~I~j f :~ ~'~ ..... a.. ..... ..... ofJd ... ..... .,. .,. >- N co'..... Ol co ..... :8 .... ~1.....:.....iM'CO:Ol:Ol:iN It'l.....('t) ns N 10'..... oo~i i Ni.....' 0' 101 Ni 0'.....' M ~ Mj C\.I (") co co 0)' ,_ rei ~: ~f ~! ~! ~. ~: m! ~ ~ ~i It) <0 C\I 0...... .......(\1 ~ N ' , : __ T""" C fa o ~iN m ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ 00 0 0 0 00.0 0,0 0 00 ... - ~:- ~ ~ .~ ~IM ~ ~ nso. . ..... D- C fa 0.- .!i -c"i :I , 0...... N: 0 ns~ CO;O>~_............ f- CLn 0 -c:i > ... iii ~ 0 i U ::I. :J: . ,_._.~,.- '""~'" -.---,'- , <--".._~ O'_'''M_',_ .~ ._~._,._-,-._.....- 1 I II: ~.~ W WWWWNNNN NN N ~_~~__~_~_ -O~~~~~~W~-O~~~~~.W~_~~G~~~.WN_O~~~~~.WN- E) j[ ~~~~~~~&II~~~~~~~OO ~~~~ww~~QfQo~o~r~c>~mzrn~o>zrn ~z~~~~~zz~oo d~1b!?>?l~:iB;2;2;2;2igg~~ ::lmrn):669!):'ii:grll1!ll~Gl~~~z~;g~~m1zg~ )::;'J~~9!):~;riili2i~~ 81 ( jg~gm!!inrn~N~~'~[g~~ ~!ll~~Gl~~~~o9!!lli!ll~z~~gQZ):~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mI~~ :~ ~i~~~~~~~~I~1 lriiili~~=~a~~i~!ll~~~~~g ~~~~8~~ml~=~~rn~~!ii~~ ! 11~ljll!ICt~~ !m~I!I~~~!lli~ill~i ii~~ii~~ ~;llii!~;lli ~ ci--m ~ z O~ z rn~Gl zZOO~$~ ~9! m2mm ~ OGl~~Cr~Z~ I ~"~ I i 8;g 8 Zm~ ~n z~~ ~r ~~~ ~ .~~~~~rn;ri~S ~~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ Omm _ ~~c m ~ 8~ ~~rn QQ~M_~QMM~_M~MM__~M ----~M_____M~-M_~~M~~_~~MMMM._M_M_~~MMW~~ .......... ........ t' ~ ---~~~ ~ NN~ --- ~ ~N~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~.OW~N.~N~O. --NOO~~__.~SO~__ 2ww~ W ~~ ~ i ~ ~~~~ ~ ia~8~8888i~~~8~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~8~~ ~ ~8 ~ l '8" m~~~' 888888888888888888888888888 88~~ ~'~~ ~ _Q~M~~_Q_MMQM_~_Q~M *~~Q~~M~~~'n .Q~___~~_MM~~~ ~ 3 -~~ [ lH ~~~~ s~~t ~ '~8' 'f;;~~8' '2g~-' !I' 'i ~~~_m~Y~M~M~~__~~~M .~M_~__-.~.~~~~~MMMM~M~~~M~~_MMMM~_~M~~MM ~ ~ ... g ........ (]) ~ ';;.) ~ !"!" .N.WI 11 ~"'._!"N .::1. .~ -"'....!..'."'& .... ."'--.'" f ~~, ,~t;lU:" ~~m g ~~i8~8" ~ ~~, ,~~~~, ~~~~, . ~~~~~~(- ~g ~~m~ ~i~ a ~~~g8 I ~~ ~~8~ ~~g8 ~~~~~~ ~M~MMM~~~$~~~m0.~~M ._~~~~~~~.~MMM~~M~~~~M~~0~M.~_MM0MM~~M~M ....~ j ~~- - ~ ~_ !O~~~ - ~ ~~! ~~m~ ~~~~! ;iii~i i~~i~~8ji~~~ ~i~i~~~i~i~ ~~i~~~li '~~<g~' ig~e:2; lI:88~g:f 88Z8s8888g8~ ~8g:~g8 8g~~ ~~~~'!l~ MM~_~~M~MMM~_MMMMMM ~a~~~~~~ii~~~~Q ~l'l :rlil~~ c :a"~ r~ ~.g 3 &C~t1lg~~!l~~ -<~~~;f ~ ~ii1 fl(;'["' ;urnlil.i ~ 6 Q~~ m~m~-' ~ ~ ~~~ g>g~i Of ....M...W 01:: c ~3' Q ~3 01 OI.....-.JW (Xl'" 10 (,Q ii 8' 'i:i$ti::"t;i!l g ~~_~QM~MM~M~M~M0~M0 ............. ..... ..t;;,.... wf ~~~~~~~Q~~~~~~~b ~~ ~~~88~oo~~ ~~~~, ,~ ~~~f~~ ~8~1~~~~. w WMOW~A -.J ~M~... <n M~0MM0MM__M_~MMMmMM f.~ ~ 6~.i~~f~~~~~~~W~ ~ ~ ~~D~~~c~~DigitQ .~ 4~ 1~2~2~~~=2ij ~.~~ 9 g t:.~ ~~~r;:>i!i~&,rn~'" !i:l6 ~ i ~j I I~i' II~ I~f~ t~ i .~.I .~2 ~ ~ ~g g ~~g. ~ ~ ~ ~ g Q ~ 0 ~QM~~M~O~QQ_~~0~~~0 ~~ ?~? r lil~ 999 ~ Ill"" l;:- 7li!"~~~~ fP ~iil~~!!' z f .....i"" ....ii "'';;;8:8:8:'" '" ",~",,,,:i Gl '< ~ I ~~E ~Ul...............:j ~ ~~CXI:S' )> ::s I ~rt -.Jtn.,..~-f-'-" W "->tn~CD9 !C ...... ; i~ ~~~ '* ~ 'TIm #. ~lil '&~'& n eal I!l- :rzm *".,.tA~YloffJ{:I)0f1tm$""'~_tlt-6'tutfltM ~ 13' "'0::1> . . ~~ ~...c 1: !~::!~ i~ ~e~ i ~~io liir 0 0 ...... CD:: CD)> . ~ ~ - ~000~~~~~0~0~0~0~~~ f i ~ ~~~~~M~~~ 0~0~M ~ t... C - ~ WW -"M ~i i: .t 3 b ~(,., l,.Jo,^ ~ Nm-~ (J) " ~ ..,g ~88 ~ ~<n~~ ~e g ~ ~8 ~oo ..... ~~~~ 8 ~ 0 woo m o~w ~M~_Q~~_MQMM_~_~~~_ :r> c Cl c: ~ WM~~M{:I)Q~~*MM~~MM~Mm f 1- 3 ~ ' i E ~ {:I)m_M{:I)MMfltflt~~mQ~QM~m~~ ." -< ~ 000 ~ ww.....tv ..... .m~ ~ ~~ m~~ ;S~f ~~~~a ~ ~g ~88 ~~~m ~~~~~ 161 1.~1 0 ~ Fiala ~ RECEiVED Halas. - ~ - ,f JUN 1 9 2009 Henning Coyle ~'~ ::~;:.~ ,,^; '''''.)'':'::J :::,~f;,;::i';;~;I)nOrS Coletta 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:07 p.m. by Chairman Richard Sims. II. Attendance Members: Peggy Harris, Michael McElroy, Richard Sims, Barbara Segura, Pat Spencer (Excused) County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager, Tessie Sillery - MSTU Project Coordinator, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst Others: Sue Flynn - Mancan, Michael McGee - McGee & Associates III. Approval of Agenda Add: VI C. Purchasing Update - LA Services Contract Richard Sims moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. New Business A. Budget FY 2009-2010 Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed the April Fund 153 Budget Report. (See attached) . Available Operating $63,261.95 . A vailable Improvements General $1,259,400.00 . Collected Ad Valorem Tax $376,459.18 . Purchase Orders FY 09 Remaining - $137,807.25 . Purchase Orders Actual Paid - $81,670.80 Mise Corres: Date: -~-"'-'-"'''--~ fer-, 'fI' _"'''_<K'''~'__''''''__''__ I --... ~._....- --- ,"--",,-,,~--~,-~ 161 1 ;:'B10 Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the Golden Gate MSTU FY 2010. (See attached) . Collier County and State anticipated a drop in property values . FY 10 Estimated Taxable Value - minus 23.50% . Ordinance dictates the maximum millage rate is 0.5000 . Anticipated Revenue - $435,388 Staff and Committee made the following adjustments to the Budget FY 2010: . Engineering Fee - Forecast 2009 raised to $75,000 and Requested Current 20 10 lowered to $15,000 . Landscape Incidentals - Requested Current 20 I 0 raised to $15,000 . Other Contractual Services - Requested Current 2010 raised to $125,000 . Electricity - Forecast 2009 lowered to $2,000 and Requested Current 20 I 0 lowered to $3,000 . Sprinkler System Maintenance - Forecast 2009 raised to $3,000 and raised Requested Current 2010 to $5,000 The County budget cuts may have an affect on Other Operating Supplies. Richard Sims moved to approve the Budget as amended. Second by MikeMcElroy. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. B. Hunter & Coronado Project - Mike McGee & Associates Proposal Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed a proposal for both roads. Staff recommended the Committee approve the Coronado Parkway & Hunter Boulevard Landscape, Irrigation & Curbing Final Design Services proposal. It was noted the "Design" would be completed by July and by October ready to go to "Construction." Mike McElroy moved to approve the proposal/rom Mike McGee (for the Hunter & Coronado Project) in the amount of $73,401. Second by Richard Sims. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. The next meeting will be held on June 9, 2009 at 4:00 pm. The Committee will not meet in July. V. Public Comments - None. VI. There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned at 5:04 P.M. 2 , "'~_40 '~m~. _~ ~-_. vr M!'. .- 161 1 Bl0 , .i I Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee Vc0-- 2:-0- Richard Sims, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on , as presented or amended 3 _._"-~-,."".. ~ --,~,~. ~-~ 1611-1B10 ~m~ ~ 88~ 8~ ~~~ ~oo~~ ~ g~~ o~ ~.Q 8 ~~.~~ rn o_o~~ ~~_ ~.~to~ ~ _M - ~_ MM ~. fa (CI co" ~ 5 :i. ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ > ~~~~ ~~g ~888~g~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~re~~gg ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~N ~~~~ q~ ~ ~ m8~~ ~~~-~~ ~~ N_~= ~oo ~ ~~ ~>~~ OE ~ ooro -~Q~ >m 0> ~ . ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w~ ~~ ~ e!; i<Je!; ~~ * ~ cOo:. >-0;) u; . 0 99 ~8 m dreg~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~. ~~ t~~~ ~mooom -- ~(CIO(CI~O-~ ~_ o~. ~M~~M ~~ M~~~~~~z ~~ >~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~o~ ~ 0 00 ~g ...J ...J-.J ~>- f- f-f- f-lL ~ Cii c. . . ~ ~~~S~ g gm ~ - -~- 2=~oo~ m ~. o c:. c: c: ~ '" c:.c:.c: c:.c: c: . _ ~EffiE 'ffi'ffi~~ me~8e S ~~ ~~~ ~~U! W<(~ <( ~ _N ;~m~ ~~~~ ~~m~~ moo ~; ~ ~~ ~~~woo~'c~~ .~~~u (0. o ~!.~ :g~~~b~~~~~~.~.~~_ ~~ I ~.~~~n~~u~~~~~~~~E~~ ~i ~ ~~~~~~j68Eoo~~~~~~6~ ~~ I- o -~N~ ~~a vN~MONM ~ ~---~--o ~v~~Mm_ _~!!~~mM~ ~~~o~~! Z O~~~~u~~~~g~~~~~~~~ Q ~0200~008--2880800z ~ ~~~~6~~~ ~~~~~~~ U en ~MO _ _~o 00 ~ .........~ Q)-c ~ E~"ffi ~ ~c:! I fiili65.5 _~4i "ffi wZ z~-<(o ~~i c:ro OJ :J ~ ...;"ffi ~ u:i :g E V) l') .2>.~ W u.. Co ~ i.~E W lr ~ 8 '" '" W :=: <C c:"'-c: roro- Oc: I:'E", ~ :~IE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:Eal ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ : ~'~~~~~~i~i~~~~~~~~ Z U~~lLlLIIIEE~~~~~~woo w ~ ~ ~~ ~ __ ~ c ~8~g~~ 8888 88 N~8~ N888888~o~88 g ~_..~~~~~~~~ ~.~~~~~il~.~~ ~~~_~~ I 8~~.~.~~~~~_~.~~~.~ I ~_a ~ ~ ~mMN~_~ aOONM momN- -N Mm~ ~:=.~ N ~::N~:;;::lO::~ _N - CQ~~ < -~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~-~~ w~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ I~~~~ I~~~~~ Q)mOON_M~ oam~ mo~oo ~ ~~vo OQOOO~ ~3~e~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~-~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ M~~~ ~ ~~N~~ c(G.le - v )( W ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ s:: a~ ~fi ~ :t2~ ~ e 0'l.N.. ..-_~ co~ a.~~ ClO~ ... ~m _1.0 co N_,..,. .- - (,0 _ M E _ E o u ~ Efl ~ ~ Eh!69- ~ fh ~ €:A- fh ~ ~ fh tI7 fh ~ ~ f:R- ~ Efl ~ Efl Efl ~ Efl ~ Efl ~ tI7 ~ ~ """ Efl ~ ~ Efl ~ ~ ER- e ~~ 0 88888888888888888888888888 ~OO~000222000020o~8ooo8000 ~8g~888~~~888~~88~~~~~oo~~g ~~O~N~~N~OON~ ~O~Nm~NN~O.W ~ -0 NNN _ ~~~_~ _~ - N~C"I!. - - 4fl ~ &9- 69- Efl Efl Efl ~ fA- EIJ- ~ Efl ffi ER- ~ Efl ~ fIR- ~ Efl .,. Efli~ t; ...J u W ~f-~ lr8 m m ~~w ~ oo~o ~ & lr ~ ~ ~~~~~~&~mlL ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ Cl@ ~~z 8 ~8 ~ f-f-zlr~~<(f-ClO z W WWf-W lr~ lrzmwzz ClzW z ~u z ~~-z~o0~~gg>O ~lrlrgu~ wz~ ~Wolrcoo~~~wCl~z <(f-~O WW_zU~oo~~wU lLWf-U<( W <(f- ~-~Wf-~OO<(~ wwzU ~~O~~lrlrlr~~lr~ ClF~~~~~~~ ~~~ffi~~01:2~~~~ ~~Olr ~~OZf-~lLlLlrlrf-OO ~OuWZClf-W w~<(~~umWClW~-Wlrlrue ~~~~~~~~ee~~~ffi~0~8~Q~~ ~Cl~~~lffi~~~~~~~~~~~ ~O<(f-~~zWW~~~W~~~WWlrlL~~~Iw~~WZ~~Ilr<(~~WOO~~Wlrlr I ~WZZlr~ z... - lrOWf-u -UO~ <(Wf-WlrlrC::zz~~ZWW ~~f-~~><(<(lr~Cl<(MClClBzIWW~~~Z~~~ClIlrIW~~<(<(OO<(WOO 3~~~~~~~~~~~'mm~:552~~fu~:5~~~~5~5~~~~~ii~~~ ~N~~~~,..,.~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M~~~~~~~~~;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 16 J 1,,! B 1, 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~rnrn~~~~~rnrn~~rnrn ~rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn rn c ' ww w w w wwwwwww~wwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwww WW~ 0. ~w ID ~ ID ~IDW ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~n rnrn N N ~ m ID mrn mmmmrnrnmmmm ~~mm mmn 8~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 0 000 ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ 00 ~ ~~ w w ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~mm~~O o 00 ~ w~~ w w ~~~www~mm~mm~~~w~~~~~s. ~ ~~ ~ ~ 888 8 0 $~~~-~=~mrn~~o ~-~~~~~ w 80 0 0 0 000 0 0 oooo8oo~~_~-o8~8oIDIDOW o 0 w 80 8 8 8 808 8 8 88 0~088888088 8008 88~ ~ 08 0 0 0 080 0 0 00 80 00 0800 0 000 5: 00 0 0 0 000 0 0 00 o~ 0080000 880 oOT 00 0 0 0 000 a 0 00 0000000000 go OO~ ~~ WID W ID W WID m mID mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmi~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ WID ~ mID mmmm~~~m~m~~m~~ ~~~ ww w w w ww m ~~ ~~~~mmm~m~mm~mm mm- mm m m m mm ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ww ~ N _ __ - ~- ____N__________ -- ~ ~rnrn ~~ ~ ~-~ ~~~ ~~ n~~ ~0"5:0rr~~~r~(f)z~rm~orzm~ o occ o~ ~ o~m mmm o~ os~ o~m~~m~~CC~C~(f)~>~O~!oz. [ [go [~ ~ [~(f) ~~~ i ~~~ [~~Q~>~z~~~h~c~60~~~~~. ~ ~m~ ~~ ~ ~o ~~z 8 ~~~ O~E~~r~~~~~~~~m(f)~>~g~~ j ~~~ 1~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ;~~ ~~~n~~~Q~~Q ~~~~Q~8~~~ ~ ~~~ 5~ 4 me oo~ ~ ~~m ~m~~~~~~mm~ ~~~m~~z~8z = ~zz 0.0 0 ~~ ~~~ b ~O~ ~~~~~~~~~~z ~Q 5: ~~a(f)Q ~~~ ~~ ~ (f)~ ~8~ ~ ii(f) m~~~~~~~i~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ g~~ ~d >0 0 ~z~ ~ ~Q iQR~~~~6F~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~(f)W ~ 0 ~~m " m ~(f)- 0 -~Zz > > Qo> ~O ~" ~ Q > z ~ z > C Z:e c ~ c ~~ () 0 ~ r r C r ~ ~ a~~ ~~ 6 ~ O~~ 6 ~ ~~~ ~ ,rnm z W ~~ ~(f)~ gxo m rn ~ CZ~ W r ~~ m 0 - ~ ~ m~ ~0~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ oo~ r 0 ~ >mz m < (f) > 0 mm ~~~ "Q 5 ~(f)c ~ 0 0 Z rn z" _m~ c m Z m - m m 0 ~m ~~> 6 Qo W ~ W < m m ",r.3' ,. m cm> ~ >< n jc ~ 01 0.- '" t'" .c.. ;::;" 'I.... NN <:nO) 0Cl CJ1 c: ~ ~WON ~--" .. ",NI\.);-4 W-" ....a.(Jl Q->..,J::o.Q ca ~ ~~~ t~ ~~~ ~CJ1~ ~~~~ ~~m ~ ~g~~ c ~ ~NW 00 Q 0 N~~ w0CJ10~~O-"O ~~N O~ ~OO.,J::o. ~ cm> co >< !l, j" ~ 01 0.- ..a. ....a. ...... ;::;: <<> _ '" ~ '" '" ;;:; !:i ~--4!=1m ..NN ~ -"'" (,.0.) NCD <.DCJ1.c..cn CD ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~8 ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ N<.DN 00 0 0 ~CO ~OwO~OOOOON.c..mooomO~wOCJ1 I Ill> " 0. 0.0 <0"'0 .... ............ ~- ~.... _-" ~~~ ~ .... NN N 0-" CJ1;~ ~ ~p~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~? ~ ~~ 9~~~ p~~~p~~~ ~ ~~~ ~Z ~ ~ ~.. 888 8~~808 88~8 8888888~ o 800 00 0 co 000 00 egg 0000 0 000000000000000 Ill> " 3 0.10 ~ ............0.... ~ ~ ~.... .......... ~~~ ~ -" NN N 0-" ~o~ ~ .ow NN ~ en N~~ N-"O .,J::o. -"N ornN-" O.c..NWOCJ1-"~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ :t~ ~gg ~~88 88088 ~88~gg~ o 000 00 0 00 000 00 000 000000000000 OO~00CJ100CJ1 t,!m> "'><!l, ~ al" :ZE.~ : ~~-" N~ ~ ~ -" -" ~.c..NW ~ ~ g~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~8 ~ ~~~~ · ~ 0-"(,0 00 0 0 0 00 ~oo ~omo~0000000CJ1000-"OWCJ100 ~ t,! n > ,g> NOn c:: ~ 3 " '" c 3 01 :J CD;::;:- ~ 3 ~ eft (1) en ~-" CD II CD ~u. ~U1 ~c.n 9' ~N 9.c.11~"'" ."P . 3. -<~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~w ~~ ~ 0 -"W ~ QOO co a co 000 00 woo wooo~OOOOON~~oooooo~oo o~ ~ \f."l) w , r ~iil m ~ ;'P.w _~.;;:; ~-g~ ~ .o!-" .~ .c;,.~ ~i1'~ '~1:j.. '~:U;'~i~~ -*, ~ ~ W~~ ~~ ~Q ~o ~~~o 0 8 ~ooo 8 888 88 0 co 000 co cg~ 888088880088 800 8888 n~ (.t~ _ -- pi"...... ~ j "->: .H V C1tm ",-II f' ~ "r 7'a;' ~ ~ -~ -~ '" ~ ~ii ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~8i l~; _ .ow NN U. ~ ~~o m~O ~ -"N O~ -" 0 - ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ o "go o"go co ~-8~ ~~~0'g8~~00~~' ~o~i~~' -88 ~ cm" 1- !~~ cOl" :J 10 o.~ z... o =00 co 0 00 000 00 ==0 00000000000000 000000 ~ ~ o .. !l!. " 0( _ __..... 0 ...... en.:':' N -" Y' = .ow ~~ ~ ~ ggg ~~o ~ -"~ ~~N- ~A-8o~~o 8 ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ 8008 28~ ~~0808 088~~ 88~88088 Q 000 00 0 00 000 00 08 000000 00 000000000 0 C ~ "'0 " 0. ~ 01 ~ ; ~ 0. 01 W ~ _ 0 ~ ~ c; co fj, > ,,>< ~ 0(0.01 \? 8.giii- ro - --..... ~-j ~ ~ -=5:~ '" ~ g~2 j" ~ ~ 9' ~~~ ~ . ~?? ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ co ~ ~.~ $~ 0 ~ ~8 o~o ~~~~ " 8 coo 00 0 80 080 co ~88 c80 80 0000000 888 oo~~8 ~ o ~ - ~ ~ 000 00 g 8 ~f~ ~~o ~o ~ ~~oo ~~~ O~~ ~ ~ 000 00 2 02 ZoZ!Z N~~ ~oo NO oZzoooo 000 o~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ >~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~##~~ ### ~~~ ~ ~>< "., 0( 0. 01 ~ ~.g ii- ~ ~.~ ~ ~o.2 {g ~ _ ~ ~ ~ "~l' ..~ .tn i f ~ g 00 ~ N 0 ~~ 0 c.11 o~~o ~ 9 9 8 00 0 go 0 0 co 8.g 800 00 000000 080 08[ ~ o :0 ~ o ~ 0 ' Cl. N N I D ~ ~ ~W~ 00 ~ ~ ~=~ -00 00 0 ooo~ o~o ow~ w ~ .~w 00 z.z ~~Z ~~ ~N~ ~oo 00 ozzoooo bob b~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ >~~ >~ #~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~#~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~- -Q '< ~ w m ~ <.n w o "J"RJ"l..~ BI0 -..a. ~ --. -..a. ...II...... r:n . (n(f1(J'lU'ltnU'l "'''' "'''' W(,o.)wwww "'''' '" "'''' < m l'.Ot.OtOtOWI.O coco co coco mmmmmmmmmm z ~@@@@@ "'''' '" "'''' c coco co ~~ Nf\.>P\.)NF\Jf\.)NNNN m 00 0 {ltO'1O'1O"1CJ1CJ1U'1Ultn01 ~ ~-_.....\._- "'''' '" "'''' c.cc.oCCt,Ot.OtOW<O<C<O (/l 000000 00 0 00 0000000000 ... ~~"...,r::...~.s::.. ...... ... "'W ~~~~~~~~~~ N CCCOCCCOOJCO "'CD CD "'''' 0 (ol'.O(.CWCOtC "'''' ~ 0 ~I'VNf'0N'" .....'" W WVJ-.,Jl..WWN,J:::..N_ CO 0:;:;:;:;8 88 0 '" ..... gr:5~~~oo888 '" ~ 00 w OcnO':lmoo 00 8 00 oooO':lO')moooo -0 0(0(.00')00 88 00 aoomwccooao 8::::~88 0 88 0000-"-"0000 s: 88 0 OOQ--..J-......oooo occcnooo 0 00 ooooO'>COQooa <.OrDW<CW(O coco W ~~:'?::?~~ ~~ wwwwww w w w ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ (j) " -l -lzaaaaa -l-l-l -l-l -l-- -l"zzS:(j)(j)oaoa )> ~ 0 2,m)>)>)>)>)> 2,~~ 2,~ OZZ 2,m-l-lCii)>)>momc -u ~ or _<-l ..Gl""""" !!.mgJ "~mm(")hihi-ocC:" i -l " - 0)>""""" !!.zz !!.z OOlRlRlp:!(j)(j)~~~Rl 0;' e " -l-<-<-<-<-< 2(j)(j) O(j) O-lm ~ ~ ;'<:-nT1-n,,'Tl ::r'Tl'Tl l~ 1 s: (j) l~(j)(j)rOO~ cZ ~ 0 m ~ II>mooooo CDmm ...m-l "'(j)-l-l)>'Tl'Tl :r:m-l S .. " ...",,,,,,,,,,, ..."" ... 0 .. Z ' !m I I Zs:oo-fmZl> 0. 1 e ~o~~~~~~ "'Tl'Tl ~s: ::-. -l (j) :;-S:Eo~)>i5~5-l0 II> CD ~"" "-Ol .!l " .., <0)>)>)>)>)> ~oo ~ 'Tl u:> Z )> u:>~ ;ic;;loB;-lEi:;; .. e ~'Tl""""" " )> ,,-l II> "s:s: ~-lam~)>g-u~<r 3: .. " emOOOOO e-l-U e Q ~ m a. < " ji'TlO":;zco )>0 (/) 11>(/)0000' CD~el II> c: ~ m -l ... -I"".,,,G) -l " (j) "0:=Olflos:,,a5Rl c '"' ~mmmm~ m li -l e"moc:-o -lm .. '" a-o (j) lI>-ua)>o.c~~""S: Iii )>ZZZZm om s: "-l,,*Ol-l-::!~-l ::ll n18888~ r" 6~0:;R(j)~R-l~ hi~ Gl OS:S:S:S:r s: " ~)> )>~m ,,0l0l0l0l a)> -l ~ ~:::! n1m(j) ~)>)>)>)> -l-o a O-u )> -.0 (j) (j) mS:S:S:S: "" 0 " 3z zOooo ?'; ~ C'(j) ccccc m .:.- mZZZZ i5 x -u -l-l-l-l m m 0l0l0l0l a Z -<-<-<-< ~ )>)>)>)> 'ij 0 ~ "' '" ., 0000 ~=i (J1 '" ~ ... aaaa ~w '" w ",c ") '" IQ ~ 'c t,' Ol " . (T1 ~ C. '" '0 aaaa """ '" J:. ,... (X)mex> 0:' "" '" 0000 (I) :J" ~ ... 01 o:~ '" :y 'rj 'J) --' .> ~ ::' 0000 ~ '.1 .- r,; ~ :3 0 :J1 mmmm ~ <;; " ... ;Q ".. w '. .t. .~ x, CD '" '" 0:' ~ r '" .'" :>-" ~~ w 0: 'J' '" ,::,.., '" .... <.n cr C1 '.... C.) l~ ... fn j... (l .9 .J '" '" --. 0' P' '" ('t) t' <to '~ I. n ~ .~ <?CJ: <>; t.. r, ....0('1"000000".' ~ ~ '" 6 i: " '" "'''' <7; <to ,", '" !'l.w '" IV ~ ..... 0 ... 0 80000 0 0 0 0 .~ 000 00 '" '" 000000000 ~ ~ Oft .. ,. .... 0'" <0 (it (.1' '" O. '" '" w '. .J IQ ~ :.., :." o c> .... ,. .. o ... o C' 0 c) 0 0 ~ .':? 00005' 000 00 ,9 ( ~oaoaooooo'::) co~"" g)>o-~'VaS:-l'Tl ~ !.2.. c. 0...... - 0 -. tu -< r- -:-. 3 <! . 5 :J ~ ~ -... ~ ~ ~ f CD-t-o ::::SU~fhO"O ;;~ii'1:ll ~5g ~ >z'"9;l N -. w ~~ ~, w ,,, ~ oc .... g: h g,~::~ 2:! ~ 5~~g m o c> (c ~ 0 6 ~~t" ,~) '" '" .. CD ,.. CD_ _ ~ c(J) m ::: ....., t< ',r' W U-' " 0.- < . II> t. 0 000 0 r.I) '--'" .~ "'0 oooooo"'~ Ol OJ - .- Gl OJ C "tl 0 () II> 0: 7<' 0 II> " 't:I " OJ CD Gl iii ~ OJ -l '" "" 'Tliii .. '" (]I -<s: .. '" '" ~(j) ,... u:> co 00000000000 O-l 3' '" w 0 1000000 coo 00 coo C ~ !!l. w cl' ~ ~ '" " ..... 3' .. :;. .~ (]I co 0 i. w ...i-> '8 ..... i-> -- .... IV ~" l'~ - 't:I "" c '" '" oc "'..... ..... .. <to '" ... C) '" :11 :':"u. "''''' '" !l :." ... IV ~ooooo g g;:~ ... ....l C' ~~ ble.., ~ '" ~ 0 0 Q "'"J ,-, w~ ~ 0 9 000 co Q C, o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ':..,: t "''''0 m3: !f .~~ 0 :J ;llv:" .. . 0> (]I ... '", h ...!O!O :: OlN w ~, .... . IQN 0"lJ';........ '" U1 ~gJ~ 0 0,,:"" :0 -=_ .... ,. WtO 0 00 0'" 0 c; - 0 0 '? .900000 coo 00 ,~ c. <? a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r~~' hi ..,.".." -<-<-< t~::!'og:$ .... ~ "'m'Tl'Tl ~ 0 ~ VI ~. _. CD ~ a. ~ 0 0 0 caoaoe 000 co coo 00000000000 . ~ ::; :; ~~f1E .,.. -l rt If .... gf1~< "'!='~c;ia>a> ::; 5"1A. .. Cc l\)~oo<(I)" '" IV .. .> ~ co !!.Nr::J ::: "'''' 0; ('n w '-,,) IQ '" '" '-H ~88 8 c,,--" 0<.> -.. .. ~..::! 00 00 0 (.I 0 0 ~ ..900000 000 co ~c ~OOOOOOOOO(~) s: 0 OJ )( :3 c: 3 " '" iIi 8 )> -0 0 ~. ;:; () ... 0 .... 0 ... '" ~ 0 ..... <" {]l .'" N 0; I J.> o (J, c.n ... :". (h 0 o c} 0 8000000 0 'Tl .~ 0000 coo 00 0(,0 0 0 -< 0 :::j ~ , 0; .:. ... ~ ::t~8 ~ o~ :J ~ Jil>z EE:l'- 0'" (h ~ ~~~ ilE ~i:no ~~~~~~~ Eoi:n '0 ~~~~)>)>* 0 )0)> ~~ l>** ~ !It o' :J :::j 0; ... ::> (h ~ CD 101 W '0 '" N l\) 0 Co '" ~oooooo 0 ~ g ~ 0 !It 0000 000 co coo 000 o' :J ;0 0 OJ a. ... , ~ s: cD ......... 000 .:.. .:.. (j) ... :..,,,,zzzZw zzz zz 000 wZzzzzz ~~~ -l ;f<. ~~i;i;);)>~ )>)>)> )>)> ~'#!~ ;;ei>i>i>i>i;i> c (h' E ~ '" w "" '" '" <D 0 "'" ~tJee & rI~ 16 I 1 j B10; Landscape Architecture April 14, 2009 Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Transportation Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Proposal of Landscape Architectural Services for Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Roadway Beautification Project (From Coronado Parkway & Hunter Blvd.), Project Name: Coronado Parkway & Hunter Blvd. Landscape, Irrigation & Curbing Final Design Services) 2009-003P Dear Mr. Richard: As requested McGee & Associates is providing the following proposal of services tor your review and approval. McGee & Associates (M & A) agrees to provide the following "Scope of Services. related to the final design and contract administration services for the proposed Landscape Beautification project, The project area will be defined generally as the area between the platted right-of-way lines for the roadways Coronado Parkway & Hunter Blvd.( approx 1.9 miles). See attached "Project Man Hour and Fee Support Calculations., Sheet 1 for design service hours and costs. Scope of Services 1.1 Plannina Review existing roadway construction record drawings, existing utilities and contact utility agencies, and existing site conditions; along with future proposed roadway improvements and adjacent property improvements in order to develop a generally current set of cad base maps for design purposes. Base map information will be derived from existing on- site conditions, aerial photos and record drawings information provided by Collier County and/or utility agencies with utilities within the project area. This proposal includes no surveying and base maps will not include exact field location of any utilities or objects in the project area. Proposal includes design services by a Florida Registered Engineer for curbing, striping, traffic signage and pavement improvements. Research and review applicable Collier County and F.D.O.T. ordinances, codes, standards, indexes and or regulations related to landscape, irrigation and curbing installation within roadway rights-of-way areas. Streetscape design and installation to generally comply with Collier County Construction in Public Right-at-way, Ordinance 93- 64 Construction Standards Handbook latest edition. 2.1 Conceptual Plan 2.1.1 Prepare final design plans based upon the existing M.S.T.U. approved conceptual plans, 3.1 Final Landscape Desion Landscape Beautification plans to be prepared per F.D.O.T. "Design StandardS. indexes and the . Plans Preparation Manual. Volume I & II criteria and processes and in general compliance to the Collier County Right-of-Way Ordinance 93-64 current edition. Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East I P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417-0707 * Fax (239) 417-0708 LC 098 * FL 1023A .."...~'" ---- .....1. "1'Il <"'''__..........~'.''...4..... -- Page 2, 4/14/2009 161 1 Darryl Richard, Project Mgr. 310 Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Coronado Parkway & Hunter Blvd. Proposal-2009-003P 3.1.1 Attend necessary public, staff and/or project on-site meetings for the project design development and provide required written correspondence, verbal communications or presentations tor the project development. 3.1.2 Develop a landscape planting design and curbing layout plans based upon the approved concept plans. To minimally include items or services as follows: a. Planting design and layout. b. Materials Tabulation ot Quantities schedule containing, plant quantities, installed sizes, specifications and mature sizes. c, Decorative hardscape paving installation details and notes as identified. d. Planting installation details and specifications. e. Review existing planting area soil analysis in order to provide recommendations tor amendments as needed. f. Identify curbing types and locations related to landscape and irrigation improvements. g. Prepare median curbing, striping, traffic signage and pavement improvement plans per Collier County standards and F.D.O.T. .Design Standards. indexes, but does not include surveying for elevations. Curbing to be set based upon existing asphalt elevation. 3.1.3 Prepare County approved bidding and installation construction drawings for exhibits or attachments to the final Contract Documents. 3.1.4 Prepare County approved bidding and installation written specifications for exhibits or attachments to the final Contract Documents. 3.1.5 Develop opinion ot costs related to the approved final construction drawings to determine if project is within proposed budget. 4.1 Final I rriaati on Desion Landscape Beautification plans to be prepared per F.D.O.T. .Design Standards. indexes and the . Plans Preparation Manual" Volume I & II criteria and processes and in general compliance to the Collier County Right-ot-Way Ordinance 93-64 current edition. 4.1.1 Attend necessary public, staff and/or project on-site meetings for the project design development and provide required written correspondence, verbal communications or presentations tor the project development. 4.1.2 DevelOp an irrigation design based upon the approved concept plan. To minimally include items or services as follows: a. Identification and location of existing irrigation sources, main lines, controllers, and research reuse water source, and connections. b. Provide layout schedules and/or notes to identify types and quantities of irrigation components such as sprinkler heads, valves, piping, sleeving and valve wiring c. Irrigation installation details and specifications. Additional directional boring plan and schedule. 4.1.3 Prepare County approved bidding and installation construction drawings for exhibits or attachments to the final Contract Documents. 4.1.4 Prepare County approved bidding and installation written specifications for exhibits or attachments to the final Contract Documents. 4.1.5 Develop opinion ot costs related to the approved final construction drawings to determine if project is within proposed budget. 5.1 Pennittina 5.1.1 Supply and submit required permit drawings to Collier County for submittals and permit approvals. 5.1.2 Provide required written correspondence, verbal communications or presentations tor the project permitting. -- ...,.; '" "^ ,Page.3,4/14/2009 161 1 Bl( Darryl Richard, Project Mgr. Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Coronado Parkway & Hunter Blvd. Proposal-2009-003P 6.1 Contract Administration 6.1.1 Assist Collier County in developing contract documents for bidding and contract purposes. 6.1.2 Assist in bidding process and provide review and recommendation of award of construction contract. 6.1.3 Provide on-site observations for services during construction to detennine compliance with plans and specifications, as well as review and approve pay request applications. 7.1 Reimbersables Per Design services .Professional Landscape Architectural Services. Contract #08-5060. 8.1 Estimated Design Services Schedule 8.1.1 M & A shall render its services as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care. During the course of the Project. anticipated and unanticipated events may impact any Project schedule. Days listed are working days, excluding weekends, and official holidays. Task DescliDtion 1.1 throuah 5.1 Design Start: 60% Plans Submittal: 60 days from notice to proceed Review Comments 90% Plans Submittal: 30 days from review comments Review Comments Final Plan Submittal: 30 days from review comments Task DescriDtion 6.1 Contract Administration: 120 days estimated bases upon construction contract time. 8.1.2 Project estimated budget to be $1.000.000.00. County agrees to promptly notify M & A, if schedule or budget changes. County acknowledges that significant changes to the Project schedule, budget or the Project's scope may require Additional Services of M & A. Any Additional Services beyond the .Scope of Services. will require an additional fee to be mutually agreed upon in writing by both parties. ~ Dale: ~p6? --,~ ^~ ,,".,^_.'d._~,~ '- - 1611 Sl( 88888 8888 888888 8888888 888 88888 8 ~ ~ ~I!i. ggga ~~l~~t !~~~!ll !~l ~~~lti t o ~~ _ ~ ~-a ~ MO~ ~~ MM~ MM~g ~ Z 3W M M~ = ~M .8 · M~ . l"i ~~ ~.!: e ~ E 8 8 8 88 8 .; , . , " .". I. I , ,. .".... ... .... . i~ ~ j. ~ ~ ~ !! ~ o ~ .- .~ 1l..,....D.:;:) ~a:: (") 0 E ~ w ~ Z ' ~ . '" wc:i.3 0 i'~ o ., lil ~ lr.'" wal W 1: N~~~ ~~ ~8 ~~~~. ~~~. ~~~~~- ~~~~~.. ~~. ~~~-~~. 88888 8888 888888 8888888 888 8888 8 o ~~~~. ~gga ~~I~~I !ij~~ai. !gl ~i~i ~ W ~MM.~ ~~~aa2 .O~.M~~ .~~ M.O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M; a ;M .1 - ;_ * - ~ ~ ,!! j:: W U ~ W ow... J.!~ ~oooa 0000 ~~~mm~ ~~~Q~!~ ~o~ ~O~~ ! Illl-'" 0 o~ W tw..~ i~ ~~~ ~~ ~ I 88888 8888 888888 8888888 88~ 8888 8 ~ U ~ ~ gg~g~ ggga ooom~I' ~~~~~II' 001 ~~~I' 9 .... & z en~. _ ..............~ ....4IlIt1W'tw..... .............:if ~ 4 ~8w w. M~M M MM MMM ~ :l :n <(~~ · ~ g: !!i>lr~ o li c~ o 0:: Z Iii ~-l5 CONaft 0000 ('INN__. N................... NN.- NNN4D CD W f ~ ~ III :I: 88888 8888 888888 8888888 888 8888 8 I!!~w ~~~~~ ~gga ~ii~~i ~si~~.~ ~~, ~~~I ~ <~w WMMMI M~~WM~ M~~MM~~ WIll....: MMM~ - ~~~~ MM . MM _. ; o ~ g~!! co"''''...: 0000 "'::li......g "'::li"''''il!! "''''... "''''.... lit ;~:r - ~ 88888 8888 888888 8888888 888 8888 8 Z ~ gggga ggga ggggga ggg~gaa g~a gg~a a o 1!!~1lJ ~ ~~u. oCt l!! · ..J . z~ ~~ a~ . 00000 0000 000000 0000000 000 0000 0 U al W l!! ..J! o:I: <t!5 "',' ",' ""'~ "",.~ "~ "'~ ~ U ~ j!z I!! ~ w a a a a a t-~'E~ ~~~ a:::~~1- rt M Oo~~ ~~ ~~~~. ~~~. ~~~~~ ~M~~~. ~~ ~w~ ~~-~ ex 00000 0000 000000 0000000 000 0000 0 ....c:x ;Ul!! :;:)000 :l~:I: ~gl~ ~ 8a888 a8a~ a8aa~~ ~a888~8 88~ 888~ ~ W.....c ~ w~ EE~~l ~~~a ~~~E~i -~GE~;~ ~~I ~~~~ ~ W~~I-II:: z ~.~ .M~._ ~~~M~~ ~~ri-.~D. ~-~ ..o~ ~ u...c.m W ~~u.. .. WIt"'.. - V't.. - ~ g....~!!!W ~ ......... .. C:::~II) <t~t III ::I Z ~ II!! Z~~~ ~ x. ......"''''~ 0000 CO~~......~ "'~~."'I~ ..."'. "''''~I a ~ <t:;0/l~ it: ~i ~ ~ ~~~~ ~I-: ~ =,.!~Z ow _, O~18 ~~ ~~ I~ I ~ ~ Ie i "P'C: 0 ~II:: . ~ i! il.li ~ lrj c: ..CD II:: z.... Z ::I ::I 0 ::I '1J 0'" ~ U z.. Jl en j:: 1l :I: z~~~ o~ I ~ "'~ ~ - '" ~~.~ b ~ .. ~ ~ ~ I ! ! I " ~ ! i f! ! J. ! !" ~ n I ~ i ~I~ ~ U) ~ 1 t-~~~ ~ ll~ 11& ~III~. . ~I~. .' ~J~i~ J~~J8!W ~ ~J~~ ~ il~~I:sj~~~~fili~~lflllj;.fl .~!.!;~I " ~~~~ ~ z~~JJ ~~t! ~I~ ! ~I~ w! ~~ g~!j I~ ~ 9,cw~ ~ ~~"'~... 8~",~ ~_"'M."'.~. ~~",.~....~ ~~'" U~"'M ~ ~ N ....00 II) --~- --- --~-- ~-~-- -- --- JlI ft <<0 C _~~~_ _NN~ _~~~~~ _~~~~~ -~~ _~c~ ~ ....1l.~0 I- N M . ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ Vl7"'T "~"",-"~,-"y.~-,.~,,,, "" ~,._,"",.-,. ,_."-~~ ,,-"-"~,'-'-~- Fiala 161 1.Bl~ Halas c'-'. Henning May 1, 2009 1\f,~ \) Coyle ~ F t,,,... . Coletta -r- ~.". ",u09 ,J:,j ! ~ . ,~TES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY , 'HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 1,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at North Horseshoe Drive, Conference Room 610, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Dr. Judith Hushon Vice Chairman: Amber Crooks Tad Bartareau Jeffrey A. Carter (Excused) Roslyn (Roz) Katz Dr. Christian Mogelvang ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Laura Roys, Sr. Environmental Specialist I t \ ,,-.........--...-'".<'''--.,.., 16 I 1 J1~1 .'1 I. Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at I: I 0 PM. II. Roll Call A quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Add: IV. b. Approval of Subcommittee Minutes -April 14, 2009 Rosalyn Katz moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Amber Crooks. Motion carried unanimou.dy, 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes a. March 17, 2009 Amber Crooks moved to approve the March 17, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by Christian Mogelvang. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. b. Subcommittee Meeting Minutes - April 14, 2009 Tad Bartareau moved to approve the April 14, 2009 Subcommittee minutes as submitted. Second by Amber Crooks. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. V. Old Business - Discussion under Subcommittee Reports. VI. New Business a. Review new member application The Staff distributed an application from Robert Dorta to fill a vacancy on the Committee. Laura Roys, Sr. Environmental Specialist noted the Notice for the vacancy on the Committee was posted prior to the Resolution Guidance from the BCC. Tad Bartareau stated he knew Bob Dorta and described him as an avid outdoorsman with good environmental knowledge regarding woodpeckers and a good communicator making a fine addition to the Comm ittee. Tad Bartareau moved to accept the (Robert Dorta) application and make a recommendation to the BCC for applicant to serve on the Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee for Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers. Second by Christian Mogelvang. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. VII. Subcommittee Reports a. RCW Subcommittee IL Chairman Hushon stated Tki 9.)..~~KlHIS);1the Audfbon and Florida Wildlife had been cleared on the Hussey' property lawsuit. Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney declared his wife is employed by the legal firm handling the case and excused himself from the meeting until discussion on the Hussey lawsuit ceased. 2 "__c~w~~",",_.,..."..,_.,......, 16 I 1~111 May I, 2009 Steve Williams left at 1 :22 pm It was noted the tax maps for the North Belle Meade area have been updated. Amber Crooks distributed two maps for the Committee to review and discuss. . Three - Cluster sites in North Belle Meade. . lf4-mile Buffer includes 199 Parcels. ) . lf4-mile buffer does not retain enough propertyl (e. .~ Uu.r,.<; \ p 1'b1.')~ . Yz-mile Buffer includes 391 Parcels. . Parcel numbers available on GIS website. Discussion ensued on the parties to the original agreement and those involved with the settlement of Hussey lawsuit. No settlement information has been released. Steve Williams returned at 1 :40 pm Laura Roys reported the Property Appraisers Office records show there are 1,100 property owners in the North Belle Meade area. She stated there was money available to do a postcard mail-out for the Outreach Program. It was suggested the HCP identify potential landowners according to: ~ Impacting cavity trees ~ Cavity and Potential Foraging not occupied ~ Potential nest sites Chairman Hushon suggested pulling the LDC Regulations and adding an appendix to the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan. The Committee will be making recommendations and/or add supplements to the LDC and use as a reference. Discussion ensued ifthere was an existing Tree Ordinance to protect cavity trees and it was determined the Ordinance is currently in an amendment stage addressing the issue in more detail. It was noted the Committee may want to consider adding more detail to the Ordinance regarding occupying endangered species. Chairman Hushon suggested inviting Dr. John Cowan, one of the larger property owners, to a future meeting to exchange strategies, solutions for the birds and receive feedback. She distributed the 2nd Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers and suggested ~ Authors review documentation and make recommendations ~ Committee will provide an overall strategy on protecting birds ~ Habitat Fragmentation and Maintenance to be addressed. Picayune Strand State Forest plans to add enough birds for 25 clusters. 3 __,.... ~'"_.... .~.._.~_.~~.._... '~m~......_.,__ 16 , I 811 May I, 2009 When the HCP for Collier County is finalized, the County will be able to issue "Take Permits" for trans locating birds. A Permit requirement would be to hire a Consultant to translocate the birds to Picayune. They drill holes for new nests in a cluster of trees and put mesh over openings to keep predators from moving in. The birds are moved during the night and they adapt well. It was suggested the overall strategy plan include a provision to provide additional land be a requirement. The Committee will elaborate between different zones and different "Takes" adapting to land options or land acquisition funding to cover maintenance costs. Additional items to be discussed at the next Subcommittee Meeting: , Scale of resources , Gross mitigation requirements , Requirements of landowners responsibilities , Outreach meeting and mail-out dates and how to structure ~ Include larger properties or small ones along South East Side , Provisions for under 5 acres Discussion ensued on updating draft on HCP for RCW and it was determined Chairman Hushon would be the Master Custodian of documentation. Authors emailing updates to the Chairman will place their initials and date on the Subject line. A consensus was made to have the next Subcommittee meeting on May 8, 2009 at 9:00 am in conference room 607. VIII. Public Comments - None IX. Staff Comments - None X. Next Meeting Date The next meeting of the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee will be May 27, 2009 at 3:00 PM. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:42 pm. COLLIER COUNTY HABIT A T CONSERVATION PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Judith Hushon, Chairman -// 4 - May 1, 2009 161 IBll ,.---". . '~ These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman OJ) \,. W-L ;;3 ,.}-eJ{} as presented , or as amended 5 -,,,,_..-",,._.".~^......- , -.~'"" RECEIVED Fiala j Halas MAY 29 2009 Henning 09 ;~Od"(I ("0 { " Coyle .1312 ' "UI! '; Commissloner<:- Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER OUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, April 23, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F," 3rd floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: .-. '" Chairman: Valaree D. Maxwell Raymond CabraL (Excused) David Correa ,. .. , Renato F. F emand,.~ Manuel Gonzale,i', i Cosme Perez (Excused) ... Emesto Velasquez. .. '" ",(",.,," . '. ,. '., ~. . Misc. Corres: Date: 01/ ~g / D9 terr, -l~ J(jjJ~-l ~ ALSO PRESENT: Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manger I "~'~-''"~''-''''---- - . " 'k._lIl(jaj.~ . . 16 t!2~2!9 2 .~ I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Valaree Maxwell at 6:02 PM and a quorum was established. II. Approval of Meeting Agenda Ernesto Velasquez requested to add his Housing Report under Item V, "Old Business," as "D." Ernesto Velasquez moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Renato F. Fernandez, Carried unanimously, 5-0. III. Approval of Minutes from March 28, 2009 Meeting Correction: . The 2010 Census Report was given by Raymond Cabral, not David Correa. Ernesto Velasquez moved to approve the Minutes as amended. Second by Chairman Maxwell. Carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Public Speakers (None) VI. New Business A. Introduction of HAAB applicant, Zetty Yetny Rivera, and recommendation to the BCC for appointment of a new member to the HAAB Mike Sheffield noted that there are currently two vacancies on the HAAB which have been advertised as required. Ms. Rivera was the only applicant. Ms. Rivera gave a short synopsis of her background. She is: . a real estate and licensed mortgage broker and owns her own company; . a member ofEl Rey Jesus Hispanic Church and an Usher Leader . was born in Venezuela and moved to the U.S.12 years ago, and . a registered voter. There was a discussion of the duties, responsibilities, and limitations ofHAAB membership. The Members questioned Ms. Rivera concerning her reasons for wanting to join the HAAB. Reference was made to a directive contained in Section 7 of the Ordinance that created the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: "The [Hispanic Affairs Advisory] Board shall identify and evaluate problems within the Hispanic Community. " It was noted the HAAB's function is to identify potential problems that could affect the Board of County Commissioners' ability to administer or govern. It was stressed that the HAAB is not an activist Board. A second directive was also noted: "The [Hispanic Affairs Advisory] Board shall review and recommend ways to ensure open communication between the Hispanic Community and the County Government for the purpose of addressing problems. " Mike Sheffield stated Ms. Rivera met the criteria outlined in the County's Ordinance. 2 '_m",-~__."~ '-",,-".....'....__.,~..."~."'_.- ~_..~-,...- 16 '1B:12 "1 Apnl , Chairman Maxwell moved to accept the application of Zetty Rivera. Second by David Correa. Carried unanimously, 5-0. Mike Sheffield stated he will notify the Board of County Commissioners that Ms. Rivera was the recommended applicant of the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. She will be notified of her appointment by the Board of County Commissioners. V. Old Business A. Law Enforcement Report - Manny Gonzalez Minority Task Force Meeting: . There are several openings within the Sheriff s Department . Sheriff Rambosk outlined his plan to make the Collier County Sheriffs Office responsive to the concerns of all Collier County citizens 0 Wants to keep services and not reduce levels of public safety 0 Plans to revitalize key organizational committees within the CCSO 0 The high number of vacant homes (4,000+) are attractive to criminal elements from other Counties . Collier County has one of the lowest crime rates in the State 0 The Immokalee Jail has been closed as a cost-cutting measure and the crime rate has not been affected . The County participates in the ICE ("Immigration & Customs Enforcement") Program - an alliance with Homeland Security 0 Criminal illegal aliens are identified, prosecuted, and deported 0 Savings of $500,000 per month for the County . The Sheriff plans to expand community partnership 0 Neighborhood Safety Teams, Crisis Intervention Teams, and Citizens Advisory Council 0 Deputies are to become more approachable, professional, and give courteous service 0 Expand understanding of various minority cultures within County . The Mission: To protect and preserve the lives, property, and Constitutional rights of the County's residents, with service to others coming before self. There was a discussion concerning racial profiling, discrimination, and the Latino Community. Reference was made to a recent article in the Naples Daily News, It was suggested members of the AHAB could volunteer to serve on the Citizens Advisory Councilor on one of the Teams the Sheriffs Office is going to organize. B. Update from the Hispanic Heritage Month Subcommittee - Ernesto Vehisquez The Subcommittee met on Tuesday, April 21, 2009. In attendance were Renato Fernandez, Mike Sheffield and Tatiana Gust. Members of the general public also attended. [David Correa was also a member of the Subcommittee but could not attend the meeting.] Goals: . To plan an art exhibition 3 ~,".._-.""..- - 16 I.ll!J. 2 "I Apn 3, . Recognition of Hispanic role model for the year - criteria is being established for nominations. Mike and Tatiana will consult with the County Attorney's Office regarding a draft nomination form. . Nominees will be reviewed by the HAAB; HAAB will determine the winner Mike Sheffield noted he took summary minutes of the Subcommittee meeting which will be presented at the next HAAB meeting. A Member asked if enough time had been allotted to accomplish the goals. Chairman Maxwell stated she was reinstating the Naples Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and would have 300 to 400 individuals available to lend assistance to him. She suggested holding a "Gala" that will be open to the public, as well as the Hispanic Community. The advantage of having sponsorship from the Naples Hispanic Chamber of Commerce would be the lack of red-tape, problems with the Sunshine Law, and funding would be available. Mike Sheffield stated the Board of County Commissioners will need to approve the project. He suggested it is a large endeavor and referring the project to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce will have more resources and the transfer could be easily accomplished by a motion. There was a discussion concerning the option presented by the Chairman. Mike Sheffield stated the County could help find a location for the art exhibit. He stated he did notify the BCC that a Subcommittee had been formed but had not received any comments. There was further discussion concerning what would happen if the BCC rejected the project. Chairman Maxwell pointed out that the Hispanic Chamber could expand upon Mr. Velasquez' idea and could add an educational component as well. Discussion continued. Chairman Maxwell moved to disband the Hispanic Heritage Month Subcommittee and to transfer the project to the Naples Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Velasquez was opposed and left the meeting at 7:04 PM. Without a second and quorum, the Motion was not considered. (7:04 PM - Mr. Veldsquez left and quorum was lost.) Chairman Maxwell stated the meeting would continue for "information only." Mike Sheffield confirmed no action or voting could take place since quorum was lost. A member asked why only Colombians were being honored during Hispanic Heritage Month when at least 20 other nationalities resided in Collier County. Mike Sheffield stated the County will not provide any funds that might be required. Members expressed confusion and the general consensus was the purpose of the proclamation was not clearly understood. Objections were noted to the proclamation in general, and specifically to allowing it to be presented to the BCe. The topic will be included on next month's agenda. 4 .. ..... . --........--- . ..-'" 'l_ , -e12~~ 16 1 All 23, 2009 C. Education Report - Valaree Maxwell (Not presented) D. Housing Report - Ernesto Vehisquez (Not presented) VI. New Business B. Introduction of Tatiana Gust, new staff liaison to the HAAB Mike Sheffield introduced Ms. Gust to the Members. VII. Member and Staff Comments VIII. Action Items(s) to the Board of County Commissioners (None) IX. Next Meeting: May 28, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:15 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE z--~~___ Valaree . Maxwell, Chairma~ The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on S ~ .Jy - 0 1 , as presented ~ or as amended 5 ; -" y- -, "~'"''-~''"~''' - ~~"OIItALii CiA 161 1'\)1 3~ Community Redevelopment Agency RECEIVED i The PI~ce to C~[I Home! MAY 2 7 2009 IlO(lrr! of County Commissioners Commissioner State Enterprise Zone Development Agency James N. Coletta Chair Commissioner May 20, 2009 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Tom Henning Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee 750 South 5th Street Commissioner Immokalee, Florida, 34142 Donna Fiala Commissioner A. Call to Order. Fred W Coyle B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. Commissioner C. Adoption of Agenda. Frank Halas D. Communications. State Enterprise Zone E. Consent Agenda. Development Al!encv I. Approval of Minutes Board (EZDA) Regular Meeting - March 18, 2009 (Enclosure I) a. Fred N. Thomas, Jr. 2. Enterprise Zone Reports Chairman a. Enterprise Zone Activities Monthly Report (Enclosure 2) Edward "Ski" Olesky F. Old Business. Michael Facundo I. Seminole Indian Class III Gaming Compact with State of Florida Capt. Tom Davis a. Update G. New Business. Robert Halman H. Citizen Comments. Ex-officio I. Next Meeting. May 20, 2009 at 9:30 A.M. Julio Estremera J. Adjournment. Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar Richard Rice James Wall Rick Heers Eva Deyo CR<\ Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel Proj eet Manager 239252.5549 Christie Betancourt Misc. Corres: Administrative Assistant Date: 01 / ~ ~ I D 9 239.252.2313 ItemNJ~ Ie l) h\?J 1 :opies to --...-. _.",--,^,.,~- - ~) i /lJ-/ 16 I r! ~ lJ '" / l~j~O~ldii: C~ Fiala ~ '! t/':t-- CEI ED Community Redevelopment Agency Halas I Henning ~ - MAY 28 2009 i The plqce to cqll Home! Coyle Coletta p 80ard of County CommissIOners MINUTES Enterprise Zone Development Agency April 15, 2009 A Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 9:40 AM. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Board/EZDA Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Rick Heers, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Ana Salazar, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Captain Tom Davis, Michael Facundo, James Wall, Robert Halman, Julio Estremera and Edward "Ski" Olesky. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee Present: Clarence S. Tears, Jr., Edward "Ski" Olesky, Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Rick Heers, Richard Rice, Carrie Williams, Rev. Jean Paul, Floyd Crews, and Pam Brown. IMPVC Members Absent/Excused: Estil Null. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Majorie Student-Sterling, James Seabasty, Kristi Bartlett, Ivan Howard, Jeff Randall, David Hanson, Mike Taylor, and Sheryl Soukup. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel and Christie Betancourt. C. Adoption of the Agenda. Action: Ms. Deyo moved to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. D. Communications. E. Consent Agenda. 1. Approval of Minutes of March 18, 2009. 2. Approval of the Enterprise Zone Reports. a. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activities Report b. Enterprise Zone Quarterly Report Action: Mr. Olesky moved to adopt the Consent Agenda, !vIr. Rice seconded the motion and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. H. New Business. 1. Seminole Indian Class III Gaming Compact with State of Florida Mr. Thomas provided a brief history of the compact and an update on the status of the compact in the Florida Legislature. All present were encouraged to contact their Legislators in support of the compact. 1. Citizen Comments. 1. Next Meeting Date. May 20,2009 at 8:30 A.M. K. Adjournment. This meeting was adjourned at 9:50 AM. Misc. Corres: Date: Item # -,--',,"'--- 1 :'CPICS to Fiala l>>i!\t);~,ldifi CaA 16 I d-1't. . Halas Community Re~evelopment Agency MAY 28 2009 Henning iThe P[qce to Cq[j Home! Roanl of County Commissioners Coyle Coletta CR-\ Governinl! Board Commissioner James N. Coletta Chair May 20,2009- 9:45 to 10:30 A.M. Commissioner Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee Tom Henning 750 South 5th Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142 Commissioner A. Call to Order. Donna Fiala B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Commissioner C. Introductions. Fred W Coyle D. Adoption of Agenda. Commissioner E. Communications. Frank Halas F. Consent Items. CRA Advisorv Board 1. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting April 18, 2009 (Enclosure 1) Fred N. Thomas, Jr. 2. RWA, Inc. Chairman a. April Report (Enclosure 2a) Edward "Ski" Olesky b. April Invoice (Enclosure 2b) :Yfichael Facundo c. Commercial Fac;ade Improvement Program Monthly Report (Enclosure 3) G. Old Business. Capt. Tom Davis 1. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights in Immokalee, Kitchell Snow. Robert Halman 2. Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan - Update (Enclosure 4) Ex-ofticio 3. Immokalee Farmer's Market - Update Julio Estremera H. New Business. 1. Handy Store Commercial Fac;ade Grants Kitchell Snow 2, Immokalee CRA Newsletter Floyd Crews 1. Citizen Comments. J. Next Meeting Date. June 17,2009 at 8:30 AM i\na Salazar K. Adiournment. Richard Rice * The next joint Advisory BoardJEZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held June 17, 2009, at 8:30 James Wall A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. Rick Heers ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30pm at a place to be announced in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in Eva Deyo advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at CRA Staff the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239.252.2313 for Penny Phillippi additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing Executive Director assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, 239.252.2310 Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting, The public should be advised that Bradley Muckel members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Project Manager Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: 239.252.5549 EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and Christie Betancourt the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC Administrative Assistant and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees 239.252.2313 from time to time. Misc. Corres: Date: D1/ d.-g I 09 Item #:J to I.e. i) b l Lf-- I :cpies to . - H'"_~'"' .._........_..__ li~M~'~lfii C~ 161 1!1"'~ Community Redevelopment Agency irhe pl<1ce to C<111 Home! MINUTES Irnmokalee Local Redevelopment Agency April 15, 2009 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 9:50 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Board/EZDA Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Rick Heers, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Ana Salazar, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Captain Tom Davis, Michael Facundo, James Wall, Robert Halman, Julio Estremera and Edward "Ski" Olesky. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Irnmokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee Present: Clarence S. Tears, Jr., Edward "Ski" Olesky, Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Rick Heers, Richard Rice, Carrie Williams, Rev. Jean Paul, Floyd Crews, and Pam Brown. IMPVC Members Absent/Excused: Estil Null. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Majorie Student-Sterling, James Seabasty, Kristi Bartlett, Ivan Howard, Jeff Randall, David Hanson, Mike Taylor, and Sheryl Soukup. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel and Christie Betancourt. C. Introductions. D. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, lvlr. Rice seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. E. Communications. F. Consent Agenda. 1. Approval of Minutes for the meeting of March 18, 2009. 2. R W A, Inc. March Report and Invoice; and 3. Commercial Fa((ade Improvement Program Monthly Report. Action: !vir. Rice moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Olesky seconded and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. 1. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights in Immokalee. Kitchell Snow reported that the clean up at Eden Park was a tremendous success. 2. lmmokalee MSTU. Ms. Phillippi presented the Executive Summary and stated that the request to the BCC to expand the MSTU to cover the CRA boundary was approved at the April 14 regular meeting of the BCC. H. New Business. 1. BCC Agenda Items. Ms. Phillippi announced that Commissioner Coletta was appointed as Chairman of the CRA Board and that the Esperanza Place Agreement was approved. 1. Citizen's Comments. - A retirement celebration for Ms. Student-Sterling followed the meeting. J. Next Meeting Date. May 20,2009 at 8:30 AM K. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 AM I ,- ..~ ... -- . 161 11~r~~D IMMOKALEE eRA Fiala ~~ / rfi MAY 28 2009 Community Redevelopment Agency Halas / iThe pLKe to c,ill Home! Henning..::rJ1- Board of County Commissioner Coyle - (P Certification of Minutes Approval Form Coletta These Minutes for the April 15, 2009, CRA Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC Committee on May 20, 2009, as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board/EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held March 18, 2009 at 8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the ImmokaJee Public Library and provided to the County Public Infonnation Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239-252-2313 for additional infonnation. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the eRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. MisC. eorres: oate: Item #: _..__..___ . ..~" '-"~".~ . Filla = .~: 1:1- 16 I ~I:fl~' Halas I IMMOKJ\LEE eRA R _l-::EI\/t::D Henning I" \-Y Community Redevelopment Agency Coyle i The plC\ce to CC\II Home! MAY 28 2009 Coletta ec:~~ of c-:::~~/ Cv~.~;:.:......~.:..1~r: CRA Governinl!: Board JOINT MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee, James N. Coletta Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee, and Chair The Immokalee Municipal Service Taxing UnitlBeautification Committee Commissioner Tom Henning May 20, 2009 - 8:30 A.M. Commissioner Career and Service Center of Collier County-lmmokalee Donna Fiala 750 South StlJ Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142 Commissioner A. Call to Order. Fred W. Coyle Commissioner B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Frank Halas C. Introductions. CRA Advisorv Board D. Adoption of Agenda. ~ State Enterorise Zone E. Communications. Aeencv Board Fred N. Thomas, Jr. 1. May Public Notices Chairman 2. FDOT Loop Road Stakeholders Meeting Materials (Maps 1-8) Edward "Ski" Olesky F. Consent Agenda. Capt. Tom Davis Robert Halman 1. Approval of Minutes. Ex-officio Julio Estremera a. Regular Meeting April 18, 2009 (Enclosure I) Michael Facundo 2. Red Flag Items Kitchell Snow Gonzales Flea Market- Pervious Paving Design Floyd Crews a. Richard Rice Ana Salazar G. Old Business. Rick Heers 1. Immokalee Public Realm and Town Design: James Wall Eva Deyo a. Presentation by Land Design Innovations Master Plan & b. Hwy. 29 Loop Road - Pat Utter Visioninl!: Committee c. Master Plan Review - Commissioners' Comment - Bce - May 12, 2009 Fred N. Thomas, Jr. (Enclosure 2) Chairman 2. Project Innovation - Richard Florida, May 20, 2009 3. Disaster Resistance Planning and Recovery Program - update. Edward (Ski) Olesky H. New Business. Clarence S. Tears, Jr. t. Update to Umbrella Ordinance (Copy to all members) (Enclosure 3) Pastor Jean C. PlIUl Carrie Williams 2. Orientation Option Floyd Crews Pam Brown Rick Heers I. Citizen Comments. Dick Rice Estil Null J. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting June 17,2009 at 8:30 AM CRA Staff K. Adjournment. Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt Misc. Cones: Administrative Assistant Date: Q"ll ~ CZ l ~ C)Dc; 239.252.2313 !tem #'llQI C l) D\0 to ~-'.", ~ t ~ "~t -- . - Fiala / l~l~Oj~lL.lElE (~ Halas ;?j/ ~ 161 1.15 mo Community Reqevelopment Agency Henning iThe pl<lce to C<l[[ Home! Coyle Coletta r- MAY 28 2009 B03rd of COl:lll'J Comrr.i:;;:;i:ln:::r:; JOINT MEETING MINUTES Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee April 15, 2009 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 8:45 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory BoardlEZDA Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Rick Heers, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Ana Salazar, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Captain Tom Davis, Michael Facundo, James Wall, Robert Halman, Julio Estremera and Edward "Ski" Olesky. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee Present: Clarence S. Tears, Jr., Edward "Ski" Olesky, Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Rick Heers, Richard Rice, Carrie Williams, Rev. Jean Paul, Floyd Crews, and Pam Brown. IMPVC Members Absent/Excused: Esti I Null. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Majorie Student-Sterling, James Seabasty, Kristi Bartlett, Ivan Howard, Jeff Randall, David Hanson, Mike Taylor, and Sheryl Soukup. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel and Christie Betancourt. C. Introductions. Each person introduced themselves. D. Adoption of Agenda. Changes to the Agenda: Add 04 and H2, Move H2 to H3. Action: The Agenda was adopted unanimously (with changes) after a motion by Mr. Olesky and a second by Mr. Tears. E. Communications. 1. April Public Notices 2. Advisory Board web Bio and Pictures. 3. Fayade Grant Sign Action: The Fa<;ade Grant Sign was approved (with change) after a motion by Mr. Crews, seconded by Mr. Wall and a unanimous vote. F. Consent Agenda. 1. Approval of Minutes Regular Meeting March 18, 2009 2. Approval of Red Flag Item - Addendum to the letter for Shell Station. Action: Mr, Heers made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda items, Ms. Deyo seconded the motion and the items were approved unanimously. O. Old Business. 1. The Collier County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Advisory Committee - no report 2. Master Plan Review - The Executive Summary review of the RLSA and timeline for review of GMPs proposed by CDES to the BCC on the up coming agenda of April 21, 2009 was discussed. Advisory Board members were encouraged to attend the BCC meeting. Misc. Corres: Date: I Item#: ,_.- ',n;(lC" -....'.1""""....,; ""'. ............-.-.. ..... ~,-"- . --......~,-~~~'''- 16 , 1 8 1 S-,. The proposal as offered to CDES by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council was discussed. It was the consensus of the committees that the CRA would pay for the contract should CDES accepts the proposal at which time a formal vote will be taken. 3. Project Innovation upcoming meeting of April 16, 2009 was discussed as it is the final strategy meeting and all persons were encouraged to attend. 4. lmmokalee Stormwater Master Plan - The Executive Director provided an update to the Committees. The MSTU expansion approval went before the BCC on April 14, 2009, the Storm water Department has dedicated $200,000 to the Immokalee project in the 2010 Budget and the CRA will match those funds for project development. The Stormwater Master Plan will go before the BCC for approval the last meeting in May. H. New Business. 1. Call to Action - The Housing Trust Fund. Mr. Heers and Ms. Soukup provide a status report on the Florida Legislator's attempt to remove all funds from the Sadowski Act funds urging all present to contact Legislators. 2. Disaster Resistance Planning and Recovery Program - Ms. Phillippi provided background information on a proposed partnership among all the CRAs in the Southwestern Region of Florida and the RPC. The RPC would seek the grant and implement the grant on behalf of the CRAs. CRA funds will be required to be used as match, amount as yet unknown. Action: A1s. Deyo made a motion to include the lmmokalee CRA in the partnership with the other CRAs and the SWRPC to seek funding j(Jr the Disaster Resistance Planning and Recovery Program. The motion passed with a unanimous vote after a second by Mr. Rice. 3. Mr. Howard Ivan of Devall Worldwide provided presentation on behalf of his organization and investors who are seeking to finance in the categories of alternative energy and distressed properties (residential and commercial). I. Citizen Comments. Mr. Wall announced that funds are available under a new program. J. Next Meeting Date. May 20, 2009 at 8:30 A.M. K. Adjournment. This meeting was adjourned at 9:40 A.M 2 T'I" ...-. < -<.,. .,~._.;",,,, J 161 le16~ v' R.ECEIVED IS S OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE .IUN 1 0-2009 ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTE~unl, commissIoners APR. 2, 2009 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ATTENDEES: Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief Kirk Colvin, Chairman Joe Langkawel, Advisory Board Member Ted Decker, Advisory Board Member Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member Kevin Walsh, Advisory Board Member Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Kirk Colvin opened the meeting at 6:35 p.m. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Chief s Report. B. Mar. 2009 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve Mar. 2009 Minutes by Kevin Walsh. a. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. b. Motion carried unanimously. b. Minutes signed off by Chairman Colvin. C. FYIO Budget Draft. 1. Board members received a copy of the draft for review 3 days prior. 2. Budget was prepared with a property value decline 01'25%. 3. Property value decline has resulted in the millage rate going up to 2. 4. At these levels, the current level of service can still be maintained. 5. Budget draft will be discussed with the County Manager on April 29. 6. Best estimate property values will be received from Tax Collector on June 1. 7. Operating expenses have been reduced by 4.9% for FY10. 8. The fleet maintenance parts expense has risen by 236% for FYI O. D. Shoreline stabilization project update. Misc. Corres: 1. Expected completion by the end of April 2009. 1 ( l 9 2. The cap will be framed and poured in the next few days. Date: 0 ~ 2; () 3. ~ubsequently, rocks will be brought in to level the back si~:mo:~~~:al~jJ9U \) l~t --. - --;-";"-""'-;-"'-'~.--""'~ 'Il_ 161 Il" "'816 E. Steering Committee update. I. The next meeting will be held on April 23 at Station 73. a. All board members of all the fire districts are urged to attend. b. A discussion on fire district consolidation will be held. 2. Important items of note from the last steering committee. a. Dues for each district have been set at $250. b. Fire code official's office may perform reviews for Lee County. c. Fire code official's office is purchasing the Wachovia Bank Bldg. III. NEW BUSINESS A. ICFD has received County Attorney approval to use impact fees for a boat dock. 1. Collier Seawall contacted to provide a preliminary estimate. 2. Purchases greater than $50,000 must "go out for bid" by the Purch. Dept. 3. Dock would be a straight T-dock with 2 boat slips. 4. The project would include a six foot wide walkway out to the boat slips. 5. DEP approval is required. 6. Public use would not be permitted. B. ICFD has received County Attorney approval to use impact fees for a weather bug. I. Weather bug has a live camera to view local weather conditions. a. Useful during hurricanes to obtain views from remote locations. b. Live camera views could be used by residents & Fire Chief. c. Cost of the weather bug is not known at this time. d. Looking into a few possible locations for installation. 1. Roof of Station 90. 2. Roof of Twin Dolphins condominium. 3. Roof of Marina around the corner from Station 90. C. The next ICFD Advisory Board meeting will be on June 4,2009. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Kirk Colvin at 7:35 p.m. 1. Motion seconded by Jim Gault. 2. Motion carried unanimously. Approved: Date: ~'-""""-""-- 1 ...,"''''' _ __ . -, -....... . RE.CE\VED Fiala 1611f1 Halas JUN 0 9 2009 Henning April 13, 2009 , nmissioners Coyle f co' \\\t~ C...l Coletta Board 0 ~ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, April 13, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County 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: CIJAIRMAN: Bill Poteet Marco Espinar Michael Delate Tony Pires Jeffrey Curl Mimi Wolok Jeremy Sterk Thomas Sobczak ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Cindy Erb, Real Property Management Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Sp~ij5ires: Date:01l~C6 { 0 9 ] Item #.JlQ-:fLl)0J-=r ;;;.~~,~ <-.......-",-..",---... .ill. _ ...v_.,.._...__'"....._.~........_ A!jl~,LJ8171 I. Roll Call - Goodbye to Marco Espinar Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:00AM. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. n. Approval of Agenda Mr. Espinar moved to approve the agenda subject to the following changes: hems VLA and VLB to be heard immediately following item IV. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 7-0. HI. Approval of March 9, 2009 Minutes 114r. Delate moved to approve the minutes (~fthe March 9, 2009 meeting. Second by Mr. Espinar. Carried unanimously 7-0. Mr. Pires arrived at 9:04A/\11 IV. County Attorney - Introduce Heidi Ashton-Cicko and, Sunshine Law Presentation, Colleen Greene. Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney was introduced as the new Staff Attorney for the Program. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney presented a Slideshow and handout entitled "Government in the Sunshine" and "Public Records" prepared by the Office of the County Attorney.. Jeffery A. KlatzkO\v. County Attorney. Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney noted if members have any questions on the Sunshine Law, contact the County Attorney's Office for direction. VI. New Business A. Budget Update - Cycle 7 planning discussion Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator presented a Memorandum, Subject: "Proposal to shift focus of Conservation Collier Program to Land Management for the remainder of FY 2009" dated April 13,2009 for consideration. Staff proposes the following: . Suspend Cycle 7 for FY 2009 and to halt processing any new acquisition applications within the cycle. . Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee meetings be held in July 2009 and October 2009 in order to conduct regular business. . Resume regular meetings and Cycle 7 applications in January 2010. The reasons for the proposals are: . The lack of immediate funds to purchase properties. . The updated appraisals ofNGGE Unit 53 and Winchester Head can be completed in July 2009. The Program can continue the pursuit of acquiring properties in these areas as well as properties slated for donation to the Program. 2 " ."_____..~___.'_.,,~.'~~_._~.__.__'...'.M.'__ ,.,.,' .___....._..,___._..-,.'_'k_'._' '<1"" -~--,,~,~._,.,-~.,,-' _"ow<,,",,",u_~__ 'Nr -- - '.'~ 16 I 1 BI7,.f Aprill3,2009 . Allow the Program to focus on opening preserves for public access which may assist in future levy authorization efforts. . Allow the Program more time for pursuit of Grants. Laura Davisson, Collier County Budget Analyst appeared before the Committee providing an overview on the status of the Program's budget: . The Program has leveraged its funds to the maximum this year. . The County is approaching future commitments carefully due to a projected 25 percent decrease in taxable value next fiscal year. Discussion occurred on the amount of funds avai Jable for purchases in Cycle 6. These funds will be available in Decemher of2009. It was noted the estimates for the Cycle 6 funds will be more accurate following reports from the County Appraisers Office due on June 1, 2009, She recommended delaying Cycle 6 closings until December 1, 2009, at which time, they will know the amount of funds available for purchase. Heidi Ashton-Cicko noted the Ordinance governing the Program does not require monthly meetings. Alex Sulecki noted recommendation approved by the Committee will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BCe) for a final decision. Mr. Delate noted the Subcommittees should continue to meet to conduct their regular business. Chairman Poteet expressed concern over delaying properties owner with nominated properties. In addition, Subcommittees' recommendations are forwarded to the main Committee for recommendations to the BCe. He wanted to ensure there are ample Regular meetings to conduct business. He recommended the Regular meeting schedule remain intact, however ifno business is required, the meeting could be canceled with ample notice. Mr. Delate moved to follow Staff's advice, and to conduct only 2 regular meetings between now and October, and to keep the Regular scheduled meetings available and if a need or necessity for a meeting arises, the Committee be notified in ad.'ance. Second by Ms. Wolok. Mr. Delate amended the motion to include the Subcommittees continue to meet and conduct their regular business. Second by Ms. Wolok. Carried I unanimously 8-fJ7-1 . Chairman Poteet votinf! "IlO. ". Laura Davisson noted the dollar amount transferred to the Land Maintenance Fund may be negatively affected by declining tax values as the Program moves forward. '3 ~ .l.,U".lIU ~ .. --..-..-..- .,-_._"._"',"'_.~.._' .~"... April 13, 2009 B. Cycle 7 - New applications Alex Su)ecki sought direction as the Committee had just recommended suspending Cycle 7 new applications and there were landowners present to discuss the applications, The Committee deternlined the presentation should be heard. Paeanes Alex Sulecki noted: . The parcel is located in the Rivers Road area. . The property was in Cycle 6 and ranked by the Committee, however the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) placed it on the "C-list" as the property contains structures. . The property has been re-nominated and Mr. Paganes has indicated an interest in a "Ii fe estate" concept (30 year minimum). . Considerations in a "life estate" concept include the types of restrictions to be placed on the property, the value associated with a "life estate" portion of the property, etc. Discussion occurred on the "life estate" concept. Heidi Ashton-Cicko noted the acquisition could be structured to separate out the land from the structure and driveway. The options would be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office if the Committee determines to move forward with the concept. Mr. Delate movedfor the Program to continue to consider acquisition of the parcel (in the next Cyclefor 2010). Second by Mr. Pires. Chairman Poteet noted the BCC has already determined to not acquire properties with structures and \vith limited funds available to the Program, other properties should be considered. Mr. Pires noted the current proposal is different than the original proposal as it proposes a possible "life estate" concept and whether a conservation easement over a portion of the property might be possible and acceptable to Mr. Paganes. Speaker Richard Paganes, landowner noted he is acceptable to the concept of a "life estate" and potentially to an easement depending on particulars. ,l1otiO/l carried 6 'yes" - 2 "no." Chairman Poteet and Mr. Espinar voted "no. " CDC Land Investments. Inc. Alex Sulecki provided an overview of the application noting the following: . The parcel is 7.5 acres, located in the City of Naplcs adjacent to the Gordon River Greenway Project and the Naples Airport. 4 -=" , II ~ ---_.~.'~,."--_......_--,,'~..'--,,-,,_., ..------.----- ,',... April 13, 2009 . A 1 acre pOliion of the propeJ1y was olTered to the Program in 2004, but withdrawn by the owner. . Cun'ent assessed value - $18,775, . It is accessed by North Road, a public road. . It meets 5 of 6 of the Programs Initial Screening CriteIia. . The Naples Airport may be interested in partnenng with the Program in acquisition of the propc11y, . The current zoning would allow the development of the parcel for residential purposes Speakers Pat Utter, CDC Land Investments Inc. - the original proposal was withdrawn as the landowner wanted to retain an easement on the pOJiion of land in question for dock rights, This was deemed inconsistent with the goals of the Program, Ted Soliday, Executive Director, Naples Airport Authority, noted the following: . The property is also in the "Airport Overlay Zone" for zoning purposes, . The Authority has not reviewed the item or taken official action, however he is confident of the statements made herein today, . The Authority would oppose the property being developed for residential purposes. . They are in the process of completing a noise study and the land should be eligible under the standards for acquisition by the Authority due to nOIse concerns. . The Authority would be amenable to working with the Conservation Collier Program and/or the owner to acquire the property with or without any applicable Federal funding. Ellie Krier, Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust noted the parcel would be ideal for vehicle parking for the public on the south side of the Greenway Project. Ms. Wolok was opposed to purchasing a property for parking purposes, as it is not in confom1ance with the scope of the Conservation Collier Program. She noted the Committee took action to suspend applications and acquisitions and recommend this item be delayed until the Airport Authority makes a detennination on the feasibility of acquiring the property. Chairman Poteet noted Conservation Collier properties do, or are plmmed to have parking facilities with public access on their properties. Mr. Pires moved to consider the property for acquisition. Second by Mr. Sterk. Motion carried 7 (yes" - 1 Hno." Ms. Wolok voted "no." 5 - "..,'.. "",,- . April 13, 2009 Alex Sulecki provided an overview and photos of Staff site visits to the Barron Collier Investments and City Gate parcels which are under consideration in the CUlTent Cycle. Some members expressed concern over acquiring the City Gate parcel as it is already protected via land development permit conditions; in addition, the County may assume the liability of enforcing the conditions and implementing any related requirements, which are unknown at this point. V. Old Business A. Member Conflicts - Jeremy Sterk and Marco Espinar Mr. Sterk and Mr. Espinar disclosed a conflict of interest with the City Gate parcel and have filed the neccssary forms and will not vote on the issue. B. Real Property Management Update - A - list properties Cindy Erb of Real Property Management provided the following updates: Winchester Head - Closings continue; to date 36 parcels acquired totaling 50.96 acres. Seven parcels remain under contract. Unit 53. Red Maple Swamp Closings continue; to date 52 parcels acquired total 147.6 acres. Camp Keais Closings continue; to datc 3 parcels acquired totaling 20 acres. C. Contracts - None D. Benfield Rd and Caloosa Reserve conveyance proposals update Alex Sulecki reported: Benfield Road - No response to email and telephonc messages left by Staff for Mr. Levangie, landowner representative. Caloosa Reserve - Still interested in conveyance to the Program, in the process of working out financial issues, With regard to the Benfield Road propeliies, the Transportation Department is still in the process of completing studies on the Wilson Road Extension. A final corridor has not been identified. The Committee requested Staff to notifY memhers when this item is heard (Wilson Blvd. Extension) hy the Board of County Commissioners. VI. New Business Continued C. County North Bell Meade mitigation parcels - Solid Waste Dept. Alex Sulecki provided an overview of the parcels in which the Solid Waste Department is interested in partnering with the Program for Management of the parcels. D. Committee Applications - 2 Seats up for Appointment - Item added to agenda 4/6/09 6 "'~"''''''''~''''-- "",'''- ..~," April 13,2009 The Committee reviewed the applications of Annisa Karim and Roberta Dorta for membership on the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee. ldr. Delate moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners Mr. Dorta and Ms. Karim be appointed to the COllservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 8-0. E. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Program None. F. Coordinator Communications Alex Sulecki noted there will be a public event for a hike on Pepper Ranch on May 9,2009. It will be noticed as a public meeting. VII. Sub-Committee Meeting Reports A. Outreach - Tony Pires, Chair None B. Lands Evaluation and Management - Marco Espinar, Chair A meeting was held on March 31, 2009. Transportation Planning issues were discussed in the area of "public access" and road standards that may be required for construction of accesses to Conservation Collier properties. Mr. Delate requested Conservation Collier Staff contact the Transportation Staff for provision of a memorandllln or other type of acknowledgement of the results of the meeting regarding the construction standards which the Department will require in providing the accesses to the Programs properties. C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures - Jeff Curl, Acting Chair pending election There will be a meeting immediately following the main Committee meeting today where a draft "easement letter", appraisal requirements and Land Development Code amendments will be discussed. VIII. Chair Committee Member Comments Chairman Poteet recognized Marco Espinar's service to the Committee. IX. Public General Comments None X. Staff Comments Melissa Henning requested Committee direction on the feasibility of Staff studying I the development and implementation of a Gopher Tortoise Relocation Program for the Starnes parcel. It was noted after April 22, 2009, there will be no sites for the re- location of Gopher Tortoise's within Collier or Lee County. 7 - ,.".. --.."""".--",,,-,. ~'-- 161 lR17~'" . April 13, 2009 Mr. Pires moved to direct Staff to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a Gopher Tortoise Preserve and pursue any applicable permits necessary for establishing said Preserve on the Starnes parcel. Second by Mr. Espinar. ll-fonon carried unanimously 8-0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11 :08 A.M. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee ') /') f ~ //I(,L/ W .;..;::-;/ . ;/' />,~ ' ~ 4 . M \ ~ ?, ./ Bill Poteet, Chairman 1/ These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on _I; - 1- () 7 as presented or as amended v' Ii) -~;'~- 8 .......".-- .... "IV'll'. A"'~ .... .~. ~ . ~'~"---"""'''>'''''''-'''''~'--''''--'"--''''- Fiala ~ PH Halas ",""" ," 11-1 L.; - Henning ,-, , V D Coyle RECEI E COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORYqp&~ F- MAY 2 z 2009 F~Oilrrl nf County Commissioners Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. South Ree:ional Librarv 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 - May 2. Old GG Library Building 3. Rose Hall 4. Revised Ordinance - Advisory Boards New Business General Considerations Director's Report Report of the Friends Adjournment Misc. Corres: r ._....._..>O.__~~"___ . 1611" B18"" COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD ANNUAL MEETING SOUTH REGIONAL LIBRARY May 20, 2009 Call to Order Nominations and Election of Officers Other Business Adjournment ","..,~ ".,._.,~, _.~,~,-._--- -..... ;' ,Cila -,' 161,Jlt!1& Ha'as Handing RE Coyl~,~ -~_. COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Headquarters Library 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 - June 2. Old GG Library Building 3. Rose Hall 4. FY10 Budget 5. South Regional New Business General Considerations Director's Report Report of the Friends :ol5a!d:>: Mise Corres __r.'__._"'~"_.'___",.,,,,,~ :#w9ll Adjournment ~.." ~\.,,- . .....-.-. .'-, --~. ._--~--_.~"-~.~.' -~-,- -~--,----- :alea item #'."..___._.---.-- :S9JJ08 ':>S!W ",... - "'T V ........ ",,~"r', .'~_~'~" .~____.~ ...-*_..._'< , 1 16. , 1 B18 . Naples, Florida, April 15, 2009 LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 10:00 a.m. in the Golden Gate Community Center with the following members present: CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis VICE-CHAIR: Loretta Murray Connie Bettinger-Hennink Shelley Z. Lieb ALSO PRESENT: Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Linda Fasulo, Executive Director, FOL Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator Jane Billings, Director, Women's InitiativejComm. Foundation of Collier County Duane Billington, Member, Golden Gate Civic Association Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lewis asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of March 18, 2009. There being none, Mrs. Murray moved, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink and carried unanimously, that the minutes be approved as submitted. LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT Roberta Reiss, Volunteer Coordinator, stated that she will be moving to the new South Regional Library as of May 15, 2009. She hopes to be able to recruit new volunteers from the Edison State College located near the new library. She also commented that due to all the staff cuts, she will be more involved in helping out at both, the Circulation Desk and in the Reference Department. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF THE OLD GOLDEN GATE LIBRARY BUILDING Jane Billings, Director of Women's Initiative, from the Community Foundation of Collier County spoke. She came to the Board to discuss the possibility of setting up a Senior Resource Center in the old Golden Gate Library Building. It would be a one-stop place offering all kinds of services to the senior citizens of Collier County. Both, the Board and the Library Director support the idea and feel that there's a definite need for such a place but want to ensure the Library and the Golden Gate community benefit from any partnership. Mrs. Lewis suggested that the Library be kept informed on future discussions about this project. A motion by the Chair to actively pursue this idea was unanimously approved by the Board. Mr. Duane Billington, a member of the Golden Gate Civic Association, supported the idea presented by Jane Billings and offered his support. He also spoke briefly about 'AmeriCorps' a national volunteer program and how this group could be of service to the Library. REPORT OF OFFICERS - None ".-.,"".." -"....""-"..~-- 16 I 1 1818 I COMMUNICATIONS Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink mentioned seeing articles in the Naples Daily News about the Library eliminating the Mail-a-Book program. Mrs. Matthes responded that it was false. UNFINISHED BUSINESS The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the Library Employee of the Month. Mrs. Murray moved, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink and carried unanimously, to select Pamela Moore, Children's Librarian at the Headquarters Library, as EOM for April 2009. As per staffing for the South Regional Library, Mrs. Matthes announced that Denise McMahon has been selected as Senior Supervisor. She will also manage the East Naples Branch. Tanya Saldivar will be replacing Denise at the Headquarters Library and will still be in charge of the Immokalee Branch. David Chalick will supervise Golden Gate and Estates Branch. Blaine Halliday will supervise VB. Marilyn McKay will supervise Naples Regional and Mail-a-Book. Mrs. Matthes reported that the new proposed library hours schedule had been approved by the BCC on April 14, 2009. It will become effective on May 1, 2009. NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed the nomination of Gina D. Downs, representing District 2 on the Library Advisory Board. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink moved, seconded by Mrs. Murray and carried unanimously, to recommend Gina D. Downs to the BCC for selection to represent District 2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mrs. Matthes reported that the ground breaking for the Rose Hall will take place on April 30th. She also mentioned that the revised Library Policies had been approved by the Board of County Commissioners and will be effective as of May 1, 2009. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS Mrs. Fasulo reported that National Library Workers Day was celebrated on April 14th. To celebrate this event, the Friends donated a cake to each library branch to share with the public. She also stated that the Lecture Series is all set up for next season. Mrs. Fasulo mentioned that the next Friends meeting would be held on April 21st and she extended an invitation to the Board members to attend. -- --~ "._~~--- ~ 16' 1~18~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Murray moved, seconded by Mrs. Leib and carried unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 12:00 Noon. Approved by: C' ~ \2\ " .. ,~~)...A)-1D \ () Doris J. Lewis Chair, Library Advisory Board . ~ - 161 1~B18 Naples, Florida, May 20, 2009 LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 10:00 a.m. in the South Regional Library with the following members present: CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis VICE-CHAIR: Loretta Murray Connie Bettinger-Hennink Gina D. Downs Rochelle Z. Lieb ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Jane Billings, Director, Women's Initiative/Community Foundation of Collier County Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant Mrs. Lewis welcomed the newest member of the Board, Mrs. Gina D. Downs. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lewis asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of April 15, 2009. There being none, Mrs. Lieb moved, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink and carried unanimously, that the minutes be approved as submitted. Mrs. Lieb pointed out that it seemed to her that the minutes were not reported as detailed as she expected them to be. Mrs. Matthes replied that there are two ways of reporting minutes and that we generally don't report them 'verbatim' but rather just bringing out the major highlights of the meeting. Mrs. Pietri stated that in 34 years of recording the minutes, no one has come forward asking for detailed copies of any topics that had been discussed at any meetings. If that were the case, she stated that tapes of the minutes are available for anyone wanting to listen to any specific discussion on any particular topic. LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT Mrs. Reiss stated that now that she is spending more hours at the South Regional Branch and not traveling as much as before, she will concentrate on doing more programming at the new library. She said she would also be contacting more schools around the area to get them to set up literacy programs at their locations. REPORT OF OFFICERS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None . --,..~.~,"-- -. , _""___"~'".''''-"'<__''''.~''' -11'_ -- 16 , r~q 18 IIIl UNFINISHED BUSINESS The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the Library's Employee of the Month. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink moved, seconded by Mrs. Murray and carried unanimously, to select Sheila Hicks, Library Assistant at the Marco Island Branch, as EOM for May 2009. In reference to the old Golden Gate Library building, Mrs. Jane Billings stated that she had met with the architect who had built the original library. His opinion was that it would not be cost-effective to renovate the building. She also pointed out that library staff did not foresee utilizing that building until 2015. She continued by saying that she would be appearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners at their next meeting to present her proposal. The proposal consists of a long-term lease agreement between the County and the Collier County Leadership Council on Aging to construct a combination senior health center/ library in place of the old Golden Gate Branch Library. An 11,000 square foot building will replace the old library which will be connected to the new GG Library. A 7,000 square foot area to be dedicated to library services and a 4,000 square foot area to be used for the Senior Resource Center. Among other things, this space will provide a large meeting room, space for more adult library materials, space for a '211' information service, space for an equipment library for the blind and a health clinic for seniors without adequate health insurance. This facility will be built with donations - no County funds will be involved and no additional library staff will be needed to run the place. More details will be worked out in the next month or two. Motion: The Board discussed the proposal presented by Mrs. Billings. Mrs. Murray moved, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink and carried unanimously, to support Mrs. Billing's proposal. As for the Rose Hall, Mrs. Matthes reported that she had recently attended the first construction meeting. There will be two meetings per month. She also stated that the general contractor selected to build the Rose Hall has received the 'notice to proceed'. The actual construction is expected to take about five months. The contractor is currently getting all materials ordered and completing the permitting paperwork. The entire project should be done by January 2010. As for the Revised Advisory Boards Ordinance, copies of which were sent to the LAB members, some of the changes include: No more reports to the BCC every four years; members can serve on more than one board at a time and can stay indefinitely. Also, only a vote from three members of the BCC will be required to approve a nomination. NEW BUSINESS Mrs. Carla Gray, a member of the Friends and also representing the North Naples area home owners spoke on their behalf. She stated that the citizens of North Naples had been having several fund raisers and have collected enough funds to enable the Vanderbilt Beach Library to reopen on Fridays. A proposal would be presented by her group to the BCC for their approval. The funds will pay to staff two Part-Time employees until September 2009. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS - None .^.-.'" .. .- ...........--. 161 1~18 . DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mrs. Matthes introduced Denise McMahon, the Senior Supervisor of the South Regional Library. Mrs. McMahon welcomed all to take a tour of the new building and to meet all the new staff members. She said she was very happy to be at the new building and that she had a lot of stuff planned for this new branch. She pointed out that this library branch had the first 'drive-thru' book return in this area. Circulations are already up to 500 per day. Mrs. Matthes stated that problems with parking continue at the East Naples Branch. The property manager there continues his threats to tow away any patrons' cars parked in certain areas of the parking lot. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS - None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink moved, seconded by Mrs. Murray and carried unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 11:50 a.m. Approved by: Q~ \~\. ~~~ Doris J. Lewis U Chair, Library Advisory Board _...'..'.,,",._,'~- -.. - _._____~.n.__ 16 , I ~8 18 1 Naples, Florida, May 20, 2009 LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date at the South Regional Branch Library at 11:50 a.m. in order to hold their Annual Meeting. The following members were present: CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis VICE-CHAIR: Loretta Murray Connie Bettinger-Hennink Gi na D. Downs Shelley Z. Lieb ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant NOMINA TIONS AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS The main purpose of this meeting was to select new officers for the coming year. Mrs. Lewis opened the nominations. Mrs. Murray moved, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and carried unanimously to re-elect Mrs. Lewis as Chairman. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink moved, seconded by Mrs. Lewis and carried unanimously to re-elect Mrs. Murray as Vice-Chairman. Mrs. Lieb moved, seconded by Mrs. Murray and carried unanimously to elect Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink as Secretary. OTHER BUSINESS The Board members agreed to meet in June, as usual. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Lewis declared that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 11:55 a.m. Approved by: \: ' 0<rw> ~,~40 Doris J. Lewis, Ch. r Library Advisory Board ._", _._-~ ..-- . r -".,,~..."., ^'~M"_'._'''''''''' -,.-,-.-. ~bl >b.lR19~ Fiala .... j .~ECEiVED Halas A' . ,&:A:' Henning , Coyle JUN 0 ~ 2009 Coletta ~ MINUTES OF TfmtNfl!E~t)F THE PARKS ND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, April 15, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M., at the North Collier Regional Park Exhibit Hall, 15000 Livingston Road, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes VICE CHAIRMAN: Edward "Ski" Olesky Frank Donohue Barbara Buehler Paul Nyce (Absent) Kerry Geroy ALSO PRESENT: Murdo Smith, Beach and Water Manager Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager Tona Nelson, Sr. Administrative Assist. Peg Ruby, Marketing Specialist Misc, Carres: Oate:mJaf6/ 0 9 1 Item#..L~ICl) f2$ --, ,...-. 'I" ~....~ "'..'" ',. ,,' ^....._-""-,~~ I. Call to Order 16 tr~T 9" Chairman Ribes called the meeting to order at 2:01 p.m. 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. Second by Mr. Donohue. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of March 18, 2009 Meeting Minutes Mr. Olesky moved to approve the minutes of the March 18, 2009 meeting. Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried unanimously 5-0. Murdo Smith noted Staff would provide communication to the members regarding item V. 6 - "Wiggins Pass Issue "from the March 18,2009 meeting. V. New Business 1) Director's Highlights Murdo Smith provided the following highlights: . Department continues working on the budget reduction directives (3% and 25% reduction options) as provided by the County Managers Office. . A permanent A TV site is still under consideration. . A Firework funding agreement with the Jaycees is under review. . Inter-local agreements are under review with the City of Everglades for $60,000 of funding for improvements in areas parks. . Staff continues to work on the CAPRA application (Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies). 2) Employee of the Month None 3) Hazard Mitigation Grant for ENCP, ISC, GGCC Vicki Ahmad, Project Manager presented memo to Miles Anderson, Division of Emergency Management for the Florida Department of Community Affairs from Richard Zyoloski, Jr. LMS Chair for Collier County dated March 23 2009 - Re: TS FAY (FEMA 1785-DR-FL) HMGP Project Priority Letter. The letter outlines the projects endorsed by the LMS Working Group for applicable FEMA funding under the I 785-DR-FL disaster. Copies were presented of applicable Grant Applications. The applications are requests for Wind Retrofit and Flood proofing for East Naples Community Center, Wind Retrofitting for Golden Gate Community Park and Immokalee Sports Complex. FEMA will provide 75 percent of the funding, while the County funds 25 percent of the costs of the improvements. 2 ".,- 1.IIlli ",' ,. '--"';"'~,,"-"""~"""" ~"_,*,_.l. --- 16, r r' B 1 9 4 Apn115,2009 Mr. Donohue moved to endorse the Grant applications. Second by Mr. Olesky. Carried unanimously 5-0. VI. Marketing Highlight - Florida Everblades Event, Summer Programs - Peg Ruby An overview of past and future events was provided highlighting the following: . April 3, 2009 - Florida Everblades Sun n Fun Lagoon promotion during intermission at Germain Arena. . Easter Event - April 4, East Naples Community Park . Easter Event - April 11, Immokalee Community Park . Bill Longshore Girls High School Softball Tournament - April 17th and 18th North Collier Regional Park . Florida Adult Soccer Assoc. State Cup - April 24 - 26 - North Collier Regional Park . Mothers Day promotion, Sun n Fun Lagoon - May 10, 2009 . April 25, Kiwanis Event - East Naples Community Park VII. Recreational Highlights - Jeanine McPherson Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager noted Summer Camp Registration is underway. VIII. Capital Project Highlights - Tony Ruberto The document "Collier County Parks and Recreation Capital Projects Update" dated April 6, 2009 was presented. The status of the projects was reported to members. IX. Adopt a Park - Barbara Buehler A written report on the Eagle Lakes Community Park, East Naples Community Park, Golden Gate Community Park and Max Hasse Jr., Community Park was read into the record highlighting the following: East NaDles Community Park . Consideration is underway to replace existing wooden half pipe skateboard ramp with concrete ramp to facilitate maintenance. . Other features in the Skate Park are under consideration for replacement. . Site poses adequate location for Cricket field. . There is no "maintenance building" on site. Consideration should be given to improvement. Eae:le Lakes Community Park . New Signage is slated for installation. Golden Gate Community Park . Site poses adequate location for cricket field. . Concern over lack of irrigation of fields. . Consideration should be given to allow Greg Torres, (Golden Gate Community Park Employee who recently completed a playground safety course) to make recommendations on playground safety at all park facilities. Ma:x Hasse, Jr. Community Park . Treadmills in need of replacement 3 -- ".,"~-""--"--''''''^'~"''^ ~ . ~ T r_ "_.""";,.,....._'''"',""----="~,;"....._-_...._--.._----'''''--'-~.,.,- 16111~B19 .. April 15,2009 . Additional signage should be considered (outside the Park) to assist in identifying the location of the fitness center. All Facilities are generally in good condition and well run by Staff. Murdo Smith noted he will investigate the possible signage improvements for Max: Hasse, Jr. Fitness Center with the Department of Transportation. X. Informational Items Attendance Report Submitted Adopt-a-Park Assignments Submitted Capra Update Submitted BCC Recaps Submitted Meeting Schedule Submitted Recreation Activities Submitted Operational Data Submitted In regard to the Boat Launch Statistics, the Port ofthe Isles information will be updated for February and March. XI. Public Comments None Meetine: Attendance Report Mr. Nyce was absent There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:16 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 4 .- ._. '-"'-' .... 4- --.-. 16 "1'~ 1. 9 ~ April 15, 20 . These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on {5.1./!J . tJJ , as presented "/. or as amended 5 ,- -_..lIllI'wrrp"._'lI' ~--""',._--,-- . - 'Fhth. 1'61'1"8 1 ~ I I ~~; J;'" - May 20, 2009 \.. / "I~'" i"l~ . t.. \ \ ~ t..."yie. CO\it\a MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - --,- -''''-D r~~ t:: \J C': I \ . c." Naples, Florida, May 20, 2009 JUN 2 2 2009 Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M., at the North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall, 15000 Livingston Road, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes VICE CHAIRMAN: Edward "Ski" Olesky Frank Donohue (Excused) Barbara Buehler (Excused) Paul Nyce (Excused) Kerry Geroy David Saletko ALSO PRESENT: Murdo Smith, Beach and Water Superintendent Peg Ruby, Marketing Specialist Tona Nelson, Sr. Administrative Assist. Misc. Cofres: Date: -.. Item#' "",-,,- ^",-_.", ,,".,,~_._-~~. I ":c'Pies to: .-- ----- ""I ......I~ h&llWl .,,'~--"'----- - IJdo~o9 .~ B19~ I. Call to Order Chairman Ribes called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m. II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held. Murdo Smith provided an overview of Directors Highlights and Peg Ruby provided an overview of recent marketing efforts pending the arrival of Ms. Geroy which constituted a quorum. Ms. Geroy arrived at 2: 11 PM III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Olesky moved to approve the agenda subject to the following changes . Directors Highlights and Marketing Highlights previously heard for informational purposes. . Item VI.l to be heard before Item V.2 Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried unanimously 4-0 IV. Approval of April 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Mr. Olesky moved to approve the minutes of the April 15, 1009 meeting. Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried unanimously 4-0. V. New Business 1) Directors Highlights (heard as noted) Murdo Smith, Beach and Water Superintendent highlighted the following: . Registrations for Summer Camp Programs are ongoing including a Program for a Gopher Tortoise Survey at Barefoot Beach. . The Extreme Volleyball Professionals Tour Event will be held on May 30th at Vanderbilt Beach Park. . Staff continues to work on the budget in coordination with the County Manager's Office. . Dave Saletko was welcomed as a new member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. VI. Old Business 1) Champ Boat Races - Brian Ohls Brian Ohls appeared before the Board requesting approval for the Champ Boat Races to be held at Sudgen Park on November 7 - 8, 2009. He also requested permission for sales of alcoholic beverages during the event noting the following: . The event was held for the first time last year and was successful. . Alcoholic beverage sales will be limited from lOAM - 5PM on days of the event and will be conducted in a restricted area with controlled access. . The sales of alcoholic beverages will be used to offset event expenses, thereby creating a reduction in admission fees from last year's rate. . The reduction in admission fees is aimed at increasing attendance and makes the event more affordable for individuals and families. 2 ."..-._----,-'.,~~".,.... ~.~"u~."""~I_ .r' ~:RJf .,",,,,,,,.---.,.-- 161a '819'- May 20, 2009 Discussion occurred if lOAM was too early for initiating sales of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Olesky moved to approve the holding of the Champ Boat Series Event at Sudgen Park for November 7 - 8, 2009 subject to the following: . Alcohol sales are allowed from the hours of 11 :OOAM - 5PM on days of the event. Second by Ms Geroy. Carried unanimously 4-0. VI. New Business - continued 2) March and April Employee of the Month The employees involved with the April 8, 2009 "Fish Kill Cleanup" at Eagle Lake Community Park were recognized as Employee's of the Month for April. Peg Ruby, Marketing Specialist was recognized as Employee of the Month for March 2009. 3) Annual Ethic Coverage - Barry Williams Murdo Smith submitted a memorandum from Amy Lyberg, Human Resources Director, to County Employees, BCC and Advisory Board Members, etc. - Subject: "Annual Ethics Coverage" dated February 2009 and CMA #5311 - "Code of Ethics " for review by the individual members. 4) Ordinance 2009-16 - Barry Williams Murdo Smith submitted Collier County Ordinance No. 2009-16 which establishes the parameters for County Boards for review by the individual members. The following was noted: . Section FIVE. D has been removed which provided among other requirement, - "No person shall serve on more than 2 County Boards simultaneously. " . Revisions to Section SEVEN. "Term of Office. " 5) Goals and Objectives - Barry Williams Murdo Smith provided an overview of the document "Parks and Recreation Goals and Objectives. " The Board recommended consideration should be given to "Property Acquisitions" which was not included in the Departments Goals and Objectives. 6) TDC Budget - Fund 183 - Barry Williams Murdo Smith provided an overview of the document "TDC Category "A" - 183 Fund Projections. " VII. Old Business - continued 2) Adopt A Park Response - Barry Williams 3 -- . 16 'i~" ~ May2, ooB 19 Murdo Smith submitted the Memorandum from Kerry Runyon, Parks and Recreation Department to Barry Williams, Director of Parks and Recreation - Subject: Adopt a Park Program Comments Addressed" dated April 21, 2009 for review by the Board. VIII. Marketing Highlights (heard as noted) Peg Ruby, Marketing Specialist highlighted the following events: . June 3, 2009 - Summer Vacation Celebration - Sun-N-Lagoon . June 13,2009 - Sunny's Family Fun Night - Sun-N-Fun Lagoon . June 8, 2009 - Summer Camps begin . June 15,2009 - Concierge Beach Bag Night Sun-N-Fun Lagoon . June 21, 2009 - Happy Father's Day - Sun-N-Fun Lagoon . June 27, 2009 - Donation Fund Poker Run - North Collier Regional Park IX. Capital Project Highlights -Updated Capital Project Report Attached Murdo Smith provided an overview of "Collier County Parks and Recreation Capital Projects Update May 11,2009. x. Adopt a Park - Frank Donohue None XI. Informational Items Attendance Report Submitted Adopt A Park Assignments Submitted Capra Update Submitted BeC Recaps Submitted Meeting Schedule Submitted Recreation Activities Submitted Operational Data Submitted XII. Public Comments None Meetin!! Attendance Report Mr. Nyce, Mr. Donohue and Ms. Buhler were excused. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:10 PM. 4 ...-"....--- .. ... --- . " 16!~'oB19 '~ COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD IQJ //~ '. .... L'~' (Chairm,n John P. Ribes "'-. These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on &,\7,09' , as presented '"I. or as amended - 5 . .""~~ ." ..,..-- , .. - ',..0. 161tiJl RE j v '- ~alas JUN' 9 2009 Henning.:1:J . C~e BoarrJ of County Commissioners PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Coletta ~ Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit v- NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009 f [:; WILL MEET INF<E' AT THE 1 I ,~ ! AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of April 21 , 2009 PBSD Special Session Meeting Minutes 3. Approval of May 6,2009 PBSD Meeting Minutes 4. Approval of April 1, 2009 Management Review Committee Meeting Minutes 5. Approval of April 21, 2009 Management Review Committee Meeting Minutes 6. Approval of May 13, 2009 Joint PBSD & Foundation Landscaping Sulrcommittee Meeting Minutes 7. Approval of New Administrator's Contract and Compensation - Dorrill Management Group a) Compensation: $4,700/mo. = $56,400 annually. Three free months ($14, 100 credit) the first year only for a 4 year total cost of $211,500.00; or } b) Compensation: $4,333.33/mo. = $52,000 annually. Total 4 year cost $208,000. 8. Chair's Report a) Strategic Planning Committee Update 9. Committee Reports Budget Committee Recommend Approval of FY 2010 Budget Safety Committee Meeting Update by Ted Gravenhorst 10. Capital Projects a) Update on Myra Janco Daniels Blvd. Crosswalk 11. Committee Requests 12. Audience Comments 13. Adjournment SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, 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:_Q:1 t d- <6 12-:t. item# \~J;Llj~ " .-..~--------,,- ___ . , __, "Il __ "'lit! """",.""..",...,.,~"m',"_' . 16 I 11 2 qia3 D~~./ RECEIVED - 8 ala; i1(-I~ "',' 1 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE enning T " : / Jll" P~UCAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD SPEa&;.r9l< ",,,'''' """,,"'w ';0",,,,,,'00",' Naples, Florida, April 21, 2009 e 1 ' - LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board, in for the County ;;; Collier, having conducted business herein, met on Wednesday, April 21, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION at the Hammock Oak Community Center, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108, with the following members present: Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman John Iaizzo Tom Cravens Michael Levy Keith Dallas Gerald Moffatt Geoffrey Gibson Theodore Raia Ted Gravenhorst Hunter Hansen (absent) Also Present: Jack Curran, Collier County Purchasing Agent; Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager, Pelican Bay Services, Division; Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant, Pelican Bay Services Division. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Presentations by Management Firms 3. Audience Comments 4. Adjourn ROLL CALL CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It looks like we are settling in, so let us begin. Mary, could you do a roll call for us, please? MS. McCAUGHTRY: Yes, Madam Chair. Let the record reflect that all members of the Board are present except Hunter Hansen, and the time is slightly past 10:30 in the morning, so we can begin. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. The roll call shows that all Board members are present with the exception of Hunter Hansen. Today, we have presentations by two management firms, I would like Mr. Curran to give us a head's up on that to start with. MR. CURRAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. This morning two firms are going to make presentations and answer a series of questions that the Management Review Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division has requested. Each firm is expected to address the Committee's questions during their presentation. After both firms have presented today, the Management Review Committee will be open and in session for feedback. There will be one presentation of 30 minutes followed by 15 minutes of questions and answers; a short break before the second firm makes their presentation; and then we'll do the same; another 30 minutes of presentation and 15 minutes of questions and answers. Following both presentations, the Management Review Committee will go into session, and we request if you have any feedback to give to the three selection committee members - Jerry Moffatt, Mary Anne Womble, and Geoff Gibson, that you will do so at that time. I am passing around two letters, one for each finn. with the Management Review CommitUfli~d:I~ that may be answered during each presentation. At the very end, there is a copy of the scoring sheet used by the Managemel(Sir.~ie"w Committee. Does anyone have any questions before we start? !tem#. .'" .- 7956 <';j)ie$ t~) "---- ~-'''-'--' . .-., I.... -.- --".- 161 1 ''\3 2 0 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It does not look like anyone has any questions, Jack. Please, introduce our first candidate. FIRST FIRM PRI:SENTATION BY NEIL DORRILL. DORRILL MANAGEMENT GROUP MR. CURRAN: I would like to introduce Mr. Neil Dorrill of the Dorrill Management Group. Neil, please limit your presentation to a strict 30 minutes, if you please. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Good morning, Mr. Dorrill. I am sorry that you came early. With the situation that we have, those ofus who know tht: men's coffee know that you would be waiting for a while. I do appreciate the fact that you did come early, but those gentlemen have been meeting for years and years and years, and they have a lot to discuss. MR. DORRILL: I understand. By way of introduction, my name is Neil Dorrill. Our firm is Dorrill Management Group. We are Naples preeminent master planned community management firm initially founded in 1999. By way of further introduction, I have brought two of my staff here this morning. Mr. Jim Powers is our senior financial analyst for budget coordination and our liaison in matters pertaining to debt structure. Mr. Powers is trying to make some last minute adjustments between our PowerPoint and your projection system that we may not be able to resolve, but in anticipation of that possibility, we have printed copies of our PowerPoint presentation that we will provide to you, if we cannot get it to load up in just a second. Our firm is proposing a team-based concept. In addition to myself: if we are fortunate enough to be selected as your district manager. Mr. Powers is here this morning in his designated capacity as senior financial analyst I also have Mark Shaw. Mr. Shaw serves as our corporate fidd manager for clients in instances where his services are appropriate for capital project coordination or entitlement coordination that would otherwise require a civil engineer. Current rates for civil engineers for capital infrastructure and entitlement coordination n.m 011 the average of about $135 to $145 an hour. Our billing rate on an hourly basis is only about 40 percent of that, so if our client deem it necessary and financially advantageous, then we would use our field and project coordinators in lieu of civil engineers. Our team has about 100 years of collective experience most of which is all in Southwest Florida. Our backgrounds include both public adnrinistration and in my case, political science. Mr. Powers' background and educational experience includes political science, law and is a licensed securities broker and analyst. Most recently, he served for our recently elected Florida State Representative, Tom Grady. Mr. Shaw has a bw;kground in criminal justice. He initially worked for the FBI out of school, but he has spent the better part of his adult life in construction and building supply logistics. We have a broad range of experience. JiIn, if we cannot get the presentation to load. do not worry about it. Mark, if you would please pass out the hard copies first to the Board and then to the staff. I want to make sure the full Board gets a copy. I will wail a moment for Mark to pass those out. By way of further introduction, I can tell you that my wife Sherry and I came to Collier County in 1979. I was telling one of the gentlemen earlier when we came here in 1979 that 1-75 ended in Sarasota. It just dead- 7957 ..- m.__._,.~ ... ,-"-".~,,.~~_. Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session 16 I 1 '20" April 21, 2009 ended in Sarasota. At that time, the County did not have one single four-lane road. I came here in 1979 right out of graduate school and baving completed my first job with the town of Longboat Key. I grew up in Sarasota. I was the Assistant to the Town Manager for Longboat Key, first as a graduate assistant, and then as his administrative assistant. We moved here in 1979 for me to take the job of the Collier County manager. I worked the better part of my adult life, the first 18 years, in local government administration, both at the city and town levels, but in the last 18 years in County government. I was fortunate to serve as Collier County's Chief Executive Officer as the County Manager from 1987-1997. I left in 1997. If you would please turn with me over to the first real page, we have a short presentation to explain the basis of our response to your request for proposals. Then I have some detailed information to provide over the course of about ten minutes as it pertains to the five questions that the Chair and Mr. Curran referenced. I presume I will spend the balance of the time answering questions. We start with our mission statement, which is very simple. The reason that we get up and go to the office to do the things that we need to do is to serve our clients. Not to sound trite in any way, our whole reason for going to work every day is to create special places to call home. It is a simple philosophy in that respect, but I believe that our homes reflect, in some part, aside from our families, what is very important to us. The investment that you have in your home, the investment that you represent in this community, and the type of clients that we have mostly are large master planned communities in Southwest Florida; we do not consider that trite at all. We have extremely superior clients and we are there for the sole reason to service the Board on behalf of the residents and owners in order to create a very special place to call home. Our top four current clients include this year's Community of the Year and the other three have all previously been selected as communities of the year. Our two most comparable clients to Pelican Bay include the Pelican Marsh and Tiburon Community Development District that has about 3,300 homes and over 3,000 acres, and the Lely Resort Community Development District. Both are large developments of regional impact and are of a similar size to this community. Moreover, all of them are former winners of the community of the year of Southwest Florida. In fact, the Lely Resort is the 2008 community of the year as detennined by a consortium of trade and industry people. Therefore, we take very seriously the fact that we are here to create special places based on unique master plans that were turned- over by the developer and are now being governed or run by the resident owners. Our core business is to manage districts that are overseen by the resident owners. Flipping to the next page, I created this firm in 1999. I left the County in 1997. I served very briefly as the President of the Strand Communities, a large development company off Immokalee Road. I left in 1999 and about a year and a half later, that partnership 7958 , ._.'~""~<'-<-~'"''.'~--''' ..11I111___''''''''' ,-_. -"~._,,,,"_.__....... Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session 16 I 113 2 0 '4 April 21, 2009 fell apart. Therefore, I served briefly as the president of a large development company and then created Dorrill Management Group in 1999. I am very proud to say all of the original clients that we started with in 1999 are still our clients. The references that we gave you are either the current chair or a former chair and treasurer of very large communities similar to yours that have known us for the better part of a decade and we are very proud that we have been able to maintain such relationships for that period. We are very proud of that. Our core business is districts. We fully recognize that you are a dependent district established as an MSTBU or Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit, under the Board of County Commissioners and the County Manager. The reason I have good knowledge of that is because I was the County Manager who oversaw the creation of the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) in 1988. The PBSD is the successor interest to the original Pelican Bay Improvement District that was created by an act of the Legislature in 1974 and approved by the Governor and the Cabinet in 1975. The fonner Pelican Bay Improvement District (PBID) and at that time, the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which we know today as Walt Disney World, were the first two large master planned communities and independent districts in the State when they were created in the mid 1970's. In 1988, as the County Manager, I developed the process to create the division that you are now responsible and maintained throughout the remainder of my career at the County until I left in 1997. Based on who we are and that particular experience, though, I've already told you that I spent the better part of my life in city and county administration as both an assistant and as the Collier County Manager. Finally, I would like to elaborate on some accomplishments during my watch as County Manager. Specifically as it pertains to Pelican Bay, during the early 1990's, the County in conjunction with Westinghouse Communities and the National Nurserymen's Association were very fortunate to establish some of the original landscape designs in Pelican Bay and receive national recognition for landscape design innovation and installation, with the award presented at the White House by Barbara Bush. In addition, if you flip to the next page, I would like to tell you why I believe that we are different from other management firms. We are Naples' only comprehensive community management firm. There are two-hundred to three-hundred districts of types similar to your district that are either dependent or independent in the State of Florida. Weare the only firm that manages large master planned communities in Southwest Florida and have been since 1999. Our employees live here. Our building and the taxes that we pay are here. Our dollars stay in the economy here. My business is a very narrow niche management business that is dominated by large companies that are in Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, Orlando, and West Pahn Beach. We are sort of the little guys. By design, we want to be the little guys. Our entire client workload consist of southern Lee County and Collier County. We do not chase deals around the state. We specialize in the large master planned communities that gave Naples and Collier County the 7959 ,'..p.'_' ._.".'._m..____._''''''__- - ".". 'M""""_ ""-~,-~~ 16 f 1 820~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 reputation for large, high quality Land Development Codes, subdivision regulations, comprehensive deed restrictions, and, in tills case, the Enabling Act and the Ordinance that created your Division. By virtue of that and by virtue of the fact that we only have five key clients, we are very relationship driven. As a matter of personal practice and professional practice, . do not choose to socialize with my clients, but. am very interested in you and the role that you play on behalf of tills community. Due to the fact that our office is only about ten minutes from where we are today, we are going to be here far more than you have ever seen a district manager over the course of the last 25 years. Without being presumptuous, . believe that for a community of the size, complexity, and the prestige of Pelican Bay that it is about time that you have a local administrator. By local, I mean a manager and employees that live in this town, and who can be here on a more frequent basis to coordinate not only with your sta1f, but also with other entities to establish and maintain relationships with the County Manager, Budget Director, the Deputy County Manager, Mr. Ochs; the Property Appraiser; and Tax Collector. Finally, we are very proud of the fact that our reputation is one of very high integrity and values that serve our clients extremely well. . believe that what we do best is we do things right the first time. Over the course of the last ten years, . have made a very good living in this town cleaning up mistakes and things that have been overlooked or may not have been a priority to our competitors. Again. they are large. Some of them have 100 districts or more, but we spend the time to do things right. In addition, . would like to think that we spend the time even for things that you are not directly involved. As you know, the Clerk of the Circuit Court is the Chief Finance Officer of the County under the State Constitution. The Clerk is doing the bookkeeping. With our firm's resources, and the software systems that we have in particular, . believe that we have the time to evaluate and make recommendations for things pertaining to your balance sheet and your income statement, not just the budget . believe that County government as a whole and the County Manager's agency, in particular are very focused on the budget, but not very focused on financial statements. That is the level of detail and interest in some of our nuts and bolts items. Because we are local and because we do not have 100 districts allover the State, we can spend the time to go behind the scenes and pay attention to your priorities and depreciable assets, what is important to your community and help to develop a long-range master plan. . fully appreciate and understand the relationship between the Services Division and the Foundation. The Foundation runs the preponderance of the assets in tills community as they relate to the amenities, food and beverage operations, and services of that nature, but you manage the public assets. . am interested in exploring and getting behind the scenes into some of the nuts and bolts that you may have never seen. The next page lists our capabilities. One of the tIllngs I want to touch on that was disappointing back in 1987, 1988, was that for 7960 .V'._~."_ ~--'.'" --A- ".' ,".,..','~ -..~.. ~" -~.. ..~-" ..,- 16 I 1"820 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 whatever reason, there has always been a desire on the part of tills community to be more independent and more similar in characteristics to the Pelican Marsh Community Development District (COD) or the Lely Independent Community Development District These COD's were created under a separate Chapter of Florida Law. Based on your dream and your guidance and direction for tills community, whether they include incorporation, or annexation, both of which ideas come up from time to time, I would like to believe that our firm is capable of fucilitating. I believe that a strong case can be made to reconsider, with the County's blessing, an independent, inter-local agreement reconstituting tills community as an independent district. I will touch on that a little bit more in just a minute. The independent district mechanism is available to you. The window sort of reopened in the last 2 years and is currently manifested in the town of Ave Maria, and adjacent to that, the Collier Enterprises Company's Big Cypress. Both are independent districts. They are not CDD's. They are independent, special purpose districts created by general law that most closely resemble the original Pelican Bay Improvement District that was created in the mid 1970's. I am telling you this, in case tills is one of the goals of tills Board is to reconsider governance options, I believe that tills community over the last ten years has missed an opportunity to go back to where you had the type of independence that you desire. The process would most assuredly require some sort of inter-local agreement with the Board of County Commissioners because of the sensitivity and the long-standing concern about the Clam Bay estuary system as it pertains to your master drainage system and the Pass that mayor may not be navigable depending on the aspects of the hydrology. In terms of our relationships and associations, we know the man that created the Pelican Bay Improvement District in the mid 1970's, Ken Van Assenderp. Ken wrote Florida Statute, Chapter 190 that today is the Community Development Law. I spoke with him in advance of today's presentation, to ensure that the history associated with Pelican Bay, relationships between your original district and Walt Disney World and the Services Division as created under my administration in 1988, would be accurate and as originally conceived by the man who wrote the law that was approved and adopted by the Legislature. We dig to that level of detail. The balance of tills page is a summary of those things that I fuel based on my time as County Manager are important to you. I am not going to get into those because it speaks for itself. They are the relationships and responsibilities that we put into place when I was your County Manager, not the least of which is your contracted service agreement with the Sheriff That was the first inter-local law enforcement agreement in Southwest Florida, circa early 1990's that was in response to a desire for a higher level of municipal, police-type protection that this community was crying out for. We put that agreement into place along with all the other systems and the organizational structure that has not changed since that time. The next page as it pertains to financial analysis I threw in there only because we have a very sophisticated software accounting 7961 . .,_~_,.~u__, -~-"--". ,."'-,--....- .. .~"'_.....,.,",...--'-"...- ~-'-" ,,-, _.'-_';0' .."._.~~...,.~",.~,,______,.._.~.,.__ 16 I ll~ 20 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 system that will enable us to take some of your budget and some of the reports generated by the Clerk's Finance Department to a little higher level. We are independently keeping the books and maintaining the accounts at Pelican Marsh, Lely, and our three other COD's that we are responsible. In the cases of the COD's, we do not have the luxury of utilizing the Clerk's Finance department. The next page is something that we just developed in the last year. This is your sister community, Pelican Marsh. We have a very elaborate, very new, very current, very integrated, and very resident friendly corporate web site. We have developed similar web sites for all of our large clients. They are integrated and linked through our site, so that our clients can get instant access for matters concerning bond payoff amounts on an individual condominium unit or lot, as well as Board meeting minutes, current events, in a new and updated way. We have looked at your web site and we believe that it needs to be both updated and a little more current. Some of the news items that are on your website go back to 2006 and 2007. My experience with highly computer literate, high net worth retirees is they, believe it or not, will quickly become bored with sites that are not fresh, not current and not of some interest to them. I only submit tills because we have developed a whole series of new web sites for Lely Resort, Paseo, Key Marco, and Pelican Marsh, our other four primary district communities similar to Pelican Bay. The next page is a summary of our current, key clients. I believe the list speaks for itself. There are about seven large master planned communities in Collier County. We are fortunate to manage half of them. One that we do not manage obviously is Pelican Bay and the reason that I am here today asking for the opportunity to present SOme new and some fresh business practices and approaches to serve this Board. We do not manage Fiddler's Creek in south Naples on the way to Marco. It is a new community, large in terms of acreage, but not yet in terms of units. Fiddler's Creek is a COD, but the Vineyards is not a COD. Both are similarly sized at 3,000 acres, divided into five sections ofland, and are large master planned communities. We do not manage those three communities in this County. In summary on the last page, without elaborating further, we are Naples' only comprehensive community management firm that is available in Naples everyday to be of service tills community. Weare Southwest Florida's most experienced and most knowledgeable firm. As it pertains to your community, I oversaw the creation of tills District in 1988. The systems and the organizational structure and representation for the most part are exactly the way that they were at the time that they were put into place. The next one I think is very important. We do not have any conflicts of interest. We do not represent developers or land use clients before the Board of County Commissioners. I do not earn my living in front of the Board of County Commissioners every other Tuesday when they meet. Therefore, you are not going to see our firm have the type of conflicts that other firms might have to the extent that they are involved in land use activities and representing districts before either the Board of County Commissioners or other local municipalities. 7962 "_,,,,~"'-""._-'. ..".~~. _'~.""e -~-~~~ 16 I 1'8201 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 Finally, I believe that it is important to point out that we offer a team approach that may be a little different from what has been before tills Board historically. However, I believe that our firm embodies almost 100 years of experience in everything from law enforcement, securities law, public administration, political science, development, and construction. I believe that we have a very sophisticated, very high-powered team that is ready to go to work here day one with no learning curve or very small learning curve. Finally, let me answer your specific questions that you posed to us in your letter of April 8. First, you asked us specifically about our experience in matters pertaining to incorporation. When I was the County Manager, we performed two very sophisticated comparisons, albeit from the County's perspective as part of the incorporation debate at that time for both what is now the City of Marco Island. The City of Marco Island incorporated the year after I left the County. Their original desire was to either annex or incorporate into the City of Naples or to incorporate separately. The evaluation from the County's perspective was done with my knowledge and direction as the County Manager. I also told you that for my very first public job, I worked for the town of Longboat Key that in many respects is similar to Pelican Bay. Longboat Key went through a very interesting incorporation. It was unique because it was the only city, or in this case a town, in the entire state of the Florida where half of it was in Sarasota County and the other half was in Manatee County. Can you imagine the complexities that you would have here in Pelican Bay if the northern half of Pelican Bay were in Lee County and the southern half in Collier County'? Therefore, I believe that I have a very deep knowledge of incorporation and annexation issues both from the County's perspective as well as from the municipal perspective. You asked us specifically to outline our anticipated weekly hours and involvement, or what I believe that it would take to be able to serve as your district manager, outside of the formal Board meeting process. If I compare your community to my other similar large clients, Lely Resort and Pelican Marsh, over the course of a year, my time breaks out as follows: I spend about an hour a week involved in matters pertaining to either general administrative direction or matters pertaining to finance, budgeting, and accounting. That can run the gamut from issues concerning the completion of the renewal of insurance application forms, dealing with human resource issues, dealing with giving direction on how to clean up financial statements that might have been miscoded by staff against the respective line item things of that nature, about an hour a week. I seem to spend about an hour, up to two hours a week involved in operational issues working with the staff and directing them at the operational level. rve known Kyle since he first came here actually from the Utilities Division, in am not mistaken, and he and I have a very good relationship. I do not want to be involved in the day-to-day operations. I can tell you, I have two positions that are identical to Kyle's position at both Pelican Marsh, John Vanover; and at Lely Resort, Jerry Ellis; and I believe they are the top three community and operational field managers in the State. Over the course of the week, something may take an hour or more oftirne. 7963 """ --'-- -,'- --_.,,"'"--- ..._-,-_....'~ 161 1~ B20~ ,. Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 Sometimes it may just be that I am going to drop by usually unannounced and just sort of have a look around because rve been doing that in tills County for almost 20 years. That is part of my nature and I would include that in that area as well. The next one is I seem to spend a little bit less than an hour over the course of a week either responding or listening to the people that I work for, which would be this Board or other people by virtue of your structure that we are required to communicate with. I have already mentioned the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, John Y onkosky; it could be Leo Oehs, the Deputy County Manager, increasingly playing a more important role. I actually hired Leo when he first came to work here from Joliet, Dlinois. Maybe it is Doug Gorham of the Property Appraiser's office because by virtue that a lot of what you do pertains to non ad valorem assessments and tIllngs of that nature. That will easily take an hour of my time every week. The next one, I believe has to do with constituent needs and what I would call agenda preparation. I am not fumiliar with your current agenda style or the type of backup material that you expect, nor the coordination for legal review and sufficiency with the County Attorney's Office. Over the course of the week, I am either dealing or beginning to prepare for your meeting and it takes a little bit of time every week to coordinate the backup material, executive summaries, memorandum that should be on top of those to introduce the various items that you are going to be asked to vote and take action on. It could also be the coordination of your new Clam Pass Advisory Committee. I do understand how that has been reconstituted. I am very familiar with the history and frankly, that was not the original model for this community and I am very fumiliar with the complexities of what it takes to coordinate a large constituency. Again. I would have to say that within those one to two hours of time, there would be either formal or informal preparation meetings. You have asked me specifically what have my contacts been with the Board of County Commissioners or County government over the past eight years. I have already told you that we are not involved in land use, re-zoning, or development approvals in any way. I did list some because we have been involved in some over the course of the last few years. Most recently, over the last two years, we have been involved in a series of problem resolution, contract negotiations, or inter-local resolutions. I am going to tell you what a couple of those are. When I first was hired at Pelican Marsh, they were in a nuYor dispute with the County over their irrigation utility conveyance and a contested bill that had grown to the size of $300,000 and they were not paying it. I said, ''You really do not want to mess with these guys because worst case scenario, they will shut off the effluent to this community, and if you think you are going to ignore your monthly bill and never pay in order to make a point, well..." It took us the better part of a year to negotiate a settlement agreement. It resulted in a master pump station, line irrigation ponds and inflow pipes for Pelican Marsh and Tiburon, including all of the commercial area that were conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners. The reason we did that was because the original development order and the Development of Regional Impact (ORI) said 7964 -.----. '.__~""C .---> ~ '1'".......""~ "-,.,",..-..,_._..,",, <>",. --"-- ~,-----.., -- 161 11820 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 that we could. They were in violation of their development order and the DRI. Moreover, they had a contractual agreement that said that at the time the system was complete, they would convey it to the Board of County Commissioners. We would have the avoided cost of maintaining those large pumps, the controls, and the electrical and distribution systems that are now the responsibility of the County. That was done two years ago. We did a traffic analysis and a traffic impact statement for The Strand, another client of mine on Immokalee Road. If you have ever been into The Strand, you know that it is a narrow four-lane bridge. To exit the Strand, there is not a dedicated through lane and the County did not have the money, so we actually commissioned a traffic impact statement for the County, and worked with County staff, in an effort to evaluate options to change that intersection to accommodate through traffic to what is now the Super Wal-Mart. It is a very serious problem and a point of conflict and congestion for that community. We negotiated a revised law enforcement agreement at Pelican Marsh with the Sheriff and the County Manager. We have developed all of the inter-local agreements with both the Property Appraiser and the Tax Collector. I am about to conclude a process to turn over an irrigation system at Key Marco, one of our CDD clients, where for years they have been using potable water to irrigate two and a half miles of streetscape and medians in that community at an astronomical cost. This is a community that is literally an island that is south of Marco that only has 131 estate sized homes. For the last ten years, 131 people have been using potable water, not only for their individual lawns, but also for the entire section of their primary Boulevard. Weare just about to complete the final process associated with that. Finally, you have asked us what similar management service agreements we have in place. I've said repeatedly, the two most similar clients that we have of yours are Pelican Marsh and Lely. I do not tIllnk that I should elaborate on that any further. In conclusion. let me just tell you that in some respects I've waited 20 years to be here before you today. From the time that we originally conceived tills community's district in 1988 up until today, I have always thought that it would be the pinnacle of my career if I could manage Pelican Bay; then you would have arrived. When Jim Ward and Severn Trent were your managers for years and I was the County Manager, I would say to Jim Ward, who professionally he and I disagreed on practically everything, but I used to tell him, ''You know, Jim, when I grow up and I am tired of being a County Manager, I want your job." Low and behold, here I am 20 years later with the opportunity to do just that. Thank you very much for the privilege of being here today and the opportunity to present our proposal. Ms. Womble, I am happy to answer questions you might have. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for him? Ted. MR GRA VENHORST: Ted Gravenhorst. Item two, clarifY your cost estimate. We didn't hear the estimate. 7965 . ,.,-<<-.,..,., '_'0"'.'_""._ IIl1lr~ , ,........~".- .... '"' - 161 1 -'620"1 PelicaD Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special SessioD April 21, 2009 MR.OORRILL: As part of the hourly, the actual fee proposal that we gave you is our comprehensive management fee. Because you have other administrative support and you have internal administrative staff, our base fee proposal is $54,000 a year, but for the first year we have offered to waive the first three months. There would be no fee during the next quarter while we are working to develop your budget, so our first year charges are projected to be about $49,000. Only in the event that you choose as a Board to avail yourself to our operational project manager cost, costs that you would otherwise be paying to civil or coastal engineering consultants" would there be additional charges. Does that answer your question? MR GRA VENHORST: The reason I ask, is because I have not seen the proposal. MR OORRlLL: I apologize. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is because this is the first time the full Board has actually discussed any of tills. MR OORRlLL: Your purchasing agent, Jack Curran has explained to me that you have a Management Review Committee that has gotten you to the point you are today, so I apologize for forgetting that. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: This is a way for the full Board to have more say than just the Management Review Committee coming to them and so they can see why we chose whom we did for the presentations MR GillSON: We started with four. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. Well, we narrowed it down. We really appreciate you coming by. Geoff, did you have a question? MR GillSON: Just a brief question. GeoffGibson. I am on Mary Anne's selection committee. I first would like to complement your presentation. It is very professional and very well received. Second, I would like to complement your original written proposal in the little book. It was very easy for me to put it into my book. It was nice that even dummies like me can understand it and that is much appreciated with all the paperwork. The question I had is that your number looks fuir, but sometimes you use a fuir number to get the foot in the door. In the last paragraph in your proposal that is not included above is attending additional budget workshops, County Commission meetings, and out of County travel. I guess what I am asking is what are the hidden charges maybe, if that is a fair question. MR OORRlLL: That is more than a fuir question. Based on your current permit conditions or obligations, in the event that we were summoned to Tallahassee to meet with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), or the Army Corps of Engineers (AOE) in Jacksonville, or the EP A Regional Office in Atlanta. If I need to get on a Delta jet with one of you and someone from our operational staff and travel, it would be those sort of per diem and out of pocket expenses for official County travel designated by this Board. That would be an example of an exception. Regular attendance in front of the County Manager or the Board of County Commissioners with 7966 .- ,- -~~,,"~", ,,~ ..- ,.--.,,""'...,........., -,,--- 16 I 1 if) ( 0 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 respect to district business is part of our base fee. MR. GffiSON: That is fine. I should have also said that I am very impressed, Mr. Dorrill, with your undergraduate and graduate education. It seems like you have a very good foundation for doing what you do. MR. DORRlLL: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Absolutely. I would like to refer back to one of the sheets in the presentation that you gave us, and we had a hard copy made, as you know. It said that the base fee would be $4,700 a month or $42,300 per year and the 49,000 for the first year doesn't equate with that. Can you explain that to me so I can explain to the Board where the difference is? MR. DORRlLL: The base fee is the flat rate of $4,700 per month regardless of what the requirements are for that particular month. That annualizes out to approximately $54,000 a year, but I do not have it in front of me. For the first year we are waiving our fee for the first three months if we are fortunate enough to be selected. So it would be approximately $16,000 less than that, or approximately $49,000. MR. CRA YENS: May I ask why you are waiving the first three months? MR. DORRlLL: Because I am the new guy and I am trying to do what myoid man used to tell me is look them dead in the eye and show a little initiative and tell them how much you want to work for them. I think that gives us a little competitive advantage. I think it speaks volumes concerning our desire and the ability to come in here during the height of the budget season and be willing to waive a fee for time that is required. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do I have any others? Jerry. Jerry was also on the Management Review Committee. MR. MOFFATT: I guess I am still back on the cost of the service. You went through the hours per week and that did not include the monthly Board meeting. Is attendance at the Board meeting included in your base fee? MR. DORRlLL: Absolutely. The way I interpreted your question was, "give me an idea as to what your normal week would look like" and obviously, we are not attending formal Board meetings, but aside from the weekly responsibilities, there are monthly or there may be quarterly responsibilities as well. I should say if necessary or if customary, if that also includes attending the Clam Bay meetings or the coordination with your Foundation, that is all under the base fee. The only exception to that would be authorized out of County travel for official business. MR. MOFFATT: One of the exceptions you listed was additional budget workshops. so that is or is not included? MR. OORRILL: Additional budget workshops would be defined as, for example, any number of individual presentations to separate homeowner or condominium associations. At some point I have to realize that I am doing extraordinary presentations, but any 7967 ,--_..... ~-~._- -_....,_.,-~'"-"'~'- - ".,-_._,,~,-,","- .. . "-" 16 , 1 ~20~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 process that is part of the County Manager's agency, as the designated budget officer for the entire County, all processes to get your budget to the final public hearing in August is part of the base fee. If you are asking us to make presentations to the group of men who were here a little earlier or whoever the biggest homeowners' association is, then I would want to discuss that with you because that may cost a little more. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. Let me go back to you and your team. How do you divide the time that you would spend in serving us among your team? Obviously, I know you have a finance guy who would be involved in the financial aspects of it You have an engineering operations guy if we have any specific operations, but would you be attending the meetings, our Board meetings, or would one of your team members? MR. OORRILL: Under the agreement, I am the designated District Manager, therefore you would call me, and I would be here to run your meetings. Moreover, take advantage of what I told you at the very beginning, that we are the only local firm. I actually have other people as part of our company. I have two staff accounts and a separate community manager. Mr. Powers and Amanda Cruz are two executive assistants. Amanda deals a little bit more on the condominium and homeowner annual meeting process. Jim's a little bit more on the financial and dissemination agent-side, but they both have their own communities. In the event that I am out of town or on vacation, if you needed to speak to an assistant who would be knowledgeable of tills community, it would be Mr. Powers. If you were at Lely Resort, it would be Ms. Cruz. If you have a specific accounting question, then it would be Leigh Bryant MR. MOFFATT: Okay. MR. ORA VENHORST: Neil, I see the six of your current clients and we would be number seven in that category. How many clients do you have in total, other than what is listed here? MR. OORRILL: We probably have about 15 clients. I am diversified enough in that our core business is district management. I have two large master homeowners associations. One of them is at The Strand. There are 1,200 homes in the Master Association there. The other one is at Lely Resort. We manage the Lely Classics Master Homeowners Association. I have two large interstate commercial property associations, one at The Strand, and one at Tollgate, which is at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and 1-75 where the Cracker Barrel is, if you are fumiUar with that end of town. I have two condominium clients, but I will tell you that 1 that is not really something that I am in business. The condominium-property management business is a brutal business to be in with very thin margins and lots of conflict within those communities. I have two condominium clients that 1 do as fuvors to people who are on those Boards and 1 am just telling you that truthfully, that is a tough, tough way to earn a living in tills town. We have some other small homeowner or villa associations. Our total client load is probably 15 to 17. MR. LEVY: You showed us an example ofa financial analysis at Pelican Marsh. For us, all our accounting is on the County 7968 . ,.-- "._~_. .. .-.. ~.. ,,-,,~.,.._....,,".,,"" __"',,;....'O_.,..,~._._,__ ~~-"',..~._,_.. 161'1 1820 '4 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 system. Is anything like tills available to us? MR. OORRILL: I believe that it could be, but I am very careful to acknowledge that the Clerk of the Circuit Court, under the Florida Constitution, is the Finance Officer for the Board of County Commissioners. My point with that, Mr. Levy, is that I would like to go maybe a step further and possibly we can do some of our own formatting because I like the history and quarterly reporting features that we use and the analysis that accompanies it. I do not know when the last time I looked at the balance sheet for tills Division, or if you have actually looked at what I call an "income statement." 1 believe that you should have available to you, in addition to the bottom-layer budget report that is generated by the County Manager's Budget office. MR. LEVY: Would that be part of the management fee? MR. OORRILL: The exception being that I cannot run your books. I cannot do the bookkeeping for purposes of meeting the external audit requirements. If we need to work with or suggest that for our own purposes that we reformat some of the County Manager's presentation aspects, rd like to explore that with the County Manager. I cannot make that final decision. Let me be clear, I was that guy for years and I did it my way because I was trying to be consistent, but that is something that we would have to explore. DR. RAJA: May I? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Go ahead, Dr. Raia. DR. RAJA: If we do hire you and we pay you, but you will actually be working for the County Manager. The relationship you have at the Pelican Marsh, do you answer to the Board of Pelican Marsh, or to the County Manager? MR. OORRILL: I am the Chief Executive Officer at Pelican Marsh and work directly for their Board, because they are an independent district. In the Pelican Bay Services Division case, because it is a dependent District, it is my understanding according to the 2002 Ordinance, updated in 2006, is that you work for this Board on recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners through the County Manager's agency. You are an independent Division of the County Manager's agency. By independent, I mean that you are not a part of the Public Utilities Division, or Community Development and Environmental Services, or Public Services. As you can see on the organizational chart, you are your own Division ultimately responsible to the Board of County Commissioners, but they are the entity that I would work for at this point. DR. RAJA: But you will take your instructions from the County Manager? MR. OORRILL: Well, and the reason for that is that it is whomever the Board of County Commission Chairman is, he has the one who's going to sign my contract. It won't be anybody on this Board. It won't be the County Manager, but he is their Chief Executive Officer. DR. RAJA: Now, you mentioned the possibility that we might be able to become an independent district. It is my knowledge that 7969 ~---""-'~"- --- -- ~~.__.,._.,._~ ",-" 16 I 1 1120" Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 we would need 100 percent of the vote of the residents in Pelican Bay to become an independent district. MR. OORRILL: That is not true. That would be the case if you wanted to be a Chapter 190 in Florida Statutes, Community Development District There's a separate chapter, I believe it is 189 or 180 of the Florida Statutes that allows an independent special purpose district created by general law. What that would require is a petition to the Board of County Commissioners, who in turn would forward that petition to our Legislative Delegation. Between Mr. Grady, and our State Senator Richter, you'd have to make a presentation before the Legislative Delegation, but you would be as independent as the North Naples Fire District TIlls sort of mechanism has just recently been made available in the past two years. I spoke earlier of the District of Ave Maria and the District of Big Cypress out in the rural areas; they are independent districts. The obvious difference being that we are in an urban area, but the Legislative structure is the same. DR. RAIA: Well, how is that initiated? Is that by a general vote of the residents of Pelican Bay? MR. OORRILL: I would think that the Board of County Commissioners and the Legislative Delegation would want to see some indication from the taxpayers here as to whether they are in favor of independence. I will tell you that that is going to require a negotiated inter-local agreement with the Board of County Commissioners iffor no other reason than Clam Bay. But for those assets that are owned in trust for tills community by the Board of County Commissioners, I am telling you that before we go off on another, "Let us incorporate" or "Let us annex into the city," I am telling you that you may want to go back to the original legislative intent for tills community. TIlls community was intended to be an independent district. TIlls relieves you of all the necessary overhead and the other political issues that you would see going with incorporation or annexation. I spent a majority of my career in government, so I am not going to sit here and tell you, you know, the city good is the answer to all your problems. I come down more on the structure of independent district and County sort of governance side. DR. RAIA: Well, you were in office as the County Manager when the Pelican Bay Independent District was transferred over to the County and all the utilities. My review of that transfer was that it included effluent water for irrigation, but one of the issues raised on our last attempt to incorporate was that the County threatened to remove irrigation water from us. And I cannot see how that could be done if it was a requirement of the transfer that they had to provide that service as equal to or better than it was originally provided. Tome, this should not have been an issue, yet, the County did pass legislation that they would remove irrigation water from any community that became incorporated. What is your knowledge of that particular issue? MR. OORRILL: I have detailed knowledge. I was tIllrty-one years old and the County Manager when that occurred. There was an effort at that time to try to, in essence, renege on the Special Act that created the independent Pelican Bay Improvement District It said that the County at that time had the capacity to provide the potable water for sewage and the effluent systems for tills community; therefore, 7970 -- . ",-.'.-.- --^-"'''-- - -""--~ . 16 I 18 2 (t4t Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 those systems and the very lucrative customer base would be conveyed to the County Utilities Division, which also, by the way, is created by an act of the Legislature. Most people do not know that. Therefore, that is how the independent district sort of butted heads with the County in the late 1980's. The resolution was actually tested in court. If I am not mistaken it went all the way to the Supreme Court and the District Court of Appeals in Lakeland. The County's position was upheld because the legislation was very, very clear. So then it was like, okay, the County is in the utility business now with Pelican Bay. What are we going to do with the other assets that are imported from an operational and maintenance perspective? At that time that issue was not pursued by the community, or the Commissioners. The result was the creation of the Pelican Bay Services Division in 1988, a dependent District of the Board of County Commissioners. I kind of chuckled when I read Mr. Mudd's comments about annexation. He said, "Well, you want to go annex or you incorporate, I am just going to shut your water off." I chuckled. I do not really know Jim Mudd. I had my first conversation with him ever about a month ago. I will tell you that he is an effective, capable public administrator. He's a tough guy. My prayers and that of my family is that he would beat my record as County Manager in terms of length of service. I pray that he is still County Manager five to ten years from now and that he can have the claim as having served longer than anyone has in the history of this County. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ail right. I tIllnk we are coming up on time here. MR. IAIZZO: I would like to make a statement. I am impressed with the fact that you were a previous County Manager. How would you find yourself if we were at odds with the Commissioners? How would you play that game? Here we are, you are our administrator, and we disagree with the County Manager and the Commissioners. How are you going to handle that? MR. DORRlLL: It takes time. It takes diplomacy. It takes partnerships. You cannot just go down there under the type of structure that exists currently, which are single member districts. Collier County has only had single member districts for about the last 20 years. Prior to that, the five Commissioners were elected at-large which meant, by and large, all five Commissioners were selected by Republican voters who lived west of the Trail. Ail of that changed in the late or the early 1980's. With single member districts, you cannot just go down there and think that you can fight them on every issue. A perfect example of that was the one that I can compare to the irrigation dispute at Pelican Marsh. It took me the better part of a year to resolve and convey those assets over to the County. Initially, they wanted them all rebuilt and new. I said, "They are thirteen years old. rve got a million dollar irrigation pumping system here and I cannot afford to rebuild that." It took a year to negotiate that deal. By the very nature of the structure of single member districts, you are going to find, not necessarily conflict every step of the way, but there are different constituencies and it is hard. I do not have a magic wand in my bagjust because I used to be the County Manager. Nothing makes 7971 .~,-- ~""A.__ . ,,..,,.,,--,-. "-"'___',w ---"'~-~,~,.,.,,-, ^ -~'"~" ,~,--,,'.'~"~'.~-' . , 16 I 1 f B2( Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 me more humble than to call down to the County now and need something and I have to spell my name three times to go through the various layers of people who do not know who I was. MR. IAlZZO: How many people are on your payroll? MR. OORRILL: On my payroll I have four full-time employees and then I have two-and-a-halfindependent contractors. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Is that about it? Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you very much. MR. OORRILL: You know, as a professional courtesy to our competitors. I do not intend to stay and listen, or be present for their presentation. That is between you and them. I presume there's no reason for me to come back tills afternoon. We are leaving until we hear from you otherwise. I do not believe that it is very professional for us to hang out in the hall or anything like that MR. CURRAN: The session after the next presenter will be a short listing and all firms are welcome to be present. It is not mandatory. It is not required. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No and it is public knowledge. You can get the record for it, if you would like. It is only the selection committee members and anyone who would like to be here. MR. OORRILL: If you need anything, I can be here in ten minutes. I do not come from Fort Lauderdale. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you very much. We appreciate all of you for coming. I am sorry that our technology was not up to snuff for you all, but you are not the only ones that have run into that problem. Believe me. We do appreciate tills. MR. OORRILL: Well, that is why we brought the hard copies for you today. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Very smart. Have a wonderful day. Thank you again. I appreciate you coming by. MR. CURRAN: I want to tell the Board for your own information, there were 138 notices sent out about the proposal to find a service for you and sixty-six (66) firms responded that they were interested in applying. Four actually applied. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Let us take a short break. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We will now reconvene and be back on record. Thank you. PRESENTATION BY JOHN PETTY AND JANICE LARNED. DISTRICT OFFICES. LLC MR. PETTY: Good morning. For the record, my name is John Petty. I am with District Offices. My partner is Janice Lamed and we are here to talk to you about our firm. We are a fairly young firm, a little over two years old. Our experience goes back much farther, as a lot of the Board knows, but I 7972 ~"'^'" ....~ ' 0'- -~-'"--"";"~- -.. "_"m_..~_.__ .-- -=<~_._.._~"-,,,",~""'*- -. 16 I 1 "820 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 would like to reiterate that, so please forgive me jfyou have you have heard it. I started work in Pelican Bay in 1982 as Director ofField Operations, very similar to what Kyle is doing today. I left in 1990 when the Pelican Bay Improvement District was absorbed by the County. Not that I have anything against the County, but the man I was working for, Gary Moyer, had a Porsche and an airplane and I saw no one at the County who had such vehicles. I went with the guy with the pretty car. On the East Coast, I worked for many districts and became Director of Special Projects handling the business modules as they were developed for our clients. When I appeared on the East Coast, we had 30 plus clients. By the time Gary Moyer sold his company in 1997 to Severn Trent, he had over 100 clients in the State of Florida. At that time, I had worked with the business plan of Disney for Celebration and Enterprise; the Indian Trace Community Development District in their incorporation efforts to become the City of Westin; and methodologies, rate studies, with approximately twenty-five other special taxing districts in the State of Florida. I began working on special districts with emerging communities starting with Pelican Bay and revolved back to Pelican Bay today. It has been a wonderful work experience for me. This industry, working with these communities at tills level that are emerging, evolving entities, and control their own community services is fuscinating. In 1997 when Gary Moyer sold the company to Severn Trent, it basically remained the same company under the control of Gary Moyer, as always. We as staff saw very little change. We went through a huge growth period over the next five years. We doubled in size. We had over 200 clients, including four municipalities and divisions of county government We could not hold off the corporate policies and dicturns entering our philosophy and our founders started peeling away from the company one by one. There were three at the time: Gary Moyer, who the company was named after. Rhonda Archer, who was his right hand, and Jim Ward, who was his left. You may recall Jim Ward, your administrator here for some 25 years. I cannot tell you how exciting it has been to work with Gary Moyer, and Severn Trent. As they say, it has been "a hoot and a holler." I have enjoyed it tremendously. I especially like that I had the opportunity to come back and work with Pelican Bay where I started some 25 plus years ago. When Jim Ward left the firm, I took over the Administrator responsibilities here in Pelican Bay in 2005 after the Board reviewed and approved. During that time we were confronted with Hurricane Wilma, annexation issues, followed by an incorporation study, followed by Clam Bay issues, followed by the strategic plan input. I have served four different chairpersons, an entirely new Board. We lost two of our key people, Barbara Smith and Jean Smith who both had over 20 plus years in service to the division. We have gone through changes to the financial report. We have gone through changes to our budget philosophy. The first year I was here we gave the reserves back to the residents for fear of annexation and a loss of funds. The following year 7973 _.~ft~,"~.__.________.< ,.,...,-~ -.r ~T ,."...",....._~-,"""""""'..,,,.,,,."'"'-".,,."'_.-.. -,-"-,-",,,....- ,.",-~--..,,~.- 101 1 1 820 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 we tried to build back reserves. The next year we were going to cut assessments, and last year it was to maintain. This year we are looking to maintain, and initiate a capital improvement program. On top of that, we are in the middle of a recession, so we have been a little busy over the past three and a half years. Now, Janice and I look forward to applying our business module to a select group of clients; and I say "select" because we are small and we are young so it is going to be select. We will hopefully continue to enjoy the work and challenges that fuce our local government clients and us. Now, that' is about all the history I am going to give you; other than that, you have the proposal that was handed out to those who didn't receive them prior. If you have any questions, we'll be covering that in the questions and answers. It has become commonplace to make a presentation; I have plans to do so, as well because I can show off just as well as anybody else. I may cut it short because you guys have gone a little bit longer and further into the time frame than you may have wanted and most of you have seen what I am going to show you anyway. We are not going to show you a whole lot about our history as or what our firm may he able to provide. We are going to show you what we have provided to Pelican Bay in the last two years. So with that, we'll start the presentation. (Technical difficulties) MR. PETIY: Let me basically go over tills, then, since our video is having some difficulties. TIlls is what District Offices has done for the Board. TIlls is the second-stage cut story Board of the Clam Bay educational video we did a little over a year ago. TIlls was to show you what video we have been able to capture, and some of the quotes we have been able to capture. In the past - it is a shame you cannot hear the quotes because Mrs. Potter was very quote worthy during this first interview. We didn't get this into the video. TIlls was the first draft. (Technician unsuccessfully adjusted audio) MR. PETIY: What we tried to show the Board was a conceptualization of a video production vs. an annual newsletter. In the past, we had done an annual newsletter for the residents, but it was not well received. TIlls attempt to do a video to communicate concepts of our responsibilities and our actions over the past year was novel. It was innovative. And I do believe we can say it was successful especially when we compare it to the newsletter. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think at tills point it really speaks very well that the Strategic Planning Committee that has recognized that technology improvements are a NO.1 priority. MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, if you'd give me just a second, let me see in can dabble with that. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Please do. Let us go off record. 7974 ,-',-_.. ."_. , ~_ '-w-r ~'-'~-""";''";-' .~ "_."""""0'- . ~._"D"._""_ 16 I 1 820 .. Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 (A short recess was taken.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We will now reconvene. (Theme from Mission Impossible plays loudly) MR. PETTY: Besides that communication piece, you do get to hear tills one. It works. This is our presentation of the capital plan fur tills budget year. It is mission impossible. This is the presentation and only one is going to work at a time. Madam Chair, you said tills is one of their highest priorities? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It is luckily. MR. PETTY: For the first time in the last three and a half years we are considering a capital plan. What we have been able to do is put that into some type of structure for your budget committee to take a look at what will be coming to the Board tills summer for their consideration. We have not had a capital plan for quite some time. As mentioned, the first year I was here three and a half years ago, we were looking at annexation. And the concept was to ensure to get our reserves out in case an annexation occurs because we do not want to lose the residents money. After that it was about keeping assessments at a lower level or at an efficient level, and we had not adopted a long-term capital plan. This time we are looking at, as you saw during the video, a five-year capital plan. The plan will show the amount of existing money available in our funding sources. It will also show what funding may be available over the next five years. This is so that you may not have to consider increasing assessments. So, again. we wanted to highlight something that we had done for Pelican Bay Services Division. The first one was about identity and communication that, unfortunately, didn't communicate very well because our volume was not working. And, second. it explained our financial capabilities and what our firm can bring to you for your consideration. And, unfortunately, the sound was too high during that and I was not able to prefuce it, but I tIllnk you get the idea. The next one, which 1 am going to go through rather quickly, is longer. It is about Pelican Bay and what the Services Division is and tills community. As you know, the residents here sometimes misunderstand what the Services Division is in relationship to the Foundation, the relationship with Collier County, and the past relationship with WCI. This information was presented to the men's coffee approximately a year ago at the request of your then chair, Mr. Coleman Connell. And it talks about the differentiation between those service providers on-site which were Pelican Bay Services Division, Collier County, the Foundation, and WCI. We were going to focus on Pelican Bay Services Division, of course, and for that we had to go a little bit back into our history to our predecessor, the Pelican Bay Improvement District (PBID), and the services that they provided. We then talked about how we have 7975 ... ~__"_'M"_'_'_"'_""_"__'_~~""""'._ -.r~ ....-'^ ,....,-~ .... 16'1 l"'~i 820 .~ , . . Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 changed into our current form and what our responsibilities are today which include water management, landscape, streetlights, and Clam Bay. We talked about the focus of the presentation being water management and typically what does water management provide? Well, it controls the storm water runoff within a community. They call it water management instead of drainage because it does a little bit more than just discharge storm water to tide. It actually looks at storm water in a little different light. It follows what we call the natural cycle, the hydrologic cycle. (Video plays demonstrating the natural hydrologic cycle with soothing audio for several minutes) MR PETIY: TIlls actually goes on for a little bit until it turns into night and you'll see some pretty lightning. And if you look closely, you can see the salt water intrusion being pushed back by the ground water flow to the sides, but in the sake of brevity, we'll move on. Storm water COIlCelTlS, why do we care? Well, mostly because of nutrient loadings. Nutrient loadings are composed of ammonia, nitrites., and phosphates. They are called "nutrient loadings" because they can cause aquatic growth in a water body sometimes to a point where it can devoid that water body of oxygen and the animals and fish that live there have to move on or die. So our concern here is not that nutrient loadings are toxic, but that nutrient loadings remain close to the natural cycle. In Pelican Bay our design has always been to maintain the natural cycle. Do not break it. Do not skip any steps. The natural cycle, of course, has nutrients. When the leaves hit the water and decompose, those are nutrients. When the runoff from natural rain comes across the ground in sheet flow and picks up twigs, old acorns, what ever is laying on the ground it brings it into the body. That is nutrients and that is the normal natural process. The issue here is can your water body naturally cycle it? It is called the "nitrogen cycle." When it first comes in it is very reactive. It typically is in ammonia or nitrates. In the water body there are n~turally occurring bacteria that decompose that material and break it down and convert it into nitrites, which is a stable form. So we try to emulate that in our system. The requirement at Pelican Bay was that our design not exceed preconstruction levels of discharge. So, in other words, whatever water was being discharged to Clam Bay couldn't be exceeded. Well, we were going to pave over 40 to 50 percent of it. How is it possible that we were not going to create more runoff? If you remove the permeable land the water was percolating into and you replace it with roads and rooftops and concrete, how is it possible that tills restriction could be met? We do it by holding the water for a longer period of time. If the water normally perked in before construction over eight hours and we paved over half of it, we were going to have to hold the water on top of the ground for twice as long. At the time, 30 years ago, it was an unbelievably new concept No developer was holding back salable land to hold water to push 7976 .-----.-.'" . . -".,,-, . -.,---. -............,..,.,... "".. _.._...~. --'--"~"-~-'- 16( 1 "~' B?O Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 it back into the ground water aquifer. Not only did we do it in Pelican Bay for the first time, but also we did it for a 25 year, three day storm event; that is still considered today the highest mark. Does our water management system do its job? Yes. It handles drainage. It handles flood control. That is what it is supposed to do. We are in Florida. We are three feet above sea level. These things are very important to us, but we also handle water quality and water quantity and that is the art of our system. That recharge into the ground water table is extremely important to our neighbors, not to us. The reason for that is we do not have a water supply here. Pelican Bay doesn't tap any water on-site. It helps the City of Naples well field, which was a primary concern in the development of Pelican Bay. See, the City of Naples couldn't afford to have any new water users hitting its system. It couldn't meet the current City of Naples population demand at the time without pulling salt water into their wells that were on Goodlette Road. It was going to take up to ten years to develop their next generation well field. And until they did that, they were going to oppose any development that brought in any new users onto that aquifer. Pelican Bay does not use the aquifer below itself. We recharge to help with that salt water intrusion problem. We became a positive for the City of Naples instead of a negative. We maintain the fresh water/salt water balance and you can see that at our berm which separate our fresh and salt water. We require our water management system to be aesthetically pleasing as you can tell from some of the lake design layouts and the meandering connecting swales. It is done through three levels. The first is a collector system and we start off in the single family area mostly. The little orange dots and the orange lines signifY catch basins on roadway systems and the interconnecting pipes. Single family home rooftops drain to the side yards where if you have ever have gone out there doing yard work, you notice it slopes to the sides. That is because there is a seven and a half feet drainage easement on everybody's property or more. You divert your water to the side. It then flows towards the street. It is intended to. It gets collected into the catch basins. The catch basins are then tied into our retention areas. Now, retention areas are more than just lakes, but we are going to keep it simple and just talk about the lakes right now. They tie into the lakes. The lakes are all tied together in their respective systems. We have seven systems in Pelican Bay to try and make use of the changes in elevations as we go from south to north. When it rains, those nutrients and those storm waters come into our system. Our system holds that water for a minimum of three days if it is under the 25-year storm event. Within those three days the naturally occurring bacteria, the plant material and nature itself take care of that nutrient loading, stabilize the water, and we are back to normal conditions within three days of that storm. A side view of that during a rain event to bring the concept home was developed and presented at the coffee. As a matter of fact, we did tills to try and eat up a little bit more time. We were trying to do an hour's worth of presentation at the time. Since you have already 7977 ,,~.,,-,~ '~""'"""'~ Ill. ...'~,~ """'~"'~".5"_"''' "".-.- ~--;^..--".~-...- - 161 1 820 ; Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 seen tills from overhead and I've talked about it, if you do not mind, 1 am going to move forward. I am going to try. We are going to try to move back a couple. Well, that is too far. Madam Chair, with the presentation taking longer than anticipated because of the technical problems, I think I'd like to stop there and just say that the presentation for the coffee went a little bit better. It did extend on, and it did talk about why we go to such lengths. It also talked about what the residents have put into the system. the water management system. since its inception. You have put in close to $15 million plus and that is to make sure the water recharges the aquifer, that the water quality is not harmed, the receiving water bodies, and that the interface of the salt water and the fresh water is maintained in particular to Clam Bay. That is what you, the residents, have done. Why did you do it? Well, you did it because the jewel of Pelican Bay is Clam Bay. At tills point in the presentation we showed a small media clip of a tour through Clam Bay taken at water's level. And at the coffee, I can tell you that they thought very well of that area even if they hadn't been there themselves. Madam Chair, with that, I just want to summarize that we have given you our proposal that is set up as the County prescribed. If you have any questions on anything that is in here, we'll be glad to answer it. If you have any questions of our firm at tills time, Janice or I will be available to answer your questions. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, John. 1 do apologize for the technical problems. MR PETIY: It would be me and my clicker, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I do not tIllnk so. It seems like everybody that tries anything in here has difficulties. Does anyone on the Board have any questions? MR LEVY: Well, we have a list offive questions that are supposed to be addressed as part of the presentation. MR GIBSON: Yes, exactly. MR LEVY: I do not believe for the most part that it has been addressed. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: John, could you clarifY your cost estimate. MR PETIY: Madam Chair, I believe that we did receive a copy of the questions that you are referring. We got those through Jack. MR CURRAN: Yes. MR PETIY: And we are prepared to go over them if they have not been addressed to your satisfuction. We can certainly try to do better now. MR LEVY: They might be addressed in here, but we just got this so nobody's had a chance to look at it I do not know whether 7978 >- , 'I" .._.",,,,,, _....^"..~..._.. 16'1 l' ( 8(0. "j Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 it would have been addressed, John. MR. PETrY: Sir, I do not know why our proposal had not been submitted to the rest of the Board prior to today. We cannot be involved in the process. So the soonest we could get it to you was today. MR. CURRAN: I think the question is, John, when I sent the letter I asked you to address the questions in the presentation to the Board. That is what they are looking for, the questions to be answered in your presentation. They are questions the Board gave me to give to you to answer and that is what I did. MR. IAJZZO: Did you get a copy? MR. PETrY: Yes. As I said a few minutes ago, thank you, Jack, I understand that part. MR. CRAVENS: John, if I may, in the management service cost estimate document you have three cost proposals. Levell consists ofa time requirement of 0.5 to 1 day per week and that is $24,000 annually. Level two, time requirement is I to 1.5 days per week and that is $48,000 annually. Level three, time requirement is 1.5 to 2 days per week and that is $72,000 annually. Now, beneath each one of these you have complexity average and resources required, normal. There is no variation here besides the time requirement that goes from 1 to 1.5 days per week, to a maximum of 2 days per week. In the questions that were sent to you, it says to clarify your cost estimates based on that assumption. Provide a detailed breakdown for hours to be utilized. I do not really see that in your management service cost estimate. Maybe you can provide us with that at tills time, a detailed breakdown, if you are going to spend 1 day per week, what the cost involves, what services you are going to be providing for that cost. I guess that is what I would like to know. MR. PETrY: I believe on page 9 of our proposal in response to the RFP, there is a detailed breakdown of exactly of what we anticipate. MR. CRA YENS: I am looking at page 9 and I really do not see any detailed breakdown. Again, I will quote, for Level I, Level 2, and Level 3 under "complexity" it says, average, average, and average. Also under "resource requirements," it says normal, normal, normal. The only variation that I see is in the time requirement per week and the annual cost. MR. PETrY: And what part do you not understand, sir? MR. CRAVENS: I understand that. MR. PETrY: If you are looking fur complexities, you have the definition of our hourly cost You have us quoting to you that we will only do cost recovery if it utilizes costly resources, such as a CPA, attorney, or engineer in order to achieve the goals of tills Board. You are talking about three different levels of operations that have historically have been utilized in Pelican Bay for $48,000 per year, the contract dollar amount for the last ten years except for one, an experiment that we tried with Mr. Jim Carroll who thought that we could get 7979 00_""" '''~''-'' Pvllf.. ~_ "".~,., - .. ~~~,,"-""".... w n. ..._....._.._.. ..._-",.~""..~. .... '_.u'.~." '_~"_~'_""_~"_'.' 161 1~' B20~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special SessioD April 21, 2009 by with less and we tried. This is the way it has been in Pelican Bay for the last 18 plus years, if you count PBID that operated very similarly. So yes, the only thing that we are giving you in this description, sir, is the cost from District offices. Ifwe have to go out and get hire other resources, assuming the complexity of the operation to be normal we would bill you that cost. If the operation is of a very high complexity, we may incur a higher cost and we would talk to you at that time. Most of what we handle for tills handle for this division are not just simple tasks. As I just described in my preamble when I stood up here, we have gone through four Chairs, an entirely new Board, and four different budget policies. We have gone through a considerable amount of change. It is not exactly task oriented per se where I can say, "Well, for coming to your meetings, I will charge you $25.50 per half hour." I am trying to describe tills in terms of the amount of time that you require of your administrator. You set the time. If I spent more time than what you have set, I come before you, the full Board. and ask for either validation of the amount of time that I have been spending, and the Board would direct me, telling me that I do not have to spend that much time per the terms of the contract. Therefore, at that time, I would cutback the number of hours, or we would look at an increase in the contract. I am not trying to communicate anything 100 complex, or evade the discussion. I think we have applied our best thoughts to responding to that question. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, actuaIly, you have clarified your cost estimate that is the question from our Board to you. I believe that you are asking for a breakdown by hour maybe, but the breakdown hourly per day is there and I do not believe that it is reasonable to ask for a specific amount of time, because if we did, I believe that they would probably be way over the cost that they are offering us at this point. Mainly because I just wound up using all of my BlackBerry minutes last month because they circumvented a very real problem for our Board thankfully, but it took every minute I had on that BlackBerry to work it through and many, many hours with the County. I believe what you are asking for is a clarification and that is what they have just given you, but they are not going to tell you cost by the hour. Does that explain it a little bit? MR. LEVY: Well, is tills going to be an hourly contract where we are billed by the hour? MR. GRA VENHORST: No. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR. GRA VENHORST: $48,000. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. MR. PETIY: Well, Madam Chair, if we could, we are amenable to discussions if we are chosen as the firm. We can charge you 7980 - -_.. '".'""~'"-"'- . e,'._" '__.____."._..._~_ -.-..".- -,-'--~ ,. .r 820 .... 16 I 1 , Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 per hour. We do not mind that. I do not know that you will like that result, but we can charge you per hour. We can do a combination of a fixed fee and per hour, which is what we do currently. The fixed fee is for how many hours required of your administrator at $48,000 a year. Special projects are applied on top of that. Special projects would include things like asking District Offices to work up an evaluation of what incorporation would mean to Pelican Bay Services Division should incorporation succeed. That is not part of the general functions of the administrator so it would be a special project and we would charge you that at $150 per hour of time not to exceed a maximum amount as we describe in our response to the RFP. I hope that clarifies tIllngs. It was our intent to try to make it as clear as we could. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Ted. MR GRA VENHORST: Question. Ted Gravenhorst. Number three on the letter from Jack Curran was, "discuss the amount of time that would be dedicated to Pelican Bay." Well, we have already done that. "What amount of time do you spend with other firms and organizations that you are currently contracted with?" How many employees do you have, Mr. Petty, and how many associations are you working for as clients? MR PETTY: Let me talk about how we run our company that is as a base unit, very small, two principals, and we utilize contract services. We do not subscribe to the philosophy of employees. We try to get our resources through our staffs relationship on a contract basis. We have those people available to us. We have various other companies that we are interrelated with that we can hit upon for additional services. Moreover, the number of clients, sir, is proprietary. We do not have enough yet where I wish to brag that it is hundreds and we would rather like to keep that confidential, as those people have not allowed us to go out and sell their names. MR GRA VENHORST: I am not asking you for the names. I amjust asking for how many. MR PETTY: Sir, we do not try to throw a number out there that cannot be substantiated. I do not want to tell you a number without giving you a list, but our experience is in the RFP. You have our references in the RFP response. You certainly have been able to contact those people. We believe that it is a proper response to your requirements and your setup. I believe we have answered that one as well. MS. LARNED: Again, Madam Chair, I would like to make a comment, first, to the question regarding specifics in the clients. We are not a cookie-cutter organization. We do not choose to subscribe to that approach and one of the reasons why we chose to form our own firm. We are very selective about our customers. I am the one who will withhold that information simply because I do not find it to be appropriate, if you will, for competition to contact people and try to make a go of what we are trying to do. That happens in any industry . So with all due respect, sir, I appreciate the question, but I am not in a position to wish to reveal that information because tills is 7981 - --",.~ ... ".._.....~~.--'"-"" .__~.o.,"~,"~"_,,"'", ~,,_.."'__~_._m""M B?O . 16 I {; 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 public record. I would be more than happy to discuss it privately if that may be the case, but I would ask for your indulgence. We are a young firm. We are very specific in who we try to do business with simply because we bring custom work. We bring sophistication and a class to the type of product that we provide. We do not provide something that you can "pick off the shelf." I have been in manufacturing. I understand a production line. I understand a production schedule. There are those times where you have that on the shelf and then there are times when you do custom orders, and for that is what we brand our company. As to the question about my role and what tills company is. My background, I started out in commercial banking. I survived four mergers back in the 1980's and I do not wish to reveal my age if that is acceptable. You might happen to know a couple of those banks that I survived. One of them is Wells Fargo and I guarantee you it will survive. The other one is U.S. Bank and it too will survive because these are strong regional banks and that is where I cut my teeth. Then I was recruited into the City of Kansas City as their banker because they needed attention to their money. I was very fortunate and I have worked with some very fine people in my career. That is another reason we go to what it is that makes up our firm. I have worked with Severn Trent. I was asked to join them as their business recovery chief operating officer for Coral Springs. I do not necessarily like to brag out such things, but I will suggest to you that all corporations have their issues and their challenges. I believe that having survived a year and a half and being able to have that particular division of their corporation land on its feet is a testament. Therefore, I stand before you and I suggest that some of these questions are appropriate for a large corporation or even a firm that has been around, but we are a young company. We choose whom it is to do business. Frankly, we get referrals by our reputation. We do not have marketing brochures. We do not go out on the Internet and seek the masses. What we do is we rely upon the quality of work and our customer satisfuction. That is where I think our performance stands on its own. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thanks, Janice. I can understand why you do not want to divulge other groups that you are working with. That makes quite good sense actually at this point in your business. Can you discuss a similar community to Pelican Bay that your firm may have provided management services and the lessons that you have learned? Now, actually, you can probably use Pelican Bay, but I know that you do have some other situations brewing. MR PETIY: Let me see if I can clear tills issue up. Please give us a little bit of your attention now because you are asking tills of your administrator of some three and a half years. You have to see what it looks like from my side. We have already dated, people. You know tills, but I will tell it to you again. We have worked for Pelican Bay Services Division for two years under contract. So have we worked with a similar entity? Yes, tills one. What did we learn? Maintain your flexibility at all times. Be able to repeat yourself at all times because you have a new public 7982 ,.....---- ....~, "...... , "",'_,"~~.._~m."~__."_""_~... .. "",_-',-'"..'~ 161 1 ~ B?O. Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 searching for information at all times. What have we learned? We have learned more probably in our past experiences than we have learned here. That does not mean that Pelican Bay is not unique or is not instructive. However, I have personally worked with close to 50 different special taxing districts in the State of Florida. The experience you are paying for comes from my experience, that history. From what clients have I learned? I have learned from them all. What clients do I charge for the learning experience today? None. We do not charge for the learning curve. How many other clients do we have like Pelican Bay? You are the only ones we provide fiIiancial management services that goes to the depths of why we will not discuss our client list because our clients call us when they are in distress and they need financial management assistance. You are the only ones that I bear that mantle of manager. I have been a manager for quite sometime. I have heard about all the barking dogs, all the trash-can issues, all the clogged sewer drains that I wish. There is one entity only that I consider this fur and that is for Pelican Bay because I have such a long history here. I hope that helps. MR GRA VENHORST: Excuse me, Mr. Petty. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ted. MR GRA VENHORST: I was not asking for any names. We saw that you listed two clients. MR PETTY: I heard the number, sir. MR GRA VENHORST: I am asking how many. MR PETTY: Yes, sir. In addition, I responded to you by saying I will not talk about how many without providing a list to back it up. Therefore, I got the message. MR GRA VENHORST: I would trust you. MR PETTY: I heard the number. I heard the message. MR GRA VENHORST: It is a question. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Does anyone have anything further? MR GillSON: I guess a quick question. In addition, tills is probably such a little fluffY one. Janice, when I read your proposal, I was very impressed with your pedigree. Wichita State starting out as an undergrad. As you know, I keep a home in Pennsylvania. I know all about Penn and the University of Missouri and Harvard executive plans. I was always envious because my company never sent me on one. I did not see anything specific on John. I guess maybe the efforts of running your career is your vast experience, but do you have any formal education? MR PETTY: None that produce a paper that you are looking for; Janice brings to me her valuable education and I bring my experience to her. 7983 "~-"...,-"....,~"--...,.",," _.....,"----'"._~-,_.-. "-._"",<.,~- 161 1 '~l 820 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 MR. GffiSON: I see a combination then. I just had a question. There was nothing there so -- MR. PETrY: The schooling is there. I just never stuck around long enough for any paper. MR. GffiSON: Very impressive. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Anyone else? (No response.) Okay. John and Janice, thank you very, very much and I am so sorry about the technology. I really am. Jack, what is next? MR. CURRAN: The question now is if you wish to take a break and reconvene? I would like to get feedback from the full Board members to provide to the selection committee, Jerry, Geoff, and Mary Anne because they are going to be scoring today. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right MR. CURRAN: It is a short list, one of the two firms that presented today. After the selection committee completes the scoring sheet, the full PBSD Board will take a vote and choose one of the two firms that presented here today. TIlls way your Board selects the firm that you choose and approve. After contract negotiations, we will take it to the Board of County Commissioners for their approval. PresentIy, the contract bid is in the $50,000 range. If it gets to where it exceeds that amount, and the Board of County Commissioners have . not signed off, then we will have to bring it to them at that time. Getting the Commissioner's approval now is a way to ensure that you as a Board will select your firm and it will be good for you and the firm for four years unless, of course, there is a disagreement between you and them. But at tills time, Madam Chair, would you like to receive feedback right at the moment or take a break for five minutes? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Shall we go ahead? MR. CRA YENS: Yes. Let us go ahead. MR. GRA YENHORST: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We will go straight on through. Does anyone have any comments? MR. CRA YENS: I do have one comment to make and that has to do with the $50,000 level. I believe you just indicated that if the contract exceeds $50,000, then it goes beyond our Board, is that correct? MR. CURRAN: The Board of County Commissioners must approve anything $50,000 and above because that is what the Purchasing policy states: any contract $50,000 and above needs to be approved by the County Commissioners. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Tom, did you understand the difference of what you said and what Jack said? $50,000 and up must go before the Commissioners for approval. MR. CRA YENS: Yes. That is exactly what I was asking and the reason why I asked Mr. Dorrill why he reduced his fees, so that he was under $50,000. His response was something to the effect that, "I am doing it simply to show you guys that I really want tills." CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, "I am the new kid on the block." 7984 .- ,~." ' _>..a".... -,_.~"._' ~- -",,,- ~-".,_._-_. 16 I 1 1 82' I , Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 MR. CURRAN: In the past, the policy's limit was $25,000 and I believe that most contract bids came out to be $24,000. Then it went to $50,000 and contract bids went to $48,000. Other services were possibly added, but if we try to go under $50,000 in today's world, you may be limiting yourselves. Although I cannot speak for the Commissioners, I believe they are on Board with what we are doing and why they have me here working with you. Weare going to come back with a contract with a management firm. ~ There is another section in Purchasing called "Contracts." Whomever you short-list, my contract person will be meeting with them to negotiate a price. The prices they have provided are estimates, so that you understand the price range. We will sit down and negotiate a hard dollar figure that will become the total dollar amount I suggested earlier to the three select committee members that we go to the Board of County Commissioners, then, you are good as far as $200,000 per year per the terms of a four-year contract with individual renewals each year. I am just trying to make life easier for all of us. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jack, what happens if, say, we do ask Mr. Dorrill to consider us as our management firm. He has stated that he would be under $50,000 for the first three months as Mr. Cravens mentioned and then he hikes it up. What happens then? MR CURRAN: That is where the contract person comes in. He has stated that the first three months are free. Therefore, during the first year, PBSD would be charged for nine months. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. MR. CURRAN: When we sit down with the firm, we are going to discuss, "what is your fee going to be for a year?" Always have a renewal clause where in the second year there is the possibility for renewal. In the second year, he cannot just come in a say, "all right, I am raising my price." He is going to sit down with our contract folks again and negotiate and our contract folks will come back to you with a dollar figure. We looked at the average of the local management services and his fee is within the market ballpark and where we believe that you should be. You have the option to negotiate, too and tell them what you want If they agree, you can renew. If they disagree, you can always go with another firm, We will not automatically renew the contract. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, my real concern is if the amount goes over $50,000 then we have to go to the Commissioners for approval no matter when that happens, correct? I want to know if there is some kind of a back-door where once you have your foot in the door, you are in and then you raise the fee afterward without the Commission's consent MR CURRAN: No. First we will go to your full Board for a vote. Whatever you decide, that is the firm. I will then take it to the Commissioners for approval. We now have approved a range of $50,000 to $200,000 and the Commissioners will not get involved again unless you ask us to revoke or terminate the contract. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: But, Jack, if} understand correctly, the policy is not initially $50,000 and up, it is actually below that. 7985 ---.--... ~_."^"- _"n,^, .""^""W' .._ ,------ 16 I 1 820 '4 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 MR. CURRAN: Correct. MR. MOFFA IT: That is why Jack is going to the Commissioners. By the filet that he goes to the Commissioners, they will be approving $50,000 to $200,000. MR. CURRAN: If I go to the Commissioners with an executive summary stating, tills is the firm that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board approved and we are here to ask for the Commission's approval. The fiscal impact is zero dollars to $50,000, or zero dollars to $200,000, but the bottom line is that we are telling them that we expect that the cost will probably to go over $50,000 every year, over the next few years. MR. CURRAN: It may go over $50,000 initially, but I honestly cannot say because I do not handle the negotiations. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: When we started tills process, I believe we were understood it to be that anything below $50,000 would not have to be addressed to the Commissioners. MR. CURRAN: That is correct. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right, that is what I wanted to know because Dorrill's firm is saying that they will hike it after they have given us our free three months. MR. CURRAN: Let me clarify. The reason I suggested at the beginning to go to the Commissioners for approval is because most likely the negotiations will start at say $48,000, under $50,000 and the PBSD Board will approve it Next year, however, the firm wants more than $50,000. That is now in the range that we need the Commissioner's approval. So, we either go to the Commissioners in the beginning or we go two or three years down the road and explain that the contract is in its second or third year and the firm wants $51,000 and originally they bid $48,000, then $49,000 and now it is at $51,000. Then you must ask yourselves, "do we want to go to the Commissioners now for approval? Or terminate the contractT You have that option. but if you get their approval now, and the cost exceeds $50,000 in the first year, it will be automatically renewed and you will not have to get the Commissioners approval again. We will just repeat today's scenario. What we are doing is building in an allowance for the future, especially because both firms are mentioning additional costs. If you are settling in at $48,000 to $49,000 and you have additional expense, you are going over $50,000 anyway. MR. LEVY: Jack, both firms are proposing under $50,000, but you recommend going to the Commissioners anyway? MR. CURRAN: It it only a suggestion; you do not have to CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. We do not have to. That is our choice. Mr. Gravenhorst. MR. GRAVENHORST: Yes. The Dorrill number is $4,700 a month. That comes out to $56,400 per year. He is offering to knock the first three months off. so it is very clear that the first year will be under $50,000. The following years will be in contract. There 7986 _...,- ._..~._- ...... "...,..~.."......"..,- - ~ .... ~""-~ - 16 r 1 1 R20 \ll Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 will not be a hike. We will know the costs going in. So, if we make the decision to hire Dorrill, the cost predicates on what he has presented us. It is clear that the first year we pay for nine months at $4,700 a month. and the following three years it is the standard $56,400. MR. LEVY: The contract is renewable after the first year, so he could increase the number. MR. GRA VENHORST: Okay. MR. IAIZZO: It is a four-year contract, correct? MR. CURRAN: Well, it is a four-year contract, renewable every year. MR. GillSON: I thought it was four years, also. MR. CURRAN: When it comes to renewal for the second year, they most likely will ask for an increase. MR. LEVY: Yes. You do not know that it will remain at $4,700. MR. GRA VENHORST: I am saying that we do not have to accept his increase. MR. LEVY: What I am saying is that it might not be $4,700 a month the second year. You do not know. MR. CURRAN: But what Mr. DorrilI is saying Mr. Gravenhorst is what he has done in the past. He said, "Normally, 1 charge $4,700 a month. but tills year alone I am only going to charge you for nine months, but in the second year I will be charging 4,700 a month. " MR. LEVY: Is it $4,700 for the second year? MR. CURRAN: That is what Mr. Dorrill said, so, you know that for the first year, you are getting three months discounted. Even without a cost of living type increase, if there would be such a thing, his price will increase in the second year. He is now going to charge you for a full year. Therefore the amount is not going to be less than $4,700 monthly, but he still does have to sit down with the contract team and negotiate a price. The price he spoke of is his estimated price. Our contract team will negotiate and we will come to your Board for approval. DR RAIA: We have a $42,300 trial the first year. It is significantly less than $56,400 and we must understand right now, if we like him, we are going to be paying the $56,400 the second year unless he goes actually more than that, but it is going to be a minimum $56,400; but we do not have to cross that bridge now. Does tills contract have to be renegotiated every year, or is it automatically renewed? Does it go before the Commissioners every year because it is over $50,000? MR. CURRAN: No. It only goes to the Commissioners once. Each year at renewal time, only the PBSD Board needs to approve it. I am going to pull up the contract to find out exactly how it is spelled out. The contract is for a total of four years. We do not sign one contract for the entire four years because it is very laborious to break it. At the end of the first year, if nobody likes what is happening, we can terminate the contract and find another firm. 7987 -..---- . . --~-,--- ..- -_.. 16 I 1 B20 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 DR. RAIA: So we have that right after one year to terminate? MR. CURRAN: That is what I am checking right tills second. MR. MOFFATT: I believe that is what we agreed upon up front. MR. CURRAN: Okay. MR. MOFFATT: I assume you wrote it that way or we would have picked it up when we reviewed it. MR. CURRAN: Yes. You folks did review it thoroughly. So can we get some feedback? Whether is be good, bad, indifferent about the firms, so that Jerry, Mary Anne, and Geoffwill help them in doing their scoring in our next meeting about five or ten minutes after you folks leave? Anything would help. They have their score sheets. I gave everyone a copy of the score sheet, so that you can see what the firms are being evaluated. If you have any comments on their proposals, questions, or uncertainty, please bring it up now because tills will really benefit the selection committee. MR. LEVY: Did anyone receive any feedback on Dorrill from the associations that he currently manages? Pelican Marsh, Lely, the Strand? MR. MOFFATT: Yes. MR. CURRAN: Yes. We have received references from all three of his groups that the three members of the select committee requested of them. If memory serves, they were very good references. MR. MOFFATT: Am I allowed to share that information? MR. CURRAN: Yes. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. Lely, for example, on the nine areas, rated him a ten on a scale of one to ten. All the comments down the line, were very supportive. He was professional, that sort of thing. The Strand rated him a ten and again. comments down the line were very professional. Pelican Marsh rated him a ten, and again, the comments were all very favorable, excellent always, no problems. Would you hire him again? Yes. Et cetera. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jerry, would you go back over who responded, please? Who those people were. MR. MOFFATT: Oh, the names of the people themselves? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And their actual positions. MR. IAIZZO: Was it the Board that gave him the rating, Jerry? MR. MOFFATT: The Lely respondent was Ken Drum, Secretary of the Lely Community Development District. The Strand was . Helen (Honey) Gardiner, the Master Property Owner's Association Treasurer. Gordon Brown was Pelican Marsh's respondent and he lists himselfas the Chairman of the Pelican Marsh CDD Board of Supervisors. 7988 -~,-,.. "-,-- ~ .~-'--<'. ~".~._-_..." "...-~"",".",~'> '-'~""."~"--- 16 I 1 R~O ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 MR. CURRAN: I believe that there were three references. One from the Pelican Marsh Community Development District. I requested the Community Management Services Chairman, Gordon Brown, so we got a reference from the individual that I requested. Then I went to The Strand Master Property Owners Association president, Ken Hedges and Helen Gardiner, Treasurer responded. Then we went to Lely Resort Community Development District Community Management Services, Al Ramirez, Chairman, and Ken Drum, Secretary of the Lely COD responded. MR. MOFFATT: Thank you. Yes. Actually the person at The Strand states sbe is President of one of the Homeowner's' Associations and Treasurer of the Master Association. MR. CURRAN: I found the clause in the contract It is four one-year contracts. So one year, renew. One year, renew. One year, renew. Without cause at the end of the year, you may terminate and walk away and we can do tills again. MR. LEVY: And they can adjust their price too? MR. CURRAN: Well, they can attempt to. MR. LEVY: Okay. Thank you. MR. CURRAN: Many firms take the renewal process to be an automatic cost increase, but then we started doing a cost-analysis and that put a halt to that. MR. GRA VENHORST: Mr. Curran, it is my understanding that at renewal time or when negotiations are done, and the contract is signed that you would have the ability to say, okay, we are going to issue tills contract, but we do not want to see it again. In other words, there are hard negotiations that take place if necessary? MR. CURRAN: I missed the very beginning of what you said. MR GRA VENHORST: In other words, when it is time for renewal and he is attempting to raise his charges, you have the ability to enter into tough negotiations with him to get him to tow the line and hold his current price as quoted? MR. CURRAN: For tills type of a proposal, it is a two-step process. First, we would send a letter to the Chairperson and state that the contract is coming up for renewal. It is usually four months ahead and we ask if you are willing to renew. We want to know if you are satisfied with the firm. If you say yes, we send the firm a letter and say, "are you interested or willing to renew"? Nine times out often, they send a letter back and stating, "Yes, but with a price increase." We then request their price increase. We evaluate it and if it seems fair and accurate, then we forward it to you. We tell you, "here is what they want, does tills fit in your budget and agreeable to you?" The Chairperson signs off yes or no. If the answer is "yes," then we bring the fIrm in and we renew. If you say "no," we tell them "no." Maybe they make a better offer, but if not, we have four months on the street to do tills again. MR. GRA VENHORST: Thank you. 7989 ~_....- .~.,,~..""-'".. T -~ ._H......,., ...."..-... -"'.-....-......."..- ...~<_._..Od._......._ 16 I 1 , 820 .. Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 MR. CURRAN: Yes. MR. GIBSON: I have a procedural question as to what happens next this afternoon. There were three of us on the selection committee and we went through many applicant proposals and we have had a number of meetings with you, Jack. It is not that big a deal, and it has been very educational for me, but I do not want to send the rest of my Board members out of here without getting some sort of a straw vote as to how they felt today. What happens next? MR. CURRAN: What I was hoping would happen is that we could get into a little bit of a discussion. MR. GIBSON: That is great. I am ready. There are three legs on a stool. One is price. We have spent a lot of time talking about that and you assured us not to lose any sleep over it. Maybe another one is experience and maybe another one is availability. I do not know how many legs you want to put on tills stool, but you need three for it to stand up. MR. CURRAN: The folks on the Board are judging on what they heard today. The selection committee had five critical questions for each firm to help them. I was hoping they would be able to tell you whether they like the idea that one is is local, or I do not like the way tills guy said tills. If you believe that the dollar value is extremely high. then you need to say that too. I would like the selection committee to get an idea of what the full Board is feeling. If you see a category on the scoring sheet that you want to bring up, that is what I want to know. Then we can get to the scoring of the ten items on the scoring sheet. Each category shows you the maximum score that you can give. Ted, did you have a question? MR. GRA VENHORST: I am willing to start this discussion. MR. CURRAN: Please. MR. GRA VENHORST: It bothered me that Mr. Petty did not come prepared to answer the five questions you asked him to answer. That bothered me. MR GIBSON: And he said he got the letter. MR. GRA VENHORST: I do not understand. Once again, it was the attitude that we did not need to know the answer. Similarly that he would not tell us the number of firms that are his clients. I have scored it and I voted for Dorrill 75 to 50. I do not mind telling anyone. MR. CURRAN: And that is exactly what I am looking for, your feelings and why you are feeling that way, and what your score is because these folks here are going to do the final scoring. You are going to do the final vote, but they are going to score them today. If you are feeling one way and the selection committee scores a different way, there will be questions for your full Board. I am trying to alleviate a lot of that right at the moment. Does anyone else have any comments? MR. CRAVENS: Yes. I thought that Mr. Dorrill made an outstandingly professional presentation. I thought that his presentation 7990 -,.,....,~,._~"..~ '.--..--.-- _.....,""'.,"~' ,. .._~,-" -- .,,-- .. 16 , 1 820 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 that he provided us with was very to the point. I was somewhat disappointed in Mr. Petty's presentation. I do not think he addressed the issues that were contained in your letter. His presentation had to do with things that exist here in Pelican Bay, but bear very little relevance to his firm's ability and the questions that were asked. He was very evasive when asked questions. When Mr. Gravenhorst asked him for his clients and then for how many, he refused even to answer. I was not impressed. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I am going to claritY that. Janice made it very clear that she would talk to you privately. This is public record. They have reasons, believe me, and I do know what they are. They are to be expected to do exactly what they have done. MR. CRA YENS: Well, I am sorry, Madam Chair, but I disagree. To give the number of clients that you have is not anyway, shape, or form breach of professionalism. He could very simply answer how many. There is no reason. If we had asked names, details, yes. But how many, no. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I suggest that you call the office and talk to them privately. MR. CURRAN: Well, they cannot do that today because we are going to vote and we cannot allow any private conversations to take place. For example, Tom calls him, and the Board does not know what was said. MR. CRAVENS: In summary, I was very much impressed with the first presentation. I thought that was extremely professional. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. MR. CURRAN: We need to keep it in the open. I am unbiased. I have no mvorites. I have no dog in this fight. I am here to help you do the best you can. Whatever you decide, I will try to get you over the humps and through some of the hard parts. I will agree with what you said about Mr. Dorrill's presentation. The projector not working, but they did have a backup plan to give you something to follow. I have had tills happen before and not many times have I seen that. Please, Keith. MR. DALLAS: I was a "fee for service" consultant, so I understand presentations like tills. I expected the first one to be very smooth and so on, so I did not want to overreact, but going back, I must say I was very impressed with the first presenter. They seemed to know what they were doing. They may give us a new perspective. Regarding the second firm, I do not know if it was their presentation skills or just the mct that they have been with us too long, but they are in a tough situation. What are you going to say? "I have done it all for you. Do not you trust me?" I still came away with and I would vote pretty much in fuvor of the first one. MR. LEVY: In terms of the presentation, Mr. Dorrill gave an excellent presentation. He followed what he was asked to do and was quite impressive. Mr. Petty's presentation was more or less free-form, talking about some of his highlights, so to speak, in terms of his relationship 7991 ..-- - -^--" ",.",,,,",~.,-,- ------.,..-",-..--. -~ ...~~._'.~- ...~_.- 161 1 820 . Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 with Pelican Bay. In terms of presentation, certainly Mr. Dorrill was the most impressive and I guess we just have to weigh that against the time of "hands on" that we have had with Mr. Petty. It makes it a very tough call. MR CURRAN: That is true. The hard part is that you have personal knowledge of one of the presenters, District Offices. You know what they can do. You deal with them on a routine basis. On the other side, you do not know what the other firm can do. You need to compare apples to apples. You have to evaluate their experience based on your request and what they are telling you that they are capable. You requested through me that each firm supply tills information. Did they give it back to you evenly and equally, and how you wanted it relayed back to you? I understand where you are going with the experience because you have that, but the other folks are coming from the outside. They cannot show you their physical work so what they have is time to present to you their capabilities and experience. You have to weigh that in, too. MR. LEVY: Mr. Petty, apparently, thought we had gotten tills in advance and had a chance to look at it. Maybe he thought that he answered the five questions. I have not had a chance to read it so I do not know. MR. CURRAN: That is their actual response to the proposal. Now, we have another one filed from the other three vendors that were supplied to the three select committee members. 1bat is how they arrived at their shortwlist The committee read all three proposals. They questioned them. We had meetings. We had discussions. Based on what they read, they decided that they thought Dorrill and District Offices were the top two of four and brought them to you. We did not give you all of their reviews because they have already looked at tills infurmation. When they read the presentations, they thought that these five questions for each firm should be answered so that you could have a chance to see how they react I did not do that here. Normally I always throw one question of my own in there completely off the wall to catch them on their feet to have them think quickly. Today, we stuck strictly to your questions. We read the proposals and they decided that these questions would be very good fur them to the present to the Board, and that is what we did today. Both firms received the same letter the same day with their individual five questions. MR GRA VENHORST: Then my understanding of the order that this went to achieve their position on the short list when you had four? This is the thing that went out to that group? MR. CURRAN: That was their response, correct. MR. GRA VENHORST: Then we narrowed it down to the two and then you mailed the letter asking for the five specific questions to be answered at the presentation today? The five specific questions were to be answered today at the presentation. MR CURRAN: Correct 7992 .._^.,~,..". ,.-- ,..~~,._-.... '--_.~"""", -"" ~ 161 1 820 4 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 MR. GRA VENHORST: And he did not come prepared to do that. MR. CURRAN: That is correct. MR. MOFFATT: From a timeline standpoint, we met on April I, narrowed it down to the two firms looking at this document as well as the others. A letter that Jack sent out was dated April 7, so it was almost a week later that the questions went out to the presenters. Now, should they have known that that was the timeline? I do not know about Dorrill, but certainly I would expect that Petty would have known since he follows Pelican Bay so closely. It was a public meeting that was posted. DR. RAIA: I share all the observations that my colleagues have made here, and I would go along with recommending Dorrill. There is just no question about it. However, there is a caveat Mr. Petty comes in bere carrying a lot of baggage. As fur as I am concerned, we are an advisory committee and I always felt that he thwarted our responsibility to advise the Commissioners and the County Manager on what we thought about the affuirs of Pelican Bay. Even though they may view those comments as perhaps negative, I still felt it was our responsibility to make those people know about it. I say tills because I really do not know what Mr. Dorrill is going to do under these same circumstances. The assumption is, though. that he will not In our filvor is that Mr. Dorrill is here on a trial basis for only about $42,300. JfMr. Dorrill performs the same way as Mr. Petty performed, Mr. Petty can come back at the end of the first year and reenter a contract if we are dissatisfied with Mr. Dorrill. I hope we will not be. MR. CURRAN: Let me clarity. At the end ofthe year, if the firm you select does not meet your expectations we would then go back on the street for more proposals and we may get four more new firms. We may get six. In fact, when we advertised, as I mentioned earlier, 138 firms notified us that they would possibly be interested. Of those 138, the proposal was sent to sixty-six firms, but only four of those sixty-six firms, submitted proposals back to us. I believe that we had three non-responders, or firms that said they were too busy at tills time. So, it would give us about a ten percent return. We would complete tills process again and provide four month's notice. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: I am waiting for all of the Board members before I speak. Anyone else? John Iaizzo. MR. WZZO: It is unanimous. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, actually it is not. I am the Chairperson and I have spent hours and hours and hours with both John Petty and Janice Lamed. What we all seem to forget is what they have done to maintain or try to work through the political abyss in tills County. Part of the problem that we have had in the past, now that I am more aware of what is going on as Chair and have spent time with Commissioners and the County Manager, I can tell you that some of the comments that they made about our advisory Board. That our Board is totally against advising; that there have been problems with our Board causing commissioners that could have helped us to step 7993 _. "..-.->.-...... v ... .... .- ~'_.,,,~,"-,_.,, 161 1 R~G Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 back and maybe not come to our aid to tow the line in our best benefit. How do I know that? Firsthand. I am well aware that John and Janice have put in fur more time than we are paying them. They are extremely dedicated to Pelican Bay. I do not see that they have done anything really seriously wrong. I see that they have done fur better for us; it has just taken me a long time to get up to speed. If you look back over the record. you will find that for over a year, we did not have the same Board members two months in a row. That has been quite challenging for all of us. I also know that if I were able to sit down with each of you on a private basis, one on one, and give you my opinion, why I do, and be able to state examples, I do not think there would be a question. Yes, Mr. Dorrill's presentation was incredibly professional. It really was and I agree with you. I have misgivings on several avenues. Because this is public record. I am not going to go there. As your Chair, and someone who has spent enough hours so that my BlackBerry ran out of time last month and I had 800 rollover minutes to use. TIlls has been an incredible month and most of you have no clue what has been going on. John Petty has wandered through the political mayhem and came out alive and helped people in tills community that have no clue that they have been helped. I totally believe that they are making inroads working with the Foundation to bring about technology that helps. As the Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board, we are working with the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee. I must say that Mr. Dorrill's presentation was so good, I was thrilled for him that it was that good. I am also thrilled for us that we have had the benefit of two people whose heart and soul have been given to Pelican Bay, and they spend fur more hours than you will ever know because I have spent some of those hours with them and on the phone. I do know that their interest is with us. It is not a political agenda. It is not fostering their own business because we are not going to help them because they do the same thing everywhere they go. They are not going to name names. I understand that you all are not in on the ground floor because I sure was not as a Board member and I thought I was pretty involved. What I believe that John was trying to do was show you why you may want to consider them before anyone else even because of the problems with the presentation and the fact that they were sitting and waiting for quite a while. The other presentation did overrun quite a bit. I do not know. You have all touched on it. We have come close, but the presentation has swayed you and I understand that I really do. Because I would have been also if! just were a Board member sitting there. I want you to remember about assessments with Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board. I want you to tIllnk about the times when he has recognized that we had something going on that needed to be taken care of immediately and he came to us. Because our Board has so many new people on it, it was really difficult to get things moving. The only time our Board has been able to move forward in the past couple of months has simply been when there has been a passionate plea by one Board member or someone from the audience 7994 ......-,,<-,.. _""'_'.w_' . , ,>-'.~~,-,'---- .- ,",.~.._M~'_~'C."'~ 16 I It , B?O , Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 and it has moved along at just a huge and rapid pace when it was probably not the best or wisest decision. Mr. Petty has tried valiantly to help us through a lot of decisions we have made that probably were not in our best interest as a community, not just our Board; most of you are not aware of that. I have to be very careful about what I say on record, but I agree with you. I think the presentations were totally night and day opposite. Truly, have you seen any real problems? We were working on Clam Bay. We almost had everything that we wanted in our hands. Mr. Mudd and Mr. Halas were writing something up to present to the Commissioners for us. We digressed and we became our own worst enemies. John has really been putting out fires for us that we do not even know about Now, will Mr. Dorrill's firm do that? I do not know. I do know that there are some questions in Pelican Marsh as to assessments. TIlls is public record. There are a number of people in Pelican Marsh who are very concerned because their assessment is going to be raised because it was not done, what they feel to be raised logically in the past. They are going to be hit really hard with a higher assessment because they are not meeting their budget. I was interested in looking at that budget Because I know several people who dropped off the Board because they could not get their points across and they were successful business people, and so I do have some concerns. I know people in Lely who have glowing reports about Mr. Dorrill, and I know people who do not. It is a package deal and what you get is what you get and you have to work with it. We already have been working with Janice and John. I know that their heart is here. I know that they really are caring enough to spend entire days, entire Saturdays with me or with me on the phone. They have a very good working relationship with Mr. Mudd and Mr. Ochs. I know that there are people in tills room that do not understand that and do not even know it, but it is true. I have had a really tough time in the last month because of some of the comments made by some folks in our community. We had a very good administrator. I am trying to think what I can say to change your minds. One of the things that I question about Mr. Dorrill is his quote; he definitely knows about the $49,000 Purchasing policy. $50,000 and up goes to the Commissioners for approval and he is well aware of our problems with the Commissioners, I am sure; everyone is, thanks to the newspapers. I felt uncomfortable and I probably should have pushed him to see if he would have been a little more forthcoming. His answer was not entirely accurate and I did not care for that. MR GRA VENHORST: It was very accurate. -It CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. He said he is "the new guy on the block." He knew that if he did not have anything over $50,000, it would not go to the Commissioners for approval. What he does not know is that Jack is planning to go to the Commissioners for approval anyway. Jack, am I right? Anything over $50,000 you go before the Commissioners. Anything less. it is understood that it probably will not be sent? 7995 -.-,'. .,,--.- - .- -._,~ _"_..".-.'''...... . --"-,,,,_ MIIl..I ,_~~"'_"4'''..''',~... ~~""-'-'--~-- ~ 161 1 B?O ,,. Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 In our case, you have to figure that Mr. Dorrill had a feeling that we do not want to go before the Commissioners at tills point because we feel pretty well bashed. Things that we have asked for, we have never gotten. So I felt sure he was aware of that figure and I did not care for that answer. MR IAlZZO: Madam Chair, he is going to be with us for a year. We give him a year. We see how he performs, and then we can decide again. Right now, you are ripping into tills whole Board. It is not right. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I am not ripping into you. There is more going on. MR IAlZZO: Madam Chair, You are ripping into tills Board, over and over and over, you are reminding us and I believe that it is time that we carry on the procedure. DR RAIA: I want to address one item that I can see and put tills on the table. At the last meeting, you came in with a memorandum of understanding that John Petty must have been aware of and I was really shocked. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: What is that, Ted? I did not come in with it. You did. MR MOFFA IT: It was in our package. DR. RAIA: It was in our package. This was the result of the meeting you had with the Commissioner, the County Manager, and John Petty. Above all, he should have known that something like that should have been vetted through the Board, but there was a feeling offuit accompli. That was supposed to be the solution to the Clam Bay problem? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, it was not and I believe it was brought before the Board. It was an article DR RAIA: May I finish please? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Please do. DR RAIA: The way I see it is that the County wants to retain the so-called hydrology rights and let us have the mangroves. However, the hydrology would include dredging and installing navigational signs and just about everything with the exception of the mangroves. I do not believe that is what Pelican Bay wants as a solution and the memorandum of understanding was leading down that path; I do not think that was right. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I believe that was a clarification of the Pelican Bay Services Division. MR GRA VENHORST: Madam Chair, I agree with John. I believe that eight of us have expressed our opinions positively toward Dorrill and getting into a mudslinging contest over the professionalism of either firm is beyond us at tills point. I believe that the Dorrill firm, as Jack said, in eight months or a year, if we do not like them. we can go search. His client list is impressive and his references, the three "tens" that Jerry read from three of them is impressive. It was not just the presentation, not by a long shot. If it was just the presentation, that would be another story, but it was not. These clients are very impressive. 7996 -._- ,~-"'.-.__.- - .,...-. ---.,.- ,- - 16 I l' ~ ~,n .... Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 And I cannot imagine that Pelican Bay's concerns, other than the water which as local resident of Naples being ten minutes away from us certainly understands our water problem and will do his ever best to protect our interests. If he does not then we will get rid of him. MR MOFFA TI: I would like to correct the record. I believe you heard from six Board members who fuvor Dorrill, not eight. MR GRA VENHORST: I am sorry. John said it was unanimous and I thought everybody had spoken. MR MOFFATI: Geotfand I have not spoken. MR GRA VENHORST: Okay. MR LEVY: And I only said that I thought his presentation was better. I said you have to take into account two and a half years with Mr. Petty. I spoke to our Chairperson, who has brought to light the fact that over the past few months many hours and time has been spent by Mr. Petty with the Chair visiting the County Manager and County Commissioner and that is invaluable. None ofus are involved in that MR. MOFFATI: I actually have my choice down as a "close call." MR DALLAS: I can see it either way. I mean, we do know the good and bad about Mr. Petty. I think he has been involved and that is good. There may have been issues in the past. We know him much better than the "new kid on the block." I was impressed, like I say, with Dorrill's presentation. I try to discount that because that is not what he is going to do for us. It is probably a waste of time, but I was impressed with his client list. Again, there are all the unknowns. The selection committee will have to decide. MR MOFFATI: You know, this may be out of order and may put somebody on the spot, and if} am out of order, I will accept a slap-on-the-wrist. I do not want to put anyone on the spot, but one of the references we received on Mr. Petty was from Mr. Burke. There were three references that were highly favorable. Mr. Burke submitted a reference that was not very good. The score was a "three" on a scale of one to ten. Would not rehire him, et cetera. I do not know if it is appropriate to ask Mr. Burke to comment, because I see him sitting in the back of the room ifit is appropriate to ask him to comment. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You are out of order, Jerry. It is totally, inappropriate. First of all, that is his choice when we have audience comments. We are not there yet. MR CURRAN: Correct. When we do the scoring, the next phase, any member of the public who is present now may speak. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. Mr. Burke would be welcome at that time. MR. GRA VENHORST: We actually have audience comments on today's agenda. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We are not there yet. 7997 <, ^..<.~~._-~.....,-"".,..,.,-,_..".~..,. """__'~""____""'''"''^ ""~"'''''''='---='_''_,1_.___''''.._.'''"'._U .'.'''''''''' ..........,.".-,.-..- 1'61,r- B20. Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 MR CURRAN: Thank you for your discussion. Madam Chair, tills is the stage now where the three members of the selection committee need to sit down and vote. Do you need the full Board with us for tills? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Actually, we have to wind up tills meeting first, I believe, do we not? MR CURRAN: That is what I am saying. We are coming to that phase. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So this would be the time for audience comments. MR CURRAN: Okay. MR GmSON: Excuse me. Before we jwnp to the finaI thing. Is it appropriate before we have audience comments and adjournment to get a straw vote from my fellow Board members? Because 1 walked in here today ambivalent as to which way I was leaning. MR CURRAN: For feedback? MR. GmSON: That is my point, yes. MR. CURRAN: So you can get the comments. MR. GmSON: Well, I guess we start down there at the end. MR. CURRAN: If I may, before we go on, yes, we can have public comment at this time based on the meeting before the full Board, but I cannot change the law and before you do your finaI scoring, I am required to ask the public if anyone cares to speak to the selection committee. If no one is present, that is fine, but I will ask again. I have no objections to a straw vote as part of your feedback. It is only a count that will provide the selection committee with a feeling of how the full Board is going to vote. The selection committee can vote any way they wish based on what they have seen and heard, but they will come to the full Board for final approval. Some of you have read the proposal from District Offices that was presented today. That can go towards your straw vote. Nothing is eliminated except there is no hearsay allowed, nothing of that nature. So, if you do not mind, I will just go right around and ask you your straw vote for the members of the selection committee. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jack, I believe that the three of us on the selection committee, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Moffatt, and myself should withdraw at this point and not put a vote. MR. CURRAN: I was going to skip you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. MR. CURRAN: I am sorry. I did not say so. MR. IAIZZO: Yes for Mr. Dorrill. DR RAJA: Yes for Mr. Dorrill. 7998 ,-_..,, ,.""...._-",~- "" -~ ----._^ ..,,"..," _......'_.,..~ ....-,...."~-, 161 1 B20 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 MR. LEVY: Mr. Petty. MR. CURRAN: Keith? MR. DALLAS: It was close, but Mr. Dorrill. MR. CRAVENS: Mr. Dorrill. MR. GRA VENHORST: Mr. Dorrill. MR. CURRAN: My count was five to one. Thank you. I have all the information I need from you. I hope we helped you understand the process and purpose of the selection committee. Whatever you need to do now, Madam Chair. AUDIENCE COMMENTS CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Well, we do have audience comments on our agenda. Mr. Burke, are you interested or do you want to wait until we have the smaller committee? MR BURKE: For the record, Jim Burke. I do not want to expound on my recommendation. Everything that I saw here today, you saw. My impressions were about the same and there is not anything I am going to say or not say that is going to change any of your minds, so I will let my response stand. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Because I am the Chair and I must point out that we did receive three very good rererences in support of John Petty. One was from me who worked with Mr. Petty for quite awhile. The other committee members were allowed to put in their recommendation, but I do not believe they did. Mr. Coleman Connell, former PBSD Chairman responded positively and in support of Mr. Petty and Janice. The other respondent was Mr. Burke, so there were two out of three that gave Mr. Petty a glowing report. The City of Branson, Missouri, who is going through an excruciatingly, politically awkward time right now gave Mr. Petty and Janice a glowing report. MR. MOFFA IT: This was a reference on Janice, I believe, from a couple years ago. It is not current. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: TIlls particular reference is old, but I know what is going on now, and they have gone back to them again. I cannot tell you anymore. That is the only way to do tills fairly, to have all of you here for both presentations. ADJOURN MR. CRAVENS: Madam Chair, I move to adjourn. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do I have a second? MR. IAIZZO: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? MR. GRA VENHORST: Aye. 7999 -"'"^-- . -~.."-,,, " 1111._ '''''-~--_..~~...- 'II' . .--. 161 1 .. 820 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Special Session April 21, 2009 MR. MOFFATT: Aye. MR. DALLAS: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. DR. RAIA: Aye. MR. GillSON: Aye. MR. CRA YENS: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairwoman at I :40 p.m. Mr. Cravens moved, seconded b Mr. Ialzzo. and Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Services, Inc. by Carolyn J. Ford; and edited by Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant, Pelican Bay Services Division. 8000 ~.._--~--^~"-,-,". . -, .."""~_._-", ..-... ~~~_....' ".--.... ~.,,, --- ~ R,E(~EtVED TRANSCRWfOFI~EtJ~ B~~g~1f1~~~ JUN 1 9 2009 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOA~yle Board ot county Commissioners Naples, Florida, May 6, 2009 Coletta 'it-- LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Serviees Division Advisory Board, III and f~e County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 1:00 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 Hunter Hansen T om Cravens .Tohn Iaizzo Keith Dallas Michael Levy Geoffrey Gibson Gerald Moffatt Ted Gravenhorst Theodore Raia Also Present: Jo1m Petty, District Administrator, District Offices, LLC; Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager, Pelican Bay Services, Division; Mmy McCaughtry, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant, Pelican Bay Services Division. AGENDA 1. Ro 11 Call 2. Storm Water Collection Presentation by Daniel J. Acquaviva, Vice President, RMA GeoLogic Consultants 3. Approval of April 1, 2009 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Minutes 4. Approval of January 27, 2009 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Ordinance Review Committee Minutes 5. Administrator's Report Financial Report 6. Chairwoman's Report a) Management Review Committee's New Administrator Recommendation and full Board Vote b) Update on Strategic Planning c) Update on Landscape Committee 7. Committee Reports Budget Committee a) Update by Co-Chairmen Michael Levy and Jerry Moffatt b) Discussion of options for disseminating community information c) Discussion of approach to capital expenditures & obtaining professional advice Safety Committee First Meeting scheduled for May 15,2009 @ 1:00 p.rn. 8. Capital Projects Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard Crosswalk Construction Update 9. Community Issues Update on Clam Bay 10. Plan Reviews None 11. Committee Requests None 12. Audience Comments 13. Adjoum ROLL CALL CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Hello, and welcome everyone to the May 6 meeting of the Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board. Today, we welcome quite a tew dignitaries trom fellow residents of Pelican Bay, as well as other communities arOlllld us. We are so glad you are here. Let us get started. Mary, do we have everyone with us here today? Misc. Corres: . Date: MS. McCAUGHTRY: Yes, Madam ChaIT. Let the record reflect that all Board members are presetIt:---- 8001 Item*" '^,.~"-~~. " 1'\i,~S to --,-- ....--... --.-... '" ,~~,,- . . . 16 I 1~2d ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 STORMW ATER COLLECTION PRESENTATION BY DANIEL J. ACOUA VIVA. VP. RMA GEOLOGIC CONSULTANTS CHAIRMAN WOMBLE: Wonderful. Mr. Daniel Acquaviva is going to make a presentation for us today. Gooff Gibson knows him pretty well. Gooff, would you please introduce him? MR. GIBSON: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. At the Club Pelican Bay, I serve as Chairman of the Course and Greens. During my three-year tenure, the Club began installing an aquifer storage recovery well (ASR). The project is not complete because the Florida Department of Enviromnental Protection (FDEP) deemed the water we were planning to store in the well to be inadequate for the hopper and aquifer. During tills process of actually over four years, I have gotten to know Dan Acquaviva, the vice president of RMA Geologic Consultants, who has a great deal of knowledge. We are in the preliminary stages of looking at collecting rainwater and runoff water at the Club Pelican Bay. I thought that it is a good idea to educate the Board and I by having Dan make a brief presentation about what the Club has done and, more importantly, what he could envision the cormmmity doing in regards to ASR wells. Bear in mind, the Club needs about a half-million gallons of water during the dry season and possibly exceeds that amount up to 750 to a million gallons. The community itself uses 4 million gallons daily of re-useable water, which is a considerable challenge. If there could be a way to collect rainwater, then that is something that we should consider. That is a long introduction, but I turn it over to you, Dan. What a name to have, if you are in the water management bu.<;iness, Acquaviva, which just is amazing. So you were rather born into tills business, I guess. MR. ACQUA VIV A: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Dan Acquaviva, Vice President of RMA Geologic Consultants in Fort Myers, Florida. Omar Rodriguez, also of Geological Consultants is working the projector. Our purpose here today, as GootI indicated, is to provide a brief overview of some of the work that we have done for the Club at Pelican Bay over the last 12 years. By way of historical perspective, back in the 1970's when Pelican Bay was developed; a feasibility study was done to determine whether an on-site irrigation water supply source could be constructed. A number of test wells were drilled and it was determined that the on-site aquifers would not be able to supply the irrigation needs for both a 27 -hole golf course and the common areas of the community. An otI-site 85-90 feet aquifer well field was constructed on a location at that time was an FP&L power line easement. This location later became Livingston Road, north of hnmokalee Road. They gave up a lot of fresh water and a very good well field. Later, the well field was conveyed to Collier COlUlty. Pelican Bay signed reuse agreements with Collier County to use four million gallons a day for the Pelican Bay Services Division common areas, and 500,000 gallons per day for the golf course. I want to point out that the actual need for the golf course during peak dry season is one million gallons a day. It became apparent that 500,000 gallons a day was not going to be enough for the golf course. Unfortunately, the County had, in the meantime, signed many other reuse agreements with many other entities, and fully committed to the reuse quantities. 8002 ~ ...._< --" ~ ..."-,~,~,.._'---,._-,. 16 r MIll *" t1 '820 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 This slide just shows the aquifers that are present underneath Pelican Bay. The shell rock that is up here consists of a superficial aquifer, which is about 20 feet of fme grain sand, underlined by the lower table aquifer. Both aquifers yield fresh water. However, the reason this lower table aquifer was not developed on-site is due to the City of Naples well field, which is produced by the same aquifer, had a touch of saltwater intrusion. As you delve deeper, there are several other aquifers and they become progressively more brackish and salty. The Club Pelican Bay has a contract with Collier COllllty to receive half a million gallons a day of reused water at this point of entry (points to location on map) off tills reuse mainhere (points to location on map) and dumps into a reuse storage bin here (points to location on map). As I said, it became very apparent very early on that half a million gallons a day was not going to be enough to irrigate the golf course and that is when we became involved with the Club Pelican Bay. Prior to our involvement, the Club made several requests to Collier County and continues to make requests to increase Pelican Bay's reuse yolume. We did a study to determine \\hat type of incremental supplemental sources we could develop here on site. The first thing we did was determine how many gallons that an aquifer well could store, if two wells were installed. Each well is 450 feet long by 20 feet deep and each yields about 100,000 gallons per day, so that provides a little bit more water for the golf course. The next thing we did was drill a test well, a deeper test well to determine how much water we could get with the reuse. We also looked at the four discharge points and determined during the latter part of the dry season how much water is actually being discharged in the sprinkler system on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard. Most recently, we have been involved in an aquifer storage recovery well for Pelican Bay. This aerial photo shows the location of two of our wells. Again, both of those are discharging into that reuse storage pond. Here one, two, three, four are the discharge points that discharge into the sprinkler system. We performed another study in April of 2007, near the end of the dry season, to measure the discharge coming out of the wells and found that the discharge was good. So what is aquifer storage and recovery? It is a method of storing hundreds of millions of gallons of water in underground aquifers during periods of seasonal excess supply to recover it during periods of seasonal supply deficit I just want to point out, because this is very important. Aquifer storage and recovery is classified by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) as an alternative water supply. Groundwater from fresh water aquifers, shallow groundwater aquifers, and surface water are not alternative water supplies and are categorized as traditional water supplies. During periods that the SFWMD imposes water use restrictions, they require golf courses to reduce water consumption by up to 30 percent reduction from traditional sources of supply; SFWMD does not impose cutbacks or restrictions for alternative water supply sources. We have a real brief cartoon that shows an aquifer storage and recovery well injection in the wet season when there is excess for four or five months per year. Each ASR well could store up to 100 million gallons of water and followed by a period of storage, up to several months, and then 8003 ._...."..'.'."_n.__"""".___. -_..~. ~ -I. ~ TlIln ~~_f ,,", "~,.",", .. -~._--"'--_. 16 1 \1 '~B20 ". Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 recovery during the dry season to supplement other sources of supply, such as reuse. I will point out that the ASR system is not 100 percent efficient, so there is going to be water left in the ground. Typically, we would like to see in terms of volume, 70 to 80 percent recovery efficiency ejected. Our vision is to come up with an integrated strategy to optimize seasonally available water supply. Possibly Collier County could provide additional water during the wet season that could be stored in the ASR system. During the wet season, there is less demand from golf courses and water that is being produced at the North County Water Recovery facility on Goodlette-Frank Road is being injected into a deep 3,000-foot injection well, never to be recovered, and is basically wasted. Our goal is to obtain additional reuse water during the wet season, store it in the ASR and at the same time, maximize the use of service water during the wet season. The result would cut down on the amount of discharge going out to Clam Bay during the wet seaSOIl We would then recover that stored water during the dry season to supplement the reuse water, or the half million gallons per day that is coming from Collier County. Here is where we are right now with this the Chili Pelican Bay ASR system. The system has been designed and has been permitted through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The design includes an aquifer exemption for the secondary surface water that could migrate into the ASK We received an alternative supply grant from the South Florida Water Management District to defray some of the construction costs. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) provided the grant because the system design is consistent with the regional irrigation distribution system, a component of the lower west coast supply plan of the SFWMD, and the fact that we worked on the study with them. The ASR well and the overlying monitoring well have been installed. The previous test wells were converted to storage wells, so the subsurface portion of the system has been installed. The surface facility designs are being developed by an engineering fum, because we are geologists, not engineers. Therefore, as geologists, we concentrate on the subsurface portion. Again, to see the depiction of the Club Pelican Bay ASR system, the storage zone is one of the zones that will be part of the aquifer system; the ASR wells contain a submersible pump that will pump water in and out The waterlines of the fresh water aquifers are separated by thick clay lining. This is a real simple plan view showing some of the major elements of the surface facilities. The piping here is coming up from the point of entry that is the reuse piping off Pelican Bay Boulevard. There is the option to pump water out of the storage lake. Water goes into a pump that caD be used to increase the pressure, if needed, through a fIltration system, disinfection system, then through a pH adjustment system, and fmally into the ASR well. This is a sectional view of how sand filters the disinfection system, pH adjustment system, into the well and then pumped back out several months later. I hesitate to go into a lot of detail on the problems that Collier County has had with the water quality standards of the North County plant Suffice it to say that the problem right can be corrected technologically, if the County wants to spend money to do so. They have opted not to spend that money right now. Since the Club Pelican Bay has the option to pull water out of its reuse storage lake, but the sample from that lake currently does not meet the water 8004 -'-""'~--" ~ '" _..~,.,~ .-- _ ... _ .'<""-..-.....-".'.....-.-,,-""-.. ""'___il'..f 16 f 1 ;~ , '820 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Boanl Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 quality standards. Ideally, the water could be pUfilped from the retention lake instead of being pmnped directly through the Collier County used pipeline. Right now, the Club has offered to put construction of the service facilities on hold. One of the other options we have with this system that I believe may be of the most interest to Pelican Bay Services Division is to use the ASR well, to not only store reuse water, but also storm water. In order to do that the FDEP permit would need to modified and we would have to sample the storm water lake that is north of the reuse lake and analyze it for primary and secondary surface facilities and modifY slightly the ASR surtllCe facilities design and the go back to SFWMD for another alternative water supply grant. We do have a permit from the SFWMD to take up to a half million gallons of water a day from the north lake, however, there are no pUfilping facilities, only a proposed pumping station. I will not go into a lot of detail of what is involved in the operational testing, but I want to say that there is a lot of work that typically needs to be done, as far as water quality sampling, operating, and adjusting the system. What we would like to do is operate that system for the first year and make sure everything is working okay before we turn it over to the operators of thc site. I will wrap up by saying that I believe it could be a great benefit to the Pelican Bay Services Division to see that Club Pelican Bay has their own system and is moving forward and improving the technology. It will be a very successful system and thc Pelican Bay Services Division may possibly use it for other concerns, such as, to reduce the smface water flow into Clam Bay. It would also benefit Collier County. Our long-term goal is to have ASR systems on thc golf course operated by the end users of the golf courses themselves. The ASR system can be installed less eXl'Cnsively by the end user than by the COlmty. It rclieves the Connty of the burden ofhavil1g to put in ASR systems and fix the problems that arise, as is the case with their own system right now that is inoperable. Potential or possible ASR systems that inject both reuse water and storm water could be constructed near the Collier County pllll1ping station that is south of the golf course. Before Pelican Bay Services Division was taken over by the County, the site was a wlll,1ewater treatment plant. It is now a pumping station with up to four wells that can store four million gallons a day and 400 million gallons a year. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Dan, this is very interesting to people in the audience. Could you please take some questions now? MS. CRAVENS: Marcia Cravens, President of the Mangrove Action Group, as such always being watchful of anything that might negatively impact Clam Bay. It is currently a mix'ture of fresh watcr and salt water resulting in a brackish "vater system. I am very concerned about any alterations that would take fresh water, might take too much. Are there calculations and consideration of keeping it as it is as brackish but having adequate fresh water? MR. ACQUA VIVA: I appreciate your connnent As I am sure that you are aware, there has been a problem with Clam Bay. For many years the problem has existed and is due to an excessive discharge of fresh water. It has existed for many years. You do not agree. MS. CRAVENS: No. From what I understand, there are a combination of factors that caused the large mangrove die off, such as excess rainwater, which was the fresh water component, but also that there were constrictions within the system that did not allow it to 8005 ,-""~.- V' ''11I _,__,,_ h, 16 I 1 820 . ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 drain adequately. MR. ACQUA VIV A: Well, as far as the tidal channels clogging or becoming full, that is another issue, but I believe that you have to recognize that before the Pelican Bay was built, during the wet season, water would move into that Clam Bay system as sheet flow. It would move very slowly. With all these storm water ponds now, the discharges are very rapid, almost immediate. In addition, discharge is occurring right now in the dry season., so anything that would be done as far as taking surface water would be done in conjunction with the studies that have been done by Turrell and Associates and whomever else, to determine what the fresh water needs are seasonally for the Clam Bay System. MR. DALLAS: I heard, but did not understand how you could actually draw ofT the fresh water through some sort of filtering or something. What would be the process? It rains and lands on something, then what happens? MR. ACQUAVIVA: A storm water management system encompasses a series of lakes. Ideally, the best filtration would be accomplished by putting in horizontal wells. We have two horizontal wells and we know what the yields are, but they have limited yields. We have two, 4 feet x 50 feet, horizontal wells and each well produces 100,000 gallons per day. In our opinion, unless you put a much longer horizontal well, and that would be very expensive, the horizontal well option for fIltration is not going to be feasible. What we would have to do, as we are showing here, is pump water out of the storm water lakes. A sand filtration system most likely would be used in the lake to the north~ we have shown on the cross section that the filtration is done before the water goes into the reuse water. DR. RAIA: Did we know what the EPA restrictions were on putting water into the ASR before we started this project? I see we put a lot of money in, only to fmd out we carmot put the water into the project, so how did we arrive at that? MR. ACQUA VIVA: The injection standards are the same as for primary and secondary drinking water. The water that is injected is reuse water coming from the North County wastewater treatment facility, but tills treatment plant currently has problems. When we started tills process, obviously, they were meeting EP A standards. The County went ahead and installed their own ASR system and as I am sure that you would agree, the COlmty would not have spent the money if they thought they were going to have problems. DR. RAIA: So at the time of installation., the County was producing effluent water that met the standards. MR. ACQUA VIVA: That is correct DR. RAIA: Now they are producing effluent water that does not meet the standard. MR. ACQUA VIVA: Yes. DR. RAIA: Is tills fixable? Can the County improve their water treatment system to produce better quality water? MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yes. DR. RAIA: Has the County looked into it? 8006 ~_._--~- .-.'---- ...- -'_..".'-~ ~ ..----- 161 ., Ip20 " Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Boan) Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR. ACQUA VIVA: From what I understand, the County hired an engineering fIrm and the fIrm proposed a cost estimate. The County deferred and said that they did not want to spend that money right now. DR. RAIA: Thank you. MR. IAIZZO: Ddn, tills Board has seen fIt to spend many millions of dollars for an automated irrigation system that is still incomplete, but it is what truly helps keep the keep up the community beautitication. How may tills idea that you have presented benefIt the community? Or will it only benefIt the Chili? MR. ACQUAVIVA: We are working for the Chili. We obviously have the best interests of the Chili in mind. It is a 27-hole golf course and it needs more water. MR. IAIZZO: How will the residents of Pelican Bay benefIt? This is a million plus dollars project that you are describing. MR. ACQUA VIVA: As far as the benefits to the Pelican Bay Services Division, I am not giving you any proposal or anything like that; I am just telling you what we have done for the Club Pelican Bay over the last few years. MR. IAlZZO: If we are going down that path, we would have to know how many millions we would be spending. MR. ACQUA VIVA: If you want me to give you a cost per well, I cannot really answer that at this time, because a feasibility study should be done to determine how many wells are going to be needed and what the optimum storage vohune is going to be. I could give you a ballpark number for a well. MR. IAlZZO: The simple question is who benefIts, the Club, or the residents of the community? MR. ACQUA VIVA: As far as the Pelican Bay Services Division goes, maybe there is not a tangible benefIt or one I could pin a dollar amount, but Clam Bay would benefIt. As far as the bigger picture, it would benefIt the residents of Collier County and the customers of Collier County Utilities would benefIt. The County has overcommitted its reuse and that is a major problem; there is a waiting list of 140 different entities waiting for reuse water right now. In more general terms, it would benefIt the County. MR. CRA YENS: My understanding is that it is far less costly for the end user to develop this than the County. MR. ACQUA VIVA: That is correct MR. CRA YENS: We are in sort of an unusual situation in that we would be the end user, yet we are part of the County. Could you explain to us why it is less expensive for the end user to develop tills than it would be for the County to develop tills and how that would affect us? MR. ACQUA VIVA: It has been our experience that when systems are bid, that bidders bid much higher when they are dealing with a County entity than with a private entity. There is no question about that. DR. RAIA: Dan, I would like to add that apparently, the reuse water must meet a basic standard for the EP A, otherwise, the 8007 ._o,..~ ..".~,,-,- ... T I"Il"U -". -. .~ ,.~......._, .... 01' """,-__., . . 16 I 1 ~ "1 p~O Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Boanl Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 County would not be able to release it Is that correct, or are they operating under some exception? MR. ACQUA VIV A: Right now, there are standards for injecting water into an underground aquifer that are the standards for primary and secondary drinking water. Public access reuse or golf course water follows a different set of standards. The County and any other entity that uses reuse in a public access area must have shallow monitoring wells. The monitoring wells and water supply are sampled and tested on a quarterly basis and must meet the parameters on the list of water quality standards for public access reuse. If they are in violation, there is a problem It is my understanding that has not happened yet, but that does not mean it is not going to happen in the future. DR RAIA: So doing tills methodology really increases the quality standard. It is not practical for us to ask the County to increase it to this standard if the only place water is injected in the ground is at Pelican Bay; unless, of course, other communities throughout the County are going to be doing this. MR. ACQUA VIVA: Yes. There is a widespread problem as far as reuse water quantities with the County. They have a long waiting list for those entities that are not currently receiving the reuse water during the dry season; the entities that are currently receiving the reuse water, even though they may have an allocation of 500,000 gallons of wilter, but the allocation may be prorated or cut back to 400,000 or 350,000 gallons a day. It is a widespread problem that needs to be addressed. DR RAIA: So there is no question that in season the County is losing many millions of gallons of water that could be stored, if they had a system like tills. You mentioned in the beginning that you had a well field that was somewhat northeast of here. Is it the same well field Pelican Bay used for potable water? MR. ACQUA VIVA: Yes, it was. DR RAIA: You had a tmique agreement with them, that when you turned the well field over to the County, they had to provide you with irrigation water? MR. ACQUA VIV A: That was before my time; I was not involved in any negotiations with the County regarding the reuse contracts. DR RAJA: It was an agreement with the County; they agreed to provide you, I believe that it was 500,000 gallons a day of irrigation water, if you gave them your well field. MR. GIBSON: I believe that what you are reterring to is a reclaimed water agreement that was made when the Pelican Bay Independent District was dissolved and the County took over. It is a reclaimed water agreement of half million gallons per day with the County and South Florida Water Management District. DR RAIA: How long is that agreement for, forever? 8008 "..,,""- '"-~, ". ,~._'.._~..,".....~ 16 1 1 820 , Peli~ Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR. GIBSON: No. It is up forrenewal in 2011. DR RAIA: So we could lose that water. MR. GIBSON: I do not believe that our supply will be cutback. We are asking very politely for more water. Whether we get an affIrmative answer or not is why we went ahead and settled the ASR issue. DR RAIA: When the agreement is up in 2011, does that mean you get your well field back? MR. GIBSON: I do not believe that the well fIeld is back into the picture. We are negotiating for an additional 4 million gallons per day of reuse water because the original contract we signed was inadequate for the Chili. I do not believe that there really is an agreement with the Pelican Bay community. DR RAIA: That is what I am getting at. Is there an agreement with Pelican Bay, in addition to the Club, in that the Pelican Bay community is supposed to receive 4 million gallons? MR. GIBSON: Pelican Bay was to receive 4 million gallons when the property was conveyed. DR RAIA: This is really news to me, and ] am sure to lots of people that such an agreement exists, because the County has threatened to shut off our irrigation water as their prerogative. MR. GIBSON: Once again, I do not know anything about that. DR RAIA: I appreciate your comment, but I would like to see where this comes from, because I have not heard of it before. MR. GIBSON: Going back to John's question, the ASR system really offers a potential solution for irrigation water for our community. Excess water can be stored instead of running it out to the Gulf of Mexico and then use the storage water during the dry period. All it takes is to reverse the pumps down there. One ASR well at the Chili certainly will not be sufficient to do the community, but it is something to think about. The Club has gotten started and I believe that it is the right thing to do is to get the Board here familiar with the process that John Petty introduced it a couple of months ago. DR RAIA: I can appreciate that, but I can also appreciate what John has pointed out. Pelican Bay does not have a problem now, so it is somewhat hard to commit millions of dollars to a problem does not exist. MR. GIBSON: Right. DR RAIA: Let us be honest If we were to find ourselves in a position that the County was going to shut our water off, it would look much more attractive. MR. GIBSON: Right on. DR RAIA: That is where we are going right now. MR. IAIZZO: Until such a time. 8009 . -~- ._"'~.,. .'_' ..~..a -. "",,""""_."- ..... "-,,,,,,,,,".-...--". -, 16 I 1 '; lilt '820 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR CRA YENS: Dan, following through as the community uses approximately 4 million gallons per day, what would be the maximlUll amount we could expect to generate with this system? Could we generate 4 million, plus the amount needed for Club Pelican Bay? MR ACQUA VIVA: Well, again, as far as storing underground, there are two sources of supply. There is the reuse water and then there is storm water. Going back to the question, we would want to store the amount of storm 'water according to the needs of the estuary and a reuse agreement made with the County. The County is discharging large volumes of reuse water during the wet season down into deep injection wells. I would suggest that what the Pelican Bay Services Division would want to do is look at the contract rate and see if they can get a reduction in the rate from the County for taking excess anlOunt of water in the wet season and storing it underground to help defray some of the costs. MR. CRAVENS: Do we have the capacity, for example, if the County were to fimnel some of the water that it is currently dispensing, just trying to get rid of, if they were to agree to give that to us, do we have the capacity to store it? MR. ACQUA VIV A: Well, again, the way to store it is underground in an aquifer storage and recovery well (ASR) where you can store hundreds of millions of gallons or a hundred million gallons per well undergTOund per ycar. MR. CRAVENS: So a Hawthorn aquifer system that you are referring to has virtually lDllimited storage capacity, if there are enough wells. MR. ACQUA VIVA: That would be a tair statement. MR. LEVY: How much water a day can you get out of one well when you want to use it? MR. ACQUA VIVA: The submersible pump in the well can extract one million gallons a day. MR. LEVY: So, the Community would need four wells. MR. ACQUA VIV A: That is what we showed on that last video. MR. GIBSON: I believe there is enough acreage on the south end of the golf course to install wells on the property. MR. CRA YENS: Dan, you are saying that you cannot give us any figures until some sort of engineering study is done? MR. ACQUA VIVA: We would suggest a feasibility study, such as the one by Turrell and Associates, to determine what the needs are. One of the important variables to address is to determine how much storm water is coming from off site and flowing through this site, as well establish a timeline as to the flow rate from the discharge points on a regular basis to see if they change seasonally. Once those numbers are established and feasibility study complete, then ASR system design can begin. We would want to have the Club Pelican Bay ASR system proven successful before we recommend to anybody moving forward with another system on the site. SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE: Are ASR wells being used in other areas of Florida? 8010 -,',.,. . --"-'--"--- ...,.....",..~.- 16 1 1 820 '4 ,,,- Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Boanl Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR. ACQUA VIVA: Absolutely. There are probably 175 ASR wells operating in the state. SPEAKER FROM AUDlli'NCE: Successfully? MR. ACQUA VIVA: Yes. SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE: Is the County looking at other successful ASR wells in the State to improve their system? MR. ACQUA VIVA: The County uses the system up in the area of the Livingston Road well field. They are planning to put in one pilot ASR well and expand to five. They put in the pilot well and all of the surface facilities. They have not put a drop of water in that well because of the problem they have developed with their reuse water quality and the water treatment plant. SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE: If 1 million gallons can be extracted a day from tills well, could you build higher volume wells? MR. ACQUA VIVA: It is dependent upon the hydraulic properties of the storage aquifer. So for the aquifer we are using, no. One million gallon." per well per day would be optimal. Deeper aquifers with a higher transferability, possibly, but the deeper the well, the saltier the water, the less recovery efticiency or the lower the water recovery efticiency would be. SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE: If this well was operating at peak efticiency and they were getting as much water as they needed from the County, would it produce water during the dry seasons in excess of what the club would need? MR. ACQUA VIVA: It could, yes, if the Club was still getting half a million gallons a day of reuse water from the County. SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE: So that water could be used for other facilities in Pelican Bay. MR. ACQU A VIVA: Correct. SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE: Thank you very much MR. GRA VENHORST: Dan, are there any examples where you have installed ASR in an independent or special taxing district, like Pelican Bay, and what was the reaction in surrounding municipality or County as to what claim !hey would have on that water, should it be installed, or are all of the installations in private entities? MR. ACQUA VIVA: We do a lot of work for municipal utilities. We have put in several ASR systems in Lee County. The State owns the water, not the property owner. As far as process goes first, an aerial review is performed to identify all of the existing well users in that area to ensure that there are not going to be any adverse etl"ects; if all appears well, the nex't step would be to apply for a permit from the FDEP. MR. GRA VENHORST: But if you are a dependent district and you put in tills system to serve your district, can any past history of c1aulls again<;t the \yater lw the people senicing the district. such as Collier County COlllUlg Ul and saying. ',\yell. \'(lU folks haw too llmch \yater. ,ye ,,'ant to use sonle of it" MR. ACQUA VIVA: The state owns the water and the state issues the pennits. 8011 .' -~<~-<,-- _.~. .~"'"'~.-. --_.,.----.~",.._,' "'~ "-_.'._,.~ - 16 I l~ 820 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR GRA VENHORST: Understood. But we have an ongoing situation with the County now with non-potable water. We do not want to lose the status or cause them to look at us disapprovingly. My question is would not have to worry about sharing that water with Collier County? MR. ACQUA VIVA: No. The permit would be in the name of the entity Pelican Bay Services Division. MR. GRAYENHORST: Thanks. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Marcia? MS. CRAVENS: You talked about wastewater treatment and you showed some diagrams of, essentially what looked like a wastewater treatment plant. Is that what would end up being built here to deal with all this excess effiuent? MR. ACQUAVIVA: No. The wastewater treatment occurs at the North County Wastewater Recovery facility on Goodlette-Frank Road, south of Immokalee Road. MS. CRA YENS: That is what they have now, but if you are talking about building four wells to hold four million gallons of effluent water, what if it does not quite meet the standard required by EP A and does require further cleaning? MR. ACQUA VIVA: In order to get an underground injection pem-lit, you have to show that the water is going to be up to standard. MS. CRA YENS: Will the process of making that water meet standards, or additional cleaning be required by Pelican Bay? MR. ACQUA VIV A: You have two potential sources to discharge water. There is reuse water that goes through the wastewater treatment plant. There is storm water, which is the surface water in the retention ponds. We would have to sample the water and ensure it meets the standards for injection. Then the water would go through some physical processes, filtration, disinfection, and pH adjustment. It is minimal treatment. MS. CRA YENS: Is that wastewater treatment? MR. ACQUA VIVA: No, not even close. The process at a wastewater treatment facility is tirr more complex and involved. MS. CRA YENS: Okay, but we are still talking about placing a physical plant in Pelican Bay to treat the water. MR. ACQUA VIVA: It is minimal treatment. It is a very small footprint. The size we are talking about, visualization is probably from the edge of that door to maybe about here. MS. CRA YENS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Are there any other questions? Mr. Acquaviva, we really appreciate you coming by and giving us a presentation so that we will have a little bit more knowledge of what Mr. Gibson has been going through for at least three years, maybe more, not to mention Mr. Burke, who is also in our audience and several others. We do appreciate all of your concern and your help 8012 --. -.'.. "., .".-----.. ..bo,.o. ....~'"""-~ _w~_...._ .- 16 I 1 '1B20 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 through the years. Thankfully, you have given us a chance to become educated as well. Thank you. APPROVAL OF APRIL 1. 2009 PBSD ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We are moving onto the approval of the April I meeting minutes for the full Pelican Bay Services Division Board Advisory Board I have something to bring up, but does anyone else have something fIrst? Mr. Moffatt? MR. MOFFATT: I have been trying to read the minutes as quickly as possible during this meeting. On page 7903, the motion near the top of the page it would appear that I moved and Cravens seconded that motion. That was on the second motion. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, you are right I see that. MR. MOFFATT: On page 7907, there is a motion in the middle of the page that is totally out of sequence and a repeat of the prior motion. I believe that it should be a motion to put our contact infonnation on the web site, if I recall. Raia and Cravens are the right people; it is just the wrong motion. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is correct. MR. MOFFATT: On page 7918 at the very bottom, I was not talking about a fishing contest. I was talking about a pissing contest. Let us have the record correct, that is all. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Actually, I saw that and decided I would not bring it up. DR. RAIA: Madam Chair, I have some corrections. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Dr. Raia. DR. RAIA: On 7919, in the middle of the page you see two dates, 1987 and 1988. That should be 1997 and 1998. On the next page 7920, about the fifth sentence down, beginning with navigable and that coast piling, that should be Coast, with a capital C, and Pilot \\ith a capital P Further dO\\1l I sm. "it has been described as," it is not 'ethereal.' although that probahlv could be equally said. but it is 'ephemeral.' .lvlr. .lv1cAlpin "as here and he \\as the one "ho happened to say that Thank \ot!. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. Does anyone else have anything? Well, I do. On page 7949, I believe we have a contlict of \vho \\'lIS actually speaking. At the top after I'vl1' Petty speaks. it states that NIl' Gnl\enhorst sa\s. "pavers look nice during the daylight hours, but at midnight or II :00 coming home from a movie, we do not see the pavers very well and they will not illuminate the cross\\alk. We are confusing beauty \\ith securitv" \}.,'ell. I agree \\ith that part. Then it reads that I say, "Thanks. Steve" I beliew that Mr. Seidel was talking. Ted, do you remember? MR. GRA VENHORST: I believe that it was Steve. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So do I. MR. GRA VENHORST: I know what I said, but I believe that you asked the question. 8013 ...------ .- ",~,"",. ~,.",.,.. "'....-_._,~, ."...- "'".- 16 I 1B20 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Boanl Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well. let us go \\itll. "Thank YOU" (UlJ leaw out "SteYe" there. lvir. Grayenhorst YOU are the fellow that said it supposedly. If either of yon think that it might have been you, call Mary at the office. Anyone else? MR. CRAVENS: I move that the minutes as corrected be approved. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Second? MR. MOFFATT: Second MR. LEVY: Second CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We have two seconds. All right All in favor? Aye. MR.lAIZZO: Aye. DR. RAIA: Aye. MR. MOFFATT: Aye. MR. DALLAS: Aye. MR. HANSEN: Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. GillSON: Aye. MR. CRAVENS: Aye. MR. GRAVENHORST: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed? None. Motion carries. Mr. Cr(Il'L'IU' mmwl, ,feL"(I1Ule(1 by Mr. !vloffatt ({ful tire BmlrJ unanimously approl'ed with n"l'i,fimu tire Pelican Ba.v Services Division Advisory Board's Aprill, 20(19 MeL'/inf( Minutl!.\~ APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 27. 2009 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITfEE MEETING MINUTES CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Next is approval of the January 27 Ordinance Review Committee Meeting Minutes, That ",'Ould have to be the folks that were there: Michael Levy, Ted Raia, Mr. Burke and myself. Mr. Burke is no longer on the Board, but if you want to wave, and hoot and holler from the audience, Jim, go right ahead. Did anyone have something to amend? Okay. I did not see anything of grave importance. 1 saw a couple of typos that, Mary, I will talk to you about, but other than that? All right I guess those of us who know, do I have a motion? DR. RAIA: I move to accept the minutes. MR. LEVY: I second. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? Aye. 8014 "-,..,-- , ... I_~~_'" w. ..~~...__,_""<_,'.,,__'_._ ~ 16 J 1'11 2 0 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR. WZZO: Aye. DR. RAJA: Aye. MR. MOFFATT: Aye. MR. DALLAS: Aye. MR. HANSEN: Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. MR. CRA YENS: Aye. MR. GRA VENHORST: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed? None. Motion carries. Dr. Raia nwved, seconded by Mr. LeJ'Y, and the Board unanimously approved the [. Ordinance Review Committee Meetinll Minutes of Januarv 27,2009. ~. . ADMINISTRATOR'S FINANCIAL REPORT CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. Petty, you are up. MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, the monthly financials were included in your package. We have our normal red flags on inter fund transfers, Fnnd Ill, which we have already explained to you. The County has that down on a monthly basis as before, but we are holding that to the end of the year. We are still looking on the County's decision. The $11,000 from the Tourist Development Conncil (TOC) Fund are monies that we do not plan on spending, but they were already in the budget. We will probably see that red flag until the end of year. We really do not expect that money, as it does have limitations, and we do not anticipate doing any work that would quality for the use of those funds. The third red flag is our three-month cash flow, which we quantify as a cost element in our budget. The County considers tills to be carry forward reserve, not as a monthly cost, so we have flagged it. Other than that, the biggest numbers to discuss are income for ad valorem and non ad valorem assessments. If you take away the $214,000 and $11,000 from the inter fund transfers from Fund 11 I and TOC respectively, we are about $150,000 away from our total expectation. We have one more month where we expect revenue to come in from the Tax Collector and we do expect to come in very close to budget. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Excellent. I have two fello\\'S here that Co-Chair our Budget Committee, Mike Levy and Jerry Moffatt Do either of have any questions or additions at this point? MR. MOFFATT: Not on the report. Are you looking for the report of the budget conunittee? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. I just wanted to know if you had anything that you wanted to say or do you want to wait until 8015 ,~..,-- .~. WI'" -'., <'~"""'''';''"'''--~ ,...,..... .. .,."." . 16 1 t~B 20 . ,. Pelican Bay Services Division A4visory Board Meeting M,~utes May 6, 2009 the Budget Committee agenda item? MR. MOFFATT: I have some items for the Budget Committee agenda item CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. We will wait until then. MR. LEVY: I appreciate the report; it has been cleaned up, so thank you. MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE'S NEW ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION AND FULL BOARD VOTE CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Moving along. The Management Review Committee's new administrator recommendation and nIl! Board ,ote is next. The Management Review Committee's responsibility was to find a new administrator or reappoint the current administrator. We came to a vote by considering a straw vote of the Board. We voted for the Dorrill Management Group and we need a full vote of our Board to make sure that it on the public record. We have been cormmmicating with the County and the budget and salary request for DorriII Management Group is still in question, but nevertheless, we need a full Board vote. We need a motion that we chose the one that came in with the most points. r MR. MOFFATT: I move that we approve the selection of Dorrill Management Group as our new administrator. l0- r CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do I have a second'? MR. GRA VENHORST: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Mr. Gravenhorst. All in favor? Aye. MR. DALLAS: Can we have discussion? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR. DALLAS: I voted along with the rest of you for Mr. Dorrill. Following that decision, it came to my attention that there had been some problem with his background; that he pleaded guilty to mcketeering and conspiracy, placed on probation and fined $10,000. I contacted Mr. Curran to see what he had to say about it. They pointed out that adjudication was withheld, meaning there was no official rmding of guilt. Did the Review Committee look into this and, if so, I would like your reaction. MR. lAIZZO: The history is well known and it goes back ten years. It came out in the papers at that time. I was well aware that Mr. DorriIl was the County Manager at that time and of all the incidents and I did not hold that against him. I was impressed with the communities that he is managing. I consider them upscale communities. That is all I can say. !viR. !vfOFF ATT From the standpoint of the Committee. \\e \\ere amue of Mr. Dorrill's past and \\e asked Jack Curran if thnt would be a problem at the County level. After a few days of checking arOlU1d, he came back and he said it is up to us to select who we thought best and that there was no problem at the County level. DR RAJA: Madam Chair, Way back in the crevices of my mind, that the name was tlimiliar. Anyone can make a mistake and 8016 ^.._~. ~ .-""--",~,.--,.,.~.,--"," 16 I 1 B20~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 own up to it. I would have appreciated it more if it was brought out in the open rather than discovering it afterward, but I would still vote for him. I do believe that it is something that should have been on the table at the time and that the Committee should have mentioned it. It is an important fact. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Does anyone else have questions or comments? MR. GRA VENHORST: The motion has been called. Let us vote. MR. WZZO: Aye. DR. RAIA: Aye. MR. MOFFATT: Aye. MR. DALLAS: Aye. MR. HANSEN: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. /w.'# MR. CRAVENS: Aye. MR. GRA VENHORST: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. Opposed? MR. LEVY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Let that stay on the record that one opposed Motion carries. Mr. Moffatt moved, seconded by Mr. Gravenhorst, with discussion to approve the selection of Dorri/l Management Group as new administralor bv II vote of9 -1. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. Petty, you and Janice have served us very well and that I suspect that you will be hearing from Pelican Bay because we all know how much you care for this community. There are many people in the audience who respect and appreciate your knowledge and understanding of the needs of our community. We thank you very much for the past and for what will come in the future. COMMUNITY ISSUES: UPDATE ON CLAM BAY CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We have been asked to defer to Mr. Tunis McElwain, Section Chief, here with us today from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers, Fort Myers Permitting and concerned with Clam Bay. Marcia, I believe that you were going to introduce him. Would you do that now? This is Marcia Cravens. MR. MOFFATT: MadamChair? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. 8017 ~"~. -. "."..~.._... Ill. .J"'_"."'_"-'-. 16.1 1 f B 20" Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR MOFFATT: This is not on the agenda. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, it is not. Mr. McElwain is here to educate us. Honestly, I just came home from a very pleasant trip for the frrst time in over a year to find a Trojan horse on my computer, so I was not aware of a lot of the things that I have to do at tills point in time. You are going to have to allow me, as Chair, to do something that is a little educational, and someone has taken their time to come here today. It will not be very long, but it will be educational. I am learning too, so I am going to ask that you defer to me on this one particular item. MR. MOFFATT: Can we amend the agenda because it is not on the agenda? CHAIRWOIVIAN WOMBLE: It is part ofm\ agenda actualh and \\hat I \\as going to discuss under Chairwoman's Report. MR. GRA VENHORST: Would that be under member's comments? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It could be, but this person is here and has waited patiently for several hours. They are on their own time, as are we are. We're volunteers also, but we are volunteering for this community and I believe it is in the best interest of our community to hear from him. MS. CRAVENS: I believe that there is an error in the agenda, because Clam Bay's issues were on last month's agenda. I discussed tills with John Petty. He indicated that he thought it might be an error that Clam Bay issues are only on this agenda as Communi1::-- Issues. \\hen it should be continuing business tl'om April's discussion of Clam Bay channel markers. There was action taken and it should be back on your agenda as follow up. In this regard, there has been a lot of confusion and hearsay regarding what the Corps position, particularly on channel markers, marking the waterway for Clam Bay. I have been in communication with Donald Kinard, the person who wrote the March 2 letter that the County has been stating as an indicator that lateral aids to navigation are required in the system, and through my personal communication with Donald Kinard, he indicated that was not the intent of that letter. Last month, as you all know, the Board took action to respond to the March 2 letter. I believe there has been some problems with him actually receiving that letter, and so to that end, I requested if he could come here to address tills Board at a public meeting to clarifY the Corps' position. He could not make it and requested Mr. TWlis McElwain from the Corps Fort Myers office. If you would not mind, I would like to indicate why this request was made and what we expect to occur from the clarification. The Mangrove Action Group had their Board meeting yesterday. We thoroughly discussed that this issue needs addressing. We fervently hope that this contentious matter of nmigational1llarkers in the waters of the Clam Bm-'s Nanna I Resource Protection Area (NRP A I will be resohed this month. To that end, communication has occurred with various levels of the US. Army Corps of Engineers, including Donald Kinard and what brought Mr. McElwain here today. Through his discussion today, it should become evident that the Corps never intended for the Clam Pass system to be marked with US. Coast Guard lateral navigational aids_ You will discover by asking him questions that the current Canoe Trail does 8018 ---.--.--^ ,.,,".__M.~'_~'> -~....,"-~, .-..-.--.-.._,~, 16 , 1 e20 .. Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 meet the intent of the Clam Bay Restoration Management Plan permits. CIarification is needed regarding the Corps position that no U.S. Coast Guard lateral navigational aids should be installed in the Gulf of Mexico. You will discover that the Corps is in agreement with those who understand that the entrance to the Clam Pass system should be marked with U.S. Coast Guard markers actually warning mariners of the hazards and limitations of navigation within the Clam Pass system. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Marcia, I am going to ask that you let him speak to us to that end. MS. CRAVENS: Absolutely, thank you. !viR. CRA YENS: !vfadam Chmr. can I mIlke a pOll1t of order betl)re \\e proceed') Item number nine 'Updates on Clam Bm' YOU could move that up on the agenda and put it right now. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is exactly what I am doing, Tom, thank you. Hello Mr. McElwain and welcome. MR. McELWAIN: Good afternoon. My name is Tmlls McElwain. For those of you who may be wondering, it is a family name and they dig it up every couple hundred years and stick somebody with it, so it just happened to be my turn. I am currently the south permits branch chief and I oversee four offices in South Florida. So all the permitting in South Florida that the Army Corps of Engineers does is under my purview. We have received a lot of calls and complaints and concerns regarding a permit that we issued to tills Board for restoration of mangroves approximately ten years ago. We have talked with the County. This morning I met with Jim Hoppensteadt with Pelican Bay to hear exactly what the concems are. We took a site visit and looked at Clam Bay. My intent here today is to answer any questions related to the permit, hear what you have to say here. Then, I am meeting with the County to understand their intentions. With that I am here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: At tills point you have not met with the County yet, correct? MR. McELWAIN: No, we have not CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: What do you determine the permit to read as for signage for anything that you know that is under discussion at tills point? MR. McELWAIN: It is my understanding the permit was issued to this board. You \vere actually the permit holder. It was a restoration plan that had some reference to navigational marking, or just notice to mariners of some kind. In my opinion, the plan is a little poorly worded. It is unclear exactly the intent; what was intended, what was not intended, and that is the reason why I am here. Primarily, the intent of the permit appears to be restoration of mangroves, Usually with permits of that nature, our signs and channel markers that we request are related to marking resources, as opposed to designating a chalmel. However, we are going to listen to the County and hear their concerns are and any plans that may be on the horizon for Clam Bay. MR. GRA VENHORST: Has the County talked to your office or your area manager's office with any questions regarding what 8019 .~ "~".^--.'_ "-ill.' , ..-.. '-"--'-"-^"--'~'....'."._.~. ,,<~, """"""... -- ,10 I ,I. 820 Pelican Bay Servials Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 type of permitting needed to be included with a permit or have you been not in that mix at all? Have you had discussions with the County? MR. McELWAIN: Yes, we have. I asked Gary McAlpin to come and sit in on this meeting as well today, in case there are any questions as to what the County does or does not plan to do. MR. GRA VENHORST: Was any instructions given to the County that we had to have lateral navigational markers, Coast Guard markers? MR. McELWAIN: The letter indicated that the plan does call for markers of some sort. MR. GRAVENHORST: We have markers now. MR. McELWAIN: I understand that. MR. GRA VENHORST: But has anyone told them they had to put in Coast Guard markers? MR. McELWAIN: There are a lot of different types of markers. MR. GRA VENHORST: You have not told the County that, have you? MR. McELWAIN: We have not told them specifically a type of marker that had to be in place. MR. MOFFATT: Donald Kinard's letter of March 2 specifies Coast Guard markers. MR. McELWAIN: It says Coast Guard approved markers. Like I said, we have informational signs that are Manatee markers, sea grass markers, and those are also Coast Guard approved markers. So, there are a variety of terms they use to notice mariners and kinds of markers. DR. RAIA: May I ask a question? MR. McELWAIN: Sure. DR RAIA In the March 2 letter. tv1r. Kinard states. "it has come to the US. Army Corps of Engineers' attention that the nnyigntionnl markers haye not been instnlled." tvfm I nsk "ho brought tills to your attention and "hy') MR. McELWAIN: Exactly who Mr. Kinard was in conversation with, I am not sure. I can tell you that we have had multiple calls here locally. My office is in Fort Myers. We have been approached by several entities, and I understand that there are several political issues independent of our permit that are, we are more or less in the middle of here. MR. MOFF AfT: That was that contest I was referring to earlier. MR. McELWAIN: If we are doing our job properly, I am going to walk out of here and probably everybody is going to be mad at me. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Have you scheduled an appointment to meet "ith the County? MR. McELWAIN: Yes. We have been informed that it is your County Commissioner's meeting on May 26. Our intention is to 8020 .-- ~." , "........--.., <'-^-'""'''~-_' "'<I"" -_.-, 16 , 1--820 ~ Pe6can Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 get a plan from them immediately following that meeting and make a decision on whether or not we are going to enforce a special condition We may, we may not. All enforcement of Corps permits is discretionary. So we are trying to listen to everyone, get all the information and make a decision CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Would you like a canoe? I have one. MR. McELWAIN: I also have one. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I recommend ithighIy, at all levels of tide. MR. CRAVENS: If this Board were to make a request for a modification of the language, a clarification of the language, so to speak and make it clear, would the Corps respond to that request? MR. McELWAIN: This entity, Pelican Bay Services Division is the permit holder listed on the permit. I understand that you are a part of Collier County government, but you are the permit holder. If you choose to modify an active permit, then we will act on your request. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So we are coming down to semantics here. MR. McELWAIN: Really, the intent originated with tills Board in terms of the restoration plan. If you would like to clarifY that, we would be willing to listen. DR. RAIA: Madam Chair, I have drafted a letter. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: To whom? DR. RAIA: To Mr. Kinard that I am hoping will be approved by tills Board. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, Ted, we are going to need to have to review for the next meeting. DR. RAIA: Well, may the Board at least listen and decide what they want to do? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I would prefer at this point to be able to review it first. MR. CRA YENS: Madam Chair that is not a decision you can make. DR. RAIA: I am going to read this letter into the record; I believe that it pertains exactly to what Mr. McElwain is saying and I believe it is pertinent. MR. GRA YENHORST: To Dr. Raia's point, what is the COllllty'S meeting on May 26? Is that when they may take action on our behalf? If so, this needs to be taken care of this month, not next. DR. RAIA: 1 do not like to rush things, but in a way, this thing has been dragging for over a year, but time is of the essence right no\\". So. if Ima\" continue. "Toda\" the Pelican Ba\" Sef\ice Di\ision. the permittee on the Department of the An11\ permit nml1ber 199602789 issued on August 11, 1998 voted to request a modification and clarification of the permit and authorized this letter. 8021 ~"~.".. ,-,.,., , . - ...."""""',_._._,."'_".....,''''__"''..",..''u",.".,~....,,.~~"~"' '.,,,..... -...."--...-.- 16 I II ""820 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 Specifically, the language in the following paragraph of the permit is misleading, especially if one interprets marked as referring to lateral nayigation signs. Lateral nmigation signs denotes safe passage. \\hich does not exist" Here is the paragraph: "Finally. the main channel will be marked in accordance with the requirements imposed by the United States Coast Guard to ensure that those who use the system clearly know where the channel is and the prohibitions against operating their watercraft outside the same. The permit should be modified to read as follows: Finally, the waters of Clam Pass and outer Clam Bay shall be marked with non lateral navigation signs to clearly mark areas of concern for boaters and the prohibitions against operating their crafts outside the same. This would be in full compliance with Collier County Ordinance 96-16 that guarantees the navigation rights to all and provides enforcement of the non-lateral sign descriptions. Review of all of the minutes taken during the preparation of the permit agrees that this is the intent of the correct language. and the contents of the follo\\ing paragraph lJ1 the permit also confirm that mtent." First paragraph taken from the pennit: "For the most part, the accumulation of sediment and the shoaling that has taken place has resulted in physically limiting accessibility of Clam Bay to deeper draft boats. in particular. those equipped \yith the engines." Tlus is in the pernut Another paragraph: "The management plan \yould not anticipate am changes in the recreational use characteristics of the Clam Bay. The recreational uses now are predominately kayaks, canoes, people bathing in the Pass, children tubing in the Pass, wading fisherman. " If you were to make this a safe passage using lateral navigation signs, there would detinitely be a change in the recreational use. Appropriate notifications, signage and policing will be provided by the County or Pelican Bay Services Division to ensure compliance. The signage will be strategically placed both at the entrance to Clam Pass and then the areas around the boat ramp located at the southern end of outer Clam Bay. The pernnt identifies where these signs are going to go, just at the entrance and where the boat ramp is, not distributed, as you would do in navigational safe passage, with lateral navigation signs. Furthermore, there is no main channeL The United States Coast Guard has not imposed any requirements on the Pelican Bay Services Division to install these signs. I want to add that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration nautical chart number 11430 bas Clam Pass marked as non-mlyigable and the Coast Pilot describes. and I quote. "Clam Pass about 5 nules nOl1h of Naples is a shoal drainage canal to outer Clam Bay. The pass is used onh by outhoards III good \wather." The section on inside navigation states, and I quote, "Navigation on the waterways covered by tills volume requires knowledge of the channel conditions and other factors restricting navigation." A shoal, by definition is a hazard to navigation. We are in the process of refurbishing the canoe trail markers in need of repair and are adding three markers to mark the trail to the Pass. I have including he plan showing the location of the trail markers. I have also included a plan to show the placement of the non-lateral navigation signs. We want to clarify, when somebody talks about Coast Guard navigational signs, it has to be clear that there are two types of signs, lateral and non-lateraL All this research points to one thing and that is that they are addressing non lateral signs, which does go along with 8022 -..-'-- -,"--'''.'-- __ """'."M_.C" ,,,,,-,_.,,'., 0" ~c.~_,'_"''' - ...".~,_.,.~~".,..,~,~- 16 , 1"" 820 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 the mtent of SaYlllg the mangrnws." No\\. I haw brought a cop' ofthe NOAA chait and sections of the Coast Pilot. I "ish WOtlld YOU take that with you and hope tills all helps you come to the proper conclusion MR. McELWAIN: Sure. Would you like me to take your letter with me, as well? DR. RAIA: Yes, please. This letter is not official. It has not been approved by this Board. MR. CRA YENS: I think that the Board should take this letter under consideration. I would like to move that the Board __ CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Tom, we are not going to move anything at this point. We are only discussing it today. MR. CRA YENS: I do not tIllnk that is in the Chair's prerogative to detennine that. MR. GRA YENHORST: No, it is not. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Actually, we do not have this on the agenda. MR. CRA YENS: It is on the agenda as item number nine. You already moved it up. MR. GRA VENHORST: You moved it up. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We have an update only. DR. RAIA: This is an important update and we are under the gun to make our position before May 26. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We are under the gun and it is approaching fast; but we can have a meeting before that. DR. RAIA: Madam Chair, I hate to say this, but you sit in that chair only by the vote of this Board. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, I do. MR. CRA YENS: Madam Chair, I make a motion I move that the Pelican Bay Services Division approve tills letter drafted by Ted Raia and that it be forwarded onto the United States Coast Guard. DR. RAJA: Correctio~ Army Corps of Engineers. MR. GRA YENHORST: Correction. I will second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Then we need some discussion on this. DR. RAIA: I tIllnk we already have. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think we need some more discussion. Keith? MR. DALLAS: I am going to vote against it and I will tell you why. I agree with what we are trying to do, but I disagree ""ith ho" \\e are trying: to do it. I haye sat here for a few meetings lateh and the COllntY has told us loudly and clearly. "no." We are not involved and I do not think we should take any fomml actions about navigational markers, dredging, and all of the other things. I think to do so is only going to drive a further wedge between us and the County. The Foundation, Jim Hoppensteadt, Steve Feldhaus and company are doing a great job working ""ith the County. I would like to see that continue. For us to go off and pass motions that have nothing to do 8023 "',----'. ,.~_._-"" .^-.,..,....~.m_'" _ _ _ "---~-."._.,- .- 16 , 1 "b 2 OIlJ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 with what our responsibilities are, why do not we do some motions on offshore drilling? It has as much impact here. What I would like to say is that I do not want the Board to take any more action that is going to make us more irrelevant and evading than we have become already. DR RAIA: I take issue with that. I do not think we are irrelevant and evading our responsibilities. We are an advisory board. I grant you that we have been appointed by the Commissioners. People elected uS and as such, I think we have an obligation to the electorate. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Actually, they did not elect us. DR RAIA: Excuse me, may I finish, please? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well no, because you are incorrect We were not elected. There was a straw vote and the Commissioners placed us in our positions. They are not required to take us. DR. RAJA: Some of us did not go through an election process, but I did. So let me clarifY that that I am elected and I am representing people who elected me. This is important. This is not offshore drilling. This affects us. It affects our community and we have every right. We have an obligation to tell the County that we do not agree with them and if we have the legal right to do what we are doing, as the permittee we should exercise that right We should send tills letter and if the County disagrees with tills letter, Mr. McAlpin is there. He is free to use his office to write his own letter, but I have gathered facts. These are facts of what is happening right now. Ifwe permit this change to take place, it is going to have a very serious negative impact on our community. The time to act is now. If we do nothing and we do not influence the Commissioners at their meeting, it is going to make it that much of a more difficult battle. I do not want to leave tills battle only to the FOlmdation and the Corps. We have an opportunity perhaps to bring common sense to people involved in this. That is not a navigable channel. MR. IAIZZO: Was this something at the last meeting we were supposed to take action? In recall, we had some action at our last meeting and I think there was a letter that was supposed to be drafted. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It was sent. MR. IAIZZO: It was sent? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR. lAIZZO: It did go out? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It did go out. MR. IAIZZO: Does this conflict with that letter? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. 8024 ,~- -_._'~- .- ",,-""-~""""'- ~W__'_"'''~___.~_"M_'',,__< - -,--- ~.6 , I~ 820 "";~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR. IAIZZO: Then what is the problem? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: None, except that we have not received a hard copy until now and I have not had time to read it and think about it. We have not had a chance to absorb what is here. We have Mr. McElwain, who has given us his time, and he is in the middle of a situation not of his making. I find that it would be appropriate for us to step back, read through what Dr. Raia has written., and think about it. If we need to have an emergency meeting before the May 26 Commission meting, we will, but it is not in our best interest to do something in a disorderly or insensible. way at tills point. We have already done that in the last 35 days and I do not wish to do it again. Mr. Burke, a very intelligent and politically savvy who was on our Board up until recently, recommended that we talk to the Commissioners quietly, sensibly, reasonably and that that would resolve a lot of these issues. We do have the Corps extending a hand saying that, yes, we are the permittee. They are well aware of our concern. Am I correct, Mr. McElwain? MR. McELWAIN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think that if we need further backup, we need to do something more. It would be most politically correct to do that after we have come to a general consensus and talked about it; not just make a vote immediately as a knee-jerk reaction. MR. McELWAIN: Thank you for your tinle. The Corps will review any documents that you decide to submit. MR. GRA VENHORST: Mr. McElwain, do you have a written copy or anything in writing from us listing our objections or explaining to you what we would like to have? MR. McELWAIN: I do not knOw. I have to look in the file. MR. GRA VENHORST: Your superiors, do they know? MR. McELWAIN: I have not seen anything. MR. GRA VENHORST: So, basically, you would be relying on word of mouth to knowing about our feelings? MR. McELWAIN: Yes, from the conversations and meetings that we have had with the County. MR. GRA VENHORST: To what Ted said, once again., we are the permittee, therefore we can request anything on our permit that we want to request, right? MR. McELWAIN: Right The question has come up on clarification of something that was in the plan that you drafted MR. GRAVENHORST: Thank you. MR. CRA YENS: Would you welcome tills letter? MR. McELWAIN: We will take a look at anything you provide or submit to us and take it under consideration. MR. IAIZZO: :Madam Chair, could you read that letter now that we are debating this issue that the office wrote or put out, so that 8025 ~-,-,~"~'.~"'" ... '~'""''O''' w,. '1IlIlI _n~"1IlIl\ '~'~'~"".'~~~ ,,""'--m ..._,-- '0> . 161 1 .. 8'- 0 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 we can get the difference between the cmrent letter. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The office did not write it; I did. I can tell you the substance of it was just to inform Mr. Kinard that we have received his March 2 letter and that would be looking at it in the future and that was all I could do. MR. lAIZZO: But nothing definitive? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I could not give anything definitive because I had nothing definitive. MR. lAIZZO: But time is of the essence. Now we are up against the wall. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You have gone through all tills. You know tills all to be correct, not just opining, but real facts. MR. IAIZZO: I just read it for the first time. MR. McEL W AlN: I do not need the document today. Thank you for the time. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. McElwain, thank you for your time. MR. MOFFATT: Could I ask you a question? The last sentence in Kinard's letter says, Should you Wllllt to modify any of the components of the Clam Bay Restoration Management Plan., please direct your requests to Ms. Susan Blass, Section chief. So, Kinard is saying that if we want to change it, we can change it. MR. McEL W AlN: That is correct. MR. CRAVENS: Thank you very much. We appreciate you coming here. MR. GRA VENHORST: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. MR. CRA YENS: I would like to get an assessment from the resident,> who are here. Do you want us on your behalf to send such a letter to this entity or not? CHAIR v.,'CHvfAN WOtvfBLE tv1r. Cra\ens. \\e need to \yait until they haye the audience pmiicipation section. "Audience comments" is numher 12. MR. CRA YENS: Okay. Let us call the question then, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Let us go on with om agenda. MR. CRAVENS: No, there is a motion on the floor and I called the question. It has been seconded and there has been discussion. MR. GRA YENHORST: We have to vote. MR. CRA YENS: Madam Chair, when someone calls the question, that means there is a vote and a question. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I realize that. ToIll, do you remember what that question specifically stated for all of us, so that 8026 .--- ,'....."",.......-,..- -. ".' ~ r , "",","-~ --.-".,. ........"..-- .. 76 , 1 820 -- PeUcan Bay Services Division Advisory Boanl Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 we know exactly what we are voting on? MR. CRAVENS: What my motion was? CI-WRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. Please. MR. CRAVENS: Mary, can you read the motion or do you have it? MS. McCAUGHTRY: The motion was simply to approve Dr. Raia's letter and to submit it to Kinard. MR. CRA YENS: The motion was for tills board to approve of Dr. Raia's letter and to send it to Kinard. SPEAKER IN AUDIENCE: And modification request MR. CRAVENS: That is what the letter is, a modification request. CI-WRWOMAN WOMBLE: At this point MR. MOFFATT: I have a lot of sympathy tor Keith's position. I do not believe we ought to be driving a bigger wedge between the County and tills Board, but frankly I do not see how this is a problem in that regard. The County wants to get the facts. Somebody needs to get them the facts. If tills is all it takes to clari1Y what the position is, why do not we do it? I cannot imagine the County is going to be upset that we took a position. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, I think the County might be at this point, because they pretty much asked us to stand down, but I think they would listen and they have been listening. However, Dr. Raia, you say you are a Director on the Pelican Bay Services Division in your signature and I am not sure what that means. DR RAIA: Member of the Board. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Member of the Board of Directors. DR. RAIA: Usually, that is how that is interpreted. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. So you are writing tills as a member of Pelican Bay Services Division Board and you are expecting this Board to decide that this is our feelings, everybody here has read this carefully, and understand that it is exactly in accordance with everything that is written here. We have had time to check it to make sure that it is appropriate? DR. RAIA: Madam Chair, this is nothing new. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, it is new. DR. RAJA: For the past year I have OC-ell saying this and writing this. There have been Letters to the Editor. It has been everywhere. CI-WRWOMAN WOMBLE: I understand that, Ted. DR RAIA: This should not be new to anybody. 8027 _.m~'. -.<.,.-. , . '-'._~ ."'--.... . >-.--....., --,....."..~, "~".- 16 I 1 ....B 2 0 , Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR. GRA VE'NHORST: We have a motion that is been made. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Just one moment. If you are this serious about voting on tills, it would be a direct slap at the Commissioners because they have asked us repeatedly to leave it to another group. MR. CRAVENS: The Commissioners have not asked us to do that. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, they have. MR. CRAVENS: County staffhas asked us to do that. The Commissioners have not done that. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. Our Commissioners, Mr. Halas has asked us to do that, point blank MR. CRAVENS: The Commissioners have not asked us. We have a 2006 Ordinance that directs us to do tills, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Tom, because this is important and it is so passionate of a situation, I would like for us to have a moment to read the letter and very carefully decide tor ourselves. MR. MOFFATT: Let us take a lIve-minute break. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: May I say something? FrankJy, Ted, if you have just written this as a resident, I would be behind this 100 percent. I would more than happy to send it to the Commissioners. DR RAIA: I have v.ritten this as a resident and got no response, now it is before you. You mention that you have talking to the Commissioners. I have a copy of your drafted memorandum of understanding that you have negotiated with Mr. Mudd and Mr. Halas. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It is a draft. DR RAlA: It states that Pelican Bay Services Division is to be responsible tor the condition of the mangrove torest within their control. Water quality, impacts of the fresh water management system, the effectiveness of the hand-cut inter bay channels. Other divisions of Collier County are to be responsible for the tidal flush volume through Clam Bay, the navigational markers, and water basin impact, from outside of the conservation area. Yon already turned this issue over to them. \Xlhere the hell does it state there is nothing more that we can do. MR. CRAVENS: This Board has not acted on that and it is meaningless until tills Board does. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is right. It is a draft. It is not a finalized copy anyway, Ted. DR RAIA: I can see where you were going with tills. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, I am not going anywhere with this. I did not write it. I do not even have a copy of it. DR RAIA: This? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. I do not have a copy of it. DR RAIA: It was very professionally done. It was you and Mr. Petty. 8028 V'__.~' ...... ,~-<-<",-,.~-,"-.,.~"". -I<; 16 , 11320 "1 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Boanl Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. Petty was, as staff was writing something to the staff of the Collier COlUlty Commissioners. DR RAIA Mr. Petty does not represent the people of Pelican Bay. MR CRA YENS: Again, Madam Chair, there is a motion on the floor. The motion has been seconded. The question has been called for and the discussion was not directed toward the motion. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. Cravens, you are absolutely correct. What I would like to do is take a recess before we take a vote, so that we have a moment to read tills and discern for ourselves how we feel about it Is that all right with the Board? Not that I am not in favor of Clam Bay, I am. (Short break) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Let the record show we are back in session. MR. HANSEN: What is the Foundation's position on this issue and what is the Foundation doing? I would like to get a little background. Maybe it would be repetitive to some of you on tills Board, but for my benefit, I would appreciate hearing the Fmmdation's position and what the Foundation is doing with tills going forward. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think tills is a very fair question If Mr. Hoppensteadt, President of the Foundation, feels comfortable or if Mr. Naegele would care to inform us, or both, I would really appreciate it. Mr. Feldhaus is winging his way somewhere as we speak. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Mr. Feldhaus is on an airplane. The Foundation's position on this, and afterwards if the Chair wants to, we will certainly clarifY our position. It is simply this. The deed restrictions that were imposed upon tills property cover such things as dredging and signage and markers and that any permit, any installation of any signs by definition of the restrictions and the protective covenant needs to come to the Fmmdation for approval. The Foundation is mindful of the intent of the conservation area and the intent of the park site. The intent of the park site, both as articulated in the deed, as well as the pun was for beach and passive recreation for the benefit of Collier County residents, specifically. The intent of the conservation site is for preservation, conservation, aesthetics and natural beauty . Consistent with that, any channel markers that would go in there should be, to Dr. Raia's point, more appropriately be non-lateral than lateral markers. That has been the Foundation's position and I believe that continues to be the Fmmdation's position. Mr. Moffatt's concern was does this harm our position? No, I tIllnk it reinforces our position that the intent of the language in the management plan was not to mandate Coast Guard lateral markers and in conversations that we have had with the County, they have indicated that they fmd that Donald Kinard is lUlequivocal as to what they want to do. So if this Board moves to seek a clarification, I think that is helpful to everyone. MR. HANSEN: So, Jim, is the Foundation moving this forward, relative to tills position and working with the County? MR. HOPPENSTEADT: We are. We have regular meetings with both COlUlty staff and County Commissioners. It is an 8029 ~ ",,"._,~ c . ."-..-..'~. ~. . 161 11320 ....~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 unfamiliar relationship for a lot of people, both COllllty staff and County Commissioners are not used to having a private entity having rights of review over public property. You know, this is very much public property and the restrictions that Collier Properties put on this and that WCI subsequently became successors, are rather unusual. They are very articulated. The other element that is unusual for this is that the COllllty has looked at these waters, these areas, as sovereign submerged lands. That was disclaimed by the trustees of the Florida Land Trust in 1959. So they looked at that and when Collier Properties had that property, Collier went to the trustees of the Florida Land Trust and asked that those areas be disclaimed and they were. They are not then State sovereign lands. That certainly would be consistent with all of the development that took place prior to that. All you have to do is go down and look at Gulf Shore. Gulf Shore is built on essentially the same estuarial footprint that Pelican Bay is but they were allowed to dredge and fIll. In 1959 it would have been Collier's intention to essentially mimic what was done on Gulf Shore and have the condos out on the beachfronts, dredge and fill the mangrove area for a marina and develop everything around it. The fact that they would have secured the rights to do that certainly should not be a surprise to anybody. MR. HANSEN: Jim, do you have an opinion from the Foundation's perspective of Dr. Raia's letter being sent to Don Kinard? Would that be beneficial to the Foundation's position and work that is being done or would it be hannfu) or do you have an opinion on that? MR. HOPPENSTEADT: I call1lot speak for the Board, obviously and the Board has not taken a vote. I tIllnk that Dr. Raia's letter is consistent with the position that the Board and ad hoc committee that the Board has formed has maintained, that this is consistent with the letter that I sent to the County Commissioners that the Board reviewed and approved. We do not dispute Seagate's rights to be able to use tills body of water for navigation, but that is much different than it being a navigable waterway. So the fact that it should be marked, that the residents in Seagate should know how to get in and out of there without causing harm to the system is what our position is. Those markers are, as Dr. Raia rightfully indicates, non-lateral markers informational markers. That bas always been our position that yes, Seagate should have the rights of going across Clam Bay. That right was reinforced in the 96- 16 Ordinance from the County that recognized that body of water as being navigable, but even in that ordinance, it does not say that it is a navigable waterway. MR. HANSEN: Jim, thank you. One fmal question to you. I do not tmderstand why this Board is taking this on, as opposed to the Foundation, if you are leading this cause. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Why is one over the other? MR. HANSEN: Yes. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Well, I think the reality of the situation is that when all of these issues were clearly within the jurisdiction of this Board, the Foundation stood on the sidelines and allmved this Board to take them on. When the Clam Bay Advisory 8030 ".~'"~''''--'"'''~",""",;''--'''-;~--''''''"> -"'.~'- - ._"....-.~ ..~-, ~II. ffIAlWl"l"l'il'l ,.. .. e"""^,,,__ 161 t ~20 III Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 Committee was formed because of the impasse that existed and the decisions that were going to be made regarding this area started to be coming from outside of Pelican Bay, I think the Foundation felt that they needed to get involved in a much more active role. Again, as the Master Homeowner Association and as the assignee of all of the rights, we have a right and obligation to make sure that we know exactly what goes on and ensure that it is consistent. When tills Board was doing it, it gave the Foundation a level of comfort that it was consistent. At this point, the Foundation does not believe that the lateral Coast Guard signs proposed are consistent. We have communicated that to the County. The County wants to resolve this; at least that is our feedback. They would certainly rather be in a position, if we can get there, that creates the best win-win for everybody as it keeps this a natural estuary that is recognizes the area as an Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) and Seagate's 50-year rights as a boating community. Again, we think that we agree with Dr. Raia that the non-lateral aids are better than the lateral aids. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jim, do you feel that it would be a concern for this Board at this point to issue that letter to the Commissioners? Would that be at all a problem with your ongoing talks? .MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Well, you know, is it a problem for us, no. Again, we operate as a private entity, so we sit in a different position than tills Board does. So is it a problem for the Foundation, no. The Foundation's standing from this derives from the fact that WCI's entire rights, including the rights of reversion have been given to the Foundation. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. .MR. HOPPENSTEADT: So we are going to protect those rights based on that. I would ask the administrator if politically this Board's action has repercussions that the Board should know about. That is a different question. .MR. GRA VENHORST: Clarification, the letter is not going to C.ommissioners. It is going to Don Kinard. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: To the Corps. .MR. GRA VENHORST: It is going to Kinard. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It will eventually. .MR. GRA VENHORST: Jim Hoppensteadt has already sent a letter to the Commissioners. As he said in his letter, he said many things that Dr. Raia said. You asserted earlier that we were going to make the Commissioners upset with this letter. They have already seen a similar letter from the Foundation. Our letter is not to the Commissioners. It is to Donald Kinard. I tIllnk that is a good point to remember; we are not sending this to the Commissioners. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, Ted. .MR. MOFFATT: Jim, as permittee, apparently from what the prior speaker said, if we could be helpful in changing Kinard's letter, it seems to me that it helps everyone in Pelican Bay. The foot in the door that we have is that we are listed as the permittee, which is 8031 ,~_.~<< ___W". ... ,._,._.<~".'..,._.'. ,..~w._.~__ 16 I 1~ 820 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 something that we can address that you cannot address from the Foundation's standpoint. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: I think that is exactly right. As the permittee, for you to ask for clarification of this issue, is your right under the permit. 1 do not \yant to pull the "o.f' mistake. because 1 do not kno\y \\hat the Aimy Coq)S of Engineers is going: to respond back. We have indication that they do not tIllnk that this is an appropriate use for lateral aids and you heard Tunis indicate that he considers the language unclear, so I think that they would be willing to respond to that. It may be helpful and typically, it is becoming my experience that governmental agencies do not like to be at odds with each other. I think the more specific you can make your request to the Army Corps, 1 tIllnk the better off you are, so that you are not asking them to step into the middle of a fight. Tunis clearly views tills as a land issue and something the County really needs to resolve, so they do not want to be dragged into this from that standpoint. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. T ed, Dr. Raia, when you wen; discussing with Reese a few minutes ago some clarifications, did anything come to you that might be beneficial to know before we make a decision? DR. RAIA: I do have a few, ",hat I consider changes that I would introduce and amend my motion. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Can you give those to us now? DR. RAIA: In the second paragraph. I \\ould say specifically the language in the follm\ing paragraph ofthe "Management Plan" rather than pennit. tviR eRA VENS: Ted. could \Oll S,lY. "Management Plan included lw reference?" Tim Hall suggested that. DR. RAIA: 1 see no problem \\ith that. Then the one-liner on the fourth paragraph Jm\n. it says. "The permit should be." I \\oulJ replace with, "The Management Plan should be clarified to read as foHm\'s." The other change 1 would make is to include the Plan. It is in the last paragraph. the last sentence. "I am including a plan sho\\ing the location of the trail markers and the non-lateral na\igation signs." Tim. before doing that. is it possible to put the trail marker plan on one page') Can \ye add to it") In the permit. \ye say they are going to be placed at the opening of the pass and where the boat ramp is. That is the only place where we discuss putting the non-lateral SIgnS. MR. HALL: I think there were two other locations, as well. DR. RAIA: With non-lateral signs. MR. HALL: Yes. DR. RAIA: 1 have another one here. TIM HALL: I believe one of them v"as at Marker 10. DR. RAIA: They are listed as channel markers and I want to be more specific than that. This plan shmvs many channel markers with three informational markers. Is there another one? 8032 -- ~. ,-~._,_.- ,~....~- 1. ~~.. " . .w~ "",..""..""".,", ."-'", "'--"""__J'" ~ .. ..' ~-".--,-_.._._- 16 , 11)20 .~ "'1 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR. HALL: On that exhibit, there was one informational marker outside of the Pass. DR RAlA: Right. MR. HALL: One inside the Pass around where one of the sea grass beds are, which I think is Marker 10, and then one on the bridge, which is Marker 6. Those three Marker numbers refer to the Canoe Trail Marker numbers; at Marker 1, which is down by Seagate, is another informational marker or non-lateral navigational marker, so there are four infonnational markers. DR RAIA: So if I write that J am including the plan showing the location of the canoe trail markers, I should add, location of the canoe trail markers and non-lateral navigational signs? TIM HALL: That would mean that exhibit would satisfy that statement, with a couple of minor clarifications, yes. DR RAJA: Well, do you want to make a change to this then? This is your paper. MR. HALL: That is my exhibit and I can make any changes that this Board recommends or asks me to make. DR RAIA: I want to request the change so that what I am saying retlects what I am getting at. MR. lWL: At the last Board meeting the Board had asked me to create an exhibit shO\-ving what my take or recommendation on incorporating the informational signs and onto the canoe trails and the Pass. I proposed putting retlective tape on the canoe trail markers that indicate which side of the channel they are on. I know that is not actually a lateral aid, as defined by the Coast Guard, however it denotes somebody coming in. If that is something that the Board does not want, then would you have simply, instead of colored tape, would you have white reflective tape that would mark the signs for people coming in "here they could see the signs at night. MR. HANSEN: Madam Chair, I would say that tills is obviously an important issue to a lot of people. I fmd it difficult for this Board to draft a letter here at tills meeting and prepared to vote on and submit. If it were a simple issue and not an important one, drafting a letter is one thing, but we are submitting a document ttying to resolve an important issue and vote on it. I find that a little bit unusual that we are taking the Board's time to do that. DR RAJA: I appreciate your comments, but I think these are minor changes to the substance ofthis letter and it is something that has been discussed and debated for over a year and I would leave it up to the members, if they agree to your comment. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Actually, I agree and why I was stepping back initially, so that we could get advice from Tim, from Mr. Petty from Mr. Hoppensteadt and from anyone who has been a part of this issue, before we do submit something possibly in error or just overstep what we want to convey. I do agree that it needs to be specific, thanks to Mr. Hoppensteadt. Ted, I think you have gone to remarkable lengths to do everything you can to do what we need to do for the residents of this commlUuty, and I do appreciate what you have done, more than I am sure you realize. I am concerned, however that \\iC probably need some advice from our administrator as to whether or not this is a good idea. I would like to hear if Mr. Petty has anything to say. Mr. Petty, have you any ad,,;ce for us at this point? 8033 ~--~- ..~-_..,- ,~--". ~ ~_..~~ _. 16 , 11!20 III Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, it appears that what you are looking for is an engineering review before it gets sent out. You can certainly consider the letter based on what you have heard today subject to that engineering review. All that means is that staff would write up the letter. as ,ye heard today. We \\ould submit it hack to tvir. Hall for his rc\ie\\ and 011ce he dotted the I's and crossed the T's. it \\ould go out. If\ou \yould like lUlyboJ\ else to re\-ie\\ it. that is also subJect to the Board's direction. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So we are almost where we want to be. We need to take some kind of an action a little bit faster. We do have a chance to come back. If we were to recess this meeting, rather than adjourn it, do we have any dates or times that we could do schedule one, so that we might have a chance to get some more infonnation? Ted, this is not to disavow what you have done. I truly, truly respect you and appreciate what you have done. I am also under a little bit more knowledge of how tIllngs are going in our community and with other entities and I am trying really hard to make this work for all of us, so that it will come out the way we want it to. MR CRA YENS: There is a motion on the floor. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, there is. MR. CRA YENS: As the maker of the motion, I accept the changes that Ted has recommended. MR. GRA YENHORST: I'll second. MR. CRA YENS: The second has accepted the changes. There has been a question called on the motion. We took a break I suggest we vote on the motioll. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, you can do that, but we are still in discussion. MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, the process is that would you recess instead of adjourn. You would recess to a time, date, and place certain. That way the people that came to this advertised meeting would have the opportunity to go to the next meeting to participate in any discussion and to watch the process. I do believe we have a few dates that we could otTer you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We do have another option available. We do have the request for a vote and I want to make sure that everyone on our Board has all the knowledge that they need to make an informed decision. If I have done what I have to do as Chair, I have made sure that every one of you are well aware of options, of what the vote is, and the situation at hand. That is my job. MR. CRA YENS: I think we are aware, Madam Chair. We should vote on this. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is here I am headed. MR. CRAVENS: Good Today. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. MR. CRA YENS: There has been a question raised and the vote has not been called. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Let us take a vote on it. All in tavor? 8034 -~ ..~_.~ _e....'.-. ., -_...'_.._--..~--_. ~,..,_.~ 16 I 1~20 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR. GRA VENHORST: Aye. MR. CRAVENS: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. MOFFATT: Aye. DR RAIA: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed? MR. HANSEN: Aye. MR. DALLAS: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, r believe we would record that as seven u)r and three opposed. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I believe you are correct Since I have listened to the conversation going on and the discussion here, r want to make it very clear to the residents of Pelican Bay that the three that voted against it are more concemed about process and getting tills taken care of reasonably than they are about the letter itself. All of us are in favor of all of the things that we can do to keep Clam Bay as part of Pelican Bay in a non-navigational situation and work with the Seagate people. So that is the deal and I want to make that very clear that we are all here together as residents of Pelican Bay and we love our area and we do what we can to make everything right. DR RAIA: Madam Chair, as a matter of process, would you sign this letter? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I would be glad to sign tills letter, if everyone else will. DR RAIA: We voted for it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, you have signed this letter, but you are asking me? What about the rest of the Board? DR RAIA: They do not have to sign it CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Neither do L DR RAIA: I want this printed on Pelican Bay Service Division stationery and signed by someone. I am very willing to sign it, but you are the Chair. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You wrote it. MR. GIBSON: Would it have more impact if we all signed it? 8035 -_.,._,_.~ ....~.~_w.. ,""'"p,-.P^ -~""'-"'"'--- 'P"vw- ".......... "~._--- 16 J t~20 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 DR RAIA: The opening sentence is a vote. MR. HANSEN: Madam Chair, I think on behalf of the Board, one signature may be more appropriate, we voted on it. MR. CRAVENS: You can sign it. DR. RAIA: My question is because you voted against it, if you feel uncomfortable signing a letter, I would be glad to sign it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, Ted, you wrote it and we voted on tills letter and you have your signature here. MR. GRA VENHORST: Ted, just sign it. DR. RAIA: I will stop by the office and have it drafted on Pelican Bay Service Division stationery. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do you have those changes so that you can give those to Mary? MS. McCAUGHTRY: Madam Chair, if Dr. Raia would e-mail it, I have the changes and I can get it ready for you. DR. RAlA: I have tills in an e-mail. I can do that. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Are you comfortable with that, Ted? DR RAIA: Yes. Mr. Cravens motioned, seconded by Mr. Gravenlrorst, with a vote of 7-3 (Chairwoman Womble, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Dallos opposed) to approve a letter drafted and signed by Dr. Raia be sent to Mr. Donald Kinard, U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers that pertains to the United States Coast GUIIIYl requirements and suggestions for alternative olacement of the canoe trail markeTS and non-lateral navigational signs in CImn Bay. MR. MOFFATT: Not to beat a dead horse, but a question in that regard. Mr. Petty talked about an engineering review of the letter. What is the time frame on that, because we are looking for something to happen on May 26 at the Commission meeting and for Kinard to get the letter and act on the letter. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, no, that is a different -- I think you are discussing something different. I believe what Mr. Petty was talking about was getting an engineer to look at the letter and give infonnation as to whether or not it is correct. And am I right, Jolm, is that what you were concerned about? MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, the concern that '-\.as raised by Mr. Hansen was that the Board was trying to finish the document here. If there \-"ere some issues, they appear to be engineering specific and could you have considered the matter subject to an engineer app!"O\illg it tt)!" the dotted I's and the crossed T's later on So. \Ou could ha\ e appmyed the document :'.'ubiect to his reyie\, and the document could have gone out, but you appear to be very comfortable with the document and it is approved to go out as it stands with the changes that were discussed and approved. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Does that make you more comfortable, Jerry? MR. MOFFATT: Yes, it does. Will we get copies of that letter? 8036 --- "'_'f_ ---,..."",~ w.,",'__,,-, '1'"""'1"_ .J_. ~ ,......_""""".'a'"'.'~__._O...___~ """"'......,_.,... " 16 ,. 1~20 ..., ,~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Boam Meeting Minutes . May 6, 2009 MR. PETTY: Yes. Madam Chair, you have requested all correspondence, so of course you get a copy of it. MR. MOFFATT: I understood that the Chair sent a letter out recently. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That was correspondence going out. You had asked for it coming in. All I did was exactly what I said. I just indicated that the letter was received, and I see you laughing, but I find it interesting that you are the ones that asked me to make sure that I directed staff to bring everything in, and that is what I did. I did exactly what you asked me to do. MR. MOFFATT: It was actually a motion in the last meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right, for any mail coming in. MR. MOFFATT: I would like to see it going both ways, coming in and going out. MR. CRAVENS: Madam Chair, I move that all correspondence going out of the services division be copied to all Board members. MR. PETTY: Madam Chair that is exactly what you had voted on already. We thought we had sent that letter out to everyone. If you did not get it, we have a problem in our transmission, but our stafT did send that out. MR. CRA YENS: I do not think that the motion that we had before covered outgoing. MR. PETTY: It said all correspondence. MR. CRA YENS: I withdraw the motion. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thanks for clarifYing that, too. MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, this is why you have been receiving e-maiIs that I have been getting and e-mails is that I have sent, as well. You should have gotten those. Have you gotten those e-mails? MR. CRA YENS: We do not know if we have not gotten something. That is a difficult question to an..'!wer. MR. PETTY: Have you gotten any e-mails with my name on it? MR. CRA YENS: I sure have not gotten any e-mails. MR. PETTY: If not, then we will discuss that later on under Clam Bay topics. It is attributable to Clam Bay. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I cannot answer that because I had a Trojan horse on my computer. MR. MOFFATT: Actually, the motion that we approved last time was tor correspondence being forwarded to the Services Division. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is right. MR. CRA YENS: I "viII reinstate the motion then, that any outgoing correspondence from the Services Division be copied to all Pelican Bay Services Division Board members. 8037 '__o_"c_ _.<~,,~.M""_ .~,-_,__._."",.o~...,-~ -'---~'-""-- -, .,-,.,"_.-,-,-"," "'~T ",,---~-"~'-'~ 16 I 1 t!20 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR. MOFFATT: I second that CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Discussion? Do we want a clarification for specification on the things that we are discussing? MR. CRA YENS: The Board should be aware of everything that is going out and coming in. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. All in favor? MR. IAIZZO: Aye. DR RAIA: Aye. MR. MOFFATT: Aye. MR. DALLAS: Aye. MR. HANSEN: Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. MR. CRA YENS: Aye. MR. GRA VENHORST: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed? None. Motion carries. Mr. Cravens nwved, seconded by Mr. Moffatt, approved unamnwusly directing staff to font'ard aU outgoing cOn'espondence to aU Board members, and clorifying prior Board direction to font'ard all incoming corresoomlence to all Board members. UPDATE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Going a little bit quicker on to the Update on Strategic Planning. The Strategic Planning Committee is, at tills point in time, stepping back and waiting for a decision from the Landscaping Sub-Committee. We are also looking at the budget and of course, it is the economy that is driving our priorities. I am inviting everyone on this Board to attend, please, if you can make it on May 13 at 10:00 a.m. here at the community center, probably in tills room, if not somewhere on this hall. The Subcommittee will be discussing the different landscape architects that we have contacted and received information back from and it will be an informational meeting. We would like input from our Board, the Pelican Bay Services Division Board, at that meeting. So how did we work that? We do not really notice another person's meeting, the Foundation meeting would not be noticed by us. So how do we work this? Pelican Bay Services Board members can come and sit and listen? !viR. PETTY: Madam ChaiL the adyice from the COllllty'S legal counsel and from the instructions that they typically give newly 8038 ---...- -. -...---,.,.", '..'.,.,.,...---.... --.-.,,'...- .' -_._--._--~ 16 , 1"' B20. Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 elected officials, has typically stated for informational gathering purposes, more than one Board member can attend such function, particularly if it is in a situation like tills. To participate and try and form opinions as a group at that meeting is what would be defInitely breaking of Sunshine. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: However, once you are there and you see who is on the slate you can talk to other people. MR. PETTY: You can ask questions of whomever is speaking. You can ask for additional information. What would break it is if you stood up and said, follow me, and we are going to go left. That would be a problem. MR. CRA YENS: Should tills meeting be publicly noticed? If you are inviting us to attend this and tills is certainly something that will come before this Board. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Tom, correct, the Sunshine Laws indicate that tills is something that we might vote on. MR. CRA YENS: Yes, it should be publicly noticed. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It is a Foundation meeting MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, we cannot do a public notice on someone else's meeting. You can invite them here to discuss it and do a public notice, but we cannot take over the Foundation and publicly notice their meeting and then say it is a public meeting of this Board, because then it is a special meeting of tills Board that you are having on top of their meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. MR. PETTY: We have not asked permission of: and we have no jurisdiction to take over. They may be very nice and allow it, but it really is not within our purview to do such. DR RAIA: I would like to get a legal opinion on this, because I was going to bring tills up. Many of us who are interested in our community attend the Foundation Board meetings. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, we do. DR RAlA: And it is, you know, difticult to have somebody question our presence there as a violation of the Sunshine Law. I would like to see it noticed, that everybody in the community that we serve is notified that there is a chance that there will be more than one member of the Services Division Board at the meeting and they may address topics that may come up in the future at a Services ~ivision meeting. They are not going to vote on anything there, but you know what happens is the rrrst person who wants to speak gets his word in because the Sunshine Law is not violated until the second person speaks. MR. CRA YENS: I would like to echo what he is saying, because Jell)', Ted and I are on the President's COWlcil and issues that come before tills Board frequently come up there, and we are just placing ourselves in harm's way by attending, yet, we want to attend. We want to participate. We want to contribute, but we feel encmnbered. 8039 00' ~. .,----' - .. _.'-_00'___ , --- "'.11I":"'_ "'......-' ,.,..-.- - -."..<>--- 16 , 1 ~B 20 · Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You are. MR. MOFFATT: I made a suggestion to Mary via e-mail that was rejected and I did not understand why. The Clam Bay Ad\isor\ Committee is a County organization \ersus a pri\ate organization_ They ha\e a paragraph like this that says. "T\yo or more members of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board may be present and may participate at the meeting. Subject matter of this meeting may be a future item for discussion or action of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. I am assuming that kind of notification gives us some measure of protection. I do not know if it is accurate, but at least it is sometlllng. DR RAIA: Maybe it could be just a general statement that at all Foundation meetings, you can expect two or more members. MR. CRAVENS: I do not think so. There is a requirement for public notice. I am not exactly sure what those requirements are, but I think my wife may know, because she certainly follows public notifications of a number of different meetings that are going on, but I'm not exactly sure whether it is posting a little notice up at the County Government Center or whether it is publishing it in an obscure newspaper or what. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Luckily, Mr. Petty does know tills information. Can you advise us as to this? MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, I tIllnk I have already given you tills advice. Let me ofter tills to you. The question was can you have a legal opinion on this? Yes, I believe the question can be raised. If I may suggest that staff get in touch with the Chair and the question be put to an attorney at the County and we send you the response. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And then, of course, because it is correspondence coming in, V\'C will all receive that correspondence. MR. PETTY: Yes. MR. CRA YENS: I guess my further question might be directed towards Mr. Hoppensteadt. Would it be possible for the Foundation to comply with having public notices for major meetings where there would, in fact, velY likely be Services Division members present. Could we look into having some sort of public notification? MR. HOPPENSTEADT: So we can have you guys all there? I\.1R CRA YENS: I am sm-iug things like the President's Councilor a board meeting:. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Tom, do not shoot us in the foot. MR. CRA YENS: It effectively prevents us from going to a Foundation board meeting and talking, and that is simply not right. MR. GRA VENHORST: It has not stopped me. DR RAJA: Ted, you are fIrst. That is what happens. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jim, you will need to take that under advisement. 8040 ~'--' , "...._.,_.,,-~ ._,~- 16 I 1""B20 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 !'viR. HOPPENSTEADT I tlunk Mr. Petty's adyice is correct If YOU could gel ,,'ith hUll and determine hIm exactly "ith the County attorney, what we need to do to comply with that, we can certainly do that. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That we shall do. Thank you gentlemen. MR MOFFATT: Madam Chair, you confused me on the landscaping. I thought it was Strategic Planning meeting that the Foundation was holding. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. It is the landscaping committee meeting. MR HOPPENSTEADT: Subcommittee of the strategic plan, it is a subgroup, not the otIicial. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, it is the Landscaping Subcommittee only MR MOFFATT: But I understand the infonnation you are looking for, which I was very happy to see, is you are going to talk about a detailed new street scrape plan for our major public streets, including lighting, pathways, signage. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, not at tills meeting. We are only talking landscaping. MR. MOFFATT: I will defer to Mr. Hoppensteadt I am reading from the letter that was sent out. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The Safety Committee had to change the date of its meeting to May 15 at 1:00. LANDSCAPING SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE FOUNDATION'S STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Mr. Moffatt is correct. The meeting on the 13th is the Landscaping Subcommittee of the Strategic Planning Committee. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: It was our intent to have the Landscaping Subcommittee review with anybody who wants to attend, including the full Strategic Planning Committee and tills Board, the initial responses to the requests for qualifications that have gone out to ten landscaping architects. The anticipated process is the Foundation is going to lay this out on your door step and that it is better to bring the Services Division Board into tills process now, rather than later, because you guys are the ones that have the money at the end of the day, and in all the right ways. So, it is the frrst step in a process that is probably going to be multi-~1:age. At some point in conversations that I have had "vith Mr. Petty, it will definitely move from being a Foundation meeting to being a Services Division meeting. At tills stage the Foundation wants to include the Services Division Board. In the later stages our hope is that it will be the Services Division Board meeting that you invite the Foundation. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. MR. MOFFATT: The only reason this came up is at the Budget Committee meeting we are looking at a large capital fund and we do not know how to spend it. Do not take me literally on that. I do not know \\here we put the dollars and how you put the dollars, when 8041 .._.~- "."._._~ . ,",",-~"."" ~ ".*.,"~ -=--- 16 I 1 B20~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 you are looking at lighting and sidewalks and landscaping. So, 1 was going to recommend that we do this process and Jim said, hold on, we are already doing it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. And we had Bob Naegele, Chair of the Foundation, waving his hand in the back of the ro0111. going:. "I kIlO\Y ho\\ to spend it. I kI10\Y ho\\ to spend it." MR NAEGELE: 1 will fmd a way. MR HOPPENSTEADT: We have had a joint committee meeting before, so if it is easier to make this another special meeting and a joint meeting, you know, again, whatever we have to do to get this to work. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Once we get a clarification from Heidi about, or Jeff Klatzkow, or whomever at the County Attorney's office we will let you kllow. rv1R. PETTY: Madam Chair, 1 am sorry to interrupt. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Go ahead. MR PETTY: The option of having a joint meeting is very viable. We have done it before. That can be handled from our office. We would notice it. We would go there. You would be able to speak anything about the suh.iect, and could you take a vote at the meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So that is it, just call it a joint meeting. rv1R. PETTY: Call it a regularly scheduled meeting. And we sit there with the Foundation providing us a means to having that public meeting. They just have to make sure it is open to the entire public. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jim, would you contact Merlin and see if that is okay? rv1R. HOPPENSTEADT: 1 already have. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And that is okay? rv1R. HOPPENSTEADT: His only question was as to whom would chair that meeting, and my response to him was that he would be as chair of that committee. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: He is the chair of that committee. rv1R. PETTY: Madam Chair, he would be the chair of that meeting. You would be the chair of your meeting. They would go simultaneously. So, before anyone on your Board spoke, basically, they would go to the Chair or they would put a motion before the Chair, etc., and you would take your votes, just like you normally do. rv1R. HOPPENSTEADT: That was the process we followed when we did the joint incorporation meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I vaguely remember that. MR CRAVENS: JOM, what's the time frame on publicizing a meeting? 8042 .~."""," , "~.' ^ .- .W .......11/. T fiI'1 . - lI. __;_,"_""',~.".,," &,....~." -. .~,,,.,....,...,.~.~--" 16 1 1 120 '" Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Five days. Am I correct? MR. PETTY: We have time to do that. We can act faster under an emergency, as long as you ratifY it at the following meeting and follow procedure. In this case we have time. MR. CRAVENS: For May 13'1 MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. We would do so immediately, if that is something the Board would like to consider. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I would like to direct staff to do that for us, please. Is that amenable to all of the Board members? Okay. Well, then the Board directs. 1"v1R. eRA VENS: We are haying: a .lOUlt meeting of the Foundation's Landscaping Subcommittee and the Ser\iees Di\ision at 10:00 on May 13 at the Community Center. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Correct. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: It is a Joint meeting of the Fonndation's Strategic Planning Subcommittee on Landscaping and the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. I do believe we have a Budget Committee update and I am looking at 20 minutes to 4:00. I would like to go ahead and push on, especially with the Budget Committee being so important at tills point and we have a very limited amount of time before we can vote on different issues with the Budget Committee. So with all of your due respect, let's let Mike Levy and Jerry Moffatt continue. Mr. Petty, do you have sometlllng? MR. PETTY: Again, I apologize for interrupting. There were Clam Bay issues that should have gone out bye-mail that were correspondence with the Pelican Bay Services Division onice. It has just come to our attention in our conversation a few minutes ago that the Board did not receive them. It appears that we have a problem through our mail host on one computer that was recently swapped out due to viruses. It may be a problem on this particular issue. At some point during the meeting, we would like to bring those issues to your attention. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Anyone have a problem with going ahead with the Budget Committee right now'? MR. LEVY: Jerry was the chair at our last meeting. Jerry? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thanks, Mike. Jerry. MR. MOFFATT: Did we cover the landscape committee? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, May 13. MR. MOFFATT: That was ditTerent from the strategic planning committee? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, it is a subcollIDlittee. 8043 -.--^-- '''"''~ >--.- '.....,. ~ - ~ _ P' -" ~._..",,-" ~""-'-"'..'. ..._~ . """.....,,, ...."'.,,-....--....-- 16 I I 'B20 t..~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR. MOFFATT: Okay. I thought at the last meeting you said you were going to appoint a Services Division Landscape Committee. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Not at this point, because we are all going to be involved with the joint meeting, and at that point we can see what is going on and who is interested. I think it makes better sense to have everyone join in and then take it from there. It just seems more logical. BUDGET COMMITTEE UPDATE MR. MOFFATT: Before I give you any details of what we decided, one of the most important things we decided is to have another Budget Committee meeting on Monday, May 11 at 1 :00. We went through the budget in quite a bit of detail at our meeting. Kyle prepared for us some schedules and gave us a comparison of our major funds. The '08 budget compared to the '08 actual, gave us the '09 budget together with the '09 forecast for the year and then finally, the '10 budget So on one sheet of paper, by fund, we can look at two actual and budgeted amounts. If you recall at the last meeting, we had a motion to limit the assessment to what it was last year, as well as to limit the expenditures to what they were in the prior year. In tills case, it will be '09. We asked that the assessment stay level with the prior year. The expenditures in some cases were a little higher and Kyle is working through coming down to an expenditure level that is no greater than last year, unless it looks like an aberration, in which case he will look to '08 to get a better feel for it We do not want to have to go back to the Commission if we exceed that same level. So we are going to put a minimum subtotal and put some kind of cost line in there to take care of that additional expense that will not be spent unless he comes back to this Board. So, we will be at the '09 level. If we have to exceed that, by what his budget estimates, it will be released after he comes to this Board for approval. So, we have a little more control over that CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I want to inteIject on this. I was at the last many budget meetings and I have to tell you, they are hard taskmasters. They have Kyle cutting comers every which way. Kyle is sitting there and the pennies are screeching during these budget meetings. So if you want to hear a lot of noise, come on by. The next time we have one is on Monday. Otherwise, rest easy, they are doing the job for you. Excuse me, Jerry. OPTIONS TO DISSEMINATE COMMUNITY INFORMATION MR. MOFFATT: One of the major expenditures that we questioned was $60,000 for publications. MR. LEVY: Public relations, community relations. MR. MOFFATT: Which is basically publications, right? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Education. MR. LEVY: Last year was the Men's Coffee presentation and it was a DVD. 8044 - . "~-.~., --,,- "'"_W,-.- , 1"" ___,.,....,._..~..,-'" .M__" -~- .." .--,-,,-_." -"-- 16 , 1 B20 .. Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 . MR. MOFFATT: We do not have much planned tor '09, at least from an expenditure standpoint. We were questioning whether that $60,000 or some part of it should be set aside when Kyle goes through his budget to hold aside lItltil this Board decides how they want to use that money. The Budget Committee did not feel they could detennine that, but it ought to come back to the full Board. I do not know if any of you have any thoughts on that, but if you do not, please think about it for our next meeting and as 1 said, some of these dollars may get into tills line item that will come back for u.<; to spend anyway. APPROACH TO CAPITAL EXPENDITURES MR. MOFFATT: The other item up on the agenda is, that was the point I just made on hiring a professional to advise us on capital expenditures. Jim Hoppensteadt has taken care of that for us. In preparing this budget, we are moving all of the carry forward with two exceptions to Food 322 for capital expenditures. The t,yO exceptio11'; are ,ye are keeping. hYO and a half month's of cash in reseryes. That compares to three montl1" tlus year and three-and-one-half months last yeaL Last year the Committee felt they could move to three and still have enough to get by the frrst three months of the year. This is the difference between our fiscal year and when the tax dollars come in. The recommendation of Mr. Petty this year is we could go to two and one half months, so that is what we have done. We are keeping that amount in reserve. We also have a reserve for equipment. There is almost a quarter of a million dollars in Clam Bay, although that is likely to change, and I will tell you why in a minute. Everything eL'>C went into a fund for capital expenditures and that fund will end up with approximately $2.3 million. That is why I was concerned; we have not decided how to spend it, unless you want to use it for some professional advice on what needs to be done. I went dmm to meet ,yith the people at the County. just to see \\'hat input the, could giye me as a "ne\y kid on the hlock." hmy ,ye go about tills, who the contacts are, and how we work it through them. They did share with me tmequivocally and I did not ask, that the Fund III will be limited in 2009 and in 2010 to the assessment made to Pelican Bay residents. In the 2009 budget, for example, we have $214,000 coming from us in Pelican Bay. MR. CRAVENS: Jerry, excuse me. I do not have a copy of the budget. It was not in my meeting packet. MR. MOFFATT: I do not think anyone does. MR. CRAVENS: It' is pretty hard for us to tollow this without. MR. MOFFATT: I know. I would have hoped it would have been in, but it was not. In 2009, we had $214,000 coming from Fund Ill. The direction that I got the other day WdS that \ve will get $158,000 to Fund III versus $214,000. We will have to see how that works out. I do not think we are going to be in serious trouble. It will affect the carry forward. Then in 2010, it is $106,000. That will'be the limit of the County's contribution. We have to work that through, but I do not think Kyle is here. We will get into that later. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is an important point. Our Board does get our tax money back to provide to our residents in 8045 -- --'-._> . .,_.....;."......,..".~'"_ .. n 17"1 -~.~"....".- ..._". 16 I 1"" R20~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 ways that we deem fit MR. LEVY: That is out of $6 million? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, out of $6 million, we get that little percentage back, but it is because of this Board that we get it back, which is important. MR. WZZO: That was always given back. Fund III was always available tor us. MR. CRA YENS: Madam Chair, I would like to make a request of you to request that staff provide all of the Board members with a projected budget anytime that it is going to be discussed, because it is pretty difficult to tollow along if we do not have it. MR GIBSON: I agree. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think that is pretty logical. I would imagine that more than likely it was a snafu because we have a new person on board and Mary took some time off, so I would assume that that would be rectitied in the future. Thank you, Tom MR. MOFFATT: I will tell you on that Fund 111 being cutback, we are also cutting back our expenditures because we are not doing everything that we have done in the past because of the situation we will talked about earlier. After the meeting on the May 26, who knows what the Commission is going to decide. Maybe they will give us back more responsibilities, in which case, we can talk to them about more money. At this point, tills is all that we have been told. MR. GRA VENHORST: Jerry, question on the $2.5 million that you said we had. MR. MOFFATT: Yes. MR. GRA VENHORST: Can that be spent on anything? We have a Safety Committee meeting coming up. We have the Landscape Subconnnittee Strategic Planning Committee Joint meeting that we are going to be involved with that we are probably going to get a laundry list to deal with. All those monies can be used tor that MR. IAlZZO: It is basically capital reserve, sure. MR. LEVY: Whatever we vote to spend it on. MR. MOFFATT: Here again, that is why we W'dIlt the results of Jim's committee, the committee that Jim has formed of getting some professional advice. What do we need to update tills community over the last 30 years so that we are oot tearing up sidewalks to put in lighting and then two years later we fmd out we have to go the other way or something. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is what we have been doing. We have been holding back until the strategic plan WdS in place so that we could go forward with the cash that we have. Thank you very much, Jerry, and to all the Budget Committee. Thank you very much. You have put a lot oftirne and effort into it and that is Jerry and Mike Levy, John laizzo, Keith Dallas, and GeoffGibson. I want to thank you all very much. I know that you are still working on this and it is appreciated by all of us who are not into the process as you are. 8046 ,-_.# -,,,.~- . "<>~".-,,..,.,_. ,-. -..-,," '",.''''-~^'''''~''-'''-;, 16 I 1 'B20 ~ Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 rvIR. MOFFATT: Madam Chair, one point that I forgot to mention. I asked about the June 1 deadline because we are trying to schedule another Board meeting to approve the budget. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Did you get a response? rvIR. MOFFATT: I did and they said it was a soft deadline. They did not seem pressed. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So, it is not set in stone. MR. MOFFATT: I told them that in any case, whether or not it was approved before June 1, we would have a budget for them. I would think that after we get it through our Budget Committee with five of our Board members on it, the chances are slight that we would change it a Board meeting. They seemed amenable with that. While I believe that it is still a good idea to have a special meeting before the end of June, I think our June 3 meeting could suffice for that purpose. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Mr. Petty do you have any advice'? As far as you know, it seems like that would be okay with County staff? MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, we will defer to Mr. Moffatt's understanding since he has talked with the Budget office today and we have not CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Jeny, as long as you are comfortable, tine. SAFETY COMMITTEE TO HOLD FIRST MEETING MAY 15.2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We have the Safety Committee next. Although we have not yet met:, I do know that Mr. Gravenhorst has done an enormous amount of checking on areas. He has a list of all kinds of things that he feels are important. Mr. Cravens has been working on it also. I have been wandering around looking at the sidewalks and anywhere that I felt was important. We will be meeting May 15, 1 :00 p.m. and I believe that is here in the Community Center. I am not sure where that meeting will take place, but probably down here for anyone who is interested and I have been told that quite a few of the residents are. I think we have really identified quite a few areas that we are very concerned about and I think it is timely that we get started with that because it also fwmels in vlith the Strategic Planning Committee. CAPITAL PROJECTS CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Moving on to capital projects and Kyle, I keep promising you we will put you closer to the beginning and it did not happen this timc. I apologize. MR. LUKASZ: The only update is we arc still waiting OIl the signagc for the crosswalk. It is supposed to be in this week aftcr they receive the bases. They have them all ready to go, but they need to be painted. We are hoping to have the materials by the end of the week The only change from the last meeting is that we have to do a little drainage modification because it is holding some water in a 8047 . "",","'~"~'."'" .~'._.,.""~.,,,.- ._,.,.._-', 16 I 1 820 j - Pelican Bay Servi<<:es Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 valley in the vicinity of the crosswalk. We will do that modification and it should happen next week as soon as we have the materials and we already have the signage, so it should be opemtional very soon. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Wonderful. That will give us all a chance to take a look before we make any decisions about other crosswalks. This is excellent news. MR CRAVENS: I asked Kyle to give me a rough estimate of the cost and he came up with a figure of approximately $40,000. MR. LUKASZ: Correct. MR. CRAVENS: Kyle indicated that there would be a flashing stop sign. I have not yet seen it in operation. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. Because of a change in the Transportation department's standards, we got a better deal. MR. LUKASZ: It will not flash. It is an actual red light. The signal has a sensor and a pedestrian can trip the sensor for a full red light and a regular stop bar or line tor vehicles to stop in all directions. MR. HANSEN: Kyle, thank you for your work on that. What was the budget on that project? MR. LUKASZ: It is coming out of the enhancement for capital projects. Originally, the Board approved $40,000 to $50,000. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think it was actually $56,000 to start. MR LUKASZ: Originally, it was about lighting. MR. HANSEN: Congratulations to you. MR. LUKASZ: $40,000 is actually a little low; this one will be a little bit higher, probably closer to $45,000 because of the drainage modification, but the without that, the cost will run about $40,000. MYRA JANCO DANIELS BOULEVARD CROSSWALK CONSTRUcnON UPDATE MR. LEVY: I would like to remark that at the time we elected to go with this very, very high end crosswalk, it was because it was going to be a night crossing, but I do not believe that the illumination is automatic. Not all crosswalks installed in Pelican Bay are going to have illumination because during the day, illumination does not really matter much. If you look around on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard going across Seagate, they have crosswalks there where they have little stop signs embedded into the crosswalk They do not light up, they are just there and they catch your eye as a motorist that this is a crosswalk. I just want to point out that I do not think we should automatically be assuming that any crosswalks we are going to be installing are these extremely high-end crosswalks. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. It is going to have to be on a case-by-case basis. This gentleman is the Co Chair of the Budget Committee. I rest my case. I also want to thank Sehua Petker tor bringing tIlls to our attention. She is in the audience today. Kyle did a lot of backup work on this, too. We totmd that enormous amounts of people were using iliat area for walking back and forth to the Philharmonic and Waterside Shops. It is a real safety necessity, so iliankyou, Selma. 8048 .. '""~4'_'~'_ <..,..- """""-" ,,,,",",,,,,-,, ~"' .. ."'"m"_ 16 I 1 820 . Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MS. PETKER: I do thank all of you and Ridgeway thanks all of you, too. This was initiated by the prior Board and Coleman Connell mentioned that. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Anything else? MR. LUKASZ: That is all that I have. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Thank you. Those issues of Clam Bay, John, is there anyway you can get that information to us? MR. PETTY: Yes, Madam Chair, we can redo the e-mails through a ditlerent server and I will look into that. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Is there anything on there that we need to address before the May 26 Commission meeting? MR. PETTY: Possibly. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do we need to schedule a meeting, maybe just a recess and come back? What do you recommend? MR. GRA VENHORST: We are all going to be together on May 13. MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, the issue is not that complicated. It is a status report and a recommendation from the County Manager's office on the matter. I can explain now, if you would like. We were in the process of maintaining the canoe markers. We had asked our engineer, Tim Hall, to check with the regulatory agency to make sure it was covered under the existing pennit and would not require additional paperwork. The regulatory office that Tim talked to gave him the answer and said that everything should be fine. That ag.ency sent a cop' to another agency. \\hich is Coastal Zune l'v1nnag.ement and talked abuut the "hoopla problem" in Collier County oyer Clam Bay, wanting to make sure that everything was all right. Gary McAlpin responded back for Coastal Zone Management that tills was not approved by the County Commissioners, it was not approved by his otIice and that we were not a division of Collier County and that he was looking for Turrell, Hall and Associates to stop or cease and desist on this issue. Tim copied it to Kyle and he copied it to Turrell. I received a copy from staff, the communication did not come through our office. This went directly from another Division to our staff and to our contractor. I looked to the County Manager for direction and asked them specifically in an e-mail whether or not we were still a part of the County or had I missed a memo and what was his direction. I called to find out from the County Manager's office before the meeting yesterday what was the message I should take back to the Board meeting. The County Manager would like us to cease from addressing any issues conceming the canoe signs and Clam Bay until after the third week in May, when the County Commission is considering several items brought to it by Coastal Zone Management. That is all I have to bring to your attention on that issue. We will make sure that you get copies of all of the e-mails that we receive that we intended that you would have before the meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do we make a decision about any of this or just accept it? 8049 "_.,~..--,~_.,. '-'--','--' , ...... u , ",,'_='_".'~""'.~"_" - ~,'^ - . -,.-.-,,,,~..-- 'r .'" ..-..-... ~.-.~-",,~ 16 I 1 ~ 'B20' Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Boanl Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, I do not see there was any immediacy to the changes of the signs. Kyle had already made the order for the changes to the signs. The issue here is a policy and procedure and our place in the County, so to speak. DR. RAIA: Have the signs been ordered and paid for? MR, LUKASZ: The signs themselves, yes. We are going to try to do the installation in-house. MR. MUFF A TT: John, by the way, the e-mail where you asked the County if we are or are not a part of the County, that one I did receive. MR. DALLAS: I saw one of those too. MR. LEVY: I got some ofthose e-mails. MR. GIBSON: I did not see it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Like [ said, I had a Trojan horse, My computer just got back to me. MR. PETTY: We may want to start checking with the Board. The issue may be certain e-mails, certain engines. We may want to start doing paper backups in some cases. So bear with us while we get through this. The intent is to give you all the correspondence that we get MR. HOPPENSTEADT: If any of you are using a Comcast.net e-mail address, they had a national problem. Any commercial servers that had a .org or a .com, Comcast.net was rejecting them. MR. HANSEN: If you use a return receipt request, then you will know who gets it and who gets them MR. PETTY: If you have the same operating system., you will. If they have a different operating system, you will not. Certain free e-mail systems do not provide that status, but it is a good suggestion. We can certainly provide that as a means of communication. I think: it is best that we start doing random phone calls to make sure some of the Board members are receiving emaiIs. We have been relying on our mail administration to say that mail was undeliverable and then we would follow up with a written copy, but if some of you did not receive, maybe it's time we started doing some phone calls. MR. MOFFATT: One other thing for lohn. I mentioned tills to Kyle. We did not know this, but John, apparently, you had requested some purchase orders or encumbering purchase orders for the County. They will not approve anything relative to Clam Bay lllltil the Commission meeting. Any of the other funds are fIne, but the Clam Bay funds, if you ask for anything, they will not approve them It could have related to Jim's time to get it extended or something. MR. PETTY: That includes quite a few issues, which includes paying the vendors for the signs. I do not know if you are referring to a stop payment, whether or not POs are going out, whether or not POs are being approved. I recognize that you were given information by Collier County that says that spending on Clam Bay is on hold. 8050 ,.....'0..0'........ ""-,.._...~-"._.>' r ~,....""~"-."'< ".~,___""'" ""' 11 _r _.~- _. ..,",-"---- 16 I 1 820 Pelkan Bay Servi~ Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 Iv1R. MOFFATT For the encumbered PO's they gll\e that instmction to "home, er is in charge. I think he said H)U "ere talking to him. MR. PETTY: I understand. We will look forward to the County at some point in time communicating with our offices here in Pelican Bay so that we know about such things, but I appreciate you bringing it to our attention. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Is Leo Ochs now the County Manager or Acting Manager? MR. PETTY: Acting Manager. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do we have any further discussion on Clam Bay? Marcia? AUDIENCE COMMENTS CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We have audience comments at this point, so Marcia, go right ahead. You are in the audience. MS. CRA YENS: Thank you. I am a little puzzled about the County not paying anything on Clam Bay because there \-vas a public meeting in October of 2008. MR. MOFFATT: I do not think they said they were not going to pay. They are not going to cover any more purchase orders. That is just extending some things that are already in the works. MS. CRAVENS: But in October of 2008, the budget for the Pelican Bay Services Division was done at a public meeting and a budget for Clam Bay was approved. 1 guess I am a little confused why then. MR. MOFFATT: The Ftmd III was approved too and we are not getting it. MS. CRA YENS: I just have to wonder about that, because the Board of Collier County Commissioners approved your budget for 2009, so 1 think, do they then not have to amend it publicly MR. CRA VENS: Excuse me, is tills an instance where the Board of County Commissioners did something and statT then is doing something else? Is this what is happening? The Commissioners say we approve this budget and then staff is saying, well, we are not going to pay for that? MS. CRAVENS: That is what it sounds like to me, because I do not think: there's been any other public notice about the MSTBU's budget being amended, which needs to be done at a public meeting, and allow for members of the MSTBU to be able to comment on it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Marcia, thank you. Hold on just a second. John, can you address that? Is there something you know about this? MR. PETTY: I think both points arc extremely valid. The infonnation being brought forward by Mr. Moffatt is dire. You do a self-imposed assessment and for staff to withhold funding without Commission action that we are aware of, and we follow the County 8051 --"-,,<'~.. , ,~~-._.""",,,_..,", _"4>- - 16 I 1 820 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 Commissioner's meetings to see if there is any impact because we have been surprised in the past, we know of no hold made by the County COllUllissioners. If the County Manager's office or the Budget office or Finance of the Clerk of Courts or some other entity has taken our funds and frozen them for a specific period, we would like to know what their jurisdiction is in this matter. We are unaware of their ability to do this. We are unaware of the County Commissioners giving them the ability to do this and I do not know that anybody in Pelican Bay has ever opined they wanted to self-impose an assessment subject to the staff of Collier County releasing the money. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So do we k"llOW the steps to take? MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, flTst, let us verifY that the information is as portrayed. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I agree. MR. PETTY: Maybe they did not speak correctly to Mr. Moffatt. If tills is the case, then we will get from the County Manager of what that jurisdictional position is so that we can bring that back for the Board's consideration. MS. CRAVENS: Can I ask that you also address tills to the County Clerk, D\vight Brock, who is actually the one v.no pays the bills, I believe. His signature is on the check, right? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I believe. MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, you are talking about the Chief Financial Officer from the County who is the Clerk of the Court. Before we go there, we should make sure that we have the right infommtion and wlderstand why and then let us bring it back to the Board. We may eventually want to go there, but let us make sure where we stand first. MR. MOFFATT: In 20 days we will know. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Or less. MS. CRA YENS: Just, my point though here is that currently you have a budget that was approved in October of 2008 for every fund nwuber that you have, to be used in a way that you had indicated in the budget you submitted. It was approved by the Board of Collier County Commissioners at a public meeting for all of the members of the MSTBU to attend and make any corrnnent on. That would indicate that you should be able to pay what was in your budget. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It seems reasonable. We will be looking into it and bring that back at our June meeting and let you know what we have found out, if not before. MS. CRA YENS: Yes. I have very strong concem'l about County statT oot allowing something that the Board of Collier County Commissioners approved. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Let us fmd out ifthat is actually the way it is. Maybe there is something else going on that we are not a'....are of and we can fmd out from staff. 8052 _...-_..~ . -,~.~'-'~'" ",.,,".,0 """-",.,,,,--., ~ ~.-.... - 161 1 :820 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 MS. CRA YENS: How soon will that happen? ;; CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: As soon as Mr. Petty calls and talks to them. MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, we will be making that call tomorrow and getting that information from staff on whether or not they misspoke, or if that is the instructions that they got and we will follow the trail back. So we will have an answer to the Chair within the next two days, I suspect CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Can we keep the whole Board in the loop on tills? MR. PETTY: If that is something the Chair would like to do. We would normally look to the Chair to say whether or not a special meeting is required since you are the only one that can call that or an administrator and if you see that there is a reason to take action quicker, well, then we would look to you to schedule that meeting. MR. CRA YENS: I think the Board would like to be in that tills loop. We have already indicated that all correspondence and e-mails be copied. Maybe do we have to do telephone calls also? MR. PETTY: Yes. So what we will do in tills case, instead of a telephone call, which is the expedient form, is well do it by e-mail so that we have a paper trail and we will copy the Board. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. MR. CRAVENS: Thank you. MS. CRA YENS: I did have something else. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You've got about 20 seconds. MS. CRAVENS: Minutes, all of you, I believe, at the last couple of meetings have, particularly at the April meeting, indicated that you wanted the draft of the minutes for YOUT meeting to be posted online on the PBSD site. That has not been happening. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MS. CRAVENS: Because as of yesterday, even today, the April minutes still were not online. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, Marcia. I appreciate that. MR. LEVY: They were not ready until Monday. MS. CRAVENS: Actually, they were sent to the PBSD ofilce Aprill7, so they could have been. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Marcia, we are going through a new staff situation with a vacation time period that was set up long before tills. We understand and for those of us who did not, were not aware of that, I am glad you brought that up. This is going to be rectified in the future. We do apologize. We have two of the best people in that office and they're working their little hearts out MS. CRAVENS: One last thing. 8053 .i""I'""JIl'_,_~'_"'^~"_'" ~,.,.'" "__>~,,o_......~ ,~_..... 16 I 1 820 ( Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Y ou're minus ten seconds at least. MS. CRA YENS: The matter of Ted Raia's letter with the graphic from Tim Hall. I talked with Tim Hall about tills and Dr. Raia. Could we ask Tim to change the graphic to indicate white reflective tape and not red and green reflective tape? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You do not want anything navigational looking? MS. CRAVENS: Exactly. MR. CRA YENS: I think Ted already addressed that. MS. CRA YENS: But you need to ask him to do that. MR. PETTY: No. Madam Chair has clarified earlier and let me do it one more time. The Board felt comfortable with the changes as discussed and did not put an addendwn on the motion that required it to be reviewed by any other entity, including the engineer. MS. CRA YENS: It is not a review. DR. RAIA: It is taken care of. MS. CRA YENS: Thank you. DR. RAIA: Madam Chair, just in closing, we usually do not meet one month in the summer and that is usually August. I am just bringing that to your attention; we do not ha,,'C to vote or anything. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ted, I met last August, didn't you? DR. RAIA: Excuse me? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We did have a meeting last August. DR. RAIA: Yes, we did, but usually before that we had a recess. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, let us see where we are at that time because we are going to have a new administrator, so it looks. We may need to meet. DR. RAJA: I will not be here at the next meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: In June? I am sorry to hear that. Is everything okay? DR. RAJA: Yes, I have to visit my daughter and grandchildren in Sweden. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Sounds wonderful. Take u<; \,,'ith you. All right. Selma, you had something? MS. PETKER: Just to back up the letter that is going out, Dr. Raia's letter. In 1994, when the in NRPA was designated for the Clam Bay estuary, it was the intent of the FDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers to not have motorboats trafficking in the estuary because tlus \yOtlld destroy it and the mangro\e tixest \YilS a pnority Also. Collier County Audubon's expeli in \\etlands says the eshwry needs protection from motor tratllc. 8054 --.. ,",-"'-<-< -v I . >~.,,-~.'-- .,.",,~, ,- "'~'"''''~';'''- "'-$-"""-^~"'-'-~ ,. 161 1 820 ... Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We agree, absolutely. Thank you, Selma. Anyone else? ADJOURN MR. CRA YENS: Move for adjournment. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? MR. WZZO: Aye. DR RAIA: Aye. MR. MOFFATT: Aye. MR. DALLAS: Aye. MR. HANSEN: Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. MR. CRAVENS: Aye. MR. GRA VENHORST: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed? None. Motion carries. I Mr. Oavens moved and the BtHud IIIUIIIimowdy "proved to atfjoum the meeting at 4: 15 p.nt. I Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Services, Inc. by Tracie Thompson; and edited by Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant, Pelican Bay Services Division. 8055 ,.-.-" ~,._~_T ~ ~ ",,-,"', ' ,..~".~~.,,,,, '-.W".~_"~ ~ / 16 11 "-', t RECEIVED Bog TI_~~ r 2009 COYle JUN 1 9 TRANSCRIPT OF TIlE JOINT MEETING OF TIlE Colella =z- = . . f County (:;ommi~AN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD AND - PEL~BAY FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITfEE'S LANDSCAPING S -COMMITfEE Naples, Florida, May 13, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBEUD, that jointly, the Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping SulH:ommittee having conducted business herein Collier County, Florida, met on May 13, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at the Hammock Oak Community Center, 8%0 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108, with the following members present: Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board: Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman Jeny Moffatt Tom Cravens Ted Gravenhorst (Absent) Keith Dallas Hunter Hansen (Absent) GeoffGibson John laizzo (Absent) Michael Levy Ted Raia <Absent) Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee: Merlin Lickhalter, Chainnan Ralph OWers Ronnie Bellone, Vice Chairwoman Mmy Anne Womble Rose Mary Everett Robert Uek, Chairman (absent) Also Present: John Petty, District Administrator, District Offices, lLC; Mmy McCaughtty, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division; Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation; and Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant, Pelican Bay Services Division. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Discussion by the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Part I 3. Audience Comments 4. Discussion by the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-COlmnittee Part 2 5. Audience Comments 3. Adjourn MR. LICKHALlER Good morning. It is ten o'clock and we should get started. I am Merlin Lickhalter. I am one of two Vice Chairs of the Pelican Bay Strategic Planning Committee. I am here today along with my colleague and fellow Vice Chair, Ronnie Bellone. Our Committee's Chair requested that I take charge at today's meeting and lead the discussion; he could not be here because he is out of town. I think a word of explanation is in order. I saw the notice from the Pelican Bay Services Division that referred to the Pelican Bay Foundation Landscape Subcommittee. That is an incorrect designation. We are an Ad Hoc Task Force, appointed by the Chair of the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee for the sole purpose of evaluating qualifications of landscape architects and making a recommendation to the Strategic Planning Committee as to a short list of the top ranked firms. That is a little bit different from what the notice from the Pelican Bay Services Division said in their formal notice. Not Mis.c Corres: all of the members of our Task Force are here. I believe one is missing and I assume she is coming. J hajJpe"ned to talk with her Date: 1 Item #. __" r :~Gp!e~ to' -'''''~-" ,"o~,_., . . __~__.~ _'"m'-,~""", __ ~.., __."...""~_._, 'JOint Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning co16e,I Ig20 -1 Landscaping Sub-Committee MeetiDg Minutes May 13, 2009 yesterday and she said she would be here and that is Rose Mary Everett, but the other members of the Task Force that are here now are Ronnie Bellone and Ralph Ohlers. Jnn, are you a member of the Task Force? I think you are. MR HOPPENSlEADT: I amjust staff MR LICKHAL lER: Okay. So, you push the wheelbarrow. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Yes. MR. LICKHALTER Okay. Mmy Anne Womble is also a member of our Ad Hoc Task Force. I am not sure how the Services Division intends things to wolk, but let me tell you wbat the Task Force has in mind for today's meeting. Our agenda has two parts. First, we were tasked to bring to the meeting our evaluation and scores of the landscape architect firm submittals received last week. Prior to that, the Task Force met a couple of weeks ago. We spent a fair amount of time discussing the evaluation criteria of the firm's submittal and that it should involve weighted scoring. The first order of business from the Task Force's perspective is to discuss our scored results. Jim (Hoppensteadt) has ammged to put the scores a computer so he can merge them to create a composite score. Again, I am speaking only from the perspective of the Task Force. We need to talk: about how the Services Division weighs in on this. After that process, it is our intention to rank the firms and choose three, four or five, or whatever the number of firms that we decide to invite back for interviews, and then provide this recommendation to the Strategic Planning Committee. This process is very similar to the one we undertook almost two years ago for the Strategic Planning Committee. That is Part 1 of the meeting from the Task Force's perspective. Part 2, after the Task Force bas determined which firms that should be invited for interviews, is to finalize a list of questions and issues that we have individually been working on, that we would like the firms to answer, either during their presentation, or as part of a Q&A session. We will provide that list to Jim Hoppensteadt and he will send a letter to those successful firms providing the inteniew date, how long the interview will take, and the list of the issues and questions. Once the Committee authorizes the letter, when Jim leaves the meeting today, he will have in band wbat he needs. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chainnan, if we could, we have a housekeeping issue. If we could ask the Cbair to call the meeting to order and take the roll. ROLL CALL CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: If I could call the meeting to order and may we have a roll call, please, Mary. MS. McCAUGH1RY: Yes, Madam Chair. As far as the Services Division is concerned, we do have a quorum. We do 2 .-.-^- ."_.., .... _.c.... _.~~,. " .,.---.---.,--- 16 II 1 ~B20 Joint Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 have several people absent, but we do have a quorum. In attendance from the PBSD Board are Chainvoman Womble, Mr. Dallas, Mr. Levy, Mr. Cravens, Mr. Moffatt, and Mr. Gibson. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. Okay. Mer~ I prefer you do go ahead. DISCUSSION BY THE PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMlTfEE'S LANDSCAPING SUB-COMMITfEE PART 1 MR. LICKHAL lliR: Okay. I guess I am looking at MaJy Anne, Ralph, Ronnie and myself to offer Jim our scores, so he can put them on the computer and project them on the screelL Here we go. On the screen and on the material being distnbuted is the criterion that the Task Force agreed upon for judging the materials that we received and we had weighted numbers for each of them. You want to put those in as well, Jim. MS. BELWNE: Right. Everybody has the copies? MR. LEVY: Is Jack Lieber one of the people from these firms? MR. LICKHALlliR: Jack Lieber is a retired landscape architect who ironically is listed in two submittals. He does not have a firm; he is an independent semi-retired landscape architect. The finn that he sold his former finn listed him as a consultant. One of the other firms also listed him as a consultant. MR. LEVY: Thank you. MR. HOPPENSlliADT: One of the other aspects that we should understand here and maybe after we go through the scoring we can ask John or MaJy Anne to walk us through the purchasing aspect of how this might prospectively go forward. Certainly, from Jeny's (Moffatt) and Mike's (Levy) standpoint, as well as from a budgetary standpoint, what elements of this might be able to be incorporated into PBSD's budget. MR. LICKHAL TER: Let us start with the first one. The abbreviation that Jim has put down as ALD stands for Architectural Land Design. Jim, I think it would be helpful if you put the nwnber of the possible maximum score for each one on line 3. MR. PETrY: If I lnight say dlere, Mr. Chairman, usually you have a better-looking typist for dus type of deal. MR. HOPPENSlliADT: If I would have worn my shorts, you would not have said that. MR. LICKHAL TER: Well, I was watching a television last night where they talked about the people who get jobs do so because of beauty or capability. Okay. Well, in the interest of time, Ralph, do you want to begin by telling them what your scores were for ALD under each category? 3 _11111 -'~"" - <"'~-""-""^'- -~--*.",-.-,,--,~ "....~- .'0 ,,~ 161 1 820 ~~1 Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MR. OHLERS: Each category? MR LICKHALTER: Well, just total up wbat is left. MR. OHLERS: Architectural Land Design, 15, 5, 12, 5, 5, 5; Bruce Ho.ward is 15,5, 18,5, 10,5; Goetz & Stropes: 5, 7, 20, 10, 18, 15; Jo.hnson Engineering is 5, 10, 12, 5, 5, 15; JRL is 20, 7, 17,7,18,20; MSA is 12, 7, 15, 7, 15, 5; Outside Productio.ns is 20, 10, 20, 10, 20, 20; P. K. Studios,S, 5, 15, 2,0, 0; WilsonMiller: 20,8,20,8, 15, 10; Wood & Partners, 15, 10, 15,8,20, 18. MR. LICKHAL TER: No.w, Jim, haw do. you suggest that we put the other nmnbers? MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Well, yo.u want to. combine them and get averages. What is yo.ur preference, Merlin? MR. LICKHAL 1ER: We wo.uld like to. obtain the average, correct MS. BELWNE: So, far each firm, add my scores to. Mr. Ohlers' and so an, and then when we are dane, compute the average, right? MR PETIY: Yes. MR LICKHAL TER: I guess put it in a fo.nnula, Jim MS. BELLONE: Yes. MR HOPPENSTEADT: Sorry, Ro.nnie, what did yo.u say? MS. BELWNE: Somebody had a question. MR LICKHALTER: What is yo.ur question? MR MOFFA IT: I picked up ten firms. Did I miss some because tIlere are thirteen (13) 0.0 the list. MS. BELWNE: Three firms did not submit. MR MOFFA IT: Who. were tile tbree? MR LICKHALTER: Husk & Associates, Gail Boorman & Associates, and Vaoesse DayIo.r did no.t submit. MR. MOFF AIT: Thank you. MS.B~LONE: Okay. ~D,5,5, 10,5,5,5. MR HOPPENSTEADT: Okay. Keep go.ing. MS. BELLONE: Bruce Ho.ward, going across, 20, 8, 20, 8, 20, 15; Goetz: 10, 5, 5, 5, 5, 10; Johnsoo Engineering, 18, 8, 15, 5, 18,20; JRL: 15, 10, 15,5, 10, 10; MSA: 10, 5, 10, 3, 3, 5; Outside Productio.ns: 20, 5, 10, 5, 0, 5; P. K. Studios: 5,5, 10, 5,0,5; WilsonMiller: 20, 10, 15, 10, 18, 15; Wood & Partners: 18,8, 18,8,20,20. 4 ..,-,"-" ..~, .''''''~'' , ..".~,"-,- -_..-"_..."'_....,.,-"'.'''-"_.,~---,- Joint Pelican Bay Services Diw!lion Advisory Board aad 11__ Strllteg;< PIannW~ c~~Js 8 2 0 .. Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MR LICKHAL TER: Jim, you are just recording it manually? MR HOPPENSTEADT: I am right no.w, Merlin. MR. LICKHAL TER: Should we move 00 with the others? MR HOPPENSTEADT: Yes. MR LICKHAL TER: Mary Anne? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, I am going to. have to. abstain from participating because I had a Trojan horse 00 my computer wheo I got home from the Derby. Maybe yo.u indicated I was supposed to. see this, but I did not kno.w that it was ready until yesterday. MR LIC~ TER: Suzanne sent out e-mails on Friday saying they were ready. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I do DOt believe that I received that one, but I did get a follow up. I thought that this mo.ming we were going to be do.ing this together as a WOIkshop. MR LICKHALTER: RoseMary. MS. EVERETT: 1 went through all o.fthe requests for qualificatio.ns that came in and read them thoroughly, but then weot back to do the oumbers and had difficulty doing that. I can teU yo.u what my tbree top choices would be, but I cannot give you the numbers going across. I apologize for that. MR LICKHALTER: Okay. I will give yo.u mioe. MS. EVERETT: Okay. MR LICKHAL TER: I guess I was less harsh than some of the others because I tended to score higher, but here we go. Architectural Land Design: 12, 10, 20, 7, 12, 15; Bruce Ho.ward: 15, 8, 20, 4, 15, 15; Goetz & Stropes: 20, 10, 20, 8, 18, 18; Jo.hnsoo Eogineering: 15, 10,20, 7, 12, IS; JRL: 18, 10,20, 10, 18, 18; MSA: 18, 10,20,8, 18, 18; Outside Productions: 18, 10, 20, 10, 15, 15; P. K. Studios: 12,8,20,8, 12, 15; WilsonMiller: 18,8,20,8, 15, 15; and WPI: 20, 10,20,8,20, 18. While Jim is doing that, I guess in light of the fact that Mary Anne did oot have an opportunity to. review these in advance, but we did plan that fo.r weeks we said we were going to do. it that way. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: ljust assumed that I would receive a packet. And since I did not get one, I tho.ught that is what we were doing today. MR LICKHAL TER: And Rose Mary did not score tIlem individually. One suggestion might be to let Jim do his magic with tile averages and theo see how tile scores add up. S --.....-..-..,- .".~ """>"--"",,,,._~---- ~-'~--"'---'-"'~ ..-..'''"- =-~.~..- Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Plali6cLlee's B20~ Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MS. EVERETT: Because I was listening to yo.ur scores, mine are rough, without going back in detail so this is nothing that I would want to submit. MR. LICKHAL TER: I guess what I was flYing to. say is wheo Jim finishes, tile computer will tell us what tile rnnkings are and we can see how that compares to. what you thought before you walked in the door. MS. EVERETT: Okay. MR LICKHAL TER: And iftllere is any sort of a consensus. MS. EVERETT: Okay. MR LICKHALTER: In the meantime, could each of us talk about any aspects of the qualificatio.os that we reviewed? For tIlose o.f you who are woodering about the quality of submittal, that was a very important part of tile discussio.n regarding the criteria It was the consensus of the Task Force that the quality of submittal, apart fiom the quantitative information, that each of us try to assess what we might expect to get in terms of quality of the service. It is not scieoce by any means, but it was wily we gave this particular criterio.o a fair amount of importance. MS. B~WNE: Many o.f tIlese were submittals are bound, and nicely presented. Wheo you compared one to. another, some of them stood out more than the others. No.oe of them were oecessariJy on blue sheets of paper or anything like that. I tIlought that some o.f tIlem were "off the shelf' marketing material and did oot necessarily include specifics for Pelican Bay. In those cases, that is where their scores deteriorated. Looking at all of these, I was probably the most severe of my colleagues. Fo.r the org,mi7:Jtion description criterion, it looks like we are all fairly close, in that they are licensed, certified landscape architects. What we were coocemed about wbeo we issued the RFQ was whether they had in house civil eogineering and lighting capabilities, or did they "outsource" the wmi<:. Key persons were all fuirly close, although I was probably harsher than anyone else. Regarding otller staff, I was close 00 that as well. Were they a o~man sho.w? Were they ooe o.r two people and if something happened to that person, what would happeo to tile project? Because this would be a multiyear implementation, at least fiom my perspective. So, it was flYing to determine what that outlook looks like for the key person, as well as the finD, and are they go.ing to. be around in the loog haul. The approach category, again, I think I am significantly lo.wer than my colleagues. When I looked at tile approach I guess I was looking for a consensus building, as in, "here's the way forward," woIking willi tile Pelican Bay Foundatio.o, the Strategic Planning Committee, as well as with the Services Division. Many of the submittals did that, but some did no.t. Those that did not immediately go.t very close to zero; but theo I added in some of tile otller things that they did. Some o.f the ather approaches addressed the technical aspects like, "here's how we would approach the benn near 41." Or. "here's how we would kind of do that." 6 --" ."""'.n_-,n ._-, "^"'"... >""'~""~'- , "'''-'''''.''''-' -. .. . ",~..."-"..,<",-",,,,,, Joint PeIic.. Bay Services Bmsi.. Advisnry Board .... F...dation Strategic P1al..~c~'~ 820'" Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 So, they addressed tile technical. I was looking not so much fo.r the "what," but the "how." On similar assignments, the bulk had very, Vel}' similar assignments. There were some looking at it in a way that they usually did "oew" developmeot, and not oecessarily redevelopment or re-planning. If that WllS the bulk assignmeots there, I scored them lo.wer, rather than beef them up because our development is not new; it would be improving what already exists. 'That was my approach, as I weot tIrrough each of these. Like Rose Mary, I did my first run through and put it down for a day to. let it sink in. Then yesterday I went through to get my scoring sheet and it was bard, but I had to. let it sit in my own grey matter for a while before I scored it MR. MOFFATT: Did anyo.ne determine whether tIlese firms are based io Collier andIo.r Lee County? MR LlCKHALTER: We had asked them in their submittals to tell us where the o.ffice that would be that wo.uld be TeSpODSlble for the work, and so each submittal has that iofo.nnatioo. MR MOFFATT: Depending an their summaries so we can quickly know who was in Lee or Collier Co.unty? MR LICKHALTER: Arcbitectura1 Land Design and correct me if I am wroog, ALD, I believe, is based here. Bruce Howard is based in Miami, but his staff does a lot of wOlk on the West Coast. He is personally here every week. Goetz & Stropes is here. Johnson's everywhere. JRL is here. MSA is here. I think Outside Productio.ns is in Bonita? MS. BELLONE: Yes. MR LICKHALTER: P. K. Studios is here. WilsonMiller is everywhere and Wood & Partners is in Tallahassee. MS. EVERETT: I had a comment on that as well if I may. Are you following any particular format? Some of these people that responded, like Bruce Howanl and WIlsonMiller are people that had come to us wheo we had an RFQ out for a strategic, master overall plan far Pelican Bay that included restauIants, programs, security and any number of tbings. While we were impressed with these firms, like Bruce Howard and some of the other groups, they did not have the wherewithal to do all o.f the other parts of it where Wood & Partners did. Wood & Partners weot through a whale process like tl1ey had beeo selected for that On this particular round, witll the master landscape plan and roadway plan, if you will, far Pelican Bay, my take is that Wood & Partners presented a very good proposal. However, in my opinion, I would like to see someooe that was more local in terms o.f working on the master landscaping. MR. LICKHALTER: Okay. Before we get to ranking the firms, call we wait until the scoring is completed? MS. EVERETT: Yes, of course. I was speaking more to the geographicallocatio.o. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think, too, Jerry made t1lat comment or request to. know because in the purchasing o.rders 7 "-'-"'--~'___ "I " -_.,-,.." .._.,~.,_ 'l T lII.v -"~,,..,. "' 161' 1 "'.B20 . '1 Joint Pelican Ba}' Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Mioutes May 13, 2009 with the County, you have ten points deducted off the tap if you are not located in Collier Co.unty o.r Lee County. Jerry is that why you asked? MR MOFFATT: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I suspected that. MR MOFFATT: And, I do. not know how we proceed from here; whether the County would be interested in allowing the Services Divisio.n to pick up any o.f these costs. Certainly when you get into doing the \vo.rk, since most of the work is done in areas that the Services Divisioo has respoOSlbility. MR LlCKHAL TER: Right. MR MOFFATT: That is a different issue, but I cannot imagine that would be a problem. As:fur as consultants, I do not kno.w. It is something to pursue. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think our staff has that understanding. MS. BELWNE: Yes. MR. LICKHALTER: Ralph? MR. OHLERS: No.. MR LlCKHAL TER: Rose Mary? 011, Mary Anne, well, you did not have a chance to read tIlem yet. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, actually, I have been scanning through tbings very comfortably here because you all are taking yo.ur time and giving me a chance to. I know that I just eliminated some very quickly and I feel like I am ready wheo you are. MR LICKHAL TER: I would like to wait until Jon is finished. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I will, but I think from just listening to the nmnbers as they were go.ing across, I really did oat know which was which until I started looking at each one separately. I probably fall pretty close to the same situation as the rest of yo.u far similar reasons. Ronnie, you were talking about whetber o.r oo.t it was a new develo.pment or someone refurbishing an older one that oeeds some freshening~ that makes a big difference. It is an eotirely different ball game when you have something in place already. That is very important. The idea that they are local, of course, is important after going through our Purchasing. It depends on what we do and how we go. forward with the County, of course, but it is always a better idea to. have someone in the State that is closer to you anyway. Tallahassee is a long way away, but as we lmo.w, those fo.lks were down here frequeotly. As we know with our o.wn staff who is just across tile Alley, they are here all the time. So, it just depends 00 how comfo.rtable somebody is being here in place with us as we go through something. 8 -+-<--_.,~~ ,"- "~'''''~'- """"".,..~. .'-~,.. ..,-._~~- "'l' l"~ "~","" - 161 l' :1 B2t Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MS. BELLONE: One of the things with Wood & Partners that I considered a plus, eveo tIlough they are in Tallahassee, was the fact that they have been working with the Foundation and Strategic Planning; they really have a good feel for Pelican Bay, MS. EVERETT: Yes. MS. BELWNE: When I scored them, I gave them extra "brownie points," if you will, because of their knowledge already built in. Granted, part o.f everyone's approach was, "well, you have to go io and take an inventory of what we have. They said that too, but also, they are very familiar with the "footprint," if yo.u will. They have been here. They have taken pictures. That is not to say some of tile other ones did not; obviously, wherever Jack Lieber was hired, he knows first-hand. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, JRL and WilsonMiller are very comfortable and very knowledgeable about Pelican Bay also. There may be otllers that I am not aware of so, it is always a plus wheo you do not have to start from square one. MR OHLERS: Well, Outside Productions did Bay Colony's. So, I think we have a good idea of tile quality o.ftheir wOlk and their associatio.n with the community. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You can just drive 00 in there and look at how pretty it is. It is a beautiful job. MR. OHLERS: I agree with yo.u,Ronnie, about the depth of knowledge that Wood & Partners has. But if we can find somebody equally capable and local, that is what I would prefer. MS. BELWNE: Well, let us see what the SCOres are. MR LICKHALTER: To. me the geography is the least important, fur me it is the qualificatio.ns. The best-qualified firm and the one that we would fuel most comfortable wo.tking with. Whomever the "we" is will have to Wo.rk with tbis firm hand and glove, as Ronnie said, far a very Io.og period of time. Coming back to sort o.f SOIne geoeral observations. There were three firms who did not submit all tile required infonnatioo the first time and we had to go back and ask them for it. And Jim Hoppensteadt said it was ethical to do that. And so he did that. Two of them responded in a timely way, and the third ooe did not respood until late afternooo yesterday; what tIley sent is tile package I just handed Rose Mary. And so in my mind I scored them down because o.f their lack of responsiveness. That concerns me thinking about Wo.rking witll a firm in the future. And tile other point I wanted to make is I agree with Ronnie's comments, but would like to expand upoo them. I think all of us sitting around the table know how important it is to. Wo.rk with the community, oat just the elected bodies that represent that community, but the commmrity. There is a fair amount of misinfonnatioo that is already circulating in tile community about this. And apart from presenting a plan that is technically correct, we are going to. need this consultant to help sell the community an the value of doing this. When I looked at tile approach and, as I think back on it, I may have giveo a higher score to approach than to 9 ."_._~.. -, ~ -~.,,-.,...-~.._. ~,,-,~ ~_~_"W'_< 161 1 820 Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division AdvisOl")' Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscapiog Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 any of the other criterion. I looked for people who, in their approach, understood the importance of interacting 001 witll contractual people, but with the community and finding ways to make it wolt in the community. That was very important to me wheo I did my exploring. MS. BELLONE: As ",as mine. MR LICKHAL TER: So, Jim, where are we, close? MR HOPPENSTEADT: You are do.ne. You are done. MR. LI~ TER: Boy, he has it down to two decimals. Can you round tIlem to a whole oumber? I can deal witll that better if yo.u could eliminate the zero. You rearranged them, prioritized them. I see. Rose Mary, coming back to. your first comment when you opened up you said you ranked one of the firms very high. MS. EVERETT: Yes. One of the ones I ranked very, very high was Goetz & Stropes and they are oo.t with everyone else. I tho.ught that they had wmked with large communities; and the wolt tIley did for tile Botanical Garden was very impressive. Jack Lieber is Wo.rking with them as their consultant. It is interesting that Jack Lieber would work also as a consultant with JRL So he was actually witll botll of them. But my idea too witll JRL is that they are the ones that have beeo here all along. And so if we want a fresh look, theo it would be nice to have a fresh organizatioo look at what our requirements are at least. And I thought that what they presented was impressive. MR LI~ TER: How about the others? I know those of you an the board, the Services Division, you did 001 have a chance, I assume, to. look at tile submittals until today, but you have' copies. Do you want to throw out some ideas or observatio.os 00 the scoring? MS. EVERETT: Other than that, I will cootinue and tell you where we fell 00 the other o.oes. I did have WilsonMiller and I did have Outside Productions. JRL, for tile reasons that I just spoke about, were lower 00 mine and WPI for tile reason that I spoke about, geographically, otllerwise, I think tIley're fabulous, but it was just the geographic thing. MS. BELLONE: What were your top three? Rose Mary, what were yo.ur top tbree? MS. EVERETT: Goetz, Outside Productio.ns, and WilsonMiller. AUDIENCE COMMENTS MR LICKHAL TER: How about the audieoce? Does anybody io the audience want to. say something? Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: Good morning. I wo.uld just say haviog worked 00 the Strategic Plamling Committee and with WPI, although I have oot read the proposal for landscaping, we do know mo.re about WPI including the strategic plan. 10 ,,,.._,,.,,,,,- - ,---,'-._.'" .q,.~.,.~.", r .....,...,.....".,~__,.^~_.,._.,_"~._.".m"""_,_"',.. - -~.,._.... 16 I II . ., 820 Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MR LICKHAL TER: Excuse me. Just make sure we uoderstand. It is not a proposal. MS. MURRAY: All right. I understand I for ooe was not overwhelmingly pleased with the initial material from WPI, the way it was presented and the amouot o.f WOlf< the Strategic Planning Committee needed to add to get out tile important stuff. I just thought that the quality of the written material from them was not wbat I would bave expected. MS. BELLONE: What I remember from Bruce Howard when we were going through the selection process far the strategic planning consultant, they are the ooes and he was the ooe persoo that really bad what I felt to. be very clever and differeot, architectural landscape design concepts, but in good taste. But because that firm was not as robust as what we were looking for, he did oat make tile short list to come back for the interviews. That was my memory. Is that right? MR OHLERS: I think. he came back, but his price was too high. MS. EVERETT: Right. But we were impressed by his expertise. We were impressed with what he presented. MR LICKHALTER: I recall it was also a questioo about what his real role was at either Mediterra or Bonita Bay, there was some sort of questio.o mark. MS. EVERETT: Yes. Because several people claimed Mediterra and several people claimed Bonita Bay. Several people claimed that tIley all have a part in it. So, that was another thing that I was focusing 00, the to.tal community aspect of as opposed to the different little communities inside, so I looked at tile ooe that I thought had that broader scope. MS. BELLONE: I bad an issue witll Outside Productioos. Scott Windham used to be a partner with Patrick Trefz. Patrick is now the principal, but Scott was witll that finn. When he left OP!, be struck out 00 his own as Windham Studios and that happened during the Bay Co.Iooy redo. I just tIlought I would throw that in. I know it does not list him. but I kno.w he was a key person that is no looger with them. MR. OHLERS: I hate to eliminate him based an that. I think it would be interesting to see what your top three are, what my top tbree, and what Ronnie's top tbree are. MR. LICKHAL TER: Okay. MR. OHLERS: Because averages can kind of distort it. MR LICKHAL TER: Well, actually, I bad a top four because there were two that I could not differentiate. My top four were Goetz & Stro.pes, JRL, MSA, and WPI. MS. BELWNE: 1, like Merlin, bave a top four. MR. CRA YENS: Excuse me, Merlin, I did not quite get tile order yo.u were giving them. 11 _.. <.._.".'.,.,~_."...- <."..,~"~ J..ll ~. ._~ ,"'''''-~'-'-''''''- -,_._~'".~--"' ._",.."'-~-,------~,_. ,.- 161 1 820. Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MR LI~ TER: I was oot giving tbem in an order. I was asked for my top four. MR CRAVENS: Wouldyoumind? MR LIC~TER: If you want. MR CRAVENS: Yes, I wo.uld. MR LI~ TER: My first is Wood & Partners. Very closely behind them was Goetz & Stropes and JRL, virtually scored the same, and tIleo a very close fourth was, MSA And then a very, very close by one point, my fifth was Outside Productions. MS. BELWNE: My top fo.ur, and they really were a top four because tile next ooe was significantly lower, but remember, I scored people lower than my colleagues. So other than the top tbree, it was not eveo close. So, WilsonMiller, one; Wood & Partners, two; Bruce Howard, tlrree; and Jo.hnson Engineering, four. MR OHLERS: My oumber one was Outside Productions. Number two was JRL. Number tbree was Wood & Partners. Number four was WilsonMiller. And a close fifth was Goetz & Stropes. MR. LICKHAL TER: I guess that is why we did that. Is tIlere some consensus about how many firms should be invited to. be interviewed? MR HOPPENSTEADT: Well, if I could ask a question. You know, John, tllis may be coming yo.ur way or Jerry. Ifwe look dawn the pike to actually purchasing services and in conversation with Merlin, it is still unclear and maybe we can clarifY it: Who should purchase the services of tile architect and who should pmcl1ase tile actual senices? As Jerry iodicated the work is being done on Couoty-owned land The strategic planning process portio.o o.f it has been the Foundation. So do you have any comment about the purchasing aspect of tbis o.r the elements that should be considered as far as it relates to purchasing? MR. PETIY: What we talked about in the past was the intent to tIy and preserve Pelican Bay dollars and oat repeat any steps. So if tbe Fowl(lation was able to. accomplish o.ne of the steps involved, PBSD wo.uld oot try to. duplicate it. In this case, we haven't put down what goes in Column A for the Foundation, if any, what goes in Column B far the District to. pay. The coocept is mare in line with what is the most econo.mical process where the people get voice spoken and their cbo.ice detennined. In this case, if tile FOlmdation did tile design, it may be possible that PBSD could, tllen, reimburse for tile design if it met certain criteria. We have had preliminary talks witll the staff witll the county in purchasing, who believe tIlere may be a process for that right oow. But there is no guarantee because tins is all subject to public policy of the Commissioners, which may change at any time. Wheo it comes to construction, if there is a consensus 0.0 the design, then, of course constmctioo can happen under PBSD 12 ,--.- --.-".,.," ,..-.-., . r "",,_,",_,u...,_..m_ ._"'-" " _,_on.. 16111'~B20 Joint Pelican Bay Senices Divisioo Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 under no.nnal procurement methods where we would put tbis out for an RFP. We have discussed that if that were the case, the process would be simple on our side. We would get a cootract administrative professional. In this case, to o.versee a landscape cootract of this size and possibly o.f tbis complexity that you are talking about, we would get a landscape arcmtect. And currently we have one employed by PBSD; we use Jack Lieber. If he ends up being the contractor, we are go.ing to have to. find somebody else. But, typically, that is what we wo.uld do and then we would have our professional overseeing the Wo.rk to make sure that all the line items were done properly. Because wheo it comes to differentiating between whether it is a Class A o.r Class B plant, whether it was of the proper height and girth and was it properly full is sometimes you want that expert there to. detennine that when they're bringing in this stuffby tile truckload We also had eovisio.oed tbat we would use Kyle and his staff quite a bit because we wo.uld probably be worldng at tbis time on surrounding infrastructure as well. The pathways, you do not want to put any landscape system and tIleo tear up your pathways and move tIlem. You want to make sure that these tbings coincide. You do oo.t want to add up the lighting. We know we have some dark spots. And we had discussed, are we going to. have up lighting in tile landscaped areas because the down lighting is blocked by foliage? It may be a simple fix by doing up lighting or maybe the tree gets moved or whacked. These are decisions that all go together. So we would have a large presence by field staff. We would have a contract administrator, typically a professional like Jack Lieber, and it would go. through the county's purchasing requiremeots. In this case that would be a request for proposal. MR. LICKHAL TER: If I could just start translating what I think I heard Jo.hn say in my tenns. That the design wo.rk is done under one contract through a selected professional. Once the design fino completes the construction docwnents necessary to obtain construction bids, if I can use the tenn "construction" to. apply to landscape, then tile county Ims a mecllaTIism that works beautifully fo.r selecting the selected geoeral contract or landscape cootractor to do the WOlX. And because of the unusual nature of plant materiaL they would, in addition, have someone like Jack Lieber do. quality assurance review on tIleir behalf. MR. PETTY: We'd like to think that we would do an excellent mechanism an any part of it The county doesn't like to. say they do not do anything but excelleot. MR. LICKHAL TER: I did not mean to infer that. MR. PETIY: But in tbis case, think of it like engineering. An architect and an engineer, in this case, they're very similar in nature and there is a design portion and a constructioo portio.n. And an eogioeer typically gets 7 perceot far design and 7 percent for implementation or constructio.n. Landscape architects have similar numbers. Whether it is 5 percent, 6 percent, during the negotiatio.o process tIley will get a doUar to design and they will get a dollar to oversee. All we are do.ing is splitting the two up. If 13 --.'" """. <-..-',","""",,,- ,.,-._~-_.'----- -,~'" Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foondation Strllteg;< Planning commltt~sl 1820 Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 yo.u wish to do the design, we would do the contract admin. MR LlCKHALTER: Yes. MS. EVERETT: Could I ask something? One o.f the commeots that you made was about order o.f magnitude, a contract this size, o.r sometbing like this. And in the implementatio.o portio.o, those are small incremeots, right? MR PETTY: I know that is what you had talked.about. I do not think you realize that it is not in small pieces. IS no way it can be ecooomically done in small pieces. Can it be done in phases? Yes, it can, but it cannot be done in small pieces. Not econo.mically. MS. EVERETT: Well, okay. Well, fo.r example, if we were talking about doing the 41 corridor about entry monuments, a noise battier, landscaping being filled in and security, all of tl10se pIQjects could not be done as a portion, and be dooe economically. MR PETTY: Those portio.ns can be dooe ecooomically. I was referring to the landscape portions that would be in the County right of ways. The 41 berm is not considered to. be in the ROW. It is off to the side in the common areas. That is why the Foundatio.n has it and the State doesn't. I think it is US-4I, so the Federal Government is respoosible. We are talking about if you are go.ing to start working down Pelican Bay Boulevard, West Bo.ulevard, Gulf Park Drive and the rest of our main traveling roads, that you can do in phases, but they are go.ing to. be big chunks. If you try and do a street at a time or 1,500 feet at a time, it caono.t be done economically. You are going to have to. shut down lanes of traffic possibly to get this done properly. You want to do this in a quick pattem You want to get a large crew in there, move quickly, and get it done. So, that is what I was referring to. Certainly the other issues that you are dealing with, entry features, 41 berm, signage, tbese all can be split up separately and done as separate cootracts, yes. MS. EVERETT: Yes. Well, that wo.uld be one portio.n of the project and maybe a portioo o.fPelican Bay Boulevard o.r something like that. That is what we had in mind. And tile reasoo that I wanted to. be very clear about that is that one o.f the tbings that I have heard anyway from the community is that, "they're going to rip evetything out and start all over." It is ootbing of that magnitude at all, so I want to be very careful about knowing that this is a very measured process. MR PETTY: If we do tile pathways, and that has DOt been decided yet, but if we do the pathways, we are go.ing to tear everything aut, or most o.f it anyway. MS. EVERETT: You are talking about the sidewalks, right? MR. PETTY: Yes. 14 ,"~.~,-"~-,~".,,.,.- -.. ,~~.._~.., .. - ..,.~~"- 161 1 Ij ~u ..., Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MS. EVERETT: Well, 001 throughout all of Pelican Bay, not all at one time, right? MR PETrY: You would probably break it up in maybe two or three pieces for all of Pelican Bay. So those are large cootracts. MS. EVERETT: Right. MR. PETrY: And wheo you tear out the patllways, you are taking out a considerable amount of the ROW. The irrigation systems are go.ing to. be impacted. Y o.ur landscape material will be impacted You are going to want to fix that all at the same tiore. And it is DOt ecooomical to. put in 1,500 feet o.fpatllw-ay and have the cootracto.r come back and remobilize. Same with landscape contractors. To. have tIlem remobilize typically is 15 to 20 percent of their cost. So you do not want them coming back five o.r ten times. You would instead, break tills contract up into a couple o.flarge pieces. MS. EVERETT: Right. But you would definitely do it in sections. I mean, even the County does that when they do medians going down 4 L MR. PETIY: That is usually from lack of funds. MS. EVERETT: A sectio.n at a time? MR. PETIY: That is usually from lack offunds. They do a cootract at a time. MR LIC~ TER: Probably this discussion would best take place once design is 'well underway and we begin to. have ballpark estimates of costs and pieces. MS. EVERETT: Yes. So.rry. MR. LICKHAL TER: I want to come back and ask my questio.n again to. Jim and to. tllis Task Force and to. the Services Divisioo Board Is there some consensus 00 tile oumber o.f firms that should be invited back to. interview? Do you want to invite three, fo.ur, or what is the magic oumber? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: There are five that are close up there. MS. BELLONE: There is no penalty for talking to people. When we brought tlIem in for the strategic planning idea, we brought in several and once tIley got tIlere and started chitchatting witll us, it was immediate. Yo.u know during an interview, figure yourselves "itll job interviews, you kno.w witbin the first five minutes if the inteniew is over. And I think that is what happened as well. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think to. add to that from what I heard, because I wasn't on the Strategic Planning Committee at that point, yo.u were talking about bow somebody yo.u tIlought was going to be "gangbusters" walked in, and all they 15 ,.........".- ,.......".....,,-- , ,--"...,.~~.---.-,.-..." ~-".,',.,-^.._.,._,-~"- ,.-"'" .,"'~ - ----- . Jomt Pelican Bay Services Divisioo Advisory Board and Foundation Strllteg;< Planning co!~ J 1 820 Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 could do. was look at their watch and head out the door. MS. BELLONE: Right. MR LICKHAL TER: Or they wo.uld talk about themselves, not about our assignment. MS. BELLONE: So my point is, I am no.t sure we need to do, for instance, the top three. It looks like tile bottom three did not make it to anyone's top four or five and they would fall off in any event So, there are seven left. Ifwewould bring in five versus seven, does that really matter really? I am just asking. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No.t to me if what we are trying to. do is what is best for our community. That is why we are here. If we cannot see anything clearly, obviously, other than those three, tIlen why not have them all come in, have a chance to talk to them, find out what they are thinking, get them to present something even better than what tIley submitted. MR LICKHALTER: Well, tbat will get us to Part 2 of this meeting. MR MOFFATT: Well, I do not know if you have reached a consensus yet, but if you take yo.ur averages, the tap fo.ur lines up with two. or tbree of your individual choices of top four o.r five. Wood Partners, WilsonMiller, Outside Productio.ns, and JRL are four of your top five. They are in the top four by average and they also line up with, Merlin, your top group, Ralph's top group, half o.fRoooie's, and half of Rose Mary's. That would give you a pretty good variety. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I would throw in there too, because knowing something about some of these finns already, I knew immediately what my four firms were, as Rose MaIy did. MR MOFFATT: Well, I am suggesting that maybe you just limit it to four because the top four up there match up with a lot of yo.ur individual thoughts. I do not know how much time you want to give tIlese people to. present Yon will probably have to schedule at least an hour witll maybe some time in between. So, o.nce yon go over fo.ur, you are into a second day. You may oat even be able to do it all in one day. MR LICKHALTER: When we did tile strategic planning consultant interviews, we interviewed two in tile morning and two. in the afternoon and theo I believe two. tile following morning. And we did tbat to enable the committee to. have time between each ooe to evaluate info.rrna1ly. TheIl, we left the afternooo of the second day for tile conunittee to. come to. a consensus. MR PETTY: I am going to. o.ffer a suggestion and feel free to ignore it, but yon are talking about a creative effo.rt here, and what they have done in the past is reflective of their abilities, it may no.t be their personal choice or the recommendation to yo.u. They may no.t like that style in particular or it may not be a good fit for yo.u but, yet, you may be looking at their past wo.rk as a judge. I suggest that you take it down to whatever number of firms yo.u think is applicable and you spend some time with them 16 . . ".-."~. . .-"~~.,,.."-".. .~ _0....._"._" -_.'-'~'''_._..,,~-.-~'---- ... A '" 1 161 1 B 20 III Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 informally. And you take them outside in Pelican Bay and you talk about the issues and you gauge their reactions from that infonnal tour. MR LICKHAL TER: A, I agree with you. B, we did that with the strategic planning group. They all came in and toured and met with one o.r more of us. And, C, when we get to Part 2, we begin to. address some oftbat when we go over Jim's letter. MR PETTY: Never mind. MR LICKHAL TER: No, I agree with you. MR PETTY: You are already there. MR LICKHALTER: Youare aheadofus. MR MOFFATT: Jo.hn, correct me if I am wrong, I know you will, but if you were to do thatwitll tile info.rmal tour, you would have to. post that as a meeting and arrange buses to take the audience along also? MR. PETIY: Only if Pelican Bay Services Divisio.n was involved. If it was just the Fo.undatio.o, no., sir. MR MOFFATT: I understand tbat. If the Services Division is goiog to be looking to. pay o.r someooe is looking at the Services Divisio.n to. pay some o.f the price, I assume, there is some invo.lvement on part of the Division. MR LICKHAL TER: It would oat be possible, Jerry. For example, if Finn X was invited to an interview and they came early, tIley could get on a tram witll Jim and Mary Anne, representing Setvices Divisio.n, and maybe one or more of us, and tour witllout it being a noticed meeting. MR MOFFATT: Well, yes, as Ioog as you are down to ooe Service Divisioo person. MR LICKHALTER: Okay. I will come back to the question. Yo.u started to suggest that we limit the iovitees to fo.ur, the top fo.ur, that are bold-meed 0.0 Jim's ledger. MR MOFFATT: I only selected four because that is where all the top cho.ices seemed to reside. Number five on average, Bruce Howard, came up as Ronnie's tbree but 00. ooe else's. MR. LICKHAL TER Is there a consensus that we would invite tbo.se four? MS. B~WNE: Well, Goetz did not come up 0.0 several of yours even tIlough it did not score well? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: On Ralph's and 00 Merlin's. MS. EVERETT: And 0.0 mine. MS. BELWNE: Right. MR OHLERS: Well, it was the fifth on mine. 17 ---..,.-.~, , ----,._.~.~-_._-- ..- .- -~..'~ ... 1611 B20'~ Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MS. BELLONE: You know, to. me, talk is cheap and we are going to. be spending a lot of mo.oey with whomever. MS. EVERETT: Right. MS. BELLONE: And anything mare than a $1.98 is a lot of money. I do not really mean to be flip, but can yo.u can spend two e'-1.ra hours talking to an extra firm? Yes. That is easy for me. MR LICKHALTER: Okay. Then I make a motio.o. I am no.t sure if that is the right venue far a motion. I will make a suggestion. I suggest we invite WPI, WilsonMiller, JRL, Outside Prodoctio.ns, and Goetz & Stropes to. be intetviewed far the assigpmeot CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I second it, iftbat is a motion. MR. LlCKHAL TER: Does everyone agree? Do we oeed a motion? MR CRA YENS: I have a questio.o about protocol here. We have two groups. And are we functioning as a joint body when there is a motio.o made? And, if so, how do we interpret Mary Anne's vote since she is a member of both bodies? MR LICKHAL TER: Let me retract my motio.n. MR. PETIY: Well, ho.ld an. It is quite all right. The Pelican Bay Services Division is no.t considering the motion. We are oot part o.f this bid process. As a govermneotaJ agency, we are required to follow tile Competitive Nego.tiatio.ns Act in tbis regard. We are here simply as observers in this case. If we come back and if it is within the County policy to reimburse the Fo.undation for a design, we will look at that to see if it is applicable, but we are oot following the Competitive Negotiations Act at this time, so we are DOt considering a vote. MR. LICKHAL TER: It is my understanding that tile Task Force has agreed that tIlo.se would be the invitees. MR OHLERS: Yes. MS. EVERETT: Will yo.u go. over the list ooe more time? MR LICKHAL TER: WPI, WilsonMiller, JRL, Outside, and Goetz & St.ropes. MS. EVERETT: Okay. DISCUSSION BY THE PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE'S LANDSCAPING SUB-COMMITTEE PART 2 MR. LIC~ TER: Having dooe that, let us move to Part 2. MR PETIY: This is the part that is going to hurt. We are going to. talk about the mooey OOW, areo't we? MR. LIC~TER: No. 18 --"~--'.' . ~ .. "~,,,,"'_'_k"~__ - , -,-_._...." ,....-. 161 1 820 Joiot Pelicao Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MR. PETIT: 011, good. MR. LICKHAL TER: What we would like to talk about, and I do oot know how many of these were handed out, but each member of the Task Fo.rce has a copy. It was a draft of questions and requests for landscape architects. Essentially, this is a list of things that we thought important to communicate to the invited finns, so that when they come here fo.r an interview, supplemented by the pre-interview visit that Jo.hn suggested, that tIley will have in their hands o.r in their heads an idea o.f what the key issues are for Pelican Bay. It is the "what are the things that we want yo.u, Mr. Landscape Architect, to talk about when you give yo.ur presentation." If you do not talk about it, be prepared to answer questio.ns because someone from this selectio.n committee is going to be asking yo.u questions." So I can read these to you. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Stml.DDe went to. make copies. MR. LICKHAL TER: Okay. Let me just read you the beginning of it because I think tbat sets the tooe. The Pelican Bay Fo.undation, the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the Pelican Bay resideots highly value the ambieoce established by our landscaped areas. The design of a large-scale, "Flo.rida-friendly" landscaping plan that incorporates sustainability and provides a high level of aesthetic appeal is the challenge. What special resources and expertise do you bring that relate to preserving and enhancing our unique environmeotaI assets in achieving our visioo? That is the overall issue. And tIlen we have a series of specific issues and questio.ns that we want to pose. MR. CRA YENS: Merlin, could I ask you to expound upon what the tenn "Florida-friendly" means? MR. LICKHAL TER: Well, I am oot sure to. what degree that means except that in the context of contemporary landscaping, among some people including tile Go Green Co.mmittee, that yo.u Chair, "Flo.rida-friendly" has a host of elements that deal witll irrigation requirements, exotics, and easily maintained landscaping. There are a host of criteria that I am not: qualified to make, but the visio.n is to plant appropriately far our community. MR. CRA YENS: I just really oever heard that particular tenn used to descnlJe landscaping. To. me it really doeso't denote anything specific. I would much rather see a tenn such as "environmeota1Iy friendly." That to me really defines a certain parameter. "Florida-friendly" is a sort of a catch all, geoeric phrase that could mean anything. MR LICKHALTER: Okay. Well, I bet you that the Go Greeo Committee's consultant could probably elaborate on that considerably, but I do oot have a problem ",ith changing it to. "eoviro.omenta1ly friendly." Yes, Ms. Mo.ffatt. MS. MOFFATT: Molly Moffatt. Wheo you read that introduction you said, "Tell us what you can do for our visioo." Do you have a vision statement? 19 , . ,,~-- -~'.'-'-' ,-....--..------- -- ",- ~~ 6 I 1 820 Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Com-:iuee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MR. LICKHALTER: A visioo statemeot is contained in the strategic plan. MS. MOFFATT: Do you have it? MR LICKHALTER: Yes. MR LICKHAL TER: We do not bave a visio.n of landscaping. We have a vision far tile entire community and landscape is an integral part o.fthe community. MS. MOFFATT: I kno.w that, but visually, do you want lo.ts o.f flo.wers, lots o.f trees, lo.ts of that kind of tIung? MR LICKHAL TER: We have not said that MS. MOFFATT: That is what I thought the visioo on landscaping might be. MS. BELLONE: No. We are going to leave it up to them to help us. Is this a good place for roses versus camellias versus whatever else. We do not necessarily want to. limit tIlem. MS. MOFFATT: Visioo meaning tone o.f, do we want a, Ritz Carlton in Palm Beach o.r do. we want a smaller, sedate, Ritz Carlto.o in Naples, but 001 as glitzy? MR LICKHAL TER: Well, I do oot know if this specific committee is the one that would establish that. I think that comes back to the whole issue of getting the community involved. But if you go back and look at the strategic plan, and the backup informatio.n, you will find that the resideots o.f our community have very strong ideas. Some say, "do no.t change anything. It is perfect just tile way it is." But they do DOt realize that the way it is, is 001 tile way it was 25 years ago, but that the tbeme is tired and outdated MS. MOFFATT: Very. lagree. MR LIC~ TER: Okay. Do all tile members have tile handout? MR. MOFFATT: Merlin, before you cootinue, I had to. pull my consulting cap out of retirement for a moment. The discussion we had earlier about having the firms come in and look around, isn't all that they wo.uld have to do in the next phase wo.uld be to. provide a proposal? Wheo they come in for the oral presentatioo, I assume befo.re they do that, tIley will submit a written proposal an how they would approach this engagement. MR. LICKHAL TER: No. We are expecting tIlem to talk about their approach to tile engagement in the inteIView. Let us get to the letter. It says it in here. MR MOFFATT: You wo.uld get that in advance fro.m tIlem. MR LICKHAL 1ER: No.. Can we go through this first and theo come back to your question? 20 ~ ~ --',-,._.~- "...--- "'1 '_i,'''''''''~'~^'- ..... T ..." ..,""" ~'-'~'-"" 161 1 820 .~ Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MR MOFFATT: Sure. MR. LICKHALTER: Okay. I read you the first two seotences. Now, it says, "In the context of that preceding question, how would yo.u address such issues as tile fallowing: First category is Going Green, and there are one, two, tbree, four topics under Going Green." Those of you on the Task Force that have had this for the last teo days or so, do you want to. make any additio.ns to. that or subtractioos? (No response.) MR LICKHAL TER: Okay. Anyone seeing this for the first time have any additions or sUbtractions? MR. GillSON: I have something. MR LlCKHALTER: Yes, sir. MR GillSON: I have one minor issue and that is maybe it is for later in the oegotiatio.os. My experience with landscape architects are they usually want to walk away from the project wheo it is dooe and have it look perfect. A year later it is terribly overgrown. There is a concern 00 my part at least that whatever architectural plan that we are giveo is something the plan allows for future growth. Things grow llke wild in this climate and I am just concerned about overplanting, over specifying the oumber of plants, the number o.f trees because in a matter o.f a sho.rt length of time, tIley all grow together. MR. LlCKHAL TER: Would that fall under the category of maintainability? MR GillSON: That is possibly better. That is possible. I just have that experience witll landscape architects. And, by golly, two or tbree years later we say, "what in the world was tbat guy thinking? Wl1eo it was done it looked great." But there was 00. planning for the future. MR. LICKHAL TER: Let us come back and revisit tbat. That is an excellent idea when we come to No.3. MS. BELWNE: As a matter of filet, in o.ne of the proposals, somebody talks about that. MR. GillSON: Is that right? Good. MR LlCKHAL TER Okay. So "Going Green," we all feel comfortable with that. The next ooe is "Safety and Security" that became a big issue in the strategic planning. There are just two sentences, o.r questio.ns there. Does anyo.oe have some suggestions to add? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Not unless you do something tbat would be specific to the outer parameter, not just the obvious entrances and exits to Pelican Bay as in, i.e., my backyard that backs up to 41. MR LICKHALTER: So what would you add under C? 21 -;,.._..~,. " ..~ ""0_'_"'_' ,.....-.......-- --_..._".,,-- Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning commile6 I 1 B21 Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I am concerned about that. Perhaps atteotion to other access points need to be secured. MS. BELLONE: Talk about tile perimeter. MR HOPPENSTEADT: I think, Merlin, There is a term called "CPTED" that stands far "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design." It is a coocept that all the architects should be familiar with, if we tell them we would like them to. incorporate. MS. EVERETT: I like that. MR LlCKHAL TER: That says it all. MS. EVERETT: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is good. MS. BELWNE: Descnbe how yo.u would do. it MR. LlCKHALTER: No. No.. We are just saying in the cootext, "how would yo.u address this issue?" So the issue is, "tell us how you wo.uld address it." Okay. Other suggestions under two? (No. response.) MR. LlCKHAL TER: Three, oow we come back to your comment, "maintainability." Public areas in our community are geoerally maintained by tile Pelican Bay Services Division. How wo.uld yo.u go about determining if tIlere mare eovironmentally sound and cost effective methods? That is oat meant to infer anything, but if you think there is a better way to word that, how would yo.u? MR. PETIY: I think you could add to it, but what you have tIlere is fine. What I want to make the point o.f is in tile ROW, we have the poorest possible receiving area far landscape. It is mostly narrow. It is road constructi.o.o material. There is very little soil in the ROWand it is a lousy place to put flowers, trees, and grass. That is one o.fthe reasons why we have to do so much with it because this is all sitting 00 a bed of rock If tIlere is anything tbat this person can think o.f doing, whether it is adding soil additives or absorbeot material tbat we have gotten from NASA; it is that jelly stuff, and it looks like jelly but it is clear. You can place it in a plant and it is supposed to help. Anything they can do to try to make this less demanding and more receptive to plant material, theo I think every else gains ground. Native plants are going to do better if they are in native soil versus an top of rocks. The same thing holds true for our watering and our fertilizer. So, under that maintainability, we wo.uld like to. see soil condition coocepts incorporated, if possible. MR.. LICKHAL TER: Okay No.w, we come to the ooe tbat people have talked about befo.re. Let us come back to 22 ..- " ... , ~_. ~._--_.. '"~ .....~._.,"'-~"''''---- -~,-,,',.~ 161 1 820"'1 Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundatioo Strategic Planniog Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 maintainability. Is tbere something that could or should be said under the maintainability about tile issue of overplanting o.r just use the word overplanting and see how they respond? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Or something to. do with future. MR HOPPENSTEADT: Well, you could ask them for a growth chart that would represent the projected represented growth of material ten years from oow o.r five years from oo.w as part of their plan. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And that could be a lot less costly. Thanks, Jim. MS. BELWNE: There are some questio.ns that I think we want to. ask tIlem 00 the spot. This can be one oftllem. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ronnie, you are tough. MS. BELLONE: I do not think we need to layout exactly what we are going to ask theln. MR. CRA YENS: In regard to maintainability and what Jim just said about projecting future growth, and I guess Kyle can address tbis. We have floral arrangements, far lack o.fa better tenn, planted in tile medians, and these are changed seasonally; i.e., they come in and they rip out the plantings and they replace tIlem with another set of plantings that are to be ripped out at the end of that season and replaced by another. This is something that I would like to see us move away from. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Tom, would that maybe come under soil conditioo? MR CRA YENS: Well, it has to do with maintenance. That is for sure. That is a high, high maintenance item. MR. PETTY: It is a valid point. In the design concept you would ask, and I do oot know if you would call it maintainability, "can you get color with something other tban the annual plaotings? Can you go to perennial and still have colo.c?" And we have asked that questio.n many times and we have gotten some alternatives. We just have not been to impIemeot other tban what you have seen so :fur with the bougainvilleas going in a lot of places. That will come back again and again and again. We are also planting fewer annuals. I do not know if you want to create a new category for that, but along the same lines, keep in mind that sod, eveo though it does not come into that issue, is tile most costly to maintain. Typically we can save some mo.oey 00 fertilizer over the 1000g haul and we have less time mowing the grass. MR LICKHAL TER: I think the latter point you make is that one o.f the thrusts o.f the Going Green Committee that we will hear mare about in the months ahead. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Tom, you have an absolutely valid point. WIlen I see them taking out the median plants, I want to follo.w the truck and find out where they go and see if I can have them, because they will be fine if somebody cares enough for them. Haw could we incorporate that? 23 "'--- --.......-'-".....- -... - ,----_. M._.'.....__._ Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic p'anninlc6n!eel B20~ Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MR HOPPENSTEADT: I think ifwe incorporate perennial color as Jo.hn suggested. MR LICKHALTER: Okay. The last o.oe says, "When you come to the presentation, tell us in more detail about yo.ur approach and the timetable that yo.u propose to accomplish this, assuming a start date of blank." Obvio.usly, we do no.t kno.w what that date oeeds to be just yet. We have asked them to. describe the specific deliverables in each majo.r phase of the wo.rk. We have asked them to. tell us, and this goes back to your commeot, Ronnie, "what similar assignments have your key people dooe, and what are their key strengths, and what were their notable successes." And, then, this is a tricky one, maybe this should not say Foundation, altllough I think the Fouodatio.o is the o.nly one that has the flexibility. What we found witll the strategic planning was that we had to. figure out who would interact with the consultant on a daily basis, so they wo.uld not be confused. They are not supposed to be acting with 13,000 people o.r even 6,000 people. This actually was a suggestioo that Jim had made with the prio.r consulting process. "How do yo.u recommend the Foundatio.n align itself organizationally to best facilitate your efforts? " I do not think we should say, "How should the Services Divisioo align itself" The County probably has a procedure fo.r interacting with someooe like that. Mike. MR LEVY: The question was asked earlier but, I do not recall tile answer. Do tIley have any idea what level o.f landscaping we are looking for here? Yo.u can spend all kinds o.f differeot sums of mooey depeoding on what is. Ms. Mo.ffatt said, "are we looking for the Ritz CarItoo in Palm Beach," o.r are we looking far all update to a frieodly Pelican Bay? What are we looking for? MR LlCKHAL TER: In tile RFQ letter that Jim wrote, and I am sorry, I do. not have a copy of it with me, and Jim, correct me if I am wrong. We basically made reference to. some of the objectives in the strategic plan. And then we said that we want the landscape master plan to. address landscaping along all of tile public streets and we ideotifY the streets specifically. We also said we wanted them to identifY, well, I will read it "As o.oe of the initial implementation phases of the Pelican Bay Strategic Plan receotIy completed, seek to. engage a registered professional landscape architect to work with the Foundation and the Senrices Division to. develop (I) a new detailed streetscape plan for our major public streets including lighting, pathways, and signage; (2) a preliminaIy design far o.ur security and acoustic barrier alo.ng tile Pelican Bay side of US 41; and (3) preliminary designs for new or modified eotrance moowneots at the five major entrdDces to. our connnunity." That is what we to.ld them the scope was. And I think, Mike, that there are DO definitive answers to. yo.ur questions. I think ooce a firm is selected and work gets undenvay, through the interactio.o betweeo tIle landscape architect, the Foundation, the SelVices Division, and the community, the scope will begin to refine itself. All o.f tIlem said we need to do an evaluation of what we have. Once the evaluation is completed., somebody is going 24 '"--- ._~-,,'-' ",~-- . 'IJIl:v_."",...~".."...". .. ""',"-_._-,~.~------ , "-~~~~..,.~..~~~"".- 161 1 B 20 f;1 Joint Pelican Bay Senices Divisioo Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 to say, "Hey, you do not need to do this, this, and this. What you really need to focus 00 is that" So, I do not think tIlere is a good answer to your question yet. MR LEVY: So, we do. oat know what the time:frame is? How loog is it befo.re they come back witll a plan? MR LICKHALTER: Well, as I mentio.ned a moment ago, we are asking them in their interviews to give us a work plan and a timetable. MR LEVY: We might be talking about a multiyear project here in terms o.f trying to. budget and finance this. MR. LICKHAL TER: Well, I do oot think it will take multiple years to do tile scope o.f design work. MR. LEVY: I am talking about the implementation MR LICKHAL TER: I do not know how long it will take. MR. LEVY: I am only talking about the finaoci.ng. MR LlCKHAL TER: Well, I do oot know haw to answer that until we know what it is go.ing to cost. MS. BELWNE: Mike, what I am thinking that the scope might be and this is my personal opinioo, and oothing official, is that this will be a multiyear undertaking. Whether it is 5, 10, 29, 37, 3, I do no.t know. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mike and Jerry are co-chairs far the PBSD Budget Committee, so they are vel)' concerned MR CRA YENS: I know absolutely nothing about budget. MR. LEVY: It is all our mo.oey. MR. CRA YENS: But I see this as being potentially an extremely expensive PTQ.ject. I see 00 limitations in the invitation, so everything can be redesigned. I just feel that there should be some sort of financial constraints put into place before embarking upon a project of this magnitude. But I certainly defer to Jerry and Michael because, as I say, I am no.t good with my own checkbook let alone someone else's. (Ms. Bellone leaves meeting.) MR. LICKHAL TER: With all due respect, I disagree with you. I think we oeed to understand what the magnitude of the problem is before we put a budget 00 it, otlleIWise yo.u are fooling yourselves. It wo.uld be like saying, "let us build a new something and we budgeted a millioo dollars far it," not having a clue as to. how big it needs to be o.r when it is going to happen. I think that is putting the cart before tile ho.rse. MR HOPPENSTEADT: One of the things that the firms who have come and talked to. us already, and Jo.lm referenced this, is that what we already have to work witll is going to limit what you can do. By that I mean, you have got some very mature 25 "','.....---." 'Il~ _'_,"._"",._.~,... _.".-_.~.~,..<,,,._.,,,,, '1't'l"_1lI. TT........""'''. ,..----- '--'-'. .-.....- 161 1 B20~ Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planoing Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 trees, so there will be some footprint restrictions. So, I think that from that standpoint, you are going to be limited in what you are going to be able to do., but I do agree witll you, Merlin, to. put a budget confine around this oow wo.uld probably be premature. MR. MOFFATT: I would ask them ho.wever, though, as they make recommendatio.ns to give us some kind of cost parameters on tho.se recommendations. MR. LICKHAL TER: Absolutely. Absolutely. MR MOFFATT: We are asking far their cost, but we do. not ask far the cost o.f the reconuneodatio.n. MR. LICKHAL TER: Well, because they are no.t giving us recommendatio.ns yet. Once you eogage a firm, that is when yo.u do what you just said They come back to us a month into. the project and they say, "well, we evaluated what you have here now, and if you really want to do this right, you are going to spend $10 millioo. But if you want to. kind of make it work over time, we can do it for one-tenth of that." That is when we would get that infonnatio.n. We do not have that now. MR. MOFFATT: I would still like to see them come in with some ideas befo.re they show up in this room again of what is possible o.r what do. tIley see in their preparatio.n far the meeting that sho.ws some imagination and expertise of what they could bring to us. Anyooe can come io and talk about their prior experience, but it: as you pointed aut earlier, that tIley need to come in and see the property before they come back. They cannot just come in here from Miami and make a presentatio.o without ever having seeo Pelican Bay. And they ought to. have some ideas, then, o.fwbat really needs to be. They may say, "Boy, yo.ur streets are just absolutely perfect. We wouldn't touch those, but by the way, you have got a big problem over here with whatever." Just some imaginatio.n and find out what tIley are capable of doing. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: John. MR PETIY: You are both saying the same thing. You are saying what actually is go.ing to. happeo. You are going to. have to hire them first because tIley will have to be o.n-site doing soil samples and inspections of the trees, looking fo.r the parasites and the bugs that are o.ut there. They are go.ing to be looking at the maintenance teclmiques that we have. They are go.ing to. be talkjng to. oUr coosultant Jack Lieber to see tile treod. They are going to. look at a lot o.f different things. The irrigatioo system we just spent aver a million do.llars on and just got done with, and that is the last thing we want to redo.. MR. MOFFATT: Or tear it up. MR. PETIY: So what you are talking about doing is hiring tIlem based on qualifications and interpretatio.ns of their ability and theo you put them oo-site and then they come up with a project Now, if they do. no.t come up with a project that is acceptable, well then, you go to your NO.2. So I think you are botll saying the same thing. 26 -"-~- .- "-''';'' >~,,,--~_.'"..~ -... "~.,~, -~-,..._,~ 161 1 820 Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planoing Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 Before you sit dawn and talk about prices, first things first. Get them on-site and let them do their job, theo let them come back and discuss what it is going to. cost before going forward I think that is advisable. MS. O'BRIEN: Susan O'Brien, St. Vrncent's. Just a suggestioo. Yo.u could ask them to be prepared for the interview with their tap five things maybe far Pelican Bay Boulevard. You could narrow it do.wn, but let them come in witb their ideas with what they would like; what they would see that would inlprove that particular street in our community. They would oot have to design the thing. They would just talk about what their ideas would be for improving it and yo.u would get a sense, I think, what they would want to do. Haw big it would be. How small it would be. It might give you a better read. MR LICKHAL 1ER: I have a personal reactioo to that based 0.0 my awn prior experience, but it is just one person talking. To. do what we ultimately want to do is a fairly sophisticated task requiring a lot of thought and a lo.t of creativity. Far someone to. come in and offer a cutbsto.oe opioioo and for you to make a decisio.o to engage tbem or not eogage them based on a cwbs1:o.oe decision, to me is not the professional way to. do. it. I think we would be fOOling o.urselves. We could eocourage them in our letter to take a tour o.f our facilities and that Jim and others would be available to escort them. And we could ask them that if they have any reactions as a result of the to.ur, share them 'with us in the interview. But to come with specific design ideas I do not personally believe is the way to do it. MR OHLERS: I agree. And I think it is good to invite them to tour. MR HOPPENSTEADT: I would ask the Services Divisio.o if we can impose 00 Kyle because they are going to. get a lot more from touring the property witll Kyle tban tIley are with me. MR LICKHAL TER: You were just on a drive. MR PETIY: I think Kyle can be had for a light lunch. MR MOFFATT: I think to judge creativity witllout getting them to say something to you, you said you want to. judge tIlem based 00 their creativity; what is it that they can tell yo.u that demo.nstrates creativity? That is what I am trying to get MR LICKHAL TER: I guess I could speak to. it from two perspectives. One, if I look at their body of work, I have a sense personally if I see creative flashes. Second, in response to Susan's comment, if after a tour they make some insightful observations while talking with us, I will gain a better understanding. Can I go. to. number five, the last item, because you may remember that both Ro.noie and I focused on this in our evaluatio.ns. "What approach would you suggest to assist the Fo.uodatioo in engaging our community in this project to build both comnnmity understanding and acceptanceT My experience with the strategic planning effort said tbis is pretty important. And as I look around and see members of the Strategic Planning Committee who. are 27 "."","_.,." ~ ........ ,.,,-- - , "".._~,",.",,"-_.,._._.~._., U' ,_O..~ , _.~~~--,._"-'... ,,--. Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning commle~ , 1 820 Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 here and resideots, I see that some agree. Does anyone think tills sho.uld oat be in here? (No. response.) MR. LICKHAL 'fER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think it is really valuable. MR LICKHAL TER: Jim, mindful of the mechanics of figuring out how they get engaged and all of that, what kind of a start date would you put in the letter just hypothetically to. get tIlem to put a work plan and calendar togetller? MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Well, when are we anticipating inviting tIlem? MR LICKHAL TER: Two weeks from oow. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Assuming all the people that are around the table are go.ing to stay kind o.f connected witll this process, I am going to. stay away from Memorial Day week. So, June 8, June 9? Let us shoot for June 8, 9, and 10. Is that o.kay witll Merlin? Are you okay witll June 10, or do. you want to do it tile latter part of June? MS. McCAUGHTRY: That is summertime. MR PETrY: If I may speak up. PBSD Board is and I appreciate that you are offering tIley be 00 tile tour, but this will not be a vote ofPBSD Board or of the selection, per se. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: We understand. We want to. keep you people in the loop because you are presumably going to buy what this persoo designs, right? So you have got to feel good about it. MR PETrY: Well, it is reaching a consensus. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Yes. MR. PETrY: I understand. I just wanted to make clear, tile PBSD Board is not required to be there. MS. EVERETT: June 8, 9, and 10. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: All right. We will shoot for Monday, June 8. MR LUKASZ: June 8. MR. MOFFATT: I am not back till the end of that week. We are giving birth to. a grandson. MR HOPPENSTEADT: That is a good thing. Hopefully you are not. MR LICKHAL TER: June 8, 9, or 1O? MR HOPPENSTEADT: How about, Jerry, if we could videotape tIlOse and then you can see tIlem Is tbat o.kay? MR MOFFATT: That is all right. But you are oat going to have any written docmnents before they come in, right? 28 ....._"",,,. . u ..... '" .. ~,_.....~< ".---,'-- _._",,"._'N~"", -- 161 1 82( Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Ad\-isory Board and Foundation Strategic Planoing Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MR LICKHALTER: We did not intend to.. MR MOFFA IT: Yon are just going to have them come in and talk? MR LICKHAL 1ER: Generally, what has happened in the past was they handed out stuff and every one of tIlem had PowerPo.int presentatio.ns. AUDIENCE COMMENTS MS. MORRAY: Merlin, I just had a questio.o on the process. Is it my understanding that they are going to. come in and talk and probably have material and presentatio.ns, but it is after that that they wo.uld submit an actual proposal with a fee? MR. LICKHALTER: We have not asked them far tbat. What we are asking them is based on the project's scope as they understand it, using a scope-based approach, somewhat like the one mandated by the State, what is their recommeoded budget far the fee and expenses. We are not asking for a hard bid proposal MS. MURRAY: And that is just for the design phase? MR LICKHAL TER: Yes. just for design phase. MS. MORRAY: I understand Thank yo.u. This is far John because sometbing was said earlier. When Rose Mary raised the 41 corrido.r that is a big issue tbat came out in the oew strategic plan witll respect to sound, security, appearance and Merlin had it was in the o.riginalIetter. I thought sometbing you said earlier indicated that it is not PBSD's respoostbility. Wo.uld PBSD funds be used for implicatioo on that corridor? MR PETrY: No. That is an issue regarding ownership; it is owned by tile Foundation. And in an attempt to try to make tile Pelican Bay dollar go further, we have one maintenance eotity doing it through an agreement But far us to. spend the taxpayer money on capital could be an issue if it is not in a public ROW. 10 the past we have kept it to. landscape material of small quantity, a 10.t of personnel, and a lot o.f sweat. We should be able to work within the boundaries of what we are looking to. do. because the 41 berm is pretty well planted out. And a lot of those trees yo.u have really are oot messed with much, but you certainly have to address, I think the issues 00 sound Our Chair happens to have DO sound barrier at all. They skipped her 0.0 purpose. We have another area that we have a fence up instead o.f a sound barrier wall because tile area was going to. be a municipal well field far Pelican Bay. It turned out we weot elsewhere, but tbat is reasoo sometimes why that is tIlere. Again, we have culverts coming in off o.f Tarniarni Trail that we cannot build the benn up too high over it because that is the area where tile 41 drainage is. So, I understand there is some Wo.rk to be dooe, and we should be able to. wiggle in there. MR LICKHAL 1ER: lfthere is a wall to be built, then tIlere will have to be a gate leading to Mary Anne's backyard. 29 >-',,~ ,....-.<'".".. --_.....~.....,---- -x__"., ., 16 f 1 820 Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MR HOPPENSTEADT: A cookout. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. Well, I miss those homeless folks, you kno.w. MR MOFFATT: Jo.lln, yo.u are saying if there is a wall, it would be built with from other than Services Division dollars? MR PETTY: If it gets into very deep capital. Usually dirt may qualifY for capital an bond issues, but typically no.t in o.ur area. But, yes, if you start getting into some structures like the concrete walls o.r all)1hiog like that,. we may have to. talk about easements. MR CRA YENS: That is where you are talking about real money. MS. O'BRIEN: There are some parts o.f yo.ur plan, I think, that will be very well received by the community. For example, some landscape upgrades 0.0 some of our streets. Then there are some other tbings probably tearing up all the pathways and redoing them that might be less well received If you recall several years ago., when the Foundatioo Board voted to put in some bike lanes, and a lot o.f the community was very unhappy with that decision, and it was overturned or changed. What will you do differeot tbis time, so that the different parts of tile plan will be better received by the community? MR. LICKHAL TER: Tills is exactly why we emphasized the importance of a consultant being able to work with oot only the designated leadership of the community in selling ideas and getting community acceptance. That is exactly the issue. MS. O'BRIEN: Or eveo in temlS of what sho.uld mo.ve forward and what should no.t move forward at tbis point. MR LICKHAL TER: Well, now you are talking about priorities. MS. O'BRIEN: No. I am talking about, for example, the pathways. Before we invest a lot of time, eoergy, and money into consultant designs, that the community decide what they want. How are we going to resolve those issues? MR LICKHAL1ER: Yo.u resolve that by going back and looking at tile prio.rities that the community told us about and are identified in the strategic plan. MS. O'BRIEN: Well, then some o.f the things tbat you are fOOJSing 00, like tile pathways, yo.u kno.w, and one of the rationales for posslbly redoing the pathways was to create o.oe side o.f Pelican Bay Boulevard or o.oe side of the street far bikes and another side far walkers or whatever, and something like that did not come through loud and clearly 0.0 the survey results that it was a high priority within tile community. So some of what you are working 00 now came out as recommendations from the strategic plan, but no.t really fro.m tile survey results where people were much more focused on the beach assets and the restaurants. MR. LICKHALTER: Before I call on Noreen Murray, I want to respood to that specific idea People were not surveyed as to whether or no.t they wanted one-way pathways. People were surveyed as to what their concerns and needs were, and safe 30 -.....- .--....-'" . ,.,.-~,~ -,' ~.-- 161 I B2C Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 walking and safe biking are high prio.rities for this community. The consultant recommeoded and the Strategic Planning Committee accepted that recommendation. I understand the Services Division did oot like that recommendatioo. The community was oo.t asked to. vote or prioritize that recommendatio.o. They were asked to deal with what their concerns were. No.reeo. MS. MURRAY: We did ask that questio.n. MR. LICKHAL TER: If they wanted a one-way bike path? MS. MURRAY: No. No. The dedicated walkway pathways. We are oot talking one way. We are talking about usage. And you did ask about dedicated walkways and pathways and 51 perceot indicated that they needed that. MR LICKHALTER: Right. But the questioo specifically was the actual recommendation or solution that was recommended by the consultant. MS. MORRAY: Right. That was not endorsed by the community. MR LlCKHAL TER: They were not asked to. endorse it. MS. MURRAY: Right. But now yo.u are considering asking them to pay for it. I think a preliminaIy step would be to give the community a chance to provide some input when the Committee is going to recommeod a project. MR LICKHALTER: That is exactly the process I have beeo saying is so important and that is to get community input. MR PETTY: Mr. Chainnan, if I could speak to the pathway issue. PBSD staff brought up this issue because of its maiotenance. Currently the patllways are in tile same locatioo they were 30 years ago. The tree roots have moved and our ability to maintain it by patching it has become more and more difficult over the years. The ability for the County to use tax dollars for the maintenance o.f a patllway in Pelican Bay that they do not provide to anybody else outside o.f Pelican Bay is becoming harder and harder far them to process. And. as such, they have asked us if we could look at that system. And it is been o.ur evaluatioo as staff that the system as it exists is going to. cost more mooey to. repair over the sho.rt-tenn than it would be to put it in a proper location so that tile tree roots are not ripping it up. We just got done fixing all the pathways in Pelican Bay through the County. And we have problems witll it right now with tree roots breaking through again. We are trying to. make it as safe as we can far the residents. Keep in mind. we are the County so our liability is limited by statute. So you can sue all you want and yo.u are only going to. get so much, so we are oot so coocemed about anybody tripping over it from that viewpoint. We are coocemed because they are our neighbors. We are suggesting that we work on it and mo.ve it because it is easier to. m~int::lin and it will last another 30 years. We are not doing it far one-way streets o.r fo.r making 51 percent of the people happy and 49 percent o.f the people mad We are looking just to fix the pathways. 31 -.......-.- ".~".- _.~...._~ ..-.~". - ~",...",.- 16' :1 B~ Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is part o.f the Services Divisioo Board's reasoo for being and it also came up in the survey. MS. EVERETT: Could I say something, Merlin? One o.f the things I want to remind everyone of is that our community is 28 years old. And the reasoo we embarked on all of this to begin with is that we know things like the pathways, the irrigation, the lighting, the landscape, and certain areas, such as the 41 corrido.r, need to. be looked at. Changes are go.ing to have to be made because they are so old It can be done 00 a patchwOlk basis, where you look at one block o.r you look at o.oe problem and yo.u go fix it, and tIlen you go to. another ooe and fix it, but you end up witll patchwork and a misb-mash community. 00 the other hand, you can put to.getller a master plan by a professio.naI that encompasses everything and implement that over time 0.0 a prioritized and financially acceptable basis. That was the idea o.f doing this. Yet, tile idea was to look at tile complete community and the complete plan and include everything in it. If tIlere is something that the community chooses no.t to do. at some point, then that is something to. talk about at that point, but we oeed to have an overall visioo of what oeeds to be done. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Perfect. MR CRA YENS: I wo.uld like to know if tIlere is any point at which we actna1ly get community input to determine whether or not redoing, say, for example, the pathways in a particular way. Is there any mechanism built in to get CODmlunity input? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It is already in place, Tom. It is called "the survey." MR CRA YENs: The survey is not going to get community input upoo proposals that come out of this. The survey was designed to find out where the needs are and oo.w we are trying to come up with some specific p~iects that will implement tIlose needs. But how are we going to see what tile community's response is to proposals to make these implemeotations? MR. LICKHAL TER: I will try ooe more time to answer this. I tIlought I had answered it four times already. The consultant that we eogage, o.ne of tIleir tasks will be to work with us; us meaning a collective us, to interact with the community with their ideas and their recommendations and, ultimately, their designs. Whetller that takes the place of the town hall fo.rums, I am oot sure. That seems to be the preferred mechanism, although, out of 13,000 people, we are lucky if we get 150 people to. shaw up at a town hall forum. If you have a better way to do. it., I am sure tile Strategic Planning Committee would like to hear it. But it is o.ur intention that when a firm is eogaged, that one of their obligations will be to work with us to find ways to. communicate better witll tile community, their ideas and recommendatio.ns. And I would add that anytime, in my opinio.n, tile consultant says, "you know, here is an idea o.f how to solve the security and safety and acoustic problems alo.ng 4 I. Or here are tbree ideas and 32 ".>.,~..~_.,._.. V '11"I"- -,,,.,~ --.-.,.,. o _~_'.' 161 1 820 Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundatioo Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 one idea is going to. cost half a million dollars and o.oe idea is going to cost a million do.llars and one idea is going to. cost two million dollars. That kind o.f information will go. to. the community. MR. CRA YENS: Well, I guess my respoose to tbat is we had a consultant who proposed bike paths and we all kno.w what happened as a result of that. The community overwhelmingly opposed it. I think we oeed some sort of a mechanism built in that truly gets the feelings and responses of the community. I understand what you are sayiog. We are going to ask the coosultant to. somehow, engage the community, and there are various ways to do that I think that we need to get the response of our community befo.re we embark upoo major projects, specifically the pathways. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Tom. do. you have any suggestions? Because really we are opeo to whatever because, obvio.usly, we are concerned about Town Halls. MR. CRA YENS: Well, I think, as Merlin said, town hall meetings sound good on the surface, but the response that typically is geoerated by tbis is not good, and tbis too depends an tile time o.f tile year and all that sort of thing. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: How about an ernail blast:. MR CRA YENS: I think an e-mail blast of a Richter-type scale wo.uld be a fine thing to do. We have pretty good coverage on emails. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, we sure got the declaration vote in. MR. CRA YENS: I think something like that would be the way to. get tile response of the community rather than directing the consultant that we employ to engage the comowoity. I think a real specific thing would be, "do you like tbis?" after it has beeo presented to tile colmnunity. "Do yo.u want to do. this'!' MR LEVY: And tell them what it costs. MR. CRA YENS: What it costs. Yes. MR MOFFATT: Thatisabigpartofit MR. eRA YENS: That should definitely be built into this, yes. MS. MURRAY: Just a To.wn Hall meeting, should you have tIlem dowo the road, are going to. be probably of much mare interest because a lot of dollars would be tied to. this. Up to. this point, what, $300,000 or something 00 strategic plamriog has beeo spent, but no.w we are talking about potentially millions of dollars. And so I think the community will be very tuned in to what some of these recommendations ultimately will cost. And that is why if you do choose to survey the community, we need some kind of approximate dollar costs 00 it. Tearing up all the pathways would cost or, you know, landscaping 00 41 would cost; a 33 _.- -"-_._--- -"..,.~ 161 1 820 Joint Pelican Bay Senices Dhision Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 ballpark MR MOFFATT: If you look at pathways in newer communities, tl1ey are all built with 00 trees between the pathway and the roadwaY so you do. not have the root problem. So maybe ooe o.f the consideratio.ns needs to be taking down all those trees betweeo tile pathway and the roadway. It gives you a much wider area. Your pathways will no.t fall apart in the future because of tree roots. That is just what they have done in oewer cooununities. MR LICKHAL TER: I wo.uld reiterate Rose Mary's comments befo.re on this case, in that you cannot solve this one piece at a time. Yon need a global plan because you cannot solve the root problem without looking at many ather things. MR. MOFFATT: That is wbat this consultant is go.ing to. do for us? MR LICKHAL TER: Yes" absolutely. MR MOFFATT: Yes. Noreen, since you are the keeper of the tallies out there, besides Mary Anne, how many people had a problem with tile sound barrier? How many requested a sound barrier an 4I? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, actually, I do no.t kno.w about the survey, but I can tell you ho.w many of the neighbors right around me, because I heard from eveI)' ooe of them. MS. MURRAY: Jerry, that was something intended to come out. The issue of sound on 41 has been raised at Board meetings prior to. tile strategic planning process. And it actually came out in tile focus groups but, you know, if you ask somebody in a high-rise on Pelican Bay Bo.ulevard, "do )'ou want to. chip in for soundproofing individuall)'T The answer would probably be no, but that does not resolve us as a community of responsibility far handling tIlose kinds of problems. So we never ask, "do you want to pay for soundproofingT MR. MOFFATT: 011, you never ask. Okay. MS. MURRAY: And I do not tllink that would be an appropriate questioo to ask the community, you know. MR MOFFATT: I was just go.ing to. suggest you add me to that because we hear noise fro.m 41 also. So right over here. MS. MURRAY: 011, right. MR MOFFATT: So it is really a sound barrier from Vanderbilt Beach to Seagate. MS. MURRAY: Yes it was. MR MOFFATT: And it is probably needs to be 15 feet, but we already have six. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well tile "CPTED" that Jim was talking about could vel)' well be ho.w we take care o.fthat because whatever makes us more secm-e as a community may also be a good sound barrier. So hopefully, that could be something 34 _.~~u. - .,~" ._,~.._- "-~- ~,~.._". ~..,,-- . 161 1 82 Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 that is incorporated. MR LICKHALTER: John. MR PETTY: If I could address the issue of the town hall style meeting and theo the cost evaluation and getting the o.kay , from the residents. I think you have a conceptual side from your designer and architect When Pelican Bay Services Division gets involved, we are talking about mo.ney. And at that time I think the PBSD Board can adopt a very stringeot e-mail blast, whatever type of commuoicatioo you think is applicable. Yo.u will have the exact dollars there before you becanse the design will be complete or near complete. At such time I think yo.u can take that responsibility 00 as PBSD o.f getting the final okay while they are in charge of getting tile look and feel thoughts across. Now, if they end up doing a design that costs more than the people are willing to. pay, well, we can always blame them. MR CRA YENS: Yes. John, I think we have to. use the Foundatioo. The Services Divisioo does not bave the capabilities of sending out e-mail. MR PETTY: Certainly we use tIleir facilities. We just make the decisioo and just spend their money. MR CRA YENS: And I do. not see this personally as being exclusively the responsibility of the Services Division funding this. I see this as a joint veoture betweeo tile Foundatio.n and Services Divisioo. MR PETTY: 011, absolutely, sir. I am just referring to those areas where we are going after our dollars. We probably want that responsibility of haviog tile public verifY they want it. MR. MOFFATT: But it is the same i.mlividual paying for it, whether it is one check or two checks. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is right. Yes. MR PETIY: Yes. MR. LICKHALTER: I think the bottom line in response to yo.ur questio.n, No.reen, is that it is not just directing the consultants to. interact with the community. Starting with the Strategic Planning Committee, yo.u need tile Services Divisio.o, and ultimately the Pelican Bay Fo.undatioo Board We all have an obligation to. involve the collnnunity to the ma"Ximum level before irretrievable decisions are made. We are mindful of that responsibility. Well, it is almost the witching ho.ur. Yes, Jerry? MS. MOFFATT: Is there any way Kyle could have any input with your design when yo.u are making a decisio.o? MR. LlCKHALTER: Yes. MS. MOFFATT: Because he probably knows more about landscaping than any single person in here about what oeeds to be planted, what kind of bugs come o.ut at each time, things yo.u want to avoid, what tree diseases are go.ing through the community 35 - -~"' _'~~'U""._"~_' ... -,.".- 161 1 B20~ Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board and Fouodation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 now. There are a lot o.ftree diseases and things we have here now. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: If you keep this up, we are going to have to pay him more. MS. MOFFA IT: I think Kyle aught to. be the vo.ice of the flora and fauna. MR LICKHALTER: Well, I think that the committee that Tam represents wearing a different hat. the Go-Green Committee of the Fo.uodation, is going to. weigh in one way or another. Am I right? MR CRA YENS: I do not know. You are 00 the committee. MR. LICKHALTER: Well, the committee was invited to. Well, if there is oothing else, and I am oot sure what procedure tile Services Divisioo requires, but from the Task Force perspective, I think we have accomplished our missio.n. I thank you all. I thank tIlose in tile audience who cared to come and participate, and the Task Force portion of the meeting is over. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Merlin, I would like to ask yo.u., though, do we bave a set time or date or both for tile oext meeting where we are going to. interview the finns? MR LlCKHAL TER: Yon better talk to. EI-Chainnan Mr. Uek who is coming back to Naples tomo.rrow. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We are looking at around June 9 or 10, right? MR LICKHALTER: I have no idea. MR HOPPENSTEADT: Somewhere io that time frame, JWle 9, June 10. MR LICKHAL TER: But I have no idea what Uek's schedule is. ADJOURN CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. All right. 10 that case, I need a motio.o to adjo.uro. MR CRA YENS: Secood CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I need a motioo. MR eRA YENS: I mo.ve we adjourn. MR LEVY: I second. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favo.r? MR GIBSON: Aye. MR. MOFFATT: Aye. MR. DALLAS: Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. 36 ^ ~._., 161 1 82( Joint Pelican Bay Senices Division Advisory Board aod Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's Landscaping Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes May 13, 2009 MR CRAVENS: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) Mr. Cravens moved, seconded by Mr. Levy and the Board unanimously agreed to adjourn the meetinl! at noon. Transcript prepared 00 behalf of Grego.ry Reportiog Services, Ioc. by Carolyn 1. Ford, RPR, FPR; aod edited by Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistaot, Pelican Bay Services Division. 37 U" ___,_ ,<,....'"~."_~ , ~.".....~ -"....---..--. _.._~_ _.__W'__""""__.___ . -"-......,-- !al~ I~ B 2-0' ".._\\'t:.u Halas \..1/-1 / AJ"7''--. ,..,' - \,~ t,,~ H . f R \,4\,,; ,," TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING en~lng , ;U\\ , ~ 1\1~S OF THE BUDGET COMMITIEE Coyle =F- \. 4 Coletta 's\ol'8'''' PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ._ -.' c~G\r,,{'W5 1;;' ,uUI\\:' Naples, Florida, Aprill, 2009 hOil\rl\l LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Budget Committee ofthe Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board, having cooducted business herein Callier County, Florida, met on April 1, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. at the Hammock Oak Community Center, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108, with the follo.wing members present Michael Levy, Chairman Gerald Moffatt Keith Dallas John laizzo (absent) Geo.ff Gibson Also Present: Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman, Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Bo.ard; John Petty, District Administrato.r; Janice Lamed, District Offices, LLC; Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager, Pelican Bay Services, Divisioo; Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant, Pelican Bay Services Division. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Review o.fPreliminary Fiscal Year 2010 Budget 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjourn ROLLCALL CHAIRMAN LEVY: Do we have a quorum here? MS. McCAUGHTRY: We do have a quorum. Keith Dallas was appointed for Jo.hn Boland today, but I am guessiog John Iaizzo did not stay. CHAIRMAN LEVY: John said he had to be somewhere. MS. McCAUGHTRY: So. we do have a quorum. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Welcome aBoard. You are officially part of us. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION MR MOFFA IT: Can the audieoce stand up to the microphone and ask your question so we know who. is speaking? No audieoce participation? Okay. REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET CHAIRMAN LEVY: John. do. yo.u want to take us through this preliminary budget? MR PETTY: Yes. We are going to. disappoint you a little bit, in that we do oat have a printed version of the line-item budget. We do have it available and we wish to go over it. 967 ._'-~.~ -,.,."~~ ^'~.- ' ---~.,-- ..,,,",,._~,,'"~ ,-',.., -_.<-'.".",.~""...,._- Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 B20'" Aorill. 2009 First, we are going to. walk through tile five-year policy that we first presented to you at the last meeting in global farm. As ooted, there may be numbers that no longer apply, being that were one-time eveots. We said we wanted to run tile numbers, so., what you see on your screens now is a geoeral run through of those numbers. If you ootice, there are multipliers tIlat we can change on the fly, so. that you can see the effect here, no.w. Your instructions to. staff were that assessments would stay about where they are at, which means the assessment multiplier would be zero, off of curreot year's assessment being the base, that ad valorem would increase zero perceotage, Fund III would increase zero percentage, altho.ugh I'm sure if tile County wanted to offer us more money, we wo.uld take it. Project carry -- MR. MOFFATT: John, can I ask a question on that? How certain are you that we'll cootinue to get __ MR. PETTY: I am no.t certain. That is 00 a day-by-day basis. The fmancial situation is getting tough, and the Co.unty's position, as you may have heard during an interview from Commissio.ner Coletta about a week ago, they just found out that their lo.ss o.f ad valo.rem revenue went up by 10 percent based on a hearing do.ne by the adjustment Board. Therefore, instead ofIo.sing 14 percent, they are going to lose 24 percent. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Property values are down 24 percent. MR. PETTY: As far as ad valorem taxes are co.ncemed, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEVY: It still doeso't mean that peo.ple areo't going to have to pay the same amount of tax on their- just because the property value is down doesn't mean they're no.t going to -- MR. PETTY: Raise the millage rate. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Yeah. MR. PETTY: That is what is before us right now. An increase in millage co.uld be considerable. I believe that what most communities are going to need is a very strong commitmeot to returning the millage rate if they allow it to go. up. The problem is that if you let it go up, tIlere is no guarantee that when the recessioo is o.ver that tIley will return to. previous levels. Fo.r example, let us take from the existing three to eight mills o.r five mills, whatever it takes you to get to where you have to. go, and then the ecooomy improves, and yo.ur property values go back up, and then the go.vernmeot goes back to its old ways and stays millage neutral. What is good fo.r the goose is good for tile gander. I believe that people are go.ing to. be looking for a very stro.ng commitmeot if they allow them to. go fo.rward, but that is here nor there. 968 -,_.,--'" ..>~. Tn ,..,.d.." ~~"-,-,.,, Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 ~~ 820 Aorill. 2009 Fund III, we will have to take day by day, and for no.w, we will coosider it co.mmitted. We will try to. make the budget so that it is flexible enough tIlat if we do. not get the money, we do oot do the program. Project carry forward is what that is supposed to. signify, and tIlat is how much do you have left over in last year's projects. As yo.u can see, we are throwing everythiog tIlat we have into that pot in the first year. We sho.wed that $1.816 million you at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN LEVY: That is every bit o.freserves. MR. PETTY: That is everythiog we could reallocate. CHAIRMAN LEVY: All the carry forward, everything. MR. PETTY: Committed, not committed, reco.mmitted, reallocated, borrowed., and stolen. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Does this take the three mooths do.wn to two and a half months? MR. PETTY: Yes sir, it does for that ooe time grant. All of that money is in tIlere. Interest carry, as yo.u can see, we have gooe very conservative. As yo.u all kno.w, interest is no.t giving us the kind o.f returns tIlat we were used to in past years. We are saying, whatever your operating budget is for the year, we are going to assume tbat it is in a bank acco.unt earning interest for six mo.nths of the year, and we assume that four-and-a-halfperceot interest. We will be happy to get it. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Do we get the County rate? MR PETTY: We do, which has beeo above this, but we are being very ultra conservative. CHAIRMAN LEVY: It is whatever tbe Couoty gets, we get? MR. PETTY: We get, basically, a perceotage based 00 the participating funds. As you know, the tile Clerk of Courts handles the investments. As you may have read in the newspaper, there has beeo some discussio.o about that. The efficiency carry is what you have no.t seeo befo.re. You have known about it, but we have never put it dawn as a number. It is a somewhat arbitrary number. Kyle and I are comfortable with saying that this is about what we nonnally do. in our budget. This is the what-if scenario. For example, we look at eoergy expenses for last year; we kno.w tbat we did not have the streetlights 00 any greater length of time thao befo.re, but we are certain that the expenses are not going to. be lower this year. We alSo. expect nightfall tbis year to be tbe same as last year and gas prices are going to be - I do oot know iftbey are go.ing to be lower. Right now they are. What kind of a prophet am I? Well, I think I am going to do. a very co.nservative projection on tile budget, and put it at 95 perceot o.r 100 percent of 969 ~,.~- ._, ".- ,--~..- Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 161 B204 A rill 2009 last year, and go. That may be 10 perceot above what I am curreotly paying. That is a cootingency built into an estimate. Now, this what-if scenario. -- CHAIRMAN LEVY: I am sorry, John. That efficiency, I see that is inco.me. MR. PETTY: Every year, yo.u have seen it every mooth. CHAIRMAN LEVY: The carry fo.rward? That is our carry forward that we see every year? MR. PETTY: Some of it, yes, sir. If you look at your mo.nthly summaries that yo.ujust did to.day, yo.u see that we are well below projected expenses. No. red flags, right? Every year, there is 00 red flag. Every year, we have operating efficiencies typically around that 5 to. 10 percent. On bad years, where there is a hurricane or stonns, you may no.t see it, because we have to go into. a huge amount of overtime. Ho.wever, in a no.nnal year, that 5 perceot to 10 percent range of budget is typical. We are putting that as line item so that you all can see that that is part o.fthe equation. MR. MOFFATT: Y o.u are saying that o.ver the -- over So.flle period of years, we typically achieve 5 to. 10 percent of savings io our budget? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, I am. Yes, sir. Not o.n an every year, but, geoerally speaking, we're having a pretty good year, the efficiencies the staff is able to get, if the sky doeso't fall down, if a truck doeso't break, if we do.n't have a hurricane, yes sir. We have approximately that much as carry forward; if you look back over tile years in the moothly fioancials, you will see that, each mooth, our expenses are a tad be law projectio.ns on a typical basis. That is that difference. MR. MOFFATT: This year wo.uld be different or this budget wo.uld be differeot because we are oot going to. project any increase in any expense. MR. PETTY: Exactly, sir, which is why we now say, iftllere is any mooey left over, what happeos to. it? Because we are trying to allocate it at this time. CHAIRMAN LEVY: We have not covered the expeoses yet. MR. PETTY: We are going to hit it io a second. MR. MOFFATT: There is a greater risk this year of being able to achieve that, because you have increased expenses in the past, and we are saying no.w, keep it under zero. 970 ~_. - .... ....-"'=. "",-,,-'" Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 '1820 ADrift. 2009 MR. PETTY: The one we are working on? MR. MOFFATT: Yeah. MR. PETTY: 2010? We will get to. that in a minute. It is going to be mare difficult than ever due to same issues that we need to. bring to your attention. MR. MOFFA IT: John, this sounds like a continuation of the last meeting where yo.u showed us a five-year capital budget. I was going to ask you why you are doing five. Why not just focus 00 the next year? MR. PETTY: We are trying to show some co.ntinuity far a 10.nger tenn, especially for the constructio.o program that exceeds the o.oe-year amount. We are looking at pathways, which exceed our one-year reallocation fo.r capital. We are looking at the relocation o.r the refonnation of the benn, which exceeds one year's current capital expense. We have a backlo.g of capital items, as we have been on hold for a little bit. We have tried to show you a five-year plan, so that we can get back 00 track. That is subject to. fund availability and subject to. direction by the Bo.ard as well, the five-year program. Nothing makes you commit this amo.unt each year. This is a projection. You can change it at will, reallocate it at will. Therefore, the interest carry is very conservative in this case, as is the efficiency carry. Again, it is malleable. We can put it at nioe or we can put it at five. If yo.u put it at five, of course, it is go.ing to be half, and the oumbers are go.ing to change as we go, but you cao see impact. The reason we set this up is that we are looking for a little bit of direction here. We think that, in a goo.d year, we should be able to save about 10 percent in efficiencies; one, because we have that small cushio.o for that what-if scenario, and the o.tIler is we have every intentio.n o.fmakiog our people work smarter. We think that is the requirement that you must have in the current co.oditio.ns. In the current recession we are in, we think that is what we should do as staff. Go.ing to total revenue, theo, as the next lioe, you'll see, in year o.ne - 2010, we would have about $5.5 million do.llars with $1.8 millio.n plus going to. capital; this is a co.uple of years savings. Then, from there 00, you are seeing what you can actually afford to do. as capital. You will see tbat as we get down ioto the expeoses. Your assessmeots are the $2.8 million, $2.8 millio.n, and $2.8 million over five years. They do oot grow. They do no.t move. If you want them to move, we can put a multiplier in, if you would like them to. go. by CPl. Yo.u will hear from 971 .-..., -,.>--...,.. - Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1~B20 Aorill. 2009 staff in a few minutes, that we would like you to think about a 2 perceot, but that is coming up. Let us go down to. expenses. Expeoses have the same multiplier capability of changing the oumber, but we are taking the directio.n o.f this Board, which said yo.u want to keep costs level. We do keep costs leveL We do. that by applying a zero. multiplier to. each year. CHAIRMAN LEVY: How do you do. it really, in real life? MR. MOFFATT: This is the actuaL MR. PETTY: Number o.ne. If yo.u lo.o.k at the capital, you are looking at that initial surge of about $2.2 millioo; this equals the $1.8 millioo plus this year and adds 20 I O's capability of generating capital revenue, which is about $400,000. Then you get to. two. Two. every year thereafter. It is fo.ur, five, four, five -- I am sorry, $450,000, $450,000, and $450,000. Total commitment that you can put in a capital program over five years with this zero perceot additio.oal costs and zero. percent additional increase in revenue is about $4 million. Now, give or take this. This has to be a give or take because not every year are you going to get the 10 percent carry. Out o.f five years, let us say you have one hurricane year. Well, that year, you are probably going to use that mo.ney fo.r the hurricane. The capital program has to be subject to fund availability, because the first prio.rity far this cash is to cover operations. Once yo.u meet your operational commitments, it tIleo auto.matically go.es to capital, unless you determine it to. go. elsewhere. MR. GffiSON: Quick question. Probably my own igno.raoce. A hurricane is a great tiling to use here as an example of the unknown, and if you do have a hurricane, how much of the repairs, whether it is from the trees -- all the debris tIlat happens with a hurricane is our purse versus Collier County's? MR. PETTY: A surprisingly small amount, really. It is the first five to ten days o.f operation. It is tIlat commitmeot of staff time. Mast of that is going to be covered under FEMA, as lo.ng as FEMA does no.t go. away, and Collier County. Collier County runs that program. Now, Kyle's guys are out there clearing the streets and putting it all on the side. MR. GffiSON: He was during Wilma, and we paid for that. 972 ~--~ "_OM _. _"_~'_"->'__V___.M_ - - 161 IB~20 I Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting ADrill. 2009 MR. PETTY: Well, yo.u are going to. pay for all of this until FEMA reimburses you. MR. GIBSON: Go.tcha. MR. PETTY: In the past, we have used reserve. We have the option o.f using Collier Co.uoty's funding so.urces, which include sho.rt-term fmancing, et cetera, et cetera. Therefore, we are covered for that, but you want to have a little fluff in there for the landscaping, which is not go.ing to. be co.vered by anybody. MR. GIBSON: The replacement? MR. PETTY: Yes sir. MR. GIBSON: Go.tcha. MR. PETTY: Real damage o~ly; anything related to. landscaping is not co.vered by FEMA. They do not co.ver landscape at all, and that is o.ne of our biggest items. MR. GIBSON: Thank yo.u. MR. PETTY: The question earlier was could we realistically go o.ver five years without increasing costs? Weare go.ing to. give it a real good shot. I am going to tell you I am confident we can. There are a couple o.f reasons or options that we have available to us. First, contractors are cb.arging less to. do the same wo.rk that they were befo.re. Products are Co.sting less than they were. We are in a state of deflatio.o currently. This budget was based on last year's numbers, which did not have a deflation item in there. A lot of our goods and services have done down, including electricity, and we hope that it stays there for while. Our gaso.line casts are down significantly from three and a half dollars. We are down to. two and a half dollars. Kyle has some other components tIlat he wishes to implement over the next five years as well, to. try to get efficieocies of the operations. As you kno.w, o.ur crews have reached the tap of their cycle as far as pay for landscape or water management. They have been here five years, eight years and they have reached the top of that cycle. No.w they have to show us what their value is that they can reduce costs an a regular basis. Therefore, it is time for Kyle to ask his guys to be smarter in how they do it. CHAIRMAN LEVY: When yo.u say, reduce costs, they are on salary pay. 973 ~~'--" -.., "."..,~-~ .--- , ".-.., . -_.=-<~.._'.~,~.- ,~-........, Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 , 1 820 ADrill. 2009 MR. PETTY: It is getting the jo.b dooe quicker and getting more work done, cutting back on o.vertime, sir. That is what we are looking to. do.. MR. MOFFATT: How much overtime is in here? MR. PETTY: I ~- did yo.u do it -- in last year's budget, in my numbers here, the-- MR. MOFFATT: Well, it is the same numbers. MR. LUKASZ: I have reduced it by abo.ut 10 percent. MR. PETTY: How many hours did yo.u have, though, in the 2009 budget? MR. MOFFATT: Or dollars. MR. LUKASZ: Dollars? MR. PETTY: The question was ho.w many do.llars were io the budget category for overtime in the current year's budget. And -- MR. LUKASZ: I would have to. go. to -- MR. PETTY: Go to landscaping, and give him that one. That is the majority of it. MR. MOFFATT: John, I am a little slo.w. MR. PETTY: I cannot run as ifI used to either, sir. MR. MOFFA IT: 3.2 millioo is what yo.u have and three-eight last year. $600,000 difference. [ heard you talk about capital o.f 450. MR. PETTY: Last year we had commitment fo.r capital of$420,000. MR. MOFFATT: And capital is not in here? MR. PETTY: No., sir, ather tIlan the one line item we are go.ing to get to in a minute. MR. MOFFATT: So haw did this came do.wn from $3.8 million to $3.2 million, if all you did was pull out capital? MR. PETTY: Let us go. down line item by line item. Go. off the summary sheet. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Capital was $460,000. MR. PETTY: We are going to get to it. Let us go by the sheet, so that we can go line by line, number by number. Water maoagement is your first item under expeoses; I have $808,500 o.n mine. Does that answer the question? MR. MOFFATT: Clam Bay is not included. 974 . -..- ,-.-.--," .- __0 161 1 820 .~ Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting Aprill. 2009 MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. I kno.w. As you all know, this year you are considering changing Clam Bay, whether we stay in it, do. we get out of it, or do we work a modified deal. That is currently what the Chair and Admioistrato.r are working on with the County Manager. The direction to.day provides us a different perspective, but far budgetary purposes, we, as staff, have wo.rked up what the maintenance cost would be if o.ur respo.nsibility is only maintenance, and no.t restoration of mangroves. We wo.rked with Tim and Kyle and we came up with $170,000; $170,000 is the amo.unt that we believe we will need to maintain the mangroves in Pelican Bay under current conditio.ns that we have discussed in the past. Whether we fund it or not is a decisioo that the Board must decide, but that is why you have a different oumber in this category than you do in the budget. MR. MOFFATT: What have you excluded? CHAIRMAN LEVY: From the Clam Bay operatio.n. MR. PETTY: I did oo.t exclude, sir. We came up with a brand oew program for mainteoance only. MR. MOFFATT: From this year's budget, where yo.u were do.ing mainteoance plus, what is the plus that is 00 lo.nger in here? MR. PETTY: I cannot define that far you right now, sir. As we are coming to the eod of our ten year pennit, mo.st of the requirements and provisions no lo.nger apply. There were quite a few requirements, iocluding signage that you discussed today. A purely maintenance program wo.uld no.t have signs in it, no.r water quality issues and dredging. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Do we pay for the dredging? MR. MOFFATT: Did we pay for dredging? MR. PETTY: It was in our budget because dredging covers no.tjust the pass, but also the interior channels. Nowhere does it say that Collier County has to. pay fo.r any dredging. It has mo.ney in there in case dredging needs to be do.ne. It also. covers all the reporting requirements that Tim has to do. for a condition of the pennit. Under mainteoance criteria, we only have a third o.f that. Those are the reasons why I canno.t specify line item by lioe item; and I am oot prepared to do. tIlat at this date because we do no.t know what our Clam Bay respoosibilities will be. The $170,000 is an estimate by statT. MR. MOFFATT: Do yo.u have dredging in that note? MR. PETTY: What kind of dredging are you referring to., sir? 975 .'-'" .~._". - ,""~ '.'.'..-"'.'-,.__0.._...... ,..,,",-. - Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 1'820 April!. 2009 MR. MOFFATT: Whatever dredging you had in last year. MR. PETTY: Canal and channel dredging are included in this number. MR. MOFFATT: But not Clam Bay Pass? MR PETTY: At tIlis time, sir, it is only an estimate. Dredging of Clam Bay costs about $85,000, if the dredge is nearby and io working condition. I am assuming it could" fit in this number since there is eoough mooey to cover channel dredging, and the main reason to. use tile dredge. The channel dredgiog is for the interco.nnectioo between upper, middle and lower. The budget has the capability of handling the respoosibilities o.fmaintaining the mangroves. The policies on where Staff's responsibilities start or stop is going to. be decided by the Board. There is $170,000 pro.ject in the FY 2010 budget to cover operatioos and maintenance. There is, ho.wever, a capital component and we will go. aver that sectio.n next. Cumulative capital, $2.2 million for the first year, we have already discussed with another $450,000 plus each year for a total o.f abo.ut $4.1 million. Yearly assessments remain $370. What goes into. that cumulative capital? How will the mo.ney be spent? Whatever this Board decides 00. If you want to speod it in Clam Bay, go. ahead. If yo.u want to. speod it on pathways, go ahead. If you want to. spend it on landscaping, benns, then we are agreeable. All we're trying do. in this budget category is to. try to. fit into that box the dollar amouot that we are capable o.f funding, no.t what project is worthwhile CHAIRMAN LEVY: Jo.hn, the assessment is $370, and then there is an ad valo.rem. Is an ad valo.rem -- are the streetlights still on ad valo.rem? MR PETTY: Yes, sir, streetlights are on ad valorem. Streetlights are separate up at the stop. If you look at ad valorem, it is oot co.uoted in the calculatio.n. CHAIRMAN LEVY: So. the $306,000 for streetlights is not part o.fthat FOOT assessment? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, it is no.t. The $370 is for all o.f the o.perations, with the exceptioo of streetlights. That gives yo.u your level that you wanted, which is no increase in expenses. CHAIRMAN LEVY: I mean tile numbers lo.o.k good. The question is can it be done, especially next year? Next year 976 ~'''--'-~''- . ~"." ,~.".~., ,,".-- ."..~.- ,'" -. ~--_.._. Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 ~ 20 t Aorill. 2009 is the ooe, you kno.w -- in other words, the details get there, and I think you are saying tIlat Kyle is cutting back o.vertime or whatever to. achieve it. So these peo.ple are at the top of their pay grades, we're saying, and is there any assumptio.o of any kind of cost of living increases or -- MR. LUKASZ: Not this year. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Not this year. MR. LUKASZ: That is a County policy, and there is no. adjustmeot in salary. CHAIRMAN LEVY: So if they are at the top, that means no further merit increases? MR. LUKASZ: That is what it indicates, that they are right at -- some of them still have some room in the brackets, but there is 00 salary adjustment issue. CHAIRMAN LEVY: So. the overtime reductio.n to hold it level, tIlat's in subsequent-- MR. LUKASZ: That is about a 10 percent reduction in the overtime. CHAIRMAN LEVY: That is go.ing out past 201O? That is 2011, '12? MR. PETTY: Let me correct a little bit. You have a draft budget that Kyle has wo.rked 00. We are not saying that there will not be any salary adjustments in the fiscal year 20 I O. What we are saying is that in total, no perso.noel costs will exceed these numbers. Someone may get a little bit mo.re and someo.ne else's overtime may be cut. We believe that witll the parameters being set for tile high and the low, we can do. this. Again, we do have deflation helping us. We do. have better contracts to wo.rk with, and we are actually doing better tIlan most other County departments. They are go.ing to be asked for a 25 percent cut across the Board. Therefore, we believe that our Oivisioo is going to do a little bit better than mo.st. In additioo, we are ho.ping that we can do tIlis o.ver five years, based an the current financial situation. CHAIRMAN LEVY: So the County is not giving us any directio.n, so to speak? MR. PETTY: Sir, even if they wo.uld, we would no.rmaIly ask them to. treat us differently, because we are based on assessmeots instead of ad valorem. We did not have a loss in property values, per se. Our streetlights are the o.nly ad valo.rem portioo. We go. based on benefit. And our beoefit is still there. We still have drainage. We still have landscaping. We still have the rest. So we do. ours at cost. A little different concept. So., yes, we wo.uld ask to be separated from their o.rganizational 977 --,"'~ ...-- ""..,....- ^v~'_ _m .. ~...-. ._-,,----_.~.- Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 , 1 1820 ADrill. 2009 policy in that regard. MR.. MOFFATT: You did no.t account for any personnel management issues whereby the same level of employee io Pelican Bay is going to make more than the employee that is outside of Pelican Bay? I mean, I could see that from a County standpo.int as being a serious consideratioo. MR. PETTY: Far tile purposes of this presentatio.n, sir, we have oo.t done any such calculations, no.r have we talked to the County about their policies, which are being decided as we speak. The 24 - 25 percent is what has been projected by staff, but oot gone through Board approval. So, no., sir, we have not dooe that detail of budgeting to. date. We are still waiting to. hear from the County's o.ffice an many parameters. Witll that, let me ask, if you have a minute or two, we will switch computers here, and we will get to the line item budget where you will see we are waiting an quite a few County decisions to. be made. This is early io the process. Thank you. If I may, while we are waiting, one of the items that I wanted this committee to consider is what is the proper amount of capital expeose per year for the responsibilities that we have? Difficult to. say witllout lo.oking at each o.oe individually. As for our capital responsibilities, the pathway is a new item. The berm has always been there. The water managemeot has always been there. Streetlights have been there fo.r a long time. From a management perspective, we are going to. start witb about a 20 - 25 percent ballpark number until I have very specific numbers 00 what the renewal and the replenishment actual costs were on a year-to.-year basis. 25 percent of o.ur operating costs are about $750,000 a year. As you notice on the sheet that I had, it had capital commitment, or we raised about $450,000 a year, not 750. It is abo.ut 17 - 18 percent So., basically, what yo.u are doing is committing to a program at zero percent increase, and assessmeots of about 17 to 18 perceot o.fyour operating monies go for reoewal and replenishmeot That is a law oumber. So yo.u may waot to consider the o.ption of raises in the next five-year perio.d, should tile recession ease up, sho.uld conditio.ns loo.k better. Just for yo.ur awn info.nnatio.n, the percentage that we are going to be spending for capital over five years is law. Do you guys have a new screen with numbers? CHAIRMAN LEVY: New screen, but no. headiogs. MR. LUKASZ: I cannot get the whole thiog on there. This is tile budget summary page. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Now we have the headings. Thank you. 978 "--'",_.~~ ._..- -, ,.."""" ,,-,. ""-,~~""-,,,,,,",,--"^ Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1820 Aorill. 2009 MR. LUKASZ: This is still a work in progress, and even some of the numbers that I needed to get from Collier Co.unty, the numbers were no.t available yet. Like the indirect charges. That is last year's number, because they have no.t posted what our indirect charges will be. The same with some o.f the ather fixed items for fleet, insurance, things like that. CHAIRMAN LEVY: The indirect charges probably sho.uld go down if they are go.ing to. have budget cuts. MR. LUKASZ: I tIlink they went down last year. The IT indirect services, we get those fro.m Co.llier County, and they are oot yet available. MR. PETTY: We ho.pe tIley go. down, sir. We're also co.gnizant that-- MR. LUKASZ: You can see at the bottom of the expenses-- CHAIRMAN LEVY: I think we ought to. leave them the same until we hear. MR. PETTY: That represents the 10 percent that we were discussing. If it is a go.od year and they treat us the same way as before, we will get a slight savings. That perceotage wo.uld theo go to. capital next year. MR. LUKASZ: If yo.u look at the total appropriatio.ns, you can see water management was $808,500 last year, aod for 2010, it is $781,890. Community beautificatio.n, right no.w, is actually an increase of about $] 2,000. And street lighting weot from $306,000 down to $293,000. MR. MOFFATT: That is interesting. All tho.se indirect charges went up. Tax co.llector, property appraiser -- MR. LUKASZ: It is because we had so much carry forward last year. The income on the top does not have any. MR. PETTY: Sir, what you are loo.king at is a percentage of how much you assess is what they charge you. So we are assessing mare this year, because we do. not have the carry forward going in. So. last year, we had a $3 million budget, but $422,000 of that came from reserves. So, we only assessed at $2.6 millio.n. For example, this year, we will assess at a total o.f $3 million. Percentages are still the same. Now, we only pay actual Co.st. So. at the end o.ftlle year, if they are able to give us a disco.unt, we get mooey back. MR. MOFFATT: Will this increase our assessment per o.wner? MR. PETTY: No, sir. $370.47. MR. MOFFATT: That is what it was last year. MR. PETTY: Yes. MR. MOFFATT: Even though we are no.t giving them credit for that carry forward we used last year? 979 "..,..~. ~,.- .--. .'"-,,. Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I r1 B 2 0 A rill 2009 MR. PETTY: Even though we are oot giving who credit? I do no.t know that we give anybody a credit. MR. MOFFATT: Now, if you reduced your -- if you're assessing mare in to.tal tIlis year than you assessed last year - - MR. PETTY: Last year, we assessed at $3.1 millio.n. To.tal budget was $3.8 million. Inter-fund transfers or Fund 111, $214,000. Plan review was $1,500. Interest inco.me was $65,000. Carry fo.rward was $422,600. You can compare tIlem line by line. MR. LUKASZ: The operational expenses are close. At the bottom, you will see that the to.tal assessment is going to be less than $370, but that number does not include the capital project expenses. But the capital project expenses wo.uld go in there, and yo.u are going to move that reserve funding. MR. PETTY: Mr. Mo.ffatt, it is because this column is no.t co.mpleted. MR. MOFFATT: Is what? MR. PETTY: It is not co.mpleted at tIlis time. The capital portion has not beeo filled in. MR. LUKASZ: Do you see the capital projects right here? MR. MOFFATT: Zero. MR. LUKASZ: Right. But, you were looking at using reserve funds once those numbers go in. MR. PETTY: I think I am trying to say never mind, Mr. Moffatt. It is not completed. MR. MOFFATT: If yo.u use reserve fuods this year to keep the assessment per unit the same, does this take away the carry forward tIlat yo.u were going to use for capital? MR. PETTY: I did not take away from anybody, sir. I did it from a holistic approach from the outside io. I have oo.t taken from o.oe departmeot versus another. What you saw befo.re was from that, what Kyle has done -- MR. LUKASZ: The assessment at $347 is based an operational costs; adjustments oeed to. be made. CHAIRMAN LEVY: It is not co.mplete. MR. LUKASZ: That is operatio.ns. That includes the $170,000 far Clam Bay, although you show the fuods coming in, still, from the County. Aod you have $347. So., once the capital expenses are there, using reserves to fund it, tile assessmeot is oot going to. go up. As you said, tho.se funds are going to go. to.wards the capital once the expenses are eotered. CHAIRMAN LEVY: The assessment has gone up to $370. MR. PETTY: That is where the assessments go. You said zero increase in cost. 980 ."~,. r ,_.,~ .... _.,-- _^,.__'W._, Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 820 ADrilt.2009 CHAIRMAN LEVY: This shows $347. MR. LUKASZ: But it do.es no.t reflect capital expenses, although it is close to what the o.peratiooal expenses should be. MR. MOFFATT: So these are yo.ur current best numbers by line item? MR. PETTY: It is our first run, sir, yes. MR. MOFFATT: Same. MR. PETTY: We expect to. be able to change these on a line item basis, and that is why we brought it to you this way. We know this Bo.ard and this committee have talked about specific line items and operation. That is why this is being brought to yo.u in this manner. We kind of like tile format; you can paint to wherever you like and go to any part of the budget. The fonnulas are just so. interconnected that without the additio.nal data that we are awaiting from the County, it is just not quite co.mplete. MR MOFFATT: I was go.ing to say that o.ne of my co.ncems at this point is that Clam Bay system co.lumn, but we will get into that at same other time. MR. LUKASZ: Here is a summary breakdo.wn of that $170,000. CHAIRMAN LEVY: In o.ther words, from where are we takiog the $160,000? MR. PETTY: What is in froot of you now is the breakout for Clam Bay. MR. LUKASZ: I can go down where it explains it. CHAIRMAN LEVY: I am looking at a book here that says $331,000. This says $170,000. So. we have taken $160,000 o.ut of certain areas. MR. PETTY: No, sir. No, sir. Let me clear that up. If Pelican Bay is to. to stay involved in Clam Bay, we expect our commitment to. Clam Bay to stay at the existing levels. Yo.u see $170,000 io the budget category, because that is what we think we would do. in operatio.ns. But there is always a capital compooent to Clam Bay. In prior years, Clam Bay has always been considered capital on everything it did. So I cannot tell you what specifics are being separated, because it was all capital last year. We are trying to. get it turned into a regular department this year, where there is capital and operations. 981 .~."-~ ,....-- "~'-'--" ..------- Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 I'B 20 rqt Aorill. 2009 And we have talked with Tim, and he put together a nice budget with Kyle, and said we have to do this, and have to do that. We have to look for the exotic plants, and what is that contract going to. cast, all of that. They did a great job. This is how they bro.ke aut $170,000. No.w, we suspect that we are still going to. speod about $140,000 a year or more on Clam Bay capital. Keep in mind that the benn will be classified as a Clam Bay capital expense. So we do expect to. speod some of that money similar to last year, but it wo.uld be in tile capital portion. The reasoo you see a change is because Clam Bay was always considered all capital, and this year, we are splitting it out. It is a little hokey, but it is the best we can do until we get fmance to agree with us and split this thing apart. I guess for yo.ur informatio.n, what you may want to consider cooveying to the full Board, if they coosider Clam Bay in the future, is that this is an adjustable program. The 170 covers what we think it wo.uld cost us to. keep Tim and staff working in the back bay without a capital expense. Working on the berm would be somethiog you wo.uld no.t do or you would do with other mooey. Okay? It does not include any directio.ns fro.m any outside agency. This is our maintenance program only under new operating pennits that we are confident we can get, and we think tile County will support tIlem. It does not have anything to. do with what was discussed today, which is ao expansio.n oftllat program. So it is malleable, in other wards. Yo.u make the decisions; we will make tile changes to. the dollars. MR. GIBSON: If I may ask, does the office -- I hate to. bring up a sore subject, I'm sure -- office relocatioo fits into this, moving into the Co.unty building and some expenses to make the offices presentable and livable and nice? MR. PETTY: Sir, we have oat put a dollar value to it yet. MR. GIBSON: Okay. MR. PETTY: Nor have we put a cost to it yet. As you know, we have talked abo.ut, if administrative staff did go down there, the first thing we have to do is get better bathro.oms fo.r the women folk. The guys do oo.t care too much, but the wo.men are go.ing to want something. And then space-wise, what do we have to do? And we said, well, if we could have the chair co.nsider a committee to tell staffwhat an acceptable presentation of an o.ffice is, tIlen that would help us figure aut the associated cast. There is extra space there. And then we would go talk to the Co.unty about do.ing that under a letter of agreement o.r what have you to give 982 ~._^.. "-'-- ~"._._,-_.~---_..- Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 1820 4 ADrilt. 2009 us so.me feeling o.f security. And we would bring back whatever that cast was in whatever program you would like to. save, and we can get a savings there. That is so.methiog yo.u pro.bably want to. co.nsider. MR. GlliSON: I am sure there is a savings. MR. PETTY: We have looked at it. MR. GIBSON: Maybe not the first year because you have some expenses to fix it up and make it decent, but -- MR. PETTY: Maybe aver a period it wo.uld be acceptable, but I believe yo.u are right sir; it is very well worth looking at. And no, sir, we have no.t dooe it yet. We are still waiting to. get that assignment. MR. GIBSON: That would be a po.teotial way to-- MR PETTY: That is an extra. If there were savings, then that mo.ney would flow to. capital. MR. GlliSON: As is if we were able to wo.rk out tile new mulch system on a trial basis. That 63,500 could go down so.mewhat the first year, depending on the acceptance. But I think when people see that we are keeping within the existing budget that chaoges might be necessary. You are go.ing to get a whole lot o.fbad boys. MR. PETTY: Y o.u are setting up the mechanism so that all efficiencies, whether it be the mulch o.r mo.ving to. off site, or whatever they are, you are making sure that all the efficiencies go directly to any fund savings and put the fund savings back under your control, and no.t to some other entity. That is what you are doing. Staff cannot just say that, well, it is appro.ved in the budget therefore, we can do. it. No. Once it goes to capital, each capital project must be approved contract by contract. MR. GlliSON: I assume, fo.r tile mulch idea, there is a cost in there somewhere for removing the existing. MR. LUKASZ: If you look at the trash and dumpster fees. MR. GIBSON: There it is, sure. $12,300 in water management. Community beautification, $37,000. MR. LUKASZ: Right, last year. Far FY 2010 we have $8,300 in water management and $24,900 in community beautificatioo, but primarily because of our new cootract with the co.mpany that is hauling the debris. MR. GlliSON: Who kno.ws if it is go.iog to work? MR. LUKASZ: There are fees fo.r actually grioding it up. MR. GIBSON: I know that. It is $150 an ho.ur, I guess, but you ultimately eod up owning the machine. MR PETTY: Even his estimates are -- for a cootract -- we have chipper here. 983 _,_~" H _~.,.,_~_,_m TPoI .-.~",-,._.,,,,,,.,_..._- Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1~B20" Aorill. 2009 MR. GIBSON: This is not a chipper. This machine takes the existing vegetation debris, palm fro.ods, limbs, and crushes it to the point that it is consisteot and looks more presentable. We had a bucket of it here the other day. MR. LUKASZ: His actual per yard price is actually a little bit more than what it casts to haul, but theo you say yo.u have a savings -- MR. GIBSON: I gotcha. MR. PETTY: Co.mbined. MR. LUKASZ: Combined, true. MR. PETTY: So., again, we think that we have opportunities here and a way to. keep costs level. We are cautiously optimistic that we can keep our costs flat. What we do oat know is, loo.king at the responsibilities of o.ur R and R, the renewal and replacement of our existing systems, and then what is on iliat strategic plan that may hit our responsibilities. We're starting to get a little oervo.us about a five-year capital plan that can only put about $4 million aut there, because we kno.w the pathways alone are two. millio.n plus. Landscaping could easily reach tIlat number. Benn, I am starting to get a little nervous here. So. we do. not kno.w if assessments flat may stay flat. CHAIRMAN LEVY: How do we detennine ilie pailiways -- you know, the community says iliey want pathways. So, then, if they're to.ld, well, the number is two million six or eight or whatever it is to. do. the pathways, I meao, there has go.t to be iliat exchange, too.. When iliey said they wanted all of iliese things, iliere was no. dollar value associated wiili them. MR. PETTY: That is a very good Po.int, sir. All of that is vetted to. the public, so. that the community comes back to. us, yelling and screaming about $2 million spent without them knowing what was going an. CHAIRMAN LEVY: There might to be a higher assessmeot to get tIlere. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. That is part ofiliat public vetting, yes, sir. MR. MOFFATT: The way that the strategic plao is writteo is to convert one side of the road to moto.r use and the other side to walkways or sidewalks. MS. WOMBLE: The Strategic Planning Co.mmittee is finding that will not work. MR. PETTY: I am go.ing to tell you staff agrees wiili the chair. That was a silly idea, but tIleo again, iliat is what visioning is all about. Yo.ur eyes are bigger ilian your belly. 984 "-"'- "_"0 <,~--,"'" -~,.. .,..-.'- .-. 16 I It't3 2 0 , Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting April 1. 2009 MR GIBSON: You are going to have crosswalks everywhere. MR. PETTY: What we have done -- MS. WOMBLE: People do not understand which is which. MR. PETTY: What we have done is we have asked Jack Lieber's fIrm -- if you recall, Jack Lieber was the designer o.f the landscaping, the pathways from the beginning, and he is still aro.und as a consultant. His firm is still aro.und for design. We have asked them to. give us a preliminary co.ncept far pathways and tile landscape improvements that would be with that. The co.ocept here being that it is just maintenance only, oo.t improvement. We are abo.ut renewal aod replenishmeot, not about advancement. If you waot us to advance, we will, but we are just getting the baseline set. And we asked him to give us a co.ncept. He has what we consider to be a very wo.rkable concept that we think actually helps us lower our annual expeoses for landscaping, because it utilizes mo.re plant material versus sad in places like the middle o.f the road, where it iso't really that appreciated. It is just a bare amo.unt. We could save some money by going to a shrub versus tile sod, the sod being the most costly item to keep up. It cuts do.wo a little bit on the watering, and it cuts down considerably on the fertilizer. So we believe that he is on to so.me very go.od ideas. We asked him to co.me up witll a proposal for doing the design so we can bring it to you so. that you can understand what those costs would be, aod as you go forward with your capital plan, you would have somethiog to hold on yo.ur records for a base. MR. MOFFATT: Who. is payiog for that? MR. PETTY: The pro.posal does oot cost a thing, as you pointed out at the last meeting. We asked fo.r a proposal. It is up to. you guys to decide whether you want to go forward. MR. MOFFATT: He wo.uld be proposing to services division versus the Foundation? MR. PETTY: Oh, yes, sir. It is a public right o.fway. Yo.u guys decide how far you think the issue sho.uld go. MR. GillSON: One of the categories that I brought up at the last meeting was the tree trimming. Kyle, [ guess I would like some assurances that we're not being too skimpy here because when the fIrst sto.rm, even if only a tro.pical depressioo and not a named hurricane, if the trees are kept in shape, there will be a lot less damage. MR. LUKASZ: We are trying to handle a majority of what you are talkiog about, and this is the $27,600 under water management - exotic or invasive plant cootro.l. That is the closest category we could find when we were trying to break 985 -~ " -~~"." '.,_0,0.-.__._ .~-" .,-.._"- 16 I 1820. Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting ADrill. 2009 out co.ntractual services, so as oat to put everything under contractual services. So that's not really tree trimming, the 25,000 under right-o.f-way, co.mmunity beautification, this number here. That is for tree trimming, but that is far same of the difficult trees that we had to get to., palms that you have to climb to trim. MR. GIBSON: I just see it as an area that you canno.t skimp. The co.mmunity is getting older, tile trees are more mature. MR. PETTY: The point is well taken. The final paint is we agree with you, but the Co.st is in labo.r. MR. GIBSON: That is right. MR. PETTY: Because we do most of it in-house. MR. GIBSON: Pay me now or pay me later, because if you trim them now, you are not go.ing to bave all that damage when the stann co.mes. MR. PETTY: My guys have a great deal of experience with do.ing it both, pre and post stonn. MR. MOFFATT: Kyle, the tree trimming number that is in here is just contracted tree trimming? MR. LUKASZ: Excuse me. The $25,000? MR. MOFFATT: Yes. MR. LUKASZ: That would be a cootract, because it is not under perso.nnel services. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. MR. PETTY: It would be in the no.n-personnel services, oo.t specific to tree trimming, just our labor costs. MR. MOFFATT: $25,000 does not get you much in tree trimmiog. MR. LUKASZ: We are trying to. do mast ofthat with our own personoel. MR. PETTY: When you see tho.se big piles an the right-of-way of the palm leaves, that is usually this guys. MR. LUKASZ: We are trying to do. a lot o.fthat in-house and you are right, that $25,000 will not go far. We have a lot of palm trees. We have 3,500 palm trees that have to be trimmed annually, and a certain percentage o.f trees have to. be climbed, like the ones aut by the beach facilities. Those have to. be climbed, and we use a contractor for that. CHAIRMAN LEVY: That is what the $52,600 is fo.r? Contract labor? MR. LUKASZ: There is $27,600 under water maoagement and $25,000 in co.mmunity beautification. MR. MOFFATT: I am go.ing all the way to the right. 986 ---'^ ..~- "-",- -'~--~""~~> '...~ ~_.,..".."- ---- Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1920 P1~ Aorill. 2009 MR. LUKASZ: Right, but that encompasses the $27,600. CHAIRMAN LEVY: There is a question an the tree trimming. MR. PETTY: They are similar casts fo.r stuff that we cannot do in-house that is associated with water management. MR. MOFFATT: When are yo.u going to be in a positio.o that we can look at this in detail? I do oot want to get in a position that John Iaizzo was in last year saying, I want to loo.k at the line items, but we have not dooe that yet, so. we did it this year. I would rather see the line items before we approve it. MR. LUKASZ: As lo.ng as we have the numbers. MR. PETTY: We can get a printout to. yo.u tomorro.w. That is what I was getting at. We can give you a printout o.f this tomorrow, understanding that about 10 perceot of the fonnulas are oot finished yet. So. yo.u may see a refereoce to 10 perceot, but that needs to be co.nsidered a draft or a working issue uotil we can get additio.nal data. We can give yo.u the summary, and we can give you mast o.f the departments as they are expensed out, but we canno.t give yo.u the depth o.f the entire budget, which has all the sheets and personnel and all the work. Just keep in mind that this a work in pro.gress, and that we have been focusing o.n trying to get the summary page to be as accurate as possible to. show you impact, and then be able to go to a line item that you want to discuss. MR. MOFFATT: When you get back to tile detail pages, you are going to give us more infonnatioo than you gave us last year; is that right? MR. PETTY: If you recall, you asked us to make changes in the columns 0.0 that last year, the year befo.re, spent, actual, and Kyle has already made those changes in this mo.del. MR. LUKASZ: Are yo.u talking about the 2008 expensed out, and tile current year forecasted out?- MR. MOFFATT: Do.ing the separate costs, o.kay. MR. GIBSON: Swale maintenance, what is tIlat? MR. LUKASZ: Swales alo.og the benn. They are water management swales from the back grades, if you have any blockages or silting. MR. PETTY: About II3 of our area uses open swales. I do not believe that the golf co.urse has any opeo swales. It's all pipe, but we certainly have it by the mainteoance facility and it go.es to the berm. MR. GillSON: So a swale is like a big ditch. CHAIRMAN LEVY: What is our plan from here? We have ano.ther meeting scheduled later this mooth. Do you need something fro.m us no.w? 987 ~,~,,-,,", -- _......~ - ",.;.",-~. _N_..U. ~- PeUcan Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 820 Aoril!. 2009 MR. MOFFATT: The time line is what do we have to. have done and by what time, by what date? MR. PETTY: What we are looking far from today's meeting specifically is a direction on policy. Let me explain and then I will go through the calendar. We gave yo.u an idea and described the idea of a five-year capital program and a policy that states whatever savings we get in operatioos go.es to that capital program. lfthis program is so.mething that conceptually yo.u could go with, then we can go. fo.rward and start building this budget, which will become more accurate as we get mare numbers, particularly from tile Co.unty. CHAIRMAN LEVY: But the budget we are going to. do is just ooe year, right? 20 I O? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. The budget will be for o.ne year. The capital plan, which is not ado.pted as part of the budget, but adopted as part o.fyour Board's policy, would be far a five-year program, but the budget is so.mething yo.u co.uld change at any Board meeting. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Then we would know the at the mo.st capital tIlat we can fund as far as we know, ho.lding our assessments coostant, aod theo if the community needed same more, we would have to adjust the assessmeot MR. PETTY: Yes, adjust the assessment. Yes, sir, absolutely. That is exactly what we are trying to produce so that you have those tools at your dispo.saL CHAIRMAN LEVY: We do not have a definitive capital plan. We have the broad areas. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. We have a wish list, but we do. not have prio.rities. CHAIRMAN LEVY: We do not have priorities, but when specific numbers are given back to the people who want things; do we kno.w that they still want them at that price? MR. PETTY: So we feel yo.u have got quite a bit to report to the Board. Number one, you have kept assessmeots at last year's levels. Last year's levels were 3 percent below the year befo.re. If we ho.ld the line, we are still do.ing remarkably well. Number two, you are go.ing to keep casts down. You are go.iog to have a plan that allo.ws the Board the maximum flexibility fo.r expenditure of capital for the next five years. And you have dooe this all through your directives and your policy adoptions, the last one being what you would consider here today, because you already vo.ted 00 no. additiooal costs. So we have that. The last o.ne that we're looking at for today is can you adopt this capital policy, so that we can work 00 that as an item, because we would be spending or putting into tile capital budget next year $1.816. 988 "._~"" ~ . ..-'" ,",_.., -. ~>>---,..~_.,", 161 1 B20~ Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting April!. 2009 CHAIRMAN LEVY: Right. But it is not spent until the project is approved by the Board. MR. PETTY: Not o.ne dime is going to be speot befo.re you look at the propo.sal to. do. a mile and a half of pathway at half a millio.o dollars. CHAIRMAN LEVY: And the whale Board has to approve it. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. It is just for budgeting purposes. If you do. not want to spend it, it is carried forward. MR. MOFFATT: I am not sure I like the idea of putting $1.8 million ioto the capital plan far next year; that is taking everything that we no.w have in tIlere, that are o.n the bo.o.ks, saying we can spend that all next year. Ifwe do. speod it, and we run into a pro.blem two years from now, o.ur reserves are gooe. MR. PETTY: Sir, at this point-- MR MOFFATT: I do not even tIlink yo.u can speod $1.8. MR. PETTY: Sure, you can. You have to have the right frame ofmiod. MR. MOFFATT: Besides my wife. MR. PETTY: Sir, right now, in your mo.nthly financials, as we have gone over, you may want to lo.o.k at those numbers, we really do.o't have a reserve number in there, other tIlan the cash carry fo.rward. Other than that, our reserves are co.nstituted of projected carry forward, and restricted carry fo.rward, which ends up being an allo.catio.n for capital for streetlights. And tIlen you have an unrestricted carry fo.rward that was always at the Board's discretion to spend. So we do. not have a policy that says X percentage of our budget should be in a reserve for what-if sceoarios. It has beeo held there because projects have languished o.r we've waited for a strategic plan o.r we're looking at aonexatio.n or inco.rporation, and the ooly pro.ject we even got going was something that was fairly simple, which was our lake bank impro.vements. That's the only one we really were able to just, oh, yeah, that's simple eno.ugh, go. out tIlere -- but the rest, hold 00 to. until we get this other infonnation. But we will fallow the direction of the Board, whatever you think is applicable. Ifyo.u wo.uld like to. set up a reserve, we can co.me back and deal with that. MR. MOFFATT: You said earlier that you were lookiog at $750,000 a year for capital programs. MR. PETTY: From my 25 years of managerial experience, I would look at my Rand R (renewal and repleoishment) costs, right out of the chute. 25 percent is probably what I wo.uld co.nsider nonnal, average, co.oditio.nal upoo what the actual co.nditions are, but I will go. for 25 perceot. 989 " ~--., .... . ~-.'''~-~''..'.,... . ~"",.- Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 820 ~ ADrill. 2009 As we are defioing what our responsibilities are, I'm suggesting to. this Board that the $750, 000 ballpark to. keep in the back of yo.ur minds, because if you look forward to years 20 II and on, we're basically pulling assessments at the 16-17 perceot level, and this may not sustain your total responsibilities. It is somethiog to keep io yo.ur mind that that may need additional assessmeot value as well. MR. MOFFATT: That is what the $750,000 is? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFATT: 25 perceot? MR. PETTY: $750,000 a year is ballpark where we would stop and again look at operational Co.sts o.r where we sto.p building up o.ur monies far capital. We would stop at that point, once we got to $750,000. Let me show you -- do you have this screen? Are you okay? MR MOFFATT: We have blanks. MR. PETTY: Let me see if I can fix that real quick, because I will shaw you what I am talking about if you raise assessmeots by 2 perceot per year. It shows you what that-- MR. MOFFATT: Here it is. MR. PETTY: Are you okay? CHAIRMAN LEVY: Yes. MR. MOFFATT: We have some Indians. Nice picture. MR PETTY: Hang on a mioute. I will mirror you, and what you are seeing is Janice's collectio.o of historic portraits. She is big fan ofthe American Indian. Now, if we go to. assessments and we change that to --let's say it's 2 percent a year, you can see that your capital starts to. grow in this line item, because, of course, it's 2 perceot one year and then 2 percent of last year, which had a 2 percent then. So. you start growing. And as you can see, if you do 2 percent per year starting this year, at the eod of2014, you are right at that 25 percent number. Now, of course, we are speoding a lot of money on capital, figuratively, with the $1.816 going in. So I do oot kno.w that yo.u want to loo.k at increasing assessments this year. I think it is just something I would like to put io the back of yo.ur minds. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Two perceot would be a reasonable increase if the econo.my, you kno.w, straighteos out. MR. PETTY: We will see how it works out. I think that since we can start the year with the $1.816, or subject to what the Board approves. 990 -,,-, "..-.~ ~,~" . ~- 16 I IB20 '1 'i"J'->~' . Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting ADrill. 2009 MR. MOFFATT: I am concerned about spending all of that. CHAIRMAN LEVY: It is just sho.wing it as a carry forward. It is like the carry forward we have now. We are oot spending it. MR. MOFFATT: We are talking about speoding it. MR. PETTY: It wo.uld be in a capital program, and staff would be going out and getting prices for whatever capital project yo.u aim us at, which you have not yet decided. If yo.u aim us on the pathways, fme; benn, fine; or doing any portio.os of each, fme. We are going to go out there and get proposals. And this is the maximum available to spend next year toward capital. It does not co.mmit you to spending it all. It' just the maximum you could spend. If you would feel better with a $300,000 reserve or a half-millioo-dollar reserve o.r whatever you think, we can add that in here. That is not a problem. We can say what the policy is, that any money saved in efficieocies or any revenue abo.ve casts goes to capital every year except for the two-and-a-half-mooth cash carry, and a reserve fund ofX. Certainly, we can do that. You guys tell us what yo.u are more co.mfortable. So. the policy is what would you like that to be, and if you give us direction now, we can start setting the budget up and, basically, within 24 -- by Friday, you will have a printo.ut o.fthis with that capital plugged in in the summary. MR. MOFFATT: This, plus the other schedule. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. That is this big green book. That is all one big Excel spreadsheet. MR. GIBSON: I guess one question 1 have that's more educational, because I think I know where yo.u are comiog from, Jerry, about not putting tIlis committee o.r our Bo.ard in the position of spending the reserves, because that's something you just do.n't want to have tied o.n yo.ur tail, I guess.. You speod some money that other Boards have delivered us, and we need to keep that as stro.og as possible, I think, as a conservative place to start. I guess my question is, either Jo.hn or Kyle, in this reserve number, are there any o.ther segments o.f our community that we oeed to be loo.king after like piping -- MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. MR. GIBSON: -- or irrigation systems, or is there any other -- you know, we do not have elevators or anything that- - we are going through that in o.ur building. We have to. look at reserve funds and every major entity has a specific life, a roof -- so I guess we have 00. other items that we need to. prepare o.urselves to look at down the road. 991 .-..>. >..~.w.'~ , .. """_.....,. ~,-"..- .~,.<,,~, .. ~.~--- 16 I 1 820 ,I Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting ADrift. 2009 MR. PETTY: Sir, that is a po.licy decision. Fo.r the last four years, staff has been directed to a different budgeting philosophy. MR. GIBSON: Okay... MR. PETTY: There is the ooe where you take all yo.ur commitments, all your fixed assets, so. to. speak, figure aut your life spans, and co.mmit and build a revenue source that can support that. We, because o.f, I guess, tile flexibility that our services has been faced with over the last four years, we have changed operations quite a bit. We were looking at annexation a while back, and every time we had reserves, weot back to. the people, because we were concerned that that would end up being in a different government's hands. We were looking at incorpo.ratio.n the fo.llowing years, so we did not build reserves. We did raise rates on the concept o.f we probably need to get that money back, but there was 00. specific reserve amo.unt o.r po.licy adopted. The fo.llowing year, o.ur go.al was to ado.pt a budget that was about $40 below where it curreotly is or about a 10 percent reduction. We did it, and we used reserves to get there. Last year, it was pretty much hold the line, and we used reserves just a little bit, because we oeeded time to wean off them, frankly, but we got down 3 percent from last year's assessments. So our current directives for policy is to fine tune the operation as much as po.ssible, and be as efficient in yo.ur estimates as po.ssible. MR. GmSON: Good answer. I just did no.t want to have same big monster looming that we are not addressing. MR. PETTY: I am sure there is one hiding out tIlere somewhere. MR. GIBSON: Yo.u kno.w what I am saying? I guess it is more my education than anything else. MR. MOFFATT: The other tiling we do. not kno.w of is how long the eco.no.my is going to stay in the toilet. Hopefully, it is only one year. Who kno.ws? MR. PETTY: You can see that the yearly assessments go to. $377, or 3 percent of this year's $370. CHAIRMAN LEVY: It is a very modest increase. If the commuoity knew that there was some kind of plan where we knew what we were go.ing to be do.ing in the future, just not right now, we just do no.t know yet. MR. PETTY: I'm trying to convey a confideoce level, I guess, in this five-year plan, that when those items co.me up, yo.u know you have flexibility built in, that you can go up or dawn based on what the resideots of Pelican Bay ask you to. do.. And with that, I will say, geotlemen, I am back to what we would like the Board to consider a motioo, secood and approval ofthe policies as stated at the bo.ttom, and I will go. through them. 992 ._-~._~." ,._-"'--~- , ~'-"'-"~ %..,........ Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1~20" ADrift. 2009 First, limit annual total assessmeots by policy; this is something you already do. Secood, maiotain operatiooal costs at existing levels through efficiencies and lower cootracto.r and supplier costs; this year, however, we are go.ing to. maintain costs at zero. Third, reveoue minus operations equals capital funding; ooe of the po.licies we are asking you to consider, and if you wo.uld like add a cash reserve, we can do. that. Fourth, all capital projects are to be considered subject to fund availability, because, as you saw, if you have a bad year, tIlere could be a 10 percent deficieocy capture. We stress that approval of capital expeoses is always subject to. fund availability, so always keep tIlat in mind. MR. MOFFATT: I wo.uld not increase the yearly assessment that 2 percent in the first year, yo.u know, because maybe it is two years, who knows. CHAIRMAN LEVY: We are oot going to 2 percent no.w anyway, are we? MR. MOFFATT: It was just reflected in there. CHAIRMAN LEVY: He was just showing us what -- I think he is going to. leave it... That is the plan. He is just showing us -- MR. GmSON: There yo.u go. He said it. MR. PETTY: And I am go.ing to take out this, because I broke out the streetlights, the ad valorem from assessments. You were considering policy. I have to get yo.u back to policy. There is that box. If this is a ballpark area, we will start building on it, and we expect changes to happen at our next meeting and our next meeting until you adopt it and we submit it, but it gives us the ability to start seoding the paper. MR. MOFFATT: How abo.ut calendar? MR. PETTY: Calendar, we have this. Let me start first with Co.llier Co.unty. Collier County wants as preliminary budget, basically, within the next ten. What we are going to send them -- what we sent them last year was a copy o.flast year's budget the year before. So we said, guys, this is the closest we can get. We have oo.t finished o.ur process yet. They go, fme, we just oeed to know. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Get thinking. MR. PETTY: Exactly. So this year, we may be able to give them a little bit more info, but we cao always use last year's budget, should we be working an this still, and it's not ready to be submitted, but the Co.unty does waot it done by -- Pelicao Bay wrap up, as needed, is scheduled for Moo day, June 1. 993 -.......-.. -_.,-,~ Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 820 t Aorill. 2009 Kyle, do. yo.u have anything else about the budget office? Aod other than that, they would like to have it in April, if yo.u do. no.t mind. MR. MOFFATT: The June I date means what? MR. PETTY: That is when we will be before the budget co.mmittee with our draft and presentation, aod typically, after tIlat, there is only one other meeting and that is witll the Co.unty Commission. MR. LUKASZ: June 1 st is when we wrap it up with the County Manager and they start preseoting -- preparing the hard copy that goes to tile Bo.ard of County Co.mmissioners abo.ut mid June. MR. PETTY: And tile oext calendar date we would have is with the County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN LEVY: We have to. get -- the who.le Board has to approve the budget. So what meeting- MR. PETTY: We would like to have that by that June 1 meeting. CHAIRMAN LEVY: What Bo.ard meeting are we going to -- the prio.r Board meeting? MR. PETTY: May 6. MR. GIBSON: May 6. MR. PETTY: It wo.uld be May 6, our next Bo.ard meeting, or it wo.uld be a special meeting that we would have to. ask them to do because the schedule is June 1st. MR. GIBSON: We have another meeting 00 the 27th. CHAIRMAN LEVY: So, will we at least try to. have it ready for the next Bo.ard meeting so we do. no.t need a special meeting? Can we try to. do that? MR. PETTY: Sir, we can. We think, depending o.n what the committee directs us to do, we think we are close. We have get your objectives o.f keep costs at zero. We have kept the assessments flat and level. We have what we think is a reaso.nable capital plan coocept that you can carry fo.rward with the Foundation and the residents. The rest is basically, are you set to take advantage of efficiencies such as the mulch, the outside offices, and anything else that may come to your atteotion, and I think we are. So., subject to. how much more detail you all want to go. through, we think we are in a fair spot. MR. MOFFATT: Does the County see the capital plan? MR. PETTY: The five-year capital plan? No, sir. They will see the capital in the budget. MR. MOFFATT: The one here? 994 . ~..."-_.~ __~,.,,,....h .~---.~... "'-'_. 161 1 820 ! Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting Aorill. 2009 MR. PETTY: Yes. And they see that anyway. They see the 1.816. They have seen it as a carry forward for projects or a restricted carry forward for a specific fund like streetlights, and we are go.ing to have to ask the County Co.mmissioners to approve a lot of this mo.ney go.ing into. these particular capital projects, because we are jumping acro.ss funds. CHAIRMAN LEVY: That is like Fund Ill. MR. PETTY: Do. not po.int that o.ne out. CHAIRMAN LEVY: That is right. MR. MOFFATT: John, let me ask you, we will have a hard copy of this later this week? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFATT: I believe that we should schedule a meeting for April 27 as Geo.ff suggested. If we are going to try to approve this at the May meeting, we probably need ano.ther meeting in April. MS. WOMBLE: May I suggest somethiog? Maybe we could meet that day that we are meeting for the management review, aod straight through the meeting the fo.llo.wiog Monday, just meet the week before. MR. MOFFATT: I'm just thinking, I don't think ooe more meeting before we get to the -- MR. PETTY: Excuse me. MR. MOFFATT: ...is going to. ... MR. PETTY: June 1 is when it must go. to. the County Manager. MR. MOFFATT: We have oot -- I think we want to get into same details of some of the line items, perhaps. MR. GIBSON: I like your idea better o.f April 21. MR. PETTY: Mr. Moffatt, is this-- MR. MOFFATT: April 21-- it is actually going to. be April 20. MS. McCAUGHTRY: It will probably be Monday-- MR. GIBSON: That is fine. MR. PETTY: I think a suggestioo, if I am hearing correctly, is that this co.mmittee wo.uld go thro.ugh a special meeting versus having the full Bo.ard go through a special meeting. MR. GIBSON: Yes, more productive. MR. PETTY: If that is your directio.n, please tell staff. We will go ahead and lobby, make sure you are scheduled for there, check 00 room availability and the rest. If you select that day today, I cannot give you any guarantee that that date is go.od. We end up lobbying anyway. So. we will have Mary take care of it and we will get it dooe. 995 -.--- -~ "'~.- "~---'- .~.~.".,-" Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting 161 11820 ~ ADrilt. 2009 CHAIRMAN LEVY: I prefer the afternoon, Mo.nday Tuesday or Thursday. MR. PETTY: June I is what day? Is that a Wednesday, by aoy chance? MS. McCAUGHTRY: June I? MR. GIBSON: It is a Monday. MR. MOFFATT: Our Board meeting is June 3. MR. PETTY: I was ho.ping it was an a Wednesday or --I was hoping it was an the same day as our Board meeting. Maybe we could kill two. birds with ooe sto.ne, because we usually do no.t have to show up at the County uotil the afternooo or evening. We may have been able to put them all on the same day. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Excuse me. We are going to try for Monday morning. So we co.uld do this Monday afternoon, so yo.u will be free right after that, and Monday afternoon fits Mike better. CHAIRMAN LEVY: Mo.oday morning, does tIlat invo.lve the whole Board? MR. MOFFATT: No. MR. PETTY: Let me walk you through tile process. If we are go.ing to try to do it this coming Monday, we do. not have enough time to advertise this without getting a couple of raised eyebrows. I am going to. suggest to you that yo.u recess the meeting, not adjo.urn, to. a time, date and place certain, and before yo.u do that, we are go.ing to run down the hall very quick and see if we can get this roo.m 00 that day. MS. WOMBLE: 00 April 20? That is more than a week. MR. PETTY: I tho.ught yo.u said this coming Monday. MS. McCAUGHTRY: 00 April 20, on a Mooday. MR. PETTY: Never mind. MR. GIBSON: Good solution to a problem we do oat have. MR. MOFFATT: Do you think that just one more meeting is going to. do. it before we go to tile Bo.ard fo.r approval? CHAIRMAN LEVY: We are going to have two.. MR. MOFFATT: Did I hear you say you could no.t make it? MR. GffiSON: No, I will not be here on April 27. The date has been 00 my caleodar for quite same time. I will be up in Orlando. That is not to say that yo.u would no.t have a quo.rurn, particularly if you get ward to Dallas that he has to. be at the meeting. CHAIRMAN LEVY: I co.uld make April 20, and then maybe we will not need April 27. 996 N"~ ."._,....,,-"~,,~- "",,...__~_.,'~..._.,"_",,,~,_;,,,_w,,...__. 16 I 1 820 i Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting ADrift. 2009 MR. PETTY: Do not forget that we can also get him by telephone if he would like to. stay involved io this very entertaining pro.cess. MR. MOFFATT: Was that directed at Geo.ff'? MR. PETTY: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEVY: What is your schedule for April 27? MR. GIBSON: I could call yo.u. Possibly. It is go.ing to be tough. We have 24 guys go.ing to Orlando. far 3 days of golf. CHAIRMAN LEVY: If we met on April 20, we might not need another meeting. If we oeed another meeting, we can check schedules. MR. PETTY: What we're hoping is that when you get the first draft ofthe budget, it won't be every page, but it will be most of the budget book, that you would you take notes, make commeots, and give ideas, so at the oext meeting we can discuss them. Whatever yo.u direct staff to do, we will do. And theo yo.u have o.ne more meeting where yo.u see the results of what yo.u asked staff to do.. If the results are amenable, we go and deliver. MR GIBSON: I have no.t been around. I think we are going into a much thorough detail with this committee than we have io prior receot times, perhaps. MR. MOFFATT: It sounds that way. MR. GIBSON: I mean, I do not think we have anything to be embarrassed about here. We are do.ing our jobs, I think. MR. PETTY: I think you got more than that going to the Board. Keeping costs at zero? MR. GIBSON: That is what the bottom line is. And theo that is where, as you say, staff takes over. We have given you your marching orders, and it happeos. MR. PETTY: Yes. MR. GIBSON: Until we get squawks from the community that says, hey, this is no.t as nice as it should be, then, okay, fme, we are going to increase the fees. MR. PETTY: Maybe that's done well, and has established itself as being equal to or better than the some of the last budget committees o.fthe last three or fo.ur years. 997 ",",-.". - ~'-"~~ -, - '-.,' 1llIl~_1I 1. -'^" ' . ~,",.". -,"'." ~- - PeUcan Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meetiog 16 I 1 B 2 0 I Aorill.2009 MS. WOMBLE: Absolutely... MR. PETTY: If we could ask you all to consider the policy direction that you have before you. Cao you give that to staff? Can we go forward with this capital thing for five years? MR. GIBSON: Does it have to be a mo.tion? I have no. problem. MR. PETTY: We can take direction from yo.u, because it is a draft, if you waot to make it a policy for publication, we can do it that way. If that's your direction, just give us a no.d. MR. GIBSON: Just call it policy direction. MR. MOFFATT: Fine. CHAIRMAN LEVY: That's go.od. MR. PETTY: We will mo.ve forward with that concept. Thank yo.u. Then would you like to stay here any longer? MR. MOFFATT: No.. ADJOURN CHAIRMAN LEVY: Motio.n to adjo.urn the meeting. MR. GIBSON: Seco.nd. CHAIRMAN LEVY: All in favor. MR. MOFFATT: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. MR. DALLAS: Aye. MS. WOMBLE: Aye. MR. PETTY: Thank you all very much. There bein no rther business, the meetin . ~IL h" ~ Mlchae evy, C arrman Transcript prepared on behalf of Grego.ry Reporting Services, Inc. by Elizabeth Broo.ks; and edited by Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant, Pelican Bay Services Division. 998 161 ~:!.~~~ f~.E.CE\VED Henning TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE Coyle - ~ JUN 1 9 2009 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION Coletta -,/ MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE '. ., ., ComrnissiorH'!f!' Naples, Florida - March 23, 2009 .j(JdTO 0\ !"A)l~ntJ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee, having cooducted business herein, met on this date at the Hammock Oak Center, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members preseot: Mat)' Anne Womble, Chairwoman Jerry Moffatt Geoff Gibsoo Also Preseot: Jack Curran, Collier County Purchasing Dept.; Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager and Mat)' McCaugbtty, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approve Minutes of 1-26-09 and 02-12-09 Meetings 3. Audience Participatioo 4. Organizational Meeting with Jack Curran to Receive Bids 5. Co.mmittee Requests 6. Audience Comments 7. Adjourn ROLLCALL CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mat)', we are all present as are Jack Curran and Kyle Lukasz, and you. MS. MCCAUGHTRY: Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 26. 2009 MINUTES CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. We oeed to approve the minutes o.f January 26. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of January 26,2009, of the Pelican Bay Service Divisioo Board Committee for Management Review? MR. MOFFATT: I move. MR. GillSON: I read them through and they are fine. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Is there a second? MR. GillSON: I seco.nd. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. All in favor? MR. MOFFATT: Aye. MR. GillSON: Aye. Misc. Corres: Date: 89 Item#: . pies to: _.".,_._,.,~,'., '-- --.,,. .. _.~. ~~..,-,~,~- 'MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 It1 O~ ,.r 2 MARqI 23. 2009 Mr. Jerry Moffatt moved, Mr. Geoff Gibson seconded, and tile Committee approved untllJimously the JanutUY 26, 2009 meednN minutes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. Opposed? Okay. Passed. That ooe's good. All right. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 12.2009 MINUTES CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And we also have the minutes to. approve from the February 12 meeting, and I believe that was the real quick one that we had? All right. May I have a motion to approve the meeting an February 12th minutes? MR. MOFFA IT: I move that the minutes o.fFebruary 12 be approved. MR GIBSON: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? MR MOFFATT: Aye. MR GIBSON: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. So approved. Okay. Mr. Jerry Moffatt moved, Mr. Geoff Gibson secmlded tllJd tile Committee appl'Oved ulUlllimously the FebrlUlry 12, 2009 meeting minutes. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Any Audieoce participation? No? All right, let's move 0.0. SCORING OF BIDS WITH JACK CURRAN. COLLIER COUNTY PURCHASING AGENT CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We no.w will discuss the bids that we received with Mr. Curran. Mr. Curran, may I give yo.u the floor? MR CURRAN: Thank yo.u, Madam Chair. I meotioned in an e-mail that we seot out 138 notices to management finns interested and requesting a packet. Sixty-six o.f them downloaded our packet, reviewed, or asked questions. Three vendors sent us what we call a "00 response bid" due to time co.nstraints and commitments. They said that they co.uld oot match our bids. We received four true applicants, which is very good. I do oo.t believe that we have ever had that many inquiries ever, fur this positio.n, so this is encouraging. 90 _.~.<'.v ---__111 -_.<'"-~,,...",....._-'- ... ..... +~V~ . MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 18-20 .':1 MARCH 23. 2009 I reviewed the propo.sals and verified the firms made declaration statemeots, no conflicts of interest, and proper insurance. One firm claimed local vendor preference, but he had no license, so I could oot ascertain if he was qualified. As it turns out, the firm applying does have a license, is qualified., and one o.f the four firms listed. All this means is that the local vendor preference awarded firm with the proper credentials will receive teo points. Otherwise, the non-local, or unqualified firms are running a straight 90 points right off the bat. Of the propo.sed finns, there are four that you have decided to co.nsider and we will review their applicatioos today. There are two ways we can proceed:. One is you can take the finns' proposals, review them, and we can meet again in approximately ten days. At that time, you can decide on your "short-list" and which finns that you would like to schedule a presentation; you can schedule all four or, narro.w it do.wo by ruling out the firm(s) that you do not wish to consider. Based upon their score, a firm will be ruled-out. The remaining finns will be 00 yo.ur "short list" and I can arrange for those finns to make their presentations on a date that the Bo.ard determines. Alternatively, the Committee can decide to read these today and we can set up a meeting later for the finns' presentatio.ns and whether you would like to schedule them for the same day. Normally, what I do with the presentations is schedule ooe far 45 minutes, the panel takes a break, and the oext one comes in for 45 minutes and then tile committee takes another break. We continue until all firms have had their chance to. make their preseotations. At the end of the last presentation, the co.mmittee sits dowo and makes a final selectioo and ranks them No. I, No.2, etc. on dawn the line. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: As I recall, we were charged with soliciting or selecting a top number, and then presenting them to the entire Board. I believe that is how we need to. go about this. MR CURRAN: Okay. Either way is fine. No.rmally, wheo the group short-lists a firm as No. 1 and No.2, it is usually the No. I that we take to the Board. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Automatically. MR CURRAN: And recommend that the Board approve the award for the No.. I veodor, If I understand correctly, I believe that you said you would like the finns' presentations to be before the entire Bo.ard. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR. CURRAN: Either way, we can set dates that the Board and firms are available. Do you wish to proceed with a short-list of two., three, or fo.ur finns to go. to. the Board? MR. MOFFATT: I am not sure we can answer that until we lo.ok at the proposals. 91 ".~..-..< .~._- "_.~,..'" > ~ ',~" --. ,,-,,'...... 161 1 820 I MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMI'ITEE MEETING MARCH 13.1009 MR. GillSON: I agree with Jerry. How do you feel? Yo.u are the expert in this area. MR. CURRAN: Well, my standard belief is that you sho.uld take ten days, but shorter or longer worlcs. What I am asking is that this Committee review the proposal and advise me of the firms you would like to see make presentations. If you think tIlere are some problems there that really does not meet o.ur expectations, and you say, you know, I'm not going to score them high, then when we get to.gether, we can say, let's sho.rt-list and we'll take the top two or three to the Board. There may be certain characteristics that you are looking for that yo.u just do no.t see, or they are oot what you want We can short-list them out and that is sort of like culling the field so you are sending the top to your full Bo.ard to see which one of those win. Nevertheless, you really need to look at these and see if they all meet your expectations and that that they have the experience that you want. Each firm provided a cost estimate and they run the gamut, so let us look at the cost. MR. MOFFA IT: Any costs exceeding the cap require approval by the the Commissio.ners? MR.. CURRAN: Curreody the policy is anything over $50,000 the Commissioners need to approve. MR.. MOFFATT: All right Do any of these exceed $50,000? MR.. CURRAN: Yes, they do, but some are also based 00 an hourly rate. If some o.f them do no.t have that many hours, they will not have that dollar figure. Some of them are stating they want to utilize a staff of three assistants and they can be cut aut and eliminated. These are only estimates and neither side is "locked in". We asked the firms what they would estimate it wo.uld cost, based. on their experience and what they read in their packets. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Do yo.u have a form that we can utilize to. do this, and tIlen wheo we get back together again we can review it? MR. CURRAN: Yes. I receotIy hired a new technician, still learning the ropes, and she is trying hard. but I think that she fo.rgot to. give them to me, so I will have to send it to you. Here is the scoring sheet. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: WeU,just e-mail it to us. MR. GillSON: I think that it is a good idea to have a comment fonn. MR.. CURRAN: It is. We call it a "scoring sheet" and it lists all the categories that we base o.ur scoring. Nonnally, what I reco.mmeod is that you fill them out in pencil, so that when you have yo.ur final meeting, after discussion, you can change them, as necessary. I will bring yo.u a fresh set on the day of the meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: If you could please e-mail those. 92 ..- ~-,~._-~~>..~ . ... MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 B2J) , MARCH 23. 2009 MR. CURRAN: I apologize because I assumed that everything was ready, but I did oat check, so again I apo.logize. None of these companies had a "bumie," which is good.. A bumie is an evaluation system the County started about six years ago. Every year, at the end of a coo tract, the group working with that person wo.uld evaluate the service they received; like Kyle has a contract out, he would do. a "bumie", an evaluatio.o of that service. Most people assume, wheo we say "bumie", we're talking ifs a bad evaluatioo. It's not oecessarily true, but they are supposed to submit put them in whether they're good or bad, and it seems like they only use it when it's bad. The vendor also gets to respond back. In this case, there were 00 "bumies". That is the good part. If they did good. work and they did work far the County, we have 00. record of it, but I will get the score sheets to yo.u. MR. GIBSON: As a suggestio.n, Mary Anne, if I may chirp up here. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Please. MR. GIBSON: It seems like we are having this meeting to. schedule another meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR. CURRAN: Yes, that is all that this meeting is. MR. GIBSON: We have the Board meeting 00 the April I at 1 :00. We have a 3 :30 budget meeting. Rather than wipe out another day out o.f our lives or carve one up, perhaps the mo.rning of the first. So that we just call it a PBSD day and get some of this stuff o.ut of the way. This is only a suggestioo; I am flexible to a certain degree. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Is there a way to get a room, do. yo.u think, Mary, maybe upstairs or something? MS. McCAUGHTRY: I will have to check with Margaret. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay MR. GIBSON: Do. you understand what I am saying? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR. GffiSON: The morning, since the day is already sho.t for me. MR. MOFFA IT: Now, when you say mo.ming, what are we talking about doing? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, the three ofus will get to.gether. MR. GIBSON: We have a Bo.ard meeting, yes, at I :00. We have a budget meeting review at 3:30. Why oot meet with you in the morning. 93 ",.-- ""- - ~-- 161 1820 t MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITfEE MEETING MARCH 23. 2009 MR CURRAN: That is fine. I was oo.t sure that you wanted to have your veodo.rs come in then. MR MOFFATT: I agree with Geoff, let us pick a date and then work from there. That gives us six days, one, two., three, four, five, six days to read these and come up with an o.pinion. MR. CURRAN: That is where I was go.iog. Same of the vendo.rs told me lhat the first week o.f April is out; they are unavailable because they are o.ut o.fto.wn. . CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, this would be a perfect time for us to have a meeting and discuss, amongst us three, and ifwe can, cut down the ownber offirms to two. Of, ifnot, then we will call yo.u and say, "hey, Jack, could yo.u get these people back here far a presentation?" MR. CURRAN: That works and is not an issue. I was more concerned if I had to get the vendo.rs to that meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR MOFFATT: Well, we do not kno.w who. we want to consider until we watch these. MR CURRAN: I brought my calendar. I am off on April 1, but my calendar is free and clean. What time would you like to make it? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That will be up to finding a room, because we must abide by the Sunshine Law, so we have to meet in the sunshine, in public, and pro.vide proper oo.tice. MS. McCAUGHTRY: I would think it is probably not going to be too much ofa problem, being as they have us for the rest of the day anyway, but what time would you like me to. try for if it is open in the morning? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Will morning work for everyone? MR. GIBSON: You pick it. We can meet and then go to lunch somewhere. We canno.t meet at lunch, I kno.w. MR MOFFATT: We can go. to. lunch. Wejustcanootdiscussthis. MR GIBSON: That is true. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Shall we try for I I? Does that give us enough time? MR MOFFATT: That should be eno.ugh. MR. GIBSON: I do not know. MR MOFFA IT: 10:301 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It all depends 00 how we feel about the iofonnation. 10:30 is pro.bably better. 94 ....-...., ... ._" -- ---~.._.,,' ... , - . MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMI'ITEE MEETING 161 1820 {"'~ MARCH 23.2009 MS. McCAUGHTRY: I will try for 10:30 a.m. on Aprill, and see what we can get. CHAlRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. MR. MOFFATT: Wheo can you find out? Maybe Margaret is here now? MS. McCAUGHTRY: I can check now and see if she is here. KYLE LUKASZ: I mean, I do not know where her office is. MR. GillSON: Well, I tell you, we will earn our money 00 the first, woo't we? MR. MOFFATT: Yes, that is April Fool's Day. It is somewhat appropriate. CHAlRWOMAN WOMBLE: That really is too appropriate. MR. MOFFATT: Jack, is this a typical submissio.n, this form? Do you have a hard copy? MR. CURRAN: Yes. MR. MOFFA IT: There is not a Io.t of material in here. MR. CURRAN: No. What they oonnally do is... MR. MOFFATT: You have all your boilerplate crap, but... MR. CURRAN: Well, what they are doing is signing the fonns and sending them back. I believe that you should be interested in ooe through six, I think. It is supposed to be like what we asked for in our tabs: business plan, summary, Co.st estimate, what are they going to do or haw are they go.ing to do the job, and that is why we went to. the CD. You will see on the CD, some of them have some colo.rful brochures and pictures. We discouraged that as much as possible in the book, because we are looking far what services they can provide. MR. MOFFATT: Oh. So there is more 00 the CD than there is here? MR. CURRAN: There could be, but it is oot supposed to be. They are supposed to be identical, but I viewed some of them and they seemed different. MR. MOFFATT: All right. MR. CURRAN: Some of them will put it 0.0 a nice letterhead. Some o.f them will just submit as o.ne o.f them did, it is almost like handwritten ootes. MR. MOFFATT: So wbo. do we have here that you looked at? We read Dorrill. MR. CURRAN: You have District Offices, LLC.; Dorrill Management Group; RG. Harris Construction Corporation; and SKS Co.nsulting. 95 --".,~--~~.- ....-_.._-~,_._-, ^...~.. 161 1 B20~ MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMI'ITEE MEETING MARCH 23. 2009 MR GillSON: The construction companies actually do. this kind of work? MR CURRAN: According to. tile companies yes. One o.f the constructioo companies came to our pre-proposal meeting. He stated that he has a construction company and manages the complexes that he builds. He was the ooe that has the Io.cal veodor preference, because he is out of Marco Island. MR MOFFATT: Marco, yes. Dorrill should have local veodo.r preference. I believe that his office is at the Strand, or maybe he does a Io.t of work there. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, oow, it do.es say Naples, Flo.rida, Strand Court. MR. CURRAN: Yes. However, in one o.fthe tabbed section, they are supposed to submit all of their documentatioo. There are two qualifying factors for local veodor prefereoce. One, they oeed to submit the fonn to. became qualified; and two, they oeed to have their license at least one year prio.r to applying with us, which, ifhe is at the Strand, and has been in business for a year, theo he may have applied. The box far local vendor preference is oat checked. He does have so.mething here, but it is dated. MR MOFFATT: Established business in Collier County, 1999. MR CURRAN: And he did have this oo.tarized, so. that means yes, he does have local vendor preference. MR.. GillSON: Eveo though he did not check the box. MR.. CURRAN: Yes. My assistant said that she gave me everything for the next meeting. She is a meeting ahead of us. It seems like that is all I have beeo doing fo.r the last couple of meetings is apologizing. MR.. MOFFATT: I was wondering if this is typical of what we are going to see on the disk. If so, it is not going to take that much time to review it. MR.. CURRAN: It really is. The only thing you are going to find 00 the disk is that some of tile proposals are organized and some are not, so yo.u may have to search everywhere to. find information. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. MR. GillSON: Is it fair to. ask yo.u, Jack, in yo.ur pro.fessional o.pinion, having looked at all of these, do any jump out at yo.u as, "boy, this guy or this gal, whatever, this group has their stuff together"? MR.. CURRAN: It wo.uld be a fair questio.n, but I canno.t answer it because I really did not read them. I reviewed them far the required documeotatio.n and pricing, but I did no.t make a judgmeot. I do believe yo.u have a couple good ones in there. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Excuse me, Madam Chair. Margaret Evans said she is full on April I. She told Kyle that April 96 ",.__"",._x_ -,~,~- - . MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 1820 ;.;, MARCH 23.2009 2 in the afternoon is available. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I wonder about 100 Commons. Possibly we co.uld get lucky and reserve their community room. MS. McCAUGHTRY: I believe that they turned that meeting room into. something else? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, because I meet with the strategic planning all the time. They do have a desk in there, but it is oot necessary. MR LUKASZ: I'll go tell Margaret. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thanks, Kyle. MR MOFFATT: Where are yo.u asking? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: At the Commons. MR GffiSON: That would be fine. MR MOFFATT: Yes. The Fo.undation budget meets there all the time. MR. CURRAN: I am open that morning. MR. GffiSON: It is important to keep it on that day just because my calendar is not very fleXIble right oow. I did oot come dawn here to stay all day in meetings. I want to. play some gaIt: We already have several Baaed meetings scheduled. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, if you were oot so dam good at what you do, you would be in fine shape. MR. CURRAN: I tried to. mentioo in my e-mail that I read them, and I really think, when I did a quick:, cursory check:, is that you have some very professional ooes more so. than we've seen in awhile. MR MOFFA IT: That is good to hear. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR CURRAN: And I just finished another, not a management one, but it was a professiooal one, and we go.t better people. I am coocerned that they hear the name Pelican Bay and they say, "Let's raise that price right up." So. look the cost, what you want to pay and we will negotiate dollars at the eod. That is their estimate and we will negotiate. If they give us a good price, we proceed. If they do not, we go. to the next one because yo.u are going to be content with No.1, but if No.. 2 is someooe that we can live with, tIlat is okay, too. MR. MOFFATT: I guess that Dorrill is doing business with other communities in the Co.unty. 97 ""'~..- --~ - ..-. <..-- 161 1820 \ .1 MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 23. 2~ MR. CURRAN: Yes. MR. GIBSON: He mentio.os Pelican Marsh. MR. MOFFATT: Is that acceptable to. the County? I mean, the reasoo I ask is I recall his name going back to. Stadium Naples, and the Commissioners that weot to jail because of the kickbacks and all of that. MR. CURRAN: I have heard the stories, but that was before my time with the County. MR. MOFFA IT: He was involved in that. MR. CURRAN: Yes. He personally was oat fo.und to be involved in anything and he no longer has ties to the Co.unty. The first time I met him was when he brought me his proposal. MR. MOFFA IT: But if he is doing work far these other co.mmunities, the Strand, Pelican Marsh and Lely, he must be acceptable to the County. MR. CURRAN: Yes. MR. MOFFA IT: I mean, oo.thing has been tainted, so to speak. MR. CURRAN: No, if there were an issue, he would have been disqualified. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We bave not looked at this. This is his management company, but would he assign someo.oe else to be in Pelican Bay with us as an administrato.r? MR. CURRAN: I do not know, unless it is in his proposal. That is always a request we can make. MR. GIBSON: Yes, he has gat three people listed CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I saw that I am wooderiog ifmaybe that is ho.w he would handle it, because I can tell yo.u Jim Mudd is no.t going to be very thrilled with having to. work with him. MR. CURRAN: I understand, but... MR. MOFFA IT: Well, he will be working with him. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, not oecessarily, not if someooe is covering for him. MR. GIBSON: Can we check with Jim? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR. CURRAN: Well, no., we cannot. You cannot talk to. him now about these proposals. My Director can talk with him and give yo.u an answer. MR. GIBSON: That cootradicts what I believe we would oeed. We are charged with taking the responsibility. 98 "--< ,_~~~._.._..__..,.. ___0.. ". ~._".- MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMrITEE MEETING 161 1 820 MARCH 23. 2009 MR. CURRAN: No, you have informatio.n that was provided today at this meeting that I call charging the jury. If you have direct personal knowledge, theo all of that is very acceptable to bring to the meeting to help us with the selection. Nevertheless, ifwe do not have direct knowledge, it cannot be bro.ugbt up. MR. MOFFATT: Yes. I have no direct knowledge just from reading the newspaper and talkiog to people. MR. CURRAN: No, I understand. See, when I got the packages, I was told who. he was, and that was my first thing with it. I was told that it went through the court system, and the investigation, and he was absolved of evetything, MR. MOFFATT: Yes. MR. CURRAN: For those reasons and the fact that he is working with the other companies, I see 00 collusion. Now, wheo it comes dowo to personalities or individuals saying, "we do no.t want to work with him," that is something I really do oat know the answer, but I can find out if it will cause us a problem.. My coocem is that the three of you, with your Board, take the infonnatio.o that you are given about each firm, and decide upoo who you think is the best. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, that is part of it, though, Jack. MR. CURRAN: Yes, it is. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Because if they cannot work with the County, then that is really a primary part of what they oeed to do. MR. CURRAN: I am pretty sure that there is 00. restriction that they cannot work with the County. MR MOFFATT: ButaCDD... MR. CURRAN: I am going to check with my boss and I will get an answer far you by tomorrow. Yo.u will have it 00 e-mail. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. MR. MOFFATT: What does CDD represent? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Community development district. MR CURRAN: Organized by the state. MR. MOFFATT: But he would probably work with the County; he has got six listed He would probably work with the County on that. MR. CURRAN: When the County goes to Lely or Pelican Marsh and they discuss landscaping, dollars and grants, ifhe is managing their money, then his firm is participating. 99 .....~._.~.'.__...~..- --.-- .,-... 'm_~__."'_~ MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITfEE MEETING 161 1 B20~'~ MARCH 13.1009 MR. MOFFATT: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: This will be interesting. MR. CURRAN: I never said it was going to be easy. I said we are going to have some fun. MR. MOFFA IT: They listed two different base rates, which I do no.t understand. MR. CURRAN: Yes, I think inside he explains. MR. GffiSON: He bas o.ne for $4,700 a month; ooe for $49,000; and then he wants to give us three months free is my understanding. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is my take. MR. CURRAN: You need to. get close with the do.llars. I just placed a bid on the sheet and I had a veodor bid back giving me a contract renewal price and swore that was the best he could do, so we put it on the open DUlIket, and lowered his own price. MR. GffiSON: He was the County manager for ten years. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR.. CURRAN: That is when all that trouble started. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It sure was. I lived through it. Is this okay, since he's giveo us refereoces, and so have the others, I'm sure, to contact the people who have giveo us references MR. CURRAN: We are already doing that for you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yon are doing it for us? MR. CURRAN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. MR. CURRAN: They are due back to me the 27th. the references. Nonnally, what I do is wheo I get them all back, I will send them to you electronically as a PDF file and you can download it and theo you'll have them right there. Any questions that you see on there, you can get right back to me, but it saves everybody from having to make pho.ne calls. When I first came here, what we used to do is we would assign the committee members each to have a vendor to call all the references, and call them and then report back. Ho.wever, we found if we just go. and do this, it goes much quicker for all o.fus. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No.w I get it. Well, I am looking forward to going through these. MR. CURRAN: And I definitely will have an answer for you tomo.rro.w, because I will see Steve and I know he will call 100 ....'",.. "-,,'-'--" 161 1 820 , . MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 23. 2009 Mudd and he will caU Jeff to make sure that there is no issue. He does kno.w. When I say he, Steve Carnell, my boss, he does know that this fellow did proposals, and he saw him walk in the door. When he left, he asked me what he was doing. I told him and he just said "011, okay". MR. GffiSON: If a meeting room is the only thing preventing us from having a meeting the moming of April I , why co.uld we no.t try fo.r one of the rooms at the club? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We could. MR. LUKASZ: The Commo.os may be available. She could not get a bald of whom we need to ask. MR. GffiSON: If that is available, fine. I think we aught to. keep it on common ground, but we could use the south dining room or that private room, I am sure. MS. McCAUGHTRY: We can also use the Pelican Bay Services offices, since there are only three o.f you an this committee. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: There will be room in the conference room. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We will have room. MS. McCAUGHTRY: So. we will definitely set it up an April I at 10:30 a.m. It wiUjust be a matter of location, o.kay? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Perfect MR. CURRAN: The big issue with what is going to. happeo today is the three of you may speak about this as long as I am present If I am oat present, then please do not meet, unless it is an open meeting. Everything is to be, from the outside world in refereoce to this, is to be :funneled to. me to. yo.u, and any questions you have, you fimnel to me. What I oormally suggest is if you have questio.ns that you seod an e-mail to me, copying the other Committee members and vice-versa. That way, you will all see the questio.n and answer. Therefo.re, we are all in a loop. Because of the sunshine law, they think it's collusion if you just happen to sit down and say, you know, how you doiog 0.0 this fellow here, what do you like about this guy. I need to be there for that. I will not say anything, but I just need to be sitting there. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. MR. CURRAN: It works well for u.s. I have two speakers in the conference room. Once we start reco.rding, we will co.mplete the who.le process, the public speakers, and everything; it works out nice. We are going to try to stay out here for this whole process. Therefore, we do not have to worry about coming again. I tried to get you in once and all three of yo.u could no.t 101 "'_._"'"'_'"'_0>_''''''''' ..,._-~-- . - ',.,"~.~.,_.. MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 B20~ MARCH 23. 2009 come. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Kyle is a godseod for us. MR. CURRAN: We were fine. Kyle did get the answers we needed The same thing, I have to go. a little further, the same thing applies with Jo.hn Petty. You can talk to. John about anything, with the exception of this proposal. I kno.w he is pro.fessiooal, neither of yo.u should discuss any part of the process. It puts him in a funny spot, but it also violates the Sunshine Law, because it gives the impressioo of impropriety and collusion. All of the vendors have been told oot to contact any Board members, but that they need to work only through Purchasing and me. If they contact any o.r all o.f you, please let me kno.w, because they will be immediately disqualified, but they know that It is looking for favors and an edge, and I am sony, but free lunches are not allo.wed. MR. CURRAN: That is aU there is oow. When we get together 00 April 1 we can decide which way you want to go. MALE VOICE: And you will get us the fonn tomorrow? MR. CURRAN: I will get you the form, yes. MR. MOFFATT: I mean. maybe there is only one qualified bidder from o.ur standpoint or.. . MR. CURRAN: That is correct. MR. GillSON: Or two. MR. CURRAN: Like I said, I do oot really read and evaluate them because I am looking for answers to your questions. If! had to read them aU myself: I would never finish. MR. MOFFA IT: I expect you willleam a lot from discussions with the references. Usually the references are greased, and it might be nice to. pick so.mebody they work with that was no.t put down 00 the list of references. Mo.reover, when will we have the benefit of anything that your department learns from those reference discussions? MR. CURRAN: Unless there is something that I believe is extremely urgent that you should kno.w immediately, yo.u will most likely know by April 27 or 28. MR. GillSON: Of March? MR. CURRAN: Yes. We sent the request to them already electronically. We asked tIlem ten questio.ns. We get them back. We review them. If we see so.mething catch our eye, we go. back and call them on the phone. We work a little further with them and attempt to get the answers. I will follow-up with the ones that I do oot receive and I hopefully will have them aU by April 27. If oot, a day or two. later, you will have them aU. 102 ...... -_.~,~" >-~- ".,---_.' -,.,....~- 161 1 'B~O f4 'MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 13. 2009 MR. MOFFA IT: So, really, a week from today? MR. CURRAN: Mast likely. MR. MOFFA IT: I wo.uld think that would be one area where it is great to fill out a fonn and to look: nice 00 paper, but how did this firm or this individual perform in the field wheo he was in charge of community X? MR. CURRAN: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFA IT: And that, to me, would be the important MR. GmSON: Although, if they list someone as a reference... MR. MOFFA IT: They are usually greased. MR. CURRAN: Like I say, the only tiling they will list is who. they believe is their best custo.mer or have a good working relationship. I explained to them at the pre-proposal and how mandatory it is that they list their references because when the time comes to refereoce check, if they are not available, theyauto.matically lose the bid. He gave us Sarasota County, and I went up and started talking to them for some time, and it finally came out that they could oot stand the person. They were dying to get rid of him. In fact, they were going to pick my company to piggyback. So. we brought out he had a really bad reference. They gave him.. . MR. GmSON: That is exactly what I am trying to. get it If you had no.t done a thoro.ughjob o.fthat, you would have oever known. MR. CURRAN: That is true. That is true. So we will do tIlat and you will get them. If you hear a rumor about any of these folks, and you think it is something. please send me the e-mail. I will verify and get back to you. Do oot try to. do it yourselves where it could possibly get us into the sunshine law vio.lation. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, we need to do this, then, for the District Offices, LLC, and the reference check that you asked for. MR. CURRAN: Yes, yo.u can. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: This committee can or I can? MR. CURRAN: You have direct knowledge. We have already sent out the refereoces, but if there are other members of yo.ur Board that were not listed that yo.u want to fill that out, that is fine. We can get them to. fill one aut, because that is all direct knowledge like from yo.u three. They can give us a written paper for their references, and the questio.ns can be varied but we like to keep to the same thing so they do. not say I am fixing the pot. 103 -"'",-~~.- -~.- "'-- -",.. --~ ~"..,..".~.,~,--- 161 1 820 4 "MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 13. 2009 Mr. MOFFA IT: This is the fonn to. check refereoces? MR. CURRAN: Yes. And you had something in mind? MR. MOFFA IT: No. We were looking at it earlier and it did not appear to be the evaluation form. MR. CURRAN: No, it is oot. I oeed to get that far you. MR. GillSON: We did not kno.w what it was, or I did oat kno.w what it was. MR. CURRAN: We have what we call a score sheet and this fonn. I thought I was do.ing great but I do not have the score sheets. That is basically all I need to have with you is a short meeting in case you have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I have a question. Uoder the circumstances, can I fill this out for tile Board by myself or do I need the committee to help me out here? MR. CURRAN: You can do it either way. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: As the Chair, I wo.rk with tIlem more than anyooe. MR. CURRAN: In filet, each of you can do one really, because yo.u have all worked with him and it would come out in o.ur meeting. Geoff could say what he thought about when he worked with him. I did this. And then Jerry will give his thoughts, theo you; it is part of the scoring. You are going to be the main scorers. . CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Of course, this is just a reference check, so all it is, is saying... MR. MOFFATT: We oeed the wo.rksheet MR. CURRAN: Yes, the score sheet Now, the score sheet is a little bit different. It is the same size paper. It has columns and lists your seven tags, which are management, business cost, etc., and then it has the amount of points next to it. You just fill in what you feel it is worth. It is hard to go o.ver maxim~. If you give them 25 or 30, tIlat means you will have to decrease something somewhere else. MR. MOFFA IT: Jack, are we supposed to. come to a consensus at our April 1 meeting? What I was thinking was to record the presentations on DVD. Wheo I evaluate something and I say why I am valuing high or low, and Geoff says, where do you see that? It is going to be hard as hell to tell Geoffwhere I saw that, whereas, if everybody had a hard copy, I can tell him, it is right here, Geoff; see what he said. And Geoff can say, well, you are crazy, or, yes. I agree. So ifwe are supposed to co.me to a consensus, I think it will be bard to do it electronically. Maybe I am just old school. MR. CURRAN: Those can be printed out. MS. McCAUGHTRY: If any o.ne of you would like to leave yours witll me this morning, I will make hard copies fo.r all 104 -,..~.~-- -~..,- . MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 B20~ MARCH 23. 2009 of you. MR. MOFFATT: Geoff: is that where you were going too? MR. GffiSON: Yeah. The other thing that I was going to tag onto is that it is very difficult, maybe it is just my analytical abilities, but it may oat be very difficult for me to narrow it dowo from fom to. two, but I think it would be very difficult for me to get into. a final selection process from a DVD. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, even worse, if we have a conflict o.f concern, that we have no point of reference. MR. MOFFATT: That is right. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: What do we say, on that third groove in? MR. GffiSON: I would rather like to look the horse in the mouth. MR. CURRAN: Oh, yes. April!, mainly we are just going to talk. Do yo.u want all four to come give a presentatioo? And then we will do this in froot o.f them. MR. MOFFATT: Yes. MR. CURRAN: But either way, if we do it with your eotire Board, you three will oeed to fill the score sheets out. MR. GffiSON: No. problem. MR. CURRAN: And that in oot an issue. I mean, yo.u co.uld do it that day while they are making their preseotatio.os. Wheo they are dooe, if you want to have another meeting o.f this Committee, then we just fill in the score sheets, because it is the score sheets will determine whom you want. I mean, when I add it up, the No.. 1 has 89, or 90 poiots and everyooe else scares less. It is the highest scoring firm that we will offer the contract, then dowo the line. It is the oumbers that count. MR. GIBSON: It is the numbers and the scare sheet. MR. CURRAN: It really is. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. MR. CURRAN: You are allowed to change tIlem. The next meeting, mainly, we want to get together and see do you want preseotations or do you want to sho.rt list. MR. GIBSON: We should be able to do. that from the printed material, and I think that is a good idea. MS. McCAUGHTRY: I will do that. I will have these for yo.u tomorro.w moming. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Wonderful. Thank yo.u. MR. CURRAN: There is one... 105 .~.. r T --..,. .~-"'_..-. ~'_M...u.~^ ,_,,~. ,---~~ MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 A 20 '- MARCH 23. 2009 MR. MOFFATT: Send us an e-mail wheo they are ready. ~- MR. GIBSON: Yes, when they are ready. MR. CURRAN: There is 0.00 issue. When we do - and I will bring it up April!, but it is just "food far thought" at the momeot. At the presentations, I always have the presenters come in and answer a specific set of questions up front on their presentations. So in get a few questions from Geoff, a few from Jerry, a few from Mary, I send it to them, and I say, I want these ten questio.ns answered in the presentatio.o. And then the floor opens for you to ask questions. So if you want that, just put a few questions together that you think might need answering after reading the proposals. I will do generic type questions also and we will get that ready. Other than that, that is really all I oeeded your time for today. I am sorry I wasted. so much of it not getting the right stuff. MR. MOFFATT: I have a question for Kyle. You know, John is the mouthpiece in all the meetings, discussion, eveo the presentatioo he did today. How much of that is John versus him just mo.uthiog what you and yo.ur staff have dooe? MR. GIBSON: What a good question. MR.. MOFFATT: Like when the budget is dooe, I mean, who is the expert? I mean _. MR. LUKASZ: He will talk to. me about, you know, confirming cost. But putting together that presentation is all him. MR. MOFFATT: All right. But when we get the budget, bo.w much o.fthat is your work? MR. LUKASZ: Well, putting together the field operational cost, a lot of that, you know, I put that together and then go aver it with him. MR. MOFFATT: I am just trying to sort out, if we do not have John,' and we have... MR. GIBSON: Larry. MR. MOFFATT: John has the history, but does Larry know how to do it, too? I mean, do you hear 95 percent o.f what we hear at our meetings, o.r 20 percent? MR. GIBSON: Every time there is a question, we all ask Kyle. That is where I think you are going. MR. LUKASZ: I mean, many o.f tho.se issues interface with what we are doing in the field. So, yes, we have to discuss them. But John is the ooe that handles... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Kyle is the hands on day to day and Jo.hn is the politics, really, when you get down to it. That is it. MR. LUKASZ: Especially with so.me o.f tile histo.ric issues and water management He can explain the intentions of 106 -"--'.', _.,~."'~ "-....._..," "-- 161 1 820 ~ 'MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 23. 1009 management back to the early 1980's, but I cannot really put a number 00 it. It all depends on, yo.u kno.w, what it is. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do yo.u work well wi1h Mr. Petty? MR. MOFFA IT: Let us say we did not have an administrator. What would 1hat do. to your jab? What if everything that was delivered to this Board you had to do wi1hout a John? Could you do it? MR. LUKASZ: I would be able to do some o.f it, but the issues 1hat John has to deal with, say the Co.unty manager's office, and... MR. MOFFA IT: Because you do oot have the expertise? MR. LUKASZ: Well, not only 1he expertise, but being a County employee and some o.fthe issues that the Board has takeo and some o.f the positions that the Board bas taken, which rightfully so, but it puts me in a little bit of a difficult positioo being a County employee, addressing some of tho.se things at the manager's office. MR. GffiSON: Right. MR. CURRAN: It puts him in a real spot, because he technically works for the County. He bas all the expertise you are looking for, but he has to argue with his boss. MR. LUKASZ: Yeah, I can argue that part o.f it. But as far as 1he nuts and bolts of everything that goes into. the discussion and the physical work: I think you mentiooed it at one of the previous meetings of this group, you kno.w, I tend to look at it as the nuts and bolts and specific to the task to cany out. And John, or the person io that position, looks at it as more of a holistic approach to it versus, you know, I'm looking at it from how am I going to get this job done. MR. MOFFATT: Yeab. How much time do you spend with John in a week or a month or '" MR. LUKASZ: I mean, I talk to him on the phone like everyday and when he is over here for meetings, he is usually here at least ooce a week, and we spend time each of those days. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I spend that much time and more, too, a week. The Chair does. Yo.u will no.t believe it. It is a lot of effort. MR. LUKASZ: Last week, some of the stuff that John was putting together fo.r the preseotation for the budget committee and what we oeed to do for some of the fundiog that is oeeded... MR. MOFFATT; Okay. I am just trying say, that if it were not Jo.hn, and it was somebody new, is that a serio.us issue for us? I am beginning to believe that it is oot. 107 <.- '.~'~ .,.."'_._"'-,.....~,._-'" . '" -,-~,..,-,.,.-,""-" "'~-'- -- -~_., 17 V 41l111MW-"""'''-=.'''''- . MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 R20 \~ I.. MARCH 23. 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I do oo.t believe that; I believe that it is. Seriously, I really do.. Yes, because John really, as Kyle just said, historically, he has the background that comes in handy quite often. When people are about to miss-step or get on a bandwagoo that has already been done and it is a problem, John can explain why it is a problem; tell you the scieotific people to go. to., so that you can find out why it was a pro.blem. That is huge because it would take hours and hours and hours to try to research that info.nnation. He can direct you to the right people just from memory. That is one big reason. MR. MOFFA IT: But assuming Jobo was killed in an automobile accident on his way to the east coast this afternoon, we would survive, right? I think we would CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, we would have to. MR. MOFFATT: Well, ifhe came back and said, you kno.w,just run fewer operations, John was 80 percent o.fwhat we see here, that wo.uld tell me one thing. You have not told me that, but I do 001 know what the percentage bas to be. You know, even if it was 50 percent that is a significant number. All right. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, let us put it this way. Just so you hav~ this knowledge, since it is all sunshiny. When I met with the Foundatioo Chair and the President and Dave Trecker of the Property Owners' Association, I made it very clear that if for some reason, John Petty and Janice are not hired here through this process, that I recommend that the Foundation hire them. . MR. MOFFATT: Hires them? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR. MOFFA IT: As what? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Whatever they want them to be. Like as a consult, on a consult basis, because he has the knowledge that 1hey really definitely oeed at this point in time and probably going forward for a long time. And he meets with them and what he offers them is incredible as well as to us. But I cannot really give you example after example, because there are so. many. And there is so much going 00 and so many politics involved that I do not want to say, in an open fonnn. but I can assure you that he earns his keep, as does Janice. Kyle works well with them. If there is something that is important that this Board oeeds to know about, I will be informed by John Petty; he calls wheoever there is a coocem that oeeds to be addressed immediately, and I am sure he gets the same cordiality from our side. So, it is a good working relationship~ But I have to tell you, until you are tile Chair o.f this Board, you have 00 clue. Absolutely none. In fact, I am still hitting heads together on tile Strategic 108 -_. ---- ,,""""'- MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 820 MARCH 23. 2009 Planning Committee, because they simply do not understand the worth of this particular group, not just this Board, but also the Staff - the people that are out there doing everything. So it is huge, people. We have a lot of money. MR. MOFFA IT: Well, you have some very strong personalities yo.u are dealing with too, unfortunately, over there. What I consider "loose cannons." CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Some o.ftbem. Well, that is a terrible thing to say about Jack. MR. MOFFA IT: No, I am oot saying that. MR. CURRAN: Well, it is not the first time. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We are not talking about you, Jack. Not at all. Absolutely 001. We do really appreciate all the help and work that you have done for us and will continue to do, So, thank you. MR. GmSON: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So April 1, 10:30 a.m? MR. GmSON: Somewhere. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBIE: Yes, somewhere to be detennioed. MR. CURRAN: Any questions? Please send me an e-mail or call me. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. MR. CURRAN: And I can send an e-mail. MR. MOFFA IT: Do not transcribe them all. We just have three o.fthose needed. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Ob, yes, that is right. Thank you. MR. GmSON: You might not eveo have to transcribe. MS. McCAUGHTRY: I am going to download what is 00 the CD and make hard copies. MR. MOFFAlT: Make a hard copy right from tile CD ROM. 109 ,~-,,-.._-,.., .",.".,~" - ~~.~ _..,""","",-,-,. MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMI'ITEE MEETING 161 I 820 MARCH 23. 2009 MS. McCAUGHTRY: And then go tbrougb. the color ropier. because they're probably color, and you'll be good to go. MR GlBSON: Better your printer tbao my little 79.95 Costco special. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Yes. I'll e-mail you as soon as they're ready. MR GlBSON: I'll move we atljourn. MR MOFFATT: Yes, fine. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do I have a motioo that we adjo.urn? MR GlBSON: So moved. That was a motio.o. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Secood? MR. MOFFATT: Second. MR GlliSON: Now for our next meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favo.r, aye, aye, aye. MR CURRAN: Tbanksagain. Kyle, tbaokyou.. There being no further b~ for the good of the county the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11:45 a.m. 1 ! TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY OOURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC. BY JOYCE B. HOWELL FROM AN AUDIO CD AND IS A lRUE AND CORREcr RECORD TO TIlE BEST OF MY ABll...ITY AND FORMATTED BY MARY MCCAUGHlRY, RECORDING SECRETARY. 110 ...----... .--..,.-".. ".....~ ,,-" 161 1:12 v REC.E\\/EO Halas Henning JUN \ 9 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE Coyle MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE OF Colella ~ p = ., , ('.O\1\lliiSsioner5. tjoard 01 Culll.t>l . THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Naples, Florida, April 1, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Management Review Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 10:30 am in Regular Session at The Fo.undatioo Commons at 6251 Pelican Bay Blvd, Naples. Florida, with the following members present: MaIy Anne Womble, Chairwoman Jerry Moffatt Geoff Gibsoo Also Present: Jack Curran, Purchasing Department of Collier County; and Ma1y McCaugbtry, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Divisioo. AGENDA L Roll Call 2. Bid Scoring Mee1ing with CC Purchasing Agent, Jack Curran 3. Adjourn ROLL CALL CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Let's call the meeting to order. MS. McCAUGHfRY: Madam Chair, let the record show that all members of the Management Review Committee are present. t , BID SCORING ~ CHAIRWOMAN WO .. : Okay. Bid scoring sheet. How do you want to go. about this, Jack? MR CURRAN: I want to give you a set of references that we received back from each of the vendors, our proposers. MR GIBSON: Thankyou, kind sir, MR CURRAN: I have, supposedly, more coming. They did. DOt ll)ake it in by this morning when I left. So we do have some more references coming. 'The IDaio reason we called this little meeting together today is we have two choices. I know we're going to have the full board help to do the final selection of tile ~ndidates. What we were going to meet and discuss today, after you read tile proposals, if you wanted to do a score sheet today to rank your vendors, proposers, so that we can maybe go to tw~ or tbree or all four to prescot to the full board for a scoring and a final selection. That's what we're here far today, mainly to decide if yo.u want to. rank tIlem and take them all to the board, or do you just want to do the two, try to select two to go to the board? We can do a, what I call a straw vote. Based. on what you have read, you can fill the score sheet out and we can discuss it I'll take your totals, and we'll see how we turn out. Based 00 that, if you want to continue whichever direction. just let me know then. So it's kind of up to you. Anything on the reference sheets rve just given you. if you have any questions, please ask them or get a Misc. Corres: hold o.f me. Date: 111 Item#' :~CpteS to. .. -'~. ., ~--"..>.".._~-~.. -....,-.- .>--.., -..."" MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. MEE.TING 161 1~20 ., APRIL 1, 2009 CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: How do you fellows feel? Do you want to just knock it down to two.? MS. MOFFA Tf: 1 tbink there are only two to talk about CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I do, too. MS. MOFF ATf: I guess I would like to meet the ODe, only, because we know the other one. CHAIRWOMANWOMBLE: Okay. Youaresaying... MS. MOFFAIT: My top candidate, quite frankly, is Dorrill, followed by District Offices. And tile other two are just not in the ballpark. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I do.o't tbink. they're aware of what we need. MS. MOFFA IT: No. Befo.re I go any further, I would like to meet Dorrill. MR GillSON: Yon can't really pick anybody jm1 based on what they did I thought their proposal was extremely easy to digest. So was District Management. Nice, beautiful pictures o.fbirds and everything, but just for the poor guy who had to sit there in a chair and read it, both of them read very nicely. There was the print issue on.. . MR MOFF AIT: 00 Petty. Dorrill, I liked. Dorrill from the standpoint of his client list The experience he has seems much broader than Petty. Quite ftankly, fIn smprised that Petty is only a two-year old finD. And be didn't really talk about what happened before the two years. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do you realize why? MS. MOFF AIT: Pardoo me? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do you understand why it's only a two. year? MS. MOFF ATI: It didn't tell me. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, they can't, probably. He was working witll Severn Trent And Severn Trent, they were the management company for Pelican Bay Services Division Boanl. and while on their watch, possibly knowingly, someone allo.wed Cap d' Antibes to go through. And it had to be the manager at 1bat time. who was a Severo Trent employee. And there were ather issues that I Wo.o't go into., because tbis is being recoIded, but there were enough so that John decided to start his own management company. It took him a while to pull out the people that would be interested in him as a management persoo and find what he oeeded to go. forward as his own boss. And that's what bappened. He didn't agree with same of the things that were happening in the situation he was in. MS. MOFFA IT: Was he involved with the prior fino? What did you say the name was? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Severn Trent. He was with them 112 "."..,..,,,,,,, li1 ,<,_,"'~'"~"''''''''''''_'"__Al'''_','''_'-'_'' ~-..,.,._.-. .._.,._-",.~ . ". ~"...._-~ ..-.,~.. 161 1820 1 MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 1, 2009 MR CURRAN: He was one of their employees. MR GlliSON: That's S-O-V-E-R-N. MR CURRAN: S-E-V-E-R-N. In the beginning, when I we gave out all of the scopes of service, we were doing the draft, and we sbowed the quotes tbat were obtained in '07. Severn Trent and Wilson Miller were the two firms that tIley asked to quote against District Offices at tbat time. I think Wilson Miller replied they were oot interested I doo't think Severn Trent replied at all. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, they did. Actua1ly, they came and they made a proposal to. the full board. I was there. I was 0.0 the board at the time. The gentleman was vety nice. He was a gentleman, but we bad been burned by that finn and we knew it. It was very well understood by evelJ'one on that board, at that point, that we didn't want to have anything further to do witll that particular firm at that time. MS. MOFFATT: Did Petty and Janice, they were both involved in that firm? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MS. MOFFATT: Were they assigned to PelicaoBay? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. But John was used as a consult because be had lived in Naples and be knew Pelican Bay intimately. He was aware of a lot of people who bad started Pelican Bay, and he knew a lot of movers and shakers in this area. So he constantly had his finger in the pie, only as a coosuItant. Okay. He was not happy with what he saw. And that's o.ne of the reasons why be decided to start his own company. And be chose Janice because she has an eoonnously terrific background in finance and... MR GIBSON: She has quite a pedigree. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, she does. Government planning. Sbe's got quite a bit MR. GIBSON: Harvard, Wharton. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Between the two of them, they are a bed. of a team. If you sit down and talk to them, they fill in for each other. MS. MOFFATT: Was her Harvard an executive MBA? MR GIBSON: I doo't think so. Not the way it read to me. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I couldn't tell. MR GIBSON: But on the other hand, Petty bas 00 degree at all whatsoover. He's a street fighter. If he does, he didn't put it in here. 113 "'",,-__' ",',m -.. ..._,."._-~~,,,---- .__.,-,-, ..._,,~ M_IIUI v-.., MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1820 1 APRll.. 1, 2009 MS. MOFFATT: Yes, that'srigbt CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I suspect be does, but probably nothing... MR GIBSON: He made a mistake by not putting it in there, in my opinion. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: 1 think. you are probably right. MR. CURRAN: My only suggestion is, if we rank the two today, which is fine, I can score that with these in a few minutes, wbeo yo.u go. to the full boatd for the interview, I know you know Jo.ho; I kno.w you know District Offices, but, in equality, we need to have both finns present. MR GIBSON: I agree. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Oh, absolutely. MR CURRAN: I mean, like you said, we know John, so we reaDy want to talk: to Donill. Well, we really should have both come. It's even Steven CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's an excellent point. I think you're right, Jack. MR MOFFATT: I made my commeot just talking about this group. MR. CURRAN: I'm sorry. Is that what you meant? MR GIBSON: I agree with that I hope we're allo.wed to discuss it collectively here. MR CURRAN: You are. I'm just trying to.. . MR. GIBSON: Fine. To your question, I highlighted it here, that she couldn't have just a, you know, the five-week program, because sbe said here, MBA from the University of Missouri and oontiooed her postgraduate studies at University o.f Pennsylvania, Wbartoo and Harvard University, Hmvard Business School. So it could be a five-week program MS. MOFFATT: Actually, she says she bas an EMBA, which I assume is an executive MBA, from Missouri. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It is. I missed that. MR GIBSON: At any rate. sbe is a veJy highly educated young lady. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And she utilizes it 10 the meetings tbat I have had with the other chairs o.f different groups in Pelican Bay, she has made some references to sometbing happening in our communities that have been really interesting, and sbe's right. She's been foreseeing things right down the line, and she's not part o.f the go.vernment, but sbe is seeing what's happening, and she's bad it nailed. So I sat up and watched after she got severnl things right six months later. She kno.ws her business. And John obviously does, too, because he's well aware of tile needs of Pelican Bay. He's just stmggling to do. everything he can to. make sure that we do.o't mi$tep. 114 - --','- .. ._.... . - ._.~ 161 1 e20 ~ MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 1, 2009 MR GillSON: This may or may not be a fair question, but assnming we have the two make a presentation, either to us or the complete board, one o.fthe issues in JoIm Petty's presentatioo that kind of leapt out at me was the Loxabatchee Groves local government incorporation, and that's been a real dynamite term for Pelican Bay. ADd I don't think it's ever been presented in a positive vein to. me. 1bere's a lot of good things about it, meaning we're a lax dooor, maybe we keep more of OUT money, but, an the other hand, when we talk about replacing our own pipelines. OUT own roads. our own infrastructure that's presently being supplied by the county, its water, it's very cloudy. I just wonder it: it would be a fair question, when we have him, if he has any feelings to.wards incorporatioo of the Pelican Bay. In other WOlds, is it fair to ask. somebody what their thoughts are because he may have an underlying issue bere since, apparently, be did somed1ing similar on a nmcb smaller scale? I don't tbink tbis is much of a community. MR. CURRAN: I think it's a fair quetltion to ask both folks. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You can't just ask. one. MR GillSON: All right. MR CURRAN: We can maybe phrase it, if incorpoJation became an issue. how would they attack that plan, present that plan to. the board, and ask. them that question ahead of time so when they come in, they'II talk about it, and that, if they did come back, they would have to present it to you right now, how they would go about it. They would mention most of the infrastructures what, whatever, and you get a clearer picture. And then we'll hear, well, I bad experience at such and such, and I've done that., and here is what the results were. So that is a fair question MR. GillSON: Jack, as a boanl member, that's probably an avenue that I would like to encomage, because I'm not sure which side o.f the fence I fall 00, for or against, and I know this is not specifically germane to picking a team here, but, depending upoo the answer, it could have a flow for my decision-making process,. because I'm. . . MR CURRAN: I think it's a good question. MR GmSON: I think the past incorporation efforts were a loose cannon aDd poorly run, poorly presented and not thought through, and we would certainly be an integral part of what happens. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I can agree witll you, and John Petty does, too. MR CURRAN: If the issue is you have someone aboaId that you are confident that can help you, it's a fair questio.o. MS. McCAUGHlRY: Again, we had the ordinance review committee, and there was quite a bit of informatio.o presented at those co.mmittees about what the boon:l's alternatives are, if you don't want to be an MSTBU, what CDDs are, what special districts are. 115 ,,_.---' , .~-"~,-"-,._...~"~.,--._._.,,._... .-". _,. .nH..._._~...v_...__.._, .-- 161 1 820 1 MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING APRll.. 1, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Independent MS. McCAUGHTRY: The State o.f Florida can regulate. And. Ilhimately, it all comes down to regulating locally, almost. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: John gave an excellent presentation. I don't know how many different times, but I finally got it, because I bad heard it so many times by him. But he clearly felt that he agreed with you. Geoff, without the incorporation. He tried to discuss it with the Foundation. At that point, trey were not open to. him at all, and he could have helped them enonnously. They just didn't get into it. MR. GIBSON: Loose cannons. MR CURRAN: I bad another... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Now that we have Jeny 00 the treasury committee, the budget committee, keep an eye on them. MS. MOFFATT: Oh,. yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Put down I'm laughing. MR CURRAN: I had another offer to present to yon today but, based on the convetSatioos, I don't milly need to pmsue it, but I feel o.bligated to tell you In the event that you are not sure of where you want to go with YOUT candidates, I have put togetller a group of people that are currently 00 different boards for different associations, vice presideots and assistant vice presidents of the coodo. and homeowners associations that all work for the county as employees. We bad a consensus that, if we needed, tIley would sit down, review the four proposals, the references, score them, and present it to me to give to you. from an outsider's view; here is wbat they have seen or not seen. But I think, from what I'm hearing, you folks are ready to go with probably two. And it's not needed, but that was just in tile event you were a little unsure. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's a good backup plan. MR. CURRAN: It was something I put together for us that might help yo.u get input from that side. I missed that, o.r, yes, that's a great idea, whatever. That was an offer I was going make. I'm taking it off the table because I think yo.u are okay oow, where you want to go. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Geoff. you never really said one way or the other for sure, except initially 11.hiok yo.u mentioned the two. that we've already discussed MR. GillSON: That's where I'm at As fur as I'm coocemed, it's a to.ss-up. I have read all of them thoroughly and 116 ~~_.".."..,_.~..,., -,-,-, H..- "..'......'"--_.,-~.~-' ~--,- 161 1 1320 .~ MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 1, 2009 reread them. I have not filled out the form, just because I wanted the benefit of the discussion today. Pricing looks to fall within what we are currently doing. I doo't think pricing is necessarily an :issue. except one was real high. MR CURRAN: Wen. pricing is and isn't an issue. It gives you an idea of where they are talking they want to go. But that is a negotiable item. Once we have selected and your board bas finally agreed that you want X person, then we would sit down and oegotiatethe price to what would be agreeable to both sides. MS. MOFFATT: Do we have to. clarify the work that needs to be done? For example, on Dorrill, I. quite frankly, think he has underestimated the time. I could be wroog in that I doo't think be's oonsidered enough of the meetings that we have. He's considered board meetings. I don't think be's considered budget meetings. And be says extra, he would charge additional for meetings with the county. So I doo't tbink: his price of $43,000 actually, there's two nombers in there, but I assume o.ne be just screwed up OD. They are witbio a thousand dollars. MR. GillSON: Forty-two, tbree. MS. MOFFATT: And the oext sectio.o has a little different omnber in it. MR GillSON: That's why you are a CPA I missed that MS. MOFFATT: I mean I want to understand better how he came up with his pricing and what he's going to. view as being an extra. MR CURRAN: I wrote that down here. We can send to them a question in addition to the first question and ask them to please clarifY tile basis of their hours, what is the basis far it. MS. MOFF AIT: Yes. I don't want to get in a situation where we're paying extJ:a for meetings with the county and that kind of stuff. MR CURRAN: I probably will not be involved in the actual negotiations for the dollars. Normally we turn that over to the cootract specialist, but I have dooe many of them with them. The issue there is, when we sit down and talk witll dollars, theo it's definitely clarified what type of tbiog we're looking for, what they expect and wbat their dollars will be. And I always try to look for, instead of them saying, well, we're going to do this and it's going to cost you X amount of dollars an hour, it's just based 00. Theo we can go to a meeting today, yo.u have a meeting, you have to pay money, two hours o.r three hours. We like to go and find out which is best for us. Do we have a lot of meetings that exceed? Do we want them to go to a meeting if it costs X amount of do.llars per meeting? It's more clarified and you're talking one 00 one and you can get to a better point, but I think we sho.uld ask them to clarify the basis o.f their estimates. MS. MOFFATT: Okay. 117 _",o,~., "~""""-"''''- -- --- ._",.."~"'-,, . MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMlT'fEE MEETING 161 1 820 APRlL 1,2009 MR CURRAN: So that way you'll see ifhe's got everything covered that you need there. MS. MOFF ATI: He's esritrutring four to six boors a week. Not included are additional budget wotXshops. attendance at co.unty commissioners' meetings o.r out of county travel for district purposes, Army Corps. OfEogineers, et cetera.. MR CURRAN: And that's maybe 50 percent of what's needed. MS. MOFFATT: Yes. That concerned me. And once we pass tb.e, what. $50,000 threshold. it bas to go. to. the board? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR CURRAN: There are two ways to get around that MS. MOFFATT: Okay. MR. CURRAN: The best way to do it. n:aD.y and truly, just my opinion. is your bootd approves it for what the dollar amount is, 40, 49,000, SO,OOO, and I take it, my side, Kyle and I, most likely, we take to our board and they approve it, even if it's 49,000. If you never exceed. you are fine. You never have to. go back to the board far four years. It's all done, cost of living, everything. MS. MOFFATT: Ifyo.u exceed the 49,000? MR CURRAN: Once we go aver the 49,000 for the dollars, then you need to go to the board. MS. MOFFATT: Db, tIlen you need to. go.? MR CURRAN: Yes. But if you go up front, it doesn't matter from then 00, CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Jack is sayiog get a rubber stamp now. Then if it goes up over the $49,000. MR CURRAN: Exactly. Because we're going at $49,000, but it may exceed 50 during the life o.fthe contract. They approve it It's dooe. You can go anywhere up to, really and truly, up to $300,000, $400,000. No one will question or call yo.u back and say it needs to. go. to the board. It's done. MS. MOFFATT: That's a hole you can drive a truck through. MR CURRAN: It is. But I utilize it It helps you, especiaUy here. You are going to be making more of your decisiom out here. The only phase that I really see that we're involved in is at the $50,000 threshold If the BCC approves that $50,000 threshold. you oeed me 00 more. You've got your threshold. you've got your dollars, you can work your hours, your money, everything with tIlose fo.lks and we'll pay tile bill, because the board bas agreed. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So whether it's really 4,900 or 4,700 a IDODt.b,. it's still under SO. MR CURRAN: It's basically, it's almost a copy of your executive sununaty, that your board approves, and tIlen Kylo and I will go. to our board And the first thing they always ask us is, well, did Pelican Bay boaId approve? Yes. Okay. So it's just 118 ......- __"0""....,--- "oq.o ~_m_". ",",,~.- ---, MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1820 1 APRIL 1, 2009 a suggestio.n I'm throwing on the table for you. MR GillSON: I missed it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: One is 47 and the other one is 49. That, I didn't understand. MR CURRAN: And I'm going to ask to claritY that Now, once we do the short list, then rn go through the questions I have for us, the technical questions. If I asked you right now to rank one, two, three, four, based 00 what yo.u've read. Could you do. that, without a score number, just who would you mnk one, two, three four? MS. MOFFATT: I can. MR. CURRAN: Jerry, can I stan with you, then? Could you tell me who you ranked number one? MS. MOFFATT: Dorrill. MR. CURRAN: Could yo.u tell me number two? MS. MOFFATT: Petty, District Offices. MR CURRAN: And omnber three? MS. MOFFATT: SKS Consulting. MR CURRAN: And number four wo.uld be RG. Harris? MS. MOFFATT: Yes. MR CURRAN: Thaokyou. MR GillSON: I guess I agree with what Jerry said, except I put Petty and Dorrill pretty much where I think the experience of one balances out the intrigue of Dorrill, because I think his overall experience could be a real, well because I think he's 0.00 of the people with a set o.ffresh eyes for Pelican Bay. So I say one tied and then SK and then last place is RG. Harris. Long answer for an easy question. MR CURRAN: That's fine. Mary? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Easy. I worked with him.. Petty and then Dorrill, SK and then RG. MR CURRAN: It's basically what you told me in the beginning. I need to have it in writing. What we come out with is, far first place it comes to a tie. So I give a full point for the tie. District Offices comes out with eight and Dorrill comes out with eight, they both come out willi eight Then. when I go to second place, I have three for District, and so we have a tie far first place. But:first place and second place are the two firms. So, for a short list, what we wo.uId say at the end of this meeting is we want to talk to Dorrill and District. Offices at our full presentation, and fuat's the way I will set this up. MS. MOFFATT: Now, at the full preseot.ation, is that the full board? 119 .._",.._.."n~_.. _.",,,,,,,^""~.,,,",,,,,,..._- -"'''''''- ..-~~.~.^""- .....~, -'. .,- "--"-,- MANAGEMENT REVIEW CO.MMITT:EE MEETING 161 1 820 ' ~ APRa 1,2009 MR. CURRAN: Yes. That's yo.ur full board MS. MOFFATT: Okay. MR GillSON: So you wouldn't do another meeting here with this group? MR CURRAN: Well, I can. That's what you need to ten me, because I was under the impression we would short list, and theo we wo.uld ask whatever firms we short list to present to the :full board CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I believe that's what we decided. MR CURRAN: And tben, right at the end oftbe meeting, we would then do a final scoring as to who. would be one and. two. MR GIBSON: Who would do that scoring? MR CURRAN: Me, unless you want... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: After the full board, if we get to.gether again. MS. MOFFATT: Okay. MR CURRAN: I think I can give your full board score sheets fur the two firms, and they can score, based an what tIley heard that day, unless you wish to give them all a set of the books to read. But they will present I think you'll get their questions and then you three would give me the final count, tbat we mnk so and so one, so and so two. If you rank them with a tie, then I have to break the tie. Here is the tie breaker in Collier County. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: District Offices aren't in Collier County, SO they lose ten points right there. MR CURRAN: The ten points there, it doesn't apply. They still come out with a total tie. The tie breaker in Collier County, by ordinance, is the fimi that made the least amount of money, in Collier County's money, wins. So ifwe have... MR. GIBSON: I read that somewhere. MS. MOFFATT: Private money or just county money? MR CURRAN: That we pay them out of Collier County, that we paid them So as to your finns we're paying, even though you are paying us, we are issuing the check. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Who is it, Jack? MR CURRAN: I haven't checked That's the tie breaker. On the applications, there's a fonn in there that says money earned by Collier County, someone making dollars. Most of the time, they leave it blank, but I think in the case of the two you picked, I think Dorrill made the least amount of money, but I could be wrong. I just don't.. MR GmSON: We have to find out. 120 -"'._,""'.._.."...._.^"'"<~,-,,-~....,~- "',,-- .. ----, -- ..-.-.-- 161 1 fJ20 MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 1, 2009 MR. CURRAN: I'll check that. and what it comes out to is if District Offices bas a check for a thousand dollars in Collier County for the year, and DorriIl bas none, be gelS the award If Dorrill bas a check fo.r $2,000 for receipts and District Office has ooe, then they get it. That's the tie breaker at the very final, when I'm down to two firms, Ivery, very seldom have a tie. What we have done a couple of times we have had a tie, the actua1 committee themselves looked at each other and says, read this, reread it, and let's revote. And we voted five or six times before finally somebody changed it a half a point just to make the difference. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: When is the cootIact up? Is it in June? MR. CURRAN: May. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Through May. MR CURRAN: Up through the end of May. MS.. MOFFATT: So we have two months. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So we have to take this to the full board. We can't do it today. So it bas to be the:first Wednesday of oext mouth, ifwe can. MR. CURRAN: Which would be May? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Which is May. MS. MOFFATT: Probably should be a special meeting, doo't you think? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We coUld do. that. MR CURRAN: I would ask you to do that. The reason I ask you to do that is if we do that the first week of May and, then, of course, the holiday, at tile end of May, your board needs to approve it It would probably be the next sessio.n, which would be June, which would be out past this contract. It wouldn't matter in a seuse, depending on which firm, but if you are going to be changing. Again, my board has to approve it. If we go for that 50, we have enough to WOIk on with your board CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Your board has to approve and ours does, too. All we can do is go. back with the fin(fines and tell them what we think would be the best. MR CURRAN: Exactly. And if we go up into May, we're talking about we probably won't get it approved by the board, fm going to. guess, at the latest, probably July 23rd, we have the one meeting in July, at the last session. So tbat wouldn't put a firm in place until August So if we can have a special meeting, I can fly to get it to my boanf, your board, by maybe the first week in June, that first June, and then we're okay. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Mary, can you work with Jack 0.0 a date? 121 .....,..,"_.. ,,~- --.",,-." ,-"'-.~._. '^'"'' ""...." , 161 1 1B20 , MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 1,2009 MS. McCAUGHIRY: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Give us a couple of dates so the tbree of us can come together. MR CURRAN: Yes. Onoe you decide which is the best, I will then send E-mai)s to the finns telling them this is tho date. There are two oftbem so rn set them up. What would you like, 45 minutes to au hour per? Normally, what I've done in the past, and I'm just giving you the experience I've done. MS. McCAUGHIRY: For the preseotItions? MR. CURRAN: For the presentations. I have the fum come in for 45 Iilinutes, answer the questions we have, and then there's a IS-minute open question period for additional questions that you three may have or your board. And then they leave the room, and we usually take a break while the new firm sets up, if they have any visuals and all. Then we do ilie same with them, 45 minutes, they answer all of our questions we've asked them, and then they are open for us for questioning. Then we take another break and then usually we come back with a final short list Does that sound agreeable? Would you like more time, would you like less time? MR. GIBSON: That's fine. MS. MOFFA TI: No, tbat's fine. I would prefer not to do it next week. MR. GIBSON: Same here. MR CURRAN: I would need at least a week to get the vendors, and I want to give you a couple of days to send me an E-mail with any additional questions you would really like to have answered. I have two, and if you have more if we get about,. say, six, seven questions, they usually put a nice big slide up and put your question up and answer it And then they give you a presentation, which helps, and gives you a chance to really ask some questions you want to. MR GIBSON: 20, 21, 22 and 23 is wide open on my calendar. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Same here. MS. MOFFATT: What were the dates? MR. GIBSON: 20,21,22,23. That's the first... MS. MOFFATT: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We have to huny. This is after.. . MS. MOFFATT: At this point... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The next couple meetings, I may be stuck again. MS. MOFFATT: That's fine. 122 * ",^""...,,-" ~ '""-"". ,.,,-.- _."',- ~-- 161 1 -I MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 820 APRll.. 1, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: WelL which day is best? MR GIBSON: It doesn't make any difference. Of those four, I could actually do it the week before, but fm trying to get some time away. But if that wOJks and gives us time to make ilie decision prior to the next... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: What we're doing is meeting with the.fu]J boan:I. That's what we're discussing. The three of us need to be there. And then we'll meet again, just the three of us, to make a final decision as to who we will present to our board and project to present to Collier County after our board accepIs. MS. MOFFATT: We might be able to do that the same day. MR CURRAN: That's what I think we're talking. MS. McCAUGHTRY; Since you me down to two finns... MR CURRAN: I think we'll have the two finns come in and present to yourselves and to the full board. MS. MOFF AIT: We won't go home until we make a decision. MR. GIBSON: There you go. MR. CURRAN: Once the full board gets an input... MR. GillSON: This is not rocket science. MR. CURRAN: We can do that. all in the one day, especially, as Mary said, it's two. rm open I will be open anytime you want Just let me know. I'll get the meeting out, set the vendors up. Your preference or who you want to go first, I usually do it alphabetically. How early do you want to start? I know you have to find out about the date. Do you want to have your first presentation at 8:30, 9:00? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mary has a better idea. MS. McCAUGHfRY: Looking at this calendar, on Tuesday, we would have that day reserved anyway, from a previous meeting that we used to have. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The 21st? MS. McCAUGHIRY: Yes, on Tuesday at I :00. I'm pretty sure that Margaret would have that time for the big room for us. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think the budget... MS. McCAUGHIRY: It's actually the next week, the 27th. MS. MOFFATT: Budget is on Monday. MR. GillSON: That's the 27th. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So if we meet on the 21st. 123 ,,--"~.._-_.,...~",-,.-, ,,~. ._-~--, .,.,~-- - 161 1 820 .., ->, MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 1,2009 MS. McCAUGHIRY: 21st. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It's going to be a long one. MR CURRAN: With your board, it probably will be, because there will be discussion at the end We'll need at least two hours for the presentations. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Bare minimum. Move in, move out,. the whole thing. MR. CURRAN: Then you have a break time, so probably three hours. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Three and a halfhours, three hours. MR CURRAN: And then you have your discussion with the board and sit down and probably that part may be quick after your discussions. We may even have a bigger discussion between the three of us to do YOUT final scoring after that So I would say if we start at 1 :00, and I'm going to be very Wr, I say at the latest, we wouldn't be done until 6:00, 6:30. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBIE: I agree. MR. GIBSON: I think we need to start in the morning. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: I was thinking maybe we could start at 10:30 in the morning, break for lunch, and come back, and have the next presentation at 1 :00. MR CURRAN: When I do them in the morning, I have had some go for days, but I usually start them at 10:00, in that area of time. I get my presenters out of the way. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Get them both in before the break. MR. CURRAN: Then I let the selection committee and your committee have their lunch, and when they come back, they are fresh and ready to vote and they're good to go. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And both of them have presented at a similar time. MR. CURRAN: Right. We can do the same situation, bring them in, have them both present, and take a lunch break. At the end of the lunch break. your whole board can then give input publicly to us to use. If they don't want to score, we've got the input, then we can break, and then we can sit right there and do our final score, and we're done. And all we have to do is present the outcome at your next meeting, which would be the first week of May, and we would be ahead of the conttact. I would suggest if you want to start at 10:00 that would give us to 11:00 to 12:00. So 10:00 to 12:00 would be great to have the presenting, and then you have a lunch, and then we can start the meeting at 1:00 with feedback and results of scoring. It could be anywhere from ten minutes to do the final scoring, to an hour. Depends how much feedback you are going to receive from your boord. I have had select committees where I have had six firms present in one day, and as soon as the last one got done, they didn't want to take 124 "...,,~-.., .... T'IIW ~ -'%'..~.".. ,-,- ._-.,....,,-,,-~.._~.."'- 161 1 H2O . , MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING APRll..l,2009 a break. They said they are ready to score, put the numbers in. We walked out of the room They were done. And they were coment, so that was the best way. So I can do either way. Would that work for you, starting at 10:00 in the morning, and probably be out of here, most likely, at the latest maybe. . . MR GffiSON: Is 10:00 early enough? I mean, what am I going to do for another hour in the morning? Probably nothing. MR CURRAN: You would like to start at 9:00? MR. GIBSON: Yes. I'mjust thinking, rather tban sitting around the apartment looking at papers or something waiting for the meeting. MR CURRAN: You may be able to get a lot more done. MS. MOFFATT: Do you think the presentations are going to actually take 45 minutes? MR. CURRAN: Yes. We allow them a total of one hour, and I'm very strict on that with my timing. MS. MOFFATT: Yes. MR. CURRAN: If they are done sooner, great If not, the extra time is for you to ask questions. That's why I don't purposely schedule them short MS. MOFF AIT: I don't mean about schr.dl-.lil\g them short, but I just can't see that. either one bas 45 minutes of stuff to talk about. MR. CURRAN: They may not, but this is their chance in front of you. So they try to stay there as long as they can. MR. MOFFATT: It may be 20 minutes presentation and 40 minutes... MR. CURRAN: I can change the time. I can allow them... MS. MOFFATT: I'mnotsuggeslingcbangingthetime. I'mtIyingtounderslandwbatwe... MR CURRAN: I can give them 25 minutes, depending on the amount of questions, to answer our questions, and open for a I5-minute question and answer period. you may end up at 45 minutes total. And then you have your next one. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: You have a break of 15 minutes for bathroom and get something to drink. MR. CURRAN: Yes, and give them chance if they want to use overhead projectors and things to set up. The benefit to this is if we meet at 9:00, we start at 9:00, we'll be done by 11:00 with the two presentations, maybe 11:10. You still have some time for that open discussion from your board. At that time, if they are finished, and it's noon, so to speak, for lunch, and they want to adjourn for lunch, but you folks feel like you've gotten all ilie input, you're ready to go, we can stay for an extra 20 minutes. That's all it will take us to do scores, and you'll be done. 125 - "_'~..m'~.',,~,. .-- ,,-..,..._ "<l _'''''''','''H MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 B20 f APRll... 1, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think that's a wise option. MR CURRAN: We'll have both options available to us. MR GmSON: I can't believe we spent ten minutes trying to pick a time. MS. MOFFATT: Good with me. MR. CURRAN:- We're going to do the scoring in ten minutes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It might be more valuable to do it that. way for another reason. With the sunshine laws, if we are going to reconvene, I don't know if we have to make some kind of a different time period that we're meeting again at 1:00 or... MS. McCAUGHTRY: It will be on the agenda. The agenda will be roll call, pteSelltatioos, and break. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That'sfine, but we won't know until 1:00. MS. MOFFATT: Is this meeting open to the public? I assume it is. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, it has to be. MR CURRAN: Yes. MS. MOFFATT: Do you get input from the floor, questions from the :00017 MR CURRAN: The way it works with us, your method for public meetings is a JittJe different than mine for these types of meetings. Our presenters present. You folks ask. all the questions you need. Towards the end., I then request auyone in the public who has any comments to make, questions to present. They really cannot talk in between while you are doing your thing, They are allowed to come up with any comments at the end before we do our final scoring, including the presenters. I sway the presenters. I tell them, you've bad your day in the sun. You should use that time to get it out. MS. MOFFATT: You don't have both presenters in the room at the same time, do you? MR. CURRAN: No. It's a courtesy, I have to say. The way I wOld it is I tell them that we discourage you from coming in, but publicly, you're allowed in It's a courtesy that's extended. But after the last presenter, they can sit in and listen to anything we say and do, all of them together. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Of course, they can read it, too. MR. CURRAN: See, what I do is, we have tape recmders built in the ceiling. And they go in a micro chip in the computer. We record it, stick it in the computer. Okay, so we're in agreement, the 21st, 9:00 a.m., if you can get it I will send you a request for presentation. I have two questions 1 will be asking them to answer for you at the presentation. How much timo would you like maybe to send me, if you have more questions? Would you like another day to think about it and just send me an 126 -..-,..... '....e_. .$11- .,,-"-~._' U IXl v _.'~" ....."..~ "-'"- MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITfEE MEETING 161 1 '~B20 APRll.. 1, 2009 E-mail? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That. sounds good to me. MR.. CURRAN: I just want to put a deOOl;~> if I don't bear, I can send you a courtesy E-mail saying I didn't hear, you have no questions, and go 011, I don't want to take the chance that I missed it either. I will send you a Jetter. If you say noon, 4:00 tomorrow, the next morning. I'll send you an E-mail saying, hey, we okay? CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: So far, we have feelings on incorpoIation. What else was that? MR. GmSON: Another question I would have for John Petty is, and maybe not so much for Dorrill, is what does he and Janice do with the rest of their time. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: They work for... MS. MOFFATT: He doesn't list anything. MR. GmSON: He doesn't list aiJytbing. That's what I'm saying. You know a lot of things that. Jeny and I don't know and he has you down as a reference, which. I find very intriguing. MS. MOFFATT: Yes. MR GIBSON: But I would like to know, wbat. do you do with the rest of your time, what else are you doing out there as tl company. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBlE: That's a good question. MR.. GIBSON: There is nothing in here that talks about that Dorr.ilL on the other hand. lists all these other communities that he's working with, but that may be past experience. As I remember reading it. I'm not sure it's current activities. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That was hard to discern, I thought MR GmSON: That was bard to discern, too. but I can see wbere Donill's little firm would have a busier schedule than John and Janioe. I don't know what they do. MS. MOFFATI: JohnhasaveryweakcIient.1ist MR. GIBSON: Extremely weak. But that's not to take away any of the performance that I've seen from my limited time on the board MR. CURRAN: WelL I'll work a generic question to ask both so the preseotItions will :flow evenly. MR GIBSON: I don't know how you can do that delicately. MR. CURRAN: I'll request, give us a... MR. GIBSON: Other than spent a lot of time on Alligator Alley driving back and forth. 127 ......",.--..- ,"",-- ...".."_.,,. "".~--'- _.~~.~.- "---'~ -.,-,'. MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 820 '1 APRIL 1, 2009 MR. CURRAN: I'm going to ask them to give me a typical monthly schedule of your duties with Pelican Bay or with your current firms, and who are they. MS. MOFFATT: Just, what other clients are you currently serving? MR. GillSON: That's it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And in what capacity. MR. GIBSON: Yes, what capacity. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: In what capacity do you seIVe them, with a breakdown, I would like to hear. MS. MOFFATT: Good point I was surprised by a lot of the information in his RFP. One of the most surprising things was that he and Janice founded ilie firm. I don't know if it's an sono ownership split or what. but I always got ilie impression he was treating Janioe like an assistant, administTative assisIant. MR. GIBSON: Administrative assistant CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Actua1Iy, when you are really working with them, and you reaI1y ought to sit down with them, Jerry, because it would be kind of an eye opener. When you are working with them, you have the real understanding that they both come prepared with totally different team values. She's total fiDance and government. Jolm has the government, but he also has the lrnowledge ofPeIican Bay, and he's got a real good sense of what communities need in order to make them grow or be successful in whatever way they want to be successful So they really work well as a team It's like a president and chairman type thing, and whoever bas the more expertise at the . MS. MOFF AIT: I'mjust saying from the boan:l meetings, I never got that impression. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thats because he's really on board for Pelican Bay, because be lived in Naples for a long time. He brought his children up here, and he knows Pelican Bay intimately. He knows the people involved with it She steps back. But if there is a question at the budget meeting, you've noticed, he'D aoquiesce to Janice, because she's really, really good with figures, finance, understands a lot. She saw what was coming at us a year ago, when we were sitting having lunch together. she saw what we're going through right now back then. Almost word for word, nailed every bit of it, AlG and the whole dam thing. She's really good. MS. MOFF AIT: She knew about the AlG bonuses a year ago? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, but she knew about the bailouts., and what. was coming forward. She was talking about it long before anybody else was. At least anybody I knew. MS. MOFFATT: Jack, on your references, you gave us one for the City ofBrnnson, Missouri. 128 .,.' ',. ~.....,..,~.,.,~..._",_,.__~,.c.~~_~ .~~. .. __,,_~..~w_,. .,,- ,.,_..- - -.__,_,,0;' l' ~~r MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 ~ APRIL 1, 2009 MR. CURRAN: Yes. MS. MOFFATI: Was that only Janice? MR. CURRAN: Yes. It was listed under district. So we sent a request out. and it came back saying it was Janice. MS. MOFFATT: But I would have guessed that. she didn't work &om the way it was put together. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I thought it was interesting that they gave an eight when they gave such positive comments all the way down the line that was kind of... MR. CURRAN: When I see stuff like that. I always question myself as they were saying glowing things, but they are not giving him a fabulous number. I usually like to call tbeIn, but I didn't have that available, before I could get to a phone, until this morning. I was tied up yesterday and they came in yesterday afternoon, at least my tech had this yesterday afternoon, and I saw it and said I'll call1bis morning, but I really bave been on the nm this morning. I got here early because I wasn't sure where I was going. I am going to follow up on a couple of them and have that input for you. I will share with you that. we did get the SKS references, but that was after extreme peep holing and phone calls and filxes and E-mails. I don't know whether the firms did not want to comment and we fon:ed them into giving us an answer. I even used terms of disqualifying the proposal ifhe didn't call. It's unfair to come into the room and not bave auy references. 1ben there was the other one, RG. Their two references were actually, when we finally contacted one ofilie people, they were just homeowners that had a home built by them. MR GffiSON: That was pretty obvious. MR. CURRAN: They had no references for a management service to go on. MS. MOFFATT: Right MR. CURRAN: So I called him and bad him wme in my office, and we talked for a little bit You are saying you are doing management so I need a list with who so I can call these folks. He said he dropped something off. And I never received it. MR GIBSON: That's why he's in last place. MR. CURRAN: Those words are going to be brought up even if you did score him higher, I would have told you that before you score. First, it's fair for you to know that.. The two firms you've short listed, they have been respomive, the references are nice, and they are here. The people are coming back. Right at the moment, I think anyone has been able to answer us, and I don't know whether or if the person is away on vacation, but we have been calling him. for DorrilL because I would like to have a couple, at least, for each. MS. MOFF AIT: Yau only have one on Dorrill. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Which is kind of smprising, really. 129 ,~,< .-.~~ ''-'-Il''- m"" "_"""" ,- .".-...< ......._".---~,~ .~^"_.,,- ._,~ . MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 ;820 I APRll.. 1, 2009 MR. CURRAN: It is, because the one fellow we wolked with him quite a bit for their landscaping, and he's always been a fan of his, and 1 was really shocked that. I couldn't get all of this. MS. MOFF A1T: Could be away, I guess. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: I'd like to know. Could you E-mail us when you do get it? MR. CURRAN: As soon as I get them, I'll send them to you and I'll send it to Mmy as well to print for you. MS. MOFF A1T: The only question I have on references is, I hate to bring this up, but do we have a conflict of interest here? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: With me being a reference? MS. MOFFATT: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. You can read it or not as you choose. That was because they had wotked with me. And look at the board, Jeny. ill the last year, I believe there has not been two months when we have had the exact same board sitting. Not two months in a row. Very few of the board members have actually worked with John and Janioe on a one-to-one basis. I think it was very fair because of everyone on the board, starting April 1st, after the point where we will be working with this, I'm the only one that really bas. MS. MOFFATT: The point I'm making is you are on the selection committee, and you give them a glowing reference. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Absolutely, yes. 'That's a little couceming for me, too, but you can choose not to read it. Don't even look at it MR. CURRAN: I have had this issue, Jeny, in the past selection committees, and the legal opinion I have received is if you are a member of the committee, and you've wolked with 1bis person, and they have referenced you openly, it's viable. If you are a member of the committee, and your relative has been shown as a reference, we can disallow it and we ask you not to voto. Like with Mary, we would ask you not to vote if her husband worked with or had a job with whoever, then we would ask her not to vote, because it's a conflict. MR. GIBSON: Would it be a more fair question, excuse me for intenupti.ng here, and I understand and I appreciate what Mary Anne is saying here, and I also understand the conflict of interests. MR. CURRAN: Feel:free. MR. GIBSON: Would it be appropriate to ask for an additional official reference? rn tell you where I'm coming from. I spent briefly a bit of time a couple of weeks ago with, you even pointed his pictme out at his last financial presentation, Ross Obley, big pillar of the community, built the whole thing by hand himself Just ask him. That's just Ross, and everybody knows 130 ,,-_.- -."' "'~""-'-""-'-'--' _41 ...,"'"'~.- ,_._-,-~~ "'~- 161 1 820 ~ MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING APRll..l,2009 him and appreciates him, and I love the guy aDd. his wife, who has been on my greens committee. I asked him, what's his opinion of Mr. Petty and his organization. He said, I don't know he was a total blank.. He had no answer one way or the other. And I would have thought that might have been a possible reference. If I put down I saw Ross Obley here, I would say that's a terrific reference. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Actually, Com would be better, because she was on the board, and she has come to the meetings. They split up what they do. MR. GIBSON: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Call Cora. MS. MOFFATT: That was in the last two years. MR. GIBSON: That's my point, though. Should we ask John? I mean, is it my responsibility to go find somebody on my own? I don't think so. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR. GIBSON: But should we have an additional reference? And Cora would be a good one. I mean, she's a stann trooper, but maybe there's others out there that would be more appropriate. MR CURRAN: I will be contacting... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Cora Obley. MS. MOFFATT: Was she on the board in the last two years? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR. GIBSON: Then she wouldn't koowthe firm. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: She wouldn't know the finn other than coming to the meetings. She comes to almost every meeting. MS. MOFF AIT: Go back to Severn Trent again. You said John was not involved with them. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: He was involved after it became obvious that something had occurred that should not have, and people in Pelican Bay contacted John, because they knew he was aware of Pelican Bay. And I don't know the ins and outs of it, but he became involved only because he was concerned about what was happening. And he did not like the way the management handled it He felt that there was a process that was not completed correctly. People okayed things that should not have been okayed. The board Dever even saw ilie request for an okay fOJ Cap d' Anb'bes. Never saw it It was okayed by the management and passed through to the county. It was incomct. The process was not followed. 131 .~"~U^"" "----..,...-.. ---.-.'-""---.....,.- -~.."-~.. ---.,.. MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1820 l APRIL 1,2009 MS. MOFF AIT: I guess that gives me another question. I would like to know from John what. his role was with Severn Trent. I'm screwing that name up. I wrote it down somewbere. MS. McCAUGHIRY: That's right. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: This is good, because you ask that of John. I would like to know what Neil Dorrill's role was with the county before this. It's a fair question. MS. MOFF AIT: Ten years as county manager, you mean? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. That would be his past employer. It's one of his past employers. I think his last employer, actually, because he w~ into business for himself after that.. MS. MOFFATI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Same thing. John's Jag employer and his Jag employer. MS. MOFFATT: I would almost like to know, in addition to that. what. Dorrill's role has been with the county since he left the employment of the county. I mean. I don't know, would some of these associations he's involved with. how much county contact he's had. MR GIBSON: Interface. MS. MOFFATT: Yes. MR.. GmSON: And you know more about Dotrill than I do, because you used to be over there with The StIand. I mean, that's where he was. You knew the name when it appeared. I did not. MS. MOFF AIT: Well. I knew the name from the newspapers and Constantine and the other commissioners that got in trouble, and I didn't know what. his role was in that whole thing. But you told us he's acceptable to the county. MR CURRAN: After our last session, I sent you an E-mail I went back: to Steve, and Steve went down to the county manager and... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Wasn't it Leo Debs, at that point, because Jim was already in the hospital? MR. CURRAN: Actually, he talked to Jim on the phone. I got him as soon as I got back in, and it was like the next day. And then we sat. down with Mike Sheffield, and went over any possibility of anything that I wanted to know for this. And then we ran it by Jeff KIatzkow. We ran it by them all for that part. I didn't ask anything about the past because. _. MS. MOFFATT: Isheanapprovedvendornow? MR CURRAN: There is no such thing as an approved vendor in the county. What they have is registering. Anybody in the world can register and be a vendor. You are not approved in the terminology of approved until you've won a bid and got a 132 -,...,-,.".. ""'," " _.-'" "'._~_"'m_."'__",,,> ._". , _.. ."-''''~-, 161 1 820 MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING APRll..l,2oo9 contract Now you are on contract for approval CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You are in. MR. CURRAN: We do engineer contmds. We call them oversight. We put 15 finDs on contract They are considered approved vendors. But yet, when I put an engineering bid out, then the other engineering finns can bid on it, and that's, again, a specific contract Yes, he's eligible to be. Is there an approval or a non-approvallist? No. Unless he's been debarred. Then we stop them. We do check to see if... MS. MOFFATT: You could be answering a question I just asked. Yon could tell us if he's what has he been doing with the county since then? MR. CURRAN: Yes. MS. MOFFATT: Yau would know whether or not he has a contract. MR CURRAN: All I need to do is run his fum through our SAP system that covers all of our checks, and it comes right up and tells me we have issued this many chedm, it's a really quick process. That's how I check for the time, or we've issued none. And I can tell you I can send you that. in an email. MS. MOFFATT: Who was your predecessor as chairperson, Mary Anne? Coleman? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Coleman. MS. MOFFATT: When did you become chair? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Seems like it was June or May of2008. MS. MOFFATT: Okay. So then Coleman would have been chair prior? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: He was chair for like two or three months. Tun Bmke was before Coleman. And before that, was it a John Domenie? MS. McCAUGHTRY: I wasn't here then. I would have to go back and look in the minutes. MS. MOFFATT: Could we get a reference... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: If you want a reference from Coleman, he'll be glad to give you one, and it will be sterling. MS. MOFFATT: Can we get a reference from Coleman and Burke? You said he was chairman before Coleman. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: He was, that I recall, for like three months. Sure. Why not MS. MOFF AIT: I mean, even though they didn't list them, is it appropriate for us to ask? MR. CURRAN: If we have contact, and you guys instruct me to pursue other references, yes, I can do that. 133 ... ~ " -",,~ "'"'-' __o~,,..,," _ .__.,.",.~. ,..~. ,"",.~"",- Illll"""llil'_ 161 1 e20 , MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETlNG APRIL 1, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The other possibility, too, since we don't have that many for Neil Dorrill, either, would be to go to boards and places. How many oftbese do you want? MS. MOFFATT: I would like to get more on Dorrill, too. I mean, I would think ifwe bad three or more. MR. GIBSON: He lists Pelican Marsh, The Strand Master Property Owners and Lely. MR. CURRAN: We've sent references to all oftbem, and I got back the one from Pelican Marsh instantly, but I'll go for the other two. I will attempt to get you more. In fact. I will even call the two and tell them that what we have, we still need additional references at the request of the committee. And I1l get names, get the references. and get them over to you. I'm going to make sure that you get them all by the time of our next meeting. but hopefully you'll have them within a week. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jack, will you give them these questions beforehand? MR. CURRAN: The presentations? Yes. That's why I asked if we could do it up front I want them to have time to prepare, and there's a couple things I like to do is give them the prepared questions, let them answer them, but I always like to have our folks hit them out of the cold with questions. And that's the last one I was going to say open for questions, and I'm hoping that you will have sometbing like you are talking now like some issues that you can bring up, ask for this or 1hat, and they have to react on their feet, so you can see how they act. So I will send you a follow up email. Would you agree that two days is fine for the questions? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: If you can. MR. CURRAN: And rn send you what I have, word it the way I1l send it out., and feel free to edit it for me. Yes, sir. MS. MOFFATT: Are you going to ask Dorrill about his fee estimate or his time commitment? MR. CURRAN: Yes, I want to ask both of them, for John and DonilI. MS. MOFF AIT: John confused me, giving us three levels of fees. He's doing the work. He ought to be able to nail it right down. MR. CURRAN: I am going to ask them both that, and then I'm also going to ask them both basically what they are doing in their current capacity, who their vendors are in the last 30 days. MS. MOFFATT: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I would also like to know, just from you, Jack, who would be the tie breaker because of the biggest amount of money from the county. That may come in very bandy, because on our board we're going to have new people again, and people who really haven't been there long either. 134 111 "..- ,-",,,.,,',_,"U'_ 0""" ~~ ",......" ".,._.~.._....".~-- ' >'~, _.. -"- -.- MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 ~B20 I APRll..l,2009 MR. CURRAN: I will have that for you. rn put an email to yon. MS. MOFF ATI: The voting is just us. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, we vote, but we present it to the board, and they can either pass it or negate it. Everything bas to go through the:full board, eventually. So all we're doing is what. we do at the county. We're advising our board as to whom we chose. MS. MOFF AIT: But after the meeting on the 21st, we're going to evaluate, mnk and select one. MR CURRAN: Right MR. GIBSON: Then we present it to the board meeting on May 6th or whatever it is. MS. MOFF ATI: Yon would have gone and negotiated fees by then, or do you wait until it goes to the full board? MR CURRAN: It goes to the board. MR GIBSON: Okay. MR. CURRAN: There's two ways they do it One, to get a person approved by the board., this is the one they take to the board Normally, in a contract situation, wbere you are talking dollars,. we negotiate the dollais, then we go to the board for the :final yes. So, in this case, we're not CCNA, so I would say, yes, we need to negotiate the price. Once yon short list the finn, we will bring them in, because what could occur, for the sake of talking. you rank. X firm number one, and then we bring them in and say, we need to talk dollars, and they say that's the dollars I gave you" and we've all agreed it was too much. and we say, well, we need to talk reasonable, give me a break. We have a record. And, if they refuse to, and it's just we're banging heads, we then say, thank you" pull the next firm up, and then we talk. If they come back with a pricing and you are aware of everything we're doing, then we go to the board with the next firm and ask them to approve that finn. So we do that first MS. MOFF AIT: Before we go to our board? MR. CURRAN: Yes. MS. McCAUGHIRY: And, the Board of County Commissioners. MR. CURRAN: Both. I'm using your board as the primmy board and the county commissioners as a second backup to you, because you have the option, depending on the dollars, if you want to go to the board. As I said, my suggestion is we go to the commissioners, and it's the easiest way, and you are covered for four years no matter wbat the dollar value is. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: As long as it's under 5O,OOO? MR. CURRAN: No. Onceyougoto... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Once they pass it, but whether it is $50,000 well, ifit's 49,999... 135 '..,...-"', '-'-'-"._- . . - . .--- .- ~._--_.... ".'-'.... MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1820 APRIL 1, 2009 MR. CURRAN: If you're in the 4Os... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It's us. MR. CURRAN: ...and you have things that you're going to want to get done and there's the possibility that you Ill'I:l going to need extra hours and your dollars may nm over, it's wiser to go to both boards in the beginning, even at 40, if you never get to 50, great, if you get to 90, it's great. You never have to go back and ask anyone. You don't have to do this all over again MR. GIBSON: That may be part of why Petty bas level three built into his quote. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think he's concerned about Clam Bay and the entire esIuaIy, and if he's back in place again, he may be called on for expert witness and expert advice for the rest of the estuaJy, as they are now claiming it Because of the situation in the city, the water south of us is really polluted, and there's going to be some teal issues there federally. MS. MOFFATT: Well, the committee is hiring another engineering.firm, PSE&J, or whatever they call it. MR. CURRAN: PSB&J. MS. MOFF A1T: To study from upper Clam Bay down through Moorings Bay and do measurements and readings, and then load it into a loading module, and that came out at the meeting Monday. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MS. MOFFATT: There was also a statement made by a IepIeSeDfative oftbat fino that, I should have brought my notes but I didn't, that the readings taken by services division are suspect. And I asked him specifically about that after the meeting. And he said, well, there were some readings that just looked like they were off the charts and rnised questions, and they were never resolved. No one went back and said, that's au error, and this is why it was an error. So they intetpret that. as being the readings are suspect So they are going to do new readings and they are going to do them in all places at the same time, so you don't get readings in Pelican Bay in a miny week and readings down in Mooring Bay in a dry week. They will all be donCl simultaneously. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Did they give you dates that. are specific for that? MS. MOFF A1T: No. This was just their proposal that was being discussed. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And who chose that particuJarfirm? Any suggestions? MS. MOFF A1T: Who chose the firm? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MS. MOFFATT: It's clear that. Guy McAlpin chose the firm. But they're on a county list of approved vendors. MR. CURRAN: Like I was speaking earlier, there's contrncts that. we've had in place for three or four years, and there 136 ~-->.~."._"_.~ ~.,"- ..~"'- ...,-- ~~M"'_< MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1 820 APRIL 1,2009 would be maybe three or four finns on that cont:rnct for services. I think rm aware of the services that's going to be under that, because they bad contacted me and for references. but there was another :linn they also wanted to use, but it's not on the contract, and I told them we needed to go out on bid to use that:fino. So they ended up with PBS&J, and I think they wanted to uso Edmunds or Edwards, something of that. nature. But they are going to wade it out I think. they are going to have Edwards be a sub to PBS&J. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Go out in the field. MS. MOFF ATI: I don't recall that. name coming up. MR. CURRAN: I hope not, because I told them they need to go in open bid. MS. MOFF ATI: They were going to use Turrell, Hall as a sub. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: As you recall, they came before the boml and asked for our opinion on that MR CURRAN: Turrell, Hall was on another contract that expired. They wanted to use them and I wouldn't let them. Their remedy was to use them as a sub. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. We are going far afield. MS. MOFFATT: Their contract, it relates to maybe this afternoon's mee6ng. Thrrell, Hall hasn't expired yet MR CURRAN: The one that. I had him on that they wanted to use him for, that's why they are going to be a sub to PBS&J. MS. MOFFATT: Because they are still a CODIractor to the county through us, at least, until the end of May. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Their contracted with Pelican Bay. Yes, they are approved county, but it doesn't have to do with Jack's contract. They would be doing other work. MR CURRAN: Yours is job specific and mine was job specific. MS. MOFFATT: General approved vendor? MR. CURRAN: All with the county and other government agencies. That particular one is expiring. I think I've concluded everything I need to get to you. I hope rve answered your questions. Do you have any final questions of me? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. Would you go back througb wbat we're asking you to do, and then we can aQjourn. MR. CURRAN: I have, the first question we're going to put together is on incolpOration. I think you wanted to know more on that. MR GIBSON: On both sides. MR CURRAN: Yes. 137 ".,',-- . -.. ,-".~., .'H."....._..._~_,~_.. --'~'--_..---,~".,-'''...~.."~-..""._,,,.....~,...,,---,->- MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 161 1820 APRll..l,2009 MR. GmSON: Which you have to do auyway,but the:fact that the Loxahatchee incorporation was included, nine pages on that little development, and there was reason.. . MR. CURRAN: We are going to ask them, rn put it in better words. We're going to ask for a game plan, a plan of attack if a possibility of incorporation arose. MR.. GmSON: Simply their views. MR.. CURRAN: And any experience they had in an incorporation. MS. MOFFATT: Experience. MR. CURRAN: Then the time for meetings, the estimates, we're going to ask them to clarify their estimates to us to be fully understandable about what. it encompass, where are the time estimates coming ftom, based on what.. And then number three, we're going to ask them what. they are currently serving, what vendors curreot1y and in what. t;ype of capacity and a breakdown of the items that they are doing for those finns. Not specifically. but genemlly. MR. GIBSON: What do they do with the rest of their time. SO to speak? MR. CURRAN: Okay. And then the last one is I'm going to go back and get more references ftom both John, Sevem Trent and District Offices. I'm also going to go back and cbeck for Neil Dorrill, fur his dollars with the county, to see if he;s been working any with the county. Then rm going to contact both John and Neil and ask them to give us further refereuces for me to check some more for you. And I'll allow them to give it to me. As we said in the very beginning when I started, hearsay, no good. Direct knowledge is good. If you have spoken to a person on a Pelican Bay boaId for the present time that will speak up, that. has worked with one of your candidates and that person tells you something, you are out of the vote unless that person will come and say so. We don't like people saying things in the coffee shop, and then it gets in here and not supported That makes us and you look foolish. MR. GIBSON: Fine. MR. CURRAN: So I will try to push this to get those people. A big question I have of both. if you work for a certain person or individual for a period of time. why are you not letting me call them and give them to me as a reference. That. is a question I will ask them MR. GIBSON: Good purchasing practice. MS. MOFF AIT: You are going to include our two prior chaiIpersons in that. group of questions. MR. CURRAN: I have. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Coleman Connell and Jim Bwke. I can give you that. 138 --, Ill. 'QI' --",,".._"~..^ _.. .'_'.m"_ Management Re,iew Committee Meeting Minutes 16 I 1 B20 ~ April 1, 2009 MR. CURRAN: I have Coleman's address, phone number and email when we first started to do the scope of services. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Good. MR GIBSON: In the view of our current administration, should we check income tax compliance? (Laughter. ) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That could eliminate everybody. MR. GIBSON: Y oulre right. MS. MOFFA IT: Depends on whether they are Republicans or Democrats. MR GIBSON: Whatever. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Any other questions, anyone? Okay. Let's adjourn. MR GIBSON: I so move the meeting is adjourned. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Second. MS. MOFFAIT: Second. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? MS. MOFFATI: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. Mr. Gibson moved, Chainvoman Womble seconded and ullflnimous ' TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INe., BY ELIZABETH BROOKS AND FORMAITED BY MARY MCCAUGHfRY. RECORDING SECRETARY, PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION. 139 "-,.. , ...,."...........-""'.." """" - --.''''-. --,-" _'~"".M '-0".", 161 1 1iiZ 0 -.Q~~ v Halas T /! / t;yQt--O --r>"'~'VED Henning -. J-J /. R t: t..,' t: Coyle JUN 1 9 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING Coletta /C OF THE MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE dl' 0 ii'll.' \;ommlssioners PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION ')Od! 1.,) \_~ \ ) Naples, Florida, Aprit21, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that. the Management Review Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board, having conducted business herein Collier Cowrty, Florida, met on April 21,2009 at 1:50 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Hammock Oak Community Center, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108, with the following members present: Mary Anne Womble, Cbairwoman Geoftrey Gibson Gerald Moffirtt Also Preseat: Jack Curran, Purchasing Agent, Collier County Purchasing Department and Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approve Minutes of March 23, 2009 Meeting. 3. Scoring of Bids with Jack Curran, Collier County Purchasing Agent 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjourn ROLLCALL CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Mary, let the roll call show the Committee members are all present and that you and Mr. Curran are here. MS. McCAUGHfRY: Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Can we have a motion to approve the minutes ofMareh 23? MR. GIBSON: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I do have some comments about the minutes. There are two references that I am speaking that I believe was really Jack Curran. Page 105; just below halfway down the page, after Mr. Moffatt says, ''Yes,'' it reads that Chairwoman Womble speaks and then Mr. Gibson says, "No problem," and again it reads that Chairwoman Womble speaks. In both cases, I believe those were actually Mr. Curran speaking, not me. I guess my voice got low, or else Mr. Curran's went high, but something happened there. He was speaking to us as an entire board. The same goes on to the next paragraph after Mr. Gibson says. No problem. Other than that, I do not see any problems. Anyone else? MR MOFF AIT: The one right above Mr. Gibson's. "No problem," is what you are questioning? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. That one was Mr. Curran and the one right below it ~iNr~ Date: 140 Item #:. _ ~,GpleS to -,~"--.,-~...~.'""" ~ II!' ---. ""--,.~- '--'''-., ._~",.,.- -__,a 16 , 11~20 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Management Review Committee Meeting Anril 21. 2009 MR. MOFFATT: That. is obviously Mr. Curran, yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. Okay. Other than that, I did not see anything that needed to be revised or editing. Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. So is there a second? Mr. Moffiltt, would you second the motion? MR. MOFFATT: I will second. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. All in favor? MR. MOFFATT: Aye. MROffiSON: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. None opposed. Motion eames. 1 Mr. GI6root_-6J'Mr. Mt>J/d4______-.._ "'-1 13, 1M ~ IIIIiIuda. SCORING OF BIDS WITH JACK CURRAN. COI .1 DR COUNTY PURCHASING AGENT CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Now, we are going to go through the scoring of bids with Mr. Jack Curran, Collier County Purchasing Department. MR CURRAN: Thank: you. You have read the proposals. We have done reference checks. We had presentations, and some meetings with discussion. At this time, do any of you three members of the Management Review Committee have any questions or concerns with this proposal or of the proposed finn? We can do a straw vote, but after the last meeting I believe that we understand just about where we are going. What I would like to do is instead of doing a straw vote is to go right to the public. If there's anyone here that wishes to speak to help you do your final scoring, after the speaker, I will ask you to score your sheet, sign your sheet, and then I will ask you who you ranked one, who you ranked two, and that will give us our total. One issue came up at the first meeting that I evidently did not make clear. We are going to short-list two finns today. The No. I firm is the finn that we will enter into negotiations. If an agreement cannot be reached between the Pelican Bay 141 ,"<<<" llll.._ ''''."" _,_'~~"'''''''''~e"''"'''_''_ e'.~,~.,."._" -,._.~"...,. ..1~6 , 1 '820 ; Pelican Bay Services Division Manapment Review Committee Meeting Anril21. 2009 Services Division and the No. I ranked finn, we ask that we may contact the Chairwoman, Mmy Ame Womble. If that does not work out., if they are not willing to come to what we all think is a fair price with that person, we will then move - with your pennission, we will move to the second firm and negotiate a price. I believe that is the standard. That. is why we do not just short-list one firm and walk away. If they do not agree on price, we have nowhere else to go but to the No.2 choice. Therefore, it is always a possibility that the firm you rank No.2 ends up getting the contract. Do any members of the public wish to speak? (No response.) MR. CURRAN: No? If no members wish to discuss, please score your sheets and be ready to sign. Let us go around the room. Jerry. I will start with you, if you do not mind. Whom did you rank No. I on the short-list? MR. MOFFATT: Well, I have not completed it MR. CURRAN: I am sony; I thought that you had said you had it done. MR.. MOFFATT: No. I completed the original fonn. but not the one you just gave us. MR. GffiSON: I completed the original form. too, but I just was handed this sheet. MR. CURRAN: I gave you the new one because there is a place to sign at the bottom and I will need your signatures. MR.. GffiSON: That is fine. MR.. CURRAN: You can sign the furm that you originally completed. MR. GffiSON: I can do. MR. CURRAN: We need'to have these available, in case the bidding firms request to see who ranked whom and this will show the actual score. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: On Tab I, the management summary is ten points? MR. CURRAN: Ten-max. Yau can score anywhere between zero to ten. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Is it the local business preference category where we have to take off ten points? MR. CURRAN: The local vendor category is at the bottom of the form. Only one local firm is bidding and they applied for local vendor prererence were given ten points. The other firm does not have it and their maximum score can only be 90. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jack, will you give me an extra sheet? MR. CURRAN: (Complying.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. 142 "^'".,,~.., ~ -",,'... -_.-~"-"".... Pelican Bay Services Division Management Review Committee Meeting 161 1 920 ADm 21.2009 MR CURRAN: Okay. If everyone has signed, I need to know which management company that you ranked as the No. t firm and No. 2 firm. I will start with Mary Anne. According to the scores, her No. 1 choice is District Offices and No. 2 is Dorrill Management. Geotf, which firm did you choose as your No. 11 MR. GIBSON: Darrill: MR. CURRAN: And your No. 21 MR. GIBSON: District Offices. MR. CURRAN: Jerry? MR. MOFFATT: Dorrill is No. I and District Offices, No.2. MR. CURRAN: Now, the Purchasing Department scoring works a little different than does yours. We have five points for Darrill and we have four points for District Offices. Therefore, the short-list ranking is No. I, Darri)) Management Group, and No.2, District Offices. It was a tight race. It was five to four which is very good. MR. GIBSON: I did not fo))owall of that. MR. CURRAN: What we are doing is base scoring -- we had seven proposals. MR. GIBSON: Yes. MR.. CURRAN: The firm rated No. t will get seven points grading all the way down. MR. GIBSON: Okay. MR.. CURRAN: We had two finns. The firm rated No.1 will get two points for each No.1 score. MR. GIBSON: Okay. MR. CURRAN: Does anyone have questions about our next phase? (No response) MR. CURRAN: Madam Chair, when we are done here today, Diane Perry, our contract specialist win contact you. Unless they decide to leave me involved in this process, then I will call you, but regardless, we will get this done. We need to move on and I will need to collect your sheets in a minute. I am finished. 1 have everything that I need to get this done properly. I personally want to thank all of you for your time and effort and your involvement. For my phase, I am done. MR.. GIBSON: A question. MR. CURRAN: Yes, sir. 143 "-.,-....,., ~~._-_-...'_.." - -,,"--- 161 1 ~ 820 Pelican Bay Services Division Management Review Committee Meeting Aoril21.2009 MR. GmSON: The results seem to be obvious. Mary Anne, whom I respect and have a lot of admiration, elaborated considerably about her experience with District Services. Is there any chance, and I know this is a public meeting and I probably ought to bite my tongue, but is it appropriate to make a comment? MR. CURRAN: Yes. MR. GffiSON: I voted towards Donill, which is in the record. I have been on this Board now for, I guess. roughly six months, this season. I certainly do not want to come here and create any enemies. That is not my objective in life. I like having friends and I like to be. if anything, a moniker, from my end, as a diplomat. I made my living that way. I thought about this last night knowing this meeting was coming up here and tnrthfuIly, from my perspective it was totally - totally equal. I guess I wish I had had some of the experience that you expounded on,. Mary Anne, but I have not. I have had zero and that is just the way things fallout of the hat sometimes. I have to say I was very impressed with the Dorrill presentation. When the computer did not work, it was a slow ground ball. He had handouts for us. If anybody ought to know the computer is not going to work all the time, it ought to be Mr. Petty. He did a "trip and stumble" act. I did not want to hear about water this morning. I know more about water than most people in this community do. I wanted to hear about what he wanted to do for this community and he did not tell me. He's made no attempt to communicate with me, offering a hand or "why do not we do lunch" or why do not you come over here and we can talk about this thing you signed up for." Nothing has happened. I guess I am ready for a change just for change's sake. I do not want to create the enemies because we could have Mr. Petty back here next year and that would be fine with me. I have gotten along fine with him. I just felt that in my own heart that it was necessary to explain to my fellow members where I am coming. I did not have any mvorites. As matter of fuct, the fuet that our meetings are public record, I am leaning towards that I do not like change. I am like most humans. I am happy with what I am doing every day. Change is going to be good for me, but now I am ready for it. I will just stop there. MR. CURRAN: Mr. Moffatt, do you have something to say? MR. MOFFATT: No. MR. CURRAN: I want to say to the three members had a difficult task. You have an in house firm bidding and an outside finn. You have had to put yourselves to where you - you based your decision and it really comes to it. You based it on what was presented to you. When I say "presented," I am referring to the written proposals and the live presentation of both firms on the short-list. It was a decision that, to say the very least, difficult. 144 , -- --'-"-'.'-" . ^.^-'.- -----"" -'~"-", " Pelican Bay Services Division Management Review Committee Meeting 161 1 '820' Aoril21.2009 MR. MOFFATT: Jack, I was going to ask a queStion. I forgot it. Do the scores we put down mean anything? MR. CURRAN: No. I and No.2 means a lot to me. When I go back, 1 have a person who will add those scores up and make sure you did No. I and No.2. That they jive. MR. MOFFATT: Yes. MR. CURRAN: The short version is that we take your word that you picked No. I. When we do the math, if it changes the standing, we will change the short-list, and I will notifY you three committee members. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Will you be coming to the Board meeting on May whatever? MR. CURRAN: It depends. I do not know which day the Board meets. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It is the first Wednesday. MR. GffiSON: May 6. MR. CURRAN: I can make that one, but that. S8turday my Grandson is getting married so I have to travel shortly thereafter. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Oh. boy. MR. MOFFATT: Will we be in a position at that May 6 meeting to approve the new administrator? Will we have the contract? MR. CURRAN: It is our intention to have the contract prepared for May 6. It is a different phase of the operation and I believe that they can get it done. In filet, I will check with Steve Carnell, the Director; he cab put a little fire under it We will get it started and if we do not have it ready by May 6, then we can schedule an emergency meeting to make sure that we have someone in place. We can ask District Offices if they would be willing to extend their contract for 30 days. It has happened before. MR. MOFFATT: Does their contract end May 31, 20091 MR CURRAN: I do not have that infonnation. MR GffiSON: I believe so. MS. McCAUGHTRY: That is correct, Madam Chair. MR. CURRAN: We can always ask District Offices for an extension. MR. MOFFATT: We may need a special meeting of the Board later in May anyway to approve the budget before June 1. We have May 6 and then our next meeting is the first week of June. I understand we have to have it approved by June 1. If that. 145 ".-- - .... -~-_."".,,- >".~..- -- .-,,,......."~..-.._-"_.... --,., 161 1 820 '1 Pelican Bay Servi~ DivisioD Management Review Committee Meeting Aoril 21. 2009 is the case, 1 do not know that we will be in a position to take it to the May 6 meeting. We are going to spend our next budget meeting on the operating expenses. I know we have another TOood to go on the capital expenses, but we do not have any capital projects per se identified other than throw everything in the pot and say we are spending it. I am not sure I could recommend a budget to anyone on that kind of basis. Therefore, that is why I say I think we are going to need another meeting. 1 already asked Mary, but I do not know if you have dates lined up or not. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Dates for another special meeting? MR. MOFFATT: Yes, and another budget meeting. MS. McCAUGHTRY: At this point, no, I do not. I was waiting for your budget meeting. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. MS. McCAUGHTRY: And I believe that because our next scheduled meeting falls on a holiday, so, we will have to schedule a meeting before then. MR. CURRAN: Kyle, you and Mary may start the executive summary for the Board and our Board of County Conunissioners. We will get the contract approved by the Commissioners; Kyle and Mary will work behind the scenes on your behalf. I am just going to make sure you get that dollar value of the contract in place so that when it gets to you, you will have a complete package. If the Board does not have time available and we need to go past Jooe, then we will need to ask for an extension of the current contract to Jooe 30. That would then give us time to finish up. MR. MOFFATT: Hopefully, you win get it on your end and we ought to be able to accommodate those 25 days. MR. CURRAN: The only thing I am concerned with is I really cannot speak for the speed of my contract people, but they are reciprocating. I can certainly find out. MR. MOFFA IT: Thank you. It is been a pleasure working with you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you very much. Jack. MR. MOFFATT: You made it easy. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. You clearly helped us along the way. Thank you. MR. GillSON: Good job. Most retired police officers that I know are still packing. I have been very nice to you if you had not noticed. MR. CURRAN: Thank you, again. I appreciate it. If you have any issues or questions, you have my number, you have my e-mail address, please feel free to contact me. AU right? 146 --.,,~._,~ ....... -~._, "" v"~o ~"....- '--.--. ,"",""",-.""",-"~._-".~-,~--,,,,,,,,",,,,,..-.,,-,,~,<..-.,~,.- . ""- 161 1 t 820 Pelican Bay Services Division Management Review Committee Meeting Anri121.2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, Jack. MR. CURRAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. This meeting stands adjourned. MR. MOFFATI: Okay. MR. GmSON: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? MR. GmSON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: First and second motion you two. MR. MOFFATT: I will move and Geoff can second. (Whereupon. meeting concluded at 2:15 p.m.) I Mr. Moffatt moved, $econded by Mr. Gibson, Il1IIIIIimousIy agreed I to IId)oum the meeting fit 1:15 p.m. Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Services, Inc. by Carolyn J. Ford; and edited and formatted by Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant of the Pelican Bay Services Division. 147 ""-"'~'" "''''".,.....'' ".,,~"...- ----""-~~.."'-'"'~--~..,",--- '""-- -", 161 113/i ~ rE.\\lE.O Hanning n t,;::'~.-I ~".; " 1'U\\~ TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING Coyl. \.\t~ \ ~ OF TID: ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITI'EE Colella ~ J . ione{~ GOI'l'I'l'ISS OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION \ ."ul.l(\t'l Naples, Florida, Jannary 27, 2009 "uSlIO 0 v LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that. the Ordinance Review Committee of the PeJican Bay Services Division Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:05 p,m., in REGULAR SESSION at Hammock Oak: Center, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: MaIy Anne Womble, Chairwoman Ted Raia Michael Levy M. James Bmke Also Present: John Petty, Division Administrator, Pelican Bay Services Division; Janioe Lamed, District Offices, lLC; Kyle Lukasz, Field Opemtions Manager; Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Collier County Attorney's Offioe; John Iaizzo and Jerry Moffatt, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Members; Mary McCaugbtly, Recotding Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division. AGENDA I. Roll Call 2. Approval of November 25,2008 Minutes 3. Audience Participation 4. Collier County Attorney Opinion of County Manager's Authority re: PBSD 5. Administrator's Report of Upcoming consideration by BCC of PBSD Ordinance Change re: Election Process 6. Adjourn ROLL CALL CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Let's call this meeting to Older. Mary, will yon do a roll call please? MS. McCAUGHTRY: Madam Chair, let the record retlect that all members of the Ordinance Review Committee are present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right May I have a motion to approve the November 25th minutes? MR.. BURKE: So moved CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Second? MR. LEVY: I second, DR RAlA: I'd second it, but I have some questions. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Discussion? DR RAlA: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Misc. Corres: 30 Date: Item#: :::'opies to: --".,"- _.-,...-"".",---- '., ...~.,,~-- Ol>dinance Review Committee Meeting 161 ~., Januarv 27. 2009 DR RAlA: I think on page 2 toward the bottom Mr. petty's comments there, let's see, where I could pick this up, about the fifth or sixth line up from the bottom of that paragraph. It says (As read): 1l1ey can own property, bave title, have:fixed assets, but dependent districts, by definition of the Department of Community Affirirs wbich has authority over this issue, defines it as being one where they either-or control", I don't understand that MR. PElTY: Either-or. It's hyphenated. Yon either have one of the parameters that will put you in that category or both that would put yon in that category. DR RAlA: Because Iater on I think yon say that dependent districts don't have control of the appointments. 'That the. . . MR PETIY: I hopefully carried that theme throughout, but the issue there was... DR RAlA: Dependent districts, the commissioners do the appointments; or are they elected? MR PETIY: Or the commissioners control the budget or both, or the commissioners control both. DR RAlA: Do they control the appointments to the board? MR PETIY: Some they do and some they don't, sir. DR RAlA: That depends on how they write up the ordinance? MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. They are not mandated tllat they have to. But to be a dependent district by definition, the county commissioners, in our case, would control either our budget or our board appointments or they would be in charge of both or control both. DR RAIA: Okay. And just a typo there. That Crayton Road. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. DR RAlA: Crayton Road is C-r-a-y-t-o-n. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It's in two places, I believe. DR RAlA: Just in a couple of places. We'll probably mention it in the future so... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, the gentleman it's named for is long gone, but I think he'd like it to be spelled correctly. On page 4, and this is you, Mr. Petty. On the second time you're speaking on page 4, follow on down to about four sentences in the paragraph it says (as read): "And all the fixed assets, aD the rolling stock of Kyle was going to be put in this new entity's name". And I wasn't quite sure exactly what that was referring to. MR PETTY: It may have very well have been my inflexion was one that it was a new sentence but, if we could, correct that, and make it one sentence, that we are talking about what assets would move over if we would become a dependent district and 31 e" ~" .- ,.,-, - "","~-~ r ".-. .-.__.> I Ordinance Review Committee MeetiDg 161 1 ~ ! Januarv 27.2009 what had been considered for that short period of time Pelican Bay Services Division had become a dependent district in 2000/200 I. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. And "all the rolling stock of Kyle"? MR. PETrY: That would be the lawn mowers, the trucks, all the equipment And I may be using a term more of my Midwest heritage when I refer to "rolling stock, " but that's what that refers to. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. And I also had a question. Do we need to or would it be appropriate to put the other board members who were present on the group of people who are members present? MR PETrY: Typically we would Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Mr. laizzo and Mr. MoOatt were also there at that. meeting so we can add those m. MR. PETTY: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think the other place for Crayton is on page 6. DR RAIA: 1 think on page 25, the second paragraph up from the bottom, Mr. Petty is 1alking, maybe the fifth sentence from the bottom (as read): "But also the issue of a "sand point" coming to us. I think it was at some point. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Or a development. I think it might have been in terms of for instance, the Cbateaumere or one of the different communities, development sections in Pelican Bay. I think that's what he was referring to. And Sandpointe might have been the name or something. DR RAIA: I don't know. Would you clari1Y that. John? But also the issue at some point or an issue of what? MR PETTY: I'm flying to find the location CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It's all on... DR RAIA: On 25, your big paragraph at about the fifth or sixth sentence up from the bottom. MR PETTY: Okay. Oh, Sandpointe should be capitalized. I'm 1alking about a property owner development. MR. LEVY: That's a community. DR RAIA: Yes. There is a community Sandpointe. Okay. Good. MR PETTY: I used it as an example in that one. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Oh, and there is another one of Crayton on page 28. Are there anymore points of interest 32 ".~,.".".""-",,,,-"-^~ .- .~,.,", ..- '1 ._-, ..._,~-~ .-._" I 16: I 1820 · 1 OnliDance Review Committee Meeting Januarv 27. 2009 or discussion? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. We have a motion OIl the floor that's been seconded.. All in tavor of approving the minutes as read? DR RAIA: Aye. MR BURKE: Aye. MR LEVY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. Thoseopposed? (Noresponse.) Mr, James Burke moved, seconded by Mr. Mike Levy, and unanimously appro". ed. the.M_ in.utes of the November 25, 2008 Meeti. 'ng. as afire. n. .de..d.__ _ __._ _ _ ._.. - - ~ - -- AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. All right. Audienoe participation. Anyone bave sometbing? Marcia. MS. CRA YENS: I am wondering why is the ordinance even being addressed right now as it is not four years, which I believe is the requirement that the ordinances be reviewed every four years. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Well, Dr. Raia, you brought this... DR RAIA: Yes. No. It's the requirement that it gets reviewed every four years, but you can ask to look at it anytime you want, but you have to do it at least evety four years. So I just asked to actually become more informed about the process myself, and at the various levels what we have, and if there is anything that. might be out there that. we would want to change, and give us some lead time to change it in that. fourth year period. MS. CRA YENS: And any considerntion, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I would expect that any considerntion of any changes to this vety well-done ordinance by thankfully Jim Carroll here, if there were any consideration of any changes to it, it would be thoroughly vetted by the entire community. not during the sommer. but during season. I would hope. I would expect that DR RAIA: 011. absolutely. I fully support that, and I appreciate the work that Tun had done. And my concern was that some of it just was not being observed from my persptX.tive, the things that he put in there. .. MS. CRA YENS: Granted DR RAIA: ... were not being preserved. and what can be done to see that they get observed. Do we have to write it another way? Because it seems that people can always skirt au issue somehow or another. I think the intent was, as Jim put it in 33 ...---.'.," ,~,_." . --~- .-r ,- '-'~" I Ordinance Review Committee Meeting 161 1 820 .~ Januarv 27. 2009 there as we read it, but it hasn't turned out that way. MS. CRAVENS: Wouldn't you run into the same problem, though, if you rewrite it, Ted, that, once again, it might get skirted? DR RAIA.: WelL you know, at this time we would docmnent with our federal minutes the intent of the wording ofwhat we want in the ordinance so that when the people do write the ordinance, they do have our intent And, hopefully, that's what gets carried through. MS. CRAVENS: Thank you. MR PETTY: Madam Chair, if I could just fur clarification. You are not required to do a winter review of any ordinance change. As a matter of fact, you're going to be asked to consider an ordinance change at today's meeting, which will not go out for 30 or 60 days to the public because action may be happening on this very small change m a short period of time. But, generally speaking, the Pelican Bay SeIVioes Division always tries to vet this to the public of Pelican Bay as much as possible. MS. CRAVENS: It sounds like that just negated that whole coocept. Sixty days:from now takes us. _. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: MaR:h. MS. CRAVENS: Well, Februmy, March takes us into April At which point, if that is only the beginning of vetting it to the public, I think it makes it a problem that you're not going forward when most of the residents are here with it MR BURKE: Madam Chair, I suggest we move along with the meeting and approve the minutes and then get into these subjects. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We have approved the minutes, Jim. MR BURKE: We have approved the minutes? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR BURKE: Okay. All this can be addressed in the... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Marcia, thank you, but you may see a reason for all of this in just a few minutes. MR BURKE: Yes. MS. CRAVENS: Okay. Got it COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OPINION OF THE COUNTY MANAGER'S AUmORITY CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Let the record show that Heidi is now here with us. Heidi, I'm not sure, it's Ashton, I know that. Cicko? 34 -. .....-- ..,~" <"" '--T I 161 1 820 f Ordinance Review Committee Meeting Januarv 27. 2009 MS. ASHfON-CICKO: It's Cicko. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Cicko? Thank you. Hi, we're glad you're here. MS. ASlITON-CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We have an opinion of the county manager's authority. With your help, Heidi, and, Mr. Petty, do you want to address this and... MR. PElTY: Madam Chair, if! could prefaoe it a tad? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Please. MR PETTY: At the last meeting questions were raised off of the residents' ooncem over Clam Bay and some of the actions that have happened., and specifically my actions in response thereto have asked for a clarification of my responsibilities and who I report to. I had indicated to this board in those discussions that I was responding to a directive by the county manager that I was obligated to follow. The question was, <<can we get a confinnation that. you, indeed, have to follow the county manager's directives in this case". And I offered that. we could get legal opinion fiom the County Attorneys Office and, ergo, that is why Heidi Ashton is here is to address that issue. And there is another agenda item also that we asked Heidi to attend for. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Heidi, would you like to comment? MS. ASHfON-CICKO: Well, my memorandum does pretty clearly outline the relevant sections of the Pelican Bay ordinanoe, but the ultimate oooclusion is that when there's an overriding government reason,. the county manager has the ultimate control over the day-to-day operations. And most of the Pelican Bay Services Division staff are employees of Collier County. The Pelican Bay Services Division is the leg of Collier County, and then you've got your taxing and benefit unit that the advisory board is responsible for assisting the board with the budget and various other issues. But there's also mernornndum of agreement between the county manager and the Pelican Bay SeIVices Division chairman that further clarifies. And do you have any questions? I think the memo's pretty detailed in the analysis. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, Ijust had a chanoe to scan the memo. DR RAIA: Yes. We just received this. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We just received it. MS. ASlITON-CICKO: Okay. DR RAIA: Can we take a minute to peruse this memo? MS. ASlITON-CICKO: Sure. The request to write the memo was made on Friday and SO I wanted to get it to you for 35 '__e" --~._~._- --.."1 I Ordinance Review Committee Meeting 161 1820 '1 January 27. 2009 today's meeting. MS. CRAVENS: Is it posstble to bave it read into the record and to read it so the public here knows what's being discussed, please? MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, I don't mind reading it into the record if you'd like. Certainly it is part of the record as an attachment anyway. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think that would be exoellent. MR. PETTY: Would you like me to read while you guys are going through it? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thanks. Please. MR. PETTY: Do you want me to read it, Heidi, or do you want to read it? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It doesn't matter. MR. PETTY: I'll read it and then you can conunent. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MR. PETTY: (As read): Issue: The issue presented is what authority does the county manager have over the operation of the Pelican Bay SeIVioes Division. Answer: As further descnbed in this memorandum, the county manager has the ultimate control of the day-to-day operations of the Pelican Bay Services Division. Analysis: The Pelican Bay SeIVices Division is a department of Collier County and falls under the county manager as one of the agencies for which he is responsible. The Pelican Bay Services Division Board is an advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners on matters pertaining to the Pelican Bay Municipal Servioe Taxing and Benefit Unit, herein referred to as the Unit, and which carries out the fimctions, powers, and duties described in Section 13 of Ordinance 2002-27, as amended. Among other powers, the Pelican Bay Services Division Board: 1. Recommends work programs and priorities to the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the adopted budget or budget amendments, which may be adopted by the Board of County ColDlnissioners in accordance with the law. The execution of work programs shall be under the direct supervision and responsibility of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board to be executed by the Pelican Bay Division staff with the assistance of any additional county staff needed in accordanoe with the memorandum of agreement, slash. letter of undeIStanding. Said work may be performed under contract in accordance with the law 36 ""~.'...~ -...-- 1 I Ordinance Review Committee Meeting 161 1 B20 Januarv 27,2009 and county policy or by county fon:es. The memorandum of agreement, slash, letter of understanding between the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the county manager was originally executed on October 22nd, 2002, and revised in 2006. 2. The current memorandum provides the county manager shall accept the direction of the Pelican Bay Services Division board and its exercise of decision and control of the day-to-day opemtions relating to the purpose and powers of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit in conformanoe with Section 3 of Ordinanoe 2002-27 as amended to the maximum extent allowed by law, unless and except when there is some overriding government reason to do otherwise. 3. That all ultimate administrative and ministerial powers, duties, responsibilities, decisions, and control related to the operations of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit are appropriately retained by the office of the county manager in conformance with county ordinances 93-72 and 95-49, Collier County Administrative Ordinances, under the policy direction of the Board of County Commissioners sitting as Ex-Officio Board of the Pelican Bay Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit. In accordance with Section 14 of Ordinanoe 2002-27, the county manager requires any contract manager or employee manager of the Unit to report directly to the county manager. Based upon the above referenced documents, my conclusions are as follows: I. Where there is an overriding government reason to do otherwise, the cot.mty manager retains the decision and control of the day-to-day operations of the Unit. 2. John Petty, executive director, wocks for and under the county manager, although Pelican Bay SeIvioes Division Board has the ability to hire the executive director subject to county manager's review. The last sentence. ._ CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That doesn't make sense to what I've read. MR PETIY: Madam Chair, I tbink that reflects the position asked of counsel, but doesn't reflect what counsel may tell you if you asked about what are the powers of the board in directing the day-to-day operations as well or in the selection process. I think the answer was in kind to the question. But, Heidi, I think what the chair is referring to is we were under this distinct impression based off of the :nnendment of our 0nIina0.ce 2006 which is the administrator takes direction from the board on a day-to-day basis. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. MR. PETIY: And, as such, the board would be allowed to enter into that contract for such services, but I do understand 37 - -~- ". ._- -"-,,~, ~_.. 1 I Ordinance Review Committee Meeting 1611 1 920 Januarv 27. 2009 that the county manager does withhold the ability to stop any contract as the county is the ultimate legal entity. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, you asked a number of questions in one, but the municipal service taxing unit itself is not a recognized legal entity. Collier County is the recognized legal entity. So any purchases, any agreements, that's between Collier County and the vendor under the purchase agreement. My understanding the way all this operntes is that. the county manager does defer to the day-to-day opemtions to the Pelican Bay Services Divisiou Board. However, ifhe doesn't agree with something, he has the ultimate decision and control. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. So day-to-day it would be us typically? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right And then if he doesn't agree with something that's occurred, then, you know, either he, if it's within his powers, can say, no, I don't agree or goes to the Board of County Commissioners for them to decide. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Heidi, can you give us an example of what would not be in his power? What would be something that he couldn't make a decision on? MR BURKE: Our budget MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, he can make a recommendation. The Board of County Commissioners is the one who makes the decision. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right Okay. But in most cases. he's not going to make au overriding decision unless it's something like the budget or some situation where the commissioners would have to accept or not accept the situation. The budget is the only thing I can come up with. DR RAIA: Yes, but if that's funded... MS. ASHfON-CICKO: You know, you're giving me a lot of hypotheticals and 1 really can't give you an answer. I can tell you that I think: in pmctice most decisions are going to go to the Board of County Commissioners with his recommendation. I don't know any decisions that rm aware of he's made on his own without getting board direction. So, I don't know that I can give you an example. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. DR RAIA: If the budget contains funds for a contract, it's the county manager that would have authority over approving or disapproving that contract. MR PETTY: Madam Chair, if I may get in there a little bit? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Please. 38 ~.- ..~._."..__.m. --1 -".-. "'- ----, _.,,- I Ordinance Review Committee Meeting 161 1 ~ 20 ?1 January 27. 2009 MR. PETIY: It has been the practice in the past that the county manager typically does not look at our budget in an approval or disapproval fushion. DR RAIA: Forget the budget. The contrncts... MR. PETIY: Hold on. He looks at it on a line-item basis. And if there is something in the budget that is contnuy to county policy, he would bring that up as au issue long before the budget adoption process. If there is a conflict with this board putting in its budget a contested matter by the coun1y manager. it would definitely go before the coun1y commissioners at that time. So I think that's the process it would go to. The county manager, in our preliminaty budget, as we deliver our d:raft, I think, in April or May, would tell us if they have any conflicts. And that would come from the manager's offioe or from the budget office, and typically that's how it would work. DR RAlA I don't want to confuse the issue with the budget though. I want to deal strictly with the contract. All contracts we make must get the approval of the county manager. If... MR. PETIY: I'm going to jump in again and say that since we have no legal status and only the county has a legal position, they're the only ones that can sign. We are a division of the county. We only act as their agent in the day to day business DR RAIA: And isn't it the county manager who does the signing or approves the signing ultimately? It's the county commission, isn't it, since the... MR. PElTY: On most contracts that I'm aware of, sir. DR RAlA: Okay. MR. PElTY: Heidi, do you know of any contracts that are signed by the commissioner without the manager's signature? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the manager doesn't sign off on agreements of the Board of County Commissioners. Any agreement that I review, I always require that it go to the Board of County Commissioners. The county manager can provide his input. Now, there is some department discretion and I don't know all the purchasing policy nmnbers for oertain purchases that are under oertain amounts can be done at the staff level. And I suppose at that point, if the county manager disagreed, he could raise it at that point, does that answer your question? MR. PETTY: I believe so. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. DR RAIA: So if we do some agreement with. let's say, Tim Hall & Associates, that ultimately has to have the approval of the county manager? 39 ...-- ._~'".. -,,-",,- . "-~"'".~"" 1 ",.,,-, I Ordinance Reflew Committee Meeting 161 1 18 2 0 1 Januarv 27. 2009 MR.. PETIY: Yes, sir, in some form either through stepped policies in submittals making sure it's compliant with the policies of the county. If it is at the purchase level, that \\ooId allow staff to sign off on it. That means he would have to sign off on it. If it is something of a magnitude where the conunissioners have to sign off on it, of course, it would go further. DR RAIA: No. No. That's fine. I'm not contesting that This is part of my edm:aUon. I think everybody should know how it wotks. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. Most of our material goes through procurement which transparently does this routing of the contract for us. DR RAlA: And the part where we exercise our decision and control, we have all that. up to and when it is determined that there is some overriding government reason. And who determines that. oveniding government reason? MR PETIY: Madam Chair, was the question to me, if it's to me.. . CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I would assume it's the manager. DR RAIA: It's an open question. Who determines? I imagine the county manager determines it. MR. PETTY: I have always looked to the county manager as my direct contact or determination of such. DR RAIA: I'm not demeaning the county manager. I just want to bave everybody know what the rules of the game are, that the county manaeer has a lot of control over the business we have. And that. when we thought we were putting through a good ordinanoe and giving us some sembJanoe of independenoe and authority, it really is quite limited. It's quite limited. MR BURKE: It's what you do with it, Ted DR RAIA: Well, if we do what. the county wants us to do, there is no limit to it. But if you have any conflict with what the county wishes are, there are definite limits to it So it's... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: But that makes sense because we're an advisory board. MR BURKE: Yes. DR RAIA: Well, I know, but that is why we try to move a little bit beyond the advisory board and I think this is all good.. This is not meant to be adversarial. I think the intent in 2006 and, Jim, you can stop me if I'm wrong, was to give us a little more say in independence in the actions we take. Okay? MR.. CARROlL: That's true, Ted That definitely was our direction and it was done with very strong support from the manager's offioe. 1 mean, he encouraged that. DR RA1A: Yes. 40 ~"..".,,"..,- - n , "'-,-",-,. -~.~,- ~._". .<0_......_ .,,"',"" .. Ordinance Review Committee Meeting 161 I 820 Januarv 27. 2009 MR. CARROLL: And it was written such that we could decide to do things. And, of course, he does have final authority. There's no question about that. 1 never saw him use it, but he bas it. THE COURT REPOR1ER: Your name, sir? MR.. CARROLL: Jim Carroll. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. DR RAIA: I have the information I want on that issue, unless somebody bas anything? MR. BURKE: Madam Chair, now wbatare we going to do with this? Does this require some action on our part or... MR.. PElTY: No. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR. PETTY: No, sir. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It was a fact-finding mission. DR RAIA: Just information. MR. BURKE: Okay. MR. PETTY: We were responding to a request by the bowd Madam Chair, Heidi's time is somewhat limited. The commissioners W3Ilt her back. ASMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ON UPCOMING BeC CONSIDERATION OF PHSD ORDINANCE CHANGE CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Let's move on to the next point then. Would you please give your report of the upcoming consideration by the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Pelican Bay SeIVices Division Board election process concern. MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, if I could again preface, we had contacted the adminislrative offices of the commissioners as soon as we found out that Mr. Boland had removed his name for consideration and we had five people qualified and five positions open. We asked the question if an election would still be held We asked that because our election is modeled after the landowner election, but it goes a little bit into standard electorate process as well, so we were trying to verifY the status. In 41 landowner elections it wouldn't matter if you were nmning 1JIINUItested. You still have the election because it's based on an annual meeting process. Electorate there's no need and why incur the cost. So we asked the question. Staff did a quick look at it and decided that if there is a way to save money in this matter, that they probably should do so. The manager brought it up under management comments at the commission meeting that day and got direction from the commissioners to act expeditiously to see if that couldn't occur to save the funds by not having the election. The counsel for the county has directed staff to prepare such an instrument. You 41 _.""'~ .-. .". - ~-".;~," ,_.~".... ,~--,...- - ~~, ..... ._. Ordinance Review Committee Meeting 161 1 820 '~ Januarv 27. 2009 have a draft before you from Heidi's office. I'm here to tell you that this was done without malioe. aforethought, or intent But what I brought up to the manager's office was that any changes to our ordinance without going through the Pelican Bay Services Division may be seen as adversarial as some changes and some recommem:lations by this body had not been fullowed by the county commissioners, which is rare oflate. We didn't want to make this a negative issue either. MR. BURKE: Executive SUIIlOlaI)', what does it say? What's the change? MS. ASHrON-CICKO: It's on page 4 of 5. This is the change that. the Board of County Commissioners directed be made to the ordinance and brought back for advertisement MR BURKE: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And the county manager and county attorney want the input of the Pelican Bay Servioes Division. I think from the board's perspective it's a cost savings and why wouldn't anybody want it. But they wanted to make sure that the Pelican Bay Services Division, you know, has some input before it went forward for advertisement. And so it's on page 4 of 5. MR BURKE: Okay. MS. ASHfON-CICKO: It's Item F, which is underlined. MR BURKE: Good deal. DR RAIA: Do I have one? MR. BURKE: Madam Chair, I want to move that we go to the full board and recommend adoption of this. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Adoption of what, Jim? MR BURKE: Item F. Section I, Item F. Am I right? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. So... MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: ...because there are equal number of people, then there shouldn't be a balloting position, and instead the list of nominees for the position shall simply be forwarded to the Board of Coonty Commissioners, who, following public hearing on the matter, will make the necessmy appointments to fill said positions. Normally I would say yes but, you know, I was looking at all of this and we have a board of eleven, and we have five positious changing out at the same time, and that conoerns me greatly because what continuity do we have if you have five people going off of a board at the same time out of eleven? And, we've had enormous amount of changeovers with one thing after the other happening the past year. I'm just wondering if it 42 ~ "--_..,.."-,._.~ --~~_...- ,....-" ",.,""" 161 1 !B20 ! Ordinance Review Committee Meeting Januarv 27. 2009 wouldn't be a smart move to go ahead and have a vote of the residents of Pelican Bay. And by using that vote, figure out maybe the terms, changing the terms. MR. BURKE: That would be an ordinance change, when's the next... MR. PETrY: These are both ordinanoe changes. MR. BURKE: Yes. But, I mean., a major one I mean, I think we ought to eliminate the election altogether. I think that should be an ordinance change. I mean, the commissioners appoint the members anyway and they have the authority no matter what our results are. They've adhered to it vety closely. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jim, may I finish what I was saying? MR. BURKE: Go ahead. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. MR. BURKE: I don't mind. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, I'm glad to hear it because I've got this (indicating the gavel). The reason I'm suggesting thinking about this and looking into it is with five people going off of a board at the same time the continui1y is poor, very poor. And we've had such a huge group of people coming and going in the last year, the continuity is even worse than what we would nonnallyexpect. I would like to consider having a vote and using the vote as away of changing tenns. Everybody seems to have a term that comes up due at similar times for everyone. And if we did a vote where we took maybe the lowest number of votes, give them a two-year term. The next lowest would be three. We could stagger this so in the future we don't have such an enormous number of people leaving at the same time. 1bat. was my concern. I don't think it's that expensive. And if the commissioners are uncomfortable with that amount of money, then, I would look forwant to looking through our budget. And I know Mike Levy's sitting there thinkine dollars and cents. but I'm figuring that it wouldn't be all that expensive for us to go ahead and pay for that kind of election process and then setup the tenns. Do that right now so that we have a difference in term lengths so that we can stagger it We have an opportlmity where we're going to be rewriting something anyway. We might as well make it well worth our while for the future. And since I'm on this strategic planning committee, I've been looking at the future, and this is a good time where we're rewriting something anyway. DR RAIA: It's a very good suggestion. And the only thing is I still can't see spending that money to achieve that ifwc can achieve it another way. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do we have an idea of how much? 43 -----,. onunance Review Committee Meeting 161 1 B20 ~ Januarv 27. 2009 MR PETIY: Madam Chair, we called the clerk of courts. They 1ypically budget $6,000. And we're told $7,000 would be a high. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mike, we've got that, don't we, in our budget? From what. I saw yesterday, I was looking through, and it looks to me we have $7,000 to do something. MR LEVY: Well, Mr. Petty tells me we have it, yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Really? Okay. DR. RAIA: Well, you know... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, let me finish., Ted. DR. RAIA: Okay. I thought I was finishing. I thought you were finished. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I'm sorry. DR. RAIA: I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The reason I'm doing this particular thing is because when you're worried about the ordinanoe and that. we have lost some of our input at the county level., what Mr. Carroll was tIying to do was give us a chance to have a little more input in what. we could do. If we say, okay, fine and good., and we write an ordinance allowing this to occur, then we may be setting ourselves up for the future to lose it altogether. DR. RAIA: :My conoem right now with this issue is just the appearalloe of spending money when there is no election, and people just don't look any further than that And especially in this time of the year there are some problems that. are going on I'm just wondering if it is at all possible that, for instance, the commercial slot should be every two years so that we have somebody that's elected for four years and appointment of four years and every two years they change. For the other four seats, is it possible for us to put their names in a hat. and stagger them and work them in with the terms of the people who are already in offioe now and see if we can work them in and we do have a stagger system. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Sme. That's possible, but I'm worried about losing the vote altogether. MR. LEVY: How are they staggered right now? We've got two commercials that come up in different years and we've got nine regular members that. come up at different years. So they're already staggered to some degree; right? DR. RAIA: Well, they are but, apparently, she's concerned that right now it's four coming off at one time of the nine. MR. PETTY: Five. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It's five. 44 -~;- ."~-'-'-'-""- --,,~ --~~ Ordinance Review Committee Meeting 161 I R2D ( Januarv 27. 2009 MR PETTY: It's three, three, and five. DR RAIA: Yes, but is one of the five a commercial person or not? MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. DR RAIA: So saying that, of the residential slots, there's four coming off. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. DR RAlA: Four of nine coming off right now. MR.. PETIY: Yes. DR RAlA: So if there's some way to achieve that. without, you know, spending money, I would support that. first. But I'm not at all concerned that the commissioners are going to make this appoin1ment now with no election. I don't think that's going to have any bearing on the future. L in my recollection, the commissioners have never appointed anybody who was not elected at an election. They've always taken the people who are elected, they were the people appointed. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: well, let me make a point here. In the past six months, they have appointed people who were not from this board. MR. BURKE: Yes, but they weren't, I'm talking about the... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: They were elected, yes, or they were... MR BURKE: They were not? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: ...they were nominated or they put their names in and they were selected, but our board... MR. RAlA: I'm referring to the election of the community of Pelican Bay... MR. LEVY: These people would be in the same vote. If there was no election, these people would not have been elected by the community. MR.. RAlA: My conoem is that the commissioner may reach out and get number five, six, and seven and put them in there instead of these people who... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: They can do anything they want MR. LEVY: Well, they can't, can they, 'cause it's closed? MR. RAlA: They can do anything they want, but I just don't think they would do anything with an election that has to do with an election of the people as opposed to this board making a recommendation. MR. BURKE: That's right. 45 ..~,- ~".....' ""o__,,,,~,.,,. --- 161 1 820 . Ordinance Review Committee Meeting January 27. 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: But did the people in Pelican Bay have a chance to elect anyone? No. MR. RA1A: WelL they almost had a chance. Somebody pulled out. MR. BURKE: Well, what is the Foundation Board going to do? They don't have an election? Are they going to go through expense of running it? MR. RAlA: No. No. No. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's a different situation. They're not governed by a different body. MR. BURKE: Yes. But I mean will the community not accept those two because they weren't elected? MR. RA1A: And I think the current property owner's association is going to say they aren't going to have an election and... MR. BURKE: I was surprised they we didn't have it in the ordinance that if there's only one candidate per slot that there's no election. I really was. I never realized that. It's silly. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: There may have been a vel}' good reason for it. MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, if I could, the reason for it is, it was modeled after landowner-election style which doesn't acknowledge that. runoff. Two, we have had elections in the past where people have been on the election ballot without being opposed. And let me address the money issue. If you don't do the election, wbich staff would love not to have the work the cost is going to be the same. Because what. we were able to get from the county in allowing us to have this vote of the people is something that we do not wish to give up. As such., we would want to tell them that there was not going to be an election So we're going to spend some funds notifYing them that. the election isn't being held because they're not running against anybody. MR. BURKE: NotiiYing the candidates? MR. PETTY: No. What I'm going to suggest to you, if you don't do the election, is that we do some type of public communication that informs the residents of why we're not doing an election, which is something I think we should do to maintain that standard of the election process which was hard fought, and I don't think you should give up right now. So either way you're going to spend a little bit of money. I'm going to tell you from a staff peISpeCtive, it's cleaner to follow the commissioners' current path and allow this to be taken out. To stop the t:min, as the county staff says, is going to be difficult. To try and do a modification to it, vel}' difficult. To do the election, I believe the chair is absolutely correct, to do the election we would have to probably substantiate that. with our C06t, but I don't believe it's going to cost the residents of Pelican Bay anymore money either way. MR. RA1A: WelL notification could be with e-mail and post. 46 ,,-- 161 1 820 1 Ordinance Review Committee Meeting Januarv 27. 2009 MR. BURKE: Yes. MR. RAIA: I mean, it isn't telling them that there is no election is not that significant an entity. You have to get a personal notification of it But in actuality we already followed this process because if there are five people for four slots, the four winners take the four slots. If one of them dropped out mid-year, the commissioners will go back and pick up that fifth person even though that person lost the election. So they observe the nominees fust WileD they're no more nominees, then they ask this board to suggest, but you know, that opens up the field for them to be a board and appoint who they want also, but they've alwayg respected the nominees. I've never seen an exception to that CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. Carroll. MR. CARROLL: As I recall the offioe of the clerk paid for the elections so... MR.. BURKE: Somebody pays for it CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The clerk of courts. MR. PETIY: Well, the county pays for that and the charge of the funds is the clerk of courts. And the clerk of courts does this landowner-style election by sending out the ballots. So it is on their budget. MR. BURKE: I'm trying to undeIstand this, Madam Chair. We don't have enough candidates for an election or a ballot. Okay. So I'm trying to figure out what's complicated about not going ahead with it. We just don't do it. As Ted says we e-mail the five or six, whatever candidates. Say, you're in. Here's the reason. The c1elk of courts' office and Jay Cross would love it not to have to do this. I don't understand the complication. We don't have enough candidates. We don't have an election. What's the big deal? And then we tell the commissioners here's our people what. are we talking, four or five? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, there's five. One is commercial MR. BURKE: Yes. We tell the board, here's our five people. And then if you want to make some changes on how this is staggered, I say let's go to wOlk and change the ordinance. do the whole thing. Have public hearings and whatever. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Now, when we started this meeting, we started with requesting a decision from Heidi as to who has thegenernl overall say and what. happens to whatever we come up with on the boaId. And I'm aware that Mr. Carroll, and 1 think all of us are, when he wrote or helped rewrite the ordinance in 2006, he was looking for a way to make sure that we had oertain rights and responsibilities so that we had a little more control over what. was happening here in Pelican Bay. And I think the commissioners were happy for that because that meant less micro management. Now, in this case, I agree to some degree that there is a reason why it seems strange to have an election on the face of it when you have equal amoonts of spots on the 47 -,"- ---, ...."'_."M'. -------,"--- -'.~'- 161 1 820 l Ordinance Review Committee Meeting January 27. 2009 board, and that number of people who have applied MR LEVY: Is that when the elections started in 20067 Is that when the elections first started? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. No. No. That was back in the PBID days, I think. MR. PETIY: Back in the early '90s. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR. BURKE: Jim Carroll is the one that got the elections started. MR LEVY: In the early '90s. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Was that 2002, Jim? MR. CARROLL: Somewhere in that time frame, yes. MR BURKE: It would have had to have been about 2000. We bad that bunch of hearings with Dwight Brock and... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mike, what's your point? MR LEVY: I was just asking for infonnation as to say when we first started electing. You were talking about 2006 and it wasn't. It was 2001 or '2. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. It was before that, but it's relatively new considering our community is going into 30 years. MR LEVY: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It is a relatively new thing. And what. Pm concerned about is that in the future, if we do not utilize the process and, in this case, we could use it as a way offinding terms whoever had, you know, choosing numbers and using that as a term limit amount so that we can stagger our terms. We're going to have to rewrite an onJinance anyway. We might as well go ahead and make it a little simpler. Go ahead with the election. We do have to make some type of address to the residents of Pelican Bay about what. we have done and what. is going forward and that's going to be a mailing. It has to be because not everyone has a computer that they utilize. Not everybody reads The Post that much and it probably would behoove us. In the past, historically, we sent out something manually anyway and this would be a good time to do this. MR BURKE: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So if we're going to be utilizing those fimds and we are concerned about losing anymore of our rights and respoIlSlbilities, then maybe this is the time to do it. Change the mdinanoe so that it reads that we do have those staggered terms. And look forward to the future and get on with it And that. was the idea, I think, that I was most concerned with, 48 ..~., 16 I .1 820 , Ordinance Review Committee Meeting Januarv 27. 2009 - ! that we do want to continue with the idea of voting. As Mike brought out, it's lather a new situation that we do vote and elect our board. It's a landowners' elections, sure, but it is still something that we have at this point. If we don't have the ballot and the election, I'm not sure how comfortable I feel with that Just a thought. MR LEVY: We're now staggered, what., two, three, and four, or something like that? MR BURKE: Three, three, five. MR LEVY: Pardon? MR. BURKE: John said three, three, five. MR. PETTY: Without looking at the commercial people, it's three, three, five. MR.. LEVY: Without the commercial it's two, three, four? MR.. PElTY: It should be two, two, four. MR.. RAlA: Two, three, four. :MR. PElTY: It was three, three. five. Yes. Yes, two, three, four. Thank you. MR LEVY: Two, three, four. So, you know, I mean, I can't see wbat you're going to improve the staggering. I mean, I can't see changing the ordinanoe. You're two, three. four already. I mean, you're staggered. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: But we've got five coming off at the same time. That's the four. :MR. RAlA: That's the four. MR. LEVY: That's the four. So now you've got two coming off and now you've got three coming off and that's... MR. RAlA: I don't think it's worth really spending that much more time on this- All we can do is recommend to the board. We really can't do anything here so until the full board. Is there a motion on the floor? Did you make a motion? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: There's no motion. MR. BURKE: Well, there's a confusing issue here. Issue one is we have five people for five slots, election or no electioll. And, then, the staggering thing. I mean, I don't think it's a problem. I mean, this isn't rocket science, but that should be a separate issue altogether. I don't think we should confuse it. MR. RAlA: Right And it requires cbangingjust one position. When we do go change, it's just not that. big a deal. Right now we have two, three, four. So you want to have it three, three, three? We'll, you know... MR. BURKE: I'm not too sure the community is sitting out there waiting to see the results of this. What's the best we've ever done, 900 votes, l,1oo? 49 ,,~.,". " ...- 16 I 1 820 i Ordinance Review Committee Meeting Januarv 27. 2009 MR. PElTY: Well, we take what we can get MR. RAIA: It's not the election of the year I can tell you tbat. MR. BURKE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Since this is a relativel)' comfortable situation and although we've had our audience participation already and Mr. Carroll's chimed in, thankfully, I'd also say, Marcia, yon have had your hand up. Do you have something you want to add? MS. CRA YENS: Yes. I just want to say in regards to when there is an election, even in an official government election, when there is a candidate who is unopposed, they don't hold that. election. That person gets it MR. PElTY: Exception. Exception. When you're in a benefit landowners' election. and we come from that stock, that's why we've got that "B" in our MSlBU landowner elections do hold the elections regardless of whether you're running against anyone. Basically nominees are thrown up and people have to vote. MS. CRA YENS: Okay. MR. PETTY: And they are tallied very similar to the way we're tallied now with the highest vote getting the most respect, if you will, and the lowest vote getting the least amount of respect and tbe shortest term, if there is a difference in terms. MS. CRA YENS: I understand. I don't feel strongly one way or the other as to whether or not those candidates are just accepted because there are no opposing candidates or if you hold the election. which still only has those same candidates and all you're going to do is rank them essentially by who gets the most votes. But what I do want to focus on is this concept that. we have to rewrite the ordinance. I think it's an exoeUent, outstanding ordinance as it is.. And it's simply that. we have situations where it has not been followed very well or there has been misrepresentation of it Yon have no assurance that. if you rewrite it again that that won't still be the case no matter how yon write it So why take a perfectly good ordinance and rewrite it when you may end up with the same situation and you may end up with a lesser ordinance. That's just my point. MR. BURKE: Did we have a motion on the floor? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You made a motion, but nobody seconded it. MR. BURKE: What was my motion? MR. RAlA To accept the... MR. LEVY: 011, yes. Yon wanted to awrove the.. . MR. RAIA: The thing that's underlined here, F. 50 ~-,_.~,- --",,< 161 1820 I Ordinance Review Committee Meeting Januarv 27. 2009 MR. LEVY: 011, F. F on page 4. J\.1R. RAIA: I'll second it. MS. ASHfON-CICKO: (Inaudible.) (Simultaneous speakers.) 11IE COURT REPORTER: Heidi., I'm sony. I didn't hear what you said I couldn't hear you. MR. BURKE: Your turn. MS. ASHfON-CICKO: I was just telling him what his motion was. MR BURKE: Ted just seconded it; right? MR. RAIA: I second it. MR. PETIY: Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. J\.1R. PETIY: For clarification purposes, may I ask that the motion not be so specific. Since it is a draft and it is subject to the commissioners that. you might want to think about rephrasing that. to just accepting the recommendation for a change as outlined in this draft? MR BURKE: Our full board would have to vote to move it. MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's oorrect As Heidi just said, yes. MR. PETTY: I mean without giving specific language out of this draft. MR. RAIA: This vote is going to our board? MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. MR. RAIA: Not to the Board of County Commissioners? MR. PETIY: Yes. MRBURKE: I amend my motion to say we approve the draft as outlined in the Ordinance. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So you've made a motion. You've seconded it that we accept this? MR RAlA: Yes. At least the ooncept of it, yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. All in favor? J\.1R. RAIA: Aye. 51 ,- ~-~- _.,~,-~- ,-_., - .^-~ Ordinance Review Committee Meeting 161 1 820 1 Januarv 27. 2009 MR. BURKE: Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) Mr. James Burke moved, seconded by Dr. Ted Raia, and unanimously approved to accept the recommendation for a change to the PBSD Ordinance as outlined in the draft. ------~----- --- ------ ------- ----~---------~~--- CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Now, we have to take it before the board; is that oorrect? MS. ASHfON-CICKO: And as you go forward, because I understand this is the ordinance review conunittee? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MS. ASHfON-CICKO: Okay. If you det~ that. you have other reoommendat.ions for changes in the ordinanoe, go ahead and meet, cIiscuss, come up with the proposed language. And ilien what John will do is prepare an executive SUl1lIIlaIY to go to the board. And it will go on their consent agenda saying these are recommended changes and then the board directs that. it be advertised and come back with the full ordinance. So that is the procedure. If that's how you'd like to proceed with the other issues you raised. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Thank you. MR. RAIA: And that is regardless if we want to have a change of the present status of a Pelican Bay Servioe Division and MSmU or if we want it to go to a dependent district or even an independent district? The process is all the same? Or suppose you wanted to go to nothing, no district, you didn't want to have anything? MS. ASHfON-CICKO: Well, the direction that I was giving the chairman was related to amending the ordinance. If there's movement to abolish the district, then I think you'd have to bring it to the board tOr them to give you direction as to what they're looking for, but usually they require, like, a 50 percent plus one for the creation of a unit So they'll want to know that. the community as a whole is supportive. I don't know if it would be 50 peJrent plus one. I can't really speak for the board, but they'll want to know that there's support before they terminate. MR. RAIA: Well, obviously, we couldn't vote that. It would have to be the community that would have to express that. What we would want to know is could the commnnity still take care of maintainine the lights and the grounds, the mowing, and things of that nature? Could we mow county property? 52 -. ._.~ ..- Ordinance Review Committee Meeting 161 1 820 Januarv 27. 2009 MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, if I may, that's something that stalIbas discussed and we currently have a policy on We do maintain county rights-of-way currently in our mowing program, all of the landscaping on Pelican Bay Boulevard for now. MR. RAIA: Because we're an arm of county government. That's why we're doing it MR. PETrY: And Pelican Bay assesses itself for that upscale l11aintenanoe which is not nonnally supplied by the county. So we already do that 1 think the specific process that counsel has relayed is one of a standard business where it would go on a consent agenda. If it is a material change to our ordinance, I believe it would go out in the normal pattern which means it would be discussed by staff first. It would be looked at by counsel and then be put on agenda item for discussion., not necessarily a consent agenda. A consent agenda is for basic standard business, as you will, that. is not considered to be contested So the process is! basically the same, though. Anything that we wish to do in that process to make a change. we would send to the county, either for the consent agenda consideration or for a discussion considemtion being reviewed by staff MR. RAJA: Okay. You know, as I look at this, I see various levels. And the first level is we don't have anything. The second level is you have an MSlU, then you have MSTBU. Then you have a dependent district. Then you have an independent district. And then you have the COD, whatever that is, or have incorporation or something. And I'll tell you, I know Jim did a yeoman's job in nying to give us something more. And perbaps to some extent he did,. but it had it comes to light that. if there is a problem and it's clearly stated. I can't argue with that That the county manager or the commissioners have the last say on it no matter what the feeling of the community is. And how do we get out of that? How can we rise above that And so then I asked you about the dependent district. And then you tell me that, well, they can still have the power of appointing the people who run the business. And that's, you know, the more I see, coming from Massachusetts, is very little democracy in Florida. I don't mean to cast an aspersion on Floridians, but we elect. The representative process is only through a district commissioner, one district commissioner. There are four others we don't even vote for. And so everything really trickles down.. And I'm just trying to get a modicum of self government for Pelican Bay. So even at a dependent district it seems like it's not there. We have to go to an independent district to really acquire control over what we consider important? MR. BURKE: John and Heidi, question for you. Within Collier County llrnow there's five independent fire districts. There's two so-called dependent districts. Are there any other entities that are independent districts? Because they're a creation of the state, aren't they? MR. PETIY: They can be. They are not always, but they follow statutory law. Ifthey're over X mnnber of acres, they are established by the water a<ljudicat.ory committee which is the governor's cabineL And if they are under, they can be created by 53 ,,,".- . ,._~ -."" "-"" -'...~" 161 1 B20 ! Ordinance Review Committee Meeting January 27. 2009 local governments through ordinance, a city or county. MR BURKE: You're talking about independent districts? MR PETTY: Yes. And PBID was one that was established b}' the governor's office, the Water A1ljudicat.OIY Committee. Pelican Marsh also went through that same process. MR. BURKE: Are they an independent district? MR PETIY: They are as is Lely. Pelican Bay was the last improvement district. After that almost all districts of that style have to be WIder the uniform method of CDDs, although. they are coming out with stewardship districts now which are independent. So we have, of course, Big Cypress and, 011, my gosh, I forget the university. MS. ASHfON-CICKO: Ave Maria. But those are special acts of the legislature. MR. PETIY: Yes, but they are independent districts. MR. BURKE: I know that the five independent fire districts are state creation. The county has no input at all. So if we wanted to be an independent district, we would have to petition the state legislature? MR PE1TY: Well, as 1 explained at that previous meeting, it would be extremely difficult to get all the landowners to all conform to this. MR. BURKE: One hundred pen;eo.t; right? MR PETIY: Yes, sir. Usually these things are done when there are a small nwnber of landowners and you're looking to develop. So after the fact it is nearly impossible. MR. RAIA: It is easier to incorporate than to become an independent district It's absurd. So let me get back to the lowest level then. I( you know, going to a dependent district really doesn't give us the control we would want by having our people run our business, we can't go higher, suppose we didn't want to be an ann of the county, but we still wanted to maintain the environment the way we choose to keep it, but pay for it omselves. We're going to pay for it ourselves. All the people who are working out for staff at the county, we get them employed in some entity. How do you go about doing that and what's the consequences of it? Are we allowed to mow the grass on the street side of the sidewalk which belongs to the county? :MR PETIY: Not without an agreement with the county, sir. No, sir. MR. RAIA: So you would still need some kind of an agreement And if they said 110, the place goes to seed? MR. PETIY: It would go to standard county service levels instead of the upscale service levels. MR RAlA: Okay. And, you know, the thing we served a very useful purpose historically because we accepted 54 -_..~ ~--~. --".-..- ,- --, 16 , 1~20 Ordinance Review Committee Meeting January 27. 2009 maintaining the grounds and supplying fancy or electric lights, but we also took care of the mangroves. We also took care of the water management system. I feel that of these two other things, the most important things we really do have been usurped by the county. And, you know, sitting here all these hours to take care of mowing the lawn and putting lights on and off I just feel there's a better way to do it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: There may be. At this point, though. we have what we have and we're going forward and... MR RAlA: I hope I'm going forward in doing this. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think we are. I don't think there is a problem. I think we'll be able to come to a resolution. And the reason this was set up in the first place is because micromanaging is not something the commissioners want to do. And I think that they do really complement us with reality, that. we have done a good job. And I think going forward we will have a chance to work together and make this the kind of community we have had and we'll want to continue in the future. At this point, that's where we're headed. Now, if it doesn't come to fiuition, then I like what you're doing. You're trying to get educated as to what we can do, and that's a good thing. But at this point 1 think we can go ahead and say that our business here today is closed. And, Ted thank you. MR. BURKE: Do you need a motion? MR PETTY: You've already had one as far as the two issues on the... MR BURKE: 011, no. A motion to sunset this committee. That's what you're saying. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR BURKE: Youjust said that CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the issues today of what we can do. You can recuse yourself and say that you can't be on this committee if you want to. MR BURKE: I mean, I thought you were suggesting that the... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. I'm suggesting that... MR. BURKE: It's going to be a permanent standing committee then? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: At this point, yes. MR RAIA: This was a fact-finding committee. What I would suggest since I think we've accumulated some facts. I would like that. we draft the report that would be submitted to the full board. The board can do anything they want with the report. 55 ..- .~-,. ,--..~"- -- - 161 1 ~20 ! Ordinance Review Committee Meeting Januarv 27. 2009 but I agree with Jim. I think we've exhausted the usefulness of this committee. MR. PETrY: Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR. PETrY: If I could, we have some other issues of which staff thought this committee would be well positioned. We have the Clam Bay issue which we hope to ,volk out very well with the county which may require some slight changes to our ordinanoe as well. As it currently reads, we are the sole entity responsible for that., and since we have a bigger picture now, if we work. out those areas of responsibility, our ordinance may need some changes. If we have a minimal role in it., we may have larger changes. But currently our ontinance has a great. deal of vedJiage ftom the 2006 amendment descnbing our responsIbilities in Clam Bay. And we are woIking with the county manager's office on the tIansition. MR. RAIA: Why write another one when Jim put that in the ordinance veIy clearly and the county went ahead and did what it wanted to do? So you're going to put different veIbiage in it and the county is going to accept it? If they accept it., it's only because it's in conformance with what they want to do. The point is we cannot put anything in there that we really want to do, but perhaps may not be in line with what the county wants to do. I think it's a waste of time. 1 accept the ordinance as it's written. And the county has gone ahead and has done what it wanted to do. Yon know, you're wasting time if you're just going to rewrite that ordinanoe. MR. CARROLL: I'd like to make a comment on that CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Please, Jim. MR. CARROLL: One of the reasons that we did that ordinance, one of the statements in there was that as time went on if we decided we wanted to do additional services, we would decide what we wanted to do and we'd go to the commissioners and tell them we now want to take over this responstbility. You pay for it We take it over. TIm was very specific. One of the things we could do and, therefore, the services division now, if they want to take on some other responsibility that the county has, the door was open to do it. MR. RAIA: And that's in the ordinance right now? MR. CARROLL: Right. MS. CRA YENS: Yes. MR RAIA: Fine. I like it. I'm for keeping it there. 1 don't want to change that MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, we were just trying to say that there were other issues that this committee may have to 56 ""'--- .--.- 161 1 B20 \ Ordinance Review Committee Meeting Januarv 27.2009 ponder. So staff would recommend that you stay as a committee available. MR. LEVY: But not necessarily regularly scheduled meetings. MR. PETrY: We don't unless there's an issue. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: As needed. MR. BURKE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Absolutely. MR. BURKE: I agree. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: To sunset this when I see some other issues coming forward would be just another scramble. Who wants to be on this committee. So and I feel very comfortable with all of us. We have different viewpoints and I think, although, we don't all agree on evetything, it's a good thing to have a little spike every once in awhile and make evel)'body think about whatever you had as a concern. Marcia. MS. CRAVENS: I just want to point out if Mr. Petty is referring to the ordinance that created the new Clam Bay Advisory Committee, there's some very interesting considerations about that ordinance right now. 1 know there have been questions. And it's too bad Heidi already left, but there have been questions flying back and forth to the County Attorney's Office that there may be some constitutional problems with that ordinance. It may be a very challengeable ordinance and any changes to our ordinanoe may be very premature as regards to Clam Bay. That's all. Thanks. MR. BURKE: I don't think our administrator is saying we get together next week and make the changes. Am I right? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. No. MR. PETrY: We'd like you to be here as a committee for the due diligence that I think Marcia is professing that we should use on all changes to our... MR. BURKE: Yes. ADJOURN CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And I thank everyone's input. And do we have a motion to adjourn? MR BURKE: I so move. MR. RAIA: I second it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? MR. RAIA: Aye. 57 ^'~~~ -<''" -.....,.-..._-~ -,- ..._---~_. 161 1 ~B20 I (i)rdinance Review Committee Meeting January 27. 2009 MR. BURKE: Aye. MR LEVY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. Mr. James Burke moved, seconded by Dr. Ted Raia, and unanuno_'__ _ _usly UR_'P"'_oved t_o. tul_ rj_o_U_Fn _thu e_ m_ _~eettn_ _'_1:._ _' .~ _____ _____ _____ __~_ There being no further the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairwoman at 2: 15 p.rn. ~a;;)r~ Mary e Womble, Chairwoman TRANSCRIPI PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD, RPR, FPR AND FORMATfED BY MARY MCCAUGHTRY, RECORDING SECREfARY, PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSI0N. 58 ,~^,----"" -- - -~.'-'.,--_"'- ~.,". _._,._M -. 1611Fiaa~ RECE\VED Hala~ --rt-/" ~ t 0 2009 Henning J U N I::J Coyle -:;;::1 , l' CQI\\mlssioners Coletta -':\03I'J ot (,QUO /' PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FRIDAY, MAY 15, 2009 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAFETY COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD AT THE HAMMOCK OAK CENTER, MANGROVE #1 MEETING ROOM, SECOND FLOOR, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 ON FRIDAY. MAY 15. 2009 at 1:00 PM. THE AGENDA INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO: 1. Roll Call 2. Comments by Madam Chair Womble 3. Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard walkway construction update 4. Identify unmarked and potentially dangerous crosswalks 5. Identify crosswalks that are poorly marked 6. Identify crosswalks in inappropriate locations 7. Identify intersections requiring new or modified signage 8. Audience Participation and Comments 9. Adjourn ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY 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. Pelican Bay is located in Collier County's District 2 Misc. Corres: Date: ----'-,...~"----_.~, itern ~: .,-- '''-"~-~-''~--'-~-'----'-,- ..... ... ".~..._".^._>~,_._-^----,-_.", ,. ~'" .. -........-. Fiala ~~21 ~ L/"/ F<ECEiVt::D Halas' , . .lUN 1 7 2009 ~~~~ng~ ;~~~"'l"I'lE MEETING OF rtfIr~o~ ~OUJ\lTY RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met on March 26, 2009 at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Community Development and Environmental Services Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Rooms 609/610, Naples, Florida, 34104, with the following members present: VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna Bill McDaniel Brad Cornell Gary Eidson Tom Jones Fred N. Thomas, Jr. David Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Thomas Greenwood and Leslie Persia of the Comprehensive Planning Department; Steven Williams, Assistant County Attorney's office; and approximately 10 members of the public. I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at 9:00 AM by Vice Chairman Neno Spagna. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 7 of 11 members were present [Jim Howard, Tammie Nemecek, Ron Hamel, and David Farmer were excused due to conflicfing meetings]. III. Approval of Agenda Bill McDaniel moved and Fred N. Thomas, Jr. seconded to approve the agenda as distributed. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. IV. Approval of Minutes of the March 12, 2009 meeting Bill McDaniel moved and Brad Cornell seconded to approve the Minutes of the March 12 meeting as distributed. Upon vote the motion carried unanimously. V. Presentations. None VI. Old Business Staff Note: For the sake of brevity, these minutes include only final actions taken. A recording of the entire meeting is available upon request. A. Review of and action on: (1) Revised pages in the Committee's report entitled Five-Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Prol!ram as discussed during the Committee's March 12, 2009 meeting. Misc. CoITeS: oa:M~ IIPage Item t.: tiQJ_(~. j~2::\ ~.,..-.- .-_._~,-- ,-,.",.",,,,,-",~".,,",,",,,,,,"'.. ,._~~,-~,--,-"_. 161 13214 Upon review of the revised pages for Sections 1, 2, and 4, a motion was made by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. and seconded by Gary Eidson to incorporate the following modifications and corrections in the final document that goes to the Board of County Commissioners: . 3 rd page of transmittal letter: (#8)... change "substantial to "sustainable" . Page 15: modify the map to not show panther corridors and modify the map on page 68 to show panther corridors by using wide arrows . Page 30: modify the goal language to underline the following words: "through the use of established incentives." (also on pages 45 and 95) . Page 35 (Policy 4.5): add the words "as may be amended and" following "plan" in the 6th line and delete "be" in the 5th line. (also on pages 56 and 136) . Page 38 (Policy 4.7.4): add the words, "sustainability and" following "economic". (also on pages 59 and 143) . Page 72: (Attachment C).. .add in economic development activities under Villages to read as they do for Towns. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. (2) Review of draft Executive Summary to accompany the Committee's presentation of its Report to the Board of County Commissioners for the April 21, 2009 Board of County Commissioners meeting. The Committee reviewed the March 24, 2009 draft Executive Summary shown as Attachment A to these minutes. After discussion, Fred N. Thomas, Jr. moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to approve the modified annotated Executive Summary as attached. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Tom Jones suggested that the Attachment A to the BCC Executive Summary be reformatted as follows: . Initial Committee recommendations first; . CCPC and EAC recommendations second; . Staff comments third; . Committee final recommendations fourth Fred N. Thomas moved and David Wolfley seconded to reorder Attachment A to the BCC Executive Summary as listed in the order above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. (3) Review of revised power point presentation. Following review of the draft power point presentation, the following was the Committee consensus: . staff provides first 8 slides . Brad Cornell provides next 6 slides, including a new slide on credits and entitlements under the RLSA program which cover the history of the RLSA Program. . Gary Eidson would present the next 6 slides and slide entitled "Phase I Report-Technical Review Implementation first 5 Years" placed directly in 2lPage '_M..' ~-.~.__.., --........, . ,.,.....-.-..-.--., - '.-'.-,",.-- 161 1 'B21 . front of the slide entitled "Collier County RLSA is an Award Winning Program". . Bill McDaniel would present the balance of the slides which summarize the Phase II Report. VII. New Business none Tom Jones requested that the updated Johnson Engineering Report be placed in Volume II as an appendix. Staff stated that they would do such. VIII. Public Comments. None IX. Next Meeting. The Committee did not set its next meeting date as the next meeting will be with the Board of County Commissioners on April 21 at 9:00AM in the BCC Chambers. x. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 11:35A.M. ! Area Review Committee These minutes approved by the Committee on S -r t.uJ ~ D,~ ' as presented L// or as amended 31Page -" ...,...,-",..,...,-~., ",",.~".- ...... 161 1 821/1 ATTACHMENT A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners review at a special public meeting the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee's revised January 6,2009 "Five-Year Review Report of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program"; the Collier County Planning Commission's recommendations; the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council's comments and recommendations; the Committee's request for Board of County Commissioners authorization for a special Growth Management Plan Amendment Cycle solely for the purpose of review and consideration of amendments to the Growth Management Plan Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay as outlined in the revised Five-Year Report; and staff considerations regarding the Growth Management Plan impact and fiscal impact. RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE.. .REPORT IN BRIEF Committee revised Report. The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee (Committee) is pleased to present to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) its attached revised "Five-Year Review Report of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program" (Report) containing recommendations to improve the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay) in Collier County. The Report includes revisions to the original January, 2009 Committee-issued Report based upon Committee responses to the content of public hearings held before the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) along with each advisory body's comments and recommendations included herewith as Attachments Band C, respectively. These public hearings were directed by the BCC during its December 2, 2008 meeting. The revised Report was prepared following 23 public meetings held before the Committee between November, 2007 and January, 2009 as well as an additional 8 BCC-directed public hearings held before the CCPC (January 28 & 30, February 5, 20, & 26) and the EAC (January 29, February 5 & 27). In short, the Report the BCC is receiving herewith includes the Committee-approved revisions agreed upon by the Committee during its March 3 and March 12, 2009 meetings in response to its review of both the CCPC and the EAC recommendations to the BCC. Attachment A is the Committee responses to the CCPC and EAC recommendations; Attachment B is the full CCPC Report comments and recommendations to the BCC; and Attachment C is the full EAC Report comments and recommendations to the BCe. Committee recommended key enhancements to the Overlay. The primary Committee-recommended enhancements to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay) include: A. Provision for Credit incentives to encourage the permanent preservation of agricultural lands; , which is a criticism of thc O...'crJay by t.'<lC Department of Community Affairs (Policy 2.2 of Section 2 of Volume l);(approved based upon motion and second by Bill McDaniel and unanimous vote) 4lPage ~._. ~,,,.... ~,~ 161 1~21 " B. Restore jlo',f ways flowwav stewardshiv areas and habitat stewardshiv areas through a credit generating system that considers cost, difficulty and benefit value of each restoration type through a newly adopted tiered system (Policy 3.11 of Section 2 of Volume 1); (approved based upon a motion by Gary Eidson and second by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. and unanimous vote) C. Provision of incentives to create, restore and enhance panther corridor connections to encourage the protection of the Florida Panther in the Overlay area (Policy 3.11, paragraph 2, of Section 2 of Volume 1); D. Provision of "conditional" Stewardship Sending Areas "(SSAs) in the Overlay which provides a mechanism for property owners to have the ability of better self-controlling the number of permanent Credits that are issued (Policies 1.6 and 1.6.1 of Section 2 of Volume 1); E. Placement of a limit on the maximum "footprint" of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) which would limit the maximum SRA "footprint" to 45,000 acres or approximately 23% of the total lands in the Overlay area and recalibrate the credit system to ensure the balance essential to the sustainability of a voluntary incentive based program which generates significant public benefits without incurring public expenditures; (Policies 4.2 and 4.19, respectively of Section 2 of Volume 1); F. Provision for better transportation planning related to the Overlay area and future SRAs (several Policies in Group 4 Policies); and G. Provision of proposed new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as a companion policy to Policy 4.5 of the Overlay (page 166 of Volume 1) in cooperation with Collier County in its creation of a plan for a county transportation network that meets the adopted Level of Service through build out of the county and considers the location of public services needed to accommodate the build out population. Committee requests of the BCC. Following BCC review of the Committee's final revised Report, the Committee requests the following ofthe BCC: A. Accept this Report as a proposal for future Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP; B. Direct that there be consideration of an amendment to the Transportation Element of the GMP to create new proposed Policy 3.7 as a companion policy to Policy 4.5 of the Overlay; and C. Direction to County Staff in response to the Committee's January 5, 2009 request (Attachment D) to prepare proposed amendment to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan as a "special cycle for Growth Management Plan RLSA Overlay amendments... " OBJECTIVE: To provide the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) at a special public meeting on April 21, 2009, with the documents listed below and seek direction from the BCC with respect to: A. Acceptance of the Five-Year Report; 5lPage ...~.- ""'-'-,_.-._.-,,' ""--",.,"" ~<.,_._"_..._",.. 161 1821 .. 1 B. Direction to staff with respect to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee's request for BCC authorization for the holding of a special GMP A cycle, which is a departure from the BCC-adopted policy of limiting GMP amendments to one cycle per calendar year; and C. Assignment of priority to this special RLSA/FLUE/GMPA cycle and the recommended creation of RLSA/FL UE. GMP A -related new Policy 3. 7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. taking into consideration t!1e already filed GJ1PA 2007/2008 combined cycle petitions currently U1'/.(icr sufficiency r-c;intl, the tllrcady jil:cd proposcd amcndmalts to the lmmokalee Arca J.~laster Pkm, and t-hc upcoming 2009 cycle petitions that have an April 24, 2009 deadline filing. (approved based upon a motion by Bill McDaniel and second by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. and unanimous vote) BACKGROUND: January 30, 2004 to present: Rural Lands Stewardship Program adoption into the LDC and favorably recognized in Florida and nationally. The Rural Lands Stewardship Program in Collier County has been recognized in Florida, regionally, and nationally for visionary methodology to preserve environmentally significant land, to protect agricultural land and to direct growth to suitable locations. Collier County adopted the RLSA Overlay in the Land Development Code (LDC) on January 30, 2004 as the implementing regulation for the Growth Management Plan amendments known broadly as the "Rural/Eastern Lands Amendments" which were developed in response to Administration Commission Final Order No. AC99-002, which required a "Rural and Agricultural Assessment" and subsequent adoption of the Growth Management Plan amendment based upon that assessment. October 24, 2007: BCC establishment of the RLSA Review Committee (Committee). Policy 1.22 of the RLSA requires a Five-Year Review of the RLSA. Accordingly, the BCC established the ad hoc Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee by Resolution Number 2007-305A on October 24, 2007, and provided the Committee with the following functions, powers and duties: 1. "Review data concerning the participation and effectiveness in the Overlay meeting the Goal, Objective, and Policies in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. 2. Review the RLSA Overlay and make recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the Overlay. 3. Assist in determining the most effective venues and dates to hold public presentations; and 4. Assist in promoting public interest in the review process." May 27, 2008: BCC approval of the "Phase I-Technical Report" (#1 of functions, powers, and duties of the Committee). On May 27, 2008, the "Phase I-Technical Report" of the Committee was brought before the BCC, approved by the BCC, and forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs for its records in accordance with the directive contained in Policy 1.22 of the RLSA. The Phase I Report was presented and responded to by the Collier County Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory Council prior to presentation to the BCC. The Phase I Report is a review of data concerning the participation and effectiveness in 6lPage ",""'>"""-'-'~." -.,"- I' ....." .,..,... 161 1 821 ~ the Overlay meeting the Goal, Objective, and Policies in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. January 6, 2009: Committee issuance of the "Five-Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program" (#2 offunctions,powers, and duties of the Committee). On January 6, 2009 the Committee issued its 2-volume report of findings and recommendations which includes the following: . Volume 1 of the Report contains the approved "Phase 1- Technical Report" (to the BCC on May 27, 2008), as well as the "Phase II-RLSA Overlay" reVIew and recommendations; and . Volume 2 of the Report contains the major appendices and support documentation which the Committee considered when forming and finalizing its recommendations to the BCC. With respect to the #3 and #4 functions, powers and duties of the Committee, the Committee held a total of twenty three (23) public meetings between November, 2007 and January 6, 2009 to receive and review information provided by expert presenters, several organizations, individuals, with summary minutes and taped recorded documents developed and maintained for public record. Most of the Committee meetings were held in the CDES building located on North Horseshoe Drive, while several of the meetings were held at both the new Town of Ave Maria and at the North Collier Regional Park. These meetings led to the preparation of the Phase I and Phase II Reports. Volume 2 of the Report contains copies of most of the written documentation which assisted the Committee in forming its recommendations. For example, Appendix I of Volume 2 contains copies of most of the Naples Daily News articles explaining the RLSA and the Committee's progress in reviewing the RLSA, while Appendix MM contains copies of the "as approved" summary minutes of the RLSA Review Committee meetings. Most meetings were well attended with audience attendance/participation usually ranging between 15 and 30 persons. All persons were given an opportunity to speak and/or present information. During the March 3, 2009 Committee meeting Ms. Chris Stratton [who stated at a previous Committee meeting that she represented the League of Women Voters] complimented the Committee for its openness, encouragement of public input and participation, and the conduct of its meetings. CONSIDERATIONS: The BCC on December 2, 2008 provided direction to staff to facilitate the review of the Committee's Report before both the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). Accordingly, a combined total of eleven (11) public meetings were held (6 CCPC public meetings and 5 EAC public meetings) between January 28 and March 10, of which a total of 8 were public hearings where the public was encouraged to speak concerning the Report. All meetings of the CCPC and EAC were properly noticed public meetings, recorded with minutes taken, and most meetings were televised. Like the Committee, both the CCPC and the EAC chose to review the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay (Overlay) Policy by Policy [Section 2 of the Phase 2 Report.. ...pages 45 through 73]. Accordingly, most of the recommendations and/or comments of the CCPC and EAC are detailed and relate to certain Policies or other language in the RLSA Overlay. 7lPage .. -"",-"","'.."'-- _....... 161 18'21 ~ On March 3 and March 12 the Committee met to discuss and respond to the CCPC and EAC Reports comments and recommendations and provide responses (Attachment A). A. CCPC recommendations Attachment B is a copy of the March 5, 2009 CCPC Report comments and recommendations to the BCC based upon the initial January, 2009 Report issued by the Committee. The CCPC approach to reviewing the Committee Report was Policy by Policy using Section 2 of the Phase 2 Report (pages 48-73 of Volume 1) as the format for its review. Therefore the CCPC Report of recommendations to the BCC is Policy-based. B. EAC comments and recommendations Attachment C IS a copy of the March 10, 2009 EAC Report comments and recommendations to the BCC based upon the intial January, 2009 Report issued by the Committee. Committee responses immediately follow the EAC Report comments and recommendations. Although the EAC also reviewed the Report on a Policy by Policy basis, most of the EAC comments and recommendations were more general and issue-based, focusing on such issues as preservation of agricultural lands, protection of panther habitat, water availability for future Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs), and limiting development in the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). Therefore, the nature of the Committee's responses to the EAC Report comments and recommendations is somewhat different than its responses to the CCPC Report. C. Committee response to CCPC and EAC comments and recommendations The Committee voted to accept 19 of the 30 policy recommendations contained in the March 5,2009 CCPC Report comments and recommendations to the BCC (Attachment B). These CCPC recommendations are reflected in the Report. The following are the CCPC recommended policy language changes accepted by the Committee: Policies 1.6.1,2.4,3.13, 4.5,4.6,4.7.1,4.7.2,4.7.3,4.7.4,4.10,4.14,4.15.1, 4.16, 4.20, 4.21, 4.23, 5.1, 5.3, and 5.4. Attachment A is a summary of the 11 policies where the Committee and CCPC recommendations differ based upon the March 3 and March 12 Committee actions taken. The Committee-recommended policy language contained in Attachment A is reflected in the Report. In the Committee's opinion, the major area of departure between the Committee and CCPC recommendations has to do with providing a definitive limit on development of SRAs within the Overlay. This departure can be summarized as follows: . the CCPC has recommended to the BCC that there be a 315,000 cap on the number of Credits . the Committee believes the best way to control the amount of development in the Overlay area (SRAs) is to limit the total SRA "footprint" to 45,000 acres (there is not an existing cap); 8lPage ".,,". ...."'~ ,., . ~;"~"~'-"'-'- 161 1 82.1 '1 The Committee's rationale for placing a 45,000 acre cap on SRA acres (rather than a 315,000 cap on the number of Credits) is based upon the following as discussed during the Committee's March 12,2009 meeting: 1. A SRA cap of 45,000 acres would result in a definitive limit of not more than approximately 23% of the RLSA in SRAs and is very close to that which would be possible under the current Overlay language (see page 76 in Section 3 of the Phase 2 Report); 2. Credits are the "currency" for public good and it seems not appropriate to limit public good by limiting Credits; 3. Credits can also be purchased by public entities (Policy 1.18) such that a public entity can permanently preserve land for environmental or agricultural purposes without having to acquire the land through a possibly more expensive fee simple purchase, while the land remains in private ownership and used for uses permitted under the specifically approved SSA; 4. Proposed Policy 1.6.1 would provide for "conditional SSAs" which would allow the property owner to opt out of the SSA and regain underlying permitted base zoning uses as permitted under the A-Rural Agriculture District; and 5. The limiting limitation on the number of Credits would be a legislative limit and possibly result in unintended negative consequences as the RLSA Overlay is a voluntary program and market driven. It also creates an inequity amongst RLSA property owners based upon who can capitalize first in claiming Credits. (approved based upon a motion by Brad Cornell and second by Gary Eidson and unanimous vote). The Committee stands ready to discuss Policy 4.5 with the BCC in greater detail during the BCC review of this project. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The County attorney's office will assist staff with the implementation of the Board's direction. This item is not quasi-judicial and as such, ex-parte disclosures are not required. A majority vote is necessary for Board action. - HF AC FISCAL IMPACT: The following are estimated costs related to this GMPA: a. Legal advertisements: for transmittal and adoption hearings before the CCPC, EAC and BCC ($1 ,254 x 6). ... . ... .. . ... ... ..... . ... .. . .. ... .. . ... ... . ... .. . .. . .. . .. . ..... ... ... ..... ... $7,524 b. Court reporter: [assumes 2.0 days for EAC; 4.0 days for PC; and 2.0 day for the BCC]. . ... ... .. . ... ..... ... . .. ... .. . ... . .. . .. .. . . ... ... ... ... .. . ... .. . .. . .. ... . .. . ... . . . .. . ... ..$12,000 c. Cost of minutes for potential administrative hearing: ................................. unknown d. Cost of printing (labor and materials). ... .................. ... ................... ..... ... ...$6,000 e. Public Services (Housing and Human Services): approximately 50 hours........... .$2,500 f. Public Services (Parks and Recreation): approximately 50 hours..................... .$2,500 g. Public Utilities: approximately 50 hours.................................................. .$3,500 h. Transportation: approximately 100 hours............................................... ....$7,000 1. CDES Division staff: 1,000 total staff hours, including the following Departments: Comprehensive Planning, Engineering and Environmental Services, Zoning and Land Development Review, Assistant County Attorney, and Administration..... ..................... .. ................ ................. .... ...... . ...$50,000 9lPage ~."",~ ,,'"~,",w,~____,_"" T "'-' .... "" '"", .~ _..~,....~>m..,..o,,__ 161 le2t"" TOTAL ESTIMATED FISCAL IMP ACT: $91,024 (does not include the costs of administrative hearing) GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMP ACT: The GMP will need to be amended concurrent with or prior to the proposed RLSA Overlay amendments to align the Plan dates throughout the GMP in response to the Objection received from the Department of Community Affairs related to DCA review of the 2006 cycle of GMP amendments. The Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship program does not fall under the State of Florida RLS Statutes since Collier County approved its RLS program before the Florida RLS Statutes became law. (There is no requirement that any amendments to the RLSA Overlay be made immediately at this time.) However any amendments, if approved by the BCC following "transmittal hearings", would be forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs which would review the proposed amendments for consistency with the Collier County GMP, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code. Even though Policy 1.22 of the RLSA Oyerlay of the Future Land Use Element only requires that "A comprehensive reviev; of the Overlay shall be prepared for and Feyiewed by Collier County and the Department of Community ,'\ffairs upon the five year B:r..niversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in to the LDC", Collier County Comprehensive Planning staff has had t'.Yo substantiye conversations with Robert Pennock, DCl'.. RLS,'\ oversight, wherein Mr. Pennock has emphasized that amendments should be made to the Collier RLS,'\'s Goal, Objective and Policies wherein compliance or consistency with the requisite Goal, Objective and Policies are in question. Policy 1.22 of the RLSA O'/erlay has been reviewed in its entirety by staff and the only requirement in Policy 1.22 is that Collier County undertake a comprehensive review of the participation und effectiveness of O'.'erlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objectiye and Policies in the RLS,".. Oyerlay. Staff is of the professional opinion that the RLS,".. Overlay is a Grov;th Management planning tool v/hich is in its infancy, ,<,;herein the techniques and strategies that will measure the effectiveness of the RLSf.. Overlay cannot be measured in terms of its success and failures until such time that the RLSl'.. Overlay matures over the projected 25 year build out of the RLSf... The Florida Department of Community f..ffairs is of the opinion that Collier County is failing to meet the intent of the RLSA Overlay Goal v/hich requires Collier County to protect agricultural activities and to prevent premature conversion of a-griculturalland to non agricultural activities. The majority of the land in the RLSA Overlay is zoned l'..gricultural, v;hich would make the conversion of agricultural lands to non agriculturallunds inevitable under the proviso of creating compact and self sustaining towns, villages, and hamlets. Regardless, DCl'.. highlighted this perceiyed shortcoming in Collier County RLSA in its "Rural Land Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to the Legislature" dated December 31, 2007. Comprooensiye Planning Department staff is of the professional opinion that this assessment by DC".. is premature, and an initial comprehensi';e assessment of all the Goal, Objective and Policies in the RLS,".. Overlay 'lIould be more appropriate in the Collier County 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the GMP in its entirety. The impact of the do,<,;nturn in the economy 10 I P age ...."'. ',",-",",-"',.."..-'-'~'- ~,m..~~.."..__' t "'-., . 161 1 821 ,~ and its effect on proposed development, building activity and impacts on agriculture warrants a more timely assessment rather than an overly reactive major modification to an RLSl\ Overlay in its infancy. HO':lever, staff is also of the professional opinion that any ob';ious deficiencies in the RLS1\ Overlay that can be corrected or modified can be made in any GMP amendment cycle. Conversely, any major changes to the RLS}.. Overlay in its entirety will require either a separate GMP amendment cycle or an inclusion in a future GMP amendment cycle v/here major substanti'ie review of proposed changes and supporting data and analysis will require an inordinate amount of staff time afld ooduly burden a shrinking staff that is operating at only 78% of its staffing capacity as a result of reductions in staff associated with reduced funding in Fund ~ The proposed amendments to the RLSA Overlay are Committee driven. .f..t this time proposed amendments to the RLS,^.. Overlay of the GMP ha'.'e not been substantively reviewed by Staff for sufficiency, supporting data and analysis, proper "wordsmithing", and consistency '.vith the GMP, Florida Statutes, and Florida ,^..dministrative Code as this ':;ill constitute a substanti','e analysis of the proposed amendments as drafted by the Committee. Moreover, the Committee is aware that not all of the data and analysis to support the amendments has been completed. For example, the Transportation Plar.ning Department has not approved the concept transportation maps contained in Section 3 (Support Documentation) of the Phase II Report ':lhicn need to be refined and integrated \yith the "County Build Out Vision Plan" as outlined in the proposed new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element ofthe GMP (see Section 5 on page 166 of the Phase II Report). Therefore, before any comprehensive and final substantiye review by the E}..C or CCPC during "Transmittal Hearings" occurs, it would be incumbent upon direction of the BCC to establish a separate RLS,^.. Overly GMP}.. amendment Cycle to allow staff to undertake the normal progressive steps associated with GMP amendments. Finally, due to the attached list of projects internal to the Comprehensive Planning Department (}...ttaehmeBt E), including the 2007/2008 GMP Cycle amendments (Note: sehedule to be determiBed shortly] , proposed amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, upcoming 2009 GMP Cycle amendments, the Annual Update and Inventory Report, and many other projects set forth in AttaehmeBt E, the Comprehensive Planning Department staff will need BCC direction as to what priority to assign to the Committee recommended RLS.f.. Overlay special GMP ,^.. cycle. It must be pointed out with strong emphasis that the Comprehensive Planning Department was cut from 11 positions to 12 positions during FY 08 and reduced one other position during FY 09. Reductions in the Comprehensive Planning Department workforce has occurred even though the workload has increased. Staff members involved with GMP j\mendments and related projects are already working 50 55 homs per week. If priority is given to this project, then the production of other products will be delayed as staff resources have been stressed to the point where the Department's deliverables set forth in the County's Business Plan cannot be achieyed. Further, all dates for transmittal hearings and adoption hearings ,.'till need to be coordinated with the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), and the BCC, both as to meeting room space availability and a'.'ailability of hearing bodies for specific dates. (approved based upon a motion by Bill McDaniel and second by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. and unanimow/j' vote) RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners: 11lPage '..,-, ,.......,._~,.......'~...O".~.....'_ ,.._.....'..~_.'.."'H_'" 161 18211 . accept the Report in its entirety as a planning document; . provide direction and prioritization to staff with respect to the Committee's request for BCC authorization for the holding of a special GMP A cycle, which is a departure from the BCC-adopted policy of limiting GMP amendments to one cycle per calendar year; and . assignment of priority to this special RLSAJFLUE/GMP A cycle (includes the Committee-recommended companion new Transportation Element Policy 3.7) versus the already filed GMP A 2007/2008 combined cycle petitions and the upcoming 2009 GMP A cycle petitions. Prepared by Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department ATTACHMENTS Five Year Review ofthe Rural Lands Stewardship Program [Volumes 1 and 2] Attachment A: Reponses by the RLSA Review Committee to CCPC and EAC comments and recommendations Attachment B: Report Comments and recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission, dated March 5, 2009 Attachment C: Report Comments and recommendations ofthe Environmental Advisory Council, dated March 10, 2009 and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee responses dated March 12, 2009. Attachment D: January 5, 2009 letter from the Committee requesting a special GMPA cycle Attachment E: Comprehensive Planning Department Major Projects, 2008-2011 12 I P age . -....... ".'-~."- -.. ^~-~.-'''''',-," COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS To: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a: X Nonnallegal Advertisement o Other: (Display Adv., location, etc.) ********************************************************************************************************** Originating Dept/ Div: CDES/ Operations Person: James French Date: May I, 2009 Petition No. (If none, give brief description): Petitioner: (Name & Address): Name & Address of any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: (Ifmore space is needed, attach separate sheet) Hearing before: BCC BZA X Other - Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority Requested Hearing date: (Based on advertisement appearing 7 days before hearing. May IS. 2009 Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only if important): \~111llA X Naples Daily News o Other o Legally Required Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & Size: A FINAL ORDER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1-6, COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 96-6, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2009 PRICE INDEX FACTOR SET ANNUALLY BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, FOR UTILIZATION IN PRICE INDEX RATE APPLICATIONS FOR NONEXEMPT WATER AND/OR WASTEWATER UTILITIES PROVIDING SERVICE IN UNfNCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA. Companion petition(s), if any & proposed hearing date: Does Petition Fee include advertising cost? 0 Yes DNa If Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: Purchase Order Number - 4500 I 06248 RSJ=-t1.~ ~/I /~ 7 ftt-i txo81 84 (,.".-/ Date Division Administrator or Designee List Attachments: I. Final Order DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS A. For hearings before BCC or BZA: Initiating person to complete one coy and obtain Division Head approval before submitting to County Manager. Note: If legal document is involved, be sure that any necessary legal review, or request for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute copies: o County Manager agenda file: to o Requesting Division o Original Clerk's Office B. Other hearings: Initiating Division head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for file. *********************************************************************************************************** FOR CLERK'S OFFICE USE~ 6 itl -S..g:fF'l Date Received:. "" - Date of Public hearing: 15' Date Advertised: uYp.}eu*r AtrlC1o~ mItJ . . lII'ill'I'I - ...._. I 'JIll;" m'l ~ Final Order Legal Ad 161 t' 2f2 . Ann P. Jennejohn From: FrenchJames Uamesfrench@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:43 AM To: Ann P. Jennejohn Subject: RE: Final Order Legal Ad Looks good. Thank you, Jamie From: Ann P. Jennejohn [mailto:AnnJennejohn@collierclerk.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:27 AM To: FrenchJames Subject: Final Order Legal Ad Hi again Jamie, I wanted to let you "proof" the legal notice I'm sending to the Naples Daily News for publication on friday, May 8, 2009. Unless you would like me to change anything, the attached notice is what will run. I'll be sure to get you the affidavits providing proof of publication when we get them from the newspaper; that usually takes about 2 weeks. If you could just let me know that this looks o.k. I'll get it to the NDN. The deadline is today @ 4:00 pm. Thanks for your help, <<Final Order 2009-04 WWA.doc>> Ann Clerk to the Board Minutes and Records Department 239-252-8406 fax: 239-252-8408 ann.lEmnejQbl1@ ~oUiM_cle.r~-,-c:om Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request. do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 5/5/2009 -- -~."'-""'.,..". -..~ - 1611"822 '. Acct. #068784 May 5, 2009 Attn: Legals Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 34102 Re: Notice of Final Order No. 2009-04 Dear Legals: Please advertise the above referenced notice on Friday, May 8, 2009, and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved, to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk P.O. #4500106248 - -.....-.... - 161 1922 ... Ann P. Jennejohn From: Ann P. Jennejohn Sent: Tuesday, May 05,200912:39 PM To: 'Iegals@naplesnews.com' Subject: CC Water and Wastewater Final Order 2009-04 Attachments: Notice of Final Order 2009-04.doc; Notice Final Order 2009-04.doc Hi there, Please advertise the attached this Friday, May 8, 2009. ~ Notice of Final Notice Final Order This is a legal ad. Order 2009-04.... 2009-04.doc... Thank you, Ann P. Jennejohn Clerk to the Board Minutes and Records Department 239-252-8406 Fax: 239-252-8408 ann. ienneiohn@collierclerk.com 1 , , If.. .... --_._-='-""'--- 161 1 . 822 Ann P. Jennejohn From: postmaster@collierclerk.com Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 12:39 PM To: Ann P. Jennejohn Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Relay) Attachments: ATT42539.txt; CC Water and Wastewater Final Order 2009-04 [] ~::,:: B ',-<. - ATT42539.txt (231 CC Water and B) Wastewater Final... This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Your message has been successfully relayed to the following recipients, but the requested delivery status notifications may not be generated by the destination. legals@naplesnews.com 1 ""'. ~ ..... ~ - . CC Water and Wastewater Final Order 2009-04 Page 1 of 1 161 1 .~ 922 << Ann P. Jennejohn From: Pagan, Emely [EPagan@Naplesnews.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 20098:51 AM To: Ann P. Jennejohn Subject: RE: CC Water and Wastewater Final Order 2009-04 ok From: Ann P. Jennejohn [mailto:AnnJennejohn@collierclerk.com] Posted At: Tuesday, May 05,2009 12:39 PM Posted To: Legals - NDN Conversation: CC Water and Wastewater Final Order 2009-04 Subject: CC Water and Wastewater Final Order 2009-04 Hi there, Please advertise the attached this Friday, May 8, 2009. This is a legal ad. <<Notice of Final Order 2009-04.doc>> <<Notice Final Order 2009-04.doc>> Thank you, Ann P. Jennejohn Clerk to the Board Minutes and Records Department 239-252-8406 Fax: 239-252-8408 ann.lenne.j obD@C_Cl Iii e.rcl~rk.com Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. {{you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 5/6/2009 - .~-"'"~".. ,-, ----- - .... ."''' "'AI< -""'_...^--<"'.~~-"---.--- 161 1 B22~ Ann P. Jennejohn From: Pagan, Emely [EPagan@Naplesnews.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 06,200912:50 PM To: Ann P. Jennejohn Subject: Ad Confirmation Attachments: UAS548.jpg !i) UAS548.jpg (23 KB) OTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2009-04 COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY A FINAL ORDER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1-6, COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 96-6, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2009 PRICE INDEX FACTOR SET ANNUALLY BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, FOR UTILIZATION IN PRICE INDEX RATE APPLICATIONS FOR NONEXEMPT WATER AND/OR WASTEWATER UTILITIES PROVIDING SERVICE IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA. COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY Dr. Fay Biles, PhD, Chairman May 8 No1797503 Thank you for placing your ad. Pub. Date 05/08/09 Publication NDN Ad Number 1797503 Total Ad Cost $132.38 Emely 1 ,,~._~_.. .... --,~- -- 161 IB~ 2 i~ FINAL ORDER NO. 2009-04 COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY A FINAL ORDER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1-6, COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 96-6, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2009 PRICE INDEX FACTOR SET ANNUALLY BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, FOR UTILIZATION IN PRICE INDEX RATE APPLICATIONS FOR NONEXEMPT WATER AND/OR WASTEWATER UTILITIES PROVIDING SERVICE IN UNINCORPORA TED COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 96-6, as amended, provides for the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority (AUTHORITY) to adopt a price index factor for water and/or wastewater utilities on or before May 15th of each calendar year for the utilization in price index rate application; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 96-6, as amended, provides that the price index factor shall be equivalent to the price index factor set annually by the Florida Public Service Commission (COMMISSION); and WHEREAS, the COMMISSION issued Order No. PSC-09-0099-PAA-WS on February 16, 2009, establishing the 2009 Price Index of 2.55 percent for water and/or wastewater utilities; to be effective March 4,2009. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority, in public meeting assembled, that: 1. The 2009 Price Index is 2.55 percent. 2. Any water and/or wastewater utility that intends to increase its rates by implementation of this price index must notify the AUTHORITY on or after the effective date of this Final Order of such intent and shall apply the 2009 Price Index to applicable 2008 calendar year operation and maintenance expenses. 3. Utilities using the 2009 Price Index shall use the forms attached as Appendices "A", "B", "C" and "0", and shall follow all price index application requirements specified in Collier County Ordinance No. 96-06, as amended, before implementing any index. 4. This Order shall become effective upon adoption by the AUTHORITY and shall remain in effect until the AUTHORITY authorizes a change. .- ""',--, ---.........---.. -..... ~H'o/'.I"I>'" ._~_"".._..____,-"". "",..._-"",-,,, rill ---_."""~-"""------'" ...,_. -----.... 161 1 '822 This Final Order adopted this 15th day of May, 2009, after motion, second, and majority vote favoring the same. Approved as to form COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND and legal sufficiency: W ASTEW A TER AUTHORITY Steve Williams DR. FAY BILES, PhD, CHAIRMAN Assistant County Attorney .~,~_.,.... ~u_'""_'_ T ~ _,__.........___.____.......'""'__~_,..."'_ :m-Il ""i...._____.,__:_...,.,.",.-,~.". "------,--"'---_.--- ---- 161 IB~2 2 ,:~ APPENDIX "A" 2009 PRICE INDEX APPLlCA TION YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 200S1 Utility: WATER SEWER 2008 Operation and maintenance Expenses (O&M) LESS: (a) Pass-Through Items: (1) Purchased Power (2) Purchased Water (3) Purchased Sewage i Treatment ! (4) Other2: (b) Rate Case Expenses Included In 2007 Expenses (c) Adjustments to O&M Expenses from last rate case, if applicable: (1) (2) Costs to be Indexed Multiply by the 2009 Price Index Factor 0.0255 0.0255 Indexed Costs Add: Pass-Through Items Total ofIndexed Costs and Pass-Through Items Divide Total of Indexed Costs and Pass-Through Items by Expansion Factor for Regulatory Assessment Fees 0.970 0.970 Increase in Revenue Divide by 2007 Annualized Revenue3 Percentage Increase in Rates lThis amount should be for the calendar year 2008. If the utility is on a fiscal year, a pro rata distribution between the utility's two affected annual reports should be included as a supplemental attachment. The annual reports or general ledgers should be used as the source document(s). The utility is required to send a worksheet showing the pro rata distribution. 21f applicable, deduct on this line any other expenses for which a pass-through has been received. Specify the type of expense, which is being deducted. 3If rates changed during or subsequent to calendar year 2008, the book revenues must be adjusted to show the changes and an explanation of the calculation should be attached to this form. (See Appendix "B" for instructions and sample format.) ~-,~-" .. ,-,---,,-~._~.._,-,,='~--._~--; ~... '."'...,"'''' '_~,,'o'","'_~'"~''_''''''' -"""""""'_""'_,0__'_- 16 I 1~B22 APPENDIX "B" Have rates charged for customer services changed since January 1, 2008? ( ) Ifno, the utility should use actual revenues. This form may be disregarded. ( ) If yes, the utility must annualize its revenues. Complete the remainder of this form. Annualizing calculates the revenue the utility would have earned based upon 2008 customer consumption at the most current rates in effect. To complete this calculation, the utility will need consumption data for 2008 to apply to the existing rate schedule. Below is a sample, which may be used. CALCULA nON OF ANNUALIZED REVENUES] Number of Billsl Current Annualized Gallons Sold x Rates Revenues Residential Bills: 5/8" x %" meters 1 " meters 1 Y2" meters 2" meters Total No. Bills 2 2 2 Gallons Sold Other Revenue General Service: 5/g" x %" meters I " meters I 'Iz" meters 2" meters 3" meters 4" meters 6" meters Total No. Bills 2 2 2 Gallons Sold Other Revenue Total Annualized Revenues for 2008 $ I Annualized revenues must be calculated separately if the utility consists of both a water system and a sewer system. This form is designed specifically for utilities using a base facility charge rate structure. If annualized revenues must be calculated and further assistance is needed, contact the Utility Regulation Staff at (239) 252-2302. 2Complete only if billing charge is separate. M'''____O__......-_c._.--.-....~__"_,...,__.___.,..., ffi'.~ _ ...... "",__"'"",'U"lWlII'llIIlIv '.-'~ .....,;".__...._..._._."Z"..__ -,-..... 16 , 1 "13 2 2 I APPENDIX "e" AFFIDA VIT I, , UNDER OATH hereby affirms that 1 am the duly authorized representative of and that the figures and calculations upon which the change in rates is based are accurate and that the change will not cause said to exceed its last authorized or calculated rate of return, pursuant to Section 1-6 (I) (4), Collier County Ordinance No. 96-06, as amended, which is %. This affidavit is made pursuant to this utility's request for a 2009 price index rate increase. Title (Print Name) Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) to before me by on .20_, who 0 is personally known to me 0 produced as identification (Printed Name of Notary) My Commission Expires: .__.,..,-----........".""--~_.. -.-."-,,.... \1-.,.. .. 1>!~' . .." :.._~".k.,._._,~.,.~., ,',. ...,~._.,"'".""""~''',,.,''''.-_-''''__. "'!II It "." ..~. ..,......,...-...-'.'.. ,-....-"...-.-..---.. 16 J 1822 ~ APPENDIX "D" NOTICE TO CUSTOMERS On May 15th, 2009, the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority adopted provisions permitting water and sewer utilities to adjust the rates it charges to its customers without those customers bearing the additional expense of a public hearing. The adjustments in rates would depend on increases or decreases in non-controllable expenses subject to inflationary pressures such as chemicals, and other operational and maintenance costs. On , filed notice of intent with the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division (CDES), Office of Operations and Regulatory Management, to increase water and wastewater rates as a result of this action. If acknowledged and approved by the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority, water rates will increase by approximately % and wastewater rates by %. The adjusted rates should be reflected on your bill. Should you have any questions, please contact your local utility office. Be sure to have your account number handy for quick reference. Customers may also direct inquiries to the CDES Office of Operations and Regulatory Management, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, Florida 34104 at (239) 252-2302. '"--~. _"___"___",_-='_",___:'ill',~,.-,,-...._-,,,_.,,..,.._~_.". '-"'"~'"''".''''''".'''''''~'''''''''''''''''-'---''''''''' ---...-."......."".,.....- ""-~,,," 161 1~22 . Naples Daily News Naples, FL 34102 Affidavit of Publication Naples Daily News - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BCC/CDES BUDGET OFFICE S CLUTE/FINANCE DEPT POB 413044 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT NAPLES FL 34101 REFERENCE: 068784 P.O. #4500106248 59575698 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDE State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared Chris Doyle, who on oath says that he serves as the President and Publisher of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year c Olt~iUi. c:,u 1fT v next preceding the first publication of the f~TEW~. attached copy of advertisement; and affiant ; ,., ,. ,.,chaIr- further says that he has neither paid nor 111M, .' May, ' ., No1797lOt, promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: 05/08 05/08 AD SPACE: 36 LINE FILED ON: 05/08/09 ~ ~ - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - ~ - - - - - -- - ~~ - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ - - -~ - -- /----; / /'" Signature of Affiant ~------ Sworn to and Subscribed before me this r-J day of l-fYj Cl Ll 2c(j -0 Personally known by me (~\ $ 1 ' \...,-.1, C~...-$ --)\:.-0'\ '~ ('k l (IJ. -- CHANEL A. MCDC!~ALl) Commission DO 650475 Expires June 29,2011 P:''';~f1 Thr"T! T"i~' rr!n insw.lnr-f' r-ln,1-3A:-?Ol} -., .">o..~_..,_.,_.__.,-_..~"._,,,~.... -- 161 1 I RECE'VED Fiala MAY 2 6 2009 APPENDIX "D" Halas Henning Hoarr! of COllnty commissioners Coyle NOTICE TO CUSTOMERS Coletta ~ . On May 15th, 2009, the Collier County Water and Wastew~rAutlrorrry a opted provisions permitting water and sewer utilities to adjust the' rates it char~es to its customers without those customers bearing the additional exp~~ .of a public hearing. The adjustments in rates would depend on increases or decrease~' in non-controllable , expenses subject to inflationary pressures such as chemicals, and. dther operational and maintenance costs. On -----------, filed notice of intent with the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division (CDES), Office of Operations and Regulatory Management, to increase water and wastewater rates as a result of this action. If acknowledged and approved by the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority, water rates will increase by approximately % and wastewater rates by %. The adjusted rates should be reflected on your bill. Should you have any questions, please contact your local utility office. Be sure to have your account number handy for quick reference. Customers may also direct inquiries to the CDES Office of Operations and Regulatory Management, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, Florida 34 104 at (239) 252-2302. Misc. corres: oate:~ 'tem#.Llli~ ~><~..__..,~",.."wo",_____.' . . . _..,._-_.-.~ . . Naples Daily News 16 r 1 ! 8 2 2 ~ Naples, FL 34102 Affidavit of Publication Naples Daily News -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- + -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BCC/CDES BUDGET OFFICE S CLUTE/FINANCE DEPT POB 413044 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT NAPLES FL 34101 REFERENCE: 068784 P.O. #4500106248 59575698 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDE State of Florida County of Collier =- Before the undersigned authority, personally\>. .,..t appeared Chris Doyle. who on oath says that he/.;.<...F serves as the President and Publisher of the .' '" Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says thac the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year '.. ,.. next preceding the first publication of the ~~~ attached copy of advertisement; and affiant lI~,~' further says that he has neither paid nor ~. ~l~ promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: 05/08 05/08 AD SPACE: 36 LINE FILED ON: 05/08/09 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __~__ __ __ __ _.u __ u _ __ __ -- + -- - -- -- -- - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- .~,,......---.....--; Signature of Affiant ~~- Sworn to and Subscribed before me this r:6 day of L\ f)Cl LI 2c(j Personally known by me C.J)CluJ" ClL{ y-)~)-~ ('k (.(1,( --- CHANELA.MCDONALO Commission DO 650475 Expires June 29, 2011 R~rr!~rl Thl1! T rf1V r.:-~ir1If!)U~'1n('~' BC10-38S.7013 -'" .--,---.'--, ~-----~., -..--.- 161 1 '822 1 FINAL ORDER NO. 2009-04 COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND W ASTEW A TER AUTHORITY A FINAL ORDER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1-6, COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 96-6, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2009 PRICE INDEX FACTOR SET ANNUALLY BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, FOR UTILIZATION IN PRICE INDEX RATE APPLICATIONS FOR NONEXEMPT WATER AND/OR WASTEWATER UTILITIES PROVIDING SERVICE IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 96-6, as amended, provides for the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority (AUTHORITY) to adopt a price index factor for water and/or wastewater utilities on or before May 15th of each calendar year for the utilization in price index rate application; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 96-6, as amended, provides that the price index factor shall be equivalent to the price index factor set annually by the Florida Public Service Commission (COMMISSION); and WHEREAS, the COMMISSION issued Order No. PSC-09-0099-PAA-WS on February 16, 2009, establishing the 2009 Price Index of 2.55 percent for water and/or wastewater utilities; to be effective Mareh 4, 2009. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority, in public meeting assembled, that: 1. The 2009 Price Index is 2.55 percent. 2. Any water and/or wastewater utility that intends to increase its rates by implementation of this priee index must notify the AUTHORITY on or after the effective date of this Final Order of such intent and shall apply the 2009 Price Index to applicable 2008 calendar year operation and maintenance expenses. 3. Utilities using the 2009 Price Index shall use the forms attached as Appendices "A", "8", "c" and "D", and shall follow all price index application requirements specified in Collier County Ordinance No. 96-06, as amended, before implementing any index. 4. This Order shall become effective upon adoption by the AUTHORITY and shall remain in effect until the AUTHORITY authorizes a change. . ..--, """'- ~ .<I...JJ>..,. ---... 161 1 822 ~ This Final Order adopted this 15th day of May, 2009, after motion, second, and majority vote favoring the same. Approved as to form COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND and legal sufficiency: W ASTEW A TER AUTHORITY Steve Williams DR. FAY BILES, PhD, CHAIRMAN Assistant County Attorney 'M___ v - --- 161 1 922 ,~ APPENDIX "A" 2009 PRICE INDEX APPLICA nON YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 20081 Utility: WATER SEWER 2008 Operation and maintenance Expenses (O&M) LESS: (a) Pass-Through Items: (I) Purchased Power (2) Purchased Water (3) Purchased Sewage Treatment (4) Other2: (b) Rate Case Expenses Included In 2007 Expenses (c) Adjustments to O&M Expenses from last rate case, if applicable: (l) (2) Costs to be Indexed Multiply by the 2009 Price Index Factor 0.0255 0.0255 Indexed Costs Add: Pass- Through Items Total ofIndexed Costs and Pass-Through Items -,.-- Divide Total of Indexed Costs and Pass-Through Items by Expansion Factor for Regulatory Assessment Fees 0.970 0.970 Increase in Revenue Divide by 2007 Annualized Revenue3 Percentage Increase in Rates IThis amount should be for the calendar year 2008. If the utility is on a fiscal year, a pro rata distribution between the utility's two affected annual reports should be included as a supplemental attachment. The annual reports or general ledgers should be used as the source document(s). The utility is required to send a worksheet showing the pro rata distribution. llf applicable, deduct on this line any other expenses for which a pass-through has been received. Specify the type of expense, which is being deducted. 3lf rates changed during or subsequent to calendar year 2008, the book revenues must be adjusted to show the changes and an explanation of the calculation should be attached to this form. (See Appendix "B" for instructions and sample format.) ----- .._-~ .oR 1iII'T t' '" .. 161 1 822 I APPENDIX "B" Have rates charged for customer services changed since January 1, 2008? ( ) If no, the utility should use actual revenues. This form may be disregarded. ( ) If yes, the utility must annualize its revenues. Complete the remainder of this form. Annualizing calculatcs the revenue the utility would have earned based upon 2008 customer consumption at the most current rates in effect. To complete this calculation, the utility will need consumption data for 2008 to apply to the existing rate schedule. Below is a sample, which may be used. CALCULATION OF ANNUALIZED REVENUES 1 Number of Billsl Current Annualized Gallons Sold x Rates Revenues Residential Bills: 5/8" x %" meters 1 " mcters .-~------- I Y2" meters 2" meters Total No. Bills 2 2 2 Gallons Sold Other Revenue General Service: 5/g" x %" meters 1 " meters I Y2" meters 2" meters -- 3" meters --- 4" meters 6" meters Total No. Bills 2 2 2 Gallons Sold Other Revenue Total Annualized Revenues for 2008 $ I Annualized revenues must be calculated separately if the utility consists of both a water system and a sewer system. This form is designed specifically for utilities using a base facility charge rate structure. If annualized revenues must be calculated and further assistance is needed, contact the Utility Regulation Staff at (239) 252-2302. 2Complete only if billing charge is separate. ",""".4 ,..,--~-_.~.__.._--_.,,-~- APPENDIX hC" 161 1 ;'B22~ AFFIDA vrr I, ' UNDER OATH hereby affirms that 1 am the duly authorized representative of and that the figures and calculations upon which the change in rates is based are accurate and that the change will not cause said to exceed its last authorized or calculated rate of return, pursuant to Section 1-6 (1) (4), Collier County Ordinance No. 96-06, as amended, which is %. This affidavit is made pursuant to this utility's request for a 2009 price index rate Increase. Title (Print Name) Subscribed and sworn (or affirnled) to before me by on ,20_, who 0 is personally known to me 0 produced as identification (Printed Name of Notary) My Commission Expires: "--,,,.,,"-~-~ ."'" -"'''-.- II..., ''P''<r T n r ,PO- J..L ... .."",- Fiala \~2J 219 e 1 " RECEIVED Halas Henning JUN 0 9 2009 Coyle Coletta NfiMjT~~()~iofraE MEETING OF T NA VIGA TIONAL MARKERS FOR, AND NA VIGA TION ON, CLAM PASS/CLAM BAY Naples, Florida, May 29,2009 LET lIT BE REMEMBERED, the following individuals for Navigational Markers For, and Navigation On, Clam Pass/Clam Bay in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met in a WORKSHOP SESSION on this date at 9:00 AM, at Building "B" Human Resources Conference Room of the Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the following present: Collier County Staff Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Pelican Bay Foundation Rich Y ovanovich, Attorney Steve Feldhaus Seagate Homeowners Assoc. Ernest Wu Robert Rogers Clam Bay Advisory Group J ames Carroll, Chairman Misc. Corres. 1 ,.--- . ...'''......-.''"'',' - 161 1 ~.~ C 1 ,. May 29,2009 Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney stated the meeting was initiated at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners (from an item that appeared on their agenda for a decision regarding proposed aids to navigation in Clam Pass/Clam Bay) to determine if consensus could be reached between the County, the Seagate Community and the Pelican Bay Community regarding the placement of the "aids to navigation" in Clam Pass/Clam Bay. If consensus cannot be reached, the item will return to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for a decision. He noted Staff has recommended a plan for the placement of the "aids to navigation" for approval by the BCC and the County Attorney supports Staffs recommendation. Rich Y ovanovich, Attorney for Pelican Bay Foundation highlighted the following: . The Foundation is concerned that Staffs recommendation to place red and green US Coast Guard approved "aids to navigation" may encourage boaters unfamiliar with the System to enter, causing safety concerns. . The Foundation is not sure the legal ramifications of utilizing these type of markers and is concerned the placement of them may lead to "navigational dredging" of the system. . The Foundation supports the placement of "informational signs" to aid in, navigation of the system, as opposed to the red and green US Coast Guard approved markers. The Foundation proposes the following: . To allow placement of the "informational signs" for navigational purposes. . Identify the existing depths in the area of the system utilized for navigation and guarantee the Seagate Community the right to the depths (controlling depths) for navigational purposes in the future. This would ensure the Seagate Community maintains its current "level of boating service" for the future. Jeff Klatzkow noted the County is "indifferent" to the type of signage/markers placed in the System as long as the permitting Agencies approve the placement of the markers enabling the County to "close out the permit." It was noted the US Army Corps of Engineers indicated, in writing, the permit issued requires the placement of US Coast Guard approved "aids to navigation" in the System. In addition, indicated the permit could be modified if requested. To date, no modification has been requested. Jim Carroll, Chairman, Clam Bay Advisory Committee read a statement into the record, which indicated: 2 - . ~ "---""">"~"-'-' --,--- 161 1'1 C<i . ay2 . The goals in relation to the issue are maintaining an environmentally healthy Estuary and provide continued "small boat" access to the Gulf of Mexico for the Seagate Community. . Recommends placement of the US Coast Guard approved red and green "aids to navigation" as proposed. . Recommended a statement or Resolution from the BCC and City of Naples be approved which indicates in the event of a storm or major hurricane, the channel shall be restored to the same navigability that existed before the Storm. . Establishing controlling depths is not necessary and opens the door for dredging in Clam Bay, which should not be permitted. . Dredging for the purposes of "tidal flushing" is separate from the issue of navigational dredging. . The fear of the red and green markers leading to "navigational dredging" is at this point, unfounded. . Maintaining the Estuary is in the interest of both communities and the issues should be addressed together. Steve Feldhaus, Pelican Bay Foundation requested clarification on the reasons for placing the US Coast Guard approved red and green navigation markers as opposed to "informational signs" for navigation. He noted the Foundation is willing to enter into a binding agreement as proposed by Mr. Y ovanovich. The residents of Pelican Bay are concerned with future dredging activities that may occur within the system. Ernest Wu/Robert Rogers Seagate Community noted the following: . The waterway is a navigable waterway as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). . For safety and navigability reasons, the "aids to navigation" should be US Coast Guard approved markers. . Expressed concern certain individuals do not believe the waterway is a navigable waterway as defined by the USACE. . The permit required the markers be placed, which protected the rights of the Seagate community. Jeff Klatzkow noted Pelican Bay Foundation's position is they have veto power over any dredging in the system and reiterated they are proposing to the residents of Seagate's long term assurance, if dredging is required for navigation of the system to today's standards, (present level of service for boating) it will be allowed. Rich Y ovanovich asserted the signs or "markers" required in the permit were not for "aid to navigation," rather to ensure environmental protection of the System. Steve Feldhaus added the permit does not mention signs in Outer Clam Bay as now proposed. Signs cannot be placed in the System without permission from the Pelican Bay Foundation and the Foundation will not allow red and green markers. Ernest Wu requested clarification if the veto power asserted by Mr. Feldhaus is correct. 3 . .----- -, 161J9,zrG 1 " Jeff KIatzkow noted the Foundation's and a County's interpretation of the restrictions differs, but was not the issue for discussion at the Workshop. Discussion occurred if the residents of Pelican Bay agree the waterway is a navigable waterway. Again it was noted that was not the issue at the Workshop. Rich Y ovanovich noted the proposal to be considered is for "informational signs" as proposed by the Pelican Bay Foundation with assurance for the existing level of boating service in the System for Seagate residents. Robert Rogers requested clarification ifthere is an actual design plan for alternate signs. Rich Y ovanovich noted there have been proposed signs designed for the locations proposed which could be submitted to the Seagate Community for approval. Ernest Wu requested clarification on the reason for resistance by the Foundation's agreeing the waterway meets the definition of navigable water. Jeff KIatzkow noted the Pelican Bay Foundation is concerned the System could then be dredged to allow access for "large ships." Steve Feldhaus noted the proposed agreement would in writing binding the Pelican Bay Foundation. Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager requested clarification if the Pelican Bay Foundation asserts it could restrict boater's access to the Gulf. Steve Feldhaus stated this is not the position of the Pelican Bay Foundation; rather they could prevent dredging activities to open the channel due to natural activities, which may block the channel for navigation. Robert Rogers asked if the Pelican Bay Foundation could provide a written proposal to the Seagate Community. Steve Feldhaus noted it could be provided by early next week. Discussion occurred noting the proposed placement of the "aids to navigations" were properly vetted and approved by the Clam Bay Advisory Group and the Coastal Advisory Committee through public hearings. Steve Feldhaus provided an overview of the history of the Clam Bay property noting it was private property until 1982 when it was deeded to the County with the restrictions required by the County to protect Clam Bay. The metes and bounds description of the property deeded to the County includes the waters in the System. Mr. Carroll requested clarification why the parties favor or oppose the red and green US Coast Guard markers and do they feel this awards them certain rights versus "informational signs." Mr. Feldhaus expressed concern that the Pelican Bay Foundation has offered Seagate the assurance for boating rights as they exist now, but the Seagate community is resisting 4 "'~.- ----...-.-.... . - -""_.."'--~,""~,-,".""~ ,-"--...--- 16 'J2toi . iI';, the offer. He questions if the Seagate residents feel the red and green markers will ensure certain parameters for maintaining navigational rights (rights to dredge, etc.). Discussion ensued on how other similar shallow Estuaries in the County are marked for navigation. Mr. Rogers noted some of the residents of Seagate feel the red and green "aids to navigation" approved by the US Coast Guard, ensure certain possible (unknown) rights. A determination of these rights (if any) would need to be investigated. Break - 10: lOam Reconvene -10:25am Jim Carroll sought clarification on what the colored markers mean to the Seagate residents. Robert Rogers stated he was unsure, but felt the US Coast Guard utilizes the markers for reasons (boating safety, etc). He stated just as the Seagate resident's objections to the "informational signs" causes concerns for the Pelican Bay Community, the Pelican Bay Community's objection to the red and green markers is a cause for concern to the Seagate residents. An investigation needs to be completed with the Agency to determine the purpose of the markers. Jeff Klatzkow noted the following in conclusion: 1. The Pelican Bay Foundation will provide a proposed agreement to the Seagate Homeowners Assoc. 2. If an agreement is obtained, it will be provided to the County Attorney who will post it online for public view. 3. The agreement will be brought forward to the BCC for review under the continued agenda item. 4. If an agreement is not reached, the continued item will be placed on a Board of County Commission agenda for a decision. Leo Ochs noted the agreement needs to be received by County Staff by June 2, 2009 for placement on the June 9, 2009 BCC meeting agenda. There is no deadline for the item and it may be continued. Being no further business for the good of the County, the Workshop concluded at 10:39 A.M. 5 ......~-~;---= .- Ill'" .n ....-".~.........-: -, Fiala 1611 iC2 ~ Halas - '";" - Henning~ Coyle ~-- March 19, 2009 ::IVED Coletta -. --- 1 2009 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE _., ....ry Commissioners COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL Naples, Florida, March 19,2009 LET IT BE REMEJ\1BERED that the Collier County Public Safety Coordinating Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM., in REGULAR SESSION, at the Human Resources Conference Room, Building "B," 3301 East Tamiami Trail, in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Fred Coyle Judge Cynthia Ellis, Circuit Court, Designee for Chief Judge Cary Judge Eugene C. Turner, County Court Charles Rice, Director, County Probation David Schimmel, Chief Executive Officer, David Lawrence Center Christine Holmes, Administrator, Batterers Intervention Program Rich Montecalvo, Designee for Stephen Russell, State Attorney Mark Lennon, Sr. Supervisor, State Probation Office, Designee for Pamela Donelson, State Probation Chief Greg Smith, Sheriff s Office, Designee for Sheriff Kevin Rambosk Mike Orlando, Designee .for Kathy Smith, County Public Defender Mark Middlebrook, Collier County Court Administration (non-voting) Chief Scott Salley, Sheriffs Office (non-voting) Misc. Corres: ALSO PRESENT: James Mudd, County Manager .~ Robert 7achary, Chief Assistant County Atlomef"'"' J Skip Camp, Director, Facilities Management Item #: J tQ ILl ~ Mike Sheffield, Assistant to County Manager 1 ~ "0'08 h) ~.M_. -,~,"""'''''^' -.---.,-.-.--.-.-.. 161 1 C2 . March 19, 2009 I. Introduction A. Call to Order Chairman Fred Coyle called the meeting to order at 2:03 PM. B. Approval of Minutes of December 12, 2008 PSCC Meeting Mike Orlando moved to approve the Minutes of December 18, 2008 Meeting as submitted. Second by David Schimmel. Carried unanimously, 10-0. II. Old Business A. Approval of Chief Judge Cary's Recommendation of County Court Judge Eugene C. Turner to fill the vacancy of "County Court Judge Statutory Member" on the Public Safety Coordinating Council (replacing Judge Ramiro Maiialich) Chairman Coyle welcomed Judge Turner. Rich Montecalvo moved to approve the nomination of County Court Judge Eugene C. Turner, as recommended by Chief Judge Keith Cary, to fill the vacancy as County Court Judge Statutory Member. Second by Circuit Court Judge Cynthia Ellis. Carried unanimously 10-0. B. Jail "Snap-Shot" Report - Chief Scott Salley (A copy of the Jail Data Report was distributed to the Committee.) . Immokalee Jail Center remains temporarily closed - without increase in cnme County Manager Mudd stated the closing has resulted in a cost savings for the County. He noted there have been no complaints from Immokalee residents concerning visitation due to the transportation voucher system. Chief Salley stated information concerning vouches/CAP bus schedules were printed in Spanish, Creole, and English, and the Sheriff's Office has issued approximately sixty vouchers to pay for CAP bus fares. Chairman Coyle asked if any of the aversion programs have had a significant impact on the jail population. . The GED Program had the best results. 0 There are 49 'students' currently enrolled and two are testing for SAT through the Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology. 0 Inmates are also encouraged to attend vocational training courses. . The Pre-trial Release Program and pleas at first appearances are other measures that have helped to reduce the jail population. Discussion ensued regarding efforts by the Clerk's Office to collect Court costs and probation fees from paroled inmates. County Manager Mudd stated the County's General Fund makes up the short-fall in uncollected fees. Mark Middlebrook stated before an inmate (with the ability to pay) is released from probation, he/she is signed up for Collections Court. If appearances are not made 2 .....-. . c '- _llI!lIlll1 161 1 e2 -- March 19, 2009 before the Court as scheduled or if payments are not made on a timely manner, the Clerk's Office can convert the debt to a civil Judgment. Judge Turner stated although former inmates are monitored, there is a point when it is not worth the administrative costs/time to pursue collecting judgments. C. Mental Health Care Priorities in Collier County (follow-up report from the 12/12/08 PSCC Meeting) - David Schimmel . Emergency ("walk-in") numbers are up by 15% . First priority is to ensure availability of "Baker Act" beds for law enforcement to shift population from the jail 0 The addition of 10 beds will cost approximately $1.5M . Second priority is access to medication and treatment 0 Institutional care in Florida costs approximately $140,000/year '0 Community care is approximately $ 14,000/year per patient . The Crisis Intervention Training ("CIT") Program is proceeding and a number of officers have signed up to attend Mr. Schimmel stated he does not anticipate receiving any support from the State Legislature due to further budget reductions. (Chief Salley left at 2:25 PM) III. New Business A. Impact of Truancy on the Crime Rate - Sgt. Tom Wedlock, CCSO (A PowerPoint presentation was given.) . Collier County's Truancy Court Program began in February, 2008, and is an early-intervention effort targeting "at risk" students . Truancy has been referred to as the "first step to a lifetime of problems" . Truancy Court focuses on habitual truants (5+ days per calendar month) . High school dropouts cost taxpayers between $188,000 - $297,000 . Truancy prevention programs costs between $500 - $2,000 per truant . Collier County's Truancy Court began in February, 2008 0 Collaborative effort: Public Schools, State Attorney's Office, the Department of Children/Families and various Community Organizations 0 An Inter-Agency agreement, signed by the partnering Agencies, outlined each Agency's responsibilities . Students are identified as "habitual truants," parents are notified via mail and phone contact . A "intervention" (meeting) is scheduled with student, parents and the school to solve problem and present options regarding available resources . The Superintendent of Schools authorizes filing a Petition with the Court if intervention fails . 150+ petitions have been petitioned filed with Truancy Court since February, 2008 . Juvenile and parents attend Truancy Court 0 Juveniles are screened for drugs at first Court appearance 3 "'~. - _....,,-~ -,,_.- 161 1 C2 '4 March 19, 2009 Results: . 48% reduction in truancy after date of petition . 54% reduction after first Truancy Court appearance . 90% of juveniles are no longer habitually truant . 40% reduction in school discipline referrals after entering Truancy Court . 1/3 of students made significant improvements in grades . 81 % reduction in positive drug screens within 2 months after first appearance . 53% in arrests for burglaries committed by juveniles during school hours Sgt. Wedlock stated one of the reasons for the success of the program is because there is accountability to Truancy Court, and a process has been created to ensure the needs of the students and families are addressed and met IV. Member Comments/Suggestions V. Public Comment (None) VI. Next Meeting: June 11,2009 at 2:00 PM in the Human Resources Conference Room There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 3:07 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on 6 ~I / 0 !1-~-, as presented ~r as amended --- 4 ~ , Fiala .~ 11~ 3 " Hala~ 1" . Fe ruary - ,~ Henning Coyle ~ MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF T~'~ ' CuUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECEIVED MAY 2 1 2009 Naples, Florida, February 20, 2009 B oard of Countj Commi~~ionor3 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 Sue Chapin, Secretary to the Special Magistrate ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Misc. Corres: Date:_~Wll9~ tem ~j. LlQJ.LU C, 3 ..' \.. I -,- -"',"', <,.~"~_._.. ..----- 161 1 'C3 . February 20, 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; looking for compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:16 AM RECONVENED: 9:37 AM II. APPROV AL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the County as requested by the Deputy/InvestigatorlPark Ranger: . Agenda # 4, Case # DAS 11543 - BCC vs. Kathy Crowder . Agenda # 5, Case # SO 154373 - BCC vs. Jean N. Grunow (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the County because a permit was obtained: . Agenda #23, Case # CEAU 20080015502 - BCC vs. Cenous Dorvilien (c) Under Item IV (B), "Request for Continuance," the following cases submitted requests: . Agenda # 6, Case # PR 041620 - BCC vs. Joseph O'Connell . Agenda # 7, Case # PR 041621- BCC vs. Joseph O'Connell . Agenda # 9 -18, Cases # DAS 11929 through 11938 - BCC vs. Danielle Smith Sue Chapin, Secretary to the Special Magistrate noted the following changes: (d) Under Item V (A), Stipulations were reached in the following cases: . Agenda # 20, Case # CEPM 20080006857 - BCC vs. Naples Barefoot Investors, LLC . Agenda # 3, Case # DAS 11542 - BCC vs. Kathy Crowder . Agenda # 19, Case # CESD 20080015198 - BCC vs. P. Roberts Trust, 5th Street Trust . Agenda # 22, Case # CESD 20080005609 - BCC vs. Maria E. Rodriguez The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. III. APPROV AL OF MINUTES Sue Chapin, Secretary to the Special Magistrate, proposed the following corrections: 2 .,,,,,., .. . ~"""""'""'~-'''._~~' ~.~,-_. ........ . . 161 1 I C3 February 20, 2009 . Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines:" 0 The Case Number for Agenda # 1, BCC vs. Celia Andrade and Jose Alfaro, was changed from CEDS to "CESD 20080010509," 0 The Case Number for Agenda # 3, BCC vs. Carolina M. Alvarez, was changed from CEPM to "CERR 20080006426." The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on February 6, 2009 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended. IV. MOTIONS B. Request for Continuance The following two cases were heard together: 6. Case # PR 041620 - BCC vs. Joseph O'Connell The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Park Ranger Mauricio Araquistain was present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Ord. Sec. 130-66 Failure to display paid parking receipt Violation address: Barefoot Beach access 7. Case # PR 041621 - BCC vs. Joseph O'Connell The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Park Ranger Mauricio Araquistain was present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Ord. Sec. 130-66 Failure to display paid parking receipt Violation address: Barefoot Beach access The Special Magistrate reviewed the Respondent's faxed Request for a Continuance. The Respondent stated he would be out of the country on a business trip from February 17,2009 through February 24, 2009, and attached a copy of his airline tickets as verification. Park Ranger Araquistain stated the County did not object to the Request for a Continuance. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Requestfor a Continuance in Cases # PR 041620 and PR 041621. 9. - 18. Cases DAS 11929 throueh DAS 11938 - BCC vs. Danielle Smith The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Department of Animal Services Officer Hinkley was also present. Mike Sorrell appeared as a witness for the Respondent. Violations: Cases # DAS 11929 through DAS 11937 3 ,.....'-" '''' ....,. 161 1 ! C3 February 20, 2009 Code of Law & Ord., 2008-51, Sec. 9-E (1) Deprive any animal of good and wholesome food and water (Cages 1 and 2) (2) Deprive any animal of sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water (Cages 3 - 9) Case # DAS 11938 Code of Law & Ord., 2008-31, Sec. 8-1E (1) Create sanitary nuisance. Urine and feces around trailer with two pigs in it Violation Address: 2335 Wilson Blvd. N. The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent was represented by Woodward, Harris & Lombardo, and Esq., who submitted a Request for a Continuance due to a conflict with the schedule for the attorney of record. The Respondent stated she received the Notice of Hearing one week earlier and was unaware of the specific nature of her attorney's conflict. The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent's attorney indicated he would not be available for the next Hearing date as well and asked the Officer if postponing the Cases for one month would be an issue. DAS Officer Hinkley stated the matter has been ongoing since 2007. He expressed concern for the health, safety and welfare of the animals and he objected to an extended Continuance. Due to the seriousness of the charges, the Special Magistrate stated she would continue the cases only to the next Hearing date (March 6,2009). The Officer stated there has been a continuing problem with the Respondent not allowing DAS Officers access to her property to inspect the facilities provided for the animals. Mr. Sorrell stated any DAS Officer, except Officer Hinkley, will be allowed access to the property. He has provided phone numbers to the Department of Animal Services for the Respondent and himself The Special Magistrate stated the Department of Animal Services will arrange for one visit per week to inspect the Respondent's property and was granted as much time as necessary to inspect the facilities. If the Respondent has not been contacted by the Department of Animal Services by the close of business on Monday (5 :00 PM), February 23, 2009, she is to call the Department to schedule an inspection. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Requestfor a Continuance and ordered the Cases to be placed on the March 6th Hearing Agenda. A. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines 4 .. . lilT"!" ...... -,- 1611lC3 ,. February 20, 2009t 1. Case # CEPM 20080003791 - BCC vs. Flozell Sledee & Dannv Thomas The Hearing was requested by Respondent, Danny Thomas, who was present. Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha was also present. Sharon Howard appeared as a witness for the Respondent Thomas. Violations: Code of Laws & Ord., Chap. 22, Article VI , Sec.22-231, Sub( s). 1-4, 7-11, 12b, 12i-12m, 120, l2p, 19a-19d,&20 Rental property with multiple minimum housing violations Violation address: 413 Gaunt St. Ms. Howard, a friend of Mr. Thomas, stated she resides at 1202 Mimosa A venue, Immokalee, Florida. Mr. Thomas resides at 317 South 2nd Street, Immokalee, Florida 34142. . The initial Order, dated October 3, 2008, imposed fines in the amount of $29,562.75. . An additional fine in the amount of$7,750.00 was also imposed. . The Operational Costs were paid by the Respondent. . Collier County abated the violations at a cost of$3,495.00. . Respondent, Flozell Sledge, alk/a Flozell Jones, is deceased but a Probate proceeding has not been filed with the Court. . Dorothy Mae Jones, the Decedent's daughter who is also a beneficiary and resides in a nursing home, was advised of the Hearing by her brother. The Respondent has asked for the fines to be reduced. He stated medical issues did not allow him to correct the violations within the allotted timeframe. Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha stated the County was only interested in obtaining reimbursement for the costs to abate the violations and would not object to a reduction. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Requestfor Reduction of Fines but assessed the amount of $3,495.00 as a lien against the property. The Special Magistrate explained that the County could not foreclose upon the property, per the Ordinance, for a period of ninety days. The Respondent was directed to contact Code Enforcement for further assistance. C. Request for Extension of Time 1. Case # CEPM 20080000939 - BCC vs. Flozell Jones & Dannv Thomas The Hearing was requested by Respondent Danny Thomas who was present. Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha was also present. Sharon Howard appeared as a witness for the Respondent Thomas Violations: Ord. 2004-58, Sec. 16, Sub(s). I(A) -1(C). I(E), l(G), l(H), 2(A) & 2(B) 5 ,- ~ "'"',--"~.~-,."' .. ._......."._.-.,~-"',,'" 16 11 ~ February 20, 2009 C 3 Vacant commercial building in deteriorated condition with multiple property maintenance violations Violation address: 317 2nd Street, lmmokalee, FL 34142 Property Maintenance Specialist Mucha stated the County did not object to an Extension of Time being granted to the Respondent The Respondent asked for a period of 120 days. Mr. Mucha verified with the Special Magistrate that the extension will begin on February 20, 2009 and will not be retroactive to the initial compliance date. No fines will accrue. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Requestfor an Extension of Timefor a period of 120 days commencing on February 20,2009. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $118.22 on or before March 5, 2009. Total Amount Due: $118.22 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 20. Case # CEPM 20080006857 - BCC vs. Naples Barefoot Investors, LLC The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels who was present The Respondent was represented by Roger G. McMorrow, Esq., Counsel for the Respondent. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ord., Chapter 22, Sec. 22-241 (1 )(N) Accessory structure/storage shed is not being maintained in good repair and is unsecured. Violation address: 11574 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34113 A Stipulation was entered into by Roger G. McMorrow, Esq., on behalf of the Respondent on February 20, 2009. Investigator Sorrels stated Mr. McMorrow agreed to the terms of the Stipulation on behalf of his client Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Bui/ding Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Occupancy/Completion, on or before Apri/20, 2009, or afine of $100.00 will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out ami assess the costs to the Respondent. 6 . . - IIfIi .'"11I"" ., - .--.... 161 C3 ,.~ I I t: February 20, 2009 /fnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.96011 or before March 20, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.96 3. Case # DAS 11542 - BCC vs. Kathv Crowder The Hearing was requested by the Collier County Department of Animal Services Officer Jeremy Harrelson who was present. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Code of Laws, Chap. 14, Sec. 14-36, Sub(s). A(2) Allow dog to run at large Violation address: 203 Capri Blvd. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on February 20, 2009. The Respondent stated she resides at 101 Jamaica Drive. Officer Harrelson stated the Respondent agreed to the terms of the Stipulation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served; the Respondent wasfound GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a civilfine in the amount of $100.00 and the administrativefee of$7.00 on or before March 20, 2009. Total Amount Due: $107.00 19. Case # CESD 20080015198 - BCC vs. P. Roberts Trust. 5th Street Trust The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present. The Respondent was represented by Susan Hornyak as Owner of the Trust. John Hornyak appeared as a witness. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Chapter 22, Sec. 22-26(B) (104.5.].4.4) Abandoned or suspended permit Violation address: 103 5th Street, Naples, FL 34113 A Stipulation was entered into by Susan Horynak, Trust Owner, on behalf of the Respondent, Paul Roberts - Trustee, on February 20, 2009. Susan Hornyak stated she is the owner ofthe Trust and the correct name is "5th Street Trust, Paul Roberts - Trustee." Mr. Hornyak is the builder of the property in the Trust 7 ..-. ~ ,....","" ......... .1lI ,- 161 1 C3 II February 20, 2009 Investigator Mucha stated the original permit had expired. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent wasfound GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to obtain a Collier County Building Permit, all required inspections and a Certificate of Occupancy/Completion, on or before August 20,2009, or afine of $200. 00 will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. /fthe 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. /fnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.52 on or before March 20, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.52 22. Case # CESD 20080005609 - BCC vs. Maria E. Rodrieuez The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. The Respondent was also present. Denisse Bueno, the Respondent's granddaughter, served as translator. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B(l )(A) Shed on propertK with no permits Violation address: 236455! Street SW, Naples, FL 34116 A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on February 20, 2009. Investigator Paul stated Mrs. Rodriguez agreed to the terms of the Stipulation and to pay the Operational Costs. The Special Magistrate asked the Respondent if she had enough time to obtain a permit and abate the violation. Ms. Bueno explained that, under the first permit, the sides of the shed had been removed and only the roofwas left. In order to avoid confusion, the Special Magistrate revised the terms of the Stipulation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to complete demolition of the remainder of the shed on or before March 20, 2009, or a fine of $100.00 will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. s - - ""'0 .... ~,,,__'",,,,"'''''''_''''''>''"''',_._, 161 1 C3 1 February 20, 2009 /fthe 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. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.43 on or before April 20, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.43 B. Hearings: 8. Case # SO 165428 - BCC vs. Arthur Herman The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Sheriffs Department Deputy Paige Long was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Ord. Sec. 130-67 Parking in a handicapped space hash marks. No motor. Violation address: In front of Gateway Bealls Mr. Herman resides at 27760 Marina Isle Court, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134. The Respondent stated he parked his scooter in an area with hash marks since the parking lot was full. The area was not outlined in blue, as is the handicapped space, and he did not realize it was considered part of the handicapped parking space. He offered two photographs which were marked as Respondent's Exhibits "A" and "8." Mr. Herman stated he may be guilty of unlawful parking, and offered a copy of Florida Statutes' Handicapped Parking Regulations for the Special Magistrate to reVIew. Deputy Long stated she observed the scooter parked in the hash marked area which is part of the handicapped parking space and issued the Citation. The Special Magistrate reviewed the document and found some ambiguities in the language. The Special Magistrate stated she would "take the matter under advisement" in order to research current case law. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case until further notice. The following two cases were heard together: 1. Case # DAS 11537 - BCC vs. Michael Castellano The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. 9 "'"I.... ~...-,...".._,-- v. ~.. .~. 161 lbruarC0309 . Collier County Department of Animal Services Officer Jeremy Harrelson was also present. Violations: Code of Laws, Chap. 14, Sec. 14-34, Sub(s). A(4) Failure to affix tags Violation Address: 203 Capri Blvd. 2. Case # DAS 11535 - BCC vs. Michael Castellano The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Department of Animal Services Officer Jeremy Harrelson was also present. Violations: Code of Laws, Chap. 14, Sec. 14-36, Sub(s). A(2) Allow dog to run at large Violation Address: 203 Capri Blvd. Mr. Castellano resides at 256 Meadowlark Court, Marco Island, Florida. The Respondent stated he does not own a dog and should not have been issued the Citations. He is the owner of the "Capri Fish House" on the Isle of Capri and stated that dogs often run loose on the neighboring County lot. The DAS Officer was initially on the neighboring property and then came over to his restaurant. The DAS Officer did not approach him, but confronted a customer whose own dog was running loose. The Respondent stated the conversation escalated into an argument and he feared for the safety of both men. He asked the DAS Officer to leave the premises. The DAS Officer requested police back-up Mr. Castellano stated he informed the DAS Officer that he did not own a dog. DAS Officer Harrelson stated the Respondent told him the dog belonged to his brother. The Officer observed a tan dog which narrowly escaped being hit by two cars. It ran around the firehouse and was joined by other dogs which then ran onto the Respodent's property. He asked for the owners of the animals to contine their dogs. Ms. Crowder complied but the Respondent and his customer refused. The Respondent stated dogs did not have to be confined on his property. The Officer stated he attempted to educate the Respondent and his customer concerning the Leash Law but they refused to allow him to speak, and used profanity. When he asked the gentlemen for their identification, they stated they would only provide the information to a police office. He confirmed the confrontational atmosphere and called for assistance from the Collier County Sheriff's Office in addition to contacting his Supervisor at DAS. The Deputy was able to obtain the identification and the Otlicer wrote the Citations. The Respondent threatened to punch Officer Harrelson in his face and stated he might have done so if the Deputy had not been present. 10 -.....""'.'" ~"'..- _"'_l>'f - 161 1 C3 . February 20,2009 The Respondent stated his brother, Anthony, brings the dog with him to the beach and allows the dog to run loose. He reiterated there are numerous dogs at the beach and confimed that his brother's dog does have tags. The Special Magistrate explained to the Respondent that he is considered to be a caretaker for the animal because he watches over the dog for his brother and he is guilty of the violation. The Special Magistrate stated the Citation was correctly issued. The Special Magistrate ruled that because the dog did have current tags, the Respondent was NOT GUILTY of the violation cited in Case # DAS 11537. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served in Case # DAS 11535, the Respondent wasfound GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a civil fine in the amount of $100.00 together with an administrative fee of$7.00 on or before March 20, 2009. Total Amount Due: $107.00 The Respondent stated he would not pay the fine and would take the issue to Court. The Special Magistrate confirmed the Respondent could appeal to the Collier County Circuit Court. The Special Magistrate also explained her only concern was whether or not the Ordinance had been violated. Any issues regarding the manner in which the investigation was conducted will be handled in another Court. 21. Case # CEPM 20080015913 - BCC vs. Bernadino Guerrero, Jr. The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator John Santafemia who was present. The Respondent was also present Helen Guerrero, the Respondent's mother, appeared as a witness. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ord., Chapter 22, Sec. 22-26(103 .11.1) Unsafe buildings / structures Violation address: 1407 Apple St., Immokalee, FL 34142 Investigator Santafemia stated the Notice of Violation was sent via Certified Mail on November 7,2008, and the U.S. Postal Services provided proof of delivery on November 12,2008. The property and lmmokalee Courthouse were also posted. The violation has not been abated. The Respondent was served the Notice of Hearing by Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha on February 11,2009. The Investigator introduced a copy of the County's "Declaration of Dangerous Building," dated October 20, 2008, which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He also introduced photographs which were marked as County's Composite Exhibits "B" and "C," and were admitted into evidence. The Investigator stated the Respondent confirmed he will demolish the structure. II " W'_'~'_'''''.''_ .,-~--",,.,,.., ..... 161 1~'t3 ~ February 20, 2009 The Respondent stated his brother has the equipment necessary and will help him demolish the building. He requested a minimum of 45 days to complete the demolition. The Special Magistrate suggested that the Respondent post "No Trespassing" signs on the property as a warning. The Respondent stated no one has trespassed on the property and his mother lives next door. Mrs. Helen Guerrero confirmed that she lives with the Respondent and his children, and is home during the day. She reported her sons attempted to repair the property by installing a newer roof. She stated she will call the police if there are trespassers on the property. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served; the Respondent wasfound GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to immediately post "No Trespass" signs on the property and to apply for a Collier County Boarding Permit. Posting and boarding must be completed and a Boarding Certificate obtained on or before February 25, 2009. The Respondent was further ordered to obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit, required inspections and a Certificate of Completion on or before April 6, 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. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $118.31 on or before April 6, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $118.31 RECESS: 11:32 AM RECONVENED: 11:54 AM VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines 4. Case # CESD 20080009496 - BCC vs. Wallace R. Parker Tr.. Steve H. Parker Tr.. & Wallace Parker Tr.. UTD 8-2-96 The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron and Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondents were represented by Brent R. Parker, son of Wallace R. Parker, deceased. 12 -- .... , iii"" [ ~.~'-",".>"',^>",'. ~^ ..,'"~.." ."w.. ",....." ".,'$ -,- 161 1 'C3 February 20, 2009 Violations: Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, as adopted by Collier Co., Sec. 105.1 Constructed a wooden fence without first obtaining proper Collier Co. permits Violation address: 85 7th Street, Bonita Shores, 34134 Brent R. Parker resides at 11325 Sun Ray Drive, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135, and explained the Trust is entitled, "Wallace R. Parker Trust." Steve H. Parker is the Trustee and resides in Illinois. He further stated the property was deeded to him but the deed has not been recorded. The Special Magistrate reviewed the Trust document provided by Mr. Parker. He was instructed to provide a copy of the Trust to Inspector Musse. Mr. Parker contended that he did not receive proper notice of the Hearing. He stated he became aware of the Hearing date because a next-door neighbor called him to notify him that the Code Enforcement Inspector was at his property. Supervisor Waldron stated the Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail to the violation address on February 10, 2009 and proof of delivery on February 13, 2009 was confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service. The signature was illegible. Mr. Parker stated he provided his mailing address and phone number to Inspector Musse at the November 4,2008 Hearing. He stated a tenant lives at the property. He stated he could not attend the Hearing and was waiting for Mr. Musse to contact him with the alleged violations and what was to be done to correct the violations. He further stated he did not receive any Notice concerning violations or any options concerning curing the alleged violations. In response to the Special Magistrate's question, Mr. Parker stated he met with the Investigator in the hallway on November 4th [Note: the Hearing was held on November 7, 2009] and thought they had reached a verbal Stipulation. He ex~lained that his father was very ill at the time and he just learned of the "November 4t Hearing" because the paperwork had been sent to the tenant who did not forward the documents to Mr. Parker's father. The pertinent portions of the Minutes of the November 7th Hearine are as follows: "The Respondents' son, Brent Parker, was present earlier but left [Due to afamUy emergency] before the case could be heard. The Investigator stated he spoke to the Respondent's son on November 3rd who informed him that his father was very ill. " The Special Magistrate asked if the Minutes reflected that a "Stipulation" had been reached in the case. On November i\ no Stipulation had been introduced and the matter proceeded as a "Hearing" without Mr. Parker's presence since he chose to leave prior to the start of the Hearing for his case. 13 ----'"""',..~.'-'"".,,--------"""'_... 161 JlFebru~oo9 ,...~ The Investigator stated he did not recall receiving any address information from Mr. Parker and reminded him that it was his responsibility to provide a current address to the Tax Collector's Office. The Investigator further stated he informed Mr. Parker that he would receive an Order via mail after his case was heard. The Special Magistrate stated the Notice given complied with the requirements of the Ordinance. Investigator Musse stated the shed has been completely removed, but a Demolition Permit had not been obtained, as ordered. He confirmed compliance by a site inspection. Mr. Parker stated the fence has been disassembled and the shed, which is mobile, was relocated. He called the Investigator and left a voice message for him to inspect the property. Mr. Parker stated he met with Investigator Musse during the Hearing recess on November ih and told him that he was willing to comply but he didn't know what he was supposed to do. The Special Magistrate stated an Agreement could not have been entered into because Mr. Parker admitted he didn't understand the terms. She explained the reason why a Stipulation is written and signed by a Respondent is to confirm the terms of the Agreement with all parties. If an "Oral" Stipulation is to be presented at a Hearing, a Respondent should be present. She noted Mr. Parker chose to leave before his case was heard. The initial Order was issued on November 7, 2008. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $117.60, together with fines in the amount of$3,700.00 for the period from December 8,2008 through February 20,2009 ($50/day for 74 days) for a total of $3,817.60. Supervisor Waldron stated the violation has not been abated. Mr. Parker asked the Special Magistrate for a "Motion to Abate the Fines and Vacate the Order." The Special Magistrate stated a "Motion to Vacate an Order" is to be submitted in writing and the deadline to do so had been missed. Mr. Parker stated he has been unemployed for the past year and is unable to pay any fines. He further stated he would appeal the Order to the Appellate Court. He stated the situation escalated because of lack of communication. The Special Magistrate told Mr. Parker he had not done everything as ordered due to a lack of understanding because of his inability to listen. The Investigator stated he told Mr. Parker on November ih of the recommendation he would make during the Hearing and what was required. but nothing had been done until recently. The Special Magistrate asked Mr. Parker why he waited and did not contact the Investigator directly. His excuse was not credible. 14 --"-'~<." . 16 Ll.ryC,39 ~ Mr. Parker stated he became aware of the issue only three days prior to the November ih hearing. He stated he didn't realize he should have remained for the Hearing. He understood that the Investigator was going to notify him after the Hearing exactly what he was supposed to do. Mr. Parker stated he was presented with options that were not clear - could he, in fact, obtain an "after the fact" permit and was it for building or demolition. He was waiting for clarification from the Investigator. The Special Magistrate again reiterated the County met its obligations. Mr. Parker restated that he was not in violation of anything and would appeal the Order. The Special Magistrate stated his threat to appeal would have no bearing on her decision. Supervisor Waldron stated Mr. Parker is not in compliance and the fines will continue to accrue. Investigator Musse explained the required process: . The remaining portions of the fence are to be removed . Mr. Parker must obtain a demolition permit for the fence and the shed. . He must obtain a Certificate of Completion by requesting an inspection . The fines will stop accruing once the inspection has been completed. Mr. Parker stated it was difficult to obtain a permit for a structure that no longer exists. He further stated he disassembled the fence in order to obtain a permit to place it around the "green monsters." [i.e., trash cans]. He stated he would take care of whatever was necessary. He requested a two-week extension. Mr. Musse stated the Order allowed Mr. Parker to obtain a permit to erect the fence in another location on the property, but he still was required to obtain the Demolition Permit. Supervisor Waldron stated Mr. Parker will be required to hire a contractor to obtain the permits because he is not the owner of record of the property. The Special Magistrate ruled the case will be CONTINUED to March 6, 2009, and fines will continue to accrue. If there is complete compliance by the deadline, all fines will be abated. Operational Costs of $117.60 are still due and must be paid. If there is no compliance, the original fine of $3, 700. 00, plus all additional accrued amounts, will be reinstated. The Special Magistrate instructed Mr. Parker to complete the requirements before March 6th and request that Investigator Musse inspect the property to confirm compliance. If that is accomplished, Mr. Parker will not be required to attend the 15 v ..., -_._...-.._""- 161 le3 II February 20, 2009 Hearing. The Special Magistrate stated she would then enter an Order requiring only the payment of the assessed Operational Costs on March 6,2009. David Scribner, Code Enforcement Investigation Manager, stated the property is a rental property. Ifthe deed is in his name, Mr. Parker could obtain an owner/builder permit and it would not be necessary to hire a contractor. The assessed Operational Costs still remain and are to be paid. Mr. Parker confirmed his understanding and asked how to handle a delay if the County could not issue a permit in time. He was instructed to obtain a letter from the County stating the permit will be issued as of a specified date which he will be required to present at the March 6th Hearing. The Special Magistrate reminded NIr. Parker he has been officially notified of the compliance requirements and ((they were not met, he will be required to attend the March 6th Hearing. 5. Case # CESD 20080009498 - BCC vs. Wallace R. Parker, Tr., Steve H. Parker, Tr., & Wallace Parker Tr., UTD 8-2-96 The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron and Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondents were represented by Brent Parker, son of Wallace R. Parker, deceased. Violations: Collier Co. Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec(S).1O.02.06(B)( 1 )(A), 1 0.02.06(B)(1)(E) & 10.02.06(B)(l)(E)(I) Shed built without obtaining proper Collier Co. permits Violation address: 85 7th Street, Bonita Shores, 34134 The initial Order was issued on November 7,2008. Supervisor Waldron stated the violation has not been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$117.69, together with fines in the amount of $3,700.00 for the period from December 8, 2008 through February 20, 2009 ($50/day for 74 days) for a total of$3,817.69. Mr. Parker stated he would obtain a demolition permit and comply. He stated the structure has been removed. The Special Magistrate ruled the case will be CONTINUED to March 6, 2009, and fines will continue to accrue. If there is complete compliance by the deadline, all fines will be abated. Operational Costs of $117.69 are still due and must be paid. If there is no compliance, the originalfine of $3,700.00, plus all additional accrued amounts, will be reinstated. 16 ....- ~..._~ "u..""....._""",.", . 16FL!2C3 - A fine of $50.00 per day will begin and will continue to accrue until the requirement to obtain a demolition permit and the Certificate of Compliance has been satisfied. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 24. Case # CEPM 20090000171 - BCC vs. Jill & Henry Tesno The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondents were not present Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ord., Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-243 Repeat violation of vacant residential home with broken windows and unsecured exterior doors creating a public nuisance. Violation address: 3203 Woodside Ave., Naples, FL 34112 The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on February 9, 2009. The property and the Courthouse were posted on February 9,2009. Investigator Keegan stated he observed the violation on January 6, 2009. It is a Repeat Violation. He has been unable to contact the Respondents via telephone. The Bankruptcy proceeding was dismissed on February 7, 2009. Site visits were made on February 9, 2009 and February 19,2009. The violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served; the Respondents werefound GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000. 00. The Respondents were also ordered to apply for a Boarding Permit. Boarding must be completed and a Certificate obtained on or before February 25,2009, 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. The Respondents were further ordered to hire a licensed contractor and obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, required inspections and a Certificate of Occupancy/Completion on or before February 27,2009 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. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.87 on or before March 20, 2009. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 17 _._" --"-"-"",~~'-.'._-<",".".'. _'0_" .~"'~~.....~_ 161 1 C3 ~ February 20, 2009 Total Amount Due: $5,117.87 C. Emergency Cases: None RECESS: 12.54 PM RECONVENED: 1 :00 pm VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines 1. Case # 2007070238 - BCC vs. William L. Greeman The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron and Investigator Christopher Ambach. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Ordinance 2005-44, Sec. 6 & 7 Accumulation of litter Violation address: Parcel # 01210520007 Notice of the Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and delivered on February 12,2009. The property and the Courthouse were posted on February 10,2009. The initial Order was issued on December 7, 2007. Supervisor Waldron stated the violation was abated on January 7, 2008. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $247.86. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $247.86. 2. Case # 2007070239 - BCC vs. William L. Greeman The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron and Investigator Christopher Ambach. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Ordinance 2004-41, as amended, Sec(s). 2.01.00(A) Unlicensedlinoperab1e vehicles Violation address: Parcel # 01210520007 Notice of the Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and delivered on February 12,2009. The property and the Courthouse were posted on February 10,2009. The initial Order was issued on December 7,2007. Supervisor Waldron stated the violation has not been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$247.86, together with fines in the amount of $21 ,650.00 for the period from December 15, 2007 through February 20, 2009 ($50/day for 433 days) for a total of$21,897.86. 18 - T - 161 !bruCio09 t The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $21,897.86, and notedflnes continue to accrue. 3. Case # 2007030278 - BCC vs. Everardo G. and Graciela C. Guzman The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron and Investigator Christopher Ambach. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Ordinance 2004-41, as amended, Sec(S) 2.01.00(A) Unlicensed/inoperable vehicles Violation Address: 510 Auto Ranch Road, Naples, FL 34114 Notice of the Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and delivered on February 12,2009. The property and the Courthouse were posted on February 10,2009. The initial Order was issued on November 2,2007. Supervisor Waldron stated the violation was abated on January 28, 2008. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $277.45, together with fines in the amount of $6,600 for the period from November 24, 2007 through January 28, 2008 ($ 1 OO/day for 66 days) for a total of$6,877.45. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $6,877.45. VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Request to Fonvard Cases to County Attorney's Office 1. CASE NO: CEV20080007718 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver and Henry Tesno 2. CASE NO: CEPM20080007719 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver and Henry Tesno 3. CASE NO: 2007070463 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver 4. CASE NO: 2006100087 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver 5. CASE NO: 2006100085 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver 6. CASE NO: 2007100819 OWNER: Jill J. \Veaver 19 ,_.~..v......... , . - 161 1 C3 1 February 20, 2009 7. CASE NO: 2007080702 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver and Henry Tesno 8. CASE NO: 2007020244 OWNER: Henry Tesno and Jill Weaver 9. CASE NO: 2006081081 OWNER: Henry Tesno and Jill Weaver 10. CASE NO: 2007040275 OWNER: Henry Tesno and Jill J. Weaver 11. CASE NO: 2007030057 OWNER: Henry Tesno and Jill Weaver 12. CASE NO: 2007080079 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver and Henry Tesno 13. CASE NO: 2007050039 OWNER: Henry Tesno and Jill Weaver 14. CASE NO: 2007100196 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver 15. CASE NO: 2006100692 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver 16. CASE NO: 2007090202 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver 17. CASE NO: 2007080993 O\VNER: Jill J. Weaver and Henry Tesno 18. CASE NO: 2007080937 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver 19. CASE NO: 2007080921 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver 20. CASE NO: 2007090022 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver 21. CASE NO: CEPM20080007987 OWNER: Jill Weaver and Henry Tesno 22. CASE NO: 2006110049 OWNER: Jill Weaver and Henry Tesno 20 ......-..,...- -, J.lIJI!l__~"'''''''''"''~~- 111 16 Ft12o. C93 ~ 23. CASE NO: 2007070379 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver and Henry Tesno 24. CASE NO: 2007080081 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver and Henry Tesno 25. CASE NO: 2007070378 OWNER: Henry Tesno and Jill Weaver The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Request to forward the above- referenced Cases to County Attorney's Office subject to submission of an Executive Summary. VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: None IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE - Friday, March 6, 2009 at 9:00 AM The Hearing will be located at the Collier County Government Center,' Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 1:10 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING These Minutes were approved by t~ecial Magistrate on ~ (g J h109 , as presented _, or as amended _' 21 - ._"._"",.~....,_.,^>~,_..,.. ~, ^_M..._,~ ~:~~ing ~r~!cJ,13 ~ ,. Coyle Coletta ~ MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE CO ER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECEIVED Naples, Florida, March 6, 2009 MAY 2 1 2009 ec.:;~ 0: C"':;"';l~' ..... ~_..,. .~. , ')\...."".;..1............"".1"'($ 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 Secretary to the Special Magistrate: Sue Chapin ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Superyisor MISC. Corres: Date:___ tern f:I. .'~~'..' 'e'''........''''''"-...__.....~__,_, i ~,' I _.- -~ 16 I r.11\;,' . 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; looking for compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:01 AM RECONVENED: 9:38 AM II. APPROV AL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County as requested by the Deputy/lnvestigatorlPark Ranger: . Agenda # 2, Case # SO 165268 - BCC Vs. Irene M. McCarter (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County as requested by the Supervisor of Parks and Recreation: . Agenda # 4, Case # PR 041170 - BCC vs. Timothy Taylor (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County due to payment and/or compliance: . Agenda # 7, Case # PR 041628 - BCC vs. Marco Salomon . Agenda #19, Case # CEV 20080015570 - BCC vs. Timothy & Tiffaney Smith (d) Under Item V (C), "Emergency Cases," the following case was added: . "Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines" Agenda #1, Case # 2007110261- BCC vs. Douglas Carter Sue Chapin, Secretary to the Special Magistrate, noted Stipulations were reached in the following cases under Item V (A): . Agenda # 22, Case # CEPM 20080014195 - BCC vs. Ester M. & Jorge L. Torres . Agenda #18, Case # CEPM 20080002176 - BCC vs. John Bigica & Donald Warren 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 '- 1 17" _._""- -t_~ It d 1C~ . 161 '. . March 6, 2009 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sue Chapin, Secretary to the Special Magistrate, proposed the following corrections: . Under Item IV(A), "Motionfor Reduction/Abatement of Fines:" 0 The Case Number for Agenda # 1, BCC vs. Flozell Sledge & Danny Thomas, was changed to CEPM 20080003791. The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on February 20,2009 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended. IV. MOTIONS A. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines - NONE B. Request for Continuance - NONE C. Request for Extension of Time - NONE The Special Magistrate noted the term "Request" will be changed to "Motions" which is the correct reference. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 22. Case # CEPM 20080014195 - BCC vs. Ester M. & Joree L. Torres The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. Respondent, Jorge L. Torres, was present and also represented his wife, Ester M. Torres. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ord., Chapter 22 Building and Building Regulations, Article II Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(103.11.2) Pool without a permitted pool enclosure or barrier Violation address: 1340 Center Lane, 34110 A Stipulation was entered into by Respondent, Jorge 1. Torres, on behalf of his wife, Ester Torres, and himself on March 6, 2009. The Investigator stated the Respondents have agreed to the terms of the Stipulations. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to construct a temporary barrier on 3 ..... .,....". ~""'.".,........ . 161 1 't '", MarC~' 2009 or before March 23, 2009, or afine of $100.00 will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. The Respondents were further ordered to obtain a Collier County Building Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion, on or before April 20, 2009, or afine of $100. 00 will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondents were 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 April 6, 2009. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.61 18. Case # CEPM 20080002176 - BCC vs. John Bieica & Donald Warren The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present. The Respondents were also present Violations: Code of Laws & Ord.,Chap. 22, Article VI, Sec. 22-231, 12B, 12C, 12I, and 12H; and Section 22-243 Abandoned single family home with property maintenance violations Violation address: 20 Singletary Street, Copeland, FL 34137 A Stipulation was signed by the Re5pondents on March 6, 2007. Mr. Bigica resides at 2170 Kearney Avenue, Naples, FL 34117 Mr. Warren's mailing address is P.O. Box 123, Copeland, FL 34137 The Investigator stated the Respondents agreed to the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondents stated the structure will be burned by the Ochopee Fire Department. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to either allow the structure to be burned down by the Ochopee Fire Department (for training purposes) or hire a General Contractor to obtain a Collier County Building Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion, on or before April 6, 2009, or a fine of $250.00 will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4 "'_c"~"""'" __"..."..""",~",~~_",..c~-..",_,___~~.....__"~,,,~~_~ . ".. 161 1113 . March 6, 2009 If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.78 on or before April 6, 2009. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.78 B. Hearings: 1. Case # SO 165303 (CEEX 20090001351) - BCC vs. Paul E. Kellv The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Sheriffs Department Deputy Stephan Leoni was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-66 (l)(H) Parking in fire lane Violation address: Green Tree Plaza The Respondent stated his last name is Kelley and his residence is 166 Vintage Circle, Unit #101, Naples, FL 34119. The Respondent is employed by Merrill Gardens, an assisted living facility. His duties include transporting residents to their medical appointments and shopping. Most are physically infirm, requiring assistance to and from the automobile. The Respondent admitted parking in a fire lane close to a dentist's office. He left the vehicle in park, with the flashers on, to retrieve the client. Upon his return, he saw the Deputy writing a ticket. He stated the Deputy was rude when he spoke to him. He further stated he has seen delivery trucks (i.e., FedEx) regularly parking in the fire lane while making deliveries. He stated he was away from his car for only two to three minutes. It was noted the fire lane sign says "No Parking," and did not include stopping and/or standing. Additionally, the ticket stated he was "parked near a fire hydrant" and he produced photographs to prove no fire hydrant was in the vicinity. The photographs were marked as Respondent's Exhibits "1" and "2" and entered into evidence. The Deputy stated the Respondent approached him and was verbally abusive. He noticed the client was assisted from the dentist's office by a member of the staff. The Deputy pointed out the warning signs to the Respondent who admitted he had no idea he was in violation of an Ordinance. The vehicle was "parked." He further stated ifhe had observed a FedEx truck parked in the same location, a ticket would be 5 .-,-.,,-,, . - -.... ,--,,---_. -"..".~._._.._-_.......~"._~.....,~-""",_._,-_.".,,,,,,,- -- 16tt,~~ . issued. The violation is the same for everyone. The Respondent asked the Special Magistrate for a ruling to guide him in the future. The Special Magistrate noted the sign specifically warned against "No Parking" only. If he had not left the car, he would not be in violation. She advised the Respondent to look for handicapped access areas for ingress/egress located at the Green Tree Plaza. She suggested he contact the medical office to alert the staff when he was driving a resident to an appointment to ask for assistance. In view of the specific situation, the Special Magistrate stated she would reduce the fine and waive payment of Operational Costs. The Deputy stated he did not object. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a civilfine in the amount of $15.00 and an administrative fee of $5. 00 on or before April 6, 2009. Total Amount Due: $20.00 3. Case # SO 165604 (CEEX 20090001797) - BCC vs. Alfred M. Onorati The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Sheriffs Office Deputy Keller was not present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Ord. Sec. 130-67 Parking in a handicapped space/blocking access Violation address: Hollywood Theaters The Respondent resides at 8841 Muirfield Drive, Naples, FL 34109 Code Enforcement Supervisor Jennifer Waldron stated Deputy Keller was off-duty and could not be reached by telephone. The Special Magistrate noted Code Enforcement's customary methods of notification had been followed and the Sheriffs Office received an advance copy of the Agenda and the Hearing date. The Respondent stated he was contesting the Citation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY. The Special Magistrate advised the Respondent the Deputy could object to her Ruling and request a Re-Hearing within 10 days of issuance of the Order She stated the Deputy could submit his objections in writing. She will consider any information presented by the Deputy and rule without scheduling a Re-Hearing. The Respondent would be notified of any change to her Decision. 6 ,- ---,-- ~""1""'._~"""'- ~ 11117'" --- -- 1611~~3 1 ~! March 6, 2 09 Cases PR 041620 (Agenda #5) and PR 041621 (Agenda #6) were heard together. 5. Case # PR 041620 - BCC vs. Joseph O'Connell The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Park Ranger Mauricio Araquistain was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Ord. Sec. 130-66 Failure to display paid parking receipt Violation address: Barefoot Beach access The Respondent's addresses: 1670 Manchester Court, Naples, FL 34109 and 3198 Shoreline Drive, Oakland, Ontario, Canada L6L-5X3 The Respondent stated he attempted to pay the parking meter but found it would not take credit cards - only exact change (a $5.00 bill and three single dollars). He left the area to obtain change at a restaurant across the road, and when he returned, he found the Park Ranger was issuing two tickets, one for his car and one for his wife's vehicle. He had no problem paying the parking fee, but the County made it difficult to comply due to its old equipment. He stated use ofthe antiquated, non-user friendly meter bordered on "entrapment." He introduced photographs of the equipment which were marked as Respondent's Composite Exhibit "A" and introduced into evidence. Park Ranger Araquistain stated he explained options to the Respondent: . He could leave a note on his car explaining the meter was not accepting money and he had left to obtain change but would return; . He could purchase a beach parking sticker from the County. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay a civil penalty of $30.00, together with an administrativefee of $5. 00, on or before April 6, 2009. 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 April 6, 2009. Total Amount Due - $85.00 6. Case # PR 041621- BCC vs. Joseph O'Connell The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Park Ranger Mauricio Araquistain was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Ord. Sec. 130-66 Failure to display paid parking receipt Violation address: Barefoot Beach access 7 ".~... . 11ll11t. 'P , "'........ .." . ~~ 161 1 C3 . March 6, 2009 The Respondent's addresses: 1670 Manchester Court, Naples, FL 34109 and 3198 Shoreline Drive, Oakland, Ontario, Canada L6L 5X3 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay a civil penalty of $30. 00, and an administrative fee of $5. 00, on or before April 6, 2009. Operational Costs were not assessed. Total Amount Due - $35.00 RECESS: 10:55 AM RECOVENED: 11:06 AM The following Cases were heard together: . Agenda #8, DAS 11929- BCC vs. Danielle Smith . Agenda #9, DAS 11930- BCC vs. Danielle Smith . Agenda #10, DAS 11931- BCC vs. Danielle Smith . Agenda #11, DAS 11932 - BCC vs. Danielle Smith . Agenda #12, DAS 11933 - BCC vs. Danielle Smith . Agenda #13, DAS 11934 - BCC vs. Danielle Smith . Agenda #14, DAS 11935 - BCC vs. Danielle Smith . Agenda #15, DAS 11936 - BCC vs. Danielle Smith . Agenda #16, DAS 11937 - BCC vs. Danielle Smith . Agenda #17, DAS 11938 - BCC vs. Danielle Smith 8. Case # DAS 11929 - BCC vs. Danielle Smith The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present and represented by Attorney Gary W. Gramer. Mike Sorrell appeared as a witness. Collier County Department of Animal Services Officer Hinkley was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., 2008-51, Sec. 9-E Deprive any animal of good and wholesome food and water. Cage 1 Violation address: 2335 Wilson Blvd N., 34120 The Respondent and the Witness reside at 2335 Wilson Blvd. N., Naples, Florida. Attorney Gramer's office is located at 2315 Stanford Court, Naples, Florida 34112. Attorney Gramer stated all the Citations were issued on December 20,2008, following a site visit, and related to all of the animals. The Special Magistrate noted the only differences were the cage numbers and the charges, i. e., "depriving the animals of good and wholesome food and water, " and "creating a sanitary nuisance " around the pig trailer. Attorney Gramer presented the Respondent's case: 8 T r . 1'51 ~iMI . rill'''' -' ,-- ,- . ,- 161 1 C3 " March 6, 2009 . On Friday evening, December 19th, the Respondent fed the animals and checked their water supply. Included were 9 chickens, 3 ducks, 2 turkeys, 2 Emus, 8 rabbits and 2 "4-H" pigs (raised by Mr. Sorrell's children for exhibition at the County Fair). . The animals were housed in four 8' x 8' walk-in pens, 2 large pens, and a partitioned bunny hutch. . On Saturday morning, December 20th, she began a "worming" process for the male rabbits and the chickens which required water to be removed from the pens and medicated water (Product: "Wazine 17") dispensed to each pen. Once the medicated water had been consumed, the clean water supply can be replenished. . From approximately 7:30 to 10:30 AM, she removed hay from the livestock trailer, scrubbed the interior of the trailer, and washed the pigs. . The trailer was elevated at the tongue to allow dirty water and waste to escape through slots in the wooden floor at the back portion of the trailer. . She then left the property to purchase supplies. The Respondent stated she is a Certified Public Accountant, licensed to work in the State of Florida, and has a "Class 3" Wildlife license, and a game bird license. . When she returned to her property at approximately 4:30 PM, Deputy Sheriff Martindale and DAS Investigator Hinkley were on her property and informed her of the Emus escape. . She remained in her vehicle as requested and received two Citations from Investigator Hinkley. The Special Magistrate asked the Respondent if she had been present when the officers entered her property and began the investigation. The Respondent stated she was not home when the officers arrived and the property was posted with "No Trespassing" signs. . After the officers left, she inspected the cages and the animals. All of the animals had food. The chickens had consumed the medicated water but had scratched dirt into their water bowl. The Respondent produced several red and blue ribbons (l5t and 2nd Place) that she and Mr. Sorrell had received at the Collier County Fair, held on February 15t, as well as ribbons received in 2008 for the same animals. Mike Sorrell stated his testimony would confirm and support the Respondent's statements. He had installed an automatic watering system to the cages which normally distributes water twice a day to the animals. The system had been turned off during the worming process. Mr. Sorrell stated when he returned to his home on Sunday evening, he contacted Deputy Martindale who reported he could not be subpoenaed in a civil matter. 9 '- - , ~ - 161 1't~ . a 6,2009 Assistant County Attorney Stirling stated the Special Magistrate has the authority to issue subpoenas under the Ordinance. The Special Magistrate advised Attorney Gramer he could request a Continuance to pursue a subpoena for the Deputy. DAS Investigator Hinkley presented the County's case: . On December 20, 2008, he responded to a call from the Collier County Sheriff's Office because the emus were running loose on Wilson Blvd. . The birds had been confined by two deputies. He recognized the birds and called for assistance to help corral the birds and return them to their cages. . An offensive odor was noticed emanating from the property which was later determined to be coming from a puddle of sledge under the livestock trailer. The Investigator stated he had several photographs to present. Attorney Gramer asked for the photographs to be introduced individually and he will object to the admission, as necessary. . After the emus were confined, the cages were in plain view and the Investigator noticed a water bowl full of debris in it. He also noticed the condition of the rabbit's water. . He took pictures of the cages and the water bowls. . He asked the Deputies to remain while he wrote Citations. He stated the Respondent and Mr. Sorrell had been verablly abusive to him on other occasions. As he was writing, the Respondent drove into her driveway. . The Investigator stated he walked over to the Respondent's car, explained why he and the Deputies were at her residence, explained that he was writing two Citations and that others would be sent via mail. Supervisor Waldron stated each picture and page had been marked for identification. The Special Magistrate stated the photographs, if admitted, will apply to all cases. The Investigator stated all of the photographs were taken on December 20,2008. Page 3: Photograph "A" (pig trailer) Admitted into evidence Photograph "B" (pig trailer) Admitted into evidence Page 4: Photograph "A" (bird cage) Not admitted - too dark Photograph "B" (water bucket) Admitted into evidence Investigator's observation: dirty bucket without water. Page 5: Photograph "A" (water bucket) Admitted into evidence Photograph "B" (rabbit cage) Admitted into evidence Investigator's observation: dirty bucket with very little water and murky water. The photograph also showed a blue container with very little food in it. Attorney Gramer objected to the previous photographs as a continuing objection. 10 .__._~ ".tI"___F~""'" -~...^'.,->_...~-,~ ..."... . .... ~ '"-.-.....---- 161 1 ~6, 20' Page 6: Photograph "A" (cage - damp dirt) Admitted into evidence Photograph "B" (pink cooler) Admitted into evidence Investigator's observation: murky water with debris in it. Page 7: Photograph "A" ( cage) Admitted into evidence Photograph "B" (dogs) Not admitted - not relevant Attorney Gramer renewed his objections to the above-reference photographs and to the Investigator's description of "black or murky" water. The Special Magistrate asked Attorney Gramer if he had a definition of "potable water. " Page 8: Photograph "A" (dogs) Not admitted - not relevant Photograph "B" (rabbit cage) Admitted into evidence Investigator's observation: water bottle with murky water and green "floaters." Attorney Gramer renewed his objections. He objection to the Investigator's conclusion that the water was "not potable" and to the Investigator's description of the condition of the water, i.e., "murky," "not potable," "containing debris." He stated the Investigator viewed the cages and water bowls/bottles at a distance, he was not close enough to make a fair assessment, and the water was not tested. He objected to the Investigator's conclusions. He further stated the debris or "contamination" may be located on the outside of the water containers and not harmful to the animals, and the same conditions are found on farms. The Special Magistrate stated Investigators are allowed to make conclusions in order to determine whether or not to issue a Citation. She further explained Investigator Hinkley was testifying as to his observations and giving explanations. The Attorney could cross-examine the Investigator. Page 9: Photograph "A" (rabbit cage) Admitted into evidence Investigator's observation: water in the bowl with slime substance around the sides and bottom of the bowl The Attorney's standing objection was noted. The photographs were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence, and applied to all cases. Cross-examination was conducted by Attorney Gramer concerning the preceding established issues: . Escape of the emus, . "no trespassing" signs, . the reason for entering the property, . what the Investigator saw and "reasonable cause" for investigating the premises. 11 -- ...- ,. ___,,~_,","~"""-''''''4''"''''_'''.__"~.'' 161 !.Q '2009 ~ The Investigator read the charges and cited the Code of Laws and Ordinances, 2008-51, Section 9(l-E) as follows: "... to torment any animal or deprive any animal of shelter or sufficient quantities of good and wholesome food and water. " Cross Examination continued. Attorney Gramer pointed out there was no reference to "potable water" in the Ordinance. Investigator Hinkley stated he also referred to the State's Statutes and he further stated it was understood the condition of the water was meant to be clean. . The Investigator admitted he was familiar with the worming procedure. . He stated he had "never known anybody to withhold water [from an animal] for any reason." The Special Magistrate examined the bottle containing the worming medication. . The Investigator admitted the amount of food was not an issue in the cases. . The Investigator stated he wrote the Citations based on his observations but he could not cite a specific cage because they were grouped together. He stated each cage either did not contain clean water or lacked any water. . The Investigator stated he had not heard the expression, "Christmas Treeing" in regard to the Citations. . The Investigator stated DAS Officers are not allowed to carry loaded weapons. All Photographs were viewed again by both the Respondent, the Respondent's Attorney and the County. The photographs depicted the following: . a scrub brush and a black container (baby pool size) . a bucket (Folger's extra large coffee can), recessed,with a small amount of water in it . a 2 ~ gallon in a chicken pen . blue marble-pattern bowl in the rabbit hutch . a bucket, recessed, containing medicated worming water . a red-stained water cooler, water pipe was extended into the container . a large stock pot, recessed, dark interior . the "lip/sip" water bottle . a food bowl (flipped over) and a dish Assistant County Attorney Greene stated she had several follow-up photographs, taken on February 24, 2009, which Attorney Gramer had not reviewed. The Special Magistrate stated the attorneys can review the photographs during the recess. 12 "..... - 1 I - I ---- ......,-.--.- 161 1 Q.J, 6, 21 RECESS: 12:45 PM RECONVENED: 1:00 PM Attorney Gramer stated he had no objection to admitting the County's photographs into evidence. Assistant County Attorney Greene stated there were 19 photographs on 11 pages which were taken on February 24, 2009 at 4:00 PM. The Special Magistrate clarified there was no individual testimony for each photograph, a summation will be presented, and the Respondent did not object to the admission of the photographs. A review of the Summation conducted by Attorney Gramer: . The incident occurred on one day, triggered by the escape of two emus. . Sheriff s Deputies corralled the emus and called for assistance from Animal Control. Investigator Hinkley responded. . The "reasonable cause" for the Investigator to be at the presmises was the emu issue and there was no "reasonable cause" for him to be anywhere else on the premises other than the emu pens. . The Investigator ignored the posted "No Trespassing" signs, walked onto the property, and performed impromptu inspections. . The Investigator cited "plain view." The property is 2 112 acres. There are limits as to what is allowed under "plain view." . The Investigator raised the issue concerning the State's regulations regarding "potability of water." . There is a different standard for the potability of water for human consumpation is an issue on which the Statutes are clear. . The issue of potability of water for animal consumption is not clear. . The Ordinance cites: "depriving any animal of good and wholesome food and water." There is no proof that any animal was deprived. . A worming procedure was taking place on December 20,2008 for certain animals. . There was no intentional or unintentional deprivation of water to the animals, which is the crux of the case. . The water was not tested to determine "potability" for animal consumption. . The Statute does not require water for animals to be "potable." . Viewing a cage containing a healthy animal that did not have water at that particular moment was not proof the animal had been deprived of water for any period of time. An inspection should be conducted over the course of a day to determine whether or not there was deprivation. . The County's Ordinance requires "water" to be provided and the Respondent did provide water. The Special Magistrate stated the Ordinance refers to "good and wholesome water" not "potable." 13 " "~"","","".w.~",,_,.~___ 161 1 IC~ III Marc 6, 2009 . The County's photographs were taken on February 24, 2009 during a follow- up investigation of the property and show the condition of the water bowls and dishes on that day versus those in Officer Hinkley's photographs taken on December 20, 2008. . The Special Magistrate was asked to consider the differences between the photographs. Supervisor Waldron stated the County's photographs were identified as "c" and "D" to avoid confusion. The Respondent's photographs were identified as "A" and "8." The following outlines the differences between the photographs: . Page 3, Photograph "C:" two rabbits and two water bowls. . Page 3, Photograph "D:" large bucket with a sprinkler, previously described by the Respondent, containing water in the bucket. . Page 5, Photograph "D:" a rabbit with two dishes - one is the marble water dish which was discussed by the Respondent and the Investigator. . Page 6, Photograph "D:" another 2 1S gallon bucket described by the Respondent who questioned the determination of whether there was water due to shadows and clarity of the bucket. . Page 7, Photograph "C:" The Respondent and Mr. Sorrell discussed the cleaniness of the red cooler. The photograph showed a stark contrast between the December photo and the February picture where the cooler had quite clearly been cleaned out. . Page 8, Photograph "D:" The Respondent specifically described the stockpot and there is clearly a stark contrast between the picture in December and the picture in February. The photographs were admitted into evidence as County's Composite Exhibit "B, " and applied to all cases. . Investigator Hinkley, as a DAS Animal Control Officer, had the authority to enter the premises on December 20, 2008. . The Ordinance specifically grants the authority to the Director or the Director's designees. Section 3, Paragraph 2, of the Ordinance provides, "The Director shall have the authority to enter upon any public or private property, except a building designated for and actually used for residential purposes, and other buildings within the cartiledge of the principle residential building for the purpose of enforcing this Article. " [The Special Magistrate reviewed the Ordinance.] . Investigator Hinkley was called to the scene by the Collier County Sheriff s Office. . He assisted in capturing the emus that were running at large, in violation of the County's Ordinance, when he discovered additional violations of the County's Ordinance which were in open and obvious to any persons on the property. 14 ,- - --,.---..-,..., 161 1 C3 ~ March 6, 2009 . The two violations identified: 0 Section 8, Paragraph 1 (E) regarding the sanitary nuisance, i.e., material leaking from the livestock trailer, and 0 Section 9, Paragraph I(E) regarding the animals deprived of "good and wholesome water." The County requested the Special Magistrate to uphold the nine violations regarding the water and the one violation regarding the sanitary nuisance as aggravated violations. A Rebuttal was conducted by Attorney Gramer. The Special Magistrate stated she would apply the Webster's Dictionary definition of "good and wholesome. " The Special Magistrate requested Counsel to submit their definitions of "good and wholesome" and supporting documentation within ten days. The Special Magistrate stated her Order will be entered within ten days after her receipt of Counsels , documents. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: Cases CESD 20080009496 (Agenda #1) and CESD 20080009498 (Agenda #2) were heard together. 1. Case # CESD 20080009496 - BCC vs. Wallace R. Parker. Tr.. Steve H. Parker. Tr.. & Wallace Parker Tr.. Utd 8-2-96 The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron and Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent, Brent Parker, was also present. Violations: Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, as adopted ay Collier Co., Secl05.1 Constructed a wooden fence without first obtaining proper Collier Co. permits Violation address: 85 7th Street, Bonita Shores, 34134 The Special Magistrate noted the cases had been Continued from a previous Hearing. Supervisor Waldron stated the previous Hearing was held on February 20,2009. If the violation was abated on or before by March 6,2009, only the Operational Costs of $117.60 were to be paid by the Respondent and all accrued fines up to the date of abatement or compliance would be waived. Investigator Musse confirmed the violation had been abated by March 6, 2009. 15 - J>.<IlI4..... ,~. --- 161 1 ~C3 ~ March 6, 2009 The Special Magistrate ordered the Respondent to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement in the prosecution of this matter in the amount of $117.60 on or before Apri/6, 2009. 2. Case # CESD 20080009498 - BCC vs. Wallace R. Parker. Tr.. Steve H. Parker. Tr.. & Wallace Parker Tr.. UTD 8-2-96 The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron and Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent, Brent Parker, was also present. Violations: Collier Co. Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec(s).10.02.06(B)(l)(A), 10.02.06(B)(l)(E) & 1O.02.06(B)(I)(E)(I) Shed built without obtaining proper Collier Co. permits Violation address: 85 7th Street, Bonita Shores, 34134 Investigator Musse stated the Respondent produced a written document from a County Inspector verifying issuance of Certificate of Completion on March 4,2009. The property was in compliance. Supervisor Waldron stated the Operational Costs were $117.69. The Special Magistrate ruled, based on her previous Order, that all accruedfines andfines accruedfrom February 20,2009 to March 6, 2009 were waived. The Special Magistrate ordered the Respondent to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement in the prosecution of this matter in the amount of $117.60 on or before Apri/6, 2009. The Respondent requested the Special Magistrate reduce the Operational Costs from two to one because he was informed he did not need to obtain a permit to demolish an oramental fence. He has obtained a permit to install the fence in another location on the property. Supervisor Waldron stated the Special Magistrate does not have the authority to waive payment of Operational Costs. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the amounts of$117.60 and $117.69. The Special Magistrate stated there was an initial Hearing in the Cases and an initial Order, entered on November 7, 2008, for payment of the Costs to be made by December 7,2008. Technically, the Respondent has been granted a longer period of time to pay since the County cannot foreclose on a property for a period of 90 days pursuant to the Ordinance. 16 .'''''.-'.''"""....--- ...... "_..,'~.",.._..."__~~_w______~._ 16 Ll6:g0~ ~ V. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. Emergency Case: Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines 1. Case # 2007110261- BCC vs. Douelas Carter The Hearing was requested by the new property owner, TCIFREOGCM, LLC, who was represented by Attorney Craig P. Rogers, Shephard & Leskar, P.A., 100 N.W. 70th A venue, Plantation, Florida 33317. Attorney Rogers stated he filed an Amended Petition for Abatement of Fines. The Special Magistrate stated she reviewed the material submitted by Attorney Rogers and the County. Supervisor Waldron stated the property was in compliance as of December 30, 2008 and the Operational Costs have been paid. The County recommended reducing or abating the fines. The total fines accrued to date: $44,500. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines and Liens in the total amount of $44,500. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion of Abatement of Fines and noted the Operational Costs had been paid. B. Hearings: 20. Case # CENA 20080014239 - BCC vs. Peter E. Thomas The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. The Respondent was not present Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article VI, Sec(s). 54-181 and 54-179 Unauthorized accumulation oflitter and litter declared to be a public nUIsance. Violation address: 748 96th Avenue N., 34109 Supervisor Waldron stated the Notice of Hearing was mailed on February 23, 2009 and the property and the Courthouse were posted on Feburary 24,2009. Investigator Musse introduced seven photographs taken on September 19,2008, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and photographs entered into evidence. On November 17,2008, the Investigator spoke with the Respondent who agreed to abate the violation. He conducted a site inspection on March 6, 2009, and stated some debris was removed, but the violation was not completely abated. Two 17 ,- - """"'._' . __M~"""'.. "" 16IJch~2~9 , , additional photographs, dated March 6,2009, were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "B" and admitted into evidence. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to remove the litter to an appropriate waste disposal facility, or store desired items in a completely enclosed structure on or before March 13, 2009, or afine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117. 78 on or before April 6, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.78 21. Case # CESD 20080011167 - BCC vs. Frank Susi The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. The Respondent was not present Violations: Collier Co. Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec(s).l 0.02.06(B)(1 )(A), 1 0.02.06(B)(l )(E) & 1 0.02.06(B)(l )(E)(I) Shed built without obtaining proper Collier Co. permits Violation address: 606 Illth Avenue N., 34108 Supervisor Waldron stated a Certified Mail Receipt, signed by "Joe Cooper," was received on February 6,2009, and the Notice of Violation was posted at the property and the Courthouse on December 18, 2008. On September 15, 2008, Investigator Musse spoke with the property owner who stated he would remove the shed. The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on February 24, 2009. The violation had not been abated. The Investigator introduced two photographs, dated July 21, 2008, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Occupancy/Completion, on or before March 20, 2009, or a 18 __ -I>.< 'R 1___._,.,"'.._........._..._..."_ ._..,,.,.,,_._,,.".__'_",U. -- ,,,--------~ 16 Jar16,~3 ~ fine of $50. 00 will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, tile 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. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117. 70 on or before Apri/6, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.70 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 3. Case # 2007080698 - BCC vs. Richard K. Cruce The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron and Investigator Jonathan Musse Violations: Ord. 2005-44, as amended, Sec(s) 6, 7 & 8 Litter Violation address: 6101 Taylor Rd. S, Immokalee 34142 Supervisor Waldron stated the Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on February 24, 2009. Investigator Musse stated the violation was abated on July 28, 2008. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$117.43. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $117.43. VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office 1. CASE NO: 2007080695 OWNER: RICHARD K. CRUCE 2. CASE NO: 2007080696 OWNER: RICHARD K. CRUCE 3. CASE NO: 2007110459 ]9 -+l. .olI . _Y1""'- """-- 16 L16~' ~ OWNER: Jill J. Weaver and Henry Tesno 4. CASE NO: CEPM20080008890 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver and Henry Tesno 5. CASE NO: 20070000304 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver 6. CASE NO: CEPM20080003564 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver and Henry Tesno The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Request to forward the above- referenced Cases to County Attorney's Office subject to submission of an Executive Summary. VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: None IX. REPORTS: The Special Magistrate stated a question was raised at a previous Hearing whether the penalty for parking in the access area adjacent to the Handicapped parking space should be the same amount assessed for parking in a Handicapped space. The Special Magistrate researched the Ordinance and found it has not changed. The Handicapped Ordinance requires the same penalty to be assessed for parking in either the access area or the actual Handicapped parking space. The penalty in either instance is $250.00. X. NEXT HEARING DATE - Friday, March 20, 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 2:06 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING ~ts~istrate, The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on _~ df() ,2K::J::;P\ , as presented _, or as amended -Ch.. ~\ ('~ ~ . 1f-C, 20 '""~--~ _"_",,.__k'" &.~ ~_,~,,,,,,,,-~.~,_~,,,-,,~-~"""""-----'-'."~'-'- ..- _..; .....>.._,_.,'.,,_._-..~.~-,.~...'" - ,-, Fiala ..., &- 't '. Halas " arch20, 21 Henning Coyle . Coletta ~ MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COL ER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECEIVED Naples, Florida, March 20, 2009 MAY 2 1 2009 Board 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 Mise, Corres: ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Michele McGonagle, Administrative Secretary Date:_____ Item # ~'D....'.__._----.___'"' f, tU I ,,~,-~~-...-- .".. .~-...... I .. ,....,.....-,--," .~-" 1611e3 ~ March 20, 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; looking for compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:15 AM RECONVENED: 9:30 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," numbers were changed in the following cases: . Agenda # 8, Case # CENA 2008001656~ - BCC vs. James & Debra Gadsden . Agenda # 9, Case # CESD 20080014169 - BCC vs. George Faucher, the Permit Number was changed to 200Q070419 (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County as requested by the Deputy/InvestigatorlPark Ranger: . Agenda # 3, Case # SO 164639 (CEEX 20090002268) - BCC vs. Dale Wilhelm . Agenda # 5, Case # PR 040304 (CEEX 20090002266) - BCC vs. Robert J. Geomin . Agenda # 7, Case # PR 040189 (CEEX 20090002261) - BCC vs. Edward Dunphy (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the County due to payment: . Agenda # 1, Case # SO 165603 (CEEX 20090002264) - BCC vs. Thomas F. Green (d) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was DISMISSED by the County due to payment: . Agenda #1, CEV 20080004863 - BCC vs. Rubin Delva & Claudin Das (e) Stipulations were reached in the following cases under Item V (A): . Agenda # 10, Case # CESD 20080013392 - BCC vs. Miramar Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during tile course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. 2 ...~. ,-~~,- _.O..h 161 1't3 . March 20, 2009 III. APPROV AL OF MINUTES Agenda #22, Case # 20080014195 -BCCvs. Ester M. & Jorge L. Torres, Should state: to construct a temporary barrier on or before March 9th and to obtain a Collier County Bldg Permit, all required inspections, & a Certificate of Completion, on or before April 6th. Agenda #18, Case # 20080002176 - BCC vs. John Bigica & Donald Warren, Violation address was incorrect on the Agenda and changed by the Investigator during the Hearing to 204 Singletary Street. The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on March 6, 2009 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended. IV. MOTIONS A. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines - None B. Request for Continuance - None C. Request for Extension of Time - None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 10. Case # CESD 20080013392 - BCC vs. Miramar Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. The Respondent was represented by Benjamin Heatherington, as Club General Manager. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec(s). 1O.02.06(B)(1 )(A), 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(E) & 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(E)(I) Permit #920004509 for a boardwalk was issued on April 16, 1992 and expired on October 16, 1992 without obtaining a Certificate of Completion. Violation address: 105 Shell Drive, Bonita Springs A Stipulation was entered into on March 20, 2009 by Benjamin Heatherington, Club General Manager, on beha(f of the Respondent. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion, on or before May 4,2009, or afine of $100. 00 will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. /fthe Respondent has not complied by the deadline, tile County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. 3 -.." ~ "~-~". "...,. -'-"'~', 161 1 C:) [0;,.4 March 20, 2009 Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.70 on or before April 20, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.70 B. Hearings: 11. Case # CENA 20090001013 - BCC vs. Jean Claude Martel The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent was also present Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ord., Chapter 54, Article VI, Sec(s). 54-179,54-180, and 54-181 Repeat Violation of litter Violation address: 3190 Karen Drive The Respondent resides at 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, FL 34112. Investigator Keegan inspected the premises on January 30, 2009, March 2,2009, and on March 19,2009, and the violation had not been abated. He introduced 14 photographs which were marked as County's Composite Exhibits "A" through "G," and admitted into evidence. The Respondent stated he will move items to Fort Myers to sell as soon as he can borrow a truck. He claimed the County has "ruined his life." He stated he wanted his property back or he would "be a real bad boy." The Special Magistrate stated she would not accept a threat from the Respondent. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to pay a civil penalty of $5,000.00. The Respondent was further ordered to remove all litter to a designated waste disposal facility, or store all litter in a completely enclosed structure, on or before April 20, 2009, or afine of $300. 00 will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. The County will schedule appointments for Contractors to inspect the property from April 13 -17,2009, and the Respondent will allow the Contractors access to his property. 4 ,-, ~.,..'_._e...._~""__.~ . 16111~~ t,~ arch , 009 /fnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County SherifFs Office. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.78 on or before April 20, 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. Total Amount Due: $5,117.78 4. Case # PR 040255 (CEEX 20090002263) - BCC vs. Vincent L. Tirelli The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Park Ranger Sherman Bum was also present. [The Park Ranger corrected his surname: B-u-r-r.] Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Ord. Sec. 130-67 Parking in a handicapped space Violation address: Vanderbilt turn-around loading zone The Respondent's address: 64th Street, Unit 202B, Box 20, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 [No street number was indicated.] The Respondent stated the area between the handicapped signs was not posted by a "No Parking" sign or designated as a handicapped parking space. He thought he parked in a loading/unloading zone, and was unaware his vehicle was in the access lane for handicapped parking. He mentioned he has a handicapped parking permit for his vehicle, issued by the State of New York. Park Ranger Burr introduced three photographs which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" through "C," and admitted into evidence. The Special Magistrate explained that Florida Statutes, adopted by Collier County, assess the same penalty to all handicapped parking violations whether the violation occurred in the designated space, outlined in blue paint, or in the adjacent access area. She stated the Respondent admitted parking in the handicapped access area Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to pay a civil penalty of $250. 00 and an administrativefee of $5. 00, on or before April 20, 2009. 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 April 20, 2009. Total Amount Due: $305.00 6. Case # PR 042353 (CEEX 20090002262) - BCC vs. Michael J. Gibbs The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Park Ranger Barry Gorniak was also present. 5 ~,,- ._.....'.o<<~'~~~.~"___,, -., -"",,-,-,,-,.>,-._," ,,-,..."",,".... ,,~ "--.,. 161 1 C3 t March 20, 2009 Violations: Code of Laws & Ord., Sec. 130-66 Unlawful area Violation address: Golden Gate Community Park [The Investigator stated the Violation is Section 130-66(2)(i)] The Respondent resides at 4516 SW Santa Barbara Place, Cape Coral, FL 33912. The Respondent stated he arrived at Golden Gate Community Park at approximately 11 :30 AM. It was the first time he had been to the Park, and the lot was full. He stated the parking lot is not properly signed. He stated there is one small sign, which can be easily obscured if a vehicle is parked next to it. Park Ranger Gorniak stated a ramp for small boats has been built at Golden Gate Community Park to provide access to the canal. The parking spaces are long enough to accommodate a car/truck with an attached boat trailer. He introduced photographs, taken at 2:05 PM, which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" through "D," and entered into evidence. He stated the parking lot was virtually empty and signs are posted at both ends of the lot. The Respondent stated the boat ramp is not visible and no vehicles with trailers were parked in the lot when he arrived. He further stated the fee is not the issue - the signs should be larger and more obvious. The Special Magistrate reviewed the County's evidence and stated the wording of the signs is confusing, and there were no directional arrows indicating the location of the "center lanes." She further stated the signs are poorly located and may not give sufficient notice to a motorist entering the parking lot. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent wasfound NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. A discussion ensued concerning potential locations for the signs. The Park Ranger Stated he will bring the suggestions to the attention of the Golden Gate Community Center and complete a Work Order to facilitate sign relocation. 9. Case # CESD 20080014169 - BCC vs. Georee Faucher The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. The Respondent was also present Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec(s). 1 O.02.06(B)(l )(A), 1 0.02.06(B)(l )(E) & 1 0.02.06(B)(l )(E)(I) Permit #2007070419 for a pool enclosure was issued on July 6, 2000 and expired on January 2,2001 without obtaining a Certificate of Completion. Violation address: 311 Conners A venue 6 ".." . -.,. .. - 161 tarG ~ 200: 1 [The Permit Number was changed to 200~070419, per amendment to the Agenda.] The Respondent resides at 311 Conners A venue, Naples, Florida. Investigator Musse spoke with the Respondent on October 14, 2008. The Respondent stated he would re-app1y for a permit as soon as he had funds to do so. Proof of delivery of the Notice of Violation, on November 26,2008, was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. On March 5, 2009, the Investigator stated he spoke with the Respondent and posted the Notice of Hearing at the property and the Courthouse. The Respondent informed the Investigator the pool cage did not meet the set-back requirements by three or four inches. He could not apply for a variance because he could not afford the fee ($1,000). The Investigator stated the violation has not been abated. The Respondent further stated he was not informed of any Code violations when he purchased the property in 2000. The violation has existed for ten years. He stated he will correct the violation but requested additional time because he is unemployed. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion, on or before July 20,2009, or afine of $100.00 will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.70 on or before July 20, 2009. The Respondent is to notifY Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.70 The Special Magistrate advised the Respondent, if he could not abate the violation by early June, he can submit a written Motionfor Extension of Time to Code Enforcement for her consideration. 8. Case # CENA 20080016563 - BCC vs. James & Debra Gadsden The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor Kitchell Snow who was present. The Respondents were not present 7 .._--_....-"',..._,~~_.,._<.. . , , ....-. 161 t~2~2009 4 Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article VI, Sec( s ).54-181 and 54-179 Unauthorized accumulation of litter and litter declared to be a public nUIsance Violation address: 620 Maple Drive, Immokalee [The Case Number was changed to CENA 20081656~, per amendment to the Agenda.] Supervisor Kitchell asked to add Scotty L. Gadsden as a party because he is the Guardian of James Gadsden. He introduced a copy of an Order on Petition, dated May 4, 2006, which indicated Scotty L. Gadsden was the legal guardian of James Gadsden. The Order was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on March 6, 2009. Supervisor Kitchell introduced seven photographs which were marked as County's Exhibits "B" through "H," and admitted into evidence. Corporal Michael Taylor, Collier County Sheriff's Office, outlined the conditions of the vacant mobile home and stated he found drug paraphernalia and signs of prostitution. It is a health and safety issue. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents werefound GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to remove all litter to a designated waste disposal facility on or before March 27, 2009, or a fine of $200. 00 will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. The Respondents were further ordered to obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion on or before March 27, 2009, or afine of $200.00 will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. /fthe Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents. The County is authorized to remove any squatters from the premises prior to demolition. /fnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.87 on or before April 20, 2009. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 8 .....'1" .'.....1V1I .....,. .,...__'w~.~__~_ 161 1 t~~ ~ II March 0, 009 Total Amount Due: $117.87 2. Case # SO 149311 (CEEX 20090002267) - BCC vs. Clive A. Fieueira The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Sheriffs Office Deputy P. Hughes was not present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Ord. Sec. 130-66 (1)(H) Parking in a fire lane Violation address: 15215 Collier Blvd., Adams Dry Cleaners Supervisor Waldron stated the U.S. Postal Service confirmed delivery of the Notice of Hearing on March 11, 2009. The Special Magistrate ordered the case to be CONTINUED, and the parties will be notified of the new Hearing Date -April 3, 2009. 12. Case # CEV 20090001402 - BCC vs. Rufina Cruz & Moises Hernandez The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondents were not present Violations: Collier County Land Development Code, Ord. 04-41, as amended, Sec(s).2.01.00(A) Unlicensed/inoperable vehicle parked/stored on residential zoned property Violation address: 3165 Van Buren Avenue Supervisor Waldron stated the property and the Courthouse were posted on March 6, 2009. Proof of delivery of the Notice of Hearing on March 10, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The Investigator stated the violation had been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served andflnding the violation did exist but was CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.78 on or before April 20, 2009. Total Amount Due: $117.78 RECESS: 11:17 AM RECONVENED: 11 :27 AM V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9 -....--...-.,-.......", , - 161 :t3 -- . March 20, 2009 B. Hearings: 13. Case # CEDS 20080010511- BCC vs. Allan Perdomo The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. The Respondent was not present Violations: Collier County Land Development Code, 2004-41, as amended, Sec(s). 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(A) Unpermitted storage shed on residential property Violation address: 1990 50th St. SW, Naples Investigator Paul stated the Notice of Violation was posted at the property and the Courthouse on September 15,2008. The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on March 5,2009. The Respondent applied for a Demolition Permit on November 5, 2008. The permit was issued ("Ready Status") by the County, but the Respondent did not pay the fee and retrieve it. The Respondent removed the shed without the permit. The work has not been inspected and a Certification of Completion has not been issued. The Investigator introduced four photographs which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" through "D," and admitted into evidence. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to obtain the "Ready Status" Collier County Demolition Permit by paying the permitfee. The Respondent was further ordered to remove all accumulated debris from the property, and obtain all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion, on or before April 20, 2009, or afine of $50. 00 will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.87 on or before April 20, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.87 C. Emergency Case - NONE VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 2. Case # CELU 20080000518 - BCC vs. Enord Dorilus & Joseph Sauvelune 10 -..... _or ,J. -. 161 1 &3 ~ March 20,2009 The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code, 2004-41, as amended, Sec(s). 2.02.03 Refrigerator stored in drivewy Violation address: 2000 48th Street SW The initial Order was issued on May 2, 2008. Investigator Paul stated the violation has been abated, and the County requested payment of Operational Costs only in the sum of $249.08. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motionfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $249. 08. 3. Case # CEV 20080000517 - BCC vs. Enord Dorilus & Joseph Sauvelune The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code, Ord. 04-41, as amended, Sec(s).2.01.00(A) Unlicensed/inoperable vehicle parked/stored on residential zoned property Violation address: 2000 48th Street SW The initial Order was issued on May 2, 2008. Investigator Paul stated the violation has been abated, and the County requested payment of Operational Costs only in the sum of$257.08. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motionfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $257.08. 4. Case # CEV 20080008925 - BCC vs. Louis A. Berkel The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code, Ord. 04-41, as amended, Sec(s).2.01.00(B)(3) Commercial vehicle parked in front of residential Violation address: 1780 43rd Terrace SW, Naples, FL 34116 The initial Order was issued on November 7,2008. ] ] 10_''''''' ~~"'"-'--""'.'~'._'~"--"- 1611~~ . March , 009 Investigator Paul stated the violation has been abated, and the County requested payment of Operational Costs only in the sum of $117.43. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motionfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $117.43. VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office 1. CASE NO: 2005040823 OWNER: Barnett Bank! Bank Of America, c/o David Sheffield 2. CASE NO: 2005100286 OWNER: David Esquivel 3. CASE NO: 2005081023 OWNER: Roberto & Gloria Cornejo 4. CASE NO: 2006070163 OWNER: Laker Investments Management, Inc. 5. CASE NO: 2005041113 OWNER: John A. McElwain 6. CASE NO: 2005100776 OWNER: Elaine Dolores Choice 7. CASE NO: 2005100162 OWNER: Alfredo Miralles, Sr 8. CASE NO: 2006010346 OWNER: Alfredo Miralles, Sr 9. CASE NO: 2006010406 OWNER: Alfredo Miralles, Sr 10. CASE NO: 2006010408 OWNER: Alfredo Miralles, Sr 11. CASE NO: 2006010407 OWNER: Alfredo Miralles, Sr 12. CASE NO: 2006060001 OWNER: Marion Smith & James Smith 12 , . .M_ A ..- 161 t lC3 arch 20, 2009 13. CASE NO: 2005050256 OWNER: Stephen W. Schessler 14. CASE NO: 2005030878 OWNER: Stephen W. Schessler 15. CASE NO: 2005120195 OWNER: Stpetim Ramku 16. CASE NO: 2005080413 OWNER: Paul-Michael J. Conroy 17. CASE NO: 2005040822 OWNER: Home Depot Usa, Inc. 18. CASE NO: 2005081095 OWNER: William Stonestreet 19. CASE NO: 2005010143 OWNER: Michael J. Micelli, TRS 20. CASE NO: 2006100692 OWNER: Jill Weaver 21. CASE NO: 2005051118 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver & Henry Tesno 22. CASE NO: CENA20080007439 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver & Henry Tesno The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Request toforward the above- referenced Cases to County Attorney's Office subject to submission of an Executive Summary. VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: None IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE - Friday, April 3, 2009 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. 13 "." ..."..... . ~ ....l T1" T ,,,- --- 16lJch~Ci . There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 11:47 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING ~C~ enda Garretson, Sp Ial Magistrate, The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on ~ ~ \ \ .3 , f)00Cj , as presented ~, or as amended 14 - "Ill _-7' ~ ",__'~___"_""~~~,'_k.___.._.__.,,_~.,..~n" Fiala ..f!Fjtf!j!!J I l 'i. C 3 Halas "- ..-1' :' Henning 1"" 1+ April 3, 2009 Coyle 1e- Colella ;i: MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLL R COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, April 3, 2009 RECEIVED MAY 2 1 2009 Board 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 ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investiative Supervisor M" hIM G I Ad .. . S sc. Corres' IC e e c onag e, mmIstratlve ecretary . Date: ---.....-"'----- item # >"'"..._--".;._--~ ) --.""...--.. ,.,., -'."~,.",..".- . -. I I ... 161 ~ t3 " Apri , 2 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; looking for compliance without being punitive. " RECESS: 9: 17 AM RECONVENED: 9:35 AM II. APPROV AL OF AGENDA Michele McGonagle, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item IV (B), "Motionfor Continuance," the following cases were added: . Agenda # 7, Case # DAS 11944 - CEEX 20090002498 - BCC vs. Maria DiPasquale . Agenda # 8, Case # DAS 11945 - CEEX 20090002508 - BCC vs. Maria DiPasquale (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the County as requested by the Deputy/InvestigatorlPark Ranger: . Agenda # 5, Case # PR 042325 - CAAX 20090002556 - BCC vs. Erik Alfredson . The Case Number for Agenda # 5 was changed from "CAAX" to "CEEX" (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the County: . Agenda # 9, Case # PR 040794 - CEEX 20090003189 - BCC vs. Kelsey Albert (d) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the County due to payment: . Agenda # 2, Case # SO 165619 - CEEX 20090002497 - BCC vs. Mary Joan Robertson . Agenda # 3, Case # SO 149311 - CEEX 20090002267 - BCC vs. Clive A. Figueira (e) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was WITHDRA WN by the County: . Agenda #10, Case # PR 040040 - CEEX 20090003130 - BCC vs. Ray & Vivian Reinard 2 , "'~_~~___"'_"''''_~~~_'''''.''''.'__<< _v.......,..,.,,_.,.,,"" 161 1 ACI3,206~1I (1) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the County due to compliance: . Agenda # 13, Case # CEV 20080015254 - BCC vs. Leonard G. Linden (g) Stipulations were reached in the following cases under Item V (A): . Agenda # 12, Case # CENA 20080015078 - BCC vs. Matthew Gromnicki . Agenda # 14, Case # CEPM 20080013722 - BCC vs. Alfredo & Miradis Miralles (h) Under Item V (C), "Emergency Cases," the following cases were added to the Agenda: . Case # CEPM 20090001294 - BCC vs. Fernando Rosquette . Case # CEPM 20080016535 - BCC. vs. Benjamin Centeno The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearillg at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. III. APPROV AL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held 011 March 20, 2009 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate alld approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines - None B. Motions for Continuance 7. Case # DAS 11944 - CEEX 20090002498 - BCC vs. Maria DiPaSQuale The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Department of Animal Services Officer John Hinkley was represented by DAS Officer Bonnie Kubicsek. Violations: Ord. 08-51, Sec. 8-1-G Snap & growl - "Sasha" Violation address: 62 A venue NE 8. Case # DAS 11945 - CEEX 20090002508 - BCC vs. Maria DiPaSQuale The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Department of Animal Services Officer John Hinkley was represented by DAS Officer Bonnie Kubicsek. Violations: Ord. 08-51, Sec. 8-1-B Allow to run at large - "Sasha" Violation address: 62 A venue NE The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent had submitted a letter requesting continuances for both cases. 3 ~."', . t V <'"'-" "'__.__'._"~~'W~'" ., 161 1 :t3 . Apn -', 009 Officer Kubiscek stated Officer Hinkley requested to dismiss both cases. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate DISMISSED Case # DAS 11944 and Case # DAS 11945 as requested. C. Motion for Extension of Time - None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 14. Case # CEPM 20080013722 - BCC vs. Alfredo & Miradis Miralles The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present. Respondent, Alfredo Miralles, was present and also represented his wife, Miradis Miralles. Victor A. Valdes served as interpreter. Violations: Code of Laws & Ord., Chap. 22, Article VI, Sec. 22-231, Sub(s).1,4,5,9, 10, 11. 12B, 12C, l2I-12M, 12P, 13, 19, and 20 Rental property with multiple minimum housing violations Violation address: 108 6th Street S., Immokalee. FL The Special Magistrate stated she and Mr. Valdes were acquainted. The Respondents reside at 1703 Immokalee Drive, Immokalee, FL. A Stipulation was entered into on April 3, 2009 by the Respondent, A~fi'edo Miralles, on beha~f o.fhis w~fe, Miradis Miralles. and himse~l Investigator Mucha stated the Respondent agreed to the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondent asked for additional time to comply and the County did not object. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents werefound GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to either correct all property maintenance violations as outlined in the Property Maintenance Inspection Report dated September 17, 2008, or /tire a licensed Contractor and obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit and all inspections and a Certificate of Completion on or before May 8,2009, or afine of $250.00 will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents. 1fnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code 4 ...-..,-"',,.."'- '^"'-"'-',...."",,"-,- ... "',,~._~ 161 1 ~\C3009 ~ Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $118. 05 on or before May 8,2009. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $118.05 12. Case # CENA 20080015078 - BCC vs. Matthew Gromnicki The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chap. 54, Article Vi, Sec. 54-181, 54-179,54-184 Unauthorized accumulation oflitter and litter declared to a public nmsance Violation address: 55 3rd Street The Respondent resides at 55 Third Street, Bonita Shores, FL 34134 A Stipulation l1:as entered into on April 3, 2009 by the Respondent. Investigator Musse stated the violations had been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served andfinding the violation did exist but was CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondent wasfound GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.70 on or before May 3, 2009. Total Amount Due: $117.70 B. Hearings: 4. Case # DAS 11853 - CEEX 20090002435 - BCC vs. Marearet Maurer The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. John Maurer, the Respondent's husband, appeared as a witness. Collier County Department of Animal Services Officer Bonnie Kubicsek was also present. Violations: 2008-51, Sec. 9 - Paragraph 1 - I To leave an animal in a vehicle overheating. Lack of sufficient air. II Brutus" Violation address: Publix @ Airport & Pine Ridge The Respondent resides at 513 Wildwood Drive, Naples, FL 34105. The Respondent disputed the charges and stated the day in question was not very warm, the sunroof was open, and one window left open. She presented a photograph 5 ~., . ---.-"._"'.,-,,,,,,,, , .... 161 lril 3,COJ . of "Brutus;' a Maltese. The Special Magistrate stated she would take Judicial Notice of the photograph. [It was not admitted into evidence.] The Respondent noted the Citation contained a list of fees and questioned why she was charged a fine of $250.00 for a first offense [rate - $100.00]. She also stated she was away from her vehicle for a maximum of thirty minutes - not an hour. Officer Kubicsek stated the complaint was called into DAS by the Collier County Sheriff s Office. Prior to her arrival, the Deputy Sheriff paged the owner [via Publix' s intercom] and removed the dog from the car [doors were not locked] because it was panting heavily. She further stated one window was "cracked" and the sun roof was not open. She introduced a sworn statement taken from Corporal J. Cunningham which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. The temperature was estimated to be in the mid-to high 70s. The Respondent stated the temperature was in the low 70s. Mr. Maurer stated he and his wife usually leave one window open, along with the sunroof, in order to have a circulation of air in the vehicle. Officer Kubicsek stated the violation was classified as "aggravated" and $250.00 was the correct fee for a first offense in that category. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY oftlte alleged violations and ordered to pay a civilfine in the amount of $100.00 and an administrativefee of $7.00 on or before May 3,2009. The Respondent was further ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution oftllis case ill the amount of $50. 00 on or before May 3, 2009. Total Amount Due: $157.00 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 4. Case # 2006100419 - BCC vs. Garv L. Hauze The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Collier Co. LDC 04-41, as amended, Sec. 1 0.02.06(B)( 1 )(A), 1 0.02.06(B)(l )(E), 1 0.02.06(B)(l )(E)(I) and Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, as adopted By Collier Co., Sec. 105.1 Barn built on estates zoned property without required Collier Co. permits Violation address: 280 10th Ave. NE, 34120 The Respondent resides at 280 Tenth Ave. NE, Naples, FL 34120 6 "" ~"'''''''>''^''~'''''_'''"_"~',",__"",___,~V''''~~'_'.'''_'''",_w__..~",~._",' """"""""',,~o 161 ~PrilC. 39 ~ Investigator Scavone stated the initial Order was dated July 18,2008. She further stated the Operational Costs in the amount of $117.69 were paid, but the violations have not been abated. The County requested imposition of fines in the total amount of $19,700 for the period from September 18,2008 through April 3. 2009 ($1 OO/day for 197 days). The Respondent stated his business suffered severe financial losses. A foreclosure sale of his residence was originally scheduled for October 20,2008. The Bank agreed to a work-out arrangement and the sale was canceled. The pernlit inspection fee costs $630.00 which he stated he cannot afford. He stated he is attempting to obtain a "Permit by Affidavit" and has located an engineer in Fort Myers who will work with him. He further stated he is trying to sell his remaining properties to raise the necessary funds. The Respondent requested additional time to satisfy the lien. Investigator Scavone stated the County will not object to an extension. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case to May 1, 2009 and ordered the Respondent to appear at the Hearing. 6. Case # 2005031181- BCC vs. Martha Reeo a/k/a Martha E. Diaz The County was represented by Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Collier Co. Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec(s).10.02.06(B)(l)(A) Unpermitted storage shed on residential property Violation address: 5267 Maple Lane, Naples, FL 34113 The Respondent resides at 173 Doral Circle, Naples, FL 34113. She stated she resumed using her maiden name [Diaz] after her divorce. Investigator Mucha stated the violation had been abated in November, 2005. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $224.18, together with fines in the amount of $2,750 for the period from September 10, 2005 through November 3,2005 ($50/day for 55 days) for a total amount of $2,974.18. The Respondent stated she was granted an Extension of Time to September 9, 2005. Investigator Mucha stated the shed had been demolished on time but not all of the debris had been removed from the property and fines began to accrue. The Respondent stated the debris was contained in a dumpster before it was removed from the property and the Operational Costs have not been paid because she is not working. 7 .-,,- ~ - ... ~"--,_.- ,- "-",""",,,-,",,,,,..-,-.. " ,. ....,_._~ 16 , J,ri13,k~ " The Special Magistrate stated accrued daily fines of $2,750.00 will not be assessed. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $224.18. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 1. Case # SO 1665785 - CEEX 20090003128 - BCC vs. Cvnthia A. Brown The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Fred Klinkmann was present. Violations: Code of Laws and Ord., Sec. 130-67 Parking in a handicapped space. Driver had no permit Violation address: 2210 Venetian Court The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and Courthouse on March 26, 2009. Deputy Klinkmann stated the Citation was issued because the Respondent's truck was parked in a clearly-visible Handicapped space. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violations and was ordered to pay a civilfine in the amount of $250.00 and an administrative fee of $5. 00 on or before May 3,2009. The Respondent was further 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 May 3, 2009. Total Amount Due: $305.00 6. Case # PR 042197 - CEEX 20090002325 - BCC vs. Roeer L. & Patricia A. Rutherford The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were not present. Collier County Park Ranger Mauricio Araquistain was present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord.. Sec. 130-66 Failure to properly affix beach parking permit Violation address: Barefoot Beach access The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and was forwarded by the U.S. Postal Service to a different address on March 26, 2009. Park Ranger Araquistain stated a beach parking permit was scotch-taped onto the bumper of the car - it was not permanently affixed as is required. He introduced three photographs which were marked as County Exhibits "A;' "B;' and "C;' and were admitted into evidence. 8 ,_,n___ 161 lrilu~ - Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUlL TY of the alleged violations and was ordered to pay a civil fine in the amount of $30. 00 and an administrativefee of $5.00 on or before May 3,2009. The Respondent was further 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 May 3,2009. Total Amount Due: $85.00 C. Emergency Cases: 1. Case # CEPM 20080016535 - BCC vs. Beniamin Veea-Centeno The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow. The Respondent was not present. Violation: Health, safety and welfare issue and public nuisance Violation address: 575 N. 9th Street, lmmolakee, FL The property and the Courthouse were posted on April 2, 2009. Supervisor Snow stated the case presents a severe health, safety and welfare issue to the community. He introduced a Declaration of Dangerous Building which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He further stated the property has continued to deteriorate and Staff has been unable to contact the owner. Collier County Deputy Sheriff. Corporal Michael Taylor, introduced six photographs taken of the exterior of the premises which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "B" and admitted into evidence. Also introduced were 14 photographs taken of the interior of the property which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "C" and admitted into evidence. All photographs were taken on April 1,2009. Cpl. Taylor noted the front door to the structure had been removed so there was nothing to prevent squatters from inhabiting the structure. He stated the CCSO has been watching the property since November, 2008, and drug paraphanelia was confiscated from the interior. There are three schools within 150 feet of the property. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Wendell Davis stated the premises is a public nUSIance. 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 Demolition Permit to completely demolish the structure, required inspections and a Certificate of Completion before the close of business on April 7, 2009 or a fine 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. 9 _"0"* n... 'liTFill'f ~-''''''_'''''''''''_'''''''''''' .~,.,.....,,,-~-_., 'w...,....... . 16 IAJI3,C3 ':.,1 If the Respondent has not complied by the close of business on April 7, 2009, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117. 96 on or before May 3, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.96 RECESS: 11 :25 AM RECONVENED: 11 :38 AM 2. Case # CEPM 20090001294 - BCC vs. Fernando RosQuette The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone who was present. The Respondent was not present.. Violation: Dangerous Building Violation address: 2365 Tenth Avenue NE, Naples, FL 34120 The Notice of Violation was posted at the Courthouse and the property on February 9, 2009. The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on April 1, 2009. The Investigator introduced a Declaration of Dangerous Building which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence; ten photographs taken on February 9, 2009 which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "B" and admitted into evidence and a single photograph taken on March 11, 2009 which was marked as County's Exhibit "C" and admitted into evidence. The property had been under observation by the Collier County Sheriff s Office, District 4. since February 9,2009. The State Fire Marshall determined the cause of the fire was arson. The Investigator has been unable to obtain any contact information for the owner of the property. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to hire a licensed General Contractor to obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit, required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion before the close of business 011 April 7, 2009 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 10 . - r 161) . Ap 3, &3 If the Respondent has not complied by the close of business on April 7,2009, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.76 on or before May 3,2009. The Respondent is to 1I0tify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.87 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 11. Case # CEAU 20080007181 - BCC vs. Eleanor Buchanan The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Cristina Perez who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Florida Building Code Section 105.1 Expired fence permit. Chain link fence erected on property. Violation address: 238 Old Train Lane, Copeland The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and the U.S. Postal Service confirmed delivery on March 27, 2009. Supervisor Perez introduced one photograph, dated July 23, 2008, which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. She stated she contacted the Respondent via email and informed the Respondent of the violations. The Respondent contacted Ms. Perez and stated that no fence was erected on her [vacant] property. The Special Magistrated noted theRespondent sent a three-page letter to Code Enforcement dated March 30. 2009. Supervisor Perez stated the letter contained references to the erection of a fence on the side of the property by neighbors. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(sj and was ordered to obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit, required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion on or before June 3,2009, or afine of $100.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office. ] ] ~~,-,..", ,- . III__ III .....- ......~-~...... .....- 16 I 4il 3, ~3 !' 1 The Respondent is 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 June 3,2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violatioll and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.61 The Special Magistrate noted if the County abates the violation, all fines will be assessed to the property and become a lien against the property. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case # CEAU 20080013129 - BCC vs. Ernesto & Rosaura Villa. and Juan & Bricevda Rodas c/o Kahane & Associates. P.A. The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Carmelo Gomez. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Chapter 1 Permits, Section 105.1 Sections of stockade fence in disrepair Violation address: 3072 41st Terr. SW, Naples The Special Magistrate noted the firm of Kahane & Associates, P A, was not a party to the action. The County stated a Final Judgment, recorded with the Clerk of Courts, noted Kahane & Associates represented Indymac Bank, FSB, in a mortgage foreclosure action. The Special Magistrate stated Indymac Bank will be considered as an Interpleader as a Party of Interest. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Respondents and to Kahane & Associates via Certified Mail. The County has not received a response from the Respondents but the U.S. Postal Service confirmed delivery to Kahane & Associates on March 27,2009. The Notice of Violation was posted at the property and the Courthouse on October 8, 2008. The County suggested bringing the case later in order to re-notice all parties. The Special Magistrate ordered the case to be CONTINUED to April 17, 2009. 12 -- H . . _ ....."'..",.. .~'_. ',",~,_'H -.--..... - . 16 , Alri13,G~ ~~ 2. Case # CEV 20080011820 - BCC vs. Lionel & Lizette Froloff The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code Ord. 04-41, as amended, Sec.2.01.00(A) Vehicles with expired plates in residentially zoned property. Violation address: 5234 28th Place SW, Naples, FL 34116 The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Respondents via Certified Mail and the U.S. Postal Service confirmed delivery on March 26, 2009. The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on March 24, 2009. lnvestigator Paul stated the violation was abated on January 13,2009. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $117.61, together with fines in the amount of$50.00 for the period from the close of business on January 12,2009 through January 13,2009 ($50/day for 1 day) for a total amount of$167.61. The Special Magistrated GRANTED the County's Request for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of$167.61. 3. Case # CEV 20080012120 - BCC vs. Victor H. & Silvia L. Velasco The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code Ord. 04-41, as amended, Sec.2.01.00(A) Vehicles with expired plates in residentially zoned property. Violation address: 5323 18th Ave. SW, Naples, FL 34116 The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and Courthouse on March 24, 2009. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Respondents via Certified Mail and the U.S. Postal Service confirmed delivery on March 27,2009. Investigator Paul stated the violations had been abated and the County requested impostion of fines in the amount of $117.61 for payment of Operational Costs. The Special Magistrated GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $117.61. 5. Case # CEPM 20080011071 - BCC vs. Jill Weaver & Henrv Tesno The County was represented by Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha. 13 ..- - 161 lA~Joo9 " The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier Co. Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22, Article VI, Sec. 22-231, Sub(s). 12B, 19 & SEC. 22-243 Repeat Violation - Abandoned mobile home with graffiti and exterior damage with opening that allows access into the mobile home. Violation address: 3205 Lunar St. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Respondents via Certified Mail and the U.S. Postal Service confirmed delivery on April 1, 2009. The property and the Courthouse were posted on March 24, 2009. Investigator Mucha stated the County abated the violation on February 20, 2009. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $118.04, together with fines in the amount of $73,500 for the period from September 27,2008 through February 20, 2009 ($500/day for 147 days), and County abatement costs in the amount of$2,989.00, for a total amount of$76,607.04. The Special Magistrated GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $76,607.04. VII. OLD BUSINESS: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office 1. CASE NO: CEPM 20080002951 OWNER: CHARLES BROWN 2. CASE NO: 2005061003 OWNER: JEAN LOUIS GILLES & ADELE GILLES 3. CASE NO: 2005010315 OWNER: FABIAN & MARIA LUZARDO 4. CASE NO: 2005041113 OWNER: JOHN A. McELWAIN 5. CASE NO: 2004090636 OWNER: RANDOLPH SHELTON 6. CASE NO: 2004090716 OWNER: RANDOLPH SHELTON 14 ." ,,- .~ " . 161 1 ~tJ09 ~ The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Request toforward the above- referenced Cases to the County Attorney's Office based on Orders previously enteredfor the purpose of collections or foreclosure. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Request to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens. IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE - Friday, April 17, 2009 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 12:27 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on ~ \ 11 i ;looq , as presented , or as amended V 15 - "IW ~r __""'_......'"_...~-, - -,.."".._,,..,,.""",,,,,'_"-"'" Fiala ~3 .~. Halas Henning 17,2009 . COYle,~ Coletta MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE CaLL R COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECEIVED MAY 2 1 2009 Naples, Florida, Aprill?, 2009 Hoam (It COUl1lV 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 ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Colleen Davidson, Administrative Secretary 1Ii'ilsc. Corres: Date: --;'.... item # ._~~,.."..._..,,.._-- Dies t() 1 ~-- - 'r iIM"'" .~-- ~.....~ . J. " -,--,,-, 161 1 1 C3 I April 17, 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: 9:16 AM RECONVENED: 9:34 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item V (A), Stipulations were reached in the following cases: . Agenda #4, Case #PU 4460 - CEEX 20090003801 - BCC vs. Gulf Gate Plaza, LLC, c/o Isram Realty & Management, Inc. . Agenda #6, Case #PU 4487 - CEEX 20090003798 - BCC vs. Carmine & Marinella Marceno . Agenda #11, Case #CESD 20080013982 - BCC vs. Laura Chavarria . Agenda #13, Case #CEPM 20080015571 - BCC vs. Albert & Margaret Lee . Agenda #15, Case #CEV 20080014936 - BCC vs. Ronald & Nanette Brija (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County as requested by the Deputy/Investigator/Park Ranger: . Agenda #2, Case #PR 040040 - CEEX20090003130 - BCC vs. Ray & Vivian Reinard . Agenda #7, Case #PR 040193 - CEEX20090002552 - BCC vs. Judith Morse (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the County due to payment: . Agenda #8, Case #PR 042030 - CEEX20090003802 - BCC vs. Martha Tardy (d) Under Item V (C), "Emergency Cases,"the following case was added: . Case #CEOCC 20090003265 - BCC vs. Chile Calente 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 -,..-..-.....--.- __"0 161 1 iC3 r April 17, 2009 III. APPROV AL OF MINUTES Corrections: . Agenda #1 - Case #CEPM 20080016535 - BCC vs. Benjamin Vega-Centeno The correct address is 587 9th Street. . Agenda #2 - Case #CEPM 20090001294 - BCC vs. Fernando Rosquette The amount due (in the body of the Order) is $117.87. The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on April 3, 2009 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines - None B. Motions for Continuance 1. Case #CO 02302 - CEVFH 20080010155 - BCC vs. Sanibel Taxi The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Michaelle Crowley was present. Violations: Code of Laws and Ord., Chapter 142, Sec(s). 142-51(A), 142-58(F)(3) Operated a motor vehicle as a vehicle for hire, making a passenger pickup in Collier Co. without first obtaining a PY AC-issued Certificate to Operate Violation address: 280 Vanderbilt Beach Rd., Ritz Carlton Resort Investigator Crowley noted the Respondent's Attorney, Gerald Stern, had contacted Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright. Mr. Stern requested a Continuance due to an urgent family matter. Ms. Crowley stated the County did not object to the issuance of a Continuance. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for a Continuance. C. Motion for Extension of Time - None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 11. Case #CESD 20080013982 - BCC vs. Laura Chavarria The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Cristina Perez who was present. The Respondent was also present. 3 .... n . -"..,.,.." <..".""",.-0"""""'" ...,. .-. 161 1 ';C3 r~ April 17, 2009 Violations: Collier Co. Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec(s).1O.02.06(B)(1 )(A) and 10.02.06(B)(l )(E)(I) Unpermitted storage shed on residential property Violation address: 2495 47th Avenue NE A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent, Laura Chavarria, on April 14, 2009. The Investigator stated the Respondent agreed to pay the Operational Costs and outlined the terms of the Stipulation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent wasfound GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion on or before May 17,2009, or afine of $100. 00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. /fthe 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. /fnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.70 on or before May 17, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.70 The Respondent stated she has applied for a Demolition Permit. 4. Case #PU 4460 - CEEX 20090003801 - BCC vs. Gulf Gate Plaza. LLC. c/o Isram Realty & Manaeement. Inc. The Hearing was requested by Collier County Public Utilities Enforcement Investigator Michael Andresky who was present. The Respondent was represented by Andy Pearlman, Senior Property Manager for Isram Realty & Management, Inc. Violations: Ord. 2003-18 Section(a) 2,M,1 Overflowing private grease trap into the paking lot of McDonalds. Violation address: McDonalds Restaurant, Gulf Gate Plaza Mr. Pearlman stated he was authorized to represent the Respondent. A Stipulation was entered into by Andy Pearlman, Senior Property Manager for Isram Realty & Management, Inc., on behalf of the Respondent on April 17, 2009. 4 ,,,",," ... .-.. ',_.""""",,,,,. 1611 C3 ~ I April 17, 2009 Investigator Andresky stated 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 wasfound GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a civil penalty in the sum of $500.00 and an administrativefee of$5.00 on or before May 17, 2009. The Respondent was also 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 May 17, 2009. Total Amount Due: $555.00 13. Case #CEPM 20080015571- BCC vs. Albert & Marearet Lee The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Supervisor Joe Mucha who was present. The Respondent, Albert Lee, was present and also represented his wife, Margaret Lee. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chap. 22, Article VI, Sec. 22-231, Subs. 9, 10, 11, 12B, 12I-12L, 12P, 19, and 20 Rental property with multiple minimum housing violations Violation address: 306 2nd Street, Immokalee, FL The Respondents reside at 909 Pine Street, Immokalee, Florida. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondents, Albert Lee and Margaret Lee, on April 17, 2009, Investigator Mucha outlined the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondent stated he does not own the mobile home, but merely allowed the owners to store it on his property. The Investigator stated he met with the owners of the mobile home and they agreed to repair the property. The property is vacant. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to either correct all violations cited in the Property maintenance Inspection Report (dated October 22, 2008) on or before May 17, 2009, or hire a licensed Contractor to obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion on or before June 17, 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. /fthe Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code 5 -"-._----- .IoI~ IlIllU ., ,-,,,,",,... . ._---.,--"'----,- 1~Jl~oot3 Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $118.40 on or before May 17, 2009. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $118.40 15. Case #CEV 20080014936 - BCC vs. Ronald & Nanette Briia The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels who was present. The Respondent, Ronald Brija, was present and also represented his wife, Nanette Brija. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec.2.01.00(A) Unlicensed / inoperable boat trailer parked / stored on residential property. Violation Address: 91 Dolphin Circle, Naples The Respondents reside at 4151 Maple, Brookfield, Illinois. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondents, Ronald Brija and Nanette Brija, on April 17, 2009. Investigator Sorrels outlined the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondent stated he requested a 45-day time period due to eviction proceedings that he has begun to regain his property from delinquent tenants. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to attach a current, valid license plate to the boat trailer and repair all defects, or store it in an enclosed structure, or remove itfrom the property on or before June 1,2009, or afine of $50.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. /fthe Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and to assess the costs to the Respondents. /fnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondents were 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 May 17, 2009. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.61 6 ...". --- T"'"<r_-.r- ..u ~"''''''''''''_~'''''''^.__il!If JIlI.f'R I VT' y ~ ~ '" -.- 161 1 ~C3 ~1 April 17,2009 6. Case #PU 4487 - CEEX 20090003798 - BCC vs. Carmine & Marinella Marceno The Hearing was requested by Collier County Public Utilities Enforcement Investigator Jeremy Florin who was present. The Respondent, Carmine Marceno, had been present earlier and entered into a Stipulation but left before the case was heard. Violations: Ord. 2002-17, Section(s) 5(5.4) Illegal irrigation. Irrigating on a county dry day (Tuesday). Phase II water restrictions. Health, safety, & welfare. Violation address: 1610 Triangle Palm Terrace A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondents, Carmine Marceno and Marinella Marceno, on April 17, 2009. Investigator Florin stated the violation had been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served andfinding the violation did exist but was CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondents werefound GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a Citationfee in the sum of $80.00 on or before May 17, 2009. The Respondents were also 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 May 17,2009. Total Amount Due: $130.00 B. Hearings: 14. Case #CEV 20090003262 - BCC vs. Andrew, Hallev E., and Barbara Savaee The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent, Andrew Savage, was present. Violations: Collier Co. Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec(s).10.02.06(B) Repeat Violation: recreational vehicle (boat) parked/stored in driveway of residential zoned property. Violation address: 4002 Cindy Avenue, Naples The Respondent stated Halley E. Savage and Barbara J. Savage are his parents. He stated his mother has quit-claimed the property, but he is the owner of the boat. Investigator Keegan stated this was his third Hearing for this violation. He made several site visits since March 24, 2009, and the violation has not been abated. 7 ~;-, "'..... . . --~.,,,..._....,< - - ;,,-....~_._-,,'_.~,- 161 1 April 19 ~9 - The Respondent stated he was confused about the "repeat violation" because he thought at a previous Hearing, it was determined the violation was not "repeat." The Investigator stated the case was heard on April 18, 2008. [The Minutes of the April 18, 2008 Heaing stated: "The Investigator (Keegan) stated this was repeat violation of a prior case which had been closed. " ] The Special Magistrate noted the Order of April 18, 2008 specifically stated: " ... the Respondent would cease all future storage of the recreational vehicle." The Respondent stated he had permits which allowed the boat to be parked in the driveway. Permit #1: effective date from March 15 through March 23,2009 The Investigator stated the case was opened on March 24, 2009 and the Permit had expired. Permit #2: effective date from March 26 through April 4, 2009 The Respondent presented the Permits which were marked as Respondent's Exhibits "1" and "2" and admitted into evidence. The Respondent stated he is still in the process of repairing the (1987) boat, obtaining parts amd finding it impossible to repair the boat when he cannot store it on his property. He is trying to find other locations to store the boat and has had it for sale for one year. The Special Magistrate stated one option might be to donate the boat to a charity. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent wasfound GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 on or before May 17, 2009. The Respondent was further ordered to either relocate the recreational vehicle to the rear yard in a completely enclosed structure, in a carport, or on davits adjacent to a waterway, or remove itfrom the property on or before the close of business on April 21, 2009, or afine of $200. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and to assess the costs to the Respondent. /fnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.70 on or before May 17,2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. R ..~._-- ".......~".,........"..~- < " ".."" . ~ 1.61 1. C~ .. Apnl , 2009 The Respondent admitted he was in violation and facing foreclosure of his own property. The Special Magistrate referred him to the Collier County Bar Association for assistance. The Special Magistrate stated if the boat was sold or donated by May 17, 2009, and proof is provided, the civil penalty will be dismissed. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case #CEPM 20080005772 - BCC vs. Mario Alberto Garcia The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator John Santafemia. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Collier County Ord. 2004-58, Sec. 6, Subsec.(s) 1-6,8-11, 12B, 12C, l2I-12P, 12R, 19A, 19B, 19D, and 20 Numerous minimum housing violations. Violation address: 1801 Grant A venue, Immokalee, FL The Respondent resides at 911 Madison A venue, Immokalee, FL Investigator Santafemia stated the violations have been abated and the Operational Costs of $455.40 were paid. The County requested imposition of fines for the period from March 17,2008 through March 17,2008 (1 day @ $250/day) for a total amount of$250.00. Supervisor Waldron stated the deadline to comply was the close of business on March 16, 2008. The Respondent stated all of the inspections were completed but the Certificate of Completion was not issued until March 17,2008. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 2. Case #CEPM 20080005772 - BCC vs. Linda L. Hiatt. Kevin & Jennifer Hiatt The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator John Santafemia. The Respondent, Kevin Hiatt, was present and also represented his wife, Jennifer Hiatt, and his mother, Linda L. Hiatt. Violations: Collier County Ord. 2004-58, as amended, Sec. 6, subsec.(s) 10, 12B, 12, 12(L) and 19(A) Numerous minimum housing violations. Violation address: 5021 Coronado Parkway, Naples <) .- .......... . - """"'-'"",""'--~-"""" 161 1 C3 t#.~ April 17, 2009 The Respondent resides at 3120 Safe Harbor Drive, The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $117.60, together with fines of$30,500.00 for the period from December 16,2008 through April 17, 2009 (122 days @ $250/day), for a total amount of$30,617.60. The Respondent stated the property is in foreclosure. Some of the tenants moved out without paying the rent, and those who remained "trashed" the property. He stated he tried to make as many repairs as he could afford. He had been notified that the property was sold, but he could not confirm it. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of$30,617.60. RECESS: 10:47 AM RECONVENED: 11:01 AM V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 3. Case #SO 167206 - CEEX 20090003799 - BCC vs. Ibis Hodeson The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Bill Hems was also present. Violations: Code Of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-67 Parking In A Handicapped Space. Violation address: Auto Zone, Golden Gate Park The Respondent resides at 9415 Marino Circle, Apt. 308, Naples, Florida. The Respondent stated he uses his car for deliveries for the store. He previously parked on the side of the store, but there was heavy traffic and it was dangerous for him to unload the car. He stated he used the handicapped space for only five minutes for his own personal safety. Deputy Hems stated the Citation was issued because the vehicle was parked in a handicapped space without a permit. He further stated the store has a back door which can be used for loading and unloading. The Deputy introduced two photographgs which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" and "B" and were admitted into evidence. The Respondent stated he did not intend to break the law and requested additional time to pay the fine. 10 -.......... . ~......_-,"_......- _ lI.....__.._.___,_''''''''''''_,,,..., ...""" ..... ..1 III .__T.r ,--,'.~"~~" 161 1 ~3 .. April 17,2009 The Special Magistrate stated the County adopted the State's Statute for its Ordinance and the Statute does not allow for any exceptions. She extended payment for ninety days. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent wasfound GUILTY of the alleged violations and was ordered to pay a civilfine in the amount of $250.00 and an administrative fee of $5.00 on or before July 17, 2009. The Respondent was further 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 July 17,2009. Total Amount Due: $305.00 C. Emergency Case: Case #CEOCC 20090003265 - BCC vs. Chile Caliente. LLC The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow. The Respondent was represented by Attorney Michael R. N. McDonnell. Violation: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter l25-116(A)(2) A Stipulation was entered into by Attorney McDonnell on beha~f of the Respondent, Chile Caliente, LLe, on April 17, 2007. Supervisor Snow outlined the terms of the Stipulation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUlL TY of the alleged violations. The Respondent agreed to the following terms: (a) Waive any challenges to the Hearing based on Notice. (b) A civil penalty of $5,000.00 was imposed but suspended until the next violation is adjudicated. Upon such adjudication, the penalty will be imposed. (c) Any further violations shall cause a fine of $1,000.00 per violation to be imposedfor each individual over the allowed occupancy of 33 people. Each person over the occupancy limit shall be considered as a single violation. (d) Continued violations may result in the suspension or revocation of the Respondent's Business Tax Receipt. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation, the County is authorized to abate the violation. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.52 on or before May 17,2009. Total Amount Due: $117.52 The Special Magistrate confirmed if there is another violation, the civil penalty will II .,."-,.-,,, - liI 1m' ~ ~""....'_._-,-_._. . -"-..-"".'~~".__. --'- 161pr17,;ce 3 . ~ be automatically imposed. Attorney McDonnell stated his client will continue to maintain a head count ensuring the occupancy limit will not be exceeded. Mr. Snow noted the Sheriffs Office and the Immokalee Fire Marshall, who will monitor the restaurant, were present to hear the Special Magistrate's Order. B. Hearings: 9. Case #PR 040079 - CEEX 20090003803 - BCC vs. Carolyn & Edward Marino The Hearing was requested by the Respondent, Edward Marino, who was present and also represented his wife, Carolyn Marino. Collier County Park Ranger Mauricio Araquistain was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-66 Parking in an unauthorized parking area. Violation address: Barefoot Beach Preserve The Respondents reside at 21494 Sheridan Run, Estero, Florida. The Respondent stated he was at Barefoot Beach in Parking Lot #3, which was full. There were no signs posted in the grassy area near the picnic tables to indicate whether or not parking was allowed in that area, so he parked his car near a picnic table. He stated when he returned to the parking lot recently, he noticed three cones were placed in the same area where he had previously parked. He introduced photographs of the location which were marked as Respondent's Composite Exhibit "1" and were admitted into evidence. Park Ranger Araquistain stated there are defined areas for parking because this is a preserve. There are signs in the parking lot designating handicapped parking. The picnic area is surrounded by fences. He introduced three photographs which were marked at County's Exhibits "A," "B," and "C" and were admitted into evidence. The Respondent stated that he had seen cars parked along the side of the road when the signs were covered. The Park Ranger stated parking is allowed in certain areas only to handle overflow when the lots were full. The Respondent reiterated if there had been signs stating "No Parking" or the cones were in the area, he would not have parked. He maintained it was not clearly marked. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violations and were 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 May 17, 2009. A civilfine was not assessed. Total Amount Due: $50.00 12 ..,.,.......-,.......---- II. . . , -" __ho"_"" 161 A!ll;,C~ p.~';._ 5. Case #PU 3834 - CEEX 20090003795 - BCC vs. Santa Barbara Granada Villas. LLC The Hearing was requested by Collier County Public Utilities Enforcement Investigator Ray Addison who was represented by Operations Coordinator George Cascio and Investigator Michael Andresky. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Ord. 2005-44, Section(s) 9 (4) Waste on ground consisting of used diapers and food not containerized in front of building. Violation address: 201 Santa Clara Drive, Naples Investigator Andresky was at the location with Senior Investigator Addison and has personal knowledge of the situation. He stated this was the fourth Citation issued to the same property and noted the fines assessed for previous violations have not been paid. The Registered Agent was notified of all Citations. Supervisor Waldron noted the U.S. Postal Service verified delivery of the Notice of Hearing via Certified Mail to the Registered Agent's office. The Investigator introduced three photographs which were marked as County's Exhibits "A," "B," and "C" and were admitted into evidence. The Manager's office and the Courthouse were posted. Information concerning the Resident Agent was marked as County's Exhibit "D" and admitted into evidence. It was noted the Resident Agent's office is in Miami. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent wasfound GUILTY of the alleged violations and was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $5,000.00 and an administrative fee of $5. 00. The Respondent was further 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 May 17, 2009. Total Amount Due: $5,055.00 10. Case #CELU 20080015489 - BCC vs. Katherine Sheffield The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Ron Martindale who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier Co. Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03 Multiple pod type containers used for storage (permit expired 10-5-08) Violation address: 660 29th Street SW, Naples 34117 Supervisor Waldron noted the U.S. Postal Service verified delivery of the Notice of 13 . . '-",,~,,;".~-- . _.._'" ."",.,..,,..","",.,.. )7 -,^'''''~'-''_.'- "~""._" .- 161J' . Apn 17,C3 Hearing via Certified Mail to the Respondent's address on April 9, 2009. The return receipt was signed by the Respondent. Investigator Martindale introduced six photographs which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" through "F" and were admitted into evidence. He stated he met with the Respondent who stated the POD containers stored her personal belonging because the house suffered flood damage. He advised her the permit she obtained previously had expired. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent wasfound GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain a valid Collier County Building Permit to allow POD container usage, or remove the containers from the property on or before May 17, 2009, or afine of $200.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and to assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.70 on or before May 17, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.70 12. Case #CEPM 20080015884 - BCC vs. Lvnda M. Mavor The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Ordinance 2004-58, Section 12 Dangerous building Violation address: (Dove Tree Street) Folio #00304160002 Supervisor Waldron noted the U.S. Postal Service verified delivery of the Notice of Hearing via Certified Mail to the Respondent's address in Georgia on April 10,2009. The Notice of Violation was posted at the property and the Courthouse on January 9, 2009. Investigator Scavone introduced the Declaration of Dangerous Building which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. She also introduced seven photographs which were marked as County's Exhibits "B" though "H" and admitted into evidence. The Investigator stated she had spoken with the Respondent's husband who stated he 14 ~""....",<"...."<,,-_.,, __." . ~..m"'.~, - ~.,,--._. " -- 1611 C3 tt~ Apnl17,2009 would contact his brother in Naples to see what could be done. The violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent wasfound GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to hire a licensed Contractor to apply for and obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit to demolish the structure and all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion on or before April 27, 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. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and to assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office and/or Fire Department. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.96 on or before May 17, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.96 VII. OLD BUSINESS: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office - None B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the 43 cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens. IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE - Friday, May 1, 2009 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. 15 "~~~-,..-.-_-- ... ',,,.,.,,~ '-_4_""'_"~'_~"""_~"__"___'.__"'."'~""'."""_"~______.__""'"......., 16 tl1~~ . There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 12:18 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING The Minutes were approved by the Sp~agistrate on ~~ \ \ ~o'1 , as presented _, or as amended \ , r 16 .....", . .-...........---- .'''''- .._"'-"..'....,,_.~-"','" ~ -... -,,--,""""."'---,._-_....',.............""-..._----""- l'IJ . t.r Halas May 1, 2009 Henning .- Coyle MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF 'fit'I!~~R COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.R ECE/VED Naples, Florida, May l, 2009 f1 MAY 2 1 2009 oard of County Commi~~ . "'-I;:mor:; 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 ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement InvesMg1tti~~fS upervisor Michele McGonagle, Administrative Secre~_"^__ ---. ;tern # ',--,.--..--.- ~~.....~._--" 1 . II P- .~~ _..-..~.... "-^-._~--,.- ,.......... 161 lJ1 . C 3y 1,20'09 I. CALL TO ORDER The Meeting was called to order by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson at 9:00 AM. All thQse 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: 9:12 AM RECONVENED: 9:30 AM II. APPROV AL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item V (B), ~~Hearings," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the County: . Agenda #1, Case #PR 041258 - CEEX 20090004380 - BCC vs. Giorgina Opopeza (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the County due to compliance: . Agenda #4, Case #CEPM 20080016605 - BCC vs. David G. Gray (c) Under Item VI, "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County due to payment: . Agenda #2, Case #CEV 20080007340 - BCC vs. Marie Micheline LaFrance . Agenda #3, Case #CEV 20080007142 - BCC vs. Donald L. Geckler (d) Under Item VI, "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the County: . Agenda #11, Case #2007090498 - BCC vs. Norma Ramirez (e) Under Item VIII, "Consent Agenda," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: . #6, Case #2007020068 - Lora Jones . #13, Case #CEPM 2008001391- Edilbray Perez & Belkis Martinez 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 --~ .- ........ oj. ~. UIWI'Il'I.llIlll' Jill l "'''''''''''''''' . -.-- 161 1~3. ay 1,2009 III. APPROV AL OF MINUTES Corrections: . Agenda #13, Case #CEPM 2008001557 - BCC vs. Albert & Margaret Lee The Respondents were given 60 days to correct the problem to June 17,2009, not May 17,2009. . Emergency Case #CCOCC 20090003265 - BCC vs. Chile Caliente, LLC The Violation is Chapter 12~-ll6(A)(2). . Under Item VI, "New Business": Agenda #1 - Case #CEPM 20080005772 was incorrect on the Agenda provided and was not corrected the day of the Hearing. The correct case number is #2005110400. The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on April 17, 2009 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines - None B. Motions for Continuance - None C. Motion for Extension of Time - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case # CEPM 20080011393- BCC vs. Diane L. Mathieu. John R. Mathieu. Diane L. Mathieu Rev. Tr. UTD 7-12-02 The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator John Santafemia. The Respondents were represented by their attorney, Brad Kelsky. Respondent, John R. Mathieu, was also present. Violations: Ord. 04-58, Sec. 12 Existence of a dangerous building Violation address: 427 Willet Ave., Naples, FL Folio: 27586840000 Mr. Mathieu verified that he was authorized to represent the Diane L. Mathieu Revocable Trust. Investigator Santafemia stated the County abated the violations, but the Operational Costs of$117.52 were paid by the Respondents. 3 ,.--;-- . -... II . AI~ 'lI _;0__'_""- ].61 14J;I,-9 The County requested imposition of fines in the sum of $23,250 for the period from January 18,2009 through April 20, 2009 (93 days @ $250/day) and reimbursement to the County in the amount of$15,086, for a total amount of$38,336. Attorney Kelsey stated the property is the subject of construction defect litigation (the Respondents sued the General Contractor and 2 subcontractors; the General Contractor, in turn, sued 7 subcontractors) and a trial date has been set for October, 2009. Litigation began in 2007. He stated the Respondents spent $60,000 to try to repair the property but it would have cost approximately $1.6M to demolish and rebuild the property to Code. He requested the County waive the fines and further stated the Respondents will do everything possible to protect the County's hard costs. The County did not object to waiving the fines as long as there was reimbursement of the demolition costs. The Special Magistrate stated the fines would not be assessed. Supervisor Waldron suggested imposing the lien for the County's abatement costs and stated the County would hold off enforcement of the lien until the litigation was settled. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motionfor Imposition of Liens in the total amount of $15,086. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 7. Case #CEA 20090001437 - BCC vs. Tiburcio Bautista The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. The Respondent was also present. J osefino Ramos served as translator for his father. Violations: Ord. 04-41, Sec. 2.03.01(1) Chickens in a residential zoned property Violation address: 5409 26th Ave SW, Naples, FL Folio: 36370640009 The Respondent's correct name is Tiburcio Ramos Bautista. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on May 1, 2009. 4 lV""'....lIII... -.. ..-,^".". """,,,,",,.,,,,.-.-,,-- .... ...._----"'-'--"'--_.,"'------- 161 1 M.() ,309 ~;1 Investigator Paul stated the violation has 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 and ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.70 on or before June 1, 2009. Total Amount Due: $117.70 The translator verified that Mr. Bautista understood he admitted violating the County's Ordinance and will not repeat the violation. 8. Case #CESD 20090001658 - BCC vs. Tiburcio Bautista The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. The Respondent was also present. J osefino Ramos served as translator for his father. Violations: Ord. 04-41, Sec. 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), Code of Laws, Ch. 22, Art. II, Florida Building Code, Sec. 22-26(b)(1 06.1.2) Chicken coop on residential zoned property with no permits and fence with prior permit that was never C/O'd. Violation Address: 5409 26th Ave SW, Naples, FL Folio: 36370640009 The Respondent's correct name is Tiburcio Ramos Bautista. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on May 1, 2009. Investigator Paul stated the chicken coop has been removed, but the fence remains without a permit. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit (for the addition of the fence), or a Collier County Demolition Permit (to remove the fence), all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion on or before June 1, 2009, or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.96 on or before June 1, 2009. 5 . ..-"._-"-'."--"- '-"'-"".'"-"-- 161 II C3 i. May 1, 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. Total Amount Due: $117.96 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 2. Case #PR 041715 - CEEX 20090004377 - BCC vs. William Harvev The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Park Ranger Robert Martin was also present. Violations: Code of Laws and Ord., Sec.l30-66 Paid launch receipt not displayed on dash. Violation address: Hamilton Ave. & Bay St. - Bayview Park The Respondent resides at 7200 Coventry Court, Naples, FL 34104. The Respondent stated he saw two Coast Guard representatives conducting courtesy inspections and asked the gentlemen about regulations regarding launching and parking. He was told he could launch his boat but if he parked "at the top of the road," he would not have to pay for parking. He since learned this information was incorrect. He has since obtained permits for the boat trailer and his other recreational vehicles. He was not aware there was a parking meter for the parking lot. The Park Ranger stated a sign indicating that a launch fee is required was located approximately 50 feet from the launch ramp. He further stated he will give the proper information regarding launch fees to the Coast Guard Auxiliary office. The Special Magistrate stated due to the incorrect information provided to the Respondent, the fine would be waived. The Respondent was instructed to find five boaters and explain his experience to them to prevent others from violating the rules. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and 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 June 1,2009. Total Amount Due: $50.00 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 6 '- ----. - . 111 "UIlll' IMP' ~""_""""",,,__,,,,_____O"_~""~'''''=''''.'''''''~-''_'__'''''__.,___'-'_"'_. 161 1.t3 If May 1, 2009 8. Case #2006100419 - BCC vs. Gary L. Hauze The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. The Respondent was also present. ~ Violations: Ord. 04-41, Sec. 10.02.06(B)(l)(a), 10.02.06(B)(I)(e) and 10.02.06(B)(l)(e)(i) and Florida Building Code, Sec. 105.1 Violation address: 280 10th Ave. NE, Naples, FL Folio: 37493120007 The Respondent resides at 280 Tenth Avenue NE, Naples, Florida 34120. Investigator Scavone stated the Operational Costs of$117.69 were paid, but the violation was not abated and fines continue to accrue. The County requested Imposition of Fines in the sum of $22,500 for the period from September 19, 2008 through May 1, 2009 (225 days @ $1 OO/day), for a total amount of $22,500. The Respondent stated he appeared on April 3, 2009 and was granted a Continuance in order to obtain a "Permit by Affidavit." The pole barn has been inspected but the inspector was unable to find an Engineer to issue the certification. The Respondent has found an Engineer who will sign the Affidavit but the Engineer has been unable to inspect the structure because Alligator Alley has been closed due to the smoke/fires. The County did not object to granting a Continuance. The Special Magistrate GRANTED a Second (and Final) CONTINUANCE until June 5, 2009 to the Respondent. Fines will be assessed but the amount will be determined. 4. Case #CESD 20080005609 - BCC vs. Maria Roderieuez The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul. The Respondent was also present. Denisse Bueno appeared as translator for her mother. Violations: Ord 04-41, Sec. 1 0.02.06(B)(l )(A) Shed on propert~ without a permit Violation address: 2364 55t St. SW, Naples, FL Folio: 36380240004 The spelling of the Respondent's last name was corrected to Rodriguez. Investigator Paul stated the violation has been abated and the Operational Costs of 7 "_._-~"'----~-..,-' .l"lB , ..._""_,.._,~."o..",.~_.._".._.,, "^-..",.~.".~.. .........0... ...... 161 It~,2oo' $117.43 were paid. The County requested Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $1 ,700 for the period from March 21, 2009 through April 6, 2009 (17 days @ $1 OO/day). The Respondent stated a final inspection was conducted on March 31, 2009 but the Building Department delayed issuing the paperwork. She also stated she is not working and the amount of the fines will be a hardship for her to pay. The Special Magistrate stated thefine was reduced to $100 due to mitigating circumstances. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $1 00. RECESS: 10:53 AM RECONVENED: 11 :02 AM VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Stipulations: 3. Case #CEV 20080012174 - BCC vs. Jeffrev A. Stolz The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Ord. 04-41, Sec. 2.01.00(A) Unlicensed vehicles on estates zoned property. Violation address: 3311 8th Ave. SE, Naples, FL Folio: 40934840008 The Notice of Violation was posted at the property and the Courthouse on August 26, 2008. Proof of delivery of the Notice, via Certified Mail on September 5,2008, was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on April 20, 2009. Investigator Scavone introduced four photographs which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. The Investigator stated the violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to repair the vehicles so they are operational and obtain valid tags for each vehicle, or to store the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or remove them from the premises on or before 8 ,- ..-. '",,'-." """.,.-...--.-- 16 J: 1 i~C 3 .. May 1, 2009 May 7,2009 or afine of $50.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriffs Office. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.78 on or before June 1,2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $1 17.78 5. Case #CESD 20090003060 - BCC vs. Jennifer DeFrancesco The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Code of Laws & Ordinances, Aricle X, Ch. 22, Sec. 22-352 (A) No address numbers posted on duplex. Violation address: 4302 Rose Ave., Naples, FL 34112 Folio: 62713200009 The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on April 20, 2009. Delivery of the Notice, via Certified Mail on April 22, 2009, was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. Investigator Keegan stated he has had no further contact with the Respondent after the initial phone call on March 19,2009. The violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to post the appropriately sized, correct address numbers on the property on or before May 7,2009 or afine of $50.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.87 on or before June 1, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.87 9 ,-,-------............"._""...-.,-~--_..- . ....... '"~".. ,,_____,_A"'"",~_,"'__~<._'"..,,~4_~_.."",._._ 161 l~3 . 6. Case #CEV 20090002773 - BCC vs. Jennifer DeFrancesco The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent was/not present. Violations: Ord. 04-41, Sec. 2.01.00(A) and 4.05.03(B) Unlicensed/inoperable vehicle parked in rear yard of residential zoned property Violation address: 4302 Rose Ave., Naples, FL 34112 Folio: 67490680002 The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on April 20, 2009. Delivery ofthe Notice, via Certified Mail on April 22, 2009, was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. Investigator Keegan stated he has had no further contact with the Respondent after the initial phone call on March 19,2009. The violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to repair the vehicle to make it operational and obtain valid tags. When parking the vehicle in the front yard, it is to be parked on afully stabilized sutface, or the vehicle is to be stored in a completely enclosed structure, or completely removed from the premises on or before May 7,2009 or afine of $50. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $118.22 on or before June 1,2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator petform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $118.22 C. Emergency Case: None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 5. Case #CEPM 20080012982 - BCC vs. Graciela Wrieht. Elizabeth Garnelo & Salvador Garnelo The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. 10 ,,.,,, ._" ""17 .,I;lIII r ~_*"'___^'""'"'_"""'_~_'__' ~.1j_""I_' "<i ~"..... ~~"""..-,_.........~..._-- 161 lt~ p. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Ord. 07-4, Ch. 22, Art. VI, Sec. 22-243, and Florida Statute Ch. 162, Sec. 162.06(4) Unsecured vacant home being utilized by homeless/squatters presenting serious threat to public safety of neighboring properties Violation address: 2360 Washington Ave., Naples, FL Folio: 51693160102 The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on April 20, 2009. Investigator Keegan stated the violations had been abated. The County requested Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $118.04 in payment of the Operational Costs. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motionfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $118. 04. 6. Case # 2007100969 - BCC vs. Yordanva Hector The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Ed Morad. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Ord. 05-44, Sec. 6 & 7 Accumulation of litter Violation address: 2081 Sunshine Blvd., Naples, FL Folio: 36114320006 The correct spelling of the Respondent's first name is Yorany~. The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on April 20, 2009. Proof of delivery of the Notice on April 23, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. Investigator Morad stated the violations had been abated. The County requested Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $293.70 in payment of the Operational Costs. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $293.70. 7. Case #2007100970 - BCC vs. Yordanvs Hector The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Ed Morad. The Respondent was also present. II " ______.,~_..._______1 - J _VIll' .....1lM_,_,_,.~,."w'U,-,",..,""'.....""'''''.-____....-._''".'''.''"~".~_'''''" ,-..- 161 1~'C3 .~. May 1, 2009 Violations: Ord. 04-41, Sec. 2.01.00(A) Inoperable/untagged vehicles parked in residential area. Violation address: 2081 Sunshine Blvd., Naples, FL Folio: 36114320006 The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on April 20, 2009. Investigator Morad stated the violations had been abated. The County requested !imposition of Fines in the total amount of $264.40 in payment of the Operational Costs. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $264.40. 9. Case #2007101069 - BCC vs. Israel G. Munoz The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Ord. 05-44, Sec. 6,7 & 8 Litter consisting of, but not limited to, tires, wood, assorted metals and plastics, car batteries, old motors, trash, car parts, coolers, etc. Violation Address: 1416 N. Orange St., Immokalee, FL Folio: 30681680000 Supervisor Waldron stated the County had dismissed the case due to payment. 10. Case #2007101070 - BCC vs. Israel G. Munoz The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Ord. 04-41, Sec. 02.01.00(A) Multiple unlicensed/inoperable vehicles parked in residentially zoned area Violation address: 1416 N. Orange St., Immokalee, FL Folio: 30681680000 Supervisor Waldron stated the County had dismissed the case due to payment. 12. Case #2007101041 - BCC vs. Sebastiana Romero c/o Raul Romero The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent was also present. 12 ._c.'" ".. ll_n.F ., .. ...U. ............"'; " v... 161 layC,39 . Violations: Ord. 05-44, Sec. 6, 7 & 8 Accumulation of litter Violation address: 141 9 Orange St., Immoka1ee, FL Folio: 30682360002 The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on April 21, 2009. Proof of delivery of the Notice on April 25, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. Investigator Musse stated the violations had been abated. The County requested Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $117.60 in payment of the Operational Costs. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $117. 60. 13. Case #CENA 20080009497 - BCC vs. Wallace R. Parker TR.. Steve H. Parker TR. & Wallace Parker TR. UTD 8/2/96 The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Code of Laws & Ordinances Ch. 54, Art. VI, SEC. 54-181 Litter Violation address: 85 ih St., Bonita Shores, FL Folio: 24533040005 Supervisor Waldron stated the County had dismissed the case due to payment. VII. OLD BUSINESS: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office 1. CASE NO: 2006070434 OWNER: William Williams 2. CASE NO: 2005060225 OWNER: Laker Investment Mgmt., Inc. 3. CASE NO: 2005100724 OWNER: Randy Shelton 4. CASE NO: CESD20080007891 13 __._.._,..._"''' .. ... f lD...._. _~....._~".,_,...__._..'>...'..'~'4..'.'......__ ~ ow,... . -- 161 tQ~ . ay 1, 009 OWNER: HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assoc., TR c/o EMC Mortgage Corp. 5. CASE NO: CESD20080007775 OWNER: HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assoc., TR c/o EMC Mortgage Corp. 6. CASE NO: 2007020068 (WITHDRA WN by the County) OWNER: Lora Jones 7. CASE NO: 2007060709 OWNER: Shanna Ward 8. CASE NO: 2007100446 OWNER: Capital Edge, LLC, Trust Designs Land Trust UTD 5/12/06 9. CASE NO: 2007080938 OWNER: Linda & William Haines 10. CASE NO: CEV20080007422 OWNER: Jill J. Weaver & Henry J. Tesno 11. CASE NO: 2007080486 OWNER: Douglas Menendez 12. CASE NO: 2007110238 OWNER: James W. Johnson 13. CASE NO: CEPM20080001391 (WITHDRA WN by the County) OWNER: Edilbray Perez & Belkis Martinez The Special Magistrate reviewed the 11 cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's request to forward the cases to the County Attorney's Office. D. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on cases referenced in submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's request to impose Nuisance Abatement Liens. IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE - Friday, May 15, 2009 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. 14 - iU ,fi r .~ . A .- - -"'~ .- '" - 161 1,C3 ~ May 1, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 11 :35 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING cM~o~ate, The Minutes were approved by the Sp~Magistrate on M; ISl .;led'} , as presented _, or as amended 15 '0__'___..,,_,,_ 1..__ 4--4 - . >__0 ~:i:s ~~~ 16 I 1 !'~C . Henning 1'" 'b / May 1 ,:39 Coyle ~ Coletta MINUTES OF THE . . ARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECEIVED Naples, Florida, May 15,2009 JUN 1 0 2009 Hoard 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 ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Misc. Corres: Michele McGonagle, Administrative Secretary Date: item #. ...,__.__.__ I ,_"_.___,_~..,____~_._____,,_..,.......... __ _;._.... .~ 17 <i _.. ,""_~."_~.._.~"o,,,_,___......,__~ 161 1 B3 ..,~ May 15, 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: 9:14 AM RECONVENED: 9:40 AM II. APPROV AL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," Agenda #10 and #11, the name of the DAS Officer was corrected to Christopher Johnson. (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County: . Agenda #1, Case #PR 000648 - CEEX 20090004852 - BCC vs. Kathy Dean . Agenda #2, Case #PR 000644 - CEEX 20090004850 - BCC vs. Daryl E. Dean . Agenda #8, Case #DAS 11907 - CEEX 20090004832 - BCC vs. Matthew Berman . Agenda #9, Case #DAS 11908 - CEEX 20090004828 - BCC vs. Matthew Berman . Agenda #10, Case #DAS 11091- CEEX 20090004818 - BCC vs. Matthew Berman . Agenda #11, Case #DAS 11092 - CEEX 20090004804 - BCC vs. Matthew Berman . Agenda #13, Case #CEAU 20080002829 - BCC vs. Lourdes Zafra & Carlos Lago (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: . Agenda #3, Case #PR 000646 - CEEX 20090004847 - BCC vs. Carole V. Lakeway . Agenda #4, Case #PR 000647 - CEEX 20090004849 - BCC vs. Fred Lakeway . Agenda #5, Case #PR 000643 - CEEX 20090005022 - BCC vs. Nanette Lee Boksha 2 -~'" "'~-'--' ;.,__. ''II . - "'--'" "- II_ """.l$4. . " .... ,..- 16.' ll;~3 " May 15, 2009 . Agenda #6, Case #PR 000645 - CEEX 20090005024 - BCC vs. Myron David Boksha (d) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County due to compliance: . Agenda #15, Case #CESD 20080006325 - BCC vs. Charles M. Griffin, Jr., Trustee . Agenda #16, Case #CESD 20080006290 - BCC vs. Charles M. Griffin, Jr., Trustee (e) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was DISMISSED by the County: . Agenda #3, Case #2007070652 - BCC vs. James M. Poteet (f) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was added: . Agenda #8, Case #2006100784 - BCC vs. William Scherer (g) Under Item VII, "Old Business," the following case was added: . Case # CENA 20080005608 - BCC vs. James and Judy Ann Blake The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. III. APPROV AL OF MINUTES Corrections: . Under Item VI(A), "Imposition of Fines" - Agenda #6, Case's #2007100969 & Agenda #7, Case #2007100970 - BCC vs. Y ordanys Hector - the Respondents were not present. . Under Item VI(A), "Imposition of Fines" - Agenda #12 - Case #2007101041 - BCC vs. Sebastiana Romero c/o Raul Romero - the Respondent was not present. . Under Item VI(A), "Imposition of Fines" - Agenda #6 - Case #2007100969 - BCC vs. Yordanya Hector, the correct spelling of the Respondent's name is Y ordany~ The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on May 1,2009 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines - None B. Motion for Continuance 3 ,~--- ,.------...,"...---..--......,., - JIll V__ l . ""... 16111tC~ . y 15,200 14. Case #CEV 20090003089 - BCC vs. Saint Louis Moise The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan was present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec.2.01.00(A) Unlicensed/inoperable trailer Folio No.: 67491080009 Violation Address: 4415 Thomasson Lane The Special Magistrate stated a handwritten note was received by Code Enforcement on May 14,2009 and was not timely-received (i.e., five days before the Hearing). The note was signed by the Respondent's wife and not by the Respondent. There was no proof attached to the note showing the travel plans were made prior to receipt of the Notice of Hearing. The Special Magistrate DENIED the Respondent's Motionfor Continuance. C. Motion for Extension of Time 1. Case #CESD 20080013392 - BCC vs. The Club at Barefoot Beach. Inc.. aka Miramar Beach & Tennis Club. Inc. The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent was represented by Benjamin Heatherington, General Manager. Violations: Collier Co. Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec(s).10.02.06(B)(1 )(A), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(E) & 1O.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I) Permit #920004509 for a boardwalk was issued on April 16, 1992 and expired on October 16, 1992 without obtaining Certification of Completion. Folio No: 54755120753 Violation address: 105 Shell Drive, Bonita Springs Benjamin Heatherington, residing at 16263 Ravina Way, Naples, Florida 34110, appeared on behalf of the Respondent in his capacity as General Manager of The Club at Barefoot Beach, Inc. Frank E. Gore appeared as Sales Manager for Nelson Marine Construction, Inc. Investigator Musse stated the County did not object to the Motion for Extension of Time. Mr. Heatherington stated The Club contracted with Nelson Marine Construction to begin the work on the project. He noted turtle season has begun and no work will be allowed until the end of the season. 4 "._.._"~",-----"'- _~'m 'f'v-<! _._0",. ..c.,~__,.,.___<_."",_.._ - --- 1611Yl~~9 II Mr. Gore stated the permit process has been more lengthy than originally anticipated. An "as built" survey was required, has been ordered, and is in process. Upon receipt of the survey, Nelson Marine will contact Florida DEP to determine what else is needed. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motionfor an Extension of Time and the time was extended to December 18, 2009. The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent will not be required to appear on December 18, 2009 if the County is satisfied there has been compliance. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: None B. Hearings: 7. Case #PR 040287 - CEEX 20090004838 - BCC vs. Jorma Teresinski The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Park Ranger Mauricio Araquistain was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-66 Parking in an unauthorized parking area Violation address: Barefoot Beach access The Respondent resides at 9611 Spanish Moss Way, #3725, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135. The Respondent stated he did park in a space without any painted markings and there were no signs stating that parking was not allowed in the area. Park Ranger Araquistain introduced three photographs which were marked as County's Exhibits "A," "B," and "C" and admitted into evidence. He stated the parking spaces at Barefoot Beach are well-defined. The Respondent had parked in an area that was actually a traffic circle. The Special Magistrate noted parking is not allowed unless in a designated parking spot as defined by white lines. Handicapped parking is also clearly marked. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay a civilfine in the amount of $30.00 and an administrativefee of $5. 00. The Respondent was further 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 June 15, 2009. 5 ....^-- ~ - -.-........"--.,, . ...----"-----..-- 161 1 . . May lsGJ The Respondent asked ifhe had any other recourse. The Special Magistrate explained he has the right to appeal the decision to the Circuit Court within 30 days and he must obtain a transcript of the Hearing. Total Amount Due: $85.00 12. Case #PR 041258 - CEEX 20090004380 - BCC vs. Giroe:ina Oropeza The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Code Enforcement Park Ranger Sherman Burr was also present. [The Investigator stated his last name is "Burr," not Pover as noted on the Agenda.] Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 140-66 Failure to display paid launch receipt. Violation Address: Cocohatchee Marisa The Respondent resides at 441 Tenth Avenue NE, Naples, Florida 34120. The Respondent stated she was waiting for her husband to arrive at the park and had parked the boat trailer. She stated she had purchased a ticket but did not put it on the dashboard because the boat had not been launched. Park Ranger Burr stated there were differences between his copy of the Citation and the Citation received by the Respondent. The Respondent noted the truck is registered in her father's name (Raphael Luyando) but she and her husband own it. She stated her father was not aware of the Hearing since the Notice was sent to her. The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent may pay the fine or the case will be re- noticed and her father will receive a Notice of Hearing. The Special Magistrated CONTINUED the case until it is re-noticed. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 7. Case #CEPM 20080014195 - BCC vs. Ester M. & Jore:e L. Torres The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent, Jorge L. Torres, was present and also represented his wife, Ester. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ord.,. Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Ariele II, Florida Buildilng Code, Section 22-26(103.11.2) 6 ,", "--",~-"'-'-'- - , . . ",,,vl' ~1Il1 ....~ . ....,---,- 161 1 C3 ~ May 15,2009 Pool without a permitted pool enclosure or barrier Folio No. 75460400000 Violation Address: 1340 Center Lane, Naples, FL 34110 The Respondents reside at 1340 Center Lane, Naples, Florida 34110. Investigator Musse stated the violations have not been abated, but the Operational Costs were paid. The County requested imposition of fines in the amount of$3,900 for the period from April 7, 2009 through May 15,2009 ($lOO/day for 39 days), for a total amount of $3,900. The Respondent stated there was a death in his family, and his wife was involved in an automobile accident. He erected two temporary barriers around the pool. He has not had the money to complete the job and was requesting an additional 30 days. He stated the property has been posted with "No Trespassing" signs. The Investigator stated the temporary barrier was erected in a timely manner and the County would not object to granting a Continuance. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Request and CONTINUED the case until June 19, 2009. VII. OLD BUSINESS Case #CENA 20080005608 - BCC vs. James A. Blake and Judv Ann Blake The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were present. Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha was also present. The Respondents reside at 2064 Pineland Street, Naples, Florida 34112. The Special Magistrate stated the subject of the Hearing was the lien imposed for Nuisance Abatement costs. The County declared a nuisance for weed overgrowth on the property, a notice was served and was abated by the County. The cost of the abatement was $285 with an additional $200 for administrative costs, for a total of $485.00. The Respondent stated the property was posted but he did not find the Notice until May 31, 2008. He called Code Enforcement and said he would spray the lot with herbicide. He was told he had a "few days" left to deal with the situation. The property is a vacant lot in Immokalee. He stated he has owned the lot since 1976 and has previously received notification by County Inspectors by phone when the 7 ",-,ft , ...- .- - ,."~ .. 161 1 C3 t May 15, 2009 overgrowth became a problem. He stated the Contractor hired by the County mowed not only his lot but the lot next to his, which is owned by the Johnson family in Tampa. He stated his cost should be half of the amount charged. Investigator Mucha stated there have been four prior violations for the property since 2001. Three weed letters were sent and the property was posted. He stated the County does not regularly call property owners to notify them of violations. The Investigator introduced a photograph of the property taken on April 10, 2008 which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. Mr. Mucha stated he did not realize there were two lots initially. He stated the cost for mowing the Respondent's lot included $255 for the bushhog, $20 for triming the weeds, and $10 for blowing the street. It is the standard cost for a lot. If each lot had been cited, the cost would be $285.00 for "each" lot. Mr. Blake still maintained he was being charged for both lots. The Special Magistrate stated the County is mandated to follow the Ordinance which provides for how Notice can be given. Posting the property fulfills the County's obligation for proper Notice. The Special Magistrate ruled the amount of $485.00 will be liened against the property. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines 8. Case #20061000784 - BCC vs. William Scherer The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Heinz Box. The Respondent was present. Violation: Collier County Ordinance, 2004-58, Sec. 16, Subsections l(A), (B), and (C), 1(1), 2(A) and (B), the Property Maintenance Ordinance Dilapidated vacant commercial structure, minimum non-residential violations including exposed electrical wires, holes in cinderblock walls, etc., as described in the Property Maintenance Inspection Report. Folio No.: 74410481009 Violation Address: 3578 Tamiami Trail E., Naples, FL The Respondent resides as 24790 Wax Myrtle, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134. Investigator Box stated the violations have been abated. 8 ~'"..,. """.,- .-... ...1. .-..". . . .- - 161 1 4C3 . May 15,2009 The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the amount of$260.91, together with fines in the sum of$141,500 for the period from October 5, 2007 through April 22, 2009 ($250/day for 566 days), for a total fine of $141,760.91. The Investigator stated the building was demolished. The issue was the Contractor did not obtain a "fire inspection" in order to have the Certificate of Completion issued. He stated he contacted both the Respondent and the Contractor to notify them of the requirement to obtain a "fire inspection." The Contractor indicated he would handle the matter. The Respondent was not aware of the "fire inspection" requirement until March or April, 2009. He thought his Contractor had completed the job. He stated the Contractor has maintained he was not required to obtain a "fire inspection." The Respondent further stated he was not aware there were Operational Costs until the Hearing. The Respondent stated the Investigator told him there would be no problem to waive the fines. Investigator Heinz asked for a reduction of the fines. The Special Magistrate stated she would assess a fine in the amount of $500.00 in addition to the Operational Costs of$260.91, for a total amount of$760.91. The Respondent stated he is trying to sell the property and will pay the full amount before the end of the Hearing. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the amount of $760.91, but DENIED the County's Motion to Impose a Lien. RECESS: 11:08 AM RECONVENED: 11 :38 AM V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 14. Case #CEV 20090003089 - BCC vs. Saint Louis Moise The Hearing was requested Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec.2.01.00(A) Unlicensed/inoperable trailer Folio No.: 67491080009 9 .-."',--..-----...-...,-.,-- ....""' ... "" H" ~ . ~ "l'",po- ,~---------~-~_.."'-.- 161 1 C3 . ,~ May 15,2009 Violation Address: 4415 Thomasson Lane The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on May 5, 2009. Investigator Keegan stated the Notice of Violation was personally served on the Respondent on April 1, 2009. The violation has been abated, but it has been a recurring violation at the property. The Special Magistrate assessed a fine of$150.00 due to the recurring nature of the violations. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served andfinding the violation did exist but was CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondent was found GUlL TY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $150.00 on or before June 15,2009. The Respondent was further ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $1 I 7.87 on or before June 15, 2009. Total Amount Due: $267.87 C. Emergency Case: None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines 1. Case # CELU 20080003483 - BCC vs. Ventura Flores The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau on behalf of Investigator Carmelo Gomez. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec. 2.02.03 Illegal outside storage of construction materials/equipment. Folio No.: 36560160001 Violation Address: 2936 44th St. SW The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 6, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 4,2009. Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation had been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $248.08. 10 . - .4..1." ...'......_ ._- ""-~ 161 1 C3 . May 15,2009 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $248.08. 2. Case #CEAU 20080003486 - BCC vs. Ventura Flores The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau on behalf of Investigator Carmelo Gomez. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec.5.03.01(A) Erection of a canopy without a building permit. Folio No.: 3650160001 Violation Address: 2936 44th St. SW The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 6, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 4,2009. Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation had been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $248.17. The Special Magistrate GRA4.NTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of$248.17. 4. Case #CEPM 20080005817 - BCC vs. Frank Susi The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau on behalf of Investigator John Santafemia. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier Co. Code of Laws & Ord., Article VI, Chap. 22, Sec. 22-231, Sub(s). 9, 121, & 19A. Minimum housing violations consisting of exposed electrical wiring, Inoperable and broken windows and property littered with debris Folio No.: 62570720007 Violation Address: 606 Illth Ave. N., Naples, FL 34108 The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 8, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 5, 2009. Investigator Letourneau stated the violations had been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$117.52. II ._~~-_.._..._----~ ill '-""'."""'1' - ' -".,,_.."-,--_..........._~"",..^~_........_-- 16la~5,~k3 . The Special Magistrate GRA4.NTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $117.52. 5. Case # CEDS 20080011167 - BCC vs. Frank Susi The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier Co. Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sec(s). 1O.02.06(B)(1)(A), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(E) & 1O.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I) Shed build without obtaining proper Collier Co. permits. Folio No.: 62570720007 Violation Address: 606 lllth Ave. N., Naples, FL 34108 The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 8, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 5, 2009. Investigator Musse stated the violations have not been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $117.70, together with fines in the amount of $2,800 for the period from March 21, 2009 through May 15,2009 ($50/day for 56 days), for a total amount of$2,917.70 The Special Magistrate GRA4.NTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $2,917.70 and noted fines will continue to accrue. 6. Case #CENA 20080014239 - BCC vs. Peter E. Thomas The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Law, Chapter 54, Article VI, Sec(s). 54-181 and 54-179 Unauthorized accumulation of litter and litter declared to be a public nUIsance. Folio No.: 62768400003 Violation Address: 748 96th Avenue N. Supervisor Waldron stated the County had dismissed the case due to payment. VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: 12 1:,._ "'..... ,-, ..0 16 t!J5,CoO~ ~ A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the submitted Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's request toforward the cases to the County Attorney's Office. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on cases referenced in submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's request to impose Nuisance Abatement Liens. IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE - Friday, June 5, 2009 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, 330I 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 :55 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING ~so~rate, The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on J ~.. 5~orl1 , as presented _, or as amended ~ . 13 -,,-~,-,~._."--"~-,~,--"~-"-'----- -- .."" ..- ~ .. ~... ... 161 te ~Go~ . MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Fiala F. . ~'jEIVE[i Halas ! Henning JUN 2 it 2009 Naples, Florida, June 5, 2009 Coyle . ''',"lid (.if Count'l Commissioners Coletta !' 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 ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Michele McGonagle, Administrative SecreMilo/CorreS: Oate:_ I Item ~. _,__~_ :-cpies ill. -----_._-~---"".._--" IN -.----..'.'---- 161 1 . . JuneC 39 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: 9:12 AM RECONVENED: 9:34 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item V (A), Stipulations were reached in the following cases: . Agenda #5, Case #CESD 20090002088 - BCC vs. Jose A. Ortega . Agenda #6, Case #CEPM 20090002094 - BCC vs. Jose A. Ortega . Agenda #7, Case #CENA 20090003481- BCC vs. Joseph Matura Est. . Agenda #3, Case #CELU 20090001878 - BCC vs. Reynold & Anne Jean- Louis (b) Under Item V (B), ~~Hearings," the following case was WITHDRA WN by the County: . Agenda #2, Case #PR 000153 - CEEX 20090005249 - BCC vs. Terri Lynn Heck (c) Under Item V (C), "Emergency Cases," the following case was ADDED to the Agenda: . #PU 3838 - CEEX 20090009050 - BCC vs. Santa Barbara Granada Villas, LLC (d) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was DISMISSED by the County: . Agenda #6, Case #CEPM 20080013722 - BCC vs. Alfredo & Miradis Miralles (e) Under Item VI (A), "Motionfor Imposition of Fines," the following case was ADDED to the Agenda: . Agenda #8, Case #CENA 20080016562 - BCC vs. James & Debra Gadsden (t) Under Item VII, "Old Business," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: 2 -.-,-... .._..~_...- _.,".~-,-.-,._^....._,_.,,--'- 16 I: le5Cc3 ~ . Agenda #1, Case #CENA 20080007654 - BCC vs. Naples Custom Properties, LLC . Agenda #2, Case #CENA 20080007656 - BCC vs. Naples Custom Properties, LLC (g) Under Item IX, "Reports," the following cases were ADDED to the Agenda: . Case #CEVFH 20080008631- BCC vs. Clean Ride Limo, Inc. . Case #CEVFH 20080007320 - BCC vs. Clean Ride Limo, Inc. . Case #CEVFH 20080007285 - BCC vs. Clean Ride Limo, Inc. . Case #CEVFH 20080007692 - BCC vs. Bobby D. Calvert . Case #CEVFH 20080007684 - BCC vs. Neil Walmsley The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Corrections: . Agenda #14 - Case CEV 20090003089 - BCC vs. Saint Louis Moise, the Case should also be added under "Approval of Agenda" . Under IV(C), "Motion for Extension of Time," Case CESD 20080013392 - BCC vs. The Club at Barefoot Beach Inc., a/k/a Miramar Beach & Tennis Club, Inc., the Hearing was requested by the Respondent, not Collier County Code Enforcement. The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on May 1,2009 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 C. Motion for Extension of Time - None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 5. Case #CESD 20090002088 - BCC vs. Jose A. Ortee:a The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. The Respondent was not present. 3 .",,,,,,,,,,, - ...~ .'_. ~ H'~_""_"-' '. "~~._.<___ ~... - ..._..~''- - .- -,,-. - ---~~---~,~._----,- 161 le~39 . Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22 Building and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22- 26(b)(104.1.3.5) & Collier Co. Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sec(s). 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) Two unpermitted additions to mobile home without first obtaining Collier County approval, permits, required inspections and Certificate of Completion Folio No: 61840440209 Violation address: 3085 Karen Drive, Naples, FL A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on June 2, 2009. Investigator Keegan stated the Respondent had admitted the violations were present. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to either obtain the necessary permits, inspections and a Certificate of Completion for all improvements and/or additions, or obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion to remove the additions on or before July 5, 2009, or afine of $100. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117. 96 on or before July 5, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.96 6. Case #CEPM 20090002094 - BCC vs. Jose A. Ortee:a The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22, Article VI, Sec. 22- 243 Unsecured windows on vacant mobile home Folio No: 61840440209 Violation address: 3085 Karen Drive, Naples, FL A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on June 3, 2009. 4 ....--.-..--- ,.__........._...__._---_.~.' -- -~ ..-~._._~.,~"---_.""*'-"'.._."-"~,~..-'".~~._...,~_. 16L18~ "' Investigator Keegan stated the Respondent had admitted the violations were present. 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 Certificate and secure all openings on or before June IO, 2009 or afine of$100.00 a day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter. The Respondent was further ordered to either obtain the necessary permits, inspections and a Certificate of Completion to repair any and all openings on the mobile home, or to obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion to remove the mobile home on or before September 5,2009, or afine of $100. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $1 I 7.70 on or before July 5,2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117. 70 7. Case #CENA 20090003481 - BCC vs. Joseph Matura Est The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent was represented by Rachael Matura, the daughter. Santos Herrera appeared as a witness. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article VI, Sec. 54-181 and 54-179 Unauthorized accumulation of litter and litter declared to be a public nmsance. Folio No: 48780120000 Violation address: 2925 Pine Tree Drive, Naples A Stipulation was entered into by Rachael Matura on behalf of the Estate of Joseph Matura on June 5. 2009. Ms. Matura resides at 4000 Coconut Circle South, Naples, Florida 34104 and is the beneficiary of the Estate of Joseph Matura. Mr. Herrera resides at 2925 Pine Tree Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 as a tenant. He 5 -,- '.....,..., T t T Y ...... ~ -IV_ 4ll,t, '. '""_.;"H""___"';"''''......._.___,._.__.....".,"__~..'"_'''_.'''''~'~'_."~.-.._,,-""'""'- 16 I Jle<.t3 - stated he would be able to remove the litter by the deadline agreed to in the Stipulation. Investigator Keegan stated Ms. Matura admitted violations exist at the property. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to remove all litter from the premises to an appropriate disposal facility on or before the close of business on June 12,2009, or afine of $100.00 a day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $118. 05 on or before July 5, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $118.05 3. Case #CELU 20090001878 - BCC vs. Reynold & Anne Jean-Louis The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Carmelo Gomez who was represented by Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letoumeau. Respondent, Anne Jean-Louis, was present. Miguel Jean-Louis served as a translator for his mother. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Section(s) 2.02.03 Storage of materials on lawn, driveway and backyard Folio No: 35983720003 Violation address: 4735 25th Avenue SW Mrs. Anne Jean-Louis resides at 4735 25th Avenue SW, Naples, Florida. A Stipulation was entered into by Anne Jean-Louis on behalf of herself on June 5, 2009. Miguel J ean- Louis stated his mother and father are separated, and his father does not reside at the property. He stated he informed his father of the Notice. The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 22, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 12, 2009. 6 ...,-..---.----- "I .....,_T'1 >~,.,"," . '. "-'-""'-"-""'"'''"''-'''''&-''"-~' ......-...- 161 lJuCs~o9 " Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents werefound GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to remove the materialfrom the premises to an appropriate disposal facility or store it in a completely enclosed structure on or before June 19, 2009, or a fine of $1 00.00 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of$117.52 on or before July 5, 2009. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.52 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 1. Case #SO 154184 - CEEX 20090007639 - BCC vs. Erica MoniQue Garcia The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Sheriffs Deputy James Jaeger was not present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-67 Parking in a handicapped space. Folio No: Violation address: Noah's Landing The Respondent resides at 10585 Noah's Circle, #320, Naples, Florida 34116. Supervisor Waldron verified the Sheriffs Office was notified of the Hearing and received confirmation of receipt of the Agenda. The Respondent moved for dismissal of the case. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for Dismissal. 4. Case #CEV 20090003564 - BCC vs. Stephen T. & Doreen Spauldine: The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Carmelo Gomez who was represented by Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau. Respondent, Stephen T. Spaulding, was also present and represented his wife, Doreen Spaulding. 7 .- 'W"~_. 161 Jle5~J ;~ Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Section(s) 4.05.03 Multiple vehicles parked on grass - Repeat Violation Folio No: 36000360002 Violation address: 4589 30th Avenue SW The Respondents reside at 4589 30th Avenue SW, Naples, Florida. The Notice of Violation was sent on March 31, 2009 via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on April 4, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation had not been abated and introduced one photograph, taken on June 4,2009, which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and entered into evidence. There have been two other cases regarding the same violation for the property. The Respondent stated he works two jobs and is not home in the evenings when his sons' friends come over and park wherever they want. He stated he will consult the Planning Department to determine what measures are available, i.e., having stakes or crushed stone placed in the yard to deter parking on the grass. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to park all vehicles on either a pervious or imperviously-treated surface on or before June 10, 2009, or afine of $50.00 a day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondents were 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 August 5, 2009. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.61 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines 3. Case #2006100419 - BCC vs. Garv L. Hauze The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. The Respondent was also present. 8 .....".,--. . --~.__.,'~_. 161 tP2~ t).~ Violations: Collier County LDC 04-41, as amended, Sec. 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) and Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, as adopted by Collier Co., Sec. 105.1 Barn built on estates zoned property without required Collier Co. permits Folio No: 37493120007 Violation address: 280 10th Ave. NE, 34120 The Respondent lives at 280 10th Avenue NE, Naples, Florida 34120. Investigator Scavone stated the Operational Costs of $117.96 were paid, but the violation has not been abated and fines will continue to accrue. The County requested Imposition of Fines in the sum of $26,000 for the period from September 19,2008 through June 5, 2009 (260 days @ $lOO/day), for a total amount of $26,000. The Respondent stated he hired an Engineer who inspected the pole barn and signed the Affidavit for the "Permit by Affidavit." He also paid the fee to obtain a new permit and is waiting for it to be issued. He was told he would be contacted by the County after the document had been reviewed. The Investigator verified the permit is currently in "applied/pending" status. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case until August 7, 2009. Investigator Waldron stated she will provide the Respondent with contact information for the County's Citizen Liaison. 7. Case #CEPM 20080016074 - BCC vs. Isabel Mancha Estate c/o Irene & Rosa Mancha The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha and Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau. Respondent Irene Mancha was also present. Julia Mancha appeared as a witness. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chap. 22, Article VI, Sec.22-231, Subs. 1 and 2 Single family residence being occupied without being connected to electricity or water Folio No: 60181000008 Violation address: 218 5th Street N., Immokalee, FL 34142 Irene Mancha resides at 531 County Road 830, Felda, Florida, and her mailing address is Post Office Box 642, Felda, Florida 33930. 9 >~---- . ----,.._-~ - - 161 luneGJ ~ ,-.' Julia Mancha resides at 309 Fairview Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. Rosa Mancha resides in South Carolina. Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation has not been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs of $177.78, together with fines in the sum of$1,500 for the period from May 7, 2009 through June 5,2009 (30 days @ $50/day), for a total amount of$1,617.78. Investigator Mucha stated Irene Mancha had previously signed a Stipulation agreeing to demolish the mobile home but has changed her mind and now wishes to repair the vacated premises which has been secured by boarding. It is no longer a health, safety or welfare issue. Irene Mancha stated the trailer is also under the name of her sister, Rosa Mancha, who did not agree to the demolition. The Special Magistrate asked Irene Mancha if she had the authority to represent her sister, Rosa, at the previous Hearing. She responded she thought she did, but her sister did not agree. The Special Magistrate ruled the case will be CONTINUED to August 7, 2009, and the standing Order will not be stayed. The Special Magistrate ordered the County to send a Notice of Hearing to appear at the August 7, 2009 Hearing to Rosa Mancha at 132 Millbury Drive, Summerville, South Carolina. Irene Mancha is to contact the Code Enforcement office before the close of business on Monday, June 8, 2009, to confirm the correct address for Rosa Mancha. The Special Magistrate stated if Irene Mancha wishes to repair the trailer she must file a joint motion with her sister requesting the Special Magistrate to modify the standing Order. If a motion is not filed, the County may abate the violation by demolishing the trailer. Thefine of $50. 00 per day will continue to accrue. RECESS: 11:10 AM RECONVENED: 11 :28 AM VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines 10 ",.....------ .",,,.-.. "__"_'0 -----,--- 161 ln~,~o9 . 8. Case #CENA 20090016562 - BCC vs. James & Debra Gadsden The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative Supervior Kitchell Snow. The Respondent, James Gadsden, was represented by his son, Scotty Gadsden, as the Legal Guardian. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article VI, Sec(s). 54-181, 54-179, and 54-184 Unauthorized accumulation of litter and litter declared to be a public nUIsance. Folio No.: 135720006 Violation Address: 620 Maple Drive South, Immokalee, Florida Scotty Gadsden resides at 100 Maple Avenue North, Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936. The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 28, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. Scotty Gadsden signed the delivery receipt. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 21, 2009. Investigator Snow stated Scotty Gadsden shall be included as a Respondent. The Investigator stated the violation was abated by the County on May 8, 2009. Scotty Gadsden stated his father was divorced from Debra Gadsden, his stepmother, and the property was to have been titled in Ms. Gadsden's name solely by the attorney who represented Mr. Gadsden during the divorce. The Special Magistrate stated it is the obligation of the property owner to notify the Tax Collector's Office of any change of address, which was not done by Debra Gadsden. The Special Magistrate noted the requirements of Ordinance regarding Notice had been met. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the amount of $117.87, together with fines in the sum of $8,400 for the period from March 28, 2009 through June 5, 2009 (42 days @ $200/day) plus reimbursement to the County for abatement costs in the sum of $4,080, for a total amount of$12,597.87. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $12,597.87. Scotty Gadsden stated he did not want to pay the lien if the property legally belonged to Debra Gadsden. He stated he had maintained the property until the time the parties went to Court regarding the divorce proceedings. II --- IT._ - .----"","'.." - ..... --- 161 LlC3 t1 The Special Magistrate suggested Scotty Gadsden contact the attorney to determine why the transfer oftitle to the property did not take place. She informed Mr. Gadsden he is entitled to appeal the decision within thirty days after the Order is entered, and he can also file a Motion for a Rehearing within ten days. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: C. Emergency Case: Case #PU 3838 - CEEX 20090009050 - BCC vs. Santa Barbara Granada Villas. LLC. The Hearing was requested by Collier County Public Utilities Enforcement Investigator Ray Addison who was present. Erin Helfert appeared as a witness for the County. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Ord. 2005-44, Section(s) 9(4) Petressible waste on ground consisting of, but not limited to, used diapers, food, paint, motor oil not containerized in front of Building 201 Folio No.: 00400200002 Violation Address: 201 Santa Clara Drive, Naples, Florida Ms. Helfert resides at 429 Hedgewood Street, Lehigh Acres, Florida 33974. The Notice of Violation was posted at the property on May 22, 2009. The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property on May 27, 2009 and at the Courthouse on May 28,2009. Notices were also mailed, via Certified and regular mail delivery, to the Respondent at 1401 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 401, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. The Special Magistrate noted the requirements of the Ordinance regarding Notice had been met. Investigator Addison provided the following history: . July 11,2008 - Investigator Cascio issued a Notice of Violation for insufficient trash recepticles in addition to a Citation for health, safety, and welfare violations (first offense) . July 12,2008 - Invesitgator Casio returned, violation had not been abated and Citation #PU 4351 was issued ($105 - second offense) . July 18, 2008 - the Investigator returned for a recheck and the violation had been abated . September 2, 2008 - Investigator Andreski issued Citation #PU 4435 - repeat violation of the same offense . September 8, 2008 - Investigator Andreski issued Citation #PU 4438 for a mandatory Court appearance before the Special Magistrate (third offense) and requested a fine of $500 due to the health, safety, and welfare issue. The 12 - --. - 16 L~J9 '. , " Special Magistrate increased the fine to $750 plus Operational Costs/administrative fees (total: $805) which had not been paid . March 3, 2009 - Investigator Addison issued Citation #PU 3834 for a mandatory Court appearance before the Special Magistrate (fourth offense) for the same violation. . April 17, 2009 - The Special Magistrate assessed a fine of $5,000 due to severity of the health, safety and welfare issue (plus Operational/administrative costs) to be paid on or before May 17, 2009. The Order was posted at the property, but the fine of$5,055 has not been paid . May 21, 2009 - Investigator Addison issued Citation #PU 3838 for a mandatory Court appearance (fifth offense) which is the subject of the current Hearing . May 30, 2009 - the violation remained and become worse . June 1,2009 - a drive-by of the property was conducted and the violation was noted to have been abated . June 5, 2009 - a violation has been noted in another location (Building 116) Erin Helfert stated the correct name of the condomium association is Granada Lakes Villas Condominium Association, Inc. H is one of two Associations at the property. The attorney for the Condo Association asked her to explain that Santa Barbara Landings Property Owners Association, Inc. is the Master Association and is controlled by the developer whose offices are in Coral Gables. The Master Association controls all of the common elements of the community including the waste recepticles. The Sub-Association, Granada Lakes, is controlled by a Board of Directors and oversees the buildings. The Granada Lakes Association has filed suit (Case #09-4793-CA) to force turnover of the Master Association which the developer has refused to do until a portion of the rear of the property is completed. Ms. Helfert further stated the developer is no longer performing any maintenance, and the Master Association is refusing to permit access to common elements to either the management company, KW Lakes, or the Sub-Association. Investigator Addison requested assessment of a "super fine" due to the severity of the health, safety and welfare issue. He suggested an amount of$15,000. The Special Magistrate ruled the case was a repeat violation (5th offense) of a health, safety and welfare issue. No efforts were made by the Respondent to comply until June 1,2009. The Special Magistrate assessed afine in the amount of $25,000. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $25,055 (Super fine - $25,000 plus Operational Costs - $50.00 plus an administrativefee - $5.00) to be paid on or before July 5, 2009. 13 , -,--",.._~_..~,--,."-~.~-.~~.... 161 1'y,"C~ II It was noted that Code Enforcement may request the issuance of a subpoena to compel the developer's appearance at a Hearing for the newly-issued Citation (Building 116). The Order will be posted at the property by Investigator Addison. VII. OLD BUSINESS 3. Case #CENA 20080004434 - BCC vs. Rick Levine The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha was also present. The Respondent resides at 853 Porter Street, Lehigh Acres, Florida 33974. Violation: Nuisance Abatement Amount of Lien: $2,200.00 Date: May 1, 2009 The Respondent stated he was not notified of the May 1 st hearing. He further stated Detective Strickland of the Sheriffs Department had instructed him to refrain from visiting the property or collecting rent due to an ongoing investigation. It was approximately 90 - 120 days before the case was wrapped up. He boarded the mobile home and removed the exotic pepper tree hedge and other debris (7 trailer loads). He obtained a permit from Collier County and demolished the trailer. The cost was approximately $15,000 between the lost rent, the cost of the permit and the cost of demolition. When he was first notified by the County, he called and was told that possibly other properties were involved. Investigator Mucha stated the County was requesting a Continuance in order to investigate the invoice received by the County from the Contractor. . In March, 2008, a letter was sent to the Respondent advising him of the nuisance . On July 14,2008, the County abated the violation by a Contractor The Respondent stated he performed the clean-up himself prior to leaving in June. Corporal Mike Taylor, Collier County Sheriffs Office, stated he has photographs of the work being done by the Respondent which he will supply to Code Enforcement. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motionfor a Continuance to July 8, 2009. The Respondent stated if the photographs could not be emailed to him, he will meet Investigator Mucha at the Immokalee office to review the photographs. 14 -. - "'1 ,.. '_...._._,_._~-----~---""._-~----'~"',.~---_._-- 161 1~35';! V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: B. Hearings: 10. Case #CEPM 20090002388 - BCC vs. AU2ustin & Marie O. Dalusma The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Kitchell Snow who was present. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231 (14),22-231(5),22-231(9),22- 231(10), 22-231(12)(b), 22-231(12)(c), 22-231(12)(i), 22-231(12)(1), 22- 231(12)(p), 22-231(13), 22-231(19), 22-231(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 sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 30, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 21, 2009. Supervisor Snow stated a Lis Pendens has been filed against the property. Corporal Mike Taylor, Collier County Sheriffs Office, stated the property owner signed a "No Trespass" Agreement and noted the property is going into foreclosure. Supervisor Snow introduced thirteen photographs which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "B" and entered into evidence. He also introduced 14 photographs which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "C" and entered into evidence. The Supervisor noted the property is going into foreclosure and requested all costs/fees to be assessed to the property. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion to remove the mobile home on or before June 10, 2009, or afine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the property. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondents are ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $1 I 8.40 on or before July 5,2009. 15 _"_0" ..._-".._-"~-~.,,.",,,",.",.."~,,,-~~...._-- 161 1~3oo9 -. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $118.40 RECESS: 12:54 PM RECONVENED: 1:05 PM V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: B. Hearings: 8. Case #CEPM 20090003069 - BCC vs. Bavshore Club LP Indiana Ltd. Partnership c/o Pinnacle Properties The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22, Article VI, Sec. 22-243 Recurring violation of numerous vacant units with unsecured doors and windows creating a health and safety hazard Folio No: 61836480008 Violation address: 4580 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 27, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 12, 2009. Investigator Keegan stated a Lis Pendens was filed against the property and the bank's representative had been present earlier to observe the proceedings. He further stated he met Williams Bayes, the bank's vice president, on March 23, 2009 at the premises. The Notice of Violation was issued. Mr. Bayes signed a "No Trespass" Agreement with the Sheriffs Office on April 20, 2009. The Investigator introduced eight photographs, taken on May 18,2009, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and entered into evidence. He noted the premises is vacant, and the violations have 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 Certificate and secure all openings (approximately 40 units) on or before June 10,2009, or afine of $100.00 per unit per dav will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter. The Respondent was further ordered to either obtain the necessary permits, inspections and a Certificate of Completion to repair all openings at the vacant structure, or obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit to demolish the complex, 16 ~"-~.,~.,,,.,,"--- ... ~-----"._.... ..>_..."..,,~_~"__.._'H.__."<'__~_"~""____ 161 IJuntl309 I 1 all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion on or before September 5, 2009, or a fine of $1 00. 00 per unit per dav will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.70 on or before July 5, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.70 9. Case #CEAU 20090003065 - BCC vs. Bavshore Club LP Indiana Ltd. Partnership c/o Pinnacle Properties The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Chapter 1 Permits, Section 105.1 and Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 5.03 .02(A) Chain link fence in need of removal or repair, large sections of fencing missing and destroyed Folio No: 61836480008 Violation address: 4580 Bayshore Drive, Naples The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 27, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 12, 2009. Investigator Keegan introduced seven photographs which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit '"A" and entered into evidence. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to either obtain the necessary permits, inspections and a Certificate of Completion to repair the fencing, or obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit to remove the fencing, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion on or before June 12, 2009, or afine of $50.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. 17 -.".. . - ."-~,-,,".,,-,,....._..,-~ 161 1 ~, 20~~ The Respondent is ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of$lI7.87 on or before July 5, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $lI7.87 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines 1. Case #CEV 20090001402 - BCC vs. Rufina Cruz & Moises Hernandez The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code Ord. 04-41, as amended, Sec.2.01.00(A) Unlicensed/inoperable vehicle parked/stored on residential zoned property. Folio No: 52700240008 Violation address: 3156 Van Buren Avenue The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 22, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 22, 2009. Investigator Keegan stated the violations had been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the amount of $117.78. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $117. 78. 2. Case #CENA 20090001013 - Jean Claude Martel The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-179, 54-180, and 54-181 Repeat violation of litter Folio No: 61839320000 Violation address: 3190 Karen Drive 18 ~- ,~_..,.-------_.,._.~._~ 161 1 Ju~C,J09 . The Notice of Hearing was personally delivered to the Respondent on May 19,2009 by Investigator Keegan. The Notice of Hearing was also sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on June 1, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. Investigator Keegan stated the violation had been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$117.78 together with fines in the amount of $2,100 for the period from April 21 through April 27, 2009 (7 days at $300/day) and a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000, for a total amount of$7,217.78. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $7,217.78. 4. Case #CESD 20080009445 - BCC vs. Odet A. Mendez The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau on behalf of Investigator Renald Paul. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sec. 1O.02.06(B)(1)( a) Garage conversion without obtaining a building permit Folio No: 35880920003 Violation address: 1924 41st St.SW, Naples, 34116 The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 29, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 12, 2009. Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation has not been abated and fines continue to accrue. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$117.43 together with fines in the amount of $9,000 for the period from April 22, 2009 through June 5, 2009 (45 days at $200/day), for a total amount of$9,117.43. The Supervisor noted the foreclosed property was scheduled to be auctioned on June 2, 2009. He did not have the results of the action. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $9,117.43 and noted that fines con tin ue to accrue. 19 - __..___w"~.'__~"_____W 161 1 C,32009' 5. Case #CEPM 20080009793 - BCC vs. Alee:ro Owens and Lillie Bell Owens The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau and Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22, Article VI, Sec. 22- 231, Sub(s). 1-5,9-11, 12(b), 12(c), 12(i)-12(p), 19 and 20 Abandoned and unsecured mobile home maintained in deteriorated condition. Folio No: 56401280004 Violation address: 304 Rose Ave., Immokalee, 34142 The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 27, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 22,2009. Supervisor Letourneau stated the County abated the violation on March 24,2009. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $118.22 together with fines in the amount of $31,750 for the period from November 18, 2008 through March 24, 2009 (127 days at $250/day), and reimbursement of abatement costs to the County of$2,824.95, for a total amount of$34,693.17. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $34,693.17. VII. OLD BUSINESS 4. CASE NO: PR042197 - CEEX20090002325 OWNER: Roger and Patricia Rutherford The Respondents paid the Citation fee and submitted a letter which enclosed a copy of their check. The County requested the Order be rescinded. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Request to Rescind the Order. 5. CASE NO: 2005110400 OWNER: Mario Alberto Garcia The Respondent paid the Operational Costs ($455.50), but still owes the sum of $250 for the one day that the property was out of compliance. The Order imposed an incorrect amount of the lien. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion to Amend the previous 20 . . - >",",~..._,."...,._.'",_,,,~,"."_L>_~ 1611lQ~2oo9 . Order. The Special Magistrate waived the fine. VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the submitted Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's request to forward the referenced cases to the County Attorney's Office. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases referenced in submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the one case cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's request to impose a Nuisance Abatement Lien. IX. REPORTS: 1. CASE NO: CO-00194 CEVFH20080007574 OWNER: Clean Ride Limo, Inc. . Case #CQ-00197 CEVFH 20080008631 - BCC vs. Clean Ride Limo, Inc. . Case #CO-00192 CEVFH 20080007320 - BCC vs. Clean Ride Limo, Inc. . Case #CO-00193 CEVFH 20080007285 - BCC vs. Clean Ride Limo, Inc. . Case #CO-00195 CEVFH 20080007692 - BCC vs. Bobby D. Calvert . Case #CO-00196 CEVFH 20080007684 - BCC vs. Neil Walmsley The Special Magistrate stated she will enter an Order in the above-referenced cases resolving the following issues based upon the Findings of Fact: Issues: I. Whether the provisions of Collier County's Vehicle for Hire Ordinance are in conflict with any Florida Statutes. II. Whether Florida Statutes, Section 322.41, is a prohibition against imposition of the requirements of Collier County's Vehicle for Hire Ordinance as a condition to operating in Collier County and, therefore, exempts Clean Ride Limo from the requirements of Collier County's Vehicle for Hire Ordinance No. 2006-59 by virtue of holding a commercial driver's license. III. Whether Clean Ride Limo's registration with the FDOT is equivalent to a "license" which, pursuant to Section 142-28(b) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance, would exempt Clean Ride Limo from the requirements of Collier County's Vehicle for Hire Ordinance No. 2006-59. IV. Whether the Respondents are in violation of the Collier County Vehicle for Hire Ordinance. 21 -- ~--- --_.-..,-.__._"--_.-._"~.,~.,-~-=._..~-~-- 161J15,C03 .1 Findin2S of Fact: I. No. II. No, the requirements of the Ordinance are separate and distinct from the granting of a privilege to drive. The Ordinance regulates commercial operation, not the ability to drive in Collier County. III. No. IV. Yes. The Special Magistrate stated appropriate penalties will be assessedfor each violation and the Order will he sent to the Respondents and to the County. 2. CASE NO: DAS 11929 OWNER: Danielle Smith 3. CASE NO: DAS 11930 OWNER: Danielle Smith 4. CASE NO: DAS 11931 OWNER: Danielle Smith 5. CASE NO: DAS 11932 OWNER: Danielle Smith 6. CASE NO: DAS 11933 OWNER: Danielle Smith 7. CASE NO: DAS 11934 OWNER: Danielle Smith 8. CASE NO: DAS 11935 OWNER: Danielle Smith 9. CASE NO: DAS 11936 OWNER: Danielle Smith 10. CASE NO: DAS 11937 OWNER: Danielle Smith 11. CASE NO: DAS 11938 OWNER: Danielle Smith 22 ~......"_..._-_._~-,._.,..... .----.-.-- - --..-..,... 1611un~C3 .1 Issues: I. In Cases #DAS 11929 through 11937, whether the Respondent deprived any animal of good and wholesome water. II. In Case #DAS 11938, whether the Respondent was in violation ofthe Ordinance prohibiting the creation of a sanitary nuisance around a trailer housing two pigs. Findin2s of Fact: I. Yes. II. Yes. The Special Magistrate stated in all of the above-referenced cases, the Respondent was found guilty and the written Orders will reflect the Factual Findings. . In each ofthe first nine cases (#DAS 11929 through 11937), a fine of $250.00 was assessed, together with Operational Costs of$50.00 and administrative fee of $7.00 ($307.00). . In Case #DAS 11938, a fine of $100.00 was assessed, together with Operational Costs of $50.00 and administrative fee of $7.00, for a total of $157.00. . The fines and costs are to be paid on or before July 5,2009. X. NEXT HEARING DATE _ Friday, June 19,2009 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 1 :57 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING renda Garretson, Special Magistrate, The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on J\Mt \"l \ ~ , as presented ' or as amended V" 23