The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 05/12/2009 Item #16I 161 . ~,., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE May 12, 2009 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of March 2, 2009. 2) Animal Services Advisory Board: Minutes of February 17,2009. 3) Collier County Clam Bay Advisory Committee: Minutes of January 20, 2009; February 19,2009. a) Clam Bay Navigational Marker Subcommittee: Minutes of February 6,2009. b) Clam Bay Maintenance Dredging and Sand Bypassing Subcommittee: Minutes of March 9, 2009. c) Clam Bay Water Quality, Mixing and Runoff Subcommittee: March 9, 2009. 4) Collier County Coastal Advisorv Committee: Minutes of January 8, 2009; March 12,2009. 5) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of April 2, 2009. Minutes of February 19,2009; February 20, 2009 Special Session; February 26, 2009 Special Session; March 2, 2009 Special Session; March 5, 2009. 6) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of March 4, 2009. 7) Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of January 29,2009; February 5, 2009; February 27,2009; March 4,2009. 8) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of March 10,2009. Minutes of January 6,2009. 161 .;~ lit 9) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee: Agenda of January 26, 2009; February 3, 2009 Special Meeting. Minutes of January 26, 2009; February 3,2009 Special Meeting. 10) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of FebruarY)26, 2009. 11) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Minutes of February 4, 2009; February 23, 2009 Special Session; March 4, 2009. a) Budget Committee: Minutes of January 26,2009; February 23, 2009. b) Management Review Committee: Minutes of January 26, 2009; February 12,2009, 12) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee: Minutes of March 12,2009. 13) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of February 5,2009; March 5, 2009; March 9, 2009. Minutes of February 5, 2009. Fiala ~iJ~ 161 1 A-\ v 'ECEIVED APR 1 0 2009 Halas -- i . March 2, 2009 Henning J of County Commissioners Coyle '~ ':'oletta =~. Skl / ' MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 2, 2009 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 Brian Goguen Christine Jones Kenneth Kelly Sally Masters Patrick Peck (Excused) J ames Pusateri Bradley Schiffer (Excused) Chris Spencer-Alternate (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing & Human Services Frank Ramsey, Housing Manager Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor fli:sc. Corres Date:J2_?jtd-) b'1 I tern # 1 G L ( 0 A- \ ""..~",,--_.-.,,_..~_.,,- -~ ..,ck:"s'to "-"",.~----- .............. ,--.....,--_.-._,_..,_..~"-~-_.,_._-- .~ 161 1 t'rl March 2, 2009 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hruby at 3:02 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. 3. Approval of Minutes The following correction was noted: . Page 4, under "Item 4 - Approval of Agenda," the Motion was made by Bradley Schiffer. James Pusateri moved to approve the Minutes of the February 2,2009 Meeting as amended. Second by Corbin Giblin. Carried unanimously, 9-0. 4. Approval of Agenda Sally Masters moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Christine Jones. Carried unanimously, 9-0. 5. Information Items A. Presentation by H.O.M.E. - John Barlow, Vice President RO.M.E. - "Housing Opportunities Made for Everyone, Inc." John Barlow announced that H.O.M.E. will celebrate its first anniversary in May, 2009. H.O.M.E. was begun to take advantage of opportunities available in Collier County to provide affordable housing through the purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties. . There were 7,872 foreclosures in Collier County in 2008 . ARM ("Adjustable Rate Mortgage") rate changes have contributed to the abundance of foreclosed properties . Abandoned properties are left in various states of disrepair RO.M.E.-owned properties: 9 - Golden Gate City; 2 - East Naples; 1 - Estates Property Requirements: . Foreclosed property must be abandoned for a minimum period of 90 days before it is eligible for purchase . List price of $1 00,000 or less . Close proximity to schools and public transportation Eligibility Requirements: . Buyers must earn 80% (or less) of Average Median Income ("AMI" - $53,600) Mortgage payment must be no more than 30% of AMI . Mortgage cap: $164,682 (including repair costs) . Buyer must be employed for a minimum of two years; verification of income/credit . Buyer must be approved by a participating Loan Consortium Bank . The property will become the primary residence of the buyer . Buyer/family must pass the Clerk of Court's background check 2 ..-,--------.- ,._.,"-~-, _^_'~...*.~~,.__".._n_.,_. -"-'''-'-'--'~',''''''~',''-''....... .--.,,--..-. 16 I 1 A\ March 2, 2009 RO.M.E.'s first property closed in December, 2008 and three are scheduled to close in April, 2009, The goal is to close a total of 12 properties by the end of May, 2009. Rehabilitation process: . Six weeks from issuance of permit to the final inspection of a Certificate of Occupancy. . Title must be free of encumbrances . All Code Enforcement violations must be abated prior to sale of the property Mr. Barlow stated Florida is scheduled to receive approximately $1 OOM in "Stimulus" funds. He suggested it is time for Collier County to contact its State and Federal legislative representatives to obtain its "fair share" of available funding. ("There is a perception in Tallahassee that Collier County does not needfimds. ") He stated time is of the essence, and a way found to minimize the red tape so the process will be more efficient. Questions from Committee: "Has the demandfor affordable housing diminished due to lowered purchase prices? ,. . Rehabbed properties do not compete with the new home market. "How can the process be changed? '.' . The process must become more efficient, the slightest change to the plans requires additional approval which can take up to six more weeks to receive . Charge a fair tax based on the current purchase price, not assessed value . A new homeowner can appeal an assessment - H.G.M.E. will assist as much as possible with paperwork "What was your profit margin on the first house sold?" . The first house was a test case n a learning experience. There wasn't any real profit. "How is HOME. dealing with unpermitted additions to a property?"" . Ifthe renovation isn't legal, such as a garage converted into a bedroom, it is returned to the original use. . Code violations are abated because potential buyers can not afford to make the required repairs after saving for down payment. "How was HOME. able to purchase so many properties?" . By utilizing H.G.M.E.'s line of credit . H.G.M.E. buys properties that no one else wants, i.e., no competition. . Contractors are anxious to work; materials are less expensive at the moment . Items have been donated for use (granite counters, for example) "Regarding the Stimulus funds earmarked/or Collier County, does the County have a list of preferred projects? " '" .) w"..._..'____~m~_._'__. -,-,.- 161 1, A\ March 2, 2009 Marcy Krumbine stated a list is available on the County's website. The money H&HS will receive is specifically for its programs through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP"). For the Stimulus package, the government asked the County to recommend "shovel ready" projects with infrastructure, roads, and utilities already in place to be eligible for consideration. "Has it been difficult to find mortgage money for your buyers? '.' . H.O.M.E.'s properties offer a very attractive loan to value ratio. For properly qualified buyers, there is money available. . Buyers are qualified through H&HS by Lisa Carr "Is there a sustainability clause?" . The mortgage limits the appreciation to wages . Buyers are not allowed to sublet the property . H.O.M.E has "right of first refusal" to purchase the property if a buyer cannot pay the mortgage (to prevent a second foreclosure) . If the property is sold to any buyer other than an "affordable housing buyer," the seller must repay the subsidy ($50,000) from the profits "Has construction of the houses been approvedjor USDA loans?" . After the property has been rehabbed, a buyer can apply for a USDA or FHA loan B. Report from Subcommittees (1) Housing Incentives Subcommittee: No meeting - no report (2) Supply/Demand Subcommittee: No meeting - no report C. Distribution of Tentative FY '09-'10 Funding Dollars for CDBG/HOME/ESG/SHIP Marcy Krumbine A spreadsheet detailing the proposed distribution of funds was distributed to the Committee. Marcy Krumbine outlined the organizations that qualified for funding and the amounts to be allocated upon H&HS' receipt of the Grant monies.. D. Announcement of New Grant Dollars Available - Marcy Krumbine . Additional CDBG funds - $581,300 (from Stimulus Package) . Additional Emergency Shelter Grant ("ESG") - $888,850 - may also be used for rent payments, utility bill payments - in order to prevent homelessness . "Community of Care" projects: 0 $113,000 - Wolfe Apartments (St. Matthew's House) 0 $113,000 - Shelter for Abused Women 0 $104,646 - HMIS ("Homeless Management Information System") 0 $143,000 - Health Information Technology . Total: $1.9+M 4 ,,-~-_.~'<--. ~._.__._--, r- . ....._,_..._,'._;._.~_..._..~.,. ___""'_'_"""'.e___".~..~ -~_._- 161 1 A\ March 2, 2009 . Entitlement Money (City of Naples, City of Marco) are "formula funded" . H&HS received "formula funded" money from HUD . NSP (in latest Stimulus) was competitive - for non-profits and government units E. Review of NSP Grant - Marcy Krumbine/Frank Ramsey A draft flowchart outlining the work process was presented to the Committee and will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners: . Money must be spent quickly and correctly (per Inspection General's directive)- there are very specific rules and guidelines to be observed . Receiving lists of Bank-owned property in three target areas; Real Property will negotiate bulk purchases with Banks . For rental properties: will issue an RFP ("Request for Proposal") for non-profits to supervise rehab and manage multi-family units to rent to income-qualified individuals . Rehabbed properties will be placed on "Community Watch" List . Competitive, sealed Bids will be accepted; the lowest and most reasonable Bid will be chosen utilizing Purchasing Department's guidelines . $7.3M to be spent within 18 months from the date of the HUD Contract - of that amount $1.8M is earmarked to purchase multi-family properties; money has been allocated for demolition and land-banking from the NSP Grant . Profits from sale of properties will be returned to County to reinvest and provide a continuous revenue stream . Goal: to rehab approximately 40 to 60 properties Public Speaker: C. ~ B~ Nicholas Harris, Director of Land Development, Habitat for Humanity, Habitat has purchased 25 homes through the CDBD funds and families will be placed in the homes by June, 2009. Habitat families earn less than 50% of AMI and the $1.8 earmarked for rental properties could help even more lower-income families own a home. He stated there is a great deal of rental properties available at the moment. Habitat plans to rehab 50 homes during 2009. \J '\c.hCICtS KCl.c.1 oh.e.("Q~ Dr. Stan Swithart, Vice President of Habitat for Humanity, stated Habitat's volunteer base keeps costs low. Habitat has a proven track record it not only builds and sells houses with 0% mortgages - payments average $600/month - it also manages the properties for years. Carl Kuehner, Chairman - BOD, Florida Non-Profit Services, provided the following update regarding the Florida Housing Finance Committee ("FHFC"): . The Florida Legislature, to fill a budget gap of $2.3B, "de-obligated" $190M of pre-committed funds, previously allocated to Affordable Housing organizations. . The FHFC has since decided to "hold harmless" farm worker projects, subject to approval by its Board on March 13,2009 . He supports the NSP allocation for rental and, specifically, for non-profit rentals Marcy Krumbine stated she will enter a "walk on" item on the Agenda for the next Board meeting to request the BCC send a letter of support to the FHFC Board. 5 --~_.,,"_._,..,~._...-..,~ ~.,..,,-_..,-~-- --- 161 1 A\ March 2, 2009 Ernesto Vebisquez, Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board Liaison, stated his concern for the "first come/first serve" policy is that there may be too many interpretations (first to apply at H&HS or first to be approved by a Bank) and result in confusion for buyers. He was also concerned that a homeowner will be "tied" to a property for 15 to 20 years. Most families move after 6 years. A family would be unable to move because they have would have no real equity. It may be very difficult to find buyers due to the restriction. He commended H.G.M.E. for its efforts in Golden Gate City and also Habitat for Humanity and urged the County to give Habitat additional funding because its spotless record. Frank Ramsey clarified the affordability period of 15 years is required by law if $40,000+ is invested in a property. If the property is sold before 15 years, it must be sold to an income- qualified buyer, and the profit from the sale will be shared with the County. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:54 PM. Collier County Affordable Housing Commission These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on ()tl fJ' 1'1 , as presented , or as amended ~ 6 >"", 'W". ."'.,,~..w_, ,-, Fiala Dfk 16 1! 1 Ai- .... RECEIVED Hala~ i-t4:'- February 17,2009 APR 0 7 2009 Henning . Coyle '. ~ Board of County eommisSioners Coletta (} il/r? /1 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, February 17,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michele Antonia Marcia Breithaupt Dr. Ruth Eisele Sergeant David Estes Tom Kepp, Jr. Sabina Musci ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Director, DAS N an Gerhardt - Shelter Operations Manager Kathy Drew, Volunteer Coordinator Hailey Alonso, DAS Misc. Corres: Date:!L,? II d-.I D 9 1 Item ,: lit? L ~...114 :;.L- ".M~_.'" '"f__.....~."" 161 lAl February 17, 2009 I. Call to Order Chairman Michele Antonia called the meeting to order at 6:32 P. M. II. Attendance Roll call was taken and a quorum established. III. Approval of Agenda Staff requested moving New Business Item C. Lost and Found Demonstration to the next DAS meeting. Sgt. David Estes moved to approve the agenda, with the exception of "New Business Item C. Lost and Found Demonstration", which will be taken up at the March DAS meeting. Second by Marcia Breithaupt. Carried unanimously 6-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: January 20, 2009 Correction: Page 2. Item 1, the word is meeting (sp) Dr Ruth Eisele moved to approve the Minutes of January20, 2009, as amended. Second by Jim Rich. Carried unanimously 6-0. V. Old Business A. Director's Report Amanda Townsend spoke about "Spay Day USA" taking place on February 24,2009. Contacts and individual visits were made to veterinarians willing to take part by the coordinator of the event. As a result: . 96 slots have been reserved . 250 requests for appointments have been received . 50 vouchers given out (pre-payment by money order required) The show of interest in the community appeared to indicate no lack of desire for spay & neuter service, rather a lack ofjinancial ability. In the coming months DAS will formally recognize the veterinary community for their willingness to participate. Kathy Drew reviewed the success of the "Smooch-a-Pooch-Kiss-a-Kitty" event: . Brought over 300 visitors to the shelter . An adoption fair was held . Several rescue groups were on hand . Shelter tours were conducted. Upcoming event- March 15,2009, lOam to 4pm - For Footed Friends, a privately owned food store and several other sponsors are contributing to "For Footed Friends Dog Run", which will include a 5-stop Poker Run to benefit the Donation Trust Fund. 2 ^ ,~_.""""_-_"_-_"_.,,,_-,,,,_"..,^,,",,,~- ~ ,... 161 1 A2- February 17,2009 B. Departmental Statistics and Reports (January 2009) Statistic reports were e-mailed to Advisory Board members prior to the meeting. Amanda Townsend reviewed the reports, elaborating: . The new Vet Tech under employment since January 2009 . Intake figures were measured against population . Assessing spay & neuter on returns to owner . Effected 63 spay & neuters based on changes to the Ordinance Sabina Musci arrived at 6:48 pm. . Euthanasia's and Intake numbers were down . On-line venders taking part in "Give Back America" which returns a percentage to Donation Trust Fund- one way of fundraising Amanda distributed copies of the letter of request by a gentleman from Orlando who is doing a research project on the amount of monies spent per animal in each of the 67 Florida counties. By taking the Operating Budget and dividing it by the number of animals taken in, she arrived at the figure of $311.16 per animal handled by DAS. VI. New Business A. Change DAS Mission Statement (handout) Amanda Townsend reported the response from the County Attorney's office to the DASAB's inquiry on making changes to the Mission Statement. She read the current Mission Statement. Their opinion was it is an administrative function of the Director since there was no County ordinance which specifically addresses department "mission statements. " Recommendations to the BCC from the public or DASAB can be carried forward. Further discussion on changes to add focus on adoptions to the Mission Statement will be added to the April agenda. B. Ethics Training (handout from County Human Resources Director) Amanda Townsend asked the members to read through the memorandum on the Ethic Ordinance, the Ethics Guide to the Sunshine Amendment and Code of Ethics for Public Employees and the CMA Instructions 5311 (Administrative Procedure addressing the acceptance of gifts by County employees.) Advisory Board Members as well as County employees are responsible for being familiar with this ordinance. C. Lost and Found Demonstration -(moved to next meeting by prior vote) D. Presentation on House Bill 451 (handout copies Resolution) Amanda Townsend explained the Resolution regarding- "requiring sterilization of dogs and cats of a specified age and providing for exceptions" to be brought forward to the BCC upon DASAB approval. 3 ...._"-...-..,.~..._-,'"-"._---"'-........., ~ ___0-" 161 1 A2- February 17,2009 Discussion of the various parts of the bill and exceptions followed. Tom Kepp moved to recommend approval of the Resolution supporting House Bill 451. Second by Jim Rich. The matter was tabled until copies of the House Bill 451 and its exceptions were made and handed out. E. Assistance from Vets - Jim Rich Discussion was about communications with local Veterinarians regarding incidences in which Veterinarians require extra expensive tests for a simple spay & neuter. Vets cite "quality of care." Amanda responded she does speak at Veterinary meetings and can make suggestions. Some vets work as community partners that work with DAS; some rely only on the marketplace. Returned to item D. Amanda Townsend read the exceptions from Bill 451and provided explanations. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the mandates, exceptions, fines and penalties under the law. Sgt. Estes had concerns regarding: 1. Too many added regulations and mandates in stressful and tough economic times affecting even responsible pet owner's rights. 2. People should not have to jump through more and more hoops to own a pet and be regulated on things they should be able to decide on their own. 3. There is no perfect law 4, Not for imposing more restrictions or forcing sterilization- prefers to emphasize promoting spay and neuter and adoptions. Discussion followed on whether the public are being responsible or not and if imposing laws will make them more responsible. Several suggestions were made about protecting those who are responsible pet owners and breeders. Michele Antonia moved to amend Tom Kepp's motion to recommend approval of the Resolution supporting House Bill 451 to include the word "sterilization" in place of "spaying and/or neutering" in the Resolution. Second by Marcia Breithaupt. Motion carried 4-3. (Sgt. David Estes, Dr. Ruth Eisele and Sabina Musci voted against.) VII. Public Comment - None VIII. Advisory Board Member Comments Tom Kepp asked if there was a training program for Volunteers and is helping with paperwork part of a volunteer's duties. 4 _"_'_""""__>O__~_""'""_'_'''_"~~''''___'_ mT . """'-"-_.._-""'-~._"._~.,.-.- ,...._"_"M__._._'o......._,,_.___,._.___.__ 161 1M, February 17,2009 Amanda responded "Yes" to both questions. Marcia Breithaupt inquired about the deadline for registering for Spay Day Amanda Townsend announced that anyone interested in riding along with an Animal Control Officer for a day, to contact her for scheduling. The next meeting of the DAS Advisory Board is scheduled for March 17, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 7:45 P.M. Collier County Domestic Animal Services These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on 3/lllof as presented V or amended ' , 5 -""->-_~_'__'__'__" ',~_v_~,_"". ~"""_'__'_'_'_~".~'_""~'"'_""""""""~"""_ "-.'''''--",",",. l._.... '""......._...~.. .1 .. .~"-,-"""'''~. ",-~.- Fiala 161 'IA~ c../ Halas Henning January 20,2009 Coyle Coletta =~ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECEiVED Naples, Florida, January 20, 2009 APR 0 9 2009 Board of County Commissioner LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Clam Bay Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:30 P.M., at the Office of Coastal Zone Management, 3300 Santa Barbara Blvd., Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: James A. Carroll John Arceri Ronald A. Glah Noah Standridge Robert Rogers Kathy B. Worley David Roellig Tahlmann Krumm, Jr. ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Misc. Corres: Sandy Martello, Administrative Asst. Item#: 1 ,....:~ "'; t() -- , ._-", ,-- ~ ........_---,~'''"''" _.,._..~-,,_._,,"-_.,-- ~-.,." 161 lA3 January 20, 2009 I. Call to Order Gary McAlpin, Director Coastal Zone Management called the meeting to order at 2:30 PM. II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Roellig moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Glah. Carried unanimously 7-0. V. Public Comments Speakers Martha Dykman, Seagate resident addressed the Committee noting the Seagate Community has been left out of the process to date. They have residents within the community who boat and many of the management facets of the existing permit have been ignored by Pelican Bay. She requested the Clam Pass Park Plans remain a separate issue from the issues to be addressed by the Committee. She requested clarification if the Pelican Bay Foundation has approval rights in Clam Bay for installation of signs, dredging or other intrusive activities; and whether the Coast Guard and Army Corp has required the installation of navigation aids Doug Finley, Naples resident addressed the Committee noting he kayaks in Clam Bay at least once a month and is interested in the issue as it is a great recreational asset for the County. Mary Bolin, Pelican Bay Community addressed the Committee noting her main concern was the health and stability of the Mangrove community. Anne Geolger Harris, Pelican Bay Homeowner addressed the Committee noting concern over the state of the Mangroves and highlighted the great work that has been completed in this area over the last 15 years. She is also concerned with the possible negative impacts on this environment in conjunction with navigation in Clam Pass. VI. Approval of Minutes Gary McAlpin noted the minutes provided will be summary minutes. (Not verbatim) VII. Introduction of Clam Bay Advisory Committee and Housekeeping Gary McAlpin provided a packet containing the following documents: . "Clam Bay Advisory Committee Section I "introduction of Clam Bay Advisory Committee and Housekeeping" and Section II "Background, Section III "immediate Staff Recommended Priorities for the Clam Bay Advisory Committee dated 1/20/09. 2 _,..____"..,_~'O'"_._,._._;_..~_."'''_~____. --... -~--~-~_.__.-_.._- IJ~ua~ 20, 2~~ . Clam Bay Advisory Committee Member and related Staff' contact list. . "Ordinance No. 2008-48" establishing the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. . "Clam Bay Seagrass Assessment" prepared by PBS & J dated October 2007. . Letter from Jon M Iglehart, Florida Department of Environmental Protection to Jim Mudd, County Manager - Re: Collier County Pelican Bay dated August 26, 2008 . Email from Gary McAlpin, Director Coastal Zone Management to Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist dated June 12,2008 - Subject: FW: Clam Bay . Memorandum from the Lainie Edwards, Florida Department of Environmental Protection to Gary McAlpin dated June 9, 2008 - Subject: Interpretation of Joint Coastal Permit: Clam Bay Restoration and Long Term Management Project (0128463-JC) . Letter from Pamela Keyes, Collier County Environmental Specialist to Joe Embres, US Coast Guard dated April 21, 2008 - REF: Private Aids to Navigation, Clam Bay Collier County . Letter from Pamela Keyes, Collier County Environmental Specialist to Lainie Edwards Florida Department of Environmental Protection dated April 11, 2008 _ RE: FDEP Permit No. 0128463-001-JC. . Letter to Tara Alford, Management Analystfrom Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist dated 5/09/08 - Subject: Clam Bay Waterways Markers, Collier County . Letter from Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist to FLDEP dated April 21, 2008 - Subject Exemption Application for Rule #40E-4.501(7) . Letter from Tim Schwan, Environmental Specialist, FDEP to Pamela Keyes dated May 21,2008 - Re: Collier County - ERP File NO. 11-0288121-001 . Emailfrom Tara Alford to Collier County Clam Bay Pass Stakeholders dated June 3,2008 - Re: Proposed markers in Clam Pass/Clam Bay . Copy of Proposed "Caution Sea Grass " Areas Sign . Tim Hall, Turrell Hall and Assoc. proposed channel markers map. . Marcia Cravens, proposed channel markers map dated 10/30/08 . "Clam Bay Advisory Committee Draft Proposal dated 1/16/09 identifying Creation, Function, Powers and Duties, etc. of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. Mr. Krumm moved to nominate James A. Carroll as Chairman of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Arceri. Carried unanimously 7-0. Mr. Krumm moved to nominate John Arceri as Vice Chairman of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Roellig. Carried unanimously 7-0. The members introduced themselves and provided their backgrounds to the attendees. Staff also introduced themselves. Mr. Rogers arrived at 2:50 pm 3 ,.' ..._o.....~,...,__..___,_ ~ ,-",...;<- '_';"'"_'_"'"'"""~'__~~_'~M""'~"""~_'_"__ 161 1A3 January 20, 2009 Gary McAlpin provided a brief overview of the Committee, which was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to deal with the Management of Clam Bay. It will sunset on December 31, 2009. The Committee meetings will be held at Sudgen Theatre, at the Regional Library (Orange Blossom Drive) on the 3rd Thursday of each month at 2:30 PM Discussion ensued on the concept of adopting the rules of procedure utilized by the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC), which limits a public speaker to 3 minutes of time. It was noted at the discretion of the Chairman, the time may be increased for a particular speaker, if necessary. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney recommended the rules of the CAC be distributed to the members for review, and a formal vote on adopting them be taken at the next meeting. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney provided an overview of the Sunshine Law via a slide show entitled "Government in the Sunshine" prepared by the Office of the County Attorney highlighting the following: . The Committee is subject to the Sunshine Law. . The meetings must be properly noticed, open to the public and minutes taken. . Minutes are not required to be verbatim. . The meeting must be open to the public; however there is no requirement to allow "public participation". Collier County encourages the public to participate. . The Law applies when two members of a Committee discuss any business that may come before the Committee (outside of the publicly noticed meeting). . One member may meet with County Staff without violating the law. . One member of a Committee may meet with one member of another Committee without violating the Law (a Clam Bay member with a CAC member, etc.) She cautioned on this procedure, as information may not be relayed to a second CA C member. . One-way communications are allowed, however she cautions against it and recommends all information to be distributed to the Committee by a member be submitted to Staff for distribution. . Fact.jinding missions are outside the scope of the Sunshine Law, but she urged extreme caution in utilizing this procedure. Please contact the County Attorney's Office before undertaking the endeavor. . A quorum must be physically present to conduct business; a member available by teleconference may not be utilized to obtain a quorum. A member available by teleconference may participate if the quorum present finds an "extraordinary circumstance" for that person to participate. . She will provide a handout on the email rules. (Public to member, member-to- member, member to Staff, etc.) . If a public person contacts a member, it is not required to be distributed to all members or Staff; however the email should be retained. . Violations of the Law are subject to criminal misdemeanor charges. 4 <" . """,,-.-.,.,,- -....--.......,..-- "m'~_~',,,.,.,,_<__ 161 b~ , January 20, 2009 Ms. Worley and Mr. Roellig noted they are members of the Estuary Conservation Association. Colleen Greene will research the details of the Association and provide a recommendation on any potential Sunshine Law issues. VIII. Background Gary McAlpin provided an overview of the history of the Management of the Clam Bay. This included an overview of the activities of the original Clam Bay Advisory Group that initiated the Task of renewing the applicable permits. This Group began in the spring of 2008 and was disbanded, He reviewed Section II "Background' of the document Clam Bay Advisory Committee dated 1/20/2009 referenced at the beginning of item VII. It was noted Pelican Bay initially funded the efforts when the Mangroves suffered die off (approximately 10-15 years ago). As oflate, the County has contributed the larger share of expenses in the Management. The purpose of the Committee is to expand on the excellent work completed by Pelican Bay, and incorporate the whole Estuary into Best Management Practices. To date the expenditures in Management of the Bay are asfollows (approximately): Pelican Bay Services Division $l.3M Westinghouse $1. OM Collier County $l.3M Gary McAlpin referenced the letter from Jon M. Iglehart, FDEP dated August 26,2008 and noted he will obtain clarification on the permit issues associated with maintaining the Mangroves. IX. Immediate Staff Recommended Priorities for the Clam Bay Advisory Committee Gary McAlpin reviewed Section III ("Immediate Staff Recommended Priorities for the Clam Bay Advisory Committee ") of the document Clam Bay Advisory Committee dated 1/20/2009. He referenced the proposed navigation aids maps prepared by Tim Hall of Turrell, Hall and Assoc. and Marcia Cravens. Staff has no preference in the number of navigational aids installed in the Bay, but recommends the minimum number necessary to address environmental and safety concerns. Discussion ensued on how to approach the priorities outlined in the document. Gary McAlpin stated for the next meeting he would provide a draft of funding details. He noted the main issue to address initially should be the navigation markers. Discussion ensued on the various Agencies (Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, etc.) opinions for the requirement of navigation markers, and whether the permit requires navigation markers be installed. Ms. Worley provided the following background information for consideration: . Copies of Page 8 and 9 ofFDEP permit #0128463-001-JC 5 """.'-"~-'."-~-..".~ .... -~ -.. - "--~,._."..".~, -'.~- .-' . 161 1% January 20,2009 . Collier County Ordinance 97-10 and attached maps . Historic Aerial photos of the area Mr. Arceri referenced the Ordinance the Committee is subject to and noted the BCC required approval of a proposed work plan before proceeding. Gary McAlpin noted the Ordinance states this, however some of the items could be conducted concurrently (marking the channel, etc.). The 2nd "Immediate Priority" is developing the duties, responsibilities and Charter of the Committee which addresses this consideration included in the Ordinance. Discussion ensued on the feasibility of appointing one member to meet with Staff to provide a recommendation to the full Committee on the issue of the navigational aids. It was determined that more than one member should undertake the activity. Gary McAlpin noted the navigation markers need to be installed in order for the County to come into compliance with the existing permit. Mr. Roellig noted marking the "Pass" might be difficult as it is dynamic in nature and self- flushing causing the channel to shift. Ms. Worley noted some of the information she provided documents that phenomena. Mr. Arceri moved to appoint Mr. Rogers and Mr. Tahlmann to a Subcommittee for the purpose of reviewing with Staff a plan for navigational aids for Clam Bay Estuary and report back with a recommendation to the full Committee within the next 2 meetings. Second by Mr. Standridge. Speakers Marcia Cravens, Friends of Clam Bay provided a handout - Re: "From Clam Bay (Long Term) Restoration and Management Plan Section 3.0, Management Options" and other attached documents. She is challenging the assertion by Cynthia Ovdenk of the US Army Corps of Engineers that channel markers are required. They (County and Pelican Bay Services) are in compliance with the permit and have never received a non-compliance letter. Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Services Division noted National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration maps denote the Pass as "non-navigable" with no indication of navigation markers. Navigation aids are shown on the maps for other Passes in the area. A book by the National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration describes the Pass as a changing shoal, passable in high tide and to be avoided in bad weather. It is extremely shallow between # 4 and 5 with no existing channel. He recommended placing a bridge at Seagate as the water in Seagate is 6 feet deep, but only 1 foot in most places in the Bay. Martha Dykman, Seagate Resident submitted an original real estate brochure for "Seagate" which advertised boating was available. She stated the community will not surrender the boating rights, which they have fought for before and prevailed. The waterway is a State waterway, and the issue should not be decided by Pelican Bay homeowners. They will continue to defend their boating rights in relation to the Bay. 6 ~. .....^.."<~.,-,,-,,.--._..."_._"''''_... - ~,__.~__"._..,~,_,._'....,,"._....,,""____M__~ _ 16\ lAj January 20, 2009 Anne Geolger Harris, Pelican Bay Resident noted the Seagate brochure was a sales brochure and may not accurately represent the rights to the homeowner. The community (Pelican Bay) will offer any assistance to all involved to resolve the situation. Ms. Worley noted she has received conflicting information regarding whether the marking of the channel is required. She recommended the issue be resolved as well. Mr. Arceri amended the motion to appoint Mr. Rogers and Mr. Krumm to a Subcommittee for the purpose of reviewing with (the information) Staff and determine if navigational aids are required by permitting requirements, etc., and ifnot required, should they be installed. If they are to be installed, develop the plan for navigational aids. Said Subcommittee to report back with a recommendation to the full Committee within 2 months. Second by Mr. Standridge. Motion carried 6 'yes" - 2 "no." Mr. Roellig and Ms. Worley voted "no." Mr. Arceri moved to appoint Mr. Arceri and Ms. Worley to a Subcommittee to work with Staff in developing a draft document of the duties, responsibilities and Charter of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee and possible work frame. Second by Ms. Worley. Motion carried unanimously 8-0. X. Public Comments Marcia Cravens, Friends of Clam Bay recommended investigating the possibility of the Seagate community accessing the Gulf southward through deeper water in channels already utilized for navigation. An option is a "lock" at Seagate to facilitate boat access to the Gulf. In addition, she objected to any references from work by the previous Committee (Clam Bay Work Group minutes or other documents) that was dealing with the issues because the group was disbanded. The Committee requested Staff discuss with the Subcommittee the Venetian Bay access option. Jim Burke, Pelican Bay Resident stated he was not on the Navigational Marker Committee as indicated in the information provided by Staff. Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident stated the channel shifts constantly and is dangerous and not suitable for channel marking. Seagate homeowners have not had 40 years of boating access as the channel has been closed numerous times over the course of history. XI. Announcements None XII. Next Meeting Date/Location Tentative - February 19, 2009 - Sudgen Theater at the Regional Library, 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples 7 .,..._...._~.,,~-~._.,"....,,--_.._._,.. .iJ --"-'-""._."<---~""."~,~"".._."._-"".,,,.<_........,,,.,_."---,.."....-"".- 161 43 January 20, 2009 There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:00 PM. COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on ;;2.-- / '-1 - C cl , as presented ...- or as amended t"'-. - 8 """."".".~.,"."""",--- ___"~_"".,,".,_~,,._"w ,. ala 161 lA=? ........ !" nlas \.4t~nning ii.L February 1 9, 2009 Goyle =--? (1 I ,~ RECEIVED Coletta . / APR 0 9 2009 Boafd of County Comm~llero MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BA Y ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, February 19, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Clam Bay Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:30 P.M., at the Sudgen Theatre, Regional Library Headquarters at 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: James A. Carroll Vice Chairman: John Arceri Ronald A. Glah Noah Standridge Robert Rogers Kathy B. Worley David Roellig (excused) Tahlmann Krumm, Jr. ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist Sandy Martello, Administrative Assistant Misc. Corres: Date: - 1 Item #.______ to .'"~w," - r --~ ... _...~,,,.~,"-_.,,"--"'._.-,,_._~,..,.. ""--"--"~-'-'"- 161 lA3 February 19, 2009 I. Call to Order Chairman Carroll called the meeting to order at 2:30PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll Call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Gary McAlpin, Director of Coastal Zone Management noted the following was added to the agenda: Item Vll.3 - Navigational Marker Subcommittee minutes Item IX. 3. - A copy of the Draft permit is submitted for informational purposes. Item VI1.2 - Member David Roellig's comments submitted in relation to the item Mr. Arceri moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Mr. Rogers. Carried unanimously 7-0. V. Chairman's Comments Chairman Carroll noted following: · Requested all parties provide their name, title and date on any subject matter submitted to the Committee for consideration. In addition ensure ample copies are available for distribution (i.e. 9 for Committee members, 2 for Staff, 1 for the recorder, etc.) · For reference purposes, parties identify acronyms used in documents as necessary. . In addressing issues, personal attacks should be eliminated. . Although the County Attorney discourages one-way email communications between members, he encourages it for logistic purposes but cautioned members not to reply to each other. . Workshops may be required to fulfill the duties of the Committee. . If a member wishes to visit the area via boat, please contact Staff. VI. Approval of Minutes 1. January 20, 2009 - Clam Bay Advisory Committee minutes Mr. Glah moved to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2009 meeting. Second by Mr. Standridge. Carried unanimously 7-0. 2. February 2, 2009 - Mission Subcommittee minutes Mr. Arceri moved to approve the February 2, 2009 Mission Subcommittee minutes. Second by Ms. Worley. Motion carried 2-0. (It was noted Mr. Arceri and Ms. Worley are the members of the Subcommittee). It was determined Mr. Arceri will sign the minutes. 2 . ._~_.,--._-,.,...~-".._...."->~,~-_..,,-,,.._" '-- - "'~--","-,-,.._--_.._"._"_..,,.-~....._"-,~,........._---- .,..'" . . ""-"~"-"~,-~,-~,"" 16' h3 February 19,2009 3. February 6, 2009 - Navigational Marker Subcommittee To be approved by Subcommittee. VII. Staff Reports 1. Sunshine Law - Colleen Greene Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney addressed the Committee on the issue of Ethics, by providing a document "Ethics Overview for the Clam Bay Advisory Committee, " She reviewed Ethics issues (Conflicts of interest, Soliciting and Accepting Gifts, Misuse of public position, etc.) and noted the Clam Bay Advisory Committee is subject to: - Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, Part 1lI - Collier County Ordinance NO. 2003-53 She also provided a document "Advisory Board Guidelines for Public Records and Emails" for review. She noted if an Advisory Board member is charged with a Sunshine Law violation, there is an avenue for the defense to be funded by the County at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners who would review the requests on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Rogers noted he has been appointed to the Committee as the representative from Seagate Community. He expressed concern that a voting conflict may exist when advocating the position of the neighborhood. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney stated he is exempt from a violation on this issue because: 1. The Ordinance creating the Clam Bay Advisory Committee defined the structure of the membership, which included the targeted representatives. 2. Legal precedent has determined if an individual represents a section of population, and is not solely a personal representative on a position, he is exempt from the Sunshine Law for voting/participation purposes (i.e., Council members who set property tax rates, which affects their property values as well as other landowners. qualify for an exemption) She recommended members contact the County Attorney's Office if they have questions or concerns throughout the process. VIII. New Business 1. Mission, Powers, Functions, Duties and Responsibilities of CBAC, and Assignment of Subcommittee Members. Gary McAlpin presented the document "Collier County Clam Bav Advisorv Committee, Mission, Powers, Functions, Duties & Work Plan" for consideration. The document was approved by the Mission Subcommittee. 3 ...--." - '-~_.".,...,....'-' 161 1A9 February 19,2009 David Roellig, Clam Bay Advisory Board Committee Member, who was not present, provided a letter outlining his position on the document. Gary McAlpin read the letter, which indicated the following concerns: 1. NRPA (Natural Resource Protection Area) does not include the adjacent developments of Seagate and Pelican Bay. 2. Objects to the Subcommittees format as it limits public participation. 3. County should provide the necessary Staff and resources to accomplish the mission including professional assistance. 4. The subject draft does not address restoration and maintenance of mangroves. 5. The mission does not promote the filing of the permits to ensure the necessary Agencies authorize the continuance of the current activities. The following was noted in discussions: · Subcommittee #3 "Mangrove Maintenance and Hand Dug Channel Maintenance Subcommittee" addresses Mr. Roellig's concern of mangrove maintenance and restoration. . Utilizing Subcommittees to provide base documents for full Committee review promotes efficient utilization of time in completing the task assigned by the Board of County Commissioners. . Subcommittees are open to the public and thus far have been attended by the public. . Outside paid consultants may be required to assist some of the Subcommittees. · Available information should be researched for its applicability to any identified duties. The following was determined for the Collier Countv Clam Bav Advisorv Committee, Mission, Powers, Functions, Duties & Work Plan document: · To consolidate the Subcommittees with the following individuals assigned: 1. (#1) Permit Subcommittee (Existing Navigational Marker Subcommittee) Existing Subcommittee members Tahlmann Krumm, Jr., Robert Rogers with the addition of Noah Standridge. 2. (#2) Water Quality and Sampling Subcommittee: (#4) Tidal Flushing and Mixing Subcommittee: (#6) Nutrient Loading and Runoff Control Subcommittee - David Roellig, Kathy Worley, Ronald Glah. 3. (#3) Mangrove Maintenance and Hand Dug Channel Maintenance Subcommittee: (#7) Estuarv Wildlife and Habitat Subcommittee - John Arceri, Kathy Worley; James Carroll. 4. (#5) Maintenance Dredging and Sand Bypassing of Clam Pass Subcommittee - David RoelIig, Robert Rogers, Representative yet to be appointed from District 5, Kathy Worley, Tahlmann Krumm, Jr. 4 .- . x.,,",.'__""" 161 1A3 February 1 9, 2009 5. (#8) Public Education and Outreach Subcommittee: (#9) Funding Subcommittee - These Subcommittees to be eliminated with the proposed function of the Subcommittees being delegated to Staff for submission back to the Main Committee for review. . Paragraph 1 - Recommended Boundaries - removed wording "and the adjacent developments of Sea gate and Pelican Bay, east to US41" in lines 9-] O. . Paragraph 2 - Committee Mission line 1-2 to read "The Committee's mission is to advise, assist and make joint recommendations to the Coastal Advisory Committee (hereafter "CAC")... . Paragraph 3 - Committee Powers and Function - line I to read "The Committee powers andfunctions area as an advisory... " . Removal of the "Expected or planned Completion dates" for all the Subcommittees. Mr. Arceri moved to approve the above changes to the Collier Countv Clam Bav Advisorv Committee. Mission, Powers, Functions, Duties & Work Plan. Second by Mr. Krumm. Gary McAlpin noted the document will be revised with the changes proposed and the assigned members of the Subcommittees will be provided on a list. Soeakers Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident noted the 2 Technical representatives assigned to the Main Committee should be assigned to Subcommittees #2-7. Further, wants to ensure all activities conducted by the Committee are subject to peer revIew. It was noted at least one Technical Representative is on each of the Subcommittees and the Main Committee will review the Subcommittee work. Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group, noted there is a more accurate definition of the NRPA on page 289 of the Coastal Zone Management Plan, Clam Pass Inlet and agrees the Technical experts should be on all Subcommittees. She expressed concern the Subcommittees are not grouped properly. She recommended all members obtain a copy of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan for utilization as the base document for the Committee's task. It is a comprehensive document that includes many of the parameters to be addressed by the Committee. Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident recommended the Committee utilize standardized water quality testing procedures to ensure consistent gathering of information. Bill Hamilton requested a link for the Agenda and any other documents necessary be placed on the Internet on the same page as the Hearing Notice. 5 - -......- , ~ '_'_""',_,..n ~ .. ~~.., ,'_...~' 16 I lA3 February 19,2009 Motion Carried unanimously 7-0. 2. Update progress on Navigational Marker Subcommittee Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Navigational Marker Update" and noted the Navigational Marker Subcommittee is awaiting a letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers on the status of permit violations before proceeding. Mr. Krumm noted he has spoken to the various Agencies (US Army Corps of Engineers, US Coast Guard, etc.), which indicated flexibility in the requirements for navigation signage. Discussion ensued on the requirements for marking Clam Bay for navigation purposes. Speakers Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident noted there was an incident in the Pass where a Seagate resident was accosted by an individual on the shoreline while boating in the Bay. She requested the County install the markers as mandated and educate the public on boating in the Bay. Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group, noted the US Army Corp of Engineers has no jurisdiction (for navigation markers) in Clam Bay. The jurisdiction is under the US Coast Guard and there is an email that states no navigation aids are required by the Coast Guard. Richard Dykman, Seagate Resident noted he has boated in the Bay since 1984. He noted all permits from the various agencies indicate the area is navigable waters and the Clam Bay Management Plan requires markers be installed and questions why the markers have yet to be installed. Chairman Carroll stated the issue is to be addressed by the Subcommittee. 3. PBS&J Clam Pass Draft Permit Gary McAlpin submitted copies of the draft permit to the Committee members for informational purposes. The proposed permit application is for maintenance dredging. 4. Coral Ridge Collier Properties Quit Claim, Declaration of Restrictions and Department of Army Permits Gary McAlpin submitted copies of above related information. He noted the Department of Army Permit (which was in effect from 1981-1984 and found on page 01826 of the Collier County Clerk Official Records) Item c. states "There is to be no dredging allowed by permit or otherwise in Outer, Inner, and Upper Clam Bay, its connecting waterways and/or adjacent wetlands, or Clam Pass (except to maintain the opening to waters of Gulf of Mexico. ") 6 .. -~ --. "A.'II-' ._~--_..~._~._._,._.__..._---_._- 16 ~ lA3 February 19, 2009 This permit has expired, however it is still referenced in the deed documents. In addition, in Schedule A of the restrictive covenants, (page 01847 of the Collier County Clerk Official Records), - Item 6. Legislation states "Owner shall not apply for dredge or fill permits in Park Site or Conservation Areafrom any governmental bodies, regardless of any future amendments to the statutes or regulations of the United States or the State of Florida or as a result of decisions of the courts of the United States or State of Florida, without the prior written consent of Declarant, which consent may be withheld in the sole and absolute discretion of Declarant. " He brought this to the attention of the Committee as the issue of whether or not the County is permitted to dredge the Bay/Pass for navigation purposes has been brought up during the Clam Bay Advisory Committee and Subcommittee meeting discussions, The documents indicate the County can only dredge for "maintenance flushing" of Clam Bay/Pass. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements Mr. Rogers moved to remove himself and Mr. Krumm from Subcommittee #5 (Maintenance DredfdnJ! and Sand BVlJassinJ! orelam Pass Subcommittee). Second by Mr. Arced. Motion carried unanimously 7-0. XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date March 19,2009 - Sudgen Theater at the Regional Library, 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples at 2:30 PM There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:45 PM. COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BAY ADVISORY MMITTEE These Minutes ~oved by the Board/Committee on mrtA ~r( r \).J.oOq as presented \ or as amended_, 7 .~_. --\-"'0 . ~ ---"-~-~"<~-_.,-_..~~ , F :. ::.:, c.. ".,.;.. ,J 16 I lA3~ .....- Fiala APR U 9 2009 Halas .. February 6, 2009 Henning Board of County Comml$$lQJ\lJfS 1711 1M! Coyle Coletta =- I MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CLAM BAY NA VIGITIONAL MARKER SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, February 6, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Clam Bay Navigational Marker Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :30 P.M., at the Office of Coastal Zone Management, 3300 Santa Barbara Blvd., Naples, Florida with the following members present: Tahlmann Krumm, Jr. Robert Rogers ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Gail Hambright, Accountant, Coastal Zone Management Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist Misc. Corres: Date: Item#' ._-- 1 p~es td . ."...,_.,"....~-- --,.--.....~._"... "..~..~-..- 161 lk~ February 6, 2009 Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management called the meeting to order at 1 :34 PM Pledge of Allegiance was recited. A quorum was present. It was noted James Carroll and Kathy Worley; Clam Bay Advisory Committee Members were also present. Mr. Rogers moved to nominate Tahlmann Krumm and Robert Rogers as co-chair of the Clam Bay Navigational Marker Subcommittee. Second by Mr. Krumm. Carried unanimously 2-0. Gary McAlpin provided an overview of two handouts provided by Staff: E-mail String from Staff and Cynthia Ovdenk, US Army Corps of Engineers from June 11, 2008 Subject: "Clam Bay" which states, . "The Permittee agrees to comply with the components and timeframes as specified within the Clam Bay Restoration Management Plan (CBRMP), which is attached to this permit as Attachment "A." All attachments to a Corps permit are included as part of the permit and therefore enforceable. A section of the management plan located on Page 38 and 39 states: the main channel will be marked in accordance with the requirements of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) to ensure that those who use the system clearly know where the channel is and the prohibitions of operating their water craft outside the same. Therefore, in order for this permit to be in compliance the channel must be marked per the USCG's requirements. Please submit a letter to the Corps indicating the channel markers are in place. along with the dates and pictures. .. Letter from Lainie Edwards, Environmental Permitting Section, Florida Department of Environmental Protection dated June 9,2008 - Subject: Interpretation of Joint Coastal Permit: Clam Bay Restoration and Long Term Management Project (0128463-001-JC) which states, . "Furthermore, the Joint Coastal Permit does specifically address signage/environmental protection markers that the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems requires in the Pass area through Specific Condition 5, which discusses 10 signs required to be installed in specific locations, in order to protect the natural communities as well as the boating public. The Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems requires that these signs be installed as protective environmental measures (although the wording on the signs will have to be amended to meet legal requirements of FWC). .. He noted the following: . There would be 10 signs in total, in 5 locations visible for (boat/canoe/kayak traffic) coming and going (in relation to FDEP requirements). 2 "_','_N_"m__ -~',"--_.'.",.- 161 lA3~ - February 6,2009 . The waters are Federal waters with US Coast Guard jurisdictions who specify the size and specifications of the signs, with locations determined by local knowledge. . The US Coast Guard declares the waters navigable. . The channel is dynamic, but the County proposes the channel be marked and whether boaters can utilize the channel will be at the discretion of the boater. Speakers Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident stated the Services Division has never received a letter from Agencies, which declare the permit is "not in compliance." He submitted the documents "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (NOAA) On-line Chart Viewer" which identifies the Pass as "non navigable" and "NOAA Coast Pilot 5, Atlantic Coast: Gulf of Mexico, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands" which indicates "Clam Pass, is a shoal drainage canal to Outer Clam Bay. The pass is used only by outboards in good weather." He also submitted a document "US Coast Guard Private Aids to Navigation Application Instructions" for consideration. Michael Seef, North Naples Resident, also representing his son, a Seagate property owner noted he kayaks in Clam Bay and the signs existing are adequate and requests clarification where the direction is coming from to place navigational markers. He expressed concern over the additional cost associated with placing the markers. ***It was noted the marking is at the initiative ofthe US Army Corps of Engineers. Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident, submitted a copy of a portion of the "Clam Bay Management Plan Draft", prepared by Turrell, Hall and Assoc., dated August 29,2007 which provided a history of the Pass and indicated the Pass has been continually opened and closed for navigation due to a variety of reasons. She noted dredging for navigational purposes is not allowed in Natural Resource Protection Areas. She expressed concern placing the markers will actually increase the frequency of boats grounding in the Pass due to sediment building up around the markers. Doug Finley, Naples Resident notes he kayaks in Clam Pass and the Pass is dynamic, however has distinct channels. The existing canoe marker signs are in disrepair and the area is not properly marked for canoeing/kayaking. Navigational markers are located throughout the Preserves in the County and the rest of the Country. These markers assist in protecting the environment. Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Committee submitted the following documents: · Appendix M of the Natural Resource Protection Areas and related information on Clam Bay Management Plan, . Letter from Pamela Keyes of Coastal Zone Management to Florida Department of Environmental Protection dated April 21, 2008 Re: Exemption Application for Rule #40E-4.501 (7) 3 -- .. ~ 161 lA3C! February 6, 2009 . Letter from Pamela Keyes of Coastal Zone Management to Joe Embress of the United States Coast Guard dated April 21, 2008 - Re: Private Aids to Navigations, Clam Bay, and Collier County. She noted the statement that the Permit and Management Plan requires the installation of navigation aids is incorrect; these issues are "Management Options," as opposed to requirements. She reviewed a letter from the Department of the Army July 21, 1997, which detailed the following benefits of the Clam Pass Management Plan: 1. Installing a tidal flap. 2. Deeping (deepening) and widening of Clam Pass to provide enhanced tidal exchange. 3. Open a deteriorating network of interior channels to improve tidal exchange. 4. Selective cutting of 50 -75 percent of the dead mangrove trees to improve the aesthetic quality of the Clam Bay System. 5. Development and implementation of revised freshwaterlstormwater management system for the developed upland lying east of Clam Bay tofacilitate re-examination of the role of freshwater in the Clam Bay system. The letter does not mention navigation or the installation of channel markers. She reviewed historic letters written by Martha Dykman, (Seagate homeowner) which recognized the Bay has limited (boat) access to the Seagate community. Kathy Worley suggested the main Committee should be provided documentation from the various Agencies identifying which portions of the Permit are out of compliance. She referenced the County Zone Management Plan Section 7.6.1.2 which recognizes the Pass as "non-navigable." She expressed concern over liability to the County if the Pass is marked with navigational markers as the shifting Pass causes boaters to run aground. Mr. Krumm requested clarification on any correspondence on the issue of non- compliance from the various Agencies. Gary McAlpin noted the non-compliance is referenced in the email string provided above. He noted any solutions will need to address the "shifting Pass." The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is requiring the County to provide navigational markers so the channel provides "historic access" for boaters. Linda Roth noted documentation indicates "historical access" to the Pass is "limited." Kathy Worley suggested Staff obtain a "letter" from the USACE as opposed to emails. Jim Carroll questioned if the "statement" of non-compliance has been "challenged" by the County. Gary McAlpin noted the City of Naples and Seagate Homeowners have requested the County comply with the permit and mark the channel for historical navigational rights. Staff has no opinion on the issue but has been directed to come into compliance with the permit. 4 ._-~~ 16' 1!D(}.I February 6, 2009 Michael Seer, North Naples Resident questioned if the Army Corps has reviewed the area for the definition of "historical access." He also sought clarification if the Seagate Homeowners are actually in favor of marking the channel. Jim Hays expressed concern that boats in environmental areas cause environmental damages due to wake, etc. He expressed concern if the channel is marked, in the future it will require dredging to maintain the channel as navigable. Gary McAlpin noted the Permit permits dredging for tidal flushing only. It will not be dredged for navigation in the future, only for tidal flushing. He has requested the County Attorney's Office review the restrictive covenants (in the deed from Pelican Bay to Collier County) on "dredging" and provide an opinion to Staff on dredging activities allowed. Jim Burke, noted over the past weekend, two boats with outboard motors grounded in the channel. Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Committee objected to Gary McAlpin running the meeting. Mr. Krumm noted Gary McAlpin is the Staff liaison and the facilitator of the meeting. He has no voting power as Mr. Krumm and Mr. Rogers co-chair the Subcommittee. Mary Bolen, Pelican Bay Resident noted the US Army Corps of Engineers Permit (USACE) 79K0282 issued in 1995 states no dredging is allowed in the area "except for maintaining waters to the Gulf of Mexico. " It was noted this was the original permit issued by the USACE. Mr. Rogers noted the following: . He is on the Seagate Homeowners Association Board and the Board supports marking the channel. . He is the representative of the Community; there are no other Seagate residents present at the Subcommittee meeting as the Community has decided to speak with one voice. . He boated out through the Channel/Pass this past weekend and provided pictures as documentation of the trip, as well as photos of the drawbridge. . The drawbridge was constructed as part of the original Permit, which indicates clear intent boats were to navigate the Channel/Pass. · Seagate Homeowners request the minimum amount of markers required for safety. . Seagate Homeowners recognize the Pass is dynamic; however the Pass should provide some type of marking for safety of all involved (boaters, swimmers ). · He suggested the outcome of the meeting provide a proposed plan for marking, to the main Committee. 5 --"._~ " ,._~,_._~-~--"~-"_.. ~_.~" ."",- 161 1~~(Y February 6, 2009 Gary McAlpin provided an overview of two plans for marking the area. One prepared by Tim Hall of Turrell, Hall and Assoc. and one provided by Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Committee. He recommended the Subcommittee attempt to reach closure on some aspects of the location of channel markers. Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist provided an overview of the types of navigational markers allowed by the US Coast Guard. Informational signs may be placed before entering the Pass/Channel (from either direction), which state, "local knowledge required" and state a controlling depth (i.e. "controlling depth 3 feet"). This would deter boaters not familiar with the Pass from entering the system, and assist in reducing County liabili ty. ***It was noted the area (including the entrance from the Gulf of Mexico) could be marked with 10 or less aids to navigation. Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Committee noted her plan indicates navigational aid markers and her intent was for "shoal markers" as opposed to "channel markers." It would be consistent with the area being a Natural Resource Protection Area and provide the historic access to the Seagate Homeowners. When Tim Hall mapped her proposal it indicated "channel markers" inadvertently. She expressed regulatory "channel markers" increase the liability of the County (as opposed to shoal markers). Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident noted the Pelican Bay Service Division is willing to post standard canoeing/kayaking signs, as many as necessary, to provide the Seagate Homeowners with the benefit of navigating the area. Mr. Krumm sought clarification if the County has pursued an appeal of the non- compliance decision. Gary McAlpin noted this conversation has not occurred, rather has been notified through conversations (emails), the Permit is out of compliance. The discussions included actions required for bringing the Permit into compliance. Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Committee noted she has personally challenged Cynthia Ovdenk's statement that the permit is out of compliance. Discussion ensued regarding clauses in the Pelican Bay Covenant's in the deed to Collier County, which may restrict navigational dredging. Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident read a portion of the Covenant's into the record, which dealt with the restrictions in the Conservation Area. It was noted it did not address dredging, and the County Attorney is providing an opinion on dredging within the area. 6 - -- 161 lk 3 ()-- February 6,2009 Mr. Rogers moved for Staff to obtain a letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers indicating the Permit is out of compliance for the "following reasons:" (letter to identify the specific reasons) Second by Mr. Krumm. Carried unanimously 2-0. Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident requested a similar letter be issued to Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD). If this letter had been received in the past, it would have resulted in a different direction for the PBSD. Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Committee stated the email string provided between Gary McAlpin and Cynthia Ovdenk is only a "partial string" and Gary McAlpin requested an interpretation of the Management Plan sections and "wanted her to say it required channel markers." Gary McAlpin objected to the statement and noted Ms. Cravens (or anyone) cannot speak of any conversations between himself and the USACE. The statement "Collier County wants channel markers installed' is an inaccurate statement. ***** There being no rurther business ror the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order or the Chair at 3:15 PM. COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BAY ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE (1 '7i~ ;:{ These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on 3~tc-o<1 as presented \/ or as amended 7 -~--....... -'~~'''-'- Fiala RECEIVEri 6 I ll\' 3 b~ Halas 'f3nning APR 0 9 2009 March 9, 2009 Gayle Coletta Board otCounl:l Co~ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BAY MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND SAND BYPASSING SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 9, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERD that the Clam Bay Maintenance Dredging and Sand Bypassing Subcommittee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in the Conference Room of Coastal Zone Management, 3300 Santa Barbara Boulevard, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: David Roellig Kathy Worley David Farmer ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Gail Hambright, Staff Liaison Misc. Corres: Date: Item#: I ,cpi(~s to 161 lk3b March 9, 2009 I. Call to Order Gary McAlpin, Director of Coastal Zone Management, called the meeting to order at 9:06 AM. II. The Pledge or Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call A quorum was established. IV. Appointment or Subcommittee Chairman and Chairman Comments Kathy Worley nominated David Roellig to serve as Chairman. Second by David Farmer. Carried unanimously, 3-0. Chairman Roellig stated Clam Bay is an integrated system and it will be difficult to take out pieces to examine separately. The entire system, including flushing, water quality and mangroves, should be viewed together. V. Approval of Agenda Kathy Worley moved to approve the Agenda. Second by David Farmer. Carried unanimously, 3-0. VI. Public Comments (None) VII. Stafr Reports (None) VIII. New Business 1. Sand Bypassing History and Regulations a. 2008 Aerial Map of Clam Pass and Surrounding Beaches Gary McAlpin distributed copies of the aerial map consisting of two pages. The second page focused on Clam Pass. Mr. McAlpin introduced David Farmer who is the newest member of the 9- member Clam Bay Advisory Committee and has a civil engineering background. David Farmer stated he is a licensed Civil Engineer, a licensed General Contractor, and a Certified Professional Land Planner. His course of study focused on hydraulics: "closed conduit" (the study of flow through pipes), and "open-channel flow" which is the subject of the Subcommittee's study. Mr. McAlpin explained the Subcommittee was tasked to determine if it will be possible to dredge a larger area, instead of the normal 80 foot-wide cut, by examining the ebb shoal, and how much additional sand can be pulled from the area, if needed. Staffs goal is to collect technical data for analysis. He stated 2 161 lA~b March 9,2009 the sand from the proposed expanded dredging area would be used to renourish Clam Pass Beach Park. . There is a continual drift of sand, approximately 10-20,000 cubic yards, from North to South. . Clam Pass interrupts the normal flow of material and deposits sand on the outlet, called the ebb-tide shoal ("sand bar"), which results in starving the down-drift beaches. . The Florida Department of Environmental Protection encourages depositing dredged beach-quality sand at the down-drift beaches. . Collier County wishes to have the capability to move sand if necessary . The sand at the Pelican Bay Beach will erode if not renourished . The analysis will help determine what is "the right thing to do" from a technical standpoint. . In September, 2006, the Coastal Advisory Committee commissioned a study which was conducted by Coastal Planning & Engineering to determine how much sand could be safely removed. . A study was also conducted by Humiston & Moore, commissioned by Turrell, Hall & Associates on behalf of the Pelican Bay Foundation. The results of the H&M study conflicted with the results of the CP&E study. Each party claimed the other was biased. . The CAC commissioned PBS&J to conduct an independent review of the previous studies and perform a coastal engineering study to provide technical data. . In 1989, the mangroves began to die, and the first dredging event occurred. While dredging made Clam Bay more hydraulically efficient, an ebb-tide shoal was created in the process of cleaning out the channel, as an unintended consequence of the tidal flushing. . Since 1989, yearly monitoring data has been provided to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection measuring beach width and sand volume which fluctuates from year to year. . The goal is to determine the correct amount of dredging that will not create a detriment to the down-drift beaches. Chairman Roellig questioned the need for another study in view of the previously conducted studies. Mr. McAlpin stated significant improvements in modeling and data acquisition have been made over the past ten years. PBS&J has been hired to review all of the raw data previously acquired and to determine if new modeling is necessary to make specific recommendations as commissioned by the Coastal Advisory Committee. Chairman Roellig stated the optimum result is to keep the Pass self-flushing without the need for dredging. Kathy Worley noted the dredging cycle was reduced from 4 to 5 years to 3 years due to the use of smaller cuts which appeared to be more hydraulically efficient. 3 '^.,_...._..,-,....,_..,,~_.,._-_.__.,_.~_.._,.,...,._.-... ,,~-^.-..-.- 161 lA8b March 9, 2009 Mr. McAlpin stated there was no basis for the existing 3-year cycle and one of the goals of the PBS&J report will be to recommend an optimum dredging cycle. David Farmer questioned the depth of the cut. b. Florida Statutes and Regulations CDES ("Community Development and Environmental Services") obtained a Letter of Consistency from the State of Florida and Collier County is in compliance with Florida Statutes and Regulations. Mr. McAlpin stated CDES has retained its institutional knowledge. c. Clam Pass Beach Park Renourishment needs Determine how much dredging is necessary to keep the mouth of the Pass open, and encourage flushing to maintain the health of the mangroves and the estuary. d. Work/Views by CP&E and Humiston & Moore Mr. McAlpin stated the previous studies were conducted from different perspectives, i.e., the focus was different for each. The PBS&J study will present a balanced approach. e. Technical Evaluation by neutral consultant - PBS&J, Jeff Tabor Jefr Tabor, PBS&J, gave a PowerPoint presentation and stated: . The depth of the cuts has remained at -5.5 feet . The Pass has closed periodically throughout history . Previous studies and data accumulated from 1998 through 2005 will be evaluated with regard to accuracy of the data and the changing trends in the shoreline and wave volume . Also considered will be the dredging depth, the dredging area, the creation of a sediment sink, the undesirable impact to adjacent shorelines, and whether or not to allow natural by-passing to continue . Elements will include wave focusing/energy/transformation/tidal- driven velocity . Modeling will consider the present condition of Clam Bay and calibrate the wave size and currents; develop alternative for ebb cutting, whether or not to maximum sand mining and the potential impact . Goal: to update findings from 2005 to present, measure transportation rates and develop a sediment budget . The comparative study will take approximately 6 months to complete Mr. McAlpin stated the study is funded by Tourist Tax Dollars and from the County's General Fund. The CAC selected PBS&J as a neutral party because it did not have previous ties to the County or a vested interest in the outcome. Kathy Worley stated studies have been done for Doctor's Pass, Wiggins Pass, etc. as individual units without viewing the "big picture," i.e., the shoreline as a whole. She also stated the effect of what was done in a particular Pass to the 4 ,.~''^__"..,__.~. .<_'_~__"'~~n..._~__._,.~.___.,.~,_~_..".____"_..._"",,_~ . "-""'-';'--"-"'''---''~''~''''''=-''''-'--"'~'-'' . 161 lk3b March 9, 2009 remaining Passes did not appear to be considered as the entire coastline must be taken into consideration as an entity. r. Progress to Date PBS&J was asked to curtail any activity until formation of the Subcommittee. The next steps: . Develop Scope of Work . Move forward with the modeling developed by PBS&J to calibrate the exterior of Clam Bay, predict morphology (a changing of the outside ground structure) and evaluate the continuity between flushing and water quality . PBS&J will review the wave information obtained from the Wiggins Pass model and data obtained from the Coast Guard . Update the Subcommittee periodically regarding the modeling process and calibration . Present recommendations to achieve an optimum ebb-shoal dredging cycle while preventing erosion to Pelican Bay PBS&J will present its findings and recommendations to the Subcommittee who will report to the full Committee and develop a Master Plan for the Estuary . Kathy Worley stated she wanted to hear the opinions of the other Consultants and suggested they also make presentations to the Subcommittee. David Farmer stressed the need for professional opinions from Engineering firms (not Contractors). He requested PBS&J also present a sensitivity analysis. Gary McAlpin stated he will schedule presentations by the other Consultants and will request for peer review and analysis from University of Florida and Duke University but requested to not delay moving forward with PBS&J's data collection and model development. He suggested a parallel track. X. Public Comments Linda Roth stated the goal should be to ensure the health of the Clam Bay Estuary by utilizing minimal dredging as recommended in the 1 O-year Clam Bay Management Plan. The ultimate goal is to open up the Estuary to allow for natural flushing to maintain its health. She expressed concern regarding potential damage to the present eco-system simply to benefit the beaches. The dredging at Wiggins Pass made the situation worse. Mr. McAlpin stated Wiggins Pass has been dredged for strictly navigational reasons which are not applicable at Clam Bay. Marcia Craven, Pelican Bay Resident, Mangrove Action Committee, Friends or Clam Bay, stated the current permit references the "Clam Pass Natural Resource Protection Area." The permit application for Pass maintenance does not reference 5 .~,~~,"'-' .... ,-_.,'"",.'" ....,='<....-_"..,,' _ 'r "1>'-V_ --.."-..."'_......._-~""'",~-- 161 1/r 3b March 9, 2009 tidal wetlands or any viable wetlands system. The Coastal Zone Management Plan of 1991 stated "Clam Pass utilizes a natural process of sand bypassing." She asked if it was necessary to spend more money to jeopardize the stability of the area. Mr. McAlpin stated it is the responsibility of the Coastal Advisory Committee to integrate the information provided by its four Subcommittees to obtain an overall picture of the area and to reflect the recommendations of the Subcommittees in the Master Plan. Gary Farmer moved to commence the PBS&J Study as previously discussed including sensitivity analysis, data collection and modeling program. Second by Chairman Roellig. Kathy Worley requested the motion include presentations by previous Engineers and Consultants. Gary Farmer amended his motion: to commence the PBS&J Study, as previously discussed, including sensitivity analysis, data collection and modeling program and, to the best of the County's ability, to bring back the actual Consultants - not just a representative of the firm - to answer questions concerning the results of the previous studies. Second by Chairman Roellig. Mr. McAlpin suggested allowing two months in order for Mr. Tabor to develop the model. He stated he will notify the Subcommittee when significant process has been obtained to schedule another meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 3-0. IX. Old Business (None) XI. Announcements (None) XII. Committee Member Discussion (See above) XIII. Next Meeting Date/Location (To be determined) There being no rurther business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order or the Chair at 11:10 AM. 6 '<"'.~'-'-~""~"""----"--'"'--"-'='._'-"''''''-'''~"''','-",...,~._,..,-~._'_,~,._.,_.,.__...,.." ',--,-, ~ 161 lA3b March 9, 2009 Clam Bay Maintenance Dredging and Sand Bypassing Subcommittee I The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on '";> -'- ~ "'! - ..-""),~' ,-",' J 1,/ :......-. , as presented or as amended /' 7 '-"~~~-"~~,- - ",-""'''--'~--''''''''''-''''P-'''''~'''-'''-'.=''^''-' ".. ~=:=s !f fI~ Rr-~r:n Ir-D 16 I 1A3t/ Henning .,..., J - , r.:, ;',j ;:: I V c' Coyle = 7)(1 J ~~ I APR 0 9 2009 March 9, 2009 Coletta / ' owarC$ 0: e:.w.'~ c.:......~iw.... MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BA Y WATER QUALITY, MIXING AND RUNOFF SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 9, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERD that the Collier County Clam Bay Water Quality, Mixing and Runoff Subcommittee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in the Conference Room of Coastal Zone Management, 3300 Santa Barbara Boulevard, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kathy Worley Ronald Glah David Roellig ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Pam Keyes, Environmental Specialist Sandy Martello, Staff Liaison Michael J. Bauer, Ph.D., Natural Resources Manager, City of Naples Misc. Corres: ",_r..;;.(. --....- -' Item #:_______._-- I ::;opies to ~",,-------,---,"'-"'-", ..n ","--"""-_"""__'0'" 161 lA BC/ March 9, 2009 I. Call to Order Gary McAlpin, Director of Coastal Zone Management, called the meeting to order atl:IOPM. II. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call A quorum was established. IV. Appointment of Subcommittee Chairman and Chairman Comments David Roellig nominated Kathy Worley to serve as Chairman. Second by Ronald Glah. Carried unanimously, 3-0. Chairman Worley stated the Subcommittee's overall objective is to maintain and improve the health of the Clam Bay Estuary. The Subcommittee will discuss specific issues that will be presented to the entire Committee. V. Staff Reports (None) VI. New Business 1. Water Quality and Sampling Discussion and Approach Gary McAlpin outlined the Subcommittee's tasks: . To review prior water quality technical reports, quality assurance/control procedures, laboratory certificates, reporting requirements of the State of Florida, . To investigate water quality trends and impacts on estuarine wildlife and vegetation, . To make recommendations on required water sampling and testing to assure the long term viability of the Estuary, and . To make recommendations on sampling protocol to be consistent with other water quality programs. David A. Tomasko, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, PBS&J, outlined the findings ofthe Water Quality Sampling Program component for the Clam Bay Sea Grass Study: . If State resources are used for a water quality monitoring program, data is required to be input into "Storette" (an EPA recognized system for storage and retrieval of data). . Clam Bay data was not entered in Storette and the required "305-B Report" stated the data was "insufficient" to determine whether or not Clam Bay met the State's Water Quality Standards. . Some of the data sets collected included inorganic nutrients but did not include all the nutrients present in Clam Bay. Nitrate levels collected from Pelican Sound did not "make sense." 2 .""_'.",w_,~'.'~"___'__",__,_,_ -",-" -,..,~.","",-"--,.._~"-,_."...."~,,.,.__.- 161 11\'3(/ March 9, 2009 . The Gordon River Extension and Lake Trafford have been declared "impaired" by the DEP. . If the data collected is not interpreted by the local government, it will be interpreted by Tallahassee and may not accurately reflect local conditions. . Quality assurance and quality control ("QA/QC") are critical components of data analysis. . Data must include nutrients, phosphorus (all forms), nitrogen (all forms), and chlorophyll, and must be collected on a seasonal basis. . Appropriate analysis of collected data is crucial to prevent inaccurate classification by the DEP. . If only water quality is analyzed, Clam Bay could be incorrectly declared "impaired." Mr. McAlpin stated PBS&J will: . Standardize the locations of the selected sampling sites . Record locations with the City of Naples . Evaluate the existing data developed by the Conservancy from a QA/QC standpoint . Input "suspect" data into a separate database . Analyze the number of tests performed and evaluate the levels of nutrients and minerals in the samples . Develop a standardized procedure for the tests to be run . Review previous water quality data, lab procedures, chain of custody, protocol for the State's reporting requirements . Recommend optimum the water quality standards and analyze the actual levels found He further stated PBS&J will report its findings to the Subcommittee. Dr. Tomasko, PBS&J, stated: . Sea Grass levels will be very important as an argument against an incorrect declaration of impairment. Good field data is essential. . Should open a cooperative dialogue with the DEP - ask representatives how much data should be collected and to supply site specific criteria . Goal: collect the data the DEP wants to see Dr. Michael Bauer, Ph.D., Manager, City of Naples Natural Resources, stated: . The City of Naples has been sampling the water quality of Naples Bay for the past three years and has begun water sampling in Moorings Bay . Naples Bay was removed from the "impaired list" regarding nutrients as a result of entering the water sampling results into Storette . The integration of the water quality data with the Sea Grass data is important, as well as identifying the species being examined . Collection of data must be done during all weather conditions, i.e., drought and rainy seasons 3 ,._......,",.""....-.c..".."..._".____.._c__, . __"_"~",~_~_~____.'__v_.~.""" 161 lA 3(0 March 9, 2009 Gary McAlpin stated Staffs recommendation is to: . Go forward with the Water Sampling Program in Clam Bay utilizing the existing data and analyzing the data to determine if it is technically sound, . Obtain DEP's input for the Water Sampling Program, . Identify sampling sites within Clam Bay . Coordinate with the City of Naples to ensure Clam Bay's system is compatible Chairman Worley asked Timothy Hall of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. to comment on Pelican Bay's Program. Mr. Hall, Senior Biologist, stated the sampling did not meet the criteria for entry into Storette because the dissolved oxygen levels were below the State's standards. Turrell, Hall & Associates recommended Pelican Bay establish a standard operating procedures manual for data collection. Mr. McAlpin noted the Pelican Bay data was collected under a different set of parameters to satisfy permit requirements. Dr. Tomasko stated data that is not Storette-eligible can be used for planning purposes, but not for verification. Public Comments: Marcia Cravens referenced comments from the University of Florida's Master Naturalist Program concerning tidal mud flats. She stated heavy metals and pesticides residue should be monitored. Mr. McAlpin stated PBS&J will consider such monitoring when developing its program. Linda Roth stated assigning only one company to such a complex issue did not seem responsible since different companies will present different data from their studies which can be used to make an intelligent decision concerning recommendations made to the Subcommittee. Mr. McAlpin stated PBS&J will be the lead Consultant for the Water Quality Study and Turrell, Hall & Associates will be the sub-consultant. The results presented will reflect their joint efforts. Chairman Worley asked if the Subcommittee was being fiscally responsible because Rhonda Watkins developed the County's QA/QC procedures for water quality testing and collection. Mr. McAlpin stated the County's lab, protocol, and chain of custody would be utilized. The program to be developed by PBS&J would incorporate the County's standards. Dave Finley asked if sediment testing in outer Clam Bay would be made part of Staffs recommendations. Mr. McAlpin stated sediment testing would be part of the analysis to be performed by PBS&J. Chairman Worley asked to locate a testing site in the Seagate Canals. 4 "",^^"- '-~'-~~-'. c.._...._.,___...",__~,_,._......._ _""_"~.~',,,,,,_'w. '..0"_'_...,,,...... ,"_"_ 161 11\ 3 c" March 9, 2009 Gary McAlpin stated the monitoring sites will be reviewed with the City of Naples and located to compliment the City's sites to avoid duplication of efforts. Chairman Worley asked if PBS&J will review the results of a previous water quality study that examined the lower part of the Bay from the perspective of what was important to monitor and where to locate monitoring sites. She requested establishing a DO ("Dissolved Oxygen") Profile. Mr. McAlpin stated PBS&J will include recommendations concerning a DO Profile in their proposal. Marcia Cravens stated Pelican Bay community does significant water quality testing and has a permit from the South Florida Water Management District. Mr. McAlpin stated Pelican Bay will continue to perform its site-specific permit requirements. It is a separate activity. Some of the data may be integrated but it is independent of PBS&J's efforts. Ronald Glah moved to accept StafFs recommendation to hire PBS&J to develop a water quality monitoring and testing program, to analyze existing historical data, and to work with the DEP. Second by Chairman Worley. Carried unanimously, 3-0. 2. Tidal Flushing and Mixing Discussion and Approach Gary McAlpin outlined the Subcommittee's tasks: . To review available technical data and make recommendations on studies that can be undertaken to improve the overall health of the Estuary by the identification and optimization of tidal flushing and mixing. . To identify estuarine wildlife most suited for this habitat and to make restoration recommendations, if appropriate . Goal: Overall optimization to enhance estuarine wildlife Dr. Tomasko stated: . The culvert system underneath Seagate has not been not well documented (one way value versus a two-way system) regarding expectations . Water quality to the south and north of Seagate can be similar for nutrients but different for chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen due to residence times . Single systems can become impaired during droughts . If water quality fails because a system is not flushed but the nutrient levels remain good, then a different approach must be taken versus the approach taken when water quality fails due to poor nutrient levels . Flushing and aeration systems can be utilized for dead-end canals with odor problems due to high algae levels . An important question is "How does residence vary from place to place?" . The best approach is to study water circulation and integrate the results with a water quality study . Water quality data will be collected simultaneously in Naples Bay and Clam Bay to assess (1) how much water moves from south to north at tidal exchange and (2) the quality of the water circulating 5 _ ,._,v. ."mc_ .__~_~,.~__" ~- .=>0.."'......,-<, .. . ""_'N"'""~','_'~~^"~_,,~v,,,"_' . 16 I lA 3~ March 9, 2009 Gary McAlpin stated the Estuary has been managed on a three-year flushing cycle. The question is whether or not the time frame allows optimum flow for the health of the Estuary and its marine life. The Mixing Study will examine the expectations for tidal flushing to determine if the criteria is being met for sea grasses, marine life and mangrove habitat. The water flow sources are Clam Pass, Seagate Drive, and run off from Pelican Bay. Jeff Tabor, PBS&J, recapped the topics covered during the morning meeting of the Clam Bay Maintenance Dredging and Sand Bypassing Subcommittee and added the Study will examine: . Physical aspects of the Bay . Volume of water being flushed . Relationship between Moorings Bay and Clam Bay . The tide gates will have data loggers and provide continual monitoring . A working model will be developed to verify results Dr. Michael Bauer stated: . Moorings Bay area is built up and contributes poor quality water into the Clam Bay system . 74 culverts "dump" untreated storm water into Moorings Bay . Preliminary data indicates the water quality in Mooring Bay is fairly good because Mooring Bay flushes twice a day in and out of Doctor's Pass . Hard data is needed to determine how the water interacts and determine the water quality Chairman Worley stated the Pelican Bay Foundation and the County spent $70,000 to develop a flushing model. Mr. McAlpin stated the model developed by Humiston & Moore was limited in scope due to available technical resources and confirmed only the tidal range present then in relationship to mangrove maintenance. The model did not address the Estuary as a whole and its issues. He confirmed if the data can be used, it will be integrated into the Mixing Study. 3. Nutrient Loading and Runoff Control Discussion and Approach Gary McAlpin outlined the Subcommittee's tasks: . To review previous reports on the sources and impact of runoff on the Estuary's water quality, mangrove, estuarine wildlife and habitat . To review nutrient loadings . To identify major sources of runoff and recommend actions to reduce runoff having a negative impact on the Estuary . To review what part runoff plays on degrading the Estuary's water quality Dr. Tomasko stated: . Pelican Bay's storm water conveyance system is impressive - the water is treated as it travels from pond to pond 6 '~"-"--~-""<-'-''''''-~''"'''''-~.-.~-''.'--'-,. -.,.,,,~~,.._~---------_.,- m. "......., "".__"_~_...---....~.".."",."^,.._......,~.,_-.."_,,,,,,,,,,y,",,,,""".""'~_~'_'"'~"""_~~'~n'''''~'._ ._~', "..._"x.____.._"~.._.._. _,~ 161 1 k 3G March 9, 2009 . The role of flushing is important for water quality . It is important to determine the amount oftime that nutrients remain in a system . The best approach is to consider the systems as a whole, not separately Chairman Worley stated ifSeagate is determined to be "the problem" because it is a shallow based system, alternatives besides flushing or dredging must be examined to prevent changes to the ecology of the system. Gary McAlpin stated Staff's recommendation is to request a specific proposal from PSB&J to analyze the existing data, to collect technical data, to integrate with the City of Naples, and develop specifics regarding the necessary steps to develop a Mixing and Flow Study. David Roellig asked how the Study will be funded. Mr. McAlpin stated after the proposal has been reviewed and approved, a funding request will be presented to the County Manager who will bring the issue before the Board of County Commissioners. He further stated proposals will be presented to the Subcommittee at its next meeting. Dr. Bauer stated the City of Naples has funds to contribute to the Study. Public Comments: Marcia Cravens stated contaminants move out to the Gulf of Mexico because the storm water remains untreated. A 1981 Study did not recommend opening up Clam Bay to Moorings Bay and Venetian Bay. It was recommended to improve the flushing of the Bay by reducing its depth. Comprehensive studies were done. She asked why spend more money on more studies when answers are available? Mr. McAlpin stated there are no plans to dredge Clam Bay or to open up Clam Pass or Seagate Drive now. The purpose of the Study is to examine the existing system and determine how to optimize Clam Bay through an integrated approach in cooperation with the City of Naples. Chairman Worley stated a pro-active approach is to determine methods to measure and reduce the pollutant load entering the system. To determine how to solve water quality problems, the source must be identified. Mr. McAlpin stated Staff's recommendation is to move forward with the Tidal Flushing Study which incorporates Nutrient Loading/Runoff Control and request PBS&J develop a proposal, in conjunction with Turrell, Hall & Associates, with specifics discussed, for presentation at the next Subcommittee meeting. David Roellig moved to accept Staff's recommendation (As noted by Mr. McAlpin.). Second by Ronald Glah. Carried unanimously, 3-0. VII. Old Business (None) 7 '-'--"--'---~---"-~"--"--'---""'._"^ -,-.---....' 161 lA3~ March 9, 2009 (IV.) Approval of Agenda Chairman Worley moved to approve the Agenda. Second by David Roellig. Carried unanimously, 3-0. (Item was heard out of order) VIII. Announcements (None) IX. Committee Member Discussion (See above) X. Next Meeting DatelLocation: March 26, 2009 at 9:00 AM at 3300 Santa Barbara Boulevard, Naples, Florida There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:55 PM. Clam Bay Water Quality, Mixing and Runoff Subc mittee The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on -7 --:<0- 0 Q ") v -; , .../ . as presented or as amended V 8 - .....~....._-_._...._-,~~._,------- n p "'....._.____'""_";.ro__....._ __~'.,_,__ .0'0 Fiala ~ RECEIVEol6 I 1At v Halas .. . - Henning . Coyle /. 7l I M-L APR 0 9 2009 January 8, 2009 Coletta. 7 f Board of County Commlssiooers MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 8, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business Herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3 rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Murray Hendel Larry Magel Doug Finley Ted Forcht (Excused) Victor Rios ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Mise. Cones: Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples ltemt: 1 Copies to: ..__,_ _'~m" ~ ._" "." _," _... ,.. ...."_~ ____._ ......__.,______~.....,~._~". ~''''' ."..--" -'-.- 161 1 Aq January 8, 2009 I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1 :OOPM II. Pledge or Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll Call was taken with a quorum established. 1. Welcome Doug Finley Doug Finley was recognized as a new member of the Committee. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Pires moved to approve the agenda subject to the following additions: . VII .1.a - Review of Official TDC Projections . IX - Supplemental Information provided regarding MillMac Corp. and Orion Marine Group Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 6-0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval or CAC Minutes 1. December 11, 2008 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes subject to the following change: . Page 5 - Speaker - line 1 - from "relevance is in the land lease..." to "relevance is in the (submerged) land lease..." Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 6-0. VII. Starr Reports 1. Revenue Report - Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report - FY 208-2009" updated through December of 08. 1. a. Review of Orficial TDC projections The Committee reviewed the "Naples, Marco Island Everglades Convention & Visitors Bureau Tourist Tax Collections History" dated January 8, 2009. The following was highlighted: . The document includes projections for 2009 calendar year. . The collections for calendar year 2008, were $14,597,935 . The projection forecasts total revenue of $14,292,400 for calendar year 2009 (a decrease in revenue of$306,535) . The budgets may be adjusted throughout the year at the direction of the Committee. . There are emergency funds available for use if necessary. 2 161 1M January 8, 2009 The Committee requested Staff incorporates the previous year's collection figures month by month in the document "Collier County Tourist Tax YTD Report by City" 2. Project Cost Report - Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 2008/2009 TDC Category "A" Beach Maintenance Projects" dated January 8, 2009. 3. Fund 195 Budget Analyses The Executive Summary "Fund 195 Budget Analysis" dated January 8, 2009 was reviewed. The following was highlighted: . The budget in this area may be reduced approximately $317,400 to off set the estimated $335,000 shortfall . Budget reserves from the emergency 195 funds may be utilized. . Staff recommends undertaking the budget reductions. Mr. Rios requested the minutes reflect the reduction of $60,000 will not have a timing and/or impact on the plan to re-nourish the beach and complete the Marco breakwater improvements. Gary McAlpin clarified the improvements have not yet been authorized. The engineering studies for these proposed activities haven been authorized and will not be affected by this reduction in the budget. Discussion ensued regarding Purchasing Department Policy for Consultant rates and the possible reduction of the rates to offset budget shortfalls. It was noted the budget reductions may affect the timing of the implementation of the Plan for the long-term stabilization of Wiggins Pass currently being evaluated by the Wiggins Pass Modeling Evaluation Group. The Committee reached consensus on the proposed budget activities. VIII. New Business 1. Review of CAC Applicants Mr. Hendel moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, the appointment of James Burke to the Coastal Advisory Council. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 6-0. IX. Old Business 1. Doctors and Wiggins Pass Contract Recommendations Gary McAlpin presented the following documents: . Executive Summary "Recommend approval by the Board of County Commissioners to award Bid #095148 to Subaqueous Services, LLC in the total amount of$1,555,419.29 for 2008 Dredging of Doctors and Wiggins Passes and approve all necessary budget amendments" dated January 8, 2009. " .) , "'-~._.'.~.".^ ,'" . ..-.............. _,''''''_.~..........".~.~."'_''._.H~ ...._ 161 '11 PrL\' January 8, 2009 . Letter from Michael Miller, President of MillMac to Collier County Steve Carnell, Manager of Purchasing dated December 22, 2008. Re: Bid Number 09-5148, Wiggins and Doctors Passes Dredging Proj ect. . Letter from Michael Miller, President of MillMac to Collier County Steve Carnell, Manager of Purchasing dated December 22,2008. Re: Solicitation # 09-5148, Wiggins and Doctors Passes Dredging Project. . Letter from Steve Carnell, Collier County Purchasing Services Director to Michael Miller, President of MillMac dated January 5, 2008. Re: Bid Protest Decision, ITB 09-5148, Dredging of Wiggins and Doctors Passes. . Letter from J. Abell Acres, Vice President & General Counsel for Orion Marine Group, Re: Subaqueous Services, LLC dated December 11,2008 . State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry License #QB62934 issued to MillMac Corp. He noted the following: . At the previous Coastal Advisory Committee meeting (December 11, 2008) there were questions why the lower bidders for the project were bypassed because they were deemed "unqualified" to complete the scope of the work. . There was a protest issued by MillMac for the decision to award the bid to Subaqueous Services, LLC. . The decision to award the bid to Subaqueous Services, LLC was upheld. . MillMac is not appealing the decision. Mr. Pires noted Staff had addressed his concerns raised at the previous meeting. The Committee reached unanimous consensus in supporting the Recommendation in the Executive Summary (That the Board of County Commissioners award Bid #09- 5148 to Subaqueous Services, LLCfor dredging of Doctor's and Wiggins Pass at a cost not to exceed $1,555,419.29 and authorize the Board Chairman to execute the standard contract and approve all necessary budget amendments). X. Public Comments None XI. Announcements Chairman Sorey noted he received a call from Jeff Riley who is looking for participation by two members of the Coastal Advisory Committee to be involved with the Wiggins Park Assessment Study. Gary McAlpin noted Jeff Riley is the Public Engineer for the State of Florida Park Service. The Service conducts the Assessment Study every 10 years to assess the 4 ~__"__'~_"'_'~"'_.""_~_''''_~''''.'_,~,'''.'._'.~m'__~__~.".__ _, ~___F .,~" _.~,_nN<_ ,.... .,._...".~~.~-...........,"__ 161 1 A~ January 8, 2009 carrying capacity (parking facilities, etc.) of the Park. He will provide further information as it becomes available. XII. Committee Member Discussion It was noted the Chairman ofthe Wiggins Pass Modeling Evaluation Group is now Doug Finley. No one will be appointed to replace Heidi Kulpa who resigned from the Group due to relocation. XIII. Next Meeting Date February 12,2009 - Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 1:55 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on ~ as presented or as amended \~ 5 _"".~,.",",,___,,_,~__'.'_"'_"'~"__' ,.._~., ,""_""_~'_'M'.,~".""_' '_'_~__""""",,,W~~_,'.._ - u_.__""~..__.,,_. 61 IJ\~ ,.; Fiala CAC April 9, 2009 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes Halas 1 of 7 Henning March 12, 2009 Coyle RECEIVED Coletta : APR 0 9 2009 Board of County Commissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 12,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business Herein, met on this date at 1 :00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III (Excused) VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Murray Hendel Larry Magel Doug Finlay Ted Forcht (Excused) Victor Rios (Excused) Jim Burke ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant, Coastal ZoneManagemen~ Co . Dr. Michael Bauer, Ph.D., Natural Resources Manager,~ty HrNaples Date: I Item ... ::opies to .....,.,-._<,_.,~.~-="'--~-~----..."'_._-_."--_....._..... .~~,"~""--~-~_..-~.,.~_.,~,.~~ ~.,......._-_. 161 11\~ CAC April 9, 2009 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 2of7 March 12, 2009 I. Call to Order Vice Chairman Tony Pires chaired the meeting and called to order at 1 :00 PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll Call was taken with a quorum established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Magel moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following changes: Item VIlLI - eliminated with remaining Items renumbered accordingly. Item VIII 3.b moved to item VIIL9 Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 5-0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. January 8, 2009. Mr. Burke moved to approve the minutes of the January 8, 2009 meeting subject to the following correction: Page 5 - Item XII -line 1-2 - from "It was noted the Chairman of the Wiggins Pass Modeling Group is now Doug Finlay" to "It was noted the Chairman of the Wiggins Pass Modeling Group is now John Findley." Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 5-0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Revenue Report - Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Collier County Tourist Tax Report YTD Report by City" updated for February, 2009. The collections represent a 10-15 percent decrease from the same time frame of the previous Fiscal Year. At the April meeting a quarterly budget update will be provided by Staff. 2. Project Cost Report - Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed "FY 2009/2010 TDC Category "A" Beach Maintenance Projects" dated March 13,2009. It was noted the monitoring for Hideaway Beach is split equally between Collier County and the Hideaway Beach Association. VIII. New Business 1. Accepting Category" A" Grant Application and Approval of Evaluation Criteria FY 09/10 Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "FY 2009-2010 Acceptance of Category "A " Grant Applications and Approval of Evaluation Criteria for FY 2009-2010 Grant Applications" and "Evaluation/Approval Guidelinesfor TDC 2 ..-.._-~"-"._..,_. ---~..~-,-~.-,---,_..._---- '<l"'f .. " r "..,_.~. ."'- ~.~---,-,--_...-^....._----"-_.~.,_. 161 1 ~rJr; CAC April 9, 2009 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 30f7 March 12, 2009 Category A Yearly Grant Requests by the Coastal Advisory Committee" dated March 12,2009. It was noted the Evaluation! Approval Guidelines are listed by order of priority from #'s 1-9 and non-essential items #7-9 may be deferred or approved with the condition that funding is available at the time. It is intended to combine projects when possible to achieve more efficient expenditure of funds. The Committee reached consensus on the guidelines as presented noting items # 7-9 may not receive funding due to budget constraints. 2. FEMA Tropical Storm Fay PW Approval for Vanderbilt!Park Shore/Naples and Marco Island Beaches. a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Share FEMA Tropical Storm Fay PW Approval for Vanderbilt/Park Shore/Naples and Marco Island Beaches and obtain a Recommendation for Approval to the Bce' dated March 12.2009. It was noted the County has received approval for FEMA funding to repair the above referenced beaches to pre Tropical Storm "Fay" conditions. The County will be required to provide 25% of the funds for the repairs, while FEMA will provide 75% of the funding. The County will be required to expend the funds with re-imbursement by FEMA upon completion of the expenditures. Mr. Magel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the FEMAfunding proposal as presented. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 5-0. 3. VanderbiltlPark Shore/ Naples Beach Redesign Programs Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Vanderbilt/Park Shore/Naples Beach Programs" dated March 12,2009. He provided an overview of the proposed strategy for the Beach Programs in relation to the FEMA funding including addressing the "hot spots" of erosion, elevate and widen the beach hot spots, develop a removal plan for the drainage pipes in Naples and possibly re- nourishing Clam Pass Beach Park during the cycle. 4. Marco Island Beach Program Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Marco Island Beach Program - Update" dated March 12,2009. He provided an overview of the proposed strategy for the Beach Programs in relation to the FEMA funding including the location and quantities of sand available, the possible construction of additional segmented breakwaters and combining the Hideaway Beach Re-nourishment Project to provide additional cost savings. He has been communicating with Marco Island officials on the status of strategies. 3 .'. -'"'--'~---'~"-'""'"'---~" .."-"'_._--_.~--~...~~..,-.'"--._.".".~ ----,~_._,--_."~---,." 161 lAq CAC April 9, 2009 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 4 of? March 12, 2009 He will be providing the Coastal Advisory Committee with more formal strategies in approximately 2 months. Break-1:52PM Reconvened-1:56PM 5. Wigginsilloctors Pass Dredging - Update Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary" Wiggins/Doctors Pass Dredging- Update" dated March 12,2009. It was noted Subaqueous Services has completed the dredging at Wiggins Pass and are re-mobilizing to begin dredging at Doctor's Pass. 6. Wiggins Pass Modeling Recommendation Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Approval of Wiggins Pass Modeling Recommendation andforward to the TDC and the BCCfor approval" dated March 12,2009. It was noted the Wiggins Pass Modeling Evaluation Work Group has completed its task and provided a recommended option for the long term long-term stabilization and lengthening of the dredging cycle for Wiggins Pass. Coastal Planning and Engineering conducted a detailed modeling study and prepared a Final Report on the recommendation. It involves altering a shoal, installation of temporary sand dikes and revising the dredging template to train the channel to self-flush over a longer time frame than currently exists. It was noted the Final Report will be available on-line (via the Coastal Advisory Committee website). Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Tourist Development Council and Board of County Commissioners approve the Option as recommended by the Wiggins Pass Modeling Work Evaluation Work Group. Second by Mr. Magel. Carried unanimously 5-0. 7. Clam Bay Advisory Committee Charter Approval and Update Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Clam Bay Advisory Committee Charter Approval and Update" dated March 12, 2009. Attached was the document "Collier County "Clam Bay Advisory Committee" Mission, Functions, Powers, Duties & Work Plan" (hereafter known as the "document") which was unanimously approved by the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. He provided an overview of the "document" and requested a recommendation of approval by the Coastal Advisory Committee for forwarding to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). S oeakers Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident commended the work to date of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee and the residents of Seagate look forward to the placing of navigation markers. The residents of Seagate's priority is to improve and 4 '~'.Wh___"""__'~' ~,'._'"'.M_'_'_'_.~._._<~o_.~__;"__~"'~_" . alii ., _ -. 161 1 ~t\ CAC April 9, 2009 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 5 of? March 12, 2009 maintain a high level of water quality standards in Clam Bay. She stated, in the past few years the water quality in the Seagate area has declined. Rick Dykman, Seagate Resident notes the markers are important for boater safety and to protect the environment and requests the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) support the placement of markers as well as ensuring a high standard of water quality for the bay. Marcia Cravens, President, Mangrove Action Group, expressed concern over the "document" noting the Estuary is the only Coastal Natural Resource Protection Area in Collier County. There has been a commitment by the County to keep the area in conservation. She requested the item be tabled and the "document" be returned to the Clam Bay Advisory Committee (CBAC) as they have not reviewed and approved the exact wording in the final draft. Mr. Pires noted the date of the "document" was March 1, 2009 while the CBAC met on February 20, 2009. He requested clarification if the Committee reviewed the "document" at the meeting. Gary McAlpin noted the original draft of the "document" was prepared by a Subcommittee of the CBAC. The CBAC reviewed and approved the draft with modifications. Staff revised the draft as directed by the Clam Bay Advisory Committee (CBAC) with the final draft in front of the CAC for approval today. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney, noted if substantial changes are made to the "document" by the CAC, it should be returned to the Clam Bay Advisory Committee for review and approval. Mary Bolen, Pelican Bay Resident stated the CBAC have not reviewed the changes they approved (in final form). Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident, noted the CBAC is to report to the CAC and BCC jointly. It was noted by the CAC Ordinance 2008-48, which was adopted empowering the CBAC, stating the CBAC shall make recommendations directly to the CAC which will then forward any recommendations to the BCC. Annice Gregerson, Pelican Bay Resident requested the item be tabled. Arthur Chase, Pelican Bay Resident requested the item be tabled. Mr. Pires requested clarification if there were any substantial revisions to the "document" made by Staff that were not voted on and approved by the CBAC. Gary McAlpin stated the "document" presented today contains no substantial changes from the direction provided by the CBAC after their review of the draft (at the February 20, 2009 meeting of the CBAC). 5 +...._"_....""._._~.__._.~.._._,,.._"'_~,_,.__.____,;_,.""_~___._"~.._l. '''' 11'1 ,..,.~.,..,,"~'._,h'".'''''_e...,"'~.....u~_'''_...-_,~"_,___,,_'"_'_- 161 1 A~ CAC April 9, 2009 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 6of7 March 12, 2009 Mr. Hendel moved to approve the recommendation (contained in the Executive Summary "Clam Bay Advisory Committee Charter Approval and Update" dated March 12, 2009) to approve and forward the document "Collier County "Clam Bay Advisory Committee" Mission, Functions, Powers, Duties & Work Plan" as approved by the Clam Bay Advisory Group to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Mr. Burke. Mr. Pires expressed concern over the following wording in the "document:" . Page 1 - Committee Mission - line # 1-2, the phrase "make joint recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC") and the Coastal Advisory Committee ("CAC ") should be struck and replaced with "make recommendations to the CAe" as provided in the approved Ordinance empowering the CBAC. . Page 1 - Committee Mission - line #3, striking of the word "use ", as this word is not referenced in the approved Ordinance. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney stated the word "use" is appropriate as the duties provided by the Ordinance are all inclusive of issues that affect the Estuary. . Page 1 - Committee Duties, line #2, the phrase "but not limited to" should be struck as the term is all inclusive when the CBAC was given a specific task to complete. Gary McAlpin noted the use of the phrase "but not limited to" is generic in nature to ensure if any items are found to have been omitted in the 12 duties listed as the CBAC moves forward, they could be incorporated into the duties necessary to complete the task. . Determination of the types of vessels allowed to be utilized in the Estuary is not identified in the Mission Statement. Gary McAlpin noted it is not the purpose ofthe CBAC to determine the types of vessels allowed to utilize the Estuary, rather resolve navigation issues for vessels legally allowed to utilize the Estuary. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney stated the Mission Statement and Committee Duties Sections of the "document" as written are legally sufficient including use of the phrase "but not limited to." Motion carried 4 'yes" -1 "no." Mr. Pires voted "no." 8. Biological Monitoring Summary Postponed 9. Gordon River Dredging Funding - Update Postponed IX. Old Business None 6 ---- _.__._---_._------~~~ _ '"_,"'...~__.~'.~""_;........~.",.,...~""..,>_..",',_.A~"'_'"' .,--.."''''-''-''-' 161 1 kt\ GAG April 9, 2009 VI-1 Approval of GAG Minutes 7 of 7 March 12, 2009 X. Public Comments Marcia Cravens, President, Mangrove Action Group noted the Ordinance adopted which empowered the CBAC is not in accordance with the minutes of the BCC meeting when the item was discussed. In addition, she requested the item VII1.7 be tabled as the CBAC has not had an opportunity to ensure the "document" reflects the results ofthe February 20, 2009 CBAC meeting. Mr. Pires noted the Agenda for this CAC meeting has been posted for public view for a week, and the members of the CBAC have received a copy of the final "document". No members have expressed any reservations or concerns to Staff or the CAC regarding the contents of the "document". XI. Announcements 1. Service Recognition Award. It was noted Mr. Sorey has received a Service Recognition A ward from the County. XII. Committee Member Discussion 1. Naples Daily News Article 3/1/09 Postponed XIII. Next Meeting Date The next meeting will be held on April 9, 2009 - Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 3:05 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee . /\- ~~~~ c!f:::p.kes, ~ Chairman c <1 tJ hf\ ') C" iJ-e '/ These minutes apPTO/ by the Board/Committee on Il\ ctrJ, J'J) jDot{ as presented or as amended 7 .^".-"..-.-. ~ EO 16 I 1~ Fiala J>~6t RECEIV Hala~ '1&~ APR 0 7 2009 AGENDA Henmng Coyle ;: ~ COLLIER C~~~rWN~n~OMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:3f~.'eP,~ ~~ ~RIL 2, 2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED TN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MA TERTALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIA TE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V ATLABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MA Y NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2009 RLSA, MARCH 2, 2009 SIGN CODE, MARCH 5, 2009 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MARCH 24,2009 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: CU-2003-AR-3725, Close Up Creatures, Inc., in reference to NGALA, represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP of RW A, Inc. and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting Conditional Uses pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 2.03.01.A.1.C. The conditional uses being requested are as follows: Number 5, to allow aquaculture for non-native or exotic species subject to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permits; Number 23, to allow a Cultural, Ecological or Recreational Facility; and Number 25, commercial production, raising or breeding of exotic animals. The subject property which has a Rural Agriculture zoning district designation and consists of 2 !:I:: acres, is located on Inez Road S.W., at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Inez Road and Kearney Avenue, approximatelyM)fG-iliR!r~uth of Keene Avenue, in Section 30, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, FI~1?l" (Coar inat r: Kay Deselem, AICP) .-e-s. Item #:J1z_~S 1 ,cpies to ~.-' '-"'-'~''''",,"'- "" ll"'ll --",,-~,"--,.- 16 I 1 ~0 B. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-11546, Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane, AlCP of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Longshore Lake PUD Ordinance No. 93-3, Section 3.2.B. to allow an off premise sign for Saturnia Falls (aka Terafina PUD) in Tract B of the Longshore Lake, Unit 5C Subdivision; or, in the alternative to allow the off-site premise sign to become an on-site premise sign for Longshore Lake; to amend Section 3.2.B. to allow an existing maintenance building to remain as an accessory use; to reinsert omitted Traffic Requirements into Section V; and to add Exhibit C, Deviations. The subject sign is located on a .5::1:: acre property located on the southeast corner of the Longshore Lake PUD, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Logan Boulevard in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 20. 2008 C. Petition: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046, 1M Collier Joint Venture, represented by Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., and Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, is requesting a rezone of the Mirasol PUD from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development zoning district (RPUD) to remedy the sunsetted status of the project in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.0.6. The number of dwelling units originally approved, 799 dwelling units, is not proposed to change. Ordinance No. 01-20 will be repealed and a five acre tract will revel1 to Agricultural zoning. The subject 1.543 acre tract is located on the north side of Immokalee Road, bordered on the east by Broken Back Road and future Collier Boulevard in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Pettion: V A-2008-AR-13977, Tim Chess of McDonalds USA, LLC, represented by Jeffrey Satfield of CPH Engineers, Inc., is requesting a Variance from the landscape requirements of Land Development Code Subsection 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, in the General Commercial (C-4) and Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD), to allow a modification of the required 7.5-foot wide buffer on the western side of the property; and to reduced butfer widths on the property's northern side from 15 feet to ten feet, the eastern side from 7.5 feet to five feet, and the southern side from 10 feet to five feet. The 0.86-acre subject property is located at 2886 Tamiami Trail East, in Section II, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss. AIC?) (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 19,2009) B. Petition: VA-2008-AR-14017, Merit Petroleum Company, represented by Bert Thomas, is requesting five Variances from the minimum 50-foot front yard setback requirement of Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 5.05.05, Automobile Service Stations, for two gasoline pump dispenser islands and a canopy in the General Commercial (C-4) and Main Street Overlay Subdistrict (MSOSD) to allow a reduced setback along West main Street to 48 feet and 31 feet for the dispenser islands and 38 feet for the canopy; and along 7th Street South to 33 feet for the westernmost dispenser island and 41 feet for the canopy. The 0.45-acre subject property is located at 617 West Main Street, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) C. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc., represented by John Passidomo of Cheffy Passidomo, and Margaret C. Perry, AICP, of WilsonMillerlnc., is requesting a standard rezone from the Golf Course (GC) zoning district to the Agriculture (A) zoning district. The subject property, consisting of 553.67::1:: acres, is located on the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, approximately 2 miles east of the Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East. Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) 2 16 I 1~ D. Petition PUDA-2008-AR-13792, Naples Botanical Garden, Inc. and the Florida Gulf Coast University Foundation, Inc., represented by R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress LPA; and Margaret Perry, AICP, of Wilson Miller, Inc., are requesting an Amendment to Ordinance Number 03-29, The Naples Botanical Garden Planned Unit Development (PUD), by amending Section 4.14, Design Guidelines; Section 6.2, Development Parameters; Section 6.4, Permitted Uses and Structures to allow interim or temporary structures; Section 6.5 Development Standards so the interim or temporary structures have a greater setback distance than the principal structures; revisions to Section 7.2, Transportation Commitments of the PUD Document; and adding Section 7.6 to provide Deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC). The subject property (l71.2::l:: acres) is located at 4820 Bayshore Drive at the southwest corner of the intersection of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) E. Petition: PUDZ-2008-AR-13048, Nadesha Ranasinghe represented by Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, PA and Ronald Nino of Vanasse & Daylor, LLP are requesting a PUD rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District to allow a 45,000 square foot commercial development including retail, service and office uses to be known as Singer Park CPUD. The subject property, consisting of 5.14+/-acres, is located on Everglades Boulevard south of Immokalee Road (CR 846) in Tract 128 of Golden Gates Estates, Unit 47, in Section 30, Township 47 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Planning Department request to schedule public hearing dates for Growth Management Plan amendments 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 4/2/09 eepe Agenda/Ray Bellows/cr 3 ---.--.---.-- .'-'-"--'._"-'- "_._.._~.._' ~, . ~~.,.----_._..~_..._,._,~..._.-.-.. ,...-....,.-., Fiala 161 .1~/ Halas ebruary 19, 2009 Henning RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT OF THE .0 OF TgpfcL }1KLJ MAR 2 7 2009 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida Board of COOnty CommissIoners February 19,2009 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" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Misc. Corres: Date: Item#: Page 1 - aies to - -~"'-'-~.""-"---~ ~,---."~- """-" ....~ "<I"" ,-..------ 16r lkS February 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the February 19th 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 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if the secretary will please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. Ray, do we have any changes to today's-- MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we'll move forward in the order in which they're listed then. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Couple issues. We have two meetings-- and Mr. Kolflat just pointed this out to me -- that are not shown on our schedule. One is tomorrow afternoon at 1 :00. And it's a continuation of the RLSA meeting that started a couple weeks ago and was continued from a prior date. That meeting will be held at 1 :00 at the CDES conference room, 609, 6] o. Page 2 161 1~ February 19, 2009 And we'll begin at that meeting on the Group 5 policies, which is where we left off before. Of the Planning Commission members, does anybody know that they're not going to be there tomorrow? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Likewise, on the same calendar we got, on the 26th we will continue the 20th to the 26th. We only have four hours in the afternoon on the 20th, or about that much time. That won't be enough to finish up at all. So we have a second day which we hope we can finish, which is the 26th of February. Starts at 8:30 at CDES, same room. Is there anybody here know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I may be iffy there, Chairman. I may be out oftown. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Wolfley, you may not be there then. And then our next regular meeting is the 5th of March. Is everybody on schedule to be at that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: You missed two sign code meetings before the regular meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, February (sic) 2nd and 3rd. Yeah, we have a sign code meeting scheduled for two days, March 2nd and 3rd, both in this room, starting at 8:30 in the morning. I'm not sure under the circumstances if two days are going to be needed, but we have two days to do it anyway. How about the attendance on those; anybody know if they cannot make it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I cannot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both days, or just one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just the first day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Both days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know you have a hard time with those days. Well, it's -- from what I understand, we're going to have a presentation on some of the aspects of that today. And also from what I understand, a lot of it may not be too flexible, so two days may not be needed to discuss things that can't be changed, so we'll see where it goes. Item #5 APPROV AL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 15,2009, REGULAR MEETING; JANUARY 16,2009, GMP MEETING; JANUARY 20,2009, GMP MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we'll move into approval of the minutes from January 15th, 2009. Is there a motion to approve or amend? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved, approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER SCillFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Schiffer. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 3 --..-.--.--..---...-...--- .~__..,_"_~..M_'.."._..~_>___..>""""___~."','_____=.~_.."._. . .0. _ '_"_._~__"_'''__''''_ ~,_,.~_ ~,'...~~'-- '- Jet?u!ry I },20~ 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 9-0. The regular meeting -- or the January 16th GMP meeting, is there a recommendation for approval or amendment? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved, approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer again. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 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 the last one is the January 20th GMP meeting. Is there a motion to approve or amend? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Again, so moved approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. You guys are a team today. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 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. Page 4 161 IN? February 19, 2009 Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JANUARY 13,2009, REGULAR MEETING; JANUARY 27, 2009, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the BCC report recaps? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners at their last meeting, heard the conditional use for the Keewaydin Island recreational facility. Motion for denial was passed 5-0. They also heard the rezone for Bayview Park. The first motion for denial was not passed. It failed 3-2. There was a second motion to continue the item indefinitely and direct staff to get project (sic) within the requirement of the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan, and to work with the Bayview Park conceptual site plan to add additional parking on-site. That motion was approved 3-2. The rezone for Savannah Place PUD was approved 5-0, subject to the Collier County Planning Commission recommendations, plus an enhanced buffer along the eastern side of the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bayview Park, Ray, that was a conditional use requesting a change of use for some property from RMF -6, I think, to -- MR. BELLOWS: A rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to rezone. Okay. If it wasn't approved to be rezoned and that was what it was advertised for, you're telling us it ended up with neither approval or denial, it's going to go into some limbo? MR. KLA TZKOW: No, no, no, no. What's happening is that the application's dead. That particular application required four affirmative votes by the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: They did not get the four, so the application was dead. What the board then directed staff to do was work on it and then come back through the entire system again with something that the community can live with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does that mean it doesn't have to be to code or the GMP then, I guess? MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's going to have to meet code, it's going to have to meet GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that ought to be interesting, that location. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it may be that they never come back. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It certainly will be interesting. Okay, Chairman's report. I just have one announcement to make which I think you all are aware of, and it's unfortunately a sad announcement. Sharon Phillips is no longer with the county. I want to thank her for all her dedicated time and her effort she put in to service this board. I can tell you, she did a fantastic job -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, she did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and we're going to miss her an awful lot. I wish times weren't like they were. I know Cheri Robbins, I think is her last name? MR. BELLOWS: Rollins. Page 5 ""'..-_--~, ~___,."."'.,,,.,_,,'""......,,__"_, e_ "",.,.,,,...~: -"- ., _.- 161 1 ~S February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rollins. Has taken over. I met with Cheri and tried to fill her in about some of the particulars of the board in regards to the packaging and everything. So hopefully we won't miss a beat. But I'd like to ask that, you know, if we have things missing we just have to have a little patience until everybody gets used to the new system. So it might be a little bumpy here for a little bit. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we are definitely working with Cheri, and she's picking up very quickly. And I'll be working with her on all the packets, along with the other principal planners. And we're pulling together as a team and we'll be able to get the packets out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. To help Sharon, could we put together maybe a letter of recommendation, just to state how well she did? In her future endeavors, that might help her. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see a problem with that. Is there any -- from a staff's perspective, is that a -- MR. SCHMITT: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll -- you want me just to issue it as chairman and -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- send it out, or do you want to have a review of it before? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I think everybody supports it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll take care of that and have it to you within -- hopefully within a week or the end of the weekend. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good idea, Brad. Thank you. Item #8A PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13618, CHM NAPLES HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC (SPRING HILL SUITES) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the meeting today. Our first item up -- well, before we get to the first item, we have a consent agenda. That is for the CHM Naples Hotel Partners, LLC, Petition SV-2008-AR-13618. It's a sign petition we reviewed at our last meeting. It was the only item on that agenda. Is there a -- everybody satisfied with the consent agenda item? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley made the motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a -- seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 6 161 lkS February 19,2009 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 #9A PETITION: PUDZ-2007 -AR-12097, THE COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NAPLES (HEA VENL Y CFPUD) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we'll get into our continued item. It's the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Naples, also known as the Heavenly CFPUD. It's Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12097. All those wishing to participate in this hearing, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of planning commission. I guess these would be disclosures from -- since the last meeting. Anybody? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Since the last meeting, I haven't spoken to anyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that's not a disclosure. COMMISSIONER CARON: But he's on record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I spoke to Wayne Arnold briefly, he asked me if! had any issues, and I told him a few that I was concerned about. I talked to Mr. Pires, same kind of discussion. As a result, we got a revised I guess critique by Mr. Pires. I talked to Mr. Buonocore and Ms. Barker in the hallway momentarily about some traffic issues, and I think that's it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I did talk to Sally Barker in the hallway for some brief time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, and I did get a letter from a Mr. Joseph and Theresa Bandy. And Ijust gave that to staff for distribution. It's in your packet. And Mr. Y ovanovich, I'm sure we're going to have a discussion about that letter, because it epitomizes exactly what the problems are. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- probably everybody got it. But the only contact was the letter from Mr. Pires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioners. Unless you want me to go back through an overview of the project, I thought we would just kind of Page 7 ---~.- -," ~ r -~-';"'~---"""-"-""",,--",","';'"""-- "",,,,,,,",,,--,",'--',~'~".'--'-"-" -.-..,..,----....-,- 16, I lA~ February 19, 2009 pick up where we left off. What I would like to do is have Mike Delate kind of explain the water management system and how it will work. Because that seemed to be some of the comments that we received from the community regarding -- at the last meeting was related to the water management system. And then we can go through I guess Tony's memo, if you need to be, because I don't think there's very many issues left. I think the PUD document that you received was revised according to the direction that we had at the last meeting. And I think your staffhas looked at it and agrees that we got it right, or we think we got what you told us to do right in that. But we can obviously go through the PUD as well with any concerns you have. But I thought with Mike going through the water management system, unless the Planning Commission wants us to approach it in a different fashion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a good starting point. And as far as the memorandum from Tony Pires, I think if you focus on the areas that are in disagreement, and if you're in agreement with the rest on the record, then that's all we need to be worried about. So that would get us through some of the process. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's move forward. MR. DELATE: Good morning. Michael Delate from Grady Minor Engineers. I had spoken with Mr. Pires, or communicated with him regarding some of the concerns about the water management system vis-a-vis some of the drainage from the adjoining streets adjacent to the property . And one of the issues was the church property was to handle runoff; some of those adjoining streets that currently does not occur to a great extent because of lack of maintenance and other issues. And the church owners have agreed to take on that water. And what we've indicated to Mr. Pires was rather than having in the PUD a requirement that the water from the adjoining streets go through the surface water management system of the PUD, that it be allowed to go through the property. So not necessarily through the system, but be handled separately on the property and not commingle those waters. What we've indicated is that hydraulically there may be different and peak stages and peak periods for storm events between the off-site streets and the on-site stormwater system. And so commingling them might create a problem for those off-site streets. What we've indicate to Mr. Pires and the Pine Ridge owners was we would take the water from the contributory area around the -- along West Street and the adjoining streets and funnel that through the site. Now, preliminarily we would run that through a series of pipes and open ditches or swales out to Trail Boulevard and along U.S. 41. We haven't worked out the specifics as to how much of that would be pipe versus open swale, but it would be entirely within the project, not within the right-of-way. And then we would do a connection point out at U.S. 41 drainage system. And we haven't worked out the details on that yet, but in some manner take it over to the ultimate outfall, which is down at Pelican Bay. So I think in speaking with one of the property owners beforehand, I think we explained how the system would work, and they seemed to be satisfied that we -- as long as we take it through their property and hydraulically work out any issues and satisfY the drainage requirements for the off-side streets, they'd be okay with that. So we kind of worked it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you're going to do that for not only West but for the side streets well? Page 8 16 f; l-kS February 19, 2009 MR. DELATE: Yeah, the side streets adjacent to their property -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. DELATE: -- and any contributory streets around that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: What level storm are we talking about, three -- 25-year, 50-year, 10-year? MR. DELATE: Well, on-site would be the 25-year, three-day storm event for peak stages. And we would compare that against the off-site. They probably weren't designed to that level, so we'll take as much as we can, and of course as much as DOT would allow to be discharged through their system. But the idea would be to maximize the amount of water taken from the off-site streets and still maintain a better level of service than they have now, and obviously maximize them as much as possible within the extent that DOT will allow it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that consider any possible future widening of that road? MR. DELATE: We would take the right-of-way area. So as long as the right-of-way wasn't increased, it would encompass the entire right-of-way. I doubt that there's going to be any right-of-way takings from properties in there, so you're -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. MR. DELATE: -- looking at a 60-foot right-of-way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Well, I'm just wondering, if you have sufficient property to do this with all the pipes, it would have to be a maze of pipes, I would imagine. MR. DELATE: To some extent it's going to be some expense to pipe some of that, yes. But it's been agreed they will take that water, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And engineering-wise, you believe that you can accomplish that. MR. DELATE: Yes. We've looked at the hydraulics out there preliminarily and think we can do that. That's why we want to have some flexibility by allowing it to be through the property and not through the water management system. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, when you say through the property, whereabouts on your master plan would you end up putting either a -- you'll have to have a drainage easement if you're putting an RCP so that it can be re-excavated or repaired, and usually that's 15 feet. And then you've also got to have -- if it's open swale, you're going to have to have a swale that's maintainable so the side slopes won't be too steep. How are you going to fit that on this master plan? MR. DELATE: Well, that's what I said, it may end up being quite a bit of pipe versus-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'll say. MR. DELATE: -- open swale. Of course, along the lake here, I'm not sure there's going to be that much room for a swale. Maybe when we get down to this dry detention area we, you know, take up some of that area as open swale. It's still in essence open and dry, so the use doesn't really change. But it may be a good deal of piping to take that through there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and you said it's going to be on the property. So that means it would be outside the right-of-way. MR. DELATE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first 10 feet of the property's edge would be -- because it's bounded by Page 9 'Ill' ",,,..c ~.. .~.~,."._-"...~ - - -- 161 1 k6 February 19, 2009 streets, would be utility easements that you can't go in because you've got all your private utilities in there. So that means you're going to be 10 or 15 feet further into your property line -- well, actually, it would be 25 -- up to 25 feet in, because the first 10 feet you can't use. MR. DELATE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you -- has anybody figured out how that's going to affect like the parking spaces and Tract B and all the other areas that are fairly tight? You've got quite a bit of stuff back pretty close to the property line on here. MR. DELATE: Well, we could run -- you can have a drainage easement over the parking and jet the pipes underneath the parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what about the lake location? MR. DELATE: Well, that lake, probably the line there, you see it's more like top of bank rather than control elevations. There is room in there, and you could have a pipe along that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Top of bank to the control elevation is 20 -- you have to have 20 feet for a South Florida maintenance easement. Would your pipe go in that? MR. DELATE: Lake management easement. Yeah, that's -- that's not an exclusive easement, so you could have a drainage easement through there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, as far as the butfers go, you can't have water management swales in a buffer, I don't believe. MR. DELATE: You could have up to 50 percent. But I don't think we would take up that much and put it outside the butTer. Even with the type of planting material you have in there, you know, with this ficus hedge, you probably wouldn't want to have the pipes near that anyways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if this goes through the process, the master plan that's in front of us is basically the master plan you have to live with. MR. DELATE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm just making sure you're not going to box yourself into a problem by having to now put in this commitment you're making for water management and have the master plan change. Because if it is going to change, we'd like to know about it today. MR. DELATE: I think that drainage easements usually aren't exclusive. This wouldn't be exclusive. You could run parking over it. I think we can accommodate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The catch basin that's in the middle of 41 that the DOT I assume -- it was on your previous slide. Have you verified that's there and is an active catch basin? MR. DELATE: It's actually a -- it's not a catch basin, it's actually a culvert mitered end at that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's right in the median there, the yellow dot that's in the median. MR. DELATE: That was just shown for graphic purposes. It's more like right on the edge of Trail Boulevard. Because that boundary line kind of bulked it over there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's a mitered end and then it picks up from another mitered end and goes south? MR. DELATE: Yes. And we necessarily aren't going to be able to use that. We have to work that out with DOT. We'll provide an alternate route if we can't work that out. They may not want those waters commingled either, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What alternate route could you use to get across 41? MR. DELATE: Well, you'd have to do directional bore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your directional bore. and you're looking at a 12 or 24-inch RCP or something larger? MR. DELATE: Probably a 24-inch HOP. You may be able to use that. The bore pipe may be able Page 1 0 , 16\ lk0 February 19,2009 to be used as the carrier pipe, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you ever told the owners or the people in the church the potential cost of a jack and bore under that amount of asphalt along 41 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's huge. MR. DELATE: Well, that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for that size pipe? MR. DELATE: Yeah, it's not necessarily the whole way. We haven't worked out all the details on that. I'm not sure specifics on who's been told what at the church and the cost ofthat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you haven't worked out all the details. And by the way, I'm not trying to punch a hole in your process, I'm trying to make sure the process you're presenting to us is somehow reasonable to expect it to come out. MR. DELATE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've not worked out the details, what kind oflanguage are you proposing to put into the PUD to acknowledge that this is going to happen then? MR. DELATE: Well-- go ahead, I'll leave that to Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That language is in the PUD that we're going to accept the drainage. And we've also -- remember, we have a side agreement that we're going to have where we're going to present copies of whatever we submit to the county or the Water Management District, whoever is the applicable permitting agency 30 days ahead of time, so the association will have the opportunity to review the details when we know the details. But we already verbally have made those commitments in the water management section ofthe PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand the language is there, because we studied it last time. If that's the case, then why is this issue coming up here today? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the issue came up with -- I think they just wanted wordsmithing to assure that that's what we really are committing to. And we wanted to present to you how those words work on the conceptual side. And then when we get to the details, the assurance will occur, because we'll have to get a permit from the Water Management District or the county for water management. And we've taken that language out that nobody wanted in the PUD document itself, but have agreed to enter into a separate agreement to give the association copies in advance so they would have the ability to make sure that we follow through with the commitment that's in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have to now deal with the FDOT too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. We've got to deal with whoever we've got to deal with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that will be a lot of fun. Good luck. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And, you know, we're committed to trying to help the neighborhood with some existing problems that really aren't our cause but we can be part ofthe solution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure we'll hear more when Tony has an opportunity to address the issue. Any questions for Mike Delate at this point? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: ljust have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I feel obligated to ask this. Have you or whomever in your group, have you informed the church officially of at least the cost estimate of what you -- or the highest level cost that you expect so that they fully understand the implications of this? Page 11 """"'-- "~---~-,.~---~~._~~~-,-"-",~,."-,~.-,.,,,,",~,," 161 14'6 February 19, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had analyzed this, I believe as a zero discharge first. We've gotten costs on that, and so we know the cost related to that, if we're not able to do the zero discharge. We have not given a cost estimate on plan B, which would be the -- this route. But the church is aware of that. We know we have to deal with it. We have to have our water leave the site at some point, so we have to -- we'll get them a detailed estimate at some point when we know exactly what we're doing. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I appreciate that. I just feel the need to get on the record the fact that this is a significant undertaking and probably a significant cost, and they should be fully aware of that to go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions for Mike Delate at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, okay. Richard, did you -- before you sit do\Vn, this is still kind of your presentation. Is there something you want to move forward with after Michael's discussion? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I guess you had requested that we kind of go through what -- Tony's last list. And most of what Michael talked about is on his list, so we would -- we think the language that's in the PUD as written is the appropriate language and not the change that Tony wanted on Page 2 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, I don't know -- I want to make sure everybody's working off the same page. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Revised memo? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a memo -- yeah, a revised memo issued by Tony Pires on February 17th, 2009. The prior one was February 12th. The one we should be working with is February 17th. Is that what everybody has? Is that the one you're working, too? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I'll just go page by page, if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's start from Page I, tell us where you're in agreement or where you're in disagreement, and then we'll work on those. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. A, I-A-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, just a second. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I don't have the 17th. I have January the 12th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two missing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's two here that are missing, too. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I need one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four missing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing else, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you guys can talk one at a time. So Tony's got extra copies, he's passing them, going to get them to us. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're going to walk through them. Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've also noticed that Tor has a large copy of the plan. I didn't get that in my packet, so -- the revised plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if there's any extras, I wouldn't mind one. Page 12 : 161 1~ February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, if you've got an extra full-scale plan, Brad Schiffer would like one. Okay, does everybody have the distributed -- the new copy, the new revision, or at least access to one? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, let's start back on Page 1 ofthat memo so we can see where the differences are between the project right now and the neighborhood, or at least Tony Pires', the people he represents. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, number I-A, I believe the concern was if we were actually going to show the -- this came up in regard to the detail that was on the plan regarding the building locations, and, you know, what would be considered a substantial change to the plan. So I believe what we talked about was going to a building envelope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you did. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what we put on there, saying that the buildings have to be in that -- within that envelope area. I'm a little concerned if we start ghosting in buildings that if you move that a little bit would someone now raise an issue because, you know, you had detail when we were really -- I thought we were trying to get a little bit more flexibility, but at the same time identify exactly where that flexibility could occur. We agree with his B and his C. We think that we have better -- we prefer our language -- we're on the next page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Page 2. 2-B, we think that our language appropriately captures the types of uses that can occur. The concern with using the words no more intensive, that throws in some ambiguity. I thought we were looking at types of examples. What we didn't want to get into is okay, a civic group with 20 people is okay, but a civic group with 40 people, that's not okay. So we thought just the way we had characterized it works for everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Letter C on that page number two, we have development standards tables for all buildings on the property. I don't think we're ever going to build a 35-foot tall storage building, nor do we think we need to get into that kind of level of detail as to what every building height is going to be on the property. We've given increased buffer heights with, you know, the hedge and all that and planting, so we thought that that was taken care of, because those -- and again, those buildings are within the building envelope. Letter D, the typographical error-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to C. Let's go back. I mean, Rich, I appreciate you wanting to move through this, but I think we need to spend a little more time on it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The request to limit the height of accessory uses. That's what he's asking to have in here is indicating that accessory uses apply likewise. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe he's talking about -- I think he was trying, and maybe I misunderstood it, I thought he was trying to have the maintenance buildings and the storage buildings be less than the allowed height for accessory structures. I think he was saying, you know, we don't want you to build a maintenance building at the height you're allowed to build other accessory structures is how we took that. Page 13 -"', - 161 1 , f:6 February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do you --I don't know how we can separate that out at this point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I guess we'd have to create another development -- in the table, we'd have to come up with another column for certain types of accessory structures. And we just thought that that really was unnecessary, and has been addressed through the enhanced bufTering that we're doing for the project. So creating another colunlli for a certain subset of accessory uses just seemed to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you created a footnote to go with the zoned and actual height under accessory uses to indicate that service buildings, any building used for -- I don't mean religious services, I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- maintenance service type buildings would be limited in height to less than -- to some other height. Is there a problem with that? I don't think you want a 50-story maintenance building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fifty stories? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 50-foot maintenance building. I mean, you really wouldn't need that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we don't. But at the same point. you know, it almost seems like you know we're not going to do that. And in every PUD we don't get doV\'ll to the nitty-gritty of every building that's going to be within the project. You have parameters. And we've addressed that by setbacks and the like. You know, no, we don't have an objection to, you know, the height. But if it's something the Planning Commission thinks we absolutely need to do because you need that level of detail on this project, we can do that. Otherwise, I think that we've handled it through the regular table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure it's level of detail or just clarification. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: You have storage currently on this master plan existing. What's the height of that storage right now? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You mean on site right now? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, on site right now. Storage existing. It's right on the plan. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fifteen to 20 feet. It's a single-story building. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So why can't you footnote that it will be a single-story, whatever you would do for -- in the future for maintenance would be a single-story building of no more than 20 feet? I mean, it's an easy footnote. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. But the question becomes -- we've agreed to architectural standards, we've put the example in there. It's got to be compatible with the architecture. It's in a building envelope. I mean, do we really -- what if we go out and we design it and we decide we want to do a two-story and it turns out to be 22 feet instead of 20 feet? You already have the -- what we're saying is we already have the setbacks, we've already agreed to architecture, we already have limitations of 35 feet maximum zoned height for that. I mean, again, why do we have to get to that level of detail on storage, on a storage building when -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what. We understand your position on it. Let's move through-- what I think I'd like to do is move through the four pages, and before we finish discussing them, ask Tony to come up here and now that we've focused on the points that are in disagreement, help us address those with the group he represents. So we're in disagreement on basically 2-B and 2-C. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about D and E? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll fix the typo. Page 14 , , 161 1~ February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, that's a hard one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: E, we just discussed with Mike Delate why we want to leave the language that we have. His language, you know, creates the issues that Mike was describing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, Page 3, the top of the page is I. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, that's -- well, that's actually an "I believe this was the understanding." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're right. Then we'll start with F. I was going to say, someone didn't know the alphabet, but that's fine. MR. PIRES: I have been known to type wrong letters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. Tony's an attorney, he has to be excused for talking out ofturn like that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then I guess he's saying the development standards table he wants -- that's the same issue we just discussed about the maintenance buildings, as I understand it. G, we can -- that's fine, we can agree with G. H is also a typo. I. Oh, he used the word again removal. I guess we can take the word removal out. But I didn't know the difference between demolition and removal. To me they seemed to be the same word. But if we need to add removal. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Removal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're not the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem taking it out? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, he wants to add it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean add it in. Do you have any problem with adding -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just do it then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: J, we already talked about through the water management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean you're in agreement with -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not. Remember, that's the same language that he wanted to put through the system. I agree, that should have come out in K. That was supposed to come out. L, I believe the way we agreed to handle that at the last meeting, that deals with we would provide them with copies of our dewatering permit prior to -- again, prior to submitting it. And we had agreed to the same condition that we had on the water management, which was we would give them those plans 30 days ahead of time so they can look at that. And within those plans, there is the analysis that they're talking about, so we don't agree to put that in the PUD, but we have agreed in the separate agreement to provide them copies of the dewatering permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. M? MR. YOV ANOVICH: M, I think -- unless I missed it, I thought we had already addressed that the data that comes from these additional traffic studies will be used by the county to propose if necessary some fixes, including traffic calming. So I thought our language addressed it. So if the Planning Commission believes his language is better, fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you point to the specific language in the PUD so we all can reference the same one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is -- if you look at Exhibit F, it's Page 21 of21. It's at the very top of the page. It's actually the first sentence that's in black. It says, this supplemental data will be utilized by the county to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact to the neighborhood are appropriate and should be required to address the existing uses and a condition -- Page 15 '<11".__- --".-,..._--.._~-"""..._,"",", ""I - 161 1 Pf5 February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, I think we're reading from a different-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's on Page 21. It's the sentence down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But before we go into Page 21, the document that I have that was I believe reissued with our last staff report was dated February 2nd, 2009. Is that the one you're working from? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I got it with our staff report, so-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: All right. Well, I was reading from the 21st, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 21st of what month? MR. YOV ANOVICH: January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, there was a PUD -- the reason that -- you said Page 21. There's only 18 pages in the edition issued on February 2nd. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me -- I'll find that language. It's the same language. You're right, it's 18 of 18 on the version dated February 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's still at the top of the page, right after the first underlining, the sentence that starts, this supplemental data -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- will be utilized by the county to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact to the neighborhood are appropriate and should be required to address the existing uses, and as a condition of approval for additional seating capacity of 220, and/or additional 110 students/individuals. The additional traffic improvements may include traffic calming measures. And that's what we discussed at the last meeting. So we thought our language actually did that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I didn't understand the need for his language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll get into it with Tony then at that point. And N? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And N is Exhibit G, which -- 1'11 make sure you have the right Exhibit G. They want the -- a reduction from 30 feet to 20 feet. And, you know, we would like to keep the 30 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Exhibit G that I have shows a 70-foot and a 20-foot. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, this is -- MR. MOSS: They don't have the right exhibit. This is the right one. I'm sorry, Commissioners, the exhibit I included in the package that I sent out to you was actually the outdated one from October. It was done by Planning Development, Incorporated. The correct one should be dated 12-2, and it was completed by Grady Minor and Associates, the new engineer for the petitioner. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the one I believe you have in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So now the packet-- MR. MOSS: This is what it should be. The package I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see what the right one is supposed to be. MR. MOSS: -- sent to you is incorrect, I'm sorry. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the one you had previously seen because we were -- we were requested by Tony and his clients to do both a front and a rear view. And you had this at the last hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So this is -- and that's where the discrepancy between the 80 and 70 feet that you're referring to, Mr. Strain, is. You have an older. Page 16 161 l,Ac? February 19, 2009 And that also had a higher actual height than we've agreed to, the one in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. So you're looking at an overall height of 90 feet in the one in the packet. And the one that's in disagreement, your overall height is 80 feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And remember, it's limited as to what that 30 feet can be. It's the cupola and religious symbol. Before -- we've got down to 35 feet zoned, 50 feet actual and then you have the cupola on top of that. Before we had -- I believe it was 50 feet or 55 feet of zoned and 70 feet of actual. And then you can put the religious symbol on top of that. So we've brought the mass of the building down by agreeing to a lesser height for zoned height and actual. But you have a very small portion of the building that can be up to the 80 foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, on the front elevation of the prior discussion, the 35-foot zoned height went to the midpoint of the roof, and now you're -- in that one it was 50 feet to the midpoint of the roof. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you drop the midpoint of the roof down 15 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your roofline on the prior -- well, you didn't have the one on the first graphic. Your roofline is 50 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you dropped the overall height of the main structure down 15 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And which is consistent with the zoned height in the RSF-l zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then really what you're talking about for your actual height is everything above 35 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, yes, we are. But remember, we had said that only the 30 feet above the 50 feet can only be for the cupola and religious symbol, okay? So only a small portion of the building can achieve -- and that's what the purpose of this graphic is, there's only a small portion of this building can actually achieve the actual height of 80 feet. The rest of it is capped at an actual height of 50. And that's shown on this graphic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've got 45 feet of height made up of non-occupiable space? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess you have roof and things like -- yes. Theoretically, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because 35 feet, yeah, that would give you-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here's the midpoint of the roof. That's the zoned height right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then the roofline is capped at 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then this portion right here is the only -- that's the extra 30 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but our two heights that we discussed in the LDC, your zoned height is 35 feet, your actual height at 80. You have a 45-foot spread between the two. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did I hear someone else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, they're actually doing something I think better than that. What they're limiting is the actual main building to have an actual height of 50. And then here comes the confusion. Actual height is the highest we can go. How do we deal with the steeple in that area that Page 1 7 161 1 k6 February 19, 2009 goes above it? So they've invented something that's higher than actual height. That can be confusing. But I think I understand why they're doing that. Ifthey didn't do that, if they took the actual height to be the 80 feet here, then they could really build a huge building -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and we would lose control of the mass of the building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that was the neighborhood's concern and that's why they wanted this massing document within the PUD. So when you saw an actual height -- if we had used that 80 feet, the thought was we'd have this big blob that would be out there, this big rectangular building, and we use an example that you'll find on Ben Hill Griffin Parkway as that's what they don't want. And we've made sure that it doesn't happen through this massing document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to walk through all these points with Tony Pires when we get to that point. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just in terms of now not massing in terms of height but massing in terms of that cupola, there's nothing that prevents that from being more massive than is shown on this plan? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we do. We have a limitation of -- we have limitations on the square feet for that portion of -- and that's in -- I want to make sure that -- you'll find that in the -- for B. If you're looking at Exhibit B, Page 4. It's actually on Page 5 of 18. I'm sorry, it's Page 4. I put note number two. It says maximum actual height may be exceeded by up to 30 feet by non-occupiable building elements. And then it says the maximum combined square footage of each building elements shall be 4,000 square feet. So that cupola area can be no more than 4,000 square feet. So it can't be the entire roof. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's everything in his memo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's everything in his memo. Do you have any other points you want to make before we -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I think that's probably the most efficient. Because we did spend a few hours at this the last time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I think the issues are hopefully minor at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got some general questions about the documents -- or some of the stuff we just received I want to ask you about before we go into getting Tony to comment on his paper. The letter I got from Joseph Bandy, I'm going to read the paragraph in here. I would like to advise you that there is loud music going on until II :00 p.m., 11 :30 p.m. and up to midnight. The music is so loud that even with their windows and doors closed we hear it. After the loud music stops, the people come outside and talk and scream loud, which lasts for a half an hour or so. And this is on Section B, which is now owned by the bank and is rented out to Iglesia de Cristo, a Spanish church. This is exactly the problem that we've been trying to stop. Knowing as sensitive of an issue you're into with the timing of appearing in public and trying to get your project passed, why would owners of section B who are part of this PUD even consider letting something like this happen to the neighborhood at Page 18 " 161\ ItVS February 19,2009 this time? Well enough at any time, but I mean now you think you'd be more conscientious than at prior times. Do you have any response to this, since you represent the PUD? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know the particulars of the lease for Tract B. I believe that what this kind of shows is right now under the current county regulations that are applicable to this property, there are no hours of limitation. What this PUD will do is it will create those hours of limitation to bring back the worship times. And the owner of Tract B has agreed to those limitations when none currently exist. So they will go and they will tell their tenant the zoning now says you must stop at 10:30, you need to stop at 10:30, you need to make sure the windows are closed. I don't know, I wasn't out there the day that that happened. But this creates the framework to impose regulations on that tract when none currently exist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this was done just to show us how-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it wasn't done for that reason. I'm just saying it's happened, but we can use this as an example of the benefits of the PUD to address the situation out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that depends, though, on the lease. Is the lease something that can be amended to coincide with whatever changes come out of this meeting? Do we know that? Because if it doesn't and the lease isn't going to be changed and this still is going to go on, what have we accomplished to protect the neighborhood? This was real disturbing when I saw it, Richard. After all the cooperation that we had gone through at the last meeting to have gotten this letter was not a good thing. And I don't know why anybody even thought that this should start to happen on a project like that in a situation you guys are in. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't rewrite what happened. It happened, and we need to move forward and address it and make sure it doesn't happen again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I want to make sure that-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- ifthere's impositions put on the zoning, that the lease then becomes enforceable to those impositions and not something that we hear say, well, we already had a lease, we can't change it. I don't want to hear that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I am being told by the attorney for Tract B that yes, the lease can be modified to impose these zoning obligations. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Midney had -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a question first. Then let's just go in order. Then Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I had spoken to one of the residents after I saw the letter that was given to us, and she said that there was drumming going on at 6:30 in the morning some days too outside. So I'm just wondering, are they going -- is Tract B going to follow everything that the other tracts follow and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- is there something to limit when the music starts in the morning also? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think this letter clearly makes it something that we need to make sure is in -- is correctly written in this document. More so than even we thought in the prior time. So I agree, I -- the letter just really was a flag that something's seriously wrong, and we need to fix it. And by the time we get done today, hopefully we'll have accomplished that. Page 19 lI' """...,.....e..._"-...-__ ->~""'''~'~~-'''''-''''= -,.^'---~- 161 1 A:0 February 19, 2009 Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If! can, just real briefly, for Mr. Midney. It says that the -- no, you're right, it's 6:30, worship starts at 6:30. But it has to be -- we agreed to a condition of no outdoor music at all. So that's been addressed and will be part of the lease obligations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll get through it, Paul. Before the day's over, we'll have this hopefully resolved. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, because we really do need to get correct language on this. Does it state in this PUD, and will you show me where it states in the PUD so that everybody's aware that this will also happen now, and it doesn't take them actually doing any rehabilitation, that they don't have to redevelop Tract B for any of this to kick in, that it will happen on day one as soon as this is signed off on? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't see anything in here that would allow them not to happen. If you need to put a provision in here to assure yourself~ I don't see anything in this document that grandfathers existing worship hours. If you need to put something in there to give yourselves the additional assurance, that's fine. Because the owner of Tract B has said they will apply it to their existing tenants. So if we need to add a sentence, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What about me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- at the last meeting, remember I said I walk my dog by this site? And this is the building that has a lot of noise coming out of it. It is a residential building, it is close to the comer. I don't think there's anything you're going to ever do to be able to stop the noise coming out of the thing. So Richard, on Tract B, as it's outlined in this PUD, is that the exact ownership that I guess we refer to now that the bank owns? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And my point is that why are we encouraging, you know, the expansion of this use? Because it is very close to the road, it is very loud. I can witness that myself because, like I said, walking my dog dov,'l1 the street. There's no door opening and closing, it's just blasting through the louvered windows that a residence would have. I'm not a big fan of expanding this use, at least something that wouldn't take where that worship service is occurring on the site and move it back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well. I don't see how we're expanding the worship service use through this PUD, because it's an existing building, there are no limitations. I believe they can fit, you know, about 200 people in there right now, so -- because there's no fixed pews. I mean, they can -- I think that we're basically limiting through this PUD what they can do right now, because right now they can have worship services seven days a week, 24 hours a day with no limitations at all under the current conditional use that's there for that property, or zoning that's there for this property. What this is actually doing is capping the number of seats and it's also establishing worship hours where currently none exist. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Rich, do you know the building? I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you're saying it's a 5,600 square foot house. I don't think it's that big. But is that what you're saying? Page 20 " 161 1 kS February 19,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't do the survey. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what I see when I loop at the building is there's a living room that people are in, essentially the old living room of a house. I don't think you can get 200 people in there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, okay, if we can't fit 200 people in there today, then we're not expanding the use. Because until we build a new building, you're not going to get more people in there. What we've done is we've limited the hours of operation through this PUD when there currently isn't any hours of operation for the PUD. I mean, believe me, I don't want to be here with this letter. I'm not happy that I'm here with this letter. But I'm here with this letter. So we need to address this perspectively, and the only way to do that is to adopt a PUD with hours of operation for worship. Because otherwise there is nothing but the noise ordinance -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what hours -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- to take care of this, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What hours do we limit it to? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have it at 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To what? MR. YOV ANOVICH: To 10:30 p.m. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, 10:30 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's found on Page 12 of 18 of the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, even 10:30 to me is late on that site. I mean, it's -- you know, again, you can hear it a half a block away. And I mean, people are excelling their exuberance, I understand. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we hear your concern. I'm sure someone's going to get up there and is going to echo it as well. If we can let -- I'm assuming we'll have a break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We won't? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have a break at 10:00 like usual. Cherie' wouldn't be able to take us past 10:00, MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which will give me a few minutes to talk between the Tract A and Tract B owners about this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It isn't going to go away, so we -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- need to resolve it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- not going to go away. And continuing to point it out to me until I can meet privately-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, and then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In furtherance of that question, I heard earlier a statement that there was drumming going on. Now you're talking about worship services beginning at 6:30. I'm going to suggest that it infers that the drumming is part of the worship service then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so all you do really have then if you retain 6:30 to 10:30, all you do have left is the noise ordinance. Because if you're going to talk about restriction of the hours of the worship service, what the worship service consists of, those things that are causing or potentially can cause problems, we're not achieving the result. Page 21 -" - " , "N .T "P'~ ~_",".'_"_''''''''''''''''''''''"'''.'''''_''_r _ . -.-.- 161 1 k0 February 19, 2009 So you may want to be talking about limiting the exuberance in some fashion, and I don't know that you can. MR. YOV ANOVICH: WelL I think what we need to do is we need to look at the hours at which drumming or other music can occur. Because r don't think you can regulate exuberance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we need to look at that. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I said that facetiously, because-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I know that; I understand that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- you are talking about worship and people's minds. But I added to that because that's a hitching point. I would not accept the hours of worship as being the hours that are appropriate unless there was some means of controlling that noise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think I got it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, because remember, when we did establish these times it really was for the benefit of Heavenly. They just mirror what Covenant wants and these hours. And they were established for that and not for what's actually happening there. And being more restrictive on that parcel is -- would be the right thing to do. We've gone over this many times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Richard's got a consensus now, so that will give you something to discuss at 10:00. With that then, maybe we ought to move into asking Tony to come up here and grace us with his presence for a while. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman Strain, members of the Planning Commission, thank you. And thank you for the opportunity we have. I had the opportunity to review the document and provide the revised memorandum. And I think one thing -- I try to make a statement, I constantly hear Rich saying, and I understand he's an advocate for his client, that current condition provides for no limitations on this activity no limitations on that activity. But recall, Covenant Presbyterian Church wants to expand. They have nonconforming uses on this project. They are asking for a document that allows them to do that. to consolidate their properties into one document. And so I think that's a red herring. And so I think we're starting from a clean slate of okay, what do they want. And they want to achieve a unified plan to allow them to expand, which they cannot do at the present time under the current zoning. So I think that phrase of no limitations now is a red herring, and I think the Planning Commission's appropriately looking at what are the issues that have arisen by virtue of this request and exists today, how can we address them. To go through the -- my comments that are remaining, Mr. Chairman, if! could, I've indicated the ones that I believe are not yet resolved and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to start with Page I and work like Richard did, so we can keep track of where his comments are and yours. And if you disagree with his acceptance of some of yours, let us know that too, Tony. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir, thank you. .Just for the sake of it, I may. No, just kidding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you might. MR. PIRES: My comment of I-A, at Page I, my concern was at times looking closer at something, standing back and then coming back to look at a document and/or a graphic will -- after a lot of the dust has settled, because at times we can get too close to a product. Notice that on their master plan, if you look at the master plan, there are storage and service structures outside the church campus building envelope. There are three of them depicted. There's little Page 22 161 1~ February 19, 2009 buildings or little boxes with X's on them. And one of them is actually closer than 200 feet, it appears, to West Street. It's in the -- I'll call it the -- for this portion of the master plan, if you all can see, sort of the I guess southeast quadrant, there are some storage and service areas. And in looking at those I'm thinking, you know, I know it sounds unrealistic, I know it sounds like it won't happen, but I've seen stranger things happen. When you say that they can have the same height as the principal structures and they're outside the building envelope and they're standalone structures, I don't think that's what's contemplated, so I think a footnote would be appropriate to address those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back on I-A, though. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I-A. Where are you? MR. PIRES: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, I'm sorry, I jumped to the storage buildings. But okay, back to the ghosting of the structures, outline of structures. I know, I think we had a conversation last meeting, Mr. Schiffer mentioned maybe the shading be better than having the ghosting of the outline. In talking with my clients, from the standpoint of the community's understanding of what the relationship of the structures are relative to the surrounding community, that it would be helpful to give an indication of where the structures could be recognized and they could move within this building envelope. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what would it hurt -- you've got a building envelope that's shaded in dark right there. MR. PIRES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's your limitation, what does it matter where the buildings go within there? You -- MR. PIRES: But the type of the footprint and the massing and the location and the relative-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're all controlled by the development standards. MR. PIRES: Right, but I think graphically it helps people understand better when they see a certain outline of a building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't the new attachment which shows a rendering of the building help? MR. PIRES: It helps, but I don't think people can translate that to the -- like an overhead, you know, flattened and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe if we put a reference that the picture in the back of the book-- this fits inside that gray box, that works? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering, Tony, why you have to-- MR. PIRES: I'm looking from 5,000 feet. I'm looking down it from 5,000 feet. And it helps give -- here's the envelope and here's sort of a footprint of what the building's going to look like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Tony, here's what my concerns was, is what they've shaded in is where the buildings can go. That's 2.1 acres. The amount of area that this PUD can have is 2.3 acres. So the illusion from the sketches before that these are small buildings was not realistic. That gray area is less than the amount of square footage they can build on the PUD. So I think what I was trying to avoid is them seeing these little building outlines, thinking these are little buildings, when the volume we're talking about is huge compared to that. So, I mean, here this corrals where the buildings go. It's just -- I mean, I don't think showing the outline, unless we want to get into their design with how much is second story, how much is first story. But the concern I had before is that little building shown in that gray area is not what's going to be Page 23 - ........,..-,., --,..- -, -_.,~-~ , 161 l-k0 February 19, 2009 built, it's much larger that we're approving here today. MR. PIRES: At the break I'll rediscuss this with the clients, and based upon the discussion by Mr. Schiffer and the Chairman, see if they're acceptable, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on then. Band C were conceded. 2-A, well, that was just a comment. MR. PIRES: And we don't have that yet. We had one handed to us today, but it has incorrect numbers on it. Heights and so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have one attached to the back of our PUD. Did you see that? It's attached as Exhibit H, conceptual architectural rendering. MR. PIRES: No, the height exhibit from Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Solis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. PIRES: The bank parcel. We have one, but some of the height numbers are wrong. We can probably doctor one up between now and -- during the break period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the height exhibit, if you want it as part of the PUD, or if it's intended to be part of the PUD, we need it here today. Otherwise, it has to be part of your agreement. MR. PIRES: Correct. They have a sketch we were handed today, this morning, but it appears the numbers were incorrect on it. And we can, once again, try to legibly fix those numbers and have that for you after the break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about 2-B? MR. PIRES: I think the focus, no more intensive. I understand Rich's issue. I think by having the characterization as being non-commercial, I think that would address it by leaving off the phrase not -- no more intensive. Or the alternative would be comparable to. Non-commercial accessory uses comparable to civic group meetings. And remove the word no more intensive. I understand Rich's concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now -- you're familiar with what it says right now? MR. PIRES: Yes. But I would -- I'd still like to add the beginning part of non-commercial accessory use. I think it's important to stress that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on B-5 on Page 2 of 18, in front of the word accessory use, it would be labeled non-commercial accessory use. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what you're suggesting? Richard, does that have any problem if that change is made to paragraph B-5 of Page 2 of 18'1 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. So it would say non-commercial accessory use is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. yav ANOVICH: -- characterized by. MR. PIRES: And characterized is appropriate too. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next item, Tony, is 2-C. MR. PIRES: And I jumped to 2-C earlier, I apologize. If we look at again the master plan, our areas that depict storage and service structures outside the building envelope. And again, I think it's important to have a footnote that indicates the limitation on their heights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, if there was a footnote added at the end of all the other footnotes but referenced under the height of accessory structures where it says maximum zoned and maximum actual height, and the footnote referenced that any service and storage buildings would be limited to single stories not to exceed 25 feet, is that -- MR. yaV ANOVICH: I don't know that I want to be capped at single story. How about -- if the Page 24 161 l~ February 19, 2009 height is 25 feet, who cares ifthere's one or two? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would agree, that's fine. Does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, isn't the intent in that footnote to say outside of the church campus? I mean, I think if -- MR. PIRES: Once again, that's what -- again, on second look I noticed it was outside the envelope, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So note that it's only for those buildings outside. MR. PIRES: Because they end up building closer to the residential areas than the envelope. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Now, I don't mean to be a pain, but when you say 25 feet, is that the zoned or is that the actual? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Zoned. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The zoned. MR. PIRES: 1'11 have a special tape for you, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm serious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you going to put on top of a storage building, a cross? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, it's the silly little peak roof there. You know, it's one or the other. I mean,just tell me. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's the zoned height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to know. I'm just asking for clarity. I don't want someone to tell me that the tippy top of the roof -- I know I'm not allowed to use that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you tell us why it would have to be different. I mean, what kind of symbol are you going to put on top of a storage building? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If they're both going to be the same, I just want to make sure we're talking the same language. That's all I'm asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the same. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If zoned and actual is 25 feet, fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's zoned we're going to put there, right? If we make a mistake, aIls they're going to do is build a flat roof building, which isn't going to help the neighbors. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I said if we make a mistake, alls you do is build a flat roof building, which doesn't help the neighbors, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would that be architecturally compatible with the project? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, and plus we have a prohibition on the flat-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know. You do have? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going to add a footnote that basically says any buildings outside the campus that are used for service or storage are not to exceed 25 feet. Is that fine with you too? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Urn-hum. MR. PIRES: And Mr. Strain, and I heard the discussion -- and members of the Commission -- with regards to the 20 feet versus 30 feet. But we're firm as to the 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-five feet. MR. PIRES: No, I'm talking -- I'm sorry, the -- next is how they may exceed the maximum actual height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're on the same one? Page 25 ~_._."M___~'...,..~.._,_.._'_~"_'._ .. .. .. _........_._~.__......,~,--,,----~,---_._._._.__.~_..._--_..._---_._-_..~_.._-_._.__.__..__._-_._--- --- --..-----.--------- 16 I 14\0 February 19, 2009 MR. PIRES: We're on 2-C. The second sentence of my 2-C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: Firming our position, the maximum actual height may be exceeded up to 20 feet and not 30 feet, as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, since the actual height is really embellishments to make it -- typical of what churches use, and this one has a cross on top with a cupola and all that, 10 more feet for a cross, how does that cause a problem? MR. PIRES: I don't know -- pardon? No, no, I'm just saying -- it's not just the cross. Once again, we have the maximum -- we have the issue with regards to the occupiable square footage, you know, the capped out, the maximum square footage of the occupiable space. But they can change -- there's no dimensions on that drawing that's in the back. They can make that sort of a taller, narrower, and so it could have the 4,000 square feet and be more than just the cross. And once again, if you notice, there's -- I don't believe there's any scale on that drawing on that Exhibit G. It's just a reference to height. I don't think they want to commit to the horizontal dimensions of that structure or the vertical dimensions of that structure. And that leads to another issue that came to my mind as we were having this discussion. They have it depicted right now in a rela -- it's sort of elongated. But if they were to narrow that portion, the permitted exclusions -- or permitted extensions limited to 4,000 square feet ma"Cimum. if they narrow it, they can make it taller. And that's my concern. It's not just the cross. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Tony, they started out at zoned height of 50 feet. They dropped that down to 35. They started out at an overall height of 90 feet and they dropped that down to 80. And now you want the overall height dropped down to 70? MR. PIRES: It's been consistent wanting it down to 70. We've never changed. And I think at one time we had it at 70. I may be mistaken. But we've been consistent. We've not wavered that from the beginning. And it's not just the cross. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I think we're going to have more discussion on that as the day goes on. MR. PIRES: And one other aspect with regards to the structure. I'm not much of an artist, but if you were to take that Exhibit B, the elevations, and you could not change the square footage but you change the cubic feet inside the building by actually raising it higher so you could have a huge mass structure. This is a concept, but it doesn't mean they can't go higher than what's on here. For example, you take this and raise this up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, during your break, if you have an opportunity to determine if that second cupola structure, you have a height that you'd consider limiting that to, which means anything above that can be the cross, that might be a way to look for a compromise on this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. MR. PIRES: It's not the height of the cross, once again, it's that 4,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're saying. And maybe there's a way to come to a solution for it, so -- MR. PIRES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And during the break, could we get copies of that exhibit? The one we have in our Exhibit G is not the same as your Exhibit G. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to ask staff for that. J.D.? During break, J.D., if you could have copies ofthe correct exhibit, we'd appreciate it. Page 26 161 1~ February 19, 2009 Distribute them to us right at the end of break. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's Exhibit G, isn't it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Exhibit G that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I have is scaled 1 for 30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever they give us we'll deal with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, my point was, is that he's saying that it's not to scale. MR. PIRES: Okay, I hear what you're saying, Mr. Murray. I do see it. You're right, it's difficult to see that at the bottom, because it's kind of a smooshed printing, but it does say there is a scale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, on Page 2 of your paper, we seem to have worked our way to the bottom of that page E, the water management infonnation. You understand the presentation made by Mike Delate? Is there any concerns there? Where are you at from that? MR. PIRES: I think we still need some language change. I understand Michael's -- Michael and I exchanged some e-mails. I understand it may go through this project but not through the water management system, it may be a separate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: -- sort of flowing and routing. And I think it's a matter of we can change the language to achieve that. And I guess the concern is, and just going back to how this program and project has always been presented to the community, from the first drafts in March of'08 to May of'08, I have about, how many, six drafts of the PUD document. And consistently the language has always stated that the balance of the project's stonnwater management capacity shall provide for acceptance of drainage from abutting roadside swales, without limitation, via connections to the wet detention system in addition to serving as the outfall for the project's dry water management area. So consistently from the beginning of a year ago it has been explained to us, described to us, presented to us, promised to us -- us being my clients -- that the water management system of the project will take the drainage from abutting roadside swales. And so when I was rereading this, it appeared there was a limitation on that, that it didn't appear as if it would go through the project, that it would be using the outside swales to achieve this water management and this retention. So I think it's important to codifY what Michael indicated was going to happen. But I think even more importantly to say -- I think one thing that was sort of -- one approach is, and the question is and there's also his notations indicate that it's subject to FDOT approval. And the question becomes what happens if they don't approve it. So we may need to have language in there that they will redesign the system to either stage up higher on-site or increase the storage capacity on-site or less impervious surface. And that would all be entirely within the project boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you looked at the language that we received on our February 2nd version? MR. PIRES: No, I was not provided that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're reading off a version and your memo's off a version you haven't received -- reviewed? Page 27 --'" III ".4>.."FlII'_ ~"" 11II1 Rl . _......__IlA 16 ~ 1~ f February 19, 2009 MR. PIRES: My memo's off a January 21 st, 2009 draft that I received from Rich. MR. MOSS: Yeah, if! may, for the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Yeah, it appears that Mr. Pires' letter that he drafted yesterday was based off an old iteration of the PUD document. So yeah, there's a discrepancy between what is actually being proposed and his letter that he drafted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I asked, Tony, is on Page 11 of 18 of the new version, I'd like you during break to figure out where in there you think your issue isn't addressed and what it would take to address it. Because the only -- the last paragraph before the strike-through, there may be some changes that could be made to that to indicate that the project will utilize the drainage as a flow-through method. But other than that, I'm not sure it needs a lot of tweaking in the language it's at now. So could you take a look at it during break? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. lfwe move on to the next page, up at the top, number F. I think we've addressed that in our prior discussion. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All the rest of those down to J have been accepted. J is-- MR. PIRES: We just discussed J. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- water management, that's what we're just getting into. Down to L. MR. PIRES: And that's -- the representation by Michael -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's going to be in-- MR. PIRES: Separate agreement. That's fine, so it does not need to be in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next page, the language that Richard pointed out that's already in the PUD document seems to cure your problem that you have on the top of Page 4. MR. PIRES: No, I disagree. Because the language in the PUD document just talks about the one supplemental traffic study one year after they begin the day care. It doesn't tie back into the actual traffic counts -- or the traffic counts that are taken as part of the annual PUD monitoring. And my proposed sentence would actually go as the last sentence in that paragraph, because it would refer to the above traffic counts, which would be the annual PUD monitoring traffic counts. I think it's important to not just stop after the first traffic count and say okay, that's the only traffic count we utilize to see if we need to minimize impacts to the neighborhood. That the staff could evaluate the annual PUD monitoring traffic reports to see if there are any issues and whether or not additional traffic calming needs to be implemented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would want to ask staff before we went too far -- is transportation staff here today? Yes, good -- to find out if those monitoring report traffic counts would be reflective of the activity of the PUD and not bring in extraneous activity that was generated by increased building in the neighborhood or increased development there. Otherwise, you're imposing on that development more criteria as a result -- not as a result. MR. PIRES: I understand. And I believe the presen -- representation made last time was that that would achieve it, so why do an additional traffic count in addition to the PUD traffic count. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you were to take your suggestion about adding the monitoring report traffic counts on Page 18 of 18 on the new one where the sentence is existing that says, this supplemental data will be utilized by the county. Right after the word supplemental data, you could say, this supplemental data and any data received from annual monitoring reports -- MR. PIRES: Correct. Page 28 161 lkS February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- will be utilized by the county. And that would seem to get to the point you're asking. MR. PIRES: Yes, it would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I want to make sure before we suggest adding that, that it doesn't trigger something that is beyond the impacts of this development. MR. PIRES: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, that scowl on your face means you've got a question. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It means I don't understand what you just said. That was confusion, not scowl. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if Tony understood it, and he's more confusing than anybody-- MR. PIRES: Rich and I have this communication ability, sometimes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony's concerned about impacts that show up during the annual traffic monitoring report. And if they show that there's a more intense traffic use than anticipated, then whatever the county needs to do to make sure that those intensities are addressed through improvements to the road system are done. And I'm sugg -- and he says that basically the second paragraph in six of Exhibit F only applies to data received during this special TIS that's done during the first quarter to more accurately portray peak season loading. That's that one-time event. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the reason we did that is because that is when we would exceed what's there today. And remember what we said was the -- what's there today, there's no re -- we're not going to make the church go back and refit the neighborhood for the intensity that's there today. And we came up with these numbers, and we said when we hit these numbers -- because remember, we weren't going to do it until 980. But now we have a new number there. It's based on the existing seats that exist today for the church. So we said once we exceed what's on the site today, we'll do this supplemental study at those four locations, and if we need to do some additional traffic calming, we would then do it. So we had to get past what's on-site today, we would do the supplemental study, and then if that supplemental study said there needs to be traffic calming within the neighborhood, that's when you would do it. We were not looking to cure or deal with anything that exists today was my understanding, and that's why we put that provision in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think what he's opening up is that if you do the traffic counts on a yearly basis for the annual monitoring report -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's forget the paragraph about the special one for determining where we're at today. In the future every year you do a monitoring report. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll do a traffic monitoring report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the traffic comes back and shows that you're having a greater impact than anticipated and some road improvements are needed, he's suggesting that we need language that the county at that point can impose upon your client to make some corrections to the traffic situation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But if it's already -- if that traffic is already -- in other words, let's say the seats stay the same, okay. Why would we now have to do a retrofit when we've not done any -- we've not increased the intensity over what's there? That's why I thought we came up with this supplemental traffic was when we increased the intensity. And that's why we calculated the seats and came up with that number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think some of the intensity that you could bring in may not be portrayed Page 29 -..._-,... .- ~ . 161' 1 tvJ February 19,2009 as clearly as it might actually happen in your TIS. TIS basically is one of those traffic engineer's smoke and mirrors documents that buffaloes everybody and makes them not ask questions about traffic. But in the end you don't know if it's really going to come out that way. And I think what this is is a monitoring attempt to say if it comes out in line with your TIS, you wouldn't have a problem. But if it exceeds the estimates in the TIS, you may have. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's why I said what I'm saying, Mr. Strain, I think was I thought we had agreed that yes, that's for increase. Because you're worried -- what's there today is there today. The community's used to it and has accepted it, okay? It's when we got past what's there today, if the traffic study's wrong and there's more traffic, we need to do traffic calming. If the traffic study is as we believe it will come out, we won't have to do anything. But it was for the new, not the old. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. I'm not-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The TIS. So that's why we have those numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're trying to say the same thing. I'm just trying to figure out how to put it into words. MR. PIRES: My concern is recall that under the PUD they can go up to 1,200 seats. So under Rich's argument, once they hit 854, anything between 854 and 1,200, any additional trips generated from that are not accounted for or not characterized as any intensification of use. Additionally you have greater square footage to be utilized by all these other organizations than exist today. You're doubling the square footage almost on the site. And so it's not just the school, it's not just the seating, it's the other uses that are allowed. Ifthere's greater square footage, probably greater utilization. And it's not taken into account by that one supplementary traffic study, once you hit 853. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the language that's in here about the monitoring report says the following, it was added language: The traffic counts required as part of the required PUD monitoring reports shall be done during the first quarter of the calendar year. If you were to add the sentence after this that says, this data will be utilized by the county to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact on the neighborhood are appropriate. Does that cause a problem for you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Would you say it one more time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- the existing sentence, if we were to add after that -- and this is involving monitoring reports: This data will be utilized by the county to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact to the neighborhood are appropriate. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in the paragraph that starts on the previous page is where you want to add that? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, we're on two different copies, so it's hard for me to tell you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Page 17 and 18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at number seven under Exhibit F. The sentence before number seven is a standalone paragraph with one sentence. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the end of that sentence, I'm suggesting add the sentence I just read to you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This data will be utilized -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This data will be utilized by the county to determine if additional improvements to minimize impact to the neighborhood are appropriate. Page 30 161 lA'S February 19, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I ask you, let me -- I've got to ask you it this way by -- with asking a question. I've got 853 seats today I think is the number we have in here. IfI don't change a thing, I don't change a thing, and the traffic counts come in whatever the traffic counts come in, am I making improvements to the neighborhood? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I wanted to ask-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm asking -- that's why I have to ask you through a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- traffic. Right. And if you heard me preface this whole thing earlier by the fact I want traffic to come up here after break and confirm to us that the monitoring reports will provide the kind of data and analysis to support something like this. And my concern is it doesn't bring in extraneous traffic that you didn't generate and somehow you're being blamed for something that is already part of some other activity going on in the neighborhood. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm asking the question, even ifit is something that I'm generating and I haven't changed anything in my operations over what I have today -- say it takes us a year or two before we start doing any improvements, okay, and I've got the same structures out there and we do a traffic analysis, and now people are saying based on that traffic analysis you need to go and do A, B or C, do I have to do that based on the language you're suggesting we add? Is that what Tony's asking for? IfI've not made a change on the site? I'm just trying to understand it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a good question. We don't want to -- and Tony, do you understand his question? MR. PIRES: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If he doesn't make a change on the site and those TIS's on the annual counts come up skewed, how does that equate to him having to do anything? MR. PIRES: In other words, if he doesn't make any improvements, doesn't add any additional structures, the actual counts turn out to be greater than the TIS -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: -- is that Rich's concern? First of all, I can back up a bit. The new number was provided in here with no basis for it, so now I understand why Rich put it in there. You remember -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we talked about that at the meeting. MR. PIRES: Okay. And also, number two, you need to change the number at the second page. That's 220, it should be 34 -- THE COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. MR. PIRES: As opposed to 220, it should be 347 seats. You missed that-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. MR. PIRES: -- additional seating -- well, we'll talk about that at the break too, I guess. But I think once again, he's creating an issue that doesn't really exist. We're talking about perspective. We're talking about the ability to expand the use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Tony, he's brought up a good point. You cannot burden someone for something they didn't cause. If you've got an existing condition out there and it's acceptable and he makes no changes, but the monitoring reports are different for some reason as the future goes on, I don't know how you can -- MR. PIRES: No, ifit doesn't -- ifthe capacity -- if the site has not been improved, if the seats have -- capacity has not been increased and the square footage has not been increased, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, now you're getting into a ratio of increase for any future monitoring report that has to correlate back to the improvements that are needed. I mean, I don't know how Page 31 '- Il W 1l___''''''"'''~'-'''''''~-'~" 4',.._.'.... --- ...'-- 161 1 ~ February 19, 2009 you'd monitor that. I don't know how the county would be able to regulate that. You guys are going to take a break. See if you can come to some conclusion on this issue, along with the other couple that we have so far. I don't want this to go on all day like we did the last time. MR. PIRES: [ understand, I don't either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We gave you the benefit of the time because it is an important issue for the neighborhood, but we need to wrap it up. So we're going to go on break now and come back at 10: 15. And while we're on break -- go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Tony, this morning we discussed in detail the stormwater as you're concerned about. Do you realize that the church is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to remove a problem that is existing right now with the water in the area? MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You're digging your heels in on quite a few different other items. I hope that you two can come to some kind of conclusion here, as Mr. Strain said, shortly to resolve this Issue. MR. PIRES: I hope so, too. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a break and we'll come back at 10: 15 and we'll try to move this forward. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Whoa, that's a live mic. Please take your seats, we'll try to come back to order. In fact, we will come back to order. We left off going into break hopefully having the two parties talk over some differences that were brought up during the earlier discussion. Richard's back, Tony's abandoned the case. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Tony told me I could represent him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that might expedite everything. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Usually when I say that, he comes running in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We ought to do what we did last time Tony was late, we actually proposed a vote while he was gone. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Actually, I'd like to, Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It bothered him a little bit. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I would like to. I'm down to the point I'm pretty done with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're not done with this. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's for the Planning Commission's benefit. The more we can work out here, the less problematic it's going to be at the Board of County Commissioners' hearing. So we are going to wade through this today, we are going to get to resolutions on these issues, and we will make recommendations. And I know it's tedious, but we need to take our time and we need to do it as thoroughly and correctly as possible. So it isn't going to be rushed through. And with that, I wish Tony was back here, but he's late. Has anybody seen the late attorney out in the hall, Mr. Pires? No? MR. KLATZKOW: He's probably talking. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was a very cordial conversation out there, I want to get that on the record. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Tony, you lost by default. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, you got to be a little careful, because we're on record. Page 32 16 I: IfrS February 19, 2009 We1come back. MR. PIRES: Thank you. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The penalty for being late is more negativity towards anything you suggest, so -- MR. PIRES: Understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do want to tell you both-- MR. PIRES: More than the usual you've given me for 25 years, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We go back a long way. Just the same with Richard, though. Both of you guys used to be in some form working for the county, county attorney's office, so you both came through the same ranks. A few days ago I was told to cut back on my coffee, and when I came in this morning, Mr. Vigliotti had bought coffee for most members and I had to refuse it because I thought I had my one cup for the day and I'd better not go to two, but you know, after listening to you both, I had to go break the rule. So we're going to go into this and somehow we're going to get through this, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Tony hasn't drank coffee for years, have you? MR. PIRES: You mean less than 14 cups a day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I know we left off and you were going to discuss a series of items on the break. And I don't want to ask you where you're at, because you'll throw 15 different things at me. The only way to keep it in order is to go back to the document. And let's use your revised memorandum as the document and find out what items you may have clarified and discussed on break. And if I'm redundant on things that I asked earlier this morning, now that I've had coffee I just need to reinforce my memory. In number I-A, did we come back with a conclusion to put the footprints on the plan or not? Did you guys discuss that? MR. PIRES: I think it's appropriate not to have them on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that one's out. On 2-B, talking about the uses, all we did was we revised that by saying we'll do non-commercial in front of the words accessory use in the existing PUD language. And that works for everybody? MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: (Nods head affirmatively.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Didn't we remove the no more intensive changes to characterize? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not going to do any of that. All we're simply doing is taking the language in the PUD where it says accessory uses, and in front of the word accessory uses put non-commercial accessory uses, and leave the language in the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 2-C, the footnote. Everybody's in agreement with that now? We're looking at not greater than 25 feet for the accessory structures, both zoned and actual. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's outside the campus area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, outside the campus area, not greater than 25 feet, zoned and commercial. Richard, Tony, we okay? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. Page 33 --.-.-..0--- <too", '!I ._"",-11 ,'<I --...........- -~--"-- 161 1 P6 February 19, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: F on Page 3. MR. PIRES: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You forgot E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the same one, that's taken care of. MR. PIRES: I think on 2-C, the issue about the height, I think we're still -- the 20 feet versus 30 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. that's the second part of that. I only addressed the footnote part. What did you guys talk about, or did you talk about it? MR. PIRES: We talked about it briefly. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the answer is, and Tony, you're going to hear this for the first time, is what's taken care of is the -- we have this height document which is Exhibit G, and we'll make it clear that that's a height document. And then you have Exhibit H, which is the architectural rendering, which I believe gives them the assurance that this cupola is not going to become big. MR. PIRES: A stove pipe. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, a stove pipe. Now, our clients just spoke, and they I believe are okay that the cross itself can get to the height of 90 feet. I knew you'd be -- is that right? Is that -- the cross itself CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eighty feet. I think. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. But I believe now with all this documentation, that the cross itself going to 90 feet is acceptable. And I was just told this. I'm just looking to see if your clients -- MR. PIRES: Not acceptable to us that I'm aware of MR. YOV ANOVICH: The cupola stays like it is in this rendering. The cupola maximum height gets to 70 feet, the cross can be 20 feet is what I understand. Is that right? George is saying that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so what the issue was, Tony, you wanted a limitation to the cupola and your concern was by allowing them actual height up to 80, the whole thing can go to 80. What they're saying now is they'll limit the structural part of the building to 70 feet. and then they want another 20 feet for the cross. MR. PIRES: And my clients are nodding in agreement that's acceptable. Coupled with the square footage of the non-occupiable space, it achieves the results. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, on Exhibit G, one thing I would recommend doing. You see how you have the 50-foot actual height? Maybe add another dimension string that takes it to the top of the cupola, show -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Show that 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that 20 feet, and then add the 20 feet. And get rid of the 80-foot thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, will do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because legally what does including exclusions mean? You know, I mean, it's -- the ins or out or something. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll do that. We'll show that dimension of20 feet for the cupola and 20 feet for the cross. Page 34 I 16t 1~ February 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then a suggestion might be is that the line for the 50 actual, bring that over so that it does show -- just go a little more so it does show that it goes to the roof line. Just extend it. Right now you stop at mid-wall and the cupola to avoid any confusion as to what that line's for. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, do that on both. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D., I know you're sitting there and it looks like you're taking notes. It's going to fall on you to make sure all this is getting accurately noted so it comes out properly. And then with that, we're -- Item 2-C was resolved with a footnote for the first sentence. And we're changing the zoning to the structural or the non-occupiable portion of the building can go to 70 feet, with an allowance of up to 20 feet more only for the cross. Is that acceptable? MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on. The language for the drainage. Let's figure that out. And Tony, did you take a look at the page that I referred you to where it talked about the water management? MR. PIRES: I believe the sentence -- and I didn't have a chance to check the February 2nd document, because we were going a couple different directions. But the sentence that I had focused on was the one that says, the West Street roadside swale and one or more abutting roadside swales -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. PIRES: -- shall be redegned to allow runoff from the existing road adjacent to the project. Is that the sentence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the sentence, yes. MR. PIRES: Ifwe make it read as follows, and Rich, correct me if I'm wrong: The West Street roadside swale in one or more abutting roadside swales shall be redesigned to allow runoff from the existing roads adjacent to the project -- to flow through the project would be the additional -- to the outfall route, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all your paragraphs and all your writing, we resolved with three words in one sentence that exists on Page 11 of 18. And the same for the other tract that's referenced. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, any problem with that from your side? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that's consistent with what Mike said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would too. That's why I want you to make sure, though. I wanted you to acknowledge it, so -- Okay, if we go on to Page 3, number F has been already addressed, use the same argument that we talked about earlier for the accessory structures, service and storage buildings. MR. PIRES: Correct. And Mr. Strain, while we're on Tract B, maybe I should have covered it earlier, Mr. Solis has sort of marked up a height elevation for Tract B that is acceptable to my clients. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, can we-- MR. PIRES: Reviewed by Mr. Schneider. And we have one copy and so I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, J.D., if we need to, include this as an additional exhibit and reference in the PUD when it comes back for consent. Okay? MR. PIRES: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions with the exhibit? It's been accepted by both parties. Page 35 <<'." -, - -.- 16,. 1 4\:S February 19, 2009 (No response.) MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one that we had of -- would be I think L, or did we resolve that? Lis -- that's going to be separately done in your agreement, so that's been resolved. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last page, Page 4, on the top the county -- the right and power to minimize traffic to the residential Pine Ridge community, we talked -- that's one other item you were supposed to talk about on break. Did you talk about it? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what was your conclusion? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe the conclusion was that once we hit the 853 and 110, we will do annual monitoring counts at the four locations. It wouldn't be a one-time thing, it would be annual. And that ifthere n once we exceeded those numbers, if there were traffic calming or whatever measures the county deems we need to do, we will do, once we hit the 853 and 110. And they would be annual until PUD build-out. And then at PUD build-out, like every other PUD, you no longer do PUD monitoring reports and traffic counts. MR. PIRES: Yeah, and the agreement is based upon representation that Rich mentioned there's 853 seats today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what we've been told through the Living Word site, Covenant and Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: And that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's way too much to verbalize right -- to not put it in the book. So we're going to have to go back to Page 18 of 18, go to the sentence where it says traffic counts required as part of the required PUD monitoring report shall be done during the first quarter of a calendar year. Now what is the exact language you're suggesting being added there? I know it's tedious, but we need to get it done, because it's got to come back right on consent agenda or we're back to more hours of discussion on something we should have resolved. MR. PIRES: Rich, perhaps just the language that] had proposed then? If you can look at Page 4 of my memorandum, the top n MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, and this is the distinction that I n I broke them into two paragraphs for a reason. The supplemental tratlic analysis starts at the bottom of Page 17 and goes to Page 18. And that's where it has those triggers where we would be required to do the tour locations tor the traffic counts. Prior to our triggering that number, the county n we will still have to do PUD monitoring reports, because we're now doing PUD's. So I don't want to put your language added to that sentence, because that would now say if n even if I don't hit those numbers, the PUD monitoring report counts could result in doing improvements. So I think the way I've structured it with the two separate supplemental -- the sole purpose of this additional sentence, the traffic counts, was because we spent a lot of time discussing when do we do tratlic counts for PUD monitoring report, and it's usually on the anniversary of the PUD approval. And we all agreed that's not a good date, let's do the annual PUD monitoring report during the season. So that's the reason I put that sentence in there. So related to the PUD monitoring reports, I think we leave it as-is, and I think the preceding paragraph addresses what we just agreed to, Tony, which is the 853 trigger for the supplemental traffic Page 36 -. 161 lAC; February 19, 2009 analysis. MR. PIRES: I guess I disagree, because I've been told and represented that 853 exists today. So I don't know how we could achieve 853 ifit doesn't (sic) exist today, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have to do the supplemental when I go beyond 853. MR. PIRES: Correct. So the clarifying is that the traffic counts that occur after you go beyond 853 and 110 will be utilized. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. MR. PIRES: Okay. And we can -- the language doesn't-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's the way it's structured. MR. PIRES: It doesn't say that right now, but we could clarify that and come back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're going to clarify it now. MR. PIRES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't go out of here today without this resolved. We've got to go to consent agenda and staffs got to write it up right or we won't get through the next meeting. Ms. Caron, did you have a suggestion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I have a question before we go any further, and that's what's the purpose of traffic counts? And I want transportation actually to answer this question. What's the purpose of traffic counts if nothing's going to happen if there's a problem? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I probably am going to take the words out of transportation's mouth in some way, but part of the reason that they -- if we put something in the PUD language that provides for a reaction to the traffic counts, I think it's unenforceable by transportation. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. It's enforceable if it's listed in the PUD that that's enforceable based on the traffic counts that are taken. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right now the way this reads is the traffic counts required as part of the required PUD monitoring report shall be done during the first quarter of the calendar year. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So if your traffic counts say tomorrow they do it and there's some sort of problem, what does this allow you to do, just say acknowledgment, there's a problem, or do we actually get you to do something? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe by the language in the PUD, it allows us to bring up requirements for neighborhood traffic calming. They would also -- as part of that they'd be subject to NTMP requirements, which is neighborhood traffic management program, I think it is. It's a national program. Being subject to those requirements, they would have a specific contribution, a share of the contribution towards neighborhood traffic improvements, based on their -- based on basically their driveway counts, versus the background traffic in the neighborhood. For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me suggest something. Tony, and Richard and John, the language you suggested, Tony, starts out in the right direction, but it doesn't protect the applicant for the background traffic that exists created by the measurement of the prior paragraph. So if you were to take your language and it reads, after reviewing such data the county has the right, power and authority to require the property owners within the CFPUD to implement measure to minimize impact to the residential Pine Ridge community. And might we add something to the -- similar language to this. After the word community, for impacts exceeding those established as a base in the preceding paragraph. Does that get you there? Page 37 -- --_._'._~. ,--...., 1,6 \ 1 ~ February 19, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it already says that, but if you don't, then let's add it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: I don't think it says that. Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather be redundant than miss something. And I think this clarifies what you believe it already says. Tony, does it clarity it for what -- does that work for you? MR. PIRES: I'm sorry, Mr. Strain, if you can read the last part of it again, after the word community? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For impacts exceeding those established as a base in the preceding paragraph. Now, after today's meeting I don't want you guys sending memos back and forth about wanting more changes, that you didn't think it out. So I'm asking you to think it out carefully today. I want to get this resolved. MR. PIRES: I think what we may just want to do for clarification as to what the base is, is that then at the beginning when it says one year after the seating capacity of 853 through the entire CFPUD and the 110 person, et cetera, define that to be the base. I know that's what we're talking about being the base, but I think it would be helpful to say that is the base, like with a capital B. And then, Mr. Strain, with the language that you proposed -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's already in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tony, what -- MR. PIRES: -- then that would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we go to Page 17 after the reference in the first sentence of that second paragraph where it talks about the densities and intensities, the 853, the 110, kindergarten schools, first and all that. At the end of that sentence, could we put the word -- and after the word neighborhood, put in parenthetical base, or established base measurement. And then when you refer to base in the next paragraph, like I suggested, that defines what you just wanted to say. MR. PIRES: Refers back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Does that work for you, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us to the last one, which is N on Page 4, Tony's memorandum. It's involving height. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Before we go on and leave this, I want to hear from traffic that that works for transportation. MR. PODCZER WINSKY: Yeah, the base scenario that they're talking about relatively represents what currently exists today. Yeah, there's going to be -- we do realize that in all practical purposes, as they reconstruct the site there'll probably be a drop in traffic on this site, and then it will come back up to that base level. So I don't think we have a problem though with the language as proposed in calling the 853 and 110 students the base scenano. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that gets us through Tony's agreement. We're going to move back into the normal mode of operation for the Planning Commission, which is a discussion of the presentation. And Tony, we will still be affording you time for any closing comments you have. If you have none, that's great, but that's not like you, so -- Page 38 161 l-tr? February 19, 2009 MR. PIRES: Absent an absolute need to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tony. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have anything else you want to add to your presentation before we hear from the public or any other comments from the Planning Commission? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The issue regarding music, remember that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was briefly discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't going to be forgotten, but if you have something that will help with it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just wanted to -- sure. The proposal would be for Tract B, that there would be no music -- first of all, we have a prohibition already that says no outdoor music. There will be no music prior to 8:00 a.m. and no music after 9:30 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No music prior to 8:00, and no music -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: After 9:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- after 9:30? MR. YOVANOVICH: P.M. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Just to be absolutely clear, somebody either playing the drums or practicing their drums, is that considered to be music? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe it would be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In every respect the use of an instrument, is that what we're really saying here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. But yes, we meant no music. Totally no music. You can't playa musical instrument. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about the use of musical instruments shall not be made until 8 :30 in the morning and et cetera, whatever you said -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: 8:00. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be absolut -- well, because you have -- there may be somebody out there practicing drum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Bob, at the same point someone could turn on a radio with a CD in it and then it doesn't apply. So maybe if music is broader, it works better. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would think the use of an instrument is more defining than question of a radio. I'm talking about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, no, if you put it in here no use ofa musical instrument, then if someone uses a CD disc and a radio, it doesn't apply. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm just trying to be very-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear what you're saying. I don't want to spend the energy trying to reinvent a wheel, so I'll be fine with it. As long as -- listen, it ultimately comes down to the good graces of human beings anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, could we put an exception for Christmas Eve so they could have a midnight -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have already in the document I believe two exceptions, and we would Page 39 ,-~,-"~..".,_.__.~..- ..~--..,'"~. -~---,----- \ 161 1 ~ February 19, 2009 like those exceptions to also apply. I don't think that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the other one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have two -- we're allO\ved two exceptions per month the way it's currently written. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A month? Well-- MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: -- for clarification, live, recorded or amplified music, that covers everything if you put that wording in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There you go. MR. SCHMITT: Any live, recorded or amplified music. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. I think that gets Mr. Murray's concern taken care of and mine, too. So it would be no live, recorded or amplified music prior to 8:00 a.m. or after 9:30 p.m. And that's an agreement that -- okay. You have no problem with that. Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. And that would go under number four under worship, correct? That would be a clarification to that provision in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Okay, are there any other points in your presentation before we ask for general questions from the Planning Commission? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think I hit all the higWights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any of the Planning Commissioners have any other issues they want to bring up at this time? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to go back to the hours here and the exceptions. What would you possibly need an exception twice a month for, that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, it was-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Going to 6:30 in the morning. I mean, again -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, it would be the normal -- I mean, I don't know, something happens in the world that you decide you would like to have a worship service because some catastrophic event happened, we would like to go beyond those -- up to twice a month for worship. I mean, can I tell you for sure we're ever going to use it? No. But I mean, who knows what's going to happen and we limit it to just twice. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the music prohibition would still be in effect. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, you have Christmas service. And most churches, Easter morning, you know, sunrise service. You're saying that at a Christmas service, Christmas Eve service we've got to turn the music off at 9:00? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not saying that for Christmas Eve. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's why I -- that's the two that would -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm asking you what the other 24,23 times are going to be. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Easter. Could be -- who knows? I'm just saying it's only twice a month. I don't know. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there might be a way that would help your concern. Mr. Schmitt, special functions, how are they monitored by the county? Is this the same -- because Page 40 - . 161 IN? February 19, 2009 I'm not sure special functions is the word that we use. Temporary events or temporary uses I think we have applications for and you monitor those. MR. SCHMITT: You come in -- you have a special events permit. But what Mr. Y ovanovich just stated wouldn't be a special events permit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Couldn't. Couldn't. MR. SCHMITT: That's something like the fair or the golftoumament or some other unique event that is going to impact the public in some form or fashion, meaning traffic, tire control, some other type of things. A church having a sunrise church service is not a special events permit, nor would we even require any type of a permit for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so there's no way to monitor the special functions. MR. SCHMITT: Other than -- no, not really. I mean, it would be a complaint driven. Somebody calls in a complaint to code enforcement, we would go out there and find out is this a reoccurring event or was this a singular event for that month. That's about the only way we would be able to control anything like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question for the County Attorney. At what point do we find ourselves in a possible problem by over-restricting churches and the rights they have? I don't want to get ourselves in a problem where we over-restrict and find this thing's going to come back in an unfavorable manner. MR. KLATZKOW: There may come a point in time where there'll be a code complaint. This office will review that code complaint and this office may decide that you know what, they can do what they want to do from a Constitutional standpoint and there won't be a complaint. So to answer your question, there may come a point in time, changes in law or whatever, that we will say this portion of the ordinance we're not going to enforce. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So then by us being over-restrictive is a disadvantage and we -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a disadvantage. What I'm saying is that there may become a point in time where because of changes in the law or sentiment, it might be the opinion ofthe County Attorney that this particular violation we're not going to prosecute. It goes too far. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mr. Klatzkow, if a violation -- or I mean if an issue is brought up as a result of an agreed zoning standard, meaning they can do what they want to do on the property now within the rules that we currently have, but if they want to change the rules to augment their needs for the property and they agree to concessions in order to get those changes, and the concessions are a manner of operating and things like that and they agree to those, aren't those enforceable? MR. KLATZKOW: I haven't had any problems with any ofthe restrictions that you're putting through the ordinance. What I'm saying is if it comes a point in time where there's a change in law -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. KLATZKOW: -- okay, or there's a change in sentiment, okay, that we might have to relook at these things. But I think we're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Um. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have a question about the intensity of development on Tract B. Tract B represents one-eighth ofthe PUD area, yet what we're putting on there is one quarter of the Page 41 ---- r .;;(11)4 " 1_ ..., 16' 1 f*!? February 19, 2009 assembly uses and essentially one-sixth of the worship uses. So I've got a question as to what kind of intensity is going to go on that tract. What is the intent? In other words, why are we giving that tract so much more of the percentages of the development than the rest of the tract? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's essentially what they have in place today and the ability to do today. We're just trying to keep it what they have today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They have a 20.000 square foot building there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. no, not -- but remember. seats. What goes on -- if you can only have 200 seats, does it matter whether you have 40.000 square feet or ] 0,000 square feet? It's how many people can come into the space. You're only allowed ] 00 seats. So they could some day get to a 20,000 square foot building or buildings on the site, but they're capped at their number of seats and number of students pursuant to this document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who established that? I mean, I know the building. I don't -- I can't imagine within my knowledge of tire and building codes 200 people in that building. So when there was a survey done on the property. did that person establish the seating capacity? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you want Mr. Hunter to come up, he's with Covenant Presbyterian Church. He's been in the building. He says that you can do 200 seats now. That's where that number came from. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other thing is again, it does go back to the accessory uses, which are not there now, correct? The accessory uses, the day care, stuff like that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe there's a day care operating today there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the size of the day care that's being requested in this would be -- or all the accessory uses are one quarter what you want on the whole site. So again, my problem is it's one-eighth of the area, yet we're putting way above that proportion on this particular piece of property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're working with our -- remember. you've got two property owners. And for this to be a successful PUD, the two property O\vners have got to work together. And we believe that the end product that you will see, if ultimate redevelopment happens on this site, is you'll have a much more attractive church campus. a much more attractive boundary buffer, a better water management system than is out there today. And this was the arrangement between the Tract A and the Tract B property owner to make it work from both a, you know, operational and financial -- to make -- to get to the end of the day, which will be the uItimate redevelopment and have modem buildings there is how we had to work this out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to take the maximum allowed development of every one of the parcels that the Covenant Church owns, other than Tract B, which is J believe the remainder of that block, and you were to maximize the buildable capacity. would it exceed what you're asking for? Because really, Brad, to understand the ratio of the project, you'd have to see what they could have had on the balance of the property versus what Tract B is asking for, not what they're asking for. Because they may not be asking for everything they could have attained. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We did an exhibit. I did not bring it with me because I hate those exhibits because they can be played against you when you do that. But if we were forced to come in and do these individually as individual churches, we would far exceed the number of seats we're requesting than this one single PUD. Far exceed it. If we develop them individually with smaller churches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why the ratio of what they're asking to Tract B may not be the right ratio to be looking at. Page 42 , 161 11>6 February 19,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's pretty intense use, from my opinion. The -- what process would you take to get that, though? Through the conditional use process? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would go through a conditional use process, keeping in mind that this always was designated to be individual -- this was always designated to be church sites -- not always. When the amendment to the deed restrictions went into effect to designate this whole block as church sites, it would be very difficult for the community to come in here and say we don't want individual small churches on those individual parcels. I'd go through the conditional use process. And I think it would be very difficult at that point for the county and the community to stand in the way. And that's -- and we don't want to do that, that's why we never presented that exist. And we think in working with the community, through the comments you've received, and I think we've resolved everything with the association, based upon the comments so far, that we've done a good job. It started out a little rocky, but I think we've gotten pretty far along. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, the drawing that's -- and it's perfectly shown right now shows the exhibiting building. Yet you're able to build quite a bit more than that. You're able to it bring that up to 20 thou., over three times the size of it. How would that play into the drawings you're showing us now? Where would you put that building? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would have to meet the development standards that are in the PUD document. We would have to meet those setbacks, we'd have to meet the height. So that building would move. It would move further away from the roads, the new building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is that -- I mean, what was shown here is not reflective of what you're -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because we don't know what the new building's going to look like. We know that's the existing building. We've given you the dimensional standards. We can build a -- if you want us to put a box on this one as well as to where the building could fit into it, we can do that based upon the minimum setbacks that are required from the streets and property lines. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, to me it just looks tight. I mean, you're sharing parking with the other PUD now in this thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's much -- it's a much more integrated and better functioning site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I would be really happy if B was absorbed into A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't think the county can legislate that end result. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I do think, you know, if we give B more potential than 1 feel that it is by scale, by size, then we're making that less likely. Because it would be something that somebody could come in and develop at a higher density than I think should be on that site. And thus the potential of it being merged into A is lessened by increasing its potential. But anyway, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant before we get staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, I have a couple. Actually, they may be of all staff. I think you might have answered all of mine. Yes, they're all staff. So thank you. J.D., it's your turn. MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. Ijust wanted to say that the proposed PUD does conform with both the Growth Management Plan and with the provisions of the LDC, subject to the stipulations that have been incorporated by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does staff have any objections to the language that we've worked out here this morning? Page 43 '__R -. --- ~.~--''''"-- .~ ~- -,.- 16 I 1 AS February 19, 2009 MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, are there any questions of staff at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. Page 3 of 18, and it's consistent in the other section, too, it talks about the accessory uses. I know it's been worked out with the neighborhood, I understand their concerns, but I'm also concerned about a precedent, and I want to understand staff's position on this. The last part of it talks about structures custommily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, except that parking garages are prohibited. And then it says businesses and trade activities including but not limited to a market, community market, direct marketing outlet or farnler's market are not accessories associated with permitted principal uses and structures. My concern is I understand that that kind of activity is occurring in other churches in our community. If it's not acceptable as an accessory use here, how are we allowing it in the others? And the reason I'm asking that is, is because by restating it here, are we now setting a precedent that it is an acceptable accessory use everywhere else unless it is stated as an exception in the PUD? MR. MOSS: Well, this was language that was actually proposed by the neighborhood's attorney, so it's not something that we normally include in PUD documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and I'm not objecting to them wanting this, but I can't understand why it even becomes a question. How is a market an accessory use to a church? Not that churches don't have a right to find ways to make money. But under the provisions that I've seen here, everything could be an accessory use to a church. And how does that fit? How does that work? How -- MR. MOSS: Yeah, I see your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- does zoning allow that to happen? MR. MOSS: Yeah, I don't think that there's anything in the Land Development Code that specifically addresses this. It is just something that's common practice among churches, to have farmer's markets and other activities like these. Perhaps Ray might be able to contribute to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How common practice is it? Because until this church on -- I think there's a church on Goodlette Road or somewhere that started doing this. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine if they have the ability to do it. But when we do zoning for churches, I don't think any of us perceived unlimited retail uses going on at that church property. And I'd like to know what zoning's doing to make a limi -- provide some kind of limitation to this. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager. The churches are allowed to have fundraising activities as part of church activities. They're not allowed to have commercial enterprises where there's a commercial business occupational license issued. The property would have to be zoned commercial to allow those commercial operations. However, staffhas determined certain church functions regarding fundraising to occur. And farmer's market has been one of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a farmer's market for fundraising for a church is okay, but if it -- does that mean it can occur every single day of every single week of every single month all year round? MR. SCHMITT: No. MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then what are the limitations? MR. SCHMITT: For that type of activity, we've issued again a special events permit or some kind Page 44 . 161 116 February 19, 2009 of a permit to allow it. Similar to what they do on -- I believe on Davis or Radio, one of the -- MR. BELLOWS: We could require temporary use permits also. MR. SCHMITT: It's a permit. I think they do it once a week there for a period of like 10 or 15 weeks through season they'll have a farmer's market. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So once a week for 10 or 15 weeks? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, we've done that. We've taken those to the board and actually had the board approve those. The one in particular I recall was the church where they're having the farmer's market. It's similar to ifthey do a farmer's market in a park, the same way, once a week. There's those kind of events that are not really part of the church, but they're going to impact traffic, they're going to impact other activities within the community and impact -- certainly could have an impact on the surrounding homeowners. Those kind of things come in as a special permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And you know that you're getting special permits for all these? Because, for example, the church we're talking about does once a week for a farmer's market, and then I just saw a sign that they're also this week going to have a rummage sale or a tag sale or something. And then there's a pumpkin patch and -- I mean, do they have to get special event permits for each of these? MR. SCHMITT: I mean, I know exactly what you're talking about. They're going to have like a, yeah, rummage sale or a secondhand sale where they have donations. Normally those are once or twice, three times a year, some of those events. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, has anybody in zoning done an analysis on how many times a special event turns into a permanent use? I mean, again, if the churches are doing it and it's not harming the neighborhoods, that's fine. But not in all cases do we have a situation where this kind of activity wouldn't hurt a neighborhood. We have some churches interior, built into neighborhoods that are so close that ifthey were to decide that this is an acceptable accessory use in Collier County of a church, we've got a full-time retail establishment going on. I'm not picking on this one, because this one's excluding that. But it sets a concerning precedent that I'm wondering if we're not stumbling onto something that could be a bigger problem for the county. MR. BELLOWS: I believe the issue was addressed a few months ago. I don't recall the final outcome. This issue was raised and our staff was dealing with it. I don't have the exact results of that study. But what I said earlier still applies. These aren't commercial operations, they don't have a commercial occupational license. They are working as an accessory use to the church functions as fundraisers. Now, we have required temporary uses in some cases. I don't know the relationship between all of the events. I can get that information to you and we can report back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have a study done on that, I think it would be handy for the Planning Commission to see it. So that from now on when we deal with church rezones we know what we're dealing with in regards to the intensity. J.D., on Page 4 of 18, and it occurs in the other Exhibit B as well, footnote number two, we added the word occupiable. And it says -- you know, that's the non-occupiable building element. Do you know how to define a non-occupiable building element? MR. MOSS: Well, we certainly don't define it in the LDC, but I think it would be clear to anyone reviewing this at the time of SDP what that means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was concerned about. If staffs comfortable with it, then I have no problem with it. On Page 5 of 18 under the buffers, A-I, 2, 3, 4 and that's all there are. Last time we talked, staff Page 45 " _ f ,. 161 1~ February 19, 2009 was going to review A-2, 3 and 4 to make sure they were consistent with the code and not deviations or vanances. Did you have someone in staff do that? MR. MOSS: Yes-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they-- MR. MOSS: Landscaping review-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they acceptable? MR. MOSS: --looked over this and approved it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Exhibit L conditions of approval, we have a number three, a required 0.12-acre recreated preserve shall meet county preservation requirements and shall recreate the habitat that previously existed on-site, (pine flatwoods), including all three vegetative strata. Why? MR. MOSS: I think this had to do with the fact that there was a violation on the site. And they did remove a lot of native vegetation that occurred on one of the parcels. And this is to ensure that that vegetation that was illegally removed is recreated on the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MR. MOSS: I'm not sure. Maybe Susan Mason from environmental might be able to do that. I'm sure it's an LDC requirement, but I can't cite the specific provision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It sounds like it's punitive, and I'm trying to wonder what we're gaining from doing this in the middle of an -- MR. MOSS: Susan's here-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- urban area. MR. MOSS: -- I'll let her answer that directly. MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason, with Engineering and Environmental Services section. The required recreated preserve is because of existing vegetation that was on-site prior to the code -- the violation of their vegetation removal permit which allowed only for a minimal amount of mechanical removal of Brazilian pepper and hand removal everywhere else because they destroyed the palmetto and pine. The palmetto understory, and damaged and killed the pines that were in that site. It's 15 percent of what was there. Not recreating the entire acre or so that they had damaged and destroyed, it's just the minimal requirement based on Growth Management Plan, CCME and the LDC requirements for percentage of retained vegetation. And the reason it states pine flatwood is to keep it consistent with the sections of the code that describe how you mitigate for permit violations. If you wanted to allow them some flexibility with different habitat types, since this is a PUD, I don't -- that certainly wouldn't be a problem, it would be a deviation to the standard code requirements, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why it has to be different habitat types? Obviously nothing's habitating (sic) that area. It's in the middle of an urban area. Why couldn't we just allow them to have a landscaped open green space there instead? And wouldn't we accomplish the same goal as having some open space on the site, rather than recreating strata that may not even live, and even if it did it wouldn't serve a purpose of habitat for any species in an area like that? MS. MASON: Well, it may not serve for habitat of some listed species, but it certainly could for wildlife. And it would serve as both open space and they certainly be able to count it for that. And simply, the code and Growth Management Plan require that it meet preserve standards, and it's not -- there is an option. They could have proposed off-site preservation, which we did offer the applicant as an option. I know they've gone through various planning groups and they chose not to seek the Page 46 161 lA-S February 19, 2009 off-site alternative for the small preserve. So if it remains on-site, it just must meet the minimum standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It just seems like it's a huge waste of money. And I understand what you're saying, I just -- MS. MASON: It will help buffer, too, which I think is probably a bigger issue in this. But it could be incorporated in that. It just would need to meet at least the minimum width requirements and things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of staff? Mr. Kolflat, and then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: J.D., on your report, Page 2 of 18. MR. MOSS: Is this the original staff report? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Be careful. We've had so many originals, I'm not sure what you'd be talking about. How about the latest one, huh? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's my original one. But I don't know what yours is. Check on Page 2 and see how we check out. MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On Page 2, Item B-4. Do you have that? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What's it say? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Accessory uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B-4 on February 2nd is child/adult day care, right? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Starts with the words there? MR. MOSS: Oh, this is the PUD document we're looking at, not at the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. MOSS: Okay, urn-hum. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In the second line there it says, cumulative total of220 students/individuals emolled/attending. Those were three different definitions or qualifications. Which one is the total, all three or individually? MR. MOSS: Yeah, it's the cumulative collective total. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So you add up all three of those? MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer -- oh, were you done, Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's just finish then. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On Page 8 of 18, under F at the top of the page, flat roof prohibition. MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It says flat roofs may not be utilized. Don't we want that to say shall not be utilized? MR. MOSS: We can change it. This is actually something that's in the LDC, but the applicant's-- the attorney for the neighborhood wanted it included. But there's no problem with that, I'll leave it as it is and change may to shall. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Then on Page 10, under A for buffers, item two is all required buffer trees along Ridge Drive and West Street shall be shade trees. Why do we use a general term like that there when previously on Page 5 we talk about Quercus Page 47 ~,'-' "",... ...--.- ",",..",.,." .__."..""..~~.,.. .... ----~- 16 I lAG February 19, 2009 virginiana, Roystonia regia, giving the actual name of what the buffer's going to be? MR. MOSS: I think because what happened in A-2 on Page 5 occurred after this provision was included, and so it just wasn't updated. But we can change that shade trees line to the specific species type. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Seems to me for consistency if we're going to be detailed as far as definition of a buffer, why don't we be consistent through the document? MR. MOSS: We'll do that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's all I had, Mark. COMMISSIONER CARON: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, let me -- one quick thing to follow up with Tor. You know, there is no such thing is a flat roof. Should we -- I know they reference Exhibit G in everything. Do you think we should add a minimum slope on that, or -- I mean, theoretically there is no flat roofs. The building code wouldn't let you do something less than two percent, so -- MR. MOSS: I don't have a problem with doing that if you think it would be prudent to do so. COMMISSIONER SCIUFFER: I think let's add it on Exhibit G, but let them add it. MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Pick a number. It could be small. But the illusion is that is somebody could claim that it's not a flat roof, and essentially it's a slightly sloped roof with parapets and things. And the downside of that is you could have a 50-foot wall, if that's the case. The other question I really had, though, \vas throughout this whole process did you or any of the neighbors ever see an exhibit that showed what the scale of this square footage we're doing? We have numbers, but we've never seen a document. I haven't yet, that shows how big these numbers really are -- MR. MOSS: No, nor have I. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in temlS of buildings. And again, especially on Tract B, I think that if people saw that, they would realize it's not what may be in their mind today. So in this whole process, there was never a document showing the massing, the potential square footage, what that, you know, 2.3 acres of buildings looks like. And remember, that shaded area is 2. I acres, so it's bigger than that. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, how many public speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: We have six speakers. Tony was the first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before you do, ladies and gentlemen, those of you that are going to speak, we ask that you try to limit your discussion to about five minutes. We're not hard and fast on that rule, but basically please don't be redundant. So with that in mind, we'll ask that you come to one of the podiums and start. Go ahead, Ray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Following Tony is Ben King, to be followed by Clifford Schneider. MR. PIRES: I'll be real brief, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Again, thank you for taking the time and the patience for the exchange of ideas and discussions. And also thank my clients for being so steadfast and also cooperative with the church. And I think -- and also Rich and his consultants, the current consulting team has been good to work with. We still have -- you know, we may have issues, but we've been working on them. One other -- a brief issue. Mr. Schiffer raised the question about the idea about the square footage Page 48 . " 16' 1 ~ February 19, 2009 on Tract B or in other places. One thing we consistently ask for is what is the square footage of the existing buildings? And we keep hearing various numbers bandied about, but I don't have a survey. We've been told it's too expensive to do that, and I understand that. But if anybody is making a determination based upon what is purported to be square footage, it is just an assumption. There's no survey showing the square footage. And that was one of the issues we asked for right out of the bat at the beginning of the project, to be able to fully understand the impact of the proposed uses and square footage and the existing. It's not a criticism, it's just a comment that those who are looking for it aren't going to find the exact numbers. Additionally, on the comment about Rich making -- he didn't want to elaborate on it, but saying if we all came in individually it could be much more intensive. I would counter with that, that by the time you look at, you know, the impacts on the neighborhood of all the various proposed uses, I think it would not be difficult for the Board of County Commissioners to turn down a plethora of uses that could result in tremendous adverse impacts to the community. With that, on a positive note, again, it's been a process that I think will produce a document that would hopefully be able to be reviewed and approved by all parties before we get to the Board of County Commissioners, by the time we come back with the consent agenda. I think we've worked out all the language issues. And looking at it with a fine tooth comb again, Rich and I will -- if we have issues, I'll discuss it with him well in advance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tony. MR. BELLOWS: Ben King. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next? MR. KING: Good morning, everyone. My name is Ben King. I live at 56 Myrtle Road, which is right across from the church property where the lake's going to be built. And I've lived there for 13 years. Just a few things. About the uncertainty, I still have some concerns about not knowing what is going to be built or when it's going to be built. For example, is the church going to be built first? I know it was close. They're close to making a decision. But it's been so long, we've been told that the funds are available, but is the church going to be built first or is the educational center going to be built first? My logic is the church is more important, because it will improve the property immediately; whereas, if they build the educational center first there could be three, five years down the road before we even see what's being built, and virtually no property improvement, at least on the frontage part of the property . Also I'm concerned about the size, the fact that you can roll over the excess square footage of 28,000 for the church. We've never been told the size of the church. Even in the renderings we have, there's been no mention of size. Apparently it has to be pretty big, but I don't know how big. Access will just roll over to the accessory uses, so I'm concerned about the size of the church. Water management: We live right across the street, we're concerned about water management. But Mr. Y ovanovich has just mentioned there will be an improvement. I haven't seen anything specifically saying there will be an improvement, but he has just indicated there will be an improvement. Okay, my understanding was it was just going to be no worse than the existing standard, so an improvement would obviously be an improvement. I have concerns, like everyone else, about the proposed hours of operation, particularly the church being seven days a week. There are no restrictions at the time the church can start or end. I'm also concerned about the specifics as to frequency, class attendance sizes, what exactly is going to be there. I know it cannot be pinned down 100 percent, but it's still very vague from my point of view. And there's a couple other minor little things that has never been brought up before is like -- and Page 49 - '11 I" ,...~....,,,,---. ,..,,_..,_....=-~... .--"- . _._- 161 1 16 February 19, 2009 maybe there's not even an issue to be addressed. But like vehicle parking, every Sunday you look at any church, there's cars parked allover the buffer zones. I don't know if that's possible here, but even last week when I -- I live right across from the church and there were probably 20 cars parked in the buffer zones. And there were parking spaces, but the distance to get from the space to the church was a little bit more than the buffer zones. And when this gets big, I mean, they could have a lot of cars parked all over the place. And it's not just on the main church, it's also on parcel B. I saw it all over the street, cars parked; there was just not adequate parking. There will be more parking, but if you don't instruct people to not park in the buffer zones, it's not going to be used. And the only other thing might be if there are transportation vehicles involved, that there's a restricted area for parking them. I don't know if there will be buses involved sometime in the future or something, but perhaps there should be a designated area for transportation vehicles, if there are such vehicles. And that's all I have. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the closing of to day's meeting, we'll probably be asking the applicant for some clarification to your issues, so -- next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Clifford Schneider. MR. SCHNEIDER: Good morning. For the record, my name is Clifford H. Schneider. I'm a resident of Pine Ridge. I'm one of the three members of the architecture control committee. I talked to you at the prior meeting. I think what's been proposed with respect to the stormwater management issue is a vast improvement over what was originally proposed. This is the change that was just proposed yesterday to basically make the Pine Ridge drainage system -- subdivision system separate from the church PUD system. I always had concerns -- I didn't know how the staging, how it would even work the way they originally proposed it. They said they had done routing calculations to prove that it would, but I think their recent calculations show that there is an issue. I suggest a drainage easement be established to allow for the subdivision drainage that's going to go across the applicant's property. It's not defined right now where it's going to be where the drainage will cross, but I think there should be easements established. There already is a five-foot drainage easement on the south side oflot six of block O. I assume that will no longer be used. I don't know. But when the new easement's designated, I think there should be definition of who's going to operate and maintain the swales and/or pipes as that comes up sometimes and people say well, I'm not going to maintain that. Well, somebody has to be responsible for it. And the only issue I see is if the FOOT doesn't cooperate with allowing a positive connection. They should, because when a road is built it should allow -- when an FDOT road is built, they should allow for side drainage. And -- but again, as you know, Mr. Strain, you still have to deal with bureaucracy there. From the architecture committee's standpoint with respect to the buildings, there still is not a lot of definition, but I think the PUD text revisions have been positive. The conceptual rendering that's in the document is helpful. The Pine Ridge Architecture Control Committee will still want to review the site plans and the conceptual drawings. We're on record for that. Just to let you know. I know this board's not going to enforce it, but we want to be able to see that. So that concludes what I have to say. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I certainly made note. And at the end of -- as we get through today, we'll ask your question, make sure they're resolved in one way or the other. Page 50 I . 16\ 116 February 19, 2009 Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: George Buonocore? MR. BUONOCORE: Pass. MR. BELLOWS: Sally Barker? MS. BARKER: Pass. MR. BELLOWS: Allen Jones? MR. JONES: Pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I certainly appreciate those of you who have saved our time this morning on issues. And I have a list of things, Richard, I'd like to just run by. We're going to get through it. I have about six or seven items that were just raised. One is maximum square footage of Tract B. Are you willing to peg a maximum square footage for that particular tract? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We already do. It's 20,000 square feet for Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, this was something I made a note as your concem.l thought you -- I didn't think you felt there was a maximum. Are you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, no, I know there's a maximum. And that maximum to me is much too high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- can I ask an area question of Ray real quick? Ray, is the mezzanine counted as area? In the Building Code it would not count as the area of a floor. Does it count in the Land Development Code? MR. BELLOWS: You mean floor area, usable floor area? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, they have so much t100r area. If they build a mezzanine within one of the room -- obviously it would be church, probably, the worship center. Does that area of the mezzanine count as the area of the building? MR. BELLOWS: I would imagine so, but I'd have to verify that. I just don't know for sure. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. Yes. Well, it counts for impact fees. Because it's usable space, it will count for impact fees and it counts for -- I'm almost sure it counts for usable space for zoning as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. MR. SCHMITT: As you well know, it's evaluated for fire, all the fire review and all the other associated activities for the -- in the building department. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the building codes, Joe, a mezzanine does not count as floor area of that floor, that building. That's one of the tricks we use. But the point is that if you count it, that's good. So that means if they build a big mezzanine, that's coming off of the square footage with it. Other than that, Mark, it's just that I think the proportion, the ratio, the size of lot B and the ratio of the accessory uses and things that they're putting on there is in excess of that. So I think that's too much. But that's my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think what's important, I think all the speakers recently that we heard didn't raise an issue with the square footage and the allocations on Tract B. I thought we -- that's not been raised in the comments. Other issues have, and I think we've resolved them all. And just subject to the words coming back as we understand them to be, I think we're there from comments from the community. And I would just say that, you know, Commissioner Schiffer, this is the way it's got to be for this to work as a unified PUD to get the end result of nice, attractive, new campus. It's Page 51 _'_w__'" - TIIL_....... "--~.,~^-_.... -,.._,,-"~- - . _.<- 161 I 16 February 19, 2009 not going to work any other way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. And just to respond, I don't honestly think the neighbors-- because the question I asked John-David, I don't think John-David knows the scale of these square foot numbers. They see little drawings, they see little pieces, but no one's ever realized I think how big some of these numbers are. Especially what Tract B would look like if it was developed like that. But my opinion, once agam. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well. let's move on. The -- another item I made a note of is the -- do you have an idea of what structures you're going to build first in Tract A, Richard? Or would you be willing to commit to us -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Remember, it used to be three buildings, and the one on the far north came off. Then we're down to the two buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So it would be the northern of the two buildings, so it would be the center building in the original three building configuration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Center building is what? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's the worship center building, which would be the building -- do we have the ghosted in exhibit? I hate to show you that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I know which -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You remember what I'm talking about. That's the worship center building is the building that will be built first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for the record. you're saying you're building -- the first building you'll be building is the worship center. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go, is that the church? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the worship center. MR. YOV ANOVICH: [tIS the worship center. which I think is the-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Church is the people. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The hours of operation. There are hours of operation for Tract B for the worship center, but I notice there isn't any for Tract A. Was that intentional? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MR. YOV ANOVICH: A couple of reasons. We are further away from the residences through the setbacks that occur. And philosophically we don't believe it's appropriate to regulate worship hours and -- because of the safeguards, and that we're further away from the residences. Tract A, it was -- has decided that they would not support limitations. And I believe the community, after we've gone through this process, is accepting that for Tract A. But due to the location of the buildings on Tract B and their proximity to residences were not willing to accept unlimited or no specific regulation of worship for Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the amplified music provision, do you have any problems with that being applied in time frames to your tract? Because that's -- whether you're there or not at 5:00 in the morning or 4:00 is one thing. But whether you're there playing loud music is another. And maybe that would be a way to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, these are going to -- I think one of the problems you have with Tract B is you have an old structure that, you know, will not be able to be -- it just doesn't provide the Page 52 . . 161 1 16 February 19, 2009 buffering and sound attenuation that a new modern structure would. I don't think you need to have the same level of concern for Tract A, because it will be new structures and they're further away from the residences. So I don't think that it's necessary for Tract A. It's not been raised really as an issue I don't think for Tract A. Tract B has always been the concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was raised this morning, yeah, by a gentleman a little while ago. So that's why I'm bringing it up. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that, but I -- okay, yeah, one person's raising that issue. And I appreciate that. But I think the way we -- how we've located these buildings and the buffering we're providing I think would take care of that concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the parking problems that were expressed? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, you brought up a very good point. And the park -- that's the reason we're in. If you look at that campus and where the parking is in relation to the buildings, that's why you have people not using the parking as provided, it's too far away from the buildings. The way we've done this is we actually make the parking much more accessible for the buildings. So that will resolve the issue that exists today by this centralized campus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they were to park on the butTers on the picture you have in front of us -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: With their trees -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it'd actually be much farther from the building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, and they'd be in trees and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a perimeter hedge so they'd have to walk through the hedge to get there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the most part. Okay. The drainage easement for the on-site drainage improvements and the maintenance in operation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's standard with an SDP approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I believe that addresses, or at least you've expressed your response to most of the concerns that were raised. Anybody else have any other questions of the applicant? Of staff or of anybody at this time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we will close the public hearing and have a discussion before we go into motion. And the reason for the discussion is it would be nice if we could work out our differences here so that we can resolve in a vote unanimously to go to the Board of County Commissioners, and that would help the process at their level and certainly make it easier for the public in that regard. So first of all, is there -- anybody have an idea -- I think the motion is going to be to recommend approval subject to the various discussions and stipulations that we've articulated that will be brought back to us in a consent agenda. Does anybody have any issues that they're not going to feel comfortable with on a consent agenda? Mr. Schiffer's -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the issue's going to be site B. I mean, putting an excessive amount of development area on that makes no sense to me at all. Richard says it's to make the deal work. That makes no sense to me at all either. I mean, I think that the site itself has too much square footage on it. But the fact that they've corralled it where they have in the center away, I think some day we may drive up 41 and regret that we Page 53 --. -_. . "1" -.....----"-...~--..,,-,,.....- "~"- 161 1~ February 19, 2009 allowed that much square footage if they ever do build it out to that much. But I don't understand why we have to put this excessive amount on Tract B. Tract B is the problem child in the neighborhood anyway in terms of disturbance. We don't have good data as to what's going on. If they're saying there's 200 chairs in there, I mean, from my experience with geometry I'd have trouble seeing that now. Rich is -- I don't know if we're inhibiting their ability to develop anything, because it would come through a conditional use and we would see a balanced project. They want to put 50 students there, but the area of the building they want is around 250 square feet per students. So I guess that's a pretty luxurious preschool they'd be building. If you look at their drawing now, they're using the site anyway for parking for the other projects. So I just think giving that big a building on essentially two residential lots in that neighborhood is not right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the issue stems from what you can fit on that lot. And with your cross easement abilities to use parking from Tract A for parking on Tract B. it creates a larger potential of structure on Tract B. Based on the drawing here, it looks like that's what you're doing. If you were to limit the activities on Tract B. if it's owned by a separate owner, to only those that could fit on Tract B for its uses that are required, like parking and others, wouldn't that then keep your structure more limited until such time it was purchased by Tract A? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, you're assuming that Tract A is going to buy Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're encouraging Tract B to have an acceptable price by the fact that it can't do anything bigger than what it could fit on its own lot unless it cut a deal with Tract A and Tract A absorbed it and then it come under the new criteria that we have here. So in essence it works better for Tract A from a negotiating standpoint. Tract B is limited to what it could have on its site to support its structures to whatever size it could build to within the framework here. And it may not be the full 20,000 square feet, because they couldn't fit enough parking on there to get it, based on what this picture seems to portray. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm uncomfortable with the county attempting to give either party better negotiating power in the deal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't the purpose. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, but I'm just saying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's an example of what the outcome could be. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Could be. And I understand. And I don't want to state some negative things that could happen, should the relationship between us and Tract B not be like it is. It's been very cooperative with the bank who came in last minute. They're trying not to hurt Covenant Presbyterian Church, yet retain value on their site right now. And we have gone through -- and they've jumped in. And we could have been derailed because the bank bought a piece of property, trying to figure out what they can do to keep the value. They could have said we're out altogether because we're not ready to be part of this. We don't have that relationship. We have a good relationship. The community has not raised an issue on Tract B's square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And what I'm saying -- Mr. Strain, I hear what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, one of the nice things about getting through the system is if you can do it unanimously. I'm suggesting a compromise to satisfY one member of the planning commission who's going to cause a problem in regards to the Board of County Commissioners hearing this or not. And so I'm suggesting to you, you might want to look at a compromise. If you don't want to, that's your choice. Page 54 Flba! 19,\O~ MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have the ability to reduce the square feet on Tract B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, no one's ever justified why they need that much square footage on Tract B. What do you have in mind on Tract B? And if you look at your drawing here, what you have in mind is letting Tract A use it for parking, a lot of it in the comer. The southwest comer of that is parking for Tract A, essentially. You show no -- in other words, that document, the neighbors wouldn't complain about the area because you show the existing building, yet there's a potential of 15,000 square feet on top of that that's not representing on any of the documents. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And they'll get a new building, a modem building, with greater setbacks from the streets. They know where the building can go, how close it can get, which is further away than currently exists. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You make the property marketable to where a new church might come in, get rid of an old dilapidated -- I don't want to say dilapidated -- an older building that has not served the community well from a noise standpoint. We just heard that, from a noise standpoint the old building doesn't work. You're making the property marketable with greater setbacks on Tract A, greater buffers. You just make a much better appearance overall for this property by approving it. And I think the community has seen there's the benefit ofthis unified PUD and understands the ramifications of what could happen with a 20,000 square foot intensity on Tract B based on those development standards, height-wise and all that. Height was the issue. We worked through height with the community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, the question really was what do you -- you know, you're really saying you need it, you need it, you need it. But you can't tell me why you need that kind of square footage. You build 50 students daycare. That's -- the size of the building you could build there is 250 (sic) square feet, much in excess of what you need. The setbacks that you're allowed here are essentially the residential setbacks, so there's no real big prize there. So -- and, you know, you're saying the neighbors never complained, but look at the drawing that's on the screen now. That's the existing house, with maybe the patio in the back closed in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in order to move this along, I think what Richard's saying is he's not going to move on his response, Brad. And I understand where you're at. And Richard, is that a fair statement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don' have the ability to move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then there's no sense of beating a dead horse. We need to go on with any other discussions we may have on this issue. Are there any discussions on this particular project remaining by anybody? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think that Mr. Schiffer has a very valid issue. We are talking now -- if that building sitting there now is 3,000 square feet, that's probably being generous. Suddenly we're going to have 5,600 square feet of a church plus 12,000 plus square feet, 15,000 square feet of accessory uses --I'm sorry, 14,000. I don't know what we're trying to accomplish on this little piece of property. I mean, I don't get it. And the lawyer for that tract is sitting back there without comment. I think because it's bank owned, they have no clue. So we're just entitling them to something that the neighborhood can't have any Page 55 _. - '""_''''''''''~~'""___u""">O_'''_'',''.,",~"."_.....~,,,,,,, ~~~~._~--"--------"'---"'-'--"-'-'--'_._~'-'-~-""- 161 14\S February] 9, 2009 say in. I mean, Tract B should have been done separately. They should have come out of this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It can't be done separately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because you have the lake and the drainage system. It has to be considered as a whole. So if you don't have Tract B in the deal, you don't get the overall campus. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? MR. yaV ANOVICH: You get a hodgepodge of individual churches on this acreage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Rich, you've constantly said you need that square footage, yet you constantly can't tell us why. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They need the marketability, Mr. Schiffer. They don't know. They need value on that parcel of property. And that's what they're saying they need to do. This has been going through the process for many, many, many months. And the allocation of square footage within the PUD has not been an issue for Tract B when we've been dealing with the community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the health, safety and welfare of the community should bow to that reason? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If the community's not complaining about it-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, what I'm saying is look at that drawing. The community doesn't know what the square footage you've shown means. You've never shown them. John-David, that's why I asked him that question. You never did it on the big property, but like I said, the corralling of that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let it go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe as a solution, is there a number that works for you? Why don't you just throw it on the table, ask them, and when they say no we can move on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, definitely cut it in half. Bring it down to 10,000 square feet for that site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're thinking that site should be limited to 10,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record, Richard, do you think that's acceptable or not? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. You just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's all I need to hear. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I just n you just recently approved a church on two acres with 300 seats. We're asking for 200 seats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay? You know, we're asking for 200 seats on two acres, youjust approved 300 seats on two acres. From an intensity standpoint, it's measured by seats. I don't think that's -- I just use it as an example. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what we saw as the layout of that church, we saw everything figured out. We didn't -- it wasn't phantom impressions as to what that square footage would be. And that's -- and what Donna said is right. I wish this one wasn't in the project and we dealt with it as a conditional use, and maybe they would get that. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but I think the answer's been no 16 times, so let's just end this discussion and let's have any other discussion on this particular project and then we're going to ask for a motion. Is there any other questions, any other discussions by anybody on this project at this time? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just have a question. Page 56 ~J Fl~al19,\o~ ' ' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Were you going to -- I'm not sure I have all the notes. Were you going to go ahead like you usually do and list everything that you have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, staffs been taking the notes. We've articulated them very carefully. They're going to come back on consent. There's too many notes to go through on that manner that you have asked. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No problem at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what I'm looking for, is someone willing to make a motion on this project? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, known as Heavenly Community Facilities Planned Unit Development, I would recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners, based on the stipulations found in the staff report and as amended and for those items that have been carefully articulated and recorded during this entire process. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Wolfley. And I believe it's comprehensive enough for staff to follow what they need to on that regard, and I'm getting nods of heads, so that means yes. Is there any discussion from any members of the Planning Commission on the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Non-redundant? No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six in favor. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two opposed. And Mr. Vigliotti is abstaining. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm going to abstain to avoid any possible conflict of interest. And I will file the necessary paperwork. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: And just for the executive summary purposes, the reason for the votes against this board was just stated, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: And it has to do with the square footage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. This would create excessive density on Lot B, thus violating the health, safety and welfare ofthe neighborhood. Out of scale with the neighborhood. MR. KLA TZKOW: And was there any other reason? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 57 - .... Y I .1 ..--"....-- -- 161 l-f\S February 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: I would say the san1e. I'm very concerned about the density and intensity on Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, this case is over with. We appreciate all your time and thank you from the residents, and Tony Pires and Richard for all your cooperation, and the church. We got through it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for your patience. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, with that, instead of going into a new case, we're going to take a lunch till 12:30. We'll come back here at 12:30 after lunch and we'll resume the cases at that time. Thank you. (Luncheon recess.) Item #9B, #9C and #9D PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13664, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13665, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13960, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from our lunch. And we will now resume our meeting. The last item was a continued item from a January 15th meeting. The following one, two, three, four, five items are going to be regularly scheduled items for today. First one is Petition SV - 2008- AR -13664. And while we're at it, there's no county attorney -- oh, yes, Heidi. Oh, everybody's back there. Good. What I'd like to do is hear all three petitions at one time but vote on them separately. So that's what we're going to do. And I'll announce all three of them. They're all for Port of the Islands. They're all for similar issues. They're all for sign variances. The first one is Petition SV-2008-AR-13664. The second one is SV -2008-AR-13665. And the last one is SV-2008-AR-13960. All for Port of the Islands Community Improvement District for sign variances in that area. 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: Thank you. Are there disclosures on the part of the planning admission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a phone call request from Mr. Duane, and I e-mailed him back that I had read everything and I understand it, so I didn't really have a lot to say. And with that, Bob, it's yours to go this morning. MR. DUANE: Thank you. I'm going to be very brief this morning. Robert Duane, for the record, representing the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. I have Dan Cox here with me also, who's the attorney for the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. Page 58 , 161 1~ February 19, 2009 As you can see from the aerial photo, we have three separate requests before you: One on Newport Drive, one on Cays Drive and one on Union Road. The signage is just trying to give the community a little more identity and let people know what's there. It's not a planned unit development, which would have more typically than not included some special provisions for signage. But the history on the zoning of this property goes back a generation or more, so we're just trying to bring it back into the light ages with our signage. I do have one small change to share with you. I got an e-mail late last night from the chairman of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, telling me that there had been some interest in wanting to put the marina, which would be the Petition SV -2008-AR-13665, that they might possibly want to call it the Resort Marina and Waterfront Community. And I'm going to suggest to you, since perhaps the Community Improvement District has not agreed precisely on what verbiage is going to go on the sign, I'd like to leave the sign copy open. Nancy suggested I might want to just add an XX in case the wording changes at some point in the future. But that doesn't change any of the parameters of the request, the height and the size, and I believe the findings. And what we're seeking are variants that don't affect the copy that's on the exhibit for that particular site plan for that petition. Otherwise, the one on the north side of 41, we have structured that also to account for some possible eventualities, as all the users may not be determined at the present time. But we tried to identify the people that we are -- we think are going to be on the sign, Orchid Cove, the Gun Club, the Port of the Islands Community, utilities, meeting rooms, and the like. And I think our variance is structured to permit up to 10 entities on that 32 square foot sign, which is going to be located in the median. And the final one, which is the last one, is the 18 square foot sign in the little median of Cays Drive. It just introduces it as another component of the Port of the Islands community. And that includes my presentation. If you have any questions -- we of course are happy that the staff is recommending approval of the three requests before you. And if I (sic) have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For the planning commission's benefit, there are three petitions. And for questions, if we could take them in order, that might be the easiest way to get through it. And the first petition in our packet is the one for a sign located on the north side of U.S. 41. And in your packet on the third page it's got the Port of the Islands in blue across the top and it's got a pole cover below it for about four feet in height and that's the sign right there. Now, that's the first item in our package. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, this will be for all of them. Do you know where the stop signs are located on that intersection? Because the concern I have is that people are traveling pretty fast on this. These signs are close to the road. And this one less than the other ones has a lot of blockage for their VISIOn. MR. DUANE: The sign will sit in the median behind the stop signs, but I don't know that I can pinpoint it for you on that aerial. I don't think it will show up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one solution, though. Ray, we have a line of sight vision requirement for all SDP's, all signage and everything as -- can they violate that? MR. BELLOWS: No. And we have a staff expert who goes out and inspects a site before a permit is finalized and issued, to ensure that there is no safety issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that includes any hedges or vegetation as well. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Page 59 '- ~ . "'_"_"="'"_'=~"'__~'"'""''''''''o''."",", ."'......-- -, , 161 1 /V:? February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So nothing can be in that line of sight vision, if I'm not-- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- mistaken. Does that help, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does. But some of these are so close that I'm worried that I'm not sure how you could do that. But as long as it's covered someplace else, I'm happy with it. The other question, Bob, was you show ground level here. You're not raising any berms and -- MR. DUANE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- sticking these on top of it, okay? MR. DUANE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on the first variance request. Does anybody else -- Mr. Kolf1at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Bob, could you take this and put it on the overhead for me? I want to ask you a question about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, it's the second page of the package, the one with the zoning map and location map. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I put some markings on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, this is really a family of signs, so I was interested to see what the relationship is between the various signs. And what I've listed there is the site location applies to site 0, which is 0 on our agenda, 8.0. And whereas 8.C is in our 8.C agenda item and 8.B is for the other agenda item. Do you have any idea what the distance is between 8.C and 8.B on the road, thereabout? MR. DUANE: I would say that it's some hundreds of feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. MR. DUANE: I would say it's probably a distance of a football field, 100 yards. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: A hundred yards, okay. And the 8.B one, there are two variances on that one, aren't there? One is close to residential unit, we want to variance that? MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And the other is the distance from the subject. MR. DUANE: That is correct. And that relates to the 10 components of the variance related to the 1,000 foot separation requirement. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right. Now, which one of those three are the one you're talking about, the marina? MR. DUANE: The one on the marina is on the south side of U.S. 41. And that's Petition SV-2008-AR-13665. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 8.C. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: 8.C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. Thank you very much. MR. SCHMITT: 9.C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 8.C. Anything else, Mr. Kolf1at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? We're on the first petition, which is 8.B. Does anybody Page 60 161 1~ February 19, 2009 else have any questions on 8.B? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. And Ray -- and Brad, I know this is something you and I talked about on one other case when we brought it up. Why do we have to have that blank black wall below the sign? Whether it's black, purple or orange. How does that help the community to have a wall like that supporting the sign? It doesn't make it look better, it makes it look worse, plus it hinders the angle of view for people driving up and down 41. MR. BELLOWS: I don't -- for the record, Ray Bellows. I'm not sure why the requirement is added, but it's in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. I'm just -- MR. BELLOWS: I could check into it, but I don't know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These things slip through all the time. And I guess shame on us for letting it get through. But that looks ugly. Why is that an improvement? Why is it considered an improvement? MR. SCHMITT: That was a result of the horizon committee back when the sign code was first adopted to add mass to the sign and make it appear to conform or be uniform rather than sticking up on a straight pole. Now, that is in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand. MR. SCHMITT: That wasn't something that staff invented. But these are -- it's in the Land Development Code, it's clearly defined as a pole cover to add -- make it appear as though it's a monument sign or a ground sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But every other thing we do is try to reduce the appearance of mass on structures and buildings, and here we're trying to do in signs, which are not pleasant to look at anyway, we're trying to increase their mass. That doesn't -- it seems backwards to me. MR. SCHMITT: It may not make sense, but that is the way the committee passed this, that's the way the LDC was approved. And it's in the LDC. And if you want to address that, I would recommend you look at it as part of the upcoming sign review. But that's -- I can't give you the history of how or why that's added, but it is a requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know the applicant has had to address it this way and I understand why. It just seems a shame that we have a code that requires things to look uglier than better, but -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, we are in the middle of redoing the sign ordinance, and we're doing it in phases, the first part to address the recent lawsuit. But we are looking at -- comprehensively at some point the sign ordinance, and we can address that as part of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have something? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it's Mr. Schiffer-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, then I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you consider just doing monument signs? I mean, it would seem to be more attractive. And what you're tying to do is give some sense of community as well as being directional, correct? MR. DUANE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Was consideration given to monument? MR. DUANE: Not that I can speak to on the record. This was the exhibit that kind of evolved through the process. If you want to structure this in a way that can be the same size, whether it's a pole or a monument, I Page 61 "V"'. ... .. . III.--"~'-". - '-~--'''''"''~''-''.'''''- ""l' .. .J , 161 1 ~s \ February 19, 2009 would be welcome to that suggestion. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that's my next thing is they all seem to be different, different sizes. And I wondered why you didn't just pick a size that would work for the community. I mean, you have a logo that's been picked obviously tor the community, which is attractive. And it would seem to me that a monument sign of certain size would work throughout the area. I'm not -- MR. DUANE: With regard to your question about the size of the signs, they really have different functions. The one on Cays Drive is relatively smalL just in the entrance to that residential development. The one on the north side of 41 needed to be larger because it had more people on the copy. And then the one on the south side of 41. well. it's a reduction in area from what's there today. But it's the largest one. And it's where we wanted, you know, to identify. you know, that portion of the community. So they all had different size, functions and purposes. If you would like to include in your motion, however, provided you're going to support it, that it can either be a pole sign or a monument sign, 1 would welcome that change and I will discuss it with my client, and I think that's an excellent suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. anybody else have questions on the first one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll move to the second one, which is 9.C, and it's the Petition 13665. And that would be the one on the south side -- yeah, south side of U.S. 41. Anybody have any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, does -- the pink light structure, is that going to stay there? This is between that, correct? We have an illustration towards the back of our packet of-- MR. DUANE: You're talking-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- looks like a pink frosting or something on stucco. MR. DUANE: My understanding, that that was not going to be part of the sign. Don, you want to add anything to that? The two columns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean. it exists, right? MR. DUANE: It currently exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, isn't that some kind of historical -- MR. DUANE: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- piece of paraphernalia? MR. DUANE: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, they don't make them like that anymore. MR. DUANE: No, they don't. This was going to sit on the ground level. And whether it was going to be in between these two columns or not, I don't know that I can answer that question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the question is the approval is for the sign between those two columns, which is fine, there's nothing -- I'm not putting down the columns. MR. DUANE: I like them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just trying to understand them. MR. DUANE: I think the sign is going to come down and the worst case is it will be in between columns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A little scary spice there, but that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your only question, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, just so we're clear then, the sign that you're being asked to put in will Page 62 161 1 ItS February] 9, 2009 replace the sign that's between the columns? MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not going to have two signs, you're still going to have just one sIgn. MR. DUANE: No, sir. And we'll likely add the word marina into this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any other questions on 9.C? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to 9.D. This is the one that's on the south side of 41 over on Cays Drive. )Tes,Mr.11urray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY Something just occurred to me. If I'm not mistaken, and maybe County Attorney would confirm this, didn't we acquire the marina? Didn't the county acquire the marina? 11R. KLATZKOW: )Tes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY Okay. Would it be useful to include the county identification associated with the marina? That's content, and I know that we can talk about that later. Or now. 11R. COX: If! could, Dan Cox, attorney for the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. The county acquired the uplands portion. There's still privately owned marina slips out there. The actual slips are a marina condominium that are privately owned. COMMISSIONER MURRAY Well, I appreciate that. But what was going through my mind was if the county acquired the marina with the intent to provide services to the citizens and this is intended to provide services by knowledge, you know, a sign, it would be useful to allow people who were bringing their boats there or -- MR. COX: To indicate public boat ramp. COMMISSIONER MURRAY See what I'm getting at? 11R. COX: )Tes, sir. Absolutely. And I'll talk to my client about that. C011MISSIONER MURRA )T: That might be something you'd consider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as far as 9.C goes, or 9.D, the suggestion is that there be language allowed for the referencing a county boat ramp if it's so desired as we go forward. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any comments? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: )T es, could you put that illustration up that I gave you, please. Now, those three signs are all on 41, correct? MR. DUANE: )Tes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All three of those are off-site premise signs? 11R. DUANE: That is correct. COM11ISSIONER KOLFLA T: And the question I have, since the idea of a sign is to identify an area that's remote from the road that you're on, those are three different size signs. For example, 8.B is 35 feet -- 32 feet, square feet, 8.C is 64 square feet, and 8.D is 18 square feet. Now, it seemed to me if you're driving an automobile down, the visibility of those signs should give you enough lead time for all three signs to be the same. I mean, this is to identify an area that you're going to turn off. And you've got one sign that is only 18 feet square and you've got another one that's 64 square (sic), obviously I'm going to see the 64 square foot sign in time to make the turn, but I don't know if I'll see the 18- foot sign in time. Talking square feet now -- MR. DUANE: )T ou're talking about the six by three-foot sign that's in the median to let people Page 63 "_. _il~'_'''~__''_'~'''."''''~_'_~'''''''___' ^"- 161 1M February 19, 2009 know that Cays Drive is there and it's part of Port of the Islands. We didn't think that that needed to be, you know, a sign as large as 32 or 64 square feet. We thought the variance from the 12- foot to the 16- foot was adequate to identify the entrance to the street. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But in establishing the size of a sign, shouldn't we be looking at the recognizability of the sign, how quickly it can be recognized? MR. DUANE: That is an issue that -- we thought that that entrance sign at the median was adequate to introduce people to Cays Drive and that part of Port of the Islands. I'm not trying to sidestep your question. We thought the size was adequate to convey the intended purpose. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, what I mean, if one sign there is 18 square foot, if that's big enough to convey the information, then certainly the 64- foot square sign would convey the information, plus much more. MR. DUANE: Well, going to the north side of the street, that sign is larger, because there are up to 10 entities that will be identified on that 32 square foot sign. On the 64 square foot sign, which is the largest one identifying the Port of the Islands, we're now going to include the marina or the boat ramp in addition to the Port of the Islands, a waterfront community. But that was designed to be our kind of our focal point sign, and that's why it is the largest one proposed. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: WelL will there be any pull-off area where the driver can stop the car and read those signs to see where the people are he's trying to look up? MR. DUANE: Just the edge of the right-of-way and the edge of the pavement. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well. MR. DUANE: Let me put the 32 square feet in some context. If you're at the entrance to a residential development, you can have one 64 square foot sign or two 32 square foot signs. Often you'll find those at either side of the right-of-way. We kind of hung our hat on the 32 square foot sign is what you could have at least on one side of an entrance to a residential development. And we thought that size, eight by four, was enough to convey the users that are located on the north side of U.S. 41. And the staff felt comfortable with the sizes that we were proposing. We didn't try to be greedy, we tried to provide a minimal amount of area to convey there what we thought was their intended purpose. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I guess my question then will be deferred till staff. Because I'm curious why as a staffwe don't look at that to take into consideration the recognizability of a sign. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant on B, CorD before we go to staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DUANE: I have no objections if you want to increase the size of the sign, notwithstanding what I said, MR. BELLOWS: It has to be advertised. MR. SCHMITT: It has to be advertised if they're going to increase the sign variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. And staff -- would you like me to just answer questions at this point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that'd probably be simplest. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Page 64 161 1~ February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think we know staffs position. It's in your report. Does anybody have any questions of the staff on any of these signs? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Nancy, can you help me on that as far as the size of the sign? Do we look at it for readability at all? MS. GUNDLACH: I would say yes, we do. Keep in mind that all of these signs are here as variances today because they are larger than the sign code prescribed sizes. And the other point I wanted to make is if you notice, the signs get -- for this particular petition, three petitions, they get subsequently larger as they put more type face on the sign. So that might be a reason why the signs are not all the same size but, you know, slightly different sizes, in accordance with how much sign copy they desire to put on the sign. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You're satisfied with the readability of these signs? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nancy, thank you. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. That's Leroy Smith. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Smith, would you mind coming up and using the podium. Right there. You need to state your name for the record and -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Be sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- whatever you have to say. MR. SMITH: My name's Leroy Smith. I'm a full-time resident, Port of the Islands, which is where this is taking place. Thank you for hearing me, and I appreciate your time. I first of all would like to know, what are the 10 entities? I'm only aware of several things. The Gun Club back there; the Orchid Cove, a residential area, as I live in on the south side. So I'm concerned about the size of that sign on the north side. My primary focus this afternoon with you is to tell you that I am very pleased that you are so thorough. This is my first meeting, and I'm quite impressed, so thank you for your service. I would like to share with you that for me personally, I think the size that's already the restriction that's in place of 12 square feet would be more than adequate to identify the residential east location at Cays. To tell you the truth, there's a blinking yellow light there and a blinking red light. You were concerned about the traffic signal or the stop sign being visible, and that's very important. But from a safety standpoint with the blinking light from the residential sites, you need not worry too much about the safety issue; rather the appearance is quite important to me. And I would personally like to recommend that you stick with what's on the books. I think a 12-foot square foot sign for Cays would be more than adequate, especially in view of the blinking lights that are there. And I would please appreciate it if someone could tell me whether or not all of the other signage will be removed. Or someone asked a few moments ago about whether or not the hotel sign, the old one, would come down and the new one would be just a replacement. And I heard that that would be the case. But there are other signs, builders signs, especially on the north side, and I'd like to know if those too will also be removed. Are we talking about, you know, adding or replacing? And I would like to know a little more about just the construction. Is it wood, metal, plastic? Is it ill uminated? And finally, I'd like to suggest that the gentleman's comment about the county purchasing the ramp Page 65 ~,..." . n ...__".'""_;o.-.'T . \ feRulry 1 ~ ~ there at Port of the Islands, I think the inclusion of the information for the public to have that on the sign would be very valuable and helpful to most people that use it. And I would suggest that that be considered, please. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I have one question. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This request, these three requests that are being put forth by the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, I'm assuming that's like a community development district, a CDD. And if it is, that means you have a manager and an elected board of supervisors. Is that the case in your area? MR. SMITH: Yes, as far as I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you express your concerns to your board of supervisors before they authorized the expenditures in the process here today? MR. SMITH: Sir, the first real information I received came as a result of a letter sent from this lady who just spoke, Nancy, and some signs which appeared in the median. That was the first knowledge I had of this, and I knew of it no other way. No one has ever contacted me, written me a letter, knocked on my door. I live there 24/seven. So, you know, if they have done all this, I respect their efforts, but nothing was said to me; I knew nothing about it. And I'm very concerned about the size of these signs, frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. And what I was trying to find out is, the CDD meetings are required to be publicly held, and their elected officials are parts of those meetings, and the elected officials come from the residents within the area to which they represent. I was curious as to why they would not have paid more attention to your concerns. I understand now that you didn't even -- you weren't aware of it. And they might have had a meeting without -- I mean, this was brought up when you just didn't know it was even being brought up. MR. SMITH: Correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SMITH: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we'll get answers to your questions. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know, Bob or Mr. Cox, I don't know who wants to take these questions, but I think they deserve to be answered. The first one is what are the 10 entities on the north side? What is it you're trying to do there? MR. COX: On the north side we've got several different parcels of property. What we have is a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Cox, you'll have to use -- there's a microphone, a portable, but we have to get it on recording, so you'll have to use the microphone. MR. SCHMITT: Over here, Mr. Cox. You put your hand right on the visualizer. MR. COX: Good, I see what you're saying. In this area here we have our public facilities, which are going to be identified for the purposes of when we have delivery trucks and things like that coming. So one of the uses is going to be our utility plant. We're proposing in the future to build a meeting room and, you know, to have facilities for the community get-togethers and things like that that would be built in that general area. So that's another use. You have the existing gun range, which is going to continue to be operated as a gun range in the future. Page 66 161 lk0 February 19, 2009 South of the gun range you have an undeveloped piece of property that there were proposals that there was going to be an RV park there. We don't know what's going to be there in the future. Those plans fell through. And as far as I know right now, there is no other proposed use. But in the future there may be multiple uses on that parcel, is why we're kind of leaving it open, to have a few extra above the actual identified uses that we have right now. South of that you have a hotel, restaurant and lounge. Then south of that you have the residential development known as Orchid Cove. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, does this variance request have anything to do with the copy on the sign or just the variance for distance or the size of the sign? MR. BELLOWS: It's distance and size. It's the copy is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the copy is regulated by separate language and that will be reviewed separately when the sign permit is asked for? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. They're not getting a variance for the language. It's the size of the sign and location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only issue that we're here today on is the size and the location of that sign. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that gets us to the next item. Any other signs at that entryway that are currently existing that are going to be removed because this sign's going in? MR. COX: Well, the only permanent signs that I'm aware of are here at the primary entrance to Orchid Cove, and those were permitted as part ofthe Orchid Cove PUD, and those will not be removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there anything out by 41? MR. COX: Not that I'm aware of. There's a kind of a historical point of view. We used to have signs, but when they passed the sign ordinance back about six years ago, there was no grand fathering provision. I think there was one year to get your signs permitted. And we couldn't get those signs that we had permitted and so they were taken down. And the 32 square foot sign on the north side is the exact size that the sign was historically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the construction type of signs -- do you know if they're going to be illuminated? MR. COX: I do not know if they're going to be illuminated. They're going to be that high density plastic type material that's laminated over board with the lettering, cut-out lettering. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Reflective? MR. SCHMITT: The only way they can illuminate is backlighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was just going to ask. Pursuant to the code-- MR. SCHMITT: Pursuant to the code. It has to comply with the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the last question I have is on the Cays sign, you're asking for, I believe you -- 16 feet, is it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eighteen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eighteen feet. MR. COX: Eighteen feet. What I would suggest is if the board is willing to entertain approval of the 18-foot variance, then we could meet when we have our meeting at Port of the Islands Community Improvement District -- which as you indicated is a community development district, we have a meeting tomorrow and we have one every month on the third Friday -- we can certainly discuss that at the meeting. And if we end up building the sign a little smaller, we wouldn't have violated the variance and we Page 67 ~"',,.~ '..... _"'\-10''1'' ...~ 0Jl0i!l_~'''''''''-'''"'''''- 0.....__"......,.'.,."."""'..,,_,_"' ,. l'if ..-. ...--- 16~ 1~ February 19, 2009 would still have the flexibility of going to the 18 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that may be a n since you have a community development district who applied for this and that district is held by elected officials who represent the people in the area, that might be a good forum now that the meeting date is knovm. What's the location of the meeting? Where is it hcld at? MR. COX: It's held at the Egret Room in the existing hotel that's on the southwest quadrant of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what time of the day is the meeting? MR. COX: It starts at 10:00 a.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And arc your supervisors elected at large, or are they -- MR. COX: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: n appointed by the developer? They're elected -- MR. COX: They are n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at large. MR. COX: -- all elected. We've been transitioned from the developer representatives for about five years now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I like the suggestion ofleaving it up to 18 feet, and then if your board responds to the citizens in the area and the citizens feel it should be less, then that was what the board was elected for is to respond to them. So hopefully that will come out the way it needs to. Okay, I think that takes care of the questions that were raised that we can address with the application that's in front of us today. Are there any other questions of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so the Planning Commission knows, I will close the public hearing and we can entertain a motion. Before we go into the motion, there was no suggestions that I think needed to be addressed on 9.B or C from the comments I heard. But on 9.D -- well, actually, all three, the option to go to either a pole sign or a monument sign was something to be considered in the motion. And on 9.D, we might want to look at that as up to 18 feet. And we also should refer to 9.C, having language in it that n we're not approving the language today, but any language that goes in it, we might want to recommend a reference to the public boat ramp. So those were the points I made in notes from our discussion. Does anybody want to start offby making a motion for 9.B? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will make the motion to approve, with the stipulations you had just discussed. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Vigliotti, second by Commissioner Ko lfl at. The stipulations that would pertain to 9.B, which is the one on Union Road, would be that it could be a pole sign or a monument sign as well. Is that the motion maker's -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- acceptance, and the second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other discussion? Page 68 ;.. 161 1 ~ February 19, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: 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? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Is there a motion for the 9.C petition? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved to approve. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Vigliotti, seconded by Commissioner Kolflat. That particular one had the same possibility of going in as either a pole sign or monument sign. Does the motion maker have any problem with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And before you -- one other thing on that one. The language on that sign should reflect that there's a public boat ramp there. Do you accept that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions, comments? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: 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: 9-0, passed again. The last one is Petition SV-2008-AR-13960, and it's for the last sign on Cays Drive. This is the one that we would want to stipulate can be a pole sign or monument sign, can be up to 18 feet in size. Does anybody want to make that motion? Mr. Vigliotti? Page 69 .--... '""" "'q7 " 0;,-", <'....._"'.". .. "" --,;- ~ 161 iff? February 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I just want to clarify for the record that that is a freestanding sign and it's not connected to that existing structure. That's not what was submitted. What was submitted was the sign itself, not as part of that existing structure, those pink columns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one we just voted on. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wben we asked if the sign that was being proposed -- we specifically asked that question, will it replace the sign between the poles, and they said yes. MR. SCHMITT: All right. MR. BELLOWS: I think we covered it, but we just want to make sure we're clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti had made a motion on 9.D for approval up to 18 feet, and it could be a pole sign or monument sign. Mr. Kolflat, do you accept that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be absolutely clear on what Mr. Schmitt has brought up, on that -- if you observed in that picture that's shown, that sign, there was not only -- seemed to be connected to that wall, but there were also metal supporting straps or whatever you want to call them, braces, and you said freestanding. So now if they were to replace that, will they be able to replace those braces? MR. COX: If I could, my understanding, that it is not going to be in between those two, it's going to be between the front of that stucco structure and the right n and between the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. So it's not going to be -- MR. COX: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then we were in error in assuming-- MR. COX: That one's going away, and we're going to have the freestanding out front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the point is that you're not going to have two signs. And you-- MR. COX: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- agreed that the other sign's going out. That's what the -- that was the -- yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The understanding -- and I'll agree with you, but the understanding I had and I think others may have had the same thing, is that that was actually going to be put in the same place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, understand. Okay, so now we'll call for the vote on the third sign. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 70 j 161 lkS February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you all. Appreciate your time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, thank you. You've got a public meeting you're going to attend tomorrow. Yes, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'd like to ask the staff a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You are reviewing the sign ordinance now. Would you please direct some attention and study to this aspect of for an off-site sign, what is the safest size of the lettering that would be considered? Or what are some the factors that would indicate the safety? Because we've had several off-site signs that are only 12 feet that on some of these larger roads and so forth you can go by it before you can see it. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I will definitely add that to the list of the issues we're addressing with the sign code revisions. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #9E PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13661, CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item on today's agenda is Petition CU-2008-AR-13661. It's the Center Point Community Church looking for a conditional use in the Estates zoning district for a church at 6590 Golden Gate Parkway. All those wishing to participate in today's hearing, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a telephone discussion with Mr. Lewis regarding this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I met with the petitioner's agent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a conversation with Mr. Lewis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I too had a phone call with Mr. Lewis about a meeting, but I didn't see the need to have a meeting after I read the package, so we never did get together. Okay, Mr. Lewis, I guess -- Doug, you're making the presentation today? MR. LEWIS: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Doug Lewis. I'm an attorney with the Page 71 -,~_... - I ~_'",... ' . ~.....".~," ^",~, ....",.... ^- .,,""<"'"'" , AU ,~ illf_ III --....- 1\l;~~'."," ~'",--_. 161 l-k? -February 19, 2009 law firm of Roetzel and Andress. I'm a registered lobbyist. I'm here today representing Center Point Community Church on this item. I'm here also today with Matthew McLean. He's a Professional Engineer with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage. I'm also here today with Randy Spradling, he's a transportation engineer with Vanasse-Daylor. Nick Klein is here as well, he's the facility manager for Center Point Community Church. And the request today involves a conditional use application for a church use. I have some initial comments, and after my comments we're happy to answer any questions you may have. The applicant, Center Point Community Church, owns four parcels of abutting land. We have on the visualizer an aerial. On the south side of Golden Gate Parkway, just west of 1-75, totaling approximately 9.22 acres and legally described as a portion of tracts 85 and 86 of the plat of Golden Gate Estates Unit 29. To the north of the church property, as you can see on the visualizer, is Golden Gate Parkway. To the west is 66th Street Southwest. And to the south is 63rd Street Southwest. To the east are Estates zoned single-family residential parcels. The westernmost parcel contains approximately 4.63 acres and is known as Tract 85. Tract 85 contains two existing church buildings, and is not part of the conditional use application today. It obtained provisional use approval for a church use in 1977 by Resolution No. PU77-3C. The two parcels to the east are within Tract 86, and east comprise approximately 1.4 acres each. These two parcels currently have provisional use approval for church use under Resolution No. PU91111. And if you see on the visualizer, you can see where we've identified the provisional use codes, and we've put arrows so you can kind of see where those provisional use areas are in relation to the property. So you can see that the bulk of the property is currently under provisional use for church use. Any alteration of these Tract 86 parcels that I've just described requires conditional use approval. As such, the applicant has included these two parcels, these one-acre plus parcels, as part of its application. The fourth and easternmost parcel is approximately two and a half acres and zoned Estates. It does not currently have conditional use approval; that being the only parcel that's not currently conditional use approved. Our request today is to obtain conditional use approval for these three parcels, these Tract 86 parcels. And all three parcels are zoned Estates. And church use is allowed as a conditional use in the Estates zoning district for these three parcels. And specifically the Golden Gate Area Master Plan encourages a church use on these three parcels. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan provides that existing Center Point Community Church and related facilities may be expanded in acreage and intensity along the south side of Golden Gate Parkway to the east of 66th Street Southwest, but that the total project area may not exceed approximately 9.22 acres. And we meet this acreage limit. In order to meet its current needs to serve the community and its congregation, the applicant proposes a youth worship and administrative church building on Tract 86, not to exceed 34,551 square teet of floor area and 30 feet in zoned height. The building envelope is adjacent to the existing church buildings and is positioned along the westerly boundary of Tract 86 to create as much separation from the easterly property and residences as possible. The proposed building would meet the setback -- would be set back approximately 230 feet from the site's eastern boundary and approximately 268 feet from 63rd Street Southwest. These setbacks far exceed the respective 30-foot and 75-foot side yard and front yard setbacks. Page 72 \ lbl 1M . \ February 19, 2009 Additionally, we are not here today in any way to request any deviation from the Estates zoning requirements. Along the length of the project's eastern boundary where it abuts a single-family use parcel, as you can see on the visualizer, a dry detention stormwater management area will exist, septic field and a native preserve area to further separate the proposed church building from the parcel to the east. In addition, a 15-foot wide Type B buffer will form a transitional screen along the property's easterly boundary. The remaining perimeter landscaping will be comprised of Type D buffers, 15 feet in width along Golden Gate Parkway, reduced to 10 feet in width along 66th Street Southwest and 63rd Street Southwest, as required by the Land Development Code. We have another slide here for you. Internal traffic circulation will be maintained with Tract 85, the existing 85 church parcel, which as you can see from the visualizer has two access points onto 66th Street Southwest, and traffic circulation will be improved or enhanced by providing additional access along 63rd Street Southwest. A neighborhood informational meeting was held on October 28th, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. at the Center Point Community Church site. Several neighbors attended the meeting. At the meeting, Ms. Flanigan, who owns the residential parcel that directly abuts the project to the east, requested an elevation of the proposed building and the site plan giving questions about how close the building would be located to her property and the building itself. She also raised questions about the impact of the project on her drainage and standing water problem. Matt McLean with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage and representatives of the church met with Ms. Flanigan on two different occasions to address her questions and discuss the buffer. Based on these meetings, our engineer thought that Ms. Flanigan was supportive of the project. However, after the staff report was prepared and circulated, we did receive a letter from Ms. Flanigan stating that she does not look favorably upon the request, and her letter states that her objection stems from the expansion of Golden Gate Parkway where the front of her house became the back and the back the front, and that she does not want to take away the aesthetics of country living. We met with Ms. Flanigan again this morning, and we understand that she does not want the wall that would normally be there as a buffer between our site and her site. We have agreed with Ms. Flanigan to stipulate here on the record to provide an enhanced Type B buffer with double staggered hedge row to increase opaqueness, and we understand that Ms. Flanagin supports this stipulation. The church has diligently solicited input and support from the community for this project. In your packet you have a copy of a letter from the Golden Gate Estates Civic Area Association, dated October 21 st, 2008, stating that they support the project, they feel it's fully compatible with its existing use, and that it's an asset to the community. In addition, the applicant met with the Golden Gate Area Civic Association board to solicit their input on the project, and the Golden Gate Area Civic Association board fully supports this petition. A copy of their support letter, dated September 13th, 2008, is in your packet. In addition, one of the neighbors, Mr. Fred Kraus, who lives at the southwest corner -- you can't see it here on the visualizer, but the southwest corner of 66th Street and 63rd Street Southwest, prepared a support letter that I'd like to present to you at this time to include in the packet. For the record, I have copies of that and I'll give that to staff, as he was unable to personally attend the hearing today. Center Point Community Church has been serving our community in its current location for well over 28 years. And they've worked hard to be a partner in the community and a good neighbor. Page 73 ,."',.",_...~,.". ~_.e'.... -- 161 lkS February 19, 2009 Staff recommends approval of the application with certain recommendations, and concludes that the proposed conditional use would be deemed consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The applicant is in agreement with the conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report with the following clarifications or modifications. And I have something to put on the visualizer in that respect. For purposes of staff recommendation number two, our client requests that the maximum area of proposed building be clarified to be floor area as defined in Section 1.0802 of the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug, before you go any further then, and you're going to recommend language, we want to make sure we're accurate in our understanding of it and so the public can hear it too. Number two reads, the maximum area of the proposed building shall be limited to 34,551 square feet. And if we were to add the words of t100r area at the end of that, is that what you're trying to get to? MR. LEWIS: That's correct. Let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's very few people in the audience. Is Ms. Flanigan here? MR. LEWIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we get too far along, I want to certainly get her comments on what you're proposing for the record. MR. LEWIS: Yeab, we've put on the language, and I'd like to read into the record the proposed language which I believe staff is in support of. At the very end of recommendation number two, and then also in the conditions, it would read, 34,551 square feet of floor area, as defined in Section 1.08.02 of the Land Development Code. And I can defer to J.D. as to stan's position on that language. He's nodding his head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We heard it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, question on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And since there are so many floor areas with different codes, what one is this that you chose? MR. LEWIS: It's right out of your code. And according to J.D., that's how staff would look at the square footage requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it the one for parking or is it the other one? It's the other one? Okay, thank you. MR. LEWIS: I can show you on the visualizer right out of the code, but it's floor area under that section. And I have the definition here. As I understand it, that's the detinition that J.D. was looking at. We just want to be very clear, because there are different -- as you're well aware, different measurements for square footage. That's what we're operating on and that's what we want to be clear about with respect to the area. For purposes of staff recommendation number three, our client requests that church traffic control be provided at Saturday, if applicable, and Sunday peak hour worship service traffic. The reason for this is that the church does not typically hold worship services on Saturday and peak hour traffic is for Sunday worship services. Also, language has been added to allow the on-site service provider to detennine the location of where the traffic control would be needed. They're there -- the sheriff who's there or the provider that's there would be able to make that determination. And I believe staff is in agreement with the language. I do have language that I would like to read into the record for the recommendation and the condition for approval as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it in the language that's in number three written in front of us that we're reading? Page 74 ,- 161 1~ February 19, 2009 MR. LEWIS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- unless there's a legal reason, I don't need you to waste your time re-reading it to us. We can see it and it's on the visualizer, so move forward. MR. LEWIS: For purposes of staff recommendation number four, our client requests that the on-site service provider be able to make a determination as to whether or not the southbound left in at the project's northerly driveway needs to be closed during a Sunday peak. This allows for flexibility, and I believe that staff is also in agreement with this clarification and the specific language we've identified on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the language that you're proposing to add, you're going to strike the word shall and put may. Be closed. And then it says, CES deemed necessary by the on-site enforcement service provider, which could be -- as deemed necessary by the on-site. And that could be usually the sheriffs office; is that right? MR. LEWIS: That's correct. And it could also be someone that they approve. But that would be someone they'd have to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the asteric at the end of 4.4? Oh, that's the -- that goes after the word to? MR. LEWIS: That would come in after peak hours-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To minimize-- MR. LEWIS: To maintain efficient vehicular traffic flow on public roadways. That's the reason why they would like to do that. And we're in agreement with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D., before we go wandering on to new territory, are you -- is staff in agreement with these changes on this page? MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I have met with the applicant and discussed the change to number two, and apparently John Podczerwinsky has also met with them regarding the transportation related stipulations and is also in agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, Doug, let's move forward. MR. LEWIS: At this point we're happy to take any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's two staff comments on the next page. You didn't want to mark those up? MR. LEWIS: We're -- as I said, apart from those comments, we're okay with staffs comments and recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, questions. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Lewis, do me a favor. Show us if you will an aerial view of the site which -- if you have one that shows where Ms. Flanagan's home is located. MR. LEWIS: Here's a better -- we just put the aerial on the visualizer and Matt is pointing to her home. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. Now, show me on that same sheet where -- where the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Where did her home go now? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where did it go? MS. FLANIGAN: That's my home. The circle-- Page 75 "._-~._".~~-<_.."._-,----~-~_.__.. --- 16 I 1~ February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, I'm sorry, you'll have to just hold off. You can't speak from the audience. We'll get you up here in just a second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so now I see that over there. Now, right adjacent to that to the left is an area that you're intending to have as a drain field, a septic field? MR. LEWIS: A dry detention, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The septic field is below, though, is it not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's a preserve down at the bottom. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Preserve is the bottom and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Drain -- there's a water management area in the middle and a septic to the top. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you. MR. LEWIS: We're going to put another drawing up here for you so you can see it. At the very top -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I was happy with the other one. That's good. And I'm glad I got that qualification, because that was a concern I had. I had another question, and now it's gone from me. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: It will come back. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe. With any luck. No, I think I've got the answer. The drain field, I think the septic field is far enough way for my concern originally. I'll pass now, because I can't remember the other question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go into -- maybe we ought to ask Ms. Flanigan where she stands on this, since there's -- a lot of the issues were raised by her, and you have done a lot to try to work with her on this matter. So Ms. Flanigan, if you could come up and use the microphone and let us know your thoughts on this project, it would be helpful. MS. FLANIGAN: My name is Terese Flanigan, and I live at 3012 63rd Street Southwest. I was at 6490 Golden Gate Parkway, but with the expansion ofI-75, they built a road directly behind my house and so my address has changed. So some of the records for my taxes for the tract and that list me as 6490, but my official address right now is 3012. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FLANIGAN: I have the parcel that they had some questions. And the county was suggesting that they put a six-foot barrier wall there. And it would run right along the side of my driveway, and I was very opposed to that. I had some water issues. I thought that the septic field was pretty close to the proximity of my property, but they that said by law they have to maintain that it would never like contaminate my well. And they've assured me that part of their project would be to regularly check that that area is keeping me safe. Because I do have a family that lives with me, and I wouldn't want, you know, that water to contaminate. And then they also assured me that any change to the lay of the land wouldn't cause in a storm situation any kind of water coming onto my property. They said that with the hedge row and the way that they would have to put the berm there, that -- and where they have the water retention, that would be a grassed area, that it would, you know, solve the rain or, you know, provide enough drainage. And so I was satisfied with, you know, some of the things that they had agreed. And I said that I would be opposed to the project if it meant that I had to have a cement wall. Page 76 161 1~ February 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your preference is to undo the cement wall. And we'll do our best to see that that's followed through. Thank you very much. MS. FLANIGAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, does the wall become a requirement, or is it an option and can it be not put in place? MR. BELLOWS: I was discussing this with John-David earlier, and I believe the conditional use process can implement a new buffer wall or buffer without a wall treatment in lieu of the LDC required. It's not quite the same as a rezoning PUD process, but it is a buffer that can be installed in lieu of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so if we were to stipulate a preference that the buffer would be installed without the wall treatment along the east boundary line, that would make the point? MR. MOSS: I would suggest that it been an enhanced Type B buffer-- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. MOSS: -- and possibly a chain link fence, unless the Planning Commission decides that they would like to just waive the requirement altogether. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see how a chain link fence helps anybody. They're as ugly as terrible. And I'm not sure you got anything you need to keep penned in over there. MR. MOSS: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we just make it look as aesthetically pleasing as possible-- MR. MOSS: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and leave an enhanced Type B buffer without the wall. MR. MOSS: That's normally what we do when there's not a wall provided is a chain link fence with an enhanced Type B buffer. But if you want to waive the requirement for the fence, obviously we have no objection to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission have a concern? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. And how long would it take before that's totally opaque where she couldn't look through it? MR. MOSS: Gosh, I'm sorry. Ray, do you happen to know? MR. SCHMITT: Three years for it to grow. Three years. MR. MOSS: Mr. Submit thinks it takes approximately three years before there's -- what is it 100 percent opacity or is that 80 percent opacity, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: If! recall the LDC, it's whatever the stipulation is for height and opacity, it's a three-year req -- it's over a three-year period, that it has to reach that level within three years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in the meantime the whole building that's being proposed is 250 plus feet from the property line and her house is still further east on the property, so she's -- the native vegetation and the actual vegetation that is there, quite a bit of it's going to stay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It looks like a preserve there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I think that's a pretty good buffer to begin with, plus you're going to enhance that with a Type B buffer that will have 80 percent opacity in three years. So I think that works. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more thing. She mentioned that you're going to put a berm down that property line? MR. McLEAN: I'm Matt McLean with ABB, for the record, the project engineer. Along with the location of the dry detention area, there will be a small low level berm that will run along that eastern property line to maintain our storm water on site before we discharge through our hard Page 77 """... . v _.,- ___,.V" Pllll.__ _."~~-.--". 16 I 1 A? February 19, 2009 control structure. So there will be a little berm that comes up a couple of feet there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Have you checked to make sure that she doesn't have any sheet flow that you'd be blocking with that? MR. McLEAN: Well, currently right now -- I'm going to step over here to the aerial photo. Her driveway runs right along the eastern property line, and \ve have taken a look at the existing topo elevation. Currently there is some sheet flow that does come from the eastern property line over to her property, but her roadway actually acts somewhat as a dam and kind of holds that water back as it comes across that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: ~rhank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant, of staff, of anybody at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D., did you want to have any words of wisdom you want to throw in? MR. MOSS: I don't know about that. I did want to add something to the record, though. I spoke with Mr. Edwin Koert earlier this morning. Unfortunately he couldn't stay later for this hearing, but he did want me to add on the record that he was in support of it and so were numerous of his neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Ray, do we have any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing. Discussion prior to a motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask John. And after this gets -- let's assume it gets approved, are these properties then combined together, or are these still going to be two separate conditional uses? MR. MOSS: These three properties that are the subject of this application will be under one, and then the church itself will be under another. It's under the existing PU. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially that property line will maintain? MR. MOSS: They'll come in under one SDP when they do come in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But will there be a unity of title to eliminate that property line? MR. MOSS: I'm not sure about that. No. I don't know. MR. LEWIS: We're happy to stipulate as a condition for the approval that we're coming in as a unified site development plan. That's our intent. We're happy to stipulate to that, that's what we're doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the only reason I'm saying that is you'd have a nightmare of fire rating the side of that building if you didn't. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You love that fire stuff, don't you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL I've always-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's good. I just get a kick out of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a living out of people that get caught with their pants down like that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing. Prior to a motion, let me suggest to the motion maker, if the motion's for approval, there are three things that were discussed: The staff stipulations, but as amended and accepted here at the meeting; that the buffer on the eastern side will be without the wall treatment, and that it will be an enhanced Type B buffer without the fence; and that should they be coming in -- when they come in with an SDP, it will be coming in as a unified SDP. Page 78 - - 161 1/>/7 February 19, 2009 So with that, I'll seek a motion. Is there a motion on this particular application? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made a motion -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- subject to the stipulations Ijust mentioned. Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Same stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, 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. Thank you all. Item #9F PETITION: ST-2008-AR-13958, NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT FIRE STATION CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item up on today's agenda is Petition ST-2008-AR-13958. That is the North Naples Fire Control District Fire Station on the east side of Livingston Road, .7 miles south of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. All those wishing to participate in this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. Anybody have any disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke with Bruce Layman on the phone. We were going to have a meeting, but again, there was no reason to, so we didn't waste his applicant's money. Taxpayers money in this case. So Bruce, it's all yours. MR. LAYMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and counc -- or commission members, I'm sorry. My name is Bruce Layman, I'm a Senior Ecologist with Wilson-Miller, representing the Fire District this afternoon. Also here from our team are Allison Swanson from Wilson-Miller and Sal D'Angelo and Joe Hessling from the fire district. Page 79 "...w> w "'\l!II'lI .. .~.d._..li .l , __rM" . " .~ -,._~ 1.6 J I-P6 February 19, 2009 The project before you includes constructing a two-story fire department on 3.4 acres ofland, and it will have associated parking and water management. It's located about three quarters of a mile south of Mediterra on the east side of Livingston Road. It's currently zoned rural agriculture and this essential service is an allowed use within that zoning district. So the petition before you this afternoon is requesting approval to impact a special treatment area from the special treatment overlay. As you know, an ST area, or special treatment area, was originally meant to identify resources of environmental sensitivity or archeological significance that would otherwise warrant greater protection than is currently afforded in the LDC. In 1975, the two ST areas indicated here in yellow -- it looks like three, but the middle of one is missing -- they were established by ordinance, 13-E and 13-F. As you can see, the 13-E in the northeast extends into the parcel, as does the parcel -- or the ST area 13-F. What is evident from the northeastern one is these ST areas were originally meant to defIne the central core of cypress domes in this part of the world. The fire station site plan entirely preserves the portion of 13-E that extends into the parcel. However, it proposes to impact the portion of 13-F that extends into the parcel. As you can see on the visualizer, Livingston Road was built after the ST areas were originally established. And it was built right through the center of 13-F, leaving behind two triangular pieces of that original ST zone. The triangular portion that is inside the parcel of 13-F is composed of pine with scattered cypress, just like much of the other habitat regionally present that does not have ST zone placed around it. The most important part of this is that triangular piece is not composed of cypress that would otherwise indicate its ties to the resource that the ST was established to begin with, established to protect. Also, the project does not include any areas of archeological probability based on the county maps. And during the environnlental resource permitting process, the State Division of Historic Resources had no objection to the proposed plan. So the question before you this afternoon is do any environmentally sensitive or archeologically significant resources exist within that triangular piece of ST 13-F? And we believe the answer is no. And we respectfully request your concurrence with that determination with the approval of our petition. Now, I'm available, as are any of our team, to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the applicant on this particular matter? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So you just stated on the record that there are no cypress in this triangle portion? MR. LAYMAN: There are cypress trees there. It is not predominantly a cypress habitat. There are cypress trees in that triangular parcel, but they're as common elsewhere in all the other non-ST areas regionally. The cypress dome was essentially blitzed when they put Livingston Road through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to stafTreport. Bruce, this is too easy now. MS. ARAQUE: Staff recommends approval of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to state your name, young lady. Page 80 ; 161 1 f\0 February 19,2009 MS. ARAQUE: I'm sorry. Summer Araque, Environmental Services. Staffrecommends approval of this petition, North Naples Fire Control District Special Treatment Permit 13958. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is your first time doing one of these? MS. ARAQUE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. ARAQUE: Usually these are done as part of a PUD or rezone, so I don't usually have any reason to do these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't recall seeing you had made a staff presentation before, so short and to the point is well liked. So thank you. Are there any questions of staff on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many public speakers are there? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to recommend approval. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second. Is that subject to any staff stipulations? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Subject to all staff stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 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 9-0. Item # lOA OLD BUSINESS: LDC SIGN CODE REVISIONS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up -- and where is Catherine? We're going into old business. The LDC sign code revisions that need to be provided to us for our meeting on March 2nd and 3rd. Catherine's not here. Going once, going twice. This is dangerous, because we don't have enough time to read them if we don't get them. Page 81 - ..._ ..._..."........ . ",*,,,,_1tI111W Ill! ~ '''''''_.'''''~_._- -_.,,,,,.,,~,-,,- ~ ......, . """'.,-,.<,,-_..~- , 161 1 k0 - February 19, 2009 Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: She was here. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, for the record, Joe Schmitt. You've got the handout, the strike-through and underlined version. I thought she was coming today to hand them out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She told me yesterday she'd be here today to do that, plus she's on our agenda for an eight to 1 O-minute Power Point presentation to review salient points of revisions and answer any questions. MR. BELLOWS: For the record. Ray Bellows. She indicated to me late yesterday that she would be working all morning getting all the packets prepared. There were some last-minute things she wanted to get fixed on there before handing them out today. I guess she was hoping the meeting would run a little longer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How could it have ran longer? That would be a human impossibility. MR. BELLOWS: She indicated she would be here for the afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. WelL all I'm saying is we have this meeting coming up on the 2nd, we need to get the strike-through version. The eight-minute Power Point presentation we can probably do on the 2nd. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I was just going to say, could we wait and just see where she is, take a quick break. And Ray, if she's coming, she's coming and -- MR. BELLOWS: I'll give her a call. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure we need a separate presentation. Why don't we just all do it in the same day and be done with it. This shouldn't take us two days to get through this. We don't have a lot of choice in what we're going to be dealing with. So we're going to listen to a fellow who's paid to be here and probably paid by the hour to talk for God knows how long, and then we're going to see a presentation. all telling us that we don't have much choice to do what we gotta do. So I'd just as soon we can do it on the 2nd. Does anybody have a problem with else (sic)? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If that needs a motion. I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. we don't need a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask Ray another question. Ray, you mentioned earlier that there's going to be two sign things coming through. This one is essentially expediting a fix on the issue of the mobile sign. Is there any other areas that are going to be opened up at this time? MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that we are in the process oflooking at section-by-section amendments to the LDC to fix, as finances allow us. We'll -- as part of this process of fixing the sign code in relation to the lawsuit, we will entertain other suggestions to make other amendments, but the primary purpose is to address the lawsuit. But at some point we are going to look at a comprehensive rewrite of the sign code, because it's quite dated and there's a lot of things that need to be brought up better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason I'm asking, since I won't be here on the 2nd, could I -- Page 82 161 11\0 February 19, 2009 I do have one thing I would like to suggest. Should I just mail that to the chairman and then he can bring it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, if you're going to suggest it to the Planning Commission, it would be better to mail it to staff so they can distribute it. Otherwise -- and I want to make sure we don't have any Sunshine issues. If it comes from staff, then I'm sure we don't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll mail it to you, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Catherine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or Catherine. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, new business? Nobody's here. Public comment? Nobody's here. Discussion of addenda. We don't need to do that. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor? 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: Motion (sic) is adjourned. Tomorrow at 1 :00 at CDES, we will continue our fun with the RLSA. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :45 p.m. These minutes approved by the board on 3" let --dt as V presented _ or as corrected_. Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 83 -,.-.,."-.-.,",." . -", ,," .._.~..."",,,, ---.-- Fiala 161 IJt0 J Halas Henning - February 20, 2009 Coyle j/.:t RECE'VED TRANSCRIPT OF T&~~A MEE~~' 6: THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MAR ? 7 2009 Naples, Florida Board of County CommisSIOners February 20, 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 SPECIAL SESSION at Collier County Development Services Center, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609-619, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed~Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Asst. County Attorney Misc. ConeS: Date: Item#: Page 1 .opies to """"_TIl' , - ~.",-,..__. ._.~,^~.h"__""I""" 161 1 pn February 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hello. Testing. Kady, are you there? Okay, it's working. Welcome everyone to the February 20th continuation of the Rural Land Stewardship Area review. Will you all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, are you going to be standing for this whole meeting, or are you -- oh, you got a chair? Good. Okay, will the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolt1at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, everybody, when you do speak today, try to bring the mic close to you. The next meeting that we have is on February 26th. It will be a continuation of this meeting. It will be at 8:30 in the morning in these chambers. Does anybody on the Planning Commission feel they aren't going to be able to make that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll assume there's a quorum. For those of you who are wondering when we'll end the meeting today, we will end no later than 4:55. At 5:00 the county propaganda channel starts and we don't want to take it away from them. So we'll end five minutes to 5:00, or earlier, depending on the break point. Also, I can rest assured of everybody here, we are going to be going on next Thursday. So we will not finish today. There's no way, with the quantity of work we have, we can finish in four hours, so next Thursday will probably be a -- hopefully a summation and a time in which the Planning Commission can come to a consensus on all the different points that have been raised over the past two or three days and in summary format. And hopefully that's what we'll spend our time on next Thursday. We left offlast time on Group 5 policies. We had finished up all of 4, and we saved 5 till today, and any other questions at the end of those. So with that -- and Group 5 policies stm1 on Page 62 of our Phase II, Section 2 tab in our packet. Okay, and let's start on Group 5 policies. the first page on 62 is Policy 5.1. Does anybody have any questions on Policy 5.1 from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Bill, I have a few. The first sentence says, to protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FSA's and designated restoration zone on the overlay map prior to the time that Page 2 ~~ ~!ary 1~O9 \...1 ' , , they are designated as SSA's under the program -- and then it goes on from there. I thought the program was voluntary, and -- because this seems to indicate -- because Group 5 policies, I believe, pertain a lot to the areas that are not buying into the RLSA program, this would seem to indicate that they're going to be made FSA's whether they buy in the program or not. Was that -- is that a true reading of that, or is that the intent? MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir. Well, the intent of the entire Group 5 policies is to assist folks with the voluntary nature of the entire program. And for those who chose not to voluntarily participate, implement controls, if you will, to assist them with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so if you're not buying into the program, this GMP amendment then basically forces you to accept some of the conditions of the program. MR. McDANIEL: Puts additional constraints, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The whole premise under which the program was needed was because we were worried about this conversion of one to five-acre home sites. But if we can institute rules like this on the existing property owners against their voluntary participation, why do we have a fear of the one to five home sites being a problem? Has anybody thought that out, or -- I know you may not be able to answer all these questions. MR. McDANIEL: I can answer them, Mr. Strain, but it's certainly not a discussion from the committee's standpoint with respect -- I mean, that's something you and I can talk about at some stage of the game. I mean, there are -- there had to be within the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay a program in place to deal with properties that weren't voluntarily part of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. And with that, those Group 5 policies were in fact adopted to -- I prefer to call it additional incentivization for folks to participate in the program without stripping inherent property rights that -- without proper compensation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this does strip property rights and doesn't provide compensation, and you end up stripping oflthe first four layers, which to me was the incentive to buy into the program was that -- I was just -- George, if you can answer it, I'd certainly -- MR. V ARNADOE: I'm happy to answer that. F or the record, George Varnadoe. Number one, this is not in the proposed amendment. This is in the plan today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. V ARNADOE: Okay. Number two, the only reason it's in there is because the landowner has voluntarily agreed to that. And you're absolutely right, it's ripe for a Burt Harris claim if they did not -- had not agreed to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have a signed document where they've agreed to that? MR. VARNADOE: No, Mr. Strain, you don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then George, how do you know they agreed to it? MR. VARNADOE: Have you seen anybody in the last five years file a Bert Harris claim, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I haven't seen anybody try to put development in a potential FSA that's required pursuant to Policy 5.1 either. MR. VARNADOE: If you want to delete those -- take that policy out, from the landowners' perspective, they'd be very happy with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm trying to understand is if we had a claim all along that this program was to incentivize people to voluntarily join and do something better for the environment in lieu of building one to five units throughout the RLSA, I think the argun1ent that they could have one to five units in the RLSA is somewhat defeated by the fact that we can make them join into BFSA's. Page 3 ~. <,.- . 16 j\ 1 f>rS February 20, 2009 MR. VARNADOE: I don't agree with your characterization of that at all, Mr. Strain. You can't make them do it. They voluntarily agreed to that constraint on the land -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and we don't have anything-- MR. VARNADOE: -- as part of an overall program. And when you start taking these things little bit by little bit and picking at them, you're losing the balance of the entire program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the purpose of the five-year review was to look at the whole program and make sure -- MR. VARNADOE: In toto. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have words in here that you've added piece at a time. Not you, the committee has added. So they've looked at the whole thing, why can't we? MR. VARNADOE: The whole thing in toto, though. They didn't pick out one piece. They tried to balance it. I think that's the point that gets lost doing it piecemeal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL I don't think we're doing it piecemeal, George, and I guess we'll continue to disagree on that point then. MR. VARNADOE: Yep. MR. McDANIEL: And from a committee's perspective, and I did serve -- it's Bill McDaniel, by the way, I didn't introduce myself early on, so forgive me. I found it rather ironic that they're -- as you have suggested, Mark, that there were a set of policies that were developed for folks that didn't voluntarily participate in the program. From the committee's perspective, our discussions that we had, these were additional incentives to have folks participate in the program and reduce the potential of the urban sprawl at the one to five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the idea of having incentives to get people to move into the program is the right thing to do. But then on the other way it seems to be wTitten, if a property O\vner does not want to participate, it's punitive. Because it's probably going to change anyway. And further on in here there is much more punitive language that it only applies if you're not in the program. And I'm wondering, why is it so voluntary if you're punishing people if they don't join. That doesn't seem to fit what the intent was. MR. JONES: Tom Jones. I think you really have to go back to the genesis of the program and back to 2002. And I think I'm just really going to probably reiterate what Mr. Varnadoe said, but perhaps in a different fashion. When this plan was put together, there was quite a collaborative effort between landowners, conservation organizations, county staff and other interested parties. And I think what you can't emphasize enough is that the landowners agreed to the language in Policy 5.1. It wasn't mandated to us, it was requested of us as we were going through the process, could you give us a higher level of assurances that things won't occur in these FSA's in particular. And the landowners agreed to it. So you may view it as punitive, but if I've agreed to do something, then I don't necessarily take it as a punitive action either on your part or my part to participate. But we as landovvners elected to put that restriction on our property and we were able to do it. (At which time, Commissioner Midney enters the room.) MR. JONES: Because the landowners that were involved in the group at the time controlled all the lands that were designated as FSA's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I appreciate your time, Tom, thank you. The only concern I still have is I don't know where -- I haven't seen the agreement. so maybe I just need to get -- MR. JONES: Well, there is no agreement. Sometimes people's word is enough. And if that's not Page 4 , , 16t l~S ~.'\ February 20, 2009 enough, it was included in the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish people's words were enough-- MR. JONES: And as Mr. Varnadoe said, and I believe there's a time constraint when a Bert Harris Act can be filed, if I'm correct. And that time frame has long passed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the trigger of a Bert Harris Act -- MR. JONES: So I think what the action is, if the peoples whose land this was placed on were opposed to it, although they voluntarily agreed to it, they could have tripped the play, asked for a development to occur in an FSA and then file a Bert Harris Act. That didn't change. I mean, we're arguing about something that was accomplished five years ago with everybody's agreement and consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just don't agree with-- MR. JONES: And as Mr. Varnadoe said, I guess we could take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't agree with your trigger for a Bert Harris, because I think it's when a development order is turned down. In this particular case it wouldn't be until one's applied for. But we'll move on. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I've been trying to kind of get a grip on this. When you say the landowners all agree, how many landowners are there? I got some e-mail that says there's 200, you guys say there's five or six. MR. JONES: I'll clarify the numbers with respect to what I was addressing. When I refer to the landowners agree, I was talking about the landowners that own the land that was designated as FSA. And that's less than half a dozen that own land that was designated as an FSA that are specifically -- that are specifically impacted by Policy 5.1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's not a group of people that own small parcels of that, you're saying? MR. JONES: Not within the FSA, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that same paragraph, Tom, I notice that we changed the word only to not. So, I mean, I understand probably why you did it because the way it read, someone could construe that you could only put essential services in there. But if you were to buy in the program, do you know ifFSA's can be used for anything else? Aren't we allowed to have infrastructure in there to a point where it has to be -- where you like cross an FSA and things like that for piping? MR. McDANIEL: I believe we did have some lang -- or there is some language in here that allows that for infrastructure to support those government facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on 4.9. And wouldn't we want to put that same language after the sentence -- I mean after the word not be allowed in FSA's, so that if it's fair in the RLSA, it should be fair in the regular properties, too? Anyway, I don't know why you would -- MR. McDANIEL: I can see your point. In tying those two together is probably a good suggestion from the Planning Commission with respect to that. I think it's -- I think we're talking about the same thing. By doing that, as Mr. Jones suggested, that the folks that do own the lands that were designated as FSA's are party to it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only thing 1 would think that'd do is make the process equitable. If they can do it in the RLSA and it's required there, then it ought to be done elsewhere. If you were to go back on Policy 1.5, and let me read the last sentence. It says, no part of the Page 5 _.. 1 .._nR' - '"" .<-,."~, '..... 161 1 ~0 February 20, 2009 stewardship credit system shall be imposed upon a property owner without that owner's consent. That's where my concern with the first paragraph came in, and the reference that FSA's will be created outside the RLSA -- or within the RLSA but outside those that voluntarily buy in the program. That seems to be a contradiction, unless there's some way to nail dov,1fl the owner's consent. And I think we'll have to further look at that, but that's where the question rose. Any other questions on Page 62? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to Page 63. Starts at Policy 5.2 and begins a long policy of 5.5. Questions on Page 63 from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, Paul, you're here. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sorry I'm late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Vigliotti. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On 5.4 where it's talking about changing this map and putting potential habitat crossings. Once we establish a map like this, will that then vest whatever is there? So suddenly if we put -- if we change the map to account for these -- for potential SRA's, then they just become vested automatically? MR. McDANIEL: I don't think that -- that certainly wasn't from the committee's perspective, Ms. Caron, the process we were looking to do there. And again, recall -- remember that the maps that have been generated to date are conceptual maps that talk about the potential locales of the SRA's and the SSA's and so on and so forth. These wildlife crossings were a part of the -- were not necessarily part of the original plan, and this is the language that we talked about to establish those wildlife crossings and have it be -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So all of these maps, no matter what they are, will be labeled conceptual? MR. McDANIEL: I can't answer technically how they're ultimately going -- it would seem to me they would almost have to be conceptual. Unless an SRA has actually been applied for and been designated, it could only be conceptual. I know that we have proposed wildlife crossing corridors, if you wilL as part of the SRA program to -- and again, the primary goal behind those were to establish the wildlife crossings locales or areas so that they could be part of the budget process for the infrastructure, the highway construction improvements. But necessarily they would have to be conceptual until someone actually formally applies for an SRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 63. Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On the same area. So the purpose of this is you want to kind of figure out where the crossings might be based upon probably telemetry points and so on so that you could budget for the crossings and also maybe steer development away from those areas? MR. McDANIEL: That's correct. I mean, there are buffering -- there is butfering language in the program that establishes the necessary buffers as well. And if these corridors are designated in some form or fashion, that's going to ultimately, as part of the program. redirect development away from potentially environmentally sensitive habitat so on and so forth. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, that makes sense. How will you decide what's the threshold, how many to make? I mean, are you going to make three or are you going to make 30 or 15? How do you decide, you know, what's the criteria of what is a threshold Page 6 ~ 16. l 11\S February 20, 2009 above which you have to designate a crossing? MR. McDANIEL: We're not going to go there right now, are we? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I'm just asking. MR. McDANIEL: I mean, there's a whole -- and there -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sure that nobody knows, I'm just -- you know, I'm sure that you had something in mind when you made this, and -- MR. McDANIEL: What we had in mind at the committee level was the necessity of establishing those corridors. And in so doing, delineating locales for wildlife crossings on the highway systems that we all know are inevitably going to be improved. And so to have that be part of the budget process, that was the main emphasis as to why we were doing what we were doing. There wasn't really any specific discussions about -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I agree with you, it makes perfect sense what you're saying. But I'm just wondering, at some point somebody's going to have to decide what's the threshold where you need one. And, you know, if they've only crossed twice, you probably don't need one, and if they've crossed 200 times, you know n MR. McDANIEL: And a lot of that's going to be determined. There's a tremendous amount of work being done right now as we speak. That independent panel of biologists that's determining the habitat qualifications and the locales and their corridors of travel and their -- what's happy for them, that's all being done right now. The language that we have in here in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay covers newest and most avail -- best information as those information sources come along. As those priorities -- as our social priorities change, adaptations are going to inevitably occur that are going to dictate where those are, how many of those crossings are in fact going to be in place and so on and so forth. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And also if they decide to designate these panther corridors and do the panther corridor credits and sort of map them out, that might change where the -- MR. McDANIEL: Of course. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- crossings will be too. MR. McDANIEL: Of course. I mean, you -- and again, there's been some extremely heated discussions about those corridors as to their worthiness and so on and so forth. At the committee level our goal was to establish the corridors, in so doing have the locales for the wildlife crossings and have that be part of the budget process. There's going to be tremendous amounts of discussion as to how big they need to be and what type of vegetation needs to be planted with respect to making them happy places for the animals to travel. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So this is just sort of like a preliminary planning thing at this point. That's fine. MR. McDANIEL: That's what this entire program is. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, thank you. MR. McDANIEL: I mean, in that -- and you bring up a very valid point, Paul, in that this is a plan to develop an area in our eastern community where we're going to have a mix of wildlife and people when it's all said and done. And this is to -- as this entire paragraph talks about, it doesn't just talk about the wildlife corridors, it also talks about the other wildlife, the human race that we're going to have. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the farming, I hope. MR. McDANIEL: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Looking at Policy 5.5, aside from the issue ofthe voluntary versus Page 7 c_ Ilo. l v"'....._>-"~'___~~w_.,.~.,,...__ _._~."--. 16l 1 ~0 February 20, 2009 involuntary part of it, within that recommendation, what is the trigger for making this happen? Because it says shall be required under number one. Policy 5.5 under number one of wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels. And it states ahead of that, for those lands that are not voluntarily included. What's the trigger? And at what point? It seems to need something there, would you agree? MR. McDANIEL: My interpretation of that is a trigger is going to be when a non-participating landowner, which I don't think we have any, but a non-participating landowner in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program makes an application to develop his property or increase the intensity of use, if you will. That will be the trigger that's going to tip that over. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: WelL okay, and I appreciate that, and I can conjecture that as valid as well. So that leaves potentially large segments or parcels or tracks that because a landowner would not go forward, that those requested or required surveys and the rest, they will not be done. Who knows, ad infinitum, right? MR. McDANIEL: And it's currently the way it stands right now, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. But this is an intent to -- the intent here is for land planning, right? MR. McDANIEL: Agreed. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. So what I'm suggesting, and I don't have any answers, of course, but what I am suggesting is that perhaps they're -- because that issue that Mark raised about the involuntary aspect of it you know, if you're going to require somebody to be a participant in it in the first instance, wouldn't it follow logically that you'd want them to be compelled to step up next to Joe and Charlene and do the same things? I recognize there's a cost associated with it but isn't there everything? MR. McDANIEL: Agreed. And I might suggest also that, I mean, there are other regulating agencies that folks have to apply to whenever they're looking to do some kind of increase of utilization of their land. And I would pro -- and I don't know this for a fact, but I would assume that you would have to make an application to the South Florida Water Management District or the DEP if you were to be going in for a mining operation that we're -- and I know that I'm required by those agencies to do those wildlife surveys, even if! were outside -- I think this is probably as much as anything a replication of the existing regulations that are out there for folks that are looking to utilize their property in environmentally sensitive areas. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I appreciate that. But because of the nature of the involuntary aspect of it, that does provoke some question. And I can understand where the intent is. And not to belabor it, but you must of -- as committee, you must have had a discussion as to when -- and I won't use the term build-out, but when these transactions will have reached a critical mass, so to speak, where a true plan can be seen on a map. What's the estimation on that, 2050'1 MR. McDANIEL: I think, yeah, we used the designation of 2050. That was the new number. Originally the plan was set up for 2025, and we jumped out to 2050. And that was partly done with -- in course with the East of 951 Horizon Study and all that inforn1ation, and the Collier interactive growth model. So that's the reason we jumped out there. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: It's n and I applaud the committee for trying to find a means by which you can, you know, get everybody in step with you. But it is probably from a -- from the point of view when we try to do growth plan amendments, it's going to be a sticking point, so maybe the committee might want to look at that. MR. McDANIEL: With respect to what? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Trying to deal with these recommended amendments that talk Page 8 1&\ 116 February 20, 2009 about involuntary inclusion. MR. McDANIEL: Well, they are part ofthe original policies of the original Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, but these are recommended -- these are going to be recommended. And what we didn't realize 10 years ago or five years ago, we now have a tendency to recognize. So I'm just suggesting. If you don't, you don't. But that may be an issue, a sticking point. That's all I'm saying. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 63. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Down under 2.8. MR. McDANIEL: Or not 2.B? COMMISSIONER CARON: Or not 2.8. MR. GREENWOOD: That 2.B actually should be 2.A. There's some renumbering. MR. McDANIEL: Thank you, Mr. Greenwood. It truly is not 2.8. COMMISSIONER CARON: He's right, I hadn't even picked up on that. But it says on the first line there, listed species or listed species. I think it's supposed to read listed species or protected species and their habitat. MR. McDANIEL: I'm going to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: As it is in the paragraphs above. It's this corrected everywhere else but here. MR. McDANIEL: I believe that was addressed at Environmental Advisory Council as well. And your suggestion there has already been taken into account. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thanks. Now, tell me why the line that was crossed out was crossed out and why the line that was added in was added in. It really reflects on the next page. MR. McDANIEL: The goal was -- the discussion I recall-- and Brad Cornell is here, so if you have really deep wanting information. The line that was crossed out was rather generic. And it encompassed a large area that was highly discretionary in what could in fact be considered habitat. So our -- utilizing that -- and that language I'm sure is mirrored off when I spoke earlier, Mr. Strain, with respect -- or Mr. Murray, one, I can't remember who I was talking to -- that the most current and completed data of the local and state guidelines is allowing us or affording us that opportunity as new information comes in to change these designations. And not with so much discretion as what was afforded in the original line that we chose to strike. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I mean, I'm not sure -- and maybe Brad, you do want to comment further. Because I'm not sure why we're -- I mean, it seems -- that second line seemed pretty specific in that you had to establish buffers. Now it just says we have to use these guidelines, and I'm not sure the guidelines are as strong as being required to use buffers. And I could be wrong, but when we get over on the next page, I think you -- MR. CORNELL: I'm trying to remember our conversation about this. But my recollection is that we've addressed buffers in a separate policy more specifically, and that what we're doing in Policy 5.5 is trying to be less specific in terms of referencing management guidelines for any particular species and just say listed and protected species in general will all have current guidelines that will be followed. Whatever the most current guidelines for mitigation and management will be followed for whatever the species is and their habitat. And then the deletion of the buffering language ends up being addressed in a separate place where we actually have a fuller policy on buffering. And right now I can't remember where that is. But it's -- that's Page 9 "'." ._"'",.'-~-~''' ,"~.,~.....'_.,. , 161 lAS February 20, 2009 my recollection of the rationale for those changes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, all right. WelL let's just get into this a little more. So the second line that's added says mitigation for impacting listed species habitat shall be considered in the management plans as appropriate. So once again, are we setting up our management plans to just pay mitigation into some mitigation bank, wherever they might find it and we're not actually protecting species? MR. CORNELL: No, no. This is a reference to the fact that the regulatory agencies are going to have something to say about impacts to habitat and listed species. Whatever they say, whatever that may be, we don't know. That's why this is vague. That has to be contemplated in the management plan for habitat that's involved in that area. That's not saying what you do or what the mitigation is. That's obviously a deferral on that mitigation to those agencies. But it is saying that when you have management, when you write your management plan, you've got to consider what the agency said about mitigation. That's the way I understood that to be. That was the intent in writing that. Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER CARON: It may. Obviously it can be read more than one way, so-- MR. CORNELL: Yeah, it was meant to be only a way of being more inclusive of saying look, not only should you \vrite a management plan, but you've got to remember to include and consider and incorporate into your management plan whatever the mitigation is that's been assigned for that area. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else on 63'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Bill, let's go back to your -- we're going to go all the way back to the top. And we need to go back to something you had said in response to Mr. Murray. You had said that -- I think you were trying to say that you believe all the landowners are participating in the program. Is that a fair statement? MR. McDANIEL: Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: No. MR. McDANIEL: Not all of the landowners. In the FSA's the landowners that actually have the designated FSA's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What do you deem to be -- what signifies participation in the FSA program as implemented here? I just didn't know. I mean, we've got Russell Priddy who has spoken many times, and I don't believe his property is yet attached or voluntarily submitted to the program. I know that -- I think the Scofields have put some of theirs in. I know Barron Collier has some in. So I'm not sure what we're talking about here. And if they've already committed to this and the FSA's that they have by their active participation are committed to -- MR. McDANIEL: We're not as the case may be. I mean, you know, just because they haven't designated an SSA, which would then ultimately establish the -- and those FSA's are already very well described and laid out, so -- just because they have -- in order to be part of the Rural Land Stewardship program, they basically have to have applied for an SSA or an SRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So by the act of this policy, these policies, we create the FSA's in the non-voluntary areas, meaning everybody that's out there, whether they're voluntarily joining the RLSA or not, or the program or not, they got an FSA on their propeliy by these policies. MR. McDANIEL: No, not necessarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. WelL then let's -- that's what I'm trying to find out. I don't Page 1 0 1.6. \. 14VS February 20,2009 understand the -- MR. McDANIEL: You're picking on something that I was saying over there to Mr. Murray, or suggesting that I was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't picking, I'm trying to understand, Bill. r don't understand how the FSA's can be created on properties that aren't voluntarily part ofthe program. And earlier I thought we said they are created by -- everybody has agreed to this. MR. McDANIEL: My -- and maybe -- you know, I hear comments coming from Mr. Varnadoe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a grunt. MR. McDANIEL: But those FSA's are very specifically defined overlays that are part of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. FSA's, HSA's, WRA's. Applications for an SSA are further designation in applying the credit system that's associated with those defined areas within the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. The Group 5 policies are additional incentives, if you will, instigations for participation in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay and the credit system that applies for that overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, maybe somebody's thinking I'm going in the wrong direction here. I'm trying to protect the existing property owners' rights. That's the purpose of my questioning. If they have rights and they're hampered by forcing them to do things or changing the uses to their property without their authorization, that to me is a concern. It would be if it happened in the urban area or in the RLSA. So that's where I'm coming from. And if you've -- MR. McDANIEL: And I by no means disagree with that statement. I am very much an advocate of personal property rights. And I think you have heard from -- what are you laughing at? I think you've heard from landowners' perspective that the implementation ofthe Group 5 policies would -- it could be a recommendation to have them stricken. I mean, it's not something that I found very -- as a committee person very in flow with the voluntary program, as you suggested earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's the only point I was trying to understand. And if we -- at some point we may have to come back and try to understand that better or clarify it. MR. McDANIEL: Can I, just from a lay person's perspective? I found the majority ofthese in instigations, if you will, are basically replications of other restrictions that are already existent through other permitting agencies that are out there and just further defined here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, if! -- for example, Russell. If Russell came up and said I have no problem, all my property's FSA's, it doesn't bother me a bit. Okay. Then we know that we're -- because I think Russell's been fairly outspoken about his property and his concerns. And that's great, that's what we're trying to find out. And ifhe's one of the people that buy into this, then I think okay, he's not got a concern, he's probably one of the more outspoken people who have concerns out there. George is outspoken and we've heard George. I don't disagree with George's argument. I just want to make sure that we get it clear so everybody understands that this is or is not voluntary or they have or have not given up rights and we don't have a challenge later on that cost the taxpayers money. That's my only goal here today. MR. McDANIEL: I'm with you 100 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russell, you must have heard your name mentioned. MR. PRIDDY: I think the easiest and simplest thing to do is take all of Group Policy out for the Planning Commission to recommend. Just to not have any Group 5 policies, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when I got done today, that's where I was going. So you've already-- because if everybody's buying into the program, as Bill is saying, we don't need the Group 5 policies. Page 11 ,,-."~ - - ~~_..~A___.'___ ..... -- J ~ 161 1 AS February 20, 2009 MR. PRIDDY: Don't need the Group 5, take them out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that would be a great solution, if we could figure out a way to make it happen. MR. McDANIEL: Somebody call for an adjournment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: These are already in the policy now, so why are you wanting to mess with it? No one has had a problem with it up till now. It's been in for five years. MR. McDANIEL: It isn't that we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, Paul, if you want to say no one's had a problem with it, I haven't had a problem with the program for the five years either since it was implemented. But by the fact we're here today and spent three days and probably another day on this, there obviously needs to be changes. We had a committee appointed who said there are changes to the program that are needed. The purpose of the fIve-year review was to go back and look at everything that needed to be changed. I don't see us being limited to just what the committee thought needed to be changed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I'm not saying that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm suggesting there's probably another area we could look at for change that may not have been looked at by the committee, or even if they had, based on their explanation maybe we have a different course we may think it needs to go in. MR. McDANIEL: I don't think you do. I think you're on the same path. I can remember, and it's probably a matter of record. I'm going to be repeating myself during the committee process on these Group 5 policies. I found it very Hippocratic (sic) that this group of policies was even in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we haven't got to the worst parts of them yet. But that's more need to say if we can -- if we did away with these Group 5 policies because all the property o\\'l1ers out there were in agreement, we're way ahead. And that takes a whole burden off of a process here we don't need. So that may be an idea to look at further. Anyway -- MR. McDANIEL: Time will tell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- let's go back. Because in case they are here -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, don't you think that the Group 5 policies are sort of in support of what the final order was saying, that you need to protect your critical species on these lands? I mean, it is a restriction on private property, you're right, but we have other restrictions on private property that are, you know, part of law that, you know, it's kind of an accepted thing that when you have -- you want to get the highest and best use of the land. And some lands, their highest and best use is conservation of protected species. So yes, it is a restriction, but it's not necessarily an unreasonable one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Paul, the purpose of the Group 5 policies is to deal with the lands that don't buy into the RLSA program. We've been just told that all the property owners out there are buying into the RLSA program. And if that's the case, that program addresses all of the concerns that you have by the mere fact we just went through group policies I through 4 and addressed all those. Group 5 only hits in if someone doesn't go in, and they're all agreeing to go in. So what do we need -- who's going to be left to administer Group 5 policies to? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, the six landowners, that covers what, about 90 percent of the land? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've been told there's six landowners. If there's more, then we've got a problem. Page 12 , ~ 161 l\ lAS February 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, there's more than six landowners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're shorter than Bill. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Who can help me out? How many n what percentage of the land in the RLSA is owned by these six landowners? MR. CORNELL: Isn't it about 160 some thousand acres? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I mean percentage. MR. CORNELL: Oh, percentage? Well, put that over 182,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, that changes then to Mr. Murray's questioning, because we've been -- MR. JONES: I think we're mixing up what different people are saying when they come to the podium. You posed a question to me with respect to the FSA's and landowner agreement with respect to these restrictions in Group 5 policies with respect to 5.1 specifically. My comment was it wasn't opposed by the landowners who owned those lands that were designated as FSA on the overlay. Now, that doesn't mean those landowners have established stewardship sending areas on those FSA's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. MR. JONES: -- but the FSA's -- well, for the benefit of the rest of the committee. But the landowners haven't established SSA's on all those committees. So if your question to me is have all the landowners bought into the RLSA program, I would say no. If your question --I believe your question to me was do the landowners that own the FSA's, have they bought into the program. We bought into the program to the extent that none of us opposed the restriction placed on our properties that were designated as FSA's when the program was developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's a big plus. And there's where I was -- and I understand that's what you meant. And when Russell came up, he had a good suggestion. I know it was -- seemed to be maybe he wasn't serious, but it was a good suggestion. MR. JONES: Russell's always serious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you --I'm not sure everybody took it that way. But if you eliminated these Group 5 policies because everybody voluntarily not only to deal with the -- MR. JONES: The FSA -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me finish. MR. JONES: No, no, no. You said everybody agreed to them. Everybody did not agree to them. The landowners that own these lands in the FSA's have agreed to these restrictions. There are other lands in the RLSA that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't let me finish. MR. JONES: -- don't apply to the FSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't let me finish. That's what I tried to tell you. MR. JONES: All right. I'll go back -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that they agreed to the FSA piece that's in here. MR. JONES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next step would be okay, at some point they're going to want to develop their property. Ifby -- if we eliminated the Group 5 -- MR. JONES: If the landowners that we're talking about in the FSA-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. JONES: -- are going to develop their properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 13 "~- .c " I . ,.".,"'---.",'~_.,- 161 1 f\'cS February 20, 2009 MR. JONES: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe eliminated the Group 5 policies and then they had to develop their property and agreed that they would enter the program under whatever terms the progran1 had at the time, we're there. MR. JONES: There are many lands in the program that are not designated FSA or HSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. MR. JONES: You have thousands of acres that are in the open area where the restrictions or the covenants in the Group 5 policy apply to them. So if you eliminate all the Group 5 policies, then there are no additional requirements placed on anyone who's not participating in the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I think what I was understanding through some of the discussion, I thought everybody was agreeing to at some point participate in the program. MR. JONES: That's what I was trying to clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's what we're hearing no, so now we have to have the Group 5 policies because Russell's not going to paJ1icipate. is he? MR. JONES: No, I think we could take out the Group 5 policies too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. [ was just trying to make it simpler, if there was a way to get there. If not everybody's in agreement then we'll just keep moving through it. I mean, we're -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- going to do that anyway. Yes, Russell. MR. PRIDDY: Russell Priddy. These policies weren't really in there for the Russell Priddys or the Colliers or the big landowners. It was to discourage the landowner that had 50 acres from trying to go change that 50 acres under some other means. It was to further encourage them to participate under the first four sets of policies. So the Group 5 is really a disincentive and an incentive program. It is a disincentive for, you know, maybe those smaller parcels that are out there to not do a one in five or not to go do, you know, three mega-homes on 40 acres, it was to encourage them through disincentive to participate through the Group 1 through 4 policies. MR. McDANIEL: Very politically correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just sort of to add on. It's a subset ofthe landowners. First of all, it's the landowners who are not paJ1 of the six, which I guess is maybe five or 10 percent of all the land in the RLSA. And then a subset of that, Mark, which is those who have lands where there might be listed species. Some of the landowners, it doesn't matter, they have open land or the land is not ecologically valuable. So it's just a subset of the landowners why we have the Policy 5 in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on -- I was still into my questions. And now that we're back on track with another series, 5.3, Policy 5.3, I think you want Bill to answer these for a while until we get -- unless do you have something else you wanted to -- MR. CORNELL: I just wanted to add one more thing. Brad Cornell. Sorry, I should have said that before. I want to make sure that it's clear that the committee's position is that we need the Group 5 policies, even despite what you're hearing, somewhat in joking, but that they represent a regulatory floor below which -- you know, we have an incentive program, but we also have -- you know, that's the caITot. But we Page 14 ., 161 1~~ February 20, 2009 also have a stick in the way of a regulatory floor that we don't want anybody falling through. And part of that is so that we don't see any one-on-five conversions in places we don't want it. You know, we only want to see the kinds of sustainable development out there that does not impact habitat, wetlands, and is not a burden on the public in terms of infrastructure, et cetera, and is that kind of devel -- we don't want to see one on five. And so this is, just as you heard Russell say, this is a disincentive to do what we don't want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. 5.3, about in the middle of the paragraph there's a sentence that starts with baseline standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the overlay, the following regulations are applicable. What regulations? And they shall be incorporated into the LDC. But I couldn't figure out what it's referring to because I didn't see any regulations attached. MR. GREENWOOD: Actually, that should be clarified. It basically is the following policies. And it should be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should we rewrite that? MR. GREENWOOD: I think so, yeah. MR. McDANIEL: Call them policies or regulations. It wasn't a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or should we say the regulations of the Group 5 policies? So that way you've got 5.1 instead of the following? MR. McDANIEL: Certainly. We didn't talk about that at the committee level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Policy 5.4 it says, a map of these potential crossings. Who would be producing the map? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: County, I hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious as how that would actually happen. The county's so short on staff right now, I'm just wondering how it gets done. I turn to Elizabeth or -- MR. McDANIEL: We didn't really talk about -- I mean, there are conceptual maps that are already -- that have already been developed. We really didn't decide who was going to actually get it done, other than suggest that it was done and give a time frame for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what I'm concerned about in today's climate, you can suggest a lot of things right now, and if we don't assign and say -- and have somebody agree that they're going to do it, it may never get done. MR. McDANIEL: And that comes whether you do assign someone or not, Mr. Strain. I mean, there were things in the original Rural Land Stewardship Overlay that were suggested, and the Agricultural Commission that was designated to be established and set aside and advising and so on and so forth, and we struck that language out of here. So that might be a suggestion from the Planning Commission to designate someone responsible to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think it makes it clear in the future. MS. FLEMING: I remember this discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Elizabeth, you want to take a shot at it? MS. FLEMING: Elizabeth Fleming, Defenders of Wildlife. We talked -- I remember this because at the end -- that the hangup was the period of time that it would take to produce this map. Darrell Land has done a lot of this already through the least-cost pathways, and the data exists now. And I think that it wouldn't take very much at all. Page 15 ~..;o,~_.'IlI .... " .',",,,"-_.~"'..--,,,,,-,,,,,,,.- ~.~~-~-_.._.._-------_._-_...- 16\ 1 prS February 20, 2009 The Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission and I think the Florida Department of Transportation are working on an effort such as this for the entire District 1, which I believe is -- I can't remember how many counties, but it goes up to 1-4. And they're working on that for panther and bear crossing locations where they feel that wildlife underpasses need to be installed. So it was just kind of putting it on the record in this document so that we didn't forget that we had to do that. But work is underway right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And again for the policy, I think we need to try to focus on who could do that. We can certainly make that suggestion and see what comes out of it. Further in that sentence it says, within 12 months the effective date of the GMP amendment and used in evaluating community, cultural and historical planning for the RLSA. When you have the words used in. what does that mean? I mean, it doesn't say shall. Doesn't say will be. Doesn't say -- I mean, we just had a discussion about two weeks ago, not with this group but another around the water plant. And because the South Florida Water Management District doesn't have language that requires their policies to be adhered to but just reviewed or considered. Collier County ignores them, basically. It's oh, yeah. we considered them, but we're going to ",,'rite it our own way anyway. I'm atraid something like that could happen here if this language was as vague as it seems to be here. And that's my concern for those words. And I don't know if you have any ideas, but -- MR. McDANIEL: We, the committee, don't have any ideas with respect to that, Mr. Strain. I mean, again, the goal behind that was the establishment of those wildlife crossings, getting -- and to have -- and to develop a transportation plan for the entire Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. I mean, there's -- in conjunction with that. there's going to be necessary participation from the Department of Transportation of Collier County as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would realize that. I would hope so. But I just -- the way that it's to be implemented I think is -- we may want to say that even defer -- put language in here that defers the method of implementation or how it's to be used to the LDC language, that would work too. But just to say used, I'm concerned it isn't going to have emphasis if you leave it like that. So Ijust made notes and in the end we can fIgure out how we want to address it. On Policy 5.5, I notice in number one, the second line, the new language, or protected species was added. Now, ifit's added to the existing property owners if they don't buy into the RLSA, why wouldn't the people who buy into the RLSA have to be just as concerned about protected species as listed? And the reason I'm bringing this up is because I don't think protected ought to be here. We took it out of the LDC, we didn't allow it to be added there in a broad range across the county. To put that damage -- or that onto a burden of a property owner to all of a sudden have to go out and do wildlife surveys, plans and everything else, now not just for listed but protected is very punitive. And I think that is wTong. Either it's got to apply everywhere or it shouldn't apply anywhere, to be fair. MR. McDANIEL: You're entitled to your opinion. I mean -- and I can't recall specifically. Again, remember, these entire Group 5 policies are the incentivization to participate. And that was the language that was added in there for folks who chose not to participate in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. Did we not, Brad, include the protected species back in the other? MR. CORNELL: I don't remember. Earlier, you mean? MR. McDANIEL: In the actual RLSA. I thought we had. MR. CORNELL: It could be, yeah. I don't remember. Let me look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FLEMING: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. The more input, the better. We're going to have public Page 16 161 116 February 20, 2009 input, too, right when we finish this discussion. So you'll have another -- we need to get all the information on the table. MS. FLEMING: Elizabeth Fleming, Defenders of Wildlife. From what I recall of the discussion, the intention was to put them into I guess it would be Group 3 policies also. And then talk went around and around, and it sounded like they were in the growth management regs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of protected species? No. MS. FLEMING: Okay, if that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if you're talking about now putting them in the RLSA program, I didn't come across that in the review of prior policies. MS. FLEMING: Ifthey're in this section, we advocated that it be consistent. It's not trying to make it stricter for the people not in the program. And the reason this came up is because in here there was a whole list of all the different species management plans. And we talked about why list some, you should list all of them and all this. This was meant to make sure that we referenced all the species that are being regulated anyway. These aren't additional regulations. And recognizing that when species are delisted on the federal or state level, the State of Florida is creating management plans for all species that are either delisted, down-listed, up-listed, change in classification. The Bald Eagle and the Peregrin Falcon are two examples where the Bald Eagle has -- well, I guess they both still have federal regulations that apply. And we just want to be sure that everybody knew that they had to check for these management plans and protected -- we tried all kinds of things: Delisted, down-listed. At one point we had only the Bald Eagle, because that was the most obvious example. That's just meant to catch the rest. But I don't think it should only be in Group 5, if that was your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes and no. I don't think it should be in Group 5 or Group 3. But the problem is, if you put it in Group 5, it should go in everywhere else. And the problem I see there is if the committee did not review the impacts of doing wildlife surveys and management plans for more than the listed species, they're talking about protected species as well, and that's a longer list. That's going to have -- may have an interesting impact on the committee's debate. Policy 3.2 is the policy I think in the Group 3 policies that pertain to this, and it says only listed animals and plant species. It doesn't say protected. MS. FLEMING: All right. I think then somebody said it should be adjusted in the LDC or --I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't impose it in the RLSA and the LDC if it's not allowed by the GMP. You can only put it in the Group 5 section implementation of the LDC. So we're not getting there. MS. FLEMING: I agree with -- the mechanics of it I was not aware of. But that was the recommendation at the time. It wasn't trying to make this section stricter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Bill, does your committee -- was your committee looking at adding protected species to the Group 3 policies as well? MR. McDANIEL: I know that we were not looking to make it more punitive necessarily in the Group 5's than anywhere else. And I recall a discussion, and I don't ultimately remember where it ran into, as to why it wasn't included in the balance of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I think if you're -- and I don't know, maybe someone else knows how long the list is, but there's a long list of listed species, and then there's a longer list of protected speCIes. And I'm just wondering if that has the potential of being in the RLSA program, that might change the dynamics of the way you guys are thinking as far as how you move forward with the RLSA. So it's Page 1 7 ,-;.. If"" 17" r .._.....""""',....,'" - 16' 1 {Jf? February 20, 2009 either -- I think to be fair, though, I don't know how you can include it in one and not the other. MR. McDANIEL: And I -- and ['m not -- and again, these discussions happened at the committee level quite some time ago. And I recall our entire premise behind the Group 5 policies was for additional incentives for folks that were not going to voluntarily participate in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay to find the benefits of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay and disincentivize them from doing another methodology of development for their land. (Cell phone ringing.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was George again. MR. McDANIEL: Right at the end of my -- did you get that written down? Because that came out pretty good. I can't remember what I said now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL the only thing, BilL is I'm concerned if we put it in one and it's not in the other. I think honestly it ought to be not added, because there was an attempt to add that in the Land Development Code as a whole, and it didn't succeed because of the involvement in the additional species that would be involved. MR. McDANIEL: As Mr. Priddy suggested, the Group 5 policies at the committee level discussions were additional disincentives for people to not participate in the program. We want them to participate in the program. We would rather they not have had the potential negative impacts that could occur from the underlying land uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. McDANIEL: I don't refute what you're saying about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's punitive, yeah. MR. McDANIEL: -- immunity or being one and not the other, but that was where we pretty much ended up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After that word it says, protected species are directly observed on-site. If you want to remember that reference, I know we'll be ta -- I'll bring you back to it. Because further on in the policy it talks about the species that are utilized, the areas that are utilized by listed species. So either it applies when they're observed or it applies when they're utilizing it. And I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too in both of those, so it's one or the other. And I don't know why there's a conflict in the policies. But we'll get to it I guess when we -- MR. McDANIEL: It's not really a conflict. I recall having an issue with that because of the discretion that was afforded with respect to it having been observed or potentially could be utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifprotected species were to be left in under Policy 2,5.5.1 -- 5.5.2, you have three or four references to listed species not followed by the words protected species. And that same occurs also in B.A, A.B? MR. McDANIEL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in order to be consistent, it would have to be everywhere or nowhere. And if A is to be -- if B is to be A, so let's talk about 2.A, the first underlined sentence, the most current and completed data. How does someone find that and where do they get it from? Do you know? Brad? I mean -- MR. McDANIEL: The regu -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use the microphone. MR. McDANIEL: I'm going to say the same thing I was going to say. I mean, it's the regulating agencies that you make application with will have that available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's whatever the agencies will supply. Okay. And then the -- and that gets us past Page 63. What I'd like to do is finish with the 5.5 policy on 64 Page 18 ~ . 161 lkS . '\ February 20, 2009 and the first part of 65 before we take public comment. Because I think a lot of it may be on 5.5. So on Page 64 from the Planning Commission, does anybody have any comments? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Under B, where they're talking about management plans, how does putting a park or a recreational area or a golf course as a buffer minimize human wildlife interaction? MR. McDANIEL: I think the reference there is for the lesser intense uses that are incurred by those properties. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But one ofthe goals is management plans shall include provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interaction. So if one of the ways you're going to buffer this is to put a park in there, how does a park minimize human wildlife interaction? MR. McDANIEL: It's a less intense development than the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I understand the less intense use. But I don't understand how it keeps people away -- MR. McDANIEL: It doesn't keep people away. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- from wildlife. Well, it says minimize human and wildlife interactions. That's what the first line says. So Ijust want to understand. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell. The idea of that would be that you're putting some distance between human homes where people are using more intensively the land and where the actual habitat is. So there's that -- it's a distance buffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so it's strictly distance. So when you send your kids in there camping, it's okay. MR. CORNELL: There are other ways of buffering. You know, there are different ways of buffering, and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I understand. MR. CORNELL: -- I don't think we're trying to be prescriptive in here, just suggestive. COMMISSIONER CARON: But on the list are specifically things that are human interaction things, golf courses and rec. areas and parks. So -- MR. CORNELL: Yeah, but you -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I was just curious as to why. MR. CORNELL: Right, but those would be less of an interaction with wildlife than you would have with a residential neighborhood where there's pets and little kids and cars. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, certainly ifit was an SRA, not ifit was maybe one to five. But anyway, yeah. MR. CORNELL: Well, that's the idea, that the planning would be used to minimize interaction. COMMISSIONER CARON: Further on down, all that's crossed out, is that -- that's all crossed out because it's already in the LDC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. McDANIEL: And/or dated infonnation. I mean, it was -- Brad, please. MR. CORNELL: I'm sorry. Remember, that's the strategy we had. We took out all the specific references to management plans and we said we're going to use and consult the most recent, most current management plans for all the listed and protected species, rather than list some and not others, which was -- that was the problem we addressed. We saw an incomplete list that was outdated. And we said, well, how are we going to do this? We can either try and make it a complete list and update it, but as soon as we do, it will be outdated, so why Page 19 ~l_ n r _c~.^_,_..._...__"'_ ....,._"'._.__ L 16l 1 ~ February 20, 2009 not do a more global kind of reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, before you leave that, can I ask you a question? When Donna questioned you about parks, you know that big, expensive, fancy water park we have in North Naples for $54 million? COMMISSIONER CARON: Once again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you feel that's less intense than a house next to a -- in that location that would be allowed by that added language? MR. CORNELL: Well, it depends on what the uses are. I mean, if you've got people and dogs and pets and other -- you know, and wildlife -- not wildlife. I mean livestock, you know that can be a much more intensive use relative to interaction with other wildlife. Something that's used only during the daytime, no one's there at night, nobody lives there, it could be argued to be less intense and less of a hazard for interaction from that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a ball stadium operating at night till 9:00 with floodlights is less intense than a house next to wildlife. MR. CORNELL: Well, now you're getting more specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Brad, someone will interpret that language to mean that. That's what I'm getting at. It says parks. Parks are anything that we want to describe as a recreational use. It could be anything. And if that's not what you're intending that's good. then say so. MR. CORNELL: Well, here's -- let me put it this way: We're suggesting a principle here in this of minimizing interaction. Now, if you've got some specific ideas that are going to address what you see as problems to better describe ways to minimize interactions, then please, make those recommendations. But that was the intent. The conceptual intent of this policy was to minimize interactions between humans and wildlife. And I agree with you, you can think of parks or recreational areas that would not fit that bill. And so I would hope that in the planning process that those would not be built, if that was the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would just want to make sure that if it's not the intent, it can't happen, and that's all -- MR. CORNELL: Right. And I think in the GMP. in the Growth Management Plan, that level of detail gets a little tough to he that prescriptive on. But I agree with your perception of the problem, I'm just not sure that we can address it here. We didn't obviously, apparently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think George just said something that might be a good point. MR. CORNELL: I didn't hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe referenced that parks -- some sort of park that we could further define in the LDC, that would take eare of it. That would min -- because you wouldn't want water parks, you wouldn't want stadiums, and maybe those can be spelled out in the LDC. That might be a good solution. MR. CORNELL: Well, I think that sounds reasonable. And maybe that would be reasonable for any ofthese what seem to be lacking for specific prescriptions, you know, let's look to the LDC as an opportunity to clarify them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad, this is for Brad, Brad. In 2.A, the prior wording, what was wrong with that, where the bufTers were supposed to be either open space and vegetation preservation? Why did you go into this? Essentially what this -- we've been Page 20 , 161 1-/rS February 20, 2009 discussing is a new way of saying essentially what you want for a buffer. What was the wrong with the old one then? MR. CORNELL: I think we wanted to be a little more comprehensive. I remember we had extensive discussions about human and wildlife interactions, recognizing as -- the areas that we're talking about in the RLSA have a lot of wildlife in certain areas, particularly like the FSA's, the HSA's, even the WRA's. So we recognized a challenge that we needed to be pretty proactive about. So that was the motivation for the more descriptive policy that we put in, rather than the single sentence. We tried to be a little more descriptive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: By using low intensity land use rather than the word open space? I mean, essentially -- MR. CORNELL: Well, we went on to talk about there's been -- for instance, there's been a lot of work recently and continuing on panther and bear interactions with humans, and recognizing the data and analysis that have told us why those interactions occur and how they might be mitigated or prevented. And so since we have some more specific information, we went on to talk about using that information to help plan our communities to avoid problems up front. So I don't think it's just low intensity land uses. Go on. Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. Well, that recognizes that U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and other agencies and environmental groups and civic groups have been working together to try and figure out ways to reduce these interactions. You know, no open livestock pens, don't feed your pets outdoors, those kinds of things, and working with landowners who live out in the interface. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Who would be -- who would qualify as open space? In other words, my real question is, why did you get rid of the word open space and add in here these uses? That's all. I mean -- MR. CORNELL: I guess we thought that this policy in 2.B was a little fuller, a little more descriptive. But it wasn't really that open space wasn't a good idea or that sentence wasn't a good idea. We thought we were capturing that concept better in 2-B than that one sentence we deleted. We tried to put it in one place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It just seems more liberal, and I was just wondering why were you supporting that, that's all. MR. CORNELL: The low intensity -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. MR. CORNELL: I guess this is another thing where you have to use some particular professional judgment in the planning process. I mean, if you're going to be recognizing, for instance, the panther work that we've done recently, Defenders of Wildlife and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and several other organizations have spent a lot of time working on reducing panther/human interactions. If you're going to recognize that work at which this invokes in this language, then I think that solves of some of your problem. I think that solves most of your problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Enough said, thanks. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'd just make a comment with respect to that. I believe that -- I understood that this language seemed to have been crafted from the point of view to protect the species. When we look at it from the code point of view, we have to find other ways of putting it. And I think it's well intended. I think I appreciate that. But I want to bring your attention to ii where you say when listed species, that's the beginning of Page 21 . ..... ..,. --...."'..........,- -. \ 161 1 />8 February 20, 2009 that sentence, and you go down to the last sentence and you say, the county shall also consider the recommendation of other agencies. Okay. Any teeth or -- what are you trying to establish there? MR. McDANIEL: Well, it was already established -- that language that's up there in ii was already in the original Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. And again, ifI might make a suggestion, just as a point of clarification, and this leads over to the conversation I was having with Ms. Caron earlier on, I think maybe from a description standpoint there on B, or whatever it's to be named as, the goal for minimizing human and wildlife negative interaction is what we're looking to, not necessarily interaction at large. I mean, creation of parks and golf courses, people in fact go into those places, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: It's less habituated. And I understand that, I appreciate that. MR. McDANIEL: And the goal is for negative interaction. I mean, we're looking to disincentivize the negative interaction that could potentially occur. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: WelL if we get to the point, we will probably have to modify language or find language that works for that. But I recognize -- now, you know, consider the recommendation. What will the county do after it's -- MR. McDANIEL: Well, you recently had a circumstance that Mr. Strain brought up that, you know, they had the opportunity to consider it, chose not to, and did what they did. And I wasn't party to all those sort of things. And again, if you feel that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I guess I -- all right, what I guess I'm getting at is if that -- if it really essentially becomes potentially moot. why put it in there? Because the County Commissioners always have the right to consider recommendations of other agencies. And if they have the right to disavow them, it's moot. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell again. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So it either has meaning or it does not, that's what I'm trying to -- MR. CORNELL: This is almost a direct reference to CCME, Conservation Coastal Management Element Policy 6.2.3 sub 3 or whatever it was, C. You know which policy I'm talking about? It's been -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of course. MR. CORNELL: It's been debated -- welL I'm not bcing facetious. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I was. because I don't remember that number. MR. CORNELL: Well, okay, you'll rcmember the debate, though. There's a policy in the Conservation Coastal Managemcnt Element about listed species that we have gone around for several years about. And it has some am -- there's ambiguous language in there. And it remains ambiguous. But it has -- this is the reference. And we have tried to address that. and the Board of County Commissioners have been unwilling to change it. And this policy here has not changed, and it is a reference to that policy. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: WelL okay. And I guess that's really what it comes down to, that's the issue of home rule versus whatever. MR. CORNELL: Right. And it invokcd -- it said, look, you know, if somebody writes -- if the agency writes a letter or does a biological opinion or issues an incidental take permit, you know, the county shall consider that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I appreciate it. MR. CORNELL: It's not satisfying, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, don't sit. Don't sit. Don't sit. Don't sit. That policy that's been the focus of discussion with the word parks and everything in it, and Brad kind of hit on it. you struck one sentence in the prior page that was apparcntly more restrictive than you Page 22 16.1; 116 February 20, 2009 thought it needed to be, and so you elaborated it further on the next page. But in essence, I think you opened it up. If we're supposed to be disincentivizing people developing the lands that they can without going into the RLSA, how does that meet that goal? Because this seems to do just the opposite. MR. McDANIEL: Well, and I'm going to lead you back down a different path. You made suggestions that we struck a sentence on the prior page because of it being less restrictive. It wasn't. It was to provide more clarity and allow for greater information to be gathered in order to make those determinations. And then further described it over here with respect to the language that we implemented here in the new 2.B. I mean, you led him down a path of our original striking of that language was because it wasn't -- or it was too restrictive. It really was actually too vague. It was -- too much interpretation could in fact be allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you feel that by striking that first sentence, which -- you actually are tightening it by that sentence. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. And further defining as an example without specificity, just as examples, low intensity uses for the reduction of those wildlife interactions, negative wildlife interactions. Less positive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move on to Page 65. Anybody have any questions on-- we're just going to go down to Policy 5.6 and then we'll hear from the public. Anybody have any questions to the end of 5.5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, in number three in the middle ofthe page, this is where the word utilized was -- replaced the word containing. Yet in the prior things they used the word observed. I'm just -- at some point I would think it would be better to be consistent so there's not any kind of misinterpretation. MR. McDANIEL: And certainly consistency's a welcomed, recommended suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at the last sentence, no reduction of the wildlife protection policies of 5.5 will be considered, as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection. Aren't those referring to all the protection policies that were crossed out, B through H? MR. McDANIEL: And they -- they're not referring to obviously the ones that were crossed out. The language that we adopted was to use the best available newest science that was in fact there at the junction that an applicant came in to change the use or develop their property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the wildlife protection policies of5.5 are those really substituted by whatever the agencies have as the best management practices at the time. Okay. Anybody else have questions on Page 65 up and to before Policy 5.6? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is there anybody from members of the public that wish to speak on what we've covered so far in Group 5 policies? Allen? MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon. Al Reynolds with Wilson-Miller, representing Eastern Collier Property Owners. It may be helpful for the Planning Commission to understand the context of these Group 5 policies as it related to the original adopted overlay. Because what happened in the original overlay that was transmitted by the county to the Department of Community Affairs for review, there were four policies, they fit on one page of paper. And it was Policy 5.1 that you were talking about where certain uses would be eliminated from FSA's with the concurrence of the property owners. The second policy basically said that if you have open land in the ACSC and you're not using the Page 23 ""- ._--__ "'" .."'liI m ~!7" _.......-.. ...... .J~ ..... --- 16\ 1 A0 \ February 20, 2009 program, ACSC rules apply. Which is really what the policy still says. Policy 5.3 said if you're not using the program and you're not in the ACSC, there should be certain additional regulations adopted. And the original transmitted language laid out six recommendations. Subsequent to that, during the adoption process, because of objections from the Department of Community Affairs, that got expanded to everything else you see in Group 5. What it said when it was transmitted basically was that people who choose to devclop and not use this program are subject to applicable federal and state laws with respect to the protection of listed species. So it really deferred all of the standards and all of the requirements to whatever the applicable laws were. The department objected to that because they felt that in keeping with the spirit ofthe final order, they wanted to see more specific measures incorporated in the plan. And that led to the addition of the next three or four pages of language that by and large restates applicable federal and state policies. So, you know, I think maybe it would help -- I think what the committee has done has been to try to streamline to the extent possible and makc it as clear as possiblc a whole bunch oflanguage that was added into the plan that from my perspective was largely unnecessary. But nonetheless, it was added to address specific objections. And what this demonstrates is the slippery slope when you try to start embellishing on what -- our adopted regulatory policics and add to them. you wind up sometimes slipping dOW11 a slope where it starts getting very convoluted. So, I mcan, I think the committee's recommendations are an improvement over what is in the originally adopted, but I do think it's important to understand that what the county originally intended was to keep this pretty simple for property owners that were not participating in the program. So I don't know if that helps or not, but that's a little history to how we got to this point. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question. Allen. Allen, I got a quick question. Under the Group 5 policies, those that don't participate arc subject then to the rules of the state and federal guidelines. MR. REYNOLDS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are the people in the RLSA that do participate, are they subject to the same rules? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it doesn't really change. MR. REYNOLDS: It doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think for the most part, the discussions we've had end up in some further clarification of the changes the committee made. I don't see -- the notes I've made don't take anything away from what they've made but possibly adding some considerations to make it clear. MR. REYNOLDS: And again, the whole genesis of this was in the final order it said that Collier County will adopt measures to protect listed species. okay? And so what the county originally said is okay, we've got this whole pile of regulations that are intendcd to protect listed species, and those regulations change over time. Now we're going to create an incentive-based process that's going to do something else to protect listed species. And the something else is in Group 3 where we create these very large SSA's that go beyond any requirements of what's nccessarily required under regulatory process. So that's really all it was intended to do. And then there was an acknowledgment that on top of the incentives we still have regulations. And so like I say, it just kind of got expanded from there to what you see today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Paul? Page 24 16 I it;{ February 0, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question for you, Allen. The ACSC standards that they're talking about in 5.2, those are State of Florida standards, right? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. Yeah. And in the 5.3, as I said, there had originally been some recommendations to have some similar kinds of standards outside of the ACSC in the open lands for clearing. Ultimately that got eliminated and these other standards were incorporated into the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? Elizabeth? MS. FLEMING: Elizabeth Fleming, Defenders of Wildlife. Just a very quick point of clarification for that language on Page 64, the Policy 5.5.2.B that we were just talking about having a low intensity land uses, parks, passive rec. areas. That language is identically duplicated on Page 56 in Policy 4.5. So however that gets clarified, just make a note to do it in both areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for pointing that out. That's a good idea. Nicole? MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I understand your concern about adding protected species in there, that there could be -- and I don't know how many protected species are listed out there under that title. But I know that especially for the Bald Eagle, they're no longer listed but they are still protected, there are federal guidelines for their protection. So you may want to look at some of those very obvious species that still have federal oversight. Peregrin Falcon was also mentioned. And if you're going to take protected out, at least include in specific species where you do want to have protective mechanisms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: lbat's interesting. If we were then to come back and say listed species and others -- and including, and then just limit -- list a few that are more exceptional, that might be a solution. Because I don't think that anybody's going to be real happy with the long list of protected species when they get to realize what that would mean in implementation in the LDC. MS. RYAN: And I'm not sure how long that list is, but I do know that for certain species such as Bald Eagle, I think that you definitely do want to have that included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that might be a good suggestion. Thank you. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Mitch Hutchcraft, I'm with King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus. I just wanted to touch on a couple of things. One is I wanted you to hear from a different landowner with regards to the FSA. You've heard from some other folks, but we do have property that are designated as FSA's, and we acknowledge that there is a removal of some of the rights associated with that. But it's in light of the other incentives that are being provided by the program. So the success of the incentive-based program is critical to us. Talking about the Group 5 programs, we have a little bit different perspective about the property in that we are a landowner who has -- essentially all of our property is in open space. We have very little flow, FSA's, HSA's, and so these Group 5 policies have the potential of impacting us more directly than anybody else. And normally I would be here arguing against these, because they could be very punitive to us, should we find ourselves in a position where we don't want to develop under the program. But I think again it's important for us to keep a big picture of the overall big picture, which is if the RLSA program and the incentives included therein provides greater protection of agricultural land, it reduces the impacts in the area of critical state concern, it provides a methodology for connectivity of Page 25 . -"iIiI ~ ....... . .,,,,--..,,,---.,. 161 1 if; February 20, 2009 panther habitat. And it can do that in a direct way that benefits the landowners. We ought to encourage them to utilize the program, which is I think what Group 5 policies are, it's an encouragement. There's this better incentive-based progranl, you ought to utilize that. However, that only makes sense to the extent that the program is beneficial, that incentives are fair and balanced and equal to all of the landowners. If that balance ever gets distorted to the point where it doesn't make sense for the landowner, I would argue let's take out Group 5 policies, because I'm not going to participate in the program if you make it so cumbersome or unbalanced that it unfairly impacts a single landowner or a group of landoVvl1ers. So I would argue that I think the intent of the Group 5 policies is to say we do have a good program here that achieves these objectives. We need to make sure that that balance is fair to the landowners and achieves the goals that we're looking at. Then this is a reasonable effort to encourage people to utilize the programs. Two other quick comments. One is regarding the protected species. I would agree, I think let's remove that language from protected species. Because you could be opening yourself up to a long list of things that were never anticipated. There's a federal process, a regulatory process. Ifwe need to mention specific species, let's do it, but l think let's narrow that focus. One other thing that I want to talk about was there have been a couple references to the least-cost pathway of the panther corridors. My understanding -- and again, I'm not a panther expert, but my understanding of those corridors was that it's really a mathematical calculation of where is the easiest way to make the dots connect. That is not the designation on a map of "this is the corridor." And so I think that there's been some discussion as treating those as that is the recommended corridor. If you look at that map, the location that it hits our property essentially bisects our productive grove and our source of operations. I am here to tell you that as a representative of a landowner, I would never suggest to my company we're going to do a panther corridor in that location. It has a significant adverse impact on the operations of our agricultural use of that property. However, one of the very first things, and you might remember when we started having the conversation about is there a better way to do this, the tirst thing that I said is we are on board to look at is there a better way to achieve the ultimate goal of protecting panther habitat of creating these corridors and to do it in a manner that is beneficial and meaningful to a landowner. And I'll submit, while there mayor may not be modifications that you want to make to the corridors that were proposed, they were at least done with the input of the property owners who understand their land and say here's a better way that we could achieve your goals without destroying our economic opportunities on the property. So again, I would encourage you not to look at that least-cost pathway as the solution, because it was a connect the dots. And I think the COlTidors that you have seen, and maybe there's opportunities to improve that, they at least represent an alternative alignment that the landowners have had an opportunity to provide input in. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Paul? Hold a second, Mitch. Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sorry. When you talk about that you wouldn't want to do with anything that would unbalance the program, could you be more specific? What should we avoid doing that would unbalance the program? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Well, obviously the credit and the credit ratios, sending and receiving, that's Page 26 161 116 . ( February 20, 2009 a critical balance. And I think you've heard from Russell, and I appreciate his position. I'm kind of on the same coin, the opposite face, is that I have all receiving land and very little sending land. Well, if you tilt the program so it clearly benefits the receiving land property, Russell doesn't wind up -- it doesn't make sense for him, he's not going to participate in the program and the program fails. Conversely, if you tilt the program so much that it's focused solely on the sending lands and it devalues the receiving lands, I'm not going to participate. And so that balance has to be maintained where it's meaningful to both the sending and the receiving areas. So that credit calculation and how do you generate and does it balance is an important calculation. And so the ratios and the values ofthose credits is very, very meaningful. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I really appreciate you're saying that. It's n I agree with you 100 percent, it has to work. And there has to be a balance. It has to be advantageous to the one who's sending most of his credits, or selling or whatever you want to say, equally to the one who's going to be putting the towns and villages on his land, it has to balance out. Do you think that the proportions that we have now are pretty close to the right ones? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I think the landowners had a significant amount of negotiations in putting these together -- putting this balance together. And it's a balance that I don't think any of the landowners would stand up and say I love this. But I think it is a balance that the landowners will stand up and say it's workable, that I don't get everything that I want, but it's a program that I think that I could participate in. And if any of us stand at the -- you know, in this program to say if I don't get 100 percent we'll never get a program. And I think all of the landowners at least made -- and the environmental groups made a conscious effort to say let's keep our focus on doing the right thing and doing it in a manner that benefits the landowners so that they can participate. And I'll tell you, I think that's as close as we've come so far as what's included in the recommendation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Does it seem fair to you the way it is now? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Within the constraints of the program, r think it's a workable solution. And again, I think if you talked with any of us, we would say gosh, I'd rather have it this way or I'd rather have it that way. But I think it is at least a balanced approach. I think that it does do the overarching goals which are protection of agricultural, removing development for the area of critical state concerns, protecting of the significant natural resources, focusing development to the areas that are open space. And doing it in a manner that removes development oppOliunities from the one to five. Those are all the primary objectives of the program. And I think that this program does that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you think it's fair to the nonparticipating landowners the way it's set up? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I think the answer is yes, that the nonparticipating landowners, they are still going to have the opportunity to generate credits and to participate or to do development under the Group 5 policies. So there has not been a removal of any rights which is critical to the success of the program. I wouldn't tell you that hey, I'm going to absolutely develop all of my properties in the Rural Land Stewardship program. I might not develop any of them. But I think the opportunity to know that I'm coming out of this with my baseline development is critical, particularly for the folks that may not participate. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You're up around 850 near the CREW lands? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the way it looks now, do you think that probably most of your land will either be receiving land or farms -- the farming credits or else receiving? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I -- just to clarify, our property is probably a little bit further east of the 850. Page 27 .~,._- - . .-- 161 iff) February 20, 2009 We're on State Road 82 and we abut on the east side, Lamb Road, or Little League Road. So that's our property . I would love to tell you that we're going to be agriculture, but in order to be agriculture it's got to be economically viable. I think that one of the corridors that has been identified, for us that's a recognition of maybe there's a corridor and then maybe there's an opportunity for us to augment that width by doing the agricultural credits. So that's one of the things that we were thinking that may address some of the width issues that you've talked about. I think that that is an area that because it's open lands, virtually no wetlands, frontage on the roadways, it probably is appropriate for development at some point. And I think that there will also be some agricultural component associated. I don't have a crystal ball and I can't tell you what that percentage is or when it's going to happen, but I can tell you that right now our company is actively farming that and we'd like to do that as long as possible. And that's one of the other issues, is we want to make sure that we're in a position that this program is fair so that if we stay in agriculture longer, that we have the same access and opportunity to utilize the program as other folks that might use it faster. There shouldn't be a disincentive to folks that stay in agriculture longer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And do you think that this promotes agriculture? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: 1 think that the inclusion of the agricultural preservation credits is a critical component. And without that -- I had significant concerns, and I think the other landowners will tell you, that was one of the areas where I was very strong, because I think that we need to do a better job of addressing the protection of agricultural land. And I think that the inclusion of that provision was a significant step forward. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mitch. Let's take a break and come back at five minutes till 3:00, and that will give us plenty of time to relax a bit. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. If you could come back and take your seats, we'll resume the meeting. High, Bill. MR. McDANIEL: How are you doing, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, you're like the Rock of Gibraltar, you're always there. MR. McDANIEL: Some would call it that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We left off going through and finishing with Policy 5.5 and public speakers in regards to that policy, and we're now moving into Policy 5.6, which starts on Page 65 and actually takes us over a couple pages and it ends on Page 67 with two final policies. Why don't we work our way through 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 all at one time, and then we'll go from there with public speakers. So starting on Page 65, are there any questions from the Planning Commission? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Actually, just a short comment going back to what we were talking about before the break and that was about the nonparticipating landowners. And I think it's significant that in all this time we've been talking about this, none of them has come Page 28 161 146 February 20, 2009 in to voice any objections to it. And they've had certainly plenty of opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think they're all here, though, Paul. I mean -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: May I add, and the last year and three months, we've not heard from them either. I didn't know they existed. I mean, honestly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. I mean, if the program's going along fine, that's great. We just need to --like I had mentioned earlier, part of the objective is to make sure everything is as clear as possible, and the intentions here are as clear as they can be, and that's what we need to do. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I agree with you too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any questions on Page 65 or 66 or 677 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question on ii. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 66. It's wetlands and contiguous upland buffers. Isn't a buffer kind of a manmade created thing, or is -- I mean, I'm not sure the word buffer's a good idea. MR. McDANIEL: At the committee level when we had this discussion, there were buffering language additions in the initial or in the original overlay that were add-ons or weren't necessarily described in the original Rural Land Stewardship Overlay buffer. Buffers were brought in either as manmade-- they're not structures, if you will, but areas or other contiguous uplands that were -- that could be construed and utilized as habitat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you like the word buffer? In other words -- MR. McDANIEL: We're okay with that, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's a designation that somebody would make in a piece of land and -- MR. McDANIEL: Correct. And there is language in there when you create a butTer, utilizing those contiguous lands that could be utilized by those species. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. I have a 67 question, Mark, can we go to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's just finish up and go through the rest ofthese policies. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, it would be IV. First of all, if those lands is in there twice. MR. McDANIEL: Fix that, Tom? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's not in Tom's scrivener list. Is it an acre-to-acre swap, or how would that be worked out? It's a mitigation method. MR. McDANIEL: It is a mitigation method. And I think we left that open. I remember Nancy Payton was the emphasis behind that language. And because again, we're looking to establish parameters for property owners that are not necessarily participate -- that are not participating in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay and that we -- there was no language in here that talked specifically about exotic removal. And we want to ensure that that's accomplished if someone does try to develop and not participate in the overlay. The actual acreage swap really wasn't a discussion at the committee level. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm done, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Help me with my ignorance, please. Buffers. Is it also possible that out there where tire potential is great that they also eliminate vegetation and consider that a buffer as well? Page 29 cO,,_ . . II " 161 1 ff:; February 20, 2009 MR. McDANIEL: Only from an exotic removal standpoint. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. No, I'm talking about in practical tenns. Because I know in California and other places they refer to it as buffers. And was any consideration given to that? Is there any -- are there any areas out there where they strike or remove vegetation in an effort to minimize fire? MR. McDANIEL: I'm sure in the best management practices of the landowners that are out there and their fence protection and any particular structures they might have that would be in proximity to a wildfire that they do their own buffcring in order to protect their own interest. I know the farmers that I have had the opportunity of being on their land, I mean, they regularly clear fence lines and so on and so forth just to reduce that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I guess what I was trying to introduce, even subtly perhaps, would be that there may very well come a time when we consider buffer the absence of a berm and the absence of vegetation and be reasonable in a rural land. MR. McDANIEL: Sure. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. anybody else? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On Page 67, III, I guess, and IV, where it's talking about continuing exotic plant maintenance, is that quantified anywhere. such and such percentage of exotics permitted? Because you're never going to get 100 percent exotics removal. What's the cut-off point? MR. McDANIEL: That's the irony of the exotic removal program. And when property owners -- I mean. you know, the cardinals love those pepper bush seeds. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Everybody. The robins, the bears, everybody likes them. MR. McDANIEL: Sure. And I believe that those exotic removal maintenance programs are addressed in the LDC aspect when you're developing an SSA. And outside it is -- then would -- of course these regula -- or these policies are suggested practices for development outside of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program, so I believe those maintenance programs are discussed at length in the LDC. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you think that there is some sort of a percentage of exotics that's permittcd? MR. PRIDDY: Yeah, any of the management plans I think state five percent or less. It's a percentage and it's a low -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So it is in there. Okay. MR. PRIDDY: It's in there. And anyone who has to go through the county and have a management plan written, that's the language. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley. did you-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry, I was just -- during the process of the RLSA, I kept trying to figure out -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull your mic. a little closer to you, if you could. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How could the property owners afford to continue to maintain these things? And that's why I couldn't understand with as little as these things can be sold for. And that's why I was concerned about the dilution of the credits. In other words, adding more credits, because then there (sic) would be less expcnsive. thus they can't afford to maintain it. And then we got into that whole we'll walk away from the property routine. That's always been my concern, that it is very expensive to continually perpctually maintain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That it is. Anybody else have any comments on thc last three pages, 65. 66 -- Page 30 .. ; 1 1 ~etruJ2~oo9 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think it's just a scrivener. Policy 5. -- should that be RLSA, rather than just RLS? That's all. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Rural land stewardship. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you start-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Donna. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just -- since we're talking about 5.7. This is -- 5.7 is that dark skies paragraph. And it says, any development on lands not participating in the RLSA program. Does it say somewhere in the RLSA program that you will -- MR. McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- adhere to dark skies? All right. Can you tell me where that -- MR. McDANIEL: Group 4 policies, I believe. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's Group 4, thank you. That's all I need to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we need to read it then, because I didn't pick up on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I didn't see it. MR. McDANIEL: Somebody will help us. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't remember us talking about it. MR. McDANIEL: I know we talked about making sure that it was in both and addressed in both. I'm pretty sure it's in the Group 4 policies. COMMISSIONER CARON: Where? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't -- myself, I didn't find it. And ifit, we'd sure like -- I'd like to know where it is so that we're comfortable in that regard. MR. McDANIEL: Our research advocate next to me here is hastily looking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the abstract writer? COMMISSIONER CARON: You're too kind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to pay for that, huh? Well, I'll tell you what, if your researcher can continue to look for it while we move forward, that would be helpful. MR. McDANIEL: That will be fine. We'll-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I couldn't find it. It was pointed -- that's a good point. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm telling you, I mean, I looked and I don't remember us discussing it. I looked and couldn't find it, so -- MR. McDANIEL: If we can't lay-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- you're going to have to point it out specifically. MR. McDANIEL: -- our hands on it, I know that we had discussion when it was brought in for the Group 5 policies that it was something that should be added into the Group 4 pol -- because you're predominantly talking about development with respect to the lighting issues, and that's why I believe it should be included in the Group 4's. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All I can think about in that lighting is when we talked about -- and I can't remember the name of the -- Page 31 '-.'--- ",,,'~'''-'C~'''''_'_'_^~'' -.""'_'__,'" .-_ --- / 16l 1 i\0 February 20,2009 MS. NEMECEK: The lady came and spoke. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- gravcl pit or whatever. The concern was about the lighting and nearby homes, and then also the wildlife around it. And it's right up north of Orangetree there, what was the name of that thing? But outdoor lighting came in. They were not participating in the RLSA program. And just -- I'm wondering if you can remember anything about that, because that's exactly what we're talking about here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I think what we could probably suggest is Policy 5.7, ifit isn't in the other policies, we may want to find a way to put it in. But also, I don't think the policy's written clearly enough to indicate that we're going to utilize any of the dark sky recommendations that you can find on darksky.org. So as we get to Policy 5.7 and we consider language to rcwrite, we may want to put some stronger references in there to the actual language that we could implement. And I was going to suggest that when I got to my part of discussion on 5.7. so -- but Ms. Caron, that's a good catch. I had made the same note, but if you guys can find it and if your intention was to include it there, then that ought to be simple to get it done. Now it's just a matter of clarifying it to make surc it gets there. MR. McDANIEL: I know we talked about making sure that it was there. It was a relevant subject and talked about at lenhrth at the committee level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly. And that development did not necessarily mean homes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your discussion was referencing not just the language that's here, but the tenn dark sky. You guys had actually focused on that a little bit to talk about it? MR. McDANIEL: It was brought up in, you know, the web page for the darkskies.org and such locale. But there wasn't any real specific reference to that as far as what we put in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, between now and the time the Planning Commission finishes with this, I can pull down some of those references and bring them to one of -- the next meeting and we can kick something around and see how we might implement or discuss about suggesting the implementation of these. Anything else on Pages 65, 66 and 67'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, I'll go back to 65. and we might as well start from the first sentence. Always go back to the beginning, Bill. I know this isn't changed language, but obviously we're supposed to be looking at everything. The second line says direct non-agricultural lands uses away from high-functioning wetlands. This is in Policy 5.6. MR. McDANIEL: I'm reading it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is high-functioning wetlands? How is it defined? How do we know that -- how would someone know they've got high-functioning wetlands next to them? What tells them that? I saw no definition for that. And if we're correcting things, maybe we want to look at saying something -- wetlands with an indicy (sic) above 1.2 or something like that? Has anybody considered that? Brad, I mean, I know that's probably more of an environmental issue. MR. CORNELL: Where are you'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Policy 5.6, Page 65, the second line. It's referring to high-functioning wetlands. And I didn't find anything telling me what a high-functioning wetland was. So Page 32 161 1~ February 20, 2009 I'm wondering, how would it mean anything, that whole sentence, which basically sets the premise of the policy. MR. CORNELL: Agree. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think it's in 3.A.I. It talks about a functionality assessment score of 0.65. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Paul, what page are you on? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 65. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 65. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The last paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Talks about the criteria for what is a high-functioning wetland. And then it goes on to the next page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then after the words high-functioning wetlands in the second line, could we -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- make a note, as referenced in this policy? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. MR. McDANIEL: You can make a recommendation for anything, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I could, but I'd rather know everybody was in somewhat of an agreement with it. MR. McDANIEL: Well, it kind of sort of stands to reason to me to read the balance of the policy and it would flow. But if it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, maybe it will. I didn't catch it, I'm sorry, but that's one I didn't see. Thank you, Paul. COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Do we know that that score is actually for high-functioning wetlands? It just says wetlands. So, you know, I don't know whether-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's -- the UMAM score is the more valuable it is, the better the score, if I'm not mistaken. I think that's how they would look at it. That's a South Florida Water Management process. MR. McDANIEL: And that is Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. That's UMAM. I wasn't saying you, ma'am, I was saying acronym. MR. McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if we move on in that same beginning paragraph, a direct impact is hereby defined as a dredging or filling of wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. So if they change the hydroperiod of a wetland, that's going to be considered a direct impact, and that's what you're supposed to be limiting. MR. McDANIEL: That's correct. And if you'll -- again, reading further on down there, and I recall a conversation -- and Tom's not here right now. We're dealing with history in relationship to the Can1p Keais Strand and the OK Slough. And those were high priorities of protection at the implementation of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. V oluntary land actions were done to enhance hydroperiods, and enhance or reduce the negative impacts of any kind of development in and around those particular designated flow ways. And that was where this language -- on the outset that one of the smaller landowners that wasn't actually being Page 33 . 'llI '" .~_... Il'llU "ill .... ...,".~,-"---- 16 1 1 f8 February 20, 2009 participatory in the development of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program didn't have a direct impact on those particular areas. And more specifically on any high-functioning wetlands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And WRA's have different levels ofindiccs assigned to them, so that would establish whether they're higher functioning or lower functioning, right? MR. McDANIEL: I would assume that, yes. Makcs sense that that would be the case. They all function a little differently. MR. CORNELL: They're evaluated the same. Cl-IAIRMAN STRAIN: But you can have a higher indices, you have a stronger -- higher indicy (sic) for a WRA if it has native, more natural occurring conditions. than if it isn't; isn't that correct? MR. CORNELL: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I was getting at. So your indicy then would be higher. That would afford it more protection. MR. CORNELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 66, ii, thc underlincd language was added but after that the word utilized. So far we've used three words in regards to how we judge what listed pieces are. We've used utilized, observed and contained, or containing. I would think to the benefit of cverybody wc need to standardize the reference. Is there one reference that works best that you guys would have thought of or do you think that the ambiguity of three different words helps? MR. CORNELL: I thought that we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a loaded question? MR. McDANIEL: It sure as heck is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just thinking if we could standardize them all so it's either all observcd or all contained or all utilized, it makes it clear tor anybody reading these languages -- or this language. MR. CORNELL: I thought we deleted contained and we were only talking about observed or utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we're down to two. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would not want observed. I mean, you could see something flying overhead. That doesn't mean that it's there. Utilized would be better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with it. I'm just trying to say let's standardize the language so we avoid less confusion when people come in to do things in the future. MR. McDANIEL: That's a fine suggestion. MR. CORNELL: Utilize sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. McDANIEL: And that's a fine suggestion. Standardization is the suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 67 -- the using exotics for mitigation, ifl'm not mistaken that's now not allowed in our Land Devclopment Code. Because it's required by code to remove your exotics. So if it's already required, why would it be mitigation? Do you know why it was inserted here? I mean, I understand, I heard the discussion earlier, but did anybody consider that the code already addressed the exotic removal as a requirement in order to get a CO, for example? MR. McDANIEL: No, sir. We -- this was an added language, I think by reference -- Tom or somebody might could look. I believe that this came from the National Wildlife Federation, was it not? MR. CORNELL: (Shakes head negatively.) CI-IAIRMAN STRAIN: And they honestly -- I think they said earlier they weren't aware of all our Page 34 . , 161 lK7 . ; February 20, 2009 codes that implemented this text. So maybe they're inserting it, I think, and we didn't already have it protected. But I'm just wondering, if we do, does it need to be here? I'll pull out the code section of the LDC between now and our next meeting and try to find how strong that reference is and then suggest it at the next meeting. Has your researcher found that dark skies? No? Under four, you have some new text that was added. All landowners -- and I'll read real slow, Cherie' -- shall be encouraged to consider participating in any programs that provide incentives, funding our other assistance in facilitating wetland, habitat restoration on private lands, including but not limited to. Then you listed a series of things, but you didn't list the RLSA. Wouldn't we want to list the stewardship credit program that this whole policy is about? MR. CORNELL: This isn't people who aren't participating in RLSA. MR. McDANIEL: And that was where that discussion came from. You have to be careful, because she can't get you while you're talking. Again, that is -- these entire policies revolve around folks who are opting out of participating in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they would opt out of that program, but they may buy into one of these other programs. MR. McDANIEL: We would hope that they would. And to list a few but not limit to that list, just list a few of those, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 5.7 is the dark sky policy. And I think we need to rework that in regards to making sure it's covered in the first groups like we talked about. And understand that see, there's nothing in here referencing dark sky, it just says outdoor lighting shall be reasonably managed. Well, that's not definitive at all. Reasonably managed in the eyes of one person could be totally different by another. MR. McDANIEL: Well, at the committee level we decided to -- we didn't have enough time at that juncture to actually review the -- all of the language that revolves around the dark skies processes. But acknowledging that there was no real lighting restriction within the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay developed that policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think if we can come up with some suggestions by the next meeting, that maybe there's a way to make it a little stronger. And that's probably where we'll go with it. Okay, that's the end of the policies. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we get into the appendices -- Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sorry. I want to go back. Rereading this, it suddenly doesn't make sense to me. On Page 67, Roman numeral IV. Are they talking about that if you remove the exotics from your land, that mitigates for the loss of wetlands in that land, or is it the loss of wetlands somewhere else that if you remove the exotics from this piece ofland it mitigates for losing wetlands somewhere else? What does that sentence mean? MR. McDANIEL: The way that I interpret that sentence, Paul, it means that it may be considered as acceptable mitigation for loss of wetlands. It doesn't really say whether it's on that land or whether it's somewhere else. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, that's unacceptable. I mean, it doesn't mean anything then. Unless it can be better defined, it's like superfluous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other thing, though, Paul, is when you do mitigation you don't have to do it for the property that you're on. The panther mitigation -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. Page 35 ,w____ Il'nr..IW.....,,""'_,_,..,_.. . 161 1~ February 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- credits are sold. So I think they're trying to get to that. But the word may is kind of puzzling, because who decides if that is worth mitigation or not? And for what mitigation is it of value if the may is there? And it can't be shalL because you don't know if there's going to be enough exotics to warrant mitigation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So it could be I have some exotics on my property and I remove five acres of exotics. That means that I could develop five acres -- fill in five acres of wetlands somewhere else? MR. McDANIEL: No. That's a far too -- and this is not the all-encompassing development regulation for lands outside of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. There arc a myriad of agencies that arc going to have a participation in the devclopment ofland outside the guise of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay, Paul. And that -- but there was -- there was a suggestion somewhere along the line that that may be considered acceptable at that level by whatever review agency, whether it's the county, the state, the feds, for loss of wetlands. And my perception, again, you're dealing with -- some will say I have selective memory issues, but I recall it had to do with the site specific, the lands that you owned yourself. It didn't give you the right to trot off somewhere else and destroy wetlands. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right. WelL what about this? Supposing I had five acres ofland and it was dominated by Brazilian pepper. If I got rid of the Brazilian pepper, would that give me the right to fill in that wetland? That's the way it sounds like it reads. If you're not talking about some other land, then you're talking about that piece of land. MR. McDANIEL: But I think you're taking it out of context. And again, I'm not -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm just trying to figure out what it means. MR. McDANIEL: Well, it may be considered as acceptable mitigation for loss of wetlands or listed species habitat. May be considered. Doesn't give you the right. You're not bequeathed that right because you have agreed to -- if you come in with a management plan and you're outside of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay and its policies for developments, if you come in with a management plan and your suggestion is that you are going to remove these exotics off your property and for that you wish to fill in this wetland, whatever agency you're actually making that application to will be the one that will ultimately make that determination as to whether that's a viable consideration or not. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: WelL then why is it in here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. that doesn't make any sense. MR. McDANIEL: It was not part of -- it was something that we felt was not part of the originally adopted Rural Land Stewardship Overlay as it was adopted originally. And we felt that this was a way to address an exotic removal program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at the prior Roman numeral III. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was going to say. it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- really a subsection of three, almost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you read the prior Roman numeral, it talks about the preservation and the mitigation. And then oncc you do the exotic removal and the continuing exotic plant maintenance for perpetual management activities, somehow four and three ought to tie together. And I think that's where the disconnect may be. Because if you read -- and as Paul's pointed out on number four, the first line you talk about acceptable mitigation for loss of wetlands or listed species habitats if those lands now are placed under perpetual conservation easement. Page 36 161 1~ February 20, 2009 Are you referring to those lands that you have the loss of wetlands or listed species habitat, or are you referring to those lands that you cleared the exotic removal for maintenance? I think the language could be better, and that may be where the confusion lies, Bill. Paul, we can take a stab at it by the next meeting. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, the way it is to me is totally useless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to have a suggestion when we end up here today about how to approach the next meeting, and that will certainly fall into the suggestion I was going to make. Are there any other questions on Policies 5.6, 5.7 or 5.8 from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any members ofthe public want to speak on those policies? MR. McDANIEL: Just as a further point, it was just pointed out to me, over on Page 66, number F -- or letter F talks about mitigation. And the goal there is to end up with no net loss of wetlands. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right, I agree with that, but it still is not clear. Yes, there is such a thing as mitigation, but does that mean that removing the exotics from that piece of wetland gives you rights to develop that wetland? You're saying no. Does it give you rights to develop some wetlands somewhere else? You're saying no to that too. So I'm not sure what it does give you the right to do. MR. McDANIEL: And I think you have to look at the entire subsection there, E all the way down through, that talks about that as far as what you ultimately end up with. I mean, the entire discussion revolves around no net loss of wetlands. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, could you give me an example? Supposing I remove-- MR. McDANIEL: No. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You can't? MR. McDANIEL: No. I can't. I don't want to. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right, then let's just stop there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if we'll get any further with this line of discussion, that's why I'm suggesting maybe we can by next meeting suggest some clarifying language, and the committee can either accept it or not, and we'll just go forward. That would be one way to get around it. I don't know if Bill or Brad or anybody could offer any better explanation at this time. With that, is there anything else before we go into -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wanted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- public speakers? David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- to say, if you just look at that F and go just sort of quickly through it. If you read the first mitigation shall be required for blah, blah, and then just go one, two, three, four, and read the conditions under which F means, it says mitigation requirements, colon, one, two, three, four and five. I mean, that's just one follows the other. I'm trying to support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can go on with this, and if you want to, we will. Under four, if you stop after the word mitigation and you put a period, then you're probably better off, because that is what you're trying to say is a form of acceptable mitigation. That exotic removal or maintenance may be considered an acceptable form of mitigation, period. You don't have to be redundant in the balance of the sentence to resay what you said in number F that starts the whole course of discussion. MR. McDANIEL: And it does start a whole course of discussion. And I guess I'm sitting here chewing on your thought process. If you were -- there could be a methodology, because we're talking about exotic removal management plans, best management plans for landowners outside of the Rural Land Page 37 . .""'.. i'__~._ "".....~.."'__Il.III.11 16 J IN? t February 20, 2009 Stewardship Overlay. In the entire management program in the mitigation or the removal of those exotics, Paul, there could be construction of wetlands or creation of a wetland in another area that would ultimately result in the end want, which is no net loss. Just because it doesn't say no loss at all, it's a no net loss. So this -- I'm trying to -- again, I'm just trying to come up with an example that might ratify -- and it certainly could be worded a little differently to help clarify it. And if you could come up with that language, we'd certainly have a -- the board will have a look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if F sets the framework for what you can do to obtain mitigation, and i, double, triple, four and five are all those things you can do to obtain mitigation, then all we need to do is -- and I don't agree with this. I'm just saying to clear up the language four would just be -- if you want to mitigate then you're saying exotic removal or maintenance may be considered as acceptable mitigation, period. You don't need to restate why it is, because you did that in F. But now we need to elevate a way why that might be. MR. McDANIEL: It ultimately drives back around to the front end definition of what a direct impact is defined as. And that's way back up at the beginning of 5.6. And when you are having a direct impact on those hydroperiods, that could have an impact on the wetland, or the availability of wetlands on the site. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. if you would clean it up. it would help me out a lot. Because I'm befuddled right now. MR. McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By next meeting we'll try to have something that works better. Is there any other questions before we go to public speakers? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just back to that. I'm thinking do you also need to read the end of that sentence. And I think while you may be able to use this exotic removal as mitigation, you can only do that if you're placing it under a conservation easement. So you can't forget the end of the sentence, whether you like it or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. ironically, if you were to take the end of the sentence and put it in the front of it, you basically are saying the same thing 1lI does but in reverse. Roman 1II says you can protect it by preservation, but after the initial exotic plant removal and continued exotic plant maintenance, and by the perpetual maintenance activities, which is repetitive. So I'm not sure -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's why we said we were going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's confusing -- right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in both paragraphs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So anyway, Bill, I think we can leave it at that and we'll just move on. We know what to do for next Thursday. And public speakers, if everybody's okay with that. Nicole? MS. RYAN: My first comment is to Policy 5.7 and the dark skies initiative. I also cannot find any reference in the Group 4 policies, though I know that's something that we had requested. In the language in 5.7, it doesn't get to true dark skies initiative. something that you could find a set of standards on the International Dark Skies Association web page. This language simply states, outdoor lighting shall be reasonably managed. Who determines reasonably managed and what set of standards apply to that? The Conservancy would like to see perhaps some sort of dark skies ordinance that would be passed Page 38 \ 161 1 f\'7 February 20, 2009 and would be applicable to SRA's if a different ordinance or maybe the same ordinance to be applicable to development that is not going to participate in the RLSA but have a standard set of guidelines, especially because we're talking about development that is going to start from a blank slate from the ground up. You have the opportunity to put in place the lighting fixtures for residential lighting, outdoor lighting that are truly going to provide that dark skies intent. And another component would also be some sort of acknowledgment that with an expanded road network to get people from SRA to SRA, you're going to need a lot of lighting along the road network, and could there be standards in place for road lighting within the eastern lands that would provide safety but also provide for decreasing the globe. So we would like to see not only in the Group 5, but I think especially in the Group 4 some sort of acknowledgment that within a year of GMP adoption the county will implement a dark skies ordinance that will have specific guidelines. And also in your discussion under the little four right above, it looks as if subsection F is dealing with mitigation for wetland function loss. But in number four, it ties in exotics removal or maintenance being considered acceptable mitigation, not only for wetlands but also listed species habitat. That kind of ties in a completely different component. And I hadn't caught that before, but I just noticed that, and I'm not sure how that listed species habitat ties into what you're trying to do with mitigating for wetland function. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just a comment. Your thought about the dark sky ordinance for the county, that might be something positive to work forward on, but I think for this committee's deliberations, we'll focus on just the RLSA at this point, just -- MS. RYAN: Oh, yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to keep it simple. MS. RYAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So thank you. MR. PRIDDY: Russell Priddy. And I think it would be extremely unfair to focus just on RLSA. I think we need to focus on the Estates, I think we need to focus on all the roadways and take into effect public safety and welfare with lighting. Mr. Chairman, earlier you were suggesting language that wasn't specific to one thing but was inclusive of everyone, and I think this should be treated the same way. I'm not opposed to that idea, but let's do it county-wide, let's do it with an ordinance, let's don't discriminate. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you, Russell. But the point is we're here today about this. And if this wanted to hold until the other opportunities were completed, I'd have no problem with that. Thank you. Anybody else have any comments? Elizabeth? MS. FLEMING: Elizabeth Fleming, Defenders of Wildlife. I know Nancy Payton of Florida Wildlife Federation was also interested in seeing something implemented, at least in the Rural Land Stewardship area, and so is Defenders. And from our perspective, not trying to be unfair to any geographic area or anything, but we've got the Florida Panther Refuge, we have the CREW area, we have of course the Strand, OK Slough. We're trying to keep these areas as good functioning habitat for wildlife, and obviously light at night is not part of the natural situation out there at this time. So that was our goal in seeing some kind of a dark skies initiative implemented into the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And while you're up there, there's a couple things that you might do to Page 39 ","- ~ ..'" lor... ~I -_""""1i'1II.'.- ,~ 'It -II "'__,__",__ JJI . U '" to. --- 16 I lkS \ - February 20, 2009 help us out. By next Thursday we need to have an idea where we're going to go with this. And I was going to propose to the Planning Commission before we ended today that based on the notes that we've taken, I was going to put together a summary list for us to discuss in our deliberations. If someone over the weekend, whether it be you and Nicole and Nancy, whoever, Brad, those involved in the environmental sector. there's two things that have come up that pertain to you guys. One is those species in addition to the listed species that should be considered if we strike the word protected. And I know the Bald Eagle and the Peregrin Falcon have been mentioned. If there are any specifics like that, it would be helpful to know them. And if you could e-mail them to me at markstrain@colliergov.net, that would be very helpful. And then the second thing. If there are some particular initiatives in the dark sky policies that are more helpful to make sure that they're included as suggestions, this committee can review those. And I think it would be helpful if you got those over the weekend, and then by next Thursday I can compile everything for the Planning Commission's consideration during their deliberations next week. So thank you. MS. FLEMING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell. I just wanted to make a note about this dark skies policy. There's another aspect to this policy that may not be real clear, but it talks about compatibility with surrounding land uses. That isn't necessarily just dark skies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CORNELL: That encompassed a number of other issues, like burning, like agricultural operation, like all those kinds of things that we were trying to incorporate into this policy. This was -- so in our effort to better describe the dark skies desire. we don't want to leave that out either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL those words shall be compatible, I circled those and had the words next to it, how does this fit? And I didn't ask the question because I figured I'd do some more research between now and then. But, you know, compatibility has been an issue at almost every deliberation we have at the Planning Commission meeting. There doesn't seem to be a solid definition of what is and -- when things are or not compatible. It becomes more of an ambiguous term than a defining tenn. I don't know how to get away from that. but I thought I'd mention that, because I don't know how you can prove something isn't compatible by what we hear constantly on the Planning Commission how everything is compatible. It makes it real hard to figure -- to sort out what is and what is not. I don't know if we have any definitive terms for it, so -- MR. CORNELL: I don't disagree, but I think there is some reasonable judgment that can be applied and say that's not compatible or that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, now the word reasonable. What you may consider reasonable may not be what everybody else does. So anyway, it's -- MR. CORNELL: I'm not in your chair, though, so you get to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I don't get -- George gets to say. COMMISSIONER CARON: George wants to go to reasonable. MR. VARNADOE: Point me the czar of reasonableness, because I think I am. But having said that, and not gotten a second, I would like to say let's be careful how much detail we get into in this Grovv1h Management Plan. as opposed to the LDC implementing aspects. Because I remember when the committee was discussing this, they started talking about how much detail we want to get into. And they were -- I think the reason they used that reasonable approach was thinking that when you Page 40 161 1~ February 20, 2009 get into the LDC, that can be fleshed out. But things put in this Growth Management Plan, if we want to change them in the future we're going to be going through another two-year process to change them. So Mr. Strain, I don't have any problem with some ofthese dark sky concepts, but let's do it where it's going to be implemented in the LDC and not get too specific in our Growth Management Plan. That's all I would request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's a good point. And what I was hoping the committee could do is see some of the examples, and then maybe find a way to reference the dark sky material, but not necessarily encompass all of it that wouldn't fit in our area. MR. V ARNADOE: And I know in the SRA that we -- one SRA that has been done, we concentrated more of the dark skies as we got to the periphery of the development, not in the town center itself. Because, you know, you start intense, then you get back to more of a rural setting as you get to the further reaches of the project. And so I think that we can encompass that, but let's just be careful we don't get too specific in our Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Yes, Paul? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Way down here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or Bob, I'm sorry. It's hard to see that far. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: In the appendix Page 520 under Item 13, your comments, you said concentrated centers of development will produce a nighttime glow, the luminary, from electric light sources, the impacts of which should be considered on nearby conservation lands such as Corkscrew Sanctuary. That was on April 28, '08. Dark skies program is not new, it's been going on for quite a while, if I understand it. And I think that even within villages, towns, hamlets, the intent is to try to minimize light all around. There's a good body of knowledge about it. So this is not new, and I do believe it belongs in the RLSA, at least to be able to get started on it so that we can think about it in the GMP. I don't know how you feel about that, Mark, but that's my-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's a good point. And I think George's point, too, we need to put a reference in here that's strong enough to give us good implementation language in the LDC. And I think that's the language we probably need to work on between now and Thursday. So thank you. MR. McDANIEL: Only to the extent that, you know, we have other areas of our community that deserve the same considerations with respect to those dark sky policies that aren't really addressed in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and in the Golden Gate Estates area. And I think we as stewards of our entire community can address that at a different level, not just -- I'm not saying we can't impose it or further strengthen the language here, of course, but we really need to take that into context on the entire community level. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If! may, I would just tell you that of the number of successful dark skies programs, they have almost always been not regulated but incorporated by the use themselves. And the communities themselves recognizing -- there was some statistic, and I don't remember the actual number, but just to make a point without absurdity, the rest of the world can see the sky and can see at night. And I remember a statistic that was serious during World War II and the Korean War, the Americans who fought, and even in Vietnam, could not see the enemy, but the enemy could see us. Page 41 _~~ _'\'IIrll:" .. y,. r' 11' 'i "_",-_~"._._.~_",,,.__,_,,~-...,___.,,, "",,- 161 It\S February 20, 2009 And that is directly as a result of excessive lighting. So I think it's something that definitely needs concern. And somebody's got to start it, so I would hope you would do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. with that. we'll move on to -- was that the last public speaker on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Let's move on to the exhibits -- or the appendices. And the first one is on Page 68. It's the RLSA over-map. Does anybody have any comments or questions on that particular map? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I do. And I don't know if we have an overhead. MR. McDANIEL: Lead us to the map. if you would. in our book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 68. MR. McDANIEL: I thought you said 168. Forgive me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm sorry, just Page 68. There's been two changes on this map, and I just want to make sure that everybody understands them. Because one is adding more restoration area and the other is taking it away. I don't know how to point out where those two points are. MR. McDANIEL: Tom has a happy pointer. Or he did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you've got a pointer? Good. MR. McDANIEL: Happy pointer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, now, this is more scientific than I may be able to handle. MR. McDANIEL: She's going to keep moving the map so you can't find the spot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, that's a road right there. The area on the original map had all that white area as a restoration area. I brought -- in the original map I have shows it going straight up and adjoining Corkscrew Road. On your map it has a -- on this new map it has a jagged edge some feet back or who knows how far back, based on this scale from the road. So a lot of that restoration area is lost. Do you know if that was intentional, or by mistake? I have both maps. I mean, if you were to look at the original map, it's there. It's the one I pulled ofTthe GMP section of our website. And down here -- MR. McDANIEL: And just to throw a question at you: Are not the restoration areas a voluntary process in and around the flow way designations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the restoration areas carry with them different points that are all in the policies we just went over. MR. McDANIEL: Maybe the original map designated -- and I'm just -- I don't know. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? MR. McDANIEL: It certainly wasn't a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: As someone who's hiked in those areas, I can tell you that the CREW goes all the way to the roads. That's an excellent point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was taken off the map that -- the new map. And I'm just saying-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's in en'or. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if there wasn't a reason to take it oft: you might want to put it back on the way the map showed it. MR. McDANIEL: Probably somebody could have a look at that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It fronts the road for a period of miles, so there's obviously an error Page 42 161i 1~ February 20, 2009 there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who did the new map? Was it county staff? MR. GREENWOOD: This is a map that's been in use -- and I'm assuming it was done by our mapping department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Tom, by next Thursday could you find out from your mapping department why they changed that area? MR. GREENWOOD: I'll try to find out for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the same thing, if you go way down here, see that area there? On the old map that was shown as open area, that little point going up and down, that one right there. And now it's shown as restoration area. And along those blue edges, there's some added restoration. I've got no problem with it, but I was wondering, why was it done. And I don't know what the landowners in that area think, because now it's another change to the land ownership, and I don't even know who owns that land. But they're going from open area, which was more developable to restoration area, which changes things. MR. GREENWOOD: We'll look at it. I think there are some more detailed maps. This is kind of an overall general map, and it is perhaps misleading from what the detailed maps show, but I'll try to verify that for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the map that's on our web site is a bigger scale, and I was able to use it. The only way these could have been changed is if they were intentionally changed. And so I'm trying to find out what was the intent there. MR. McDANIEL: And that may be -- that was where I was going with it. I mean, wasn't there an SSA that has been developed subsequent to the original map designation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. And I'm trying to find answers, so-- MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, an SSA would not change that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GREENWOOD: Should not. MR. McDANIEL: They-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we had it as open space and now we're making it restoration, that changes the credit structure. And if the white space is the boundary of the RLSA and we have more white space than we have restoration space on the north area, it also again changes the acreage and credit structure, so -- MR. GREENWOOD: I'll try to find out what happened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, did you have something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I was going to say, on any map you want a date of origination. And that would help you -- maybe you could still find the origination date of this map and that would start the process of getting it oriented correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any questions on the map on Page 68? MR. PRIDDY: You could get an answer if you wanted-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russell, come on up. Of course we want answers. MR. PRIDDY: I'll let Allen. I'll send my representative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one is that? Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: I think when staff checks it, you're going to find that the committee didn't make any recommended changes to the map. So I think it's just a matter of the reproduction quality of what you're looking at compared to the original adopted overlay map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a photographer's error. Page 43 -"".- .......-,-. _'lI"f1-.--11illllll -- - - .---- 16 I 1~ February 20, 2009 MR. REYNOLDS: Well, these maps have been photocopied and reproduced to the point where I think you're just losing some of the details off of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: Because my recommendation is the committee did not recommend any changes to the overlay map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if Tom comes back next week and verifies there just needs to be some corrections, we'll have the right map then. That works. MR. McDANIEL: And I'll verify that we didn't recommend any changes to the map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 70, do we have any questions on Page 70? It's the new stewardship credit worksheet. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it's small print. I think we were given blow-up prints of it a while back. That's the old onc, that's not thc new one. That's the new one. If I'm not mistaken, that's going to replace the old one; is that right? MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. WelL there is one-- MR. McDANIEL: Assuming-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one differcnce here that I'm not sure that you all knew. Because it doesn't follow through with all the other documents. You remove one of the layers. You actually remove the recreational layer, or recreational use laycr. Was that intentional? And what happened is the indiccs or the values that were part of that recreational layer now got spread and are changed over some of the other layers. Residential use layer, for example, went from .2 to .4. Earth and mining went from a .2 down to a .1 which disincentivizes people from wanting to do that. And the agricultural group one uses, rightfully so. went from .1 to .2. If you take a typical example of some acreage and you usc the natural resource index on the left side of the page and utilize it with the land use value that you're now proposing, almost in every scenario that I could come up with you actually cnd up with a greater increase in acreage -- or stewardship credits. And I was wondering if anybody had gone through this process. MR. McDANIEL: And we didn't recommend any changes with respect to that, so I'm going to suggest that maybe there's a typo that ended up herc in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, thcrc's a lot ofthcm then. Because you not only dropped the layer, but you changed the values ofthe other layers. So that isn't just a typo, that's more something that had to be known to be done. Why would you drop a layer. then increase the land use values of the other layers? MR. McDANIEL: Tom? Mr. Greenwood? MR. GREENWOOD: I'm not aware of any changes being done with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's walk through it then, because I want you to understand it so that you can come back with an answer. Look at the one you have up there. And let's start with the table up in the right-hand corner that says land use matrix, land use value. COMMISSIONER CARON: Start one sentence above that. It says they recommended changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, what page are we on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 70. MR. GREENWOOD: Pagc 70. Page 44 . , 161 titS February 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you look at Page 69 and you go to the land use layers in the base credits on both tables, the one on Page 69, residential land uses is .2. The one on Page 70, the new one, is .4. If you go down to the earth mining on Page 69, earth mining is .1 and on the new Page 70, earth mining is .2. MR. McDANIEL: Can I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. McDANIEL: The committee did not recommend -- other than the addition of the credits for incentivization of agricultural preservation, we didn't recommend any changes with regard to this. So if I might suggest that we correct the misleading information that's gotten in here somehow for you by next week, then -- because it's been inadvertently done by somebody. It wasn't done by the committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because you dropped a layer. And so you're going to put the layer back in and you're going to reestablish the land use values at the value that was in the old work sheet; is that what I'm hearing? MR. McDANIEL: Exactly. We didn't have -- there was no -- and I certainly would have recalled changing or eliminating those land use designations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it has a -- I'm glad you want to fix it, because it has quite an impact. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: When he does that revision, can we get a large copy next week? MR. McDANIEL: A bigger print? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. So we could see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, would you tell us next Thursday how this occurred, too? Because it would have had to come out of your shop, I would assume. MR. GREENWOOD: I'll try to find out. I was using documents that -- well, in the case of the -- of Page 69, that's a document that's been in place for quite some time. And Page 70 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's what it should have -- so where did you get document Page 70 from? MR. GREENWOOD: Page 70 I received, and correct me ifI'm wrong, I received it from Anita Jenkins with Wilson-Miller. MS. JENKINS: My fault. MR. GREENWOOD: That's my recollection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. McDANIEL: Let her defend herself. MS. JENKINS: Anita Jenkins, with Wilson-Miller. This is simply a typo. Those -- there was no intention of removing recreational uses or change in values at all. It was just an error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, it's a series of -- MS. JENKINS: It was just an error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- weird typos. Okay, so we're going to put it back the way it was. MS. JENKINS: That was the intent of the committee was to keep the layers as they were, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? MR. McDANIEL: With the addition -- this is Bill McDaniel again. With the addition down here in the bottom left of the restoration activity credits and the ago credits. Page 45 "--. -.-.-....--.--, T.. :? 1- '''_,__...._,.._.."",,..~'"'.._.,,_..... ~- ""--.-' 16~ t1f., February , 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Does that mean we're going to get a Page 70 that's going to match 69? MR. McDANIEL: With the new changes that we effectuated, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the changes are for the stewardship credits involving ag., not the issues we just talked about. MR. McDANIEL: And a fine point of clarification right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Restoration. yeah. MR. McDANIEL: These. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The bottom ones are the only ones that should have changed. And the other ones weren't supposed to change. MR. McDANIEL: Everything else should have stayed the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are these in the text somewhere. these ratios. these numbers? Or do they -- they are? Okay. MR. McDANIEL: I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think they are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't remember going over it. And it does point -- it probably would be a good policy to have it written somewhere, in ease somebody does mess the chart up. MR. McDANIEL: They're not written in the policy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't recall them. That's why these charts are important. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, couldn't we then maybe recommend that there be a written version of these layers and the values, and then this chart is just a worksheet, or-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I would agree with that. Either that or you have to put revision dates, dates of issuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem there is there's so many different indices here. If you try to start listing all the natural resources, you might -- it might be problematic to put them in text. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, I'm not suggesting -- if you were directing that to me, I'm not suggesting that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I wasn't. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Murray, could YOll please speak into the microphone. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not suggesting that we change everything immediately, but if we're going to make any recommendations for change, I urge strongly that we initiate, we've said this before, date of creation and revision so that we know we all have the same document. Otherwise, I do believe Brad's statement is correct, you need it in another form. MR. McDANIEL: Well, and if I might add, the worksheet that was originally adopted for the overlay program has functioned rather well for the development of the credit system. And obviously there's some mistakes here that would have gotten caught at some stage of the game, but we didn't recommend changing it other than to the substance for those additions. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: My issue has nothing to do with the detail found in there. My issue has to do with how easily an error can happen and you limit the potential simply by good, how shall we say, stewards of the paper. MR. McDANIEL: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's nothing else on Page 69 or 70-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just say-- Page 46 r 161 1~ . . February 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- one more thing, Mark. I think it's also very difficult. The coloring thing, it sure is pretty, but I can't read half the numbers. So if you could just kill the colors, we don't need that. I mean, I think we're -- we don't need the different colors and everything. Certainly if it's going to be reproduced somewhere. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 71. Any changes, corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only comment on 71 was that if you're going to drop layer four, recreational uses, why didn't you drop it here? But now we understand it wasn't supposed to be, so that's a moot point. MR. McDANIEL: We could have saved you a whole bunch of time if we'd have just done that right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't take much time. Actually, it was very enjoyable reading. Nobody else on 71? Then we move to 72. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on attachment C. The first one I assume is the old attachment, as if we didn't drop the hamlet, so we just skip that and go to the next -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, 72 and 73 are reproductions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. One question is the biggest thing is on the floor area ratio. Why are we really doing that kind of density? And if you are, why is the floor area ratio the same for retail office in a town, in a village and in a compact world? For example, to build something like, let's say, the three, four-story Ave Maria type product with an FAR of .5, you couldn't do. So what is the intent of having floor area ratio is the first question. The second question, if you do have it, why are they all the same? And is that based on some study or just guessing? MR. McDANIEL: Well, it was in the original program. And so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't make -- MR. McDANIEL: And I don't know, somebody may have a specific answer for it. I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. McDANIEL: -- remember at the committee -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The county -- I was on the Planning Commission for the original program. And I remember all these -- and Brad, these issues were asked. The county had hired Wilson-Miller then to do the GMP language. And you guys -- and Anita, I think you were still -- you were involved back then. You all came by with a lot of examples of what town cores should look like, how they should function, how they should be walkable communities, how we should be looking at smart growth and a lot of things. And these numbers came out of that presentation. It was part of the presentation brought back then and a study back then. Now, Brad, I don't have it, but we'd have to go back into the records to find out why those numbers got there is what I think it boils down to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I kind of remember that. And I also remember the hangup we got into on the Ave Maria. I remember -- wasn't Bob Mulhere involved in Ave Maria? Because I can kind of remember -- well, anyway somebody just had to fold. Because first of all, an FAR of .5 is not downtown Ave Maria for retail and office. MS. JENKINS: That's correct. Anita Jenkins again. These FAR's are minimums. And if you look at the entire characteristics, you have such a broad range of area that a town or a village could cover, so you need a range or minimum FAR's so that can be Page 47 -~-~ .~ - . . ....__.".. ......""""'H~_ _._---^._-_.._---_.._,..._-,-~._...._.._._-~ 161 146 February 20, 2009 achievable in a village as a minimum, depending on the acreage, the number of units and the mix of uses there. So these are minimums -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they're labeled maximums. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. they're labeled maximums. MS. JENKINS: -- to go from. These are labeled as maximums. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For example, an FAR -- you know, let's take an office building. Essentially for 300 feet, that's about the size of a parking space. So essentially you're taking a lot, making it one-story half parking, half office. That's not what you want to do. So the point is I don't know why the -- first of all. aren't these things going to come before us as PUD's and stuff'like that where we're going to be working much like Ave Maria? And we actually -- this became an argument somewhere, I recall. I don't know -- obviously I think I recall it with the \VTong person, but we just had to let it go and you're going to do it as per your -- MS. JENKINS: This information in the FAR's were based on the research at the time in 2000. And a lot of this was based on the smart code that had been developed by the congress of new urbanism and the mixed use towns that they had in place at the time. So we have continued to update that. And looking at these FAR's if, Mr. Schiffer, you feel like there's better examples now of TAR's and what they could be. we'd be interested in hearing that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And why -- MS. JENKINS: -- because they were based on the best available information at the time, those standards were. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe get back with that, look at that and then even why have it really. The other question, though, the sccond question, is why would they be the same? Why would a town have the same kind of -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They shouldn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- intensity as a village, as the compact rural? You think that there'd be some dissention in those numbers. Well. actually. I would boost the to\Vl1 up. Maybe .5 may make sense in the last column only. The other thing is I would move transit lodging, which is not an FAR, it's a dcnsity. I would move that up to the residential units. And you know how you have the per acre? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you see what I mean-- MS. JENKINS: Absolutely, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in other words, they don't make sense in FAR. And then in the goods and services line, you're adding words corporate, oftlce, manufacturing, light industrial. Essentially what that prior meant is that you wanted 65 square feet per dwelling unit for community and neighborhood goods and services. Why is -- or if you do want those words in there, maybe you should put them up with the other words so that -- in other words, they're kind of orphaned dO\Vl1 at the end of that sentence. MS. JENKINS: I can say that this was a chart that I wasn't involved in, and I think that that-- MR. GREENWOOD: The underlined is actually already there. And I apologize for that. They probably shouldn't be underlined. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what does it mean then? I mean, because in othcr words, everything makes sense and you get to the DU, dwelling unit, and then these words are there. What are they trying to tell us? Page 48 161 lkS February 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Brad, the fact is that the village was to be compact residential, and you wouldn't be advocating all of that activity in the village. So I don't understand that either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what you're saying is that you have a minimum of -- you want 65 square feet for every dwelling unit in the downtown core, which is obviously a bigger core than the village has, which is 25 and 10. It just -- I mean, if those words -- you want those words in there. Maybe put community or town center with community, comma, neighborhood goods, comma, service, comma, corporate office, comma, manufacture. Because I think your intent is you want those things to be included in the 65 feet. MS. JENKINS: Yeah, that's how I read this. This is just trying to list, you know, in a table form the permitted goods and services that are used. But the 65 square feet applies to the community goods and services and not the corporate office and manufacturing. But those are just uses that are available. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then we were handed out definition of floor area ratio. So the intent would be -- first of all, we got this last time? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is that in here, or is that -- MR. GREENWOOD: It's in the LDC. Those are actually definitions from the LDC, essential services and floor area ratio. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And so we're going to be measuring this from the gross land area, which would -- in the case of the envision I have of how you would plat a subdivided downtown would be individual lots and things, correct? Would it be the gross area of that lot, or is the gross area of that lot to the center line of the street like some definitions? MR. GREENWOOD: The floor area I think is defined as the total building area versus the site on which the building is being constructed. And pretty much as defined there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Anyway, I'm not sure that number's right or that's a good idea. Because remember, it's going -- everything's going to come and stand on its own, and at that time we're going to establish densities and things. And I think I would -- I don't think this is meaningful. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, do we have any other questions on Pages 72 or 73? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? MR. McDANIEL: Sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If! have a town of 1,500 acres and a village of 1,500 acres, what criteria do I fall under? What I'm asking you is a loaded question. I think what we really need to do is say that a village is 100 to 1,499 and less than 1,500, and a town is 1,500 and greater, up to 5,000. Otherwise you have someone in a situation where they're picking between village and town criteria at that split level. MR. McDANIEL: And I think that point of clarification is very valid. I recall some language in the discussion when we changed it to not exceed 1,500 acres, when we raised the acreage of villages up from 1,000 to ] ,500. But it was to not exceed that amount, and certainly not flow over into a confusion between your definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the same thing occurs between the village size minimum and the maximum size compact CRD. So I'll suggest something for that. MR. McDANIEL: In the prior -- of course we had the same issue in the original RLSA, if you go over there. You know, it was -- it did say greater than 100 acres for CRD's. But the same thing, hamlets could be a village and villages could be a town and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, that's what we're supposed to be fixing after five years, so-- Page 49 ~,.>-~. ~ ---un "W ---"~--".'",_.,_., '__"",."",.."._~,<>- . . ~ - 16 t 1-{\0 I February 20,2009 MR. GREENWOOD: And in the Group 4 policies, 4.1. 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, some of that detail can be put in there. If it's not clear, we'll make it clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go to the village column, all the way to the bottom you added county transit access. And I'm just wondeting why we wouldn't want to add that to the CRD's, since the CRD's are actually going to be expanded in their probable uses. Is there a reason that couldn't be done? MR. McDANIEL: I don't see any reason. I don't recall a large deliberation as to why we excluded it from CRD's. So -- and it certainly stands to reason. Other than it being the difference in size. I remember Nick Casalanguida talking about the -- yeah, there was an economic valuation that came into that -- the CRD from a populous standpoint, warranting the traffic stop being there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And why is the county transit access an option? Why wouldn't it be a requirement? Because it doesn't help to have it as an option. No one will use it. And the reason I know it's an option is because anything underlined are not required uses. And I can understand equestrian trails, not everybody may not want to ride a horse, but you certainly need to have county -- the transit there. MR. McDANIEL: And there may be instances -- just to answer your question from an example standpoint, there may not be county transit available. so it has to be an option if it's not provided for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then the option pat1 of it's probably going to have to be defined somewhere, and it's not. Because if it's an option, then the possibility goes to whose option is it. And it may be something needed pursuant to retaining a level of service or other requirements. Last thing, last line underneath the fine print. MR. McDANIEL: I got you. I missed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, if you go up to the discussion that Brad just had under goods and services. And Tom Greenwood, I think you just made a comment that you shouldn't have underlined corporate offices, manufacturing and light industrial. If you take the underlining off, that means every town has to have corporate offices, manufacturing and light industrial. So I don't think you wanted to make it -- I think the intent of the underlining there was to call it as an option, whereas the underlining under the county transit down below was where it was added new -- no, it wasn't added new, it was carried over. Boy, so some of the underlining is new and some of the underlining -- do you see the difference? MR. McDANIEL: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of the underlining elements on the new table are new language, but also underlining represents optional elements that were carried over from the first table. So somehow the table doesn't reflect just what's new by underlining. So I'm not sure how you want to clarify that. but I think it certainly needs to be highlighted or double underlined or something if it's new and single underlined if it's optional. MR. McDANIEL: Yeah, because through the entire process, all our new language has been underlined, so it could be misconstrued that those are all add-ins, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. there are things here that have been added that are underlined, as they should have been, so -- MR. McDANIEL: It should be further designated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go to the double asteric on that page, villages and compact rural developments when (sic) the ACSC subject to location and size limitations, and it says per Policy 4.22. That should be I think Policy 4.21. Because 4.22 doesn't talk about that subject. 4.22 is the one that was newly inserted to talk about historic and cultural resources. It's 4.21 I believe that talks about the sizes that I think you're trying to refer to there. Unless you have an objection. MR. McDANIEL: I have no objection. Certainly it -- I mean, it wasn't the goal to mislead anyone. And I think it was an adaptation over from what we originally had in the reference to that policy of 4.20. And we changed and renumbered Policy -- Page 50 161 1~ February 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you're trying to mislead anybody, Ijust think we need to be corrected. Another one of those typos. MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that takes us through Page 73 and it ends the review of the primary document. Let's go to any further questions from the Planning Commission on those elements before we go to the public speakers. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any members of the public wanting to talk about the tables and charts and the other things we just went over? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I guess we can hit any general questions, any questions about backup material, any questions the Planning Commission may have. And let me kind of outline what I think we can do on Thursday of next week, if it's okay with all of you. We're running out of -- we've only got six days, because today's the 20th. Over the weekend I can go ahead and finalize all of the discussions that we've had in some kind of written format, with suggested language changes, and implement it into in a red text for review the actual policies that we've discussed. I can have that done by Sunday night, I can send it to the county staff Monday morning, and then the staff can distribute it prior to the meeting on the 26th. That way you guys can get a copy of it so when we come to the meeting we can agree that the changes are something we all talked about and wanted or we can strike it or come up with new language, and I think that would expedite our meeting on the 26th. So if that will work for you all, I think that I can get that done over the weekend. On the 26th what I'd like to do -- Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'd just like to clarify for the members, though, please retrain from responding to Mr. Strain's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I won't send it to them, I'll send it to Tom. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Then when Tom -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't ever -- I always send stuffthrough stat I. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- sends it to you, please refrain from responding to Tom's e-mail. You can please wait until the next meeting on the 26th to discuss it. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. What I'd like to do next Thursday is take the first part of the day to start up on any questions we have that we don't finish today, because I still have a list of questions we need to go through. We have two other -- we have a couple of binders on this. We focused on one portion of it. This is the portion that probably is the most relevant, because it really summarizes everything the committee I think is -- not this committee but the RLSA committee is going to try to recommend they did in the form of GMP language. But there may be questions trom the other documents that some of you have, and I think we ought to have time to air those next Thursday morning. Once that's done, I'm going to ask for any final presentations by members of the public, if there's anything final that they have to say. And then I'd like us to go into what I would consider a deliberation period in which we take the actual amendments or considerations to the GMP language that we may want to suggest and decide if each one of those by consensus should stay or be removed or modified. Then when we're done with that, we can take a vote then or whether to move this forward on whatever manner we decide at that time. After that meeting, since I'll have all the documents anyway, I can go ahead and do our consent agenda item based on the discussion of the meeting and forward that to the county staff as well so that we can have that done by our March 5th meeting. And that will strictly be a consent agenda. Page 51 ""'~~'; ...~_.~.._-~.._,,--"--_._.... ..-"..-..-.- .. " . ,-.,-,.,--,^..'-.'-".-..- ---... ..-.--..--.--.-.------ 161 1'f\S February 20, 2009 Does that work for the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be clear, you said we can go over each of those and by consensus and then you said something to the effect of we can then do a motion. Wouldn't we be safer to do each one of the recommendations by a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL that's what 1 meant by consensus is that we'd go through each language change. And there's nine of us here. and if five of us want the change to stay, it'd stay. Then we can go back through, and if someone objects to the overall program. I guess they could go back and isolate out their objections in the final statement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: WelL I understand you. Looking at it in my mind, I'm seeing a series of recommendations, and the mix may come up as a consensus, but it may not give adequate guidance to the BCC, because we will have then agreed to something that perhaps the ratio on any given item might change and may not be effective for the purpose -- I'm sure it can work if we force it to work, but I'm not sure it's the most effective. I would be an advocate of if we conclude, if we have a true consensus, we reach that view, then we ought to I think vote on that so that we give the BCC clear direction on each of the items we offer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. Bob, so far we have four solid pages of changes, each one implementing -- you missed the first meetings. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two meetings, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you missed the first-- COMMISSIONER MURRA. Y: I had food poisoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- two meetings. They were lengthy meetings. There is a lot of considerations. And for us to have a separate motion on every word or every piece of change -- the way it's done now, I think it might be harder for the BCC to follow that than if we just walked our way through it. And if someone disagrees at the end of the day, the BCC has asked us, if you disagree, state your reason. Then you can go back in and pull the policy out that you didn't like the changes on that the rest of us may have by consensus and say I'm going to vote no on this, but only because I disagree with Policy 1.7.8 or something like that and here's why. Then the rest of it stands as approved and that one issue you decided, or you or whoever, decided they didn't like becomes the exception. To me that would be possibly a cleaner way to present it to the BCC than motion after motion -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know where you're going, Mark, and I don't really-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going anywhere. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- disrespect it. But to my mind you said, I thought, that you were going to do a heck of a lot of work, and provide that inforn1ation and then that we would review that and then you sought to go through each and every one of those. So that would be the time, I thought, if you're going to go through them, not simply to go to consensus. I'll be okay with it. but I thought if we give them a voice on certain items this committee may disagree on, and I'm not sure that we have to cite anything very much for them. This is not an LDC or a GMP activity, so I -- and I'm not, you know, arguing for the sake of arguing, it's just my thoughts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any concerns? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. J do. I have a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: If for example you discuss one of the issues that you're going to list and the vote -- you take a vote or consensus reading and it shows that this board was four in favor of it, five were against it. will you forvvard to the commission then a recommendation that it be denied, since the Page 52 161 lk0 February 20, 2009 majority did not support it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd change it. We're going to actually recommend --I would assume that we're going to recommend language changes to the language that's here. If a policy has some language in it we object to or we think could be clarified better, we would actually write in the clarification. If when we got done discussing and the five majority of this panel decided we didn't need to clarify that policy, then we wouldn't submit changes for it. Yet if the four who were in the minority felt that they had to have something going to the BCC to make their point on that issue, they could always do so under a separate cover or they could vote no and as a clarification, as a reason to vote no, this is why I voted no, because that Policy 1.7.8 wasn't changed. I don't know of an easier way to do it. You guys, if you have a better way, tell me. That was just one I came up with. And Bob expressed himself toward it. Anybody has as better idea, you all tell me. I'm willing to get it done to expedite it. I know that if! can do it over the weekend, it would probably be faster to get it done that way and more to the notes that I have than trying to leave it up to staff and not getting it maybe as timely as we would this way. So I'd just as soon get it done. What do you guys want to do? It doesn't matter to me. I'm just trying to -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm in favor of what you'd like to do. It's the most expeditious and we're going to get it done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I can assure you is whoever -- if there's a disagreement on anything, I think we should strive to be uniform and we'll keep working on it till we're there. I mean -- Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But we're going to try to get consensus-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- which is I what I hope, yeah. I just hope we can do it in one day. It sounds pretty hard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to -- after today we're only going to have that issue left, and then I don't know if any of you have any questions from the balance of the backup material. But if you do, it would be a good time to bring it up now, since we have about a half an hour before we're out of here today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- have to make one more point. Consensus, as I understand the definition of it, is something that people can live with. They may not agree with all aspects of it, but they could live with it in totality. And I can certainly go along with that if that's the will ofthe people here. But I thought Tor made the point, too, if there's something that is not agreed to, then it just fails to go forward. And in some respects that's not good for the committee who worked hard on something. You're going to create a skeleton, so to speak, for us to work with and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You're shaking your head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything the committee has recommended goes forward. Their language will be what goes forward first. We have a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's okay. Now you're helping me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that -- I mean, we can't change the committee's work, and the BCC wants to see their work. We're only asked to review it. So we will have a -- staff will submit an executive summary and attached to it will be our work. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you're just talking -- now I completely appreciate where Page 53 0,'_, - ~ . ~ -. n_ilrtr'"Oll- " ...__._*,' '.~' "'I 16 ~ ~1f& \ February 20, 2009 you're going. You're suggesting that there'll be parallels; if there's any difference, there'll be parallels for them to review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Ifthe Board of County Commissioners is interested in seeing what the Planning Commission thought of the committee's language, they would have another document they can go through where it would all be highlighted right to the very specifics of what we recommended. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, then what it just means is that we have to agree with whatever skeleton you put together that we all agree with that, which -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- is finc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. you don't have to agree with any of it. I don't even know if what I'm -- I'm just taking the discussion I've heard to date -- COMMISSIONER MURRi\ Y: I'm not fighting with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. but Bob, you just said something. You don't have to agree with anything I vvTitc down. That's not the point. I f that was the case, I wouldn't be bringing it back here. I'd send it on myself and say here's what I hope thcy do, if they don't do it. too bad. That's not what I'm doing. You don't have to agree to any of it. I'm suggesting as a way to get us to consensus is for someone to put something down on a document in writing that we can decide on, I happen to have a lot of the notes, so I thought it would be casier for me to do it than anybody else. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't disagrce with anything you said. MR. McDANIEL: I have a point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Bill. MR. McDANIEL: The thought process that I might add is because of the detail that the committee went into in thc actual language changes that we recommended as we were going through, we are able to get farther down the path towards those ultimate GMP amendments that are ultimately going to come from this report in whatever shape it cnds up, once the BCC actually makes its recommendation for changes, both from you and from the EAC. So the report, just for clarifica -- I mean, your report's going to travel and mirror along with the report that thc committee has in fact already done, with these recommended changes and suggestions, based upon the information that you've come up with throughout this process. So we're just way farther dOVVll the path because of the specificity in the language changes that the committee effectuated throughout its term. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I have a better grasp of it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, do we have any questions from the backup documentation? Ycs, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Tom, it's something we've been e-mailing. A lot of people have said there's only five or six owners. but some people have come to me out of these meetings who have watched them and said there's maybe 200 owners. I mean, I'm not interested in the names, but is there any way we can get a feel for what kind of ownership's out there. the size of properties? Obviously we're going to find some major owners and some really minor owners, that's what I'm expecting. But I wouldn't mind just seeing that, okay? MR. GREENWOOD: My understanding, it's more than 200 owners. And I did request that of another staff person, and that person has not responded. But we have some -- I think some information on the number of owners out there. I'll try to get that to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't want names. MR. GREENWOOD: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't want the name of the -- Page 54 161 lA-0 February 20, 2009 MR. GREENWOOD: Understood. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Alls I want is, you know, acreage, you know, a number of parcels within a certain window of acreage would be good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if there's no other questions from the balance of the material, while we were in our discussions for the past three or four days, four days now I think it is, I've made some notes of things that still need to be touched on. And maybe we can spend some time on those to resolve any outstanding issues. Policy 4.10. Policy 4.10, the way I was reading it, Bill, and I need you to help me with this, seems to me that facilities like golf courses and stadiums and generally recreational open space does not consume stewardship credits. Is that right? I know I'm bouncing back to an old policy, but I wanted to make sure before I summarized all my thoughts that I understood it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You had asked that question before, Mark, and, you know, that was said like the answer was golf courses get a pass. And so it's the same question, and you're right, I don't think it was ever answered. MR. McDANIEL: I think -- you know, I don't know. Do you know the answer to that, Anita? MS. JENKINS: Public benefit uses do not require stewardship credits. And public benefit uses dealing with open space is defined as anything that is over the required 35 percent. So if you have open space in your SRA greater than 35 percent, that could be a public benefit use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And a public benefit use can be described as what? MR. GREENWOOD: It's in Policy 4.20 -- I'm sorry -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is 4 -- for the purpose of this policy, public benefit uses are: Public schools, private schools, post-secondary schools, ancillary uses, community parks, municipal golf courses, regional parks and governmental facilities. So I think then by reading Policy 4.10, golf courses and stadiums and other recreational open space don't consume stewardship credits. Is that -- well, I mean, a stadium is a recreational facility. That's why I'm throwing that in. We don't -- just say recreational uses. If they're used for the public -- MR. GREENWOOD: If they're municipal golf courses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. MS. JENKINS: Right, municipal golf courses -- MR. GREENWOOD: Is a public benefit use. MS. JENKINS: -- are a public use. MR. GREENWOOD: A municipal golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it has to be a municipal. MR. GREENWOOD: That's the way it's defined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Policy 4.20, the one that you referred us to, that excludes the essential services defined in the LDC. And it says, the acreage of public benefit use shall count towards the maximum acreage limits described in 4.7, but shall not count towards the consumption of stewardship credits. But that excludes essential services, right? MR. GREENWOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means essential services do count towards the consumption of stewardship credits or they do not count toward -- they do count towards the maximum acreage limits? MR. GREENWOOD: It looks like government facilities is a public benefit use, and they do not count toward the maximum acreage limits described in 4.7. Page 55 'lIt___ 1 ___.,"",II'I_~,,___ .... ------.,-- 1.0, \1 If\S February 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excluding essential services. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now. what does that mean? If you count governmental facilities but you exclude essential services, and essential services are those facilities including utilities, safety services, other governmental services necessary to promote thc public safcty and welfare, but not limited to police, tIre, EMS, park, public libraries. Are we getting into a contradiction? Because -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Seems like 4.20 is an attempt to amplify-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It seems like 4.20 is an attempt to amplify particular services that were not deemed essential services. But curiously essential services have those same items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, do you understand my question? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could research it by our next meeting and let me know. I don't mean to put you on the spot with the language. because there's so much language here. It's just something if you could make a note of. MR. GREENWOOD: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to understand how that excluding essential services fits into the use of 4.20. MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? MS. JENKINS: One way to look at it Mr. Strain, is that essential services, fire, EMS, police, those things are part of the fabric of a town and should be counted towards your SRA acreage and your credits. But other governmental facilities that may not absolutely be necessary as part of the fabric of the to\\11 would be counted as a public use -- or would be countcd not as a public use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ijust think we ought to get it understood. I mean, I can't understand it, not that I should, but maybe if Tom could explain it by next Thursday, that would be helpful. MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had talked about utilizing Phase I audits, environmental audits for SSA's. And let me point that one out again. If you have an SSA, it's supposed to be more or less preservation land, valuable preservation land. How do SSA's deal with the potential pollutants that may be on a piece of property in regards to their valuableness as preservation land? Has there been any way that that's looked at in the stewardship area? And Tom, I guess these are more your questions than Bill's at this point. And what I'm worried about is if we're calling a piece of property preservation but on it there's some environmental contaminants and damage and we don't know because we don't get any Phase I walk-throughs, are we really getting prcservation land or are we getting contaminated land and we're giving preservation for it? Is that something that we should consider? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was highlighted by the Pepper Ranch and the purchase there. Because whcn we actually went for the ranch, we found out there were quite a few areas of contamination that had to be addressed, and I believe they even escrowcd money to address them. Russell? MR. PRIDDY: The difference is the county received tee simplc title to Pepper Ranch. When I come forward with an SSA, I'm not giving the county my property. I'm still just as responsible for that property as I've always been. So the liability and the responsibility for whatever is out there remains with the landowner. Page 56 I 16l li\0 February 20, 2009 And I can tell you that, and I'm sure you can appreciate this, if I've got to do an environmental study on 8,000 acres, guess what's not coming forward? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but see, in return for a clean environmental study, you would have your stewardship credits that you could then sell and make whatever potential you want out of them. In the meantime, you've gotten a benefit claiming to have preservation land that may not be valuable preservation land because of its pollution. That's the only consideration. I've been asking if it's something that ought to be considered in the process. And I understand your point. MR. PRIDDY: Yeah, and I'm saying that if you've got this object, and let's called it the Rural Land Stewardship program that's voluntary, incentive-based and it's fragile and you tighten down every bolt and every screw, you're going to throw the thing out of balance and you're going to end up with a pile of crumbled glass. It's just going to fall apart. I don't think you can micromanage every detail. And there are probably some landowners that can afford to do that environmental study. This is not one of them. And so you simply eliminate the possibility of that coming forward. Keep in mind, I don't have Mitch or someone else sitting out there waving a check at me, hurry up and do this so I can use your credits or give you money for the credits. I don't know that there'll ever be anyone come along with a check. I mean, this is a theory. And, you know, the incentive for volunteering is to promote setting aside some of this stewardship area that if I do now gives the county and the citizens of Collier County and Florida some assurance with this permanent easement on there that this is not going to be developed. But at that point, Russell hasn't gotten anything but the cost of getting here today. And if you're going to further pile on requirements to, you know, to keep spending money, I see that as a deal breaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I appreciate that, Russell. My point is to leave basically no stone unturned in discussion. MR. PRIDDY: Okay. Point out an example that's not regulated somewhere else. And I think the first thing you're going to say is dipping vats. We've already established that that is the responsibility of the State of Florida. It's law. Oil might be your next concern. That is probably the most heavily regulated industry in the state. Those guys don't even stir the dust without somebody being on top of them. So what else is out there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's the -- Pepper Ranch had a -- what was it, a garbage dump, but it's one that the people who had lived there apparently in one of the houses used instead of having their stuff picked up. And it was -- they had to clean that up. That was part ofthat ranch. I don't know how many of those exist. Those are the kind of questions we need to ask. Your input is the kind we need to have. And we just need to chew on it. And if it's not an issue, it won't go any further. If it is, if it dwells on our minds next Thursday, we'll bring it up. MR. PRIDDY: Ijust think it's a deal breaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I appreciate that, thank you. We talked about the financial impact analysis model, the FlAM. There is no provisions in the GMP that really have that review on it for SRA's on a regular basis to assure fiscal neutrality to Collier County. You guys didn't address it. And I remember I mentioned this on our first day. It was in my list of questions. I don't think we ever got it resolved, it was just something that wasn't in the program and you guys didn't decide at it. So it's still on the table. It's a concern that I have because of the -- we've got to maintain fiscal neutrality for these facilities, and J don't know how else to weigh in on it. I'm just making the discussion. So next Thursday if Page 57 ,.,_.""".., - - 16 \ 1~ - February 20,2009 that's a bothersome issue, we'll bring it up again. The GMP amendments, Tom. we have a lot of GMP amendments coming through the county right now. They're all paid for by the people that want them. Who's paying for the GMP amendments for this RLSA? MR. GREENWOOD: Well, first oft there hasn't been a direction from the BCC to go forward with these amendments. This is a report, a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when the BCC makes a decision to move this to data analysis, who would do the data analysis? MR. GREENWOOD: At this point, I haven't gotten any direction from the BCC. As you well know, the department and division have been downsized in staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. I know. And that's why my questions -- I'm having my questions right now, is if we have to -- if data analysis has to be done before transmittal, normally the GMP amendments are funded. I'm just wondering how they're being funded, whether it's the public that's funding them or the RLSA overlay area is funding them, how they're being funded. MR. GREENWOOD: That has not been decided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We talked about stewardship credits, looking for other places to use them to either increase their value or to possibly reduce the footprint they need to be used in the actual open lands of the RLSA. At times it was in the urban area. It might be kind of hard to get them used in the coastal urban area, but Immokalee seems to always be striving for more density. especially for their farmworker housing and things like that. Is there a possibility of looking at spreading these credits or allowing them to be used in the Immokalee urban area? And I know your depm1ment's working on the new master plan. Has that been brought up? Paul, have you got any thoughts on that? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would say that we wouldn't want them, because we have that whole slough south oflmmokalee that we need to develop incentives for those landowners. So if we use these from outside, then, you know, that will sort of take away one possible way of incentivizing the use of those conservation lands that are already within Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, you live there. And I thought I'd ask, bccause I know at one point you wanted Immokalee's by right density treated differently than any other part of the county. So I'm assuming if you want that density, this would be onc way to get it. And plus it incentivizes the stewardship credit program, but -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. No, I like the idea ofincentivizing the RLSA credit program. But we have our own environmentally sensitive lands in Immokalee that don't have any credit program for them yet, and I would rather develop that first. MR. McDANIEL: From the committee's standpoint and myself at large, Mr. Strain, I would suggest that the program as it sits now in whatever format that it ultimately gets transmitted off in has a review process of another seven years I think it's going to come up again. And it might be better to allow that seven years' worth of evolution to transpire to monitor what's in fact going to be a proper balance, if you will, and maybe redistributc some of those credits, and us an opportunity to detennine priorities that are inevitably going to shift as we go forward with the prohrram. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted to throw the idea out to see how Paul received it. I know since he lives out there and he's been involved in density arguments with this -- not arguments, discussions with this board before, ifhe saw it as a good idea, it would help to understand it better. But if it's something that isn't that good of an idea, it was a passing thought. Page 58 161 1{r0 February 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We've got at least -- I would say at least 5,000 acres of conservation lands within the urban limits that have no incentives to be preserved yet, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In all the deliberations of the committee, in all the RLSA lands, because they're surrounded by other areas of intense development or future development, one being Immokalee, Ave Maria, has anybody -- did your committee consider what is happening with the Indian lands? Because their casinos and hotels are going to have a substantial impact on that area, including all the infrastructure that's to go out there. And I don't know how that's being considered by anybody. And since the RLSA surrounds it, it would seem logical that it would have to go in and out of the RLSA. MR. McDANIEL: I'm not aware that the RLSA -- I mean, there's part of the Indian lands that the RLSA surrounds. But n and no, to answer your question candidly, we did not have tremendous discussion. The new developments that the Indians have come up with as a -- or coming were not part of our committee's deliberations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aren't they all within the Immokalee urban area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. But I mean, even if they are-- MR. McDANIEL: Yes. Larger looming impacts though from-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But there's none -- they don't own land in the RLSA, do they? MR. McDANIEL: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think so. Because their lands are independent of our processes. And that's a little scary, and I just want to know if we've looked at it. The other issues I have are planning elements that I didn't see in the policies in front of us, areas identifying the processes for finding landfill, how landfill is to be handled, where they could be. I mean, I doubt if anybody who owns property out there as an SRA wants to have a landfill on their SRA. They're probably not too popular. And wherever they are, the SRA's adjacent to it probably won't be too popular. But it's got to be addressed. And did the committee discuss that at all? MR. McDANIEL: Only at latter stages of our discussions. And it came more in line with the map overlay for the future traffic flows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the same, there's some other major elements; jails, for example, and hospitals, government centers, shopping centers. And you know that VanBuskirk model showed the need for a shopping center out there, but I haven't heard any discussion on that from your committee's end of it. MR. McDANIEL: Only from the level of the regionality (sic). And as development ultimately occurs, and the regionality of the area becomes developed to warrant those things is when we'll be ultimately seeing those. And I think they'll ultimately be -- because of the economics that revolve around populations to justify and warrant those kind of footprints, you're going to see those come in as the population's already there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We talked about all the policies. Which one are you referring to? MS. JENKINS: Did you talk about the last one, Mark-- MR. McDANIEL: 3.7, I'm sorry. MS. JENKINS: -- 3.7? That's where it's addressed in the transportation-- MR. McDANIEL: I remember it was in the latter stages of our discussions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.7? Page 59 --- - ~ f II rr--'u_~","d~'^"""""_",,,___ ......"i ~.,,~~_._-~--, 161 1;b February 20, 2009 MS. JENKINS: Yeah, if you look in your tab five. MR. McDANIEL: Anita. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have that. I was looking -- I was looking in the policy language. Is there reference in the policy language? MS. JENKINS: There's a companion policy -- Anita Jenkins. There's a companion policy that the committee considered. It's a new -- it would go in the transportation element. It's in your book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know which one you mean. It's the one that would apply county-wide. MS. JENKINS: Correct. And it does address landfills, jails -- MR. GREENWOOD: Page 166. Page 166. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will review it again between now and Thursday. MR. McDANIEL: And it did come in in the latter discussions. We were wrestling over those Group 4 policies and revolving around transportation, and that's where that jumped in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The balance of my questions involve transportation, basically level of service elements. Tom, can you ask someone from transportation to be here on the 26th in the morning to discuss transportation issues involved in the RLSA? MR. GREENWOOD: I will do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have anything else for today. Most of my stutfwill be held-- we're going to finish up on hopefully the 26th. Does anybody else have anything they'd like to bring up today? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. And what it is on, there was -- your response number eight which had to do with -- it's on Page 14, using credits out of the urban area. Now, I asked this question and somebody got up and read exactly what that is. But what that is is punting, that's not dealing with it. So someone told me that there's a state law that says that you can't use credits in the sending area outside of the sending area. Is that true? MR. GREENWOOD: That's in the state law. This program does not come under the state law. COMMISSIONER SCIHFFER: Okay. Then what does this mean? So within our own program we're stating you can't use them. But one of the things that the committee was to look at, which I guess was number eight on their list, was that issue. So stating that it's not allowed, stating that it would require a GMP change, which is exactly what everything requires, I just wonder if we addressed it this time. MR. McDANIEL: We did at the committee. I mean, we recognized the necessity for as you've heard on multiple occasions, the necessity for balance and for there to be an economic value for the credits. And you have heard a lot of suggestions on how to maintain that balance or ensure that balance. And again, as I shared with Mr. Strain. there has to be a marketplace, and we haven't gotten -- you haven't seen free trade with this credit system yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. McDANIEL: And until that actually in fact occurs, all we've seen, and it's working successfully, is the transfer of credits within the same o\Vnership group. Until there's an actual free market place that's established, that's going to be the true tcst for any program, I don't care whether it's thc Rural Land Stewardship Overlay or the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. Until those credits actually start to transfer on the open marketplace, that's going to be your true test. We recognize, though, and there were a lot of suggestions on how to get to that ultimate end to maintain that balance and a marketplace for those credits that at some stage of the game if our priorities are for protection and preservation of agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands and the creation of credits does that there may need to be a methodology fix the transfer of those credits to the urbanized area Page 60 161 1-16 February 20, 2009 where infrastructure and public facilities already in fact exist. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I do that. So what you're saying, first of all, this answer in here doesn't really reflect the intensity that the committee discussed that issue? MR. McDANIEL: Probably not. I mean, we talked about it on multiple levels, and again on a regular basis, Brad. It's obvious that there has to be a balance and there has to be a value for those credits at some level. And we're not sure it can be done within the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. There are other mechanisms that may need to be considered for the ultimate utilization of these credits that are generated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the thing I think that you lose me on is I don't see why a greater market for the use of those credits wouldn't help your program. I know you're saying you got to get it balanced, you're trying to get -- MR. McDANIEL: We're not saying a greater market wouldn't help. I mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it would help immensely. I mean, I -- MR. McDANIEL: -- that wasn't the intent of what we were talking about. I mean, if the greater the marketplace, obviously the greater the value at some stage of the game. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'd be personally happy that if you sold all the -- all the credits were taken off and weren't even used out there. I mean, that would be a better world. Everything would be farming, everything would be clear. MR. McDANIEL: There's a lot of definitions of a better world. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That there are. But again, maybe it's disappointment, maybe we wait. I guess it's five years we're going to do this again? MR. McDANIEL: Seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then it's a topic we push forward. But your response here just says that it's not allowed. We know that. You know, you're saying -- MR. McDANIEL: Well, there's no-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that it requires changes ofthe GMP. MR. McDANIEL: -- it's not that it's not allowed, there's no requisite for them to be relocated at this juncture right now. And we see that, as Mr. Strain has suggested, as a viable alternative to managing the balance and the value ofthose credits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're interpreting balance to be born in the RSLA (sic) and used in the RSLA. MR. McDANIEL: As it currently exists, that's the only place we have to play. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unless we open this up. And that's the problem. Okay, enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's getting close to the time that we break for today. Unless there's some other urgent matter, I'd like to ask ifthere's a motion to continue this meeting to 8:30 in the morning on the 26th here in this room. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 61 .. ,,'~~. .1L"1IOl Allilll!i iii till 1 161 1,6f, February 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're there. Thank you very much again for your time. And Bill, your patience. MR. McDANIEL: Yours as well. sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're a fine orator. And I don't want to steal your fancy pen. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County. the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:50 p.m. COLL,IER COUNl)Y PLy\~NING COMMISSION \ \ I . \. i' :. ; 1/ \l*;t' -L \/ \ C'vv "'-. /,,' - -,,----- MARK STRAIN, Chairman ",J _ /' "( ~resented ~ or as corrected~. These minutes approved by the board on,) ~- \ '1 -c \ as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service. Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 62 Fiata .D 16' lfYS v . . Halas ~ Henning February 26, 2009 RECE\VED TRANSCRIPT J~~~~t~J;i~ OF THE APR 0 7 2009 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION isSlOOera Naples, Florida soard of County comm February 26,2009 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 SPECIAL SESSION at Collier County Development Services Center, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609-619, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning Steve Williams, Asst. County Attorney _",;,i-":0 Jdte: _d'~.;"''''_"'~'' ....-- Page 1 Item # _<. .,.,,_..'w_______..... .. ^ D~r"i,:,~O ..~,'---_.,_.," "'-.---- ~M~ ....-.--,---.. ._--......___.. ,'._" '"'_"""_'"'''W'_'~ , 161 1 A" February 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's get this show rolling. Good morning, evel)'one. Welcome to the March -- I mean, February 26th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a continuation of a meeting that started five meetings ago, or four meetings ago, the most recent one being February 20th. It is on the Rural Land Stewardship Area, RLSA otherwise known as, and stewardship credits. And we'll start out with the pledge of allegiance, if everybody will please rise. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if the secretary will please make the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman is absent. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. For those of you who did not receive or could not print out some of the documentation for today in the hallway, there are copies. In particular the one that was sent out that I had finished up on -- I sent to Tom Greenwood. I believe he sent it out either Tuesday morning or Monday night. That is the one we'll be working off extensively today. So if you don't have it in color copy, there are colored copies out in the hallway. I think I'll lay out the plan of action for today. I anticipate we'll be here most of today. We will stop at the latest at 4:55. First thing I'd like to do is when we get going, if Nick Casalanguida is here, as he agreed to be -- I don't see him yet -- I wanted to finish up on all transportation and transit related issues that were brought up on our last meeting. And then as many of us have been witnessing, there's been a disagreement -- or I should say not a concurrence between parties on how panther habitat is addressed, whether it's primary or whether it isn't. We've had a report that was discussed by both sides on the issue, each claiming an interpretation of that report. There are one or two scientists who were authors of that report here today. And after Nick is Page 2 161 liftS February 26, 2009 finished, they will speak as to what their intentions of that report was in regards to how it was to be interpreted. As we go along in this meeting, we'll also be seeking public input, so nobody will be left out in the discussions. After we finish with those two major issues, the -- any final questions from the Collier County Planning Commission in a general nature can be addressed. And then when that's finished, I'll ask the public to make final statements, more or less closing statements on anything that they have. We've had I think all along very good public input. I don't think anybody in this room or anybody who has been here previously can say they weren't allowed to speak or weren't allowed to get their points across. There wasn't any strict limitations on discussion, and because of that, I'd like to wrap up the public input after all is said and done today with any final comments. Because when that's finished, we need to go into our deliberations on the language that was presented to us that I sent out to everybody. There are some things in that language that need to be corrected. I have learned from various parties there's some tweaking and moving around and this and that. What I'd like to do, though, is as we go through that changed language, if any members of the Planning Commission need clarification on any of the issues, that at that time they can call on members of the public. Although I don't want to open up every single language change for debate again. I think we've already had that. And ifthat works for the rest of the Planning Commission, I'd like to proceed under that manner. Then after we have our deliberations and we go through the language on an item-by-item basis, we'll then call for a general vote on the issue. If we have some major disagreement on any particular point, we can work on that one separately as far as a stipulation to the motion as a split vote. And at the end of the motion today, the vote, whenever that does come, remember, we aren't looking at data and analysis on transmittal, we're simply reviewing a committee report. So the recommendation that goes to the Board of County Commissioners I would suggest isn't one of approval of the report. Our task can't be approval on something that hasn't had data and analysis. It simply is an acknowledgment of the report with the comments from the Planning Commission to move forward to the BCC. Because I don't think approval is appropriate until we've had the right data and analysis to support the conclusions that we have to come to. Is everybody on the Planning Commission comfortable with that process today? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as no one isn't, we will move forward. Well, we may not. I had asked Nick to be here at 8:30. Norm Feder said that was okay, Nick said it was -- MR. GREENWOOD: He's on his way. We just called. Nick is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nick. As late as the traffic is in this county, now he's late too. The two coincide. Well, with that, let's take a look at any other questions we may have while we wait for his eminence. He's going to be walking into a lot of fun here this morning. One thing I can do, I mentioned at the last meeting there were two documents I'd be working on. The most important was to get the language corrections out. I got that out to Tom. I also had tried to finish up a narrative that takes those language corrections and puts it into a more succinct document that only says what those corrections are. It says Policy 4.5, for example, A, remove to the extent practical, replace with be consistent and with comply. And it gets down to the item by item, but doesn't do it in 35 pages. Page 3 - ---~~-------~------ -~- - -,---_......_._---~._.- -_._- 161 1 pfj February 26, 2009 Also, we have comments that were not addressed in the GMP language. I could not modify the attachments because they weren't provided to us in a working document. So on those issues, I separately addressed those and spelled them out in the beginning. And this report is broken down to two manners: General comments not addressed and proposed specific GMP language, and then the specific language recommendations to the RLSA review. So I'll pass this out now while we're waiting for Nick. Everybody can have a copy of it. I have 25 copies. Members of the public that would want copies, they're more than welcome to have them. Well, we're waiting for Nick Casalanguida. He's caught up in traffic between transportation department and CDES. MR. SCHMITT: There's a heavy level of traffic out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's terrible out there. MR. SCHMITT: I think it's a failing intersection over there across the bridge. MR. JONES: Isn't there a building across the parking lot? MR. SCHMITT: There's a little foot bridge over there, it's a failing -- what is that, level of service F. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think Iu oh, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, members of the Planning Commission, please remember we're on record, and the court reporter's trying to take any noise that occurs. So I've got to ask you all to kind of not talk too much unless she can -- unless it's on the microphone. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Woltley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Who is the author of this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am. That was one of the draft documents that I told everybody I'd try to produce. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You can tell that it was a draft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that if I didn't put draft on it and anybody ever thought I was trying to insinuate something of permanence, I'd be shot at high noon. So instead of doing that, I drafted every single page of every document, so -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Boy, you did. Beautiful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that document, we will work through -- one through the first part of it, which is general comments not addressed one through seven. Then the rest of the language is addressed in the red lining. If you look at the rest of the language, starting on Page 2 where it says specific GMP language references, all that is is redundancy from what the inserts were on the red line you all have in the GMP language. So those will be gone through step at a time as we move through the other document. I'm sure there's going to be more after today. My intentions are to modify anything that comes up today and get it to Tom as early as I possibly can. It may be within a couple of days, but no later than Sunday night. It will go back out to the Planning Commission immediately. We have a meeting next Thursday morning. I'd like to include this on the consent agenda next Thursday, just for acknowledgment, and then we can be done with it and it stays on schedule for what the committee had -- the RLSA committee had requested with the Board of County Commissioners and everybody else. Well, I don't want to move into the panther study until we finish the transportation. Tom, 10 minutes ago you said Nick was on his way. He's only one parking lot over. Do we know where he is? MR. GREENWOOD: My understanding when we called is he's in a meeting and he's fInishing up. I don't know how long he's going to be. I thought it was momentarily. Page 4 > 1611 I~ .. . r February 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I had an agreement with Norm Feder and him both that he would be here at 8:30 and we would start today with him at 8:30. I'm a little disappointed because Norm was very emphatic that that would work out just fine. So -- MR. GREENWOOD: That's my understanding as of yesterday afternoon as well. So you probably need to scold him a little bit when he gets here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's just the point. We've -- you know, there's a lot of people here, we have a tight schedule today, and I'm disappointed they couldn't keep that. Well, let's go back and look at some of the documentation. Let's do Mr. Greenwood's document that he sent to us for clarification on questions asked previously. That document is to the Collier County Planning Commission. Its date is February 26th, 2009. Staff follow-up questions and information requested by the CCPC at the end of the February 20th meeting. The first item that -- oh, he's here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Finally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I heard about the traffic jam between the building next door and this one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to sit down next to a friend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nice of you to -- boy, Nick, I'll tell you what, you sure have a way. Did we not work this out before today? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What's that, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did we not work this out before today? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've got our mid-year budget reduction in the morning. Item #3 FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM PHASE II REPORT PREPARED BY THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE, DATED JANUARY, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you don't mind using the podium. We do thank you for your indulgence today and we know how busy you must be. We do have some questions with the RLSA. Your issues are some of the ones on the top of the list. And let me read some of the thoughts that I've collected and some of the others. But then I need you to address the overall scope of transportation's concerns, if any, with the RLSA program. In the RLSA there's going to be a need for integrated transit system. I don't know how that -- or see that addressed. Unless you have already found a way that that's covered, we need to know that. The alignment ofthe right-of-ways between the different property owners, the public transportation needs, and the developments for transfer stations, transit facilities, government centers, shopping centers, hurricane evacuation routes and things like that. And also I know that we have the Seminole properties out there. And I don't know how the impacts to the casinos and the hotels that they're proposing have been taken into consideration, or how that's going to affect transportation. Along with the proportionate sharing language that needs to be in place. Now, last time we were here, I think someone from the audience pointed out there's a general change to one of the transportation paragraphs in another section of the GMP. If that covers all of it, then that's fine. But your acknowledgment today of these issues is real vital if we're to get any language in here to help transportation issues. So with that in mind, can you give us a briefing on where your department's at with this program? Page 5 k'_'_'~ -~-_l . 40'_,__.,_"'______~..""..~,..,,"'" _._ ____L.__, \ 161 1 1O February 26, 2009 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd be happy to. I'll try and speak slowly. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, with transportation. There's a lot of things, dynamics that are happening at the same time. You have the RLSA review that you're going through right now, and these folks have spent probably a year and a half of their lives going through it as well. The Immokalee Master Plan is being done at the same time through a CRA that's going on. Seminole Indian tribe is going full guns, expanding their operations over there as well, too. So there's a lot of dynamics that are happening at the same time. The county's proposing to do their o'Vvn horizon study that they're completing right now, only for the roadway network. We want to take that one step further in what's called the vision build-out plan. In coordination with compo planning and the folks that belong to ECPO, the Eastern Collier Property Owners Association, to do a master plan of the rural lands. And it's not just the rural lands, it's the whole county. That will take into consideration what we need to do as a transit system in the build-out of the county. It would look at a roadway network that would be somewhat flexible. Obviously, you know, as developments come on-line, roadway networks can shift quarter mile, half a mile, but the intent of that roadway and the amount of volume that it would carry should be defined in that vision build-out plan. So you're going through this process, I know Wilson-Miller in coordination with ECPO, and that acronym, has done what they call a roadway network plan. I see it on the screen over there right now. It doesn't work quite the way we'd like it to work. We've done some preliminary analysis on it. There's room for improvement. You know, they've done quite a bit of work with the information they have. They do not include the Seminole Indian tribe properties, and that's big, if you've followed any of the -- what's happened in other parts ofthe country, such as Connecticut where they did the Indian casino. The governor there had to go so far as to toll the roads in front of them to get them to play with them as far as roadway improvements. We've just started our initial discussions with the Seminole Indian folks. At the same time, RW A, Tindale-Oliver, is doing this Immokalee overlay where they want to take the land use in Immokalee and change it. They want to make Immokalee a city some day and they want it to have a certain character. They are talking about up-zoning and different densities as well, too. So I don't think you can look at the map they've done and not include that information in there. So the county intends to do that through the vision build-out plan, and we're going to coordinate with all those folks. So I'm always hesitant about including that map, even though it's conceptual, because it leaves you kind of a little bit of a false sense of security that that's the roadway network that will actually work. I don't think it will. And I won't say definitively it will not because I haven't done the final analysis. I can tell you that when we're done, we're going to have vetted it through the folks at ECPO at Wilson-Miller, we'll work with the environmental folks, the Immokalee CRA and the Indians, and when we're done, we'll have a much more comprehensive plan of what that roadway network should look like and if it can work. Now, we talked about the demand side in transit. At some point in time I have to start thinking the other way. Do I -- I don't want to lay as many lane miles of pavement. I want to try and figure out ways to avoid that. Now what do I do? Ifl put government centers and landfills and, you know, I mean, I can list a whole plethora of different services that each SRA and the City oflmmokalee should have to reduce that trip length. In other words, if you have -- they don't need to come over here to pull a building permit for a fence. There should be a way to do it over there. There should be maybe a courthouse over there when we build out, if the population's doubled and it's in the eastern part of the county. Where will all those services be? So that's that vision build-out plan. The transit component. These towns, as they come on line, say Ave Maria, doesn't have a big Page 6 , : 1-1 1.6~ ~-At? . February 6, 2009 transit component right now. Big Cypress is working with us to consider what it would be like. But if you don't include a real functional transit system on day one probably in the RLSA documents and then in the approval of the subsequent small towns and hamlets, you're setting yourself up to fail later. And these folks know that, and they've recognized that that's the way we need to go. So I would say that we need to work towards that vision build-out plan. It's probably going to take us about a year. It's a lot of coordination. And a lot of the approvals of this RLSA kind of hinge on that making sense and working. So does that kind of answer your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It sort of does. Basically the issues that we're bringing up, the bigger facilities, jails, governmental centers, hospitals, the coordination of those, the integration of a transit system, that's one piece of the pie. The other piece is going to be what lands are those on, how do they consume or not consume credits and how does it figure into the amount of SRA acreage, let's say created. That's a whole separate discussion outside transportation. The concern that I think we have from -- on a transportation perspective is how are you protected in the language that's in front of us today to know that whatever comes out of this vision plan, which I believe now all these issues are going to be addressed in there, government centers, landfills. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, ifthat's a true statement and everything's in that vision plan, how is that locked in in your mind to this language in the GMP that's proposed? Have you reviewed that aspect of it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is. And you're talking about the funding stream a little bit, how you pay for all that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm talking about the requirement to make sure that when that plan comes out, that RLSA has to abide by it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's loosely tied to it. It's not definitively tied to it. Reference is that through several of the points that are in the RLSA language that you have now. It refers back to the vision build-out plan. It's not -- I mean, we worked with these folks on language, and we couldn't come up with something right now. Because, you know, asking them to commit to something that they haven't seen yet is difficult as the landowner's perspective. They don't know what that vision build-out plan is. And if they say that they will abide by it, they don't know what they're abiding to. So it's loosely tied back to that. So if you're asking me ifthere's a definitive time, no, it keeps referencing division build-out plan. When it's done, I think there will have to be language inserted either in the LDC or in the RLSA that ties it back to it, because then you'll know definitively what it is. But in their defense in talking to the folks at ECPO, how can I commit to RLSA language that ties me back to something I haven't seen yet? So there's that conundrum that they're dealing with with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the alternative or response to that would simply be then fine, if you don't want to commit to something you haven't seen, then show us something that you can commit to that addresses the issues that obviously are missing in a long-range planning perspective. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And the issue is you're going through this RLSA process today and you're looking for surety, and these folks want to wrap this up but, you know, that's my dilemma. I can't commit to everything that's in that RLSA language, because I don't know what the issues are going to be until I go through this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but that takes a lot of things off the table contingent on the strength of the implication of the vision plan into this program. If that is not strong enough, then each one of these items has to be separately addressed in a paragraph somewhere for understanding in how it's going to apply in the future. Page 7 "._."~ - ,..- Iilr -",.,,-,.,,-~,"...,.,~.._""~,.",," . ............<..."""",,.-...---.""-"""'''''. ~~ 1_-''''_ ~-_..-- 161 1 f\S February 26, 2009 So I guess that's something this committee, when we get into our paragraphs -- we did recommend some changes to strengthen the use of the vision plan. So maybe that will be strong enough to get a level of comfort until we get to the next level of review. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And correct me ifI'm wrong, this is the RLSA five-year review, RLSA committee going to the board. The board may say -- direct staff to work with the RLSA committee or the Planning Commission or all the folks to bring all these things together over this next year before they adopt that language. Is that my understanding of the RLSA process, Tom? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is just a review of the committee's report. It isn't even a review yet of the data and analysis portion. I think what we would do -- hopefully expect is through data and analysis your department sits down and takes a harder look at this and needs to then solidify any lingering issues that you have as far as whether or not the vision plan is in there or not and if it isn't, then what's the alternative. So this is just the first review of the committee's report, it's the first bite of the apple. We have two more, if I'm not mistaken. Is that right, Tom? MR. GREENWOOD: If this goes forward into amendments, yes, transitional and adoption hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, there's one other large issue of yours and that is proportionate sharing. It's my understanding there's been attempts and there still are ongoing attempts to introduce a state-wide mobility fee in lieu of impact fees. The way that could evolve may change the ability for this community to have commitments from developers when they go in to build their lands. You had talked previously about a proportionate fair share language that would be put in here to assure us that if it's at the GMP level we could still negotiate DCA's and other instruments that help us get some kind of contributions from developers who are developing nearby lands and having impacts on our roads. I didn't see that language in here. Have you proposed any? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have and I haven't. And here's the issue I have with that as well, too. Right now we've got Senate Bill 360 that's been, you know, tentatively blessed by the state senate that talks about eliminating DRI's and eliminating concurrency out in areas of critical concern or growing areas. So we're dealing with language that's fluid right now at the state legislative level. I'm not comfortable with it. I also see that we're a one trick pony in terms of the county's funding stream. We rely heavily on impact fees and very little from any other source of revenue stream. So how to blend that all together to come up with proportionate share language that covers both the landowner's rights and the counties -- how do I say this? I told one of folks from ECPO, you know, I represent my board and I give them fiscal recommendation based on, you know, my perspective. How do I protect our board and the people of Collier County from fiscal issues as far as the RLSA is concerned? It's not easy. I'm going to try and come up with some language that they agree with that basically says you don't get to go unless the roads are in place, and if there's no funding in place, we've got to come up together and come up with some sort of DCA that's mutually agreeable to you and to the county. How do you craft that with such flexibility? I'll work with Jess to see if we can do something that they agree to that also protects us as well, too. But that's not an easy task, based on what we're dealing with right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but we're here and now today, and we have to move something forward today. Page 8 I 161 lkS / , . - February 26, 2009 I suppose we could include language to the BCC that strongly recommends that we establish proportionate fair share language before final adoption or before transmittal for analysis. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But here today then you don't have any suggestions as far as where and what to add? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have some limited language in the RLSA that talks about the -- you know, prior to approval that they will be reviewed consistent with our current GMP 223, two percent impact, two percent impact, and that they will enter in an agreement with the county that defines the terms of proportionate share at that point in time. And the thought was in talking to the folks from ECPO and some of the attorneys that represent them is that with that language, it basically says you will enter in a DCA and that DCA will be flexible enough that at that point in time, depending on what the rules are, you would come back and negotiate with the county and come up with a DCA. It leaves a lot of opening on their end and on our end. And I believe this commission and the board will want that tightened up. We'll have to work on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a concern. Okay, well, that puts in -- I think one other item I need -- I have on my list. I mean, you basically have addressed the idea of transit facilities, the integrated transit system, the right-of-way between landowners, public transportation, because all that's going to be in the vision plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The location of landfills, jails, hospitals, government centers, shopping centers are all proposed to be in the vision plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They'll be in the vision plan or there'll be documents in that say, you know, towns of a certain size need to incorporate these uses, or by reference. I wouldn't go to dictate where a hospital is going to go other than you're going to need "X" amount per "X" amount of population. And that, you know, we keep reevaluating that every year, where are we at right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last thing is hurricane evacuation. Right now I think it's Chapter 163.3118 or something like that provides for no de minimis impact would be allowed if our hurricane evacuation routes have failed. That's been virtually ignored all the way up to the Regional Planning Council in Tallahassee because we have 1-75 that's failed, and it's the main evacuation route and it hasn't been working for years below the adopted level of service. It wouldn't be good to begin the RLSA with the same routine. We have a series of failed roads out there and at some point we're approving towns that cannot have -- that have a greater than de minimis impact on a road system that's failed as a hurricane evacuation route. How are you proposing to address that in the RLSA? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't. And the reason why that Florida statute is pretty much loosely followed is because nobody else can either. You wouldn't be approving building permits on Marco Island today for single-family homes if that was read literally. And I don't know at the Regional Planning Council level they understand the situation they've done. A hurricane evacuation plan about a year ago, Dan Trescott worked on that and it brought up all those failures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But nobody responded to it. I mean, no one -- I know that nobody wants to do what the conclusion is, so we either change the law or we make sure we can avoid making it worse in the future, and that's where -- that's the question that I'm raising is, is there a way to plan the RLSA so that the road system and hurricane evacuation routes can be established and meet their level of concurrency before the towns and villages are created? Page 9 - .._.._"~",,,._.-..- ."~"~'~-,_-,~-~--,~-=-'-,"-'---~'"'''_.'''- 16i 1~ February 26, 2009 MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're going to look at hurricane evacuation and send it up to the RPC for, you know, concern. But I don't think you could build a roadway network that, you know, would meet the 24-hour evacuation criteria. I don't think it's feasible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Does anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions of transportation on any outstanding issues on the RLSA report at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, that was easier than I thought it would be. Are there any members of the public that have to comment on transportation issues, or would like to comment on transportation issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, I appreciate your time. Thank you. Okay, the next item up for today, as we all know, there's been a lot of discussion about primary panther habitat. There's a report called the Kautz et al report. It's used by Fish & Wildlife service for their understanding of primary habitat. The document has been peer reviewed and it's got a series of authors, and I believe there's 11 of them on the Kautz paper. Two of those -- one or two of those authors are here today. And I'm not sure-- Mr. Tom Hoctor and Bob Kawula. I'd like to start out by asking these gentleman one at a time to address our concerns over their study. We certainly would like, for the record, to understand your background and your involvement in the study so that if anybody has to go back and question this, it's extremely clear as to what's going on. And with that, we'll get into the issue. We can at some point describe the concerns we've had. I don't know if you've been briefed on any of this. What has happened, is we have a lot of lines on a detailed map. Thank you. What's being passed out and for the record is a CV on Dr. Thomas Scott Hoctor. I may have said that wrong name-wise. There's been a lot of debate over how the lines were laid out. And in a document that we're dealing with, we've got to have some kind of criteria in which to establish primary panther habitat, whether it's real or not. Meaning if we have a relationship to a distance or an acreage or something that's required or a way to tell it, that becomes useful in a government tool that has to describe it. So that's where our ultimate goal is, is to find some definition that we can apply to a rule. And with that, Doctor, I certainly hope you can enlighten us. DR. HOCTOR: If you sort by -- we're trying to get the presentation up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Doctor, part of your effort here today, if you could tell us how the paper was put together, what your involvement was so we understand your authority to speak out, we'd appreciate it. DR. HOCTOR: First of all, good morning, Commissioners. I'm going to apologize up-front, because I am suffering from a bad time cold. I got it yesterday. Yeah, you might want to sit further away. And it includes a pretty sore throat. So I'm going to hopefully get through this, but it does hurt to talk and I'm not quite 100 percent. And I hope to do the things that you've asked. Certainly I'll answer any questions that arise after my presentation. I'll try to keep this short, but I think it's important that you understand all of the things that the sub-team did and in brief. The sub-team process, it's been a while, so the exact dates are a little bit fuzzy for me. But we started our work in the early 2000's. The Florida panther sub-team -- the reason why it was called the sub-team, it was supposed to be part of the MERIT process, the Multi-species and Ecosystem Recovery Page 10 16~ lt6 February 26, 2009 Implementation Team. And I was both a member ofthe sub-team but also the landscape chair for MERIT as well. So that was for the South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service of course was overseeing that I put together. And it was decided at that time that we needed an update on panther science and also identification of priority conservation areas to make sure that the only remaining panther population would hopefully remain viable. That's what we were asked to do by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. So we began our work about eight years or more ago and worked for three to four years. And then after that work was finished, we produced a sub-team report, but then based on that report we also published a scientific journal article. And this is actually the title ofthat journal article. Those are all of the co-authors. All ofthose people are members of the panther sub-team. And we'll go over briefly their expertise here in a minute. Bob Kawula is here from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission. He was an unofficial member of the panther sub-team. He's the one who helped us with the nitty-gritty of the analyses, or at least most of the analyses that we did. And I think Bob is here -- I'm not sure ifhe's going to make a statement after me or ifhe's here to answer questions specifically, but he knows a little bit more about the specifics of the habitat analysis than I do. I'm more ofthe big picture guy. But we will get into some of the details. So this is a peer review journal. This is a science journal. Came out in 2006. You know, we had reviewers who reviewed it before it was submitted to the journal, we had anonymous reviewers who reviewed it for the journal. We had a revision that we did; it was accepted by this journal. It's a published scientific article. So it's been through an elaborate extensive review process. Next slide. And I think one of the key issues here, and I'll get into this in a little more detail, is a bit of an issue of scale. This is Seminole work done by Reed Noss and co-authors. It was published in the Journal of Conservation Biology in 1996. And I'm not going to read that quote off. I may read a few others off later, but we'll let you take a look at that really quickly. I'll try to summarize. What Noss and his co-authors are saying is that for species, wide-ranging species, species that need very large areas to support viable populations, you're going to have to work at a regional landscape scale to effectively conserve those species. You need to work at a very large planning scale. That means looking at just beyond specifically what is habitat for that species; it means you've got to do integrated land use planning if you want to maintain these type of species. And that is accepted by everyone in the conservation biology field. Next slide. This slide includes Bob Kawula, that's why it's titled MERIT Panther Sub-team Members and Co-authors, since Bob is a co-author on the Scientific Journal article that was taken from the sub-team work. But everybody else here is a sub-team member. And you can see that we had a range of expertise, including obviously panther scientists, biologists. But also we had conservation planning represented, GIS data analysis, landscape modeling, mathematical habitat modeling, people who were working in the field with panthers as public land managers, biologists, team leader for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the recovery coordinator for the panther at the time, et cetera. People who had done population viability analyses, which is an important part of our work as well. It was a diverse group. A lot of the best specific panther expertise that we could get. And we worked in a consensus fashion, meaning that we discussed issues in detail for a number of years. We had some disagreements, we talked about those disagreements. We developed a set of consensus recommendations, what needed to be done to conserve the Florida panther population of Southwest Florida. Next slide. These are the sub-team goals. Our primary goal was to identify the areas essential to the long-term survival of the Florida panther in the wild, which you'll see very quickly is equated to the primary zone, which is one of our three recommended habitat conservation zones. Page 11 ".,.,,,,"',---- ,..-..... ......... ~ i__'~"""'."" 16\ 1 rv; February 26, 2009 Quickly, I'm going to gloss over this in the presentation, but I want to make sure that you know that we had other tasks as well, including a task to identify a landscape linkage or wildlife corridor across the Caloosahatchee River to allow for potential dispersal and maybe range expansion north of the Caloosahatchee River at some point. We know that every effort needs to be made to try to expand this population so that we maximize its viability. It's barely viable right now. And I'll talk about that more in a minute. Identify areas that could be restored. Because again, we would like to try and expand the population to make it more viable. And all of this work was done in a best science consensus base reserve design process. And I'll explain some of those details. It wasn't just what is potential panther habitat, what are the areas that are needed to make sure this population survives in the long term. Next slide. And these are the various analyses we conducted. I will not go over the details, except for I'm going to show you the zones and talk about how we delineated them. But some of these habitat analyses I'm going to gloss over. And Bob's here, if anybody has a specific question, he can answer questions about those things. But we conducted different types of habitat analyses, like the compositional analyses. We modeled potential habitat patches. We delineated the habitat conservation zones, which is the primary, secondary and dispersal zones. We conducted a review of population viability analysis and ran a new viability analysis. And we developed a comprehensive set of conservation recommendations. And one of the things that you should know is that there was, again, a sub-team report and then the journal article. The journal article includes some of our core conservation recommendations, but we had a conservation recommendation section in the report that was well over 20 pages. It includes all kinds of recommendations including, you know, the need to work with landowners on private lands that are in panther primary habitat, that it was extremely important. I think all of those recommendations are just as relevant today as they were then. And that's something that's sort of been lost is the fact that we worked very hard to come up with a comprehensive set of recommendations. I'll focus on the ones that deal with the zones specifically today and a couple others. Next slide. So after doing all of our habitat analysis, using telemetry data, doing various -- comparing various scientific methods, including compositional analysis, including distance analysis, looking at the relationship between panther home ranges, telemetry data and land cover data, we came up with a base habitat model. And this represents that habitat model, which is pretty simple. It's forest patches that are too hectares or larger, which is about five acres. And then all non-urban cover types within 200 meters of those forest patches. So the green that you see are the forest patches. At this scale it's kind of hard to see, but you might see a little bit of light brown, especially north of the Big Cypress Florida National Panther Wildlife Refuge area. Those are those other cover types within 200 meters of those forest patches. Now, important to -- this is the base. This is the starting point for identification of the various habitat conservation zones. This is one of the modeling layers that helped us do that. Next slide. And so then we went through the process of identifying three zones: The primary zone, the dispersal zone, the secondary zone. The quote at the bottom of this slide is from the journal article. And it says, the primary, dispersal and secondary zones comprise essential components of a landscape-scale conservation plan for the protection of a viable Florida panther population in South Florida. Now, again, there's some details there. But it's suggesting that all of these zones have a role to play in making sure that we can protect a truly viable population. And I'll explain what I mean by that here in a minute. Next slide. Page 12 i 161 lA's . February 26, 2009 So this is the zone that you are all most interested in for this process. And it was certainly the zone that we made very clear that this was by far our highest priority as well. Although the dispersal zone's also important and then the secondary zone, and I'll talk about them very briefly. But the definition of the primary zone is all lands within this zone are essential to the long-term viability and survival of the Florida panther. So that doesn't mean just forest patches, you know, it means this entire landscape. And we'll talk about that more in this presentation. And we're talking about a landscaped scale species, wide-ranging, needs an extremely large area. Very sensitive to human activities. Affected by transportation infrastructure and cars. It can roam over areas of agricultural land using those areas to connect forest patches in places where they're trying to get prey within existing home ranges. They use agricultural areas for dispersal. And we knew that as a team that if we were going to protect a viable population, we were going to have to identify a landscape-scaled reserve design. So the current population in the zone represents the foundation of one of the self-sustaining populations. Well, the recovery plan requires, if you're going to delist panthers, that you have three self-sustaining populations. Of course this is the only breeding population currently and it may always only be the one population that's breeding. It may be hard to reestablish panthers elsewhere. But we made it very clear that that makes this population in our recommendations extremely important. And another quote from the journal article, the habitat of the Florida panthers, an extensive landscape comprised of a mix of natural, semi natural and agricultural land uses. So again, we're recognizing that all of these things fit the pictures of what panther habitat is and that they are important for maintaining a viable population. Next slide. This slide is intended to give you an indication of how the primary zone boundaries were delineated. This is a draft version of the primary zone. This went through a couple of iterations, a long process, including the original delineation with a standard methodology and the primary building blocks for delineating the boundaries of the primary zone, which are of course the lines -- the very thick lines in red are the boundaries of the primary zone. And the data sets that we used as the base for helping us delineate these boundaries included the forest patches in 200 meters of other land uses around them in our base habitat model. Telemetry data are the blue dots you see, so we also used telemetry data. And we also used information on overlapping home ranges of panthers. So this standard methodology was applied consistently across the region to identify the areas that were most consistently used by panthers and fit the definition of areas essential to maintain a viable population. Next slide. And this is what the primary zone in its final form looks like. It does include approximately 500,000 acres plus of private lands, but most of it of course is on public lands. Next slide. And this is one of the core issues that I think is potentially relevant. And I have been briefed to some extent on some of the things that have been said, but I haven't heard everything. I think it's important for you to know that I don't get paid to work on panther issues. I was a volunteer on the panther sub-team, so this is not work that I am continuing to do, and I'm not paid to do any ofthe work that we did on the panther sub-team or the production of the journal article. So some of this I've had to review to make sure I remember how we did what we did. But this is probably the core issue, based on what I've heard and some of the things that I've read. And this is not a new issue. We talked about this during the sub-team process those years ago. And this was the difference between this base map of potential habitat, the forest patches and the 200 meters of non-urban land uses around them in a true reserve design, or landscape approach to identifying the areas that were important for protecting a viable population. Page 13 ."".,'..... "",--,-,~,--",_._-,,"--"--"" 16 i 1 (>f; February 26, 2009 And what this quote on the left-hand side of this map -- so that map represents, I've already showed it to you once, represents the potential habitat, again, the forest matches two hectares or larger, plus a 200-meter buffer. And we acknowledge that this was an important building block. But just identifying these areas was not enough. And just to highlight this, look at the white areas that are on that map in Collier and Hendry County that are interspersed with what's being identified as potential habitat and envision most of that as intensive land uses, urban some day. We knew if that happened, the Florida panther population would likely go extinct, that it was not sufficient to limit habitat identification and recommendations for conservation only on this map. So what the quote says and I'll read it: Whereas, the model in figure four -- and this is a version of figure four from our journal article -- indicates habitat patches providing important cover for panthers, the zones integrate the patches into a connected landscape mosaic of land cover types needed to support the population. So by zones we're talking about the primary zone primarily, but also the secondary and dispersal zone. Next slide. Dispersal zone, just very quickly, it became very clear for from a population viability perspective, if you could get a breeding population, even a small one, north of the Caloosahatchee River, that could help augment viability quite a bit. So one of our goals, to make sure there was always that opportunity for that to happen, and that if a population is established there, that there would be a chance potentially for interchange, genetic interchange across the Caloosahatchee River. So we identified a dispersal zone. Next slide. Again, very quickly, I'm not going to go over all these details, but obviously we went over characteristics of functional wildlife corridors and specifically for cougars/panthers. A lot of this work came from Paul Byer out in Southern California, but this is just ways we went to look for a potentially functional corridor, including one that would be wide enough. Next slide. And the area outlined in blue over satellite image is the dispersal zone. And you can see that it's a mosaic. It includes some forested lands, but it includes a lot of open agricultural lands, a lot of pasture. But one of the reasons why we decided to identify this zone at that time, three panthers have been documented to cross in this area. They had used this area to get to the Caloosahatchee River and cross it to go further north. Next slide. The secondary zone was primarily identified because there was occasionally some panther telemetry out beyond the bounds of the primary zone, but not areas that were being used regularly. We knew that we needed to try and expand the population, so we identified a secondary zone where you might have the opportunity to do that, especially if there was habitat restoration. And we'll talk about that a little bit more in a minute. However, we also need to recognize that development in the secondary zone could impact habitat quality within the primary zone. In areas directly adjacent to the primary zone you could have some loss of habitat quality because of intensive development within areas of the secondary zone. But the primary reason we identified this zone is where the areas we could do habitat restoration, maybe expand the population. And then the quote, although sub-team members consider the secondary zone to be a lower priority than the primary and dispersal zones, the security of the population could be significantly enhanced by its protection and restoration of at least some areas in the zone. Again, to help expand the population. Next slide. And identification of the secondary zone, again, highlights some ofthese ideas that it's not as simple as just forest patches and 200-meter buffer. These are all -- I'm not going to go over all these individually, but we would call these landscape indices. These are all the different things that could Page 14 ) 1.6 i 1 r4~ . February 26, 2009 influence panther habitat quality, including how close are you to those potential habitat patches we identified in that base map, the size of those potential areas, proximity to urban areas, obviously habitat quality is degraded, very near to urban land uses. We want low intensity land uses and we want low road densities. Next slide. And so this is the cumulative map with the green again the primary zone, the blue the dispersal zone, the yellow the secondary zone. Next slide. And as we were doing this delineation of zones, we also reviewed existing population viability analyses, that's what PV A stands for. And we did our own new population viability analysis. And what that modeling showed us is that at the time we estimated the population to be 80 to 100 animals, roughly. That may be a little bit higher now, but at the time that's what we were working with. And that meant that overall the Southwest Florida landscape had a barely viable to moderately viable population, just on the cusp of viability. Any significant loss in habitat catastrophe, you could see this population go extinct. Next slide. And based on density estimates for panthers, and those density estimates were also related to density estimates of cougars, mountain lions in other areas. And these density estimates were in the range of those density estimates. These were the numbers that we applied to each of the zones. So the 71 to 84 that you see in the middle of the primary zone, that's how many panthers we thought at the time that the primary zone could support. Maybe in the limited habitat available within the secondary zone, nine to 10 animals, and again, the dispersal zone is intended for dispersal, it's not large enough to support a single panther, at least not permanent occupation. So again, remember, those numbers in the last slide -- could we go back to the last slide really quickly? 71 to 84 panthers in the primary zone. That puts you just on the edge of that range again of barely viable to moderately viable. And then the next slide. So the conservation implications of the culmination of that this is a landscape species that needs extremely large areas to support viable populations, that we know it's sensitive to human activities, that we need to maintain a landscape that has high ecological integrity and very low influence regarding human land uses, number of humans, general human activities, that these were the various conservation implications that we came up with in the report. The three zones could support 79 to 94 panthers potentially. There is a high probability of persistence ofthis population if you assume that there's no significant habitat loss in the primary zone, that population expansion actually does occur into the secondary zone and there are no unforeseen catastrophes. The population may be stable but it also might decline slightly, but only without significant habitat loss. The population is small enough that it's still going to have genetic problems. You really need 240 or more animals to have a population that's likely to have healthy genetics. So we realize that a continued genetic management may be necessary. And that's also in the new recovery plan that recently came out. Again, another relevant quote from the science paper: Thus it appears that the primary zone, a large landscape consisting of a matrix of natural and disturbed cover types -- disturbed cover types meaning primarily agricultural land uses in a lot of pasture -- provides just enough space to support a population that is barely viable demographically, as long as the base remains stable. Next slide. So I apologize for the small text on this slide, but I think this is the core issue. It's something that you're probably most interested in. These were our recommendations for the primary zone. And the key one is because the relationship to population viability and the small size of the population. We made it very clear, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, that the key, the most important goal was no net loss of landscape function or carrying capacity. That means the ability of the primary zone to support a viable population. And to do that, the factors that you need to consider include avoidance of land use change and Page 15 '--~'-' <~.."... ....~..,_."~".,,,. 161 1~ February 26, 2009 intensification within the primary zone. Notice that it says avoid in all cases. The idea here is that you want to avoid land use conversion within the primary zone. And the four factors that we identified to help guide u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service activities included avoid reduction or degradation of the habitat base, avoid reduction in total area, avoid landscape fragmentation, avoid land use intensification, including transportation infrastructure. What we mean by this is that any loss within the primary zone, you would have to find areas, especially within the secondary zone, where you could restore habitat and add it to the primary zone, if there were any impacts within the primary zone. So then we said when impacts are unavoidable, you need both habitat restoration or enhancement in the primary zone and you need to secure and restore lands in the secondary zone that are adjacent to the primary zone that can be added to the primary zone boundaries. And again two relevant quotes. The first one from the report -- I mean from the journal article: The maintenance of existing home ranges and habitat function within the primary zone is essential to maintaining a viable Florida panther population. And this was reiterated in the recent revision of the Panther Recovery Plan: To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality and spatial extent of habitat within the primary zone. The continued loss of habitat functionality through fragmentation and loss of spatial extent pose serious threats to the conservation and recovery of the panther. There's no quibbling there in terms of what we think needs to be done with the primary zone. Next slide. And just one added recommendation. This actually comes from, I mentioned, the recommendation section of the sub-team report. It's from that report, it's not from the journal article. We're also very concerned about the intensification of transportation infrastructure. And our blanket recommendation was to avoid construction of new roads and the widening of existing roads in all panther habitat zones, obviously v.ith the most focus being on the primary zone. Retrofit existing roads to minimize roadkills and to maximize connectivity between blocks of habitat bisected by roads. So we're talking about avoiding intensification and new transportation structures and retrofitting existing roads. Next slide. I just wanted to show you just as an example -- you know, I do work with the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida -- and I apologize, I didn't say my affiliation, and I'm not sure that information was given to you. I am director of the center for landscape and conservation planning at the University of Florida. It's in the college of design construction and planning at the University of Florida. I got my Ph.D. in wildlife ecology and conservation at the University of Florida. And I've worked on both of course panther issues but also have done a lot of work for the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission on identifying state-wide habitat conservation priorities for the Florida black bear, worked with the Critical Lands and Waters Identification project state-wide that some of you have probably heard about. Worked with the Nature Conservancy on their regional planning project, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and others. But I also work with Peggy Carr and Paul Zwick in the GeoPlan Center in the DCP college. You are probably familiar with their Florida 2060 work, which is just a very core statewide growth projection model showing you how things might look if we continue to grow the way we're growing, using the BEBR projections for each county, the projections in growth. Some of you may have already seen this. They did in the last few years a more specific model comparing different growth scenarios and conservation scenarios for Southwest Florida. I'm just going to show you a couple of slides. Next slide. Page 16 1 \ 16\ l-A-0 . February 26, 2009 These are the BEBR -- the projections. They used BEBR as the base for these projections and then had to project out to 2060. I'm sure you're familiar with the numbers for Collier County, but an estimate of 600,000 new people by 2060. Obviously that's a lot. And in this entire region you're talking about a potential increase by 2060 of two million people. What they did in these scenarios is look at different scenarios of development, sort ofbaselined the way we grow today versus what does alternative transportation or mass transit do for us. What if we do redevelopment to increase densities? What if we protect more land than we have right now? And what if we combine all these things together? Next slide. What they found is, as you can imagine, even small increases in the density of existing development in terms of number of people per acre greatly reduces land consumption. Alternative mass transit also helps encourage higher densities. And the key finding related to what we're talking about today is this: In one of their conservation scenarios, they included the entire panther primary zone, and they showed that if you increased densities within this entire region that there was sufficient land to meet the needs of all of those additional people, two million more people, and still protect an additional one million acres of conservation land, including the entire primary zone. So again, just an aside that, you know, there is this idea that at a regional scale with good planning that you could accommodate all future development or development needs without impacting any area inside the existing primary zone. Next slide. That's it. And if you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sure there's a lot of questions. I've made a lot of notes myself. And just to give everybody a heads up, at 10:00 we will take a break for 15 minutes so the court reporter can take a break for her fingers and then we'll go on after that. So as we keep that in mind, we'll move forward and we'll first entertain questions from the Planning Commission. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What is genetic management? DR. HOCTOR: Genetic management. Recently female cougars from Texas were brought into the Florida panther population to try and restore genetic diversity. So that's one form. The idea here was to try and increase the genetic health of the population. And one of our recommendations was that I think every generation, that you might need to bring in two more females to manage the genetics ofthe population. It's to maintain its diversity, maintain its heterozygosity, which are measures of genetic health. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This might sound too easy, but if the magic number you're looking for is 250 for self-sustainability, can't you just bring in 175 more? DR. HOCTOR: Not the purpose of the panther sub-team process -- the answer is no. You know, again, remember, we talked about carrying capacity, and we think that we're close to the carrying capacity of Southwest Florida. So if you brought those animals in, there wouldn't be enough land, enough food for them all to make it. We're trying to expand the population, but that's going to require establishing panthers north of the Caloosahatchee River where there isn't currently a breeding population, and also potentially habitat restoration and an expansion of established home ranges into the secondary zone as well. So it's not -- and when we start talking about things like that, we're talking about, you know, the difference between sustaining a population in the wild and very intensive aggressive management approaches, which is not the primary goal here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You showed -- do I deserve two? I don't have that much to say. Page 1 7 ",.."'''''''" -..",,"----.,......,.. .- 16' 1 A~ February 26, 2009 From your maps, these forest patches that you showed, showed Collier County mostly covered with forest patches. Well, there's a heck of a lot more ago land than there are forest patches, the last time I went driving out there. I don't know where that comes from, but I'm sure there's a reason for it. You don't have to answer it, I just wanted to throw that up, that it makes Collier County look less than what it is. DR. HOCTOR: There is a lot of forest in the county. Remember, those biggest patches in the southern half or southern two-thirds of the county, most of that's on public land. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: WelL sure, I do understand that. Yeah, we already went through the bringing in more cats. I just n you know, most of this RLSA has panther, panther, panther all the way through it and we're trying to protect it and protect it. And I'm trying to figure out why. Why the panther and why not the hundreds of species that are going extinct through the process of probably every day hundreds come and hundreds go. I don't -- DR. HOCTOR: Well, one of the good things about a species like the Florida panther requiring as much land as it needs for a viable population is we would call both the Florida panther in this state, the Florida panther and the Florida black bear umbrella species, which means if you protect viable habitat to maintain a viable population for the Florida panther, all those other species that you're talking about, the vast majority of them would also be protected. You would also have viable populations for them as well. There may be a few endangered plants that don't overlap with panthers and a few things, but the vast majority of those species would be protected by panther habitat protection too. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right. I just have a difficult time with it.lt almost seems like we're forcing them to stay where they may not want to be. And, you know, certainly from Texas they gladly let their cougars, bobcats, whatever you want to call them, since they do an awful lot of hunting for them there. And just one second here. Oh, in your study, did you look at what the landscape would look like if the Florida panther were not here? In other words, if it was allowed to go extinct, did you look at what would happen if it went extinct? DR. HOCTOR: No, sir. I mean, I covered the goals of the panther sub-team, and we were given very clear goals by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and it was to identify the habitat base, conservation areas that would be needed to support a viable population. So we didn't look at any other scenario like that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: In other words, the worst case scenario, the panther went away. Everything that we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on, these hundred and however many cats there are. I mean, what would happen if, you know, we spent all that money and they went away? That's -- DR. HOCTOR: I understand the questions that you're asking, but these are really on the level of should there be an Endangered Species Act at the federal level or not. And the pros and cons, the cost benefits, that's all federal Endangered Species Act considerations debate which I think is really beyond the scope. I mean, for your group, certainly, that's something that you can talk about. But be aware of the potential implications of the Endangered Species Act. But that was not the purpose of our analysis. We were asked to do something very specific by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and I'm really here to answer questions about that work and the conservation zones we identified. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right. WelL just my engineering, what happens if, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But David, let's focus on panther questions. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand. I'm wondering why we have so many panther questions. But anyway, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have anymore? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. Page 18 161 '11 4f'S - ~ I' - ..L February 26, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How does golf courses fit into the panther habitat? DR. HOCTOR: You know, we talk about -- one of the things that was very clear that, you know, the intensification of human activity is one of the concerns we have in terms of protecting a population in the long term, a viable population. In theory, golf courses could be part of a buffer for panthers, et cetera. But there is a lot of human activity, or at least if your golf course is doing well, I hope there's a lot of human activity. Currently today in terms of the relationship between existing golf courses and where panthers are, it's not something that we dealt with directly in the panther sub-team work and not something that I've been looking at or analyzing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Doctor, in order to secure the viability at that 200 range, you spoke about corridors and then you spoke about density under Smart Growth principles, presumably. What actual density would have to be held at in order to assure that viability? DR. HOCTOR: What density we would have to maintain panthers at? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm asking you to basically to give us, if you know, what the projection would be for just outside the corridors along roads, et cetera, what kind of density utilization by people would be necessary. What numbers? In other words, you might have -- DR. HOCTOR: How low would the density of humans need to be to maintain functional panther habitat and not have a negative effect on the quality of habitat adjacent. I mean, there's a couple of ways to look at that. One is some of the habitat -- it's very course, but some of the habitat modeling that's been for panthers, other species, one of the things we use when identifying the secondary zone is that zone of one kilometer, you know, .6 miles with it near existing urban land use was considered to be an area where you might have the lowest habitat quality. So in terms of adjacencies, you know, we're talking about a scale of, you know, hundreds of meters up to a kilometer where there's an area of concern, a primary concern of intensive development right next to panther habitat. But these things admittedly are very course. In terms of the panther corridor, I put up a slide very quickly that talked about maintaining a functional panther corridor. Now, this is in the corridor itself, but the work that Paul Byer did suggested that any density of human dwellings above one unit per 40 acres would negatively affect the function of the corridor itself. But that's a little bit different. He's talking about within the corridor. Ideally you have no houses within the corridor. And ideally, you know, you'd have no houses within the corridor itself but, you know, it would require a very low density. And the type of planning that we do, ideally the way you would do this is you have zones of intensity that would grade from preserved habitat to very low intensity uses to moderately intent uses to highly intensive uses. It's that idea of zoning, conservation zoning that would maintain buffers that would help maintain panther habitat quality. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, Doctor, one of the issues that was raised and why you're here is associated with questions as to how wide a true corridor needs to be and also the interface of parks and golf courses and such for estimated future development. And in order to assure -- and I think our target is viability, not sustenance, that's what I'm trying to get at, if you appreciate where I'm going. So you're saying that the heaven, as it were, would be less -- one in 40. And a corridor needs to be, some people have said, I don't know, 300 meters or something of that nature. DR. HOCTOR: We can go back to the slide. There are -- some of the -- if we could go back to the corridor slide. There are a couple of the width recommendations on that slide. Page 19 _"___~U__"_~~~_'_~"_.~_""_'_'.____"_ ~------_._-~.--,~"-"~_._.._--- - i \ kS Fl,Qa~ 26, 009 And based on Paul Byer's work in Southern California where he did very intensive tracking of cougars that he had collared, on-the-ground tracking and his empirical work suggested some -- it should be closer to the end. There it was. One back. You see at the bottom -- and you're in this range. And I think this is something that the existing science review team is working on. But these are general recommendations. That first width, the second one from the bottom is the Paul Byer recommendation, based on his intensive empirical work. Reed Noss, in the work that he's done on wildlife corridors has suggested at a larger scale. You know, keep in mind that these recommendations for these smaller widths are for corridors that are under seven kilometers. So maybe about five miles or less in length. And then when you start talking about corridors that are larger than that, needing to start thinking about protecting wider corridors. This is sort of a moderate recommendation, the Reed Noss one, of something that needs to be a mile wide. But then some of the other works suggest that if you really want regional corridors or landscaped scaled corridors, you need to start protecting or thinking about corridors that start approximating the size of a home range, which is even larger. I didn't think we'd talk about corridors that much today, so I didn't include all of those different widths. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I may be in error, but I believe some of the issues have been in argument about width of corridors being sut1icient to assure at least mobility, let alone preservation. And so I think that one of the things I was hoping to get from you -- but I've gotten it from you, apparently. Ideally -- now, this is for sustaining the population. DR. HOCTOR: No, these are specifically for protecting functional corridors that panthers will use to move through. I mean, once we start talking about protecting viable population, we have to talk about all those other issues, about how many animals we need, how much space they need, what land uses can be in or near that area, et cetera. So this is just one very specific aspect of a plan, and the various guidelines we use to specifically define or delineate the dispersal zone in our work. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning Commission at this point? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, earlier on we heard testimony that the proposed habitat stewardship areas would encompass about 91 percent of the panther telemetry points, basically covering the forested areas, wetland and upland. And the speaker said that if you can protect 91 percent of the telemetry points, then you've pretty much protected the panthers. What would your comment be on that? DR. HOCTOR: If you protected 91 percent of all telemetry locations, that means you can protect a viable population. Well, it's certainly not a population viability analysis. And, you know, you're talking about telemetry datas coming from a number of animals. Some animals have many more telemetry locations than others. So it's very misleading. If that's really the statement that was made, the idea that by protecting a certain percentage of telemetry locations, that would protect a viable population, it doesn't necessarily add up. There's other analyses that you would have to do. That's not the way you'd go about doing it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In the same presentation, they were talking about two different methods of estimating home ranges. And I hope I'm not boring too many people, but just to get into it, they were talking about a convex polygon home range versus a fixed kernel home range. Basically the polygon would mean that you'd encompass more land around it and the kernel you'd just sort of pick close to the areas where you have the telemetry points. Could you talk about that a little? DR. HOCTOR: Minimum convex polygons and fixed kernel. I'm actually -- this is where Bob gets to do his thing. This is the work that he did. I know something about these and do it with bear work, but 1 ~ Page 20 I 161 l,AS I . February 26, 2009 he's the one who did this work for the panther sub-team. I'm going to let him talk about that a little bit more and I might have a followup comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like to finish questions with you first, Doctor, and then we'll bring him up -- yeah, we'll just bring that question back up when the other gentleman comes up. DR. HOCTOR: What I can say for now, if that's related to a delineation of the primary zone, we use three things: We use the base habitat map, the forest patches and 200 meters around them, we use telemetry data and we used overlapping home ranges. And we did use MCP home ranges for that analysis. But we did not rely on that alone. It was three different datasets that were used. So some of this, you know, comparison of the two methods for the -- the purposes that we created the primary zone is -- I'll defer to Bob. But again, we didn't rely just on the MCP home ranges when we delineated the primary zone. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have another question for you. How important are prairies, pasture lands and marshes to the panthers? DR. HOCTOR: Important. Both from the standpoint of the landscape context of these forest patches, but they need to move through those areas, so for connectivity. And also for prey production. Open areas are very important for deer especially, which is a primary food source. So they are important components of the landscape. There was the one quote I had in the presentation at some point that talked about the primary zone being a mosaic of both forested and open land covers. And that mosaic was essential for protecting the population. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because I guess most of the telemetry points were -- had some sort of forested cover. But what you're seeming to suggest is that you need more than just the forested areas in order to preserve the population. DR. HOCTOR: Yes. Everything that we know about this species, it cannot be just about forest. Like the primary point I made with comparing the base habitat map with the primary zone, that's a key consideration, that you cannot limit it to identification of forest and assume that everything around those forest patches can be developed and you're going to conserve this population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Doctor, I have a series of questions. And I need to know if the staff has that pointer that's here. First of all, Doctor, you had said that during the discussion this is the only breeding population. Is it the only one in the world for this species? DR. HOCTOR: Florida panther is a subspecies, but yes, it's the only breeding population of Florida panthers in the world. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the maps you showed, and it wasn't the one showing the forest vegetation, it was the one after that. Could we get that one back on the screen? Keep going. Well, yeah, that one will work. This is Golden Gate Estates, I believe. And the RLSA, that probably is Immokalee. That means the RLSA is out here. By this map it seems to identify -- DR. HOCTOR: Could I use the pointer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you use this? Sure, we'll loan it back to you. DR. HOCTOR: Yeah, maybe we have a handkerchief or something. I'm not trying to infect anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I was getting at is it appears that the entire RLSA is primary zone, and now we've been passed out another document -- Page 21 ,.--"', ...... ---","",,,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,"""-,. "'. .. .. _ ',r ...,,__~...,_ ~....~.,.. -..'"-.---- I Fl~~ 26, }oo~ DR. HOCTOR: This map should help clarify that. I think this map shows the RLSA boundary in relation to primary and secondary zone. I think the white area represents Immokalee. So this gives you a little bit -- this focuses it down and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First of all, in order to qualify this map, is this a map that you recognize to be consistent with the analysis of the primary zones that you did for your study? DR. HOCTOR: Well, with the caveat that I haven't studied the RLSA boundaries or plan in detail. But in terms of the -- if you're asking me the general -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the primary and secondary zones shown here. DR. HOCTOR: In terms of the representation of the primary and secondary zone on this map, it appears to be the same data. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when that larger map was shown by all the green areas showing it as primary, really when you focus it dO~l1 it's not just primary, it's a combination of primary, dispersal, open areas and secondary. DR. HOCTOR: Well, in this zoom-in, the dispersal zone is off the map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. DR. HOCTOR: But yes, in the area of your primary interest, we're talking about a combination of primary and secondary zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You had referenced, and I heard it again, that from the wooded areas, and let's say the wooded areas then that you were referring to were primary, and I need you to verify that, the distance in which that would still be considered primary outside the wooded areas would be 200 meters; is that correct? DR. HOCTOR: Yes. The general method -- or the standard methodology for this process was to take those three primary data layers. which again was the forest patches, the telemetry data and the overlapping home ranges to delineate these boundaries. And it included consideration of that 200-meter buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we have an uplands area that's forested and it's accepted as primary panther habitat, then as a safeguard we can be reasonably assured that 200 meters around that area, even if it goes into agricultural fields that are actively row crops, that's still considered primary panther habitat? DR. HOCTOR: If it was in areas that fit in the -- with the data that we used to delineate the zones, the answer is yes, there could be tomato fields, active crop lands, citrus groves that could be included within the primary zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because that's rather important. The debate is really rested on whether the open lands, which are including agricultural lands, can be or are considered primary panther habitat. And from what I've just heard, in those cases where there is a 200-meter distance from a known accepted primary panther uplands forested area, those ago fields then would qualify as primary panther habitat. DR. HOCTOR: Well, let's make sure we're all -- it is a little bit confusing, but -- clear on the terminology. We have typically called the map that we used as -- one of the three data layers to create the primary zone boundary is the forest patches plus the 200 meters. What you have are probably people are saying that's panther habitat and nothing beyond that is panther habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. DR. HOCTOR: The difference is, is that the primary zone is the area needed to conserve a viable population. So there is a slight difference. But the key is if you're talking about what we need to do to conserve this population, the primary zone identifies those areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only way we could lock down a primary zone for purposes of land use characteristics in a code is to put some kind of numeric distance or value in relationship to another. ~ Page 22 I I~ '~ t 16 I 1 A0 February 26, 2009 And that's why I'm getting at this issue of say 200 meters. It's so important that we understand that where there is acknowledged primary uplands, and that hasn't been in dispute, that any area within 200 meters of that, such as the agricultural areas, are considered part of that primary area. And that's an important definition that we needed to find out. And I think we've been trying to do that for three or four days now. Could you put up the second drawing that I have -- gave you, the smaller one? Would you blow up the area around Ave Maria to the south where it says Oil Well Road? Okay. Now, looking at this map and looking at the one that was previously up there, it's a little easier to see how some of this map was brought about. But what I was mostly concerned about -- and someone took my pointer again. We have budget restrictions here at the county and they limited pointers this year. Right here, there's a dip in the yellow. And the yellow represents areas that are open, not primary. And in here there's blue and over here there's blue. I know that's a one minute example, but I couldn't understand how that dip, how that peninsula going into the blue could be part -- not considered primary but the blue around it on both sides of it was primary. And I know that there's probably a logical explanation, but I'm trying to understand how the concept of primary is determined if you have points and projections like that that kind of separate it out. DR. HOCTOR: Well, I'm looking at if this is similar to what you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. And you have the same situation occurring on this. DR. HOCTOR: I'm having trouble seeing the blue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put the other one back up and we can pick a similar point in the other one. Now that I've -- this is the area right here. Go ahead and move that one over now. Put the -- the one on the right needs to come up on the screen, if you could. That one there. Like this point here. It's primary over here, it's primary over here, but for some reason that little point is not. That just kind of makes you wonder, how did this come about? DR. HOCTOR: Well, again, there was a standard methodology. It included using those three different data layers: The telemetry locations, the forest patches with the 200-meter buffer, and the overlapping home ranges. And based on the combination of those data layers, I don't know what's going on in that little peninsula, but it didn't fall within the primary area using our consistent methodology. That's all I can tell you. I mean, I haven't compared our maps with your RLSA maps, so I have not looked at these area in the kind of detail that you have. But again, we were applying a consistent methodology throughout the region. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you -- when someone wants to utilize primary for some reason, is there a successful way of mitigating the primary and still retain the viability that you're looking for? DR. HOCTOR: Our -- could we go back to the slide that talks about primary zone recommendations? It's towards the end. Keep going. That's it. Thank you. Well, we do of course talk about avoiding impacts at all -- you know, if at all possible, you want to avoid the impacts up-front. If it's not necessary to impact the primary zone, why impact the primary zone? But we recognized that there was a chance the way things work, that some impacts might occur within the primary zone, whether it be new development, residential commercial, et cetera, or new roads, that it could happen. And in those situations, we set pretty strict criteria. Because we're talking about two different things: One was habitat restoration or enhancement in the primary zone. That means, you know, again, you talk about the question about forest, that we would like -- the more forest in the primary zone the better, that you could help increase habitat quality by having more forest cover types within the primary zone. But what we're really keyed in on is the fact that given the size of the population and that we were just on the verge of a viable population or just around a viable population, we also said that it wasn't Page 23 ",,,,-"" - ~_ ........., ~ "HII'U""'_~.'''-,,,,;,,,,.,,,,~~,,,,,,,,-,, _.M'<~"_'_"',,_ 16\ 1 ~ February 26, 2009 enough just to restore forest or recreate forest in the primary zone, we also said that you needed to identify areas of the secondary zone adjacent to the primary zone that could be protected, and if needed restored into primary panther cover types as well. So the idea here is that you're trying to maintain the habitat base and the aerial extent of the primary zone. So if you lose 5,000 acres in the primary zone, let's just say hypothetically, that you would need to identify a suitable area in the secondary zone adjacent to the primary zone where you could do enough habitat restoration and add that area to the primary zone boundary. And that's -- you know, you have to find willing owners that are adjacent to the primary zone. It's not necessarily very easy, but we were fairly strict with if you're going to do mitigation what you were going to have to do to maintain the carrying capacity of the primary zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, it's my understanding your paper, or the paper ofthe group of you has been utilized by Florida Wildlife Service as a way to determine primary zones and permitting processes and things like that pursuant to the Endangered Species Act; is that -- DR. HOCTOR: That's my general understanding. There are other people who have stayed more in touch with the way the U.S. fish & Wildlife Service have used the panther sub-team's work. But my understanding is that they are using it. They're basing -- they've created a habitat evaluation model I think that was based on one of our recommendations. But even more importantly, it is the basis for a lot of the recommendations within the recovery plan, the new recovery plan, which again is a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service document, which included a whole nother set of scientists, some of the people on the sub-team who adopted many of the recommendations we made in the sub-team report. So it is being used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doctor, I have a few more questions, but we're at a break point for the court reporter. I'd like to finish and try to keep it as short as I can. I know you're not feeling well. My intentions from the public's perspective, we're going to hear from the other scientist who is here today. When both are finished and the Planning Commission's finished, I'll ask for comments from the public and then we'll move on with the day. So we'll take a IS-minute break and be back here at 10: 17. Thank you, Doctor. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please take their seats, we'd like to move on with our discussion. Okay, Dr. Hoctor was still on -- if we could have a few more questions, Doctor, we sure would appreciate it. And I still have the pointer, the one allocated budget pointer that this committee was allowed to have. Where I had left off, discussing the use of your paper by the fish & Wildlife Service. We have a series of permits, either issued or applied for, for some jurisdiction or areas within the RLSA, Ave Maria being one, the town of Big Cypress is another one that's coming up for approval. We're not here to weigh the pros and cons of either one of those today. That will be -- one's already done, the other's for the future. But in the case of Ave Maria or any application that's in the SRA that has secondary and primary impacts, how does an agency review those in relationship to your paper? I mean, by the fact that they've accepted your paper, does that mean that that paper then by their review is locked in to whatever their approval process is? Because that's an important consideration in the way we would look at things. Because no matter what we do, we can't override the state or the federal government in regards to how they view things. Can you shed some light on how they use your paper? DR. HOCTOR: I'm afraid I cannot. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is obviously the most Page 24 . . 161 l1J~ February 26, 2009 relevant area. The Corps of Engineers obviously would get involved too, but coordinating with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. I only know in general that we are using our zones and recommendations to guide their review and their mitigation policies. There are other people who know a lot more than I do. It's just I have not admittedly kept up to date with the specifics of how the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's policies have changed since the sub-team did its work. I really don't know the details. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next gentlemen I believe works for that Fish & Wildlife Service, or -- DR. HOCTOR: Well, he works for the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, which is the state agency. And he's not necessarily going to know the answers to that either. There are other people in this room who are working with the specifics of -- you know, not from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, but again, that's not something that I've kept completely up to date on. I've received some general information, but that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we'll move on to the next item. Could you put up that larger map. I know it's large, so let's look at the top panther corridor and then the south panther corridor. Keep moving down, down, down, down. Further down. Okay, right there. Doctor, this is a proposed panther corridor. It goes along here. I don't know the width at all these points. Obviously it goes wider and narrower, and then it picks up down here. Now, I understand the way this is -- the document's written that the corridor can be expanded on. And if it does, there's more restoration requirements and things like that. But should it not be expanded on, this is the viable -- or I shouldn't say viable, this is the suggested corridor. And I'm kind of asking you, is that the kind of corridor that is practical for use in panther areas? DR. HOCTOR: We're talking about the black lines that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. DR. HOCTOR: -- connect over from CREW to OK Slough? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, right through here. DR. HOCTOR: Well, I've only heard about this proposal in general. I've never seen a map of it, so this is new to me. I'm not entirely sure of the scale, but we're pretty zoomed out, and I don't know the distance between the two areas. But if -- you know, I would hope that's only conceptual and that would be talking about a much wider corridor and obviously restoration, woody cover being added to that area. But it seems to me -- I don't know how wide that corridor is, but it seems very narrow and it's probably below the minimums that we talked about earlier here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me put it a little differently then. In order for this corridor to have a minimum width that would make it viable even if it were to be used by a panther, considering its distance and length, what would you think is the minimum width this corridor would need to be? DR. HOCTOR: Well, you're asking me to do an on-the-fly delineation of a corridor width. And one of the things that I always get in trouble with planners about is sometimes when I get a little ornery about this, I said it depends when they say what the corridor width should be. And of course it does depend. We've already talked about distance matters. The longer the corridor, the wider it potentially needs to be. I would have to sit down with this data and really get a feel for the distance between these areas and come up with a recommendation. I assume others are reviewing this now. Questions I would have, again, if we actually -- if hypothetically we're talking about that that's the boundary of the corridors, the black lines -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 25 ~_....... ~__~_'~'.,__~_,.~~.~M'_"';n~"._,,___~_,_.___,,.,._v.~~___,,"__,,__,_._____~__..,,_.___,,~_...___________,.__.___.'" __ I 16\ l-AS February 26, 2009 DR. HOCTOR: -- I would have an immediate question, just again quick, rapid assessment review, I'm not sure why it would go directly north like it does on the west side, versus cutting across. Maybe it's road related or proposed road related. The width just on its face just seems too narrow. This corridor may be longer than, let's say, five miles. I assume it's longer than five miles, but I don't know that for sure, and that we start talking about minimum widths of maybe a mile or more, to be really comfortable. So at the current stage I'd assume that that's too narrow. I wonder about the angularity and whether it could be more direct. But you could, with restoration and enough width, potentially restore a functional corridor in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with the -- could you move the projection so that we're looking at the corridor that's on the bottom of this plan or towards the bottom. Right there. We have another one that's shown right here. It goes down to this point and down here. And it has basically -- it's a shorter one, but the narrowness of it seems to be consistent in points with the other one. And I just wanted to point that out, that those are the two corridors currently proposed by the -- the owners out there have got a Memorandum of Understanding that this is under study for. And actually the corridors will have a big factor in the restoration credits used for the stewardship program. So I think what this would mean is, to be a practical corridor we would have land added to them. And if that's the case, from a viewpoint of planning it increases the number of potential stewardship credits through restoration and functionality that we'd have to address a use for, so -- okay. That's the only other questions I have at this time. Does anybody else on the Planning Commission have any follow-up questions before we go to the next speaker? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We spoke about genetic management. You had said that the Florida panther is only found here in Florida? DR. HOCTOR: Yes, the subspecies is only in Florida. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What cats do you bring in to do the genetic management? DR. HOCTOR: I am pretty sure that the ones that have been brought in in the recent past when they did the introduction of eight females, Texas subspecies, Texas cougars. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So then the actual Florida panther is being diluted or changed genetically, or how does that work? DR. HOCTOR: Well, now you're bringing up a very long history of arguments about the way the original genetic restoration was done. There were concerns about that, but I think it's really beyond the scope ofthis group. I think the general consensus that appears is that the genetic restoration that's been done up to this point worked relatively well. It may not have been as controlled as we might have liked, but it seems that we have an increase in genetic diversity and that in the future the idea is to have less animals brought in each time, one generation, two females, and that it be better controlled. Controlled means limiting the number of breeding opportunities for those females for a specific defined period of time. But at the current population level, our basic recommendation was that you're probably going to need to do continued genetic restoration by bringing in cats with other genes from other parts of the species or other subspecies. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So the end result won't be Florida panthers, it will be some mixed breed? DR. HOCTOR: You'd have to ask an opinion of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. But I think all of this has been covered, and that clearly under the Endangered Species Act that the Florida panther is a valid endangered species, and that this genetic management would not result in dilution that would make it so that it's not anymore. But that's U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service territory. Page 26 'I- 161 lA0 February 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doctor, thank you very much for your time so far. I think that's all the questions before we go to Mr. Kawula. And then we may like to ask you anything after public comment. Thank you, sir. I have a CV here of Dr. Kawula. And I didn't know you were a Ph.D. until now, so I'm glad I have that. Thank you. DR. KA WULA: Good morning, everyone. My name is Robert Kawula. I am working currently for the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission in the Florida Wildlife Research Institute. And just to make it even more difficult, I'm in the Center for Spatial Analysis within the research institute. I've been working for the commission for over 11 years, mostly doing habitat modeling, relating species with habitat characteristics. I've been a -- as Tom has said, I've been the co-author of -- one of the co-authors on the Kautz, et al paper. Although I wasn't an official member of the MERIT panther sub-team, I did do a lot of the nuts and bolts kind of things related to habitat analysis. In addition to the Kautz, et al paper, I was also a co-author on a subsequent paper by Darrell Land, the Land, et al paper, which also looked at panther habitat and telemetry relationships. During the last few days I've had the opportunity to kind of review some of the transcripts from previous meetings, and I just -- I think Tom helped you understand some of the issues with the MERIT program. But I would like kind of to have the opportunity to make a few comments regarding specific aspects of -- that were brought up in previous meetings regarding the home ranges and the habitat use associations. With respect to home ranges, there's a lot of arguments in the scientific literature and brought to you whether, well, is a minimum convex polygon home range better than a fixed kernel home range? And really, those are only two of a lot of different metrics used to describe home ranges. And each has an appropriate use. There's benefits, pros and cons for each different method. My opinion is in both in the Kautz, et al paper and the Land paper that the appropriate method was used. Both methods are currently used in scientific literature, not only for Florida panthers but also other speCIes. My second comment concerns the habitat selection techniques used in the Kautz, et al paper, the compositional analysis and the euclidian distance analysis. First let me digress a little bit and talk about something regarding the home ranges. I said there's pros and cons of each one. One of the issues that I read that was brought up before this body was that certain -- if a home range contains a habitat that you don't consider a panther habitat, such as roads, it's not a good technique. I would submit that any home range technique that you use is going to contain habitats that you normally wouldn't consider panther habitat. Roads would probably be in most panther habitats. If roads didn't occur in home ranges of panthers, we wouldn't have panther roadkills. So in regard to the habitat selection techniques, there are -- we did use a couple different techniques, mostly because we wanted to have a little bit of redundancy in the analysis. Both techniques are widely accepted in the scientific field and both have been used extensively. Again, a lot of these techniques, like compositional analysis, at the time that we were doing the analysis, compositional analysis, it was like a technique that was really widely used. And now since then it's a fast-moving field. There's other techniques, and one of those was the euc1idian distance analysis technique. And there's also many other resource selection functions that can be used. There's books about different habitat selection techniques. I guess my last comment is it's more of a statement that in both papers the Kautz, et al paper and the Land, et al paper, the techniques, the methods used for determining habitat use are robust, they're scientifically sound, and they have withstood scrutiny by other experts in this field, not only panther experts Page 27 '''',",.-. - -...... --_.- "'1''\1' . , "'_~______......~. -~--_._- I 161 1 ~ February 26, 2009 but other experts that have done habitat use analysis for other species. Finally, the methods, results and conclusions of Kautz, et al have all been vetted scientifically and have been peer reviewed and have been published in refereed journals, which kind of helps to give these papers and the results of these papers the credibility that a lot of more gray literature does. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding kind of the techniques, the methods that we're utilizing in either of these, the Kautz, et al or Land, et al papers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I know we have some -- members of the Planning Commission, do you have any questions at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me start out then by asking the young lady with the screen, the overhead projector, to put the smaller version of the plan I gave you up first. And the reason I'm using this is because it's the simplest one to explain. And could you take it down a little bit in size so the colors show up better? Okay, right there's good. We have two plans that were being discussed. We're not actually discussing this plan, it was presented to us. And this is where the issues came up over how things were determined. The other plan that is present shows much of this blue area I know down here, and I even think up in some of these others and over in this area, shows much of the blue area, which is considered primary panther habitat, and it's in ago fields on this plan. But in those other -- the other plan, it shows a lot of it as developable acreage because it's considered open space, it's considered ago land. When looking at this plan, we got into the question of well, if this is ago land and the yellow's ago land, what makes the difference? Well, then we got into two parties explaining how they got the yellow -- well, the person -- the party that had the yellow and the blue, how they got there. And they basically used some of your geometric shapes in the blue area to say that's part of the primary plan that you all presented, and that the yellow wasn't part of that. And this vaguely matches up to what the other plan was that was handed out on an eight-and-a-half by 11. The committee didn't use the same kind of shapes to determine where primary and secondary were. They used some kind of n we had one of the people who worked on it talk about a different geometric shape that they used that different cover -- didn't require this to be primary, didn't show it to be primary. I don't know how to describe it any better than that, and unfortunately that's a pretty lousy way to describe it. So I guess the question boils dO~l1 is when this plan or any plan of yours was done, what geometric shapes did you use that would have included agricultural lands as part of primary panther habitat? DR. KA WULA: Well, I guess, you know, I'd have to reiterate what Tom said, that there was a number oflayers that were used to determine the boundary of the primary, the primary zone. One of those being that the overlap ofMCP polygons was one of those layers, in addition to buffering 200 meters from forested habitats that we found to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, if you could put that on silent or turn it off? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I had. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. DR. KA WULA: I lost my train of thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. DR. KA WULA: So I really don't know if I understand your question. Page 28 .. ! 161 1 ~ February 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul Midney kind of succinctly said it better than I. Paul, would you repeat the other question when you brought up the comparisons of the different points? It's the same thing I have been trying to get to, but you said it much better than I tried to. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't remember what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- what it was. DR. KA WULA: Was it the question regarding the MCP versus fixed kernel method and which is more -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, yeah, I had two questions. One was there was one method which was the convex polygon method which basically included more land around the forested areas, around the telemetry points. And then there was another one that was submitted that was the fixed kernel, which more zoned in on the actual telemetry point areas without providing as much buffer area or as much I guess foraging area, less pasture, less fields, less dry prairies and marshes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the question would be which one did you use when you laid out the larger -- and ma'am, could you put that other sheet on that was passed out afterwards? That one, please. This is -- let's assume for argument sake the green is a representation of your primary panther habitat. Which one of those, whether it be a convex polygon or a fixed kernel, were used in determining the green areas on a plan like this? DR. KA WULA: The layer used that the MERIT sub-team used was a layer ofMCP polygons that were overlapped in some -- I hope I'm not being a little bit vague but I didn't really actually do this part. The data, the home ranges were supplied by another one of the authors of the paper, Jane Comiskey, and they were incorporated into their thought process -- their being the panther sub-team thought process -- regarding the delineation of the primary zone. But my understanding is that there were MCP polygenes, minimum convex polygons of essentially all of the panthers -- all of the panther points. I mean, there are some caveats there. They had to be over one and a half years old, and I don't recall the total number of MCP's, but they overlapped all of those MCP's. And then actually they realized that when you overlap that many MCP's there's going to be some areas that they're going to want to exclude. Like if only one or two cats, I believe, occurred in a -- were overlapped in an area, they just threw that -- they excluded that from their analysis and how they delineated the primary zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately that doesn't help us get to a full understanding of the use of ago But in order to lock onto something that is understandable, do you believe that the 200-meter buffer around known primary panther habitat to include up to 200 meters out as additional primary panther habitat for areas like farm fields is a reasonable conclusion that the Kaufman (sic) report came to? DR. KA WULA: The Kautz report? Yes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kautz report. DR. KA WULA: -- I believe that's reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what about mitigation? Is it reasonable to believe that even primary habitat -- and I know that's what's shown on the slide, I just want your concurrence -- that there is mitigation potential on a one-to-one for lands like -- that are primary? DR. KA WULA: I'm not -- I don't have the expertise to really know if that's appropriate or not. I don't under -- I don't know the entire issues surrounding the mitigation. My main -- my main contribution to the Kautz, et al paper and the Land paper was to deal with the nuts and bolts of habitat, selection analysis, and I have really no comment regarding the policy or the use of how it's -- how our information is to be used. Page 29 - -... ll' .... ...1II1llO ....'" "",-~ --..--.- 16' 1 16 February 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the width of corridors? Do you concur with the previous discussion on the minimum width of corridors, or is that outside -- DR. KA WULA: That's outside of my purview also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That basically takes up most of the questions I would have then. Anybody else have any questions? Mr. Kolt1at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, on this illustration, up there at the top there's a white area surrounding the white areas, a black enclosure line. It's my understanding that black enclosure line is the town of Immokalee; is that correct. DR. KA WULA: I believe so. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: If that's the town of Immokalee, what does the white blob up there represent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be the urbanized area, wouldn't it? MR. GREENWOOD: That's the footprint. It's ShO~l1 down in the lower right-hand corner. Yeah, that's basically what's been urbanized. The boundary that's around that is the urban area of Immokalee. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The white is the urban area, and then the -- MR. GREENWOOD: No, no, the white is the area that's actually developed, primarily developed, and the large boundary around it is the Immokalee urban area, which is the area for master planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It extends out beyond the urbanized and developed area, Tor. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions before I move to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time and your trip down here today. And we may ask you to respond to -- you may feel like responding after you hear public speakers. Thank you. Okay, are there any members of the public that wish to address this issue? And Mr. Jones is jumping right up. Anxious today. MR. JONES: We've got a busy day. For the record, Tom Jones. And I had a couple of -- I have a couple of questions and I've probably got a comment wedged in the middle of my questions, I'm sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, just so you know, the questions and discussion is focused towards the Planning Commission. And then at the end, if the gentlemen who spoke want to come up and respond or discuss, they'll be allowed to. MR. JONES: Thank you for clarifying that. I'll make sure I direct my questions then to the Commission. In the interest of full disclosure, Dr. Hoctor mentioned that he had been briefed on the previous proceedings of meetings that had taken place down here. I would appreciate it if we could find out who conducted those briefings for him. And if Dr. Kawula had briefings as well, I'd appreciate just for the record to understand who also briefed Dr. Kawula on that. Ifwe could go to the recommendation slide that was up there previously? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The recommendation slide, which one was that? MR. JONES: It was towards the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's there. Okay, and while we're waiting for that to come up, just for a point of note for the speakers who are here, this is not quasi judicial today, so if they want to respond to your question about who they were briefed by, it's their option. So there's no obligation under their terms here today, so n Page 30 / . 161 1~ ..- February 26, 2009 MR. JONES: I wouldn't try to force anybody to answer a question they don't wish to answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure everybody knew the rules we're playing by. MR. JONES: I think this -- and from the layman's perspective, I think this gets to the heart of the issue, that that's been debated, rebated (sic) and continues it be debated. And what does the paper say? And I think this -- on consultants who have spoke on behalf of the Eastern Collier Property Owners have tried to say this on a number of occasions. But what this list of recommendations points to is really the heart and soul of what's required under the Endangered Species Act. And the rural lands program doesn't in any way, shape or form usurp what's required under federal regulations. What the Fish & Wildlife service has done with the Kautz, et al paper and with the earlier MERIT work that was done is they've codified a primary zone, a secondary zone and a dispersal zone. And if you propose impacts within any of those, then you're required to go into a consultation with the Fish & Wildlife Service to evaluate certain aspects. And what do you have to do? First you have to avoid, you have to seek to minimize, and if you can't avoid and after you seek to avoid, after you seek to minimize, if you still don't have what you need in hand, then you have to mitigate if you do indeed impact those areas. So if the avoidance and minimization can't be accomplished within the primary, within the secondary or within the dispersal zones, then you have to mitigate. There isn't anything that says the primary zone, the secondary zone, the dispersal zone are sacred and you can't do anything. Under the Endangered Species Act -- and this is what it embodies. You avoid, you minimize. If you can't do that, then you have to mitigate for your impacts. So under the RLSA program, we've defined an open area and we had a variety of parameters of how we did that. But it doesn't give us carte blanche to go into those areas and do things willy-nilly. We have to go into the consultation process and then you go through a thorough federal review, and a determination is made on whether or not you can do the impacts that you propose. Just because we have an RLSA overlay doesn't mean we can go into primary habitat and do whatever we want to do. We have to follow the guidance under the Endangered Species Act. So I don't see any disconnect in what we've proposed under the existing program or what we've proposed -- the changes that we're proposing under the program that's in front of you all. I think what's being proposed by some organization is that there is a sacred cow and it is primary zone. But the recommendations from the report clearly indicate you need to try to avoid, you need to minimize and then you need to mitigate. And that's the basis of what the Endangered Species Act requires. And it's done. It was done at Ave Maria. We had primary and secondary impacts. We mitigated for them. We were issued a biological opinion. The opinion was referred to the Corps of Engineers. Our wetland impacts were further evaluated. And ultimately a permit was issued by the federal government in primary habitat, in secondary habitat, under the prescribed mitigation that they require. So I don't see a conflict between -- I think the conflict that is arising is that people are equating primary zone with primary habitat and we still can't get anybody to give us a clear definition on what functional primary habitat is. But there are procedures to be followed that coincide with what the Kautz paper is saying. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, I think one issue, though, is that the RLSA does set up a procedure to determine what indicy values are on property on a per acre basis. If you have indicy value that exceeds, I believe it's 1.2, then you're not allowed really to develop that property, it's considered FSA, HSA or others, unless there's some extreme form of mitigation. As in the case of A va Maria, there was several dozens if not I don't know how many acres of wetlands that were developed there, but they were allowed to do so because of the SSA creations and other preservation needs. Page 31 _. "__,",__,"",,,",,,,~._"u,"..-...,.,".,.,,,,.......,.,,,,,.,,...._..,,,,~_>,,,,______,_~________.__ 16\ 1 ~- February 26, 2009 Now, what I'm getting at is if there's some primary habitat that is agriculturally considered -- right now ago is open space, or culled out as open space. But if ago is also primary panther habitat, there might be an indicy value that comes into play there. And that I think is what the focus of this whole effort is trying to understand. I don't think it's a disconnect, I think it's a better understanding of how it applies. MR. JONES: I'd like to go back to one statement that you made. We did impact the wetlands at Ave Maria, but we weren't allowed to impact them because of what was established through SSA's. We had to mitigate for those wetlands under the purview of the 404 permit that was ultimately issued. We didn't get a free pass on wetland impacts because we established SSA's. And I think the point that some of the consultants tried to make with respect to the indices in the past was one, we looked at land cover, and two, we looked at telemetry after land cover was looked at. And I think my interpretation of what the imminent doctors indicated was that they looked at three layers. We looked at two layers. We looked at land cover, they looked at forest covers. I think where part of the discrepancy comes in is potentially on the five-acre habitat patches. And you've made reference on a number of occasions to welL a 200-meter buffer adjacent to recognized forest habitat, I believe is what you said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Primary panther. MR. JONES: Primary. But I think you also threw in the forested aspect of it. I think part of the issue would arise carte blanche would be welL are we going to include these five-acre patches of it? Because I think if you -- you can maybe go back to the aerial photo that you've showed a couple of times and you've tried to understand how these lines were dra~. Well, one aspect on how these lines were dra~ -- who's got the pointer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, no. MR. JONES: Is there another aerial? No, the one you just had up there, that's the aerial. I think where we come into disagreement in your effort to clarify how we do this is this is a one square mile area right here and it's not real easy to see. But this was designated, I believe, as primary habitat. Now, this is a sod farm, and it's about as flat and open as this table right here that the projector is sitting on, with the exception of there's a cypress head here and there's a cypress head here and there's a cypress head down here. And these qualify as habitat under this five-acre forested concept that was put forth to draw these primary boundaries. So -- and they also said they looked at telemetry. WelL there's no telemetry in here, you'll just have to take my word for that one. But there is no telemetry. But as you come up from this heavily forested area with telemetry points, what you do is you start leap-frogging to these five-acre patches. So your primary zone, and to answer how this little thing came down here and this was secondary and it's primary on both sides, you start leap-frogging across these five-acre patches, and that primary line just keeps getting extended. And then after you've drawn that line, then you go ahead and buffer it by 200 meters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Thank you. Okay, next public speaker? MR. JONES: I'll leave this here. MR. EIDSON: I'm not going to use the pointer, I'm afraid. My name is Gary Eidson, and I'm a member of the RSA committee. And I found a couple of things that have come to mind as we were speaking. One of them is, the transportation issue has come up, and I will not speak specifically to your concern about the buffering right now, but I wanted to bring this point up. I would like to get some clarification about an elevated highway and what impact that's going to have in mitigating the movement of the panther. Because we have a terrific conflict that's going to go on probably for our lifetime if we don't clear it Page 32 , , 161 1/6 ~ February 26, 2009 up. We're trying to develop -- apparently there is a move by the county in general that recognizes that Immokalee is the future of a diversified economic structure in Collier County. And if that's true, if that's where the county wants to go, then you're going to need highways to get there. And certainly 29 is a crucial highway. And it's right in the middle of, you know, where the panther is. We need to be creative and find a way -- and I address you folks on it, because I think it needs to be brought out, it's just -- it's never going to work. I mean, we might as well shut down Immokalee, ask the Indians if they wouldn't mind closing the casino so that we don't get anybody coming in so that can save some panthers. Now, let's go to a broader issue which I learned today and I never heard this before, maybe my ears were closed. But the interesting thing about this umbrella concept about the panther is that we're not talking about the panther. I mean, we are, but we aren't. But what we're talking about is in take the panther, who roams 300 miles, I am encompassing the opportunity to protect other endangered species. So I need -- sometimes we need to get a clarification. Are we talking about the panther or are we talking about just generally trying to protect stuff? And it's a very interested kind of con -- you know, we have some things going on here and the dynamics are just pulsating. So do we stop growth at 300,000 or 400,000 or 500,000, we're just not going to allow it anymore, or do we plan to keep ourselves in an economically viable situation where we're not dependent on development exclusively, and that we are reliant on all types of different industries? We've got to find an answer. And I'm not here to --I'm trying to pose a problem which you're probably aware of, but I wanted to publicly state it. And I guess my final coming back to the beginning is I would like to know how we resolve the highway issue. And that is something that perhaps these experts would be able to help us do. Because we can put in these wonderful paths, you know, mile wide, but what do they do? They go to the road. We've got them going -- on the north, we've got them going over two roads. So do they go under and are we going to put in a New Orleans type of deal where we're going to have like an elevated road for four or five miles or a mile long? What are we going to do? How are we going to address it? But I appreciate the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of the language that has been discussed that the committee has come forward with is proposals for tying in an underpass plan that was supposed -- now, I think some of our suggestions were it was to be developed within a certain period of time. So that is -- that issue has been discussed. I don't know if we've ferreted out all the issues with it yet, but we certainly -- there is something in there already addressing that. MR. EIDSON: Well, I understand that. But the wider -- you know, the wider you make it and then you -- is it economically viable to be able to put the proper underpasses in? I mean, those are the things that start to happen here. And do we -- we were talking about here we shouldn't, you know, widen the road at all, according to some of these recommendations. And we do need to widen the road if we're going to have a viable interconnect from a commercial standpoint. So do we need to go beyond? And I think the committee tried very hard to recognize ag., we tried to recognize the environment. And I'm hoping that we keep this in mind that there is a picture that -- a mosaic that we're trying to build here. And I'm thinking that this road issue is probably even -- maybe needs to be even addressed in a different way and more, perhaps. I don't know. But I'm just concerned about this gridlock that we seem to be getting towards, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it. And we'll continue with public speakers. I just want to let everybody know that about noontime we have to not just break for lunch, but I know we're going to lose one if not two of our scientists who are here for the panther issues, so we do need to try to keep in mind that we have a deadline to reach on this issue today. Page 33 ..".,..~",- ---,;-----~~~_."_:'---,""""'.- --",--.,.,. ...~ ~ n .""" ,..._.._-"'._-"~---,"'....-~-_. 161 1 ~ February 26, 2009 Jennifer? MS. HECKER: Jennifer Hecker. I just wanted to be available to answer the question that you raised about how does this fit in with the federal side with the Endangered Species Act. And I think that Tom Jones really hit upon it, which is it's a three-step process, and it starts with avoidance. A voidance and only after avoidance has been exercised to its fullest, then you go to minimization, and only after that occurs, then you go to mitigation. And so the point being in that map, that map that showed the light blue and the yellow, it outlines that in this case, in the Rural Land Stewardship area, there's 33,000 acres outside of primary panther habitat that's designated open, which could be available for development. So therefore, it's not necessary to impact the primary and therefore it is avoidable to do so. And this is an opportunity to make the local land use plan more consistent with these federal provisions, and that's why the science is so important in this process. So if you have any particular questions about that, about the policy angles, we just wanted to mention that. I specialize in that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your last name, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jennifer, we need the spelling of your last name for the record. MS. HECKER: H-E-C-K-E-R. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, spell your last name unless it's Smith or Clark or somebody simply like that. MS. MACDONALD: Well, mine's Macdonald, and it's going to have to be spelled, actually. Lori Macdonald. And it's M-A-C with a small D-O-N-A-L-D. Thank you. I'm the Florida director for Defenders of Wildlife. I simply wanted to address the question of the Florida panther itself. And it being a subspecies of the puma, actually, which is mountain lion, cougar and so forth. As Dr. Hoctor said when he was asked does the panther just live in Florida, it does just live in Florida now. However, its range historically was throughout the Southeastern United States, all the way from Arkansas throughout to the Atlantic and down into Florida. It has now been isolated just into Florida. The -- with regard to the genetic invigoration work which occurred and which has been extremely successful and extremely important to the survival of the panther, the panther would have historically inter-bred some at the edges of its range with the Texas Cougar. And the objective, which I believe the Wildlife Commission and the fish & Wildlife Service and all have reached, the objective was to not have more than 20 percent ofthe genetic contribution from the Texas subspecies be a part of our Florida Panther. If the Florida Panther was -- it has been designated as a subspecies and in any event under the ESA would be considered a distinct population. If that helps. We have -- our work in Defenders of Wildlife has involved both the Rural Land -- you know, contribution to the Rural Land Stewardship issue, as you've seen through my testimony and through Elizabeth Fleming, but we also have been very much interested and focused on the Endangered Species Act and the federal process where we expect to -- we don't expect the Rural Land Stewardship program to bear all of the burden or all of the responsibility with regard to this matter, but we will -- there's much to be done with the Endangered Species Act and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in habitat conservation planning. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please? Anybody else wish to speak on this issue? Okay, do either of the -- oh, Allen, okay. Page 34 j, 161 lA0 . " February 26, 2009 MR. REYNOLDS: Thanks. Sorry about that. For the record, Allen Reynolds with Wilson-Miller. I thought while the doctors were here, it might be worthwhile to ask them if they're aware of any other incentive-based programs that they know of that are working in the State of Florida to help protect the 500,000 acres of private land that are within the primary panther zone. So in case there's some other techniques that we should be aware of. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, Bill, go ahead. MR. McDANIEL: I have a lot of thoughts. I have specific questions for the doctors that might shed some light on some of the thoughts. I was party to the committee's discussions with Darrell Land when he came and made a presentation to the committee, which established the basis for our corridors that we've had extremely lengthy conversations about. And I would like to know if there's some information that's available with respect to the population of the panther. I have heard no real discussion on a percentage basis of the mortality rate of the kittens for production purposes when a mother cat has kittens. What is the percentage of survival of the kittens that ultimately rear to maturity. I would like to know the ratio of male to female cats that is in fact existent in the population that we have existent today. And that leads into my next question with respect to the methodology for actually counting them. I have found no factoring method such to date. I actually asked Darrell that question, and there -- to my knowledge, there is no factoring methodology, i.e., for purposes of discussion, for every one you see, there's one more in the bushes that you don't get to see. Basically the counting practices that have been utilized to date are if it's not seen or if it's not detected or if it doesn't have a collar, if it doesn't lay a track that the tracker actually sees, it's not there. And that seems to me to not really be a true reflection of the potential of the population that in fact exists within these areas. Those are some of my specific questions, fellas, if you have an opportunity to think about those. I would like to suggest that we, as planners, you specifically as the Planning Commission, maintain a balance with respect to folks' perspective when they're sharing with you their beliefs. I heard several conversations, from the doctors as well, about "we" would like to see. And Mr. Brad and I had an interesting conversation last week with respect to the definition of a perfect world. And there are wide ranges of that definition. And I would like for you folks to keep in mind that folks -- that people's perspectives have direct implications as to what their wishes ultimately are. And it's important for us as planners to realize that there's going to be a necessity for a balance and that we have to take into consideration those folks' perspectives as they're here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, I made notes of your questions and the other questions posed by several people that were up here. So there's about six questions to ask. And I'd like to ask one of the doctors if they wouldn't mind addressing our questions. Thank you, Doctor. And we'll try to be as short as we can; I know you're not feeling well. One question I have right off the bat is would you mind leaving staff with a copy of your Power Point presentation so we can have copies to each of us? MR. GREENWOOD: We asked, and we have it. And I'll send that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. And these are optional for you to respond to. The question was posed in the beginning, who were you briefed by before you came here today. DR. HOCTOR: In regards to relevant issues, potentially relevant issues with the RLSA program here in Collier County, I did talk to Conservancy staff and also to Defenders of Wildlife staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The question was posed about the impact of an elevated highway on Page 35 ,-. .. ~."" . 1>1... "" ~...... _.--_:------~ ""'''''11I_ ..._---" I. lb\ 1 fQ February 26, 2009 panther movement. Do you have a response to that? DR. HOCTOR: Well, it depends on the location. But I do agree that in general if you're going to have new or potentially widened highways in areas where there's panther habitat, that elevated roadways make the most sense. And for the longer swaths that it can be elevated, the better. But that's -- you know, that's a general recommendation. And, you know, that's -- if you could do it, that's the way to go in terms of mitigating as much of the impact as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in your program, are you recommending not modifying roads, widening them, increasing them in size, but if they have to be, the best way to do it is through elevated process, whether it be underpasses or long stretches of elevation. DR. HOCTOR: To make sure we're very clear about this, the panther sub-team did not get into that kind of detail about if you're going to mitigate or retrofit either new or existing road impacts. We did not go into any detail about what the design standards for that mitigation would be. So the comment I just made, that's my opinion, my expert opinion. I'm not representing the sub-team when I made that comment. And I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. basically what kind of impact do the elevated highways have on the panther movement? I think you answered that by saying the greater the elevation distance, the less impact they may have. DR. HOCTOR: Right. And again to clarify, I mean an elevation distance, we're talking about a certain set n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Above the -- DR. HOCTOR: -- off the ground. But then the longer, you know, these bridges or elevated highways, the better. But again, that is my personal expert opinion about the best potential design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then there was a third -- I have six questions total that I've made notes of. The third one was any other incentive-based programs in the state that you're familiar with that are doing a better -- say a better program than what we're anticipating here? DR. HOCTOR: There is discussion of developing new incentives programs as part of the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission's cooperative conservation blueprint that's an ongoing process. But that is an ongoing process. It's just a discussion. There are no official programs that have been developed. It will be another year before there are any concrete recommendations. But I'm not aware of any other incentives programs like the RLSA program that are alternatives at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there are some series of questions especially about the panthers. One is the mortality rate of survival of the kittens, the ratio of male to female and the methodology for the actually counting them. Could you respond to those? DR. HOCTOR: Well, to the first two questions, all I can say is that that information is relevant to the development of a potential viability or model. So the PV A that we did as part of the sub-team process, we used that kind of information. But I am not -- Darrell Land is the person to talk to about that kind of information that's most recent. I'm not in possession of the most recent data about those factors, but they do try to measure them and they do try to keep and collect that information and keep it updated. The third issue, population estimates. We did talk about this in the sub-team process. That's why there is a range. When we were working, it was 80 to 100. Now I've heard maybe 100 to 120. That range is -- because we know we probably missed some panthers. But, you know, again, this is not my personal experience, but the statement that has been made by folks like Roy McBride, who's been very involved in the population estimates, and Darrell Land is they feel Page 36 -J ~ 161 1-1\0 February 26, 2009 like they do a pretty good job of covering ground, but they know that there's panthers that they miss. That's why there's a population range estimate instead ofa -- you know, you can't just say a single number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- Tom Jones had mentioned something, he was the first speaker up here that I'd like to get your input on. He pointed out that if the uplands or the forested areas that were considered primary panther habitat all had a buffer established around them, that basically without a minimum acreage consideration we'd be looking at little patches and pockmarks of circles of distances that would then qualify if that standard were used as primary. How did you take in the size of a forested area in relationship to whether it was primary or not? DR. HOCTOR: Well, there's two things going on there. First of all, we did do an analysis as part of the sub-team project to look at the relationship between panther habitat use and forest patch size. And what we found is that forest patches, as small as the minimum mapping unit that we had available to us, could be very important parts of functional home ranges. That's why those smaller patches are in there. But then again, in terms of delineation of the primary zone, taking that fact that all forest patches of any size can be important for panthers, the delineation of the primary zone boundary was based on that potential habitat map, which was forest patches all five acres or greater, 200-meter buffer, the overlap of home ranges and the telemetry data. So if five-acre forest patches were included within the primary zone, it was because they met that collective standard that we used for delineating the boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Are there any responses you want to make as a result of what you heard from the comments earlier? DR. HOCTOR: The only additional comment is I would say that, you know, I understand the mitigation and some of the comments about mitigation, if avoidance is not possible or minimization is not possible. So the one comment is make sure that, you know, is it true that you're avoiding habitat impacts or are there other options to make sure that you avoid habitat impacts. Are you really -- is it really necessary to develop parts of the primary zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Doctor, thank you very much. Any questions from the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, before you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul-- or did you have the question? I'm sorry, I thought you were pointing to him. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: In terms of mitigation, if you pretty much look at your map, you told us that the area we have here in Collier County that would be considered primary habitat can only sustain the minimum, pretty much 100 to 120 cats. We're not going to get beyond that within Collier County, is that pretty much correct from what you've looked at? In fact -- DR. HOCTOR: Well, correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I think your numbers were lower. DR. HOCTOR: I mean, if you look at the larger scale maps, we're talking about primarily a lot of Hendry and Collier County. So we're talking about both counties. And no, just within Collier County you're not going to protect a viable population. Page 37 .-.., - " .,. iill______;,,~_~_,,___ '''''---'''''"~~'''''---''_.'''''''''"--"'.._" 161 1 ~ February 26, 2009 Very common with wide-ranging species, you have to work across multiple jurisdictions. It's just the nature of the game, because they require so much habitat. COMMISSIONER CARON: And with the RLSA program, do we have places we can mitigate here in Collier County, or will all that mitigation have to happen up in Hendry or wherever? DR. HOCTOR: Well, if you go back to the delineation and definition of the various zones, in theory anywhere you have secondary zone, especially secondary zone adjacent to current primary zone, could conceivably be suitable for doing mitigation within the boundaries of the county. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you can bring all of that up and that will count. But then what happens to your secondary habitat, which is also necessary? DR. HOCTOR: Well, the definition of the secondary zone is a little bit different. I mean, it has a support role, and one of the support roles is potential expansion of the primary zone, either because of mitigation or simply because we're doing such a good job hopefully ofland protection. Some of that is also occurring in the secondary zone, and you're restoring panther habitat so that the population can expand and it can be more viable. So, you know, again, it has a support role, but the primary role is to help try and restore additional habitat to have a larger population in the future. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doctor, thank you very much. We certainly appreciate your time here today. It's been very helpful. And I don't know if Dr. Kawula, you had anything you wanted to respond to? If you do, come on up. If not, I'll assume you don't. DR. KA WULA: I don't have anything else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I think we've vvTapped up the discussion on the panther issue that was one of our most difficult ones to sort out here in the past five days. We need to go in before noontime -- I know a lot of people may not be able to stay past noon. I have two other issues to get to before we go into deliberation. One is the final questions or comments from the Collier County Planning Commission of the committee. If anybody has a stone unturned or something that hasn't been answered or asked, we need to do it now. We also will have an opportunity during our deliberations this afternoon to come up with any other questions we may have at that time. And then after that we'll ask for final public comments before we go into deliberations. And we could probably get those accomplished between now and noontime. So with that in mind, does anybody on the Planning Commission have any final comments before the public has their final comments? Anybody at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tom, unfortunately I've got a few. Always happens that way, doesn't it? I think we've started -- well, you know what, I can do these before deliberations after public comment if the public wants it that way. I know that we need to get the public comment done. I have -- I wanted to go over your responses to the Planning Commission's questions, and I wanted to go over -- I had some e-mails involving our policies. Let me see if all of them can be done during deliberations. Yes. I had one e-mail from Al Reynolds concerning the language of the category A and category B references in the document. but we can go over those in our deliberation discussion. I had an e-mail from Page 38 1 ~eJruary ~t~09 Elizabeth Fleming concerning several of the policies. That we can go over when we hit those policies. And that just leaves the questions from Tom. I have an e-mail from Tom from Ray Bellows concerning the use and placement oflandfills and how that was to occur. That one we'll discuss prior to deliberation so we can have any input that we may need on that. And that remain -- the last document I have that came in is the one from Tom Greenwood involving his responses to our issues. We can hit on some of those briefly. I have a bunch of questions. I don't know if the Planning Commission members did. Does (sic) anybody like to go ahead and ask any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, Tom, I'd like to turn to your paper then. It's the one titled to Collier County Planning Commission, dated February 26th. And it was in response to our questions on the 20th. First one is Policy 4.20. And in it you responded and it says, the staff analysis -- and this one, by the way, had to do with the exclusion of essential services as defined in the LDC from the counting of the consumption of stewardship credits. Now, the way it read is it says, staff analysis of the existing wording is that the acreages of essential services are not included when calculating the acreage of public benefit uses. So that means the proposed 45,000 acres, if we were to use that, would not have included the essential service elements. And the discrepancy I found is that in the beginning it says, for the purpose of this policy, public benefit uses include. And they list golf course -- municipal golf courses, regional parks and governmental facilities. And then it says, excluding essential services. But the definition of essential services includes police, fire, emergency medical, public parks and public library facilities. So there seems to be some disconnect between what's included and excluded by that reference of essential services because of the definition of essential services. And I don't know how that's to get resolved, but it kind of goes away if we go to a credit limitation versus acreage limitation. Anyway. But it's just a suggestion that that does have a conflict built into itself, Tom. So depending how it all comes out today, our recommendations on that one may change. On Page 68, the overlay map, your response to why the overlay map didn't include the areas that I had talked about; one is by the extension of the public lands up near one on the state roads, and Mr. Midney had commented on that, and how the flow way buffers got included in lands to the south that weren't in the original plan. You indicated that the map was distorted. And I'm wondering why you used that word, because distortions usually occur equilaterally across the map. In this case we've got two specific areas that were omitted. One was omitted and one was changed. The map that you gave us to I think correct this which says Rural Land Stewardship Area's map -- and if you could put that one up on the screen, that one there -- that's yet different more so than the original map that we started this whole discussion about. Are these maps generated by Collier County staff? MR. GREENWOOD: Let me explain. One ofthe -- as you probably heard and read, Collier County has downsized in staff. One of the persons who would have very quickly picked this up for me, the correct map, left the employ of the county about a week and a half ago. This basically is a map that's similar to what should be provided to you, but is not, not 100 percent correct. But it does show the CREW properties, which are publicly owned that directly abut up to that road. I do have a large map that's in my office that I didn't bring here, but it's mounted that I can certainly bring after lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a reason we just can't keep with the original map? Is there a reason the committee had to have the map changed? I mean, obviously so far the maps aren't making sense. Page 39 .... t... ..... .__.....<.._~.__,..".,.~._;.".........,~"".,...._,~_",.,..._- 161 1 MJ February 26, 2009 MR. GREENWOOD: I understand, there's some differences between the maps. And that will be ironed out and straightened out if this project goes forward to GMP amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that brings up another question. So this map may not be the most accurate map in regards to what we should be dealing with. What map is it that the committee utilized? Do we know that? MR. GREENWOOD: Well, map one in the Phase I report was the one that's in the actual document that you received in the three-ring binder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but that's the map you've just said was distorted. MR. GREENWOOD: Correct. And there needs to be one that's -- and again, I think it was mentioned by testimony by Al Reynolds that that distortion occurred because of PDF's and that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not debating whether it's distorted or not. I think something's wrong with it too. I'm trying to understand how the facts and figures -- where this map -- where the reliance on this map is. Basically it looks like -- Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Finish your thought, and then I had a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It looks like the map that was part of the Phase I report, was that used to determine the acreages used in the Phase I report? MR. GREENWOOD: No. No, the acreages that are in the Phase I report are the same acreages that are documented in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay and various policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what was the purpose of the map and what was the purpose of changing it; do you know? MR. GREENWOOD: The Phase I report was put together by somebody other than myself It was approved by the committee as Phase I findings and nothing more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they attached the map to the Phase I report that didn't have any relevance to their report because they used the calculations that a map provides other than the map that was attached to the report. MR. GREENWOOD: Apparently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm not sure why that makes sense. So I certainly think we need to understand that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, with this map, the -- well, it's not up there now, but the one that says Rural Land Stewardship Areas, I think that this map is correct, and I'm -- with regard to the CREW lands, and also the eiffis (phonetic), that little L-shaped property in the middle, I think that's accurate and I hope that when you add up the acreages that you're talking about the different areas, that these areas are excluded since they're already publicly owned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go there, Paul, the map you think is now accurate is the one that we've had questions about, this one here? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: This one. I'm saying that it's accurate with regard to the CREW area, the Okaloacoochee State Forest and then this little eiflis area in the middle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if this wasn't the one that was used for the calculations for the Phase I report then -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's a concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what is it that we need as a basis for the Phase I report that was relied upon for the Phase 11 effort? MR. GREENWOOD: The Phase I report includes acreages that are identified in the overlay that Page 40 161 1 kS February 26, 2009 was approved back in 2002. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MR. GREENWOOD: And again, there were maps associated with that, with that approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill McDaniels (sic), would you mind answering one question for me? Does the committee see a need or a reason to change the map? Because I don't see the consistency between the map that's been circulated with the report versus the map that's on record as being part of the current RLSA program, and it seems the basis of your analysis was the current map. So why are we even entertaining changing it? MR. GREENWOOD: No, this map that's submitted here is not going to replace an existing page in the report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was Page 68, wasn't it? MR. McDANIEL: In may, Mr. Strain -- Bill McDaniel for the record. I would like to address something. You know, I've been -- while you've been going through these maps, there's a lot of maps in the Phase I report. A lot of different delineations of a lot of different land areas. And one of the things I'd like to maybe suggest, that no one can necessarily hang -- there is actual GIS -- and somebody from Wilson-Miller needs to back me up with respect to delineations, specific delineations of the NRI valuations that are ultimately determined to utilize the designations in the overlay ofthe Rural Land Stewardship Overlay and to try to pick from a committee level a map that is copied on multiple occasions throughout the process and say this is going to be the actual one that everybody's going to hang their hat on. I from a committee perspective found that to be entirely too arduous. When a person comes in and makes an application for an SRA or an SSA, there is very specific -- my understanding was there were very specific -- what's the points I'm looking for -- GIS maps with GPS, actual physical acreage delineations that were utilized in determining the different types of habitat. So from a committee person's standpoint, Mark, looking at these maps, I mean, to the best of our ability they are accurate. But they are not necessarily the ones that staff utilizes when someone comes in and actually makes an application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I want to just make something clear. I don't want the wrong map getting into the public realm, because we have that happen on a PUD and it's a master plan, we suffer with it for the rest of our lives. This is the biggest master plan we've ever dealt with. It has to have accurate maps. The map that has been put forth as part ofthe committee's report and ifthe report's accepted, is the map that now has shown to be distorted, and it's on Page 68. Let me show you what it was originally based upon. If you could put this on the overhead. That's the map that is currently part of our GMP. That's the map everybody reviewed and said basically why and how the numbers and calculations came out. I'm not trying to be difficult about a map, I just want to make sure the right map is used. This apparently is the map that the basis of the Phase I base report calculations were from. Is there a reason why we have to change this map? And if you look all the way down at the very, very bottom -- and someone took my pointer -- move to the north, move it further up. Way down to the bottom. You've got to go up with it a little bit. Oh, thank you, Gary. See this area down here? MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On both versions of Page 68 that we received, the one we just received in this packet and the one that was in the original packet, that still is different now than it is on this map. My question again has been, if we fix this up here which someone feels now is the right thing to fix and it got fixed on Page 68, why is this still different on Page 68? So why do we even need to change the Page 41 __..."'____"_.,,..,""~".'"'..,...,',.,.~"^.~.'H..,__ ^_."._-~"<---- : Fl~J 26, }OO9 ~f) ( map? What's wrong with the original map? MR. McDANIEL: It wasn't our intent to change the map, sir. There was no real discussion with respect to the adaptation of the map in any way, shape or form. It was generally accepted that the map that was currently laid forth for the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay was the map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then that's all I need you to say. MR. McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 68 is supposed to be the original RLSA map. Is that a fair statement, Mr. Greenwood? Is that how you understand it? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Just real quickly here. None of these -- the map that's up there, the map on Page 68 and the map in the third page of this that we're going over, none them look the same to me. Is that the point you're trying to make. or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's what we've been talking about. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, I know. But now where did this one -- well, now where did that one come from? Where did that one come from? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the original GMP map. I pulled down that from the county's website. All I've been trying to find out in this entire discussion is how we went from this map to another map and why we got there. And what we found out is the committee really didn't need to change the map, they're satisfied with this map, if I'm not mistaken. MR. McDANIEL: And we are satisfied. And the only thing I might suggest is that there were restoration credits in areas that were established after the original overlay map was in fact set up, and there have been changes or additions to the map which may have caused changes to have occurred, actual designation of SSA's and restoration areas that weren't necessarily part of the original program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Mr. Greenwood, if there are instances where this map is not an accurate reflection of let's say as-built conditions, then I can understand that those should be changed on this map and we should have those pointed out and told as to why they've changed. That's what I couldn't understand and that's what I've been trying to get to for two or three questions now, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. sir, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I support the idea of having this map as being correct, but it does omit the eiffis lands, that L-shaped land, which is almost a section of land. That needs to be taken into account and subtracted from the equation so it adds up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any as-built conditions ought to be fixed on the map. If Page 68 was not a distorted map and reflected accurately the as-built conditions and our questions about the CREW extension up to that roadway and the restoration area do~ on the bottom of the page and now the eiffis section could be answered and then included correctively on this map, then we've just updated the existing GMP map and not created a whole new map with new colors with so many changes that weren't explainable or one that was distorted. And I think that's what I'm suggesting we want to get back to is keep the process consistent, show the changes that have consistently had to occur, and if this one needs to be updated, let's simply update this map and not reinvent the wheel and confuse the whole issue. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, the map on Page 68 is really distorted. Page 42 -- 161 1 ftC; February 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I think from this committee's review, we may in our deliberations just as a note make that this map be retained and updated, and that be the simple conclusion. The last issue I have, Tom, on -- well, I think that was it. Yeah, that is it. Okay. Before we go into public speakers, are (sic) there anything else as a result of the Planning Commission's actions? Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that in mind, when we get back from lunch, hopefully this commission will go into discussions on the actual GMP language and our deliberations on if we want to go forward with each one of the recommendations that I produced as a result of our prior conversations, or if I either misinterpreted something or as a result of new information or more information or thinking about it we want to change those. Now, during that process, I'm going to ask that the public not jump up and participate in every single language change. We will go through this whole thing again, we'll spend another three days getting there, and I think that for everybody who has participated you all have had ample opportunity to express yourself at any item along the way. So I'd like to ask that you express yourself one final time. Now, and I'll take -- if it takes longer when we start back up when we get back from lunch, that's fine. But then I -- other than a direct question from the Planning Commission during our deliberation, I'd like to ask the public just to bear with us and let us get through it. Otherwise we'll never get this thing done. So with that in mind, members of the public that wish to speak? Mr. McElwaine, you'll be first then. MR. McEL W AINE: For the record, my name is Andrew McElwaine, M-C-E-L- W-A-I-N-E. I envy Ms. Macdonald. I'm the president of The Conservancy. Our board of directors met since the Planning Commission's draft proposal was presented. Board of directors is an elected board. Our 6,500 members vote either by proxy or in person. There are 24 community leaders. They represent that 6,500 membership base. The board of directors has considered the Planning Commission draft and it represents certainly a departure from some of the things we've recommended. However, having a number of folks on my board who know a little bit about markets and who are active in it, they feel that the committee's -- the Commission's draft is supportable and they voted unanimously to support it. The -- now, as always, especially when you work with someone as intelligent and able as Nicole Ryan, we have a couple of comments, but they'll be brief. But I would also note that the reason for this is because of the way in which incentive programs are normally drafted, certainly at the federal and also at the state level, in terms of Governor Crist's work on climate change. There is a cap. And that cap is on the number of allowances, credits or what have you in almost every case. And in fact, in many cases in terms of acid rain and so on, it's a declining cap. Now, the problem with those caps is one, they can leak. For example, State of New York put a cap on climate emissions so they stopped generating climate emissions and then bought all their electricity from coal-fired plants in Pennsylvania and Ohio, so that cap leaked like a sieve. The -- a meaningful cap creates the scarcity necessary to generate the market. And our concern has been that we have lacked that heretofore and that the Commission's proposal to set that meaningful cap and prevent leakage, as in the case of the State of New York, is innovati ve, thoughtful, something perhaps we hadn't looked at before, and the board, again being made up largely of market oriented people endorsed it unanimously. The other item that comes into play when you create a market-based incentive system is called additionality. And additionality means that when a credit is generated, or an allowance or whatever you want to call it, that it represents an additional benefit at least equal to whatever is being done to generate Page 43 -- iV...___,...'" fU.....1lIl -~-- .4 ."'. ...... . .. ~ 16\ ltv7 February 26, 2009 that credit in the first place. So it's environment at least, or agriculture, whatever you want to call it, clean air, it's an equivalency that the allowance claimed is an additional benefit. And there have been concerns on my board of directors about the equivalency. Some cases they were very comfortable with it, others, particularly in terms of the changes in the agricultural credits, they have deep concerns about. However, nonetheless, they felt on reflection and after very careful thought and deliberation that the Commission's proposal was eminently supportable. And again, the vote was unanimous. Nicole, you had a couple of comments, which I'm going to drag you up here. Nicole is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. MR. McEL W AINE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You keep on referencing the Commission's report. MR. McEL W AINE: The draft proposal from the Chairman, excuse me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The Commission hasn't really reviewed that yet, so -- MR. McEL W AINE: I apologize, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the record, that is the Commission's report. I was allowed to put into language what we had talked about for many days, some of which Mr. Murray was not here. I did that to the best of my ability. And today we're going to discuss that. So at this point it is the Commission's report. I did not do it on my own. I did it with full knowledge ofthis Commission and I did it with the notes I had taken during the meetings that not all members of this Commission had attended. Thank you. MR. McEL W AINE: I appreciate the correction, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't agree with the correction, nevertheless. MR. McEL W AINE: With that, unless there are other questions, I'd like Ms. Ryan who is -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. MR. McEL W AINE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are you referring to this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The GMP language that was sent out. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry, this one, the other one, the thicker one. MR. McEL W AINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Does it -- I haven't gone through it. Does it mention -- you spoke about a cap, capping of credits and leaking and so on. Do you have a suggested cap or is it -- MR. McEL W AINE: We endorsed the document in front of you on that side. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Then may I ask, Chair, is what's in here representative in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, just a succinct way of putting it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. MR. McEL W AINE: Nicole, you have a couple of additional comments. MS. RYAN: Thank you. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I've handed out a document. I do have some extras if anyone is interested in obtaining a copy of that. The Conservancy very much appreciates all of the thoughtful deliberation that you have done on this issue. And we also very much appreciate all of the points of entry for public comment. We certainly think this has been a very open and public process, and we appreciate the opportunity to participate. About a month ago The Conservancy submitted to you our vision plan for how we felt the RLSA Page 44 \ 161 1 A~ February 26, 2009 could be improved in order to allow for appropriate development and allow for protection of natural resources and preservation of agriculture. What you have in front of you today, based on your discussion and conversation, is a draft set of recommendations. And therefore, I'm going to tailor my comments to that draft document that you have in front of you, understanding that there still will be discussion, but that was the general consensus and will be the point of the -- the starting point for your talks this afternoon. The Conservancy has essentially three critical policy areas that we would like to discuss. The first, and this is on the list of issues that I handed out, is Policy 4.2, and that deals with having a cap of acreage versus a cap of credits. The RLSA committee has proposed really an arbitrary cap of 45,000 acres of SRA's for the RLSA. The Conservancy opposes increasing the amount of SRA's. The 45,000-acre cap would be more acres of SRA's than the program currently allows. And we support the draft Planning Commission document that would cap the credits to the 315,000 credits, which was determined by Wilson-Miller to be the approximate number of credits available in the program today. And this number was endorsed by the committee and the county, because it is part of the supporting documentation that was part of the Phase II report. This is a really critical issue of how many credits are available in the program. And it's relevant to a number of policies. So I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow do~ a little bit for -- okay. MS. RYAN: Okay. Since I don't have the five-minute time limit, I always try to ramp it up, but I will slow down. I want to elaborate just briefly on the issue of the credits, because there's been a lot of discussion in the past as to what was the program intended to do, and how much development would it generate. In 2002 the RLSA committee report that was generated by Wilson-Miller for the committee, and it was reflected in the Board of County Commissioners' executive summary for the transmittal stated that the program was intended to generate approximately 134,000 credits, and at full participation this would translate into 16,800 acres of SRA's, which would not increase the number of people living out in the eastern lands, it would simply compress the population, though it would increase intensity and add commercial. But it was intended to do this with no land left over for the one unit per five-acre ranchettes. What happened between transmittal and adoption is that the Department of Community Affairs, in their review of the RLSA, required Collier County to put additional specificity to the restoration policies contained in the program. It wasn't a new policy suggested by DCA. DCA simply felt that without attaching credit values to the policy, it was too ambiguous. And they also suggested the early entry bonus credits. The result wasn't really known at the time; certainly The Conservancy didn't understand the implications of how many credits that would generate. But we now realize that at least 180,000 additional credits were added to the program that initially was intended to generate 134,000 base credits. So overall the footprint which was initially intended to be 16,800 acres of new towns and villages jumped to 43,300 acres of towns and villages. And why is this important to discuss and understand? Well, it's important because the RLSA committee is recommending the addition of many more credits to the program as part of their recommendations. Agricultural preservation, panther corridors and additional restoration credits. How many credits is this going to generate? It's a good question, because there's no upper limit placed on those credits within their proposed GMP amendment language. The Wilson-Miller technical document states that with all of these credits totaled, there would be approximately 404,000 credits total, 89,000 more than the program currently allows for. The Conservancy believes this number is far too low, and that the changes would infuse actually many more credits than 404,000. Page 45 ".......... ~-.-......~~__-'-'__,__"_.o_~n.~..~".~__~~,,__".,<.~_..~__~~_~_"",~~_ "_~",.",.___~~_,,~_,".~_'._._.~._~____.',,_,~,_,,,~_'__~___,___.._'._._..~_._ 16\ 1 ~ February 26, 2009 Here's one example. When we look at panther corridors, which are proposed to be 10 credits per acre with no cap included in the GMP, the Wilson-Miller estimate was that it would generate 23,000 credits based on the fact that the panther corridors would be approximately 2,300 acres; 10 credits per acre, 23,000 credits. But what if much more acreage is needed for those panther corridors? The Conservancy handed out information early on that indicated that scientists believe those corridors should be at least a mile wide. That was also reinforced during the presentation this morning. Mile wide corridors would certainly generate a tremendous number of credits. In the landowner and environmental group scientific review team that is taking a look at the corridors, their preliminary report, which is still in draft form, initially concludes that the corridor should be much wider than proposed: 10,723 acres. So under the proposed new credit structure, this would infuse over 107,000 additional credits into the program. Adding that on, you wouldn't have 404,000 credits, you'd have 490,000 credits. That's just one area. And the danger of adding more credits without completely understanding the ramification of credits. And once this is done, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to undo. These credits represent value to the landowners. They're a currency of sorts. And as such, if you place a limit on the SRA acreage, which is the arbitrary number of 45,000 acres, and if landowners at the end of that process still have credits over that maximum 45,000-acre limit, it certainly opens the county up to legal action and also pressure to remove the cap. And as I've demonstrated, certainly the credits could exceed what would translate to 45,000 acres. So to make a long story short, I guess, The Conservancy believes that the most responsible direction would be to cap the credits and to cap them at the current number of credits available today, the 315,000 credits. Recall that this allows for 26,500 acres more SRA's than was initially intended. And there's already serious concern that the 43,300 acres of SRA's may not be sustainable for habitat protection because it would require impact to primary panther habitat. So we support the draft that you have in front of you on that issue, and we certainly hope that that moves forward as one of your recommendations to the Phase II report. I'll be much briefer on the other issues that I want to discuss. The second major issue is with Policy 2.2. And The Conservancy supports the draft document which provides additional credit incentives not to exceed the maximum 315,000 in total for protection of agricultural lands both within and outside the area of critical state concern for those lands that are designated as primary panther habitat. And we had a lot of discussion earlier about what's primary. We would ask that in your deliberations you consider utilizing the Kautz, et al and the Florida Panther Recovery Plan definition of primary in order to delineate what is going to be considered primary in the future if this goes forward to GMP amendments or LDC language. Our third primary set of recommendations deals with Policy 3.11. The Conservancy believes credits should only be given to panther corridors that are scientifically based and functional. They need to be located where they're going to facilitate panther movement, and they need to be at widths that are going to be sufficient in order to ensure panther utilization. We had demonstrated -- or distributed some documents in the past, the least-cost pathways document which showed the travel corridors for panthers. We would ask that that be utilized to base where the approximate location of the corridor should be, and also in using the standard of a one-mile minimum width, which was contained in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Panther Recovery Plan for some recommended standards as this moves forward. Page 46 " ~ 161 1 f6 February 26, 2009 We also believe that all lands required for corridor functionality should be secured prior to any credits being awarded. Restoration credits should not be awarded until restoration is completed for lands within the panther corridor. And this is addressed in your policy changes that you will be taking a look at. Our [mal comment on Policy 3.11 is that as the program is currently designed and as is recommended by the RLSA committee, restoration credits can be generated without any obligation to do restoration in the future. This was one of our concerns about the program in 2002. The Conservancy believes that restoration credits outside the panther corridor should not be assigned until a restoration plan has been approved and a schedule for restoration has been implemented. On the document that I distributed to you, there are some secondary recommendations. And I won't go into detail on these, but I just want to get them on the record that we support what you have in your draft recommendations regarding Policy 3.13, which is including all portions of WRA's utilized for water management to be included in the SRA acreage; Policy 4.5 requiring SRA's to be compliant with the long-range transportation plan and county build-out vision plan; Policy 4.10, which would require all open space acreage to be counted towards the SRA acreage total; Policy 4.20, requiring all public benefit uses, including essential services, to be included in the SRA acreage; and the new policies, 4.23 and 5.7, which requires a dark skies program to be implemented in the future. In addition, just a couple quick recommendations as you're deliberating. Within Policy 4.6, The Conservancy would like for some acknowledgment to be made that as the county determines that mass transit is needed, either within an SRA or to connect an SRA to locations off-site, that the SRA's obligation to provide funding or infrastructure or other in-kind donations to facilitate mass transit really should be included in the SRA mobility plan, that that's determined up-front and those agreements are made at the beginning of the process. In Policy 4.7.1, we would like to see the minimum size of towns and the maximum size of villages kept the same, but also to have a review of that attachment C which is the SRA characteristics table. We'd like to take a look and see if adjustments need to be made in any other areas. And this was something that we had suggested previously. For example, looking at what the minimum densities of the SRA should be. The speaker this morning talked about the fact that if you increase density, you have a much greater chance of protecting the primary panther habitat, which is essential. And finally, within Policy 4.7.2, we would request that you consider removing villages from an allowable use in the area of critical state concern. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nicole. I'm sure we'll work our way through the document this afternoon. We probably have time for another public speaker, and then we'll probably break for lunch and come back to public speakers. And Mitch and Nancy, both of you are heading the same direction so Nancy got there first. MS. PAYTON: He's a gentlemen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's unlike you, usually you're the last person that wants to speak, so -- MS. PAYTON: No, not -- I'm seeking clarification. We speak now or forever hold our peace; is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. PAYTON: -- do I understand that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At some point we've got to deliberate and we've got to get done. MS. PAYTON: I understand that, and I'm glad to hear that. And so I will share with you my two brief comments. We did, Mark, have some correspondence relating to dark skies-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 47 ,,--- ,_."___=",,,_",,",C~_~<__~ _.__.".,~.._~___r___~_"_____~_ . 161 1 f6 F e},ruary 26, 2009 MS. PAYTON: -- and I did provide some specific language to be inserted in Group 5 for dark skies, and I did share it with Tom that was I think comprehensive and complete and addressed those issues. So hopefully you will look at that at the appropriate time. And it makes reference to the other policies so that it's comprehensive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Tom, do you have a copy of that available so when we get to that this afternoon you can put it on the screen? MR. GREENWOOD: I can, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't mind. that would be helpful and everybody can see what she was referring to. MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. MS. PAYTON: And also, there was some correspondence about wildlife crossings, and I commented on a suggestion to take it out of the Group 5 policies, and I was adamant that it should stay in the Group 5 policies, because this is a baseline planning that needs to be done and shouldn't be dependent upon an SRA coming on-line or an SSA coming on-line. It should be done and it should be done within the next 12 months. It actually has been done. There is a memorandum of agreement that has been signed by all the other appropriate agencies, state and federal. The county has chosen not to sign it. So a 12-month deadline from the date of -- I chose not to use approval, I think it should be when the Growth Management Plan amendments are effective. Because approval gets pretty phasy -- hazy. Because are you talking about approval when it's adopted or when it goes into effect? So I use consistency as other policies and said when it goes into effect. So the work's been done. There was a year-long study done of the Rural Land Stewardship Area by highly regarded scientists; one of them was mentioned this morning, Dr. Reed Noss. The other is Dr. Dan Smith, who is an expert on greenways and highways. It is -- if it hasn't been peer reviewed, it is in the process, so it is a reliable document and one that Fish & Wildlife Service acknowledges. So it's an easy thing to do, and putting the 12-month deadline is important. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Nancy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy. there's one question. Go ahead, Donna first, then David. COMMISSIONER CARON: Nancy, the wildlife crossings that are established currently, they're on a map, correct? MS. PAYTON: There is a map that is part of the memorandum of agreement that the county has chosen not to sign, to date. COMMISSIONER CARON: But they're out there now. And that's just for -- that's a current map, right? That's not a -- or is that a projection? MS. PAYTON: That is a map of where they should be. It identifies segments-- COMMISSIONER CARON: No matter if we widen roads or add new roads or -- MS. PAYTON: Yes, it has identified -- it's based on the least-cost pathway that Fish & Wildlife Commission did. And then the scientists from the University of Florida and University of Central Florida looked at those specific segments and gave specifics on what ought to be done there, and some recommendations on crossings, et cetera. And also some other issues. And that was the basis of the memorandum of agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was -- when you were discussing the 12-month maps, could you -- I was trying to still follow up with what Nicole was saying, trying to chase do~ some policy numbers, Page 48 . . \. 10\ 11\? I. February 26, 2009 and I just missed the context. MS. PAYTON: That within the effective date of these Growth Management Plan amendments -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's signed. MS. PAYTON: -- that within -- yeah, become effective. Within 12 months the county will implement dark sky LDC regulations. And also within that 12 months there will be this plan that will be approved for wildlife crossings within the RLSA. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And you wanted that in here? MS. PAYTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. That's all I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Nancy. Mitch, we're going to fit you in before lunch, and then we're going to take a lunch break and come back and continue with public speakers until we go into deliberation. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Thank you. Again, for the record, my name is Mitch Hutchcraft. I'm with King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus. And I appreciate the opportunity. You guys have done a lot of work and I'm not going to have the opportunity to talk about every specific item. I want to try and just pull you back to the big picture again before you start the specific deliberations. And before I say that, I want to just compliment the landowners, Defenders of Wildlife, Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier Audubon. I think it's remarkable that we stand here before you as landowners, as agricultural folks, as environmental organizations and the committee's hard work presenting to you a program that we think maintains that balance. And I spoke to you the other day about balance. And it's critical that you understand that. You've heard some recommendations about capping those credits. And essentially what you're saying is we're going to cap your credits. That'd be like me saying I'm going to cap your income, but you know what? Your housing costs have doubled. We expect you to do more, but we're capping your ability. That's very comparable to what you're doing to us. We want you to maintain the cap on credits, but hey, we want you to do agricultural credits, we want you to do panther corridors, we want you to do dark sky, we want you to pull development out of the area of critical state concern. All ofthose costs directly fall on the landowner. And I'm here to tell you as a landowner, you're going to do one of two things: You're going to render the program useless or you're going to drive us out of business. One of the other things that I didn't have the opportunity to talk about with Tom Hoctor's presentation was that they presented the forested patch and they said this is our base, this is where we're starting from, this is our leeping off point. And I submit to you, that's not accurate. He made a comment about if densities are greater than one to 40, it really impacts the viability. All ofthe existing land use category on that property is one to five. So you don't have that property as your jumping off point. You need the opportunity to incentivize the protection of that to begin with. And without incentives it's not going to work. So I'm going to jump back to the incentive-based discussion again. We have a unique situation out there where we've got multiple landowners. Ifwe had one landowner, it would be a far more simple program. Let's make a deal that hey, it works for this landowner to send density here and there. We've got multiple landowners. And I've used myself as the example of myself and Russell. We sit on opposite sides of the exact same coin. He's going to have credits that he needs to send, I'm going to have land that we'll need to consume those credits in order for this program to work. Page 49 __'_"'-""""_""_'~_'''.''''''"",""",'_'''J.,'''''''~''''''''~''''''''''''_''"",,".',v"',_ ,( 161 1 ~ February 26, 2009 If you cap that or you arbitrarily adjust those balances, one of us is going to get squashed. And if one of us gets squashed, the program's not going to work. If! can't afford to buy his credits, I'm not going to buy his credits and nothing gets preserved. Ifhe can't afford to sell his credits, he's not going to sell his credits and he's not going to put conservation easements on anything. The result is we maintain the status quo and we continue to incrementally fight it out. And I submit to you that I think this is a well thought-out plan. There are some tweaks that have been recommended that I think are reasonable tweaks, and we can address those. But the balance of credits is critical. And without that, the landowners, while they might want to participate, will not have the ability to participate. Just two last things before I leave. One was again the discussion about the least-cost pathways discussion. I want to reiterate to you, that was a model. That doesn't say this is where the panthers are. As a matter of fact, everybody in this room on that northern corridor will tell you, there are no panthers using that corridor. This is a dream of ours. We'd like to see it happen. If it's a dream and you'd like to see it happen, and you're not willing to fund it, you need to incentivize the landowners to do it. And I think the lando~11ers at least presented, in cooperation with some of the environmental organizations, a reasonable approach to get there. Can we talk about widths? Perhaps. Don't get tied to that least-cost corridor alignment. lt doesn't necessarily reflect the best alignment from an environmental perspective, from a landowner willingness perspective. It has to make sense for the lando~l1er. The corridor that touches our property essentially runs along our State Road 80 frontage. There is no person in the world that will tell you that that's going to make sense from a landowner's perspective. In reality, it probably doesn't make sense from a panther perspective either. It would be better to get it across the road and away from the road. The widths. Again, I think some of the testimony is picking and choosing; we like this map over here but we like these corridors over here. Tom Hoctor presented today that Paul Byers indicated that a much smaller width would be appropriate. Particularly if you look at the corridors that were recommended, it included larger patches of forested habitat. Maybe we do need to take a look at what's been proposed and how does that connect, and maybe that's a more viable solution. One of the more recommended changes ties to the completion of the panther corridors being required before we get any credits. That would be like saying your kid has to graduate from college before we'll let him graduate from high school. You have to be able to allow some compensation for landowners as they go along the way. My concern is if you have that language in there, it will be so cumbersome and so difficult it's not going to happen. And again, we want to make a system that actually implements our goal, rather than makes it so difficult that nobody's going to be able to implement it. So hopefully you'll take my comments in the spirit that they were intended. I appreciate the hard work that you've done. I hope that you'll consider the work of the landowners and the environmental groups and the committee and move forward with this. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mitch, let me try to understand, you want a fluid amount of credits as a -- let me get this straight. So in the beginning we have -- we start with 315,000 now. And they're sold for, let's just say, 10,000 a credit, I don't know, whatever they are, maybe. And then it gets to a point where someone needs more credits and we've run out of the 315. That's one scenario. Page 50 161 ltlS February 26, 2009 What would happen then? We just create more credits? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Well, I think that the issue for me is not so much the number of credits or the number of acres, it's the fact that they balance. And what you're doing, if you put a cap on it -- again, we have multiple landowners. You might have a situation where if you cap credits one lando~er might be able to go and create all of that and leave me out of the game. You need to have an opportunity for all landowners to participate and to do so in a balanced manner. If you could say hey, you'll have all the credits in the world but you only have this much acreage, it doesn't work. It's got to balance. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, that's what we've been spending the last year and a half doing, determining the amount of land, the SSA's and the SRA's, and the number of credits. I mean, so I thought we've been through this and pretty much determined that that's what it is. We've been through everything except what those credits are worth. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: The -- and I think worth is a discussion that probably is not appropriate for this committee, that's a landowner issue. But I think the reality of what was presented did recalibrate those credits, and it brought them in line with the number of acres and the number of credits. And so I think that we addressed that in the committee's work that has been presented. The one discussion point that's been brought up was well, if we have mile-wide panther corridors, that's going to generate a lot more credits. I would suggest to you, you can give me credits all day long for that mile-wide corridor, it's not going to do anything. What I'm going to respond to is cold hard cash. If you'll come to the table with cold hard cash, let's talk about a mile-wide corridor. I don't think the credits are going to get you there. And so what's been laid out before you, that is in balance. That is a system that will work for the landowners and that was, you know, a hard fought negotiation, not only between the landowners but with the environmental organizations as well. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So you're saying what we have here is good. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: What was presented by the committee's recommendation I think was a balance that made sense for the landowners from a sending and a receiving perspective. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, all right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question for you, Mitch. Are you saying that you can't envision a situation -- you're talking about the balance between ag., environmental and development. And, you know, we're presented with a scenario now. You can't envision a scenario where you could still maintain the balance within that 315,000 credits? I don't see why you couldn't reallocate and find a way to make it work. I mean, conceivably isn't it possible? I mean, that's what we started with now. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I'll refer back to my -- we're capping your income. There is additional work that's being requested of us. We want you to do ago preservation, we want you stay out of area of critical state concern, we want you to do X, Y and Z. Those additional requirements are being placed upon us, but we're not going to give you any more value. And Nicole herself said the credits are value to the landowner. And so if you're capping the credits, you're capping the value, but expecting more from us. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I agree with you, if you cap, you know, what you're going to be offering, you might not get as much land as what you're talking about. But at the same time, if there are fewer credits as opposed to -- 300,000 as opposed to 400,000, Page 51 "'" - '1""'11<_""',_,'__"'"""";""""""'.",,,,,,,,, ,"^._.'..",.';.',....,-,~,_."_.,"'""'...._- .. - . .....,-- . 161 1 (JI) February 26, 2009 won't those credits be worth more? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Only if there's a balance between the land sending area and the receiving area. And again, the complication is there's multiple landowners. I would submit to you that the landowners are probably going to be the closest watchdog of the credits of anybody else, because there are landowners like myself and Russell who if somebody gets out of whack with the credits, we're out of luck and we'll be the first one to stand up and say this isn't working. But I believe what's been submitted allows for that balance to take place. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that's one possible scenario is what has been submitted, and what we're thinking about or contemplating is a second with less credits. I think you're talking about balance and proportion. If we're talking about moving the population of an area that now, including Immokalee, that has about 6,000 dwelling units and we're raising it up to over 100,000 dwelling units, that to me is placing the area out of balance in tenns of agriculture and preservation. Not that the proportions might be right, but just the weight of human numbers will sort of push it out of balance. And that's why I'm in favor of the 315,000 dollar (sic) cap limit. Yeah, we won't be able to do all the wonderful things that we would like to do, but then again, if we had even more credits, we could do even more and more wonderful things. But then you get -- you bump up against the ceiling of like the population in this area and you'll destroy the rural character and you'll make impossible panther conservation if you bump up the population too high. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: And I appreciate that perspective. I'll tell you that from a landowner's perspective and working with environmental organizations, we looked at those issues. And we think at the end of the day, if you implement the program as it was submitted, you do do a good job. You actually incentivize agricultural folks to say I've got land that's going to stay in agriculture. You incentivize landowners to take property out of area of critical state concern. You incentivize landowners to result in larger and more connected habitat. So I would say that at the end of the day you wind up with a more functional environment, not to mention the fact that in order to get to that balance, the 45,000 acres, it requires the consumption of the one unit per five acres, which is not really addressed in the other. So while the sheer numbers might be an issue, I think the footprint is even more critical. And this addresses a footprint. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's a balancing act for sure. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that I'd like to take lunch and we'll resume with public input at 1 : 15 when we come back. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the luncheon recess. We have some housekeeping matters to take care of before we go into the regular process that we had left off on. When you all got back, there was some surprises in front of you. Paperwork. We killed a bunch of trees at lunchtime. One of the thickest packages is your agenda package for next Thursday's regular Planning Commission meeting. So please don't lose that. That's the one with the rubber band around it. It's a little bit thicker than the rest. Also provided was a copy of the Power Point presentation that we saw this morning. And also provided was the e-mail that Nancy Payton had sent around about the changes she suggested to the dark sky program section of the language we're going to be looking at. And the last document I haven't passed out yet, because I wanted to ask the County Attorney about Page 52 1 161 1 PI' February 26, 2009 the legality of it before we pass it out, it's a -- changes to the sign ordinance that we're going to be reviewing, by the way, Monday morning at 9:30 (sic) at the BCC chambers in the main building, our regular location. Staff had believed these were minor changes in yellow, but in some ofthem you've got an entire page rewritten in all new yellow language inserted, and others there are paragraphs. My only concern is, and as we learned in the seating ordinance that we attempted to review, the public came there concerned, as the Planning Commission did, that there wasn't adequate public access to the documents before we heard it. Now, this item is scheduled for first thing Monday morning. It's after 1 :00 on a Friday (sic) afternoon. That means we've got about four hours business time into half an hour Monday before people could actually see this ordinance, show up Monday and comment on it. I don't know what the options are. And unfortunately, Steve, I hate to dump this on you, but as our legal adviser you need to let us know what we should do with this and then we'll go from there. MR. WILLIAMS: Let's start with the easy part. Today's Thursday, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thursday, I'm sorry. MR. WILLIAMS: So if you -- I got the first part right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. So we've got a full day and four hours, okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we do. And I've glanced through it. You and I both just received this within the past 20 minutes. Staff has stated, and I'll quote, that it differs only slightly, is the notes on the cover. And in glance to Page 56 of 81, and I'm not on TV, but it looks far more than only slightly. If I go over to Page 39, it looks to have some rather substantive changes in terms of perhaps even one more sign in some areas is allowed on walls, canopies or awnings than was allowed before. It's getting right near that 48-hour public business day notice requirement that we try to have for any meeting, anything that occurs. I know the good doctor's coming in from St. Louis for this meeting on Monday to go over this, which meeting has been properly advertised, Mark. I'd say it's right on the cusp with what your comfort level is. I believe it's being already posted to the website for the public to review this afternoon. That will give them at least on the website the rest of the afternoon, all of Friday, Saturday and Sunday. You mentioning here on TV will get it a good audience as well. I am not totally uncomfortable with you going ahead with it Monday, ifthat is your pleasure, but certainly I would share your concern that such last minute changes are something we would endeavor to avoid in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then it's being passed out now. And what we'll do Monday morning is when we start the meeting on Monday morning at the other location, we will discuss this issue one more time, and maybe between now and Monday you can firm your understanding of how much time is needed when it should actually have been passed out, and we can make sure we haven't violated anything. MR. WILLIAMS: Be glad to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. And then I have -- before we go back into public speakers, I have one -- go ahead, Donna, did you -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to comment, isn't this supposed to be a two-day meeting anyway, so that if people had comments -- MR. WILLIAMS: I think you're set to run over -- COMMISSIONER CARON: We were hoping maybe to get through it in a day, but -- maybe. Page 53 ---"".",~'--"-""'"'. _....,.'.'".,~--_._"';_.'",._"'" , . 161 1 ~ February 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's scheduled for two days. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, and there is some of this that I've been tracking. Some of these changes, who instigated them? Was it your consultant, was it staff? Because there's one here that I know to me would be major. I don't need to discuss why I think it's major, but something went poofthat your consultant had put in and your consultant's doing this for free speech, why the -- I mean, who changed it? Who took it out? MR. \V1LLIAMS: Mr. Schiffer, I saw this for the first time 20 minutes ago. I wish I could answer you, but it was brought to me during my lunch between my burgers, so I literally don't know the answer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But just the one thing that -- and I just focused on the one thing is major. So why-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and Brad, your concern is exactly why I wanted to bring it up for discussion before we accepted it as being the document we're going to utilize Monday. If we make a mistake -- this one is going to be as probably controversial eventually -- and it might be in the opposite direction that the prior one on outdoor seating was. The businesses were upset over that. While free speech may help a lot of businesses, I can see a lot of citizens, civic groups and homeowners groups maybe being upset over this. So I'm not sure it's gotten fair distribution being handed to us today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it hasn't. MR. WILLIAMS: Again, to me it's right on the borderline in terms of timeliness. Like I said, I was not uncomfortable with you using it. I hate to ride a fence like this, but I wouldn't be uncomfortable if you canceled Monday and readvertised with more notice either. I mean, I think you're right with whichever road you care to go with. Ultimately canceling the meeting is the more conservative approach, but you've had that meeting and that time squared away for quite a while. So however you proceed, you've got justification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's one thing that isn't fair is people are looking at something marching down the trail then at the last minute. And I could -- if you want me, I'll tell you that issue, but the point is that's really not fair either is to -- MR. WILLIAMS: Understood. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- have something there that people are expecting, people are relaxed and not paying attention anymore and then poof. MR. WILLIAMS: I tried to be very clear. On the cover sheet that comes with it, it says it differs only slightly from the draft distributed on February 19th to 20th. I quickly thumbed through it and to me it looks like there's some changes in there that rise above and beyond the level of differing only slightly. And that's where you as a Planning Commission decide if you want more time to review it or you believe the public needs more time to review it then you're not obligated to have that meeting on Monday. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad, then we'll get Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The change that I have that I focused on, which is just one, it was something that the consultant wanted in. This does not have it and doesn't even note that the consultant took -- in other words, there's no strike-through, no underlined, no nothing. It's like as if it never had existed. So I don't even know who authored this. I don't even know -- I don't know what this is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's concerning. Catherine passed it out -- or brought it to me about -- just after we broke for lunch and indicated that there were minor changes, she wanted to make sure we got them so we didn't get them first thing Page 54 ',' 1-6 I 1-~ February 26, 2009 Monday. And that's when I brought the question up, well, how's the public getting these? She said it's posted on the web site now. But that still is from today forward. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, based upon the importance and the possible controversy over this issue, I suggest we err on the side of safety and not hear it at all Monday and readvertise or do what we need to do. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Make that into a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is that a motion, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If I need to make the motion, it's so done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far, I'd like out of all fairness to have Catherine back here after our break, because I notice she's not -- she didn't stay around. That might have been a smart move. But I'd like to see her here after break so that if there's -- what the repercussions of this mean in regards to the expert and everything else. Because if nothing else, maybe we need to hear the expert and just not entertain a motion and spend one day doing it. I'm not trying to circumvent the process, I'm trying to make sure if we have an opportunity not to waste money and things that are already paid for, like plane flights and hotel reservations, and we can save that, ifthere's a way to do it before we just leave the meeting, maybe we ought to ask her for a suggestion. Is that-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think that's a good idea. And if I'm making a motion, I'd like to add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would you mind-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- tabling your motion until after we talk to Catherine? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Wolfley, would you mind? Were you the second-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm against it. I'm going to vote against the motion. This is not the first time this has happened. This has happened in the past. And maybe we've got to draw a line in the sand to make it understood that we want these things on time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and the motion would have emphasized what you're saying. So you would really want to be in favor of the motion if we were to do that, because we would have actually postponed the meeting. All I'm suggesting is before we postpone it we have all the input we need from Catherine as to the consequences, and then we go from there. Does that work, Steve? MR. WILLIAMS: What time would you like her here? I can send her an e-mail right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have to -- we'll take a break at about quarter of3:00. Could she be here at 3 :OO? MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sending the message. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fine. Then with that, we're about to move back into public speakers, and I have one clarification I'd like to make. It was brought to my attention at lunchtime that if we were to limit this to 315,000 credits that Page 55 "--- ----_.."".<.--,","",.".,..~.",.".,;.... """...-......--.".--.,.....-, "_._.- 161 1 ~ February 26, 2009 there's going to be a lot of problems because, you know, the rest of the documentation brings up issues like 10 credits now are needed to make an acre work instead of eight, and that some of the other credits and the way they were moved around may not be necessarily the way they would have been moved around if the credits were limited to 315,000. And that's absolutely understandable. And I thought I had said this at prior meetings when the discussion was there, that we ought to consider capping the credits at 315, because that's what the Phase I report acknowledged. But how they rejigger the numbers to get to the 315 doesn't matter, as long as it's the 315 that we cap. And so let me reemphasize that so if any speakers are coming up with the concern that we're going to not only limit it to 315 but we're going to increase the needs on a per acre and everything gets skewed in a really negative manner, that wasn't the intention. The intention I believe was to keep the vesting rights established by the first program and as acknowledged in the Phase I report intact until such a time that it proves to be a different need. And that is -- that would occur every seven-year review the issue could be addressed again. And if it's shown that the program is working better and it could work better with a change in credits, that might be more appropriate than now. And it wasn't intending to suggest that we're trying to shortchange the property owners by saying their credits weren't worth as much per acre as they were before. It would have been assumed the committee would go back and take a look at these things if that's the direction that was given to them. So with that in mind, Mr. Vamadoe. you're the next speaker up. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. For the record, George Vamadoe. I've got a few just kind ofI think clarifications I'd like to go through. And I'm working with the handout that has Mark Strain's and the committee's recommended changes that was distributed by Tom Greenwood a couple days ago marked "draft" on the section two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just tell us the policy and page number, we'll head there. MR. VARNADOE: All right. On Page 4, and we're dealing with Policy 1.61. And at the bottom of Page 4 the recommendation is to give people who have established an SSA six months after the adoption of the Growth Management Plan amendments the ability to withdraw their SSA. And on the next to the last line between the word provided and the word such, I would suggest that we put an application to make it very clear that they have six months to put in an application to withdraw their SSA, as I'm sure the county will establish some elaborate time-consuming process to make this happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And costly. MR. V ARNADOE: And costly. Thank you for the clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I think, George, what we will probably do, if it meets the consensus, we'll just take your changes, make note, and then when we go into deliberations we'll go back and restudy the policy. MR. VARNADOE: That was all I was asking, just that you make a note of what I'm suggesting, and then we n you do what you will when you get to that point in time. And on Page 14 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a copy here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Fourteen of? MR. VARNADOE: Dealing with Policy 3.13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which page, sir? MR. VARNADOE: Page 14. Dealing with Policy 3.13. And I think the recommendation is to basically prorate the water retention area as to that part of it Page 56 161 1 ftS February 26, 2009 being utilized by the SRA so that that part being used by the SRA gets included in the SRA acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. VARNADOE: And my suggestion to you there is that between "as" and water management, we insert the words primary treatment for, and that is if the WRA is being used to treat the runoff from the SRA, I think we agree that that probably should be included as part of the SRA. However, if it's being treated within the SRA and the WRA is only getting the pretreated water, clean water, if you would, in the natural wetlands, I don't think it would be fair to count that as part of the SRA. That's just the natural flow functions of that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: So George, before you go on, the words you would like to see are primary what? MR. V ARNADOE: Primary treatment of. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. V ARNADOE: And that's not very scientific. That's -- I'm not a water management expert, but I think that gets the intent across. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thanks. MR. V ARNADOE: And this is really just a clarification. On Page 16, Policy 4.7.1, the -- we're saying that villages greater than 500 acres ought to have a mobility plan. And I think that's entirely appropriate. But this Policy 4.7.1 deals only with towns. I would suggest that we repeat that sentence in Policy 4.7.2 which deals with villages. Very minor point, but while we're doing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley, did you want-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, that's all right. MR. VARNADOE: And Policy 4.19, at the top of Page 22 -- take that back, Policy 4.20 at the top of the Page 22. We say that the acreage of open space and public benefit use shall be counted toward the maximum acreage, blah, blah, blah, but should not consume stewardship credits, it's only the open space in excess of the required 35 percent that does not consume credits. So I would suggest that after open space we put in excess of35 percent, or words to that effect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MR. VARNADOE: And then Policy 4.21 -- no, I take that back. Let me -- I can't read my own notes. Well, I've got one more, Mr. Strain, if you just bear with me for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. MR. VARNADOE: -- one moment here. Oh, on Policy 4.21 on Page 22, I think -- the change I think -- the intent was to not change the amount of the entitlement that was possible in the ACSC. We've now gone from two villages with a potential of 500 acres each to villages not totaling 500 acres. And I'm not going to get into a policy discussion, you guys heard plenty of discussion on that. But I think if you want to keep the same -- if I understood when we discussed that, at least the consensus was to keep the entitlement potential the same, that it probably should be two villages at 500 acres each. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that it's harder to take away than to give. And this is -- something's already been given. The thought was just to make sure it's saved in the same manner. I'm trying -- where would the language be? Because 4.2.1, if it had that language in it, it would be part of the cross-out, wouldn't it? MR. VARNADOE: Well, if you read what was deleted off to the right there, it says however, the CRD's or two villages of not more than 500 acres each. Page 57 ~........-*-,,'---_. .-..",,,,,,~,,,,.._-,,-> ..".,._,-.,,_..__,W,.II- II _._---,,- 161 1 ~ February 26, 2009 You have what you deleted there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I see that. So what you're saying is that meant then 1,000 acres in the SRA's. MR. VARNADOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean of SRA's in AC -- MR. V ARNADOE: In the ACSC. yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, that's certainly a point we need to discuss, yeah. MR. VARNADOE: WelL I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand your point. I didn't -- yeah. Okay. MR. VARNADOE: And I think that Mr. Reynolds is going to talk about capping credits versus acreage. I'll let him get into that discussion with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate the comments. Who else would like to speak? Allen, you're looking around for somebody else. It seems like you're the only one left standing. MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon. Again, Allen Reynolds with Wilson-Miller. I'm going to speak to this credit cap issue and just expand a little bit on some of the points that Mitch raised earlier. And I want to walk back to a couple of underlying principles in the adopted program that I think have been stated but need to be restated on this issue, and that is that this is an incentive-based, market-driven program. So in order for this program to do what it needs to do, it really operates under free market principles. Well, one of the most fundamental of free market principles is the idea of supply and demand. Any time that you start regulating or capping supply, you start to create issues and potentially unintended consequences. The issue that you would have in this program are that the credits are the currency of this program. And the credits, when they're generated, create the public benefits, the natural resource protection, restoration, and with the recommendation now ago protection. So creating credits actually creates a public benefit that only is exchanged for development by the approval of an SRA' okay. So if -- a couple things happen. Under the current program you have three ways to generate credits: You have the kind of the base natural resource system; you have the restoration program; and you have the early entry bonus. The only one of those three that was capped in the original program was the early entry bonus, and that is now retired. So now under the current program you really have two ways to generate credits, neither one of which is capped under the current program. In order to create a more equitable situation for property owners that don't have the natural resource land, the committee has recommended the agricultural protection to accomplish that purpose and to protect agriculture and the panther corridor program. So now we've got -- we would have four-ways, four primary ways to generate credits. So if you cap the number of credits based on the number of credits that were generated under the original program, and then you add two new ways to generate credits, something's going to happen there. And I think, Mr. Strain, you mentioned that you're going to have to reanalyze the entire way to achieve the balance of the program. But I can tell you this, is that there would be some impact devaluation that would occur with any kind of a credit cap program. You're either going to devalue the value of future credits, because now the credits that have already been generated under the program are worth more because you've set a limit, even though you've got more land to protect, or on the other side of the equation, if you have to go back and change the credit ratio, you're going to devalue the value of the existing credits. So something's going to get Page 58 , ! 161 1 IrS February 26, 2009 whacked in that kind of a system. We spent -- when this idea ofa cap, you know, first came into the discussion, and it came really out of the panther protection program, but a way to finally quantify the footprint of the development, I will tell you that there was a lot of looking at, well, are there any other ways to do that? And credit caps were something that were looked at. The problem with the credit cap, in addition to the economic issue that you create, is that you can't just create a single credit cap. You then have to look at each category of credits. Because in anyone category, you could potentially generate more credits and put the system out of balance again. So once you get -- once you start down that path, then you have to start looking at okay, how do we cap -- do we cap the restoration credits, do we cap the panther corridor credits, do we cap the baseline credits, the ago credits? Well, if you start capping those, then you create a real issue, which is equity and accessibility to property owners. And one of the -- I think one of the great things about this program when it was put in place originally is it was put in place without respect to property ownership. It was put in place with a system that operates without looking at which owner gets what. But I will tell you that once you start getting into a system where you're capping credits and subcategories of credits, now you are creating a situation where you are favorably treating certain property owners and unfavorably treating others. And then you get into a process of okay, how do we deal with that allocation. So, you know, maybe a system could be created on the premise of a credit cap. And perhaps this program could have been created with that concept initially, but it wasn't. The program that was created was a market-based system that says we're not going to regulate the supply of credits, we're not even going to regulate the supply of acres, because it's too far out in the future. We're going to let the system work on a market basis and see how it's working. And I think but for the couple of issues that have been identified with respect to the market system, the program is working. Natural resource protection is out in front of development by a pretty substantial margin. You have property owners that are creating credits and banking them for future use. You have some credits that are being exchanged internally. And I think that's a good thing. I mean, the idea was let's get the public benefits in place out in front. Well, what happens if you put a credit cap in place? Well, the first thing that's going to happen is that property owner's going to say how many credits can I generate? Let me go generate them as fast as I possibly can. You create the potential for less than all of the property owners, a few of the property owners, potentially the corner of the market on credits. They could create all the credits they could possibly create. They could maybe tie up other credits. They control the market. So then what happens on the other side, the demand side ofthe equation? It's out of whack, it's no longer a market-based program. But I will tell you, there's two other things that are in this program that deal with the issue that I think you're trying to deal with. And actually, I heard three issues. One was vesting and fairness. And I think what you have heard from the property owners is that even though there is a recalibration of credits required by adding these new features, they are comfortable with the balance that's been achieved because they support the committee's recommendation. So in terms of a vesting issue, I don't think you have an issue with the property owners. There was an issue with respect to a property owner creating credits and then having no market for those credits. That was a second issue that was raised. There is now a policy that was recommended by the committee that allows a property owner to unwind their credits. It's the reverter policy, which is on Page 3. So if you have a situation where there's no longer a market for credits, you get to the cap, the Page 59 . Ill. .. iiI_....."'#.-1III~~ ~1l" .."..,_,.""'_..._..._...."'....___,.....jl . .. .,.,.....,..-"..". -_.......-,--..,....-.-,..~._,-- , 16 \ 1 ~ , February 26, 2009 acreage cap and somebody has excess credits, they can unwind those credits and they're back to where they were before they participated in the program. But the third feature is one that we haven't talked about, and gets overlooked, frankly, in this whole program, but I think down the road it may be a very significant one. And that is on Page 6 and 7, and it's Policy 1.18. And what that policy says in essence is that there's more than one way to retire credits. It was recognized that what we were trying to do is create a system that could accomplish all ofthe public benefits only through incentives. But that may not be realistic. It may not be that all the property owners participate. It may be that there's not a supply or a demand for all the credits. So what that policy says is there's other ways to retire credits. One of the ways to retire credits is through a publicly funded program. So you could have a situation where the county or a private conservation entity could purchase credits and retire those credits, accomplish the same natural resource protection, the same agriculture protection, and there's no equivalent development on the other side of the table. So if that feature remains in place, which I hope that it does, why would you want to cap the ability to generate credits that are going to accomplish good public purposes? I don't think you want to do that. So I would really caution the Planning Commission to avoid sending this back for a reinvention. Because if -- I think if you go do~ this track of a credit cap, you really do have to reinvent the entire program. There may be certain things that are achieved by that, but I think you're going to have other unintended consequences that result from that, not the least of which is upsetting what right now is proven to be a reasonably well-working, market-based program. And if you want to look at other programs around the state and around the county -- or not the state, the county, but the nation that have not worked, in almost all cases it's because the government interfered with the market basis. They set a price. they set a cap, they did something to upset the market basis of the program, and sooner or later the market is then going to say, you know, we're not going to play. And Collier County has a program that is as old as the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program that did go down the path of trying to stipulate certain controls, and it's not being used, and that's the fringe program. So again, my point is that, you know, I understand the concept behind well, if we can just cap credits it solves some problems. I don't really think it's solves the issues that you're concerned about. And I think when you look at the balance of the overall way that this program works, I think the recommendation from the committee took all that into account and came up with the best way to address the issue of how much development are we going to have, and at the same time put as many incentives in place so that as many property owners as possible have the potential to participate and they're not compelled to participate prematurely. And again, I just say that once you put a cap in place, you are going to create a situation where property owners are going to feel compelled to make decisions solely on the basis of that cap rather than what the market is suggesting that they do. So those are my comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Questions? David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I am still stuck on the part where let's say we get to the point where you want more -- you need more credits, and let's say we go to 500,000 credits. You're saying that that's going to make them more valuable? I mean -- MR. REYNOLDS: No. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- what you said is that they -- it will -- MR. REYNOLDS: No, what I said is that if you create more ways to generate credits because you're trying to accomplish more benefits but you cap the number of credits based on the current system, Page 60 161 1 ~ February 26, 2009 there is going to be some impact on the value of credits, either those generated already or those in the future. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So you're talking about ways that are not in here already? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, the ways are. The agricultural preserve program is one. The panther corridor is another. Neither one of those is capped. They're both estimated. But they generate potentially another 100,000 credits on top of the 315,000 you have today. So if we like the idea of ago preserve and want to keep that and want to reward that with credits, and if we like the idea of a panther corridor and want to incentivize with that credits, you're going to create more credits. You're going to create -- you know, then you have to figure out a way to balance the equation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was taken into consideration with the 315. That was with the original -- MR. REYNOLDS: No, the 315 number, just again to kind of reiterate how that's generated, that's the number of credits that can be generated out of the existing program without ago preserve, without the panther corridors. That's generated by just the base credits, early entry bonus and restoration. And the early entry bonus is now gone. So under the adopted program, there's two ways -- basic ways to generate credits. We're adding two more that add more credits to the system. So our -- you do have to go back and you do have to recalibrate the system on that basis. But when you do that, the recalibration has still given property owners equal ability to access the credit generation program. Once you cap credits, I think you create a very untenable situation of allowing either some property owners to monopolize the system, A, or B, a devaluation to take place. Because once you get to the cap and let's say you get to the cap and all you've done at that point is the NRI and restoration, you have no way then to generate ago credits. So you have no ago preserve program. MR. GREENWOOD: Tom Greenwood for the record. Just briefly, Section 3 in your volume one, specifically Page 76, does delineate the credit generation under the present program. And it also further on delineates credit generation under the proposed amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Allen? MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah, and it really is important to read that section I think just to understand the process that the committee and the property owners had to go through to arrive at what they think at least is an equitable way to deal with the whole situation. And again, not to say you couldn't create a different system, but we have a program in place already that is working and now we're talking about some enhancements. So I think it's very important not to try to go back, frankly, and reinvent the wheel. And I think you're going to do that if you go down the road of a credit cap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Allen? The build-out period for this RLSA is 2050. What's your-- MR. REYNOLDS: My opinion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. REYNOLDS: I think it's well beyond 2050. I think 2050 was chosen as a year to look at because that's as far as we can look out and do any kind of a reasonable modeling of transportation impacts and other kinds of things. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well-- MR. REYNOLDS: -- yeah, 2050 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's pretend this is 2010 and 2050 is the number. That's 40 years. MR. REYNOLDS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the next 40 years do you think you're going to utilize all those potential 425 or 26,000 credits that this current program is suggesting? MR. REYNOLDS: My personal opinion? Page 61 - .._IN........__''."....,-..- _."'..".~._-,,,_...'~ ...-- ; 161 "'1 f+:5 February 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. REYNOLDS: I don't think you're going to use them all for development entitlement. I think there may be a possibility that folks will see that the stewardship program creates a more efficient way to use public dollars to accomplish land conservation, and so I think that we're going to see at some point the leveraging effect of acquiring credits take the place of publicly purchased land to some degree. So whether you get to the total number of credits, I don't know, but I don't -- you know, I think it would take a -- it would take an extraordinary rate of growth to get to the entire build-out of this program by 2050. But it's theoretically possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you think in 20 years we will use four 25,000 credits? I think the answer to that's for sure no. Do you think we'll use half of that? MR. REYNOLDS: Perhaps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What do you think we're going to use in seven years? MR. REYNOLDS: Don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I don't think you're going to lose more than half, if20 years would take maybe half to get there. MR. REYNOLDS: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This program is being set up now to be reviewed every seven years. MR. REYNOLDS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you giveth, it's very hard to taketh away with property owners. I don't see any way, especially going back -- and I was there five years ago when you stood before us and you absolutely insisted that the 134,000 credits and the 16,000 acres was going to be really good performance to the program, that's what we should expect. And I myself produced a spreadsheet trying to counter your argument that no, this is what's really going to happen. And even my spreadsheet didn't have everything happening seven years from now. And the reason I'm using seven is if we use 315 and we use credits instead of acreage, seven years when this program comes up for review, if it's an astounding success or if it's an astounding stalemate because they've gone to 300 credits in seven years under some mysterious way and they can't do anything more and save more until such time the program changes, it's easier to change it than to go back and say gee, we made a mistake, we've got to cover all these people, the taxpayers are going to have to figure out some way of handling it. And as far as your reference to the fringe, the fringe set dollar values on those fringe TDR's. A lot of people are concerned about that mistake. It is -- the program is stagnant. But that is nothing like setting credits that ultimately can get there by anybody that wants to use them -- use the basis under which they're driven to get there. And they can bank them forever. So I'm not with you on that argument. But I wanted to express the concerns I had with what you said, so n MR. REYNOLDS: Let me just respond. And I recognize that some of you, we're just going to have a difference of opinion on this, and that's certainly fine. The reason I illustrated the fringe was to point out a situation where a market-based system was imposed with certain regulatory constraints that were not market-based. That was my point there. You're not suggesting to create a dollar value on a stewardship credit, thank goodness, that would never work. But the net effect is essentially the same, which is you start interfering with the ability of supply and demand to work themselves out in a market-based system. Nobody knew what this program was going to do when it was put in place. We could well still be looking at 16,000 acres of development by the year 2025, which was what the basis of that estimate was. Right now we have 5,000 acres of development in 2010. So who knows, you know, what that's going to be. But if -- and I would agree with you, it may be unlikely that we get to 315,000 credits in seven Page 62 \ 161 1 1tf? February 26, 2009 years, but what you're suggesting is imposing a cap on the entire program of 315,000 credits, not 315,000 credits until the next review. So you're now by policy saying that's the total number of credits that can be generated unless some future group decides to change this program. And that's a different thing than saying how many are going to be in place in seven years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, in the future we would know more what is appropriate. And if it isn't appropriate to review the credits in seven years, then why is it appropriate now? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, you know, let me turn that around and say, you know, I think that this issue of should we cap credits rather than acres can be looked at in seven years. Why don't you let the program work for another seven years and see at that point in time if that solution which would require a much more substantial redo of this program is a necessary solution or not. My guess is that in seven years we're going to find that it's probably not necessary to put a cap in place because of the other things that have been put into the program. So there's no harm. If you and I both agree that it's unlikely that we're going to see 315,000 credits in seven years, why don't we wait for seven years before we try to take that next step. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, the wait I'm talking about is expanding the credits beyond 315 and not utilizing the acreage. Because if you give the acreage, you're going to have to give the credits sooner or later. Otherwise, what good is the acreage? You can't use it. Or if you are using it, your damage is met. And I'm not sure that's the right approach to take. I'd rather see us minimize the damage, rather than say this is going -- we can maximize it to fit 45,000. I'd rather minimize it to a standard of credits, and if we get there and we have the opportunity to provide more because everything's working well, that's the reason for the suggestion. We'll probably keep disagreeing on it, but I just want you to know that's how it came about, at least from my point of view. So thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: Very good, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, obviously you're up here talking death to caps. However, the review committee wants to cap acreage. So what you're telling me is that's not really a cap. You expect that to change -- MR. REYNOLDS: No, the cap is the cap. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as well. MR. REYNOLDS: The committee has recommended and the property owners have agreed that 45,000 acres is a cap that they can live with. That's very clear. So -- you know, so again, I don't understand the concern about capping credits. Because the market understands that there's -- on the development side, there's only going to be enough of a market to consume the number of credits it takes to get to 45. What I was pointing out to you is there are other ways in which credits can be used. And those are things that are going to be helpful to the county potentially, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. MR. REYNOLDS: Any other questions? (N 0 response.) MR. REYNOLDS: Thanks very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like Dane's next. And Anita's after you. MR. SCOFIELD: Dane Scofield, S-C-O-F-I-E-L-D, with Half Circle L Ranch. We're one of the smaller property owners in the mix. I'd like to pull together some thoughts that Al shared and Mitch Hutchcraft earlier, and it relates to the issue of capping the credits. I don't think any of us anticipated the impact that the housing market would experience which Page 63 ~-" ,_..... 10< "_,__,,__"'_e.,.._._...~_,..~....,,~___ _.,,,....,~"._"'""4__""'___,__."'"...,,___,,__~__,",_"'_ 161 1 tf5 February 26, 2009 resulted in this economic downturn. If everything was booming right along, we may not be talking about this cap scenario that's being presented today. And I don't think any of us foresee in the future when that's going to turn around. But let's assume that it does so quickly. What you do by establishing that 315 cap is you really incentivize the larger landowners that have sending and receiving areas. Those guys can act quickly to capture that cap limit that you're setting on the credits. And that disadvantages a person like myself or Mr. Priddy or Mr. Hutchcraft. Those individuals who, on Mr. Hutchcraft's part, they want to continue long-term agricultural activities, they may not be in a position to take advantage of a short-term window turnaround in the housing market in order to initiate a development. Those type properties are -- those are the properties where my credits and Mr. Priddy's credits would go. By capping those credits, you disadvantage myself and Mr. Priddy the opportunity to sell our credits and generate income from the creation of those credits through the SSA's. And I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Another thing that I had a problem with earlier, I keep seeing this map that The Conservancy brought last couple of meetings, and it was being utilized extensively in reference to the corridors and also the areas for the footprint of development that was recommended by The Conservancy. Again, that -- in my opinion, those yellow areas -- I think there's some crossover in the different maps that we saw here today between the primary and secondary. I think you're getting into a crossover. But The Conservancy was promoting those yellow areas as the primary development to concentrate the development in those areas. Again, you're advantaging those landowners within that footprint, that yellow marked area, and those that were the lighter blue, you're disadvantaging those lando~l1ers from developing in those -- in this incentive-based program. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. And please be cautious about using those maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dane, I'd like to make one correction for the record. The Conservancy map that was put up there was put up for one reason and referenced for one reason only. That's the blue areas that they were believing were primary panther habitat. And it was put up there to help us understand if that was indeed to be determined primary panther habitat by the two scientists that were here. I don't recall ever pointing out their panther corridors on that map, nor do I recall referring to the yellow areas as development areas. It basically was this is the yellow area, this is the blue area. The blue area is primary panther habitat. Why? Because that reflected supposedly, by testimony, it closest resembled the Kautz paper. That's the purpose of it. So please don't think that the intent of using that was to promote it. It was simply to try to clarify a point we needed to learn about. So with that clarification, I don't have anything else. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next speaker? Thank you, sir. MR. JENKINS: Good afternoon. Anita Jenkins, with Wilson-Miller. I would like to speak to the new Policy 4.23. It is on my Page 23, and it's in regards to the outdoor lighting, new outdoor lighting policy. The stated objectives in this policy to protect nighttime environment, conserve energy and enhance safety and security have merit county-wide. And a lighting ordinance could be considered county-wide. However, I would suggest to you that you would strike the language that says modeled from the dark skies program only in that there are many, many programs. The American Planning Association lists, in addition to the dark skies, more than 12 other programs that should be looked at in writing a lighting ordinance. Page 64 ;. 16 I 1 16 February 26, 2009 So going forward with this language, we would ask that you consider striking that modeled after the dark sky program and then when the research is done, many other standards can be taken into consideration in drafting a lighting ordinance, and considering that county-wide as well. These comments would also go the same to Policy 5.7 in Group 5 where you have a lighting policy under the program if you're not participating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JENKINS: And in addition to that, just one other minor comment. Policy 4.7.3, it's on my Page 18. The last added sentence there, Mr. Strain, there shall be no more than five CRD's of more than 100 acres in size. The committee's revisions included limiting CRD's to 100 acres, so that sentence would not apply then because CRD's are not allowed to go higher than 100 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think the point ofthat sentence, and it may be stated wrong, was that you couldn't have more than five in any -- at one time before they were converted into a village. And that was the intent. So you didn't have pop clustering -- CRD's popping up all over. MR. JENKINS: Yeah, and I think that's covered in the first sentence up here. It's just the last sentence that no more than 100 acres in size should be stricken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I certainly made a note of it, and we'll bring it up. Thank you. Are there any other public -- oh, Brad, hi. MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell, on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida. And I just had two points I wanted to bring up. And one was in reference to the proposed panther restoration corridors, the restored corridors. The map that has been shown a couple times that shows the southern and northern corridors with the blackout line, those were suggested corridors from the landowners. It's on that map. What would go forward in any comprehensive plan amendment is the concept that would have just big arrows. And I want to point out that those corridors, that the committee is advocating the corridors in concept only, not in any specifics. The specifics of corridor design would be required to be functional. I mean, they have to be functional corridors. So -- but still we don't know what that looks like. That would be informed by a number of different -- through a number of different avenues, you know, in the specific implementation and development of a corridor with the agencies, as well as with the panther review team that's looking at these -- the Florida panther protection program. They're going to be commenting on that as well. But I just wanted to stress, those are concept corridors. You know, don't take that map as any sort of specific advocacy that's not even going to be going forward with any compo plan amendment. And the second point I wanted to make was that -- this is just a minor one, but in the Group 5 policies -- and this is really hard to -- this is one of those policies that has so many sub-policies that I can't even name it. It's 5.6. And here I get into some gray area, .3 sub F, sub Roman IV, I think. It's the one that talks -- and you'll remember this, it's the one that talks about exotics removal counting as mitigation. Do you remember that? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh-huh. MR. GREENWOOD: Page 28? MR. CORNELL: Page 28. Yeah, it's my 28 as well. Anyway, there's -- I don't know who made this edit. There's blue crossed out language. I don't know whether that's your edit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine's all in red, so I'm not sure what -- MR. CORNELL: Okay, well, this is somebody else's edit. But I wanted to point out that I believe the discussion on that had a problem with the reference of Page 65 , 1 , ,"._,...,_,_._~_","lOlIII"" 11~ '11 'II' ,W- w- " '" -- I 161 1 tt5 February 26, 2009 mitigation for wetlands and listed species habitat impacts. And I just want to say personally, I don't think that this policy is very effective the way it's laid out. It's not what the committee proposed, and I wasn't even a party to what the committee said on that. I was outvoted on that. But I think this policy doesn't really do the job. I think you would need to leave the original suggested language in there with the conservation easement and perpetual maintenance requirements for it to be at all effective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity in relation to that, did you read iii? MR. CORNELL: Above that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. There it establishes the mitigation of clearing and perpetual maintenance. And four establishes that exotic removal and maintenance may be considered acceptable mitigation. So I think one benefits the other. And that's why that additional language was redundant to what was III 111. MR. CORNELL: Okay. Good point. I'm personally not particularly in support of that, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL exotic maintenance I thought was something you had to do anyway, but in this program it seems to be a bonus point, so -- MR. CORNELL: That's alII had, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Gary? MR. EIDSON: Gary Eidson, E-I-D-S-O-N, not to be confused with -- the struggle that I had in trying to come up, you know, to agree with the committee on the land cap. You know, we went through that deal. And we recognize -- I think the intent that I had and I think the other -- some of the other committee members shared it was that by capping the land we were creating value, okay? That meant that if you were going to -- if you were going to develop land, why, that had a place. But we at the same time said if the land is valuable, that means that if you're giving up something, that's valuable too. You know, it makes it even more valuable. And that's where we looked at the credits as being the money. So the question is do you want to limit the money or do you want to limit the land? And we thought one of the problems with this program was that nobody -- could you be confident in the land and would it work the way you wanted to do it? And so we struggled with all that. And in the end we thought, you know, this is really neat, we had a problem, we weren't emphasizing agriculture enough, so we put more weight in there, and we put some more weight towards the panther. And then the credits then could start to fall out and they could start to maybe effect some of those people with the smaller land sizes, and maybe we could get them off the table so that they wouldn't be putting one house out in the middle of nowhere, like we've got in the Estates. So that was the intent. And I'm a little concerned that we shift away from the committee's intent. And I respect, Mr. Strain, what you were -- you know, you were saying let's just ride it out, see what it looks like in seven years. But I kind of want to -- you know, we've been at this now going on -- we're going to be pushing two years here pretty soon, and we aren't even to the -- we haven't really even got to the gate yet, because it's still got to go up and come back and go around the horn again, and we've got another what, you figure another year? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably. MR. EIDSON: Ifwe're lucky. Assuming everybody can still get here. Maybe a year and a half. So now we're down to five and a half. And, you know, I'm just concerned, I think that what we have set up here is a natural progression of trying to make the program more valuable to the whole picture. And I just feel -- I felt really good about it. And I know this isn't the real edgy testimony that a lot of people can give with facts and figures, Page 66 16 I 1~ - February 26, 2009 but I just have to tell you that that's what I liked about it as a citizen, you know, just the average guy on the street. I liked the idea that I knew what the development potential was and I knew that there was a real incentive for people to keep agriculture, and I knew that once they put it in agriculture it was going to stay there. And I thought man, that's really great, because there's no other place where you can be guaranteed that the ago land is going to stay ago And that was the intent. And what we said, well, let's merely make it more important that you make it ago And so that's why we went this direction. And this other really big picture that r got today like the big light bulb went out, and I want to go back to it again, was when we talk about the panther, we're not necessarily talking about the panther. That's a big deal. And I know -- I mean, the panther is the biggest thing you can do and captures the most wildlife. That's really neat. But that's okay. But don't get it confused with that may be the panthers a part of, not all of the issue. And that's what I think has been forgotten in this deliberation, with all due respect. And so the two things that I want to go back to then are the ago is what we really wanted to fill that gap. We said let's keep ago because that's what DCS said and that's what common sense says, and that's what's going to keep Florida making food. And then the other thing is the big picture on the panther. And I thank you for the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your philosophy about the panther and the umbrella, so by protecting the panther we're intentionally or inadvertently protecting many other species. MR. EIDSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's wrong with that? MR. EIDSON: There's nothing wrong with that. I have no problem with that. But I think that it's a bigger picture sometimes than -- I mean, it's a big picture. It's a gross picture. And sometimes r think we just have to keep that in mind, that's all. r mean, you don't always paint with a four-inch brush. And that's -- and what we have done here is we've dialed the program -- and I think it's great, and I support the panther, and I'm not against the panther, I think the panther's a wonderful thing. And I was excited to learn that the panther's actually related to the Texas Cougar by history. I mean, those are good things. And r feel much better about them, because I didn't feel -- r felt like our panther had been violated by being interbred with the Cougar. But I feel better about that today because I've learned that that's a good thing. You know, they're kind of related, so it's kind of making the family bigger. And I don't mean to make fun of it, but it's important that you understand that. But the thing now is that I want to protect the ago land too. I think that the cougar's good -- I mean, the panther's good, but I think the ago land is good too because I want to eat and I want to see people working down here making the food. And I think that this incentive program that we created and our committee will do that better than you capping that. And that's my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, Bill, are -- you got some -- MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir, just one point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead, sir. MR. McDANIEL: And I, like Gary, feel good about everything that's been going on here today as well. I would like to suggest to you, just as a thought process, you made some accolations (sic), Mr. Chairman, with respect to time and the damage having already been done in relationship to limits of the credits or not limits of the credits. And Gary shared with you that on the committee level we wrestled with this discussion for quite some time. From the committee there were suggestions that creations of additional market places for those credits to be transferred to and utilized in more urbanized situations or -- and again, at a review process at Page 67 .' 161 1 ItS February 26, 2009 some stage of the game intensifications of densities within areas of development as we go forth and see development occurring in Eastern Collier County, that at the committee level we felt it best to utilize the cap, if you will, Ms. Donna, with respect to the land in lieu of the credit side. The committee actually said in its deliberations that the necessity for creation of a marketplace, as people's perspectives change, as important necessities for protection in fact change, there may be a necessity for a creation of that marketplace. And we found that to be a better path to travel than a limitation on the actual credits themselves where there could be an imbalance that would have to be corrected at some future date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, if that's all the discussion from the public at this point, we can move into actual deliberations by this committee on the -- we'll start with the red lining of the GMP language first and then go to the general comments that are in that other document that were passed out. Now, the way we've approached this in the past, we've gone page by page. What I'll suggest today is that we go and we go page by page to where changes are. And assuming that if there's no changes based on the four days that we've been here discussing this, we're satisfied to that point. And something else I want to make a note to everybody. This coming Thursday, a week from today -- I thought today was Friday all along -- but a week from today we have our regular Planning Commission meeting. If you've not seen the agenda, it was passed out today and we have four or five consent items. We only have one agenda item. That would be a rather short meeting, assumably overall. So if we have to go into our deliberations, and I'm asking not to rush these, these are the most important part of what we're finishing up with, we can always finish it on Thursday. I know that doesn't make everybody real happy, and I had hoped to get through it today. But just in case, I wanted to leave that avenue open. So with that in mind, the first policy that was changed is 1.6.1 on Page 4. And if everybody turns to Page 4. There was one suggestion from the audience and that is to add on the line that begins with the word designation, designation provided and application for such withdrawal is implemented. If that's acceptable to the committee, just say so, and if anybody has any objection, just please raise their hand. If not, we'll move on to the next one. And by the way, for the sake of the committee, my intention is to take whatever changes that we make today and incorporate them into the document and get it to Mr. Greenwood no later than Sunday, but depending on the quantity, maybe even quicker so he can distribute them in time for us to finish up with the consent agenda on Thursday. So okay, we'll turn to Page 5. This one hasn't been -- no one's mentioned this, this is strictly a reinstatement of the opportunity to utilize other agencies for preservation designations. Anybody have any problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next change is on Page 8. This just provides the opportunity for primary panther habitat to receive a higher level of credits than just ACSC. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, I'm looking where it says in the red -- I guess this is the only change where it says or open lands determined to be primary panther habitat. That's the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the change. but the strike-through above it is the change. The strike-through is actually a change because we -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it wasn't described, it was actually described I believe in this one. So -- Page 68 161 1~ February 26, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Now, the open lands determined to be primary panther habitat, are they going to be given 2.0 credits or 2.6 credits, or how does that work? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This suggestion is 2.6. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And have we calculated how many additional credits that would create? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Because this would have to be -- this would probably be resolved more as the science comes out that's being studied by this other group as well before transmittal. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because I can envision, based on the maps we looked at this morning, there's a lot of primary panther habitat that's out there, and it could add a lot of credits to the system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could. But we don't -- it's an unknown. I think the significance here is that if we make a notation that that's something that is needed, at least it becomes an item that's addressed. And how it weaves out -- the study that's being done by a group of scientists through the Memorandum of Understanding may come out and feel that the primary panther habitat that's already been acknowledged is what's there. I mean, we heard other opportunities today, but I don't think that science is done yet. So this kind of puts it into an opportunity if it does and when it gets done. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I agree with you. And so this is not a totally refined document, but it's something that needs to be included, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- and I remember one of the speakers, either on the 20th or the day before, made a comment that we might not want to be so specific in this document and let the implementation language in the LDC become more specific. And he was right about that. And that's what we've been striving to do. And you'll find that as this document goes on there are some areas that were reflective of that. For example, when we get to the species, instead of listing the species, they can be listed in the LDC and be modified easier there as species change, rather than put them in a GMP which becomes monumental to modify. So that's kind of why this was written that way. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My inclination would be since I can envision that there's quite a bit of lands that are primary panther habitat, that we would be better having 2.0 stewardship credits instead of 2.6. But this is not, as you said, a refined document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, it's up to this panel what they want to see as a majority. Do you have an objection to 2.6? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I would be willing to go along with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 9. This reinstates two policies that were there before the advisory committee for the RLSA recommended they be removed. In discussions that we had earlier, it didn't seem to be a good reason why they should be removed. And in fact, it might be more advantageous to have those agricultural committees exist for better input to the BCC. So rather than take them out, why don't we just leave them in? And if they want to use them, fine, and if they don't, I guess it stays just like it has been for the last five years. But the opportunity is better there than not being there. Is that comfor -- everybody comfortable with that? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think it's absolutely vital. Because one of the flaws in the process so far is that we do have the landowners, but that is not necessarily equivalent to all the people who work in the fields, who sell fertilizer, who drive tractors, who drive trucks. And you need somebody who represents all those people. And, you know, the landowners do not necessarily do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, if this stays in and it gets approved this time around again, you might want to try to push that a little bit with your commissioner to see that it gets in place, so -- it would Page 69 ~,.~.~-,- _~_~"<'"'_"'''''~''".'''',",'_M''__,~,__"_,.,..,~..~".",.,,,,,".''''''''>''''d,_.'".."_,..,.,...",;,_,;__".._,,,~_,.;;,,,,...__..__ -,_._-,'""""-~~.'- 161 1 A0 February 26, 2009 be a good thing to do. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next comment is on changes all the way on Page 13. This talks about the corridor credits. It provides two additional stewardship credits when someone decides to designate them for corridor. But the change is that previously should an owner also effectively complete the corridor restoration, this shall be rewarded with eight additional credits per acre. The way that could be interpreted is if the owner of that piece created it. But that does nothing to make it a corridor. So when we talked about this before, the intent was that once the owners were able to complete the corridor and it became viable. that's when the additional credits would be awarded. I know that's been objected to. I heard someone today say that wasn't a good way to do that. So it's up to this committee to decide how they want to proceed with that point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It -- just to be clear on this, the -- an owner of property decides to go for a corridor. Now the question is completion of the corridor. That could be many, many moons out. Are you suggesting that they get the credit initially and then only when the corridor is completed, including surrounding that property, that that credit is awarded? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL when we first discussed this, the objective was to make sure the corridor got done before those additional corridor credits were issued, because the corridor isn't viable until it is completed. And yes, that's exactly what the eight additional credits say. Everybody would have to timely and in this case it would be a limited number of property owners, two or three or one in some cases, they would have to complete the restoration so we have a viable and functioning corridor in order to get those eight credits. And the way that could be done would be further delineated in the LDC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: WelL I fully appreciate that. I was observing much of this on TV so I'm aware that one of the issues that was raised was about the time, how long that would take before that would ever manifest. But if that's qualified now and that committee does not object to it, I certainly think it's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL I'm not sure the committee does or does not object to it. We heard objections I think by one person already today, so that's why, you know, these will have to be our recommendations, regardless of where the committee's coming from. If that is bearing on others, we can-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: WelL I think it makes sense, Ijust -- so that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How would the bookkeeping on that really be done if you were going to do that anyway? I mean, if everybody's waiting for the keystone piece, what does that look like? How is that done? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think they'd have to submit for restoration credits. And first they put their land in. And then if I was a property -- first of all, let's take the northern corridor. I understood there wasn't a lot of difJerent property owners there. But if those property O\.Vl1ers, if two or three of them decided to go into this, or even one, I'm sure they would want to talk collectively about everybody going in and collecting all these credits together. It would be a real good thing to do. But just -- it just kind of incentivizes people to work together to create a corridor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if -- let's say there was one small fellow, he would have two, he would wait around and all of a sudden he'd get in the mail the other eight that he earned because the guy down at the end plugged in, right? Page 70 \ 161 If\S February 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would have to be -- he'd know what's being done because his property would have improvements made on it. Restoration would be taking place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, isn't the intent to give everybody 10 credits if they're part of the corridor, or is the intent to reward the keystone guy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think the intent was to give everybody eight credits -- at least the language that we have here, the intent was to give everybody additional credits, because that's what I believe the committee had intended when they wrote this. But the way it was written, it didn't complete the corridor. They got it for completing the restoration of their piece. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you clear on that? I don't want to leave anything until we understand it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think it's clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, do you have an opportunity to address this for us as far as what the committee originally intended? I know you can't tell us what we intended, but can you tell us what the committee originally intended? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: While Bill's thinking about that, Mark, can I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: If! were the keystone guy, if! were the keystone cop there, I would go to the other folks and say I want twice as much. If you want me to join, you're going to have to pay me. What's to prevent that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, I don't know how many property owners are involved in each strip. And it doesn't seem like there's too many. In fact, we got a sheet that might tell us right here. Second of all -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, that particular one, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second of all, David, I don't know if any of them wouldjoin in until they all reached some kind of communal agreement that they could benefit from before they did it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I've got to give them -- they're smart enough to have gotten this program this far, they'd sure be smart enough to work together in the future. MR. McDANIEL: And on that note, with -- Bill McDaniel, with a big D. Big D on the D-A-N-I-E-L. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was wondering what he meant by that. MR. McDANIEL: When the committee was adding these -- this language in here for the credits, the goal was to incentivize cooperation, as you suggested, with respect to the establishment of the corridor, but not pay the credits out until the corridor was in fact completed. Now, the additional language that you all have added in there, I don't have any real comment on necessarily in conjunction with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, I think the additional language just says the same thing, but it clarified it. Because the way the original language showed, it says each -- should an owner also effectively complete the restoration, this shall be rewarded with eight additional credits per acre. Should an owner. And what that concern was, that if one owner went in, did his restoration, said the heck with everybody else, he gets 10 credits. This way it's very clear -- seemed clear that you don't get the additional eight until everybody works together and completes the corridor. MR. McDANIEL: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that seems to be what you just said was the intent. Page 71 '1,'__" " "~'".. -....,.."".....^'~~."~~.,,.,, ,,.-- I 161 1 ~ February 26, 2009 MR. McDANIEL: That was the intent of the committee at the time. There again, incentivize cooperation but not reward until completion was in fact in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, does that work for you now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Again, the bookkeeping -- MR. McDANIEL: How he actually gets the credits in the mail or not, I don't know about that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the person obviously is getting credits to do some development someplace else, so he would have to hold off waiting for those eight credits. MR. McDANIEL: Agreed, until the corridor was formalized and restoration completed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think the extortion David alluded to for the keystone piece is available, so -- but we'll see. You know, without understanding the land ownership of the corridor-- MR. McDANIEL: Well, and there again, and not to belabor the point, and it's offthe subject matter, but the suggested corridors that came in the conceptual map were with conducive land ownership interests that allowed for some kind of connectivity. Like it, don't like it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, if we're done with 13, we can move on to Page 14. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more thing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- on number three, I have a note. It says only one type of restoration can be awarded. 1 have a note that says and in no case exceed 10 credits per acre. Is that a -- why do I have that note? Is that something we discussed, or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what? It was. I think I forgot to add it. You're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The note is where it says only one type of restoration shall be rewarded for these credits for each acre designate for restoration, and in no case shall there be more than 10 credits issued. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the max. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a good point, thank you, Brad. On Page 14 on the top of the page, we talk about the water management area. We had one speaker indicate that we need to really focus on the primary treatment. Good point. Because when you have water management, you have outfalls. The intention certainly was not to penalize someone for using a WRA as an outfall. That's actually where water's supposed to go, especially to keep the hydrology up. The only question I have, and I'm not sure anybody can answer it, I understand -- there's primary treatment and secondary treatment. And I'm not sure if secondary treatment comes into play in the SRA. There is an engineer here. Allen? Planner, I'm sorry. Engineering firm person. Anita's the same way. Is there an engineer? Anybody specializing in water management? Oh, well, you walked in at a good time. Could you answer a water management question for us? MS. HECKER: I'll try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to please tell them your name. MS. HECKER: Jennifer Hecker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jennifer. Are there primary and secondary treatments for stormwater management? MS. HECKER: The current storm water treatment regulation through the environmental resource permitting by the South Florida Water Management District is a presumptive criteria that if you capture the first one inch of storn1\vater in wet detention ponds that you're meeting the removal rates required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's considered primary treatment? Page 72 -.- --., .r 16~ 1 ~ February 26, 2009 MS. HECKER: That's considered the primary treatment. And in certain instances where you're discharging to an impaired water body or an outstanding Florida water, there is an additional half-inch that is required to be captured and treated as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That answers the question. Great. Thank you very much. So I think what the language suggested was to insert the words primary treatment prior to the words water management. That accomplishes the goal. Is everybody in agreement with that? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The bottom of Page 14, this is the one that's been probably the most controversial. Total SRA designations shall be a maximum creation of 315 (sic) stewardship credits. I've heard the arguments from -- MR. SCHMITT: 315,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 315,000 credits. I've heard the -- Mr. Schmitt, thank you. I've heard the arguments. I haven't changed my thinking on this, and I think the flexibility is there to adjust it as time might dictate it's needed. But this committee needs to make a finding on it. And this is a serious one, so I'll make sure everybody's had their say. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what if we did this now, Mark? And I think the biggest thing is the seven-year review is really to do this. But what if we put in there the creation of the 315,000 stewardship credits or 45 acres and then just let it go at that and then -- yeah, in other words, set two ceilings, two caps, whichever one you hit first, that protects people from either direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see the need to do that that way, Brad. I'd rather see people striving to put more on less than opening it up to spread it out. By doing that, you're saying 315,000 stewardship credits could theoretically encourage urban sprawl by having bigger estate lots and less density, which you generally like the higher density. So I wouldn't want to encourage spread out developments at all. Especially in the SRA -- or in the RLSA. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, am I naive to -- I mean, essentially you get one acre for 10 credits, right? I mean, isn't on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you were to limit the credits to 315, I'm sure the committee would want to go back and reanalyze their distribution of credits, and I would assume they'd keep the eight acres per credit that currently the program has, instead of moving it to 10. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, they don't have to, but it would seem to me they would want to do that at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, I certainly would love to see more credits less. But the trouble is, we really don't equate it to density, we take the 10 or the eight and we buy acres. I mean, so we're not -- it would be nice if we took credits and bought density. But we're taking credits, buying acres and backing into density from acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's no encouragement in this program to use high density. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, there isn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I wouldn't want to see small amount of credits or limited amount of credits be spread over a maximum amount of acreage. I think we'd be doing just the opposite. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How many credits have gone down in the first five years? COMMISSIONER MIONEY: 160,000. MR. GREENWOOD: How many credits have been consumed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Page 73 . T -- .""w ...q' ,_"._;,,,...,,,,~....,,,,.,, ".". '''._~w,^..",.... ""."_,,__,_.__ ,,,,~_,_, _, '~>""""''^.=_.,.~,,-. t~ .....,,> "~--- . \ 161 J.. It5 - February 26, 2009 MR. GREENWOOD: A little over 28,000 for the town of Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Only 28,000? MR. GREENWOOD: 28,000. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- MR. GREENWOOD: And there's -- presently there's 37,000 credits that have been earned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So maybe the joke of this argument is that they're never going to get anywhere near that in seven years, and let's punt that forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the point. And the reason the seven years review is important is if the program's doing that well or if it's been refined through proven methods over the next few years, it can be implemented in seven years and no one really is shortchanged because the program won't even be that far in seven years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. GREENWOOD: Just a point of reference, the EAR base that was just completed -- actually it was the 2004. The next would be 2011, and may very well not be done until 2012, 2013. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's not even seven years, that's even less. MR. GREENWOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's a checkmate there for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it really doesn't matter -- I mean, we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I want to be clear in my mind here. Is this the introduction of the cap that they kept on talking about that they didn't want? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I would not favor a cap. I'm convinced by their argument that that's an acceptable approach. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Should we be adding this redistribution language in here? Allowing them to shift around those credits to wherever -- do we need language in here is the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest we put that under one of our general comments. Because to really, if you want to talk about reshifting around the credits, you'd probably have to go back and change quite a few paragraphs, and that's something that if we just make as a general comment as a result of a -- if the 315,000 credits gets approved, then it would be wise to recommend to the committee to go back and recalculate how the credits -- those 315,000 credits are awarded. COMMISSIONER CARON: I meant strictly a comment. Not to do it, but to say you are allowed to do it. A simple declarative statement as opposed to I want to now go back and have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I think as a general comment. We wouldn't want to put that in the GMP language, but we should put it in the general comment language. And that works, I think that's a good idea. Anybody else have any comments or concerns? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, and we're assuming that they will put the agriculture credit in there, since they've realized that agricultural incentives are an important part of this, it needs to be in it. I'm sure that they will just reapportion and reallocate. And since the committee itself voted to do one reallocation already by adding in the agriculture and panther restoration credits, it's something that can be done a second time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Varnadoe. I can't ask tor unsolicited comments from the audience anymore. Page 74 161 1110 February 26, 2009 MR. V ARNADOE: So solicit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would set a precedent that wouldn't be workable. We'd be here for days. MR. V ARNADOE: All I was going to suggest, that Policy 4.19 deals with the credit allocation. That would be an appropriate place to put your comments. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: You were going to say that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you didn't say that. Okay, well, leave it to you always to disrupt things. Let's move to page -- well, for the record then, when we -- COMMISSIONER CARON: When we get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get to our conclusions today and we want to talk about how this recommendations from this committee goes forward, Mr. Murray, you made it clear you're not in favor of Policy 4.2, so when we get to our recommendations, if you want to emphasize or if anybody in this room takes precedent different than the majority, then just remember which ones you take exception to, and when we have our majority vote, if you have an exception to that, you can just list it then. Does that work for everybody? Okay, Page 15, two changes in some wordage in No. 45. It kind of gets to where Nick was talking about this morning. Kind of -- and there's one change that I missed again. And if you look at Policy 4.5, you look at the new underlined language in the new paragraph, the second line. Let me read the two sentences so we're all on the same page. Each SRA master plan shall include a management plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses, examples, parks, passive recreation areas, golf courses and vegetation preservation requirements, shall be exclu -- it goes on, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas. And if you recall, in the first couple of days we had a lot of discussion about what parks meant in there, because parks could be stadiums, could be ball fields, could be anything. And I didn't go back and address this, and here I simply forgot, J should have. I would suggest that we strike the word parks and just leave it passive recreation areas. And if there's a park there and it's got passive recreation area, it meets the intent. But I think everybody acknowledged at the meeting that the intent was not stadiums and ball -- those big highlighted intense uses. So if the committee's comfortable with that, I think by just striking the word parks we accomplish the goal. Does that work for everybody? We're on Policy 4.5, the second paragraph, it's all in underline and new paragraph. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's move to Page 16. There was one point on 4.6 that was pointed out to us in I think The Conservancy's recent paper. I got so much paper here. Yeah, this is, the county determines mass transit is needed, either within an SRA or to connect the SRA to locations off-site. The SRA obligation to provide funding, infrastructure and other in-kind donations to facilitate mass transit shall be included in the SRA mobility plan. Well, I didn't necessarily agree with all that language, but I think because a lot of it could be worked out at the LDC level. But if you go to Policy 4.6 and you look at the first underlined sentence that was added, the SRA shall also include a mobility plan that includes consideration of vehicular, bicycle and et cetera. Ifwe took the word consideration out, that would get it there. They would have to include the modes of travel and Page 75 ,..-,.............- - ---~.,,_.__._"-,'-"~,~-" ',''''''.,="',"",,,." . -""._-------_.._- 161 <t., 1 *5 February 26, 2009 movement between the SRA's for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian public transit and internal circulars. That may accomplish the goal, and it's a good point. I don't necessarily agree the way to get there is the way The Conservancy has outlined. But the fact that it was a consideration, as we learned in the water plan, means nothing. And maybe the word consideration, if it was dropped, would mean that they're going to have a mobility plan, they're going to consider roads, they're going to consider bicycles, and it will be part of it. Now, how it gets paid for, how it gets implemented, that's the LDC part of it. Does anybody have any questions, concerns? Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just that we're not -- it's not indicating here that they would have to necessarily have all of those things. Because I don't think that was the intent, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL if the word consideration was taken out, then it would leave it to all those, because it would be shall. The SRA's shall also include a mobility plan that includes vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian -- it would be a positive. COMMISSIONER CARON: And other modes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now -- right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We don't know yet what all the modes are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think what Donna's rightfully concerned about is that does every town and village have to have a mobility plan for each one of those items. Some of them may not be large enough to. And I think the way we might want to look at that is include a reference in that sentence, as required by the chart that's in the back of the document that tells you what each town and village has to have based on the acreage and size of that town. And that's the attachment C, which is called stewardship receiving area characteristics. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you just do parens, chart number or whatever it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, for those that are required pursuant to the attachment C stewardship receiving area characteristics. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it also just relates to mobility strategies. So it's really a planning activity, as opposed to compelling the initiation of the work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The way I understand it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so your belief~ the way you're reading it, and it may be right, is that this says they'll have a mobility plan, but it provides just strategies, it doesn't provide inducement. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, and if! read -- if! understood, Nick's reasoning was that the compact rural developments may spring up and they may be distant away and then there'll be one in the middle, and he doesn't know how to plan his roads at that point and it's not clear. But with a strategy, at least they're looking forward planning at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL the strategy then helps qualify some of the strength of the first sentence so that it's more of a strategy and a plan. And so I think if we strike the word consideration in the first sentence and refer to attachment C and then leave the rest of it, it takes care of it. Is that a fair statement? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm reading. That will work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's -- it's 2:45. Before we take a break, Catherine was supposed to be here. Did she show up? Didn't you tell me, Tom, you had her here at 2:45? MR. GREENWOOD: I think you instructed 3 :00. Page 76 ( \ ~~iary 1, ~O~9 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did, but someone came up to me and said she's coming at 2:45, so-- MR. GREENWOOD: Well, I don't-- MR. WILLIAMS: She was just outside the window. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, what day is it? Brad said I :45, he's on Mountain Time. I'm on Friday and it's Thursday. Okay. Well, look it, let's take a break and come back at 3:00 and by then Catherine will be here. MR. WILLIAMS: She was at the window a second ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll come back at 3:00. (Recess. ) (At which time, Commissioner Kolflat is not present.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please take your seats, it's the magic hour, we can start back up again. Catherine, please don't leave, you're the entertainment. Okay, now, I need to put a whole bunch of corrections on the record. It seems that when I spoke about our meeting on Monday, I inadvertently said 9:30. I thought I said 8:30, but someone thought I said 9:30. So just to be absolutely sure, our meeting on Monday is supposed to be at 8:30 in the morning at the BCC chambers, number one. Number two, I said earlier that the sign document, which is what we're now talking about, is already on the web and for review. I just found out it is not -- MS. F ABACHER: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, let me finish, Catherine. The sign document that I passed out with the yellow highlighting is not on the web for review. The original one that we got is. Now, this board was talking about whether or not we should hold our meeting based on public disclosure of information and making sure public has adequate time to review the stuff. Before we took a vote, we wanted to hear your concerns if we weren't to meet on Monday. MS. FABACHER: Well, no, I think we should meet. Ifwe go back to the old one you got on the 19th and the 20th, that's fine. But we still need to meet. The expert's coming, I've paid $1,250 for the ad. But what we've done here is when we were just doing a final read-through, we looked at a few things, and Diana, who -- it's been kind of balancing between Diana and -- Compagnone, who knows -- who works with the sign contractors and in fact has distributed it to all of her sign contractors, and they'll be there. But we looked and there were a few things we knew were missing that were just not right, and we were hoping that we could just -- the little yellow things, just make a little change, and give it to you so that when the Doctor comes on Monday we'll have everything in here to discuss. We were missing -- there is a big section, and it is on abandoned signs. And when we were reading it through, Diane and I for the final, we realized that whole thing was missing. And we were hoping that we can include it so we would have all the material that we need to ask our consultant about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know you're characterizing this as minor, and that's something this panel will have to either agree or disagree. And the beginning of your statement you said we should meet Monday, even if we don't review this language. However, I would suspect that if we meet Monday during the course of discussion, this language will be brought into play. And we've already had notice of it. And again, it's back to the concern we originally voiced, that there wasn't adequate public notice of this new language. I understand it was advertised properly, the existing language. At least the ordinance was advertised properly. The language that we currently had was apparently available for quite a while. That this is going to be available sometime today. Page 77 ------- ------.-------------- - - ------~-----_. 161 1 A-'S February 26, 2009 And by the way, Steve, that means today isn't been (sic) the day that they've had it, so that means tomorrow will be the day that it might be available. So that means one working day before Monday. Now, I just want to make sure that we do what's right. I want to make sure that we deal with full disclosure to the public. We're not operating in the stealth around here. Any comments from the Planning Commissioner in that regard? Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think we can take what they wrote in yellow just up for consideration as if I were to say I've got a change in the document, I got an idea that I want to -- we can use it like that. I wouldn't use it as an official document, though, as you had said, as the one to work off of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, a concern I had is -- and there was one section of the code and it's the definition of sign. Jeff Wright and I have been talking about it. The consultant added something to the back of that definition that's not even on this. So the concern I had is that Jeff was saying is that the only things we can go into were the things that the consultant brought out as necessary to meet our court order. That was one of the things. It's not in here. So who's the one who's changing these documents? Who's the one who's going through and determining what should be in there and what shouldn't be in there? MS. F ABACHER: I'm confused. Why isn't it the Doctor's definition of sign? COMMISSIONER SCI-IIFFER: Well, at the end of the definition of sign there's some wording essentially describing location and it's not here. So what is happening to this document? Who is editing it? And is all the things that the consultant put in in here, or are you taking them out? MS. F ABACHER: No, I'm not taking latitude. But the consultant wants to go much farther than this, and we thought we would bring it to you, staff thought we would bring it to you before we let the -- we sanitize it completely, because we feel as staff we will have gone too far, and we're concerned that if you -- it's a matter of weighing the risk. And we're going to need the attorneys to help us, what you want to take a risk on. Because they want us to remove all the labels. If you want to say open house sign, if you want to say coming soon sign, and without the labels you don't know what it is, and people will be thinking they can have additional signage. So it was our concern to stop the process now, because the Doctor wants to go even farther. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, maybe a question to Steve might help. Steve, if we take Mr. Wolfley's suggestion and we run the meeting off the original document and where staff or anybody wants to change things they bring in the yellow highlighting on a piece-by-piece basis but it happens at the public meeting, is that a way, a successful way to approach this? MR. WILLIAMS: I think it would be, because I would envision that during Monday's meeting you're going to have some changes and suggestions and comments and everything anyway. You just happened to receive these a couple days early is a way to approach it. If you base Monday's meeting off the original document, I can't think of a reason that would be inappropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, does that kind of answer your question, or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I guess. I mean, you know, the thing that scares me more than anything is that this document took stuff off that the consultant wanted on there. I mean, so I don't like that condition. MS. F ABACHER: The consultant has changed it several times, trust me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL for what we intend to do on Monday is take the document you distributed to us as the final document and use that, and then if we come to these points where these need to Page 78 1 161 116 February 26, 2009 be inserted, you can point it out and we can discuss it openly, and that way it happens at the public meeting instead of distribution ahead of time. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remember, Mark, I'm not going to be at the meeting, so I'm going to be submitting comments based not on this document but on the prior document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. And by the way, how that -- we'd better talk about how you're going to submit comments, because I want to make sure we don't have any Sunshine-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Send it -- e-mail it to Catherine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that would work fine. MS. F ABACHER: I did want to remind you that he will probably be coming back for a second hearing with you, Dr. Mandelker. So -- if needed. So I appreciate the time, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Catherine. And we'll just leave it. Then we will have the meeting Monday and we'll go on. Is that okay with everybody? Okay, more fun. With that, let's move back to Page 16 was where we left off. Policy 4.7.1 had a sentence that was added and a correction was inserted into the sentence. And I think one of the speakers correctly pointed out that really what we ought to do is leave the sentence as it was, take the added language that we put in back out and on 4.7.2 put the sentence back in but take out the words towns and leave villages so that it applies to the villages like the intention was, but it's in the right paragraph. And I think that was a good call. Does anybody have any problems with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So noted then. On Page 17, the recommended amendment, there's a couple changes. And Brad, this gets the convenience retail end that you had asked about. And it takes out those industrial and other kinds of uses that 4.7.4 had referenced in regards to a whole pile of other things. That was the first change. And it goes over to Page 18. Let's talk about the first two, adding in the convenience retail and striking out the 4.7.4. Is everybody comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I realize tourism -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Can you use your speaker? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I realize that tourism has been in there. I'm just wondering, CRD's were essentially residential. Was it ever envisioned on -- I guess it must have been envisioned that tourism would playa part somehow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they were actually originally eco villages, hunting and fishing, camps and things like that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's right. That makes sense now. Thank you. That brings it back. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll move to Page 18. There's been a change in the top. And this is more to make sure that a CRD can have services and facilities support the permanent residents that are allowed to be there only made sense. I don't think there's any discussion on that. Towards the end of that same paragraph we had one suggested change. The addition was to maintain a preportion ofCRD's of 100 acres or less to villages and towns. Not more than five CRD's of 100 acres or less may be approved as an SRA's. Prior to the approval of a village or town and thereafter not more than five additional CRD's of 100 acres or less may be approved for each subsequent village or town. And that last sentence was suggested being dropped because it confuses the issue with some others. Page 79 .-- ..... y ... _.__"__'''___.....''''',..'''''v.,;.~_''',,.....^'''.,,_.,,''. ~'"'."'""_."" "'''''---_._".--,--,---_._..- ~61 1 1f; February 26, 2009 First of all, the intent here was to make sure we just didn't have proliferation of a whole bunch of CRD's snuggled up against one another and avoiding the requirements of a village or town. So the point was when they got to at least five of them, that would be 500 acres or close to that, they'd have to form a village to meet the village requirements. I don't have a problem with dropping that first sentence. I don't think it does that much either way. What does the rest of the committee think? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You said the first sentence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean the last sentence. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, the last sentence is confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if we drop that, I think the rest gets to the intent we had talked about. Is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 4.7.4, this was one that had a whole pile of information. It just cleans it up. And I believe this was -- I think we talked about this. And Tammie was here when we talked about it. She really wanted to make sure the sustainability issue was addressed. I think that was added. And then we just left the balance of it out and then it will be defined in the LDC. Anybody have any problems? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: lfwe turn to Page 19, there's one red line item in 19, and that's involving the open space exceeding 35 percent shall not be required to consume credits, but it shall be counted as part of the SRA acreage. And I think that was just a clarification. However, if you go to the very top of that page, that first underlined sentence is one we had discussion on, and I actually couldn't come back to a resolution of it when I wTote this. I was getting kind of weary of it all. So I put it as a general comment on the other paper I passed out to basically say infrastructure needs some kind of definition. Because this is what this is allowed now in FSA's and HSA's. It's saying infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts for any such areas. And I understand that. It means if you got a water line coming along and you need to make sure the water line goes in or it's problematic if it doesn't, it needs to go in there. But where do we limit infrastructure? And where the problem comes in, if you go to the LDC and try to see what the word infrastructure means, you get a variety of hits. One of them is the elements that go on top of a multi-story building for allowing the elevators to go up to the top of the roof. That's an infrastructure for the building. Then you have infrastructure that goes along the roadway. And Cherie', you can throw something at me next time. I got to slow down a little bit. You have infrastructure that goes along roadways, is underground. I just wanted -- I would suggest that the intent here gets worked out. I couldn't figure out a way at the time I was writing this to define it, so I pointed it out in the other comments. I don't know if anybody on this committee has any ideas right now, or we can just leave it as an item that needs to be addressed through data and transmittal. I couldn't figure it out in the time I had to write this, so -- anybody have any -- if we leave this in as a general concern that it needs to be more or less clarified, does that work for everyone? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 20, instead of referring to the maintenance of the public and private roads by the primary town or community, just say SRA, because that's what they serve is the SRA's. It just was a clarification. Page 80 .1+ 161 1 AS \ February 26, 2009 On the end there's a sentence that says, these actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways, period. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Back on that issue of changing that to SRA. Is it even reasonably feasible that you could have two PUD's within one SRA? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two PUD's? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. What I'm thinking about, I'm not trying to pose a question you can't answer, but what I'm thinking about is who then all would be responsible? And presumably it would be in the PUD's then that they would be responsible for the roads and the rest of it, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm trying to think of how that would work. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, take Lely Resort, for instance, or any ofthe other big developments. You go in and you're on a public road and then you have developments under PUD's, and they've private roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And an SRA in my mind can be a large area, and it's possible to have more than one development in there. And so the question then becomes who all are responsible? Is SRA adequate, because it's all-encompassing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, when they come in and ask for the SRA, at that time I would believe the responsibilities by this would say the SRA's got to address them. So no matter who comes in and further subdivides it, they'd be obligated to take care of it on any pro rata share that they would sign on to when they bought the property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. But I've heard it said as a problem before us that once -- and in fact Joe Schmitt has said it I think on a couple of times at least, once a PUD -- once a development is broken dO~l1 into PUD's, it's hard to make responsibility nailed down. And that's the only thing I'm raising. It may be moot, but r thought it was worthwhile thinking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. r would think by using the umbrella of the SRA, it gives us a little bit more strength than not. So -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And it may be. It could be my ignorance about what an SRA truly represents legally. Let me further that, maybe you can help me with that. I'm an SRA. What am I? Am I a corporation, am I a partnership? What am I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: An SRA is the land use, like a PUD. So I think it's a zoning-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So it's a zoning instrument. It's a form of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You get credits -- you use your stewardship credits to enact the SRA, and within the SRA those credits allow you to do all kinds of things, including retail, commercial, industrial and residential. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's akin to a PUD effectively is what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a big PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you, that may help me appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On 4.15.1, okay, what this came about as, this language allows an SRA not to duplicate services if it's in an adjoining or nearby SRA or urban area, kind of like the Immokalee urban area. And that's great. And that helps. But you would certainly want to make sure that the capacity in that adjoining SRA is there for the new SRA to count on it. Otherwise you've not enforced the minimum standards and the FAR's and all the other numbers that are in the attachment C that towns and villages have to abide by. So all this does is make sure they continue to do that. Does anybody have any questions or concerns? Page 81 ~"'- ,"---,~..,,,.,",,'~"'''''''',,",,",,,-,.~.,~,."~~,,......'..'",,,,..,,.,,,,..-"~-~"."."""".'""'''''''''',',--~""-""",,,,,,,,.''''''--''''''''''', ... . ... -~._.-"._~,~""---",-_."-,,,-- 161 (i1 ff; February 26, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 21, Policy 4.16. Just added language for clarification. And then a redundant strike of 100 acres for the CRD's, because that's said before in numerous ways, so all this does is add more clarification language. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, you didn't relate to the infrastructure word there. Perhaps you did, actually, where it says essential services and infrastructure. Because there I think it's more clear that it's in the development, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is. But, you know, this doesn't give the exception for being in an FSA and HSA, and that's the only reason. You're right, Bob, that's the only reason I did not mention this one is because here it doesn't matter, it's not in an FSA or HSA. Whatever infrastructure they need, they need to put in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not an imposing condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. At least that's the way we saw it at the time. Policy 4.17, this was the one where AI Reynolds in an e-mail to me had suggested that we go to policy -- the CIE Policy 1.1 and refer -- instead of saying category A and category B, because we struck that reference in the CIE, it was a good point, we don't have it anymore. We basically have the elements of the CIE as referenced in Policy 1.1. So that's a good correction. The problem is it doesn't bring in the issues that we wanted to bring in if we had included category B. Since category B is taken out ofthe AUIR -- or I'm sorry, the GMP's and the CIE -- boy, these acronyms are probably getting people wondering what in the world we're talking about. The CIE is the Capital Improvement Element of our GMP, which is the Gro~1h Management Plan. By taking out category A and category B, we've removed all of category B, because category A still stays in the GMP and the CIE. So I think what we want to do is say something to the effect the GMP for public facilities included in CIE Policy 1.1, as well as the following. And this is where we need to talk about it. Jails, law enforcement, EMS, fire, government buildings and libraries. Those are our category B facilities that if we just refer to Policy].1 we won't be addressing those. And so if we feel that the SRA's need to address those in some manner or form in their analysis, then this is where we'd have to put the language. Now, really, whatever this board thinks from a full planning effort, at least if they analyze those, like a CRD would probably come back and they have little impact, a village may have a little more and a town would have significant impact. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: It seems to me that inasmuch as these are essential certainly for the CRD's and the villages residential and they'll want services for residential needs, libraries and, well, hopefully not too much in the way of big jails but other facilities would be a requirement. And I think they belong together. And I agree, I understand the differentiation you're making and I think it does belong here categorically A and B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any problems? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd have to do, though, is take out the reference to A and B because they no longer exist. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And replace it with the reference to the policy and then those items that I listed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for everybody? Page 82 ) , 161 116 February 26, 2009 Okay. On Page 22, this is a Policy 4.18 on the top, this just clarifies when a surplus revenue -- first of all, how it's generated and when it can be used. Really you've got to look at the related impacts outside of those directly generated by the SRA, the area as a whole. So that's the only reference we were trying to make, it just cleans up what I -- we were looking at as intent. Any problems there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's not something that's been revised, but on 4.19, that's where I get the impression that it's 10 units per acre. In other words, it's eight if it's an old credit, it's 10 if it's a new credit, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. But that's under the current program, that capacity by acreage. And in our general comments, we'll have a note that basically says if the Board of County Commissioners instructs the committee to utilize the cap in the form of credits, then they also need to allow the committee to go back and rework the way the credits are applied. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you think that might change that 10? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would change it. I can't imagine they'd want to penalize themselves up to 10 credits per acre. So yeah, I think that certainly will change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially they'll go back, take the credit limit, divide it into the maximum acreage they want and come up with a new number for this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they'd probably go back to the eight and then look at a ways to reallocate acreage based on priorities of restoration, environment, agriculture and the other elements, panther corridors and the other things like that. They may feel that if they get reduced credits, maybe 10 credits per acre for panther corridors is higher than it needs to be. Maybe it should be a total of eight. But it would be something I would highly recommend that the BCC allow the committee to relook at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I got it, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 4.20. This one there was a suggested change that I think was correct. It says, the acreage of open space and the words in excess of 35 percent and public benefit use shall count towards the maximum acreage limits. So I think that was right. And then if you see this is the one that had the -- another reference to excluding essential services. Actually, if you exclude essential services, you're excluding things that they're saying should be included. Because regional parks and government facilities are essential services. So the thought was that essential services shouldn't be excluded, but the exclusion of the items that are listed sits and stands. That seems to take care of it. Does anybody have any concerns there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we get into one -- I know Mr. Midney had an issue with this. I didn't incorporate your concern on this because I know we would discuss it. And also, we -- there was a correction that this originally intended for up to 1,000 acres in the ACSC. And as distasteful as that may seem, in order to be consistent with some of the other things that have been argued, it seems if we've given something, it's not right to take it away. So I know, Paul, you had a concern about any development, and I know The Conservancy has been concerned about SRA developments in the ACSC. Unfortunately in the first go around those were all provided, 1,000 acres of development and SRA's were allowed to be in the ACSC. So the attempt here was to put it back like it was and allow no more. I know there is concerns. Now, there's been at least two concerns expressed about that. This isn't written right. It was intended to be 1,000 acres total, and this limits it to 500. So I think Page 83 "'"-....... "'-j~ 1___ .....;,. .,,---,------_..__.,,----,"",- 16 I 1 f6 February 26, 2009 that correction needs to be made to make it to what it is today. But is there -- but where do we sit on this as a group, as a panel? Paul, do you have any -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would go along with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You would? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's to leave it like it was, basically. How about the rest of you, any concerns? Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not sure who came up with the 1,000 acres to begin with, but it would seem to me that if we're reviewing this policy, 1,000 acres of SRA in the ACSC just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It doesn't make sense, but Mark, you say that it's already in there now. We would have to be taking something away, you're saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you read the strike-through, that follows the red line. However, CRD's or two villages or CRD's of not more than 500 acres each, that's already in there. So that means they've already got a right to develop up to 1,000 acres in the ACSC. And if you really think about what we gave away five years ago, and that includes the 315,000 creation of credits, it's much harder to take away than to give. You know, I'm just -- out of fairness, I'm saying we gave it, we should stick by our word and live with it. And that's kind of where I was at with that. But that's my shot at it. That's where I'm suggesting. And it's really what this panel wants as a group. So if there's any suggestions or changes that someone feels is absolutely necessary, then they need to voice that concern now and have this one stand out as one of their issues when we vote as a majority vote later on today, if it goes for recommended language. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm not happy with it, as I said, but I don't see how we can take something away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just commenting on the way the thing's worded. Is it awkward to anybody else? Not more than 500 acres ofSRA development in the form of villages or CRD's shall not exceed 500 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Very poor wording. I can't believe how that could be -- staff, how could you word it like this? Joe Schmitt, what did you let them do this for? MR. SCHMITT: I can't believe they did it. CHAIRMAN STRAJN: Okay, I think you're right, Brad. Basically not more than 1,000 acres of SRA development in the form of villages or CRD's. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll move on to Page 23. And that's policy -- this is a new policy, 4.23. We heard a concern about referencing only the dark sky program, that there are what, maybe a dozen other programs out there? I was n I just don't know. I mean, all I know is I think it's a very good idea. We look at limiting the lighting out there. I don't know if dark skies is the only program available or if it's the right one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the generally accepted terminology to express the reduction in lighting that we have all over this country. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And to be honest with you, Nancy Payton had submitted a --let me find hers and I'll read it to everybody. Because I don't myself have a concern about the language as long as we get the right language. Nancy had suggested the following, instead of the language that's here: Any development on lands Page 84 16 I! 1 1r0 .- J .~. February 26, 2009 not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Outdoor lighting shall be managed to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy and enhance safety and security. The LDC outdoor lighting regulations using standards modeled from the dark sky -- and then she puts the link -- programs shall be implemented within 12 months of the effective date of the Growth Management Plan amendments. The outdoor lighting regulations shall be applicable to groups three, four and five policies. First of all, the first sentence is the one that I have a little concern with. Any development on lands not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. I'm not sure that's necessary to be in Policy 5.7, since compatibility is an LDC issue. And it really isn't that well defined in our code. But putting it in here may lend to the argument that nothing's compatible to preservation land but more preservation land. The last sentence, the outdoor lighting regulation shall be applicable to groups three, four and five. If it's better -- we already have it suggested for four and five. If Group 3 needs to have it, I don't have a problem with that. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, are you comfortable with the changes that we're not being restricted to just the dark skies program? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says modeled from the dark sky program. My intention when I wrote it was, I mean, we'd go to that program and there may be things in there written for the northern climate. There may be things written for countries that get snow. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's my concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why -- I used the word modeled, meaning that would give us the ability to model it from their ideas, but tailor it to Florida, Collier County. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So we don't have to use that particular program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see it that way, and maybe the county attorney -- well, I can say through transmittal and data and analysis, that language -- I could see David Weeks having a field day with that. He'll tweak it 15 times. So the intention is all I was trying to get across, and David will probably tine tune everything before it goes into transmittal. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And Mark, there's another issue. I didn't pick it up until a little bit ago. Dark skies is the program. I'm used to the terminology dark skies. Whether there is a dark sky program, I'm not certain. But I think this phrasing here in the first instance does it for our purposes to move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any preference then as the language? I mean, like I said, as long as the concept comes across, I'm not too worried about it. As long as we get something in there that gets the concept. Because the transmittal process will clean up the language. We can use this or we can use Nancy's language. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'd prefer the language that's written here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that one of Nancy's concerns was that it actually get implemented and within a reasonable anlount of time. So I would think that were she still here, she would be pressing for -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: She is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, she is. Oh, you are in the corner. Oh, okay, you did say within a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a time frame in mind. Page 85 ."'-.. ...- --"'- .. ~ n ".. ~_....-.~...""'''''_'''''_"'_'__,.. ---"--'..' ^"'-"~""".'''-;';'''''-''~--~'''''''-- ,,-,-,,",~""""-- 161 1 N5 February 26, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: You did, okay. You're good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy's get a time frame in hers. I referenced dark sky program. I think I need to add the link. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's always a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Group 3 versus just 4 and 5. Group policies 1 through 4 all address the new RLSA, SRA uses. I don't know why it needs to be in 3. And Nancy, would you mind coming up here and answering that question for us? MS. PAYTON: Maybe it's a typo. My recollection, 3 are SRA's? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. PAYTON: And there may be some activities in SRA's that are allowed that would have lights. Like if you only go off to the recreational layer, there might be a golf course out there, and you might not want to have certain types of nighttime lights there. And we have a golf course out the East Trail that is like a runway -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. MS. PAYTON: -- next to conservation land. So if it's applicable, it's applicable. And if it's not, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well n MS. PAYTON: SSA's, yes, if you look at the layers ofSS -- I'm sorry, I misspoke. Group 3 is the sending areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. PAYTON: Some of the layers of the sending areas could have a lot of intensive light. So that's why I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem adding it. What I would do then is take Policy 4.23 and just insert it to the last policy in Group 3. MS. PAYTON: It's duplicated in 20. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for the clarification. MS. PAYTON: And I would like to make a pitch to have eflective instead of approval. Because again, what does approval mean? When is it approved? Ifwe have it tied to the effective date or the adoption date, I think it gives us a definite date. Whereas approval is loosey-goosey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, no, we'll say effective. That's a good point. Okay, so the suggestion is to change the word approval to effective. Insert the dark sky link to the ww.darksky.com after where it's referenced in here. And also add it into Group 3. Is everybody comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you've chosen to use -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You've chosen to use her language, is that it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are do I hear you correctly? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm actually suggesting we just change the -- clean up the language that's in here with the references that she had, and in essence everybody's criteria is met. Basically within one year of the effective date of this policy LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting using standards modeled from the dark sky program, (v,lw.darksky.com) to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy and enhance safety and security. That would be then inserted also into a policy three something. Page 86 , , 161 1 ~t) , , February 26, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, I have not gone to the site darksky.com. And Ijust -- talk about loosey-goosey, you modeled after the dark sky program. I mean, we're talking about something that has not been done, putting it in this RLSA program and Nancy stood up and talked about something that I don't believe is in the RLSA area, is it, that golf course? Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, she was using that as an example. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know. But there's also been some other discussions about what goes for RLSA goes for the rest of the county. Which -- and I don't -- I've heard it twice today, and that's not at all right. I'm just --I'm concerned about 2.23. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, David, we're trying to figure out all of our concerns so we know if we have a consensus or not. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I know. I'm concerned about something that hasn't been written yet, putting it in our document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this isn't-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, that's just my concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any concerns to express on the matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll move on to Policy 5.1. Now, this was taking language from --let me explain this one. Because 4.9 had the same language in it. 4.9 applied to areas that were accepted to go into SRA's. Policy 5 only applies to areas outside the SRA's. So this was added simply to make the two areas equitable in the way they applied themselves to FSA's and no other reason. We still, though, have the issue with the word infrastructure in this one in the same way we had it in 4.9. And so even though the language was added here, I still would suggest that when this goes to the BCC we caution them that the word infrastructure, when it applies to FSA's, needs to be further defined than just a general reference to the word infrastructure. So that was the purpose of putting this here and that's the clarification. Is everybody comfortable with that? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last one, Policy 5.3, as we learned, there were no applicable regulations listed. It really meant to refer to those of that group, and that's just a clarification. Anybody have any problems with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 24, up on top there's a change on -- this is about the panther crossings and that they will be incorporated into the planning of the RLSA, including all SRA's described in Group 4 policies. That just is a little strengthening of the requirement, one that it seems that everybody is in agreement with because they have a Memorandum of Understanding that defines these, so -- anybody have -- well, I'll go to the end of each page, I'll ask you if we have any concerns. Policy 5.5 is a little peculiar. If you recall, this had listed species and protected species. Protected species can be a quite lengthy list. When the intention from the environmental community that was here that I didn't hear a lot of objection from the landowners was simply those species that were delisted but still need the protection: The Bald Eagle and the Peregrine Falcon. So what I tried to do here is leave that listing open to the LDC implementation, but make sure it's referenced here as something to be concerned about. So I -- and I did this for Tor, and he's not here. Tor loves acronyms, so I invented a new acronym just for Tor. And said the -- we would -- basically shall be directed away from listed species and species of Page 87 ~"""".~-,, ~.t>- it.. -, .,; ---,,' ".. ,,,,"""';'~-'-'''"''''-^'''' ~ "__""""~__'M~""""'_.,""..,_ __ - _~".""n.___.__~_'.,_,._ 161 1 ffJ ~ February 26, 2009 special local concern, SSLC's. And when you use that acronym -- and by the way, I put in parenthetical, to be defined in the LDC language within one year of adoption of this policy. And that is the SSLC's. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: SSLC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: SSLC species. So what this would do is those species would be defined in the Land Development Code, which could be implemented as new species were needed to be entered into that program. And that's what all these language changes on 24 are about. They take out the reference to purely protected species and they get into the SSLC's. And that also -- then that carries over in the rest of that policy. Does anybody have a better way of doing it or are (sic) they have problem with this way? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't have a problem with what you've done, it's just probably a good time to say that Mr. Kolflat, on his way out the door, wanted to remind you that you really need a definition section with all these acronyms spelled out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. This is another one they could add to the list. COMMISSIONER CARON: So I said, you'll bring this up, won't you, Mr. Kolflat? And he said, no, I'm leaving, so you need to bring it up for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll add it to our general comments. And what also this did, in talking with Brad, in the numerous ways that species were looked upon on-site, it was utilized, using, observing, and I think the word that was finally locked into was utilizing, and that also has gotten changed in this policy. So if everybody is comfortable with that, I think we didn't hear any objections to it from the public, we can move on to the next page, which is Page 25. This one again referred to the parks as being in the buffers. The suggestion was we strike parks and leave just passive recreation, because it accomplishes the goal better. Any objections to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if we move on to Page 26, there's one change for the SSLC reference. Instead of protected. That's it. And then if we move to Page 28, this is the one that I think Brad mentioned and I pointed out that really iii takes care of it. Four, the language struck is redundant to what iii tries to accomplish, so basically we're allowing exotic removal or maintenance may be considered acceptable mitigation, period. And that the mitigation is accomplished by the efforts through iii and that is perpetual n in perpetuity through perpetual maintenance. That's how that's the consideration. So anybody have any problems with those changes? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm just still having a hard time understanding it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When you're talking about mitigation, you're mitigating n exotic removal and maintenance is mitigation for what, something on another piece of property? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net loss of wetlands. And then it lists those. Now, as far as -- that's on properties that do not decide to go join in to the RLSA program. These are properties that exist today and they decide to stay out of it. And if they're -- if they're impacting direct impact to the wetlands, these are the forms of mitigation that they can perform. They have options to use. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So if they're impacting wetland A and they're going to build on it, Page 88 . ! 161 1~? , ( February 26, 2009 then by exotics removal in wetland B that's overgrown with exotics, that mitigates for taking wetland A? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't know if all the criteria are in the example you cited, so I can't tell you, Paul. I mean, the way the policy's written, I'd have to go back to the beginning of the policy and answer that for you. For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the RLSA program, Collier County shall direct non-ago land uses away from high-functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact it is hereby defined as a dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod. This policy shall be implemented as follows. So if you're dealing with an individual wetland on a property that's not part of the RLSA program, and it's going to be nonagricultural, and you're impacting a wetland directly, you can then impact -- you can mitigate that impact by doing those items in F. Now, if that mitigation is allowed off-site or a nearby site, I'm not -- I have to go back and read this whole thing, which I don't know if staff can answer it any better than I at this point. I don't know how to answer your question right now without -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's the problem. I've tried to understand it and I can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom, do you have any-- MR. GREENWOOD: I don't have any clarifications for you at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: George, do you have some insight? This time we're asking you to come up and speak. So you can do it on the microphone. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: George, when they need you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Slip in what you were going to say before. MR. VARNADOE: As I understood Mr. Midney's concern last time, it was that you were mitigating on property, you were then going to destroy the wetlands. And that's not right. But let's just say you had 100 acres of wetlands and you're going to impact 10 acres. The other 90 acres are exotic infested. What we're saying is as mitigation for your impacts on the 10 acres, you could count -- may not be total, but you could count the mitigation by removing exotics from the 90 acres you're not going to be disturbing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would be on-site, same ownership, that acreage. And I think -- and George, you may have hit on it. Because on Page 27, number three, other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated are seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described below. And the final permitting requirements of South Florida Water Management District. And this mitigation falls under that criteria that's described below. So it looks like this is for other wetlands within the RLSA that are isolated or seasonal wetlands, those wetlands will be protected based on the wetland functionality assessment described below. And it goes into A, B, C, D, E and then F is part of that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I understand the concept, but now I have a question about you said 10 acres developed 90 acres exotics removed. Is there some proportionality written into this? Is it one to one, is it nine to one? MR. VARNADOE: That's part of your permitting process. All we're saying here is it can be used for mitigation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And who decides the proportion? MR. VARNADOE: The South Florida Water Management District in most situations. Sometimes DEP. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But somebody -- there are established standards for this. MR. VARNADOE: And that's what the UMAM score that -- it depends on the functionality of the wetland that you're disturbing. If it grades very high, your mitigation becomes much greater. If it's very low, Page 89 _,____,,_,_,','.'.,.,_""~,"..,.,,_..~".e ""',""..'" ....""'",'...._~..., ......-..--- 16/ 1 A5 February 26, 2009 your mitigation is less. So that's the best I can tell you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That answers my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, now that we've had-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, George. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- George come up and give his assessment of it, Brad, why don't you get up and tell us why you don't think this is a good policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think he did that. I think he was-- COMMISSIONER CARON: He said he didn't agree with the policy, but he went along again with his committee. So I just wondered what the pitfalls -- MR. CORNELL: Well, this is an issue -- Brad Cornell, sorry. This is an issue in general, not just in rural land stewardship. It's a state-wide issue of what role does exotics removal play in the mitigation and assessment methodology. Uniform mitigation assessment methodology is the UMAM process, and it assigns a value both in terms of impacts and mitigation to the presence of exotics and removing exotics. And Audubon does not agree that removal of exotics does mitigate for primary impacts to wetlands. Because you don't actually replace those wetlands that were destroyed or filled, dredged and filled. So that's the objection. I know it's in the state policy -- in the county policies that's not allowed. But in the state permitting process, it is. We're actually working with the state on that issue so that there's a better accounting. Because there's some problems with the UMAM process in accounting with exotics concerns. That's why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad, since you started in this, when the committee voted on this, did you vote for or against this policy? MR. CORNELL: I voted against this policy. I had proposed a different policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did you propose? MR. CORNELL: I propose that exotics removals shall not count as mitigation, and I was outvoted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're working at a state level to change that, right? MR. CORNELL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this-- MR. CORNELL: Well, not to change it but to better address the problems. To change it you would actually have to have a rule change. But we are trying to get a better accounting process. And that's the UMAM process, formerly WRAP. W-R-A-P, talking about acronyms. But yes, there's a real problem on a state-wide basis for how wetland mitigation is accounted for. And, you know, like for like, destroyed, mitigated, acre for acre, all that sort of accounting isn't really clear or transparent or even well done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see here, if we put this language in the GMP, if you get it changed at the state level, our policies become more stringent than the state and they're acceptable. Or not stringent, but they become -- I think that policy would still stand. The state wouldn't allow it to be mitigation, but Collier County would allow it to be mitigation. MR. CORNELL: We would be less-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Less stringent. So maybe we ought to caveat this policy by saying exotic removal may be considered acceptable mitigation to the extent permitted by. MR. CORNELL: Well, that's one way to deal with that. I don't think you can have policies that would be less stringent than the state. I think you can be more stringent than the state, but I don't think you can go less. I think the state policy would be the -- Page 90 161 1 -AS February 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you go ahead and modify this at the state level and say that's successful, then this policy automatically becomes invalid? MR. CORNELL: If indeed that was the modification, that would be true. I'm not sure that that's going to be the extent of the change at the state level, but we definitely want to see the exotics removal as mitigation address -- not only by the state but by the federal government. It's a problem on the federal level, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Do we allow this kind of mitigation in the rest of the county? MR. CORNELL: The county does not, but the South Florida Water Management District -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The county does not. MR. CORNELL: The county defers -- has deferred up until very -- until this past year, the county has always deferred on wetland permitting to the South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers. They do allow that. The county still requires -- whatever the state and federal agencies say, the county still requires removal of exotics. Not as mitigation, but just as a policy in the LDC. But they have not -- until the past year with Policy 2.1 on watershed management plans, there's some interim policies about wetlands and watersheds and flow ways that need to be protected, regardless of what the state and federal government says. That's the first time the county's even waded into that area. Otherwise they've always deferred. So that's why that is an issue still. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's really better to leave this in than to take it out at this point and let it fall wherever the state decides later on. MR. CORNELL: To leave the language as it is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, to leave the exotic -- just the first sentence that we show in our strike-through, exotic removal or maintenance may be considered acceptable mitigation. May be considered acceptable mitigation. MR. CORNELL: That's certainly your -- I mean, that was what our committee recommended, except we also added the conservation easement, permanent conservation easement and perpetual maintenance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which looks like it's in the iii above. MR. CORNELL: Yeah, I guess it was for emphasis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says it right there. MR. CORNELL: Right. Right, so you can do -- that's what our committee said and that's what's basically down there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. CORNELL: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any issues with the changes? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: A couple of things. Why don't we just put either mayor may not? I mean, I think I think it should be shall. May is either mayor may not do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, because there's a lot of criteria when you remove exotics. The method in which it's done, how much destruction, the percentage in the wetlands, whether or not there's going to be the maintenance deals and the conservation easements are in place. So I think the may leaves that open to negotiations to make sure that the better possibilities can come, rather than the least possibilities. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So is that why we took out in perpetuity? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's in the paragraph above. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know, but -- well, I'm just concerned that if that -- if four is Page 91 - j;;_"..;~_____1'T "" , '. 16; 1 AS February 26, 2009 taken by itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's may. That means if they want it, they better utilize the elements in iii above or they may not get it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Geez. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on Page 28? COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't think that that's helpful to make four stronger, though? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL I mean, if you want to leave it as-is, then that's-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I don't know what -- we're going to leave it in, as it may be considered. I don't see how the rest of the sentence hurts anything. I think it n COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't either. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- probably helps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, if the vote is to put it back in, we'll leave it in. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Can't we just move that may be considered as acceptable mitigation right up above in three and get rid of four? Because it separates itself. I just don't like that separation of the two, three and four. You just move a couple of words right on up there. THE COURT REPORTER: It would be nice if you were on the microphone. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, you couldn't hear me? I'm sorry. I mean, ifhe could just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's look at this again. Number three provides that protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative communities, offered as mitigation by placing a conservation casement ovcr thc land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal and continuing exotic plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to the state or federal agency, along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities. That takes care of perpetual management activities, that takes care of the easement placement. You do that, that's considered mitigation. Now we're saying that in addition to that mitigation, exotic removal or maintenance in itself may be considered acceptable mitigation. May be. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You just had it in itself. Now that changes the whole -- now I'm agreeing with it more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what it says. It doesn't say the word in itself, because it didn't need to be. It seems to be self-standing as a policy. I'm -- you know, I'm just trying to clarify it. If you guys want it left in, I don't care. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the wishes of the board? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL Mark, what would be the -- what if you just killed four entirely? I mean, it's mitigation for what? I mean, that's going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL I was trying to respect the committee's leaving something that the committee recommended. It just keeps it a little cleaner. But again, you know, it came up in conversation when we had this before. If the choice of this panel is not to include it or include it, it's all up to you all. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, and you don't -- I may be way off base here, but -- and you just don't think by comma after management activities, comma, may be considered acceptable mitigation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where arc you at, David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm sorry, at the end of three. I guess you are definitely trying to separate three and four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, three was never proposed as a change by the committee or us originally. Four was proposed to be added, and it seemed redundant at the time because the strike-through on four was already addressed in three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Page 92 ~ 161 1 .ph February 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that was the intent of the change. If that is making it more confusing, then I don't know if we need to do it. I still think it clarifies it, because it simplifies it. But if it doesn't, so be it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, my only concern is that four just uses the word mitigation, it doesn't tell you mitigating what. So I would just kill four entirely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you're going to dis -- okay. Because we do -- in three, if I'm not mistaken, and Tom, doesn't three provide for exotic removal as a form of mitigation? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. GREENWOOD: Tom Greenwood, for the record. It says preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative communities offered as mitigation. Well, that's a separate and distinct one from number four, which is exotic removal and maintenance. What you might want to do is say may also be considered acceptable mitigation. The also word may just again say this is in addition to the previous, and you can either -- I mean, you can either leave on or take off the language. The committee recommended eliminating the language as stricken through, just because it was -- it was basically redundant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The committee being this one. No, the committee actually put the language in. This committee recommended striking it because it's redundant. But -- because basically this whole section is mitigation for exactly what that language says that was stricken. So I'm not sure it was needed. But again -- Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would favor leaving it in as it's written here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just out of respect to the committee, and it seems to make sense to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So not accepting the red strike-through, leaving the whole thing as it is? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, accepting the red strike-through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just leaving the sentence? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exotic removal or maintenance may also be considered acceptable mitigation; is that what you're suggesting? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do the rest of you feel about that? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But four did bring in listed species habitat, where I don't think that's included in three, right? So was that the point they were trying to make? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is supposed to be for functional-- wetland functional assessments. That's what are it falls under, number three. So I'm not sure there's -- when you're bringing in listed species habitat, how does that -- tying it back into what three was supposed to be for in the beginning, which was these wetlands shall be protected based upon wetland functional assessment described below. It's supposed to be mitigation for that purpose. By throwing another use in there, you're opening up a whole nother level of use that exotics may be going for. Now, by throwing listed species in, Brad, listed species habitat, you're saying then in order to mitigate for listed species habitat you can do exotic removal maintenance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't think -- I think just killing four, again. But that's -- we can move on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On that issue, exotics removal and maintenance, are there credits Page 93 . ,~;"""=__.........",.~"."~,,,,..,,,._.,..<.ro'.'.'~_'''''''_..,,.'.~_~.."_".~..._.__~.~" ___."~~_..~~'"_ ----.----.-.----..- , 161 1 A4 February 26, 2009 associated with that? It's not stated here. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is n MR. GREENWOOD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- outside the RLSA. I mean, it's for those people that don't buy into the program. This is for your non n people who don't go into the -- buy into the RLSA stewardship credit program. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: The reason I ask the question just in that manner is that it may actually be moot. I think this was an intent to make it an opportunity, but if you don't get any real credit for it, what's your motivation, other than just mitigation credits, I guess? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it's kind oflike the example George said, if you've got 100 acres and you want to impact wetlands and 10 of the acres you can improve the other 90 to offset your impacts to the 10. And that's what this would allow. And one of those improvements could be removal of exotics on the 90 acres. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But see, his example was very good. The problem is is that Roman IV doesn't really make that clear enough. So that's my view. I'm fine with it, though. We can go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you're fine with it in what manner, with the strike-throughs or without -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where it stops where you stopped. That single line where it ends with mitigation period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Paul, you're comfortable there. What about the rest? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You know, I'm going to go way out. I'm probably going to be in somewhere probably in Saturn or Venus on this one, somewhere way out there. But I advocate that the taking out the exotics is going to impact what are now considered, you know, species. It's going to get rid of a lot of species that we may not have intended to do that get benefit out of the exotics. Now I'm wondering about the whole thing. So I better just shut up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL I'll tell you what, let's just move on. When we take a vote today, if you all have problems with it, you can exempt yourself from the vote, depending on which way it goes. And Page 29 is the redundant discussion. It's the same dark sky policy. So if nobody has any -- we didn't have any problems previously. We kind of accepted some changes to it. I assume the same changes would apply here equally across the board. We can implement that. And that gets us through the GMP language. But it's not done because beyond the language we have some general issues, and that goes back to the sheet that I passed out earlier today that there's been probably 50 copies made so far today. lt says Collier County Planning Commission, general comments and specific language recommendation to the RLSA review. It's dated February, 2009. Okay, we're only here n on this one, the only new stuff would be one through seven, the general comments, because the balance of it just is redundant to what we just discussed, and it will have to be corrected along with the changes we made today. The first one -- do we all have that in front of us? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first one says, reference the need for proportionate fair share agreement or DCA. Phasing of traffic improvements can be then addressed in these documents. That one is I don't believe needed now. Nick came in and clarified all that. So I think we should Page 94 1 161 1 -At? '\ \ February 26, 2009 strike number one. Number two -- and by the way, if anybody disagrees, please speak up. Number two is Policy 4.9. And now 5.1, because we found that same reference in the non-RLSA section. Define the meaning of infrastructure as it would apply to the added language. That's just what we talked about where it impacts FSA's and HSA's. Number three, modify the new overlay exhibit to coincide with the existing overlay in areas where restoration was previously shown. Okay, this goes back to that map on Page 68 that we heard about as being distorted. And I think we talked about it earlier today. Our recommendation would be just to go back to the existing map and modify it to any as-built changes that were needed. Is everybody comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I am. But I just wonder if we shouldn't try to find out whose map that was or to lay claim to it so that the next time we see a map and if it's changed, we'll know who did that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to get us past today, I think we just need to know what we want to recommend to go forward. As far as discovering the other map, I don't care. I mean, but ifthe rest of you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But see, you say modify the new overlay exhibit. And the question then becomes which is the new overlay exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I'm sorry then, I didn't make myself clear. Number three was written before today's discussion. Today's discussion resolved itself by saying why don't we just use the overlay map we had in the original GMP and make it an as-built to today's conditions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all. So all that language will be struck, Mr. Murray, and I'd reflect a paragraph that said what Ijust said that is what I think we agreed on earlier today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Gotcha now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number four, this is the corrections I believe were already been done. It's just stating they need to be done. Does anybody -- I mean, that is exactly what I think now we've got. So I think that got accomplished. Number five. You remember that sheet, Exhibit C? And Brad, you had some issues on this, and we talked about all this stuff. The double underlining was a little confusing because -- the single underlining was confusing because it meant something in the chart already and we thought it meant changes and it really didn't. MR. GREENWOOD: It didn't, yeah. I meant uses that are not required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And so I think the recommendation to clarify the changes would be any changes -- Tom, you should just double underline those. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. And we have not done anything like that with either those attachment C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so that still needs to be done. Then B is changed. Village acres, this one is trying to stop the issue that would occur if someone came in and said I have a village of 1,500 acres. Okay, is that a town or a village? Because both start and stop at the same number. I'm trying to fix that by this language. I'm not sure I accomplish that, so I need everybody to take a look at it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about 100 to 1,499 or some such, if you want to be really distinctive. Page 95 -- , ____., J ....1,<f.~._.""_,."'.;I _.W.;i __"llJll'l"t M~'~"___''''''_ , . 161 1 itS F e'bruary 26, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's where I was going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and that's kind of what we need to talk about, change village acres to greater than 100 to 1,500. It actually should be -- yeah, greater than 100. So that means the CRD is up to 100. If it's 100.1, it becomes a village and it goes to 1,500. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But less than 15 n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. wait a minute. let me finish. If you read that in conjunction with the town, the town then is greater than 1,500. So if a village is 1,500.1, it becomes a town. Then it goes to a tO~l1 between 1,500 and 5,000. And if you tried to use 149.9 you're simply dropping one acre in size for the village and increasing one acre in size for the town. Because then a to~ would be greater than 1,499. I don't know if it makes a difference with that one acre, and the 1,500 seemed -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it would be 1,500. If the one ended at 1,499, the other begin at 15 -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. MR. WILLIAMS: Mark, how about just replacing n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Steve. MR. WILLIAMS: How about just replace your dash with the words up to. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Or less than. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, let's one at a time. MR. WILLIAMS: That's just a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, you're saying if you take the dash out, greater than 100 up to 1,500. MR. WILLIAMS: And then in your next line 1,500 up to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Greater than 1,500 up to 5,000. I don't have n Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, couldn't we reward the land surveyor that could cut a piece of land to be precisely 1,500 the choice of being a town or a village? I mean, this is a non-issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. it's not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It isn't a non-issue, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because 1,500 is the precise point where if a guy could carve a piece ofland that precise -- I mean. ifhe's a nanometer less, he's one, if he's a nanometer more, he's the other. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So ifhe hits it right on, let's reward him with the choice. He can be whatever he wants. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, no, no, no. COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't want to do that, because obviously Brad's figured out a way to do this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No land surveyor has figured out a way to do it. We don't have to worry about this, trust me. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Can we please just take out the dash and do what the attorney said? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Up to? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Up to or less than, one of the two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's go this way then: A village greater than 100 up to 1,500, and a town would be greater than 1,500 up to 5,000. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's clear. Page 96 ( IFg~ary 1, ~9 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that get everybody -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the other one was add county transit access to CRD's, because it was underlined as an option, and we're suggesting it not be. Or actually it was only in -- it wasn't there, it was in villages but not in compact rural development. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you have them carve out a space inside the CRD, or is it acceptable to have it just outside the CRD on a road? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifit was outside, it couldn't there, because you can't development outside the CRD, so they'd have to have it inside the CRD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't know what county transit access is then, because I know that we have plenty of little places people can sit under and wait for a bus. And they're on -- right on the county road right-of-way. So I don't know then for sure what county transit access means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I guess we have to go back to the original language in the RLSA to find that out, because it's written in there. I assume that that was a transportation terminology. Nick's not here to verify it. But I also would assume that the vision plan that Nick's working on is going to come with definitions and locations and all ideas like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, here's my point, that these communities are supposed to be essentially walkable, pedestrian-oriented communities. And so then the question is with 100 acres, where do you put it? Do you put it in the center? That means you'll be driving a big bus and then maybe two of them and then you'll have a transfer station, and you might be carving out a fairly large area. If that's what your intent is. If it's just a place where people from that CRD can hop on a bus and go someplace, that's quite another matter. So I think I need to understand really what county transit access truly means. MR. GREENWOOD: I can't tell you what the intent was, but with 100 acres, chances are that 100 acres is going to be on a county road, and the intent there is to have minimum of a bus stop. Because 100 acres is not a whole lot ofland, and it's certainly walkable to a transit stop. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's what I was envisioning. So you're saying that what I saw in my mind's eye was what is reflected in the committee's view, or in your view? MR. GREENWOOD: Well, in my view, my impression of what transportation was trying to get was is that there be county transit access to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because otherwise -- MR. GREENWOOD: -- CRD's. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- if we assume -- you know, we have something similar on the campus where there's a transit access where people can actually get a transfer and they can go from bus to bus and so forth and so on. Is that what we want to envision in a CRD? MR. GREENWOOD: Many of these same words that we're talking about, assuming this goes forward in the GMP's will be modified, corrected, clarified, and then that of course will drive the Land Development Code language as well. And there you'll get into a lot more detail. But 25 pages in the RLSA overlay translate into about 70 pages in the Land Development Code. Commissioner Schiffer has asked for a copy of that and that is on-line, but it's very detailed and whatever the RLSA overlay directs will be modified in the LDC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a problem with it certainly being more defined, but I thought it was a reasonable question, what is it that's conceived of here. Before we can define it, we ought to know what we're thinking of in the first instance. So, you know, I was just as happy to visualize so to Page 97 --" ~~..._"._---,-"----,._'.._- -.-.- -.-.---.. ._~._~.._._,..- --- ~_.._.._.._-_.._--- , -_._..._.__.~-".._.._--- 161 1 #S February 26, 2009 speak a county road, which is what I anticipated, and a waiting station for a bus as being county transit access. But if that's not what this body thinks it is, then we need to understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't think we should force the county to provide bus service to every little aggregation of 100 acres. I mean, that -- I think it should be up to the county transit authority to decide what is economically viable instead of mandating that every single little CRD that might be in the middle of nowhere would have to have bus service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think anybody is intending that. I think it says access. lt doesn't mean it has to be implemented until such time that it warrants it. But when it's ready to do it and if you have a 200 residential unit CRD with other uses, including convenience, retail and others and support services, and that equates to over 400 people on the standard persons per household in Collier County, you'd want to have the ability to put the transit access in. So as a good planning tool we're saying have it available. Make sure it's there. That's all this means. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it doesn't mean it has to be implemented, doesn't mean anybody's forced to do it, just means you got to have the provision for it so that when it needs to be utilized, it's there to be utilized. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I didn't understand it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what that n COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That makes more sense. So in other words, it doesn't have to be implemented, but they just have to plan to have space for it there in case in the future it's warranted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. And the vision plan that Nick is working on will address when it's warranted, how it's warranted and where it's warranted. This just gets it in the process. So with that in mind, does that item, adding county transit access to CRD's, is that acceptable? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I'm not going to agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. Next one is E, move transit and lodging in all categories to maximum f100r area ratio from that to the residential. That was Brad's recommendation. Because it puts it with the residential where it probably should have been. Staif didn't have a problem with that last time. Anybody else have a problem? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: F is a correction to a footnote. I don't think that's an issue. G, review the minimunl f100r area ratio or intensity. Now, this isn't something we do today? This was something recommended at the BCC and further referenced for data and analysis. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, I think we can actually clear it up. If you look at the way it came down into the LDC, they really got it right in the LDC. I think we should add some more columns here. But what they do in the LDC is they do it per block, which is one of the questions is what's the denominator for this? For example, in a to~ the core is has FAR of three. The center has an FAR of two. And these uses, the way they are, these are the maximum use you could have on a block with the FAR. So that makes sense. So I think it's not that the data's that far of1~ I think we should just rework the table and rework it to match what's in the LDC, which does seem to have it under control better. It wouldn't change any number. it would just make it clear as to what those numbers mean. Page 98 : . 1 161 1 A0 February 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so G on our general comments would be to rework the table to coincide with the LDC? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Tom, if you have that -- you know, hopefully it's not an image like it looks like in Mark's, but if you have a spreadsheet or something, I could take a shot at -- or just work it out of the LDC. My first thing would be is you should probably add a per block. You're going to have to break the town up into center and core. And then under that on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait, we're getting way too much detail in the GMP. I would -- see, the way I saw this, Brad, is for example, when it says retail and office, .5, that's over the broad scope of the town, not just the block. And the block references in the LDC, if you were to cumulatively add those up, you would hit the .5. Is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that would be -- if you're taking the FAR across the whole development, that would be huge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, just the portions that are -- just the retail and office that need to be provided. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, what these things really are intended for is that you can have multiple uses in your urban area. Each of those multiple uses can exceed these numbers. So maybe if we just reword it. The -- if you used -- instead of saying maximum floor area, you say maximum floor area per use or something, that might -- and we could leave it there. But somewhere along the line we've come up with an FAR for, you know, for the whole block. I mean. MR. GREENWOOD: In talking with Mike DeRuntz, who's no longer with us, he was involved in the review of the SRA, town of Ave Maria, and I believe he said, and my question to him was how the floor area ratio is determined. And it was based upon gross floor area for a particular use on a particular site, okay? And I think that's basically the way the floor area definition in some great detail is defined in the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. GREENWOOD: Okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is -- I mean, I would just, to make it clear, is state that these floor areas are per use. In other words, it's -- MR. GREENWOOD: I think you're right. And, you know, should this go forward in the GMP's, I think we can and should make whatever appropriate clarifications are necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, someone needs to take that on between here and Thursday. Is that you, Tom? You must have the document, because nobody else does. MR. GREENWOOD: Well, I don't know that I can in that time. And I really -- I don't intend to change any of the documents, any of the pages within the report, because the instructions from the committee was that the report goes forward as-is. The comments from the Planning Commission and recommendations and those from the EAC will accompany the report. I think many of your comments and recommendations are very good. But that's just my opinion. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, just so we understand it then, we'll make a reference in this general comment section that the table ought to be rewritten to coincide with the FAR's that are used in the LDC. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, that would be very good. And, you know, that will be good direction in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as the Planning Commission's report goes, I had expressed before, and I'd like to express again that the language rewrite that we've done and gone through earlier, the Page 99 '-.'.- .tiol .>1M"'" ll.~_"" . - . ......------.--,..---,...-- 161 '~1"1 cA4 ~., "'. February 26, 2009 GMP rewrite and this document that we're looking at right now will be modified to the comments made today, will be approved on the March meeting of the Planning Commission which I think is this next Thursday, and that will be part of our report to the BCC -- MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I want to make sure that's understood. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir. Yes, the executive summary of the BCC will have about five attachments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GREENWOOD: One will be the complete committee report, another one will be the Planning Commission recommendations, another will be the EAC recommendations, another one will be a recommendation from the conunittee itself. recommending a special Growth Management Plan cycle. There will also be an attachment which will be staff analysis. And it's not particularly comments on the report so much as how GMP's would fit into the queue of things and how and where county staff could proceed with this. Because there's some global issues that, you know, the BCC has to contend with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL Brad, under G, what would you want that to read like? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would say that -- just change the wording to be maximum floor area ratio per use, at least. But if we want to really revise the chart, Tom, if you could send it to me, I'll do it and send it right back. MR. GREENWOOD: I can do that. You know, I'd be happy to do that, if you think it's important to have that as part of this package. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we would put it as part of our package, not -- MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, that's what I mean. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just, you know, one thing you said is we're going to submit to the BCC a version of our version of this. MR. GREENWOOD: You'd like something that you can modify that's attachment C, basically? Is that what you're looking for? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Brad -- MR. GREENWOOD: That's not a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One comment, Mark. Just put the -- change the word that it be maximum floor area ratio per use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Brad, if you do get this document, can you get it back to Tom by Sunday night -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so he can distribute it Monday for us to have a look at before Thursday? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. MR. GREENWOOD: The only thing you want is attachment C, correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, you'll have this this evening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item on our discussion is six, and it's just a comment we had to determine who's paying for the process of the GMP amendments for the RLSA. I really think that the Board of County Commissioners needs to address that, because the next level, the transmittal, is going to take a lot of data and analysis and a lot of staff time. And if they decide that's part of the cost to taxpayers, that's fine. But they need to at least understand that's an issue that's got to be addressed, so I think that should be mentioned. And the last one was addressed by Nick, so it's a moot point and can be struck, I would think, from Page 100 , i l~rJary 21,2fo; this reference. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had a question earlier before I even read this, is in all the maps that we have seen, it looks as though there's no Indian land -- forgive my word for that -- but Native American Indian land in Collier County. It looks like it's all owned by private entities. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, it's in Immokalee, it's not in the RLSA. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Every bit of the Seminole land is in Immokalee only? MR. GREENWOOD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: In Collier. Okay, I'm sorry, I thought it was-- MR. GREENWOOD: Within the Immokalee area. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Some outside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that wraps up our corrections to the GMP, our corrections to the general comments. Oh, with the exception of one more, and for the benefit of Tor KolfIat, he was absolutely right, I would suggest as a general comment we request that a list of acronyms then be added to the beginning of the GMP section involving the RLSA. Does anybody have any problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll add that to a general comment list then. MR. GREENWOOD: It's a good suggestion. They are throughout the document, but it would be good to have them all up front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that then, we need to entertain a motion from the Planning Commission. And I'd like to suggest, whoever makes the motion, that we make a motion that we move the committee's report forward, but that we have -- subject -- we move it forward, but also request that they consider our recommendations in both our general comment list, as well as our GMP amendment list. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to make that motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTl: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. George, please don't do that again. We don't have public comment at this point. We've already ended public comment. Ifwe made a mistake, we'll have to live with it, so -- Motion's been made and seconded. The motion is to move the committee report forward with consideration of the planning commission's positions as stated in this general comments and the suggested language changes to the GMP issues. Now, there are some members who have particular concerns about certain elements, so before we make the motion, you may want to state your concern so that when the motion's made you're on record as to what you object to. And we'll start all the way -- Mr. Murray, you have some concerns. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have perhaps two. On Page 14 of the Chairman's proposal-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's correct -- wait a minute, before you go there, I don't have a proposal, Mr. Murray, so can you clarify what it is you're talking about? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: J am telling you that it was the Chairman's proposal until and unless it's approved by the commission. Then it becomes the commission's proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a proposal. The proposal that I've got put forth here, all of these policy changes were discussed at prior meetings, so it's not mine. What I believe the committee did -- I was asked by the committee to write them up. So you can insist on the word Chairman, and I will Page 101 ,-",,,,,- " . -"'-- ",...Tn ,~-~-_.__ ""~.~'_004_,~~.. ~_ .--.., 1I_'il"r'___fJl'''' .......".. "".lll'_" "'''''''',"",,'_'''"'n,-'_'.._"__',,",''''''_ , 161 1 ~ February 26, 2009 continue to insist it's County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then I have to insist that we ask the county attorney representative here who -- I had a discussion with him earlier, and he concluded that -- and he'll say for himself what he concluded, please. MR. WILLIAMS: Again, to me I don't care if we call it David, Bob's, Donna's, Mark's, Bob's, Karen's, Paul's, whose report we call it. It is -- Mark was the author, I think we all know that, and worked through the weekend to do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, nothing ~Tong with that. MR. WILLIAMS: Again, Mark typed it up, worked off the notes and mental impressions, memory he had. He's admitted where some things escaped his memory and other things is there. To me I don't care legally what kind of report we call it, because as Mr. Murray just stated, it's not going to be the planning commission's full report until adopted with this vote that sounds like with the first and second is coming to us in the next five minutes. T don't -- I know you had the meeting last -- it was the 20th, if I recall correctly, where the Planning Commission gave Mark the authority under some guise to do this over the weekend. And as long as he was acting on behalf of the Planning Commission, legally I don't know that Mr. Murray's concern rises to the level of illegality. Ifhe wants to call it Chairman's Report and doesn't believe it contains his full information, that's fine, that's why you're taking this vote. So I think it is a moot point in about 45 seconds to five minutes, depending on as soon as you take your vote. So he -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Ms. Caron. MR. WILLIAMS: -- I think he had the authority to do what he did this weekend. But what we call it to me is relatively moot, so -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It was my recollection that the board as a group asked him to compile all our notes and thoughts and make a concise statement of what we were all saying, thinking and doing at the time. So T don't think he invented this thing. I think he, at the request of the board, took our notes and our ideas and packaged them up, typed it up and sent it out. That was my -- MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, and I think that's exactly -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- interpretation of the way it came down. MR. WILLIAMS: -- what occurred. And I think that's exactly what occurred. You're right to a degree. And Mr. Murray's got a point, because until adopted by the board, it is whoever drafted it. It's their impression of what has occurred for the last few weeks, but he did it with full authority n I mean, full consent of the board. So to me it's moot. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What this reminds me of is no good deed goes unpunished. You spend the whole weekend putting this thing together as a favor to us and now we want to brand it the Chairman's report. T just don't think it's the right way to go. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not asserting that you do that. And please don't think that I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I would have to agree with Mr. Vigliotti. We definitely gave authority, it was we all n we had multiple meetings to give our input. All of our input is in there. We just reviewed every single line. So, you know, I agree, I mean, it does seem like no good deed goes unpunished, and that should not be. It is the Collier County Planning Commission's report. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Agreed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, I'll proceed with what I was attempting to do. I will make this comment that it is conceived by anyone that this is a personal affront is the error of the party receiving that. I take no exception to the Chairman having performed what he performed at a very Page 102 . 16 i 1 lIS February 26, 2009 fine service. I was merely attempting to be professionally correct and according to Roberts Rules, by addressing it and by conveying to others that it was the commission's report before the commission had actually approved it was a misnomer at the minimum. That's all I was saying. Let me go on with what I was going to argue. With regard to Page 14 and the question of capping -- that's the term that was thrown around, capping the creation of 15,000 stewardship credits. I find I agree with the argument of the RLSA committee, and as sponsored -- or espoused rather, by Allen Reynolds who qualified it. In my opinion this is not regulatory in the true sense that it needs to be confined. It's been working. Let's find out where it's going to go. And if! can just move to the other one, I don't know ifit's appropriate, but on the specific language recommendations to our RLSA review, if that's appropriate to speak to, I think county transit access needs to be understood what it is intended and by definition what is intended before it can be qualified as to where it belongs and how much it consumes in space. Those are my objections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anybody else that has any unctions to any of the policies? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, 4.21, and that's the 1,000 acres of SRA's in the ACSC, and I am opposed to that. Just for clarification, beyond that we had talked about adding some redistribution of credit language in here. And I had originally talked about possibly adding it to Policy 4.2. Mr. Varnadoe has said it might be more appropriate in 4.19; is that correct? 4.19, and then also again it may have to be addressed in 3.11. So if we could just all look at that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's a very good catch, and I'm glad you brought it up, because it should have been discussed as a -- I would -- because it could be in multiple policies and it also affects the table and other things that may have to change, I would suggest that this committee agrees that we ought to make a note in the general comments section that should the BCC agree to a cap on stewardship credits, then the opportunity to redistribute the stewardship credit breakdowns throughout the document should be offered to be readdressed. Something to that efTect. And if that's okay with the committee, I certainly will put that in general comments for our consent agenda. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I hate to at this late stage, but I think I would like to add in that when they do that redistribution reallocation, that agriculture be left with no less than 20 percent of the credits, which is what it is -- which is the percentage that was proposed by the committee was -- so to retain that same proportionality of about 20 percent for agriculture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we need to talk about that then Paul, because if we're going to cap the credits and there's been obviously a strong concern about making sure there's some incentivization for ag., in that analysis of how to cap those credits, I don't think until you get into the fine points ofthat cap you can say that ago can still retain 20 percent or 2.0. Maybe it needs to be 1.7 or 1.8, because your ratios will change with everything. So you may not want the same ratio in order to preserve environmental issues as well. Credits for ago could be greater, but 2.0 may not be what it comes out to. But I think the acknowledgment that it needs to be greater is what everybody's been suggesting. And I think the committee would be -- have a hard time promoting something that doesn't acknowledge that in some manner or form. But I don't know if2.0 is the right way to go. And that's kind of-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When you say 2.0 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 20 percent. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 20 percent is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I don't know if -- well, my suggestion on this would be not to get Page 103 -~...-~ ---------,--~--~...,"_..........~---,---=--~,~""""""" ^ ..~,--,"'~..'..~-""'"',.,..-_.- 161t~ ~ February 26, 009 that fine -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- tuned at this point. Let them come back with something and we can hash it out at that time. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just that they recognize that our opinion is that the agriculture credits should still remain a signifIcant part of the final product. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about if we suggest to the BCC that should they approve the 315, that the committee be allowed to consider redistribution and allocation language for the use of the 315,000 credits and recognize the need for stronger agricultural incentives. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now with that we have a motion. It was recommended to move it forward with our comments, as was previously stated. We have two commissioners who pointed to two different elements: Mr. Murray to Policy 4.2 and the reference to the county transit access, and Ms. Caron to Policy 4.21. Are there any other concerns from any other commissioners before we call for the vote? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with those concerns in mind, we'll call for a vote for the motion as was made. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Let the record show Mr. Ko1f1at left carly and missed the vote. And with that, we wrap up the review of the RLSA, which actually has been very enlightening. And I want to especially think the committee and Mr. McDaniels (sic) for his patience and his explanations, because without his temperament it would have been hard to get through this. The Defenders and The Conservancy and The Wildlife Federation and the Wilson-Miller people and the Cheffy, Passidomo office and the landowners as well, thank you very, very much for helping us along with this. I know wc didn't all agree on everything, but there are some improvements that may have worked for both sides. And however it boils down, we will probably have a better document. So thank you all very much. Item #4 ADJOURN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we need a vote to -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- end this meeting. Page 1 04 . I 161 1 f\'J . . \ "- February 26, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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: We are adjourned. Thank you. ***** Page 105 ._~" ---'--'----''-'-'" ~~..A_l ......-- 161 1 ~ February 26, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:35 p.m. These minutes approved by the board on t.{ -' '7 ,.-- 0 { as presented ~ or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 106 Fiala 161 ~1 A6 v Halas RECEtVED Henning March 2, 2009 Coyle APR 0 7 2009 TRANSCR&~~ FTHE SIGN CODE REVISIONS Board of County commissioners COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 2, 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 SPECIAL 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 (Absent) Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager Joseph Schmitt, CDES Director Misc. Corres: Date: _<.e_____ Page 1 item # ...~.~.<..~,~-~_...- .>Jpies to -. . 41_' ......~_ _,",,~__...~<.-;,..' _....~.__...' --~'-'_~'''''........_.,~___..._'_ ---~~_.._---~-- 16. 1 ~ March 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Welcome everyone to the March 2nd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. The purpose today is to discuss one item, and that is the rewrite of the sign ordinance. I'm not sure how long we'll be going today. We'll get into discussion of the agenda and figure that out in a little while. In the meantime, if you'll all rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman is not here. Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer is absent. Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolf1ey is absent. And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Trying to figure out where to start. And I guess the main thrust of to day's meeting will be a presentation from the Doctor, basically explaining to us -- or I'm sure -- is it Dr. Mandelker? DR. MANDELKER: That's fine, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay -- about the purpose of today's changes and the meeting and I guess items of freedom of speech and issues like that. But before we go too far, I'd like to understand what it is we're supposed to be reading. I have a series of drafts. We've had some paperwork passed out to us today, and one of the pieces of paper comes from Dr. Mandelker, and it's dated February 25th. And in his changes he's saying, I have just reviewed the sign code draft submitted to me on February 24th. Well, that's got to be the fifth or sixth draft, I'm not sure which one. So first of all I need to understand whatever document everybody is working from in common so that we're all talking from the same page. And with as many drafts and as disorganized as the drafts have become, I'm concerned we're not all on the same page. So Catherine, what are we reading from today? MS. F ABACHER: Good morning, Commissioners. If you look at the top, on top of the draft, that's just the print date. But if you look and you have -- see documents and settings, you see the file name? Catherine Fabacher, desktop -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I see documents and settings, Kelly John, my documents, 2-15 sign ordinance, CAF. So which one are -- maybe that's a different one. Okay, this other one says, E, 2-19-09, final copy doc. Well, let's see what this other one says. Revised, Feb. 3-4. This one says, amend the LDC sign code ordinance 2-05-09, clean copy. Page 2 .' 161 ~f<i6 I Marcn , 2009 Let's see what this other one says. We've got to get to the right one. MS. FABACHER: Well, it was the one that I handed out when you were at the RLSA meeting. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Doesn't help me. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I received three copies: One was dated February the 5th, one was dated February 16th to 18th, one was dated February 19th, and one was February 26th. That's four copies. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can you put the copy you want us to read from on the visualizer so we could look at it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the one you passed out on Thursday -- and Catherine, you need to talk from your seat over there, I can look at my own documentation. The one you passed out on Thursday, we mentioned that because there was no provisions for the public to have an adequate time frame in which to review it before today's meeting, we would work off the one dated 2-19. And the problem I have is it looks like the Doctor's working off of the one dated -- based probably on the one you passed out on Thursday. MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure how that's all going to-- MS. FABACHER: I have extra copies of the one I passed out on Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know. MS. F ABACHER: That's what we're working from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we are not. On Thursday I told you specifically we would work from the one that was previously passed out to us, the one on 2-19-09, and that we would work -- and as changes came along from the one that was passed out on Thursday, we could then bring them into play. But we had to introduce them at the meeting. We did that for the benefit of the public in regards to what they mayor may not understood what was being discussed today, because there was no time frame or notice under which they could have seen the one you passed out on Thursday. So we're here to serve the public and we're here to make sure the public sees the most recent documents. And this is not the best way to proceed with an ordinance as wide-sweeping as this one's going to be for Collier County. MS. F ABACHER: Okay, I perhaps misunderstood you last Thursday. But the document that we have is the same thing as was handed out on the 18th and the 19th. The only change is the yellow. And I had thought we were going to go through this, and if we want to skip the yellow, we skip the yellow. But it's the same red and green from the 19th. And this is what we have. There should be no changes except the yellow. And we wanted to include the yellow, because there's some topics that we may speak to and we wanted to have a complete document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Catherine, I am very concerned about the public process that led us here today. We will certainly hear the presentation today, and based on what the board gets out of that presentation we mayor may not proceed until this is more organized. What -- for background information, so this board understands how we got here today, were you the only one involved in writing this with the Doctor? Or how was it handled through the -- MS. FABACHER: No, we had a team, a task force. We had Jeff Wright. Diana Compagnone, as you know, is the building reviewer. And then Nancy Gundlach from our office. And I worked on it. And of course Dr. Mandelker worked on it. Page 3 '-' ~ ~-~~-~....,,-_.._-~-~.,._~..._._.,._-- . March 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then which members of the public, the stakeholders were involved, such as the sign company, their people with that, do you have their names, too? That must have been on that same task force. Because in order to be a complete force with stakeholder involvement and public involvement -- and what meetings did you have in the public advertised so those people could attend and participate? Or were they notified by mail that a meeting or these items were occurring? MS. F ABACHER: They were given personally, given the books. And it says on the cover when the meetings are. They were given out to four or five sign contractors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have minutes of those meetings? MS. F ABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did they attend meetings? MS. F ABACHER: No, they received it and called us with their responses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Called you. They didn't bother e-mailing you or keeping -- we don't have a record of that stuff? MS. F ABACHER: No. But let me say that this is a portion of a settlement from the court. It's not like we're willingly looking for ideas or want to make the signs better for everybody or serve any interest. The whole point is this is part of a legal settlement to do that. To that end, we hired Dr. Mandelker, who is a Constitutional legal scholar, to make us -- to do what we agreed to do to the court as a settlement. It's not like -- it's been on-line, but I don't think the public's going to have much input unless they pretty much know Constitutional law. And it's not like it's up for grabs. lt's either we're going to go this way or we're not going to go this way. We're not going to argue about how big the signs can be on a wall, we're not changing locations, we're not changing sizes, we're not changing anything but trying to, if I can go into my presentation, trying to follow just a few of these Constitutional free speech issues. And that's what we've done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And normally when we've gone through like the noise ordinance or others, it would be nice if the public was more involved. the meetings were held in a workshop nature with staff so they could have participation, if they wanted to. The manner in which we've gotten this in a short period of time with four or five different drafts is not -- is pretty disturbing. It's not just not the way we -- an organized way to proceed. But we will proceed today, regardless. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, can I -- for the record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development Administrator. If I can give you the history on this and of Catherine. This was at the direction of the board. We went to the Board of County Commissioners after the court case where we were found not in compliance, and there was a settlement. We went to the Board of County Commissioners. The board directed us to amend portions of the sign code that deal with the unconstitutionality of the sign code. This was not a task force, there was no task force organized, there was nothing in regards to a comprehensive review of the sign code. That was not the intent of this amendment. It was strictly to come into compliance with the determination of the legal scholars in regards to the constitutionality. It was a commitment we made to the judge during the settlement agreement, and it was nothing more than that. So I think by your line of questioning, you're asking whether there was some kind of comprehensive review or some kind of committee formed to deal with a comprehensive rewrite of the sign code. That was not the intent of these changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I -- in looking through the documents in front of us, it seems like it was a pretty much comprehensive rewrite of the entire code. I don't know what the word comprehensive means in your reference, but when I pick up a document and page after page after page is struck through and page after page after page is underlined, it looks like it's a complete rewrite. Page 4 161 il A? March 2, 2009 MR. SCHMITT: Most of that was at the recommendation of our consultant in regards to the constitutionality of the sign code and form and content. And I think it would be best if we give a presentation as to how we got here, why we got here and what the intent of this amendment was. I know it appears to you that there are many changes, and there certainly were, based on what was deemed I guess the concerns of our consultant in regards to the -- how our codes were written and how they could be determined in regards to free speech. So I think with that, if Catherine could give the introduction and you'll get an understanding of where we're at. But there was a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just a-- MR. SCHMITT: This was at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners. It was a special cycle that was approved by the Board in order to deal specifically with this topic in regards to the settlement of the court case. And I know you have all the background in regards to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Joe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- we will get into the introduction. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Joe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's important, though, that we make sure we understand how we got here today -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- from the public's involvement perspective. And Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Joe, could you put this on the overhead for me, please. I'd like to refer this and call it to your attention. I received four copies of this draft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not coming up on the screen for some reason. MR. SCHMITT: I got it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Maybe enlarge it a little bit? I received four copies ofthis draft ordinance on it. The last one was February 26th, in which it came with a covering memo from Catherine which says, attached please find the final draft for the referenced meeting. This draft differs only slightly from the draft distributed February 19-20. The changes in this draft are all highlighted in yellow for your convenience. Well, I went through that draft. And on the highlighter here you can see I have listed in that draft the various pages on which there were comments. There were three different colors on these comments. The first column shows in yellow where there was a yellow comment on that particular page. For example, the first page I think is 27 there, and you can see the first comment was in red on that page. When you go through that whole draft and you'll see there are yellow comments, there are red comments and there are green comments on there. We were instructed that the yellow comments were the only one who apply. Now, what I have trouble with, Joe, is how in the hell do I know what I'm doing when I study these things and get something like this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the concern that started the questioning this morning, at least on my part. I too went through these and found it a very confusing way to proceed on an ordinance with so many drafts so close to the date. I'm not sure what my colleagues do, but when you get a draft or a document, you read it. And as you read it, you make notes. Well, then you get another draft, you've got to move your notes to the new draft, after you reread the new draft to make sure there's no new changes that Page 5 ,",-,. .,_.... ..~-- ~""~ 1"'- "lIIl' r !II U. .. I --- -'---_.,---,_.._.-,--,-- 16 I 1 AS' March 2, 2 9 the other draft didn't address. And when you get another draft, especially one day before the meeting, one working day, you've got to do that all over again. It is not the best way to proceed with an ordinance as intensive as this. And I think that's the point we're trying to make here today. MR. SCHMITT: Understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I agree with you, Joe, we will move forward with the introduction and the presentation by the Doctor. I'm not sure, though, after that where this board may decide to go. It may be necessary to clean up what we've got, understand where we're at and give us some time to come back at another meeting. But we'll see. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What I'd like to see, if it's possible, is one new draft, do it tomorrow, do it the next day, just one new draft with all of the changes that you've went through rather than us keep making changes to ours. I'd like to see the presentation, and then as I said again, get one new draft, whenever it is, give us time to review it and then come back. I don't know if that works for you. MR. SCHMITT: The draft that was handed out last week to you was the draft that was -- and highlighted in yellow were some of the items that staff added back in to add clarity to the amendments. And that was deemed to be the final draft. lt's similar to the one that -- the last one you reviewed, except for the areas highlighted in yellow were areas added back in. And it was at least my understanding as well that you were going to proceed today with your final version, and we would address the areas highlighted in yellow as we went through this. That was my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to proceed today with the introduction and the presentation by the Doctor and then just let's see where we decide to go after that. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might work out the best. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. All right, good morning. Try again. I think Joe's pretty much explained it. We were sued in the Bonita Media, LLC versus Collier County Code Enforcement and the Board of County Commissioners, based on the fact that portions of our code were deemed to be unconstitutional, based on freedom of speech. Just funny, because I was showing this to the Doctor last night to look it over and review it and I said, you read it so fast. He said, welL I know the First Amendment. Okay. Anyway, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Signs are speech on the streets. Information conveyed by the signs is free speech and protected by the free speech clause. Because sign ordinances regulate signs and the information they convey, courts must determine whether sign ordinances violate the free speech clause. So that's why we're here, basically, because we violated the free speech clause. A sign ordinance can avoid serious free speech problems when it regulates the location, size and other elements of sign display. Does not contain content -base sign definitions. And I'm sure the Doctor will be able to give you some examples of what that is, but you can't say on a construction sign -- you may only put the name of the developer, you may not put the advertising -- am I right on that, Doctor? DR. MANDELKER: Right. MS. F ABACHER: Okay, thank you. Page 6 161 i~ 1 ffj March 2, 2009 And we tell them what you have to have in there and what you have to put on your sign, then we're violating free speech and we are -- by using content. And then the biggest thing is we have to make necessary provisions for noncommercial signs, because each residence has a right to put up a sign to say whatever they want in their yard, basically. And another facet of that is, is that we did the -- well, here they are, the free speech doctrines. The substitution clause: That has to do with saying that anyplace that you have a commercial permitted sign, you're allowed to put a noncommercial message on it. The Ladue case was the famous case where -- well, he'd have to explain the case, but that's where it came up that you had to be able to have a sign in your yard to say whatever you want to say, you know. And the political sign falls under that, too, because we can't call it political anymore because it's content based. So the Overbreadth Doctrine is when something is so vague that anyone has a right to sue because it's -- what would you say, Doctor? You know I have trouble with this one. DR. MANDELKER: Because free speech is chilled. It's restricted by what -- MS. F ABACHER: You need to speak in the mic. DR. MANDELKER: Because free speech is restricted by what's in the ordinance, so anybody can sue. MS. FABACHER: Anybody, not just an aggrieved party who wants a sign. Anybody. And that's the problem. I talked about content and speaker neutral. We have a problem with the Conservation Collier signs. When we put those in, we said Conversation Collier. No, we can't do that, that's speaker based. So then we tried to define it as any entity that sets up a conservation easement in perpetuity for the purpose of conservation and allows public use. So the Doctor's still not happy with that one. Prior restraint: Just telling what you can and you can't put on a sign, prior restraint. Substitution clause: This is the one here that's in our book that we're using, and we put it at the head of each section as A. Noncommercial signs are allowed in all districts and may be substituted for any sign expressly allowed under this ordinance. Noncommercial signs are subject to the same permit requirements, restrictions on size and type, other conditions and specifications as applied to the sign for which they are being substituted. This is where I'm saying you can take your commercial sign and you can put a noncommercial message on it. And the Ladue. This is what we put in for the Ladue, the one that says that everybody has a right to say what they want in their yards, so to speak. So we added this into the residential section and it's single- family residential signs. And it says, one noncommercial ground or wall sign per premises, not to exceed six square feet in area or three feet in height shall be allowed. Now, we had to exclude and make sure, because home occupations cannot put in signage, as you know. So we just wanted to make sure that they knew that they couldn't, you know, do that for their business. And then nothing contained in this section shall be construed to permit the display of signs when otherwise prohibited or restricted by private restrictions or covenants of residential property. We didn't have to put that in, but essentially those covenant restrictions, like in a PUD, say, would override ours. The doctrine holding that if a law is so broadly written it deters free speak. As the Doctor just explained, it puts a chill on it. And it can be struck down on its face because of its chilling effect. Even if it prohibits acts that may legitimately be forbidden. So that's the chilling. Page 7 -,- ;----,,---'..."'.~,....,.....<-,"''''''''''.,.,''-"'''''.~.....,.~,,;.~~'"_.,,-~~,.~~."_._,-,--_.,~.,._--"....,.,,.,.._- 16 l: 1 t6 " tJ March 2, 2009 And as we said at the bottom, the dangerous part of this doctrine is that any plaintiff may attack any provision in the code. I don't know if I VvTote this right, Doctor. I said as personally injured? Is that -- DR. MANDELKER: Right, that's correct. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Meaning they don't have to be the one who's trying to get the sign and getting denied. It could be a sign company that could just come in and say, well, sue us. And they would win if we had that problem. Prior restraint. Government restrictions on speech or publication before its actual expression. So we can't limit what they're going to put on their signs. It's -- and what the -- the only thing that would pass prior restraint would be adequate standards provided in conformity with this code or other applicable county ordinances. And then a reasonable time limit should be established for the application to be processed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, Mr. Vigliotti has a question. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Catherine, will the Doctor go over all these things with us? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Because I'm having a hard time. MS. F ABACHER: With me? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. Following point by point. Because there's like 10 questions I have already, and I don't want to interrupt you on every one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, normally we try to get the speaker to finish before we interrupt with questions, but I'm not -- and if the Doctor's going to take these a frame at a time, maybe like we do, take our ordinance proposals a page at a time, maybe we can walk through it that way and ask questions on each page. It's very hard to remember technical questions of this nature till the end of the introduction. So maybe we'll get through yours, Catherine -- MS. F ABACHER: Just a couple more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when the Doctor goes back through it, we'll proceed under that -- MS. F ABACHER: Absolutely. I'm just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for the rest of you guys? MS. F ABACHER: -- I'm just trying to show -- thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. I'm just trying to show what our task was, more or less. And that's it. Now, if you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good timing, Bob. MS. F ABACHER: I have all these copies that I handed out last week. Extras, if you're confused. MR. KLA TZKOW: You're not confused. That's not the right way to put it. Does everybody have the same document'? Are we comfortable that we all have the same document to work off of? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think there was a mix-up, because last Thursday in discussion when Steve Williams was at the meeting, we had understood, and Steve's decision was based upon the fact that this document that was passed out to us last Thursday had already been posted on the web and that there'd be Thursday, Friday and sometime today in the morning I guess or over the weekend for people to actually access it. I think we've learned since that's not the case. MR. KLA TZKOW: If Catherine has a number of documents and they're all the same, at least we're all working off the same one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where I'm trying to go. Because this one didn't have adequate time to disclose to the public, it was discussed that we would be working off the one we previously had gotten, and then any additions to that and changes as a result of the latest one we would incorporate on the fly at the meeting. That's what we're trying to do. Which means we would be working off the 2-19 document. Page 8 161 1 ItS March 2, 2009 Now, if that's the case, that does change the way we proceed. Does anybody-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm working otlthe 2-26 document. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm working off the 2-26, since that was the final one given us and the final one we were to review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Donna, you're working off the same one? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So am I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess I'm the only one that isn't, so I'll have very few questions today, if any, because all my notes are on the 2-19 one. I had read it thoroughly before the 2-26 was passed out. And to be honest with you, getting something that short and as complicated as this, I couldn't have time to read it again, so -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. Well, we can still, if you want to lead from that one, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we'll lead with the majority. This board is here by the majority call and -- MS. F ABACHER: This one has everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I just -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Then I have a question, if we're going to follow that document, the 26th. Do we reference just the yellow comments in there or the red comments and green comments and the black underlined and strike-throughs? MS. F ABACHER: Everything. MR. KLATZKOW: You've got your expert here today. All right? I understand, Mr. Strain, the concern that this was not published. I share that concern. But your expert is here today. And if you've got a question on something that's been changed since then, he's here now. And I don't know that we're going to get him back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. MS. FABACHER: Was it your plan just to open it and go line by line? I thought you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was my understanding there was a -- you had an introduction and the Doctor had a presentation. I'd like to get orientated by the Doctor's presentation, because it may have bearing on the questions we ask. DR. MANDELKER: You want me to proceed then, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, that would be best. And if you don't mind, as you get through each general frame on issues, if we have questions you could entertain those questions at that time rather than we hold them to the end. It's a little -- DR. MANDELKER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- harder to do so. DR. MANDELKER: What I would prefer to do, if! may, is to first give a little introductory speech. Because the frames were organized by topic and they aren't always quite related to a general outline, you know, of what things are. Let me say first that we were sued here. And I've been doing this for many years. I've been brought in often after a municipality or county gets sued, but we've usually then been able to work things out. This is the first time I've been brought in after a local govemment lost a lawsuit. So that's extremely important. That's the first point I want to make. I'm going to make two or three major points. That means that what that judge said is what we have to follow. The legal phrase is, law of the Page 9 <".~-'~- ...., " -."Ot.wur"~__",__"",,_._....._,. ._ 161 1 fB March 2, 2009 case. We have to follow him. And unfortunately his decision is the most negative, hostile decision I've ever seen on sign codes. He took the most extreme point of view that can be taken on these issues. And, you know, sign law, free speech law is very anamorphous. It's not as clear as it should be. But he took the most extreme point of view that any judge could take. And I'm going to show you some of the things he did. And so when I came in, you mentioned the comprehensive review. The problem was that you start looking at this section and that section and the next section, it's like pulling the bricks out of a house, pretty soon the house starts tumbling down. And that's why it got revised as much as it did. Now, in particular, before I get into free speech law to be as clear as I can about it, the problem here, and there's been some national chatter about us on the Internet, is that the ordinance was riddled with exceptions, and that is a very serious problem under the free speech clause. And we've tried to deal with that here. So looking at what the judge said about free speech, there are really basically only two basic issues or doctrines we have to worry about. The first is that the ordinance cannot be content based. And I'll explain that in a moment. The second is that there cannot be any prior restraints. Now, actually, he didn't get to the second one. But, you know, we have to. We have to clean this up. Let's look at what a content-based ordinance is. Content-based ordinance is an ordinance that has provisions that specify what can go on a sign. And I understand here n that's one part of it. And I understand here that when problems came up with the sign regulation code that the answer was -- you want me to wait till you get back, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, no, I can hear it. I'll be back in a second. Thank you. DR. MANDELKER: Okay. I understand when problems came up with the sign code, the answer was to write something about it, and to write it in a very specific way. And my favorite example which he used was that athletic fields can have signs on fences. WelL that's an example of a content-based sign. There are other provisions in the ordinance that said you can have directory signs or commercial signs that specify the name of the occupants. That's content based. That was typical. There are a whole series of these of various kinds. And they were largely in the definitions, incidentally. Nothing wrong with what the regulation says. So we've had to go through the definitions, I've done this before, and get those organized. Now, ifhe had only done that, we would have been n have an easier job. But he went further and -- you understand, he's a trial court judge. And there's a big appeals court that sits in Atlanta, we call it the 11 th Circuit. You know about that. And they had decided a case called the Solantic case, another city that had an ordinance riddled with exceptions. And he rclied heavily on that case. So he said that was a good case, we have to pay attention to that case. Now, that case introduced another idca, which is that if an ordinance is speaker-based, that's also content-based. Not to do with the content, it just means that you give a certain kind of sign to a particular use. And my n you know, athletic field use is a good example. Athletic fields can have signs on fences. Now, you might ask, well, you always have to regulate uses. But you have to, I think to meet that objection, get away from regulating giving particular signs to particular uses and talk about land uses, categories of land uses, residential uses, nonresidential uses. But those are the two major -- the two major problems that come under content regulation. Now, the big one for us in that area and fur everybody is the political sign problem. Because you can't regulate political signs without regulating content. Page 10 - , 161 ~1 PrS March 2, 2009 What do you say? How do you define a political sign? A sign posted by someone running for an election or by a candidate for election, well, that's content. That's the person who can put it up. So the big problem that comes up with content-based issues is the political sign issue. And other types of commercial signs such as real estate signs. You can't define a real estate sign as a sign advertising real estate. That's content. Now, we worked around these things; we can go into that later. And that's where the house started tumbling down. You know, that's why it's so -- so because of that decision, we could look at other decisions a little different, but we can't. We have to look at what this judge said. He's sitting there. Everybody's watching us. And we have to deal with regulations that spell out what the sign can say and who can say it. And your code -- and I won't say it's any better or worse than any other code, but I've seen others which is just full of these content-based, these speaker-based regulations that we had to deal with. And that was the major issue. And my memo, when we finished with it all, I looked back at it again, I said uh-oh. I read the Solantic case again. And then on this very issue a case came out in the New Jersey Supreme Court -- that's a very important court in this country for land use issues -- on these same issues, and they struck down a New Jersey municipality. There was buzz all over the Internet. So that was the main issue there. Now, there's another issue here that I didn't -- that we have to be concerned about, and that is the question of making distinctions between different types of signs. That's another issue. Content based is one, distinctions is another. The major distinction that you can't make is you can't -- we can't treat commercial speech better than noncommercial speech. We have to allow -- give noncommercial signs the same treatment we give commercial signs. And there's a famous case up where I live in our court, the Whitten case, where they regulated political signs, and then they gave political signs much more restrictive regulations. And boy, they just got thrown out the window. So we've attempted to deal with that problem. The substitution clause that Catherine mentioned has been approved by many courts. The language I would like to tinker with a little bit more. You know, we've worked on it six months. They've done an incredible job. I can't imagine -- it's been -- getting this far usually takes a year, at least, with a much smaller community. So we're still, you know, tinkering and wordsmithing with this. So the substitution clause says you always have a noncommercial message anywhere. So I dealt with that problem of fairness. Now, another fairness problem that has come up. You see, when cases get decided elsewhere and the city loses -- I wouldn't be as concerned if we hadn't lost the case. But we got hit once, and I don't want to do anything that is going to expose us to unnecessary risk. So when another court comes out and throws something out or adopts an idea, I listen to it. There's some concern that we shouldn't even treat commercial signs differently. I don't want to go to the -- so we have to be very careful about how many signs we have and how we treat them. One of the issues here is that there is a format. There are certain types of signs that get treated in a sign ordinance. And let me just say, you know, I've viewed photos of signs here, I've driven around here. And this is beautiful; I mean, the staff has done an exceptional job in sign regulation, I think. Freestanding lettering and good graphics that just are beyond belief. But we don't want to do anything that hampers that. But I think that in dealing with these regulations we have to ensure that -- fairness, that all signs are created the same way. And we have to avoid putting in too many different types of signs. I'm just going to tell you, you know, I've been at this a long time and read this. I'm just going to tell you that based on what happened to us, if we start -- we want to -- that was one of the reasons it's so Page 11 -- '1'l.""_,..,_.......,."""',"""'"....-,.""""',"',"""""'__.., -- ~... ,,,.,,,___.....,__.',. __'~"o' " " '''~''~'....".,",.~~"..,",---~-'= t~cl2, 219~ comprehensively redone. I want to cut the number of signs down to the absolute minimum. Ifwe put in too many different types of signs, I hear the bells go off and I'm saying the judge is going to say you're still making these distinctions. So fairness, content issue. Now, a prior -- the prior restraint issue is one he didn't get to, but -- and it's not difficult to deal with. It's a little tricky in a couple of places. What this means is that if you -- if the sign ordinance spells everything out, that's not a problem. But once you have any kind of discretion, and the ordinance was full of these things, it said, well, the setback is this way unless the county manager or its designee says you can have -- oh. I mean, and it's full of these things. And I just went through penciling these things out. In particular, we've eliminated conditional uses for signs. And the reason is that if you have any kind of discretion, you have to meet certain requirements about -- I'll explain them in a minute. Well, the point is the judge may not understand, you know, what we're doing with this kind of sign or that kind of sign. But lawyers and judges, they dam well understand, you know, procedures. They understand standards. And if it is -- and they just knock them down right and left when they're not right. So I recommended we did -- we have no conditional uses. We'd have -- there isn't any discretion left in here. A couple places where there are, I noted in here. We don't want any discretion in here. You see, you might ask, well, a setback on a landscaping, who's going to complain? But the problem is if I'm a billboard company and I come in and I'm denied my billboard permit, I can take aim at anything in the ordinance. Now, this judge allowed Bonita to do that. Now, there's some cases up in our Atlanta court that say maybe he shouldn't, but he did. And we're dealing with him. Anybody can come in, any billboard company, Bonita can come back and take aim at us again at anything. You might say who's going to complain about a model home sign? Well, what happens is that any plaintiff could come in and take aim at these things and then the whole ordinance can collapse again. So to me prior restraint problems, I think the only place really where it's left in the sign code is with the variance provision. I believe we're working on some -- you have to have two things: You have to have very definite standards. The reason you have to have definite standards is that if the standards are vague, the county board and you guys can hold them up forever. You know, that's what they mean by chilling free speech. I've got to come in, say, and get a variance. And you've got a very vague standard. You say oh, well, we don't think so. Well, you know, it's too open. The other requirement is a very short time period for decisions, for obvious reasons. And how long does it have to be? Well, again, I applied this on the safe side all along in terms of risk-taking. And my recommendations have been as conservative as I can make them. And I read there's a case in our Atlanta court, they said 60 days, so I said 60 days. I'd rather make it 30 days, but I said 60 days. So those are the problems. Content-based, commercial, noncommercial, fairness and distinctions, and the question of prior restraint. I'm going to talk about those two things in a moment. We'll talk about that later. Now, let me just say that there isn't any guarantee here on anything. I mean, we could sit here and be as conservative as we wanted to, and as one of my colleagues who teaches constitutional law said, that any judge in this country can throw out any sign ordinance ifhe or she wants to. But I think if we go ahead and take a conservative position and kind of button this up in the way I think it ought to be, I think we ought to be okay. And we don't want, you know, another lawsuit. Page 12 16 il ;1~5 March 2, 2009 Furthermore, you know, I have targeted some sections in here that I think either need to be deleted or changed. I think we can modify some of them. But if you left in some provisions that I thought were unconstitutional, you might never get sued. I mean, there isn't any guarantee anybody's going to sue you either. Now, in this situation where it's -- you know, blood's been drawn once, you know, it's -- anyway, that could happen again, obviously. So that's -- I don't think we need to go through the frames particularly. I think I've covered all the -- the one other kind of thing that's hanging out here, this Ladue case issue, which is a marginal thing, Ladue is a suburb right next to me; I can see it from my window almost. And one of our former students put a sign in her window that said Stop the Gulf War. And Ladue had an ordinance which disallowed that. And it was handled by my son's neighbor, and he and I worked on it a lot. And he really just took it up to try to get the court to revisit some of these issues. And they lost, which they should have. But the bottom line is that in residential areas you have to allow a permanent sign that's a noncommercial sign of some kind. And that's what we're doing there. I'd like to put that aside. That's important, we need to do it or they'll chase us on that, but that's what the Ladue sign -- what we call the Ladue sign is all about. And we've just allowed one noncommercial sign, six square feet, that's what we usually do in these ordinances, and we've never had any trouble with it. But these other issues, content-based, speaker-based, fair treatment of noncommercial signs, and no discretion. The variance is all we've gotten. We got a problem with planned unit developments, we're working on a little, but that's outside the sign ordinance. No discretion, no conditional uses, no provisions that say the county manager and his designee can do this and that, nothing like that. And so when all these things started coming out, that's when you saw this massive really changes that occurred. So I wanted to take questions. We can talk, you know, as long as you we want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First the County Attorney, then we'll go to the panel. MR. KLATZKOW: And just understand, whatever sign ordinance we pass today down the road will be ruled unconstitutional, because it changes. The original ordinance we had was based on a model ordinance that the courts were upholding. In this area of the law, the chan -- judges look at things differently and diflerent courts look at them differently and changes over time. If you go to the First Amendment it says, Congress shall make no law with respect to freedom of speech. Well, a sign ordinance by itself is a law. So we've already thrown the books out the window, so to speak. So it's a question of how much tension are they going to allow, and that's in evolution. So whatever you do today, understand that eventually this sign ordinance is going to have to be changed again. It just moves. It's not like the law in real property or wills, which stay the same for centuries. This is a moving target. The second thing is this: There's a lot of policy involved here, because the sign ordinance has a lot to do with the character of our community, right? I'm willing to take a risk, you know, on certain areas that might be questionable if it leads to a more aesthetic community that the people want. So that one of the things here is almost like the risk analysis, and I'm glad we had the expert here to say okay, for example, we can allow billboards in Collier County and never have to worry about being sued by a billboard company, or we can expressly prohibit billboards, okay? And we're going to run a risk that sooner or later Lamar or somebody else is going to bring a suit on that, all right? Well, if you don't want billboards, you have to prohibit them. There are ways we can play with it, but -- neon signs, you know, whatever you don't want in the community we're going to need to prohibit, but we need to do it in such a way that it will withstand legal challenge, hopefully, but it's risk analysis. And Page 13 ..... . .-. 0.......... _._~ :. an. , '11' If " !.__."-~-,,,"",- 161 1~ March 2, 2009 that's why we have the expert here. Just talk policy with him. I mean, if we were going to dictate to you what the land code should be to get rid of any issue with respect to constitutionality, you wouldn't be here, we would just have done it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, we'll start with questions of the Doctor's discussion here. Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry, how rude. I forgot to introduce Dr. Daniel Mandelker. He the Stamper Professor at Law at Washington University in St. Louis, and it's been my great pleasure to meet him and work with him. +++ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: So sorry I was late with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Doctor, which judge and case are we working by? Where was the judge, local? DR. MANDELKER: Where does he sit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was his name? Do you know his name? DR. MANDELKER: I've forgotten his name. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What was it, circuit, local? DR. MANDELKER: It was a local district court judge. MR. KLATZKOW: Fort Myers. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. DR. MANDELKER: He sat in Fort Myers, yeah. You see, what -- this is how this works here. We're in the -- and this is important to understand. Because the country is divided into 11 what they call circuits, courts of appeal, plus the District of Columbia. We're in what's called the 11 th Circuit. It was a new one that was created, and it includes all these southern states. And it sits in Atlanta, though it moves around. Now, within the 11 th Circuit there are districts. Florida has, you know, a middle district, southern district. There are I think three districts in Florida. And within these districts are the district court judges. These are like the trial court judges. He's a trial court judge. He hears the case. He's a trial court judge. Now, the county, if they had wanted to, could have appealed his decision to this 11 th Circuit and gotten another opinion from the appeals court. But they didn't. So that's the situation. Now -- but he's working within this whole group of decisions that this Atlanta 11 th Circuit Court has handed down. Now, it so happens -- I've done a fair amount of work in Florida up and down the state different places, Hillsborough, different places, Melbourne and so on. It just so happens that perhaps because it's Florida, which is concerned about it, the 11 th Circuit has gotten more of these sign cases than almost any other. I mean, and when we sit here, those are the ones we have to be concerned about. They've gone up and down the street with them. But when the circuit sits there with 13 or some judges, they sit in groups of threes. Well, it's all panels. They don't always agree. So this district judge sits down here and he can pick and choose from what they've done, you see what I'm saying? And he picked the most restrictive, awful -- 1 mean, in terms of the most restrictive case of the bunch, Solantic. And he said that's what I'm going to follow, which he's entitled to do. And the New Jersey court did the same thing. I would say in terms of what the attorney just said, he's absolutely right ofthis changing vision. And I would say that the -- to the extent that I can see it, there's been a tightening of concern when municipalities start making all these distinctions. There's been a tightening of concern. That's what happened up in the New Jersey case where they tried to prohibit a sign looking like a rat. And they said you Page 14 , 16 IMarl GOO9 (,.A "- can't prohibit that and allow other things. So anyway, that's the story. He was the district court judge, a trial court judge sitting here, bound to follow these 11 th Circuit cases, and he picks the Solantic one. So he's the guy -- but we didn't appeal him, so what he said -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Stands. DR. MANDELKER: -- about our ordinance -- there are other things I didn't mention, like prohibitions and exemptions and so on. But that's just part of the content based. So that's the answer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One more question. Homeowner associations have condo docs or condo associations. Do they supersede? DR. MANDELKER: They would I think ordinarily, that's my understanding, yeah. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, Doctor, I enjoyed your presentation very much. It was very informative. One thing that has bothered me about signs is the readability of the sign. For example, an off-premise sign, if it's located on a very speedy highway or a highway with a high speed limit, that the motorist does not always have the opportunity to recognize or read that sign until they're past the point of entry that is designating where the off-premise location is. Is there anything that would restrict us in the sign code that would say that a readability analysis must be made to establish what is necessary as far as the size of the lettering on a sign? DR. MANDELKER: Well, we -- no, this isn't part of our mandate here, to deal with that question. But 30 years ago I participated in a project that dealt with that very question. And we dealt with it in terms of the size of the sign, how big does the sign have to be to make it visible from the right-of-way, from the highway. And we conducted studies that looked at that. And we published a book called Street Graphics. And a few years ago I rewrote that as a monograph of American Planning Association called Street Graphics and the Law, and went to the United States Sign Council, which is the research organization for the sign industry. They have done very detailed studies onjust what you're talking about. And I don't think we can demand a certain size of letter. That would be difficult. But we can cer -- it's certainly possible to control or deal with the size and spacing and height and so on. But -- and that's all in this book that I published. But that in itself is a big issue, and it's not something I think we should get involved in here. We've got enough to do, I think, without getting into that. But it's been dealt with by the Sign Council and they dealt with the roadside signs, they now have a publication on wall signs, so that some day when you want to get to that issue, it's all there for you to look at and deal with. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So ifin the future sometime the staff was going to revise this ordinance as far as signs, they could reference that -- DR. MANDELKER: Sure. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- and explore that possibility. DR. MANDELKER: Sure. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: When you mentioned size of sign, one thing that's also disturbed me is what really defines the size of a sign? We see some signs where the lettering completely covers the sign, others where there's a big structure surrounding the copy on the sign, so the message is a rather minor part of the sign, but yet the specification calls for a certain physical size in inches or feet. Page 15 ".-.- _..__.."_"'''"",,'_,'....,..,"_'''.~, ._-=_H'."""""""_""~.'>'l-..._""'.~;.__,..__..._,~." -.....,'..,..._"'-,.,,,.,, ..~._---- 1 ~' .fd 1 March 2, 2 9 DR. MANDELKER: Well, I think that's up to the -- again, that's not part of our work here. But that's up to the county. You can define the size of the sign with reference to the lettering any way you want to. We usually define it as a geographic square or rectangle or whatever, drawn around the lettering. But defining the size of the sign in reference to lettering is something that's entirely up to the county, it's not a free speech issue. Again, it's not something that we've been asked to do. We prefer -- I have to tell you that we go into counties and cities and try to get them to do free lettering on walls and not put them on a board of any kind. Because we think that free lettering is much more attractive. And you've been able to do that here. You know, free lettering and graphic well done -- good graphics, that's been done. But the issues you raise are interesting and important issues, but they're not this issue that we're dealing with. It's not the free speech issue. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I appreciate your comments very much. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Doctor, in your comments you said that communities, even smaller than Collier County, have taken well over a year to come up with the correct language and to make sure that their code is as conservative as possible and that we've only been at it here for six months, maybe. Are you comfortable that we should be going forward at this point, or should we take that time and really make sure? I mean, remember, we are the ones who have gotten sued and decided not to appeal, so like you said, that puts us in a different position. DR. MANDELKER: WelL let me say this: I think we have worked through the majority of the issues. There are some issues here that I've raised that I'll have to say where staff and I still have to work out some agreement. And I may have to say, you know, welL this is my opinion. And I really think we should not rush the process. I don't know that we need another six months, but there are some unsettled issues in here that are still a little troublesome, and I think we need more time. And how much time we need isn't clear. but I think we do need a few more months. at least. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions before -- Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: I just wanted to say that -- I just drew a blank. No, the reason that we're here is because the Doctor's position and stan's position and we're not in -- you know, you need to weigh the risk and you need to say well, we want to go all the way and be totally bulletproof with the Doctor or we're going to agree with staff on this one. But that's why we're here, we need the direction at this point. DR. MANDELKER: There's just -- J would say, Catherine, that the areas where we need some direction is a very small percentage of the whole. But they are important issues. I think that's certainly an Issue. But I think in addition, the general -- the decisions we've made need to be looked at as well. I mean, for example, as I said, at my recommendation every provision in here that required discretion was taken out. Conditional uses were taken out, all the definitions that were problematic were rewritten to make them content free, and the prohibition and exemption sections were pretty much stripped. I mean, there's nothing left there anymore, because I felt most of those were troublesome. In this monograph that I mentioned in response to the other question that contains a model ordinance and it has very few of these exemptions and prohibitions, one of which, by the way, that I recommended was held unconstitutional by your judge in this case. I wouldn't have thought so, but he thought so. And it's one that is still in there that I think ought to go. In any event, I think there are these major decisions we've made about the ordinance to radically reduce the number of signs that are allowed, radically change the definitions, remove all discretion, except for variances, which we have substantially tightened up. I mean, I don't see any reason why variances are Page 16 I 161 1 tiS March 2,2009 needed if the ordinance is done correctly. So those are -- and other issues, time issues on permits and -- I've insisted on time issues on variances, so it's not entirely clear that you need those on an appeal -- on a decision like that. I think it would be important. Those were the major decisions we made: This radical reduction in the number of signs, the revision of the definitions, the elimination of all discretion, the elimination of conditional uses. And where I'm still having problems is that with some minor things in here, I see some speaker-based provisions in here that I think are unconstitutional that ought to go and just take -- I want to take more of these special sign provisions out so that we're left with a really trim ordinance. We have wall signs, ground signs, pole signs, a couple of commercial signs, and that's it. That's what I want to see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we end up, after all this is said and done, with a whole new series of nonconforming signs as a result? What are the implications for -- I mean, going forward, that's understandable. But what about all of those signs that are extant? DR. MANDELKER: Well, I -- Catherine's going to help me with this. That is an important issue that we have been concerned about. Let me just say that we have done some work on the nonconforming use provision, though it's not strictly a free speech problem. Because what we did on other parts of the ordinance is perhaps creating new conformities. I think that so far as I can tell, the changes we made simply say -- for example, take a real estate sign. A real estate sign is now defined as a sign on premises offered for sale, lease or exchange. That's totally neutraL So that nothing is made nonconforming there. And I don't think we changed any of the regulations that apply to real estate signs. There's one type of sign, we allow a directory sign for multi-use premise. I don't know, Catherine, you can explain whether we've -- that's going to create nonconformities or not, The ordinance as it was written was content-based, because it said you can say this, you can say that, say the next thing. So we had to change that. I don't know if we made changes. I don't know if I've said this before, but if so, let me repeat it. There's a certain format to these ordinances, there's certain types that are commonly found in ordinances. I want to stick to that. And once you got (sic) to provisions that are uncommon, that's when, you know, the trouble starts. Directory signs are common. And as I said, did we make -- create nonconformities, Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: I'm just checking back with Diana. I didn't think we did for sure, because we didn't change heights or sizes or anything like that, or the number of signs, so we should not have created any nonconformities. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess my question was based on the Doctor's statement that we've gotten rid of a number of signs and changed -- MS. F ABACHER: Well, yeah, they're still required. They're just called something now or-- DR. MANDELKER: They're called something different. MS. FABACHER: They're called something different. And that's kind of why we're here today, to get you to help us on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the question is whether they're adequately called something different. DR. MANDELKER: Yeah, yeah. MS. FABACHER: Yes, it's free speech. We're not creating any nonconforming signs from this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? Page 1 7 ~'...,-~- . ~ _"""0/ "'<r"""l~_.IIl. VI" __ __....____n. .-.--- \ 161, 1 ~ March 2, 2009 MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, the direction from the Board of County Commissioners was to bring back an ordinance that reflected the judge's decision, it wasn't to change the signs in Collier County. So my recommendation would be that if this ordinance should happen to create a nonconformity, that we grandfather everything in and be done with it. Because it's not the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that certain signs be banned now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But did I understand that by reduction of the number of signs that the ordinance would contain would reduce the possibility of challenge? DR. MANDELKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So that should be an overall goal in our mind as we review this. DR. MANDELKER: Yes. I really would like the number of signs allowed cut way down so we have wall signs, ground signs, pole signs, directory signs, a couple of real estate signs, construction signs. And something else we've done, it still needs work, but we've created a new temporary sign category. Now, there were some provisions in there, here or elsewhere, authorizing signs for bingo, you know, and so on. Obviously that's content based. So what we've done here, as we've done elsewhere. is to create a new category of signs called temporary signs, which are signs related to an event. That could be an election, that could be anything, you know. They're noncommercial. They're related to an event. We've done that many places. Of course a couple of courts have upheld them. And so -- and that's not been a problem. Now, let me just mention -- so that's the group. Now, let me mention two other signs that are in here, two other restrictions. What about the -- this mobile sign on the trucks that these fellows were doing? Well, fortunately we have a case in the 11 th Circuit from Atlanta over in Super Signs of Boca Raton, which authorizes the restriction of mobile signs. And there's a case just came out in the California court. The California courts are looked to as well. Obviously being California, they get these things. The California court upheld a restriction on mobile signs, so we said okay, great -- they said that was great, we'll do the same thing, we'll point to the California case, so we've done that. And then this other question came up, this problem of hand-held signs. And I have to tell you, a case came out -- let me just stop for a second. We've already got quite a large number of signs already. A case came out ofthe Ninth Circuit up in Washington, Oregon and California, that's another powerful circuit, those states are important. City of Seattle had prohibited hand-held signs. And this is just an example, it's sort of a case study of what these problems are like, in addition to this problem. They said you can't prohibit hand-held signs. They said what's the difference between a hand-held sign and a real estate sign? It's no different from anything else, why are you prohibiting these signs, and they threw it out. So my reaction is, we're not going to prohibit hand-held signs. I frankly would like to leave them alone. As I told you, I'm nervous about too many sign restrictions. I'd like not to do anything. There's something in here, but -- What I recommended was okay, we can regulate the size and the height. And maybe the number on the premises, I forget. I don't think we'd have any problem with that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Just another aside on that, what do you classifY as sandwich sign board? Is that a mobile sign? DR. MANDELKER: What do we do with n MS. FABACHER: We call that moveable. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Moveable. DR. MANDELKER: Yeah, it's a moveable sign, yeah. Page 18 .... l~l lPh ',- 1\ March 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That differs from a hand-held? MS. F ABACHER: Different from a hand-held. And then the other one is the portable signs. DR.MANDELKER:Yeah. MS. F ABACHER: And then we wrote a fourth one for the trucks with the signs. DR. MANDELKER: Right. MS. F ABACHER: Or vehicles with signs. DR. MANDELKER: The vehicles with signs, yeah. But what did we do with the sandwich boards? We prohibit those, don't we? MS. F ABACHER: No, no, we allow them. DR. MANDELKER: We allow them? MS. F ABACHER: Because we had to cut a lot of the sign regulations that were not constitutional out of some of the overlays, as you know. They had their own. And temporarily, because we didn't have the money or the time to work on all of those, we've just referred them back to this 50600 to be safe. If they want to come back in the future and recreate them -- but we did (sic) allow sandwich signs in the main code now, which we didn't before. Because so many of the developments wanted those little SIgns. DR. MANDELKER: That's okay. I don't think we have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: With the economy going as it is, we all might want to use some of those sandwich board signs. DR. MANDELKER: But the problem I have with the hand-held sign is I have a problem limiting how many days during the year they can be displayed. Because they're going to say -- I can hear a judge saying well, what's the difference between the hand-held sign and a sandwich board sign? You don't have to have a limit there. Anyway, that's just an example, but I think we -- of what the problems are. But you can see, this is the range of signs we have. There are a few others in here that I don't know if you want me to get to -- do you want me to get to some of the signs there? Some other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not done with questions yet, so let's finish up with the questions of the introduction before we get into the specifics of the code. Mr. Kolflat, are you finished? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How about these large balloons with the store name on it or balloons, if they put names on it, is that considered a sign or a distraction? DR. MANDELKER: Do we allow balloons? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, you do. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We don't allow balloons. MS. F ABACHER: I'm going to defer to Diana. She came in. She's sick, so don't get close to her. Diana Compagnone, she's our sign expert here at the county. Worked very hard on this. Lot of time on it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you, Diana. MS. COMP AGNONE: Thank you. Right now it is under prohibited signs under wind signs. Any of the balloons we consider flutter flags that have the name of companies, that's a wind sign also. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can we keep them prohibited? DR. MANDELKER: Sure, sure, that's not a problem. Page 19 "....~,. - __rt4"'''''"''"''_''''_'_''"~''''''"''_'<>'''''''''''"'.''''~ . "., ',,'m', _~."_""_"'_'H'"~'_,~,.'..~_"."_"'''''''~'''''''''~ "-----~""-.._,-~"._._.,,,.~,_.~"_.,._.",._----, 16MI J M; arch , 2009 MR. KLATZKOW: In this ordinance are they still prohibited? DR. MANDELKER: Yeah. MS. COMPAGNONE: The way we did one of the prohibiting portions of it is that any sign that was not expressly addressed in the ordinance was prohibited. So we didn't mention that it was allowed in the ordinance, so they couldn't have it. DR. MANDELKER: In other words, we didn't touch most of these, you know, regulatory provisions, but they're already -- they're pretty much the way they are. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the introduction phase? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is a banner sign included in that category? MS. COMPAGNONE: The banner would be under the temporary signs. They actually need a temporary use permit for a banner. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But it's not prohibited? MS. COMPAGNONE: No. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? DR. MANDELKER: What we did with the temporary signs, since you raised this, there was a whole series of content-based provisions in there. Coming soon signs, you know, Joe's Hamburger Coming Soon, grand opening signs, coming soon signs. Those were all -- I can't remember all of them. They're all struck. And we just have this one temporary sign provision. That covers all temporary signs. And that -- and so it's still there. I mean, the temporary signs are temporary. You have to get a permit anyway. There's no nonconforn1ity. So any temporary sign of any kind is covered by this provision. So this is what I meant by pulling down the house, so that there isn't any unfairness, you know. Every temporary sign is treated the same way, political, nonpolitical, it's all created the same way. It all comes in under that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Doctor, I've got a few questions. Just so I can give you a heads-up on the way we do things, at 10:00 we'll be taking a 15-minute break for the court reporter, and then we'll decide when we get back from that how we want to proceed with lunch and the rest of the day. I've got quite a few questions. The first one is the -- is there any priority of freedom of speech within signage? DR. MANDELKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you kind oftell us what that is about. DR. MANDELKER: The priority is that noncommercial speech receives more protection than commercial speech does. And that means that regulations that discriminate against noncommercial speech, if it's found to be discrimination, are unconstitutional. So that's the priority. Noncommercial speech receives more protection than commercial speech does. Now, what do we mean by noncommercial speech? We mean political signs, we mean ideological signs, Save the Whale, Save the Manatee, so on, that's what we mean. That's the priority. Now, the interesting question is -- and that's the problem. Now, within the commercial speech category it's generally been accepted that most distinctions are acceptable. But there's a couple of -- there was a Supreme Court case and a couple of other cases suggesting that you can't make invidious discriminations. But in any event, noncommercial speech -- noncommercial speech has the priority. Now, it's not quite a priority, but in terms of judicial acceptance, if a regulation is content based, it's presumed unconstitutional and you have to have a compelling governmental interest to regulate it. Well, no court ever finds a compelling governmental interest. It's just a code word that means no. Page 20 - " 16 tr ! AS \ , arc 2, 2009 So that's the priority there. If it's -- however, if the ordinance is content free, if it's content neutral, like some of those I've given you examples of, then you have a much less rigorous test that comes from -- and it was up there, from the so-called central Hudson case. It has to serve a substantial governmental interest and it has to be as narrowly drawn as possible. Now, that's still a problem. But none of the -- all of the signs we've been dealing with here are on-premise signs and it doesn't present that problem. So those are the priorities. Noncommercial speech gets a much better treatment than commercial speech does. Content-based speech is treated more sternly than content-free. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Collier County we have a process, and I know there's different types of political signs, there's some that address issues and there's others that people usually think of when they talk about political signs, and that's the ones that go up when the candidates are having their every four-year event. We regulate when those signs can go up and we regulate when they've got to come down. Is that something that is still allowable? DR. MANDELKER: It's possible to regulate when they come down, it's not possible to regulate when they go up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that means they could go up four years in advance of the next election and really you never take it down then. DR. MANDELKER: Well, that's my -- that's right. We just have to, you know, hope that doesn't happen. But you can't limit how close to an election it has to be. We can make them take -- they can come down after a certain period of time, but regulating it in advance isn't possible anymore. It's the same idea of chilling, you know, expression. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We also regulate in this area in particular because of the high winds we have during the summer when a potential hurricane could come through. When a hurricane warning goes up, all the political signs have to come down. But we limit it to political signs. Is that a fair way to proceed under what is considered a health, safety and welfare aspect for political signs only? DR. MANDELKER: We can't have any regulation that applies only to political signs, because it's impossible to define political signs without defining content. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So once they go up, even if a hurricane's pending, we can't make them take theirs down unless all other similar signs to theirs -- DR. MANDELKER: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- have to be taken down at the same time. DR. MANDELKER: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Would that not now fall under temporary signs, and could we not regulate that all temporary signs must come down? DR. MANDELKER: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: And political signs will fall under temporary signage, correct? DR. MANDELKER: Sure, absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's ways to do it, but I want to -- that's what I want to understand, what we've got to do to get to our goal, and the only way to understand it is where the goal isn't, if it's left like it is. Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can we do it in such a way that all-- not all-- such a type of construction signs have to come down? Can we specify the type of construction ofthe sign that would have to come down? Page 21 ,~._~"..~.. -'--_._-,-_._-_._._~..~-,-,._.__.__.._,...._' -- ._,.,.. ,'- 16t -, 1 Pr'; March 2, 2009 MR. KLATZKOW: The issue is-- DR. MANDELKER: Type of structure. MR. KLATZKOW: The issue is you have signs, you have building permits that are, you know, well placed in the ground, and those are fine for the hurricane season. The problem is the political signs or any signs you -- real estate signs you're just throwing down. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, realtor sign-- MR. KLATZKOW: But they're all the same as far as structural goes. So from a temporary standpoint, these are all the temporary signs. You know, they all come down, you know, during certain seasons or, you know, if there's a hurricane coming, everybody's got to take it dO\VTI. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All right. So if it was non-permitted as a permanent -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's one approach. I mean, you know, my way to approach it, if it's firmly stuck in the ground, you don't worry about it. And if it's just something with a stake in the ground, you do. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, some of the commercial real estate signs are four-by-four posts with a four-by-four -- four-foot by four-foot piece of plywood. Now, that's not -- that should be taken down in a hurricane. Where would that fall? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that we take those -- I mean, Joe could answer that question. We don't require them to take dOWTI those signs, do we, Joe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think what we might want to look at is that if signs have a building permit, that would mean they're there to withstand the wind loads and everything else. DR. MANDELKER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anything that has not got a building permit -- MR. KLA TZKOW: Is a temporary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- may have to be applied as coming out ofthe ground in case there's a hurricane. MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, you might have two signs, signs with permits -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And signs without. MR. KLA TZKOW: -- and then everything else is temporary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLA TZKOW: That's one approach. And the temporary signs would have to come down. MR. SCHMITT: Any sign that's been permitted is designed by a registered professional engineer, or I mean, the structure itself is stamped and sealed, designed foe normally in this case 140 mile an hour wind load. Unless you designed it to the wind load bands. But in most cases the design is at 140 -- actually, 139, to be exact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if it's a sign that doesn't require a building permit -- MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- like the political sign -- well, now that's another discrepancy. Political signs do require a permit. MR. SCHMITT: They do require a pennit. It's a temporary permit only so we know who put them up so we can advise them they need to come down eventually; we'd like them to come down so they don't clutter the landscape. That's pretty much why there's a time limit on political signs. MR. KLATZKOW: But then everybody who wants a temporary sign has to get a permit. MR. SCHMITT: Well, there are-- MR. KLA TZKOW: Because now we're discriminating if you say only political signs have to get a permit but other temporary signs don't. MR. SCHMITT: Well, that's a good point. Because a real estate open house sign, they put it out, they take it down the same day, and that's what's in the code. Open house or some other type of real estate Page 22 . 161 11\'7 'I March 2, 2009 sign. Commonly we call those snipe signs. We will pick those up along the right-of-way, or if they're in the right-of-way we pick them up on weekends. You know, Call Joe For Lawnmower Service, those type of signs we pick up on weekends, a lot of them throughout the week. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But what I'm referring to is like a political sign a commercial real estate broker will put up, four-by-fours with plywood. Now, that they don't need a permit for, that's a temporary thing. It's not the little -- MR. SCHMITT: You're talking about like a for lease or for rent or for sale -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Oh, yeah, four-by-eight sheet of plywood with four-by-four posts. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Those are allowed in commercial developments where you're advertising for lease or for sale. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Now, if we would force them to come down in a hurricane, then could we force the political signs to come -- DR. MANDELKER: Sure. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- down in a hurricane? DR. MANDELKER: The point is you can write -- this discussion is excellent, because it illustrates what I've been trying to say. You can write a provision that requires signs to come down in a hurricane, provided the basis for taking them down has nothing to do with what's on the sign. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. So it's not political, it's the type of structure. DR. MANDELKER: Any sign -- we can define that any way you want to. It has a permit, doesn't have a permit, has a structure, doesn't have a structure, as long as you're not defining it in terms of the speech, because that's what they're worried about. MR. SCHMITT: I mean, our political process normally is in the primaries, what's that August, early September, and then again in November when we have the general elections. Certainly the hurricane season's not going to impact the general elections, but it does impact the time period when we're -- you know, when that's the primaries. Diane? Go ahead. MS. COMPAGNONE: The real estate signs, if they're 32 square feet or eight feet in height, they do require a permit. But they do not require engineering. Anything bigger than that would require engineering. We might want to look at the code and put something in it that anything under a certain size on the temporary signs, if that's what you're concerned of for the hurricanes, that needs to be removed. Or we can change the size of what needs to be engineered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm not so much concerned about the hurricane situation as I am about the political versus non-political. And if we're forcing them to get a permit, that will cause a problem on the other point with permitted and not -- MR. KLATZKOW: But you can't discriminate. You can't just say we're going to force political signs to get a permit but real estate signs not to. Because now you're starting to discriminate. MR. SCHMITT: Well, the only reason we required permits for political signs -- in the past the only reason we required it is -- MR. KLATZKOW: To pick them back up. MR. SCHMITT: -- so that we know who put them up so we can tell them gee, it's time to take them down. Because the community has always made it an issue that after the election -- 14 days, if I'm not mistaken -- within 14 days they would like the political signs to come down. And that was -- MR. KLA TZKO W: Again, we don't have to change this provision, but now you're going to take a risk that somewhere down the line somebody's going to challenge you on the constitutionality of regulating political signs, you know, just as political signs. Page 23 - ~'..,"'",,-,,",- ....---..,. ._-,."......,.,.~>'_.,." ",".,,,_~ ';.""""'~""'..'e.""~~"""_'''''_,'__''''''''';,,",,''_''''_',,__ ,_,_<_w_..___ 16 ~ 1 ~ March 2, 2009 MR. SCHMITT: And you know how they tend to pop up everywhere throughout the community, and there's no problem, it's just a matter of making sure they come down. And that's the concern of the community, after the election. DR. MANDELKER: If you single out political signs, that's probably the most dangerous thing you can do, because it's not commercial speech. See, it mentions your priorities. I think you can write this provision in such a way that you don't mention speech at all. You could find a way to write it so you don't mention speech. They base it on structure, base it on size, base it on something else. We're not going to have a political sign provision anymore anyway. And hopefully we're not going to have model home provisions and open house provisions and things like that that I think are dangerous. So you can write this provision in such a way -- this is a good example, Mr. Chairman, of how the house comes tumbling down, you see. And we start out with the free speech issue and all of a sudden we've got this issue which is ancillary to it. But you can write this in such a way and probably the discussion is helpful to get it written the right way so we get it taken care of so that we're covering all the signs we ought to cover, no matter what they say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and the reason you're saying there's no -- those provisions aren't going to be there is because we're putting them under the temporary provision. DR. MANDELKER: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm hearing that we can write this and we can change that. And, you know, you had a task force or a group of people who spent six months in earnest doing this intensively, and it seems a very short span of time for us to be able to get into this and start \vriting what it is. I would hope that we would be offered to the extent plausible and possible as much information as we could have in order to make a judgment rather than us begin writing the details. So I don't know, I'm beginning to feel a little bit uncomfortable about what we really are being asked to do here. DR. MANDELKER: That's a very good point. And that's why I tried to summarize what we did in a general way. And let me summarize that again, that I found that there is nothing wrong with what you said about real estate signs, the thing the sign's on. The problem is the way they were defined. And there was a whole -- there are a whole series of definitions in here that you'll see changed. We went through where we could and changed the definitions and re\\<Tote them into content neutral way. That's one thing we did. Now, what that means is, you see, we define a real estate sign as a sign on premises offered for sale or lease. That's another free speech rule. You can have time, place and manner regulations. You can regulate time, you can regulate place, you can regulate the manner. That means that anything can go on a real estate sign, not just, you know, for sale. Anybody can put anything there. So that's one thing we did, we changed all the definitions so that they were content neutral. We -- and that meant for some kinds of signs, signs at entrances to subdivisions and directory signs, directional signs, there was a definition of directional signs as signs giving directions or something like that. That's content-based. We changed that to signs located at entrances and exits or something like that of property. So we went through and changed all those definitions. And having done that, we had to go through the ordinance to make changes on where these signs could be allowed and under what circumstances. We have a definition, you know, multi-unit propeI1ies need some kind of directory signs with Page 24 "" ~- \..~ 16l 4s . , March 2,2009 names, but we couldn't do that. There was a definition of a sign that had names on it of the occupants. We had to take that out. Well, we've got that changed in such a way that it's still there. And you know what kind of a sign it is, and we indicate where it can be held. That's one thing we did. That was probably the major issue here. Then there were a bunch of speaker-based provisions that we just took out. I can't remember all of them. I know we took out the provision allowing athletic fields to have signs on fences. I mean, those were speaker-based. It was a particular type of use. And there are a few ofthese left that I have questions about that we can talk about later. So we changed that. Something else we did. As I said before, we can go over this again and again. We took out all-- anything that involved discretion, except for variances. And there are dozens of these that I had to go picking through. It said, as I said, setback is so much, only the county manager can make a change. You can't do that. You can't do that unless you have -- why? I would say well, how often is this going to happen? Does this happen very often? No. Well, why bother with it? Out it goes. Conditional uses went out. That's something else that we did. So speaker-based definitions, uses, all the discretionary provISIons. And then when it got to -- when we came to this prior restraint issue, we looked at the permit process and we looked at the permit application and decision-making process, we looked at the variance process, as I said. I've discussed this with friends. I'm taking the position we need to worry about the variance process just to be safe. And so we rewrote the standards and criteria and we put in time limits for all those. Now, there's one place left where that hasn't happened, and that has to do with planned unit developments. I have another book on planned unit developments that I just wrote, so happens. And they were pretty messy in the ordinance. So in order to avoid any free speech problems with signs, we cleaned that up. And we're in the process. You see, over in the planned unit development section of the LDC there was a provision for sign plans of some kind. And a decision had to be made on that. Well, standards have to be there, process has to be there. Process there in the application, the time limits have to be there. Well, trying to write some kinds of standards that are not too vague is a difficult problem. It's a head scratcher. We're working on that. Fortunately that provision is outside the sign code. So -- and I don't think it's -- it's not in the sign code and I think we'll do a good job on that. So those are the major things I think that we did. Those are the major things. But I've got to tell you that, you see, for example, take this issue of -- and that's what you'll see in here. Take this issue of directory signs or names of occupants for multi -- you have to ask every time you do something, what is the aesthetic reason? What is the sign reason for it? Well, here it is. Look, there are a number of occupants here. They need a special kind of sign. Has nothing to do with free speech. Hopefully that's going to stand up. So what happened was when we took out the provision that authorized specifically names of occupants on signs, we had to rewrite that to make it clear that that's what this was for and where that was going to be. And that's what you'll see in there. Some of it just got tossed out. Some of it we tried to rewrite. And I went back and I said -- we didn't do it. But those were the main things that we did throughout here. But you can see that, as in this example, every time we dispensed with the content-based direction, we had to work with it to get it right so it was accomplishing the same purpose, as you said, without being content based. And that took some time every time we did it. And that's what took -- we've had how many telephone con -- we've probably had -- MS. F ABACHER: Ten? DR. MANDELKER: Ten telephone -- we probably had 20 hours of telephone conferences on all of Page 25 ~"._... __K____'.~._._~,~~.__..._.,..,_,.._._._.... '" 161 1 frt;. March 2, 2009 this, at least. Plus e-mails. I've got a file. Anyway, so that's what we did. Those were the major changes we made. But let me just say this, that it did mean taking out an awful lot of stuff that just, you know, doesn't belong there. And I suppose that the athletic fields with fences, they're not going to be able to put stuffup on the fences anymore. There's nothing in there that allows them to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. MANDELKER: We're still fussing with institutional uses. Anyway, 10:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doctor, we're going to take a IS-minute break, come back at 10: 15. While we're taking the break, I still have a series of general questions about your introduction, but I'd like for the Planning Commission to kind of come to a consensus on where we want to go today, so we can understand what we're going to be doing here for the rest of the day and how long we want to stay. So we'll come back at 10: 15. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When we went on break, I asked the Planning Commission members to think about the process today, and what I wanted to relay to everyone is stuff you already probably know, but I made a list of it. There was a -- during the month of~ I think it was January and even February, Catherine had attempted several times, maybe just a couple, to schedule an introductory meeting with the Planning Commission where she was going to make a presentation of what it was that the sign ordinance changes evolved around. And I think we're getting that today, and find it very useful, because the doctor's comments certainly are something that would have been nice to have before we read the document that we're going to be dealing with. I heard the doctor say also that they're still tinkering with it. In fact, we got a page of 14 suggested changes by the doctor this morning in our opening notes. Then I heard him say that we also need three to four more months, or he could use three to four more months to make this a better document in comparison to other communities smaller than us that have taken a year or more, and we've only been at it six months. And I also would have thought, especially now knowing and hearing the introduction, if we had a clean copy of just what was being considered for the ordinance, we certainly could refer to the strikethrough but one as the doctor would like to see it written with all the language that we could start questioning having more background in it. I think that would be a much better way to approach the reading of this ordinance. Now, I'm only bringing this up now because we've got today and tomorrow scheduled. I don't know if it's beneficial to try to read this ordinance over having this new information in mind and the way it's presented by tomorrow morning, or would it be better to finish up with the introduction here today, try to peg around noontime as a departure time, give as much direction as we can, and to be honest with you, I think the conservative approach, and then let it be expanded through discussion, rather than vice versa, is probably a better way to go, and then rescheduling this meeting after the additional time the doctor needs to thoroughly do a comprehensive ordinance, and after the tinkering is done. Now, that's what I'm throwing to the Planning Commission for discussion only because we need to kind of plan out our day and tomorrow. And then ifthere's changes, we need to give the heads up. It's a majority decision; we'll see where it goes. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What I would like to walk away with today is, one, the presentation by the doctor; number two, some direction of exactly what is expected of us, and I'd like to come back the next time with a -- as Commissioner Strain said, one document without all the Page 26 I 161 ~A6 :( Marcn , 2009 strikethroughs and just the proposed document that's going to take us forward. That's where I'm sitting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it would be wise to take all of what we've heard so far today into account in rereading the document. I don't have a problem, however, with the strikethrough and underline document. That's really sort of an easy way to see where there were issues and problems and what they've done to correct them without having to flip back and forth with -- between multiple documents, and -- if the document that was passed out Thursday is the right one, you know, and/or ifin giving time, which I think we should give some additional time to this process, there are changes made, then whatever that final document is when the doctor and staff have come to conclusions or consensus, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the strikethrough is a tool to use, and I would also think that if we can solidifY all of the changes into a final format and have then both of them, it would make it a lot clearer to follow and read. And I had the hardest time -- and I'm trying to do this for some time now in reading these kinds of things, but this one was very difficult to read because of the way the strikethrough version was presented in our packet. So, I mean, that's just a -- that's just a suggestion. You want a direction, that's a suggestion that I have. Are there any other comments on the process today? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's possible to go through all of this detail, but I think it would be in error to try to do so having heard the comments from the doctor and the questions that will continue to grow, especially as there seems to be changes as we go along, notwithstanding the number of changes we may cause by our scrutiny. So I would be in favor of postponing this, giving this group an opportunity to do the job more thoroughly, if they need that. I'm predicating that statement on the doctor's statements. If staff is of the opinion that they're all finished, that's another matter, but I got the distinct impression that we still have outstanding issues. That being the case, it would be reasonable for us, as a body, to deal with the entire matter and whatever time it would take to go through it, go through it. And if we're not under compulsion to make changes immediately, then I think that would be a proper thing to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. I think we'll just keep going through the introduction. Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: I just would like to say that at this point staff doesn't agree totally with the doctor. He wants to go to one side, and staff cannot accept some of the changes. And so the reason that we're really here is we need some direction from you on what you think will fly before we can continue to finish the rewrite. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Catherine, I'm not so concerned. The doc- -- first of all, Doctor, are you an attorney as well? DR. MANDELKER: Yes. I think the doctor got started -- I don't know how it got started. I have juris doctor from Yale. I guess that -- I am a law professor right at Washington-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- from my perspective, I'm not so concerned at this point where staffs issues are. Staff has had six months in which to provide ample opportunity in this. What I am concerned about is from what attorney's suggestions are to the county attorney's responses to that. And I don't know -- Mr. Klatzkow, have -- what is your thoughts on this document at this point? MR. KLA TZKOW: We have policy decisions to be made. As an example, signs on athletic fields. I don't know that we want to ban signs on athletic fields. That's part of the nature of this community. It's part Page 27 -._- .(.._---.~ ""-'......_.m."'..".,.._ '--~_._-~"'"-,,",,.._~,,-~-~.- . " 16t 1 /6 March 2, 2009 of the nature of many communities. Now, I finished that if you're looking for a no-risk ordinance, you would do that. But a policy decision needs to be made with -- after talking, you know, to the doctor as to what the risks are, the benefits are. Do we keep this knowing that, perhaps, someday somebody might say something, knowing we haven't been sued about this in the past, or do we go the conservative route and just strike it? I mean, it's a lot of revenues for our schools, for example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I was thinking is if the doctor proposed what he feels is a most safe document but the staff with the County Attorney's Office went through the document and said, based on this particular provision and the doctor's comments, we wouldn't be allowing this, and then -- see, the hardest part we have is understanding what the intention is and what the meaning is of what you're telling us in this language. DR. MANDELKER: Let me clarifY that some of the provisions that were struck, many of them were held unconstitutional by the judge, including this provision for signs on athletic field fences. He held it unconstitutional, and I don't see how -- frankly, how he can put it back in. That's one set of -- one set of problems. Now, there are a number of other provisions that he didn't get to that I still think are unconstitutional and ought to come out. So I don't see, sir, how we can put -- keep a provision in the code that the judge held was unconstitutional. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure I necessarily agree with you on that. But I guess, Mr. Chairman, what you're getting at, you would like a list of the changes that are being made by this ordinance from the prior ordinance, right on down the line, and then pro and cons for the change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be more helpful for us to focus on what this is meaning to our community. And I still have more questions about some of the things you said to try to understand this, but it's like the issue that I had to kind of force out involving the time frame of the political signs and can they stay up and have to come down during hurricanes when we don't make others do that. Those are issues that will have an impact on the community. The community hates to see those political signs up too early. But if -- there's no way we can stop that, and that's a pro and a con to what you're suggesting. DR. MANDELKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that helps us make a decision or give direction or seek alternatives that might end up being viable like we did in the short discussion we had here today -- DR. MANDELKER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- about why they don't -- why some signs don't have to be taken down. Maybe we -- maybe classification is all that's needed. DR. MANDELKER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understanding this new language you're suggesting to that level would certainly help this board, I think, understand better what it is we're asked to being -- approve or not approve. And so that's what spurred my discussion. I'm not sure where the Planning Commission still wants to go today. Do we at least know if we want to go till 2:30 today? Because if we do, we've got to take another hour ofT for lunch, and then what are we accomplishing if we do so? Do we want to go tomorrow? What is the consensus of this board? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Doctor, when -- how long before you finish your report with us or your -- DR. MANDELKER: Today you mean? Page 28 I '.l .~ 161 ~10 March 2,2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yep. DR. MANDELKER: I've finished my introduction today. Let me just say, we need clarification. If you would like a list of every change we made in the ordinance and why it was made, I mean, that we can't do today, but that's something we can prepare for you and get to you soon. What I'll -- in addition to what I have already said today, I would simply like to go very briefly through this what they call punch list here and tell you where I still have problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I still have questions from your introduction. DR. MANDELKER: Oh. You still have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Mr. Vigliotti, go ahead and let him finish. DR. MANDELKER: That's all I would like. And let me just say, obviously, I'm here to make recommendations. The county has to make these decisions. If you want to make the decision that you want these signs on athletic fields even though I don't think it's a good idea, that's your decision to make. It's not my decision to make, and understand that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All right. The question I'm trying to address is, what time do we finish today? By 12 o'clock, if we're here till 12, will that be sufficient for you? DR. MANDELKER: Oh, sure. It will take me ten minutes to do this. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. So I think we should leave at 12. Myself, personally, I don't think I'm ready to address everything until I see, as I asked for before, the new -- the new way it's written up without all the underlines. I know Commissioner Caron might want to see them, but I'd like to see a clean copy and a copy with the underlines and cross-outs. Until I get that and get time to review it, I don't know how effective I can be tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Catherine, you've been in the community long enough to know the sensitivities of the community on certain issues. Ifwe were to come back -- and when we do come back and meet again -- to understand how some of those issues are being addressed, like the political sign one that I used as an example a few minutes ago, to know that this meant political signs really don't have any limitations, that's a big help. I mean, and -- I mean the political signs for elections. Right now, in taking them down and putting them up, that is a big criteria for this community, if we -- ifthere's not a limitation on that. Maybe we ought to look and know that, in our -- as like an upfront discussion, and then we can help give direction there, because I think one limitation might be that if a political sign's not on the property that's owned by the politician, maybe there can be time limits put on it. Maybe things like that. But I don't know how we would explore that, but those are the kind of policies or decisions or comments that I'd like to know have changed dramatically rather than try to weed them out of all the opaque writing that's in this document, because it's real hard to find all that data succinctly in the document in front of us. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Staff indicates that it has differences of opinion with the legal scholar that it hired to help them proceed. What foundation is staff using or what basis is staff using for the differences? Are they particularities of the community's interests, or are they structural in nature? What is the basis for that? And that would help me understand more effectively what I would like to do simply because I find it difficult to ignore the advice given by the scholar. Ifhe says it's probably going to be constitutional and we are challenged, we're right back again where we began. So please, if you can, advise if there's something that can help us to understand why we might agree with your disagreement with the scholar. MS. F ABACHER: Well, one good example is the open house signs. And I know you'll recall, we Page 29 .-- --,-~---_._.,,~------,-,--,------,---_._,-,-,-'-~'.._----.---....--- 1~ l'~ {;}5 arch 2, 009 must have worked for a year for the -- and worked with the Realtors, Ellie Crier, and I can't remember the gentleman's name, but I know Joe is-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bill Poteet. MS. F ABACHER: Right, Bill, exactly. We worked for a very long time to put that in, and now we found out that there are portions of it that just -- the doctor said are inappropriate. And so my concern is, I know that we worked a year, and that the whole reason we did it was because code had to spend so much time picking up all of these political signs -- I mean, these open house signs, that they were placed illegally, then they were left there. And Joe said at the meeting, the public meeting, this is like a hundred staff hours to go around every weekend and pick these things up. So we came to an agreement with the Realtors, and they agreed to abide by it. We wrote that legislation, unknowingly, that we were violating free speech issues in good faith, and that solved the problem. That's just one of the issues. So -- and the issue about the hand-held signs. I mean, if we don't put something in there, and the doctor says we can't -- it's just a matter of -- you have to weigh the risks for us. But we could have a -- lately there's been -- they've stopped enforcing it. There's been lately a proliferation of these people holding signs, and it could go up because more people are out of work and they're going to get paid to stand out on the corner with the sign all day. And Circuit City has them. I mean, this weekend I can't tell you how many businesses I saw with this proliferation of handheld signs. I mean, I know that we don't want all these people walking around with signs, but how do we achieve that? So -- it's not so much a difference, but it's just that -- how far are we going to go? And my -- the point is, is that unless we get guidance from you and the county attorney, we don't know how to go to finish rewriting it. I understand what you want, but unless you guys make a policy decision, we're kind of at a little impasse till we know how far you're willing to go. And so that's what I was going to say. I could have more examples for you, but you'd probably like to get Diana up here on the specific things -- DR. MANDELKER: Yeah. I could go through the four or five types of signs that I have objection to, if that would be helpful, and then -- would that be helpful? Would that be a good way to proceed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let us -- we'll proceed first still with the questions and responding. I want the public to participate at different intervals, and this will be one of them, and when we finish with the questions I have, then Susan may havc some comments that she can lend to this discussion. MS. ISTENES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Susan Istenes, zoning director. I think -- I'm trying to answer Commissioner Murray's question a little bit more in detail and just maybe give you a little bit of background. To answer your question, yes, it's the planner's knowledge of having worked with the sign code and our Land Development Code and with community groups and issues. I mean, we -- I think we amend the sign code every cycle. So that is one of the reasons for the basis of disagreement. And I think Jeff pointed out a good one with respect to the signage around ball fields or on fences. We know that's something that the community likely wants based on our experience. It's kind of the nature and the character of our community as well. So that is one of the reasons for the basis upon which we disagree. Another example I wanted to just give you on this list, and it's been mentioned a couple times is, in many of the zoning districts model homes are allowed only by conditional use approval. And in our sign code, we reference model home signs, and I believe that's one of the areas that Dr. Mandelker disagrees with us; however, we feel that the risk is relatively low. And we have met, myself, Catherine and Jeff Wright, several times in kind of evaluating the Page 30 .<., " , 161 11\6 March 2, 2009 differences between Dr. Mandelker's opinion and ours as to whether or not the risk is low or high for a future lawsuit on that. And we felt that the model home provisions was pretty cut and clear and that those model homes were entitled to a sign just to advertise for the model home for the period of time that they were allowed to operate, which is temporary in nature anyway. So maybe there's a better way to evaluate that. But to answer your question, that was one of the other bases upon which we considered knowing what the community wants and knowing what we have in our community and what works and the risk tolerance for legal issues. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Susan. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why don't we move on. Around a little before 12, we'd have to take a break either for lunch or for the court reporter anyway, so let's just figure out at that time what we want to do for the rest of today and tomorrow. And I think you've got some input now, and we'll just keep moving forward. Doctor, during your presentation or during Catherine's, the statement was made that each resident can put anything up in their yards. Sign copy does not matter. And, of course, I remember reading one of the copies I have. There are some size restrictions there. But what about community standards? I mean, there's a lot of vulgarity. I know discriminatory language can't be put up, but there are a lot of unsavory ways to say things that -- generally good people just don't do it, but we don't have all good people in the world, and we have to have regulation to prevent those more distasteful words being used on, say, someone's yard. How strong can we be to what our community standards are in regards to verbiage? DR. MANDELKER: Well, I think you can prohibit obscenity, obviously. But, you know, if you get some strong language that says, for example, I hate the war in Iraq or something like that, you know, I don't think we can deal with that. I think we have to let people say what they want to say as long as they're not obscene. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's no limitation on time for those kind -- they can just put a sign up and just leave it there and -- within their property to whatever extent -- DR. MANDELKER: No. I think that's right. I think the understanding is, that has -- that's a permanent sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Can I elaborate on that? Relative to obscenity, what if somebody wanted to put up a sign that said strip house? DR. MANDELKER: That's a commercial sign. These signs are noncommercial signs. We can prohibit commercial signs in a residential district. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So that wouldn't fall under obscenity? DR. MANDELKER: Yes. Well, that -- a sign that says strip house, I would say, would be commercial. That's a commercial sign. It's not anything that's not noncommercial. It doesn't deal with an election or an idea or a point of view. That wouldn't be allowed. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. PUDs. I know you said you've done a lot of work on the PUD section, or you were working on it and more was coming, or whatever. During the course of an approval of a PUD, the applicants come in and offer up all kind of things to get approved to conform to compatibility standards and other standards, and they change setbacks, they put in butfers. We extract things, road improvements and things that are questionable -- I mean about how we Page 31 _."--'--_.,. "-_._-,.,,_._---~,,,.;"""'."..."',"'"""","'""--"''"_."',.,.<.~. _. ,_....".,...^._.___,_.__"._,."____~m._.___,__.____.,_."....__ , ' lb~ 1 f1l; March 2, 2009 get there -- but more or less the applicant agrees to them all in order to get the zoning. If the applicants come in with a series of sign uses within their project that do limit things above and beyond our code, because it's in the PUD, because it's done to entice zoning on a voluntary package, let's say, can that be one way of regulating signage in PUDs? DR. MANDELKER: Sure. I think that what -- that's what we contemplate, that the applicant for the PUD would come in with his own sign plan, and that would become part of the Planned Unit Development approval. But we would have to have some standards to approve that sign plan, that is, we couldn't just let them negotiate together and decide what they want because, again, you have a prior restraint problem. You have an application to put up signs, and in order to satisfy a prior restraint doctrine, we would have to have very clear standards that would have to be met before that sign plan could be approved, and we're working on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any -- and you've been doing this, obviously, for a long time, you've written books on it. Have you established any community that has an ordinance that is as necessary as it needs to be to be protective at this time? DR. MANDELKER: Have I established any community that what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has -- do you -- have you established any community ordinances that are as, let's say, protective from -- DR. MANDELKER: Oh, protective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the constitutionality viewpoint as they can be? Do you have a model ordinance that you have used somewhere? DR. MANDELKER: Well, let me say this: I think the ordinance in street graphics is protective. But I will say this: Talking about referring to what the county attorney said earlier, that with changes, in the case law there are some suggestions in street graphics that I would not now make because the cases have become stricter. But with the few exceptions, I think the street graphics model ordinance would meet free speech objections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's a commercial application? DR. MANDELKER: That's partly commercial. We did not deal with the noncommercial sign there. The street graphics ordinance deals only with on-premise commercial signs. We stayed away from billboards. We stayed away from the noncommercial signs. But insofar as on-premise commercial signs are concerned, street graphics, I think is protective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in order to have n save time, why don't we just use that for this replacement of the ordinance we have now? DR. MANDELKER: We have to some extent where we can. The difficulty is that street graphics doesn't cover everything. There are some issues we have here that street graphics doesn't cover. But we've gone to street graphics whenever we can to use the street graphics model. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then, Doctor, that's the last one I have for right now, and I think what we ought to do is -- you had another ten minutes you wanted to discuss something, and then I'm going to ask for the public comments at that point. DR. MANDELKER: Right, right. If you look at this list that I drew up, I simply want to identifY four or five types of signs, at least in present tornl, I think are -- won't fly that might be objectionable. The first set are the open house of model home signs. The way they're drafted now, they are -- it's obviously implied a certain content, and they're limited to certain speakers. They're limited to real estate agents and people who are displaying homes and the like. I think -- I was thinking this morning that it might be possible to define those signs in such a way that they would be protected. For example, we could define a model home sign as a sign displayed on a Page 32 \ 16 I 1 ~s I March 2, 2009 model home, and that would be content free. They could put anything they wanted to put there. An open house sign would be a sign displayed on an open house. So Susan, I think thinking about that, we could, perhaps, redefine those signs there such a way that they would be content free. The only problem I have is that -- this question of having too many sign types in the ordinance. That's something we just have to think about it. But I think sitting here today, that we could probably deal with that if we had to. Make a note of that. Menu boards are another one. These little menu boards that the drive-in places have. Let me just say, by the way, that we're dealing here -- we have a number of really tough problems to deal with and get it right. And these examples are all on the edges. Now, I know that they're important to the community; but to me, they're on the edges, you know, meaning that they're second-level issues. Menu boards on these drive-ins -- I think that I made a suggestion there. The way it's written now, it's content based and speaker based. But I suggested those boards are not usually visible from the right-of-way. I suggested we define signs as signs visible from the right-of-way. That would exempt menu boards. I think another way of dealing with a problem like this is to deal with it administratively. I don't think we -- an ordinance can't possibly deal with every type of sign that comes up. What about signs on dog kennels that say "Fido lives here"? Is that a sign, you know? We just can't deal with everything. But I think we can deal with menu boards by defining signs as those visible from the right-of-way and try to work on that. Another set of signs are signs for service stations. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Open house, on your February 26 or 25th, a draft -- the open house and model home signs at the bottom of Page 25, model home -- menu board signs are on Page 39. The service station signs are on -- oh, I'm coming -- the next one is service station signs. They're on Page 40. Service station signs. Sorry. Let me just go back and say one thing. I don't know why the real estate sign isn't enough. If you want to say model home on a real estate sign, put it on the real estate sign. We allow real estate signs. We don't limit the content ofa real estate sign. So why not say, okay, you can put model home on a real estate sign, you can put open house on a real estate sign. Why have these separate provisions in here? That was another thing. Service station signs. Those are clearly content based and speaker based. It's a particular kind of use. It's a particular kind of content. And I don't know why service stations need a special provision. That one, I don't know that we can right or wrong that. What I would suggest doing there is to look at what's in there. There's some provisions on canopies. There are a couple of other things -- and just write something about canopies that applies to all canopies, not just limited to service stations. Look at what we want to do for service stations. To give you an example, going back to the open house sign. If! have a real open house, I can have an open house sign. What if I just -- my home and my neighborhood wants to have a walk-through of houses and I want to put an open house sign on my house so they know that my house is open for the walk-through. I can't do that, and that's what the courts don't like. So service stations, if those signs present problems, write something for all of them and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As you go through this, Susan may have comments as to the items. I'd like to hear what -- her input, too, if we could. MS. ISTENES: Thank you for recognizing me. On this one I just wanted to share some information with the board because it happened a long time ago, probably back there '97/'98. The board at that time directed staff to do a comprehensive study of automobile service stations or -- see stores that sell gas, same thing. Page 33 ~M"".'."" "'-",'~""",,;.<-, -' . .. .'.- - -.-------.,.--..-- 161 1 ItS March 2, 2009 And we've actually -- and I think Kathleen may have discussed this with you, Dr. Mandelker, but we actually did a study that we presented in the public, and that's where all these regulations came from. And I think there's probably more of a legal basis for having specific signs related to automobile service stations when you've actually done that type of study than just kind of randomly. And that's really where they came from. Not only were there signage changes, but there was also site-design standards that were adopted at the time, minimum area, minimum setbacks, some landscaping enhancements, and things of that nature. So I don't know if that gives -- my understanding is that gives the signage provisions a little bit more of a legal basis than just kind of willy-nilly deciding you're going to single out service stations and not allow them to have certain typical -- what I would call typical signs. I know also the City of Naples, I believe, doesn't even allow them to put the price on their gas station sign. So we're not alone. But I just wanted to share that info with you because that, I think, would change it a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. DR. MANDELKER: Yes. That certainly helps as far as the aesthetic justification. But let me point out, service stations sometimes get recycled. And so you can have a building which actually just looks like a service station but it isn't a service station. Well, that building's going to have different requirements than the service station's going to have. That's what the courts are worried about from the free speech point of view. And they're going to say that's wrong. Just let me say again that these are policy decisions, Susan. We're going to have to talk about-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I cannot hear the gentleman because-- DR. MANDELKER: One more -- there's one more sign in here before I get to the hand-held signs. The so-called conservation signs, signs on conservation land. We provide for an entrance sign, and it's the same problem. If! have some kind of attraction with an entrance, I can't have that sign. The conservation lands can. Well, let's wTite a provision for entrance signs then that applies to everybody. Let's be fair. That's all I -- that's all I'm saying. Now, there's one more -- the other sign on the list, the hand-held signs. Catherine, I'm not really saying -- I said I would prefer not to regulate them. But I think I'm comfortable saying we can regulate them if we understand there's a risk. What I -- what 1 do have a problem with -- I have no problem regulating the size and the height. I mean, we're certainly entitled to say, you walk up and down the streets with the hand-held sign, we regulate the size of the height so they're attractive and they don't clutter. What bothers me is telling them they can only have them a certain period of time during the year, because we're not telling other people that. Now, I don't view it -- let me just say this. This is unchartered territory. We have the one case. It's not been litigated. We're just kind of going by our gut here a little bit, and it seems to me that a temporary sign is something you put up for something that's temporary, whereas a business may say, we want hand-held signs all the time. Anyway, I think this is something we can work out, I really do, with hand-held. I think we can work out most of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. MANDELKER: I think I have the -- I guess have the most problem with the service stations, and I think -- I think what we ought to do there -- you see, what this is getting us to do is to look at, well, what are we requiring our service stations to do? If they're doing enhanced landscaping, well, shouldn't everybody have enhanced landscaping? If they have to treat canopies a certain way, shouldn't everybody have to do that? And so 1-- come to think of it, as we talk, 1 think we can work through most of this, but I think we'd like some direction from the commission. Page 34 . ' , 161 lj0 March 2,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to make sure you're speaking to the speaker, Doctor. When you turn your head, it's hard to hear. DR. MANDELKER: I'm sorry. I think we'd like some direction from the commission, Catherine is saymg. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think you're probably going to get some before the day's over. So Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes. Professor, on the second item on the last sentence it says, sections requiring a display of permit numbers should also be moved. One of the benefits to any reader of our code would be finding ancillary information available that will guide them. Causing people to go to other sections to pick up pieces and bits sometimes, or perhaps always, not only frustrating, but a disservice. So please tell us why you think that sections requiring the display of permit numbers should be moved. To what reasoning is it based on? DR. MANDELKER: It's content. You're prescribing the content of a sign. You're saying that permit numbers have to be there. I have to tell you that I really don't think that that's going to be a problem. I really don't think so. But it is content based, and we have to take into account a judge who's really, you know, out there with a six-shooter, and he's going to look for things. But I agree with you completely that ancillary information should be in the code. All I'm saying is that the conservative, protective thing to do is to move it someplace else. You can still decide, we're going to keep it in the code and take the risk. There is a risk there. I don't think it's a big risk. I don't think a judge is going to say that's consent based because you had address numbers on a sign. I mean, that's a safety question and so on. But you see what I'm saying. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Professor, I think that facilitates genuine care for a sign maker and a sign purveyor and a person who wants that sign to be there, that they're just and they're appropriate as opposed to a snipe, which is not, of course, that type of sign, but that effort. And so I would -- I would think -- now I'm beginning to understand now the differentiation between staffs desires and needs as against your recommendations. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go to public speakers, are there any questions from the Planning Commission further at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have two people I know may want to speak. And I'll ask each one of you to come up to the podium, identifY yourself, and if your name is different, to spell it out. I shouldn't -- of course, different is a matter of discretion. And we're only right now speaking to specifically the introductory part of the doctor's speech, and we will be asking you to participate as we go through the whole document, so don't think you have to get it all on the record right now. So go ahead, sir. MR. BOYD: Thank you, very much. My name is Michael Boyd. I'm the president of Signs and Things. We've been doing business in Collier County for 30 years. I've worked with Diana quite a few times on some of these changes, although I finally got the final draft this morning. My comment would be, is, the way we use this draft or this ordinance is going to change totally from the way we've used it previously. Previously we've used it -- if it was in here under prohibited signs, we couldn't do it. Notice, all of a sudden, from what I'm gathering, if it's not in here, I can't do it. So it's going to change tremendously the way we use it. And I would like a little bit more input. If Page 35 -,.~.---"""" '"'___~""_"''''~'_''''".'~''~'''''''''''''''"_'_"''''''''''''''~'h''_;"..,_....'"__....._____,....-~w.,.-.,., , _...._.,._-~-,,_...- 16 I 1 A5 March 2, 2009 we're going to go ahead and change the ordinance totally, let's go through it tooth and comb and do it once and do it for the next ten years. That's what I would ask for. As far as, you know, some n some questions, everybody was questioning whether or not you could do signs around the athletic fields. The way I read this in here is there's a section in here which basically exempts institutional signs from any kind of review, so that signs around an athletic field would be exempt from any type of review; is that -- am I correct? DR. MANDELKER: I don't know if an athletic field would be an institutional use. We're still working on that definition. MR. BOYD: Well-- DR. MANDELKER: I think by institutional use you mean educational, charitable, scientific uses, something of that -- MR. BOYD: Well, says Florida accredited public or private schools, K through 12. I would assume that that would be an athletic field at the school. DR. MANDELKER: That's correct. I think that one of my comments here is that that definition is also speaker based because it identifies certain speakers and certain schools. Now, once more, you could decide, we're going to leave that in and take a chance with it. What I'm saying is that to be protective or conservative, we wouldn't define institutional uses that way. We would define them in a general way as any use with a certain purpose, then we don't have that problem. Now, we could say, athletic use, if we wanted to and include the fields there. We could do that, absolutely. We could expand the definition. I recommended a definition of institutional use as a nonresidential or noncommercial use for education, charitable, scientific and so on, purposes, or athletic purposes. That could include the athletic fields. We have to think about that. MR. BOYD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when we go through the -- what we typically do when we get a final document that is -- to spend the time on, we go through page by page, and we ask to understand the changes and try to figure that out. MR. BOYD: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're not there yet, but you'll see that happen eventually on this one. MR. BOYD: Okay. All I would ask for is some more time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- yeah, good point. MR. BOYD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point, thank you. Sir, if you'd like to have any issues, please come on up. MR. STEVENSON: Good morning. I'm Steve Stevenson. I'm president of Lykin's SignTek, sign manufacturer here. And basically, it's pretty much the same thing that Mike said. When we -- we're now going to a format where if it's not addressed here, then you can't do it, and that would stop any innovative things in sign codes, any kind of new signs that came up, any1hing -- technology that came up. If it's not here, we -- the answer's no. I just think that's kind of a hard way to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting, okay. Catherine. MS. F ABACHER: I just had a comment. If we do need to look at the signs and give new dimensions, allow for new technologies, [ suggest we do that under a separate LDC cycle, you know, and we all work to do that under another one. We just -- we were afraid that that would just so much cloud the issues here because it's just hard enough to understand the legal. But I'm sure that the county would be happy to entertain an LDC application for an LDC amendment to put some of these things in. But our direction was not to try and mix Page 36 161 1 Pr? March 2, 2009 those, because we could, you know, argue -- I mean, not argue -- we could discuss those very points, you know, for a very long time, as I'm sure you're aware. And we knew this was so hard that our direction was -- Susan kept us on track not to make any changes to what you're allowed to do or anything. It's mostly -- it's our problem of what to call these things now, is what it is. But we are totally sympathetic and willing to, you know, accept an application to amend the LDC to take into account the new technologies. We started to want to put something in about the signs that flash and have messages and all, and then Susan said, you're forgetting, we're not changing new stuff, so we pulled it back out. But I think it'd be appropriate to do it during a regular LDC cycle where you'll have much more of the public here because it won't be constitutional law. It will just be, what do you want to see in your community. And so, I think it'd be better to handle those types of changes, which are probably needed in a separate LDC cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why would we want to -- if we're changing the sign ordinance now, why don't we make it as complete as possible? Why come back in for more changes -- his point is well taken. Why don't we just fix it? I don't understand. MS. ISTENES: You're on a legal time frame, I believe. Didn't -- Jeff, did you all not agree to make these changes by X amount of time as a part of the settlement agreement? MR. KLATZKOW: No. As part of the settlement agreement, we need to get this done. But look, I'll go back to the judge and just say, look, we're working on this. We're having public meetings on this. This is a hard issue. MR. SCHMITT: I think, Jeff, when we first agreed -- again, for the record, Joe Schmitt. When we were first directed by the board to correct simply the constitutional issues in the code, it was -- we -- MR. KLATZKOW: This is by the-- MR. SCHMITT: We met -- we were in a settlement agreement with the judge and the aggrieved party, and we said we would do it within six months. We're beyond even that sixth month, but we said we would solve that problem and that problem only. MR. KLA TZKOW: The board direction is to solve that problem. There's no board direction to look at the rest of the code. MR. SCHMITT: Then there was an out-of-court settlement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, please. MR. SCHMITT: There was an out-of-court settlement, and that allowed for this thing to be delayed a bit. But the original direction to the board was to deal solely with the issue of the constitutionality issue that -- and there were actually three areas in the existing code that we were directed to solve immediately. Jeff? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, go ahead, please. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that, Joe. Board direction is to solve this issue. What the chairman is saying is, while we're tearing apart the code -- and we are tearing apart the code, does it make more sense just to do this once than twice, and it's a policy decision. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. I would agree with you. I think if that -- if that's the way we were going to do this, that would be -- if that's the recommendation of the Planning Commission -- and that's why I'm bringing up the history of this because things have -- it's changed since the original direction to do this because we settled out of court. There was a settlement, so that negated the expedience -- expediency in solving these problems. Now, if you want to do a complete comprehensive review of the sign code as it was done in the late '90s, that took quite a process. It involved the community. It involved the formation of our horizon committee, there were many, many meetings associated with that. Page 37 ..~~.,.,.." __'OiIll Il__;_""_;___,;"""""""""'~"',,._..."""'.'~"""_'-"""_""_ -. 16 I 1 "k) March 2, 2009 And certainly, that -- if that's what the Planning Commission recommends, we will take that direction to the board, and I don't argue with you, Mr. Chairman. I think if we're going to look at this and you want to look at a wholesale review, then we look at a wholesale review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me back up a minute. You said that the board gave direction to basically stick to three elements of the case. Have you gone beyond that in anything that we've been reviewing here -- MR. SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or we're going to be reviewing here? MR. SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're still -- this entire -- basically -- and it's an upside-down operation. We're going from was prohibitive n I mean, it was a good description that these two gentlemen have brought up. We're completely changing the context in the way we look at this code. That's pretty comprehensive. I mean, it's a whole flip-flop of the way we used to look at it. These are prohibitive and now nothing's prohibitive unless it's not defined. MS. ISTENES: Actually -- Susan Istenes, for the record. Our Land Development Code is a prescriptive code, so it prescribes what you can do. And so if you look in the list of uses in any zoning district, those are the uses that are allowed. There isn't a separate list -- there shouldn't be a separate list that says, and these are the uses that aren't. So honestly, there's no -- I think maybe one of the concerns is that the language in the current sign code was so descriptive that when you're applying and reading and trying to understand the code, it becomes, from a user's perspective and an interpreter's perspective, a lot easier to say, this is a shopping center sign and you can have eight tenants and your shopping center name on your ground sign. I mean, isn't that a lot easier to figure out what you need to do than if something comes up and says, you can have a ground sign 200 square feet? And, you know, then you get into, well, you know, what does that entail? How many tenants can I have? What can it say? And that sort of thing. And I think what we were relying on was the detail in the language to tell us what we could do. Taking out the list of prohibitive uses doesn't change anything. If they're not set forth in the code, it's a prescriptive code, then you can't do them. If -- it is a good checklist to look at to make sure you're not doing them, but I don't think it really changes anything at all, in my opinion. If you take them out, it's just -- you're eliminating the checklist. You still couldn't do them anyway under a prescriptive code format. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions you might have right now? We'll be hitting you up as we go through this process. MR. STEVENSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Yes, sir, something else? MR. BOYD: Yes. I'd -- if it's not changing things -- previously we could do time and temperature signs. I don't see time and temperature signs in this current ordinance. That, to me, if it's not in there, we can't do them. Is that correct? DR. MANDELKER: That's correct. Let me put it this way. If -- authorizing a time and temperature sign n and there are court decisions on this -- is authorizing a sign with a particular content. We can handle that, I think we have, by authorizing signs with changeable copy. You can put anything up there you want to. Put time and temperature there, you can put anything you want to. MR. BOYD: We have changeable signs now in the ordinance. DR. MANDELKER: I know, but -- MR. BOYD: Another change is, previously on a ground sign we could not do it in the shape of a Page 38 r> 161 lA0 March 2, 2009 logo. Can we do it in the shape of a logo now? DR. MANDELKER: Yes. I think -- I think that restricting the use oflogos is content based. MR. BOYD: So there's two major changes that are taking place in this, but I'm being told that they're not being changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, during the process of the last six months, how many times were you told about a meeting or called about your concerns on any of this? Do you have any idea? MR. BOYD: As I said before, Diana and I had many conversations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOYD: I do all my permitting myself, so I do have a good working relationship with Diana. She kept me apprised of what was going on. I did attend one meeting with the doctor, but I was told that that's only because I'm on the Contractor Licensing Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOYD: But Diana kept me apprised of what was going on. She did a good job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure you had ample time -- some time for input. MR. BOYD: I didn't see this document until today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we got it kind of short notice, too. As we move through this, whatever meeting dates we have, the more you attend here, we will be seeking your input on a regular continuing basis during the discussion, so you're not going to be limited to three minutes and at the end of the meeting. We'll get you up here more often. MR. BOYD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. That takes us back to, I guess, to the beginning. We've got public input. We've had a lot of our input on it, and I'm not sure where the Planning Commission wants to go with this at this point. I know that one possible alternative would be to have what the doctor feels is the best ordinance he can write for this county, and then have county staff and the county attorney provide the pros and cons -- or actually their concerns or -- and the business concerns over that issue, and we heard the perfect example: The fencing around athletic fields. If the doctor says that's not prohibitive but Mr. Klatzkow says and the staff says that's something the community wants, then the doctor and the staff and the legal department can work out a way to make that happen, not sitting here today, but make it happen before it comes to us, because I heard today, well, maybe we can work that out. Well, that's the kind of stuff! would have expected to have been done before it got to us today. Now, I heard Catherine say there might be a time frame or someone say there's a time frame concern. They have to get done with this in a certain amount of time. I'm not sure if that's true or not, because I understand now before the courts heard on that issue, there was an out-of-court settlement. Does the out-of-court settlement, or whatever, provide us with a time to do this better? MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chairman, I think we're okay. I mean, we have our expert who said these things normally take a year. We're not getting any pressure from the Court. If we start getting pressure, I can get an affidavit saying, look, I work all over the country. These processes usually take a year, and I'm sure we're fine. I mean, the Court wants us to get it right. We want to get it right. There's no point rushing this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this back and forth between staff and the doctor or the legal department and the doctor over what we really want and how do we get there when he's saying, maybe this isn't the best way to look at it, but then after further discussion we find out, well, you know, maybe we could make this work. Well, that should have happened before today, and all I'm suggesting is, I don't know what kind of Page 39 ........ ""--'-'--~ """"'---_..._""'.,>>-,...~~,-,'-"'<.._,_.~~,~,-. 161 1 AS March 2, 2009 direction you want out of this board, but one might be simply start with the basis the doctor feels is the most protective, and then if we feel that it isn't -- doesn't meet the intent of this community, start looking for those areas where you and the doctor can work together to put the language in that fits better for this community. That might be a solution to the problem. Susan, then Mr. Murray. MS. ISTENES: Thank you. I had a question of Jeff. Does this kind of pending status that it sounds like the Planning Commission wants to head towards while we try to work out some of these issues, does that put our code at risk for any future legal challenges or open the door for -- you know, in that interim time frame? I'm just concerned that we're in kind of this -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, look. We've had our ordinance declared unconstitutional, okay, so we want to get it fixed as soon as we can get it fixed, but that doesn't mean we just rush and put a hodge-podge together that nobody's happy with. I mean, my preference would have been that this would have been done months ago, but I understand the process requires more time. So yes, there is a -- the longer we take this out, the longer -- the greater the risk is, but there's also a risk in not getting it right. MS. ISTENES: I understand, and I don't think -- first of all, I want to thank Catherine and Diana and the gentlemen from the sign companies. I know they've worked really hard on this. And Doctor, you've given us some great advice and you've been -- I mean, you've taught us a lot, and I really appreciate the opportunity to work with you. I think what we've got here is -- addresses the direction that the Board of County Commissioners gave us with a few areas where we disagree. I think what might help you, and you give me feedback, and I may be sorry I'm saying this because it's going to be a lot of work, but it really is what we do when we do our other LDC amendments is -- and based on me listening to your comments earlier, I don't think you know the implications of all the changes in the document, and 1 think we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're right. MS. ISTENES: -- probably need to define those tor you. So in other words, here's what we're changing, here's why we're changing, and here's the result. Because some of the results could be unintended or different from simply just changing the ordinance to make it more constitutional without our intent. So I think we all need -- I think we understand it as staff. I think we need to convey that to you so you have a full scope and breadth of what we're changing and what the implications are, and also that you understand staffs reasonings. Like, for example, where we disagree with the doctor. we could spell that out for you in our reasonings, and then we could work together for some alternative language. I think we always intended to do that, so I'm not too worried about that, it's just -- time kind of caught up with us and we were feeling the pressure from the time commitment we made to the courts. And we can -- so we can do that and make sure you understand that as well. I think what concerns me is -- and I don't know how to resolve this -- is we can spend all this time and do more work, which we have and that we're happy to do, but at the end of the day we still need your direction. Now, I think the work I suggested will help you understand the changes a lot better, but I still think that may cause -- and I think that's what Jeff was pointing out -- we want to, quote, do it right, and that may help the folks in the sign business as well understand the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MS. ISTENES: Does that help? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think you're right on the track now between what the chairman has stated and what I think. And I would ask one more favor, if the recommendations by the professor would be even notated by priority; in other words, the level of risk that, although you may disagree or he Page 40 /' 161 lAS I March 2, 2009 may disagree with your findings and desires, that level will help us in our guidance, but only -- frankly, the only way that I think I could be effective in this would be by being able to see those conditions, your recommendations clear out, his recommendations clear out, and then we can make a true policy decision knowing full well any risk that we're going into. MS. ISTENES: I'm optimistic we're going to be able to whittle them down. We may end up with one or two that we just can't resolve, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. MS. ISTENES: And we'll make that clear. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. MS. ISTENES: And Dr. Mandelker can certainly let us know if the language he's modifying he feels there's some risk and we could -- we could certainly indicate that, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess the next question is, if you could come back with that more detailed for us. And I like your idea, Susan, to explain what some of this means in terms to what we're used to. What time frame are we talking about? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Does this include a rewrite of the one issue of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get closer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- the one issue of the draft, where we're talking about using the drafts we have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I think we'd get a new document. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: New document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we'll firm that up as we -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So your request for the time taken includes the new document? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Just to clarify, because I'm going back and looking at my notes. This was back in June when we went to the board. It was our request to the Board of County Commissioners for our Land Development Code Special Cycle 2008, Cycle 2A, to address -- well, let me read my writing here -- to address urgent amendment to the Land Development Code in response to the opinion and order of the U.S. District Court filed February 13,2008, which declared sections of the Collier County sign code unconstitutional. At that time we still hadn't settled. And this was the request that the board approve a Land Development Code, and we were -- specifically Sections 5.06.01,5.06.05,5.06.06, and 5.06.07. So I stand corrected. It was four sections of the sign code. The goal to review the code in its entirety to ensure it conforms with the first amendment of the United States Constitution. So what started out as four sections of the code that were deemed to have constitutional issues, it also was of our consultant to look throughout the code to determine what other areas. And this thing certainly has morphed into much more than the four areas. Now, the -- the time limit became moot because there was an out-of-court settlement, but at one time we were on a six-month window that this had to get to the board, and we committed that we would make those corrections. And that -- and that amendment cycle, as approved by the board, was to have this to the board in December. We were not even anywhere near ready in December. But, again, that became a moot point because -- because of the settlement. And now what you're saying certainly are -- is -- are more changes that have been made that have Page 41 .u*," . ~ . ,,, i_"'___"""""'''_''''",';,_""""""",,,,..,<<,,,,;,,,,,,,*,,,~<,,,,,, ----,-,----_....._.- 16 I 1 AS March 2, 2009 been deemed where we have some constitutional issues, but we never thought we would be opening the door as much as we did and as we are right now. And it does seem to beg the question, is, well if we're going to do that, why not just look at the whole sign code. And I got to tell you, that would take probably at least -- yeah, at least a year, year and a half. We would have to -- we'd probably go -- we'd have -- well, probably. We would go back to the board, ask the board to give us direction to form some kind of a horizon committee or some other type of committee to deal with this as we did with the RLSA or other issues of great concern to the community. Those who were here -- I was not -- but those who were here when we changed the code in 2001, it was a pretty significant emotional event tor this county. One of the former commissioners, at that time commissioner, Jim Carter, I believe, headed the horizon committee or was the commissioner in charge, and they had a committee formed that met several times over a year as they developed this last code that went into effect in 2001. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and part of their direction, Joe, was to review the sign ordinance in its entirety for constitutional issues. The -- it would seem to me, when you go back to the board with this after we get done with it or whatever, fIrst thing they're going to say is -- turn to Jeff or turn to the doctor and say, does this meet the constitutional issues? And if you're not in consensus that it does, you better have a really good explanation as to why it doesn't. That's simply the format I'm suggesting that we proceed with here, is put the document together that meets the constitutionality, and if it -- where you differ and the burn -- the bottom line when you burn it all down, we still differ with the doctor here, Jeff provides his reasoning, the staff provides theirs, and if the risk is low, then our direction might be fIne, accept it and send it on to the board that way. We're not even close to that with this document in front of us here today, at least understanding it in this manner. At least me. I can't speak for the rest of the board. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I certainly am having a hard time getting to where you just said we're all supposed to get to. And all I'm suggesting is, maybe we ought to go back to the drawing board, get further consensus, get the things that we -- the couple of small items we've flushed out there today, signage on athletic fields, the time that political signs can be up, how they're affected by this, if they're blown down, do they have to come down, or how are they just the only ones that have got to come down in a hurricane and not the others? The solution may be, we look tor a building permit. Those are the kind of things I would have hoped would have been taken care oftoday, and when we got this we were just told where the few differences were from a constitutionality viewpoint, from a legal concern and from the community's concern, and then we make a direction and provide a decision to you guys and take it -- it goes to the board. MR. SCHMITT: Again, that was -- some of those issues are certainly the opinion of the professor, and it's not that we're disputing that. But I would note, and I think professor -- I'm going to take your paper here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is it -- his opinion has been helpful because he says that we can work out some of these things like the political signs and how often they've got to come up or come down. We simply base them on a permit. That changes dramatically someone's -- how those will be handled. They go to a temporary sign or something like that. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are good responses. MR. SCHMITT: And then in the one area, in the one bullet there where he has -- the second one, address -- address numbers, address on -- addresses on signs. Again, that -- it is content based and it's believing that it's content based. But this community and this board directed us, probably three years ago Page 42 161 1 AS - March 2,2009 now, that all signs have addresses because people driving down the road have difficulty-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- locating addresses on buildings, and our signs now have addresses and they have to be of a certain size. Again, that -- that is an opinion that that's content based and that's directed, but at the same time, the community wants to have the street addresses on the sign so as you're driving down the street, Tor brought about the readability of signs. And we're going, well, is that really content based? It's more of a health, safety, welfare issue. You're driving down the street and you want to know what the address of the -- where you're at. I know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, he's not saying do away with it. He's saying, put it in a better, more applicable section ofthe code. That doesn't -- health, safety and welfare can go in numbers of places in the code. You've -- speaking of health, safety -- fire code drives people nuts with -- MR. SCHMITT: I understand, but the intent here was not to do a comprehensive rewrite of the code. The intent was to try and meet the requirements of the litigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think it -- to meet the requirements of the litigation, he's suggesting, move this out of the sign section. That does meet the requirements of the litigation -- MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and it does fix the problem. I mean, it's not that big. Mr. Vigliotti and Ms. Caron both have comments. MR. SCHMITT: We no longer have the requirement for the numbers on signs, street numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's saying, move them to another section of the code and let them be required there. It's not -- MR. SCHMITT: Again, we would have to amend that section of the code. Ifwe took it out of this, we would have to amend that section of the code. This was a special cycle to deal only with the sign code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But at the same time, in cleaning up the sign code, you have to fix other sections of the code that impact it. It's like that brick in the house that the doctor used as an example. You start pulling out the bricks under the foundation, the whole house collapses, so you're forced to fix other areas. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. And it's my understanding, if something like addresses on signs are applied universally, then we don't have an issue. DR. MANDELKER: In the codes, you mean? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no. Ifwe have -- Joe just said that we require address numbers on all signs. MR. SCHMITT: Street addresses, yes. DR. MANDELKER: Right, right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Street addresses. So if it's on all signs anyway, that's not really an issue, is it, because we apply it universally? DR. MANDELKER: Right. What I'm saying is that when you put addresses on the street signs, that's not a sign. When you put addresses on signs, it becomes a free-speech problem. But all I'm saying is, okay, you've got a code that's got -- dealing with addresses, put the addresses there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put them in the address section of the code. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, Joe, I understand what you're saying, and Ijust hope that -- I know you guys came in here wanting direction. We've been trying now to provide it. I don't know if it's what you were looking for or it's enough. Page 43 . .~~~ ,.... _,___''''','".-__";."'''.,,,."'''''...'''''''....h'_.....',~.,.,...,,.,;~.... _...,'"--"---_.......""~"'~_..'~~--_.~."- 161 1 As March 2,2009 What do you all feel is our next move on this process that would benefit you? Because right now I think to benefit you best this board needs to understand what it is you're trying to do, and we're not there. MR. SCHMITT: Well, the original document provided -- the original that was the packet -- and, Susan, do you have your book? That was the book that we sent you originally -- had the original sign code and had the rewritten sign code in there, complete rewritten without the strikethrough and underlines. Normally this board, as the Board of County Commissioners, prefers to see the strikethrough and underline as well so they can figure out where the changes were made, and we provided the strikethrough and underline as well. So what you have is the original code, the rewritten code -- MS. F ABACHER: Clean copy. MR. SCHMITT: -- clean copy completely rewritten. MS. F ABACHER: But excuse me. It doesn't -- MR. SCHMITT: I know it, but then we went back and added some things back in. MS. F ABACHER: Right. MR. SCHMITT: But what our intent today was, to review the version that we sent you and decide whether we move on with that, or do we just start all over again? I mean, it appears I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think you've got a good start, but we're finding out -- and let me repeat this. The doctor said we're still tinkering. We need three to four more months to complete it. It would be helpful to know that the differences that we just heard today are worked out and what it boils down to is the handful that aren't. I think Susan's recommendation is perfect, that this board be told the implications of some of these policies because of the different nature in which they're written. MR. SCHMITT: And on that course, to get the implications, that normally involves us convening some kind ofa working group with Mike or other members of the industry or even the impacted businesses. MS. F ABACHER: Legal. No, I think we're talking legal. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, you're talking legal. MS. FABACHER: We're talking legal risks. MR. SCHMITT: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if you were to ask the gentlemen to come in after putting another document together and expressing any -- anything you can get from them and from anybody else to get it resolved before it comes here is the best -- I think the best way to do it, because if we can -- if we walk through this document you passed out today, I guarantee you it will be -- we'll still walk through it again whether it's two, three, four, five weeks from now. Susan? MS. ISTENES: I think -- I think I understand. And I'm not worried about this document changing substantially because I think it's a darn good document. We've got the punch list that we need to work on, and we will get that resolved, and if we don't, we will have it whittled down to one or two that we can have a discussion with you about. But you will -- we will outline the implications of all the changes, know the reasons for the change, we'll do it -- try to do it in a matrix form. I may ask you for your advice on what type of format you think will work best for the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Time frame? I'm not really sure. I guess I would -- I mean, I'm going to say at least a month to do all that and come back to you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Give yourself more time. MS. ISTENES: Yes. You know. we have to work around the doctor's schedule and our O\vn and the Page 44 \ 16 I 1 h0 March 2, 2009 attorney's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to do -- Joe, if that's the case, could you come to us with some time frames at our meeting on -- you, or whoever on staff, Ray, with some open dates for this room in say, April or May, whatever date you guys decide is a good date to use? MR. SCHMITT: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let's just set the date so that if we have an issue, we can tell the settlement-agreement-issue people we've got a date. Go ahead. MR. KLA TZKO W: Yeah. I just had my staff review the court documents. We have no court deadline, so that's out of it. What we have right now is just an unconstitutional ordinance. What I'll do is I'll direct Mr. Wright, who works with code enforcement, that we will not enforce any of the code enforcement violations where we believe it's unconstitutional, and that will save on the litigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. There was testimony given, Joe, that the changes that are occurring in this document are turning the document into more of a listing of what is permissible as far as signage rather than what is not permissible; in other words, it has been one that tells you permissible, what you can put up as far as a sign. But now, by elimination of certain issues, certain signs, it's prohibiting the use of those signs by its omission. Will the work that you're going to do in revising the document address that issue or that question? MR. SCHMITT: Well, as Susan pointed out, our LDC is pretty much a document that is written. It tells you what to do. It's not a document that tells you what you can't do. Unfortunately -- and I say -- use the word unfortunate. In the sign code, we did have a list of -- a list of things that were not allowed. And I think -- in recall, that was -- that was recommended to be removed. And I think what Mike was saying is, he'd prefer to have that in because if -- I guess the problem there is, if it's not in the code and it says you can't do it, I believe what Mike stressed was, then it wouldn't be allowed. And I don't know if that really is the case. I think that was your concern. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, that's my concern. MR. SCHMITT: And that's Tor's as well. I mean -- but I think that was the issue. I don't know -- let me ask Susan again about the code because it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ms. Caron's got something she might help with this. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it's been my understanding right along that our code has always been, if it's permitted in the code, it's permitted. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: lfit's not in the code-- MR. SCHMITT: You can't do it. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it's not permitted. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: So this is the way this code is being written now-- MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the way it should have been written all along. MR. SCHMITT: But Mike -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand that he has some questions about it because he's comfortable with the way it's been. MR. SCHMITT: He is -- as a practitioner, he wants to know exactly what he can and cannot do. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's valid for him to question that in front of the board; however, our code has always been, and it should remain, if it's permitted, it's permitted. If it's not in there Page 45 H'~.,,~ .. w.-""" ,""- _ ...~ ",',"",,_,,-,,~'''"'''',~~-, ..-~ \ 16\ 1 A5 March 2, 2009 as saying you can do it, you cannot do it. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, did you want to offer anything? MR. BOYD: Well, I'll work with whatever code we have. My only concern was it was changing drastically in how we would use it in our everyday business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOYD: That was my only concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHMITT: And we always can provide guidance to the industry on what cannot be done. We always do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Joe, if we move forward-- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: n with the direction provided so far, which is some basic -- I think the existing document is the beginning. I would suggest, as we had talked earlier, we finish the strikethrough version but also offer a clean version, which you did, but the second time around you didn't, the latest one. And, again, I'd like to stress to staff that the next time this is scheduled, don't give us any more changes. Don't schedule it until you're sure we can be done with the changes. MR. SCHMITT: As clarification, we will provide you -- you already have the original. We'll provide the original on a tab, we'll provide a clean cop~, which is the -- no strikethrough and underline, just a clean copy, then for clarification as to what is changed, we'll provide the strikethrough and underline, just as we did in the original document. Well, the original document we provided the clean copy, and I told Catherine I wanted a strikethrough and underline because our board wants that as well. It helps them to understand what is changing and it makes it much easier for them to follow. We'll provide that as well. And Jeff is exactly right, as -- unfortunately as this -- well, again, as this thing went through the months, the settlement agreement negated the expediency because it was settled and there was no commitment then to a judge, but at one time there was a commitment by the county, we would solve this. And I think Jeffs proposal is absolutely right on the mark, is that we -- we're careful as to what we're going to enforce, we'll come back to you, schedule a date, and we'll -- I think we do have some things that we'll discuss with our consultant and we'll resolve those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that work for everybody on the Planning Commission? Anybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that then, I would assume we don't need a meeting tomorrow and that we can adjourn today's meeting and wait to be renoticed for a time and place, and Thursday at our regular meeting I'd like to work out with staff what those dates could possibly be in either April or May. And with that, is there any other business to be conducted today from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll look for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 46 16 I ! t6 March ,2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 6-0. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :31 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLA :tIt ~ STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM and TERRI LEWIS. Page 47 ~.-"'''."" ""..................._^...___,."._.o..,__."..,_...,.,,_..'""""~_~.,~__~_,,_".___,_...._____"__.___.,_".__.~_..__,._ ____.___ _,___.____.___ Fiala !lF~aJ 161 lA5 vi 1 Halas 7!i' . ~ Henning~ March 5, 2009 coyle RE.CE\VED Coletta ( ,_ TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEE G OF THE APR 0 7 2009 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION commiSskmers Naples, Florida Board at Cau('l~ March 5, 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" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District l'iSC CGrres: Date: !tem#: Page 1 . 04...._.__,____ 161 1 ~f) March 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, good morning. This is the March 5th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. We need to get underway, so if you could take your seats. Well, and while you're taking your seats, please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 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? 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? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley is absent. And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, by the way, had a business conflict this morning, so he wasn't able to make it. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll go into the addenda to the agenda. I don't know of any changes. Does staffhave any? MR. BELLOWS: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, then the agenda is -- we'll move forward like it's written. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Let's figure out that mess. We have some dates to look at for the redo of the sign ordinance. And staff has provided a list to .'.. Page 2 ..; 161 ~ 1 -irS : . March 5, 2009 me for discussion today. We have a couple dates in April, we have three dates in May, and then two dates in June. After I got the list, I called staff and asked what they thought would be best for them. And it turns out that actually the date in June might be best, because it gives more time for the Doctor and the County Attorney and everybody to review everything and get together. We're not under the time pressure that we had originally started under. The date in June that everyone is talking about is Tuesday, June 2nd. And I want to know from the Planning Commission how you all feel about that date. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any concerns with that date? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know the schedule, but let's go with it and see what happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's no objections then, Ray, if you don't mind booking the June 2nd. It's an all day opening in this room on June 2nd. That's a Tuesday. And if we go with that, then we're good to go. MR. KLA TZKOW: That's 8:30 to 5:00, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, 8:30 to 5:00. Or do we have to post an ending? MR. KLA TZKOW: You're just trying to book the room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think anybody's going to -- okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Called dibs is what I'm getting at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I didn't want to put anything on the record that would have to cause us to end at 5:00 if we only needed a little bit to finish up. So Tuesday, June 2nd it is for that one. Our next meeting -- trying to figure out, it's two weeks from today will be the 19th of June (sic). Does any member of the Planning Commission know if they -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Not the 19th of June. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 19th of June? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of March, I'm sorry. Of March. Does anybody know if they can't make it? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a conflict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney's got a conflict. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good, then we'll still have a quorum. And we'll move forward from there. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES -JANUARY 28, 2009, RLSA; JANUARY 30, 2008, RLSA; FEBRUARY 5, 2008, RLSA; FEBRUARY 5, 2009, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The approval of minutes. We have one, two, three, four sets of minutes to be approved. I have to take them one at a time. I look for a motion to approve January 28th, 2009 RLSA minutes. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Page 3 "''''o~... - IH -. ".,---_.;-~.~ ,--_.._--_.._-- . 16\ 1 pfj March 5, 2009 Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Thank you. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: January 30th, 2008 RSLA (sic). Same action. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: January 5th, RLSA, same action. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 4 ,t>. 161 1 t6 March 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last one is February 5th, 2009 regular meeting. Same action. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries again 8-0. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - FEBRUARY 24, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC report recaps of February 24th. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, during the board's last meeting they heard the PUD amendment for the Sungate Center PUD. The board approved it subject to the Collier County Planning Commission recommendations. And they also had some additional transportation commitments added. And that was passed 5-0. The variance for the mobile home park in -- for the mangrove impact, that was approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The addition for the traffic impacts for the first one, do you know what those were? What did we miss? Or were they new things introduced by transportation between the two meetings? MR. BELLOWS: It just says the CCP (sic) recommendations and transportation commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It would be good to know so if we miss something we can do a more thorough job in the future. So ifthere's a -- if transportation's here, maybe they can tell us. Or maybe they can't. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, Transportation. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PODCZER WINSKY: As [ recall from Sungate Center, and of course I don't have a copy of it in front of me, there were some dedications on the land that were occurring for expansions of Green Boulevard, the intersection there with County Road 951 . So -- and I think some of those were slightly amended, based on the location of the sidewalk on Green Boulevard and the easement for the sidewalk on the north side there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that information that wasn't known at the time it came before the Planning Commission? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. Because the plans were not complete at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only thing we're striving to do is make sure we send a package forward Page 5 ,"",...,.- - - ~----,---~",,,,,,'<-'-'-" --"._--,~-----.-,".- , 16l 1~ \ March 5, 2009 - that is complete as possible, so that's the reason I was asking. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks, John. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chairman's report. Well, I had a nice phone call yesterday. Sharon Phillips. She wanted me to express to the entire Planning Commission how pleased she was and happy she was about the letter that was sent to her on behalf of this commission and how much she thought of us in working with us in the past. So she was very excited about it. She has -- I don't know if all of you know, she broke her ankle, so she's sitting down a little bit more now than she used to. But she's going to be back on her feet soon and all looks well. So it was very nice talking to her and she wanted me to sincerely express her appreciation to all of us for that letter. Item #8A PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13661, CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we will go into our consent items. First one is the Petition CU-2008-AR-13661. It's the Center Point Community Church. We heard that I guess a week or so ago. Does anybody have any issues with the consent matters on that one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And John, it's on number eight, which is the -- it states that there's going to be a unified plan. Does that require a unity of title joining the two lots together? (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', I'll try to remember that. Usually we don't have discussion during consent, so -- at least with the public, so -- MR. MOSS: Mr. Schiffer, if you didn't see, the applicant's attorney is shaking his head no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that will still be a property line. So the building code issues I was worried about aren't going to be solved by -- in other words, you're building a building right on the property line, which means you could sell one property and not the other, correct? I mean, I don't want -- it has nothing to do with land use, it just has to do with a nightmare, if the building department pays attention, you're going to have. But I'll let it go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Brad and J.D., on number eight it says any SOP for the site submitted to Collier County for review and approved shall be a unified plan. That includes the Center Point Community Church. Now, the question you asked is does that mean it's a unified plan of development? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, obviously you really couldn't sell one property without going back and amending the SDP, correct? MR. MOSS: I wouldn't think so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd have to sell enough of the other property to have the setbacks Page 6 ., }- 161 il k? -Yo March 5, 2009 contained in it. So it wouldn't be a straight line necessarily. It would work its way and meander around the building, like many properties are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But in other words, my concern is that there is a property line essentially on the face of one of those buildings. And there's some issues. I'm not sure if Joe's building department is going to catch it or not. But we've had to deal with it at the state level and it's a nightmare if you're not careful. But in terms of land use today, I have no objection with the wording. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other comments then on the consent agenda item for that particular matter? MR. MOSS: Commissioner Strain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, J.D. MR. MOSS: -- I have a comment I wanted to make sure I get in. The applicant asked that we clarify number nine where it says, in lieu of a masonry wall or fence an enhanced Type B buffer shall be provided along the eastern boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe that was the intent through discussion with the Planning Commission. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then that will be part ofthe approval process. Okay, with that in mind, with that language change, is there a motion to approve on the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8-0. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, THE COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC AND FLORIDA COMMUNITY BANK, NA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one is the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Naples, otherwise known as the Heavenly PUD. It's PUDZ-2007-AR-12097. And I don't know if it's necessary for the public to speak, but if and when they do, we will be Page 7 ~.....,.."".-"-----"",, . ill ____...,"'",......."......,_o,.~_,."__.,,,._'''_,.___:_. .,-~.,'---...~-----;- 161 1 ~ March 5, 2009 entertaining -- they will have to be sworn in. I have a list of corrections that are needed on that document that I've collected from various people. Some from Richard. I think they were in conjunction with remarks from Tony Pires. So let me walk through those with everyone first. If you turn to Page 4 of 17, which is the Exhibit 8, the maximum actual height in footnote two. If you all remember, it was -- we had a total of 90 feet. So that number should be, instead of 30, should be 40. The top 20 of it is for a religious symbol, and everything below it is for different forms of the cupola and the main structure as Exhibit G provides for. Now, I'm going to ask when this is all done being discussed -- and I notice Tony was here. COMMISSIONER CARON: He's here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, you've just got to sit on one ofthose booster seats so I can see you or something. And Richard. And after we get done, I'd like to ask both of you to come up and concur that the changes follow the intent as you heard us discuss it so that there's no dispute at the next level. And it's my understanding these have already been worked out between the parties. So if the Planning Commission hasn't got a problem with that particular change, then we'll move on to the next one. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next one is on Page 6. This one is a tough one. It's E, the third paragraph, they have the word though the project, and it should be through the project. I can bet that Tony found that one. So that change needs to be made. On Page 11 of 17 is a little more extensive change. The hours of operation. There should be another item added to that. It was added to Page 17. And the one on Page 17 under Tract B is number four. It says, outdoor music is prohibited and indoor music shall only be allowed when windows and doors are closed. There shall be no live, recorded or amplified music of any kind prior to 8:00 or after -- it says 9:00, but my notes and the notes that I talked with -- both of these gentlemen agree it's 9:30, not 9:00. And then there was suggested language to be added that says, the limitation on the time for live, recorded or amplified music may be exceeded by up to two times per month for accommodations for special worship functions. That was part of the discussion. I think we had thought maybe it was covered by I, where it says that -- basically the same language. So that entire item four on Tract B, if it was moved to -- as a new -- it would be E-J. And then you've got a new section there. instead ofB. Is that -- Tony, and Richard, is that -- I read your e-mails and I'm trying to decipher what you had in the e-mail. Does that meet what you guys had discussed? Because I know the Planning Commission's intent was to move in the direction that we all had talked about. And if clarification is needed to this, that's fine, we just can't change the intent of the Planning Commission. Go ahead, Richard -- oh, you've got to be sworn in. We might as well catch Tony while we're at it. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's swearing in on the fly with Tony. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, and it should become item number 1-5 on Page 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that is correct, that was what was discussed. And I think Tony and I agree that that was the intent of the motion. MR. PIRES: That's correct. That way it won't get buried in the language and it's in a more appropriate location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for clarification. Page 8 (~\ 16\ I 1\5 March 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're going to make them equal on both sides; is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it was just Tract B. That's all we discussed at our meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so Tract B is going to be more restrictive than Tract A? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because of the location of the buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's closer to the roadway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, the concern is that there is a clause in here that if you merge the two tracts, then Tract B takes on the development standards of Tract A, thus essentially you could move those hours onto B at that time. On page -- let me find it. Page 9 of 17, number eight. It says that if Tract B and A are owned and controlled, the development standards of A will be utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's A for B, not B for A. So wouldn't they then have to abide then by the setbacks in A, and the structures on B would probably be problematic at that point? MR. PIRES: I guess the concern, if} may, is that up until the time that B is redeveloped, that's when the new setbacks would come into play or expanded. Then you have the existing facilities that this could apply to, you're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, actually A states that B will then take on the development standards of A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which would mean it would get those hours, which would mean it would be less restrictive. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it would also meet the new development standards, which would actually probably move the building either -- on the new building, would have to meet the new development standards. MR. PIRES: But uses of the existing structures arguably-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. PIRES: -- you're correct, Commissioner Schiffer, that that restriction would go away, as to existing facilities. In other words, the development standards would apply, but if you're not relocating, removing, demolishing or expanding any of the facilities on B, arguably that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's fine, if we need to clarify. It was not the intent to all of a sudden make those hours for the music go away. I read this footnote as talking about the development standards for new buildings and not really -- not operational standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we could make it -- I'm fine with clarifying, because that was always the intent. So whatever everybody feels is comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we suggest where parenthetical eight footnote is that after the added sentence we just refer to with the exception of those operational restrictions found on -- in I, in section I. Does that get there? MR. PIRES: Correct. Because that ties in with the other exclusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, as long as -- I mean, Richard's development standards does add a couple of feet, but it's not going to stop the noise, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it would be with the exception of operational restrictions in I for Tract B. Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: And what again are the exceptions? What is it, two-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two times per month. Page 9 ~"''"'".. n_~____,,,_,"ii;'.__"",,,,,,,,",,,H_,,,,,,,..,,,_,.,.,',,,,-,,='_~'.'m .,,,....,.,,'._~~ -------_.._- ". J 161 1 ~ March 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Twice a month? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. For accommodation of special religious functions I think it's worded as. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's related to the special worship functions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Special worship functions, yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you had a Christmas Eve service that started at 10:00 at night, this language could be read to prohibit music with that service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next change is on Exhibit F, which is Page 16 of 17, item six. The last -- the second to the very last line there is a parenthetical called the base, trying to define what CFPUD refers to. And the suggestion was to move that up to the reference on the second line where it's talking about the entire CFPUD. And Tony, why wouldn't you just do it on the first line? MR. PIRES: On the first line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, where it says, one year after the seating capacity of 853 for the entire CFPUD, parenthetical, the base. MR. PIRES: Well, it's also -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're right, so it would be the second CFPUD. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's a positive change. Anybody have any problem? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We already talked about on Page 17 we're moving number four. And that's the notes that I had. There's one that's kind of fuzzy, I don't understand it. It's on Page 17 and it's the top of the page in the continuing paragraph, second line from the bottom. Tony, your notes had said the 220 should be changed to a different number? MR. PIRES: Correct. And I think Rich is in concurrence with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the number, 347? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you get there? MR. PIRES: 1,200 minus the 853 seats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That makes sense. Anybody have any problem with it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure I understand it, Mark. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, me either. MR. PIRES: Part of the discussion was for purposes of the traffic count the argument and position was, I think concurred by all, is that the existing facilities that are there today have equivalent traffic gener -- 853 seats. And so it's one year -- and the idea, the concern expressed by the church was after they exceeded that base, the 853 and the 110 person daycare, they only wanted to be accountable for traffic impacts occurring after that base. So if you have the 1,200 seats which is the maximum capacity on the site under this PUD, minus the base of 853 seats, you get 347. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the additional capacity, the 347 would be all additional capacity. MR. PIRES: Over the existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And both of you agree to that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, does that get -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what I have in my notes. Do you guys have anything else that's Page 10 161 1 - . .'1 " j)(S March 5, 2009 been missed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one thing, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's Page 9. It goes again back to that number eight, which is ifthe owner owns both Tract A and B. The impression I got during the hearing was that if the owner bought both of those tracts, he would move the development of Tract B into Tract A, into the campus plan of Tract A. So why are we adding this last line or why are we leaving behind developable square footage on Tract B? Again, I don't want to go back into -- but I have a lot of concerns on Tract B, concerns enough to vote against this. But not this consent item. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your concerns by voting against it, you mean when we had the original motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you hear the -- but I remember in the -- my recollection of the testimony is that if they ever were mixed together that they were going to take the rights that they were given on Tract B and move them onto Tract A and pull them away from the neighborhood. This -- I mean, I'm not sure eight is doing that. Are you concerned about that? I mean -- MR. PIRES: My understanding is that there's no commitment by the applicants that if the church is to be the owner of all the property that they would shut down the existing facility and then relocate those uses to Tract A. I don't think there's any such commitment. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, but what I thought footnote eight said is if Covenant buys the bank parcel or whoever owns it at that point, the development standards applicable to Tract A would then apply to any new buildings for -- on Tract B. Which would mean we now would have the 200-foot setback from right-of-ways, except for Trail Boulevard. So the effect of that is to move any new structure 200 feet from Ridge and 200 feet from West, which if it doesn't get it totally off of Tract B, it gets it pretty darn close for new structures. That's why I thought footnote eight was talking about development standards and really not operational. However, if we decide to do an expansion, we'd be limited to the 10 percent that is allowed, and it would meet -- but we could never get above 20,000 square feet. So there was no transfer of intensity, if you will. And maybe that last sentence isn't even necessary, because it couldn't happen. Do you understand what I'm saying, Tony? MR. PIRES: No. I mean, for right now I think the -- it's not limited just to new buildings, it's limited to -- it's everything, all the development standards. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. MR. PIRES: And you're correct, that the language as to the expansion and having to meet new setbacks for expanded portions is similar in both A and B. In new structures it's much more restrictive, so new structures wouldn't even exist on this building on Tract B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tract B. MR. PIRES: Correct. But once again, Rich, I think this applies to everything, you know, current as well as any new. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't -- MR. PIRES: You know, when you talk about development standards, it does not include existing uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Page 11 ....,,_._- - t>. 1lI._____"___,,"",",,_,_.,,..._" _.~"--,"~~'......"'~--_...,- ~ 16\ 1 A5 March 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What am I missing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, if you modifY the building or try to replace it, then your development standards apply. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you leave-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Tract A standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you buy Tract B -- what I'm seeming to understand out of this, if you take Tract B and you buy it and you leave the existing buildings in place, the standards for Tract A apply to the extent that they fit. Because you're not building a new building -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- tract B standards still stay in place because they're existing buildings, with the exception of the operational standards that we now just said we -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- need to add to that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that where you're going, Tony? Is that consistent with your line of thought? MR. PIRES: Yeah. And that's what the concern was, you know that it's total square footage of all structures on B don't exceed 20,000. Because once again, the development standards for A say you can have 100,000 square feet, and it had other various uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But see, you couldn't put 20,000 on there ifit was combined as Richard kind of alluded to, because that would be new construction. New construction, you'd have to abide by the new rules, so you wouldn't get there. MR. PIRES: But I think the focus was on the development standards of A come to being on B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tony, let me ask you this: Did you put this line in? Is this your line? MR. PIRES: The exclusionary -- no, that footnote eight was there from the inception. In fact, I think it was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the additional wording on it. MR. PIRES: The exceptions? Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the underlined nine. MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's your wording. MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I'm more comfortable. If Tony wants it, then I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, be careful now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's scary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now we're past that one. Are there any other comments -- COMMISSIONER CARON: This has-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: This has been just like pulling teeth on this thing. I certainly wish that we had been able to come to some sort of compromise on Tract B, Mr. Y ovanovich, between what Mr. Schiffer wanted at 10,000 and what your client -- or the bank wanted on Tract Bat 20,000. Ifwe could have compromised somewhere around 15, you probably would have gotten the votes you needed to go forward to the BCC. It's just sad. But then that's what happens when we don't Page 12 - , 161 I fr'5 " March 5, 2009 really have unified control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, on Page 2, if you could turn to that, please, of the consent item. B-4, where it reads, the combined cumulative total of220 students. My recollection, which might be wrong, but I don't have my original notes with me, it was that that was 200 rather than 220. Can you confirm that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it's always been 220. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's been 220? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's always been 220. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What my other concern that I expressed at the meeting was this statement of individuals emolledJattending. And my response that I received was that that meant that was the total of what's emolled and what's attending. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But that would mean then you could have 220 emolled and zero attendance to stay within the maximum cumulative 220. That would require you, say if you have 220 that emolled, that you can't have any attending because they're already up to the maximum accumulative. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's not correct, is it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can only have 220 individuals, either in the school or in the day care. And you would attend the day care, you would be emolled in the school, and I think that's why we used that phraseology. But we can never have more than 220 in any combination. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So if we had 220 students, we could have nobody attending the day care. We'd have 220 students. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other clarifications from the Planning Commission? Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Just one clarification. Sometimes my 40-watt light bulb brain kind of kicked into gear in the conversation with Commissioner Schiffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It took a while. MR. PIRES: It's a slow fluorescent tube sometimes. In note eight, in relooking at the development standards, perhaps also there should be an exclusion for the height standard so that the height standards and the development standards for A do not apply on Tract B. So perhaps a parenthetical reference on the second line of note eight at Page 9 of 17, after the phrase, the Tract A development standards (excluding the height standards), and go on with the language that we talked about today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think it was the intent of anybody here to allow the heights in Tract A on Tract B. MR. PIRES: Correct. It was never the intent, and I don't think Rich has any difficulty with that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I don't have any problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I actually felt that if they merged the tracts, that all new development would be on Tract A to begin with. That's what I would like to see. Page 13 .-. "........ . II ,.",,~ 1'1I"'<1'" -,_.,__.,~.....,,,^ ~.-~ .~_._~'O_____ .\ 16\ 1 16 March 5, 2009 There was a lot of sentences that started with, well, you know, it's too bad we don't own the whole thing and stuff like that. And the intent of that is that you could pull all that new development onto A into the campus where I think it belongs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If Tract A buys Tract B and decides to remove the structures that are on Tract A -- I mean on B, then the development standards that would kick in, which would be the 200-foot setback, which I believe gets it off of Tract B. However, if the owner of Tract A buys Tract B and wants to keep the existing structures and use them for, you know, related to the Tract A, they can continue to use the existing structures. MR. PIRES: That's correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's only when they decide to raze those structures that the new buildings would then move off of B because of the new standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my concern is in other cases that A buys B, A's got existing buildings on B. You know, it'd make a great parsonage, by the way. And the new construction on B is what I'm concerned about. And I would like to see if any new construction, if A does buy B, is solely on A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we can't change the -- MR. PIRES: The new construction for B -- the development standards for A would require a 200-foot setback. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which gets it offofB. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's going to happen -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, that's how it works. We talked -- we discussed this. That's how we had that requirement added, was because we knew the new standards would get the -- the A standards would get the new buildings ofT of B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. Fold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other comments on the Heavenly PUD on the consent agenda? Go ahead, Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLA TZKOW: Just to follow up on Commissioner Caron's suggestion. For the record, if the building was reduced to 15,000 feet, would we have a unanimous vote? Commissioner Caron? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my concern is that the neighbors have never seen the scale of the numbers that are shown in this application. Would 15 be better than 20? Yes. But I do think that's still a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the question, though, is ifit was 15, if 15 had been offered originally, would you have voted in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure. But can we do that -- we can't do that anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's just asking -- MR. KLA TZKOW: I'm just asking for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's not part of the consent, it's just a question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL then the concern -- I don't want to answer, because I don't want something to be misrepresented to the Commission that, you know, at this hearing somebody said that ifit was 15 it would be okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron didn't get a chance to comment, in case she wanted to. Did you want to respond? Page 14 1 161 lA-5 March 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: I think I already made the comment. I made the originally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With hearing no more, if there's no other comments, we need a motion to approve as modified at this consent meeting, and then for approval. Is there a motion? Nobody wants to do it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not from me. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I've got a question. Jeff, can I vote on this consent agenda, seeing as I abstained in the beginning? MR. KLATZKOW: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll make a motion recommending approval for consent Item PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, with the modifications as discussed here at this meeting today. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Midney. Discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -- did you abstain, Mr. -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I abstained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-1 -- no 7-0, with one abstention, and that's Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So it's unanimous. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you tor your patience in helping us through this one. It was a tough one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was an enlightening subject. Go in peace. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just go. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Never to return. Item #8C COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT AND SUGGESTED TEXT CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA COMMITTEE REPORT (RLSA) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item on today's consent agenda is the Collier County Planning Commission report and suggested text changes in response to the review of the Rural Land Stewardship Area Committee report. Now, that one is item -- is all marked up with the large word consent shaded across each document. There are two documents there and there are changes needed to the second document, because the person that put it together in haste pasted from one piece to the other and missed changing some of the Page 15 ""'.. 11II , I ar_;_"'*,,'.,.,.;;,;'........__.","""....".,.."'..""~.,.,,~...,"',,.. -.",..",---,"---- . 16\ t ~ f March 5, 2009 words in the pasting process. So I'll go through those. COMMISSIONER CARON: What? I can't imagine. MR. SCHMITT: The person who put it together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Can't blame this one on staff, can we? David Weeks did it. Okay, let me walk you through those changes, because they were simple enough. On Page 14 of the recommended GMP language, the new policy added 3. I 5. The sentence starts out, any development on lands not participating on the RLSA program shall be compatible. WelL that was a cut and paste from Policy 5. Well, Policy 5 is for lands not participating in the RLSA program. The intent during our meeting was to include the policy in each section. So basically on this one we'd have to just say any development shall be compatible and drop the words on lands not participating in the RLSA program. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have a concern with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if you turn to Page 23, the identical cut and paste scenario occurs there as well. And the same language should be struck from that one, because Policy 4 does not pertain to the lands not in the RLSA program. So those two. And then the last one that I found is on Page 16. If you recall, Policy 4.7.1 had changes in the underlined section down at the bottom in black where it said. to\\-TI shall include. Well, we had added the words towns and villages greater than 500 acres shall include. Well, when the suggestion was made that references to villages ought to be put in 4.7.2, when I cut and pasted that underlined line, I took out, and villages of 500, changed the word towns to villages and forgot to put 500 or greater in the cut and paste. So on Policy 4.7.2, the red underlined on the bottom should read, villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal mobility plan. And that then would be consistent with the discussion we had at the meeting. Those are the three corrections I had found in reviewing the documentation -- or actually I shouldn't say I had found, I had been reported to by different entities. So I'd like to get them on the record today and make sure there's no objections from the Planning Commission. Okay, is there any other items that need to be corrected on these two documents for the RLSA program? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we talk about attachment C a second? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good point. Attachment C. And let me explain that one before you do, Brad. When I sent that to you, I thought you were going to change all the corrections in attachment C. I notice when your item got circulated by Mr. Greenwood, you had only changed the one in the typical characteristics column. So I went back in and tried to fix everything that was approved or discussed at our meeting. I hope it was right, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and I did change it. But then when I looked at it -- first of all, you know, what I had commented during the hearings, that we put it up with residential units. But that really started to mess up the concept of base density, so I took it out of there. Now, 1 see that you want to -- and it's transient lodging we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that was your first motion was to put it up there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the more I thought about it, I actually thought it made sense where it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 16 r 16 1 lA5 " March 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because with the concern I had with the FAR was that it wasn't clear that it was per use. It's extremely clear in the LDC. And I think just by adding -- when I was all done with all the moving around, just adding the words per use made that clear so nobody would confuse the fact that there was a maximum floor area. Like for example .5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think it's fine in there. The base density's one thing. And then these other uses are additional uses on top of the base density. So I think keeping transient where it was might make more sense, just to make it clear that like retail and manufacturing is something additional you can put where allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got no problem putting it back there. To me it didn't really matter either, but I wanted to make sure we addressed all the issues raised. Does anybody else have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do think up in base -- the more I stared at it, the more trouble I thought we could get into with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I can make that change and get that document. Mr. Greenwood? (Mr. Greenwood was duly sworn.) MR. GREENWOOD: For the record, Tom Greenwood with Comprehensive Planning Department. And I've also been serving as a liaison with the Rural Land Stewardship Review Committee. And I wanted just to make three brief statements. I know you have another item that may take a lot more time. First off, the Rural Land Stewardship Review Committee met on Tuesday, and they are in the process of reviewing all your comments. And from a staff standpoint, I'm pleased to report that most of what you recommended, they are likely to accept. Secondly, on the meeting on March 3rd, the committee decided to postpone its report to the Board of County Commissioners until April 21st at 9:00 a.m. in this room. That's a Tuesday, April 21st at 9:00 a.m. in this room. And the reason for the postponement is that they have not had an opportunity to review all of your comments yet, nor those of the Environmental Advisory Council's. Thirdly, and it's a personal thing, I wanted to just for the record thank the Planning Commission for the many, many hours of public vetting that you've all put into this. And I haven't tolled the number of hours, but usually underlying those public vetting hours are a lot of additional hours. I do know that this is the sixth meeting that this has been discussed. And should the Board of County Commissioners decide to go forward with Growth Management Plan amendments, this is a very, very wonderful step in the direction. So I wanted to thank you personally for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tom. We appreciate it. And I have one comment about your first statement. You had said the committee is postponing the Board of County Commissioners hearing on this matter to incorporate possibly changes from either us or the EAC. MR. GREENWOOD: They wish to review the comments and provide some responses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The concern I want to make sure is -- I mean, I know that many of our corrections, comments, were well received. They were things possibly that they acknowledged even during the meeting that oh, that's a better idea. But there are some that were very controversial. Now, when the Board of County Commissioners gets their final report, whenever it is, I'm assuming that I'll clean this based on today's vote, whatever it is, I will go ahead and finalize this and take the words consent off of it and send you a document complete. Page 1 7 --"...-,..... ",,-,.. . ~'"'" "__...."""_._,_-'!;,'j...""_.,,_"'...,,'~_..,".._-..,.,..""._."""'^""~""<<_",_",_""-,",,,,'i__,,,,~iII' ......... ..~.."""'~..,"~----- \ 16\ 1~ March 5, 2009 MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That document's going to be, like this is, about 45 pages. In the process of presenting this to the Board of County Commissioners, what I would hate to see is our work diluted by them acknowledging that we had done a lot of good work and they incorporated most of them, but a few of them they didn't. Because the ones that I understand they don't like are the most major issues involving this whole document. And I wouldn't want our efforts diluted because of maybe a tactic that makes it appear as though everything is cooperative and we're just down to a couple of items, and all of a sudden the BCC because they're rushed don't read 45 pages of our document because it's been acknowledged that most of it's been incorporated into the new RLSA language. Now, I see that scenario playing out and I really wish it wa<;n't. I really wish it was going forward like it was. Our corrections were standing on their own. The committee could go there and say that was a good idea, we'll accept it or not, and the BCC would have a much more legitimate way of approaching each item. And knowing that they're only accepting ones that were easy and the two hard ones we're still at odds with but our reasoning for our odds need to be read in full context. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just a statement I want to make, because I'm very --1 heard that they were doing this, and I thought well, okay, that might be -- for some people that might be a good move. But I'm not sure it gets the point across to the extent that the Planning Commission's concerns are properly aired. So that's just a comment for the record. 1 understand your comments, and I do appreciate everything you said to us this morning, too. MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you. And the Planning Commission document, as well as the EAC's document, will go to the BCC exactly how it's, you know, approved by each group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tom, and it really seems like this is going to be difficult for the BCC to see it. Are you going to prepare like a master strike-through that would I guess show different committees different comments and different colors or something? Because how would they-- MR. GREENWOOD: That is something that the committee will have to decide upon. I'm assuming that there will be presented to the BCC the Section 2, Phase II, with all of the comments included. But again, that detail of presentation has been -- not been decided. But we're going to try to make it as clear and easy for the BCC to understand as possible. And the other reason for again moving the BCC meeting back about a month, actually five weeks, is to give them a little more time to review the documents. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The concern is it would be difficult for someone to read three different documents. MR. GREENWOOD: I agree. And I think it has to be kept fairly simple and straightforward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, the EAC isn't doing a document, are they, Tom? MR. GREENWOOD: They are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, they're not doing an exact document of the GMP; aren't they just providing comments? MR. GREENWOOD: That's correct, yeah. Theirs is going to be somewhat more generic in general than yours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The Chainnan has made a very good and thoughtful point. Perhaps Page 18 ,I . 161. 1 fr~ March 5, 2009 you could coach that committee to -- if they want to make reference in some form, a notation that they either exceed or they are compatible with our views, but to have them modifY the language to be representative of what we concluded-- MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. That I think is the direction that the committee is going to take is they're either going to accept or accept with maybe a minor change a couple of policies, they've already decided on that. And others they will simply not agree with. And there will be a few points where I guess they'll agree to disagree with perhaps the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then this has got to -- if the Board of County Commissioners moves this forward, it comes back to us for transmittal, so I guess -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have a shot at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if we further disagree with their agreement or changes, we can take them up again. MR. GREENWOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we'll just -- whenever that comes back, figure another five days. MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark, I wonder, do you have any suggestions to address the issue that you raised? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes. Ifthe Planning Commission feels strongly about the report that we have provided, as I know some of us do, you all have Board of County Commissioner members who appointed you, I suggest you speak to them and ask them that they particularly pay attention to our report as well as the RLSA Committee's report, regardless of how it's put forward. Yes, sir? MR. KLA TZKOW: You know, I get to throw in to the Board of County Commissioners a bone. Would you like a report from the County Attorney's Office highlighting the differences between the committees? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be nice. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That would be wonderful, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, Jeff, if you could do that, that would be great. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, we will do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: It will be just right down the line, you know, these are the differences between the various committees, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm assuming then you would do that after the RLSA Committee decided whether or not they were going to accept each one of our recommendations. MR. KLATZKOW: I'll do that anyway. I mean, you know, if you took the time and the EAC took the time to hear this, the board should know what each particular one of their boards felt on these issues. And then the board can make a decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be very much appreciated, thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to recommend with the changes mentioned this morning the consent agenda item for the RLSA report that will go to the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Murray. Seconded by? Page 19 ,,~- -, ___.<_0,"''''','..."......._....".-."....''''..,.'._ _",-,,,,,,,,,,.~_",,_...",,,,,,,",,~,,____, "~'--"~'-""",-,,-"------- , I, 161 1 ~, . March 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Okay, we got through the consent which has been longer than normal. So all those of you waiting for the next item, we appreciate your patience this morning. Item #9 A PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-11320, SEMBLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP #42 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one item on the agenda. And we're going to be taking this a little diflerently. But first let's get past the introduction part of it. This is for Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-11320. It's the Sembler Family Partnership, number 42, also known as the McMullen MPUD. All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had conversation with Bruce Anderson, who is representing the petitioner. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had discussion with Randy Johns regarding this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? I had discussions with Randy Johns, who is with the swamp buggy group, I had discussions with Bruce Anderson who is with the applicant, and I had discussions with Bob Mulhere, who is with the applicant. Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had a discussion with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we get into the meat of this issue, there's -- in reviewing this, I've found -- first of all, it was a complicated application, and it has gone through various staff people because of the changes in county staff. The lady that has ended up with it unfortunately wasn't the one Page 20 161: 1 t6 March 5, 2009 beginning with it, so there's been paperwork moving around that not everybody has been aware of. Also, I found since I was on this commission when the original GMP amendment came through, I wanted to understand how we had approved something at the time as complicated as this. Because it didn't recall that way. And in reviewing that process, I pulled up old GMP references, and I pulled up sections of the GMP that seemed to provide for requirements in which this should be submitted during the rezone stage. And they are under the mixed use activity center subdistrict. And there are a dozen of them. And it says, the factors to consider during review of a rezone petition for a project or portion thereof within an activity center are as follows. And if you know, during the amendment process this process was brought into the activity center at the request of the applicant. That was the whole purpose. Well, now that they're in there and those dozen requirements are there, I had asked David Weeks, where are they. And so David, I'd like you -- before we get going into this thing, I'd like to firmly establish what documents we were supposed to have or what the bearing or weight of those documents are in order to know how we should move forward. If you could -- and I think part of the complexity is the fact this is not only what was presented during the GMP amendment, but they've thrown in some other uses that I'm not sure everybody understood, or at least I didn't, including the residential component that is pretty difficult to see in this particular project. So could you tell us about the GMP applications I've referenced here and fill us in a little bit? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department for the county. First as to the rezone factors to be considered. That appears to be an omission from your staff report packet. Ordinarily when the comprehensive planning department reviews a rezoning petition within the activity center, be it mixed use or interchange, the same criteria apply, those same factors. We would include within our memo, which then carries over into your staff report, an analysis of each of those dozen or so factors. In this particular case the applicant responded to those appropriately, responded to all of those, and rather than staff also preparing the response, we instead placed in our memo, and I think it's in your staff report, that we simply acknowledge it by reference to the date, you know, the applicant on such and such a date addressed all of those factors. While staff doesn't completely agree with each one, we do believe their response is adequate. So I'll say we took a shortcut in this case. And then more recently, yesterday, we -- staff, in group discussion, realized that the applicant's factors to be considered how they address them was not provided to you. One in particular, which is noted in the staff report, is a commercial needs analysis, or market needs analysis. Some type of analysis to show that yes, there is some demand, some need for this commercial rezoning to occur. That was not provided. Staff had corresponded via e-mail with the planning agent for the petition in which that agent asked to be, so to speak, excused. Well, asked not to have to submit that data. And the rationale was that for the most part the uses within this proposed PUD are very limited, matching the language in the Future Land Use Element activity center subdistrict that is very specific for this piece of property. And that use limitation is that the uses are restricted to primarily -- excuse me, the commercial uses are limited to contractor, offices and warehouse space for contractors and some personal self-storage uses for the most part. And then there are some additional related uses such as architect, surveyor, land planner, attorneys and so forth that are allowed as well. Because of the specialized nature of the types of uses that are allowed within the Growth Management Plan provision, which had just been approved in 2003, the agent was asked, and here it is four Page 21 ;'- """..._-....,..-~-.._...,.,_'_._'~,.._#~""',.".".___--.""'-.."..,"'''',~,._".."""".~.n..~._...,'"..__ -,- .J 161 1 ;f>(t) \ March 5, 2009 years later in 2007, nothing's really changed. The contractor type uses, the bulk of those uses, are restricted to industrial or C-5 zoning, and there's been no change to industrial or C-5 zoning. The inventory hasn't changed. So the thinking is well, if there was a demonstrated need in 2003 and there's been no change to the inventory of available properties, why do we have to go through and demonstrate again what we did four years ago? Staff, I, responded, and I believe that was a rational argument and said in my opinion it's not necessary to submit that needs analysis. You do need to address all the other factors, and as I just stated a few moments ago, they did so. Do you want me to give more? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but let me start conunenting on some of the things you just said. In the permitted uses request, there are 26 separate line items. Three or four of those line items are groups of uses. Groups 0871 through 8099. There's no telling right now otIhand how many uses are within those groups. So I know that the GMP amendment was I think you just said restricted in the amount of uses. But there's a lot more uses in this application than meets the eye. In 2003, the world was different. We were moving up. The bubble was going higher. 2005 was the peak. In 2003 I can tell you right now, we needed more of everything. We needed more roads, more water, more sewer. Well, guess what? The AUIR last year said we don't need more of everything. We've got too much now to last us for the next 10 years. So our capital improvement elements come severely reduced. I would understand that the same number of zoning uses in different areas are allowed right now as were in 2003. We had so much industrial in 2003, we probably still have it today. We have so much that could be used in 2003, and we have probably the same amount that could be used today. But we don't have the bodies, the people, the economy or the buildings or the contractors to fill those slots. And then when this thing comes in with new uses like care units, hospital and medical, residential in this heavier use, I don't know if the report. the economic report that you received back in 2003, addressed these. In fact, I've seen, I've pulled the economic report. It addressed the original application, the one that was presented that was withdrawn, or I should say completely rewritten in objection to staff. And you rightfully so said, wait a minute, you can't do this at the last minute, approaching these boards, and they threw into us instead, instead of the breakdowns that were previously provided that the feasonomics (sic) report was written on, they provided a different series of uses with 185,000 square feet. And the report that they had for the first go-around doesn't apply to the uses in the 185. Specifically, in fact, I got -- we can get to it here later today. I've got specific language in there that says how it was to be applied and what it was for, and it's not what it was here that we're here today about. So I know they submitted a report, I know what the GMP says, I know where your feelings were at with this. And to be honest with you, had the time frames been different, had the economy not changed, had the uses that the report was written for not been modified at the last minute by a late submittal to these boards changing everything that your department objected to, I would say okay, it might be logical that that first report still holds. In today's world, I'm not sure it does. And especially with the uses they're asking for that are beyond what I think we anticipated in the scope. And the other thing I want to mention, just because they get a GMP amendment that says that they can have all these uses in the rezone process doesn't mean they get all those uses lumped together in one lump sum. I think there can be some compatibility analysis done in parts of the public process; otherwise, we don't need a rezone process, we already have done that in the GMP. So there has to be some kind of common sense inserted into the picture somewhere. Page 22 161 1 IrS March 5, 2009 That's where my concern is, David. Besides the market demand and service area analysis, there's supposed to be in existing patterns of land use provided, all the uses and types within two road miles of the property and things like that. Now, I understand that it happened, some ofthese were responded to, but unfortunately we never got the paperwork. And based on the complexity of this application, that paperwork is pretty important. And from a legal perspective, ifthe GMP has these requirements and I believe it was the Germain dealership up on -- one of the others where this -- we had run into this before and we made them continue and come back with a report, I don't want to make exceptions. We have to be consistent in the way this board applies things. So I need to turn to the County Attorney and ask what your thoughts are on this from a perspective of is it absolutely required or what kind of flexibility do we have? And since we've not received this until -- and I think Nancy tried to get us an e-mail last night, it was 22 pages, so I didn't get to print it all out. COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to say, I didn't get-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I didn't even see it. MR. KLATZKOW: This is where -- and I've said this before, I dislike when the comprehensive plan is so specific, because it sort of ties our hands on this. Now, we have a very specific GMP requirement on this. And it says that the factors to be considered during review of a rezone petition for a project within activity center are as follows. And it includes: Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. It requires you to have this. 2003 is a different -- I'll show you my portfolio. 2003 is a very different world than 2009 is right now. And I think they're required to do this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and that's kind of where I'm --I would rather see the documentation. And I know in the past we've had these feasibility studies produced. And this panel has questioned them. And rightfully so. They had -- if you recall, one of them was doing a commercial study in a market area near the Vineyards but they wouldn't count the commercial in the Vineyards because they determined it to be regional and not local. Well, we all know the Publix there is a local Publix. It's stuff like that I think we need to understand and see. And so it's a little disheartening that that data was not supplied on time or refreshed to this board. But I think we have an obligation to do it right. And I don't know if proceeding today with this one the way it's -- with its complexity is the right way to proceed. And I wanted to get it on record up-front what was missing, what we should have had, and then let this Planning Commission decide what they want to do. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, I'm as uncomfortable as you are. I think at this point we should -- we don't have a choice, according to legal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and as far as what's been provided, some of the documentation has been provided, we just haven't all got it. And like I said, late last night I saw the e-mail. I didn't get time to read all 22 pages, because I was working on some of the issues we have here today. But some of it is out there. I just think we need more time to digest it. I do think that a study responsive to C is still needed, updated, compared to what was supplied in 2003. They're asking for uses in this that weren't addressed in that study. I think this study needs to address the uses they're asking for. They're asking for more medical than what the GMP would allow. And most of that's basically a deviation from the GMP. It's at the discretion of the BCC to allow it. But, you know, if! was the applicant, I'd want a study to justifY the allowance of that additional acreage into a medical. And being as they're close Page 23 ,".""",,',- ,..,.._-------_.".~--_..,-- - 161 1 16 , March 5, 2009 to a new hospital, they might be able to successfully do that if they had the right backup for it, but I didn't see it in this document. What do the rest of the board wish to do at this point? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think postponement is appropriate. Given that these facts have now been revealed, I don't think we have a choice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that in mind, I do know there are people here from the public who wish to speak on this issue. And certainly the applicant can come forward, request a continuance or do whatever they want at this point, but the board will eventually make its own mind up. So David, thank you for your input. And I'd like to ask if there's -- this most likely now will come back. But I don't want to take away the opportunity for members of the public to speak who are here today who possibly could not attend in a future meeting. So if you would like to address this, you're more than welcome to, and in the end I'm going to have applicant, after he hears everything, he's more than welcome to address this and ask for a continuance, if he'd like one. You need to state your name for the record, and I believe you were sworn in so we're all set there. MR. JOHNS: My name is Randy Johns. I'm here in regards to Swamp Buddy, Incorporated. We have three issues with this project, and one is the noise ordinance. We've read the noise ordinance, and I can't see where Swamp Buggy is protected. In some of the other fairgrounds and the drag strip and stuff in Immokalee, they've been exempted from that noise ordinance. And I wanted to request that maybe Swamp Buggy gets exempted from that. Because in the principal uses, the first thing they have on there is the residential units. And we know that once these residential units gets moved in next to us out there, that there's going to be a lot of complaints coming back to you guys and they're going to want to try to shut us down with our activities. I know you guys have discussed this and you've talked about it. And there's been talk about us being three or four times a year. But we use that facility out there every weekend, and we don't want to be restricted by these guys want to come in that, hey, you can only go out there three or four times a year. That's not what our PUD allows. We have the rights to use these things. And we want to be protected on that if we can. I know in their PUD they've asked for a ] 4-foot wall to separate us, but they're also -- their building heights are allowed to go 40 feet high, and you know that. And so that's not going to protect us in the future. I have talked to those guys with Sembler and put some requirements on the decibel levels of the type of construction that they use there to help protect it. But I think really to protect us, we need to be exempt from this noise ordinance. And so I just wanted to see what we could do and how we could get protected there for Swamp Buggy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the noise ordinance is not part ofthe discussion ofthis item. I know it relates to it, but you have to go to the Board of County Commissioners to initiate that action. We can't do that. What we can do is assure you that if residential goes in there, the restrictions on this property might be pretty exhaustive in how they can be compatible with your operation. The last thing we need is someone moving in like they do when an airport's built and then start complaining about the airport. MR. JOHNS: That's what we're worried about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're very much aware of it. We probably won't get into that today, but we will stay on top of it. And I think the residential component is a very problematic component of this whole thing. Page 24 , 161 1 k5 March 5, 2009 So if that helps you any for the next time you come before us, we more than welcome it. MR. JOHNS: I have two other issues I'd like to bring up before you and just to see what we can do. We have a sign that's existing there now. When they build the bridge to go into that area, they're going to remove our sign. We want them to be required to put our sign back once they take it out of there. And the other issue we have is when they build a road and a bridge, it's going to be quite a bit higher than the existing road that's there now. And in their first round of construction, they're only going to go in 300 feet or so. So it's going to be two or three feet higher than the existing road, then it's got to go back down, then it's going to go back up to the power lines and back. We would like them to be able to resurface the road -- the length of their first project they're going to do in there, if we could be protected that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a neighborhood information meeting, and I noticed -- I don't think anybody attended it. MR. JOHNS: No, we didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would have been a good time to bring these points up. Because then the applicant is aware of them and they can try to work out their differences. If this gets continued today, I would suggest before this comes back to us you get together with the applicant and talk about your concerns and see if you can work with them. Because one of the best ways to get something accomplished is to see that there's attempt to work with neighborhoods. And that would be a good thing for you to try to do before it comes back to us again. MR. JOHNS: We have met with them and they have been amenable to helping us with this, so I think we can work something out with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And no matter what process it goes forward under, if you could keep coming to the meetings, you'll have ample time to talk, and we certainly want to hear your concerns. MR. JOHNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else want to address us at this time? MR. HORNBACH: Commissioners, my name is Kim Hornbach, I'm one of the volunteer directors at Swamp Buggy. I'm also their attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hornbach -- I forgot to mention, Mr. Hornbach provided us with a copy of the Swamp Buggy's PUD. It was left in our places early this morning. So if you see that document entitled 84-26, that's what it is. MR. HORNBACH: And not to belabor the point, but directing the commission's attention to Page 151, which is -- should be paper clipped, it's also 4-1 of the document. And it talks under 4.2 about the permitted uses and structures that we're allowed to have at the Swamp Buggy facility. I point out the number there, obviously the Swamp Buggy racetrack, county fair and similar expositions. This was done in 1984 before the county fair found its current location. Pointing to item number five, we're allowed to have target ranges. To my knowledge, we've never had archery ranges out there, but we have had skeet shooting as regular -- as well as regular rifle ranges and pistol ranges out there. We don't currently use the property for that, but those are permitted uses. Stock car, racetrack, motocross. Those are some of the uses that we're allowed right now 365 days a year. And Ijust want to make that clear to the commission that although we currently have four major events a year, that's not what we're restricted to under our current PUD. And my concern is that our racing season right, our event season pretty much runs from the end of October to the end of April. And if someone were to be looking at residing in a residential area, residential community less than 200 yards from us during that six-month hiatus from April until October, they may not be aware of the amount of noise that we do create and have created at this facility for 25 some years now. Page 25 ........"".... !II 'N' ".._-... lI. .;,__...",_","","",_"_~",,__,,,w~"" ,.._----~.- . 161 1 /(S March 5, 2009 And I'm just concerned about the compatibility of putting residential this close to an existing use that's been there for decades. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the residential was not part of this process, was not part ofthis application, would you have as grave of a concern? MR. HORNBACH: No, obviously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, appreciate it. Anybody else want to comment before we move forward? MR. KREYE: My name is David Kreye and I'm the CEO ofthe hospital that's just adjacent to this piece of property, Physicians Regional Medical Center, at Collier Boulevard. My take on this is I would love to see more medical office development next to my hospital. We have one building that sits behind us which currently is about 60 percent occupied. As we recruit physicians, it's important for us to maintain open office space to recruit physicians into. Our hospital's expandable to 400 beds, but we don't see that happening in the next short time period as we move forward. Over the next eight to 10-year, 12-year plan, we envision additional beds being added to the hospital. It's very important as we attempt to recruit physicians and add them to our medical staff to expand our services to serve the community we have the ability to put these physicians into class A office space. Hopefully some will be very close to the hospital. This is advantageous for a variety of reasons. We think it's reasonable that this concentration of medical office space would be in that spot. Number two, the practice patterns of physicians are a very important factor as we talk to them about the recruiting process and where they would like to locate, as well as physician and patient convenience to our hospital. So as we attempt to grow our business and move forward, we think something like this would be definitely a positive for us, as far as the medical office space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of the quandaries we have with their request for medical office is that they're requesting a quantity of medical office that goes beyond the limitations of the current requirements in the GMP. Those limitations can be modified. The best way to do that is through an isolated event, meaning if we make an exception for one project, it all of a sudden becomes justification for all. Now, if this project is unique because of its locality around your facility, the needs of your facility and things like that, and that justification can be provided to the Board of County Commissioners who make an eventual policy change in the way that is reviewed, from the language at least I read in the staff report, it might be something possible. So it might be to your advantage to contact the applicant or them to contact you and ask for a letter of support from your organization. It would be probably helpful in getting this issue resolved when we finally get to it. MR. KREYE: I appreciate that advice, and I look for them to contact me. MR. KLATZKOW: Again, this is where a market study-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. KLA TZKOW: -- would support the request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We -- Jeff~ I think we've driven it home, thank you. Sir, thank you very much for your time. Anybody else at this time? Because this will have another opportunity. Bruce, do you want to come up and suggest a solution? Other than f1at-out approval and walking away here today. MR. ANDERSON: I'm not living in a fantasy world. I want to address first the gentleman that was just up here. You just received some expert Page 26 16 L J t6 , arc 5, 2009 testimony about market demand. Now the Swamp Buggy folks. I have with me -- I have an excerpt from a Planning Commission minutes when the noise ordinance was considered. And Commissioner Murray specifically asks about an exemption for the swamp buggy activities. And he was informed that they are in fact exempt as an entertainment event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I know you know this. The noise ordinance isn't up for discussion today, but I realize what you're saying. I think what they're concerned about is just like airports and like anything else, people will complain. And I think that's where the long-term concern is if there's residential there. So I appreciate your comments. Myself, I didn't see the swamp buggy grounds being problematic for noise. But if they do and they want to expressly have their exemptions written into it, they got the BCC to bring that up to and it can be done. But that isn't quite the issue here today, as you know. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. But I did want to point out for the record that when you could have put an exemption in, you were told it was not necessary, that it was already covered. And last but not least, we would request a continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think this board has any problems with your request. In fact, it be better coming from you than us. And as far as the timing goes -- and there's a pause in the sentence. They're conferring. The timing is more in your ballpark than ours, so -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that was what I was conferring about. Sixty days? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: We're going to have to readvertise anyway, so whenever you -- Bruce, whenever you're ready to come forward with something you think will be approved by the Planning Commission, we'll come forward with it, whether it's 60 days or six months. I mean, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you request an indefinite continuance at your discretion, and when you resubmit and everything is in order and staff and you and the people in the neighborhood all work out the differences -- and actually, it sounds like you could have a very -- better compromise that will serve you better if it's handled properly. So I know you're good at that so maybe you need more time. I would suggest an indefinite continuance, if you'd so request. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do. And I also -- one other thing before I leave this morning. I don't want to leave it unanswered or unrebutted (sic) that we believe that medical uses are in fact allowed on this property under the existing comprehensive plan, and we'll go into that at the hearing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there might be a more easier way to resolve your issue. You get more with sugar than you do with salt. So anyway, with that, is there a motion to accept the request for a continuance indefinitely. COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, seconded by Mr. Murray. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. Page 27 .~,~.....~ ..... ',""_'n.."~'~""'~"._"',""",_"""".,_,,, ..--------.,-----..-..--.-- 161 ~'''1 ~ March 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, thank you for your cooperation today, we do appreciate it. Thank you everyone for attending. Item #10 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item on the agenda is old business. There's none in there. Item #11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business. none listed. Item #12 PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment -- oh, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We had discussed the possibility of meeting once a month rather than twice a month to help out with the budget and tying up stafl. Did we get anywhere with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL Ijust think it's a matter of staff moving through with the process when they have to. And if it can be done, we've already expressed our willingness to do it. So I don't know if it's anything that we have to do, it's just something we've offered as acceptable to us. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All right, we're waiting for staff then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one other item I'd like to mention. There's been some talk that the court reporter for the Planning Commission isn't necessary and it's a budget cut item. Now, that's been at a CDES level. I would highly strongly suggest to each Planning Commission here to talk to your commissioners when this issue may come -- as it comes forward for make sure that that doesn't happen. Our record is much more detailed than the BCC record in regards to these issues. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: If! could put on the record, there's no proposal to cut the verbatim minutes. What we're looking at is passing that cost off to the applicant, the cost of the recorder and attempting to prorate or share that cost to the applicant. Because it's -- some petitions go on for eight hours, others are 20 minutes. Page 28 . 161 1 f{7 . ' March 5, 2009 And it's a matter of cost, but it's a matter of cost in passing that cost offto the respective applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe, as you know, I think it would be hugely detrimental to the public for -- not to have that verbatim minutes. MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: It's not an issue of eliminating it, because we find it useful as well, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if this gets passed on to the applicant, can we look at two things: Giving a raise to the court reporter and giving a raise to Kady. So how's that? MR. SCHMITT: But I do have to say that I believe the county is looking at its own contract for all the court recorders that they hire, or they have -- I think it's through the clerk's office now, and they're evaluating whether they should go under their own contract. But that's something that's being done at the manager's level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we've had very good work with Cherie', and we certainly appreciate all the effort she's done for us. So the status quo is great in that regard. Anything else? (No response.) Item #14 ADJOURN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are adjourned. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:46 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Page 29 ~I""" ~-_....,,,._....,,...........--,--,._-" F I '--'--" . _..~ 16 , ..1 i0 M~l~ March 5, 2009 These minutes 7'ved by the board on~ - 2 --(){ as presented r or as corrected . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 30 EIV-O Fiala ~ REG t: Hala~ 16 I 1 ~~ APR 1 0 2009 Hennmg March 4, 2'lJo9 Coyle -;;;:;/ BOO'" of Co",,~ ~_... Coletta ~t MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF H COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 4, 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 Charles Abbott James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon Dejohn Dalas Disney David Dunnavant Marco Espinar Blair Foley George Hermanson Reed Jarvi Thomas Masters Robert Mulhere Reid Schermer Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator, CDES Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES, Staff Liaison Bob Dunn, Director, Building Review & Permitting Susan Istenes, Director, Zoning & Land Development Bill Lorenz, Director, Engineering & Environmental Services Phil Gramatges, Interim Director, Public Utilities , Catherine Fabacher, LDC Control Manager, Zoning & ~~~d'13~~~ opme t Ed Riley, Fire Code Official Date: l ~ 0 Michael Greene, Transportation/Planning l I ~ T 1\ I Item #: \U ..L- L C.opies to .~,."..-.. "".~ ~'-""----""""'"''*''''- -~ -... .'--_"""~"'"---"-"'-''''--'''~'---''''' ,.,~~~..,.,,~.,..- 161 1~ March 4, 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 Marco Espinar moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 11-0. III. Approval of Minutes - February 4, 2009 Meeting Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes of the February 4,2009 Meeting as submitted. Second by Reid Schermer. Carried unanimously, 11-0. IV. Public Speakers (None) (Thomas Masters and James Boughton arrived - 3:07 PM) V. Staff Announcements/U pdates A. Public Utilities Division Update - Phil Gramatges Blair Foley noted the Public Utilities staff has been responsive to Directional Bore deviation requests and complimented the County for its fiscal responsibility in considering alternative engineering designs. Mr. Gramatages stated Public Utilities is a service department and will listen to ideas and suggestions from customers. B. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley . The Monthly Report was distributed to the Members . 500 reviews were conducted last month (less than previous month of 740) C. Transportation Division Update - Michael Greene Regarding DSAC's previous question concerning the Span Wire Signal located at Logan Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Drive: . The signal will remain as a temporary signal until Logan Blvd. is widened to a divided, 4-lane highway Committee questions: "Why are electronic signboards allowed to be parked in turn lanes?" . Sign boards are supposed to be outside the turn lane, but can be placed inside the right-of-way but not in thc travel path or in the turn lane. ROW Inspections should be contacted to report problems. "Has the Landscape Contract.fhr Vanderbilt Beach Road, Rattlesnake Blvd. and Immokalee Road been awarded and what is the installation schedule fiJr J/BR?" . Contract status will be research cd and a report will be presented at the next DSAC mccting. 2 ~._.- ........_______..."*'"."'_'._.,~lIIIl~'''..-?<I~1W "'"..._--_..,,_.,',-..,~_. p' ~ .".~.--"'^_.._,..,,----- 16, I. liW March 4, 2009 "Was the Tramportation Reserve Right-of-Way Ordinance presented to the Board of County Commissioners? '.' . The COA Impact Fees were reviewed by the BCC and the proposal to allow five equal payments (20% per payment) was approved. "Was the Corridor Management Plan approved? " . The Corridor Management Plan was approved as part of the GMP in 2007. The Plan is now in "implementation phase." The draft of the plan for implementation is being reviewed by County departments and a final version will be presented to the BCC in the future. VI. Old Business A. LDC Amendment overview from the LDR Subcommittee Meeting held on 02/25/09 - Catherine Fabacher Copies of the Subcommittee's "Summary Minutes" were distributed to the Committee. Catherine Fabacher reviewed the comments made by Subcommittee concerning the process/procedures and duplication of efforts. . Mark White was retained by the County to review the LDC and develop an "Administrative Code" to handle certain Amendments. . Suggestion: DSAC members become involved in the Administrative Code development in order to make changes to the current system. . Permitting and submittal requirements, application review times, application review standards, and regulations will remain in the LDC. (Reed Jarvi arrived at 3: 15 PM) . Chapter 10, containing the LDC's processes/procedures, will be incorporated into the Administrative Code and will include flow-charts for every process. . A "how to" Manual will be prepared and available online . Completion Target Date: end of the current LDC cycle . The last re-codification of the LDC was not reviewed as thoroughly as possible which contributed to the confusion together with voluminous additions of Amendments to the LDe ("bandages") Ms. Fabacher suggested the Subcommittee address the Administrative Code. Discussion followed concerninf! the Administrative Code: . Projected for review by the BCe in December, 2009 . Deadline for the LDC Cycle has not yet been finalized due to Staffs involvement with the Sign Code regulation and the Cycle may extend into 2010 . An Administrative Code Task Force is working in conjunction with the Consultant to write a draft . June 1 sl is the deadline for submission of LDC Amendments . Board resolution can amend submittal requirements, an application or a process. The LDC will govern Land Development Regulations. 3 -- <.___.'"'"."_;,_____.._,__"..".o~_.',_"~ -_.,,'-"~..,.,.~..~'.....- --"..._-~...,."'._",.,."'",.,.,~'".,,-,.. 161 1~ March 4, 2009 Florida Statutes allows the Land Development Code to be amended twice a year unless the Board of County Commissioners votes for a special cycle. Impact Fees are not included in the LDC and may be amended by the BCC at any time. Discussion ensued concerning: . Items included in Subcommittee Minutes. It was suggested to prioritize re- writing the standards concerning Redevelopment/Rehabilitation Regulations since rehabilitation jobs constitute the majority of work available and is made more difficult by the number of regulations. . Threshold that triggers the Architectural Standards and a suggestion was made to remove site costs from the equation. Joe Schmitt stated the Amendment to the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance regarding Change in Use states if the physical footprint of an existing building is not changed, regardless of interior build-out, Impact Fees will not be increased for a period of five years. The Amendment does not waive the zoning, parking and/or landscape requirements due to a change in use. A suggestion was to parallel the Code with the Florida Building Code which defines different levels of alteration for the building and the site. Mr. Schmitt stated he would welcome assistance from the Committee, since he does not have staff available, to draft an Amendment for presentation to the Board. Chairman Varian asked, since the Committee members are not code writers, if a formal letter from DSAC to the Board would be sufficient rather than an Amendment. (Mario Valle arrived at 3:35 PM) Clay Brooker moved to recommend submission of a formal letter to the BeC which would state DSAC strongly supports relaxation of the Redevelopment Standards due to the current economic situation. Mr. Brooker volunteered to present the letter to the BCC along with concrete examples. Second by Dalas Disney. Mr. Schmitt asked for clarification regarding the items listed in the Minutes An example was cited concerning Dumpster Permits: LDC submission includes Dumpster Permits, and a Building Permit includes Dumpster Permit and then there is a Specialty Permit for Dumpsters - the details remained the same yet three separate submissions were required. Another issue discussed was public vs. private schools. Public schools have their own permitting authority under the School Board while the County is responsible for reviewing plans for private schools. It was suggested that two or three items could be included in DSAC's letter. Clay Brooker amended his motion to recommend the DSAC Chairman sign a letter for submission to the BCC requesting the BCC direct Staff to investigate and pursue appropriate amendments to the LDC to relax Redevelopment Standards. He volunteered to present the letter with concrete examples to the BCe. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, /5-0. 4 .-'-'. ~,'''' r_'....__". J --".,-,..,.,-~-- -........"- --~._,"_.""..--~.- lb. 1 Mi - March 4, 2009 Clay Brooker will draft the letter; Bob Mulhere will review it and email it to Judy Puig, Operations Analyst. All communications will be filtered through Ms. Puig. Joe Schmitt stated "Pre-App" meetings can be made optional but the process could be stalled if a Pre-Application was not correctly completed. He further stated the Software Phase II, Zoning and Planning Module, will be accepted in the next week and the Building Module will be accepted in August, 2009. The implementation of the software was two-fold: time and customization. Mr. Schmitt stated the program was written around the CDES work-flow process which has been time-intensive. Chairman Varian confirmed Staff will review the 15 items in the Subcommittee's Minutes and return with comments. V. Staff AnnouncementslU pdates D. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt, Administrator . There was a second round of reductions. . A revised organization chart was distributed. . A 36-hour work week is under consideration in the Building, Environmental and Zoning Departments to be implemented in April. (10% reduction in man- hours) . The CDES Budget will include proposals for fee increases (to support remaining staff) - an explanation of which fees are to be increased will be provided and justification for the increases . An accounting of indirect costs paid will also be presented The Dovico Timekeeping S(?!tware was explained: . Program is used to track time and capture the costs of a typical variance, or PUD Amendment, etc., to determine if the revenue generated actually covers the cost for the project in Zoning and Engineering . The cost for an EAC Meeting is $3,500 which includes staff attendance, staff reports, staff review, and attendance by the County Attorney. Television staff time was not included. . Tindale-Oliver was hired to evaluate the costs of a typical Petition In response to a question concerning an examination of the Fund split issue (Funds 111 and 113), Mr. Schmitt stated a report is in process. Mr. Schmitt answered a question concerning Code Enforcement and stated the Department is under the General Fund and not impacted by fees. There may be cuts in the future. Ad Valorem taxes are funneled into the General Fund. There was a lengthy discussion concerning a "Business" form regarding parking calculations for new commercial tenants which an owner is required to complete. Susan Istenes stated she will research the issue and return with a report. 5 ~. "---'~------' _...-."",....-,. ....''''-,_.,-~"".'"''''.,"''_!~____,_'''"._,.__."''_____,._i__'._~"",.,~>-___,,,",_,~__..____,.,.., ""'~''''----"''''._'-____' 161 1 p<le March 4, 2009 VII. New Business A. Report from Contractor Licensing - Amount of Citations, Types and fines Paid Michael Ossorio stated: . Fee Schedule through January, 2009, was distributed to the Committee . Coverage area: City of Naples, Marco Island, and Collier County . 89 citations were issued in February, 2009 . Trend: Homeowners are contracting with unlicensed Contractors for home improvements and/or renovations . $60,000 to $70,000 in Code Enforcement Board fines/liens are projected . $100,000+ Citation fines are projected . 20 to 30 "Stop Work" Orders issued per week for permit violations . Contractor who accepts a deposit of 50% or more of estimated cost and does not obtain a valid permit within 30 days can be charged with Grand Theft VIII. Committee Member Comments A. Recommendation from DSAC to Eliminate the EAC and add (2) Environmental Positions to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) Board . An applicant must attend a PC meeting which can be lengthy and costly . There is a cost savings to "combining" the two bodies . EAC has specific responsibilities - members have technical qualifications - more than just 2 members should be recommended . Committee size - too many members, not effective Robert Mulhere moved toforward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to consider combining the Environmental Advisory Committee ("EAC'') with the Collier County Planning Commission ("CCPC'') by adding two environmental positions to the CCPe. The Motion does not diminish the roles or responsibilities of either body. From an efficiency and cost-effectiveness perspective, the roles could be combined into a single body. The Developmental Services Advisory Committee also recommends the Board consider re-defining the role and responsibility of the singular Commission body. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 15-0. Bill Lorenz stated he would include the Motion in the Executive Summary. VI. Old Business B. Brief Update on Progress of the Floodplain Management Ordinance - Robert Wiley (Continued to next meeting) DSAC Meeting Dates: Aprill, 2009 at 3:00 PM May 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM June 3, 2009 at 3:00 PM .July 1,2009 at 3:00 PM 6 .~._,- ,. ''''-~-'~''- _..._,.,___'""t..:_._____..._',"H.""e,~,",....'~:'.~__._,~__~"_"'"~............__"'_,_.~~'......._~___._ 161 1 P\~ March 4, 2009 There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:40 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE lA)~ William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/~ttee on *~ , as presented , or as amended . 7 .-.. -..", ........""".o'"'__~._iiIll_, .. f. "'h<<!o_"",'~ ~-------'.....'- Fiala 161 1 Ai J RECE\VED Halas Henning January 29, 2009 APR 0 1 2009 Coyle ~/ML Coletta _ soard of county CorJlffiiSSiOOel'S MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, January 29, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in SPECIAL SESSION at , Collier County Development Services Center, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609/610 Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon Noah Standridge David Bishof Nick Penniman Michael V. Sorrell Dr. Llew Williams Ninon Rynerson ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning Michael Deruntz, Principal Planner MISe Corres. 1 Date_QS?Jtc12~ item $; llo I( l )t\~ ----^ -'-j1t+-- .'._---- ,~.~,~," "--,,-_.,.,.,, ,"._'.N_'N.'_"'.'''..<t;_;''''___-.,.,'''H''." fl. ',"",,__,'_'~""'d'" ,..="....."""""..._ _"".." _I' .... .,,"-_...~_...___"."._'""~_,.._____._~_ I 161 1 p\1 January 29,2009 1. Call to Order Chairman Hughes called the meeting to order at 9:00AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Dr. Hushon chaired the meeting. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Penniman moved to appro~'e the agenda. Second by Chairman Hughes. Carried unanimously 7-0. IV. Approval of meeting minutes (deferred to next meeting) V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences February 4th - Dr. Williams and Mr. Standridge need to leave early. February 5th - Dr. Williams and Mr. Standridge will not be present. VI. Land Use Petitions None VII. New Business A. Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program Phase II Report, Prepared by the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee, dated January 2009. Dr. Hushon provided an overview of the format noting the Council is reviewing the Phase IT Report of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee (RLSARC) dated January, 2009. The purpose of the review is to provide proposed recommendations for the PrOh'Tam (based 011 the Rep0l1) to the Board of County Commissioners (BeC). Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning Department, Staff liaison tor the RLSARC provided the Phase II Report presented a slide show entitled "The Collier County Rural Lands Ste~vardship Overlay, Five Year Revie'w Report" of the RLSARC noting the following: . The RLSARC conducted business for the past year with public meetings. . The Pow'ers, Functions and Duty of the RLSARC were to: a. Review data conceming the participation and effectiveness of the Overlay meeting the Goal objective and Policies of the FLUE and GMP b. Review the RLSA Overlay and make recommendations to increase tht: eftectiveness of the Overlay c. Assist in detennining the most effective venues and dates to hold public presentations, and d. Assist in promoting public interest in the review process. 2 ".__u,.___ .. -......--. , 161. 1 ~1 January 29,2009 . The meetings had the input of the general public, special interest groups and numerous experts in a variety of fields related to the subject. . The Phase I Report was presented to the EAC on March 7, 2008. Brad Cornell RLSARC Member continued the presentation: . The RLSA is a landmark program as the result of a 1997 legal challenge to amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. . The Department of Community Affairs found the amcndments inconsistent with thc States Growth Managemcnt Act. The finding was upheld during a legal challenge . In 1999, a final Settlement Order required the County to complete a 3- year study of its Rural Land Policy. . In 2002, a citizen committec recommended Florida's first RLSA overlay. . The DCA found the RLSA plan consistent with the Final Order and in compliance with the Growth Management Act. . In 2004, Collier County's first RLS Town (Ave Maria) was approved. . In 2007-2008, a required 5-year review of the Program was initiated by the RLSARC. . The RLSA is a voluntary program providing an overlay to the existing regulated land uses. . Goals were given . The voluntary Program utilizes the concept of identifying Stewardship Sending Areas" (SSA's) which are sensitive lands and allowing the landowners of the areas to remove certain land use layers in exchange for land development "credits". . The credits are transferred to lands more suitable for development or "Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA's)" via a buyer/seller market. . The credits are then utilized in the Stewardship Receiving Area's as density for land development. . The program also utilizes the concept of additional "bonus credits" for certain activities (restoration of affected land, etc.) . As of December 2008, approximately 55,595 acres of lands have been proposed (or already converted) for preservation via SSA's Gary Eidson, RLSARC Member continued the Presentation: . The Program provides incentives and increases values for the land placed in conservation. . If the landowner does not enter the Program, the underlying land use requirements apply (for residential, 1 unit/5 acres) Bill McDaniel, RLSARC Member continued the presentation highlighting recommended changes in policy and stating the goal is to "prevent premature conversion of agriculture land" to "retain agriculture acti vities." (Page 45 of the Report). 3 _._.,~,,",_. _.w".~~~_"",""_,_~",,,...__d..__......;."" "__,_,..-,..._....."""___",_;,_..._'"_#',_w"".'.-~...______<,.""."".""'" ...',.^~..'....",u,,_""__"",____,,',"'''''.,....''''"_'''''''.., -,,,._~~,."- I 16 I 1 .(>( 1 January 29, 2009 . Group 1 - 1.6.1 (Page 47) - provide property owners with a conditional period of 5 years in which they can use the SSA Credits, and if they are not able to do so, can rcvert back to the original zoning. . Group 2 (page 5 1) Provide for a new credit assignment for lands designated as Agriculture SSA of 2 credits per acre for Open lands outside of the Area of Critical State Concem (ACSC) and 2.6 credits for Open lands with the ACSC. . Group 3 (page 52) - define the specific number of credits assigned to the type of restoration and provide for the establishment of credits for a north and south panther corridor; clarify the use of Water Retention Areas for stormwater management. . Group 4 (page 55) - Establish a maximum SRA footprint of 45,000 acres; eliminate hamlets and redefine the use of eRD's to those uses that support agriculture, natural resources and economic diversity; change the Stewardship credit density ratio from 8 credits to 10 credits per SRA acre; public benefit use acres count towards the SRA acreagc; require SRA's to provide management plans to minimize human and wildlife interactions; require SRA t 0 provide a mobility plan; address road connectivity and maintenance and mitigation; addrcsses the identification of historic and cultural resources within the RLSA . Group 5 (page 62) - provide lllap of potential crossings (wildlife) to be devcloped within 12 months of GMP adoption; require the most current and complete data to be used in preparation of management plans and call for monitoring programs for areas greater than 10 acres; address compatibility and outdoor lighting; assess historical and cultural resources. In summary, a 2050 RLSA concept plan has been developed identifying the particular areas slated for proposed types of land uses and establish a maximum developable footprint of 45,000 acres (less than 1/4 of the total RLSA) and increase total lands expected to be placed in SSA's from 92,000 acres to 134,300. For the Program to be successful, it must have a sustainable market for the SSA credits generated. Discussion ensued if the proposed changes will create an excess supply of credits. It was noted the current system is working. A concept under discussion is transferring the credits out of the area, to locations that already have the infrastructure in place (i.e., further west in the County). Mr. Bishof requested Staff provide a chart by FLUCCS (Florida Land Use Cover Classifications) code category, indicating acreage aflands in the SSA's that have been placed in conversation within the Program It was noted the new incentives increase the credits within the Program to approximately 404,000 credits or 89,000 new credits. The exchange rate has changed the density requirement from 8 credits per unit to 10 per unit per unit. 4 ~._._._-, ~----- -~_.,_.~. I 161 1 ~1 - January 29, 2009 Break: lO:25AM Re-Convene I 1:40AM Dr. Hushon noted she attended -Y4 of the RLSARC meetings and as a matter of public disclosure, noted the Report generated in the Planning effort were not written by Staff. The Report was generated by consultants (WilsonMiller and Cheffy Passidomo, etc.) hired by the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) who provided support to the RLSARC. ECPO signed a Memorandum of Understanding with some special interest Environmental Groups (Defenders of Wildlife, Florida Audubon Society, etc.) who agreed not to challenge the Plan. Tom Greenwood noted the document is a Report and/or Plan; it is not a document to proposing final language to be adopted in the Growth Management Plan or other County Ordinances. The language proposed for the proposed changes were generated and approved by the RLSARC. The program is voluntary and all meetings were open to the public. The final language for proposed adopted regulations will require approval by the Board of County Commissioners and the Department of Community Affairs. The EAC may review any environmental issues the Council feels have not been addressed in the Report and recommend Policy changes. S{Jeakers Bill McDaniel, RLSARC Member stated in addition to consultants, many other Special Interest Groups and experts provided information to the Committee. Due consideration was given by the RLSARC to the "bias" of the information provided. Further, the County Attorney was involved in consultations regarding the Committee's work. Gary Eidson, RLSARC Member, noted whoever prepared the information was not of issue to the Committee as it was heavily scrutinized. The report is not a biased report. Elizabeth Fleming, Defenders of Wildlife, noted they have participated in all of the RLSARC Meetings with input for all imperiled species. Their organization is taking a pragmatic approach and attempting to work with landowners in habitat preservations (agreements, etc.). The approach is intended to be implemented via a Habitat Conservation Plan for approval by USFWS to secure a final agreement. She stated the Organization was not "silenced" by the Memorandum of Understanding" as asserted. Russell Priddy, Eastern Collier Landowner addressed the Council noting the RLSARC should not be accused of hi as and noted Environmental Advisory Council member Mr. Penniman is on the Board of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida; Dr. Hushon, Dr. Williams and others members of the Council are members of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. He noted the composition of the EAC could be construed as bias in relation to issues the Conservancy brings forth to the Council. 5 ..~- _.__.__.._---,---~-_.~_.,.~._..__.__._--,...~-~.~,,'--~~~..,..,~~._''".........-.,""'''''''"'''-=.......-...,.........._-"- ,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,"--,,,,,~,;-,,,,--,,,"-,,"~,,.,.,.-",,,_.,..- ,'1 16 I 1~1 January 29, 2009 It was noted the Environmental Advisory Council members were appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to deal with environmental issues. Dorothy Hirsch, Citizen noted it is the responsibility of Government to protect citizens. Staff should be in charge of gathering of information, those gaining the most bearing costs. She applauded Dr. Hushon for bringing to light the transparency issue. Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted the biggest policy change recommended is 45,000 acres of new towns and cities to be slated for development via additional credits. The original intent was the overall density of I unit per 5 acres to be compressed to 16,500 acres \"lith related services with areas set aside for preservation. The area was doubled before the original adoption of the Program. They are concerned the current intent of the Program has compromised its goals. The 5-year review's purpose was not to create sweeping changes in the Growth Management Plan as proposed. She recommended the Council review page 465 in the document, which outlined concerns of the Program expresscd by the Department of Community Affairs. Tom Greenwood noted an Executive Summary included with the Report submitted to the BCC and will contain EAC. CCPC and Staff comments on the Report. Brad Cornell, RLSARC Member (on behalf of the Audubon Society) stated the process was very transparent with all documents associated with the Review available for public scrutiny. As a member of the Committee, without interference of outside authority, he authored many of the revisions proposed. The revisions were reviewed hy the full Committee. He took exception to inference WilsonMiller authored the entire report. Russell Priddy noted the landowners paid for the original Program but are not responsible for certain concepts of the Program (restoration credits, early cntry bonus credits). Thc concepts were proposed by other outside Agencies. Alan Reynolds, CEO Wilson Miller noted page 76 of the Report provided an analysis of the credits/developable lands/addition of restoration credits during the history of the Program. The analysis indicated how the footprint of the 43,500 acres proposed for development was delived. Discussion ensued on the original Policy, which stated compact rural development would occupy 1/10 of the footprint that would otherwise be required under baseline (density) conditions. The Policy was mis-interpreted by various individuals to stipulate 10 perccnt of the land would be developed. Mr. Reynolds noted the original Study led to the Program. WilsonMiller was authorized by the BCe to be hired by the property owners to facilitate the process. The County was the custodian of all documents and Staff facilitated the generation of the Study. Following the study, the County, via paid consultants was responsible for 6 ._-_.~.- -,-~~. ~ ; . 161. 1 1\1 January 29, 2009 development of the Program. The landowners retained WiIsonMiller as a consultant to the process. He recommended the Council review the comments in the Appendix Section of the document, which were provided by various parties before the RLSARC undertook the 5-year review. The RLSARC attempted to address the comments throughout. In closing The RLSARC proposes a nominal change in the developable area, but provides large increase in preserved areas. He addressed the memo transmitted to the RLSARC, which requested an "expedited" review of the Report and bypass the EAC and cepe. It was an attempt to expedite the process to save time and Staff costs. Terry Bengtsson, South Florida Water Management District addressed the Committee regarding a letter provided by David L. Hoffman, PG of Johnson Engineering to Tom Jones of Barron Collier Companies - Re: Eastern Collier County Water Resource Availability dated February 15,2008. He noted the following: . The letter analyzes the potential requirements for agriculture and residential land uses in the area. . There is a plan in place to address water resources in the future. . Increasing storage to reduce withdrawals on the existing aquifers is critical in the supply of water in the area. . The agricultural users utilize more shallow water sources . The residential users utilize deeper water sources which are more brackish and treatment is required for the sources. It was noted the issue of sufficient water supply is one of the most critical issues impacting the County. The Department ofCommunity Affairs now requires Comprehensive Plans to ensure there are sufficient water qualities available to meet future development needs. Break: 12:05PM Re-convened: I: OOPM The Council reviewed the individual Policy Groups in Section 2 of the document (beginning on Page 45). There was detailed discussion on many of the areas within the Policy Groups. Group 1 ~ (Page 45-50) Policy 1.6.1 Discussion ensued on the concept a landowner with a permitted SSA may opt out of the SSA (utilizing a "Conditional Stewardship Easement") and return to the underlying uses within a 5-year period, with a year extension. To meet this requirement, no credits may have been utilized. Question was - should this Section remain in the Growth Management Plan? The Council recommendetl Policy/.h.! remains within the Growth Management Plall. 7 --- -'"'''---''' '''''',__0' .",.,.,-""--_."."",,,, ~"*',_.~ 1 __,_,.""',;"...",",_..._'""'"...._"""""~''''",.'" - -"-''''"'-'''''.;'''".~......_.. -,..~-,.". 16 1 1~1 January 29,2009 Policy 1. 7 , lines #5-10 Existing Language All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, ~rtment of EnviroIH11sntal Conservation, Department of ^griculture and Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized statewide laoo trust, or similar language; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement will identify the specific land management measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measure. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility ufthe Conservation Easement including more parties for signatures. This would assist to ensure the "perpetuity" of the Conservation Easements (at least three "outside parties" as opposed to the landowner, Collier County and one "outside party" on the agreements. Speakers Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida recommended as many entities possible for signatories. She expressed concem the "Conditional Stewardship Easements" where the landowner can opt out of the SSA before a 5-year period could impact future planning initiatives (wildlife corridors, etc.). RusseIJ Priddy, Eastern Collier County landowner re-iterated this is a voluntary landowner Program and the requirement of additional signatories would increase time and costs for the landowner, creating disinccntives to enter the Program. Proposed revision: All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County and one of th elol/o wing entities: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida fVater Management District, or a recognized statewide land trust, and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Sending Area Cre<.l!l Agreement will identify thc specific land management measures that will be undertaken and the party responsihle for such measure or similar language. Group 2 - (Pages 50-51 ) Policy 2.2 Detailed discussion occurred on the merits of the recommended amendment in Policy 2.2, which provides for additional incentives (credits) to retain agriculture within Open lands not dcsignated as SSA's, etc. All non-agriculture uses shall be removed and remaining uses limited to agriculture with a credit of2.0 credits per acre outside (ACSC) and 2.6 units per acre within ACSC's. 8 -..-- ....- I 16 r 1 f\ 1 January 29,2009 Tom Jones, RLSARC Member provided an overview of the concept and noted many landowners are small landowners without any current ability to develop sending credits. Speakers Nicole Ryan and Andrew McElwaine, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, noted the existing Program has done an adequate job of protecting agricultural lands. They provided a map prepared by the Conservancy entitled "Conservancy of Southwest Florida 2050 RLSA Concept Plan. " The map is an alternative of the map proposed by the RLSARC. It compresses down the developable footprint and identifies a proposed Primary Panther Zone to promote retention of Panther habitat and a larger Panther Corridor. They recommended the Council review the entire credit structure and expressed concern the proposed Program may weaken Natural Resource aspects (credit values) of the Program by in fluxing a large amount of new Agriculture credits. Break: 2:20PM Reconvene: 2:25PM Dr. Huskon polled the Council and determined at this point, the Council is in favor of Policy 2.2 as written. It may be re-addressed at a later point if necessary. Group 3 - (Pages 52-55) Policy 3.11 Detailed discussion occurred on Policy 3.11 -1,2 and 3, which propose additional credits for the restorations of Caracara habitat, exotic control burning, flow way restoration, native habitat restoration, enhancement of Panther corridors, restoration of wading bird habitat, etc. It was noted the restoration is tiered (credits awarded for proposing a restoration plan, and additional credits awarded when the restoration is completed). S peakers Elizabeth Fleming, Defenders of Wildlife, noted Brad Cornell was responsible for recommending the amendment. They support a provision for Caracara restoration that thrive on ranch lands. Bruce Johnson, WilsonMiller noted the Caracara is listed as "threatened," There is only 500 adult Caracara (1/5 of the Bald Eagle numbers) within the State and they nest in the same location annually. If the home range becomes overgrown, the Caracara will abandon the range. The proposal creates penn anent habitat for the speCIes. Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed concern over permitting the tiered restoration concept for lands that have not completed restoration (or not intended to complete restoration). Also, concern there is not a maximum number of credits limited under 3.1-1; the proposed Panther Corridors, (which are narrow and 9 .-..~,"--~ .-.^,-"."~""---""'--"""----'-'~ ~'."""~"-"_oIi'''''^,'''''''_''h.__'",_i_'''_-''''''''''W;Ii_''';__'''"'''''''''''''''-,--'''' n """,",""_,,,.,''''''''_'__ . _","'m.."" ,_.__...._-~_.~---. 16\ lk1 January 29, 2009 only 600 feet wide in places); and the Corridors are not scientifically based and may not be viable. It was noted a technical team is rcviewing Panther data. They were to be completed by December 31, 2008, but havc not yet completed their task. Bill McDaniel noted the existing Program does not acknowledge Panther Corridors; the RLSARC utilized available data to provide initial Corridor locations. As 0 f recently, more data has, and continues to become available regarding the issue. The results of the data may be incorporated into the Program as it evolves. Tim Durham, WilsonMiIler provided an overview of the rationale for choosing the proposed corridors. Discussion ensued between EAC members, Consultants and RLSARC members regarding the paramcters in locating Panther Corridors and Highway Crossings. The following was noted: . The Florida Panther Recovery Plan does provide parameters for Corridors. . The evolving data with the issue requires further analysis. . Before any "language changes" (GMP/LDC amendments) are officially proposed to the Program, (which will require an EAC vote), more data will be available at the time to assist in making more inforn1ed decisions. . The R LSARC proposed maps are not "binding," they are "concept maps. H . It was noted the Panthers do not utilize an existing active "northern corridor" today. . The RLSARC attempted to provide an avenue to provide corridors via awarding credits to landowners, if feasible. . For logistic purposes, it may require a Habitat Conservation Plan concept to facilitate landowner participation (if one landowner does not comply, the Con-idor would be interrupted) Elizabeth Fleming, Defenders of Wildlife supports the concept Corridors, but is awaiting analysis of further data for final determination. Many issues still need to be taken into account to ensure the Policy works for the Panther. She noted the concept should be endorsed under the understanding more infonnation is forthcoming. Dr. Husholt polled tlte Council who indictlted tlrey are ill favor of the "tiered restoration cOllcept. " Policy 3.13 Discussion ensued regarding the status of Water Retention Areas (WRA) located in Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA's). lfthe WRA is utilized in the Stormwater Management component of a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), it is must be included in the acreage of the SRA. 10 ,-... ~~- . -- ,.. 16\ 1 -t\: 1 January 29,2009 Discussion ensued on the Johnson Engineering, Inc. letter to Tom Jones, dated February 15, 2008 - Re: Eastern Collier County Water Resource Availability. It was noted the USGS estimates Collier County residents utilize 246/gpd as opposed to II O/gpd estimated by Johnson Engineering and whether the RLSARC relied on the llO/gpd figure to arrive at conclusions in the RLSARC Phase II Report. Tom Jones noted the II O/gpd figure was obtained through usage figures from the Ave Marie water system. Discussion ensued on this issue and the status of the future water supplies for Collier County. It was noted a high percentage of Collier County water usage is for irrigation and newer communities are "re-using" water to reduce demands on the potable water system. Tom Jones noted he would request Johnson Engineering re-analyze the Report and provide any clarifications if necessary. He recommends the Council arrange a presentation on the issue of Water Supply in Collier County. Break: 4:15PM Re-convened: 4:30PM Group 4 - (Pages 55-62) Policy 4.2 - Discussion ensued regarding the proposal of capping the total SRA designation shall be a maximwn of 45,000 acres and proposed RLSA Zoning Overlay District Map. Bruce Johnson of WilsonMiller provided an overview of how the proposed 2050 "build out map" was developed and its relation to the "Primary Habitat Zone for Florida Panthers": . He referenced technical studies/information that was considered: . Landscape Conservation Strategy for the Panther for the State of Florida prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 2002. . A Scientific Review Team Study ofthe above Report. . Publication "How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida Panther" Randy Kautz, et al. . Daryl Land, (Panther Coordinator for the US Fish and Wildlife Service) analysis of detailed telemetry data. . The "Primary Zone" was first detailed by the Landscape Conservation Strategy Report. . The "Primary Zone" is defined as "areas of suitable habitat consistently occupied by Panthers the past 20 years. " . In utilizing telemetry, the "fixed kernel statistical method for calculating home ranges" concept for establishing home ranges is the most accurate according to wildlife experts. II --" '-~----"~ .._r__ "-"'-'"'."'''''0"_0''''" ..""'__~"",,..<'M._."_~" ,~---"-""-_....~----~,,,.........,,..,.,, "., ~-'..~_,,_ 17... ""T "",-q'.--".._~_.._... '--.-"-' -----, " ~. 'I 161 1 ~1 January 29, 2009 . He provided a "Primary Zone" map, which identified the established home range utilizing this method. . An alternate method of telemetry analysis is "minimum convex po(vgons" which is not as accurate in detennining actual home ranges. . The "minimum convex polygon" takes into account a Panther moving to a point for a brief period of time and returning to the home range, inaccurately inferring a broader area of "home range." . Some Groups advocate identifying the "Primary Zone" utilizing the "minimum convex polygon" method and have proposed maps based on this inforn1ation. . The "Primary Zone" map created utilizing the "fixed kernel method "mirrors the development parameters of the 2050 build out map proposed by the RLSARC. . Daryl Land, has dctcrmined the daytime/nighttime telemetry data indicates no significant differences in the "home range" of the Panther. Discussion ensued between Council members, Bruce Johnson and Tim Durham on the merits of utilizing or not utilizing the convex polygons method to determine "Primary Zone" and other concepts regarding suitable Panther habitat. It was noted publications by Daryl Land have utilized this method in determining the "Primary Zone." Tim Durham noted Daryl Land, who is familiar with Collier County and studied telemetry and the Florida Panther for over 20 years and indicated he is "happy" with the overlay map proposed by the RLSARC. Bruce Johnson noted publications are prepared for different subjects within the Florida Panther issue. The author utilizes any necessary data for the intended purpose of the publication. This may explain how different parameters may be utilized to reach conclusions in a Report or Study. Speaker Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida cited the US Fish and Wildlife Service Florida Panther Recovery Plan who regulates the Endangered Species Act references Primary Zones, not fixed kernels, The Conservancy Concept is to develop Sending credits based on the identi fication of a Primary Zone, which would be incorporated into the RLSA Program thus directing development away from these critical areas. 114r. Pennimallmoved to cOlltillue the meeting until February 5,2009 at 1 PM. Second by Chairman Hughes. Carried unanimolls(v 7-0. 12 - ~,.--- 161 1 ~1 January 29.2009 ***** The EAC concluded their meeting at 5:45 and continued it to February 5,2009 at 1 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY CO NC ~--/-o9 These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on , as presented , or as amended 13 -,~-_.~.. ---. ""--- _,...._....,__"'_____,...___""_....,,_.~""'.......~....._-.___H'''._..',.._"'__._o"_""_~"'_"""'"..._" -"'";-"......."..__.__.'""~.,... ,..-,-" p::CE'VED Fiala 161 1 f\~ j Halas APR 0 1 2009 Henning February 5, 200<) Coyle b("u 0 of County COrnmiMkln.lrl Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, February 5, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :00 PM in SPECIAL SESSION at Collier County Development Services Center, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609/610 Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon Noah Standridge David Bishof Nick Penniman Ninon Rynerson - _~ '/if: . . ;:; . ('f" '~ '. - _ f ~ r - ''", t- ~-'~' ALSO PRESENT: Steve 'Williams, Assistant County Attorney Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning Michael Deruntz, Principal Planner ~,,\ISC Corres: Date: ..--.......-.--........--.....- 1 tern tt .,~,~~.". _.,~.......,,~'O._...~.___' '" .-,',--* " -."'''- .' -. ","'"--",--,-,--"'"."._..._"'."""""'_.""..,.."'----",,.,""....,","--_.~"'""".,,....,"',,_..._,----.........''''.......-,.,,-' . .._---_..~- .1~6 1 1~1 February S. 2009 EA C - RL/}A meetiuJ: Cf}!.ljillue:!!J.l'om .It/mull,\, 2V, 2{!!!.2: Chairman Hugh('s called the mcctll1g to order at 1 :()4PM. V. New Business A. Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program Phase II Report, l)repared by the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee, dated January 2009. The Review was continued from the January 29, 2009 meeting: It IVas noted Rural Land Stewardship Area Review Committee Members Gmy Eidson, Bill/McDaniel, Tom Jones and Tammy Nemecek ll'cre present. Dr. Busho" chaired the item. Nick Casalanguida, Director of Transportation Planning addressed the Council highlighting the [ollowing: . Transportation Planning is reviewing the RLSARC build out plan for impact on the 2030 Long Range Transportation. . Long Range Transportation Planning also considers the County Build-Out Vision Plan. . The main concem for Transportation Planning is the RLSA's impact on incoming and out going traffic on existing or proposed roads (Immokalee, State Road 29, etc.) . The RLSA would provide optimal opportunity for providing services in the region to reduce trips in an out of the area (government facilities, landfills, hospitals, bus service, etc.) . TranspOltation requests input from all Agencies and Special Interest Groups to ensure Long Range Plans attempts to address all issues (wildlife crossings, etc.) . Funding language of transportation improvements should be incorporated into the RLSA Program. . Lighting requirements for roadways arc addressed in the Land Development Codes. . Commuter Rail is not considered in the Long Range Transportation Plan (due to the amount of right of way, which may be encumbered during the Planning process). Speakers Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted ifroads and development is confined to areas outside the Primary Panther Zone, the impact on the Panther would be reduced (road fatalities, etc.) The review of individual Policies continued begilming with Policy 4.3 on page 56. ) ~ 161, 1~~ February S, 2009 Policy 4.3 -- 4_6 General discussion between Environmental Advisory COllllcil and Rural Land Stewardship Area Review Committee Members occurred regarding the exact language within these Policies Speakers Dana Scofield, owner, Half Circle 1.. Ranch, expressed concern the Conservancy of Southwest Florida definition of "Primary Panther Zone" is not consistent with the Rural Lands Stewardship Program as approved by the State. Their definition would severely impact the Program as it exists and would require the County to "scrap" the Program and begin again. He noted the Impacts on Panther habitat will require review throughout the pelmit process. Jennifer Hecker, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted the following: . There is no Conservancy definition of "Primary Zone." . The Conservancy did not create any ofthe documents/maps utilized in preparing their concept map. . Their proposed build out map is consistent with the current Program, which proposes Sending and Receiving areas and utilizing credits to promote conservation. . The proposed "Primary Zone" is within the current "Open Lands" and is proposed to create additional incentives in the areas. . The "Primary Zone" is based on a definition in the Kautz paper ("How much is enough:' Landscape-scale conservation Jor the Florida Panther"), which used modeling, telemetry, land cover types, etc. with research heavily scrutinized by peer review and the science upheld. . The US Fish and Wildlife has recently declared the Kautz paper as the "best available science." . The proposed Conservancy Map has been prepared as a scientific resource to be utilized to direct development to the most appropriate areas while creating incentives to preserve critical natural resource areas. Tim Durham, Wilson Miller noted: · Data and the science are open to different interpretations by individuals. · Data and science should incorporate existing field conditions before reaching conclusions. · There is a "Technical Team" assembled to provide input on the issue that has not yet completed its study. . The Program is voluntary and requires the participation of the landowner who wishes to address the issue. Bruce Johnson, Wilson Miller cautioned that basing information on GIS mapping alone can be misleading. Information must be interspersed with actual land uses, vegetation, etc. within the areas the intormation is utilized to obtain conclusions. 3 - ..'-~-'--"'------'-'----'-- -.-- --.,., -.."''*_:;___..:_''''_.....'''''''__.'<l.'-,-,M'__._o;o....,'''''''''''''''-'''."'~~".... '. " ._._."..__.".,____."~__w._.._',,._~. ~._<... ..~_.--,... ~ -~-- . 161 1 ~'1 J'ehru:LI\' )( H It) Nicole Ryan, r:onsen'tlIlCY of Southwest IQorida !luted the EAC should bast its review and conclusions on the issue utilizing the "Florida POl/ther Recm'clY Plan" provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Bill McDaniel, RLSARC Member noted the isslle was debated at length during the Committees activities and the RLSARC proposed northern corridor was created \vith input from Daryl Land (Panther Coordinator for the US Fish and Wildlife Service). Break: 2:25PJl,f Re-col/vel/ed: 2:40PM A1s. Rynersoll did IIOt return Discussion took place between RLSARC Members and EAC members on: Policy 4.70 - 4.7 (page 57 -.62) . Utilizing the Concept of Concentric Density Rings (Concentric Ring/Zone Model) when developing SRA's - (Policy 4.7) . The types of Land Use Development allowed in the Area of Critical State Concern. (Policy 4.7.2) . The density requirements in Policy 4.7.3. . Should, or does the County define the ternl "infrastructure"'? (Policy 4,9) . Should buffer zones be considered for adjacent SRA's/Towns/Villages? It was noted the RLSARC considered this concept and chose not to incorporate it into the Program, (Policy 4.14) Speakers Nicole Ryan~ Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed concern over the acreage increase in villages (existing 1000 acres to proposed 1500acres) and recommended the Council consider detailed requirements for Villages and Towns. In addition, consider shifting development out of the Area of Critical State Concem. Brian Cogun, Barron Collier Companies noted in regard to buffers, it was considered by the RLSARC, however with different landowners developing the properties could make the process more cumbersome. It is a voluntary landowner Program and could affect incentives to patiicipate. Gary Eidson, RLSARC Member noted the Council should consider the Victory Garden concept for the area. Allen Reynolds, WilsonMiller noted in regard to buffers, the topic was discussed when the original RLSA Program was developed. They determined there may be conflicts between residential uses outside the buffer and agriculture uses inside buffers. The original Program developed Policy 4.11 encouraging land use transitions on outer edges of adjoining developed areas addressing the issue. Croup 5 Policies .f "__u_.__._ ,'~ 16 I 1 \\\ rcbruary 5, 2009 Policy 5.1-- 5.8 (Pages 62-67) Discussion took place between RLSARC Members and EAC members on the following: . Policy 5.4 and whether this is related to the Technical Review Committee addressing the Panther issue. Speaker Allen Reynolds, Wilson Miller requested clari fication on the procedure of the review process by the EAC. Dr. Hushon noted when this portion of the review is complete (information gathering), the EAC will re-review the individual Policies in the Report and develop recommendations to be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The public will be allowed to comment after the EAC has developed the recommendations in entirety. Speakers Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed concern and wanted to ensure that Policy 5.5.b is to be interpreted that the Species and actual habitat would be protected within the Program Area (as opposed to mitigation for the habitat/species ). Brad Cornell, RLSARC Member who drafted the particular language provided clarification on the wording in the Policy noted the language should be reviewed for clarification. It was noted the Group 5 Policies are directed to non-participating landowners within the RLSA Overlay. Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida recommended lighting standards be addressed within the Program (i.e. the "Dark Skies" standards, etc.). The RLSARC members provided clarification on remaining issues to individual EAC members on the changes proposed by the Committee. Dr. Hushon requested EAC members (if they wish) provide recommendations on concepts and/or specific language changes to the Policies for the next meeting. The changes should be submitted to Staff 7 days hefore the next meeting for distribution Mr. Penniman moved to continue the meeting to February 27,2009 at 1 PM. Second by Chairmau Hughes. Carried Ilnauimous!y 6-0. The EAC Committee cone/uded their meeting at 5:00 PM to be continued to February 27, 2009 at 1 PM 5 -_. -~~--,--~._----~ ._..__._-_.-_..~.,--- -,--~ --..- .- __~... "'_^'_'_~"~___'___""_"'_'"U__' ,,_ "_~"~"'_' .,......,,'-''''.., .-....... ..... ....'_~_".'.~~.e' -'~~~'---'" 0' __..,<....__"_~ 16\ \ 1?< "\, , I.C!,rllar\ , 200i) COLI JER COUNT\" ENVIRONMENT AI, ,ADVISORY COIJNCIL //l l / ;-/__1- 0 Of These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chaim1an on ____~ __, as presented _____, or as amended _ -- () -----_.~~-~ ."- ." - _...._..,..~-_._.~-------- .. .;''J-- "..~~.___~.~}'~_1li_-,'~~~ , ~Dl!lllil&'i~U~I'I!:Rr r~.ft"f~..\lHI11TI _~i1l"'f(o"n~ Fiala 16\ 1~\ ~ RECE'VED Halas Henning February 27, 2009 APR 0 1 2009 Coyle v 2L Board of County c.omm\SSlOners Coletta 71//lh! MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, February 27, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier COW1ty Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :00 PM in SPECIAL SESSION at Collier County Development Services Center, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609/610 Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon Noah Standridge David Bishof Nick Penniman Michael V. Sorrell (excused) Dr. Llew Williams Ninon Rynerson (excused) Chris Stephens ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning Susan Mason, Sf. Environmental Specialist i",sc ,:OlTes: Date _.-<.~" ,.,..,........--.,.....--' ter:1 #' ---,_..,".-~.,_.--.+,..~~.....,~,~,..,.~",...- '''--",-''~ """"''''"'.._~,-"----,-----,--_.,,,....' ~.- -....-.... ... "_..,,,. ~. --_._.."-",--~~......,",, - ...._.",~ -~-^"'" ....:'.," "..",;i"":,"';,m,,,..",-~,,1Ii'lII',',, :'''lI';:;;><,:",,'.I'; ,- '~ii"Cff' ;'-_i,~:;l~i ~~,>:",~,,.' .., 16-1, 1 k'\ ENVIRONMENTAl ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA February 27, 2009 1:00 P.M. Collier County Development Services Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609/610 Naples. Florida, 34104 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call I I III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of meeting minutes [deferred to next meeting] V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions [none] VII. New Business A. Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program Phase " Report; Prepared by the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee, dated January, 2009. VIII. Old Business IX Subcommittee Reports X. Council Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment ****************************************************************************************************************** * General Public: 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 proceedings is made, which record Includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is to be based. I _._._~~---,.,------...., - ~I'_- -----m~ 'T61 ~R"'f'. 1 ~\ ... February 2?, 2009 EAC - RLSA meetin!! Continued {rom Feb1'llarv 5.2009. Chairman Hnghes called the meeting to order at 1 :04 PM. Mr. Penniman moved to approve tlte agenda. Second by Dr. Williams. Ca1'1'ied unanimously 7-0. V. New Business A. Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program Phase II Report, Prepared by the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee, dated January 2009. The Review was continued from the February 5,2009 meeting: It was noted Rural Land Stewardship Area Review Committee Members, Bill McDaniel, Tom Jones and Brad Cornell were present. Dr. HusJwn chaired the item. Tom Greenwood of Comprehensive Planning submitted a revised document "Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) Individual Member Comments Receivedfor Vetting Related to the EAC's Review of the January 2009 Report of the RLSA Advisory Committee Report Entitled "Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program" - STAFF NOTE: "Reorganized Version... Comments by General Topic. " The Council reviewed the document for providing recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners in relation to the Rural Lands Stewardship Review Area Committee (RLSARC) Phase II Report, dated January 2009. Dr. Hushon stated it had been requested the EAC hear presentations by authors Thomas Hoctor and Robert Kawala of the Kautz, et.al. Publication "How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida Panther." Thomas Hoctor could not be present, but a portion of the video from his testimony on the subject matter of determining Panther Habitat would be shown. The video was from a Collier County Planning Commission meeting during their review of the RLSARC Phase II Report. Robert Kawula, of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission was present for a live presentation. George Varnadoe, Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson objected to ~he showing ofthe video, as the speaker was not present to answer questions. It is not consistent with the format for this meeting outlined by the EAC at the last meeting. Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney noted the proceeding is Legislative and the Chair could authorize showing of the video. The EAC determined to view the video, which highlighted portions of Thomas. Hoctor's testimony to the CCPC regarding the above referenced Publication. In the _., ...'....,...__ "_,,_".__w_.._~~_~~"~',,__,~.,_,,'~'''"'."''''~''_'''.' ___D""___'~"~'~'~.""_'^"_"<" - ., .""_."."',,,,''',,-----------....''',_.~..~-- -.. ............;..."- ..,.,. .. _____"~'_,c__,....__"'"~,..""_'"'""""...,~_"",'.,,~,~"''''''''.''''''.......~'",''''''''-"ll""~~il':relIlI<iPll!lll'~~I~-~'mll!!i;';'t...iJ.Wr"i~';'~~~'V;!~flf11!01~~7"3il'ft~~:"5~~~.!'li;I'~JliW__~~o.-1~'" I 16l 1 ~'1 1'(';])nl:llv 7.2009 video, he outlined, and answered questions in relation to the process used in developing the habitat maps for the Florida Panther as presented in the Publication. Robert Kawula of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission noted the following: He was one of the co-authors of the Kautz paper. I . , I . His contribution was in the area of home ranges and habitat. . There is significant discussion on which methods should be utilized in detennining home ranges for the Panther. . The publication chose to utilize the "convex polygon method" for determining home ranges. . A more recent method is the "fixed kernel method." . The home ranges defined in the Kautz publication have been widely scrutinized and withstood peer review, . The techniques and methods used in the Publication were "sound" and have withstood peer review, Speakers Russell Priddy, Eastern Collier Landowner requested clarification on the statement made by the President of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida "a unanimous vote of the Conservancy Board supports the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission" in relation to the Phase II Report. He requested assurance that Mr. Pelmiman had not made any pre-determinations on the Phase II Report. Mr. Penniman stated he is on the Board of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida; however he abstained from any voting on the issue. His function on the EAC is to represent the best interests of the Citizens of Collier County based on the information presented on issues. John Passidomo, Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson objected to the showing of the video, noting only specific portions of the testimony were chosen for viewing. He asserted if all the testimony of Mr. Hoctor would have been shown, the individuals present for the meeting would have seen the credibility of the testimony and was undermined during "cross examination" type questioning. He requested the video presentation be "dismissed" from the meeting. He compared the proceeding to a criminal trial where a witness is not allowed to be cross-examined. Chairman Hughes stated the video suppOlied arguments for both sides of the issue. Tom Jones, Eastern Collier PI.operty Owners (ECPO) noted the following: . The Consultants for ECPO never disputed the Kautz, et.a!. Publication. . ECPO takes issue with the interpretations of the Publication by OIle paliicular organization. -,.---,.._"--,--~-- ._._,._.___~~~,__,_,..___.~___'_'_''''''__.__;-__~'''ll''''_~i_''''__.~~!"_~____~~__~. --- 16\ 1 ~~ February 27,2009 . The Publication addresses 3 points: Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation of Panther habitat. . The Publication recognizes impacts on the Primary Panther Zone . The Publication notes if you do impact the Panther Plimary Zone, certain requirements must be met. . In addition the Endangered Species Act addresses the Florida Panther, which any Applicants will need to address at the time of the proposed development reviews. Allen Reynolds, Wilson Miller representing ECPO, provided comments on the document provided by Torn Greenwood: . On page 3, paragraph 3, there is no "credit cap" for the current Program. . On page 3, paragraph 3, the current Program does not provide for the re- adjustment of Restoration credits. . ECPO supports Option 5. Accept the Current RLSA Phase II Plan as Presented shown on Page 4. The Phase II Report was the result of a citizen Committee after 2 years of work. . Concerned capping credits will restrict property owners from participating in the Program. . Policy 1.18 allows other parties to acquire the credits (Private Organizations, County, State, Federal, etc.) to ensure conservation. Discussion ensued regarding concerns the escalation of credits generated within the proposed changes to the Program will de-value the existing and proposed credits. Allen Reynolds noted the landowners are willing to assume the risk of possibly de- valuation of the credits to achieve the overall goals of the Program. Bill McDaniel, RLSARC Member noted: . The RLSARC expressed concern over placing a cap on credits generated. . The proposed Panther corridors needed to be addressed at some format so future planning could begin to identify Wildlife Crossings. . It is not responsibility of the Program to protect the water supplies for the demands placed on Collier County. . The individual developer will need to address water supply at the time of a development application. Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida provided the document "Conservancy Recommendations for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 5- Year Review Phase Two Report" for consideration: . She recommended the Council review the CCPC recommendations, which are endorsed by the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. . The Conservancy supports a credit cap of 315,000 credits within the Program. _..,'^'.",,-,_._--_._.- n''P!___''''-'''"_''_'''~''''' '.^,-- . -~~",......- ......,,-- ...,~-" ~~ i''''w'...''r'''F"'''''''ro'~lllir~'~'Uml ,. , .L_ '.", . '. - '..' " . '^.. ".,..;., "^ ...,~_...,. . ,,;' . _ " ..,_ .';. , >ii. 1\ k' , Fehl'lI:lry ?7 2009 . The Conservancy supports shifting credits within the conllnes oUhe system ifnecessary (agriculture to Panther Corridor, etc.). . The Program should "a void and minimize" impacts on Primary Panther Habitat and base findings on the Kautz publication, . The location of the (their) Panther Corridors is based on the "least cost pathways." Mitcb Hutchcraft, King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus noted: . Expressed concern the Northern Panther Conidor as proposed (by the Conservancy) is in a location where there is currently no Panther usage. . A mile swath for a Panther Corridor along their property abutting State Road 29 will not be supported by the landowner. . The least cost pathways are a "model," and do not reflect a condition feasible for the landowners. . He requested the EAC support the recommendations of the RLSARC. . Any environmental decisions must take into realistic landowner considerations and potential impacts that may be imposed. Anita Jenkins, Wilson Miller noted . The CCPC recommended lighting considerations be based upon the best available standards and not limited to one particular source (i.e. Dark Skies). . The Program should address concepts on lighting with specific language provided in the Land Development Code. Don Scbrotenboer of Alico, noted: . The North and South Corridors as proposed affect lands under their ownership. . Numerous other landowners own land within the proposed Corridors. . It is unrealistic to expect15-17 landowners to agree on the conditions for a Northern Corridor. . Panthers do not currently exist in the area of the Northern Corridor. . He would not endorse a concept of the Corridor being in place before awarded credits are released to the landowner. Jennifer Hecker, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted: . The Committee should not dismiss the science of the Publications by Kautz, et.aI. . The Publication has been peer reviewed and endorsed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service Program and incorporated into the Florida Panther Recovery Program. . The Corridors must be functional or the credits must not be awarded. . Growth should be concentrated in areas to ensure sustainability and awarded agricultural credits should be limited to the Primary Panther Zone. ~ --.-...-.-----......--- ~""'-"-'----""''''_'''''_''''.,_.__~ll-- R r 1 16t 1 ~'\ ,''', February 27, 2009 Matthew Schwartz, Sierra Club noted: . All the various Agencies telemetry indicates the Panthers utilize Private lands, which are critical to their survival. . Development creates umecoverable tax burdens upon County residents. . The Sierra Club supports the position of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. . The RLSA Program is difficult to comprehend and unworkable. Break- 3:00PM Re-Convene - 3:10PM Dr. Williams, Mr. Penniman, Mr. Standridge and Dr. Hushon submitted comments in the document provided. The Council reviewed the document. Discussion followed on: . Capping acreage vs. credits . The ability to transfer credits out of the RLSA to western Collier County . With more detailed studies forthcoming (long-range transportation planning, Panther Technical Review Team findings, etc.), should any proposed changes be postponed until the results ofthese studies are available (i.e. 1 year). . How to proceed with the review and in what format should it be presented to the Board of County Commissioners (should members provide individual comments, or achieve EAC consensus) . A cap on credits may not provide incentives for landowners to place land into conservation and promote Best Management Practices for the land. . Best Management Practices would improve the overall quality of the habitat in the area. Dr. Hushon polled the Board on forwarding the Phase II Report to the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Hughes, Mr. Penniman, Dr. Williams and Mr. Bishof favored postponing submittal of the Report for approximately 1 year, as there are detailed studies, which will aid in the review process forthcoming. Mr. Standridge favored forwarding the Phase II Report with individual comments. Dr. Hushon favored forwarding the Phase II Report with Environmental Advisory Council recommendations. It was noted this was Mr. Stephen's first meeting where the issue of the Phase II Report has been reviewed. Discussion ensued on the function of the EAC in relation to the Phase II RepoIi. ____..,._.""'""_._,_______,_,_,_~_"""".~__"...~__"""""'..."',",...",...."'-" ' .,.""'~,"C_~"',,....,.;,"""..'_'.,_M .',-","-,,~'-"~ .. _m_._",'''''._'_~'''~''''.~..._. .._.....'_~~"".~O'.__...._._..__,_ - "'''--''''-~--'''"'''-"'~-"'--'-''''''"'"'''"''''''"''''''''''I~'''I\l"O<";tF,m'lorm..."""':r''1''r~~;1i'5ll'''''~~';r,rmit.Wj;p";Ii6ili.~:~__f~~:~__~~1ir!;i.' , 2009 Tom Greenwood noted the fLllJction of the CCPC and F'j\C is 10 review the Phase J [ Report and submit any comments to the Board of COllIlty Commissioners. The Council reviewed Page 7 of the document regarding Panther Corridors: I . Panther Corridors as proposed should be "fbnctional" if approved. I . Should development in Primary Panther require more credits/unit in these areas? Discussion followed regarding the subject of potable water supply within the County and RLSA Mr. Standridge moved, ifit is acceptable to the Committee, to forward the Phase II Report of the RLSARC to the Board of County Commissions with EAC members providing individual comments. Without a second the motion was not considered. i Tom Greenwood stated he would revise the document ("Environmental AdvisOlY Council (EA C) Individual Member Comments Received for Vetting Related to the EAC's Review of the January 2009 Report of the RLSA Advisory Committee Report Entitled "Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program" _ STAFF NOTE: "Reorganized Version... Comments by General Topic) based on input today and submit it to the EAC for review on March 4, 2009. Allen Reynolds, Wilson Miller requested clarification if the EAC would be taking public comments on the individual issues addressed by the EAC at the March 4, 2009 meeting. Dr. Hushon noted public comment would be closed and the Council would develop recommendations for the Phase II Report. Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney noted all regular meetings have a public comment section, which allows members of the public to comment on any issues. VI. Old Business A. Update members on projects None VII. Sub-Committee Reports None VIII. Council Member Comments None IX. Public Comments None ...--.. ---.--- "--"_..._--,._-~-_.._,-,....,....,,- _oo~""'OI R...._N~ , 1 161 ~\ February 27, 2009 There being no further business {o." the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 5:00 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL --- ~'-~(~V1 These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on , as presented , or as amended --.--- ~...._-""""'~_.._-. ~ '"~^"<'O"",.".,,,_.''' ... """".--.--. """,---- ~..~._..~'"'- _"."""",,'u "~""u._,_'''''',__'', .. 4. RECEIVED Fiala 161 1 ~~ \1/ Halas Henning ... APR 0 1 2009 March 4, 2009 Coyle "tlard of County Commissioners Coletta ~:: .~ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENT'AL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, March 4, 2009 LET BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the Following members present: CHAlRMAN: William Hughes VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon Noah Standridge David Bishof Nick Penniman Michael V. Sorrell Dr. IJew Williams Ninon Rynerson ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning MIsc. Caffes Date: -.-"'...'....-..-.- I terr~ if. .~. ""'-'~-"""'~--~~'---'" ",.....",'..."'-"'-~ ,.' "~'_""_"""""'''_'__'N''"_~__,,,____",,,_,,,,__,,,,_,,~,~.,.-",,_"" ""''''' , v"", ._"",,-,..,-, ".,._.,,,"~-,,'"_.-,"" 1,61 11(1', K::hl'VIHONI'J1ENTAL ADVISORY C( 'UNCII AGENDA March 4. 2009 CJ:OO IUVI Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of February 4, 2009 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions - none scheduled VII. Old Business a. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Discussion (this item will be discussed only if it is not completed during the Special EAC meeting on February 27,2009) b. Proposing EAC Initiatives - to be discussed to send recommendation to BCC c. Update members on projects VIII. Subcommittee Reports IX. Council Member Comments X. Staff Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment *******************.*********************************************** Council Members: Please notifv Summer AraQue. Environmental Services Senior Environmental Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on Mondav. March 2. 2009 if YOU cannot attend this meetinQ or if you have a conflict and will abstain from votina on a petition (252-6290). General Public: 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 proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 161 1 i\~ JVlarch 4, 200<) 1. Call to Order Chainnan Hughes ealled the meeting to order at 9:00AM, II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. App."oval of Agenda Mr. Pennimall moved to apprOl!e tlte agenda subject to thefollowing addition: Item VII. d. - Mission Statement Review Second by Mr. Williams. Carried ullanimously 7-0. Mr. Bishof arrived at 9:02AM IV. Approval of tbe )1'ebruary 4,2009 meeting minutes Dr. Hus/lOn moved to approve tlte minutes oftlte February 4,2009 meeting. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 8-0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences None VI. Land Use Petitions - none scheduled VII. Old Business a. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Discussion (this item will be discussed only if it is not completed during the Special EAC meeting on February 27, 2009) Tom Greenwood of Comprehensive Planning submitted a revised document "Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) Individual Member Comments Received for Vetting Related to the EAC's Review of the January 2009 Report of the RLSA Advis01)' Committee Report Entitled "Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program." The Council reviewed the document for the purpose of providing recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners in relation to the Rural Lands Stewardship Review Area Committee (RLSARC) Phase II Report, dated January 2009, Chairman Hughes noted the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) supports the Rural Lands Stewardship Program (RLSA), which is a voluntary, credit based land use Program for the purposes of preserving Environmentally Sensitive Lands and directing development where appropriate. Many details of the new proposals need to be addressed. Dr. Hushon chaired this item. 1. Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) and Credit Cap (page 1 of document) Dr. Hushon noted: 2 .-...,-., ~.,.."-,,--~. ,",,",-,'--""'--"~'~'--''''''''' ".,~-~.,.,-<~,"'.,-. . .-",...".,...,_.....-.",."-,, .. ..l .-..~_._".,,_.._,~.. --_.~. ,""~<-~' 161 1 ~1~ - \i:uclt ,,1 flu EAC .'HlppO,.,,,, tlte RLSARC I'ccolJlmciUlatioll ofexpmulillg the eurrellt Pro/fram to allow additional Mellemtion o{,s'ellding Area Credits in Open Lmulsfof' the pIU1JOses (~lpreserl'illg llgriculturalla/lds. The RLSARC recommends limiting thc total SRA designation to a maximum of 45,000 acres (Policy 4.2). Extcnsive discussion occurred if the Program should limit the total SRA designation based upon total developable acreage or the number of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) credits generated. "rhe followlI1g issues were highlighted: . Concern an cxcess of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) credits will be generated under the RLSARC proposal and the holder of the credits will be entitled to uti li7c them creating an expansion of developable area in the future. In addition, potential devaluation of the "credit." . Should the Program be expanded to allow the SSA credits generated within the RLSA to be utilized outside of the RLSA in more urbanized westem Collier County (incorporated andlor unincorporated areas), . Do the RLSA landowners support utilizing the SSA credits outside the RLSA? . Ramifications of either of these scenarios on Panther habitat and the identified Primary Zones. . The nature and characteristics of the development either scenario would potentially create in thc RLSA. Dr. Hushon noted: The EA C was not able to reach consensus 011 this RLSARC recommendation. Policy 3.7 and 4.13 (Pal!e 2 of document) Mr. BisllOfmoved the EAC recommends Golf courses should not be considered passive recreation areas and should not be allowed ill Habitat Stewardship Areas. Second by Dr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. 2. Transportation infrastructure to serve future SRAs: (page 7 of the document). Dr. Husholl noted the EAC reached consensus on: Not enough attention has been paid to tlte secondary impacts (roads, other infrastructure) required to support this expanded del'elopmellt footprint. 3. Florida Panther protection and incentivization: (page 7 oftbe document) Discussion occurred on the concept of Panther Corridors and their viability as proposed by the RLSARC. Discussion occurred on: . The types ofpossible SSA incentives for developing Panther Corridors within the ProgTam. . Who \vould determine the location of the Corridors? . The necessity of the Con'idors being "viable," . The disagreement hetween various parties on the necessary widths of the Corridors. ...~ 16 , 1 ~(\ March 4, 200<) ~Mr. Bishof moved the Ell vironmelllal Advi:wry COllllcil (EA C) recommends lands within a Panther Corridor (IS proposed by the United States Fish ami Wildlife Service be awarded .2 bOllllS creditsfor saM lands being placed ill a Stewardship Sl'/Idillg Area (SSA) and all additional 8 bonus credits once all lands within the Corridor have been placed ill SSA's. Second by Dr. Williams. Carried una";mous~v 8-0. Mr. Penniman moved to replace the word "proposed" in line.2 of Mr. Bishof's motion with the word "designated. " Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 8-0. Break: lO:36AM Re-convened: J 0:45AM Discussion ensued on whether the 8 additional bonus credits awarded for lands within a designated Panther Conidor placed in a SSA should actually be awarded upon completion of "Restoration." Dr. Husholl moved the EA C recommends the 8 additional bonus credits to be awarded for placing lands in a designated Panther Corridor referenced in the motion above not be awarded until "Restoration" to the Federal standard has been completed. Second by Chairman Hughes. Motion carr;e(/6 "yes" - 2 "no." Mr. Sorrell ami Mr. Bishofvoted "110." 4. Water fOT future SRAs: (Page 9 of the document) Mr. Bishofmoved the Ell viron mental Advisory Council (EAC) has determined that inadequate attention has been given to issues related to the quantity and quality of drinking water available for the RLSA. The process needs to focus on more underlying assumptions of water use, offer more guidance on conservation practices, provide greater assurance the effects of withdrawals do not have deleterious affects 011 existing water users at County expense. Second by Dr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. Mr. Bishofmoved the EAC recommends all water treatmentfacilities be placed within tire SRAs which they serve. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 8-0. 5. Other comments on CRD's and development in the ACSC - (pagelO of the document) Dr. Hushon noted: The EAC agrees with the RLSARC recommendation the "Hamlets" should be eliminated. (Policy 4.7.3 old) Discussion occurred on Policy 4.7.2 and 4.7.3: 4 .---,- ,_~".",....u.~, .....,___~.~ ......~""""""'"~_"""'._~___""'.___.....,."'_____"..-......."'_~._"."._._..~,.~~,."...~"""'M~~. _.'~'--"V''''''_' ..------ L...__._._..____. 161 1 ~1, ".. IvLi).'lil "'UrJl) " rite RLSAR(' recommends villages be allowed in the All~a of('ritical Stale Concern (ACSC) Should Villages be prohibited? . Should the density 0 f Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) retain the underlying density of I-lInitiS acres? The RLSARC proposes a density 01'2 units/acre. 0 Should buffers between individual CRD's be required? . Should any development be allowed within the ACSC) . Whether credits generated within the ACSC may be utilized outside the ACSC, or vice versa. . It was noted the current Program requires credits generated within the ACSC be utilized in the ACSC. Dr. Hushon moved the EAC recommends the language 4.7.2,4.7.3 proposed 011 page 10 ("Development should be directed away from the A CSc. CRDs should be the only type of SRA considered there and the /lumber of CRDs should be limited to 5 alUl guidance include regarding how closely tltey can be located to one another" amI "Density ill CRD's ,vithin the ACSC should be limited to the umlerlying density of the /{md of 1 unitl5 acres or a (otalof 20 units allowed 011 100 acres. '') 'Vitltout (l second, tlte motion was not considered. Dr. Hushon noted: At this point, the EAC did not reach cOllsensus on these issues. 6. Other Comments - (page 11 of the document) Policy 1.6.1 Mr. Standridge moved the EAC Itas determined it is in favor of allowing landowners to retract SSA designations within 5 years (as proposed by the RLSARC). However, the detail ill this policy retiring SSAs should be inciluled in the LDC Second by Mr. Pen n inUlJI. Carried unanimously 8-0. Policy 3.9 The EA C noted tlte reference to "aquaculture" was inconsistent between Attachment B and Policy 3.9 of tire RLSARC recommendations. (Stricken in Attachment B and included in Policy 3.9). Policv 5.5 Mr. Bisltofmoved the EAC recommends the use of the term "/isted and protected species, ,. etc. should be consistent and defined within the Program. .\'ec(}Jul by /111'. Pen1/iman. Carried llIulIlimollsly 8-0. Policy 5.7 Dr. Hus/lOn moved that tlte referenced lighting standards, (the need for an effective reference to Dark Skies Principles ill this policy as well in Group 4 policies 011 SRAs. The LDC willlleed to define appropriate luminosity as ~" 161 1 ~\ March 4, 2009 well as down shieldillg guidmu:e. There are maliI' sources for this illformatioll alld would not recommend focusing 011 (I single source as the Collier County Planning Commission proposed) are recommended by tire EA C. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried ulUlIIimous(v 8-0. Mr. Standridge moved the b"AC recommends the RLSA Program develop lighting standards that are compatible with Rural Development. Second by Mr. Bis/wf. Carried unanimously 8-0. Discussion ensued on which type of applications within the RLSA Program should require EAC review (SSA's, SRA's, changes in designations, etc.). In addition, would this require LDC amendments and would some of these reviews provide "administrative hurdles" to landowners. Summer Brown, Sr. Environmental Specialist noted the existing policy is for Staff to notify the EAC on upcoming applications. If the EAC wants to review any applications, a request must be made to the Board of County Commissioners. She will review the Policy with Staff and provide any clarifications to the Council. Mr. Bishofmoved the EAC recommends Policy 4.2 be amended to allow for SRAs to be located outside the RLSA and additionally any requests for zoning challges in Unincorporated Collier COUllty that increase the density or increase of use should be required to obtain credits to compensate for the requested increase. Second by Mr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. Dr. Hlls/wn moved the EAC recommends in Policy 4.7.2 "Development should be directed away from the A CSc. CRDs should be the only type of SRA considered there and the number of CRDs should be limited to 5 and guidance include regarding how closely they can be located to one another. " Second by Ms. Rynerson. Carried unanimously 7 'yes -1 "no" Mr. Standridge voted "no.". Dr. Hus/lOn moved the EA C recommends for Policy 4.7.3 "Density in CRD's within the ACSC should be limited to the underlying density oftlte land of 1 unitl5 acres or a total of 20 units allowed on 100 acres. Second by Ms. Rynerson. Motion failed 1 'yes - 7 "no." Chairman Hughes, Ms. Rynerson, Mr. Bishof, Dr. Williams, Mr. Penniman, Mr. Stalldridge and Mr. Sorrell voted "no. " Mr. Penniman noted at the February 27, 2009 meeting of the Envirorunental Advisory Council, 4 members voted to delay the forwarding of the Phase IT Report and/or related recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners due to infonnation forthcoming on a variety of issues, It was noted this concern would be relayed to the BCe. () ""'_,...,_ ..'C_"~"",,, ~"'-"",",,-,'''',>",-.... .._,__._..._.........._.._.... ~- -. ~-_._-----,--,...._--_.. .-..--...--. " . _._.._...,--_.._-_._-~-_..._".._,-~--~~.~~_.~'---~"..",-,."...;.~.",--.....-_-~-,,- -,....__.,,...,...~_.'..".. ..~~.~---- 161 1 K\ [Vhli\'! I ",OiJl.i Tom Greenwood noted the Phase II Reporl prepared by the RLSARC is being forwarded to the Bee as wntten. A separate docurnent will be attached containing applicable comments and recommendations from all Pal1ies thaI provided fonnal revIew of the Phase [I Report (EAC, cepe, etc.). Mr. Penniman moved to postpone Items VlJ.b.c.d ~ X until tlte next meeting. Second by .Mr. JPilliams. Carried unanimollsly 8-0. b. Proposing EAC Initiatives - to be discussed to send recommendation ot BCe Postponed c. Update members on projects Postponed d. Mission Statement Postponed VIII. Subcommittee Reports Postponed IX. Council Member Comments Postponed X. Staff Comments XI. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:31 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL //' " I \It< ~>L~ ~.- /--{\1 Chairman, ghes These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on ______.. __ as presentecl__________., or as amended~____..- -, IoU l~ECEIVEo vi Ra'a Halas MAR 2 7 2009 Henning Coyle =- Board of County Commissioners Coletta 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairman Richard Sims. II. Attendance Members: Peggy Harris, Michael McElroy, Barbara Segura (Absent), Richard Sims, Pat Spencer County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Michelle Arnold - A TM Director, Steve Carnell- Purchasing Director, Brenda Brilhart - Purchasing Agent, Rhonda Cummings - Purchasing Contract Specialist, Pam Lulich - Manager Landscape Operations Others: Darlene Lafferty - Mancan, Michael McGee - McGee & Associates, EUin Goetz - Goetz & Stropes III. Approval of Agenda Add: VI. Introduction of Ellin Goetz, Landscape Architect Remove: VII. B. Grants Richard Sims moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Michael McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - October 20, 2008 Richard Sims moved to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Landscape Architects Report Misc. Corres: D*~t 1 Item~: JLl ~ ~,c:,pies to _~~~,.,,,~",~~,,_,,,~w~ ._,~- <,'"-" 161 l~ 1 A. LaDdscap~ U pdat~ - Mike McGee stated he would provide the complete list of items to Darryl Richard and noted the following items: . Irrigation problems required prompt attention of the new Maintenance Contractor . Plant replacements were required . Tropicana requires Irrigation assessment as all turf areas were toasted Roger Dick reported on the Tropicana Irrigation - 1. CLM encountered Irrigation problems while repairing tanks and was running the Irrigation by hand ii. The Tank was replaced however the lid did not close properly allowing rats to enter iii. The Pump chatter was repaired Darryl Richard stated that Hart's Electric, Inc. trouble shot the system and determined the (in-ground) pump was working properly. He noted one main problem was that two cable relays were switched (by unknown parties.) A bill from Hart's Electric was distributed in the amount of $262.00 for Committee approval. (See attached) Richard Sims moved to approve the Parts and Electric (Bill from Hart's Electric) in the amount of $262.00. Second by Michael McElroy. Motion carried unaimously 4-0. . Light Pole (Median 1) was burning continuously Darryl Richard responded he would request an inspection of the Light Pole by Southern Signal. Additionally Southern Signal was in the process of revamping the Light Fixtures on Sunshine. . Lighting Fixture C6 (Median 6) required replacement VI. Introduction of Ellin Goetz, Landscape Architect - Ellin Goetz disclosed the following: 0 She was a Licensed Landscape Architect 0 Practiced in Collier County since 1984 0 he Firm of Goetz & Stropes was formed in 2004 0 Golden Gate Community Center was a Goetz & Stropes Project Committee questions on the County Experience: 0 MSTU Experience - None 0 County Medians - Yes 0 Roadway Landscaping - Yes 0 Roadway Beautification - Yes Ellin Goetz noted her additional experience: 0 Private Sectors - Pelican Bay and the Vineyards 0 Library's 0 Schools 2 -.--..------. _~~~"___~.____,,.__..,__..,.._~_.',._,m_. ~"'m_~..' '... ----,'-----.--..-..-- 161 il{b '-- , 0 Currently working on the Botanical Gardens 0 Previously volunteered with the Committee Conservation Collier The Committee questioned Zero Scape Experience and the following response was gIven: 0 She was employed with the Firm that first implemented true Zero Scape 0 Designed the parking area of the Audubon Corkscrew Sanctuary Michael McElroy noted that McGee & Associates always went above and beyond. Discussions developed and Steve Carnell stated that the Annual Contract "Poo1" had been in effect for years however most MSTU's employed McGee & Associates and other Firms were never given an opportunity. Discussions continued and options were suggested: 1. Approval for Goetz & Stropes to assume the Landscape Architect position for the Term of 1 year ii. Request Proposals from the 5 Firms based on the Scope of Work a. It was possible to change the Policy to incorporate Pricing along with Qualifications by utilizing 2 Committee and Staff to review and make recommendations It was noted by Steve Carnell that there was a demand for development of a "Pool" (Landscape Architect) that provided options and leverage due to the growth of Collier County. The Committee questioned where it was stated that the MSTU must make a change in Landscape Architects. Steve Carnell replied that the Authority rests with the Purchasing Department based on the BCC Purchasing Policy. The Committee was in agreement to retain McGee & Associates (until completion of Projects) based on his experience with the Projects, the quality of Services, and concern of hindering the completion of remaining (2) Projects. Richard Sims moved to request of the Purchasing Department to not nulke any changes (in Landscape Architect Firms.) Second by Peggy Harris. Pat Spencer requested to abstain from voting. It was explained that she was required to submit a written request to abstain. She verified that the concept of the motion was to remain as status quos until the completion of Projects. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VII. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget - Caroline Soto ~ Available Operating $176,482.47 ~ Available Improvements General $1,259,400.00 3 "-~" __,.__u ,._--~_.. 161 1~ XI. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 5:56 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee an These minutes approved by the Committee on 3'lb.OC; , as presented ^ or amended The next meeting is scheduled for March 10, 2009 4:00 PM At Golden Gate Community Center Naples, FL 5 ,,.~ -- ......__."'lIIIlI...- -. ~.llW . '1' ."~,"",",-"""-,.,,,,.~-",.... ...~~~ Fiata 161 1~ RECEIVED Ha\as - Henning MAR 2 7 2009 Coy\e - Board of County ComrniIsIoners Coletta 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 VII. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget - Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VIII. Old Business A. Update on Golden Gate Parkway Bridge - Pat Spencer B. Master Plan Discussion C. Design Process for Hunter & Coronado IX. New Business X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for May 12, 2009 4:00 p.m. At Golden Gate Community Center Naples, FL Misc. Corres: Date: Item#: 1 ~,opies to "'~.~"..-._~"_.~ 161 lr<6 - Golden Gate Community Roadwa~ Beautification Master Plan Prepared For: Collier County Board of County Commissioners and Golden Gate Beautification Municipal Services Taxing Unit, M.S.T.U. - Advisory Committee Prepared By: 1/t4ee & AH<<i4tU Landscape Architecture 5079 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34113 (239) 417-0707 -e ~~- 03/1997 01/2009 --~... -.-_.,---- ~..._...._., -._..__....,-,.,,"-._.-.,,~- -^"....__.-...,,~-,.,,"- V'". 11 -. -'" 161 1~ e COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Honorable Tom Henning, District 3, Chairman Honorable Donna Fiala, District 1, Vice Chairman Honorable Frank Halas, District 2 Honorable Fred W. Coyle, District 4 Honorable Jim Coletta, District 5 GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Richard Sims, Chairman Peggy Harris . Michael McElroy Barbara Segura Patricia Spencer COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Norman Feder, AICP, Administrator ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES Michelle E. Arnold, Director Darryl T. Richard, RLA, Project Manager .l J. Project Coordinator 01/2009 -~ --. --------- . ...-- -"---"'--'~~-"'"'-'_.'_,""~I.- ---,-.,,~...,",,"" ---....-.., 16 I " 1 ~q, e TABLB 01' RBVISIONS SectfLon ~i.t1.e Date Page i'i.gur./~able Table of Revisions 11/24/97 R-1 5 Site Furnishing & Fixtures 11/24/97 5-3 General Document Revisions 03/12/97 Appendix G Maintenance Specifications 03/09/98 General Document Revisions 01/2009 All All e -- 01/2009 I I I ! ~'"' ,..-,,-,~ " .. '! In 1 ~ 11 ~ 'If .--. illlIlII .'" ,,,..,"~ ""..,...~ ._'--~-~"'^. 16 , l~i TABLE OF CON'l'BNTS - Section Title Page Figure/Table 1. Introduction ...................................... ........ '".............................. 1-1 Overview .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1-2 Master Plan Roadways Map 1-4 , ................................ .. J. Beautification M.S.T.U. Boundary Roadway Legend 2. Goals and Objectives .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. '" .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. "' 2-1 3. Existing Conditions and Constraints ...... .................... 4"" 3-1 Project Area Climate Soil and Topography Area Vegetation ................ .................................... 3-2 Water Resources for Irrigation Well System Surface Water (Canal) ...................................... .. 3-3 Reclaimed Water Potable or Treated Water Master Plan Roadway Corridors: ........ .................... 3-4 1. Coronado Parkway Description .............. ........ ...... ..................... 3-5 Photograph and Section/Elevation..... 3-6 2 2. C.R. 951, South Part "A" e (Golden Gate Canal to Golden Gate Pkwy.) Part "8" (Golden Gate Pkwy. to Green 81 vd. ) Description .. .................. .. ...... .................. .... 3-7 Photograph and Section/Elevation...... 3-9 3 3-10 4 3. Golden Gate Parkway, East Description .......... .... ...... ........ .................. .... 3-11 Photograph and Section/Elevation..... 3-12 5 4. Green Boulevard Description .... ...... .... ................ .................... 3-13 Photograph and Section/Elevation..... 3-14 6 3-15 7 5. Hunter Boulevard Description .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3-16 Photograph and Section/Elevation..... 3-17 8 6. Santa Barbara Bou1evard, North Description .......... ............ ....... ................... 3-18 Photograph and Section/Elevation..... 3-19 9 7. Sunshine Boulevard Description ... .......... .............. ..................... 3-20 Photograph and Section/Elevation..... 3-21 10 8. Tropicana Boulevard Description .......... ........ ................................ 3-22 Photograph and Section/Elevation..... 3-23 11 ----- (T-1) 03/1997 01/2009 -_...,,~.+ - ,,' .---.-.- ...._---,----~._---~------,~-_.._-_._--,....._._,~._--..--..-,.-.----.-....--.....- -.-.--..-------...-.- - 16 , 4cb TABLE OF CONTBN'l'S (Continued) e Section Title Page Figure/Table 3(cont. ) Collier County Roadway Landscape Related Codes, Ordinances, Guidelines and Standards. 3-24 Land Development Code Chapter 4.06, Landscaping and Buffering Chapter 2.03.07 Corridor Management Overlay District Chapter 5.05.08, Architectural and Site Design Standards and Guidelines Ordinance 93-64, Public Rights-of-way Construction Standards Golden Gate Area Master Plan Collier County Streetscape Master Plan Existing pedestrian and Roadway Lighting Existing Pedestrian Walkways and Bike Pathways Community Gateway and Entry Roadway Signage Roadway Beautification Attitude Survey Existing Community Entry Signage 3-28 12 4. Typical Beautification Plan Concepts for Roadways.... 4-1 Uncurbed 14 feet or wider & curbed 20 feet or wider medians Type I, II, I II & IV Curbed Medians 20 to 8 foot wide Type V & VI Curbed 8 to 6 foot or less separators or median e Uncurbed Roads In-road Pathways Facility Concepts Recommended Beautification Concepts for the Beautification M.S.T.O. Arterial/Collector , I Roadways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 l. Coronado Parkway 4-8 2. C.R. 951, South, 4-9 Part "A" (Golden Gate Canal to Golden Gate Pkwy.) Part "B" (Golden Gate Pkwy. to Green Blvd.) 3. Golden Gate Parkway, East 4 . Green Boulevard 5. Hunter Boulevard 6. Santa Barbara Boulevard, North 7 . Sunshine Boulevard 8. Tropicana Boulevard Four lane road in-road facility 4-8 13 Two lane road in-road facility 4-9 14 5. Plan Elements and Desi.gn Standards ............... .. 5-1 Community Colors Sight Distance Diagrams Sight Window Diagrams Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Facilities Pathways Facility Design Standards Pedestrian Crosswalk Marking Curbing Decorative Paving -J Roadway and Pedestrian Decorative Lighting (T-2) 03/1997 01/2009 ~ ' ..-..----.... ....Aill ",-."."".".,.",.~.........,...._", -..,," 16 I 1 ~<t TABLB 01' CON'l'BNTS (Continued) - Seotion 'l'itle Page Figure/Tab~. 5 cont. Soil Analysis and Preparation Site Furnishings and Fixtures Street Identity and Traffic Control Signage Landscape Sight Distance and Sight Windows Major Intersections Landscape Design Standards & Guidelines....... 5-5 Existing or Proposed Curbed Roadways Collier Blvd. C.R. 951, South Part "An (G.G. Canal to G.G. Pkwy. ) Part "B" (G.G. Pkwy. to Green Blvd.) Golden Gate Parkway, East Santa Barbara Boulevard, North Phase I, (Coronado Pkwy. to Green Blvd.) Phase II, (Coronado Pkwy. to G.G. Canal) Existing Uncurbed Roadways Coronado Parkway Green Boulevard Hunter Boulevard Sunshine Boulevard Tropicana Boulevard Irrigation Water Resources and Irrigation Systems ..................... .......................... ...................... ...... 5-8 Reclaimed Water Transmission Line Systems Reclaimed Water Tanker Applied Well and Pump Trarumission Line System - Potable / Treated Water Conventional Pop-up Spray Systems Irrigation, Plant Material & Maintenance Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 Roadway and Traffic Control Signage Details..... 5-11 15 Curbed Turn Lane & Decorative Paving DetaiL... 5-12 16 Uncurbed Turn Lane & Berm Detail ........................ .. 5-13 17 Street/Roadway Decorative Light Fixtures...... 5-14 18 6. Beautifioation Improvement Costs and Considerations. 6-1 Coronado Parkway ...................................... .................... 6-3 1 Collier Blvd. C.R. 951, South Part "An (Golden Gate Canal to Golden Gate Pkwy.) 6-4 2 Part "B" (Golden Gate Pkwy. to Green Blvd.) 6-5 3 Golden Gate Parkway, East .................................. ...... 6-6 4 Green Boulevard ...................................................... ...... 6-7 5 Hunter Boulevard ......................................................... .. 6-8 6 Santa Barbara Boulevard, North ............................ .. 6-9 7 Sunshine Boulevard ........................... 6-10 8 Tropicana Boulevard .. .................................................. 6-11 '9 7. Phasing and Funding Sch&du~es .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7-1 Golden Gate Beautification Master Plan Multiple Year Roadway Phasing and Funding Schedule. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4 10 Collier County Transportation Services Golden Gate Community Landscape Median -- Priorities .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7-3 (T-3) 03/1997 01/2009 --.. --- "" <W,,","""'- - 16 I Ip TABLB OF CO.........AL'fTS (Continued) -- Secti.on Ti tle Page Figur./Tab~e 8. Appenciix: ~.rence. A. Master Plan Graphic Elements Typical Roadway Landscape Plans Type T1 through Type T6 - -- (T-4) 03/1997 0112009 ----".- ..~~-- . ...... ~",~",,,,,.,,,,,,,."'--'..,,._,;_._,,",, T r ~ II ...--_..- 161 if Sect.ion 1 - INTRODUCTION Collier County Government, along with the residents of the Golden Gate Community, through a pUblic/private partnership since 1983, have been working together to perform roadway landscape beautification within the Golden Gate Beautification Municipal Services Taxing Unit (M. S . T . U . ) . To date this partnership has accomplished many of its initial goals and completed six (6) miles of roadway median landscape beautification within its M.S.T.U. boundary. The completed roadways are Golden Gate Parkway east of Santa Barbara Blvd., Collier Blvd., Tropicana Blvd. and Sunshine Blvd. The residents of the Golden Gate Beautification M.S.T.U. recognized the need and economic benefits associated with roadway landscape beautification. The Golden Gate Beautification M.S.T.U. is a local precinct voter referendum ad valorem taxing district established for roadway corridor beautification and maintenance purposes. The M.S.T.U. was established through Collier County Ordinances (No.83-55, Rev.96-51 & No.87-78, Rev.96-50), and is under the authority of the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners appoints a five member Advisory Committee consisting of residents that reside - within the M.S.T.U. beautification district boundaries. The Committee makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on the operation and budgeting of the M.S.T.U. on a monthly basis. The day-to-day administration of the M.S.T.U. is administered through the Collier County Transportation Services Division, Alternative Transportation Modes Department. The Advisory Committee, after completing the initial Golden Gate Parkway median landscape beautification project, concluded that a Master Plan encompassing all the community roadways was needed in order to properly understand and guide the Committee and Community in proceeding with present and future beautification projects. This Roadway Beautification Master Plan will provide the guidance, by which the Golden Gate Community will significantly enhance its image while creating a vision for the future. Aesthetically enhanced and well maintained roadways are the first image of a Community's economic vitality and self pride. Landscaped roadway corridors help to increase property values and encourage new residents and businesses to locate within a Community. --- _._--_.__._-~- 1-1 03/1997 01/2009 " ".--- _.__.~_._- "-" ..._- ..-.,.,".... T ._" - -.:r"l"'mr'r, r - "......,.,.;,~-"'.."~.~, " 161 ~1 ~~ OVERVIEW - For purposes of this Master Plan the Golden Gate Community will consist of a 4 square mile unincorporated area of Collier County. The Community contains a community center, shopping centers, recreation facilities, schools, library, fire station, police facilities, and government meetings center. The Beautification M.S.T.U. District also contains local businesses, single and multi-family residents within the Community. The Golden Gate Beautification M.S.T.U. District encompasses a 4 square mile area known as Golden Gate City (See Figure 1). The M.S.T.U. District is located approximately 4.5 miles east of the City of Naples. The M.S.T.U.'s eastern boundary is the eastern right-of-way of (C.R. 951) Collier Blvd.; the northern boundary is the north right-of-way of Green Blvd.; the west boundary is the west right-of-way of Santa Barbara Blvd.; and the south boundary is the Golden Gate Canal. The M.S.T.U. District is bordered to the north, east and west by an area known as Golden Gate Estates which consist dominantly of residentially zoned property. To the south by the Golden Gate Canal which is abutted by the Golden Gate Regional Park, Golden Gate High School and several residential planned unit developments. - A major influence upon the Golden Gate Community is the Interstate 75 roadway corridor which passes within less than one mile of the M.S.T.U. 's south and west boundary lines. There are three Interstate 75 interchanges (Pine Ridge Road, Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Blvd.) that greatly impact this community. Bisecting the M.S.T.U. District from east to west is the Golden Gate Parkway roadway corridor which is a major east/west traffic corridor from the City of Naples and the Interstate 75 and Golden Gate Parkway interchange into the Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Community. This roadway has been designated with a Parkway status and listed as a major corridor roadway in the "Corridor Management Study" dated 1988 and the "Collier County Streetscape Master Plan" dated 1997. In 2006 the eastern portion of Golden Gate Parkway within the M.S.T.U. District received special development designations through the adoption of the Golden Gate Master Plan. In May of 1996 the Beautification Advisory Committee voted to develop and began a process through public meetings/workshops, working with County staff and the District landscape architectural consultant to create a Community Roadways Beautification Master Plan. The plan would address the County ~and Community malor int~~pa~and external arterial and collector 1-2 03/1997 01/2009 ..~_.._.~..m '1" ,,,,,."~,..,..,- l_ . If.. "'-"-- --. lbl 1~ . Sec'tion 2 GOALS and OBJECTIVES The Master plan goals and objectives for roadway landscape beautification strived to established the purposes for roadway beautification while encouraging the community and government to work together in order to reach the goals. The goals and objectives were developed to encourage the community to strive beyond the norm while being realistic in scheduling and cost. Goals and objectives should not be considered permanent, but must be reviewed and reset as they are reached or change. The objectives will establish the directions or means by which the community will follow in achieving the goals. The objectives should be considered directives and guidelines which are transformable into policies or programs. GOAL #1 Enhance the visual quali'ty and economic vi'tality of the community through roadway corridor beau'tifica'tion while ~roving the health, safety, i welfare, and quality of life for the residen'ts and visi'tors. Objectives 1.1: e Encourage adjacent roadway property owners to install, upgrade and maintain roadside landscaping by providing assistance and landscaping expertise to the property owner. Objectives 1.2: Request and assist Collier County Government in implementation and enforcement of the Land Development Code requirements for installation and maintenance of landscape buffers adjacent to roadway corridors. Petition the Board of County Commissioners to allow the Beautification Advisory Committee to review and provide recommendation on proposed development landscape plans in order to assure coordination with the Community's Roadway Landscape Master Plan. Objectives 1.3: Encourage Collier County Government, property Owners, businesses and community developments within and beyond the M.S.T.U. boundaries to participate in landscape beautification of the roadway corridors located adjacent to their property. ~ ~-~---^~._~_._-~._-------_._"_.~~ 2-1 03/1997 01/2009 ..----..-...-...-.--.-- ~-~-, ..- ~",._-- ~."~ 161 1 ~C\, - Obj ecti Yes 1. 4 : Enhance Community identity and unity by developing a set of coherent beautification guidelines and standards for roadway corridors. This can be accomplished through the selection and coordination of lighting fixtures, site furnishing, plant materials and roadway signage. GOAL '2 Deve~op a Roadway Landscape Beauti~ication Master P~an which wi~~ quide the Community, Co~~ier County Government and the Beautification Advisory CODIIIlittee in implemeDting future roadway beauti~ication projects within and adjacent to the Golden Gate Community. Objective. 2.1: Incorporate South Florida Water Management's ~Waterwise" guidelines and the Xeriscape~ principles into the roadway landscape plantings and maintenance guidelines. Objective 2.2: Incorporate and/or expand upon existing County codes, standards or guidelines, as well as the Golden Gate Master Plan polices relating to landscaping of adjacent roadway properties and the - roadway corridors. Objective 2.3: Utilize native or naturalized Southern Florida plant species. Objective 2.4: Research and analyze the availability and use of reused water for roadway landscape irrigation. Objective 2.5: Improve pedestrian/bicycle circulation and facilities. Objective 2.6: Improve and expand street lighting for vehicular and pedestrian safety. Objective 2.7: Review traffic calming techniques and devices for possible implementation on proposed and existing roadways. Objective 2.8: Incorporate the Florida Department of Transportation landscape standards and guidelines to the greatest extent practical into -- the proposed Master Plan ~~!1:~~r<:!~~ 2-2 03/1997 01/2009 --- ".....'". ..., ~-,--~ ~ "11 - ~ , ----..._--~ 161 1 ~<=b e Objective 2.9: Increase and enhance visibility of pedestrian roadway crossings for safety purposes. Objectives 2.10: Develop beautification improvements that provide for reduced long range maintenance. Objectives 2.11: Develop a Master Plan that will allow for roadway beautification capital improvements and maintenance of roadways within the M.S.T.U. based upon the existing tax millage revenues. GOAL *3 Develop a phasing and funding strategy for the .implementation of the Community roadways landscape beautification programs and projects. Objectives 3.1: Encourage continuation of the public/private partnership with Collier County Government. Assist Collier County Government in expediting its landscape development plans for arterial roadway corridors which run through the Beautification M.S.T.U. and community. -- Objectives 3.2: Encourage community organizations and residents to participate beyond the existing beautification tax revenues by providing additional funding and support to the beautification efforts. Objectives 3.3: Analyze the consequences of expanding the M.S.T.U. boundaries for additional areas beautification and funding. Objectives 3.4: Identify and review Government grants, programs or funds that could provide assistance or funding for beautification. Objective. 3.5: To convince Collier County Board of County Commissioners to accept and fund landscape maintenance responsibility on the major county arterial roadways within the M.S.T.U. Objectives 3.6: Assist the Collier County Government in identifying arterial and collector roadways that are in need of roadway maintenance to -e address resurfacing, restriping, and drainage improvements for the safety of the r~~irlp-nrs and users. 2-3 03/1997 01/2009 ----~ 16 , Itx'h Section 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS and CONSTRAINTS Project Area The M.S.T.U. district includes 12(+/-) miles of Collier County arterial and collector roadway corridors. All the roads are four lane median divided roadways, except for the western one mile of Green Blvd. which is a two lane road. Climate The Golden Gate area would be described as a typical inland sub- tropical climatic zone. The area is subject to yearly frost and freezing temperatures of 26 to 28 degrees. The coldest temperatures generally occur during the winter months of December, January and February. During the summer months of June through September the area is exposed to high temperatures and humidity levels in the 80 and 90 percent range. The annual rainfall exceeds 50 inches with 75 percent occurring during the summer months of June through September. The Golden Gate area during the peak of the rainy season experiences severe thunderstorms that generate damaging winds and heavy rain fall up to 3 to 4 inches per storm. The roadway medians have micro- - climates created within them due to the large amounts of pavement surrounding them. Road temperatures can reach well above 100 degrees during the day and maintain over a 100 degrees well after sunset. These above conditions combined with the auto exhaust, water pollution, blown debris and increased wind generated from the passing vehicles creates a very harsh environment within the medians for plants to survive in. Soil and Topography The roadway corridors are generally level with elevation changes of four feet or less. The roadway is typically crowned to the center to create a positive drainage pattern to the right-of-way swales or curbed storm water drainage system. As typical with most roadways, the soil used to raise the elevation and construct the roadway were intermixed and imported from other areas of the county. The soil within the roadway medians is typically an intermixed stabilization material containing large amounts of crushed limestone material and sand. It has a high PH level of 8 or above. These soils are susceptible to compaction, hydrophobic, poorly aerated and poor percolation. They have limited water and nutrient holding capacities making them unsuitable for landscape purposes. Sporadically throughout the --- Golden Gate M.S.T.U area is a sub-surface layer of cap rock or 3-1 03/1997 01/2009 .....---.---. -.'-_. ",_,.m,",,'" ~,,---,-~=..-".. 161 11 ~~ limestone. It ranges in depth from 18 to 36 inches below the surface. - It is recommended prior to excavation or installation of any utilities below 18 inches, that test borings be performed. In most cases soil amendments or excavation to add new soil will be required in order to provide improved soil conditions for landscaping. Area Veqetation The roadway rights-of-way corridors have been totally cleared of any existing native vegetation. The dominate vegetation community surrounding the area is a pine flat-wood forest and transitional pine/cypress forest. The dominant tree species is the slash pine and the dominant under-story vegetation is the saw palmetto with intermixed pond cypress, Dahoon holly and Wax myrtle. Much of the area vegetation is in transition from wetlands to uplands due to the past alteration of the surface water and natural drainage. Water Resources for Irriqation There are four main water supply sources within the Golden Gate - area that can be used for landscape irrigation purposes. 1. Well 2. Surface Water (canal) 3. Reclaimed Wastewater 4. Potable or Treated Water The following is a list of advantages and disadvantages for each source: We~l. System Advantage: Location flexible requiring minimum piping, no continuous water cost, reduced overall system cost. Disadvantage: Permitting required, water could contain iron & sulfur, limits on gallons pumped per day, no backup when problems occur, annual metering cost, subject to water restrictions, reduces a limited natural resource. .-_._--- 3-2 03/1997 01/2009 --..., "-- ~.- -~----_.._------_._._----------_.._.~-- ~--_...~_.._-_...__.~_.,_..- -.' _..~,..,-,._".,,'_.,---------~---,"_..,_.,._..._.__. _.,.,.__._------~.. _._----------_._---~---- - 16 I' 1 ~c:t - Surface Water, (canal.) e Advantage: Source located close to all project site areas, low start up cost, no continuous water cost, reduced overall system cost. Disadvantage: Additional permitting cost required; no continuous recharge source; demand would lower canal water levels; uncontrolled potential contamination; annual metering cost. The source and level of water in the canals is dependent on rainfall which occurs in this area during the months that irrigation requirements is typically less, subject to water restrictions, reduces limited natural resource. Reclaimed Wastewater Advantage: Reuse of natural resource, low cost per gallon, provides outlet for wastewater treatment facilities to discharge reclaimed water. Florida Cities Wastewater treatment facility is located within M.S.T.U. boundary and could supply quantity required. A Collier County reclaimed water pipe line existing at the intersection of Collier Blvd. and Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Reuse e water can also be applied by truck and use of reclaimed water is an environmentally friendly irrigation method. Disadvantage: High initial start up cost for a piping system within the M.S.T.U. area; Florida Cities' plant must be upgraded in order to supply proper quality of water; a 3 mile pipe line must be installed in order to connect to Collier County's reclaimed water discharge system; reuse water quantity available at time of year when watering is in demand. Potabl.e or Treated Water Advantage: Initial low start up cost; clean water source; source close to project area requiring minimum piping. Disadvantage: High per gallon cost, not available to all project areas, subject to water restrictions, reduces limited natural resource. The following written roadway descriptions and pictorial cross sections are of all the major County arterial and collector ~ roadways within the 4 squanLm~lfLGolden Gate Corrununity area. 3-3 03/1997 01/2009 -- ..-. - I ''JI'V "P'l -__ ,......._.._-",.,...,-,,"- . ~ . "',-..-."""'........ -.. 161 1 ~ct ~ -- The written descriptions are an assessment of the existing conditionR ~nd contain a brief description about the roadway, signalized intersections, curbing, median description, side right-of-way areas, roadway signage, overhead utilities, roadway lighting, pedestrian walkways, bike pathways, and roadside development. The pictorial cross sections locations were selected to show the best typical example of the existing roadway and dimensions of the existing rights-of-way and roadway facilities. Roadway Number Name - 1 Coronado Parkway 2 C.R. 951, South (Golden Gate Canal to Green Blvd.) 3 Golden Gate Parkway, East (C.R. 951 to Santa Barbara Blvd., North) 4 Green Blvd. 5 Hunter Blvd. 6 Santa Barbara Blvd., North (Golden Gate Canal to Green Blvd.) 7 Sunshine Blvd. 8 Tropicana Blvd. - ,e 3-4 03/1997 01/2009 -.." -.--"---.--- ---~--~----- -~-- ------ ---- 16 \'1 1 ~~ , --- Roadwav #1 Coronado Parkway Exlstlna Conditions _.._----._-~~- (Golden Gate Parkway, East to Santa Barbara Blvd., North) Roadway descriptions: A .90 mile roadway running east and west within a 106 foot wide road right-of-way easement. There are two 2 lane bridges over the Coronado Canal at the western end of the roadway between 54th Terr. SW and 55th St. SW. The road is an uncurbed divided four lane roadway. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. This road is a County collector roadway. Signalized Intersection: Golden Gate Parkway Curbing: The medians are mostly uncurbed, except for turn lanes and the median noses at the shopping center entrances along with the first median at the intersection with Golden Gate Parkway. The curb is mountable type "A" concrete curb. Median Description: There exist. 74 miles of median green area divided into 13 medians. The medians are grassed and generally level with the pavement. The medians range in width from 8 to 9 feet at turn lane locations to 18 feet. Side Rights-of-Way: The north and south sides have grassed utility strips, 5 foot wide asphalt andlor concrete sidewalks and then a grassed swale adjacent to the I right-of-way lines. - Roadway signage: The roadway signage consists of metal traffic and road identification signs mounted on 4" x 4" wood post. Overhead utilities: There are overhead electric transmission lines running along the roadway behind the shopping center. Underground electric is present within medians supplying the street lights. Roadway lighting: There are no street lights continuously along the roadway, only at the intersections with other roadways. The street lights are located in the medians and are double standard street light fixture mounted on top of a concrete pole. Pedestrian walkways: There are 5 foot wide asphalt and/or concrete sidewalk along the north and south rights-of-way. Bike pathways: Designated off-road, 5 foot wide facility shared with pedestrians. Roadside Development: Along the south right-of-way line starting at the intersection with Golden Gate Parkway the properties are commercially developed to 52nd Terr. SW, from there to one half-block back from Santa Barbara Blvd. is single family and duplex residences. The half block adjacent to Santa Barbara Blvd. is developed as commercial. Along the north right-of-way line starting at the intersection with Golden Gate Parkway it is developed with Public facilities to Lucerne Road, from Lucerne road to one half-block back from Santa Barbara Blvd. is single family, multi-family and duplex -- residences. The remaining half-block is developed as commercial. 3-5 03/1997 01/2009 -- ~"~~---~.~--~._~,-,---". """,.,-'..._- --~... 16 I 1 ~'b. - - N 1'\/ ~ (]) - H Q! ;::l W 0" Q ...J 'rl ;:)Q [r" Clw :t:V) V) V) oll<l: Cl! wI.:) ...J <I: ~ V) ,I- o..Z >-w I-::L W '> C\J<[ C\J0.. >- <t ~ ~ ~ <t Q.. I- Z V) I.:) Cl 4J Z ~ ~r w - <t .....olllXl Z Cl! Q! V)\ <[Q;:) Cl ~\ >WU a::: ~ - ~...J Cl Q I U I <[I ~<[<[ (Y) 01 Q!.... l::J Q! liII a:L:l~ ~ ~ >- <[ I-- I- 0.. (/) ~ ..... x W ....J <t U ..... a.. >- .1- I-- o..z >- w 1-% W - > (\)<[ (\)0.. Cl:i: W Q ...J =>Q Ow :t:V) (I) V) oll<[ -- Q! WL:l ...J <[ )I V) I'\/~ - - ._--~. ... - ...-,., . . ._~.,-~. -..--.-.. __0"'__._.,-''' 161 l~~ - Roadwav #2 e Comer Blvd. (C.R. 951.) South Existina Conditions (Golden Gate Canal to Green Blvd.) -~~-- Roadway descriptions: A 2 mile roadway running north and south within a 100 foot wide road right-of-way easement. This roadway will be subdivided into two smaller sections. Part "A" is the southern one mile south of Golden Gate Parkway and Part "B" is the northern one mile north of Golden Gate Parkway. Both part "A" & "B" are divided four lanes with curbed medians and curbed outside traffic lanes. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. The entire roadway is a major County, Community and Golden Gate City arterial roadway, The southem end of Part "A" ends at the first Naples northbound Interstate 75 interchange. This roadway is a major entrance into the Golden Gate Community. Part "B" roadway is built 50 feet (+/-) into the existing 100 foot canal easement. Signalized Intersection: Golden Gate Parkway Curbing: Part "A": Medians and outside traffic lanes are all curbed with vertical type "F" curb and gutter. Part "B": Medians and outside lanes are all curbed, The 3 medians between Golden Gate Parkway and 20th PI. have vertical type "P' curb. The remaining medians from 20th PI. to Green Blvd. have mountable type "E" curb. The outside traffic lanes are curbed with vertical type "F" curb and gutter. The medians with turn lanes built in them have solid concrete separators the distance e of the stacking area of the turn lane. Median Description: Part "A": There exist .89 miles of median green area. The medians are Improved with landscaping and irrigation. The medians Generally are 18 feet wide. Part "B"; There exist .90 miles of median green area. The medians are improved with landscaping and irrigation. Side Rights-of-Way: Part "A": The west side right-of-way is a grassed shoulder that slopes into a drainage swale, On the east side of the right- of-way directly behind the curb is a standard metal guardrail that extends the full length of the section of roadway. From the back of curb, under the guardrail, a distance of four feet (+/-) is asphalt pavement. From the end of the pavement under the guardrail starts a grassed canal bank. Part "B": The west side right-of-way is grassed with a 5 foot sidewalk along the right-of-way line. The grassed area is either level with back of curb and/or sloping into a drainage swale. The east side right-of-way has a grassed retention swale varying in width starting at the back of curb. This swale is prior to the canal top of bank. This retention swale handles roadway drainage prior to flowing into the adjacent canal. Roadway slgnage: The roadway signage consists of metal traffic and road identification signs mounted on 4" x 4" wood post and metal e poles. 3-7 03/1997 01/2009 T_____ ~-~-.._- ----....-.--..- '~'""---"--"'~-"'_._""-" --,-.,'---" 161 I~\ . Page two Collier Blvd. (C.R 951), South e Overhead utilities: Both Parts A & B ha....e overhead electric transmisSion hnes along the west right-of-way line. Roadway lighting: Part "A": There are no street lights continuously along the roadway only at the intersections with other roads, Part "B": There are street lights continuously down both sides of the roadway. The street lights are standard mansard arm metal poles with cobra head light fixtures. Pedestrian walkways: Part "A": There are no sidewalks on either side of the roadway. Part "B": There is sidewalk along 95% of west right-of-way. Bike pathways: Part "A": There are no off-road or on-road designated facilities. Part "B": There is a 5 foot off-road facility shared with pedestrians. Roadside Development: Part "A": Along the east right-of-way line is a 100 foot drainage canal easement Along the west right-of-way line from the Golden Gate canal to a point 500 feet (+/-), before the intersection with Golden Gate Parkway is a golf course facility. The remaining 500 feet is undeveloped commercially zoned property. Part "B": Along the east right-of-way line is a 100 foot drainage canal easement. The west right-of-way has heavy roadside commercial development existing and the e remaining vacant property is zoned for continued commercial development. LandscaDe Development: Parts "A" and "B" median landscaDe and Irrlaatlon is complete. . 03/1997 3-8 0112009 --_.- --- r .~.~""'-;<'.._.-._._....- IIll .,,-. lbl 1 ~ - -- (V) (]) l-; ::l 0- ..-i ez.. ~ ~ ~ E-l ~ ~ - rt III 0\ PC 0 - -- ~ III 0'\ PC I 1&1 M .... ~ 0 0 I (/2 ~ .... Cl I Cl ~ i! .... -- ----- - ---'.. "...~, . "",,'__""';~',V ,,___..,'.,,~,...._____, _.~,' 16\ 1 ~ '<3' - (l) l-l ;::1 01 ''-; ~ :: ~ ~ Pi - .-t III 0\ . ~ 0 - . ~ e ,q <:) ~ rl W I M (") ~ I en ! ~ ~ 8 /e \ ~...... '^-~----'---'---"-'-'--^--- 161 1 {\~ Roadwav tI3 Golden Gate Parkway. East existing Conditions (C.R. 951, South to Santa Barbara Blvd., North) ._---~.~-------- Roadway descriptions: A 2,5 mile roadway running east and west within a 130 foot wide road right-of-way easement. The road is a curbed divided four lane roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. This roadway is a major County, Community and Golden Gate east I west arterial roadway. This roadway is the main roadway through the Golden Gate Community from the Naples Urban area. Signalized Intersection: Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951), Sunshine Blvd., Tropicana Blvd., 50th St. SW, Santa Barbara Blvd. 161 1 ~ Roadway #3 Golden Gate Parkway. East Existlna Conditions (C.R. 951, South to Santa Barbara BIYd., North) Roadway descriptions: A 2.5 mile roadway running east and west within a 130 foot wide road right-of-way easement. The road is a curbed divided four lane roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. This roadway is a major County, Community and Golden Gate east / west arterial roadway. This roadway is the main roadway through the Golden Gate Community from the Naples Urban area. Signalized intersection: Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951), Sunshine Blvd., Tropicana Blvd., 50th St. SWt Santa Barbara Blvd. Curbing: The medians are curbed with mountable type "A" curbing. Median Description: There exist 1.9 miles of median green area. The medians are completely landscaped and irrigated. The medians range in width from 10 feet to 38 feet (+/-) at the widest points. Side Rights-of-Way: The north and south sides have grassed utility strips. 5 foot wide asphalt and/or concrete sidewalks and then a grassed swale adjacent to the right-of-way lines. Roadway signage: The roadway signage consists of metal traffic and road identification signs mounted on 4" x 4" wood post. Overhead utilities: There is overhead electric transmission lines running along the right-of- e way lines. There exist electric underground and over head lines within the medians that service the street lights located in the medians. Roadway lighting: The western portion of the roadway has street lights along the right-of-way lines. The eastern portion has double headed street lights located within the medians. The lights are standard cobra head fIXtures mounted on concrete poles. Pedestrian walkways: There are 5 foot wide asphalt and/or concrete sidewalks along the north and south rights-of-way. Bike pathways: Designated off-road, 5 foot wide facility shared with pedestrians. Roadside Development: The properties on the eastem half of the roadway from Sunshine Blvd. to Collier Blvd. is about 98% developed with multi-family and duplex residential along both sides of the roadway. Commercial development occurs within the last block adjacent to C.R. 951. The western half of the roadway is about 90% developed with highway commercial and shopping center complexes. The remaining properties are undeveloped, but zoned for commercial uses. LandscaDe DeveloDment: The median landscaDe and Irrlaatlon Is comDleta. . 3-11 03/1997 01/2009 .~ "_.- '...... ... "",-~ _."",~~",~."_.,------,,.,.,..._...,,.._.. ,. .~"-~----. .,..."....-.. 16, , 1~ -- Lf) e (IJ l-l :l 01 -.-; Ii.. I E-t (I) :i ~ rz:I ~ . fa N S rl g I M I (I) ~ H 11 Q ~ p:j ~ H . ~.._-_._~-_.~ -------....-- -------. 161 1 ~ Roadwav #4 ~ Green Blvd. Existina Conditions {Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951) to Logan Blvd. & Santa Barbara Blvd. North Intersection) Roadway descriptions: A 2 mile roadway running east and west within a 100 foot wide road right-of-way easement The eastern portion from Collier Blvd. to Sunshine Blvd. is an uncurbed divided four lane roadway. The western portion from Sunshine Blvd. or the bridge to logan Blvd. is an uncurbed two lane roadway. The western two lane portion is offset to the north side of the right-of-way easement The posted speed limit is 40 MPH. This road is a County arterial I collector roadwav alona the north boundary of the Golden Gate M.S.T.U. 16\ 1 ~ Roadwav #4 --- Green Blvd. Existina Conditions (Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951) to Logan Blvd. & Santa Barbara Blvd. North Intersection) Roadway descriptions: A 2 mile roadway running east and west within a 100 foot wide road right-of-way easement The eastern portion from Collier Blvd. to Sunshine Blvd. is an uncurbed divided four lane roadway. The westem portion from Sunshine Blvd. or the bridge to Logan Blvd. is an uncurbed two lane roadway. The western two lane portion is offset to the north side of the right-of-way easement The posted speed limit is 40 MPH, This road is a County arterial/ collector roadway along the north boundary of the Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Signalized intersection: Santa Barbara Blvd. North, Sunshine & Collier Blvd. Curbing: The first median at the intersection with Collier Blvd. is curbed with Type "0" concrete curb. The remaining medians are only curbed on the noses with type "0" curb at the median openings. Median Description: There exist ,90 miles of median green area divided into 5 medians. within the eastern half of the roadway. The medians are grassed and generally level with the pavement. The medians have a typical width of 19'-e" (+/-). The western half of the roadway has no medians. Side Rights-of-Way: The sides are typical grassed shoulders sloped down into a swale system adjacent to the right-of-way lines. . Roadway slgnage: The roadway signage consist of metal traffic and road identification signs mounted on 4" x 4" wood post. Overhead utilities: Overhead electric transmission lines run down the northern right- of-way line about 95% of the roadway length. Roadway lighting: There are no street lights continuously along the roadway only at the intersections with other roadways. Pedestrian walkways: From Collier Blvd. to Sunshine Blvd. there is a in road striped pedestrian area along the south and north side of the road. From Sunshine Blvd. to Santa Barbara Blvd. there is a 5 to 6 foot wide asphalt and concrete sidewalk along the south right-of-way line. Bike pathways: Designated in-street, 7-8 foot wide asphalt facility on both sides of the four lane eastern portions of the roadway. Designated off-street, 5 to 6 foot wide facility shared with pedestrians along the eastem two lane portion. Roadside Development: The property along the north side of the roadway is zoned Estates District. The properties along the south side of the roadway are over 50% developed with multi-family residential units. The properties on the north and south sides of the roadway are zoned commercial between Collier Blvd, to 40th Ter. SW, but only the south side is developed. . 3-13 03/1997 01/2009 ------.- "-------- .....--.--- """'....... ~.",.;>,,,...--......_..~_.."-,.."'~---"' ".-~."- ,._...c~.,.._ 16& 1 fl< <t ... '-0 Q) l-l e ;:j tl" '<"1 .... ~ H ~ E-t a ~ z Ii1 m I "'" e ...... tn I ~ M 1-1 0 I ~ ~ H ~ (! Z 1-1 E-t CIl 1-1 >< Ii1 . __.________.o_ '__..____. .__._. ...--.... -_._~--- ...-..".,--.... ,. -,''''-''.'.'' ,,-- '-~""'""~"'--"----"-"'''''''"-'';'''--~''''~'''''~''''''-''>>- "-~';"""-'- ..-.,-....--.. 161 1 % t(. ~--. e Q) '-< ;J 0'. ...., J:,.. ~ H E-t ~ C1t f-t Cf.I ~ ~ IQ :z; Iir1 t! Cl . I U) rl CIJ I ~ PI H l:l I l:l ~ ~ !; ~ H E-t en H >< 1>:1 . e Hunter Blvd. Exlstino Conditions (Coronado Parkw8y to Santa Barbara Blvd., North) ! Roadway descriptions: A .90 mile roadway running northeast and southwest within a 106 , foot wide road right..of-way easement. The road is a mostly uncurbed divided four lane roadway. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. This road is a minor County collector roadway. Signalized Intersection: None Curbing: The medians are uncurbed. Median Description: There exist .84 miles of median green area divided into 11 medians. The medians are grassed and generally level with the pavement or curb. The medians range in width from 8-9 feet at turn lane locations to 19'-6" {+/-} at the widest locations, Side Rights-of-Way: The side rights-of-ways are grassed shoulders sloped into a drainage swale. 161 1 .~~ Roadwav #5 e Hunter Blvd. Exlstina Conditions (Coronado Parkway to Santa Barbara Blvd., North) ! Roadway descriptions: A .90 mile roadway running northeast and southwest within a 106 foot wide road right..of-way easement. The road is a mostly uncurbed divided four lane roadway. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. This road is a minor County collector roadway. Signalized Intersection: None Curbing: The medians are uncurbed. Median Description: There exist .84 miles of median green area divided into 11 medians. The medians are grassed and generally level with the pavement or curb. The medians range in width from 8-9 feet at turn lane locations to 19'-6" (+/-) at the widest locations. Side Rights-of-Way: The side rights--of-ways are grassed shoulders sloped into a drainage swale. Roadway slgnage: The roadway signage consist of metal traffic and road identification signs mounted on 4" x 4" wood post. Overhead utilities: There are no overhead electric transmission lines along the roadway. Underground electric is present within some medians supplying the street lights. e Roadway lighting: There are no street lights continuously along the roadway, only at the intersections with other roadways. The street light fixtures are located in the medians and are double standard street lights mounted on top of a concrete pole. Pedestrian walkways: There exist a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the east and north sides of the roadway, Bike pathways: Two lane roadway in-road striped bike paths along both sides of the roadway. Roadside Development: Along the northeastern right..of-way line starting at the intersection with Coronado Parkway is 90% develOped with single family or duplex residences. Between 55th Ave, SWand Santa Barbara Blvd. North the properties are developed with office and commercial facilities. The southwestern side of the roadway is developed to the extent and with same types of developments as the northeastern side. . 03/1997 3-16 01/2009 ,,"~,",..,.",," " ',. ".~,..,...""",-",-,--",.,,,,,~,,.,,,_..,...~,".~," .<-"","~' ..~-<, 161 1 ~~ co - OJ l-i ;::l C' .-' L.t.. ~ eQ ~ f4 Eot ~ I en ~ e H 11 r- .-l I ~""'-l ~ ~ ~ H ~ U :20 H Eot en H =< r&I . ---....-'--.-......-.- -..---... ~'---_.'-- .'---,'.".-"-- -- (Golden Gate Can.1 to Green Blvd.) Roadway descnptions: A 2.1 mile roadW8y I ul1ning north and south along the west boundary of the Golden gate Beautification M.S.T.U, There are 2 double lane bridges over the Green and Golden Gate Canals. The northern portion north of Coronado Blvd. is a mostly uncurbed divided four lane roadway. The southern portion is being widened under County's Santa Barbara Blvd. construction project. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. This roadway is a major County; Community and Golden Gate M.S.T.U. arterial roadway. Signalized Intersection: Golden Gate Parkway & Green Blvd. (Golden Gate Parkway intersection is designated a major ! intersection per the 1988 ". Corridor Management Study") Curbing: The medians are generally uncurbed. except for the last 4 medians north and south of the Green canal bridge with mountable type "A" curb: The outside lanes between 18th Ave. SW and Green Blvd, are curbed with vertical type "F" curb. 161 1 t\i1 Roadway tI6 Santa Barbara Blvd.. North Exlstina Conditions -- (Golden Gate Canal to Green Blvd.) Roadway descriptions: A 2,1 mile roadway' I lJlIning north and south along the ..-Iest boundary of the Golden gate Beautification M.S,T,U. There are 2 double lane bridges over the Green and Golden Gate Canals. The northern portion north of Coronado Blvd. is a mostly uncurbed divided four lane roadway. The southern portion is being widened under County's Santa Barbara Blvd. construction project. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. This roadway is a major County; CommunIty and Golden Gate M,$.T.U. arterial roadway. Signalized Intersection: Golden Gate Parkway & Green Blvd. (Golden Gate Parkway intersection is designated a major intersection per the 1988 n. Corridor Management Study") Curbing: The medians are generally uncurbed. except for the last 4 medians north and south of the Green canal bridge with mountable type "A" curb, The outside lanes between 18th Ave. SW and Green Blvd. are curbed with vertical type "F" curb. Median Description: There exist 1 mile of median green area. The medians are grassed and level with the pavement The medians range in width from 7 feet at turn lane locations to 18 feet. Side Rights-of-Way: Both Sides are grassed shoulders sloped into a drainage swale. Roadway sign8ge: The roadway signage consist of metal traffic and road identification e signs mounted on 4" x 4" wood post OVerhead utilities: There are overhead electric transmission lines crossing and along the west right-of-way line. Roadway lighting: There are no street lights continuously along the roadway only at the Intersections with other roadways. Pedestrian walkways: There exist in-road and off road sidewalk facilities along the east side of the roadway. Bike pathways: In-road facility along east side of roadway. Roadside Development: The property along the west side of the roadway is generally zoned Estates District and is about 25% developed with single family residences. South of Golden Gate Parkway the properties are 50% developed with private schools and church facilities. The remaining properties are undeveloped. The east side of the roadway is developed with a mix of commercial and multi- family properties. LandscaDe DevelODment: The future landscaDe develoDment of this section of roadWay Is to be ImDlemented under the County wide LandscaD8 Master Plan. . 3-18 03/1997 01/2009 ;'-',.,,, ""."'".""..".......,..=-,.,..,,._._- -,..~....,,""..,_.~~_.,,' ."".",.-...-...-,, 161 1 ~<t 0-, (l> e ... ..... s, .,.., t:... H 1'&1 CI) ~ ~ ::a E-I a:;. i ~ ..:I l:Q i . ~ ~ (VI I U) ! 0 I Q ~ ~ ~ fi H E-f en H = -- .--.-.- 4 II .... _. ""..~.'--""""" ," .."-...,.,-----",..~~ ". .. ,,_.~.- ~.."...._- '"'''.- 16\ 1~ Roadway tf1 I e. Sunshine Blvd. Exlstlna Conditions I ; (Golden Gate Parkway, East to Green Blvtt ) Roadway descrlpUons: A 1.1 mile roadway running north and south within a 106 foot wide right-of-way easement The northern most 850 feet of the roadway is a typical asphalt pavement two lane road off set to the east side of the right-of-way easement There Is a two lane bridge in this most northern segment crossing the Green Canal. The remainder of the road is a mostly uncurbed divided four lane roadway. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. This road is a County north/south, collector roadway bisecting the northern half of Golden Gate M.S,T.U. Signalized Intersection: Golden Gate Parkway and Green Blvd, Curbing: The median south of the Green canal are curbed with six inch ht vertical type "0" concrete curb. Median Description: There exist. 78 miles of median green area divided into six medians. The medians have landscaping and irrigation improvements. The medians range in width from 7 feet at turn lane locations to 18 feet at the widest locations, Side Rlghts-ot-Way: The sides are grassed shoulders sloped into a drainage swale. Roadway slgnage: The roadway signage consist of metal traffic and road identification - signs mounted on 4" x 4" wood post. Overhead utilities: There are no overhead electric transmission lines running along the roadway, but overhead lines do cross the roadway. Underground electric is present within some medians, Roadway lighting: There are no street lights continuously along the roadway, only at the intersections with other roadways, The street light fixtures are located in the medians and are double standard street lights mounted on top of a concrete pole. Decorative accent pedestrian lighting Is existing at the ends of all medians. Pedestrian walkways: There is 5 foot wide sidewalks along the east and west rights-of-way running from Golden Gale Parkway to 17th Avenue S.W. From 17th Avenue S.W, to Green Blvd. the sidewalk is only along the east side of the roadway. Pedestrian street crossings are marked. Bike pathways: Designated off-road, 5 foot wide facility shared with pedestrians. RoadSide Development: The property along both sides of the roadway is developed with multi- family duplexes and apartments, The remaining properties are single family homes or vacant properties. The Golden Gate Community Center property is located at the N. W. comer with Golden Gate Parkway. Traffic Calming: In-road asphalt speed humps have been installed within the 20'" Place S.W. intersection at the school crossing. LandscaDe OevelODment: Median landecaDe. Irriaatlon and liahtlna imDrovement were - comuleted In 2007. 3-20 03/1997 01/2009 ~,~.,,--,- ,-~,.'<_._,-" . _."'>>;0""""""""'""""_'_ ,~-,...~ "..b..~ e 161 1~ - 0 .-i ClJ I-< ~ 0\ -.-I ~ . ~ PI ~ tIl e CI) ~ (f) , i t-f ..-i I N I (Y) ~ ~ I-l ~ lot OJ I-l r< IliI . -..'.........,.-,--"""''' .1Il... ,'-", ""'-"-- -. _n Ill. "'...."'""""'.,~ 16' 1 ~ -_.-- Roadwav #8 TroDicana Blvd. Exietina Conditione . Roadway descriptions: A .80 mile roadway running north and south within road right-of-way easement There are two-2 lane bridges over the Tropicana Canal and a bridge over the Golden Gate Canal fer the entry into the high school. The road is a curbed divided two lane roadway. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. This road is a County north I south collector roadway bisecting the southern half of Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Signalized intersection: Golden Gate Parkway Curbing: All medians are curbed with six inch vertical type "0" concrete curbing. Median Description: There exist. 70 miles of median green area divided into six medians. The medians have landscaping, accent lighting and irrigation improvements, The medians range in width from 7 feet at turn lane locations to 18 feet at the widest locations. Side Rights-of-Way: The sides are grassed shoulders sloped into a drainage swale. Roadway slgnage: The roadway signage consist of metal traffic and road identification signs mounted on 4" x 4" wood post. Overhead utilities: There are no overhead electric transmission lines running along the roadway. Underground electric is present within medians e supplying the lights. Roadway lighting: There are no street lights continuously along the roadway. The existing decorative light fixtures are located in the median ends Pedestrian walkways: There is 5 foot wide sidewalk along the east and west sides of the roadway approximately 3 feet off the pavement. Bike pathways: Two lane roadway in-road striped bike paths along both sides of the roadway. Roadside Development: The property along both sides of the roadway is single family or duplex residences. The remaining properties are undeveloped. Located on the northwest corner of the intersection with 32nd Ave. SW is a wastewater treatment facility. Landscaae Develoament: Median landecaDe. irriaation and lightinG imDrovements were comDleted In 2002. e 3-22 03/1997 03/2009 ---,_. ,,~, _. ~-_..~..",~.., I 161 1~ - - rl r-1 Q) H ::l 0> -rl ~ ~ m ~ I-f - '" ~ I U,) ! (''OJ ~ N I rY") Q ~ ~ ~ t-t E-t (1) H t1 e - -~ , .. '''.'''''0_ w -- . -- - - -.- 161 1~; ~- I COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPB RELATED CODBS, ORDINANCES, GUIDBLINES AND STANDARDS -- Collier County Government has enacted landscape codes, ordinances, guidelines and standards related directly to providing minimum requirements for landscaping within and along County roadway corridors. See Section 8 for references and web site locations. COLLIBR COUNTY LANDSCAPB DBVBLOPNBH'l" CODE Chapter 2.03.07 Corridor Nanaqement OVerlay Distriot This Division affects the Golden Gate Parkway, West roadway corridor. The minimum requirements call for a 25 foot wide buffer area adjacent to the road right-of-way that retains 85 percent of the existing native vegetation. The trees planted shall be indigenous native species 8 foot in height and 30 feet on center. These requirements apply to all zoning uses except for single family homes in the Estates District. Chapter 4. 06 , Lanc:lscapinq, Buffez:oinq and. VeqetaUon Retent..ion All commercial and multi-family projects abutting a roadway corridor with right-of-way widths of 99 feet or less is required to install a 10 foot width buffer, and corridors with a right-of- e way width of 100 feet or greater shall install a 15 foot width buffer along the entire property length. Developments of 15 acres or more and developments located within an activity center shall provide a 20 foot wide buffer. Trees must be planted 30 feet on center along the entire length of the buffers. The tree size requirement is 50 percent 8 feet in height and 50 percent 10 feet in height at planting. In addition to the trees where a vehicular use area is adjacent to the road right-of-way, a 24 inch height double staggered row hedge must be installed to screen the area. Collier County Streetscape MAster Plan The Master plan addresses three arterial/collector roadways that pass through the M.S.T.U. District. The roadways are C.R. 951 (undefined specific locations between S.R.84 and Golden Gate Parkway) , Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Blvd. The Master plan addresses all three roadways in a conceptual design manner, but only list C.R. 951 in its 5 or 15 year Streetscape Improvement Program. Chapter S. 05 . 08 Arohi. tectural and Site D..ion Guicielin.. and Standards for Commercial Builciings and Projects, Landscaping. The Land Development Code provides for additional buffer area tit widths adjacent to roadways, increase in tree heights to 12-14 feet and natural shaping of water retention areas with additional landscaping and features adjacent to the roadways. 3-24 03/1997 01/2009 _____ __no "_____ -....---.. ~...._.... "II ..-- , "".....,.,..., .,,~~ . ....... , '~~'; ""."..;,~ 161 1~~ Goldan Gate Area Master Plan --- 1'hi!=l !=lp-r:r i on of thp- r.ol1 i p-r Crmnty Growth Mi'lnal)E'ment Plan has landscape requirements related to roadway buffering in two of the listed land use zoning categories. The "Golden Gate Professional Office Commercial District" calls for a 10 foot wide buffer with 8 foot height trees 30 feet on center and a combination of a hedge or berm along the entire length of the property adjacent to the right-of-way. This District covers properties along Golden Gate Parkway, East from Santa Barbara Boulevard, North to just south of 50th Street SW. The second category is the "Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers" which calls for a 25 foot wide buffer between the abutting right-of-way and the off-street parking area. This category only applies on the western corners of the intersection of C.R. 951, North and Pine Ridge Road Extension, East. Public Rights-of-Way Construction Standarcla Ordinance 93-64 This ordinance specifies roadway construction standards and contains guidelines for roadway landscaping and irrigation. The ordinances list requirements for all County arterial and collector roadways. The requirements cover plant setbacks, - heights, size, types and clear sight distances. Sidewalk and bike path construction standards, including curb access with physically handicapped or impaired ramps are also specified within this ordinance. The ordinance also establishes the permitting procedure and requirements for installing landscaping within a road right-of-way. S"'IIIIII_ry and RecOIIIDlendations for County Codes Based upon a review of the Land Development Code guidelines and standards it is apparent there exist some inconsistent and overlapping buffering and tree height requirements. It would be recommended that Chapter 4.06 and Chapter 2.03.07 requirements be combined so to provide for a 25 foot wide buffer with 12-14 foot height trees planted 30 foot on center be applied to adjacent properties along most of the area roadways within the Golden Gate Community Master Plan project area. Developments along Golden Gate Parkway, East and C.R. 951, North to Green Boulevard be exempted from the 25 foot buffer requirement due to the large amount of existing development. The existing Land Development Code Chapters 4.06 and 5.05.08 requirements will apply to these areas. - 3-25 03/1997 01/2009 ~"'_..."',,"'''"- <."_~"_.<__W'~""""""'_~'" ^,,"'-" 161 1 pA ,- The County landscape buffer requirements in place presently ensure for a landscape buffer area ranging from 10 to 25 feet in e width be retained or created along the roadway of commercial or multi-family developed adjaceQ~ proQerties. All the roadway corridor right-of-way easements within the project study area range in width from 106 to 130 feet. Based , upon this the minimum landscape buffer width on adjacent , properties throughout the project study area would be 15 feet. As stated in the Collier County Streetscape Master plan methodology, out-lying communities with their own landscape programs are not included. It would be best to continue this exclusion and proceed with the existing M.S.T.U. District program. The exception to this exclusion is that the Beautification Advisory Committee, as well as the Golden Gate Community should public petition annually the Board of County Commissioners to have all the Golden Gate Community roadways added to the 5 and 15 year Collier County Streetscape Master Plan improvement programs to provide funding of roadway landscape improvements. The existing County Land Development Code provides for penalties and fines for property owners who do not maintain the Code required landscape buffer plantings. A review of the roadways within the project study area revealed that 50 percent or more of . the developed properties required to install and maintain County Code landscape buffer plantings were not present or in a healthy condition as called for by the Codes. Due to the amount of work and limited personnel the County Code Enforcement Division has not been able to bring the problem under control and additional help is needed. It would be suggested that the Beautification Advisory Committee assist in this effort and write letters to the property owners in violation of the Codes and inform them of the Community beautification efforts, as well as offer assistance in the form of direction, knowledge or expertise. Exi.at:i.ng pedestrian and Roadway Light:i.ng Pedestrian scale accent or safety lighting was virtually none existent prior to the implementation of this Master plan. Presently Tropicana Blvd. and Sunshine Blvd. have the pedestrian accent lighting installed on the median ends. The pedestrian accent lighting fixtures provide additional lighting for pedestrians and vehicles. The internal collector roadways of Coronado Parkway, Green Blvd., Hunter Blvd., Sunshine Blvd., and Tropicana Blvd. are not properly lit per the F.D.O.T. State standard of providing a 1.3 average foot candle level of light along the roadway. . 3-26 03/1997 01/2009 ---------- - --.-..--.-.........---"'"" v-. ,.,.-.,-.".,., "'._...--""<~~~->'-'- 161 1 ~~ These roadways only have streetlight twin fixtures within the medians located at intersecting roads. The light levels at these locations ~ appear to meet the state standard. The on.lY roadway that appears to .. have the proper light levels is C. R. 951~L Sou~Part "Rn from Golden a e arkway, 'East to Green Blvd. Bxi8~inqPeda8t:rian Walkways and Bike Pathways C.R. 951, South, Part nB", Green Blvd., Golden Gate Parkway, Sunshine Blvd., Coronado Pkwy. and Tropicana Blvd. have asphalt and/or concrete, off-road and in-road shared facilities. I CClDlDUnit.y Gat.eway and Ent.ry Roadway Signag. Existing Community Entry Signage Located at the west end of the Golden Gate Parkway, East roadway is a Community entry signs that were part of the Golden Gate Parkway Beautification project. These signs were paid for and donated to the Beautification M.S.T.U by local organizations. This type of public / private partnership should be encouraged for future signs. It would be recommended to adopt this existing sign format as the Community wide entry or boundary signage and incorporate these types of signs into other roadway beautification projects (See Figure 12). 4It Existing Roadway Traffic Control Signage The Community roadway traffic signage is standard type painted metal signs mounted on galvanized poles or 4"' x 4" wood posts. These signs include the stop signs, road name signs, speed limit signs and general traffic directional signs. This type of signage provides for no cOherency or coordination to the community image. Roadway Beaut.ificat.ion Atti~de Surv87 A Golden Gate Community wide attitude survey about roadway beautification was developed and distributed to the community residents. A total of 34 responses were returned. The survey was an attempt to involve the community into the planning process. Even with the low number of responses the survey results provided information the Advisory Committee felt was important in their decision making process. - 3-27 03/1997 01/2009 ,,"___J . lIT ~",.,..__..,., .^....,..v.,.~'H_~'_".lIlIn .....---...--' ---,_.._-".,.~~- 161 1 ~ c(,i e ( ('l .--l (I) l>-l ::s 0" .,-i c.... OJ ~ & .r4 CJ) e ~ .ft ~ ~ S .::::- '" , I : ~ .:vo: JZ1 I ~ .rf c I 0 0 - --=-_..""'-""- -. . ","U'll_""'"""'.'" - '""""'''''"''''''''_<1''''11 'It ~. "',...."~. ." - ~""''''''-'''- ~~ - - _'_"~"C -- 161 1~ ~ Section 4 TYPICAL BBAtJ'I'II'ICATION PLAN CONCBP'1'S FOR ROADWAYS The Advisory Committee during its public meetings decided earlier on that the Master Plan efforts would be directed to roadways located within the Beautification M.S.T.U. boundaries due to funding concerns. The other community roadways outside the M.S.T.U. as listed in the plan will be addressed in a written conceptual form. The Committee realized roadways outside of the District are important because of their inter Community connection as feeder roads to the Beautification M.S.T.U. District. Implementation of the following landscape concepts on uncurbed roadways will require approval from the Collier County Transportation Services Director. The proposed landscape plan concepts were developed to provide for the most flexible means in which to perform roadway landscape beautification in regard to budgeting and phasing. These beautification landscape plan concepts were also developed in order to try and solve two major concerns associated with roadway landscape improvements. The first major concern is the e County's requirement to install curbing around the median before landscaping is installed. The curbing serves two purposes. One is to act as a barrier to protect the plant material and irrigation sprinkler heads and the other is to stop undesignated median crossovers by motorists. The second major concern with the curbing is the cost of installation. Curbing costs are typically greater than 50 percent of the total cost of roadway landscape improvements. In an attempt to address these major concerns, an undulating berm and retention area grading concept was developed. This grading concept would physically attempt to deter motorists from crossing the medians. The grading in conjunction with the plant material would visually deter the motorist to stay away and off the medians. This concept also provides an additional visual relief from the flat horizontal medians that exist throughout the Golden Gate Community roadways. The finished grade and plant placement on uncurbed medians must take into account the future installation of curbing as funds permit. Uncurbed medians with a width 14 feet or less will require an approval for canopy trees or palms to be place in the center of the medians. The concept of planting trees along the side of the roads without outside curbed lanes can only occur if a special e exception is granted by the Transportation Services Director per Ordinance 93-64. This is because of the set speed limit on the 4-1 03/1997 01/2009 .,"",..,..,... .ll..._ ""., "."..,.""~.,.~,__.M.._._..,,..._ """"""""--,,.,,,,,, --.-----.--- 161 1 ix <t, ~-. roadways is over 30 MPH requiring a minimum tree setback along Lht::: LLyhL of way;:; of 25 foul fLOllt Lht::: t:::ugt::: uf IJd.Vf::HlU:~llt. If the trees were planted to this setback the trees would be on or beyond the right-of-way lines. All of the roadways within the M.S.T.U., except for Collier Blvd. (C.R.951), both the north and south sections, have no curbing on the outside lanes. The uncurbed median concepts are based on the medians not being irrigated or irrigated by a tanker. ONCURBBD 14 FEBT OR WIDER AND CTJRBBD 20 FEET OR WIDD MBDZANS Typically most of the uncurbed median within the Master Plan roadways are 18 feet or greater in width, except at the turn lane locations. Curbed medians typically range from 15 to 38 (+/-) feet wide. Curbed medians wider than 20 feet have four inch height mountable type curb and medians under 20 feet have six inch height vertical face curbs. Proposed future curbing installed on medians 20 feet or less in width should be six inch vertical face F.D.O.T. Type "D" or Type "F" curb depending on the road drainage pattern. Any of the following proposed typical type landscape planting e plan concepts can also be implemented on roadways with existing curb around the medians and/or along the outside travel lanes. Type '1'1 Typical. Landscape Concept (Reference drawinq Tl) Type T1 is a median only installation of canopy trees or palms installed on a typical 50 foot center with shrubs beds planted at the base of the trees. The trees are to be placed in the grade transition area between the berm and retention area to help prevent motorist from crossing the median at location other than designated median openings. The Type Tl concept is basically considered a roadway median tree planting program. Type T2 Typical. Landscape Concept (Reference drawinq T2) Type T2 is a combination of Type Tl with additional canopy and/or palm trees planted in the unpaved areas within and adjacent to the right-of-way lines per the County setback requirements. The trees shown along the sides are typically placed 50 feet on center and 10 to 20 feet off the edge of pavement or 6 to 20 feet 6ff the back of curbs. This Type T2 concept is an entire roadway tree planting program. e 4-2 03/1997 01/2009 -'--'. ,..-..---, . -... -,,-,,~,,_...,-".--"""- -~._---_.'.,..."-._,- '. 16' 1 t<Cb -- Type T3 Typical Landscape Concept (Reference drawing T3) Type T3 is a median only planting plan. It utilizes low growing ground covers or turf on top of the berms and at the median ends medium height shrubs within the retention areas. The plant material located within the retention or low areas should be wetland or water tolerant type plants and the plants on top of the berms should be upland or more drought tolerant. Type T4 ~ical Landscape Concept (Reference drawing T4) Type T4 is a combination of Type T3 with additional canopy and/or palm trees planted in the unpaved areas within and adjacent to the right-of-way lines per the County setback requirements. The trees shown along the sides are typically placed 50 feet on center and 10 to 20 feet off the edge of pavement or 6 to 20 feet off the back of curbs. CORBED MEDIANS 8 TO 20 FOOT WIDTH The following landscape concepts are not cost effective in medians wider than 20 feet and should be only implemented in the center of the medians on roads expected to receive additional e traffic lanes. Type TS Typical Landscape Concept (Reference drawinq TS) Type T5 is a median only planting with no turf areas. Type T6 (Reference drawing T6) Type T6 is a combination of Type T5 with additional canopy and/or palm trees planted in the unpaved areas within and adjacent to the right-of-way lines per the County setback requirements. The trees shown along the sides are typically placed 50 feet on center and 10 to 20 feet off the edge of pavement or 6 to 20 feet off the back of curbs. CURBED 8 TO 6 FOOT OR LESS MEDIANS OR SBP.ABATORS Curbed medians 8 to 6 feet or less in width or typically medians at turn lane locations should be paved with decorative interlocking pavers. This would also include the existing solid concrete separator medians at turn lane locations. e 4-3 03/1997 01/2009 -.- -------- ".- ~ P>._- _,"~".'-'-'.,.- .,,_.,_.'" .- _11"'111_'__ 161 1~ -- tJNCUDBD ROADS: IN-ROAD PATHWAYS FACILITY CONCEPTS ~-~ In an attempt to reduce the overall landscape installation and maintenance cost, as well as improve pedestrian/bicycle pathway facilities, the following two in-road pathway concepts are recommended. The first concept is the "Four lane road in-road Facility" concept requiring a two foot wide strip of pavement be added to the inside lanes reducing the median width to 14 foot (+/-) . The road pavement would then be restriped to provide for two 10 foot traffic lanes and a 4.5 foot wide in-road pathway facility on each side (See Figure 13). The second concept is a "Two lane road in-road Facility" concept requiring the road to be restriped to one 14 foot traffic lane and one 8 foot wide in- road pathway facilities on each side (See Figure 14). With both these concepts an additional pedestrian path on one side of the roadway would be recommended to provide for the safest pedestrian circulation. The overall maintenance of these facilities as listed above should be less from both a repair and landscape cost point of view. The following M.S.T.U. internal collector roadways would be recommended for the "Two lane road in-road Facility" concept: - Roadway Name Hunter Boulevard Sunshine Boulevard Tropicana Boulevard and the following County major arterial roadways for the "Four lane road in-road Facility>> concept: Coronado Parkway Santa Barbara Boulevard, North RECOMNBNDED BEAUTIFICATION CONCEPTS FOR THE BEAUTIFICATION 11(. S . T . U. AR'l'BRIAL/COLLECTOR ROADWAYS 1. Coronado Parkway Landscape: Type T1 or T5 Lighting: pedestrian fixtures at main intersections or pedestrian crossings. Install twin headed decorative streetlight fixture within the medians on 200(+/-) foot centers. Signage: Install decorative street name and traffic control signs. . Pathways: Four lane road in-road Facility concept along with existing 5 foot wide off-road 4-4 03/1997 01/2009 ._---,. -- .._.,_.._~- - 'lr,:,!,,~_"''''''^'~_''~_''''''"M'''''''''__''' ,._,...,....w,,_ ...... 161 1~ -- facilities located along the south and north rights--Ot"=way (See Fi <Jllre 13). 2. Collier Blvd. (C .R. 9S1), South Part "A" (Go~den Gate Cana~ to Golden Gate Parkway) Landscape: Type Tl, T5 or T6, Type TS Completed Lighting: Pedestrian fixtures at main intersections or pedestrian crossings. Install decorative streetlight fixture on both sides of the roadway spaced triangularly on 200(+/-) foot centers. Signage: Install a Community "Welcome to Golden Gate" entry sign in the west right-of-way area just north of the Golden Gate Canal bridge. Install decorative street name and traffic control signs. Completed Pathways: 8 foot wide off-road facility along west right-of-way area. Part "B" (Golden Gate Parkway to Green Boulevard) Landscape: Type TI, T3 or T4, Type T3/TS combined, Completed Lighting: Pedestrian fixtures at main intersections or - pedestrian crossings and replace existing streetlight fixtures with decorative poles and fixtures. Signage: Install a Community "Welcome to Golden Gate" entry sign on the N.W. corner of Green Blvd. Install decorative street name and traffic control signs. Completed Pathways: Existing facility 3. Golden Gate Parkway, Bast Landscape: Existing, Type T3/TS combined, Completed Lighting: Pedestrian fixtures at main intersections or pedestrian crossings. Install decorative streetlight fixture on both sides of the roadway spaced triangularly on 200 foot(+/-) centers Signage: Install decorative street name and traffic control signs. Community "Welcome to Golden Gate" entry sign on west end. Completed Pathways: Install an off-road 5 foot wide facility along the south right-of-way area to make a continuous connection along the roadway. . Completed 4-5 03/1997 01/2009 ,M""""'''', ~. .,,"''''""'''.....,.,~."''~~"'_re -.---- -- _..._._.,_'"<O'...,..,~ 161 ~. 1~ -- 4. Green Boulevard Lond!'l~i'lpe. Type Tl or T6 on the eastern four lane section and continue the side right-of-way areas trees along the western two lane section. Lighting: Pedestrian fixtures at main intersections or pedestrian crossings. Decorative twin headed streetlight fixtures within the medians on the eastern half and along the southern edge of pavement on the western half spaced 200(+/-) foot on center. Signage: Install decorative street name and traffic control signs. Pathways: Existing facility 5. Hunter Boul.evard Landscape: Type Tl or T5 Lighting: Pedestrian fixtures at main intersections or pedestrian crossings. Decorative twin headed fixtures as specified in the Master Plan within the medians spaced 200(+/-) foot on center. Signage: Install decorative street name and traffic e control signs. Pathways: Two lane road in-road Facility concept along with a 5 foot wide pedestrian facility along the southwestern right-of-way. (See Figure 14). Completed 6. Santa Barbara Boulevard, Nort:h Landscape: Type Tl, T5 or T6 Lighting: Pedestrian fixtures at main intersections or pedestrian crossings. Install decorative streetlight fixture on both sides of the roadway spaced triangularly on 200(+/-) foot centers. Signage: Install decorative street name and traffic control signs. Pathways: Install a 5 foot wide off-road facility along both sides of the roadway. 7. Sunshine Boulevard Landscape: Type Tl or T5, Type T3/T5 combined, Compl.eted Lighting: Pedestrian fixtures at main intersections or pedestrian crossings. Decorative twin headed . fixtures within the medians spaced 200(+/-) foot on center. Pedestrian fixtures at 4-6 03/1997 01/2009 - ._._-_.~ ---- ""-,.. ""-",,,,,",,,,", -_......~...-.~,~""._,_." ,-~..__..... _"n'._~_""" 161 1.{X i - median ends cOllLp~eted. Si na e: Install decorative street n~me ~nrl rraffic control signs. Pathways: Two lane road in-road Facility concept along with existing off-road pedestrian facility along the east right-of-way (See Figure 14). 8. '1'ropi.cana Bou~evard Landscape: Type T1 or TS,Type '1'3/'1'5 combi.ned, Camp~.bed Lighting: Pedestrian fixtures at main intersections or pedestrian crossings. Decorative twin headed fixtures within the medians spaced 200(+/-) foot on center. Pede8~ri.an fi.x~ure8 a~ median ends camp~.ted. Signage: Install decorative street name and traffic control signs. Pathways: Two lane road in-road Facility concept along with existing off-road pedestrian facility along the west right-of-way (See Figure 14). Comp~.ted. Sn-ary - The Beautification M.S.T.U. District roadways numbers one through eight landscape concepts were selected based on low annual landscape maintenance cost. The selection will provide, upon completion of the landscape improvements, the estimated lowest annual total landscape maintenance costs. The Type T1 and TS landscape planting concepts will require the least annual landscape maintenance costs. . 4-7 03/1997 01/2009 ~~',,~,,-- "....."""'". ,~,- ----,,".- 161 l~t - I'\rd - I'\ff (Y) es rl ~e Q) ~ ;::1 0'\ 'n ..~ r... E-I ' ~CJ Pi In> .{j '" .J ~ c., "'I~ i~> u !Ii ~ aifJ~ ~ 1l~8 i~ u I ~:S S~~ ~ ~~ ...~.. ill .... E-t Ne ' e H NQ.. N l&. H Q.f I~~ ~~ H en ~ ~ i a:1~ raa I- z H ~ w R E-I l- E . ~ w ~ S en z VJ w <[ (./) H :E: ~ W < ~ H w Q.f IX VJ c::l 'L- Ii1 <[ ~ C[ w ~~ ~ 0 Co H DC ... a c::l C[ :t; co ~ ~ 0 0 Cl!: I p: - ~ q< H ~ ~ ~ S H ~ E-t en ~ .1- N ~; ~ ~~~ p: w !l~~ i~ i!i ' > Q Rlc m Q.. u ~ > fJO ~f ' t:i c!lz "'~ Sl!a: ~II i~ <<.J I- ~ neJ i~ e "IX wCJ ~ '" - 1'\/'d - - IV'd ---- -- .._~,- -.-..- ".......... ~ _._,~ 161 1~ I , '<I' - rl - 'v~ (J) l-I ::l ty\ ...j "'"' ~!~ ~t-> C:~i ::I: .. t- c:J~- CDc: li~1! CL. to- Go') >t 8f~ E-t t-t R H i~ t-t . ~ flO ... r:q ~~ i ~ I- ~~ Z Q.IIQ Q. ~ W ~c:J :z: I w - VI ~~~ :ze <r 0'\ w 1-1 I yB!t! '<I' j:l ~ <r [J ilo O! ... '" ~ ~ (.) ~ $~ -J ,>- I!-J ~ . ... ~~~ f:i~ ~~; i~ iijg ~ ~ 8 Q.IIQ 41Q.Q. . I'\/~ - ------- - --- -------- _..-- .....'-~- ,,,-~~-,".~'_.'~- --""",-",,;<',....- d. l 161 ltc6 Section 5 ROADWAY BBAU'l':tF:tCATION -- PLAN ELBMEN'l'S AND DESIGN STANDARDS The goal of these plan elements and design standards is to provide for a feasible, economical, safe, more pedestrian friendly and aesthetically pleasing roadway system for the residents and motorists. These elements and standards are to be guides for preparing the final design and installation plans. The Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee and the Collier County Government will need to continue in their public/private partnership in the planning, funding, design and maintenance of future M.S.T.U. roadway beautification projects. It is recommended that in the final design phase of future projects that a Florida Registered Landscape Architect be involved in the process. The following will be a list of items to be considered and/or incorporated into final design plans: Community colors The community colors are to be forest green and cream. The forest green is to be equivalent to Tiger Drylac@ powder coating color - Ral 6016 and the cream equivalent to Sherman Williams exterior Gentry cream SW2332. The community colors are to be utilized singularly or in combination on site furnishing and fixtures such as benches, traffic control signage and decorative light fixtures. Sight Distance For required sight distances for landscaping in medians at median crossover locations and at roadway intersections (See F.D.O.T. ~Design Standards" Index 546). For roadways with posted 25 MPH speeds refer to F.D.O.T. ~Manual of Minimum standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways" as a reference standard. Sight Window For required vertical sight window area that must be kept clear of foliage that can block a motorists view (See F.D.O.T. "Design Standards" Index 546). Pedestrian I Bicycle Pathway Facilities - On many of the M.S.T.U. roadways, the pathway facilities are non- existent along both sides of the roadway or are not continuous 5-1 03/1997 01/2009 "-",,,",,,.,,,,....,,,,,"- .~""-"'....."'_.""._.,._..^..~,,. .,".~. '-"".-'- .- 161 1~ along the roadways. Refer to the Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Map for location of existing and proposed facilities within the M.S.T.U. roadway corridors. - The inotallation of proposed pathway facilities should be planned and be included in future roadway beautification projects. Coordination with the Naples (Collier County) Metropolitan Planning Organization Pathways Work Program and Advisory Committee will provide assistance and possible funding for pathways. Pathways Faci1ity Design Standards: Due to the large amount of lineal feet and overall lack of facilities within the M.S.T.U. roadways it is recommended to use concrete facilities. The implementation of the In-road Pathways Pavement Concepts" would shorten the time frame of installation. Installation should be incorporated, budgeted and scheduled with Collier County road resurfacing plans and schedules. The minimum width of a concrete one way pedestrian/bicycle facility should be 5 feet. The minimum width of a two way concrete facility should be 8 feet. Pedeserian Crosswa1k Marking - Pedestrian crosswalk locations should be marked. Refer to the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" current edition for crosswalk markings. Crosswalk markings with longitudinal lines is recommended for added visibility. Surface applied reflective white brick pattern surfacing should be considered as an alternate to painted white bars. Sidewalk curb ramps at all streets or large commercial driveways crossings shall have embedded domed warning surfaces per F.D.O.T. "Roadway and Traffic Design Standards" Indexes. Warning surfaces shall be a contrasting earth tone (i.e. clay brick) color to the paved surface. Curbing Median curbing shall be concrete (6 ) six inch vertical face Type "F" or "0" curb per F.D.O.T "Roadway and Traffic Design Standards" Index #300, most current edition. Decorative Paving Medians 6 feet or under in width, concrete separators, and medians adjacent to turn lane stack areas shall be paved with - decorative concrete interlocking pavers (See Figure 16). The paver pattern shall simulate a cobblestone pattern made up of 5-2 03/1997 01/2009 -- --..,-...... ---'- -. . '~-" "'!" T,", ",-........",-, ,.."""... "... .4Ill______ . .I. U he..... 16\ 1~~\ a mix of three different paver sizes. The colors shall be dark emerald green and cream. The percentage ratio for each paver - color shall be one third. The pavers shall be equivalent to Krehling Industries, Inc. 's Kobblestone interlocking pavers conslstlng of In 1/3 uark emerald #80, 1/3 Green #/9 and 1/3 Creme II #56 or approved equal. Roadway and Pedestrian Decorative Lighting Roadway: There shall be two types of roadway/street lighting recommended for the M.S.T.U. Golden Gate Master Plan "Special Overlay District" Pole & Fixture: Collier County Traffic Operations "East Trail Street Light Assembly" (Lumec 250 watt metal halide, DMS30 LMSl1684A, Type A), Drawing No. CCTO 03-204 M.S.T.U. Roadways Pole: Green toned exposed aggregate round pole anchor based or embedded, topped with a single or double 6 foot fixture arm, color forest Green. Fixture: Lumec Helios series H.B.M., forest green Color, or approved equal. F.D.O.T. minimum average light levels of 1.5 initial foot candles - along the road shall be maintained. The pedestrian lighting shall be a decorative pedestrian scaled pole and fixture. The color shall be one or a combination of the community colors. These fixtures are to be located at major intersection corners, median ends and pedestrian crosswalks. These fixtures are to provide daytime accent and additional night time safety lighting. Decorative Pedestrian Accent Lighting Pole: Lumec, Inc. AM6U-16-GN6-TX 16 foot ht. pole with base cover or approved equal. Arm: VR 302-1A-GN6-TX Fixture: Lumec, Inc #175SMH-DMS50-SG3-LD-QTA240 or approved equal. Soi1 ~ysis and Preparation Prior to planning and design of any future projects it is recommended that test borings be performed in the road medians. - 5-3 03/1997 . 01/2009 ~. .--- ----- ..--., -,,,- -_._..."...~--,-,-,..._--....."'--'...~,_.."'-,,.,,"-,.',,"'" 161 1 ~ The existing soil within the medians shall be removed to a depth of 8 to 12 inches minimum; or to a depth to remove any limestone - or construction debris. The areas shall then be filled with a specified soil mix or with a local clean sandy loam top soil. The ph level of the s011 should De- wi thin Lh~ rarrg~~ of .5..5 to 6.8. If local top soils are used or existing soil is to be amended, it is recommended that 25 to 50 percent by volume of sewage sludge be incorporated into the soil. The Collier County Wastewater Treatment Facilities produce, and can provide, the sewage sludge. Water management polymers and wetting agents should be incorporated in the soil per Manufacturers specifications. Si~ Furnishings and Fixtures Benches: Wausau Tile~ Model TF5047 with cream weatherstone concrete supports and forest green colored recycled plastic seats and backing or approved equal. Trash receptacles: Wausau Tile~ precast Model A, TF1205, cream weatherstone finish with forest green plastic arch lid or approved equal. Bike Rack: Six cycle tubular loop rack with in-ground mount. The color shall be forest green. - Street Identity and Tra:ffic Control Signage Typical existing standard metal roadway street name or traffic control signs shall be mounted on a wood backing and then framed and mounted on a decorative post system. The posts and frames shall be cream colored and the bands and sign backing or highlighted objects shall be forest green. The support posts for all stop signs, large traffic control or informational and street identity signs or combination of shall be a 6" x 6" square post (See Figure 15). Landscape Sight Distance and Sight Windows The landscape plantings must comply with the sight distance and sight window details per F.D.O.T. Index 546. These details graphically depict the clear sight requirements as set forth in Collier County Ordinance 93-64 and the "Construction Standards Handbook for Work within the Public Right-of-Way"-=- Sight distances and clear zone setbacks shall comply with the Collier County Ordinance 93-64 and the "Construction Standards Handbook for Work within the Public Right-of-Way" most current addition. - 5-4 03/1997 01/2009 "=".,,,,,,,.-.. -- -" -,,---- 161 1 ~ Major ID~r.eotion. Special landscape improvements should be implemented at major intersections in order to establish a pronounced entry into the Commun1. y. aJor 1. gnalized or un-signalized intersections where two major County arterial roadways intersect. The intersections within the M.S.T.U. which would be considered major are the Golden Gate Parkway, East and Santa Barbara Blvd., North intersection, Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951) at Green Blvd. and Golden Gate Parkway intersection and the Santa Barbara Blvd., North and Green Blvd. intersection. Major intersections should receive the following type improvements: 1. International pedestrian crosswalk markings of solid white bars. 2. Decorative street and pedestrian lighting fixtures. 3. Decorative street name, traffic control and Community entry signage. 4. Decorative mast arm traffic signal control pole systems 5. Site furnishing: Benches, trash containers and bike racks. 6. pedestrian safe areas in medians and at corners delineated with decorative paving. - The Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Blvd., intersection is listed in the County approved 1988 "Corridor Management Study" as a major intersection per the study. LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The intent of these landscape design standards are to provide for the safety of motorists and pedestrians while creating a thriving urban landscape within the M.S.T.U. roadways. The general planting concept for all roadways will be to utilize native plant species and naturalized accent plants to try and restore a planting image based upon the upland pine forest vegetation community, (Refer to Drawings T1 through T6 Appendix A) . A pre- design meeting and an on-site review with the Collier County Transportation staff is recommended. The median widths listed below refer to the inside of curbing or planting area. Curbed 8 to 6 feet wide or le.. median./separators These type medians shall be paved with decorative interlocking . pavers as specified and as funding permits per "Curbed Turn Lane & Decorative Paving Detail" (See Figure 16). 5-5 03/1997 01/2009 -_._--~_. '.._,^- _. .",-~~~.,...~. ._~.~.."..'"n - "--,~, -""..,.,",,-",_. 16 I 1~ Uncurbed 8 to 6 feet wide or less medians - These type medians shall be bermed per "Uncurbed Turn Lane & Berm Detail" (See Figure 17). ~~- -~-~- Curbed 20 to 8 foot wide medians These type medians shall be landscaped with plants and/or decorative pavers only. No turf grasses. Uncurbed 14 feet or wider or curbed 20 feet or wider medians These type medians will typically contain turf and shall be landscaped per the "Typical Roadway Landscape Plans" Type TI, T2, T3 or T4, (Refer to drawings TI through T4 Appendix A) and "Uncurbed Turn Lane & Berm Detail", (See Figure 17). Existinq or Proposed Curbed Roadways Collier Bl.vd. (C.R. 951) South, Part "All (G.G. Canal to G.G. Pkwy. ) Typical landscape plan: Existing Type TS, medians planted with no turf. Irrigation: Existing well & pump with conventional - pop-up system. Curbing: Existing vertical face curb around medians and along outside lanes. This segment of roadway should be treated as a major entry or gateway road into the community. The planting design should have a mature and dramatic appearance to create an entrance. Collier Blvd. (C .R. 951) South, Part liB" (G.G. Pkwy. to Green Blvd.) Typical landscape plan: Existing Type T3, center of medians planted with 18' wide beds spaced between 100 and 200 foot on center. Unplanted median areas proposed for future traffic or turn lanes shall be grassed. Irrigation: Existing well & pump with conventional pop-up system. Curbing: Existing mountable and vertical curb around medians and vertical along Outside lanes. e 5-6 03/1997 01/2009 i -~------- .- J _._,~___~""",__"_,"~~.o,_",-_ ., ~ - -,.---, ""'"","""'" 1ll.'1>W 161 1~1 This segment of roadway is totally zoned and 90% developed with roadside commercial facilities. Attention must be given in the - landscape design to address visibility for the high amount of automobile traffic entering and exiting this roadway. ---~..._-_..~~ Santa Barbara Bou1evard, North Phase I, (Coronado Pkwy. to Green B1 vd. ) Typical landscape plan: Type T5, medians with plants and no turf. Irrigation: Conventional pop-up system. Curbing: Vertical face curb around entire medians. Decorative paving: Within turn lane stack areas and/or separators. Santa Barbara Bou1evard, North Phase II, (Coronado Pkwy. to G.G. cana1) Typical landscape plan: Type T5, medians with plants and no turf. Irrigation: Conventional pop-up system. Curbing: Vertical face 6 inch ht. curb around median noses and turn lanes. Decorative paving: Within turn lane stack areas and/or - separators. Go1c1en Gate Parkway Bast This segment of roadway has been irrigated and landscaped. The landscape design used was a modified Type T3 as listed above. Continued maintenance and renovation of plant beds will be needed. Existinq Uncurbed Roadways Coronado Parkway Typical landscape plan: Type T3, medians with plant beds and turf. Irrigation: Conventional pop-up system. Curbing: Vertical face 6 inch ht. curb around median noses and turn lanes. Green Bou1evard Typical landscape plan: Type T3, medians with plant beds and turf. - Irrigation: Conventional pop-up system. Curbing: Existing curb around median noses. 5-7 03/1997 01/2009 __.__u_ _. -', -. '-~- -- . - - .....-. '"... d.. ]I --,. ",.__...^,...~.~, , --. 161 l~ Hunter Bou~.vard ical landsca e Ian: Type T3, medians with plant beds and turf. Irrigation: Conventional pop-up system. Curbing: Curb around median noses and turn lanes. Sunshine Boulevard Typical landscape plan: Existing Type T3, medians with plant beds and turf. Irrigation: Existing well & pump with conventional pop-up system. Curbing: Existing vertical face 6 inch ht. curb around median noses and turn lanes. Tropicana Boulevard Typical landscape plan: Existing Type T3, medians with plant beds and turf. Irrigation: Existing well & pump with conventional pop-up system. Curbing: Existing vertical face 6 inch ht. curb around median noses and turn lanes. - IRRIGATION WATER RBSotJRCES AND IRRIGATION SYS'l'BMS The following information evaluates the potential use and cost effectiveness of water resources and irrigation systems that would be available for use within the Beautification M.S.T.U. area. . Rec~a~d water transmission line systems Two reclaimed water transmission line systems were studied and analyzed (See Appendix A) . The systems would provide reclaimed water for all roadways within the M.S.T.U. boundary. One system utilized the Florida Cities Utilities Company's existing wastewater treatment plant as the source (See Appendix A for Study Maps) . The high estimated cost to install this system made the implementation unfeasible. The other alternate system was a reclaimed water transmission line system connected and supplied from the proposed Collier County reclaimed water pipe line to cross at the intersection of Collier Blvd. (C. R. 951) and Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. The high estimated cost for installing this system made the implementation unfeasible. The cost of both systems are unrealistic based upon present and e projected M.S.T.U. revenues. 5-8 03/1997 01/2009 "",.",-, -". iI1lV....U.I..,,_ - ~.l 1M '''--~''-' ..-.--_._..".~..".,- "'0"_'_'-" 161 1 ~, R.ec::~aimed va t.er t.anker app~i.d would not require in place irrigation onents. The water would be applied with a special equipped tanker truck on medians with a width of 20 feet or less. This type of watering method is a very successful and cost effective system for watering landscape areas where the potable or treated water cost is high or where a well and pump system is not feasible such as in coastal areas. This type method of irrigating is presently being utilized within another Collier County Beautification M.S.T.U. on Marco Island. To implement this method the estimated cost in the first year would be $105,000 for the purchase of a tanker and the annual operational cost. Thereafter the annual operational cost would be estimated at $65,000 to $70,000 per year. This method's annual operational costs would use to much of the M.S.T.U. annual revenues. We~l and pump transm.i.ssion li.ne system This study was based on installing an inter connecting well and pump system to all roadway areas (See Appendix A) . The system would utilize the existing wells, pumps and transmission lines located along Golden Gate Parkway East. The estimated high cost to implement this system with the present M.S.T.U. revenues makes it unrealistic. - Potable / Treated water The internal roadways of Coronado, Sunshine, and Tropicana could be connected to the existing potable water system. The initial connection cost would be very low, but the long term use cost per gallon would be very high. Conventional pop-up spray systems The conventional irrigation system remains the most cost effective system to install and maintain. The system shall be designed so as not to permit or reduce to the greatest extent possible, overspray and seeping onto the paved areas. The pop-up systems must utilize low volume, low angle spray nozzles and pressure reducing devices. Systems designed for medians using pop-up mist type spray sprinklers should have the sprinklers spaced on a triangular layout verses a square layout whenever possible. This will reduce the total number of sprinklers required in the medians. Systems designed for medians using pop- up rotor sprinklers should be designed so the sprinklers are spaced on a square head to head layout and installed at the back of curb. In medians wider than 20 feet with center plantings of - drought tolerant plants should only a head to head coverage along the sides of the medians and not necessarily across the median 5-9 03/1997 01/2009 ..-~-_. - - - . ~-- - ......-..^.....,..- ._--~" ~ y .....-.. -"-.,,- 161 1 ~~. ---.'.- width. The center median plantings of drought tolerant plants naturally requires less water. Medians 20 feet or wider with just turf should have an additional center row of sprinklers in order to reduce the s rinkler radius requirements. The above pop-up sprinkler layouts combined with utilizing drought tolerant plants provides .for water coverage while minimizing the chance of overspray and seeping. All sprinklers within the roadways should , be installed on flexible plastic pipe off the lateral piping. :UUUGA'l'ION , PLANT MATJUUAL AND NAI::N'.l'BNANCE PLAN'S AND SPECIFICATIONS Refer to the Collier County Right-of-way Ordinance ~Construction Standards Handbook. for Work within the Public Rights-of-Way" for irrigation, plant materials and maintenance standards and guidelines. e e 5-10 03/1997 01/2009 ~._.,'" -.. ......~..." ,,,....,~---._~- .- -..----. 16\ 1~~ Figure 15 -- .---.----- -s'-c..1I . ~ ..J f:::t/G.t LOc:..o P\.A1'6OIlLItCu1W .. ~~ HlAAt1' 0IIt ~ Pl.I\.1:6- ';r ~ ~'\'fU1' N.Al1~ .A~ 1'l f . '):)l. (.U \..lJOOV ~"(' -.I NAt1~ ~If::,~ ""Ii'" WE.f'ACJS. ttoow'f Oil UlH$lP 11~"'L "~~He. ~\6:a\.l ("U'1G. IU1'tf'. ~o 5 i 'I P,4\N'fW n ~:t'A~ f\,A15 II WI1W 4.t;!U".'l.7..U 6..,1.'\1. - I ..'" lA':I '-01.:1'1" ~ I!.Ha MtSJNt' ~N ee.~16U6N c.o\..Olt 10* . "-l ~ ~ ~ -NV.I'h'1..'i.'\JXtiO ff.>>1e COLOlZ.1'O e ~ e~ t.u.M;. 3 2 1'if~~ ~..g t\."1 ~I"'H ~ ~ ~W<"la:a.oIl fo'~"~ 'f:r ~ "';rlt'5'- ~ !: _ 3 w II'l fOE.l1A 110t-! OCt ~~ . ~L l.ON'OlOL.. 'Z 1- S ~l:."" f - ~ "N".~ "/.,11,,,1(.,,'" :I c .... ~ % 9,\).1[7 '(0 LQJ.'(;. ~I,t.tilll <<> P" ..s \ H1er.. fit>>1'.lOtoE 1'b I ~~ e~G.~ ~ ~i ::z: Jl ~~ :z ~ ':i ~ ':;) c :z r: -F. MooD ~~u.. ~ t) i~ ~ ~ ~"-l ~ j ~ P.AaI Nf~ k)\1l4 .;o\..\ D $. ~ c::.1A\ W. -i' -~ ~ fD'.,1 ","ALL ~ LAS1 $ ~ t4"0lZ. 3~1'l~1O ~ f::/UOND ~?: ~~ ~ . : ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ - Street Name & Traffic Control Signage 5-11 03/1997 01/2009 _.._-~- ,~_."~ __"_~.TM_~_'" -.... ~ ,. ~ , -- 16 I 1 f(t Figure 16 I j . o - - '- Cd . . ...... <( Q) .~. .~, ~ 0 ~ '3~ 0) . '. . ~ . " -.j ~ ~ e: '. . 0;::. '.1:<:( -+' '- . 7. : Ll\:::> \II > ."J.. Cl,;.'r- N\ I'f"'t '~~ i ~ Q) -aNV'1 ;J:N\fl 3N'9'1 \ .2= ?'..,IJV'~J.. ? I~~J- t"f~nJ.. . " , ...... ." ~ III ,II ,01 '- ~^J.. aJ.-.l- ~^J.. 0 " (.) .- Q). ~ 0 J\ . ~ r <:,~ ~ 2 $ ~ ~ ~ Q)e: :z: X' 'z ~ ~ -.!5~ ~ \l) tJ. t\,;. Z ~ ...J ~ 3 \\\;:I~ ~ 2 ~z e: ~ ~ 0 'r-' < ~ J' -J\ '- ~ ~ i~ ~$ ~ \U *..:~ ~ ,rr ~ \S\ :>J i ~ rB ~ ~~ Q) ?:~ ..c z '- - ::;) ~ () \J 2 o v e 5-12 03/1997 01/2009 ~--_._~--_._--_._--~~ --. -- ------ -- - ,-- IF _ V __""_-,",,,.__;,,-, _,__._ 161 1 f<~ Figure 17 ~ OJ . ., - .- I ~ Cd I +- ~ Q) ~ -+ Q 8 Ul N1 ""..-t.. E '- <l) gNV1 CO 71~ ~ I \ 1 ,0\ Q) '0 ,,>- ~ c: Cd ~ e .JJ ....J ~ '2 ~ c: "2 ~ " ~ ~ '- ~ ::J ~ -...J ~ ~ ~ :z -0 Vol ~ C ~ Q) ~ :z: .0 S ~ t>.: {i '- \L I.U " ..s ::J <:) ..!\. ~ -l' C) ~ ~..... ::1: -,!. ~ ~ + c: t:i. -I.f\ ~ r- => ~ ?: . 5-13 03/1997 01/2009 ~._.. ~"-"-'-'. .- -".--"" .....-..."'"'"......,,...... . -."-- 161 1 ~<6 Figure 18 ~ ~IN"'L(:. Wt11NA\~ ~E\.."'H\ "-'A\ ~e. . . (#\ 1'tv\c.A l- t \..Ut11.c..- '!ICM1.5PK ~1\..1()4, HCUH> "...H, LUHI~'E.!. IoND t1OUM1\M6I ~ ..... fOe5oVf' Cit&a~ ..' ? - . t, .. .' " " ,. '. 1. . \ .. .. I ..J .. , ", ~ " \ i ~ , . . ,,' , " "" e t.l . A~'JC'" COH~~ '7N.l~ .. 'to C:%~ ~~ ~U&.t..1"6 ~ EWHt' f'tUAIrf ft)'4<Soo ''I .... ,. . p " ~ . .: : i ':1 , ..' ; N016: AN~~ ~1Pt1~ ~ ,'t. " . 1'tP'5- POUiiI? (AN .e l)I,ollP Wl1'H ,. I . " " ~~l.5 cc. ~ \..Ut1INAl~. ., . .; : .'. , . " . , , .,. -:, , " ..: . .,~ I .i, t' . .. '. ". :1 ; " ' ~ U"'. . ',' "!i AN~~ +1= - f.t1&e.t7I7W MJ\otf Street/Roadway Decorative Light Fixtures . 5-14 03/1997 01/2009 u _________ , ... -- '""".....- 11 . 161 1 f<~ Sec'tion 6 -e BBAtn:II':ICATION :IMPROV'BMZNT COSTS AND CONSIDBltATIONS The cost information utilized in these estimates are based upon Collier County Government and F.D.O.T. statewide average bids and existing contract pricing related to roadway landscape, curbing, irrigation and lighting improvements. Pl.an'ting cos't The plant material costs were based upon the following sizes: Canopy trees: 10'- 12' ht. , 2 . S" cal., SO'O.C. Accent trees: 8'-10' ht. , 30 gal. or B & B Cabbage palms: 10'- 15' ht. clear or booted trunks Large shrubs: 10 gal. 4'-5' ht. Small shrubs: 3 gal. 18"-24" ht. Ground covers: 1 gal. 6"-12" ht. Irriga'tion System The irrigation costs include an installed 100 percent coverage, conventional pop-up system. The cost covers casing/sleeves, main lines, wiring, valves, sprinkler heads and pump & well systems. Design and Contrac't Adminis'tra'tion fees - These fees are for professional design services and/or consultation from a registered landscape architect and registered engineer for lighting projects. Si'te prepara'tion Covers the costs for vegetation removal, grading, soil removal and/or replacement. Concrete Curbing Cost to install concrete curbing around entire median. Curbing cost include minor modifications to the turn lane tapers and median opening closures. Decora'tive paving Covers cost to install sand set concrete interlocking pavers. Two l.ane road in-road pa'thway facil.i'ty The cost shown under this item applies to implementing the bike facilities concept based on the "Uncurbed Collector Roadways Development Concept" section/elevations. In-road facility cost only includes cost of re-striping roadway. - 6-1 03/1997 01/2009 -~---_._---_.~-~._. .-_.._~~-----~- -------.- ~<~, ..._,--- 161 1 ~t I Roadway decora~iv. liqh~. Cost to install new street lighting systems with decorative -- poles and fixtures as listed in the plan. P.des~rian decora~ive ligh~s Cost to install decorative pedestrian scale lighting at median ends and at major pedestrian oriented intersections or crossings. Annual landscape maintenance These costs are based upon current contract pricing and cover services as specified under the technical maintenance specifications being presently implemented by Collier County Transportation Services. Asphal~ Paving Cost to install asphalt paving for drainage improvement, turn lane extensions and patching purposes. Pedes~rian crosswalk markings Cost to install surface applied high visibility pedestrian crosswalk markings. e . 6-2 03/1997 01/2009 --- .-. ",...... M","_~ ~.."~.".''''''"'''''n'''' ..... --.".'-"'-'~ 16 \ 1~ i\ 0"\ Cl Cl N -e ....... .-I Cl <Ii 1;) 8 e:: 0 :n ::J ... 1;) e:: <Ii 01;) o 0 ftl 0 - ::J-o lJ) - ts ,- I 0) lJ) ftl.o c:- ,~ ~ .8 ~ .- ~ ::J "ge:: 0 '2 ~ as- ')(- -ftl u.. 0) Q. - E 0) ,- lJ) me:: 'fii 0 -~ fil>;U. ~ 0) 0) U) 0) - ~asO)ctse::O) cc z c Cl/S 0) s::. >.- as 0) _ > Q..- as 0) - - :.c'cu 0 ....: 0) ~ 0) _ ftl ~ ts -6 .!::: a.. lJ) ~ E ~ <Ii e:: o.~ .0 Q. 0) '- "0 '- "5 - e:: :::l-.... 0 :0:; .- -0 5 0) O)~ 0 -0 .! 0 (/)ftllJ) 0 .g, 1i e 0 1D .5 - ~ lJ) 'e:: :0:; r-.fl8 I/) .- a; 0)" '- 1;) -0 0) as ~ ts ftl W ...J C 0.- 0) e:: 0) .... o as e:: . C -..... lJ) - ....:co Cl/S W rG ~ 5 ~ 'o..~ ~ 0) W a. o oe:: ii) N "0.- 0 ....: ..... ~ 8.1i ~ 8.<..> ~~o.a1iCl/S E O)e::t):o:; z r- I :::l s::.C02.!! 0 Oas 3 s::. E ~ 1D .- 0) C> e:: a. --0_- 0 ~e o fE e lJ) ,9- 8.~ ~ c: 0 Cl/S EO)lJ)as lJ) ~ '- ts 0) .- -e::- (V) Q eas "0-0< '8-o1;)~ 0) s-on; ~ OCl)o~ I :C'a)"8 CDe::.~ Cd> -')(-0) J:: 0) 0 .- ~ z 11 as >< as::J Q) .- o'E -0-0-0-0 oC t:=e:: ed!:!:!.~!:!:.~~~~!:!:.~::::;" O)='e::e:: oEas >.0 as as ~ zoq-~ :;:l 0000 00 oorr 0 ';:: r- -0 e:: U) ~r- - .n 0000 00 000000 0 0) Q.- 0) ,0 . . e:: cicicicicccciciccicigcicici ci -0 <0 .0 'fii ~s::.'- .... 0 > 0, as oooommmoomOO 000 0 -00(;;0) ~ 0000 00 0000<>>0) 0 e::)-=,-O Ciie::E . . . -~........ . -~ - - - - u.. C")001/) COI/) C")<>><oO)r-<o ..n asu.ts- 0 .0)>- 0 'It.....r-<>> C")O I/)C")Nr-r-1/) <0 e:: 0 ~-as t ..... ..... ..........r- co 8.EcoO) Z .t'O~ "aQ),.!.. ~~~~~~~~~~~tR- ~ ~ ~ oEE 0 ~'-o :::l J:: 0:0:; Z ~.as, -o-oJ::- a: .lDc1=: Q)O)-oCO Q)O) lJ)>I;.-O 0 > .s e ';:: as ' I:: as Q) < C 0)- .oQ)~c l- ~ 0) -0 0..- Z ~.lJ).s '-lJ):::lE QU)CO '0 as1;)-oQ) W < .s .m ..... :I ~ as ., lJ)8Q)- o -0' LLlJ) 1;) -00) W 0::"Q)""': 0) o C-o ~ :::IiE lJ) as e::C 0) 08:::l! t'O'- .. c . W C") m 'C ~ 0) :0:; O)e::e > ~ cD~ _ ....ftl cs::. >as 0 . '.- lJ) :liE .- CJ) Oc~~ a.. i {;'= N e:: 0 0) 1=: ,- !! tEl/) .!l .2 (/) -0 oX 0) -I . . ~.!t'Ol .... 0) - .- >- lJ) .:...:: U 0) .5 1;) c o I C t'O -0 a.. t'O ...J as 0) .. co Z 0:: <>>co CD'- C .. ~ c-- C s::.t'Oom c:!! asCJ~-olJ) c~ :0:;" ~o as ~:IiE<..>~ 0 oC~..ce c c c ,_ co lJ) .' ~ e:: E 0 ~ c !c a.. 0, t'O .- 0 :e > 0 0 CJ) co as 0) ..... .... S E ,- co........ e:: 0 - - --- Q) tn O';e::c E-o 1i:::la..~<..>~C~ ~~ >-~ C 0 ~ Q 0) ftl .. u: oC"-:O OC.. ~<..> 0)- c ftl cO) 8.(/).:...:: g =' :Ii! - o Cl/S 0) Q. 0) > 0) co Q. as > .. co m ~N(y")..t ~ ~ zc~O) c .- e:: 'I:: 'c::'- CJ) co e:: _ 0) oCD~E ~~~ll!~1;)1i1;)!i~B~~ts 1i :J ~~ - :s I' oC oC -ftlftl ,_ 2: 0 8 0 0) s::. 0) 8 :R -0 t'O I ~ 0) c lJ) 0) C Q. CJ) .0 ..."., w i 000'0 eO)=,~oO)~~lJ)~O)_~~=,oe c III o~~~ a..C(/)(/)<..>c~~<~C(/)-I-(/)<">a.. oC ^._,.~," ~ _"',',..,~,,_,,~~~,.w""""'" '~--",_.__.-.'"'- 16 1 1~ C ns l!! 0'1 :.0 :::J 0 (I) x 0 E N l+:; '- E-t C Q) .-l 0 > 0 0 ~ (I) _.~ 8 1.1)0 '0'- Q) Q)o. 'U ..",... 0) Q) -2c t) 0.'2 :5 CD CD 0 ..",... 0)"0 .... 2.5'3: ~ o.c O)CD>, :::J ui .~~ ; x . It= "0 0- C CD >,"0 CD.c: .a "Ocucu ..",... 0) '3: ~ 2 0.- c::i I.. - >,'Uo 0.- r: nscu"E O)~ ~ 2.- C J::l . en 0'U '2 1.1)"0 :!: cu-Q) CD'UJe a::: o .5 1U _ "01..- 8 I.. .... .- ns CU 0 0"001.1) ~'U1i) LL. C _ CD e- C >,cc c- 0 en CU .- f! O;l ns ns.- C "Ooufj ~(;)~ Z CD 0 ...: - .s e-.5 0 ns >. 0) C -C ~ ui '(;j nsOCD- o C._ I.. u.o 0) ....:::J- 0 E Oc C co.c: 0 e-.- 'U '- o () .2>> w 0 >. 8~ 5 ~ o.EQ) Q ......... ; C 'U .c: 2 :::J >. CiS ~ 'U .- _ IJ) U "20:,;:; c ...... J::CUO Z -, CU ~:::II.I)C c....'-:+:: ....:CU 2 OlDCU o~g~ . 0 'U.c: .....- (..) -CD Z. _1.I):::JJ::l 'U U Q) "ti 0.... :::I O)X 1.1) ~CD"01i) Q l()CU C Oc;;:CD "":.8 :::J .c: .- 'U .o'Ucc '<l' Z 0 1.1) 1: C 8- CU f! cu-- I c( ~C () IJ) O).ns .8 ~~-g l"O ~ - ns .... CD=.5- CDc CD :';:;_IJ)CU :::J CI) ns :=(1) =Q)CDI.I) .s-"OC en _Ec '0 '0 ~"O"O co CD 0) 0 () ns_CDc "0 c 0.-- .. 0> .- u.ena..CD (1)0....1.1) (..) . . CU .c: Cl):';:;OCD ;1G.c:E ... .............................. L&. 0) . C -- _ "0 0 w_>. :::J 0 _ 'U 0)- ~ ~g>cu cD 2 (..) :="Oco 3: CO._ CD Z IGCD~ t) .c: 0 0 0 c'U-g E 0 ~~ns9 - :::) m m m Z 0. 'U t-= ............... OC:::J:';:; c(...~- E CD ;.2........., a: IGns.c: 'U en ~oCl)CU o Q. C .g> 0 C :5 IJ)-"O"O 0 U .a ~~~ .- CD a:::G>>~_ IJ) C.i~c ~ .. ns C 8 E "'- .....- Z IG - :::J'S 0. E ="0)0 CD W c( I.I)~ E C 1.1) o.iOCD ::I! = Cc - ns - 'U -- t::G>>cu....: CD c .c: "'-"c CD ~ > CD 0) cCDm"C IG :2 :.0 1.1) 2 - =1.1) ~.o c ~OQ)O 0. -(;j iiQ)$1: G) >,c~ ,,:!:~ C .5 E 3: co- .... 0 _ N_ C Q) ",-.2>> E= 0 ~ IG 0) 3:..... ! lO..CD...... - C G>> c G>>o1i:iQ; cn_:=" 0 Co) 0 ECCD> ,5::::>::::> I . IG E I ;l C :a; CDO>:';:; 1i:i..........O z a::: ;...... ns co 0 0) <<J 0) >u:,;:;f! 'x en en lXl O(..).c:~ IG :~ C :~ 2.c:"'f!g w:E:E..... ~ -cu Co) .s -0 en ..sg>c . ~ C ~ ECUUCD " 0. CD "0 (..) ~ "<<JQ)cu C Q) .fti 8- -c'Uc i:i: ~"-:.o .!! 0. E IG'~ ~.~ ""':NC"l"": i= ~ mc~Q) C; ns - CU ... CD 3: E (,) IG (,) -I1i)~1i) - :::) .~""O- .!:! IJ) :::J 1.1) II c( c( --CUCU "C C 'U 1GQ)"iQ) W ~ 000- c C c o"2oi ns CU III CJ ~ 0:: {::. ~ ..J c( ..J a::: a.. 0:: a.. ----------_.-. .--.-----~ """""" - - Ill" ~ lI, ..""... .....,--- ._.-~-,_. 16' 1 ~ '" "0 C (I) C ~ m "0 0 (I) 0 E, ~~ .... C ~ "- i 0 :;:l 8 "-' tS ~ ... (I) 0 _.~ 0 ~e Q) d) 0. "0 ,~ 0) Q) -ec :5 ...: n 0. '2 0 . d) (I) - rn ...... 0) "0 O 0 C.- Q)... Il) a'2 ?: ~ ~ . _Q)>o ~ ~ rn ..... "0 ~ N "0 ~.~~ t~ ~. C C~~ (l)E I .;:s Q) >0 as .0..... I:>> ~ "0 as .- as ,.:;: ~ 0 .... - Q) q ~ "0 ... 0.'Q) ~ I- >oas,s I:>>c! . asoc _. Q) en ~...- ~rn"O o .0:: "00"0 (l)nQ) #Vl C ...:: as-Q) "0;;:;= ~ as oc~ -ttlS o c 8 ....-~ ?:"Orn U. ~ C o"OQ >o5c c as - Q) ~ ttl ,.. .- o ~ c ~~S ?:~~ Z Q) .... -"0 - o E c: aJQcrn ttl~g> i::: >0 .- - t='.- c 0 c .- ~ as as asSQ)O ...~- < ?: E 5c~:;:l cO~ ar:: ..!.. >0 0.._ "0 ~ 0 () = ~ .2 e 8~5.9 g.oE~. - .r::; ::>.r::;1:>> "O...:;:lC o c> -g.5:2 rn C Q) - as 0 Z ~~ 0 Q)~",~ c~~:;:l tit 0 '""':..... ... ~0Q)'" osoJ!! .r::;....o "0 Q)- o 0-"': ~ :2rn:::l,,", c "OS C Il)rn C ~O)XU ttlQ) rn Z ~o :::I oc~c ~"OCC ~ - 0 .r::;.- _ ttl ttl ttl.- < "It 0 ,.. ",- C.'U ....c"O I N -0 ,-,.r::; as C Q) 1:>>_ C \0 o lit: - '^ ... en .9'c ~ ~ a. en as ~ Q)~. (I) Q)-_Q) ~Q) ~ > =m E-en"O o_"Oc 00 < Ec ~ ~m~(I) ;ttlQ)~ ~ mO () 0;;:;00. Q)co.", o ;:::110 . Q) .r::; ... ~ tiS a. - CD .2 ~ Q) u. C.c en I:>> co ___ as c :t:: ..... "0 < - as ~ 0 - "0 1:>>- o 0 g>~ 0 0 = "0 C 0 Z ar::-Q)as Q).... ?:ttl-CD ~-Q) 'Q) :5 ~OOO c"O~E ~ :~m~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~= - ~masC> E "0 0 SoQ)as Q. . I: C 0 c" cn-"O-o o ~~i~ : a :E~~~ a."O~Q) ~ as~Q)as _ E!e~ z Q." .... a. c 8 ~.- a. s:: w I:>> Q) c: 0.5-0 t: _ ~S"'c~ E as ~ "OQ)-~ - ." . Q) C .r::; "'''OQ) W ::I 1;; .~ '" > ~ I:>> ~ Q) Q) "0 > o as "00 e C =cn _~Q)Q) o 0 w Q) 0 a. .;;.. -\- ~ ..... C ~ ::Ell) ~ ~Q).r::; W~_ f ~~-~ ~ ~ E I:~~~ ?:~~I-O _ ~.Q)~ _ C (I) C (I)~~ 1:>>::> ~ ~~'E-~ R ~ R ECQ)~ ~~~I ".5ii: I - I: - (l)S>'- -t-t-o z ar::~~as ttl as as )o:;:l~ ~enen- O as I:>> _ 1:>>. -... X ..... _ dQ..r::;! ~ ~ - ~ e~~s w::E~1- ~ (I) '6> ttl It) .- .s.- - 0 0<0> ~~CC ~ ~ ~ ~ E~~~ _ >".9!.~ I: Q) as Q) -c-oc u.C( M >0"0 .!! a. E 0. as >0 as .... ~~ -l:ttlQ) _ ~ _ ~ as~as~ ~N~"It ~ ~~ ~~~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ 11i~1i .81 .. wO 000- C I: C o~oaJ 0 mar:: o~~~ ~ ~ < ~ ar::a.a:a. z o_.."~ .. ~_._o _...",_.....,"._'__'""'_.._.~.~,..""..,....~,_,~_,_, . w _".__.,-,_ 16 I lfb\ ... 1ii 0'1 ~ (;) 0) en (;) C ::J e N "Ci) X ::J "'- d.I ~~ rl e ~ i;:: 0 0 1ii ~ C -0 as ... C '1: B as ............-...1ji co ~ O~CD -0 .!l!. co i co e '0' a. . .c c;j .... - a...._ ~s _a.as .e C 0) en C e ~ COc-o E'- C as ::J ~ en coaico :ex ~ > "C C COi;:: ~ "C e.;: as E- C .c .a a. .- .5.g> en E :>. i ci ';'~ E a. ,.... ..: ECD en r: asas.9 ::Je .c en ~ e.5 0. 1i) . r::. :::i1: aso"C 0.-0 i ~ IX e-co .c...= - 0 ~ c- oassi (0'- ~ ....-0 en ~ C 0-00 C C U) m _sa. -0 m .- a.. C C ... C(j)lI:: Z ....: co .- ~ B as .0 0 en - iOc - :>. 0)-0 C --cm 5 0 'co _ e-.- ~C:o::;c ~B! ::J .!: 0 0 E - 00)'" _10 :>. e..s; 32 <0<">=0 W ....:"'Ii ~ -0 E co <..> a ....:...... - B~ 5 co> - Ci5 ON 10 "C mt;;.:O::;z c: 0 I $2? as .s; :2 .;j -as 0 Z O.m ~ e !::Jen ~1iiom :0::; e 0 oe :>. ,ge *B~ffi m U :s.m :::> - 32en::J -gco"C~ ! a :Cui 8 0:: c ::J o)x ::J m "C c lD c ~ Z ~j?c J: 0 OCI;: as m .- I c( ~ <..> .c ,- ...... ... 'I: m "C 0'- m en-C- ~ zEc <J) ... .em :: ~ 1ii 'E C f/J en 0)'1: ~ :'~ S ~ ,9! CO'- c::JlI)m m l- .- = 1i) 0 m - 8. en c f/J "CI .... .5 0 :!:coco:o::; .- as 0) 0 > .e m <XI <..> ,- co i m "C c .e ,- o t;;. 0 CDO...~ en U ;iiit>>E it .e 1;)~cna....Q E:EJ2~ ~ LL. I!c:>, 0) > com - ::J 0""-""..........."'-" C -0 0) en '0 0 e (.) .- "C C C c(ea-;~ .! a. m .- .2 - co z -e ..,!. .c :::i 0 0 0 E-g-gO-ciE Q ~eae9 Cll - amm- a. i .-: al al al ::J ::J::J Cll >'- c( c .e E ~ ~ ~ a._-~-- ii: "C f/J a.oCllll)al(ii o J! co .~ B c :i .c-:!21:;m-o 0 IXce- .a ~EhEh 10 ~ >.- C Cll I- ea C) S en .... e.c ~ c f/Jeno - 8 z C -0 'S 0. ~ '5.'~ w I).sc~ Cll c ea _.~ ~ E m en ai.9Clleco ~ - Wl)-O~ ~ c .e -"'i(ii~(j) w .coen S 0) (j)~CllN~-o ~ ~~:::i1:_g! c =en a. 'co jsl~ ~:>.c ens:~ ~ . en .... ,5 E - m - lU (I) -Cll - C <XI E ';: "- 0 a. :.:::;;=~ .!! c e ....- 0) ~.....~ ! IXCbEN C 8 c .01iiQ) 0 0 i5~~ .5 :::> :::> I;: en I c( . 10 I :0::; C :0::; (j)~1- .co Z a.D;C'\im as as 0 C) as 0) ~o:...~ 'x en en <0 0 al wU.ee t'J 'E I: .;:: e-aso W::E::E:s.101- i= I- -- as .! ,~ :500 c( -d g> c I) .- easoCll c( f/J "CI ~ C ~ a.Cll-o U ~ " ~ j? .~ c ~ 'ii ~ -C-oc u: z m :>.-0 .!! e ca :>. as "":C'\iM ~ i= ~ w ..asCll -; as - m ea.!: as'!:: .!~ E 0 ftI 0 ~1i)~(j) - ::) a .!:! en = en ~I c( ~ ..J -0 -0 ea~i~ -mC'll c c c W 0 00'0 as c m OCOOCll m " ~0::1- I- -l c( -l IX a.. 0:: a.. ~-~---_. ,""",~H'" "",.<""",'~"'." 16 , 1 ~4 >. O'l ; 0 0 '"C. N a:l! ...... 0::1 .-l -=x 0 a:ll;:: E-t 'C Q)~ t:;:; a:l! i 8 o Q) a:l'"C 0Q) '"C= c: .as C! .::1 ~X criii: .- :E.e 0) 2r: ...... fi~ 'OC ......0 ...... c: _ . >--0 i:j'0) 0 Q)0'"C a:: ~~~ ; ~ ...... := c: ! C-o.!e - Q) - 0'- 'i ~ 1ij 0 D:l:""::I.e '"CC: '2'0 a. ~ ~ - E'"C- ...:iSU- o a:l 0 LL. a:l a:l 0) a. >- E -'- Q) c: ~ Q)'- Q).e 0- .- 0 - a:l >-u.. > >-a:l'- U) =~.ej ~~ ~- ~;:Q)tsC:Q) ! Up::. Z 00- 0 ..,.: () a. c: ... 0'- o olS ~ i .~ Q) .!!! .!e >-0) C:Q)8.~ .1:) g> 0) a:l 0 1:) .!:: Q.. 0 a:l - c: ~ ui ~Q) .~ :e a.... Q) '"C ... rl - o C._ C .="'> C ...::IE 0 $=::10 ::Ie ;:; "0 ~ q:: '"C Q) 0 00) 0 !ii:2 00. .e a:l ::I.s Q) Q) U; 'C ;:; ~o= - 0 0)"'UQ)C"'0 tS a:l W 0- .- 0) R ...::1 i a:l a:l CEQ) C €_~ ~1;;(I)::I Q) C ...J _ u.. U 0 .e:::E Q) 1;) ::I > iii U a:l 0 .eQ) olS-" C:o= (J [j a. 00.- . O..,.:LO >-.- m .e a:l 0 0....Q) o~1;;g Z Z....:, as"g . 0 -E 8. ~ ~o cia. 1;; olS E .eQ) ...- ~.- 0 "0 Cl'l ;: .- i;' >- ::I Q)0 - - 0)> rlE~l)~ "c a. .- 8 as 0 'aoa> .e0;:a:l ::I 0 oQ)'"Cs > LO ... 0) as ~ o ... 0!~0::18~i~ olS Q iii.q:as .- .e .e ...0. .e 0) as =.~ '"C . 0 "0 U ~ ::I '"C a:l CD O"CcU) Z t!~8 '- 0)'- 0 C 0) c: '- is - 0) .c: a:l as .5 r- e( o C .e ... i>- .s as ~ 0 co Q) ::I. O.C ~ O)....C I ..~ fi 1:) .2 1;) Q) ....J u..CI)Q..CI)u.."= ::I ~ (;) "g 1.0 U) J:lEc <DCQ).e 1ii~ 0............ --..""-'..........'-"............................... e ::I Q) co ... ;;;o.s =as3:- (J U) 80.'0 .5i .e-Ic r:D m .5 1999999~~99j9j9 -a:l 0) 0 (;) 'Eo i C .- 'CO CCcoc o ... 0...0 0 J!.eE as.Q Q) Q) 8 ~ "CE.E~ LL. c- .e1ii(iiE. 0 caO)>- ::I 5 '"C 0)- U)Cas ::I t:.c a. tS ~~ _'"Cco Z ~3: -&.CDOQ) .8 a:l._ CD SCO"!' U) 1:: CD .="' :2 CD W~~~f#H#t~~~~~ ~ ~ '"C"CE 0 0)0 0 c c Z = ~ 9 3: cas.> ... ::I.e :2.2.2;:; II1CO.1:; .!,-Q)o. 0- D: Ui_g"Cc: .ec goQ)tU 1= cO) U) Q) 0 1:: (I)'C co ~.- 8. Q) cj .c:-:2i >ca!(ii <DcEcoE 0i> ... figCO~Q) Q) 8'" e.5 z c(D.0)- EE .- a. E ==aU)O ~<..) ~ "g e c::I W .ecl- a.! ~ Ui a:l i .s CI) :IE c ... as - C .s='- a:l a. gg> ::::1.- ....: 0) C"'"CQ) W c(O"C . et:8.- E U i::>> ~.8lC"C > 0(1)(1)(1) o "0 ,- > o.. a:l C ... Co.. Q)o. :g .. C a::~::E~ G~.Q!O '"Cc m 0) +:; 'i >- c .8 a:: _ a:l C .c: - -r-- U) '"C Q) - 0) C a:l C .0 :::E ~ .2> E ~.~ 0 D. IOU) - 0- ;! Q cnQ)r-- .- > > 0) C ._ a. i .2 CI) .:tt:. O)...J . . epc I- ... - Q) c'- 1ii... a:: =00 o CD "0 .- i - -.- >- U) . . Co) .Q::::l::::l I ~ liE. "0 c O)Q) ! '"C as ...J a:l 0) . . (ii c1ii~I-O Z "N Cl'l 'E ~ 0) c "0 .E 1;) .....fi..i::>>>-3:-~ C '0'(5 0 O..c:e o a:l .~ .!!! .~ ._ a:l c.~ O)c:t:::U)c +:;" ~ ca O)CI) (I) m "O:E o c c c._ = 'U) 8 a:l cEo ~ C .E :::E :::E I- ~ ...I -::'aa:l o-e,8 0.>- '-o:e>uo a:lQ)......... S.- Cc E .- co co'" 0 - - ...... Q) U) ::) 'acc >-m cm e"C<<i::lQ..u..O<(~ a.~ >-0) .5 IllS 0 ~ 0 >(I)Cl'l ~ m ~.2 3: a:lo 8<(~OQ)cccQ) 8.CI)~g-g . i! r:D ii5 >. '6 S3:<<ii 8.~ IllS 0. Q) > a:l a:l m > .. a:l Q) m =- 8. . . . i= ~ Z ..a:lQ) a:lii15e a:l.~ II) .... +:; 'C .C 'C +:; 0) a:l C .... C; rJ.....N('t) ~~E O~ 'iC...lD!-........mcoOoO>t) ~ w eCl)e~~ U):; Q..... U) U) U) .... - U);:; I- c U) .", - c( .2> U 8 Q) (I) Q) 0 >"0 a:l ;:; Q) ::::I "os c( W -a:la:l .~ '"C U) C ::I "Oa:l '0 U) Q) c i '"C "0 U i c 0) lJ c '0' c W i a:: 000 .e c.- a:l- C CD .. Q):t::: 0 (I) Q) Q) ~ - a:l 'E ::I 0 ... C C 0 r:D C) 2..~1- I-co=J:;.2 ~m D.OCl)OOQ..Q..Q.. CI)...J_CI)<..)Q.. e( ~z --. ...- .UoM "'--""-"~ ----.., <""--.. 16 , lfb \D . 0'\ 0 ..-f 0 i N -- ....... '" ,-t 0 ui (;j 8 c 0 ts 2 - rn e: . oJ!! om _0 nI 0 - ;:'"0 rn - ts.- 0 rn n1.o _ _ c ! a:: c = :g ;:, .8 0 .2> ~ nI Q) :s Ii) "Oc ~n1 11. ~ g. .-2 E i~i.a.. ~ eee: f/J o - ~n1CDctsClB CD.! CD.s::. >.- cu c e: Z o.-ellS > 0..- nI G) - _ :C.m 0 ....: .5 ~ 0.- a:I rn 0 -6 .= Q. rn - ~E ~ ui :c 0 .5 € Q. cu CD ... "0 ... (ij e: 0 0'- "0 i3 CD o'i o"i CD 0 0 ;:,-... :::i 1i 1! ~ c I;. - 1i) '1: +l en cum 0 > +l 0 CUo nI ;:'0 W 0_ "0 CD 0= 0 rn ~ c CIS:E (;j ......00 0 ..... e: - __0 c 'x._.-.t: .!! Oa:le: . -- "'"":" co n1W n1= 0 CDQ.~ e CDW 0. o 0 e: US ~..... lJ 8. 1i ~ ~ () g> fi- 0. a. 1i ellS E N "0.- 0 CDe:O+l Z 1.0' 8 ~.s::. E t- 1i) .- CD (!) e: ;:, .s::.a:l2~ 0 C")CIS (,) rn i ! rn .g. 8.;?; ~ 5i .2 Q. -"0_- (,) ..,.! ellS E,Srn!! CD " "0 < c>> b -g 1fi ~ i :::J :5! 1ii I 0 ~CIS G) OCDc~ \.D ;8 SC, OnlCD:::J-1(oo J:: 0 8 .- Z nI X ~ C/) a::: en CD .- (!) 'E ~ "0"0"0"0 c( II...JW 11. C/)u.- =c E"-'........ "-"'..........""-"''''-'''''........'-'''''''-'''.......... CD;:'CC U) E~ > .0 CIS nI t- ;::I 0000 00 oor~o 0 '1: ...... "0 e: ~~ ,. U) W ~~O~ ~~ ~~~~.~ 0 CD Q.- 0 0 _ ..5 00c::i00000000000.......... c::i "0 CO .0 .en ,c.t:CIS .... 8 "OO(ijCD (,) C oOol.Oeeeeee~l.OeeO)oco.....co...... 1:: 0, E US 0_ C")_..... C")_ t- t- t- _ <0_ I- ~ q, C") ~ CO C'I!. C>-;:,"O 11. oc>- ll).....N-...... NCO O)......NCC........... ci a:lu.ts- 0 c c 0 ZCDca ..,......0)0 ..,...... 1.01.O...........co8 ...... oEa:lCD Z :" <<1 ;r.: > ~~ ,.- ..-~oo Q.oEE 0 " CD..!. u. wwwwwwwwwwww w w w ;:, J:: e +l >'""9 Z ainl- "0"0-- CDCD"OCll a: :I e: .t: ~ .~ ffi ~ 0 l! CD.g> ~ of ~(ij .oCD;r.:c t- >- CD "0 Q.'- Z 3:.!rn'O ~ "'rn;:,1; '0 ca_ W o ct- ~ a:I .. rn rn"O CD ::1\1 C ca_ u.rn -8CD1i) W J!~-...: o .. ~ -g"O > ~eCDrn 0 e:c: 0 08;:,.8 II:EO) nI nI .- ,. c 0 ee '1: ~ O+l CDCe a:: f/J - CO _ -ca e:.t: >a:I 0 001>1.0 ' "- rn ::E +l 0 OC!I- Q. a::"=o) 5 0 CD .t: .- .g~a:I, ::1\1 C )o.E<o .ti .- en "0 ~ 0 ...J . . 8 z ~cuo, e!! -g .. ~ ~ ::i i;' ~ ;.:.. (,i e I> .5 (;j 0 ~0>t'G CD- ca"O ....;r.: c: ~'O .ct'Goee 0 e '" 0 C "0 '" c: .- .. 0 II 1-::EC,)t- ...J .c! 'c C c: .S; ca '" ,. ~ i 1: E 0 t- e ~ ::)1Io,t'G ,- 0 :e 0 0 0 ca CD .....- ~ f/J E .- n1...... c: 0 - - - CD OQ.cc E"O ~;:,a.~C,)~<(a::: a.~ >-~ (,) ~ m 0 ~ .!!! 8<affiC,)CD;e:cacl> 8.en~g;:, Ci - u: a::" >-"0 :Ii "';NCW;ort i= ~ WllasCD ellS C 0. CD.;?; C .~ a. .~ .;?; i:D ~ e: !! CD ee .. .-! .... .... as :t= - c: 0 0 0 Ci ::) ....c;r.:E uc~a.~1!...J(;jnl(;j1!-rn+lt-c:ts II C C z2"O(ij ~9~ g~oQ).s::.CD8i"Oas~~Q) = c W 0 ::)0t'G_ 2~;:,~o ;r.:ii~!-ir;:,o~ c m a:: :J:2.~{!. Q. C/)CJ)C,) t-a.<(Q. C/)...J_C/)C,)Q. C ._--,~-- u "--,~,.,,,. ,", ~~.,..~- -----,. 16 \ 1 ~<b >. ~ ; "C 0'\ as 0 e 0 N as " .C rl Q) 0 1:: as c: as ell as ell "C c: .a ci ....= uj :! B c: ~ _ as ~as >;1/) _ c: Q) as ~ I/) "0 u 0) ell .!! a:: J!J 0) Q) ;r: -0 -~ CD ::::::-:= .6 ~ c: O c: "C = ~ as .... .0' - '0 &. i!: ::::J 'm CD ~Easo C:r.;.. C:I/) as)(0 E ~ E ~ ftr.;.. ::::Jo. 0)0. ~E--CD CD Q) ~ .... I/) 0 .- 0 - as ~u. > ~ o > c: as CD.- () 0) m - ! ~ Q)"O c: CD as Z p ~~~s Q)i o~ CD-o>~asCD ~ 2 - ....CD-r.;.. - >as---- "C 0. c:c:C>o SCD 0)0) aso"O~D..ell ca ~ E~ Q)O-- _~ c~~o.r.;..CD"C~ca? 0 ._ _ Q) - .... ,- ~ q:: CD U - ~ C( Q)~ ~~~~ ~j ~i::::J.!!bmi~~ ~ ~ a:: c: ~CD-- -~ O)r.;..UQ)C:~1/) ~ - - W as Q CD fti 15 ft c e cu :::; 0)" ts::::J"C cu ~ u S c: e -~ ~ C>u~ ~~ ~~c:o~.t::~~ I/) g C o .~ I::. ~.I; .t:: ell D.. "C -0 ~ ca Q) 0 () Q. ~ CD W 0. () 0 ~ ~ ~ j [j ~ ~ ~ ~ g. ~ I-g; ~ ~E: ft o.ell::::J ~ ~ i .~ ~ _ (.) d::Q) O)o.c:-ell c:m um ~ Q) c:0 = as ~ ca~ -caOQ)CU -~ I/)~I- ::::JO~Q); ~ 0 ~ Q _ca.r: :.w.t:::::E -e.a "C 'O"C (,)~::::J"C ca -- () c: Z ....: CD r.;.. 0 U I- 0 J c: 0) c: ~ r.;.. ~ - 0) -CD .- 0'\ . (,) 0 _ Q) c: _ as Q) 0 as Q) ::::J ~ 0 .- .t:: "C I lcC ~ O-C "O~!~~ 8CD !~~U.WD..OO~c>t: ~ ~ c:~ o · cu~ CDC:CDC:- .r: O-~------- ~ - ca ~ ~ ~j.~ 85~~~~; (.) j j ~ ~ 0(.) ~Q ~~! 5~!~~ ::::Jol j~~~A~~~~~~~~~~ i 1 O)E"I ,v-_O'v Q) cu' I '~I' I I J I I '" -"C ~ C( c: ~ ~C>-~Q).t::.r: E "C - o O.!!~"": 5 c: 0 ~al I/) - ._ 5 0 a:: as ca ell .r: CD ~.- ~ .f.! fti 'U - Q) Zo ~,~ 'S"CO~CD; ~E w~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ! ~ as'O'"' 0 D..C:"C E - z c:..!-E ,?c>.mcu ~ 32 - _ a:: Q).t::Q) .r:Q)OxO ~O) ::::J as ~ 0 Q)O)> 1::.t::"C-ellD:: oe 0 "C O ~.C 0 0 - cu r.;.. 0. .r: Q) z~O) r.;.. EC:~I/) 0. I/) c: to- 'a I/) "(ij 0. c: e .E .~ E c: Q) 'E Z Q~C:~~ caeoc:~ -.m (,) ~ w a:: m .~ I- Q) ~ u... () O::::J 0) D.. -.. i .! :Ew >C( C i ~ fij ~ >..r: ts 8 :S lD '6 ~ ~ ~ 100:::-- ... ca:t:::: 2 .r:_. '0 c: 0) - > W .c:::~x E:~s_Q) 0)!e"2 ~ -;;::..c: "E Q) o ..J _.-::::J ell .r: = - '"' ~ "t:: 0); .- ~ a:: ::)C> I/)O~ (,) a c::: "C::E"O ..-:: cu c:.r: cu 0 ~ 0 0 .~ a:I 0 .!a 8? :.w 8 Q) c: c: 2 c: '0 ::1!: ~ .~ E I- :Ii m =: E t:..r: ... Q) ~ r.;.. -g ca ~ ~ .! ~ (f) ::1!!!: .~ ~ en . . 4) a I - ~CU~It:::o .gfti~~::::J aasC: c~-g .. as...J~ 0) ;..:.,~ !:!; 0 Z C . . ...., .- (,) 4)_.. ~ - c: 0- - as a:I O cu N ca C E C> .!! C "C fti I;:: 8 c .!a as 0) g>:t:: ~ c: ~ ;' . ~ 0 cu C) I- _ C(O.t::~.t:: 0c:c:::::JQ) O);"C occC:-=I/)~"O c:E 01- c-t: I- _.. ca - (,)..., .- ell C 'E::::J c: .- 0 :0 > (,) 0 as as Q) .... .. G) .- ~ -mO) 0) '"'Q)-C as as E-"t::asasr.;.. 0 -- -Q) ~ _0 a::~c:c:c: ~32.t::~as -Q) E"Cfti::::JD..u.OCD:: D..~ ~O) ~~ ~~ C(C>~~~ ~~=~Q. ~a:li OC~()Q)C:C:C:Q) Q)oo~g~ ~Q) u. _ m ~"C ~ "C '-' <<l ;::00 I/) 0. ~ c: (.) .... 0. ..., > as ca ca > .. 0. ca Q) """ _ 0. _ ;: C as Q) as ca "C '- ca as c: ......... ; 'E:: 'E:: 'E::'- 0) ca c: ...... CU ~ ~ Q ~ 4) ~ E ~ e -g <5 ~ a ~:= .m i C ~ ! ~ ~ u; ~ 1! .6 ~ ~ ~ g> t) 'ii ~ .. _ c(C( z:2"'O"(ij"O ell as.r: r.;..; "C"C 0. ..~ (,) 0 Q) Q) Q) 0 a')"C cu ,; Q) 2"C CD\ ~ wO C(8~~~ ~~~~~ fij~~ em~a~iii~~ir~a~ cfij ~ ma:: 0_~1-~ I-~C~I/) ~~cu ~C~OOD..D..D..C~...J-OO()D.. C(~ Z 'I _.. ,"'"'".....".."._.-..._.....~,.,-"-,._- .","-"_.""~""""",",, 16 I 1 f''b 0'1 i\ 0 ~ 0 N ::J "- --- X .--l I+:: 0 ~ - ;l ~ e ::J 8 X -I;:: a> oa> '0 a> > a> I o2'i .t: - 0..... 0 -8 - I:: a> ~ a> '0 ::J E I:: X ~as I;:: eo.. - .t: 0..... .2> E.! .- 0 1) o as ~ ~E 1ij ~O) a:: .t:.E -e .....0 as 0 - ~::J '0 0 L&- 0 0'0 I:: 0 .....a> as en Ili C"'" 1ii z co 0- e! >. 0 ....: iIt "Co ..... ~ en ~e- C I ::J 0 r-- ~ 8 0 8 0 o I:: U - 0.._ W --:-L6 - ~ 8.8 E c "'":0 ...!.. o . ii.i it .... C -N + .5 "C -0 Z CX) I 0 ~5 1ij;l 0 - 0 ~as 0 en o~ - 0 ~-a> N "C.t: oti ...,.~ "C _0 a>1ij C _ as co C ::JO) 0 of ~ co ::J "Cc .--l Z iIt - o C as.- I .t: .- ...."C .c 0- C , :) CI')~ ~c ~ E as en CX)I:: r-- ..... Cl')0) ::Jas I- 0 0 a>= r--~ co ~1 _C en 01:: as 0) 0 0 :!: C'- .t: .- Ou .... o CI') _as >- 0 ~E '0 _co..... ._ a> u.. a> fl)u..(f.) :t:::'O L&- a>>. - "C 0-- "C_ O -as c 0 "Co Z -as~ .! .2 as 0) 0 ,;~,..!. a> ~ :::) 0 'OE .....2:as9 0.. ...: I 1::.- Z 0 CD ::J..... -mC:l: E c en , ..... -1ii it > c ~.Q) 0 as 0 c .....'0 0 0 ~ :IE Wilt "co) ;=IO)~ CI') I- ..... I:: a> c .... .- z 0<:)0- c 'm .S E .c i~ a> w E E 0 5fs :IE o Qo_ 1: "'0 ~ ~ 0) .... a> W a::..a>""": c: 02> .8~ ~ I:!: 0 e ~ o w uj~ 0. .. - >..0 a:: a:: - Q) .... c 05 .2> .2J~$ as 0 Q. .c i;'= oi .!! 0/5 c G> ~ E..... I >JEco I:: a> Q)o1ii 0 CJ C EC:G> :) I Z W ...., 16 c 0 Q)8> t;o .......-:'" ftI 16 > :;:; 0 ~.f.t:~ ftI 0) C o - as :!:~ ~ CJ OE .I 0) .. .t: .... O.laas CI') .- :~ E!~ en m I::C: "0 0/5 c: 0 ~ wftlQ)as c G> ';; ~ -c:"C u::: C) -'- .!! E ~c>."i 0. as>. ""':c-.i i= ~ :CCD~E "i .~ "i ~ 1~~ ~ en "0 '0- ,~ CI') = 0 II ~ "C "C ftlG>", - .c Z-as'" c c I:: W ~ooo C o"C 0 as ~ a::~o:: m en!:!O::I- I- -l .c -- l ~ ".",.'"'-,.,,,.-....~___,__."".~"",,.,-,,.."_. .,.,~."-'",-_........,..>""'-,.,,,,...'_ JIll ~l.~"_'__ h_ """~-" --,",,,,,,,"",,.-. 16\ l~i ---- il 0\ 0 ~ 0 N ~ -...... ~ X .-l It: u ~ - :;::; ~ ~ .~ 0 x (.) CD tflt: "0 CD~ CD '0':;::; .e ..... o.~ 0 .....s ..... C CD ~ CD "0 ~ Ec X CD as It: >- - eO. .e 0.... .Ql ES - .- en CD !e,as ~ asE 1;) ;:0) a:: - .e .5 'E 0 .....en as 0 0 ~~ "0 La.. 0 .s"i c ." Ili as c- 1;) Z (0 ,- as 0 ....: ~ j5 >. I - i= r.6 _0. C I"- as ... ~ ~ 0 ~ ... 0 0 0 0(.) U W 0 e-.5 E e N - >- OCD -:- It') -!. (,)..0 o . US ... C '"-:T"" + u. .5 "0 ....0 0 - z ~~ 0 .8s 1;):;::; e 0 0 r.6 oJ! (.) (O~ ~ (0 "0 "O.s:::. (.)(ij e cticu T"" c _0 CD(;j .a ~O) .-l -CD '0 ~ "Oc Z o C cu.- .-l - (.) J!! I c( ~c ::> .s:::. ._ "'''0 I 0- ~c \0 .- cu C '" ~ .s:::. ~ Ec cu 00) ~ cu oS 'C Q en CD:.:: _c +::i ..... ." ": .5 1;) T"" ::E :'::CD as 0) 0 CD 0 '0 ~ C'- .ecu o 0 0 I >- j _cu_ ._ CD La.. 'OE u. el)u.en :!: "0 -c>. - "0 0-- "0_ 0 3:CDCU Q) c 0 "00 Z -;: '0 CD .a . as CD Icnm..L - "OE 0 >. CD 8 ;:) 0 cD .... 9 (.) Ci ...= I c._ Z :0 0 CD ~- >>cu_ E c I .... - D: c(c(c'E, "0 0 cu en I- o cu 0 3: "0 $'c cu 0 c :Ii - "0 e ~ ~ ~~ j~ l- e c....- I C c( N 0) J!! .... ,- z OC")00 .5 CD 'cu '5 E W oCI- CD E E 0 0" CD ::I a:: -.~ ~ c (I) 0) 1: (1)- -j- .!!! ... (I) w eel) r.6 > c ,Ql .8"0 ~ 0 e :;::; a::~::!Q) .! 0. .e .. - >..8 c( ~ai~ c .~ .Ql SCD~ cu 0 I:L > ~= Ili cu cu Ol!l cO) EI- ! w.!EIt') 0 - C CD CDt;(;j as 0 Co) c EC(l) ::> I ...I o. "0 :;::; C 0 CD8> 1-0 z ;:)..cocu 8- as ce :;::; > :;::; enOl 0 o ce . ce 0) c as e.c~ 1:L.e~ 'C 0) :!!:I- ;:::: CDS'Ocu 'C Co) .!:: S :~ EcuS <C ~ (;j fA 06 c <CceC:C: "0 'ii 0.(1) (.) Z (I) cu .~ c 8- 8: -C"O it ~ c(o-:o >. .!! E ...~ ~ "-:c-.; ;:::: (.)CaJCD ~ ii as ii ~ -CD~E (.) -11;);: ;:) c I:L"O _ .S:! 0 :;:, 0 II -- c( c( o-cucu "0 "0 C "0 !CD"O CU C C "0 as W ~ a::0o15 0 CU C CU CDO CD 1-!:2.a::1- a:: ... -' c( -' a:: 0.. a:: ,..,..",,,... .~ IIillIil ~ .~--"''' "'H"""''''''''.''''-''"''''"~'__'__ m_"",_~,._..... -""----- 16 , 1~ Section 7 ---- PHASING AND FUNDING SCHEDULES Golden Gate Beautification Master Plan Multiple Year Roadway Phasing , Funding Schedule The phasing and funding schedule was developed to address the Collier County major arterial roadways within the M.S.T.U. first and then improve the collector roadways within the M.S.T.U. district. It is apparent these roadways are the Gateway roads within the Golden Gate Community, as well as for southeast Collier County and the Naples Urban Area. This phasing schedule is in keeping with the Master plan goals and original philosophy behind the original Golden Gate Parkway East roadway beautification project. The phasing and funding schedule is based upon the concept to continue the public/private partnership with the Collier County Board of County Commissioner's. This schedule is also consistent with the Collier County's past: actions to assist in funding and implementation of roadway beautification within the Naples Urban Area on a case by case basis. The schedule is also consistent with the previously adopted "Collier County Streetscape Master Plan" and the recently adopted "Collier County Landscape Beautification Master Plan". The schedule is in keeping with the methodology, intent, and streetscape network of roadways to be improved by the above mentioned Master Plans. The methodology of the multiple year schedule is to assist the County in reducing the time frame and funding cost of the roadway landscape improvements by utilizing local residents tax dollars and volunteer services for administration of the projects. The multiple year schedule benefits the County and local residents by saving money and beautifying e Collier County roadways. The schedule costs do not take into account potential outside funding from grants or private local organizations. M.S.T.U. Major Arterial Roadways 11: Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951), Part "A" (Golden Gate Canal to Golden Gate Parkway) Implementation date: FY 1997-1998 (Completed) Typical landscape plan: Type T5 Annual maintenance: Funded under the Collier County M.S.T. D. Curbing: Existing curbed roadway. 112: Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951) , Part "B" (Golden Gate Parkway to Green Blvd.) Implementation date: FY 1998-1999 (Completed) Typical landscape plan: Type T3 curbed Annual maintenance: Funded under the Collier County e M.S.T.D. ] Curbing: Existing curbed roadway. 7-1 03/1997 01/2009 .. -, ,."".,-,.- "~"".,, -_.',-- 16 1 1~ 13: Santa Barbara Blvd., North, Phase I (Coronado Parkway to Green Blvd.) - Implementation date: FY 1999-2000 Undetermined, (To be 1mplemented under Collier County Landscape Master Plan) Typical landscape plan: Type T5 Annual maintenance: Based on median area only. (To be funded under the Collier County Transportation Services landscape maintenance budgets) Curbing: New & existing median curbing. Installed with roadway widening project. '4: Santa Barbara Blvd., North, Phaae II (Golden Gate Canal to Coronado Parkway) Implementation date: FY 2000-2001 Undetermined (To be Implemented under Collier County Landscape Master Plan) Typical landscape plan: Type T5 Annual maintenance: Based on median area only. (To be tunded under the Collier County e Transportation Services landscape maintenance budgets) Curbing: New & existing median curbing. Installed with roadway widening project. M.S.T.U. Interior Colleotor Roadways 11: Tropioana Blvd. (Golden Gate Canal to Golden Gate Parkway, East) Implementation date: FY 2002-2003 (Completed) Typical landscape plan: Type T3 curbed Lighting: Pedestrian accent fixture at median ends. Annual maintenance: M.S.T.U. funded Curbing: rDOT Type "D" medians only Pathway Facilities: Existing Two Lane Road in-road pathway and 5' asphalt sidewalk along both rights-ot-way. - 7-2 03/1997 01/2009 ~ -- 1<_.~ 16 I 12: Sunshine Blvd. (Golden Gate Parkway to Green Canal) Implementation date: FY 2006-2007 (Completed) Type T3 cc.t:t::bed Lighting: Pedestrian accent fixture at median ends. Annual maintenance: M.S.T.U. funded Curbing: FOOT Type "D" medians only Pathway Facilities: Existing 5' asphalt & concrete sidewalk along both rights-at-way. 13: Hunter Blvd. (Coronado Parkway to Santa Barbara Blvd. North) Implementation date: FY: To be determined based upon funding. Estimated earliest FY 09. Typical landscape plan: Type T3 Recommended Annual maintenance: M.S.T.U. funded Curbinq: FOOT Type "D" medians only Pathway Facilities: Existing Two Lane Road In-Road Pathway. Recommended 5'concrete sidewalk along south & west rights- e of-way. 14: Coronado Parkway (Golden Gate Parkway to Santa Barbara Blvd. North) Implementation date: FY: To be determined based upon funding. Typical landscape plan: Type T3 Recommended Annual maintenance: M.S.T.U. funded Curbinq: FDOT Type "D" medians only Pathway Facilities: Existing 5' asphalt & concrete sidewalks along both rights-of-way. - 7-3 03/1997 01/2009 l RW n. *.4 r1lll' 17 ...._....,_.__._"4."._ 16\ 1 ~ 0 a:: ~ 8 0\ 1"'4 ..~ 0 .?~1 I 0 Gl 8;:) ~~~, N .,; '- ,..j u%: ~ C") ..... - i tt.., ... 0 E-4 ffill ii(.. I - ----- uia:: a:: 0 W u fr o...Y' ., ;fi ~ ~;, :I~ ~ >- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "t: I lf~l III I III t I I .. I .. III III I III 0 CI) . ",., ~ l ~ ~ t t l ~ b'~ j ..... ..~. .~."-\'- j j j I J j j j I I j 'iii I ~ l~~Jit e I!! .~ ~,;~~; ~ .~ J! ! ! ! s J! .~ S S ,~ ~ ';1.~~~'~;';1. .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 a:: ';1. ';1. ';1. ';1. ';1. ';1. ';1. ';1. ';1. ';1. ';1. ';1. ';1. ';1. 0 M M A1tJ~M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 ... oi ~ ..:..:;! III ~ ! N 0 III I CIIl ~ ! C") ... ~ N CIIl t"I N .... III > ~Z N ~ ~. .... S ~ PI l8 :i N t"I .... > .W.. Gt t"I ... CIIl to .... 0 ..... u.. 0 ;:;;~S ~i ..: t. i N i 0 ~ Ii ,,; i .,; ~ ~ { ,.; :( li3 ~ z ... Ie ,.. Ii; ... ~ w ~~~ii "t ..... "':. II) ... '"':. t"I. "t ..... 0 Cl ... ... ... ... ... ,.. ... ... ,.. ... i z i= ;:)o..Z<O z :;!!~(.)u..tIt tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit .... tit tit tit tit tit tit 0 0 0 > , N ~ CIIl CIIl a.. ~ ~..> ... ... !. III ~ II) ~ ,.. N ~ ... l") :i a:: Z...I CIIl ~ II) PI ~ III CIIl N c& III 8 0 a::Wa:: 0 CD ... 0 CIIl Q> PI ... po. .... PI W ~ 'i g ~ vi N ! ,.; ,,; ,.; ,.: 0 ri 'i .,; 'i .,; 0 0 w2i1j PI ... ... ,.. 0 CIIl CD 10 10 ... U) PI Z a:: &~> N N N ... ,.. ... ... ... - w !:!2 a.. a::OUl z 0 o..a::C Z Wo..~ 0 - tit tit i= . '" ~ ...I IlL tit .... tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit tit ... .... tit tit ... oc:x;: Co g~> , ! :i :I ~ ~ I I :! 9 ! 10 l(l IS Iii: ... ... N is ~p:: ... ... l") ! w-3: ... 10 C'1. '"':. 0 0 0 ~ a:: -....~ ~ ,.; ~ ~. .,; te te ~ Jf ~ lil ... ri ,.; ~. II) g a:: ~h- ~ ~ ~;~~ N N t"I l") t"I l") WW(/) :::I a:: 0 - ;i!1L0 <g;ffis:i -z >(/)Cl :E ~ i=ffi~~ ~~Ci) Z ;:) ffia::u- ... tit tit tit ... tit ... ... ... ... tit tit tit .... ... tit .... tit a::wW Qu;ooC . S i :I 0 .... I I :I t"I I III II) IS S ... ... N W:iiO ... ... Z 0 ~ .... ~ ~ ,.. N ,.. l") III :5~"" I N ... GO II) co M N '"':. 0 0 0 0 < 0 '- ~ ,.; ,.; c{ .,; te vi ~ Jf ~ ~ ri ,.; i .,; g a::oZ r- Ui=>::::I ".. o..a::Q N N N N PI t"I l') t"I -uILO 00.... ~ a ~~;~ ~:iiU -:::I ~a::~~ffi! it~ 0.. 0 < CI) -w(/) W 0 o..w~ ....,z tit ... tit ... .... .... .... tit .... .... ... tit .... tit .... tit tit tit (/)00 m ~ liUla::- wa::u en < _ ... 0 ~ ~ N .... II) II .... t"I po. 0 c& 110 II) ~ ~ lZ ~o..:g ~!~ ~~ ... ... Ql ... ~ Ql !( CD ,.. 0; GO wa::> cot cot ... CD ,.. ... ... .... l') CIlt 0 ,.; i .,; vi ~ ,,; ar $ N ~ "1 'i ,.: ~ g ... Ii .,; (JOu., ~ffi~~~t cot t"I l") l") t"I .... . 10 on a::"o wOz < W Z g ';1. o..~c( o :5 w S M tit .... tit .... tit .... tit tit tit ... tit tit tit tit tit ~:::Il:; a:: In 5u .t. tit .... tit "*:~it ~ :z: ...I 10 N CD CD ~ CD N 10 ... :s: .... .... CIIl .... M :s: l") ... (l)zz (J-Cl >; cot 10 po. t"I ~ ! ... CD CD N to ~ ... CD N a::c(~ M II) .... N .... II) GO N II) O. N on '"':. "t Z CI) 2z 1:: t N ... i i ... fJIt i i ~ ! ... t. qj .,; ri ... ... ~o ~~i5 ! ... 110 II) = .... ... ~ to 0 l") ::::E>:::I ... ... ,.. ... .., cot .... .... .... II) CD CD :::100 :E(I)l") ..~ zZw ::IE 0( gWUlII) ~W(I) 8 ~ 1::&8.:- ... tit tit tit ... ... ... tit tit ... ... ... ... tit .... tit ... tit -~ia . :I t"I 5 N ~ ~ II S I m N a :8 .., II) ... l ~~~ ::) ~ i >; CIIl ~ = ~ ... N CIIl ... i l"!, .... .. .... N co wO ..: C)< w1:: .,; ,.; ~ ..: ... ~ a fJIt ! i t::l ... i 0 g ... ZOI/) en z.... :::It ~ ~ Ql N l8 ;oJ :8 N I/) a:: .. - N Z . . II) CD .... .... ~Ol/) :Ii o Q> W "0 ~ "'! ~ ~ ~ (51/)0 ~ 1L!..a::+ tit tit lilt lilt .... lilt .... tit ... lilt lilt tit tit tit tit tit tit tit -~.. a:: 1:: - Oa::U < ~ Z! ~w!!j C) .(1)0 - Z > ~ ~wa:: W ~ :::I >- ~a::o.. Q ll. 0 ...I en ..J 5 W ~ CD ~ 0 ... N t"I . II) CD .... GO CIIl li3 ... N t"I ~ II) ~ 0 ::lUl 8 ... ... ... ,.. ... ,.. ... ... ... ... N N N N 0 :IE ~ ii: 0 li3 li3 li3 0 li3 li3 li3 li3 li3 ~ 0 0 0 0 li3 C) N N N N N N N Z ,~ --.-- 0""'.'"--' 1P'""'_ """'" .,. -",,--- 161 1~ i Section 8 APPENDIX: References Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahoml.htm Collier county http://www.colliergov.net/ Land Development Code, http://www.municode.com/resources/ClientCode List.asp?cn=Collier%20County&si d=9&cid=5149 Collier County Streetscape Master Plan http://www.colliergov.net/lndex.aspx?page=29 Construction in Public Rights-of-way Standards http://www.colliergov.net/lndex.aspx?page=1416 Golden Gate Area Master Plan http://www.colliergov.net/lndex.aspx?page=257 e Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Collier County Transportation Services http://www.colliergov.net/lndex.aspx?page=56 Collier County Development and Environmental Services http://www.colliergov.net/lndex.aspx?page=53 Comprehensive Planning Section http://www.colliergov.net/lndex.aspx?page=96 Transportation Engineering & Construction Management http://www.colliergov.net/lndex.aspx?page=122 Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee http://www.colliergov.net/lndex.aspx?page=1454 Metropoli tan Planning Organization, M. P.O. http://www.colliercountympo.com/ Pathways http://www.colliergov.net/lndex.aspx?page=1476 e 8-1 12/2007 01/2009 ----------- ..... ...,;'-- -n ~ _.-._- 161 Ip$ http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/publications.html Division of Forestry "Urban Trees for Florida" September 1980 Division of Plant Industry "Grades and Standards for Nursery Plants", 3rd edition 1973 "Grades and Standards for Nursery Plants, Part II, Trees and Palms" , 3rd edition, 1975 Florida Department of Transportation District one, District Landscape Manager PUblications: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/publicinformationoffice/business/business.h tm "Florida Pedestrian Safety Plan", February, 1992 "Handbook for Walkable Communities" "Roadway and Traffic Design Standards", January, 1995, w/rev. "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction" 1991 or most current edition "Florida Highway Landscape Guide", April, 1995 http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/beauty/FLA.htrn e Florida Irrigation Society http://www.fisstate.org/ "Standards and Specifications for Turf and Landscape Irrigation Systems", February, 1996 Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association, F.N.G.A. http://www.fngla.org/certification/FCHP.asp "Florida Certified Nursery Professional Manual" South Florida Water Management District uWaterwise" Florida Landscapes https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page? pageid=2434,10518859,2434 10518680& dad=portal& schema=PORTAL http://sjr.state.fl.us/waterwiselandscapes/index.htm1 e 8-2 12/2007 01/2009 . - - -- --- .~-_.."-"....,.~. -...-...... . ~.--""...... I'l.. -" 10\ 1~ .----.-- - 1 i +-....!.1U,,:~. I ! I I >1 :Jo' I , I i I I 1 ! ~ I !I I IE ., , '3- () I 0' ,~ <t I ..,..1 (1 I !~ i ~I i ~ ,-4 I.. I I 'e ." ! lii x 1$ i~ ,I Y !...(, .., I I i I ! I~ i i .1 !I I I lOi I 1 z Ii I 1 I I '. 41 ~ " 1 <3 ~ "tl i ~ 0 ~ '" ~ (l) ." ~, "( 0- ~ iil Ill' t=8 ~ '0 => It III < ~I "0 - a; ~ -,i i'i' ~ Ii , ~ ~.. 1 (I) I i ~ ~r - ~ I " .. H ~ : o' I I ~ i ::> - I I .. r:. ~I m , I {t s. ii ro . ~ I - i' < ~ ~ I i ~ .. III I I! I 0- t~ I 1 ::> i ~! ,. ~ -' , 1 t ", t! I I , ~ I I ~i I ~ al~ ~I I : ~ I ~ I ;~ I I ~!\ J I. - - ~\: II~~ (I) ro ~ ,",I i~! 0 ~- I ,=> It I!H I ~ 1 i '~ i I !~{I I , r 1~1 ! , I~ I I I I i , I . I I I i ~l'>oUII:"'"",,,._~~~ .(......_"..__.........~...t~II""""Ct>.."_....,'!'JI..~_....., .-.- . tlr~rr -&- AssoriatrH /c~m_.,....[:..".~=::....::....:_~ :~~~ Landscape Architecfure'" \ ...~,. ",....,,, (UnarIJed . curOOl2l7' 1IIeliat1s) '-- I P. 0.80. 8052 \::'~:'_:~-I=;~'=:==::.::;_..~~~-~":--"~r:TM~j '1) Napl_i, Ftonda 34101 (941)3,!;,;O486 '..-.,.~_ i ' ~,f... I J"1At"', 1 w~ I 00<....0':// .........~._._-.. "- ......" - jOC.,.'''fO i~ COAt"Il.I,A."( ~6N,-r . t~~~-'l "y,,~~- -~~: I ~"~:~'T ,,, ~':-~-~~3~'>+' I I . II I . . I I I I . , I ~~~~ I F ~ .. \ ~ &~ ;j .\,1111".... I.~ ., r~ "'~_I\\ ~ , . fi~ ~ ~ :"",~ti j!€ 'i t' ~ I! . ~ I ' , I . I I \J o '0 o "" (I) 0. ~ .'0 i~ ::I: ~ I , Q. I ~ . . ~ I - m m , ; I ;- . i ~ ~ ~ I r I ~ ,,\\\IIII~ If' . '~<J ~?.._.\11" ::;: +.'m-1I1,(..; ~..;.;i' ~ . . ; \~ ~"'''''''Il''\~ I I I 1 i _....._.~___ '_______..~_t_~II__..~.....I.'t._..........~ "._"., . .__. . & 1\.- ~ r-.--.-i;;;;,,""........ Ga .0_......'. Ilist' '\ . .-...........-. --I GoIdll1 Ie ..........00 Ii:! .1JIltr~rr S!'QCtutr.!' \ ______ =-==_,..::= T)!jcaIRoadwaylaOOscapef1an Landscape ArchItecture ~ ~:::~ "'I~';::__ ========= ~~14'IInml"ardCl.Wbed2(lord~ P.O.80K e052 l' '~ __ Nap.... Florid. 3<Cl01 4~OI'T w...., !;II....IT: Illo'Tt'\ I~J.c'.., (941!~O~86_.... _~ ,./~ --.,~"- _..,....._..m_._......._. .....f+. ~~~.~..~~:~ . ..''''''- ,.'-~.~"" <""...~,.,._"'.'~.._.._-"" ,.- ..... - 16 1'1 ~r ---=-~=.=--=, -'~I~'~~Y.~~~===:---'-- ~'i !u2~--1 f1'P,1DI_~ 1'-111, u'-fA" ,""I ~ wl~ ~(r.. ~~'-2"+' 1'fP'.1d-~ .l!" ~ i-,--,-m"-'r-~'-r-'-r-'--t ~i! n!1 I -r- 1lL-! i ~:' ~~. I I .. ' G " -,-. '-. ; U' : I,;; i ! 0"~~\ i I.' ,I' if.tr-" .-4 ~ ., . ,. I 1 ." . /'. . Y .. i '~ I n-i I' I , '.,.~. a ;.' 'Q....~\II .',. I.i Iill..: !r..' , </"' V ! I ~! I' I ,'1\\. I";'> '.I'~ I . I I (:. ..~ ! , P ). I , :lllilf. I I.' ' I ~. ~...\ ~~.-- I ..' '. I "". ~ II . ; ).~t i I I I ~. . ..~. ' i',' ~I i! . I ;?~.' 'I I (iN ...." f~ I I' I! q '. . ~t" ,. I. . "",1 I' i ,. I I \. I " ~ I ",:;1. I ,! , -f ~!' ~ 'I Ii, ~I" I i I" I. :I, r.......'. ..-....~. "''l:I\.l :.....1;-"'1, ! r 1,1' . ~. ~"~'I. I'.~'I' It":;' ::':~;. ; \. i . I; $l> 4" il- l! II i I t~\ n' II, _.:' . ~ ~I II I, '. ~ ~ ('It ;:.1.;fl.. :.!1. ii, I, I I~ I I ./ '+ ~ ~ \, .' J1'bf# "1' !' 'I ." . /' ' " " ~ L' :J'! '; ..r....... I, '. I. ~ " ~~!; /"."" /'j ~ ! I' I' .H 2'. .." / ...: ~ I '. ,~ ' ~ 5 -:r' , , ,... I I f. I z tl>" . / . . ") "'. !" I I' I ' . .... I .' (l ....~ . ~1- '. ' ~ '''';~ "~ :.'.:'.' ~I: j il' I I ! ! \sJ ../ ~I~ '~, I !~I , g , f:..., .lli I ~"; I 'U 'a. ; f':/I; I ~'. (3 " I '~.I' :::... f.' ':. . .~..~. il ; 'I -c I ." r"'j. 1I,. II ! ~I~ I ~ '..1 ! '.... ,> , ~ .;.;j'i ~.,f I I~. :g:.' I I ' '!? = $1 I!' ; I "'1 ". \ .! III ~. ~ " I 41 0 - ~ 'j t.<.. -~ If i ~ i I ~ II 1 ~.' >f:." ~ h '~i' ~ ~. I ~ i ,~I I ~ ~ ; ,~~ "~.l'. H,lf I I i 'I' I ' ::l 'I~' !5... ~ ~ 'J It- I -. I j:1 ~'''~-'::' ~ ~I ' I:~' I ' m I -' , ,,.. ..t I · CD ~ \.. ~'" ~" . i >l ~. ! I ~ 1'1 r. ~~> :/' f a 1 if t I . I 'g .' ~ ' ~ I~~i I ~:'.. "..4,. "."! '.:." f,.'~ I. I~I! I. ' I j: ~ I ~ ~i :J:: ~ I . I' 1,- I ~ " , ,. ~ , ':"'. ~ f J. I ~, '. ."'1---'---' ~I . '? ... 1 i . IJ' I tiP./:,i.~ ~....'..:.'..'I I.. 11111. II t.' i , . /\ ~ ~ I ' I ~ r "l1t&1 I ~u I ' ; I'" f~ ~ : I --~ I. .~. ':'...~$2.Ar~.j I' Ii!. J I I,. I ~ , I ~ 0,. , '<,.<. f;' ..- ~ . : ' I j!;, 'j ,., , ... " I';:' ll.!. ~ II i ,.; ! .. \.:;.~ 1',;'...::. ~-J... lfr~ II I I :~~ 0 I ,." i.(....~.r..,. l~ '.^JI~ III i . ~ " ..\ . ,t ~~ ~ : '. 1. . :;;:~:> e I i ~Il . i ; I ~~ ~ I I i .:~ , h!>i , I I ' ~~ I i I~ ,,:::-~s~. ~~ ~ j . % i I j!O "~~~,:? 'I, f~.I..'~ I : i I I "~'" " /) "i II . rj. \ '>::.>>". I ~ii ! l 'I. h ~'~:::.'~;;~ I f;1'. 1.11, I , : n: ~~ : '11 I I. ~~ ~I..__.-+ I , 1 I -" ~ I I -- 't;- , l. ~, I I I n~~tn~ I ~ ~Ut1n~ " ~i~~~i~~ i i, ~? ~ I ~ ~--'_"~_n__M_'M" '-"-_'''H'''_''M''U__'."".~_"_,,,_, __,__ ___ _, __ ,_ _ _ '_'_ __, ,_ . fX' ~r~tr ~ A1i5il1~~i'!kJ.l~ I/._-~,~.:~.___:~,...~T- ~GRBeaubKm~- I r:fl l'.' landsc;:ape Architecture 7 iL;.~,,~ ;''iil'.: t--'. --===.:==- nrosbed~.::r=:.~.. nQns. I ~ ~.." . P.O.8or 8052 , \ ~,.......- ....- -....-...-.. Cohe.u..,. -i "'; J HopI.., Florid. 34101 ,;; \ -~"'--rmw ..':!Di...""iF....._.Ji-~iCl';;-.... '\J;;; - ~11~:048fJ.____,,_.._>~ <.,,_,.. 'N., ff_ .....," .1.._ i.l.f-.~:.. ! .<< nAtI t1~.___L._.._ I ~ .---/ <,~..,,- "._~ '---'"''''''''''"'"''''' ~. """'''-~''''~-''''"'-'''~'''''-''''''''''''''"'~'- ..... __~ __,._ _M__ . ..-........... fI:;(.''''t) l"!O-' ~l.UA"'< ~NiW"'" I r ....:, ::z--r"''''"'-r ::;;;"~t~:=l )> I I < . ) I I 'J' ~ . .. I I'" ~\"lt(r.-: '0 I- I :J + ~ ~ 5' I~~ I l ,."'7" ('!. ~ t ~'~11j m I ~ '::....~ >< +--'" ,y ?-~..~,t \~ ; " ~I'~? g~ ;;; . ~ tz :J h:i c~ , -..' "f ~ (0 _... ':>l): 1 - ~~1tIi\,1\") Ctl ~ ~ ~r 1 ~ ; ! g I~ I 0 13 I :J ~ )> -I , I :> I I ,....-"51 ~ r~ ;;; ~ 0 ~ ~ Q. r--...--....") ~ ~ q ~ ~~ ~ '0- '<1> en <: g. t:=1 I g ~~ i ~ ~ I [ I ~ i :J ! r ~ ~'4<mlql <; j . g I I! :~IJ/"'* j "i:; ~* ItJ~ . !I . "';.'-:-""Allly.V.\# I I , 'Ir;- pi h lilt II~ I I l-~ I i IHiHil __._--- _____.. ______ _ __ _ _ Irlll'! ) C ~~!rr & i\ssuriatrs ) ...... . landscaP.e Architecture Po 0, 80x eou Napl"', Ronda 3410. (9411~04116 e _,__, or ""III _NI< -"--","......_~........,,..,.....- , ".-- ,.,"v, 161 -, 1 - ,,,.<--- ---~- l ._H_._~'_._. in lin tx..'''1b l~\ $lcwn.ll,A,"'f ~~.-( 1'ip.1d-w"'l ;tbJ , --. ..-.--,---..-- ~e" I i ~,,~ ;~lj + -~,........,.......,.._......--~ ~l1 ! I ~h .. .. ~ ~. ~ I t -~ "'~ i h iH ~ n-r I '" i ' I Ii" ~.., LTN. I . ;l> I I ! i:>> 'ili '} I I j I I I "1", t' I !!i , I I rnit ! , i I, f'i ~ I I "-- I ~~~ i ~ " I ~~ -,l 0\ I I I ; :g. ~ t;:, I_ . J !? I (') 'l: ro I~. 'i, OJ --'l-l'.. ,<i- i; [3- - I~ ~I I III m il!:. I 1; )( -.-, I~ "1;: ~ ~ ~~~:< _. c -~ I~ l! ! :J 1'1,,;' ) co t. ~r en ~ , I I CD " I I 3: / I !l ~ , I o' :: ::J ! .:>> -'< I I ' I I :> ! 1 I , -0 I ~ 0 "0 0 ~ en "U CD a. ~ ~ ~ CD < t::g "0 < Qi' o' :l: '~ !!!.. I . I en CD !l /.:1 g' I ~ - I m I Qi" < e o' ::J I !l. I 1l i !. ! * '\ n I r s ~ I Igi j f' I 15;;; " "~ :1:: I . . I ~~ ... ~ , ~" I f I d l I f I 1: "ij; . f\. Iii z ::I':" . ~ iF' . ,. I ii~ ! Ij ~ r V i~ 'i.' ~ . " i I ~~ ~..~_,.. .._..~ I I ,.~ ~i~;tlil e ~ ~I~ h ill 1. "> r!a~ !I~~~l~r I ~fWM~. ~} I: ~ J . -_.....' -C'lf'~__ _........._.. ".-.n.......~....._. _,'~...._( .. _....__._...___~__..._...~......"'._..,._~'" ......----.-- t1IIlr<&1'1' &_j\llllnrtat~ r::=]:-==--=-~ :::..'":':' ~ Landscape Architecture ~:.-:.: ~Nll i=""'" (Medmm15'108') ...... r--c:3' P. O. BOA 8052 ""--t . ""''''''''''''''' ~ Napla.. Flar. 3410 I '. -'~"'~""-"'--'--r" ~"'-""]"'" ~o; e:il (941)253-0486 ~="- Mf.r., n.A;1. 12I101Q8 ~t_t, ,..._._..___ __ .""..~""....,,,,..".^,,,,,. ..~ ''l' .. ""Ii wn,...,___ -..... II"!' ..._,__u....~._.,,,...,...~ow_ ------- 1trl ~~ ~ 1__ , lJ..u:J n. I ~--~ /:: --,. I t1'il ."'.....1 u... ,..- .....,..... ~ r Sl1l1l'O'tlilZ(l1l'6J ""~'.-. 'Y ....... _--., I - LOL.t ""U014 _,doll ' (.IlIllSlsueplWJlIlIlJIY.)) ,-- -.- ZIlOH .as'O'd ' l!jJ1 ~~~~ ,1- -- '-'I ,,"-,""] ( - "'nl~.Il~OJ\f ode~,-,u., - --1J.1........ ~~lIi!'J~ ,---'-' .....~.!!!.!'c.: ~~ BaJU!.JUgg'l ~ JJID..1Jj: i -..,---- ~_...w......~...__..__.._._.~_.~_. ....___...__~ -_.~ -- ~ ! j ; I i , I I Ii I i .1 Ii I I~ I' ~ 2 : I I j ; : , iii' ~ I Ii: l I i'~ l~ i\ ~ \\\olClIfJI,f. , ~ f ~ ..., kf. '", I '51li! t--e ~., I 'c ,. '~" ~I~i lie I, '" <I "" ~-. I :;I:~~ j j ,!Ii! ) I. '. .,,,,,,.... . 1 ilJ ! l' c -'~! I ! 5 It .~ ~ ~ d " ~l' I I ~it ~ I ~ \ I ~;lt - , -- ' I ~lii: ~!~ it! i!J . >-_ ,.l ~~ !I. . < . 5 ~, c: ' ".11 I ~ III, ' ~ -.. I ~ ' ~~5 ~!l i '~;;'lI' . i I > ~ . il,. i '~ .' ''',r''''", ~ '." .. ~ t....1 WI r----1 ~... I!: ,':i...",~ i '- r Ir---J ~-.... Iz1' 1: 'r~ c 2 ~" :~t "'_.~ 0' ~ ". i ! ~I! I I.. ,J jj g....... ~ ell 8 ) I ~ Gl , ,! ~ - hi ~ CJ;I ! '.,.. If - '" f ~- t;j'", ~ I s ~ I i~ . I!i ~ I i ~ > .~ '1 A.. I ~;lJ I 'i ' c: 8. ~ ~ I "3~ . . ~ I t1l >- t:;" 1 ~ :< a:: f'- as ~ @JO~' - 'e" '" ~ --l! - , :::, I 8- ~ 'iI' li:-' 'I .I;~' i i ~ 'i I ~ ~l~ r-~ ~ : ; . I" ~ ;;; , I ,; 1: ~ I j : . if i i~ a \ I !~ ' I I ~,. I'~ ii, 1-1 ~ ~ I I I I' 5 _ ~l ~ _~ it I ~, d ! '. I I t ~ ~!f ~Ii& I :! I ~ : I I ' ~ i" I \-li~, , ~..' '\.\I.'I\lI"~~. f.i! I ) ~ l ~c i' ' ~' " ~ r~ , , II 'l;J> " '" ~: 5 ~ ..!~ f 1 1'...,. S j~'! 1 1.- ~. r .,;\",~-I-" ,'I' ~ ~'- I r1[) I~ :-' ~ ~ ...~! I (\ ~. _~~ jt;.~ I; iiI.1 ~,~ ~" .r,; ". ".--" .. -, ,< _, '"". ,"7.' l~:;= : 3 0' ~I ".!.llllll ~4. j : ~ I' ;;. .,. ..1:::' -~ I I .;:.;". \, . 0 .~: Coli ~ + :,;;:. 1 ! ~":'i ..::! ! 1\ I ; , I I .~! j :iJ'" j I , . I I, I 'l!.'" l ,tU; ! ! II ,.I.\I~; I..,' I-;e: ." ""',,.,.... , <<: I . , \ ~I i.1i I I if. ~' I \ . 0 I~! I ""''<- f . j I I ~ I I ~''''..i-.:: i j' '1 ~ . I r':~' ;: ~ ~~ ~i~ !. "",,,,,, a.." : i ' , . .. ~~3. j J i I i I!K- ~1l'Y) I,"" ,to'%-U""''').' -'-ce.... { 1: ( , "",-, ~ i~i ..J.-N!'U~ ;...;;;IaYOif \~l q).-,"'xt .m~ --"'- ."-.. I ... III ~ ~'_.<_'.'F'" . __ ,'","_~.~_","_',,,,,,,, _.. _",""'''''-'"'''H'~._" , ~, . fjoMmfjerbJ ~!i?/tmd~ ~ 6 t 1~ RECEJVED Monday, January 26, 2009Fiala Halas MAR 2 4 2009 6:30 p.m. Henning Fire Station 71 - Golden Gate Boulevar~oyle ;~,oar(J oj' County' CornnlissionerJ Coletta Committee Members Chairperson: Karen Acquard Vice-Chairman: Jeffrey Curl Member: Stephen Greenberg Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes - December 3, 2008 III. Approval of Treasurer's Report IV. Request for Land transfer from Parks & Recreation Department - 47+ acre parcel (update) V. Big Cypress Elementary School- Playground Request (update) VI. Golden Gate Fire District - Funding Request (update) VII. Golden Gate Fire District - Presentation of District's Wish List VIII, Public Comment/Other Discussion IX. Next Proposed Meeting Date - March 23, 2009 Misc. COffes', X. Adjournment Date:Jl~I~l D5: i.tem #\\eJ_L~JA3' ~"""~" 1ll'lIWl" .."__,,e,..,,"" "~'''''.,;.'"'''~'''''''''' ..... ~ 1.6 t 1~:~. ./ fjoMmfjum ~!i?/tmd~ ~ j~ECEiVED SPECIAL MEETING ~~~s MAR 2 4 2009 February 3, 2009 Henning Coyle .,oard of County Commissioners 6:30 p.m. Coletta Fire Station 71 - Golden Gate Boulevard Committee Members Chairman: Karen Acquard Vice-Chairman: Jeffrey Curl Member: Stephen Greenberg Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Big Corkscrew Fire Control & Rescue District - Funding Request III. Adjournment Misc, Corres: Date:____ Item 1>~ --.." _.".~;-~"~,.,...,-_.---- H" '''"HO._..._. ,",_,..,_,,"",.,_,~.,.._, _'M_e'_'" _0.....'""_.. ,",' '.H....._,~_'''"'"'"'K.._ ... 16J 1~ fjoMmfjum ~~~ ~ CJult anwuam &vtp0JUdkm, (GAe) Monday, January 26, 2009 6:30 p.m. Golden Gate Estates Fire Station 71 100 13th St. sw ~PmlIIE~ Naples, FL 34120 Golden Gate Estates ~~-~ k~-~-~ ~fi~-~~J ~y~-~ ~~-~~J ~on 9Ji4e6 - Property Acquisition Specialist I Real Property Management Distribution: Minutes - December 3,2008 meeting Treasurer's Report Golden Gate Fire District Priorities List I. Call to Order - This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee meeting was called to order by Chairperson Karen Acquard at 6:30 p,m. II. Approval of Minutes - December 3, 2008 - The first item to be discussed on this evening's agenda is the approval of the minutes from the previous Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Meeting which was held on Wednesday, December 3, 2008. The minutes were reviewed by the Committee Members and a motion for approval of the minutes was made by David Farmer. A second to the motion was made by Jeff Curl. With no further discussion, Chairperson Acquard called for the vote to approve the minutes. The minutes were approved unanimously. m. Approval of Treasurer's Report - The next item on the agenda is the approval of the Treasurer's Report. The Treasurer's Report was presented by Staff. The ending cash balance on this month's report is $1,673,522.95 and the available cash balance is $1,476,407.95. The difference between the two being $150,000.00 pending for the Boundless Playground and $47,115.00 pending for the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District Fire Shelters. The question was raised as to who performs our audits. Staff advised that to the best of our knowledge it was the Finance Department but we would confirm. With no further discussion on the Treasurer's Report, a motion to approve the Treasurer's Report was made by Jeff Curl and a second to the motion was .....-,,~" .... t_;""'"'^"-,....., 161 l~ made by David Farmer. With no further discussion, Chairperson Acquard called for a vote to approve the Treasurer's Report. The Treasurer's Report was approved unanimously. IV. Request for Land transfer from Parks & Recreation Department - 47+ acre parcel (update) Staff advised the Land Trust Committee that there is no update on this item at this time. V. Big Cypress Elementary School - Playground Request (update) - Staff advised the Land Trust Committee that there is no update on this item at this time. VI. Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District - Funding Request (update) - Staff advised the Land Trust Committee that we are currently waiting for the invoice to be given to us by the GGFD in order to process the reimbursement of funds in the amount of $47,115.00. VII. Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District - Presentation of District's Wish List - The next item on the agenda is a presentation by the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. In attendance for the District is Victor Hill and Assistant Chief 1. Nolan Sapp. The District provided a handout to the Committee outlining a wish list of items and equipment that the District would like to obtain, Victor Hill gave a brief overview of the list explaining the different priority levels and needs of the District. Victor then went into the District's current funding request for Mobile Data Terminals. Victor advised that last year the District had applied for the Assistance to Firefighter Grant which is a yearly federal grant. This grant is offered by FEMA. The Mobile Data Terminals that the District is requesting tonight are laptop computers that are installed on the Fire Trucks. These Mobile Data Terminals include software and the theory is that they enhance response time because they show the most direct route to the location. In addition to the quicker response times, the Mobile Data Terminals also help with firefighter safety due to interoperable communications with Collier County Dispatchers. The grant that the District applied for through FEMA is in the amount of $104,400. There is a local cost share involved with the Grant in which the District would be responsible for 20% of that amount, which equates to $20,880. A question was asked as to why such an expensive and elaborate piece of equipment was needed instead of just a less expensive model of laptop. Assistant Chief Sapp explained that the Mobile Data Terminals serve a dual purpose in how they receive their calls as well as being a back up means of communication. The District advised the Committee that there will actually be additional funds needed due to the fact that the grant is a little outdated since it was requested so long ago. The second half of what the District is asking for is funding to help with the cost share for the FEMA Grant. The computers are $5,100 each. These particular laptops are designed to withstand the constant shaking and movement that would be experienced in a diesel powered vehicle such as the fire trucks. In addition to the laptop themselves there is additional equipment needed to support the units. Docking stations to place the units in the trucks are $475, the vehicle mounts are estimated at $500 however, some will be more and some will be less. Miscellaneous cables will be $100. The modem for the units will be $800. The software is $700. A motion was made by Jeff Curl to recommend that the BCC approve funding in an amount not to exceed $54,000 pending the FEMA match of $83,520 for the purchase of Mobile Data Terminals. A second to the motion was made by David Farmer. The motion was approved unanimously, . _......_"-"-"....~_..,...._.~--,_..._"-,,._< Till __w _..,...............,-- .-..,.".....-..-,,-. -,-="- 161 !pA vm. Public Comment/Other Discussion - Staff provided to the Committee an update on the status of the Boundless Playground. Staff advised that we were currently waiting for the invoice to be able to reimburse the All Kids Play Foundation. Staff has provided a letter to Fifth Third Bank letting the bank know that we are prepared to reimburse them once we receive the invoice from the Foundation. Staff advised that the 4 year review that was approved in December would have to be resigned by Chairperson Karen Acquard. Karen resigned the review and she signed the approved minutes from the December 3, 2008 meeting. Staff advised Chairperson Acquard that the BCC meeting date for the 4 year review is March 24, 2009 and it is scheduled for 11 :00. IX. Next Proposed Meeting Date - March 23, 2009 - The next proposed meeting date was briefly discussed and all agreed that Monday March 23, 2009 @ 6:30 p.m. was a good date and time for the next meeting. X. Adjournment - With no further business to discuss, a motion to adjourn this meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was made by Jeff Curl and a second to the motion was made by David Farmer. This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. ._....,-~,,~---""''''_.".- , -_. ....'~-,- ,.....w,,, _w"'__',___ ,_.__.~._,..,,~_ ""..- 161 1 ~ Memorandum sit It To: -Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners From: Jason Bires Property Acquisition Specialist Date: March 24, 2009 Subject: Golden Gate Estates land Trust Committee Meeting Minutes - Signed by Chairperson Sue, please find attached a copy of the approved GAC Land Trust Committee Meeting Minutes signed off by Chairperson Karen Acquard, The minutes and agendas from the following meetings are attached: January 26, 2009 February 3, 2009 Thank you. Attachments as stated Real Property Management Department -"..",..",_.,,'-,_.'. ,,-'.,.. , ~ ~'-"""'-"''''~-''''-.''---- 16,1 1 pA . fjoMmfjum~~~ ~ CJult anwuam &vtp0JUdkm, (GAC) Tuesday, February 3, 2009 6:30 p.m. Golden Gate Estates Fire Station 71 &,.1 100 13th St. SW Naples, FL 34120 Golden Gate Estates ~~-~ k~-~-~ ~~~-~~) QlF~Y~-~ ~~-~~) ~cm 9JbreJ - Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management Distribution: Big Corkscrew Equipment Request Outline. I. Call to Order - This special meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairperson Karen Acquard at 6:28 p.m. II. Big Corkscrew Fire Control and Rescue District - The item on this agenda for the Special Meeting is a request by Big Corkscrew Fire Control and Rescue District for funding to purchase Fire Shelters and Radio Equipment for the District. The presentation was made by Big Corkscrew Chief Rita Greenberg. The total amount being requested is $28,746. A motion was made to approve the funding request by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Jeff Curl. With no further discussion, the funding request was approved unanimously. III. Adjournment - With no further business to discuss, a motion was made by Jeff Curl to adjourn this special meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee, A second to the motion was made by David Farmer. This meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m. -,<.".-<'" '~-;'"""'-~^- VR 'I''W' ._...~"."m".""... "^"'-.'-'..~ .- ( 161 1 ~l\ ._" -~'. " ._- -""""".^'~' . -_._- - Fiala ~ RECEIVED 16 I 1 t\0' Halas -".. Henning . \ . MAR 2 7 2009 January 22, 2009 g~r~~a _ Cj-(l / ,ttJ[ Board I)f County Commissioners / MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, February 26, 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 Luis Alejandro Bernal (Absent) Raymond Cabral David Correa Renato F. Fernandez Manuel Gonzalez Cosme Perez Ernesto Velasquez ALSO PRESENT: Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County M. Corres:, I Oate:~O 5 I ~ DC; 1 Item #,1(0 .L~-0 A l rP t\J - -. .....-.,-....... _II. _I ""'" ..... ,~"'.~_".._"".~~,...._,~.v._".. . .-- .~-" c 161 l~\o January 22, 2009 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Valaree Maxwell at 6:02 PM and a quorum was established. Chairman Maxwell read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting. A member questioned how to address the new Chairman, i.e., as Chairperson or Chairwoman? It was pointed out she is to be addressed as "Madam Chairman." II. Approval of Agenda David Correa moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Manuel Gonzalez. Carried unanimously, 5-0. III. Approval of the January 22,2009 Meeting Minutes Approval was deferred to later in the meeting for discussion. IV. Public Speakers (None) A suggestion was made to allow Margo Castorena from Housing and Human Services to make her presentation before other business was conducted. (Raymond Cabral and Ernesto Velasquez arrived at 6:08 PM) VI. New Business A. Brief Overview of the Collier County Dept. of Housing and Human Services' Homebuyer Assistance Programs - Margo Castorena, Grant Operations Manager Ms. Castorena stated her presentation would focus on the "Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP"). . $73M has been earmarked for Collier County . Goal: to acquire, rehabilitate and re-sell foreclosed properties . Additional program components: demolition, land-banking and rental units . Mandated to provide safe, affordable housing for the Community . Eligibility: household earnings from 50% to 120% of Collier County's Average Median Income ("AMI" - $64,000) or between $32,000 to $76,800 . All applicants must also meet Federal requirements and are required to provide their down payments . legal Resident Aliens will be eligible to apply . Target area: East Naples, Golden Gate City, and Golden Gate Estates . Advertising will be in Spanish, English and Creole utilizing newspapers, the County's website, and the Collier County Educational Cable Channel . Funding must be obligated within 18 months after receipt Ms. Castorena explained the qualification process will follow SHIP and Federal guidelines. While Collier County will control the funding, it will not hold the loans, the houses will be owned by participating banks. If a qualifying applicant did not make mortgage payments as required, the property could go into foreclosure again. 2 ,,.---- ._~.,.".-.-,.. -~.,......,.,,- ..__""_,,,...._e 1 J2ul22. 201 "'\0 She stated the following: . Purpose of the Pro gram is to create a "stock" of affordable housing that will be available for the long-term. . "Flipping" (selling the property when the market goes back up) will not be allowed. Investors cannot participate. . The properties that will be rehabbed will be in communities without Homeowner Associations and HOA fees to keep payments as low as possible for prospective buyers. . The subsidy (i.e., reduced purchase price) will remain in the house for 15 to 20 years but if a home-owner sells the property after a certain period of time (approximately 5 years), the homeowner will be permitted a certain percentage of increase (profit) on the investment. . The percentage has not yet been determined. . Properties will be available on a "first come - first served" basis. . There will be at least 5 to 10 properties to choose from at any time. . The County plans to rehab a total of 60 to 70 houses. The County will be working with two non-profits: . The Empowerment Alliance of SW Florida (in Immokalee) and the Collier County Housing Development Corp. (in Naples). . Business owners can register with the County to become approved vendors. . The County's Real Estate Department will handle the purchase ofthe homes from the banks and the Purchasing Department will award contracts to approved vendors. Income from the Program will revert back to the County for re-investment into the Program until 2013 when the funds will be returned to the Government. Committee Members questions: "What type of grant did the County receive? . It is a one-time-only grant. "Why is the 'target area' so limited? Why not include all of Collier County?" . The selected locations have the highest rates of foreclosure in Collier County and were chosen to help stabilize the neighborhoods in the areas. "Is Ms, Castorena's salary paid through the grant? " . Ms. Castorena is employed by Collier County's Department of Housing and Human Services and her salary is paid from the General Fund. "How do candidates qualifY for the program?" . Qualification will be done by trained H&HS Staff. "What about individuals with credit problems?" . We will try to be flexible and help them as much as possible, but they must have a fairly decent credit score 3 .".-.......... ~ ""0'-'-"'"'''''' .-.., ~,-_."."""", 1If" "'-,,----, 16\ 1 k\O January 22, 2009 Concern was expressed for the "fIrst come/fIrst served" method of sale, but it was pointed out properties listed by real estate companies are on the market for inspection by the public until each has been sold. "Will the County/H &HS provide down payment and closing cost assistance? " . Buyers will pay their own costs. The subsidy provided is the signifIcantly reduced purchase price. "What will be offered to those who cannot afford to save for down payment and closing costs?" . Multi-family rental units will be included in the program. Apartments will be rehabbed and rented to income-eligible individuals/families . There are tenant Based Rental Assistance programs for farm workers Concern was also expressed for the role of the Hispanic Community in the process. Ms. Castorena reiterated all advertising will be done in multiple languages to reach every community. She also suggested Committee Members alert the Hispanic Community through their personal participation in other associations and/or social groups. She further stated she is available to make presentations about the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to any group or association that contacts her. Ms. Castorena stressed all details of the Program have not been fInalized, pending further instructions from the Government. She offered to present an updated presentation in approximately 3 to 4 months. Mike Sheffield stated he would contact Margo Castorena to schedule another presentation in approximately six months. V. Old Business B. Affordable Housing Report - Ernesto Velasquez . Attended the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee meeting on January 2nd and will attend as many of the AHAC monthly meetings as possible . He contacted Ms. Castorena to ask her to make a presentation to the HAAB . The Latino population is not aware of these programs and he was pleased to learn that the advertising will be done in Spanish and Creole A. Law Enforcement Report - Manuel Gonzalez . Attended the Minority Task Force meeting; presentation was made by the Special Crimes Bureau ("SCB") . SCB focuses on cases of missing, abused and neglected children as well as investigating child abuse complaints . Partnered with the Department of Children and Family ("DCF"), and the SW Florida Regional Children's Advocacy Center . Works in conjunction with the FBI and ICE . Area of interest: sexual deviants 4 .. ."._..._~,.."o." ~-"'''''.'-''~'_.''~'''"", ~_..- 16 I 1 f>< \V January 22,2009 . There are over 400 registered sex offenders in Collier County . SCB Investigators average caseload is 318 cases each . There is no specific profile or common socio-economic component to identify a sexual offender . The SCB monitors all known sexual offenders and predators and also determines the relative risk to the community Mike Sheffield stated he will email the Sheriff s Department website link to the members. C. Continued Discussion Regarding "Topics of Interest" for 2009 The previously assigned Topics are: . HealthlMental Health - Chairman Maxwell . Communications - Emesto Vehisquez and Cosme Perez . Education - Chairman Maxwell . Law Enforcement - Manuel Gonzalez . Jobs/Economy - Luis Alejandro Bernal . Housing - Emesto Vehisquez . Safety (open) . Elections - Raymond Cabral . 2010 Census - David Correa Mike Sheffield reminded the Committee that one of its goals was to ensure that government is communicating effectively with the Hispanic community. He suggested a member could investigate various outlets in the Spanish media and the information could be provided to the County, He also stated members could suggest other areas of interest to be included. He further stated reports are not required to be given on a monthly basis. When a member emailed that a report was ready, Mr. Sheffield will add it to the next available meeting agenda. III. Approval of the January 22, 2009 Meeting Minutes Cosme Perez moved to approve the Minutes of January 22, 2009 as submitted. Second by David Correa. A member stated the Minutes from the January meeting indicated the discussions were inappropriate and suggested future members appointed to the HAAB should be screened to determine their understanding of the Ordinance. He further stated HAAB is an "Advisory Board" not an independent, activist group. He stated the purpose of the HAAB was to represent the Board of County Commissioners. A member suggested the HAAB could send a recommendation to the BCC to schedule a Workshop with the HAAB and existing non-profit organizations to discuss ways to better communicate with the Hispanic Community. A member suggested the recommendation could only alert the BCC to the problem of lack of communication with the Hispanic Community and suggest the BCC consider holding a Workshop with the HAAB and non-profit organization. If the BCC indicates interest, the HAAB will provide additional information. S .....~ ." ~ _.'_...__~'n_"',"" ---"'"~--,,-"~ " _"._~.w..m 161 1 ~\o January 22, 2009 Chairman Maxwell reminded the members a Motion was on the floor to approve the Minutes. It was decided to continue the discussion concerning the HAAB' s responsibilities to the March meeting. Motion carried, 6 -"Yes''!] -''Absention.'' (Mr. Gonzalez abstained because he was excused/rom the January meeting.) VI. New Business B. Recommendation (to the BCC) for Appointment of a New Member to the HAAB Mike Sheffield announced the candidate had withdrawn her application from consideration and the vacancy remained. (David Correa and Renato F Fernandez left at 7:39 PM A quorum remained) (Mr. Correa stated he may be out of town for the March meeting.) VII. Member and Staff Comments VIII. Action Items(s) to the Board of County Commissioners (if any) There was further discussion concerning concept of the "Action Item." An example was cited: If there is a vacancy on an Advisory Board/Committee, the Board reviews and approves an application membership and then sends a letter to BCC stating it was recommending the BCC approve the application for the vacancy. The BCC then make its decision based on the Advisory Board/Committee's recommendation. An "Action Item" is to have a clear, specific purpose - it is not a general request for the BCC to do something. IX. Next Meeting: March 26, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:48 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE <-::~~At~~r~~:;:~ ' These Minutes were approyed by the Board/Committee on 3/:<6/"1 , as presented ~ or as amended 6 -- -"'''1'"_'0' .. .,o>_..o>;<.,...~,.,",,,. ,'~,_..," ,,,.,,,,,"~_"__ ,",_. 'H \161 lK' ~iara v' . Halaa ~ Henning RECEtVED ~e TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF Ua MAR 3 0 2009 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Naples, Florida - February 4, 2009 Board 01 County Con'll1liSSiOnIlrS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board, in and for the County of Collier, ha"ing 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: Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman John Iaizzo Jeny Moffatt Michael Levy John Boland Hunter Hansen Ted Raia Geoff Gibson Ted Gravenhorst M, James Burke . ABSENT: Annette Alvarez Also Present: John Petty, Division Adminislrator, Pelican Bay SeJVices Division; Janice Lamed, District Offices, lLC; Kyle Lukasz, Field Operntions Manager, Pelican Bay Services Division; Tim Hall, Turrell. Hall and Associates, Inc.; Jim Hoppensteadt, President/CEO, Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.; Dave Trecker and Bill Klauber, Pelican Bay Property Owner's Association; Tom Cravens, Mangrove Action Group; and Mary McCaughtIy, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Senices Division. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of January 7, 2009 Meeting 3, Audience Participation 4. Administrator's Report Report on Meeting with County Manager and Commissioner Halas Administrator Projects Update on Water Management System Capital Expenditures - Strategic Plan Interface Financial Report 5. Chairwoman's Report Strategic Planning Town Hall Meetings Report on Proxy Vote of Buying Out WCI General Comments 6, Clam Bay Annual Report - Tim Halt Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc, 7, Committee Reports Clam Bay No Report Government Relations No Report Budget Committee Update by Co-Chari Jerry Moffatt Ordinance Review Committee Update by Dr, Ted Raia Management Contract Committee Update by Mary Anne Womble 8, Capital Projects Update on Crosswalk (Myra Janco Daniels Blvd,) 9. Community Issues Vanderbilt Beach Restroom Facility Meeting 2/17/2009 (Jim Burke) Three Signs and Refuse Receptacle at Clam Pass (Dr. Ted Raia) 10, Plan Reviews None Misc Corres: Dale 0 5 ill-~ -- A l 7754 'lem it... L~J~~:~_l.___.\ ~,vp\\% to .-.., --',.,-, -,.,.,.~., ".,.-. ~"," -.".".-.,." ~""'"~.~"-------""-,~.".- 161 t 1~\ Pelican Bay Services Dhision Meeting Februarv 4. 2009 11. Committee Requests Landscaping (Jerry Moffatt) 12, Audience Comments 13. Adjourn ROLL CALL CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. I believe it's a little bit after one o'clock so let's call this meeting to order, Mary, could you take a roll call for us, please. MS. McCAUGHIRY: Yes. Madam Chair, let the record reflect that all board members are present except for Annette Alvarez and Ted Raia. Annette did e-mail me and tell me that it was a conflict in her schedule. So she will not be here. I would guess Dr, Raia's going to be a little late, APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 9. 2009 MEETING CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right Yes. I expect him to be here. Okay. Let's take a look at the minutes. May I have a motion that the minutes be approved? MR MOFFATT: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBlE: Do I have a second? MR HANSEN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Any discussion? Jerry? MR. MOFFATT: Yes. There are a few minor corrections in them, but let's just go. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Can you get with Mary and give her what it is? MR. MOFFATT: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I have one correction, well, two, just because they are people's names and they are in the forefront of our community. I'd like to make sure that we have those correct On page 7738 and 7739 at the bottom there's a conunent by Bob Naegele, but it was not Bob Naegele. It was Bob Uek who is the chair of the StIategic Planning Conunittee. And it's also him on 7739 just a little above bal1Way up the page. It's Bob Uek, again, U-e-k. And back a ways we have Carson Beadle on page 7703 and he speaks several times throughout the next few pages. And his name is B-e-a-d as in delta, l-e, Beadle, Carson Beadle. He's also on the Strategic Planning Committee. So I'd like to make sure that's correct. And that's all I really have to say about it I have a couple of spelling tbings, but that's it Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Then let's go on. Minutes are IlOW approved as read. And, Mr. Petty, I believe your next with an administrator's report. 7755 ~,.,",,,- """,."""..".. .......,,""~ '''~_.'''' ."J'_'~'_"'____ 161 1 f(\' Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting February 4, 2009 MR. PErrY: Madam Chair. if I could I'mjust going to go backwards a little bit for a housekeeping issue to call the vote on minutes with changes as directed. I didn't hear a vote. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. You're right because we didn't. All those in favor of the minutes standing as amended? MR. BOLAND: Aye, MR. GIBSON: Aye. MR. HANSEN: Aye, MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. BURKE: Aye. MR. MOFFATI: Aye. MR. GRA VENHORST: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye, MR. RAIA: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye, Opposed? (No response,) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So moved. Mr. Jerry Moffatt moved, seconded by Mr. Hunter Hansen, and unanimously approved the Minut_es o_ifthe_Janu__iUY.__7,_20_09.m._eeti.. '''_re._.M a.men. .. ded..___ MR. PErrY: Thank you, Madam Chair, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT REPORT ON MEETING WITH MANAGER AND COMMISSIONER HALAS MR. PErrY: Under administrator's report, the first thing that we want to talk about is the chair and the administrator's meeting with the County Manager and with Conmlissioner Halas at Collier County. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay, May I inteIject something at this point? MR. PETIT: Please. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: As my buddy here to my right bas just suggested that I missed the audience participation, 7756 "..,. ,~"__."",u,~ .'"h"".."~. . _.,"- ,.., ..,.--.,..,-- -- 161 ~, 1 tx\ \ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting Febroarv 4. 2009 but I think quite a few of the people who are here want to hear what we have to say about our meeting with Mr. Mudd and Mr. Halas, and this will give them a chance to participate after your comments. Is that all right with the audience? Okay, Let's go ahead. MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, as you know, we did meet with Commissioner Halas and County Manager Mudd last week. And in SUIlUllaIy I've got to tell you it was a very positive meeting. We were treated courteously, respectfully. They listened to our concerns. We went to them with the issues that we discussed at our last meeting, and I will smnmarize as follows, You asked us to go and check about the pennit. You asked us to ask the question of, 'can we work with the s:;ounty on this issue.' You asked us to go to see if there was any hope for this working together versus what we have currently. We asked those questions not only about Clam Bay, but since we got a positive response, we asked about other issues as well tbat affect Pelican Bay. Madam Chair, I'll summarize the Clam Bay issue because that's what's up for discussion. We got down to the details of Clam Bay. We asked about the permit The county will be handling the permit through the coastal zone as they have stated in the past, The reason they wish to do so is because they feel they're obligated to do so based on watershed issues being pushed upon the county that are originating from the EP A, going to the state and then to the counties. And this bas to do with coastal water quality parameters being set for the first time with some instruments of control being placed first by the EP A on the states and then on to the counties. This is an issue that's been ongoing at the federal level for over 15 years and it bas to do with nutrient loadings and runoff reaching our coastal areas, So we see why they would want to be in charge of the pennit application because of those issues. It's something certainly we don't want to be in front of that federal mandate, But we asked about our interest in the mangroves and in the conservation of the 630-plus acres of Clam Bay, and they committed totally to giving whatever was nea:ssary for Pelican Bay Setvices Division, whether it be a letter or whether it be an additional pennit, so that we could continue the good work that we've done. They told us that both their perspectives were that we have done one heck of a job in the last ten years. It was very nice to bear, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And it was in front of not only you, but Janice Lamed, Mr. Halas. And Mr. Mudd made the commitment and Mr. Halas nodded his head in approval throughout, So I think we came away with something more than we had. MR PETrY: It was nice to know that we have that working relationship. We also talked about continuing discussions between the chair and Commissioner Halas and County Manager Mudd. And they were amenable to doing that as nea:ssary to make this thing work, They talked about the separation between the new Clam Bay Group and Pelican Bay Setvices Division. And I tried to make that very clear because, of course, that's what fm looking for. And the separation is basically this: For 7757 ."...... -, '".....~ ,..-..... ,--_. r ....~---".,.~ ~ .._~'-~--,'--- Pelican Bay Sen:ices Division Meeting 161 III (\\\ Februarv 4. 2009 consenration and mangroves, Pelican Bay Services Division is expected to handle those concerns and those responsibilities. When it comes to watershed issues, it will be the County, Now, the two will overlap. They will see each other from time to time and we ",ill probably have conflicts in the future. I have no doubts that we will, TIle issues coming dmm from the EP A from the federal level to the state and then to the counties have been in conflict for the last five or six years. The reason we don't have standards today is because the state could not meet the federal requirements. So I liked the idea, though, of having a working partner versus one that's angry at me, and I thought the meeting was vel)' good in that regard CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I agree, I feel very comfortable about it. MR PETIY: So Madam Chair tlUlt's basically the report on Clam Bay Witll tlle county manager and Commissioner Halas, And I'm cautiously optimistic. I think we have a nice path forward from here. I do not have anything to bring to your attention that is concrete or that is specific, We'll probably get that from additional talks if the board would like us to move fonvard farther along the line. And I do expect if we do go down that line, that we will be participating in the maintenance of the mangroves in Clam Bay as we've done in the past, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And I want to tbank you and Janice also. When we were there, it was vel)' clear that their background and histol)' with Pelican Bay Service Division Board was very beneficial at several points, And they were as pleasant as they could be and helped us move right along. And I think because we did have John and Peggy and Janice Lamed there, we got quite a few things taken care of that we might not have been able to because I had to use them as my historical reference a couple of times, So I really do appreciate your help and guidance. Thank you vel)' much. MR PETrY: You're welcome, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And I have to concur. We lmd a vel)' good meeting and I feel vel)' comfortable about moving fOlWard with the county as public servants, as we are too, and I think that we're all on the same page about that. Will we always agree, probably not, but we are advisOlY. And in tIUlt position I plan on making it a very friendly gesture and they too, I believe, from what I saw. So tbank you both very much and thanks to our county administrators and Mr. Halas. That's good At this point I want to show that Mr. Raia has joined our board and open this up to the audience. Does anyone have anything that they'd like to come fonvard and talk about, discuss, ask? AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION MR., SEIDEL: I'm Steve Seidel from San Marino. Quick question, Was Gary McAlpin at the meeting and if not why not? 7758 ""._--,- --.,~ .".."." .-.....'..,,,....,, ___'..",...._e>__.". -~.-.," ,- 161 l 1 ~\ Pelican Ba)' Services Division Meeting Febroarv 4. 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. Because we wanted to talk to the commissioner and in essence, his adviser, the county manager, because those are the two people who have more impetus, and Gary takes tlleir direction, So we went to the top, MR, SEIDEL: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Good question though. Anyone else? Mr. Cravens, MR. CRA YENS: Yes, I have a quick question. I think all this discussion emanated from a discussion as to whether or not the services division was going to follow the BCes recommendation to go ahead and apply for a pennit for maintenance of the mangroves, Now, did I get this right, that you are going to proceed with that pemlit applicatic,m? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: At this point we don't need to, MR CRAVENS: What happens., , MR. PETTY: If I may? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Sure, MR, PETTY: Mr. Cravens. I think you're right. If the discussions continue in this way, I suspect in the very short-term that if we come to an agreement, that we would be going forward with whatever was necessary, including the pennit, if we needed, for the maintenance of the mangroves. What we're talking about is the difference between watershed permits and mangrove maintenance permits, and we've got every indication from the manager, ,,,ith Mr, Halas agreeing, that whatever we needed to maintain tlle mangroves, they would work with us 100 percent. MR CRAVENS: Well, the problem I bad with it is that getting a permit approved takes quite awhile. And one of the issues involved could be dredging of Clam Pass, In the event of a major stonn, it historically has closed down on at least two, possibly three occasions. And if the pass was to be closed or were to be closed, to wait until we could get a permit to dredge it could be rather catastrophic for the mangroves because they depend upon the infIlLx of salt water, And to wait until tlmt event happened and then attempt to apply for a permit, I think, would be a step in the l\'fOIlg direction. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Go ahead, John, MR PETTY: Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments. They are very valid, and we will be looking into those as we have these discussions witll the county manager. That will be one of the issues we discuss. Mr. Cravens, as you know, the value they put on Pelican Bay at the regulatory offices is considerable. And it is probable that we could get an extension if it is applied for in a timely fashion. I, like you, understand that if we have to apply for a new pennit once this lapses, there's a gap in time and I really don't want to be exposed to that. So we'll do due diligence in the process. 7759 "'.......-.-... _.'.,,- ."''''_"~'M'"",._~'_'' _...."....~^"_. ~"~. -.,,-- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 il ~\ Febmarv 4. 2009 MR CRAVENS: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: 'Thanks, Tom. We're well aware of what you're talking about. We're just trying to get an open-door policy so we can get what we need, MS. POTIER: Kay Potter. I really don't know what to say to convince this board that we bave to do it now. The commissioners voted to give us the pennit. So I don't know why we have to tip-toe. If they want to ,vithdraw the pennit, let them, but right now the other commissioners think they've done their job, They don't know why we are upset. They voted to give us the permit. And I do remember when Dr, Varley was in your position, Madam Cbainnan, and, we were trying to get the first ten-year permit. It took two years and $2 million. And poor Dr. Varley be WdS beset on all sides. And be finally threw up his hands and he said, 'all I want to do is to save some mangroves.' And that is our constant complaint because I see evidence that some of the channels have silted up. Now, I don't know what we'd do without Mr. Lukasz because he is so wonderful about keeping his eye on things., but there's a possibility that he won't be allowed to. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well. in this case he will. MS. POTIER: Well, I pray and I hope you're right, but we have no authority. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We were given that authority at that meeting. MS. POTIER: Well, they've given you nice words, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. We were given the authority. MS. POTIER: Oh. In writing? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's next, MS. POlTER: Thank you so much. MR PETIY: Madam Chair, if I could claritY. Not being a legal entity, we can take direction from the county. We can be the representatives of the county. But even if my name were on a pennit today and it said "Pelican Bay Senices Division" underneath, all that would mean is that we were able to sign as a county levl~ntative, That doesn't give us any special rights whatsoever under any conditions as currently is the case since the permit is signed by my predecessor, Jim Ward. And it says Pelican Bay Services Division underneath. It is only as a division of Collier County was he able to sign, and he did so with the permission of the Board of County Conunissioners. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. Kay, do you understand what he's saying? MS. POTIER: I do understand what he's saying, but it still comes down to no permit right now, 7760 ~""~ -.~". ,-> ._,....;,,_..,.._~. -""-_....._.,,-"...~ """"""",,<, .. ~....-. -,<"."~-,",,,--- 16' r,~ 1 ~\\ Pelican Bay Services Dh7ision Meeting Februarv 4. 2009 MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, we do have a permit right now and we are concerned about it as well. And the quickest way to address this is either to get a permit or a letter of acceptance from regulatory agencies of which the county manager is actively pursuing at this time or to look for an extension of the one-year extension that we currently have. As you may recall, we looked at it, and Tim Hall reported back that we could consider an almost unlimited extension, They like Pelican Bay, We've done a good job, So we're looking for nothing more than working with the county to extend it for whatever is necessary until we can get our permit in or getting whatever letter allows us to do the work so that we don't have to wait two years to maintain the mangroves, So we are working on it. MS. POTIER Good luck. MR. GRA VENHORST: Madam Chair? MR, PETrY: Question. CHAlRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR. GRA VENHORST: In the discussion at the last meeting on page 7718, Mr. Hansen motioned to draft the letter to present at the meeting was made and seconded and voted. Did we do that? CHAlRWOMAN WOMBLE: We didn't need to. I had letters from the Pelican Bay property owners and a letter also from the Foundation with backup statistics from the survey that was sent out indicating exactly what our citizenry is most interested in. So we did not draft a letter. No, you're right. We did not. We didn't have to. We had backup information from two groups. MR GRA VENHORST: So what did we submit? CHAlRWOMAN WOMBLE: We submitted two letters. One from tlle Foundation board and one from the property owners' association. MR. RAIA: Are those letters available for us to sre? MR. GRA VENHORST: We did not write the letter that the board authorized to be written? CHAlRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, if I could add to that Staff did not prepare a letter stating harsh conditions. MR. GRA VENHORST: Well, that's not what the motion was. If you read the motion, present the infonnation to them at this point and solicit their feedback and go to the next. We didn't tell you to write a harsh letter. MR. PETrY: And that's what I'm trying to explain, sir. MR. GRA VENHORST: Okay. 7761 ._~-_....... --~'^.--" ."...,"._""-,,..~ J>.l ---"'~..,- ...,.,,~_- "1'1 '''>~'''',.'"'''' , ,...-.,'--- Pelican Bay Senrices Division Meeting 161 ~'1 ~\ Februarv 4, 2009 MR. PETTY: It says to bring them the information, which we did And the information that was discussed was a smvey done by the Foundation of the residents saying that the majority of the residents, by a large mgority, a majority of the residents of Pelican Bay wanted the Pelican Bay SeIVices Division to be actively involved in the mangrove maintenance as they were before, That's what was brought to the attention. That's what we discussed. We talked about how we could go to them with ultimatums, And this board said absolutely not. Don't go there with ultimatums. So we went to the board or we went to our meeting of county commissioners with the intent of telling them that the people of Pelican Bay won't let this issue die, gentlemen. They want us involved in the mangroves so we're bringing it back to you. Secondly, this is a vast majority .of the people of Pelican Bay and here's our references. And we gave tlleDl the two backup letters that we had Other than tlIal, there was no other letter submitted at the meeting. If additional letters should have been sent or that is the feeling of the board that we missed the boat on that one, that we didn't give them the information, then certainly we can submit that at this time. MR. GRA VENHORST: It wasn't the feeling of the board. We made a IllOIion, seconded, and passed it, and,.. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You're right. And I found out when I read the minutes. MR. GRA VENHORST: A brief summary meeting with the commissioner to take the letter with you, and present the information to them that we had gleaned from our audience on that date. And bigger than not sending a letter, who stopped it? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Nobody. We didn't have the minutes. It takes a couple of weeks to get the minutes back after a meeting, MR., GRA VENHORST: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Frnnldy, I knew that we bad passed the motion that \\'e were going, and to present them with infonnation tlillt the citizenry of Pelican Bay were on board with us and in large numbers. We had that information with us when we went. I totally forgot about a letter from us because we had the infonnatiou. I felt like it was okay. When I read the minutes I was really upset that I did not remember. But at that point, I was involved in three meetings a day for strategic plamring and different committees with this partiwlar board plus this board meeting, and I just totally forgot. If we had the minutes back before we went to this meeting, it would not have happened, I would have had a letter. But as it was, Ted, I really think we covered it. MR. GRA VENHORST: Okay. MR. RAIA: Madam Chair? CHAlRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, Ted, 7762 ..~_."^ --"-", ~,~ lIIV __'_Ori<,""..."""_",, -"-;,~-.. _o~_____p~__._ 161 ~\~1 ~\\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting Febl1larv 4. 2009 MR, RAJA: I'm encouraged by John's mentioning that the county wonld even grant pennits. I wonld be interested in receiving copies of the letters from the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association and the Pelican Bay Foundation, And I have to ask why wasn't a letter requested from the Mangrove Action Groups since these are the people that have been intimately involved with the problem? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I didn't request those letters in the first place. They were... MR. RAIA: Well, when yon had the letters, you know, I don't know what they said so I can't comment on them, I would like the people concerned to be better represented. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think they were represented. They're part of our community and the community representation was through both letters, MR. RAIA: I think right now there is a little bit of a problem, but what I really want is to gel to the gist of this thing now. We're dancing around it We have already invested in getting this pennit We submitted the request for the permit. I have not received an adequate explanation of why we can't have the pennit. In no way will it interfere with whatever the county wants to do. We will complement and supplement anything they want to do. Why are they preventing us from having a permit? Did you get that answer? MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, may I? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Please do. MR. PETIY: Sir, we did get that answer. And the answer is that we can have whatever is necessary for us to do the mangrove maintenance. And if that included a new peront, Mr. Mudd committed himself 100 percent to helping us get that permit. MR. RAIA: Okay. Now, this is the situation we're in. It's Biblical. Yon cannot serve two masters at the same time. Now, I have moved to move that pennit along. And if I answer to the county, they stop me. If I answer to the public, it goes ahead. You're faced with the same situation. We hired you. We pay you. But you answer to someone else. Now, I am just not satisfied with the explanation that if we need it, we can have it. Well, who is determining if we need it? We felt we needed it We had a consultant draft it who didn't tell us we didn't need it. I'm sure he would not want to bill us for services we didn't need So can we just move this along and go back to Mr. Mudd. Thank him vel)' much for his cooperation. That's what we've been looking forward to, And would you, please, just grant the permit. MR. IAIZZO: Well, is that question going to be 3IlS\\'Cred or are we just going to let it drop? 7763 ,....~ ,~-- ,..,"-- . -~....,.,,,-, - . ..~'"' ,. ~._-_._~-,--_."--- 161 1~\ Pelican Bay Sen'ices Division Meeting Februan 4. 2009 MR PETTY: Madatn Chair? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You start and I'll finish. MR PETrY: The question has been asked and answered several times. We are not a legal entity, Without the county's pemlission to represent them continuously, we cannot act as their agent. MR RAIA: I realize that. So when you went to represent us, did you ask them specifically to let us go ahead and have the pemlit or should you make another appointment and now zero in on that one entity? MR PETrY: May I answer? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR PETrY: Madam Chair, the permit, that I think is being referred to, is the one that would affect the watershed issues which the county is reserving and will handle through the coastal zone as they have been sa)1ng now since the smnmer of last year. That hasn't changed and our meeting did not change that. What our meeLing verified is that the cmmty would vel)' much support, approve, and work with us in Pelican Bay's efforts to maintain tlle mangroves and tlle conservation areas, The permit required to do that work specifically, if that required a pennit, since there is some question of, 'does it even require a permit'? I'm of the opinion it will require a permit, which one, I'm not sure, But the county has agreed to work with us on it. So the answer is to the last overriding pemlit that we had for Clam Bay, 'are ''Ie allowed to prepare, sign, and. submit'? The answer is no. Absolutely not. It's a watershed issue and the county is handling it through coastal zone, Can we have a permit so that we can maintain the mangroves and the conservation areas? Absolutely. And tlle county bas committed from the manager's office, and including Commissioner Halas, that they will support us. I can't say that that wasn't heartfelt or they were not completely honest about their commitment They appeared to be. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: They complemented us again and again. And said that the issue isn't the mangroves and taking care of them because if it's not broken, don't fix it. The issue is the watershed and the overriding coastal needs for up and down the coast as to the futme. They are also hoping that the committee that is now overseeing Oam Bay and the signage will be involved in other parts of the county, They have scientists on board. They have people who are committed to making it a better environment and keeping the environment that we have as good as it is or making it beUer, and they are not looking just at us. They're looking at all of the watersheds and all of the areas of the county that are going to need some help, So with that idea, Ted we felt very, very comfortable that they will work with us on getting whatever we need for our specific area of mangroves and Clam Bay and the water management in our area. 7764 ~.." "-"~ - -". _..~~,. .~......."._'"" _".'n'" ..-........... "-,-,, ~"..,.,,-.,._.~-,- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16' l~\ Februarv 4.2009 MR. IAIZZO: Without a contract? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We're working on that 'With them. MR IAIZZO: I have a question for John, administrator. When you met with the count)' manager and OUT commissioner, did you discuss the Fund III continually coming back to us? MR. PETIY: No, sir, It has not left us. It has been detained MR. IAIZZO: So we can look forward to receiving III in the future as we have in the past? MR PETIY: I would say no. Based on what I know of the county's current ~al condition and the demands on Fund Ill, I don't think we can ever count on it at the levels that 'we've had in the past. MR. IAIZZO: That's bad news for us. It's another 200-plus thousand dollars that the county is holding back and we're going to have to pick it up. MR. PETIY: Possibly, sir, depending on what OUT requirements are for the mangrove maintenance. If they stay at this current level, yes sir. But the economic condition is the economic conditions. The county is losing revenues from no growth whatsoever, no constmction whatsoever, from a loss of property values, from a whole slay of economic woes. And not that they don't want to give us the money out of Fund Ill. It's just that the demands on Fund III are such that I don't think we're going to share in the levels that we have in the past. MR BOLAND: If I may. 101m, let me ask you. I realize what you're saying that we have the mangroves. The COWlty owns the watershed. Okay. I assume Tim Hall is still going to maintain the mangroves. Is there any posSIbility we could offer the county to continue to maintain the watershed? You'd have the same company maintain the whole thing. Like we used to have it. It was under OUT authority. Because if you get two different companies in there, John, they're going to all turnaround and say, no, they did it, and you're right back to the same scenario. You see what I'm saying? Is there any possibility? It would make a lot of common sense to me to have the same company, regardless of who pays for it, maintain both entities. That's all. MR., PETIY: I think you're raising a good point I think the main point that I would bring up in concert with that point is having Turrell, Hall & Associates on OUT team in the mangroves is a positive that I'd like to keep for the foreseeable future. Whether or not they work with the new group in coastal areas up and down, well, let's get ours first and then they can have theirs. 1 want them protecting OUT position. And if worlting with the county on coastal zone matters within Pelican Bay are something that can be handled by Turrell, Hall & Associates, 1 have no objection, and I don't see why we couldn't do that. I'm sure Tim would like as much business as he could possibly get especially if be can just change the name on the report. 7765 -^-,.-.........,. "...>-~..- Tn n ____1fi'-. ~ n "Ir -""",.~""-".,,,",,,-~, MA .i """e' , _~_."_.n'_".__ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 1~\' Februarv 4. 2009 :MR RAJA: Madam Chair, I'd like to continue this discussion, if I may. You've tried to separate out the mangroves from the watershed and you've passed on the watershed and then you passed on signage and moved on. To some of us signage is very important. And if we had any control over the watershed, there would be no navigational signs, We know that the county wants to put in navigational signs. And I personally feel that's one of the ulterior motives why they want to take watershed supetvision away from us. We can easily manage that. Do it according to whatever specifications that are drafted on their permit, but they are avoiding that. Furthermore, they really haven't proved to be a very good steward of the watershed. If you recall rather recently, we had a problem with the impetvious and petvious. Our staff said they developed and submitted a plan way over on his impervious, And the developlnent manager circwnvents us and goes to tlle county, and the county, you know, overruled us and approved it witllOut any logical explanation. At least they tried to give an explanation, but it just didn't make sense and it still doesn't. So that's the second mlSOn why I really don't trust tllem to SDpef\oise water management for Pelican Bay. 'They're looking after somebody else's interests and not ours. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: leny. MR, MOFFAIT: I was under the impression from what Tim said at prior meetings that for him to continue his work, and that may only involve digging new trenches, that he needs a permit or we need a permit for him to do that. Did I misunderstand that or you're now telling us we don't need a permit from anybody to do that? We can just go ahead? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, MR, PETTY: Madam Chair, that wasn't part of the report, but there have been others who have suggested that we would not need a permit to continue our maintenance, It is both Tim Hall's and my opinion and recommendation to this body and to the Clam Bay Subcommittee before this body that we would feel a lot better if we bad a piece of paper in our pocket while we are out there digging amongst mangroves. We know what that's like when somebody from the environmental agency comes by and says, 'what are you doing'? We want to have that letter, Now, whether it's a pennit, a letter, a get-out-ofjail-free card, whatever you want to call it, we as staff very nmch would like to have the letter that allows us to do that work, :MR MOFFA IT: And that letter would come from who? MR. PETTY: It would come from the permitting agencies. Typically, it would come either from the CotpS or from DEP, whoever had jurisdiction over that particular issue. I do believe in this particular matter we're looking for both. So we talked about that with the county manager when he brought up the issue because he pulled out a letter from his pile saying that, I think you have permission to do your work. And I said, "well, we still have some concerns", And he goes, "let me tell you, whatever you need to 7766 ~. ~___.."_.m____________.__._~... ."'~"" ",,,-~,_..'" Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 "'1 \1<'\ February 4. 2009 maintain those mangroves, we're here to help you with. And if that takes a pennit, we'll get you a permit", Now, that's,.. MR. MOFFA IT: So tlJey would file for the penllit then? MR. PElTY: As they always do or they would allow staff as a representative, one of the two. MR. MOFFA IT: But we're not working on that at this point? MR. PElTY: At this point we don't have a clear working definition between what the county's going to do on the watershed,. , MR. MOFF AIT: Forget the water, just focus on the mangroves, It seems like we got half a loaf and left the meeting. MR. PElTY: It isn't that simple on the penni!, sir. In the 404-E pennit that we currently have you have broad jurisdictions. And the county's ability to implement a water basin change or water basin correction may be impossible under that permit because we have already stated a position that has preference to any new position they may bring. We're trying to bring all that into a working relationship. Mr. Mudd is an expert in these matters and we are taking him at that expert position in helping us guide us into what pennit or letters we may be able to obtain. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So, Jerry, what we're doing is politics on our side, and Tim Hall will do the scientific on his side. We're making the steps forward to get what we need and Mr. Mudd bas promised to help us. MR. MOFFA IT: And what's your next step then? I still don't understand what we got out of the meeting other than a feel-good relationship. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. The meeting was less than a week ago, MR. MOFFAIT: Right. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I wanted to report to this board and then you can help us decide where we want to go. That's our job to advise the county colmnissioners as to what "ve want to do nex1, You now are getting the report and I'll need your backup to help me go forward with whatever it is that we feel is the best at this point in time. So fm glad you're asking because that's what you're going to have to do, MR. MOFFAIT: WeIll thought... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's what our board is for. MR. MOFFA IT: . ,.for several meetings we've talked about the need to get a pennit. I don't know what more direction Mr, Petty or you would need in that regard, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We need your vote on it and a motion that carries and then go forward. John, go ahead. 7767 ".- __H "".""""",,,, ..,..""...~.." ..----...'" --...._c.,~"'" _ . ~._.------_.,- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 \, 1 \\'\\ Februarv 4, 2009 MR PETIY: Madam Chair, the path we were on prior was to do a transition with the county which we expected sometime in January or February and they're a little behind because they couldn't seat their boaId, but we're doing a transition. And it was expected that we would be out of the mangrove restoration business by the smmner, And the issue that I put before this board continuously was that you have always told me that if you did not have control of the money, you did not want the responsibility, and that you were going to have to give me that direction to change course. So we were set to do a transition before the summer and to stop budgeting for Clam Bay restoration. Now, you sent us back to the county to talk one more time. And we got a very receptive audience. I think that's very positive news. Is there a next step? Yes. The next step is to start the work process so that we don't lose the pennit, so that we don't hann the mangroves during the dropping of the pennit, so that we work out how the new group working on basin issues correlates to om responsibilities to the mangrove and the conservation. And we need to put all this down into a policy that we can bring back to you, But the question before you is, 'do you wish to go forward working with the county'? Or 'do you wish to follow the path we were on'? Which was we're no longer going to fund it and it becomes a county responsibility, MR. RAIA: I don't think it was that way, John. I'm sorry. I would make a motion now that we ask John and Madam Chair at the next meeting to request Mr. Mudd to release the pennit, to include the hydrology and the mangroves, and that we have every intention of fully cooperating with the county witb whatever other plan that they have for the watershed district. We want to cooperate with them, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So what's your motion? MR. RAIA: The motion is that you go back and now request that they approve om permit and that we will fully cooperate with the county with whatever else they are going to do about the watershed problem. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Ted, do you mean a pennit that is the purview ofwbat we are involved in.., MR. RAIA: I am talking about the pennit we've been working on for the past two years. That pennit that's sitting on somebody's desk down at Collier County building. And let's not: get semantical. That is the pennit. That's the pennit we've been asking for some time now. Just approve that pennit. MR. GRA VENHORST: Madam Chair, here... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ted, MR. GRA VENHORST: In the motion that was made and approved last meeting, the letter was to include, solicit feedbacks with regards to Clam Bay and thefive-year permit. So I would like Ted to amend his motion to make sure it's a five-year 7768 .,.._-~._._-_.,-~> .. ",~,,'. ._..c ,.""...-.,;,,,..._ ,'1lI 1'_ -_.~_." . _"~'o.~__ 161 lt11 ~\\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting Februarv 4. 2009 permit. MR. RAJA: I accept that amendment CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Now, are you asking for the same pennit that's already there? Because I don't think. .. MR, IAIZZO: May I ask Tim a question. Tim, can we actually put that pennit back on the table without re-examining that permit because they did take the watershed from us? Yau know, it may not hold us up because they're taking a certain amount of responsibility in tl13.t area. MR. HALL: Well, I think the document that Dr. Raia is talking about is actually a management p~ not a pennit. 1113.t management plan would have to be submitted to the agencies for their review for them to issue pennits based on that management plan, So it's not a pennit that's there that if they say, okay, we can innnediateJy start WOJk. It's a plan that was to guide the future permits. MR. IAIZZO: So the answer is, yes, we can use that in total without rewording it? MR. HALL: It would mean we can use the basis of it. It was set up kind of in a fiamewotk where pieces could be added or taken away from it. So that could still be used, yes. MR. PETIY: Madam Chair. there is a small issue in that it was a draft. It "vas a working draft. It hadn't been adopted yet. So that's something you'd also want to include in your considerations. MR. BURKE: Madam Chair. we're overlooking something here, which is there is a duly constituted and appointed Clam Bay Estuary AdvisOIY Committee that now has full responsibility for Clam Bay. Their chainnan's in the room. They are proceeding along now. They had their first board meeting and bad their subcommittee meeting. They bad another one this week, Friday. They're responstble for Clam Bay. So we can make all the demands for permits and management plans, but everything's going to go through that group. And their in a hurry because by ordinance they sunset on December 31st. Now, the cbances are pretty good they may be reappointed for another sLX months or whatever, but tlley're moving to have the final management plan ready by December 31st. And I may be wrong, .John, but I believe the county has the request in for a pennit for dredging Clam Pass anyhow. MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, excuse me, I know of no application MR. BURKE: I got that information. MR. PETrY: It could be, but I have no knowledge, 7769 V' <t.- __c"....."'__.__ ----,...'"'~---"....... _.,,-- ., -"", Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 ~t ~\\ Februarv 4, 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It was mentioned by Mr. Mudd, but I don't know that there is a pemlit. MR. RAIA: Well, we thought we had submitted something to the county and we were waiting for a response. We never got the response, That's something was just a work in progress, At that point they had to say go or no-go or something. What stopped it? MR HALL: Right. Well. the management plan. that draft, was given to the county for their review as well, and any conunents that they had would come back and be incorpomted. This board as well had not given the final blessing on it. So it was still a work in progress. MR. RAIA: So they just didn't act on it. They didn't send it back to us. TileY didn't do anything. They just sat on it. MR HALL: Not to my knowledge. MR. RAIA: Okay, MR. BURKE: I think we got a m;ponse. To me the answer is pretty clear here. We can have meeting after meeting to talk about this, but we got our response, MR, RAIA: Was that the response that the commissioners voted to approve it? MR BURKE: Yes, appointing a new advisory committee and there's nine members on it. Now, you can go back over there and tell them they're going to have to go back and vote and.,. MR RAIA: Well, this maybe another layer of bureaucracy that that permit now has to go through the new Clam Bay Estuary Committee. If that's where it goes, so be it. I would just like to know where it is and that it's moving along wherever it's supposed to go until finally it gets done. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think maybe Mr. Carroll has more knowledge about that if anybody does, but I have a feeling that whatever Tim has already completed is a draft, No. I, management proposal for the Clam Bay. And it would be sort of silly for anyone to not utilize what's already out there, So whatever desk: it's on, I would imagine it's headed toward Mr. Carroll's committee so that they can take a look at it. And, if not, maybe Mr. Carroll is listening to me and thinking. hmmm, maybe we ought to read that thing. But it does definitely just indicate a management plan. It is not a pennit Ted. And that's where we were going wrong. I think, for quite awhile. MR. RAIA: It's the first step in getting a pernlit. It just puts usa little bit further behind where I thought we were, Obviously, we need this draft approved so we can move on to the permit I'm not going to be discouraged by that I want to know what do we do now to move this along so we get the permit then? 7770 >,^",._.,-,,'--'~'~='~""~-~~'"~~-"""--""_."" -,,,.,,.., ...._-~.." 161 11 {<\\ Pelican Bay Services Dhision Meeting February 4. 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think we get behind the Clam Bay AdvisOIY Committee that is now formed by the commissioners who are only asking us for advice. They have chosen to put another committee in place for CIanI Bay proper. And they're offering us the chance to continue managing the mangroves and the conservation area as stated. And tbey're willing to help us in any way we may need help. If we need an extra pennit for that, he'U so move and make sure we get it. MR. RAIA: So the approval right now to move that draft along is going to be in the hands of this new committee? MR PETrY: Madam Chair? MR. RAIA: Is it sitting there? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I don't know that that's true. Ted. MR. PETrY: Process is my responsibility, if you don't mind. MR. RAJA: Yes. MR. PETrY: The draft that we had is not sitting on anybody's desk at the county. It's sitting here on my desk, The issue here was the county took over control of the permit. You have seen that language. I have shared that with all the board members on the e-mail that was sent to me by the county manager's office that said coastal zone is responsible for all pennits of this nature, All that work. was banded over to him. We don't have a pennit on a stafflevel that we are bolding. There is no peront that Pelican Bay Services Division has before the county. We were in transition and everybody has known this since the budget talks of last summer when we decided that our budget would be set up to handle this last year, We've even asked you to extend Tim Hall's contract for three months and then six months to get him to the end of the year. Because of this issue that we were not going to be contracting with him at the end of this year, we were under the understanding that the county in setting up this new group was taking control of all the responsibilities of Clam Bay. And what you have told me in the past, which I have repeated time and time again to make sure you wanted to stick to that path, if you didn't control the money, you weren't going to take the job, That's where we have been. Now, in our talks that we went back last week,. we asked the county, 'is there any way we can work together'? And the answer was yes. So for anything to happen, you must first decide that you want to work with the county on so that I can start those talks. Otherwise, we are on a path that says at the end of this year, Tim Hall is no longer a contractor working for PBSD. And at the end of this year, Pelican Bay Services Division no longer bas a mangrove maintenance program. Thank you, Madam Chair. MR. GRA VENHORST: Madam Chair. What was the response from the county, John, when you asked them this past week at the meeting, what was the response on the five-year pennit? 7771 ..""._."~ -".- ~.,""'" "...~." .. ~-, 161 ;"~1 ~\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting Februarv 4. 2009 MR PErry: That they were keeping that pennit. That would not be a responsibility ofPBSD. They explained why. It was for water basin issues. MR GRA VENHORST: Did they give you... MR PETrY: Hold on. It bad to do witll daily contaminate levels being pushed by the EP A through tile state, MR. GRA VENHORST: Did they give you any path fonvard that we should follow? Did they give you an A, B, C, D or they just said, 'we'll wolk with you'? Did tlley give us a path to go furward to accomplish this? MR. PETrY: They did, They did. But it wasn't A, B, C, D. MR. GRA VENHORST: What was it? MR. PETrY: Well, the direction was that that's an agreement with the people of Pelican Bay. Come back and talk to us and we'll work it out. That's what we're here doing, MR. GRA VENHORST: I understand. You're saying that we can't apply for a permit, but we specifically put into the motion last meeting, . . MR. PETrY: No, sir. Your question which is, 'can we submit the five-year permit that we were wolking onl. And the answer is absolutely no. Absolutely no. (Microphone static.) I didn't do tbat. MR, IAIZZO: You blew the circuit. MR. PETrY: I'm not trying to be negative to your response, but they were very open and honest about, no, the county needs that to comply with water basin issues and the mandates coming down from tlle EP A. MR. GRA VENHORST: So basically ~~re telling us we'll never have another five-year permit? Is that what you're saying? MR, PETrY: No, sir. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the permit that you keep referencing. the five-year permit, is a document that we have known for over ten years in the Clam Bay system. It's a very specific document that we were talking about, It was something I got approval from the county commissioners on, I believe, in April of last year where I asked permission for Pelican Bay Services Division to prepare, sign, and submit our plan. One commissioner said, 'well. don't make it ten years, Make it five'. We did that. At the next meeting they said, let's take this a bit furtheT. We've got other objectives in our watershed issues. Let's change it again and they did by ordinance. So, sir, I do not have permission to go forward. As a matter of fact, I have a very clear answer that, no, we cannot go forward witll the five-year permit. I got a very clear colIllnitment that whatever permit we need for mangrove maintenance, they will work witll us to get. 7772 "-_.,---------,_.~ '''__0' .-.-"'.- ....-..-- ~""...-...".._- - .- 161 1 ~\\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting Febl1larv 4. 2009 MR GRA VENHORST: So Dr. Raia's motion, then, is a useless motion. It won't ever be instigated MR BURKE: Madam Chair and John, just a clarification, We never in our best day could apply for a permit? MR PETTY: Madam Chair, if you'd like me to answer? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I would, MR. PETTY: The technical answer is absolutely you are correct. MR. BURKE: Okay, MR. PETTY: We can only act as the agents of a legal entity, which is Colli~r County, and that's why we ask for permission. Even if we get permission to prepare, sign, and submit, we couldn't fight any legal battles. MR. BURKE: And the original pennit and plan read, Collier County and Pelican Bay Services Division? MR. PETTY: That was part of the five-year consideration in the draft, I believe. MR RAIA: You know, that to me is not a problem It's something we have always understood, that the county was going to be responsive to our wishes, what we thought was best for us. Now I sliD want to tIy and follow this up. We no longer can request approval from the county for whatever we want to do. lt would have to come from this new Clam Bay Advisory Committee? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, MR PETTY: Madam Chair, that is not my indication at all. MR. RAIA: Try to get something done in this county right now. How does a citizen who wants to do something get it done? Tell me what that person has to do, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: In what respect'! MR PETTY: That's not possible, Madam Chair. There's too many avenues to chase down that dog, You got to give me some description here. MR RAIA: So this is the original Catch-22 then? MR PETTY: No, No, sir. There are a lot of Catch-22s. MR RAJA: I'm from Maine, You can't get there from here, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ted... MR. RAIA: There must be a way of doing this, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: rn suggest something than you stop and think and remember we are not a legal entity. 7773 .'A..._"_,_,~ "'.....~,,-,,-- ~,.... . ".-"...... -, _...'-. "".-.- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 11 ~\ Februarv 4. 2009 We are an advisory board only, And sometimes our advice is taken, sometimes it isn't And at this point in time they have reached forward to us with an open hand saying, We would like to work with you. If you need a permit for anything that needs to be taken care of we will work with you and get the pennit. We ",ill do what we have to do so that you can follow through ",ith your mangrove restoration maintenance and conservation. And that is fur more than we bad walking into that meeting. And the deal is it is less than a week since that meeting, MR. RAIA: May I withdraw my motion then? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Sure. MR. RAIA: rd like to make another motion that you please go back to Mr. Mudd and Mr. Halas and ask them what we should do in order to get this permit. Just ask them that. Because nobody in this room really seems to know how to do it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: By "this permit" I want to make sure that we are all well aware of what you're talking about. MR. RAIA: The pennit that we were going after originally over a year ago, and that we thought was in process and nov\' it's sitting on John Petty's desk. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's not a pennit. That's a management plan. MR. RAIA: That's it. It's part of the pennit process. I realize that. You just can't go get the permit. You've got to show them what you're going to do with that permit. So I want you to take it right from the beginning. How do we start and how do we obtain this permit? How do we obtain it? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I don't think we can obtain that particular permit. If you want to talk about a permit that would be only the mangrove restoration maintenance and cooservation, then we can taIk, but -- MR. RAIA: They will not talk about the permit if it bas to do anything with watershed rights in Pelican Bay. Will they talk to us? MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, I didn't mean to mislead anybody. I thought I said it very plainly, but I'll say it again When it comes to this five-year permit, which is wbat is being referenced, whether in draft form or whatever, they said no very clearly. There was no mistake. Tiley weren't shy and they gave us the reasons wby. I bring those reasons back to you for your consideration. That's the best I can do. MR. MOFFA IT: Why don't \\'e move beyond tbat five-year permit and get wbatever it is tbat Tim needs and you feel comfortable with for him to continue maintaining the mangroves the way we would like to !lave them maintained. 7774 ,--"....--.. <-,,~~~ 1111, .. .""'-'-,.~"~",,-,,~,,^". .",~".__.,,_.~~. .... .. '-~ ~..-..- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 ~1 ~\\ Febroarv 4. 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's what we're tIying to go for. MR PETrY: If that is the direction of this board, that's exactly the path we can move on. If it is the direction of the board to stay on our current path, we will do the transition and we will remove this responsibilily, whichever is your preference or if you have a third option, just indicate to staff. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The deal is, I think, at this point we have to decide do we want to continue doing the mangrove restoration, maintenance, conservation because that means that we have to continue with our own taxing. We're putting our money into that. If we choose not to do that and leave it to another entily who is also .over Clam Bay, and there looks to me there may be two committees overlapping each other without us even being involved, then we don't have to have that extra money in our budget. However, I think the Mangrove Action Group would be very upset and quite a number of citizens of Pelican Bay would be very upset if we relinquished any hand in the actuaI conservation, maintenance, and restoration of the mangroves, So, with that in mind, we have to remember that the budget is important, but we are looking at the survey that indicates that the citizenry of Pelican Bay is very concerned about mangroves. We have Mr. Mudd, Mr. Halas both telling us that they will work with us, get us whatever we need, a permit, whatever, 1 think we should consider moving forward along those lines. We need a motion, We need a second, and we need a vote to go ahead and get what bas to be taken care of. Leave the money in the budget for the mangroves and get on with it And. Jerry, I agree with you, that's where we're at. Would you like to make a motion? MR., MOFFA IT: I will move what I just said earlier. MR GRA VENHORST: 111 second it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Do we have any discussion? MR LEVY: I'd like to just ask Right row we're budgeted something like $330,000 for Clam Bay. We're now talking about the mangroves and the preserve area. So do we have some idea of what we're talking about? Is this going to be a lesser effort, a lesser amount of money, the same? Do we have any idea? MR PETIY: Madam Chair, if you direct statfto go forward working with the county, it is based on the existing budget limitations. If you tell staff to go forward with tenuination of that responsibility, then it would be this budget item for this year, but next year would drop to zero. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: In other words, we're talking about the same level of concern and involvement. So it would be the same, Now, next year, because of the way the economy is, who knows, MR PETIY: MadaIn Chair, there's one other. If we do go forward, and this ma)''be the right answer to the question, if 7775 ..,--,,-.-". ~.."".,......,"..-.-,,"'--"^"- ,.~~~" -,-. '''H_. Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 t<\' Februarv 4 2009 we do go forward, we do expect that a maintenance program would be less costly than our original ten-year program, We do e:\:pect that. MR LEVY: Right, So do we have any idea, John, how it would be linked? How much would it cost? MR PETIY: It would be difficult to say, sir, without knowing where the overlap is between our group and the new group set up by the county. And while we expect the management contract to be less, what we're also finding is that the regulatory agencies, coming from the federal government on down, are stepping up the pammeters.. So we were looking at mangrove maintenance and conservation. And it could be that we have to look at 10 or 15 more cont:rpl points or other evaluations that must be done now that even in a management or maintenance program will bring our cost back up. But that being said, we expect our cost to be lower if we were to do it nex1 year on a maintenance program, pure and simple, without any new responslbilities. I.lust can't tell you what the new respoDSlbilities may be in a year or two. MR. lEVY: And you express the difficulty with Fund III, which I think we said at some time that Pelican Bay puts about $6 million a year into that Fund Ill? MR. PETIY: Yes., sir. Pelican Bay residents have sunk in a huge nmnber into Fund Ill. And, yes., sir, it averages in the last several years about $6 million a year. MR lEVY: So what we've been getting back is roughly $200,000 a year contributing towards the mangrove or whatever work we've been doing in Clam Bay? MR, PETIY: Kind of a small tip, isn't it? MR LEVY: Right. So I would suggest that we should encournge the county to at least continue supporting this at that level. MR. PEITY: Absolutely, sir, I think that's a very good suggestion and I would support that. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBlE: I would too. Okay. We have a motion before the board, MR. MOFFA IT: Can somebody read that motion? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Carolyn, can you go back to that? TIlE COURT REPOR1ER: You'll have to give me a moment. (Brief recess was taken.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Carolyn, where I have mentioned Jim Ward, I'd like to you to anlend that to Jim CmToll, that's who I really meant, throughout aU of that. No. It's Jim Carroll. Mr. Carroll, I do apologize. I was looking straight at you thinking I don't know how I said that wrong, but I know Mr. Carroll very well and that's who I meant. (The requested portion of 7776 --- -...... ~~~ .,~;._'w'~, "',.~...".....,_;.__"'" -.,..,,, -,~",.~ -- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 ! t<" Februarv 4. 2009 the record was read.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And we had a second. TIlat was Ted Gravenhorst, THE COURT REPORTER: I've lost my real-time feed. I don't kllO'w why. MR. PETrY: I'm not sure what that is, Madam Chair, but, that's okay. It's perplexing her so we'll wait. MR GRA VENHORST: Would we be out of order, Madam Chair... MR PETIY: Madam Chair, we WdDt to hold until our clerk is reset. THE COURT REPORTER: I have it here (indicating). So we can go ahead, ~ record will continue, but I won't have the computer access. I'd have to troubleshoot it MR. PElTY: No more quotes can we get from our cleiX, Madam Chair, but she can take our minutes, if we'd like to continue. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. MR. GRA VENHORST: Madam Chair, would we be out of order if we wordsmith that motion a little bit? I think when Jeny made this and you asked him to put it in the form of a motion, I think if he knew it was going to be a motion, he would have stated it somewhat differently. MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, if I could, we 'will wordsmith it to this point that statftypically, when we do this, we will put it in complete sentences in the foml that was intended. So we do that type of correction when we give you your minutes. As you notice, we leave out the exact verbatim pauses, inflexions, "ubs", and misdirections and we turn it into complete sentences, We will turn this into a complete resolution. If you'd like to amend, sir, that certainly is an item tIlat you can consider, but just making it sound better is something we will do as staff. MR GRA VENHORST: I didn't even want to hear that much. I just asked the question, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. We have a motion. We have a second, and we've had discussion. MR BURKE: Madam Chair, could you ask Jerry to restate it now that he's heard it. I still don't know what it is or understand it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I believe he's making a motion that we go forward beyond the five-year pennit to wolli. with getting whatever it is that we need to maintain the mangroves, the conservation area, and continue on the path that we've been. That was the gist of it, I believe. Is that correct, Jeny? MR. MOFFA IT: Yes, 7777 "~~> > ._" ..~"" ... .A "",~.",,,.. """.,",,,,, ~.. _....._,-~ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 11 t<'\ Februarv 4. 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. MR BURKE: So we're giving staff direction, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We're giving staff direction to continue forward working on whatever it is that we need to do; is that correct? MR GRA VENHORST: That's what I seconded, yes, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay, AU those in favor? MR BOLAND: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. MR HANSEN: Aye, MR., LEVY: Aye. MR BURKE: Aye, MR. MOFFATT: Aye. MR.. GRA VENHORST: Aye, MR.. IAIZZO: Aye. MR RAIA: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Motion carried, All right. Good-good, Mr, Jerry Moffatt moved, seaJlfded by Mr. Ted Gravenhorsl, flRd ulfanimously approved to continue the maintenance of the mangroves and conservation area within Clam Bay and to work with the county to obtain any necessary permit or letter of authorizatiolf that is recommended by Tim Hall of Turrell, Hall and Associates, lne. in order_to p.erform the__n_ecessary____ 1ffIIiIftemuu:e__'_._. wont.._____ UPDATE ON WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MR PETIY: Madam Chair, I'1l go on to my next item, Item No, 2, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Talk fast, John. MR PETIY: That's not meant to be intimidating at all Update on the water management system is how we can improve OUT current water management pennit. As you heard in OUT previous discussion, there are some issues with how OUT water management system is being taken care of. We'd like to improve upon that. We have gotten an independent engineer to look at the 7778 ,.,,"'. .'-~_. 11II"'- T 0._'..._... ,.-.-.---- Pelican Bay Senices Division Meetmg 161 ;~I ~\ Febmarv 4, 2009 feasibility of a closed loop which would increase the efficiency of our wdter management process here in Pelican Bay. We have gotten the initial feedback that that is feasible with the "'ater managers in Palm Beach, but that it would be a fairly complicated permit issue. So we're getting more infomlation and we expect to bring back this engineer to discuss this in full with the board at the next month's meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Thank you very much, MR. RAIA: I have a question. Did we decide to move ahead to do a study on this closed loop? MR. PETTY: If you remember, sir, we did a cap of$5,000 per engineer to check. , ,. MR. RAIA: So feasibility.. . MR. PETrY: ". we're still under that MR. RAIA: We're doing that. MR. PETrY: Before we go further, the engineer would have to come back and teU you what the basis of the feasibility was and that's where we're at. MR. RAIA: But I'm more interested in the water management, period. TIle things that we discovered, namely, that nobody is meeting the requirements of the pervious versus impervious and yet they get approved by the county. And then when you get an explanation, they explain that that's because the water nms uphill and then when you go out there in the rain, the water is actually running downhill. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ted,. you had commented on this last time and tills is one of the things that we're trying to get an open-door policy so we can discuss it with the county and get this taken care of. MR. RAIA: What I'm leading to is, is this what's being done with this engineering group for water management looking into this or not? MR. PETrY: I am looking into it, sir. Yes, sir. But that is not necessarily with this guy. I'm doing that with staff. I'm doing that with Wilson Miller. We are currently auditing OUT imperviouslpervious calculations, which is what you've been referring to in the past, I believe. MR. RAIA: Well, that's what we've all been referring to in the past I thought So, okay. TIlen it's a little misleading, I think, you know, when you give the water management report, maybe you should clarify what aspect of it is being covered at the meeting then. Okay, CAPTIAL EXPENDITURES 7779 ^'__'_'_h, 'M_""""~"""" __'_'_h.''''~''_ MO"._' Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 1 ~\\ February 4, 2009 MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, the budget committee is currently considering a capital item for discussion and inclusion in next year's budget. As we talked about at our last budget committee meeting. we expect that the strategic plan the Foundation is currently undertaking will be out soon. As this board may recall we have committed to working with them to the best of our abilities on issues affecting the benefit of Pelican Bay, We suspect that there may be some direction from Pelican Bay residents referencing some of our responsibilities in regards to capital, At which time it would be appropriate for the budget committee to consider those items and tIy to put a priority on them. So we wanted to bring the board up to date that we were looking at capital items, but we weren't taking on any stIff suggestions until after we hear from the feasibility I'\3>Ort. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. MR. MOFFA IT: Mr. Petty, I would suggest that we haven't quite gotten to considering those capital items on the budget committee yet, but they're on the agenda to be oonsidered, I think, at the next meeting. So we're not in that process yet. The only thing I would caution you about with the stIategic plan from the Foundation is that we clearly focus on what the residents have had to say about what their desires are versus some of the top-level reports that are coming out of the stIategic planning committee that look like they're including some personal views of whoever is massaging those reports as opposed to what the residents actually said in the survey, There's a disconnect. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Can you make a specific example, Jerry? MR. MOFFAIT: Well, safety and security moved up to NO.2. Whereas. the residents in their survey didn't have it as a top item for consideration at all. And I would suspect that the security issue they're talking about is security from crime, not security from a bmnpy sidewalk. So I just see that there's several things in there of that regard. As the authors of the plan have more time to work on it, it moves away from a raw results of a survey. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Actually, what I think the problem is with that section, which is Section No, 2, is that it's misnamed more than anything. The information in it is covered by the SOIVey and the backup is there, but it's just misnamed. It shouldn't be named that at all. And I brought that to the committee's attention, but at that point I think we'd already gone to press to get things moving with what was going to be given to the town ball. Whether it'll be the same way when we give the second presentation or the third or fourth presentation, I don't know, MR. MOFFA IT: But it wasn't in the top fOUT items. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Not stated that "'1lY, no, it wasn't, but the information in that section actually is, MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, we're just trying to bring to your attention that the staff intends on bringing that before the 7780 ,- "._..m ."."'" .'1 m.T ""---~.__.."_...~ ..~".,,- ~".~,.,~ 161 1 ~\\ Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting - February 4, 2009 budget committee and this board for their consideration. That it'll have to go through due diligence on our part before any of that is accepted and that is the process that we're currently under. CHAlRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay, FINANCIAL REPORT MR PETrY: The last item is the financial report which has also gone through the budget review committee. Did we hand those out yet? MR MOFFAIT: Which version? MR PETrY: We have, it's a work in progress so bear with us. MR. MOFFAIT: Tuesday'sversion? MR LEVY: We got one with our packages, Jollll. MR PETrY: Yes, sir. And that's the one that was asked for by the chair and was submitted at the last budget committee meeting. And at the last budget committee meeting the C<H;hair asked for some additional clarifications in language and descriptions. And we have tried to address 1hose. We think we've made a good start. We haven't heard yet from Mr. Moffatt so I'm trying to lay the groundwork for him saying it's a good start. But at the next budget committee meeting, of course, we will go over those changes. You currently have a copy of the changes in language, the changes in look, and.., MR LEVY: Readability. MR PETrY: ...and readability. And we think they're vel)' constructive criticisms of the financial report. We think it does look better. It does read better. It is more understandable as much as government financial reports can do. And I'll leave it with that since we've spent quite a bit of time on other issues unless Mr. Moffatt wishes to bring anything else up for highlight MR MOFFA IT: Yes. It's getting closer. I think one of the things that the board can focus on is at the top of the page, the last four lines, cash flow, carry forward, cany forward projects, 1hose are the monies that we have collected in the past that have not been spent, and so we have the ability to carry them forward for futme expenditures. That then agrees with the bottom of the schedule where you have eight or ten line items that start with that three-month cash flow, 842,000, that's the same number top and bottom. The carty forward number, which is the second line up on the top part I referred to, is the sum of the last two items. The restricted reserves and the unrestricted reserves. And the restricted reserves, those two together, equal the 571,000 which is probably a change from the last version. So the restricted reserves, as I undeJ:stand, was that street lighting? MR. PETrY: Yes, sir, Those are designated funds by the board. 7781 ~,."...."._,- '-"'-.""",","''''' _..~-,~ . "~, ~_., _...-,--_.",,- --.- Pelican Bay Sen'ices Division Meeting 161 1 ~\\ Februarv 4. 2009 MR. MOFFA IT: The unrestricted are just that amount of money of $339,000 that we have to do \llth what we decide to do with it. It has not been restricted in any way yet. The third line at the top, carry forward projects. are the lines that are indented at the bottom, east ofbe~ lake bank enhancements down through Clam Bay, You add those nnmbers together that will equal the million three-zero-seven. You can see that the budget amount was seventy-nine eight and so far they\'e spent seventy-nine six-fifty or six-six1y. Pretty close, Hardscape improvements, bollard lighting, Kyle, is that wbat you said? MR. LUKASZ: Yes, MR. MOFFATT: Yes, the bollanl lighting, tbat's the thirty-one three seventy-,three compared with tlrirty-four three hundred budget number. So I think we're trying to get to something that you can look at and understand a little better, I'm trying to get rid of all these words tlmt went out to the right. I think we can do that. Basically what that says is how the budget was allocated on a monthly basis, It could be equaIJy monthly. It could be actual. It could be high winter expenditures. It could be high summer expenditures. I think we can put that in a cohunn in two words or less in each line item and then that gives you a lot more room to e:\."plain the red flags. And I think that's what we ought to be focusing on. I'd really like a definition of what the red flags are, but we'll get there. We're making progress, Any questions? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR. PETry: Madam Chair, if you recall on budget, last year we bad a budget committee adopt a monthly financial report and give a reconunendatioll to this board and, then, this board voted 011 the monthly financials and we'll go through that same process again this year if we're going to modify, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. MR. PETrY: Madam Chair that concludes the i1ems under the administrator's report. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Mike Levy, did you want to add anything since you and Jeny are co-chairs of the budget committee? MR. LEVY: I'm encouraged with the form this is taking. I think it's getting pretty close. And we can go over it again at the next budget committee meeting. CHAIRWOMAN'S REPORT STRATEGIC PLANNING TOWN BALL MEETINGS CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. The strategic plaruring t<mn hall meetings are under way. The first two were on the same day. I believe it was the 29th at nine o'clock and four o'clock in the afternoon. We had a very small group of people who 7782 --.,.,-> "~~""-- .,-,,-,< -,.....-._._."---~---_.._._- 161 1 ~\\ Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting Februarv 4. 2009 showed up for both of them and we're talking about how to market it a little better. Some were hilarious ideas and others were possibly usable. And, in any case, I'd like everyone who is here who bas not attended one to be aware that on February 9th at nine o'clock in the morning and four o'clock in the afternoon, once again, in this room, I believe, we ",ill be addressing those town hall meetings once again. And I'd like to see everyone possibly that may not have been to one of the first two show up at one or the other or both, if you like, because we seem to have quite a few seats left over. In any case, it's really important because these are the results of the SUIVey, And Jeny has a concern about the second section and there may be other concems. And as community members, I'd love to hear any comments or discussion. And we do offer that possibility aft~ the presentation is made, So, please, if you have the time and on those particular times, nine o'clock, four o'clock on February 9th. I believe it's a Monday this time. Please come, MR. BURKE: Thursday, I think. isn't it? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think. it's Monday. MR. BURKE: Oh, good, REPORT ON WeI PROXY VOTE CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So I hope you can join us. As to the report on the proxy vote of buying out WCI, after listening to the reasons for it, I have to put my name behind tbat and say all of us ill this room who have a vote for tbat must get one of those proxies and please vote to buyout WCt It's in our very best interest. It's most important, Did we get some of those proxy here? MR. MOFFA IT: Madam Chair, can I.lust make a comment? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Sure. MR. MOFFAIT: We're not buying out... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, MR. MOFFA IT: We're assuming their responsibilities. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. Excuse me. Buy the idea is what I really meant, And you're right, Jeny, We're not putting money in. MR. IAIZZO: Each resident won't get one in the mail? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, They are coming in the mail, but if you can vote before that, there are some at the front desk according to Jim Hoppensteadt, the president of the Foundation. It's just easier to do it. Get it done. And we'll have the 7783 ,.,.- ~..'~. -".^'~" r --.....-' -~.- ,. ._^--~- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting ~\\ Februa 4 2009 numbers quicker so that we know who has voted and who hasn't. Jim, are you going to be looking at the mailing so that if you already have that, you won't have to mail it? There's some money saved right there, So if you can go allead, pick up one, sign your name to it, I believe you have to print your name first on there. Read the directions and follow through. Hand it back to the person at the desk, I think, can't we, Jim? MR, HOPPENSlliADT: Yes, ma'anl. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Hand it right back to them and that will eliminate some mailing that could possibly save us some money, but it's an important vote and please, please do it. We have until the lattet:,part of March to get that taken care of and it's innninent, So, please, I'm urging all of you, vote for it MR. RAtA: Madaln Chair, I did get one interesting question. We are not buying them out? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBlE: No. MR RAtA: Neither are we assuming any of their debt? MR, PErrY: Good point. Good point. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's very important under the circumstances, MR. BOLAND: On the proxy voting, I talked to a couple guys after I played tennis this morning. I know you advertise. I know they do Channel 9 and doing everything you can, but, you know, fitness you've got a lot of people in there. You've got a lot of tennis players. Put maybe signs there as tl1ey're checking in. MR. HOPPENSlliADT: We're actually a little ahead of the cmve on this right now. We're ahead of the wave a little bit. Everybody should be getting the proxy in the next day or two days and then we'll start pushing. MR. BOLAND: Because a lot of people like, you know, personal handouts and all that. It's the only way you're going to get them to vote. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBlE: That's a good suggestion. Also, I believe when we're redoing the carding, we're going to have proxies available then, MR. HOPPENSlliADT: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBlE: From what I understand we11 be redoing carding starting this month, MR. HOPPENSlliADT: Next week. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBlE: Next week. And each association or home groups will be getting different dates for when they should be going. Will it be at The Commons, Jim? 7784 ."- '""'-.. .1111 _ '_'O,,>O'M" ,', ~"""........ .... \l' . .~.~- .A.'......._ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 ~11 ~\\ Februarv 4. 2009 MR HOPPENSTEADT: It'll be across the street at the Pavilion. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: At the Pavilion Shopping Center. We will be going over there to get new cards and register and at that time you can sign the proxy also. Yes, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. Seidel bas a question for Mr. Hoppensteadt MR SEIDEL: Where I live we received our carding date, which is April sometime, Can we send them over there because a lot of people are going to be gone by around April 1st? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: TIle question is Mr, Seidel's area bas been given $l. date in April to go for their carding procedures. And he's asking Mr. Hoppensteadt if they can go before then since some of the people in his area will be out of town by then? MR HOPPENSTEADT: Yes. Obviously, we'd like everybody to come on the scheduled date. We're not going to turn any people away. So if people aren't going to be here and if they want to kind of straggle in, we're going to pick them up as we can. And, then, obviously, after they've left, whenever they come back, theyll get re-arrded if they miss their day, GENERAL COMMENTS CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. All right. Under general comments I would like to invite Mr. Boland, who is on my right, to be my vice chair for the rest of his term. He is not going to be resubmitting his application to be on this board for some very kind reasons. And I am asking fur his help because at this point in time I have a mother who's not doing very well, I have a funn in Kentucky tllat needs some help, and I may be called out of town at a very inopportune time. So Mr. Boland has agreed to take the position as vice chair until his tenD bas expired John, thank you very much MR. BOLAND: My pleasure to accept. Thank YOlL (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And I believe Mr. Bmke may have been the peJSOIl that nominated you for that in the first place, MR. BURKE: Six, seven months ago. So you were properly vetted. MR. GIBSON: You paid your taxes. MR GRA VENHORST: Madam Chair, a question. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You paid your taxes. Yes, Ted. MR GRA VENHORST: You mentioned that Jerry's question about safety and security \Vas re-titled by the Strategic Planning Committee or it was mis-titled? 7785 .- '~"O' ._ -,."....- .. . "'''.'''.VH_ .", ". "_.._._~ --.... . ~c.... ,--...- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 t f'<\' Februarv 4. 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I wouldn't say it was mis-titIed. Ijust don't think it was named appropriately, MR GRA VENHORST: What was the correct name? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We didn't have one for that. MR GRA VENHORST: Do you have a name? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: What we did was take a group of concerns and put them together into seven areas. And we tried to do it that way to make it more readable and more understandable in tenus of what was a priority and what wasn't. The amount of infurmation that is sitting on my dining room table right now is something tha! large (indicating) and we didn't want that to be the situation for our Pelican Bay residents. It was unreadable, It was just way too much infonnation. So what we did was tIy and make it more of an executive summaIy. So it's something you can pick up, see exactly what was important, what wasn't. I think there's a better term for that particular section. That's all. And. Jerry, J can understand why you were concerned about it J didn't like it either, but the information is valid MR. MOFFA IT: J think one of the other concerns J had is, in today's economy J don't think we ought to be moving forward spending a lot of other people's money. And a lot of those answers have been moved into categories that would lead you to believe that we ought to be doing things and spending a lot of money. J think that's just the opposite of the position this board ought to take, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And I agree. I agree that we shouldn't be going foIWard and spending a lot of money. And I think the town hall meetings pretty much indicate that. We tried to make that very obvious that there are priorities that have to be met, of course, but overall we are very conscious of the economy and conscious of the amount of money for different projects. MR GRA VENHORST: Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, Ted, MR GRA VENHORST: As to what Jerry said, my thought process, I read the survey and saw where it ranked and the large percentage of people woo thought there was no money necessary to spend on safety and security, which I didn't necessarily agree with. But the Pelican Bay Services Division seems to be totally involved with safety, in other words, our sidewalks. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, some aspects, MR. GRA VENHORST: Well, out in the streets. Not the berm and that area, but where security is another issue. And I'm confused as to how safety and security got blended together, but that's not for this meeting, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, I'm agreeing with you. I 'was concerned about that too. 7786 "'^"",--.. --,.,- ,<-~- ,~ J .........'.".".,,,' w.""'__. '"""'~" Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 1 ~\\ February 4. 2009 MR GRA VENHORST: It's two issues. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It is, but there will be definite lines drawn between what the Foundation will have to produce in tenns of money and the Pelican Bay Service Division Board we have direction. We have an actual budget with immediacies and things we must take care of And so there's no way to get around that. That's what we are supposed to do, So stated that I'm not too concerned about what we're going to have to do. But what we do have to do is make sure that the Foundation knows exactly what we have to do so that they don't overlap us, And that's one of the issues that I'm presenting constantly with Mr. Naegele, Mr. Hoppensteadt, and with Mr. Trecker too so that everybody's on board and ~ all have an idea of what each other is supposed to be doing in order to go fotward fur this community. And you have a good point. Thank YOtL Anyone else? (No response. ) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. My general comment I've already made about the meeting with Mr. Mudd and Mr. Halas, I feel very comfortable knowing that Mr. Halas on the way out of the door asked me to continue these meetings. And I believe totally that he meant it. And I think that we really will be working together to preserve the mangroves, And I am very comfortable with how this is going fotward. And that's all I have at this point. The Clam Bay annual report by Tim Hall. Yes, sir. CLAM BAY ANNUAL REPORT MR. PETTY: Madam Chair. if I could suggest, you have the report. It's rather lengthy. For those that have been on the board for a couple of years are used to seeing this thing. It makes for interesting substitute for a sleep aid, It is really a fine report. It really is. And it does talk about some of the great work that's been done in Clam Bay. If I could, Madam Chair, there is only one issue that we need you to determine at this point is. will you accept it for discussion purposes, a housekeeping issue, so we can take this and disseminate it to the public and to the regulatory agencies? Other than that, I would like to put tlle full-blown presentation by Mr, Hall until the next meeting because he is rather lengthy. This is a brood ~. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And it would be nice ifwe bad time to look at it first too. MR. PETTY: And. Madam Chair, the only thing we really need is for you to accept this for discussion so that we can start mailing it out. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do we need a motion and a vote on that? MR. PETTY: We would like one, Madam Chair, CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Do I have a motion that we can accept this study for discussion? MR. BURKE: So moved. 7787 "'-""-_M -'""-~"- -.., -""'~- "<""""',"'" T -.,....-- Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting lQ,U ~I~\ February 4. 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jim Burke has made the motion, MR. GIBSON: Seconded, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Seconded by Mr. Gibson, Okay. All in favor? MR., BOLAND: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. MR, HANSEN: Aye, MR. LEVY: Aye, MR. BURKE: Aye, MR. MOFFATT: Aye, MR. GRA VENHORST: Aye, MR. IAIZZO: Aye, MR. RAIA: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye, Mr. Jim Burke moved, seconded by Mr. Geoff Gibson, and unanimously approved to accept the Annual Clam Bay Mangrove Management Plan prepared by Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. for discussion. ------- MR. RAJA: May I ask a question? Is this report on the web site? MR. PETTY: It will be now, sir, that it's been approved for discussion. MR. RAIA: Because there is a draft Clam Bay Management Plan dated August 29th, 2007, that's on the web site now, MR. PETTY: Yes. I don't think: we've got the 2008 one on the web site though. MR. RAIA: Okay, MR. PETTY: The 2007 was updated in April 2008. There's an update to that. MR. RAIA: If it's all possible people interested in looking at it, they could, if it was on the web site, I know this was at the web site and tillS is the only one I found. I copied sOlnetIling. But will this then be on the web site? MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, typically we put tills up as soon as we get it He has supplied it to us on CD. So, yes, no problem at all, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. 7788 H.......___..... .._~"" "W''"'\t ,_.... '- '" ""","'-'" Ah. ...... ........ ..".-'"" Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting 161 1 ~\\ February 4. 2009 MR RAJA: And it really isn't as long it appears, H has a lot of pictures that go with it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And they're wonderful. MR. RAJA: Don't be scared away, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I'm looking forward to reading this. It looks very interesting. And it looks -- the pictures are terrific. So if you have a chance to go on the web site and take a look at it, I would recommend it because it has beautiful pictures of mangroves as well as many other flora and fauna from the looks of it. MR. PETIY: Sea shells and everything else, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. So we have now got a chance for a discussion and I reconunend that we do that after Tim presents, MR. PETIY: After his presentation I'm sure he would be available for questions and answers, We're just looking for that housekeeping issue. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Is that all right with you, Tim, to put that off? MR. HALL: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Thank you. MR. PETIY: MadaIn Chair, I think: we have a motion and a second and we're just looking for the vote. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We voted. MR. PETIY: 011, I'm sorry. The question came after. MR. RAIA: My conunent came after the vote, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We have already gone through whatever we had to talk about Clam Bay. There have been no connnittee meetings in the last couple of months, Government relations, I think that was covered by when we went to see Mr. Halas and Mr. Mudd. Budget committee update by Co-chair Jerry Moffiltt who ran the last meeting. I believe the co~hairs are taking turns, Mr. Moffatt. BUDGET COMMITTEE UPDATE MR. MOFFAIT: I believe you're right. Well, one of the things we did at the last meeting was to spend some time on this report and talked through that. And once I found out that Janice was the real eX]Jert here, things moved along a lot quicker, Y ouve been very helpful. We talked about the budget: calendar and what the deliverables are at each of the nex1 meetings. The next meeting, I guess, is February 23rd. And that "ill probably be upstairs. It could be downstairs, but most likely upstairs, We got a 7789 ""'." --..... _.,~." ._~,,_..-- Ll 1Ii~-'liPI _-"-c,,_,,,.'-'''''''' ..._~.""""""" .... .._-,~. ._.,- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 1 ~\\ Febl1larv 4. 2009 report from John on the county's hard close as it impacts our budget. And the numbers you see in this report reflect the county's hard close, We picked up around $100,000, I guess, of can)' forwards. "Picked up" meaning we increased our amOlmt of carry forwards by 130,000. We had a long discussion about last year's budget document And, apparently, the committee never gets into detail on any of the line items, And the suggestion has been made that we ought to do that as a start to this year's budget process so we have some idea what would end each of the line items, how tIleY caine about. And so we'U start with that at the llex1 meeting on the 23rd. I'mjust warning you, John that's the No, 1 item on the agenda, Do we have a workshop scheduled? MR. PETIY: I think that's exactly what we're doing on tile 23rd. Madam Chair, just administratively it's a workshop meeting which means it is more for discussion by the board members, the committee Ine111bers, than it would be for the audience. The audience is welcome to be there, but there is no participation by the audience because tills is basically a working group getting down with their business. Now, if they want to open it up for discussion, they certainly can, bu1 typically at a wmksbop, you don't take audience input MR. MOFFA IT: John. let me ask you. We're taking one of the scheduled meetings for the woIkshq>. Is that going to put us behind? Are we going to have to schedule another meeting somewhere along the line? MR. PETIY: We may, sir, and we would let you know about that when we schedule a special meeting for doing so ifwe did, At this stage it's hard to get behind so to speak, If we do good work at the workshop, it may actually put us ahead by a couple meetings, MR, MOFFA IT: I'm hoping that's the case. Two other things we were going to get a report on and we did not. One was the plan to put bubblers in all the ponds in Pelican Bay. MR. PETIY: That's for the workshop. We have that ready from staff coming to you for that day. MR. MOFFAIT: And then apparently there was a study done last year on what the costs would be to improve the walkways and bike paths. Right now they happen to be one and the same. MR. PETIY: We do have that doctunent ready, sir. It will be part of the package, again, for the workshop, MR. MOFFAIT: Okay, I think that's all I had to report. ORDlNANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE UPDATE CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Thank you, Jeny. All right. The ordinance review, MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, if I could, there was one item for ordinance ifl could bring up? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. 7790 ,.,"-----_.__.<~ ...~-.~- .-.""'., ",','- Pelican Bay Sen'ices Division Meeting 1611 ItA' Februarv 4. 2009 MR, PETIY: One item was brought to us by the County Attorney's Office in that the county commissioners in a move for efficiency had considered changing OUT ordinance, Our members currently running for office are nmning uncontested. So the need for an election is not real, And, typically, if you're running unopposed, there isn't an election. We save the money, So the county commissioners asked the question and found that OUT ordinance does not consider that. So they asked the attorneys to please write the changes necessary for OUT ordinance so that tills next election process we would not have to conduct an election for unopposed positions. And they brought tl13t to the Ordinance Review Committee for consideration. And the Ordinance Review Committee after discussion and considering the pros and cons was to bring to your attention that they wpuld recommend that we show support for that change. Because the county commissioners are asking for some signal from us. They'd like to move on this expeditiously. Thank you, MR. MOFFA IT: Can we see those words, see what the changes are? MR. PETIY: You certainly can. I just: don't have them here with me to share with you. And. I apologize for that oversight on stafrs part and ru take that respoOSlbility. ru blame somebody else later, but ru take it now, The issue at hand was this. They wish to add language so that if the meIl1bers run uncontested, they don't have to hold the election on the every two-year cycle that we're currently on. That's the only change to the ordinance. So it's a housekeeping issue, Nothing more than that as far as the county commissioners are concerned And. the Ordinance Review Committee did look at that language and asked the county attorney if they had any concerns. So I see no concerns in that regard, I apologize for not having copies ready for you at this meeting, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay, Do I have a motion to approve? MR. BURKE: So moved. MR. HANSEN: Second, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Second, Okay. That was Hunter, All in favor? MR. BOLAND: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. MR. HANSEN: Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. BURKE: Aye. MR. MOFFATT: Aye, 7791 ".,,,," ""'-~""--""-" -~""."" _..- ....".._"......., .. Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting 161 \11 fl<\' Februarv 4.2009 MR GRA VENHORST: Aye. MR IAIZZO: Aye, MR. RAIA: Aye, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So moved, Mr. Jun Burke moved. seconded by Mr. Hu1lter Hansen, and unanimously approved to accept the change in the PBSD Ordinance to not contluct an election for unofJPa_ sedpositions. _______________ MR. PETIY: We have nothing other, Madam Chair. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Mr. Raia, I think you wanted to give an update on your committee because I asked you to chair the committee, MR. RAIA: I drafted a report. It's a draft because this really hasn't been vetted through the other members. So they're free to make comments as needed, but this was my take on the meeting. The Ordinance Review Committee was formed to review our enabling ordinance passed in 2002 and amended in 2006 to see if any changes could be recommended. The need arose out of interpretation of certain causes and letters of agreement between the county and the Pelican Bay Service Division. At the most recent meeting attended by Assistant County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, the committee was infonned of its limitations in deciding issues in which a disagreement may arise. In SUlllID3Jy, the county commissioners and/or coonty manager may override any decisions made by the Pelican Bay Service Division Board provided there is an overriding interest. The county commissioners and/or county manager has sole authori1y in deciding what an overriding issue is. Furthennore, all contracts originating in the Pelican Bay Service Division are subject to approval by the county manager. In addition, the county commissioners have sole authority in appointing members of the Pelican Bay Service Division Board. However, they have always respected the vote of the Pelican Bay community in making the appointment. This has not been the case of respecting the recommendation of the board to fill a vacancy. Historically, the Pelican Bay Independent District had provided potable water, sewage treatment, irrigation water, water management, ground maintenance, and lighting, When the county assumed the responsibility of the Pelican Bay Independent District, it was committed to providing potable water, sewer treatment, and irrigation water services as good as or better than was provided by the PBID, While the county retained these services, a municipal services taxing and benefit unit was formed to provide the remaining seIVices. The care and maintenance of the conservation lands to include the mangroves was added 7792 -'.~"'^' ,"""'.-.. ._.,~~.".,~..,.,".__..'.,..._.".",--,._...~~-_.~----,--,..--. -- -.-- '''.," Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 "1 f><\\ February 4. 2009 to this. Over time the county has assumed the control of the mangroves and the water management system although Pelican Bay will remain assessed for them, The Pelican Bay Service Division Board is now essentially in charge of ground maintenance and lighting, The following is a review of the means by which services could be provided to the colDIDunity. The basic position would be to have no county municipal services, The Foundation could contract the services for grounds maintenance and lighting. The county, however, would have to agree to let Pelican Bay augment the basic county services. We can retain the MSTBU administered by the Pelican Bay Service Division Board as it is now. We could request to advance to a dependent district in which we can actually own property, sue and be sued, have increased taxing authority, but the coopty would still retain ultimate authority to appoint the board and/or control the budget The next level would be an independent district which would give the community full appointment authority, but you would need 100 percent approval of all residents. This, in essence, is impossible. In fact, incorporation would be easier. The mission to review the ordinance has been completed with submission of this report to the board. 1bank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I want to make it clear to the board that those different positions were possibilities that we discussed in terms of understanding better what we can do as the Pelican Bay Service Division Board. So those were just educational points for reference. And, Ted. thank you for your infonnatioo, your report. Do I bave any discussion? (No response.) MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMlTIEE UPDATE CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. And let's go onto the Management Contract Committee. We have met with the representative from Collier County Purchasing Department. And on that committee with me are Jefty Moffatt and Geoff Gibson, And we are planning on meeting again on February 12th at 1:30. And we're getting closer to having the scope and setvice request for management purchasing orders to be given to us at that point I believe be's pretty much finalized what issues we've talked about. MR. PElTY: Madam Chair, thank you. There was a procedural issue that I believe you wanted to ask and that was, does the board wish to delegate to the committee the authority to finalize the specifications because you're going to have an issue of time on your hands. You're going over specifications and language of the RFP. And under the current scenario, you would nonnally bring that back here and it would go for a vote before we go back, and I believe purchasing is looking to do that more timely, As such. this board would need to delegate to the committee the authority to make that decisiOl~ CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And the timeliness is because ofwben your contract is up. Is that the problem? MR. PElTY: No, ma'am. I pen;onally don't have an issue with it I'm not in a ru.sh, but purchasing brought up the issue 7793 ."."' -- '-.,'----... ",..",,",",-.,,.., ~"""."''' A...._....',o_ ,.,.- Pelican Bay Services Dhision Meeting 161 I~\\ Februarv 4. 2009 of timeliness. And the only point I'm bringing fonvard is if you wish to comply with that concern, you would ask tI1is board to delegate, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Since I'm part of that committee, I think someone else on the board needs to conunent on that. MR. LEVY: Do you need a motion for that, John? MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, I'm just bringing up for comment. It is not a fOO)mmendation from staff at all. I don't mean to get ahead of myself. It was just in comment to Jack's timetable mentioned that w~ were going to have a possible timing issue. But, yes, if you're going to be delegating authority away from this body to a committee, that would be something you would have to do by motion and second it and approval. CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Do I have any discussion from Geoff or Jeny to start with? MR. GIBSON: My gut feel is this is an extremely thorough document, Madam Chair, and it's an extremely important document as to how Pelican Bay services will interact with the community in the future, And I really feel somehow. even if it has to be couriered to the board members, everybody ought to see it before it goes out. It's too important just to do it on the committee. That's not taking anything away from myself or Jeny or yourself. We're doing the best we can to assemble this document. I think it's too dang important for the future to not have everybody look at it and get comments from the board members. That's how I feel. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I appreciate your comments because I feel the same way. Jerry, do you have anything you'd like to add? I absolutely agree. MR. MOFFA IT: I would agree with that. MR. LEVY: I would only suggest when the docmnent is ready, we get not only the current docmnent, but what the previous docmnent or WOlk statement looked like so we can look at the two of them and see what bas changed. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's fujr enough, I think that's a great idea. MR. PETIY: The cmrent document is set up that way so you have a strike-through and then new text for changes based on the 2002 RFP that went out the last time. I think that's how it's currently setup, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You do? I don't really think so. MR. PETrY: If not, we'll give you a copy ofOOt11. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. I think that would be a good idea because I believe what we did was go through something more, He had amended and we had looked at something else too, So I believe we'd almost have to get the original, 7794 .,...'.",,----_......~-.._~ "._po..... '-,...", ~'".,<,..._. --- ,.....------ Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting 161 1 ~\\ February 4. 2009 MR, GIBSON: It's an extensive document. It is not just a m'O-page flier. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, And there's a reason why I ask the people who are on this board whose tenus are expiring in March to continue on this board because I think we work well together and I like the input from everyone, And I think that this board is capable and I would really like to have you take a look at this document and make a decision as a board. MR. MOFFA IT: Is there a process by which we can get it sent out to aU the board members and get their feedback before the ne:\.t meeting; otherwise, we're putting it off a month and then there's a couple months in the process? MR. GIBSON: That's why I suggested it be sent out by courier or everybody pick it. up at Mary's office, MR. PElTY: MadaIn Chair? MR. GIBSON: And get feedback maybe to... well, you can't give feedback to Jolm. MR. PElTY: No, you can't give feedback to each other. To me you could give me feedback, but you wouldn't want to because that would not be quite kosher. Funny how that would be allowed, but you can't talk to each other, Madam Chair, we can disseminate this to all the board of course, and if you have to call a special meeting, we call a special meeting, but there is no way to come to a consensus on any changes unless the board meets. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, let's see. MR. MOFFAIT: Sunshine is so great. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Our next meeting is the 12th. MR. GIBSON: It's 34 pages long. MR. MOFFA IT: Although, Geoff, there is a lot of this boilerplate accolll1ting language. MR. GIBSON: It's boilerplate. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. MR. LEVY: Aren't we interested in primarily the work statement? Is that what we would be interested in? MR. MOFFA IT: I would think so, yes. MR. PE1TY: Well. let me give it to you from my perspective and from YOUT perspective. You're probably looking at what we nonnally refer to as "general conditions" and "special conditions," The boilerplate requirements are county specifications, which you're not going to be able to change anyway. So those duties that you're going to expect from YOUT administrator are probably key to your thoughts. You may have other concerns as well. But, again, if the board is going to look at it in total, we can put the schedule to make sure that you can meet and do the due diligence, And if you can't come to a consensus, I'm pret1y sure that 7795 -.,.".... ~~..~^ """._" , " ,,,m ,~ .~.~ -".''''-,.."-,,,..'~''-- ...~.. Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 ,I ,I tx\\ Febmarv 4, 2009 we can work with the county on arranging for a 30-day continuation of the existing contract until you do reach a consensus. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: How do we work with this and keep you pure? MR PETTY: I stay pure not because I see it, because it's a public document and anybody can see it and everybody will see it. As a matter of fact, whoever's interested has been contacted by purchasing already by invitation and they're already getting copies of it. By not putting me in charge of any of those special or general condition definitions, by deciding what work has the highest priority, I may be giving myself an edge. So I do not wish to be involved in that proa:ss. So don't worry, I'll keep myself out of danger so to speak, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Is there someway, then. that we can disseminate this to our board members? MR PETTY: Absolutely not a problem. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. I'm assuming that we will have something in hand on the 12th, MR PETTY: Madam Chair, as soon as you get your committee draft done, we will disseminate to the board The board will look it over. We will call a special meeting at the earliest time, which we win coordinate with the chair, and where you can consider any comments, changes, or modifications that any of the board members may have. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: WonderfhI. Okay. MR. RAJA: John, will this be on the web site? Will that contract be on the web site so we can go there or. . . CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Itll be on the Collier County,., MR, PETTY: Madam Chair, if it's e-mailed, in draft fonn, it can get e-mailed directly to the board for consideration. That would be the fastest way to do it. MR RAIA: Can that be done? Can it be e-mailed to us? MR PETTY: Oh, absolutely. MR RAIA: Why don't we do that. This is going out to bid then? MR PETTY: Yes, sir. This is the request fOT proposals. MR RAIA: Okay. Do we know if there are other people out there at this point? I'm just curious, MR, PETTY: I do, but I'm not going to teU you who they are. MR BURKE: We've been told there are. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. Okay. I don't think we need a motion for that. We'll just wait until we get the information. 7796 ~-~~ ._,-.",~-- ----,"'"".._<,-,,",,--",,' - ,..........".,...'" .e._.._.__ Pelican Bay Services Dhision Meeting 161 <~1 ~\\ Februarv 4. 2009 MR. PETrY: No, Madam Chair, We were just looking for a little direction Thank you. CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE ON CROSSWALK CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. All right. Capital projects update on the crosswalk on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard and that would be Kyle, MR. LUKASZ: That's the only project to report on, There's really nothing new, As I stated last month, the materials have been ordered. We're expecting them at the end of the month. Actually, the contractors expected the materials the 27th of February. So I had to calI the county to extend the permit to give enough time to complete it. If the materials are delivered the 27th, we should be finished by the first or second week of March. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: 011, that's great. And this would be solar, right? MR. LUKASZ: Yes, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Perfect. Any discussion? (No response.) COMMUNITY ISSUES VANBERBILT BEACH RESTROOM FACILITY MEETING CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Thank you very much. AU right. Community issues.. Vanderbilt Beach Restroom Facility and, I believe, Me, Burke. MR BURKE: Yes, Thank you. Madam Chair. Tuesday, February 17th, 5:30 p.m. to 7 p,m" county staffis going to have a public meeting the subject being the Vanderbilt Beach Restroom Facility Expansion And it's a public meeting. And it's designed to solicit public comment for a proposed Vandetbilt Beach restroom fucility. The background on this, you-all may remember, is during the uproar about Vandetbilt Beach pier of some k:ind, it was brought to public attention that Vandetbilt Beach, one of the most heavily used beaches in the county, had a two-hole bathroom, one female, one male. So the various factions and organizations that formed at that time to fight the pier seemed to be in complete agreement that those filcilities had to be upgraded and ex-panded. So county staff has gone ahead with the plans and they're going to present them to the public in that first meeting on the 17th. So I was guilty of forwarding this announcement over to Mary. I want to make it clear that I'm not speaking for the county here, I'm just carrying this message that was sent to me. So I would encomage people to stay involved with this. MR. RAIA: May I ask a question? Has this been vetted through the Foundation? MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Not yet. 7797 """"~'"''--''' . _."~-_..,.., -",--,,- ~"""""""---"I . ,~"~~.. .',-,-".. Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 1 ~\\ Februarv 4. 2009 MR RAIA: Not yet? MR BURKE: Everyone understands that. MR RAIA: Because the Foundation has coveted all of this. And it would be nice if they saw it first. It's my impression that the mood was very favorable of improving the bathroom situation there. MR BURKE: Yes. MR, RAIA: But it would be nice if they had a look at it and commented yes or no, I think it would help the public hearing that's going to take place. MR HOPPENSTEADT: We've had good communication with Ms. Ramsey and Mr. Williams so I don't have any doubt. MR MOFFA IT: What's somewhat aIlllO}1ng is the way it is worded, so this is IlOI:ired for a meeting under the SlUlshine Laws. MR. BURKE: 011, I'm sorry. There was legal clarification that two more or more members of the Coastal Advisory Committee can be present and may participate at the meeting. Two or more members of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board can be present and may participate. And two or more members of the Tourist Development Council, the same status. So that's been vetted and we can be there and we can participate, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jin~ it says north region. MR BURKE: Pardon me? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It's says North Collier Regional, MR BURKE: 011, I'm sorry. Yes. It's going to be at the North Collier Regional Park, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Is that the Waterpark. MR, BURKE: Yes. People call it the Waterpmk. Back there in the main building, Room B off Livingston Road. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Thank you. MR RAIA: There are so many meetings,. they're nmning out of rooms. 1bey beUer get that bathroom buih faster now, MR GIBSON: Have the meeting there, THREE SIGNS AND REFUSE RECEPTACLE AT CLAM PASS CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Mr. Raia you have a request to mention three signs and a refuse receptacle at Clam Pass. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do we have those pictures up there, Kyle? 7798 --.." """'-'" , -~--,"'.._'""'"'- ~ -.,,",.,," " .m" Pelican Bay Senrices Dhision Meeting 161 1 ~\\ Februarv 4. 2009 MR. RAIA: It just has to do with the aesthetics of Clam Pass. I think it's a beautifuJ place. It's wonderful to canoe through there. And there's something that caught my eye that concerned me that could be, I think, aqjusted and retain the natural beauty of that pass, If you canoe from the bays and approach the gulf and you come around one curve, and there was a time you came around and you suddenly saw the gulf and this sandy beach here. I mean, it was a beautifuJ site, Well, suddenly there are three signs and a garbage pail there, which I'm sure serve a useful puIpOSe, and if the people putting them there knew what they were doing to the scene, they would have, I'm sure, positioned them differently. So I'm wondering if we can approach the people who are in charge to see if they could be moved out because it does take away from the natural beauty of anybody coming through there with a canoe. MR. IAIZW: It doesn't add to the aesthetics. MR. RAIA: Thank you, John. So if any of you have not been there, you should go down there because it is a thing of beauty. Do we have another picture there? Again, this is further back and you can see as soon as you come in, you see the signs out there. Next. And from the gulf side, these are the signs here. And they could veIY well be placed back closer to the trees, the mangroves that are there and stiIl serve their purpose and would retain the natural beauty, I don't mean to make a big thing of it, but it does improve the aesthetics there and that should be one of our responsibilities here. Thank you. MR. HANSEN: Ted, what does the sign say? MR RAIA: I'll tell you. One sign says, 'make no wake', It's a navigational warning sign. But the other two are each on either side of a garbage pail there. So it must have something to do with, please throw your garbage here. I don't know the other two signs are, they are much smaller than the third sign, MR. PETIT: Madam Chair, if I could add to that. We were just at that paIk looking around and saw the same issue, We didn't concentrate on the signs, but saw that Clam Pass Park wasn't living up to its legacy in look and feel. If you go back one picture, right up to the left it goes right up to the beach dt.me where the sea oats are is an osprey nest natuJ3lly in a tree. And we saw that the area was not protected by anything. There were kids doing that board-slide thing on the beach right below the nest and you've got that beautifuJ natural peninsula. And I think it's a good idea that we would also get involved and wom with the county on working to keep the park to be the best it can be. I agree. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So who do we contact? MR RAIA: Can you contact somebody there. John? MR PETIT: Madam Chair, I think we can do that through our continuing conversations with the county manager and 7799 _...,~ <.~.~.,.- ""..- - '''''up "... ,""'~',,",...'^~ ,~----_..........".~~~~.,..,.". .,_.._-- Pelican Bay Senices Dhision Meeting 161 1 ~\\ Febroarv 4. 2009 Mr. Halas to set up that proper procedure for doing that. We had ahvays talked about how areas of Clam Bay should be held aside for recreation and parts of Clam Bay should be held aside for conservation and maybe we can talk to them about how '\'e could do that best. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Raia. Anyone else have discussion about that? (No response. ) COMMITTEE REQUEST CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Plan reviews, none at this time. CorQrnittee requests, Mr, Moffutt wants to bring landscaping. And since I'm seeing a friend of mine out there who gave us some fantastic pictures to point out some landscaping errors and problems, I'm happy to ask Mr. Moffatt to get this started Go ahead MR, MOFFA IT: I just wanted to put a placeholder in the agenda for Fritz Mayhew and Molly Moffatt, MR. MAYHEW: I'm Fritz Mayhew. I'm a resident and I live on Bentwood Drive. I've been a resident for about seven years. I have an aesthetic background. I was director of design at a major international corporation, I'm an artist. I have a good eye, I'm overly sensitive to aesthetic issues. 'The reason I came forth here and talked to Mary Anne initially and Jeny is I'm very concerned about the landscaping of the common areas within Pelican Bay. Why am I concerned? I think it's important, in fact, we all have a vested interest in how Pelican Bay may be perceived as premier residential community in the area. There's no question about that. I think one of the most important areas in terms of providing that perception is the landscaping of the common areas particularly along the major roadways: the medians, the entrances, and the intersections. In my business the first thing you did was you bench marked the competition. So I took it upon m.yselfto go out and I just picked one competitor. I picked Bonita Bay, Now, anyone who's been to Bonita Bay I think would have the same impression. When you drive through the gates once you get inside, the landscaping is very impressive. It's lush. It's attractive. It's contemporaIy. It's well maintained. And you get an immediate impression, this is a high-end community. I prepared some photographs, You can pass these out. Just some comparables, And I brought a little chart, if I may. I'm not sure you-all will be able to see this, but these are some comparison pictures I put together that compare just Bonita Bay to Pelican Bay, I tried to compare similar areas. Up here is a narrow median in Pelican Bay and the same exact configuration in Bonita Bay. You see a huge difference. Pelican Bay looks unfinished. 'There are some older trees here that have been here I'm sure since the beginning of the development. Here's Gulf Park Boulevard and here's a similar boulevard in Bonita Bay. Clearly a huge difference in tenns of the aesthetic impression. Even a simple comparison like this, this is another median where Pelican Bay has all this collection of overgrown, old, misshapen trees. Bonita Bay had the same problem but they 7800 ~."=. ~--'~-- ....~.~ ~_. -".,,,~~,,,.,,..,.,,,...,~..,,,",,,"-, ,.,-,-~" _..,"~ .-.",,"...., """.,..,,,~< ,",- Pelican Bay Senrices Division Meeting 161 1 ~\\ Februarv 4. 2009 under planted and tilled in beneath them. It's much more attractive. And these are some general pictures of some competitive areas in both the Brooks and Bonita Bay. I think it's very important dmt we refresh our eyes and take a fresh look at Pelican Bay in comparison to this competition. I would suggest the whole board should take a day or a half a day and drive around and just try and observe how these other areas appear versus Pelican Bay, In my opinion, the median landscaping particularly is overgrown, It's dated. It's poorly maintained. And the overall impression is poor, The question llmve is, how do we fix it? I would assume there's a landscaping master plan that's been developed for improving, modernizing, and upgrading the landscaping, If there isn't, I think there should be. And, more importantly, I think beyond the landscaping, we need to. pay attention to other conunon area improvements such as landscape lighting, upgrade of the roadways. If you notice in Bonita Bay at selected intersections and entrances, they have pavers just in slight areas but it gives an impression tbat this is an upscale colmnunity. Even signage, I think our signage throughout the community is dated. It's old fashioned. It looks like it came from the 70s which it did. 1bere's a lot of work to be done here. And I think it's high-value-low-<:ost improvements that could be made. So I'm just here to sort of alert you to a problem I see. I'm curious about where we stand on landscaping. Who's responsible? Whose budget is it? What's the design? What's the plan, and where do we go from here? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Fritz, I'm sitting here staring at you because I already talked to you about this, but I'm glad that you brought this out for the general public to see, We have the pictures that you gave us and we really appreciate that. At this point in time, we are strategic planning and the strategic plan is an overview for the entire community. And with that in mind, we have got the idea of going to a master landscaping plan for now and for the future. We don't want to do it piecemeal and we have been holding back waiting for this to go foIWard so that we don't put a little money here, a little money there, and waste our money, We are here to serve the public. And part of that is to watch the budget And I can guarantee, Jerry and Mike Levy and Jolm Boland would be ready to pounce on me if I said, I'm going to plant some really pretty flowers right here, but we do have this other plan, And there is a plan in the wOlks to update everything, That's one of the priorities in that strategic plan. MR. MAYHEW: May I ask a question? I'mjust curious. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Sure. MR. MAYHEW: Who pays for this sort of thing? Do we pay for it? Do the residents pay for it? MR. BURKE: The residents. MR. PETrY: Every time. Every time, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: But there are two different funds. We've got the Foundation that takes care of what we call 7801 "-"'~ .'.,..,-,., "'...."."........., ,'."_.,, _._. Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 I~\\ Februarv 4, 2009 the "common areas" around this building and the commons and around the beaches. And, then, the Pelican Bay Services Division Board has another whole set of areas that we're required to bring up to snuff. And because of that, and it's all pretty much intertwined, we need to have a master plan. lbat's the one thing we have not had in the past and that's what we're working for now. MR. MAYHEW: Okay. Well, my objective then is just kind of maybe throw the spotlight on this issue, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Perfect. MR. MAYHEW: I think it's very important and I think there's real value here for the community in addressing this. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, it's kind of like when you first meet someone, that first moment is really important Well, when people come through the entrance, what they see is what they get. MR. RAIA: I have a question. Is there any way you can get an estimate on how much mileage of roads are there under that quality of landscaping and what their budget is to take care of it, and then we can look at what we're doing and OUT mileage and what it's costing us so we have a good comparison? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Part of that is that Bonita Bay is privately owned. And they have subsidized to a great degree all of what you're seeing themselves. And the other thing is they have now got a management corporation that's in place. And that may not be quite as good as it was. So fm glad that you got these pictures in a timely fashion for us to look at, because in the next five years we may not. see it looking quite so good. MR. GRA VENHORST: Madam Chair, I would remind our boaId that there's a high level of satisfuction in the strategic plan SUlVey of our landscaping and everything in Pelican Bay, The truYority of the people, a high majority, were satisfied, MR. MAYHEW: You know why, because they don't know any better. MR, GRA VENHORST: Well, that's an insult. MR. MAYHEW: No, it's not an insult. It's a matter of being able to, .. MR. GRA VENHORST: That is an insult. MR. MAYHEW: Then I take it back. MR, GRA VENHORST: It's an insult to the Foundation and Pelican Bay Services Division. MR. MAYHEW: What I meant to say is that it's vel)' important and not many people do this with an open eye to look at the competitors and judge themselves honestly versus the competitors. I think if any Pelican Bay resident would do that or look at these pictures they would say, 'you know what, I think we can improve what we have', But I don't think. many people frankly care 7802 ~'" ,...-.-" ,.".~.,,"--- .....-~"'"'''''''''''''' - ~~-"-- .""'- ..-- Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting 161 'I ,~\\ Februarv 4. 2009 or have an eye to know the difference. MR lAIZZO: Fritz, for the record, Fritz is maybe not aware of this, but we've been paying since day one a landscape architect to maintain. He comes. We got him on consigmnent. He gets $7,500 a year, and now he's been increased to $8,800 a year. But his business he has dedicated so many hours to Pelican Bay to review landscaping and to increase its aesthetics if there is, But I'm saying you ought to get together with Jack Lieber and discuss your issues because they're good issues, but maybe Jack can balance it out, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, at this point it really is a moot point becau,se we really are going forward with a whole master plan. MR BURKE: Madam Chair, point of clarification, the master plan or tills strategic plan, is it going to say, put a tree here, put a bed there? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. Our landscape plan will, but the master plan itself is just indicating that that's a priority. MR. BURKE: 011. So it's not going to tell US where to put trees and stuff. It's going to say what he just said, we need to upgrade our landscape. MR PETrY: Madam Chair, if I could, Whatever is submitted by the strategic plan will be s~iect to how you wish to consider it and staff is going to talk to you about it in very general terms, not in a tree-belongs-here term. MR. BURKE: Okay, MR PETTY: We're going to look for not duplicating some efforts and getting a general feel for what the people would like, Then we're going to talk to our people, Jack Lieber included, and say, 'how do we do this for the least amount of money'? We don't want to overtax, but it is a big issue. It has been one we've been holding off for a couple of years waiting for the pathway issue to be resolved. Because certainly you don't want to put in landscaping and then redo the pathways and tear it all up. So it's kind of combined with that, MR MAYHEW: Back to this to answer some questions. I mean, as far as your Jandsrnpe an:hitect, they're a very good fino. I would suggest they don't have the right design brief. I don't know what design brief you gave them, If it is to be competitive with the best in class, what does it take? That's what they sbould be asked to do. MR PETrY: Let me see if I can jump in here before we start saying that Jack Lieber doesn't have the right plan, One of the legacy issues that we kind of flash out to everybody is that we got an award from the President of the United States for our 7803 ..~" ,,,",-_..,.. >..,^~"".,,,,, ,.',""'".." "'"-,,,, ~ 161 1 {\'\ \ Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting Februarv 4. 2009 landscape, albeit a while back, and Nancy Reagan herself came dOll'n and presented it. And the founder of this community who still lives here, Mr. Ross Obley, bas very proudly talked about that. It's in our report about our legacy, So before we start smacking that one, let's talk about the restrictions we have put on our landscape architect over the years which have been considerable and to the detriment of the landscape. And one of them is a demand by the residents for a safety issue called "line of sight," which wiped out about 80 percent of the landscape we had in the rights-of-way, So you have an issue, but let's not start throwing accusations at personnel quite yet because the residents have demanded this over the years. This board has responded. We have a master plan coming to us from a strategic planning group who's going to give us some indication of the peoples' wants and desires, This board will then give it due diligence. MR. MAYHEW: I'm not here to criticize. I'm here to make a point. MR. PETrY: I agree. MR. MAYHEW: I assume that the award was given roughly 20 years ago, which is about how old the landscaping looks. And I would assume that Bonita Bay bas sight line or sight issues also. It's possible to work within those and improve the landscaping. So I'm not here to criticize. I'm here to sort of help you focus. MR. RAIA: Madam Chair, Mr. Mayhew is a resident of Pelican Bay. He's very much entitled to present himselfbefore this board. I think he has Pelican Bay's interest at heart. I think he bas pointed out something that is of interest to everylxxly. And if it doesn't meet what is someplace else, there is an explanation for it. We have limited ourselves on how much we want to spend and what have you. So I think it's is a very good presentation. I appreciate you coming in. I still would like to know what it's costing them per foot or per yard. I think that would be real helpful infunnation because I'm not a horticulturist. I'm not a Iandscape architect. They tell me to pay this bill. I just pay it. The ouly sense of value I can get is if it costs them twice as much to do that, I have to say, well, maybe it's not \\Ul1h it. But do they have a beach? So you see value of Pelican Bay bas other standards too but I appreciate you coming in, MR. MAYHEW: Thanks for listening. I appreciate it MR. BURKE: John. a question. I should know this, but Jack Lieber would be the person we would go to and say, Jack we're at a point where we want a new landscaping plan; right? MR. PETrY: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We're aware of that on strategic planning. MR. PETIY: And working with committees, et cetera, is well within the purview of that concept, 7804 ~ .--..- "."'~. ."._H" P''<:i -, .."".~." '.'n"' -.",," Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 1~' February 4. 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. Fritz, I'm glad you brought these pictures so the board could see them. At this point I held them in abeyance, TIle staff has them so that we can utilize those at a time when we can actually put money out and go by the ideas that you've promoted. They're gocxl. They're vel)' good. And the difference is the comparisons are good. MR. MAYHEW: I'll be glad to serve on any committee where this might be useful. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It's more likely that the Foundation would be where I could get your best help. Because, in this case, I can make committees out of my own board, but I can't as far as I understand, can I make committees from our residents? MR. PEITY: Madam Chair, you can't make them, but you can certainly invite theJ;ll. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I can invite them. Okay. I'll invite you. Molly Moffatt bad her hand up and she's probably got something along the same lines, MS. MOFFA IT: Yes. Hi, I'm Molly Moffatt and I'm the landscape chainnan for OUT neighborhood. And probably for the last five years I've been talking to Kyle and several people at the Foundation and anylxxly who would listen to me about the waste in Pelican Bay on the lanclscaping. I'm talking cost No. I. You look out there and you have petunias and you have geraniums and you see four men in a bed for the entire day picking leaves in one bed. TIlen when they came along and did this restructuring, I didn't know they did it for the sight lines and they put in Fakahatcbee grasses which grow three feet tall which you can't see through either in the north end on Oakmont. MR. PETrY: I don't think that's the same reference. Line of sight at an intersection with X nwnber of feet. MS. MOFFA IT: Those intersections, but they took out all the really nice plants, MR. PETrY: In other areas. MS. MOFFA IT: And they put grasses that belong on highways. They do oot belong in a residential area. If you want to keep it looking like a jungle, you put Fakahatchee grasses in, I am removing them all from our property in our neighborhood. It just goes on and on and on. You have thryalis that is so old. They look like little trees because you look right through them. They're getting tall. EveI)' variety of plant in there almost needs repair. And if we put in low maintenance plants, of which there are numerous, numerous choices, our labor costs would be cut in half minimally, and it would beantify the place 100 percent more. And I agree with Fritz totally. And I don't think, well I've really been upset for five years at least about the way this seems to be deteriorating and deteriorating. A lot of people have no clue. They come down here. They think they're on vacation, They look around. It looks green, Fine. We had a landscaping company in our place who I fired. He put a plant in here, It's green, The men in the area thought, Oh, it's terrific. Now, fm taking all those weeds and evetytbing else out. As long as the hole is filled, 7805 ,_.,~_.....,~.... ...,.._--- T"'<I" ""'"..,,..,...,-- ~"~__"""1"l''' ^"",-.- ._.~,_..,--,-, Pelican Bay Senrices Division Meeting 161 1~~ Febroarv 4. 2009 everybody's happy. And as long as it's alive and not dead. There are a lot of things that need improvement and I think Fritz and I both would love to help and constructively help. We're not here to criticize. We just want to see something done, please, MR HANSEN: I respect the residents because, obviously, you're in the spirit of continued improvement. That's the spirit you're here in With your expertise and abili1y to be involved with the committees of the Foundation, obviously, I'm sure tlrey could benefit. Oftentimes it's not additional funds. It's just reallocation of current funds that will just enhance the look. But your expertise, I'm sure, could be of a great benefit to whoever are the decision makers. I appreciate your spirit of continuing improvement. MS. MOFFATT: I cut 50,000 out of our budget in our little community and it looks better. MR. MOFFA IT: Our budget here for beautification of dollars that can be actually spent are about a million 750 or so. So it's a lot of money. It could be that, you know, that the direction that Lieber has taken, what we asked him to do, may not be in keeping with what we see here. I do question, thougll. the Foundation coming up with an architectural or landscape architectural plan. They would do that on behalf of the services division? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR. MOFFA IT: Where is that being paid from 1 don't recall that in the budget for tile FOtmdation. MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, if I could. There is an issue there where we do want to look at that, but as the chair described, we are currently cooperating with the Foundation in that we do those common areas around this building, around the commons, and other such berm on 41. We do that to make sure that we're not both spending money independently and duplicating costs, It wouldn't pay to have two crews housed out of Pelican Bay, You'd have to have two sheds, two sets of evetything, MR. MOFF AIT: I understand that. MR. PETrY: So that's why we've done that and that's why we're kind of holding back implementing our thoughts completely until we hear from the strategic planning group and get their ideas. And tl13t's going to be based off of their common area of responsibilities and then how would they interfere face with our right-of-way responslbilities. So I think that's the only reason why we're waiting. We're not looking to be told what to do. We're looking to make sure tl13t we don't duplicate efforts, MR. MOFFATT: I was just asking where the money's coming from for that because I hadn't seen that in any of the strategic planning reports they were going to hire a landscape architect as part of the master plan, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, the master plan was written by a firm that has.., MR. MOFFATT: Yes, I know. That's a different issue though, Why hire a landscape architect to do strategic plans is 7806 -~-,~-" ..""",,, "--",,,,.--,,,,.,".,,,,... '"0-""'" "^'O,_eo Pelican Bay Senrices Dhision Meeting 16 t 1 ~\\ February 4. 2009 beyond me, but somebody did. But is that part of their deliverable for the fee they've quoted? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR. MOFFA IT: There's another fee? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: From what I understand, no, but I don't want to go on record and say that. I guess I am on record, but as fur as I know, that's going to be extra. Jim, am I correct? MR. RAIA: Jerry, is that budget that we have is that just an all-encompassing total budget or is it broken down into areas, what it costs to do this, what it costs to do that? MR. MOFFA IT: No, It's a total budget. It's broken down into 35 line items, but it's not area specific. MR. RAJA: It's not area specific. I'mjust curious if Ms. Moffutt or Mr. Mayhew might solicit some landscaper out there to come in and give a guesstimate what it would cost to do the landscaping. MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, if I could? The proper process, probably through our group, would be that that is something that budget has asked every year to evaluate whether contractual services or in-house services has benefit and that efficiency study of what does it cost to maintain per square foot is something that I would suggest would go through budget versus go through the public. MR. GRA VENHORST: Madam Chair, I have a point of order, please. I think if .we were to get a landscape report, this is new business. And I think it should be put on the next agenda. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: This is under committee request and Jerry made the request. Well, we could, but until we get the strategic plan information, I don't think it's really something that we can attend to too much. We can discuss it, but I think that we can see the value of keeping focus on making the landscaping a priority for us, That's one of our businesses. Really that's why we're here, MR. GRA VENHORST: My real concern is I have to leave for anotber meeting. MR. MAYHEW: I'd like to make a quick comment I'm confused again as usual. Can a person or a homemvners' association just go in and start ripping things out without permission of Foundation? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I can't answer that I'm not here as a representative of the Foundation, MR, MAYHEW: If you want to pull a tree do\\ln, maybe replace it, you have to go to who? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think the county has to give you an okay for any kind of a tree, MR. MAYHEW: As fur as the Foundation? 7807 _.~. ".,~... >.l." ...""""""".-- . -....."" 161 1~\\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting Februarv 4. 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Foundation also'? MS, MOFFA IT: And the county. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Well, then you've got two layers there, MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, he bas us at a disadvantage. PBSD does not have to do either. We do not fall underneath the tree ordinance rnle, We do not fall underneath the Foundation's review either although we are working with them to the best of our ability. MR. MAYHEW: I'm under the impression that somebody decided they didn't tike this, so they ripped it out and put something else in. Does that take some pennission? MR. PElTY: Just an action by this board, sir. Just an action by this board will make that happen. MR. MAYHEW: You don't have to go to the Foundation? MR. PETTY: No, sir, This is public right-of-way controlled by Collier County, not by the Foundation. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I tbink be's talking about in his own association. Am I correct? MR. MAYHEW: No. I'm talking about individual homeowners. MR. PElTY: Madam Chair, never mind, MR. MAYHEW: You can't willy-nilly go in and start tearing things down and putting them back. Do you know? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think in the case ofMs, Moffutt she was given the right to check on things like that and do what she wanted to because the people in her association, from what I understand, truly trust her and want her to go ahead and follow through with her ideas, But I'm sure that Molly has to talk to someone before she takes out an enormous amount of things, MR MAYHEW: We retain Jack Lieber too on an hourly basis. And he comes in and he gets those pennissions to save us a lot of running around CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And it does. MR MAYHEW: I'm a little less confused Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Molly, MS. MOFFAIT: The only thing that usually the Foundation notifies you if you have a dead tree. And if you are taking a tree down, you go to the county. The county is the end-all because they will not allow you to take down a native tree come hell or high water. And if you do, you have to replace it with the same size native tree of some variety, a bard wood tree of sucb, but you do need a permit to do it. Occasionally they may allow it if your place has been over planted and the roots are coming up. Like the 7808 -"._~ _e_c '"-.' It._ 'l R _.""".""........-...-..._..__... '"...~" -.-....-...". 161 1 ~\\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting Februarv 4. 2009 banyans, they won't let you plant the banyans anymore like on Crnyton because of the roots. So if you have those on your property around, which we do at the corner of Oakmont and Pelican Bay Boulevard, there are banyan trees, Fortunately, there is not much in the neighborhood of pavers and things, because, otherwise, they would all be coming up too. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. I have a swimming pool that's been influenced, MS, MOFFA IT: If that was to be requested to be taken down, I think the county would probably grant that request, but you would have to replace it with a very large tree, probably a dirty Rorida oak, MR PETIY: Madam Chair, there was one item that we need to bring up administJatively before closing the meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right MR PETIY: If it's appropriate to do so, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I won't know until J hear it MR PETIY: We just wanted to let the board know that we're going ahead with our communication budget line item, which is as you recall last year it was Clam Bay. It was a video. 1bis year it will focus on water management. It will have something to do with Clam Bay since water management goes to it. But every year we do communicate with the residents on how we spend their money. And we found that the video was more effective than our newsletter. So staff is going to go ahead, unless there is some other direction, and we will be bringing back that status as we go along through the process. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jim. MR BURKE: Madam Chair, I recommend at the next meeting that the very first item is Tim Hall's presentation. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think: that that would be vel)' nice. MR RAIA: Absolutely, CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Tim, is that all right with you? I feel like we ought to give you some cookies or something, All right. Do I have any audience comments at this point? (No response.) ADJOURN CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Do I have a motion to a(ljourn? MR HANSEN: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn the meeting for today, MR BURKE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? MR BOLAND: Aye, 7809 __,~__.,__"~'~..~"_..__"M"'''___''___ ~- ~.~~~. """',"" .."_......e...", --~".. ",'"-"""'''' 161 1 ~\\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting Februarv 4. 2009 MR GillSON: Aye, MR HANSEN: Aye. MRLEVY: Aye, MR BURKE: Aye. MR. MOFFATI: Aye, MR RAJA: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. Opposed? (Noresponse.) Mr. Hunter Hansen 1IfOl1etl. secolldeJ by Mr. Jim Burke, alld ullanimously _tJP.__'P_ roved to ad.1_'o_._".m.__t.he__m___e_eti_ 'n. _g.___._ __ ___ ____________ _______ There being no further business the meeting was adjourned by order of the CbaiIwoman at 3:40 p.rn, PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INe., BY CAROLYN 1. FORD, RPR, FPR AND FORMATIED BY MARY MCCAUGHTRY, RECORDING SECRETARY. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION. 7810 ",,~ ...",.--..". ~--- ........ '__..__0'- ^ .....",.~--_.....-..,'",...,."'~ "",-,,-,,",,.",..~ Fiala L 16 I 1 t~\ v' Halas Henning Coyle L RECEIV D Coletta ~/ .IJ{l APR 1 0 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION Board of County CommissiOl1etS Napks, Florida - February 23, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board, in and for the COlUIty of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 p,m. in SPECIAL SESSION at Hammock Oak Center, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman Geoff Gibson M. James Burke Michael Levy John Boland Jolm laizzo Jerry Moffatt Ted Gravenhorst Ted Raia Also Present: Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager, Pelican Bay Services Division; Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretmy, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Jack Curran, Collier County Purchasing Department (by telephone), AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Review and Approval of Collier County RFP #09-5174 3, Adjourn ROLLCALL CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Take the roll. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Madam Chair, let the record reflect that all members are present, except for Annette Alvarez, Mr. Hansen and Dr. Raia. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Have you heard from them. MS, McCAUGHTRY: I heard from Annette, who told me she would not be able to make this special meeting. I have not heard from Mr. Hansen or Dr. Raia, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF COLLIER COUNTY RFP#09-5174 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Since we have no microphones, probably the rest of you can do quite well, but I'm going to have to remember to speak up. So if you cannot hear me, say something or wave at me. I believe everyone has had a chance to peruse the latest proposal And since the management review committee got together and came up with several adjustments to this to make it more reasonable for the Pelican Bay Services Division Board, I believe that we're now in the process of coming back to the full Board in an emergency session in order to give you a cbance to say yea or nay and discuss any situations that you see that could possibly be a problem or ask questions. And just so you know, the committee consisted of Jell)' Moffatt, Geoff Gibson, and myself and we have been working with this for quite awhile. So if you have any specific thoughts or ~ direct them to Date:__<o.__ 7811 item It ."._.,.,,_..______ ,".-- tt) ,,~-" "'---", . --...._~ , '''......".., ~.,~"'_.,,... 1W ... l' "..,,,..,, .""~-'- .~~"~_.,'-..--""..._--,.-... 161 I 1 Pelican Bay Senices Division Special Meeting Februarv 23 2009 us, Jack Curran is out of his office. He will be back in ver)' shortly and Kyle has a direct line to him. so we can get in touch with him rather easily. MR. BURKE: Madam Chair, I move that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board approve this RFP as submitted, MR, MOFFATT: I will second that. MR IAIZZO: I will third, MR. GIBSON: I will third it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Is there any discussion? MR. LEVY: Well, I have a few items. They are rather minor in nature, but I will bring them up. Interchangeably we use the title of manager and administrator. Is there a reason for that? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Can you show us an example? MR LEVY: Well, let's see, Ifwe go to page eight We start off, "111e administrator's duties and respollSlbilities include the following." And then the beginning of tlle second paragraph we say, "TIle manager shall prepare, the manager shall request," And the third paragraph, "It will be the administrator's job to coordinate." CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I believe that you are absolutely correct. And I believe we discussed that at our very first meeting with the purchasing agent, Mr. Curran, from the County, And I believe that was an oversight on our part or it got switched back to manager, We bad discussed that and decided that the term administrator was correct and should be used all the way through, I don't have the minutes for those meetings, but I do believe that that v.'3S an issue that we addressed while John Petty was still in the room actually. MR. GIBSON: I agree. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jerry, do you remember that? So thank you very much, Mike. MR GIBSON: Good. catch, Mike, MR. BURKE: So what is the correct wording? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Administrator. MR MOFFATT: It should be administrator. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: There is a reason for it. There is some minor change in definition. So administrator is correct. MR MOFFATT: It also appears on page six, 7812 --..-....- "^'~"'- ._...__.......,.,."~.,. -"-'"''"''''''' _.."".,,~--, Pelican Bay Services Division Special Meeting 161 I 1 Febl1larv 23 2009 - MR. LEVY: Yes. It's throughout the entire document. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, Jerry, Thank you, Mike, MR. LEVY: Another item is on page nine. MR. MOFFA IT: On the bottom. MR LEVY: The last sentence sa)"S, "The Pelican Bay Services Division currently provides an office and staff for the administrator in Pelican Bay, but is not contractuallJ' required to do so." I guess I'm questioning the last word, "That is not contractually required to do so." I mean we do have the office and we do have the statIo So why are we saying it's not contractually required? TIle guy's job would be different without the office and staff than it is with the office and smff In other words, I don't know why we put that qualifier in there that we are not contractually required to pro"ide the office and staff. We do provide it. We are providing it And if we don't provide it, then who is going to provide it? I mean whoever is bidding on this I think would be affected by that CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's a good point, but I do believe that there is nothing in the contract, as stated, that indicates that there really has to be an office provided, I believe the County pays for it. And because of that there is no contract through the Pelican Bay Services Division Board that pays for it. MR. LEVY: We're paying fur it. MR IAIZZO: Weare. MR. GIBSON: We are paying for it. MR. MOFFA IT: It's in our budget, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We are paying fur it with taxes that are.., MR. IAIZZO: No. We are paying for that. TIle residents are paying for it. MR. LEVY: We're paying for that and we're paying for the staff that's in there. Now, they're all C01lllty employees, MR. BURKE: We went through this once before in the Jim Ward era. As I remember now, it's in there because if we decide as a Board we no longer want to cany that expense, we don't have to go to the administrator and ask pennission. We can cut it out. We can get rid of it. There is space over where Kyle works out of I meatl, technically the manager, who is not here very much anyway, could go in and out of there. MR. LEVY: But that would be an office. I mean, you couldn't say." MR. BURKE: We don't have to provide. , , 7813 -_.~. .'". - "".._.."",... .'a . 1."fI""I>l U -""~-"",,,'=;-'-".,.- . - . "uo"""'_"' ~ ,..- 161 ~i'l Pelican Bay Senrices Dhision Special Meeting . ~,' Februarv 23 2009 MR LEVY: We don't have to provide it in the SunTrust Building, We could provide it over where Kyle works at MR, BURKE: It frees us up from the liability of llaving an office. We are going to provide an office, but contractually this frees us up. (Dr. Raia entered the hearing room.) MR LEVY: But this refers, Jim, not only to the office. but this also refers to the staff. "And staff" Staff I assume is Kyle and Mary. Page nine, the last sentence. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I believe we talked about that As I recall, it is not actually in the contract. And I think Jim is correct as to why it's uot. But your point is that you want it included? MR LEVY: Well, my point is if somebody has this docmnent and they are going to provide a bid and if they have to provide the office and staf( it affects his bid, wouldn't it? You know, this is saying, "We are giving it to you, but we don't have to give it to you." I don't know, does he provide two bids? MR IAIZW: He can have his own office. MR. LEVY: What is that? MR IAIZW: He can have his own office, MR LEVY: But that might cost, you know that's a different scenario. MR. IAIZZO: Yes. But he's not here full days, He comes in two or three times a month. So his office is wherever he works out of. He certainly doesn't work out of our building to do his normal job. Don't forget he only gives us so many hours a month. He's not a full-timer, MR. LEVY: That's true. MR. BOLAND: Why do we pay for that space there that's right next to the Pelican Bay Proper1y? We're talking about that big space right there, MR, IAIZZO: It's not a space. It's our office. MR BOLAND: I thought the Foundation offered to put them in the, , , CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The Commons, MR. BOLAND: What kind of money are we talking about? CHAlRWOMAN WOMBlE: It's 133,000 for the office. MR. IAIZZO: We're just talking about semantics here. 7814 ~-,~,"~",.",,..,.-.......,,~,.~-- -, ~. . . "'_H'~'''___''',_...", _,"",N"""'" . .......""~. Pelican Bay Services Division Special Meeting ~\ Februa 23 2009 TIlE COURT REPORTER: One at time please. MR BOLAND: We put them downtown with the rest ofthe County. Why do they have to be in Pelican Bay? That'sjust my question, MR BURKE: Madam Chair, they're here because we choose to have them here, And if a future Board chooses not to have that office, they can make that decision and they won't be contractually obligated to the administrator to provide it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And I think there's another possibility, too, If the management team chooses to bid for this particular position, it's very likely that they may be from a local area and they have their own office anyway. And I think that was the idea. llmt this would leave it open so that if they had their own office, tllell, of course, we wouldn't open up another one for tllem. Because it isn't a full-time job, MR. BOLAND: Yes. I know, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So I think that's wbere you were beaded. I'mjust going to reiterate that. MR. IAIZZO: The wording doesn't have to impact this docmnent. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: If the wording impacts someone from putting out a bid or not, I would think that they would contact Mr. Curran and check to see if there is a reason why it was sIa1ed like that and if it's feasible that they may not have a place to work out of And, of course, obviously ''\e are going to continue what we have at the moment or maybe go to another area, MR., MOFFATT: There's a pre-proposal meeting scheduled., so it would give them an opportunity to ask questions. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's correct, MR. GIBSON: Good point. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. But it's a very good question. MR LEVY: Another question. In tlmt same paragrapb on page nine, last paragraph, it says, "The administrator shall report in detail on a monthly basis the time spent during that period in the performance of these duties to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board" Is that currently being done') CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR MOFFATT: No. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That was something that the committee decided was a... MR LEVY: I think it's good, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Something to add. 7815 .'~"... _.. , T _ UW~HI.1 , JIll W' n n .i!ll1Ilil<'lI!Ill, 17 ,",,""""'" " , ~.,._-,... _..--..-,,""",,- -"'"~~""'_. Pelican Bay Services Division Special Meeting 161 11 tx\\ Februarv 23. 2009 MR. LEVY: I had never heard it, so I was just wondering, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, 1 believe we talked about it in one of our full Board meetings. It was discussed or brought out and then Jerry and Geoff and I just sort of continued it on into being a part of the contract. MR. LEVY: One last one. It's also on page nine, the middle of the page. It says, "Administrator shall assist and cooperate with the budget committee in the preparation of the Services Division annual budget." It can be said that way or what's probably more accurate in my mind, is to say that, "In conjunction with the budget committee, the administrator, togetller with staff, shall develop the proposed Pelican Bay Services Division armual budget in accordance with the County," In other words, the proposed budget comes from the administrntor, you know. That's wbat I'm saying. Tills could read either way, MR. IAIZZO: The proposed budget comes from staff The administrator, .. MR. LEVY: Yes. From the staff under the administrator's guidance, MR. IAIZZO: Good guidance possibly. MR. LEVY: Yes. This says, "Shall assist and cooperate with the budget committee in the preparation," Which is also accurate. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mike, would tills be all right, ''The administrator shall assist and guide the budget conmlittee in the preparation?" MR LEVY: No, Because that makes it sound like the", MR. MOFFATI': I don't like guide. MR. LEVY: ,'. budget committee is developing the budget, at least in the years that I have done it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Would you restate how you bad it? MR. LEVY: Well, I bad written here, "In conjunction with the Pelican Bay Service Division's budget committee, the administrator, together with staff, shall develop the proposed Pelican Bay Services Division's annual budget in accordance with County roles and regulations." It is not inaccurate. It's jnst that maybe you can interpret it in more than one way, MR. IAIZZO: Simply say, "Administrator shall assist the staff," and then go in with, "And cooperate with the budget committee, " MR MOFFATI': You know, if you say it's not inaccurate the way it is \-vritten now, my vote would be to go ahead with it because this is going to be released to the public tomorrow. And, you know, if you're going to make another change, you run the risk of something else getting screwed up, 7816 .''>'''. -_.,,-" - - -'''''-';'"''''~~'''''''.''-'~'''-"'~ 'M~ 161 1~\ Pelican Bay Senrices Division Sllecial Meeting - February 23. 2009 MR. IAIZZO: It's not that serious, you're right. It's a consideration we must take on. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay, Keep that in mind. That's page lune, And we will do a final vote on this. If you have a concern with this or if we find other areas that need to be addressed, maybe this would be something we can clean up also. MR. BURKE: Madam Chair, this is not a change I just need to clear up some confusion on my part, Over the years I have seen a number of these. Page three, and maybe tile management committee can help me, This RFP is not mailed out to anybody, It's posted. And the kind of people that track that posting see it and !heY respond to it or not, But this particular fonn, if someone sees it. can they choose to send this in? I mean. I'm not sure what this is. "I choose not to respond to tlus." CHAIRWOMAN WOMBlE: I believe if someone does request it it can be emailed, faxed, or mailed. MR. BURKE: Okay. They request it. And if they don't come back, the County wants them to send this fonn in? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's right. That gives them an idea of why. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Madam Chair, I think that Jack told us that they have vendors categorized. So vendors that are in this category automatically receive it and if they don't want to bilL that's their way to respond. MR BURKE: Okay. Good, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, Mary. Okay. Anyone, anything else? Anyone see anything else that they are concerned about? I was concerned about something on page 29, It's in the affidm,it fur claiming status as a local business. And I also have another concem, too. Before I go forward with 29, while you all are turning pages, we asked specifically each time we saw Mr. Curran, "Has there been a decision made." because in this particular proposal ten points are knocked off if you're not local automatically. And our current administrator is not local, whose district offices is located on the other coast. MR. IAIZZO: East coast CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So we asked and we never did get a clear "yes" or "no". Probably it wouldn't change, but he didn't know. Mary, has he contacted you to let you know? MS. McCAUGHTRY: No, Madam Chair, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. I have that concern still. I would like to know why we have to go along with something that is typical for purchasing, And this is different from purchasing products or services that are on site. So if there is ten points to be knocked off immediately, I would like to know ahead of time. So that's something I would like to address. MR MOFFA IT: Madam Chair, it's probably a good idea, As I recall, he said after our last meeting he was going to go back and see if he could change that And he didn't think he could. The fact that it came out the way it did, he couldn't change it 7817 '_""K'. --.""" ,"'.,.'~..,. .-....-..,.."."... -.... ...",.._".....-~-'."'. ..... ",.._,"", . ,.-="-"---.,.,,..,--.,.,.- 161 t~ 1~\ -, , Pelican Ba)' Senices Division Special Meeting Februarv 23, 2009 But you want a positive confinnatiol1. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I don't like to assume anything. When I've asked for something, I would like to know for a fact if it's one way or the other. MR. BOLAND: Mary Anne, I remember this was discussed a couple of years ago. And at that time 1 think we bad Jim Carroll and he was on the east coast also. And I forget who the chair was, It was either Jim or Jim Carroll. And we brought up why we couldn't get somebody local, okay? There was no firm that does it here. That's one point. The closest firm was one in Fort Myers, I think. Remember that Jim. there are very few people and this was a couple of years ago, We had Jim Ward and then he resigned. And then we tried to get someone in Fort Myers and he didn't work well. And then we got Jim Petty from the east coast. This, to me, should not be in this particular category as an administrator, He's not a vendor. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's my point. MR. BOLAND: It is just that there's no one else in this area. MR. BURKE: No, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Because of the economy, they are starting to come out and look for this particular proposal. MR MOFFA IT: And the local rule is Collier and Lee County because they have signed an agreement. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Now, look at page 29. It does not indicate Lee County, It just says Collier. That's wbat I was going to go for when we got here. It does say, "The limits of Collier or Lee Counties from which the vendor operates or performs business." But we are not looking for a vendor. MR. IAIZZO: That's how they are all considered, MR BURKE: They are all considered vendors. Anyone who provides a service is a vendor. Product or service is a vendor, MR. IAJZZO: It's their term, MR BURKE: It wouldn't be Curran's call to change this. He would have to get approval of the BCe, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, that's what I asked for and I never got a call back. MR. BURKE: This is recent policy over the last year, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, MR IAIZZO: I would be surprised if we have competition on this. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, there are some, 7818 .-.- ." - -""";"---~ ... ~','_'m...., .~ "",,- ~'.~".'._" "~"---"--"' 161 ~' 1 ~\ . Pelican Bay Services Division Special Meeting Februarv 23, 2009 MR. BURKE: The way we did it before, there was no competition. We did it that way so there wouldn't be any competition. Tills is going to surprise you, MR., IAIZZO: You think they'll come out of the woodwork? MR. BURKE: Yes, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The economy is such that people are going to be thinking about it. MR. BURKE: There are plenty of companies out there, Their perception was this was a closed door. I mean. why bother. MR. IAlZZO: It probably still is. MR. MOFFA IT: And the purcllaSing agent said there are a couple other companies that he ex']JeCtS will bid on it. So I think we're going to have some competition. MR. BOLAND: Do we reimburse them fur their expenses to from east coast to west coast? MR IAIZZO: No, It's built in there. MR. BOLAND: It's just a flat fee, right? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It's their salaJy, period. Kyle, could you call him? MR MOFFA IT: Well, they are trying to build business in the local community. MR. LUKASZ: Do you want me to try to put him on speakerphone or do you want me to just find out whether he's available? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: How difficult ""'Quid it be to do that, you mean. speakerphone on your cell? MR LUKASZ: Yes. I have it here. It's no problem CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Let's do that. TIfE COURT REPOR1ER: Who are you calling? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jack Curran. MR. GIBSON: The author of this paper. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: He's the purchasing officer for Collier County, MR BURKE: Petty's partner, where does she reside? MR. MOFFAIT: Sarasota. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The other coast. 7819 ~_."' "'...._.<k 1l>'.II_""".Y~ t . l"",",..,."..,_"...,.,,".$",-.."""'~" ... """''='''....----...... Pelican Bay Senices Di'\ision Special Meeting 161 '~1 ~\\ Februarv 23. 2009 MR. MOFFATT: Youmean... CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Janice? MR. MOFFATT: Sarasota. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Her home is on the other coast. MR. MOFFATT: Her home is Sarasota, Her husband works up there in one of the resorts I thought. I have had a few discussions with her in cOlmcction with the. . , CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: They used to live there. MR. MOFFATT: It is 4:00. MR, BOLAND: Probably going home, (A phone connection was established .with Mr. Curran,) MR. LUKASZ: Hi Jack, they have a couple of questions for you. We're in the middle of the Board meeting. We've got the full Board here to approve the RFP. I was going to try to put you on speakerphone and see if evetybody can hear you. Can you hear me? MR. CURRAN: I can hear you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Hi, Jack. This is Mary Anne Womble. How are you doing? MR. CURRAN: Fine, I'm sorry I missed the meeting. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Wen, you really haven't. You're right here with us. MR CURRAN: All right. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We have a question for you. Did you ever get a "yes" or a "no" on why or if we have to have that ten points knocked off if somebody is from out of district? MR. CURRAN: Yes, I did. And we do, MR IAIZZO: Still the procedure. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. And are we going to continue to use the tenn "vendor" for the person who we are trying to propose for management administrator'? mE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear, MR. CURRAN: I'm sorry. I can change the word to "contractor" if that is easier for you. We always do use either "contractor" or "vendor," 7820 _.... --"-'.-.-.,,-- ~ .......--'~~ 'I """--'~-~- . "..." ;~"_.... Pelican Bay Services Dh'ision Special Meeting 161 Ie'll ~\\ February 23. 2009 MR IAIZZO: It's okay. MR GRA VENHORST: Vendor means the same tiring, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We're just trying to make it easier for you, so leave it at vendor. MR CURRAN: Contractor, the reason why I try to get away fium that is that everyone assumes automatically a general contractor . CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. We had a question. too, on page six and page eight. We found that "manager" was the term interspersed with "administrator." And we wondered how difficult it would be to s\\>itch that out and make it "administrator" in each case. MR CURRAN: Very easy. I can do that no problem. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Mike, how serious are you about changing.., MR LEVY: I mean, no. You know, in terms of just my obseIVatiOIlS, I don't think it is going any further. MR BURKE: I may have missed it. What did he say about the ten point rule? MR GIBSON: Stays. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It's set. MR IAIZZO: They can't change it just for us. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Anyone have anything that they would like to ask Mr. Curran? MR MOFFATT: Did you want that affidavit clarified on Collier and Lee? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: He says "vendor" is interspersed with "contractor", MR GIBSON: Contractor. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So it would make sense. MR LEVY: It applies to both Collier and Lee County? MR MOFFATT: Yes. On the sL'dh line it says Collier or Lee County, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. Yon have to go down into it. MR CURRAN: On November 24th Lee County signed an interloca1 agreement with the Board of County Commissioners to be honored as a local vendor. And, in return, all vendors and businessmen be accepted lmder their local vendor preferences. So they use that to identifY which county they are from. MR MOFFA IT: Jack, I think the question is on page 29, which is the affidavit, should you clarify that it is the counties 7821 ..~. -"...,"""~- -,~~-,~-,,-,-"'-' ."_m.~,__,_.,~_. --.-.-- -.....-..----- Pelican Bay Services Dil'ision Special Meeting 161 1 ~\ Februarv 23. 2009 of Collier and Lee? MR. CURRAN: Yes, yes, I have a new fonn. I don't know which is attached. I may have the old one. The new one has a block at the top. Yes, that's the old one, TIle new one at the very top bas a block Lee County and a block tbat says Collier County. I will put that page in. MR. MOFFA IT: All right. MR. GRA VENHORST: So it does both. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Everybody fine with everything? Jack, I think we are on a road for a vote. So I really appreciate all that you've done, the bard work you have put into this and trying to keep us up to speed and communicating with us throughout, We really do appreciate it. Is there anything you wanted to know from us? MR. CURRAN: At the present time I lmve all the information. I ",ill make these changes and rn send them over to you so you can look it over. And I just want to say thanks. It has been a pleasure working with you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Same here, Jack. Thank you very, very much, And I think we can probably go ahead. If we are sure that you're making those changes, we can probably make a proposed vote for "yes" or "no" for those changes, MR. MOFFA IT: Do you want to ask him to stay on the line for a minute? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ifyoo would like to stay on the line, you will know. MR. CURRAN: Okay. CHAlRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay, We've bad a motion that was seconded. We have bad our discussions. All in favor of accepting this proposal aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye, MR, BURKE: Aye. tvIR, LEVY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. MR. BOLAND: A,ve, MR. lAlZZO: Aye, DR RAJA: Aye. MR. GRA VENHORST: Aye. MR. MOFFAIT: Aye, 7822 '''''W~'''' ...,....,,,... ~, ,-",.., "",,,,,,,,.,,._" _...._.F. -._' ".-..--- Pelican Bay Services Di\ision Special Meeting 161 .'!; 1 f\ \\ February 23. 2009 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed? (No response.) Mr. Burke moved seconded b)' Mr. Moffatt and approved unanimously to approve the RFP prepared by Jack Curran_ofthe_Co_Uier Co_unty Purchasin.'K_Dept. CHAlRWOMAN WOMBLE: It passed, Jack. MR. CURRAN: Okay, Thank you. I will put it together and send you a copy, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay, Thank you, MR., CURRAN: Thank you. Bye, (Telephone connection with Mr. Curran ended,) CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay, May I have a motion to a<ljoum? MR BURKE: So move. MR BOLAND: Second. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? MR GIBSON: Aye. MR, BURKE: Aye, MR LEVY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Aye. MR BOLAND: Aye, MR lAIZZO: Aye, DR RAIA: Aye, MR GRA VENHORST: Aye. MR. MOFFATT: Aye. Mr. Burke moved seconded by Mr. Boland and approved unanimous(v to adjourn the meeting._" ._________._____, There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:03 p.m. 7823 "H->>_ . ,-... n- __ "<1".'" ~ -_._~ ,,,'~_."""'< ...-."""".,.- Trill "'-'-" Pelican Bay Services Division Special Meeting 16> ;1 tI ~ \\ Februarv 23. 2009 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ~~~~ TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING. SERVICE, INC. BY KELLEY MARIE NAOOITI, RPR FPR AND FORMATTED BY MARY MCCAUGHIRY. RECORDING SECRETARY. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION. 7824 '"'-"-"'--""'-"'--~"""-"". -..-,.._"," "'.--....... \a I'~"'" _,.-....,_,...,,_,,""... n ..~"'_.- 161 1~\\ ~ J {. RECEiVED ' '~" ~':;':l~SC~~:~ETlNG OF THE APR 1 0 2009 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DNlSION ~t~~. Naples. Florida, March 4, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:01 p,m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Hammock Oak Center, 8962 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: John Boland Vice-Chair Jerry Moffatt Geoff Gibson Ted Raia Michael Levy M. James Burke John laizzo Mary Anne Womble, Absent Hunter Hansen. Absent Annette Alvarez, Absent Ted Gravenhorst. Absent Also Present: John Petty, District Administrator, Janice Lamed, District Offices, LLC; Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager, Pelican Bay SeIVices, Division: Timothy Hall, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.; Jim Hoppensteadt, President, The Foundation of Pelican Bay; Dave Trecker, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association; and Mary McCaughtry. Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay SeIVices Division. AGENDA l. Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of February 4,2009 Meeting 3, Clam Bay Annual Report - Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall and Associates. Inc. 4, Audience Participation 5. Administrator's Report Erroneously Sent Agenda Concerning Dr, Ted Raia Report on Meeting with County Manager and Commissioner Halas Administrator Projects Update on Water Management System Report from Engineer on Storm Water Capture Financial Report 6. Chairwoman's Report Service Awards Update on Strategic Planning General Comments 7, Committee Reports Clam Bay No Report Government Relations No Report Budget Committee Update by Co-Chairs Mike Levy and Jerry Moffatt Management Contract Committee Update by Geoff Gibson 8. Capital Projects Update on Crosswalk (Myra Janco Daniels Blvd.) 9, Community Issues Vanderbilt Library MSTBU (Jim Burke) 10. Plan Reviews None Misc. Corres: 11. Committee Requests None Date: Item # ._.. 7825 to ._.._"-...._-_.',,._._~_...."---,.__..._- .".~. , -",..,..."~..~"--_..,-,,." ..-""'.,..;'"'...... ",..~." -~_...._,-..__.- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 101 ~1 ~\ March 4. 2006 12. Audience Comments 13, Adjourn ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN BOLAND: I'd like to call the meeting to order, please, Mary Anne has a bad back. and she won't be able to make it today, As vice chair, I'm sitting in for her. Ready to start? Do you want to take the roll call, Mary. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Certainly, Mr, Boland. Let the record reflect that all members are present except for Mr, Hansen, Annette Alvarez, and Mary Anne Womble with excused absences. And I'm missing someone else. MR. PETIY: John, MR MOFFATI': Iaizzo? MS. McCAUGHTRY: Oh, yes, and Mr. laizzo, CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Do we have enough for a quorum? MS. McCAUGHTRY: Yes, we do, APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 4. 2009 MINUTES CHAIRMAN BOLAND: The minutes of the meeting, does anybody have any comments or any changes or any modifications they wish to make? MR. BURKE: Mr. Vice Chair, I would move we accept and approve the minutes as submitted. MR. LEVY: I second, CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay, All aye? DR RAIA: Aye, MR. IAIZZO: Aye MR. MOFFATI': Aye. MR BURKE: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye, CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Aye. Mr. M. James Burke moved, seconded by Mr. Michael Levy and approved unanimously the Minutes of the February 4, 2009 meeting. 7826 "',_.- --,.-.-- - __e'_ ,",~,'."..'" -~~- - _. Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting 161 1 ~ March 4. 2006 MR. MOFFA IT: I'd like to ask a question about the minutes. The meeting tl13t tile Chair and Mr. Petty had with Halas and Mudd, they told us at the last meeting tlley submitted two letters: one from the FOillldation; and I'm not sure who, maybe the property owners was the second letter. Can we get copies of those for our records? 1 don't know that some of us have ever seen them, DR. RAIA We are trying to get tllOse. We are trying to get those, aren't we? Mary, did you get copies? MS. McCAUGHTRY: I have a copy of the letter from the property owners association. But I do not have one from the Foundation as yet. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: John Petty'! MR PETTY: Mr. Chainnan, the request came from a board member. It came from the president of tile Foundation. So we have asked for a copy; we expect it shortly. We did not make a copy at the time, and we just submitted it to the county. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. MR PETTY: So we'll see ifwe can't get that. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. Anybody else? Jerry, that okay with you? MRMOFFATI: Yes. ANNUAL CLAM BAY REPORT BY TIM HALL OF TURRELL. HALL AND ASSOCIATES. INC. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Aye. Okay, Now we will have the Clam Bay annual report, which will be given by Tim. Tim, it's all yours, MR HALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair or Vice Chairman, 1 guess. MR PETTY: "Mr. Chainnan." He'sprotem. MR HALL: Yes. As you-all know, this was the last year of tile maintenance and restoration program for the Clam Bay system. Every year at the end of the year, we put together a SU1lllll3l)' of the activities that have occurred within the system during the year in a general overview. So without any further ado, we'll go ahead and get into this. I've broken up this presentation relating to these five categories: fm going over the maintenance activities that have occurred in the system; the monitoring and the results of the monitoring that was done; as well as some comparisons with past years; the need for continued maintenance; and some management recommendations. Since the pennit has expired, sunsetted, many of the activities that were required in that permit are no longer required; but we are making the recommendation that some of these aciliities continue to be conducted in the system.. just to keep an eye on what's going on out there. And then just my little concluding remarks. 7827 -._~ "~."_~d "...-,-~.,,~" ~-,~... r'._'__,_ Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting J.61 1M' March 4. 2006 (Mr, Iaizzo entered.) MR. HALL: So in temlS of maintenance this year, we bad clearing of fallen trees within the main watelWays, Tbat's an ongoing issue. It is related both to the hydrologic aspects of the system and maintaining the tIOl\' through there. It's also related to public safety in terms of the canoers, kayakers, and boaters that are moving up and down through those waterways, We want to make sure that we keep that open so that the water can tIow and the people can move as they ha"e been. Exotic and nuisance vegetation removal: There are periodic outbreaks of nuisance vines, Brazilian pepper, and a ~ple of otller plants out there that we keep an eye on. When we notice infestations of them, we let Kyle know; and then he takes care ofbaving people go out there to actually remove those. The monitoring of the cattail and restoration areas along the heml, that's simply been an ongoing activity. The pass was dredged in the winter of '07, so we have some infonnation on the most recent bath)metric surveys, the monitoring and maintenance of the flushing channels, and then just the actual monitoring of the system as a whole. In tenus of the flushing channels, we put together this exlnbit and measured out the wOIk that's been done out there over the past 10 years. There's about 13 miles, by our estimation, of hand-cut channels that have been dug throughout the system, This is based on aerial interpretation as well as some survey infonnation; and I can go into that a little bit later 'with the recommendations in tenns of the survey. Not all of these have been specifically surveyed, so that's why I'm saying that the I3 miles is an estimate based on our calculations from the aerial measurements or the measurements that we've done off the aerials. Bu~ all)'Way, all of those channels are out there. They have increased the flushing capacity of the mangrove system, We believe that they are the major component that's responsible for this restoration success that we've seen out there. And keeping that whole little interconnected system functional is one of our main management recommendations to be carried foman! into the future, 'The annual monitoring, as we've done every year, we've broken down into three categories: the bathymetric monitoring; the water~uality monitoring~ and tbe biological monitoring and the people that are responsible for doing that. Going through the bathymetric monitoring, which is Hmniston & Moore Engineers, looking at the tidal range comparisons as well as the actual cross-sections of the paths in some of the watelWays. And these charts are in the actual annual report that you-all received. They're probably a little easier to read in that report. But what they show is that the different tidal ranges and so forth that are at the different monitoring stations. And right now, there's a tidal station pretty much on the three boardwalks, here, here, and here (indicating). And then the fourth one was placed up here into upper Clam Bay. And I think that was, Kyle, do you remember when that was put up there? MR. LUKASZ: About 10 years ago. MR. HALL: About 10, But it was done after the pass 'Was actually dredged, So there isn't any data available for that 7828 '".....-=.,-'"'" '."~'''''T' . "--~.,- wWT _.11 _...;,.,,,...=;,;;_..,c,,,~,,..,,.,,<....,,,, HP' -_...""~^ Pelican Ba)' Services Dhision Meeting 161 1 ~\\ March 4. 2006 upper level for the pre-ill'edging conditions. And then this one shows the actual tidal ranges between high and low tide; and you can see that the pre-tidal for the different ones, the pre-tidal conditions, And then after the dredging has occurred, we got much more of a tidal range established, which means that more water is flo\\ing in imd out of the system. It increases the flushing capacity, the nutrient exchange and so forth and it's a good thing in terms of the health of the area, The main Cut No, 4, which is the one that's most often associated witb the maintenance dredging activities after the initial dredging was done. And what these show in those three different areas are what the avemge cross-section is, And you can see the lines for when the dredging activities have occurred, you get little peaks or increases in that cross-section, which is the reopening of the channeL And then these are some representative actuaI cross-section areas that show how the pass was before it was dredged, and then the design channel and what the latest monitoring shows the actual cross-section of the opening is, But in temlS of what we're looking for is an actual pathway through there for the water flow. And these show where that little, deep area or channel is based on the design of the system back in 1998 and then subsequent dredging activities to where it is right now. And what has been seen consistently with this is that, since the dredging was done and those tidal ranges increased, more water flowing in and out, and the pass has been able to self-regulate or self-maintain itself So whereas., befure we did these activities back in tile mid and early '90s, the dredging was a requirement almost every year. The pass actually closed a few times, to where no flow was going in or out Since the dredging has been done and all of these other activities, we've been on a three to five-year schedule where, instead of having to do something every year, the pass bas been able to support itself. And in some instances, the dredging is done both to reopen it, but also to put the sand on the beach when there are some renourishment issues on the south side of the pass to help to maintain that beach as well. Going into the water quality, tllere are actually over a dozen parameters that are tested, including things like pH and specific conductivity. The ones that are supplied to DEP, the dissolved ~"ygen, nitrates, orthophospbates, and total dissolved solids, they really reflect the dissolved oxygen is a measure of how much life the system can support, How much o.x'Ygen is in the water is indicative of how healthy the system is. The nitrates and orthophosphates are indicators of nutrient enrichment. And then the total dissolved solids is, basically, all of the little stuff that's dissolved in the water. We use it as kind of a measure of salinity because of salinity being one of the major dissolved solid components in that measurement. It's kind of a measurement of how salty the water is at the different areas. And this is shows you where those monitoring stations are. There's a few of tllem right along the berm in the Class 3 waters and then the Class 2 waters. The ditIerentiation between that is Class 2 are waters that are suitable for shellfish harvesting. That's really the major difference whereas the Class 3 ,vaters are simply recreational uses but not to. the standards for shellfish. And going through some of the dissolved oxygen levels, this is showing over the course of tile year, and. this is a 20-year 7829 ,.-..,,---.. -_. '1'_'-'- '''.''''''''.''''""~~'"''''''--""'''''~ ". ---"',",",~'" -"'~"'""""--;-~- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 "1~~ March 4, 2006 average from the '80s to where it is now. This is one of the parameters that has come up, you know, back and forth in terms of whether it's appropriate for the system or not. Based on the long-term average, you can see that there is some variations and some fluctuations in that. So that's still going to be one of the ongoing issues that is looked at as the new activities or anything else that gets going into the system. And then going through the total dissolved solids you can see on both of these charts those higher levels. The ones out here in the bay and open-water systems are the higher levels, the saltier ones. The ones down here on the bottom are the ones along the benu. And what's interesting to note on these, you know, average annual is you see when the channels were cut back in here in 2005, 2006, those measurements along the berm that are aqjacent to where those cuts are. the total dissolved solid levels started going up, which is an indication that the salinity started going up. And then that goes back as the salinity goes up, the regeneration in all of those cattails has gone down; more native stuff has started to re-establish more cattails are native as well; but more diverse vegetation is starting to re-establish in those areas where the cattails were, And that's one of the long-term goals that we had for doing that as well. 'The orthophosphate levels, this is the one that since I've been involved in the project, we have been noting a trend, an upward trend, in those levels. That trend is associated with the locations adjacent to the berm, It hasn't been observed in the ones out in the waterway itself. 'That's a good indication for two things: one, that yon do have increasing levels, so it's a measure of concern in keeping track of what's happening on the east side of the berm to make sure that we don't compromise water management system. But being that that same trend bas not been seen in the waterways, it's an indication that the water management system is actually performing the way it should. It's catching those materials and holding them up, treating them and all, before they get into the waterways so that we're not seeing any nutrient contamination in the actual open waters. And the nitrate levels are the same, We get these higher peaks or spikes associated with the benn, the area along the berm. But we don't see those, you know, down here (indicating). ll1ey're much flatter, the ones down in the open water itself So, again, that's good indication that the water management system is doing what it should. Going into the biological monitoring, that's essentially the monitoring of the mangroves and the sea grasses. The seagrass transects were established prior to the dredging activities. They were placed in areas where there were known seagrass beds; and the intent was to monitor those seagrass beds to see if there was any impact to them as a result of the dredging. This monitoring wasn't designed to actually calculate acreage or an area or extent of sea grasses within the system.. because there are large areas here that aren't covered. Basically, it was very, very specific to go where there were kno"n dense seagrass beds and to monitor the changes in them over time. And what we've sho\ID here, based on this year's monitoring, where the beds are. A couple of things to note are in the \ast few years, these seagrass beds down here (indicating) had experienced a pretty rapid docline, One of the things that \\'e opined was that the flap gates that had 7830 Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 1~\\ March 4. 2006 - been put onto the Seagate culverts weren't acting as flap gates; they were actually acting more as a dam, so that flushing in that lower part of the bay had been decreased, ,vater exchange and water flows, In the early 2000s, 200], 2002, we recommended that those flap gates be removed so that water could flow back and forth through there. That was done, And since 2004 through now, we've seen increases in these seagrass beds dO\Hl at that end of the system, This year, we also saw a retum of sea grasses along this southem transect (indicating) along the pass itself. Tlmt's likely a result of these areas finally equalizing a liUle bit. There was some loss of sea grasses associated with the opening of the pass, When aU of that work was done, the tidal range, or the difference between the high tide and low tide, also changed. It became much greater. So areas that had been under water for longer periods of time prior to the dredging, after the dredging, with that tidal change, became exposed for periods of time, And that exposure was too long for tbe sea grnsses to continue to live there. So some of those sballow-water areas, where there had been sea grasses prior to the dredging, tbose sea grasses were killed or were impacted by that. And what we're seeing. now that the water exchange and all bas equalized or that tidal exchange, the sea grasses are re-establishing themselves in those waters that are of the appropriate depth, It's taken a while, but we are seeing that The other thing that we saw this year is that we actually found all three species of sea grasses. In the past, the predominant one that we bad found, which is marked in red in all of these, the HaIoduIe, was the most predominant. We had seen, periodically, little pieces of Tbalassia and all. And this year we also found a patch of Halophila. So we've seen a return this year of, actually, all three species instead of just the one that had been the predominant in the past. Some of the other observations out there. the daIns. The last three years, we've seen a resurgence of clams in several areas within tlle system And then this is just kind of what the grasses looked like wben we run into tbem, little tiny, you know, tufts out of the substrate, and then some of tile stuff that we see when \ve're swimming around out there. The mangrove monitoring was split, Lewis Environment Services bas tbeir plots. Wilen Turrell, Hall & Associates became involved, we added plots to them, And you can see tlmt the Lewis plots were concentnlted in the die-off area to look at tbe recovery of those specific die-off areas. And when we became involved some of the concerns were, like, what about the rest of the system. We came in and established some plots on the perimeter of that, but then spread out throughout the system in some of the stressed or die-off areas at that time to be able to get a more holistic view of the entire system. And what we look for the areas of stress,. this is a progression of photos from '04, '05, '06, and then this years. These stressed areas are areas where the mangroves may not be dead, but there's substantial leaf loss. The leaves can be discolored, or the growth rates in those areas don't match the rest of the system and all. So we keep an eye out for those, And then we try to detemune whether it's the problem, or the thing causing the stress, is related to hydrology, the areas become backed up and water's pooling, it's not flowing, they don't get tIle nutrient exchange that they did. Or there's too much you 7831 "N"," ~-~...-_",.".W' ". ~'"-- l',1r ."""- ~ , ,--,. Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting 161 1 f<\\ March 4. 2006 know, it could be where the tidal level bas gotten to the point wbere it's now higber than tbe surrounding areas, so you're going to get a change or a difference in the succession of that area, maybe trying to go from mangroves to more of an upland or different type of conununity, vegetative commmtity, Or it could be related to the hurricane or \vind damage. a stonn canre through and really hit that area hard, and it's just taking it a while to recover. So those are the three different types of stressed areas that we look at. And here's (indicating), you know, some of that. There's up at the north end by Bay Colony here, there's actually a tornado track from the hurricanes that came through in 2005, 2006, It was 2005 tbat tbis was created and tllere's a very, very defined track that went through there where a lot of downed trees occurred and all. That's one of the areas that we're looking at. And then we also get these very circular little areas, which are tire result of lightning strikes. And so all of tIlat, we look at. We keep track of those lightning strikes to see how long it takes them to recover or start leafing out. And what we've observed is, usually three to four years after the lightning strike, we start to see that it's becoming vegetated again, And the vegetatio~ initially the canopy gets opened up so you get a heavy ground cover ot: usually, leather fems and mangrove seedlings. And then as the years progress, those mangroves get up high enough, eventually tIley'll start shading out the leather fems, and you get mature trees there, But that's probably a 12- to 15-year process. The die-off area, back in 1999, over 45 acres, was shown here in yellow. Then what we've got for this year's current, we have these blue stressed areas where we are still concerned, and we're looking at what's happening in those, And then the red, that's still associated with that initial die-off or new die-o:tIs, here associated again with the 2005 hurricanes. A small channel bad been closed off and water backed up in there; and some trees along the walkway died, We've since opened that up. And the overlay here, you can see the red over the yellow. And we're looking at that,. basically, over 40 acres of restored mangroves is the result of this past 10 years of work, Some pretty pictures and some not so pretty of what the die-off looked like in tile past, in 2000, 2001, 2008, what it looks like now. This is kind of tile actual same view. This lake right here is the same water body in all of these photos. And you can really see how the mangroves have started to recover, re--establish themselves out there. Going through the management reconunendations, Clearing of tile fullen trees within the waterways, basically, that's an ongoing issue. Keep the water flowing through the system; keep the watenvays open for the people that are utilizing the system, the canoers, the kayakers, the boaters, fishemle~ everybody going up and do""TI through there. That's an ongoing, annual thing that's done as needed. We're going up and down through there. Sometimes boaters will call and say, "Hey, there's a tree that's fallen over; tIlere's a branch that's fallen over." Sometimes it's Kyle noticing that when he's moving in and out to download the data from the tide stations. Or it's us when we're doing our SUIVeyS and our monitoring. Basically, there's a good network already in plooe to keep on top of that and make sure that's a continuing effort, The same with the exotic and nuisance 7832 ~'- .....N.._.. ... , "...~.- ,. . ---- 9 '".',^,,'--."''''''---'..--.-' Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16' ~1~\ March 4. 2006 vegetation: keeping the nuisance vines dawn to. a contrallable level; keeping the Brazilian pepper aut af the system. That's aU an important, ongaing activity that needs to. be maintained. The cattail areas along the befill, I think tlley're actually in pretty good shape, Really, there's anly ane area where cattails are still a big issue ar have the potential to. really take aver. And that's up by the Sandpiper parking lat where they're still pretty prevalent there. Right now there's not a whole lot that we need to do there. There's a lot of other vegetation with i~ it's nat solid cattails. So I dlink that kind of a wait-and-see attitude with that area is still tile way to. go., The manitaring and maintenance af the flushing channels. that's all af the little cuts that we did through there, that 13 miles that I was talking about, that's been critical to. the restoratian af those mangroves. And. my opiniall. and the opinion of some of the ather scientists that have been war king with us an that,. is that this is a critical component of that restoratian. And the maintenance af those is also important, keeping those apen, keeping an eye to. make sure that tlley don't become blocked by dawned vegetatian ar by silting in. These are aU gaing to. be angaing management issues that need to. be taken into. account or into. consideratian far any future plans that might be looked at aut there in the year-round manitaring af the mangroves, I know that there are a lat af residents that help us aut with that when they see problems or issues. We get phone calls; Kyle gets phone calls; I'm sure the PBSD affice gets phane calls, I think that, fram a general aven-iew standpoint, tlmt's being dane, But yau might want to consider the actual smaller-scale manitoring ar mare extreme, if you will, monitoring that's done with the monito.ring plots and actually measuring the recovery and the growth rates af thase trees aut there, That's no. langer a requirement o.f the permit and all, So. whether or not you want to. continue to. do. something like tilat is something that needs to be taken into account, The same with the sea grasses. Manitaring af the sea grasses is no. langer a requirement, unless it's added to. future permits far dredging af the pass ar anything else, But keeping track af what happens with the sea grasses aut there is anather important consideratian that needs to. be taken into. account. If you're nat doing any wOIk out there, maybe it's not necessary to. do every year. But consider every three years or every five years, just so tl13t yau have a continuing set of data and can see wlmt's lmppening witll tllem over time, yau knaw, is important. There are a lot of things gaing an in Pelican Bay, in the county, I know that incorporation talk keeps going back and forth and different things, And having all of this baseline data for what the actual status is of what's here now is important; and keeping that up to. date, I think, is important in case any of these issues come up in the future. The monitaring o.f the bathymetry af the pass. Again, keeping that pass apen is the lifeblood of tlmt entire system; so it just makes sense to keep track of the status af the pass and make sure that it doesn't get to. the point where it could possibly close again. Water quality sampling is an angaing requirement af yaur water management district permit. Some af the extra statians that we added out in the watenvays are over and above what's required in that permit. It's not a huge expense in relatiansllip to the o.ther activities going on. And I think continued 7833 Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 1~\ March 4. 2006 monitoring and collection of that water-quality data would also serve you welL just in keeping track of wbat you have and what's going on in this system on a continuing basis. I had talked about the sea grasses alread)', in teTlllS of our management recommendations, One thing that's not on here that may come up in the future with the maintenance of those flushing channels, if Pelican Bay Services Division, the county, whoever, decides to go fonvard and 10 take on that responsibility and keep monitoring those, it may be that the agencies ask for an actual survey of those channels, And as I said, I believe that we have actual survey data for the channels that were dug through 2003; but 2004, 2005, 2006, we never went to the e>..-pense of actually physically surveying those, So that may be an issue that comes up as well that could be taken into consideration for future work. Results of the restoration: I thought I would just try to do a little Sillmllary. The tidal prism has increased, The time lag associated witll the high and low tide has been reduced; it's decreased. The result of that is increased flushing, water exchange, nutrient transport within the system, all good things in tenus of the mangrove health, the seagrass health, and wildlife utilization in there. So that's a positive. The self-scouring capability and capacity of the pass has been increased, which has resuhed in the ability, or the requirement, to reduce dredging of the pass from every year to evel)' three to five years, The 13 miles of flushing channels constructed throughout there have increased the nutrient-exchange capacity, the flushing capability of the mangrove forest as a whole, and have helped to allow those mangroves to become re-established in the restoration of that. And that's, you know, 40 acres of dead and dying mangroves. Yon IDSO have 10 Yeal'S' worth of data associated witi) the pennit Hmt's been collected on a wide variety of components throughout the system: bathymetry; tidal prisms; wildlife utilization; mangroves; and sea grasses. All of that is going to serve you in good stead for future work or future activities that you w.mt to do out there. And then lastly, I've got the banding together of the community and the very strong opinions that Pelican Bay has as a whole in tenus of the importance of the mangroves and the effort that they've put forth in protecting and preserving those, and I've been very happy to have been able to be involved in that. Overall, the mangrove restoration prQject is successful. I mean,. in my eyes and everybody that I talked to, we've done a good job. And we're happy that we did as well as we have. And we're proud to have been involved in it. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Thank you, Tim. Before I open this up for audieoce participation, I'd like to know if there's any comments or questions from the board. DR RAJA: Yes. Tim? CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Tim, why don't you step back. It may be a while, DR. RAIA: You mentioned that yon improved the water qmility and the shells shollid improve, Do we actually do shell counts now? If we can actually demonstrate that we have had shells returned, 7834 ,.~" -- ,-.--- Il.. _ _ ~'ft',~__';..""'__~""',,, .- "If r "....""...., ~."o_ Pelican Bay Sen'ices Dh,ision Meeting 161 ,tl 1(\\ March 4. 2006 MR HALL: By "shells.," you mean clams? DR RAIA: The clams, yes, MR. HAlL: We have not done any specific COllllts of the shells or the oysters or other inveterate life out there, except to know whether it's there or not. That's something that could be considered in the future, It's a limited visibility system and finding the actual beds, the clam beds and all, and delineating tbem is a time-ronsuming and kind of expensive proposition. So we know general areas, when we find clams, we note them and say, "Hey, there's clams here." But in tenns of actuaIly delineating the beds and trying to count the number of them in that. that's not something that's been done. DR RAIA: I mean, is there any need to do that at some period of time, maybe every three years or something? I mean, just to say that the quality of water has improved, we'd like to demonstrate that, in fact, something positive has come out of that. MR HALL: It could be done. There are definitely monitoring programs that could be put into place that could do that based on whether you want to determine whether or not they're present, or there, is much easier to do than if you want to detennine if we have X square feet or X acres of those. 1bat's much more difficult, because it's much more systematic. DR RAIA: Right, right. MR. HALL: It's more labor intensive and all. But I guess my reoommendation there would be to do periodic surveys that would just detennine whether they're still there or not, would be more appropriate, DR. RAIA: Now, we dredge to flush the channel? MR HALL: Correct. We dredge to maintain, DR RAIA: We do not dredge because the beach needs more sand. MR HALL: Db, generally that's correct, yes, DR RAIA: You get a double header when you can dredge and use the sand. The intent is to dredge for flushing, and then use the sand wherever we can use it in a beneficial way. MR HALL: That's correct, yes, DR RAIA: Okay. Now, are we allowed to continue the work you're doing without a permit~ or do we need a permit? I still can't put my finger on this, MR. PETIY: Mr. Chairman, if I could? The annual report is not to tIDk about what we're going to be doing next year, It's what we've done in the last 10, We have been working with staff, and we have been in discussions with the county, as you-all know, It's on another agenda item where we're going to be talking about what we'll be bringing to the board for consideration in the 7835 .-.--..-.,.-- n.'O< -"'--'"'- ~-"""" _.",,-. -_.- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 .1 t<\\ March 4. 2006 future. So certainly the question can be asked. but I'm interrupting to say d18t it is in discussion, So I think you may get a suggestion. .MR MOFFAIT: Well, to illlSWer Ted's point, on Pages 81 and 82, it tells you what you can do without a pennit and what you need a permit to do. So that's covered in bis report. MR. HALL: I tried to put that into the report. And thnt, again. is our professional opinion that tlmt's wlmt we can and can't do without permits. There's never any surety until you go to the agency and say, "We want to do this." They're either going to say, "You need a permit," or, "You don't." But based on the rules, what I bad put in there is my opinion of what would require pennits. .MR BURKE: So, Tim, what can be done and wl18t can't be done,. you haven't confinned it; it'll be as you go? MR. HALL: An application has to be made. There are, and I apologize, because it is kind of a gray area I can't say "yes" or "no." There are exemptions for maintenance of systems that have been previously pennitted; but there are criteria that you have to meet to be exempt. If you don't meet those criteria, then you require a permit. And my opinion is that the maintenance specifically with the maintenance of all of those little hand-dug channels, that in order to maintain those in the manner that we have in the past, we don't meet the exemption criteria; and we would need a pemtit or some other authorization from the agencies, some verification from them. MR PETIY: Again. Mr, Clmirman, the program has not been defined, so it rrury be unfair to ask Tim whether or not he needs a permit since we haven't defined what our maintenance program would be. We have a draft that you-all have asked for and we've sent to you. We are in consideration of a newer program where that would be updated, So the specifics of the maintenance program, while Tim has his objectives and I certainly have mine for our staffs, it hasn't been re,iewed by this body or detennined what you will adopt. So these are all general responses, keep in mind. And I don't believe Tim's response, nor mine, bas changed from a year and a half ago, which is where we recommended that, if we were out there maintaining dIose channels, that we would like to have a piece of paper so that no government agency would find fault with our actions. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: John? MR PETIT: Yes, Mr. Chainnan. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: TIIere seemed to be a lot of confusion on this. At the last Foundation board meeting, there was a comment by Jim Carroll, who is the Chair of the Clam Bay Estuary Committee, Is that right? MR CARROLL: Tl1at's right. 7836 -. ~^~". . "''''_,''"', I'lP ; ....---.,"...........".,,-. "'.. . -._",,.,.... .-.---....'''-.. Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 \ I ~\\ March 4. 2006 CHAIRMAN BOLAND: And it looks to me like that we got a lot of promises from Commissioner Halas and Jim Mudd, but we got nothing in writing; that's number one, Nmllber two is that I don't think they have the authority to do anything without the BCC meeting and the other commissioners approving what they're saying. We seem to be, like, in limbo. And I think what everybody's concern is what's going to happen. because the new CIanI Bay Estuary Committee, they may not have anything ready 'til December. So I tllink people are concemed, you know, if\1V'e don't have Tim. we don't llave a permit. I think we need a definite answer from the county on just the maintenance of the estuary and who's in charge. MR. PETfY: Sir, we have that answer now. Pelican Bay Services Division is responsible for the maintenance program and for the pennit criteria under the one-year extension. And this board has accepted that responsibility, and we have accepted it as an entity, until there is a transition to any other entity. In other words., we're going to stand our post until relieved. So we know who's maintaining it. We are. We know what costs are to be applied to it, and that's what's in our budget issues. We know who the holder of the pennit is and has been. which has always been Collier County. And we are a division thereof acting as their representative. So, sir, we don't expect to get anything in writing from the county on this issue as there has always been the working relationship between this division and Collier County. We are a part of Collier County; we take direction from the Board of County Commissioners when they find it appropriate; we take direction from the county manager when he finds it appropriate, as described and discussed many times. What we're talking about now is that the relationship appears to be more unified currently than what it has been for the last year, where it seemed to be divergent. It looks like Pelican Bay Services, if they so desire, may be involved in the management and the maintenance of the mangroves. When it comes to watershed issues, issues that go outside the boundaries of Pelican Bay, that clearLy is county territory, and you've got areconunendation from staff that we not be involved outside of our limits geographically. So I think we have a good WOJking relationship, and I think we have answered those questions. I think we are going to be defining that working relationship more and more over the very next month or two, And as the budget committee meets. it is nuder their auspices that I think the first program parameters are going to be set. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: It looks like the county's in charge, but they want the residents of Pelican Bay to pay for it. MR PETrY: Db.. absolutely. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Well, John, the county is numing the show, This board has nothing to say, what's going to happen, 'til God knows when. But meanwhile, we, the people of Pelican Bay, are paying for the maintenance and contract to Tim Hall. I think it would be fairer if the entire county paid their filir share, I know the county's got a problem with money right now. But I think now's the time to say, "Loo"k we're paying for it; we've got to give you some l'eSp()nsibility." I think that's a fair request. 7837 ~'""'- _.._,,~..-. ._,~...,- ~ IJIl ._._.'n"'"."._._..""~~~_.,.",,.., ..~.,"'~ .'_"""'o~'__ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 I~\ March 4. 2006 - I don't know how anybody else feels about tIlis. MR, PETTY: Mr. Chainnan, 1 believe you're right on target. But 1 believe that we may probably best be looking at that under the report on the meeting with the county manager and Commissioner Halas, If you want to go there, we certainly can. I just didn't want to jmnp back and forti) too mucb. It's a reasonable question. And I think tile same thing happened two months ago, when there was a reasonable question of, "Can we go to the county and ask one more time, can't ,ve all just work together?" which we did. And it appears there is a way. At the end of the day, you have to ask yourselves is it of benefit to the residents of Pelican Bay. The relationsllip that we're talking with the county about now is very little different from the way it has been for the last 10 years. The issue has always been a matter of trust., not of contract. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay, anybody else want to... DR RAIA: Well, can I finish my question because I was interrupted? CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Yes. DR RAIA: Thank you. Because if I finish tIris maybe we'll all have a better understanding. And I'm very impressed with those channels. I watched them dig them and it's remarkable. I didn't realize there were ) 3 miles there. And even if there were only 10 miles there, it's a remarkable feat. But they are obvious very susceptible to closing down. TIley're narrow and long, one of many reasons that tiley close up, I think that is Ule key to the success we've seen with the mangroves. And I don't think that that has anything to do with the water problems that the colmty seems to be concerned ,vith. And I know in discussions I heard it, and now they're saying that we can have permits. So why can't we just go and get this permit to take care of those channels, just submit for that? And it apparently was suggested by the powers that be, And we will at least have the key entity in preserving the mangroves under our control and our responsibility. Is there any reason why, in a managenlent report, we can't just use the channels as the item we \\'ant to perform and submit them? MR BURKE: Mr. Vice Chair, could I get back to tile report? Ted, are you done? DR RAIA: Well, once I get an answer, I'll be done. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Mr. Hall? MR, HALL: Well, quite honestly, the only tbing that's stopping ~ me or my company, from making that application is somebody telling us to do so. DR. RAIA Okay. So we should direct you to do that. And then I guess it bas to go to this new Clam Bay Advisory COllUnittee to. . . 7838 --,-'"~. ., .- ..."._,~ ,',,,- .,.",.,,~~,.., . .~",." '-'-'---.-- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 1~\ March 4. 2006 MR. PETrY: No, sir. No, sir. And I'd rather us not state that in public. No, sir. We have not set ourselves in a position to be subjected to another advisory conllnittee. Our current structure is reporting directly to the Board of County Commissioners. DR. RAIA: Fine. It's better with me. I just want to play ball with whatever the county wants us to do. But I want this thing moved from a dead stop. I want to put it in a direction to accomplish something. And if you're telling me we can go right to the commissioners with that limited peront, then so be it. Let's pass it through the county manager, nhe wants to have input on it. And my concern is that narrow area, which seems to be so germane to our success. So that's where I am. MR. BURKE: Very good. Tim, the report, by the way, another good one. Year after year, they're very good. In the management recommendations for the future, obviously you and Kyle are going to be brought into the new Clam Bay Advisory Committee to discuss this report if and when they get it. I don't know if we're going to be releasing it to them, but I assume we will. Is that premature? That hasn't happened yet, has it? MR HALL: Not as far as I'm aware. IVe given it to you guys. I don't know how the whole system works. I'm assuming that. since we're discussing it now, it becomes public record today, and anybody can get it who... MR PETrY: Mr. Chairman, it would take tills board's direction for tIleir contractor to appear before any other entity, and that would include any other county group, because they would have to, of course, charge a fee. And before Pelican Bay incurred that fee, they'd need direction from us. So there's no plans to appear before any other group, including the CianI Bay Advisory Group, unless this board gives tbat direction. MR. BURKE: I don't want to get into that kind of intramural warfare. But in theory', Tim and Kyle have laid out, and I know what has happened, that Tim and Kyle bave laid out tlle ne>..'t year l1ere in tlleSe reconnnendatiollS. And I think they're going to play an important part of what goes on in Clam Bay, at least in the next year. So thanks for the report. Good job. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. And let's keep all tlle questions just to Tim's presentation. I don't think that this is the time or the place to get into the permitting or who's in charge or what's going on, because Tim can't resolve that. He's in the middle of this; and it's not fair. So does any other boani member have any questions pertaining to Tim's presentation? MR. GIBSON: I have a quick q1lestion down here. And I think it was answered. But the 13 miles of hand-cut channels was also an astounding nWllber to me, Tim. MR. HALL: It surprised me as well, when we actually added them all up. MR. GIBSON: I mean, I know, I walk and a 13-mile 'walk. I wouldn't want to dig a channel for 13 miles. Basically my question is, and may'be you've sort of answered it. Just by nature of the 'water going in and out \Vith the tides and the growth of the 7839 -0_,. -..-""< ,-"-_....,<,~ - .~... . Ill" -.-.-.---'''"....-0...''. ~,..",.~_,,_"__ ". ,"~~"...,-,- -~._..,---"._- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 1 f<\\ Marcb 4. 2006 .- various plants that weVe made a lot healthier in Clam Bay, aren't tIleSe cl1lllmels going to eventually fIll back in and, you know, we are looking at longer-term costs to keep them clear? What is your thoughts on these 13 miles and what kind of maintenance is going to be required on a longer-term basis? MR. HALL: That is what we have been talking about in terms of maintenance of the channels and keeping them open. Tl1ere is the potential that they can fill in and become plugged. And so monitoring those to make sure that that doesn't happen, and having the abili~ to go in and open tllem back up if it does happen, is an important, long-tenn consideration in future management and maintenance of the system. So in terms of costs, I believe in years past we have recommended, and what's been set aside, is $30,000 per year to do tI13.t. And because tlle entire 13 miLes doesn't l13.ve to be reopened and m::Jintainf',d every year. It's basically just spots. So going out and finding then1 and getting the people in there to do that is what we have found that $30,000 has worked. Evel)' year, we got more and more channels out there. But from what we have seen, that number still seems to be sufficient for the work that weVe had to do. MR. GIBSON: So it was tIlese 13 miles of channels, plus the dredging of the main cl13.nnel, the pass, that really turned the dying mangroves around to a vel)' healthy and viable situation, correct? MR HALL: Well, there was the dredging of the main pass. And then tIlere was three other areas that were dredged in the main, like, spine waterway, if you will, that goes to the north. MR. GIBSON: But I'm not getting it clear in my mind, when I listened to your report, what caused tile die-o.tf Was it The Strand~ or tlle lligh-rises right on the beacb~ or the lack of water that tlusbed~ or do we know? MR. HALL: It's likely an accumulation of issues. Some of the theories that have been thrown out. there are that., when The Strand was built, and tile road was built for TIle Strand, tIley cut off the underwater flow component because of the compaction that was needed for the roads and the houses; and that resulted in the die-off. Some people have said that well, 1995. we had more rain than we've had in ages. It wasn't anyone major storm, but it was an accumulation of storms tImt resulted in a tremendous amount of water over a vel)' short period of time. MR GIBSON: Fresh water? MR. HALL: Yes, fresh water coming in. The pass also closed that year. So not only did you have a bunch offresh water coming in, we had no way for it to get out; so it piled up. And between me, Robin Lewis, Marty Rosser, you know, e:'l.-perts that have been working out there, that water building up was the cause of the die-off, because the mangroves simply drowned. MR. GIBSON: Thanks. 7840 -~-_. ~,._.. ..,.~..,..-. ~, '.' -._'"~"''' "'-,~. ~.,~--_...- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 1 t\\ March 4. 2006 - MR. HALL: The water got above the humataphors (phonetic) and so the cause of the die-off is drowning. But there were likely whole series of things tImt resulted in that. MR. GIBSON: Thanks, Tim. MR IAIZZO: How many channels do we actually have out there, the 13 miles? MR. HALL: How many? MR. 1A1ZZO: Channels, cut channels. MR. HALL: Tl1e actual, like, number of channels? MR. IAIZZO: Yes. MR. HALL: I don't know. MR IAIZZO: It's interesting. We know the mileage, and yet we don't know how many channels we have. MR. HAlL: Well, tIlere are a lot. There's more than enough because we originally started, A, B, C, D. But what happens is each channel is like a web, if you will. There's a main channel; and then we have little feeders off of that; and then little feeders off of that. So it's almost like a fumily tree. And we got confused with, okay, "Is each one of those little pieces a channel, or do we count just the main one and then lmve, you know, like, Channell and then 11\ lB, IC, would be the next one; and then IAl IA2, IA3?" It gets very, very confusing. MR. IAIZZO: It's a web effect MR HAlL: It's a web effect, yes. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: All right. Jim Carroll is the Chair of the Clam Bay Estuary Conmuttee. Jilll, did you maybe want to say something, maybe shed some light on what's going on? Jim, if you want to sit down, too, go ahead. Be comfortable. MR. CARROLL: Okay. I just wanted to say, after hearing that report, there's no question in my nUlld that I would like to have Tim give that report to both the full committee, the estuaIy committee, and tI1ere is also a subcommittee that's worlcing on the issues we're talking about I1ere. So we need that kind of data. I tIIink that's an outstanding report. As you know, John, you and I have heard it before. But each year, Tim gives us kind of a rundown of the whole thing. And for many of the members of that particular committee, they don't have the background that we do. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Right. MR. CARROLL: And we need to get it. And if we need to work cooperatively on this thing, certainly I will want to promote that in any way, that we need to work together. It's my intention, as [ have said before, as we create new needs, if we do, of 7841 ,..-.... ,-,- .. .,.-." . -_.~, " """""'.--.' "_..~,-_.- , ,.' .,~,-, Pelican Bay Services Dhrision Meeting 161 1#\ March 4. 2006 maintenance, that we work out having the services division heavily involved in that. I don't see any separate organization doing that kind of thing. You know, this is the organization to do that. And Tint and Kyle are the ones that are best equipped to do it. So that's where I'll be going as I work that out. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Jim, maybe, Tim, if he 'wouldn't mind, could set something up and give a similar presentation to your committee and subcommittee? Would you be open to that, Tim, or would you have any problems with that, Tim, giving the same presentation and a hard copy of what went on? Does the board have any objections to that, or Jolm have any comments on that? MR. MOFFAIT: Mr. Chair, I think our administrator told us earlier that this board would have to autl10rize that, because there could be some cost involved. I would move that we make Tint and Kyle available to tile Clam Bay Estumy Committee to make this presentation or answer other questions. MR. BURKE: I would second. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Yes. Ayes? DR. RAIA: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye MR. MOFFATI': Aye. MR. BURKE: Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. GffiSON: Aye. Mr. Jerry Moffatt moved, seconded by Mr. James Burke and apprfWed unanimously to authorize Tim HaU of Tu17'eU, Hall & Associates, Inc .and Kyle Lukasr., Pelican Bay Services Division to appear hefore the new Clam Bay Advisory Committee and make the annual report presentation. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Aye. Okay. Jim., would you like to set up a date with Tint or, you know, work it out with your group? And if you'd like, I'm just filling in now, so I don't know who, on tins particular board and new board, will be on the Clam Bay committee. I don't want to procrastinate on this. but in April, there'll be a new board; Jim and I are coming off. And 1 don't know who Mary Anne's going to appoint wl1ere, if we can hold off 'til the new board comes on, and maybe the service representative, whoever Mary Anne wants to appomt. Jo1m, does that sound okay with you? MR. PETrY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 7842 .- _~ ."", T ,..,.....~,.^'"'-,,,,.,,.,,.........."_"'..... -<r "~-'.-. - --.~-.. Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16~ 1~\\ March 4. 2006 CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Yes. So if we do it maybe after the April meeting. MR CARROLL: Sure. CHAlRMAN BOLAND: Tim, that okay with you? MR HALL: Yes, that's fine willi me. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. Okay. Now we'll have audience participation. Go ahead., Dave. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION MR TRECKER: Dave Trecker, St. Pierre, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association. I don't mean to stir things up here again as they seem to be moving along very well. But l, for one, remain confused about who has all of the responsibility for the maintenance and management of tile mangroves. I was delighted when I heard you folks say at your meeting last lDOnth that Conunissioner Halas and County Manager Mudd bad re-conferred that responsibility to this group. That sounded good to me. Yet tile Clam Bay Advisory Conunittee, and Jim's right here and certainly can speak to this point, at tile Foundation meeting last week announced his mangrove maintenance subcommittee, wllich he said was going to give a great deal of attention to the mangroves. So my question remains: Has tIlere been a delineation of responsibility? And if not. when do you think we're going to get one? MR BURKE: I can or Jim, can. MR. CARROLL: I can answer it, but I don't want to get off into a business item here. But, no, there has not been, but there will be. And it probably will be done sOlnetime around September. MR. TRECKER: And this will come from the Board of County Commissioners. I assume. MR BURKE: It'll come from tile Clam Bay Advisory Group. And it'll go up for approval to the BCC, yes. MR. TRECKER: So you're saying that the Clam Bay Advisory Group will watchdog what you guys are doing and make a reconnnendation thereafter? Again, I'm not tIYing to create a problem. I'm just trying to understand this. MR. BURKE: Well, I don't know about "watchdog." But, I mean, tIlere's this (indicating). There's all kinds of information to work with. And I think the working relationship is going to be very productive and mutually cooperative. I'm not worried about it. MR. TRECKER: So the answer is, "At tills time, we don't know"? MR. IAIZZO: I'd say it a little different. MR. BURKE: Yes. MR IAIZZO: The Clam Bay... 7843 '."'.,-",..,,, -~"'-'- l"I ."1 ~ .. ~ .... If T ........." ,...,._,_.~-,.-......... .-,. 0"'__._ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16'1 1~\ March 4. 2006 CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Dave, Dave? As it stands now, until the BCC votes on this, which is probably the end of this montIl, that tills board is not, I don't agree, I agree witIl you as a citizen. But they are running the show. That's it. Until we get further instructions from or the Bee approval. John, correct me if I'm "TOng on that. MR. PETrY: Mr. Chairman, we are hearing a new story today. And the story has changed from what you had been reported at the last meeting by staff~ and it is contrary to wbat staff bad planned on reporting to you today. So if the Clam Bay Advisol)' Group, tI1e new group that has been authorized by the commissioners, are going to be overseeing mangroves and other water-<JU3tity issues, which we were looking at as a watershed issue, the water quality outside and that we ma~ get involved or stay involved with the interior. If tlIOse things have changed and that's the story that I think I'm bearing today. And the reconunendation from staff would then revert to what we had before. If Pelican Bay Services Division Catlllot control where its money goes and for what purpose, then you have always told staff you did not wish to be involved. And that would be the case, if there were another committee, especially an advisory conunittee that would have jurisdiction over the matter or even any influence over the matter: then you have a separate entity that is somehow touching your dollars. TIle county commissioners have always touched your dollars, though. MR. MOFFATT: I'm not so sure from what I've read on this that anyone is taking it over. I think Jim has a sulx:ommittee tlmt's studying the issue to make a detemIination of who ought to be maintaining the mangroves. And tI1erefore, they could recOlmnend that we continue to maintain tllem. MR CARROLL: Yes, you're right. MR MOFFATT: They have a preliminary matter due, I believe, October 2Otllor sometime in that time frame, because they sunset at the end of the year, 12131. MR. CARROLL: Well, I tIrink tllat's a key point, Jerry, that I was going to make. This committee is an ad hoc committee. As far as I'm concerned, it's going to go out of existence at the end of the year~ so it wouldn't make any sense for this committee to asswne any kind of responsibility, like, for mangrove maintenance. It would certainly be my intention to direct things such that mangrove maintenance stays right with the services division. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to me to do anything else than that. We've already had two meetings; and we're in tile very' initial stages of this. And I think as I've mentioned before, one of our main issues is to settle this issue with Seagate so that we, you know, stop that perennial battle. But I don't see us having any battle at all over the services division. Obviously, from my background, I know I'm prejudiced; but I still don't see any problem there. 7844 _...._,--_._._---_._-~-- 161 1~\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting - March 4. 2006 CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Ted? Yes. DR RAIA: I'm of the position that I'd rather pay and control it ratl1er than say, "Well, let the county do it and we don't have to spend the money." So it's very important that we want to pay to keep the mangroves. Remember, the county had an opportunity to do this 10 years ago and preferred not to spend any money on it, becanse it was really to om local benefit. And, you know, that's reasonable thinking because, at that time, the press was very' much against Pelican Bay getting any money from the COlUlty. That's where we got our bad mune from; it goes back to there. But getting back, is there a time frame l1ere? I mean, tomorrow, can you go in and fix tile channels? Can you do it nex1 month? Can you do it six months from now? Are we, right now, in conformity in maintaining tile mangroves? MR PETrY: Mr. Chainnan? DR RAIA: Wait, wait, wait. Excuse me. Jolm. MR. PETrY: He's tIying to direct a question to staff. And I feel obligated to give some parameters, if you would allow. DR RAIA: Wait a minute, John. I pay tIlls guy's service, and I'm asking him a question. And I just want an answer. And I don't want to be interrupted again. MR. PEITY: Mr. Chair, you'll have to tell me that I am censored on this question for me not to address tile Chair. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: I tIlink we've kicked tills around. I would like to give tlle audience a chance to stand up, okay? Tim? MR. BURKE: WelL we're... CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Now, all the questions, I'd appreciate from the audience, would they just pertain to Tim's presentation. Let's not get into who's in charge or who got what pennits or who shot who, okay? Let's keep it just to Tim's presentation. Anyone in the audience wish to speak? DR RAIA: My question is a very reasonable question. It's not. . . CHAIRMAN BOLAND: If so, feel free to get up and ask your questions. Ted, let's just keep going. We're not going to get an answer from this. We're... DR RAIA: I mean, if there's no answer, fine. I just want to know ifwe are okay now. If we're okay now, I'll forget about it. If tIlere's any chance that it isn't being monitored the way it's supposed to be monitored right now, I think it behooves us to look into it. That's what we're being paid for by tile budget. So lle's the expert. Let everybody in the audience know wl1ere we stand. MR. HALL: Our pennit was extended until June of this year. So we are good to keep doing the maintenance-monitoring 7845 -- --",~,"~'- . -. _4'~""___ _ , ""~''"- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting \\ March 4 2006 ~ activities until that point. DR RAIA: Fine. MR IAIZZO: When? MR. HALL: Until June of this year. After that, the question is: Are ,ve allowed to do it as a maintenance exemption: or do we need the actual pernlit? And I believe we need to do that DR. RAIA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. Could the audience please give your name and your comments so our recording secretary can write it down. MS. CRA YENS: Marcia Cravens, Dorchester, and now president of the Mangrove Action Group. Tim, thank you for such a wonderful presentation. And thank you and all tile guys that work with you and Kyle. You guys have done an ontstanding job of restoring the mangroves. And I think everybody here needs to applaud, you know, your good efforts. (Applause.) MS. CRA YENS: I spoke with you on the phone yesterday. And I said, "WeVe done a really good job with the restoration of the mangroves. And we've done a pretty good job of reporting on the rest of tile ecosystem: but certainly we could improve there." And something I talked with him about, that I had no idea and was happily amazed to find, that there are significant populations of clams and oysters right there for anybody to look. You just have to be observant. I was there for about three or four hours about a week ago, taking photographs, primarily to highlight tlle mudflats tllat exist, large expansions of mudflats, which are an important part of this ecosystem. But I'm not going to go off in that. I just wanted to say I think we could do a better job of identifYing the rest of the ecosystem. And I would hope that. since we did such a wonderful job of restoring the mangroves, that maybe we might help to restore some of the other species that call this home. Beyond that, Tim, do we still have 10 acres of dead and dying mangroves? We had 70 acres of mangroves that were of concern; at least, less than a year ago, that was the case. Is that still true? Do we still have 70 acres of special concern and 10 acres of dead and dying? MR. HALL: No, the numbers have been revised this year. Most of those areas of concern were relating to hurricane damage, which was why the number was so high last year. TIle way we had inch1ded the areas of concern were recovering areas, hurricane areas, and stress areas. We're seeing a much better recovery of those hurricane areas. The trees have leafed back out and all, so that number has gone back down drastically. MS. CRAVENS: How much? MR HALL: It's hard without the report right in front of me. I believe it is about four or five acres that are actually dead. 7846 .-,"-""-"-- -,~._'"-".._." .....,..,....-'''.-,.----, "'~~~- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 4\\ March 4. 2006 MS. CRAVENS: Okay. Great. MR. HALL: And then about the Satlle amount that we're calling "stressed" in those areas. And tl1e other stuff, we've all said, is recovering. MS. CRAVENS: Okay. MR. IAIZZO: Tim, are they confining that area. . . MR. BURKE: Wait. We've got a questioner up there, and she's only got about 45 seconds left. MS. CRA VENS: You do not have to hold Ole to three minutes on that, particularly since Tim took some of it. MR. BURKE: We'll give you anotl1er minute. MS. CRA VENS: I agree with Tim that seagrass monitoring, we need a better baseline of it They did transect. He did do a more comprehensive review of sea grass last year, because he had to kind of rebut or confinn what the Tomasko report said about it. And he did an excellent job at that tinle. But in my conversation with Tim yesterday, I said, "Tim, what would it cost to do a comprehensive, complete review or assesslllent of tile sea grasses in the system?" He told me it would take somewhere between $5,000 and $7,500; it would take three and a half to four days. I think that's sometbing you could have him do right now under the current permit. (Timer sounding.) CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. MS. CRA VENS: Okay? And also to maybe look at the mollusks, because they're an indicator species. So the next time somebody tries to say, "Pelican Bay is not taking care of the conservation area, all the oysters are dead, all the sea grasses are dead," we will have the data to say, "That's not true; it's a healthy, viable wetlands." CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. MS. CRAVENS: We know that it is, but we can't really prove it. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Excuse me. Would anybody like to give their three Ininutes so Marcia can continue? Someone raise their hand. Okay. Go ahead, Marcia. You've got three more minutes. MS. CRAVENS: Okay. 'Thank you. I also wanted to talk about the flushing channels and any trimming of mangroves or removal of trees is very strictly regulated. And there's actually SOOle current legislation that we don't know where it will go for even stronger mangrove protection. We have lost, I think, 84,000 acres of wetlands witIrin the period of time that the knm\n net loss began. And so every single acre, every mangrove tree is important to preserve, okay? And I just would hate to see that this gets turned into trimming mangroves and removing mangroves for a IJ8\i1gatiOnaJ channel when that has never been the case before. 7847 ""-..."..."""'"'...""''''.....-..-,,,''''"'.,. 1'17 ~" .-,'",.>-.,",,-,=. C""~"'""'''''''''"_ -~,'- "'--"'-'---''-- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 1 ~\ March 4. 2006 You know, I think we need to just highlight and it's been very clear in the lO-year management plan that it was an ecological enhancement progra.m, a restoration and enhancement program. And any of tile work that was done was for enhancement of the ecosystem; nothing was done for navigation. And if you read that whole thing, you'll understand why. It's a very tidal system. very shallow, lots of shoaling. And, you know, I only have some of your e-mail addresses. And, John, I keep getting kicked back when I try and send you things. But besides the pictures of all the oysters and dams that I took recently, I took pictures of the mudflats and the large expanses that were e:>.-posed. And, also, what water there was, was inches deep. OM)'? So I would like to see that maybe reflected a little better and understood a little better by the larger community. We're intimately aware of it~ but the larger world is not. So in the future when we're doing reports and so forth I'd kind of like to I): we have a better baseline of all the wildlife, all the indicator species that exist in it; art<L 2) that it shows just exactly what the system is, not wishful thinking of what some people want it to be, but more clearly indicate with unambignous language just what the system is. TIle last thing I want to say is thank you., Jim. for making a situation where Tim Hall and Kyle Lukasz can go to the new Clam Bay Advisory Conunittee and share this tremendous amount of material to help them. IVe attended all the meetings. They have been nothing but positive about PBSD. There has not been one single negative statement. They recognize what you've done. However, they don't have the information. They don't have all the report, I mean, you know what I'm saying? I'd like to be able to share with them, for instance, the draft that was last done of an update to the management plan. I think that could be their base. I mean, they have no knowledge base right now. CHAlRMAN BOLAND: Yes. MS. CRA YENS: Okay? So I'd like all of you to consider sharing that. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Marcia. if I may, thank you. No matter what we say or do, I agree with you and the rest of Pelican Bay. We know, for 10 years, Tim has done a fabulous job; the mangrove committee has done a tremendous job. We all want them to stay. Unfortunately, it's not our decision. TIle county, we're an advisory board, let me finish. We're an advisory board. You know me~ I'm not a pro-<:ounty guy. The point is, they have appointed the committee run by Jim Carroll. Now, he's agreed and Tim's going to give him a presentation. Whoever's the next board, it's going to be Mary Anne's decision, because we only can under Sunshine laws, we're only allowed one person to participate. Jim Carroll's been a resident here for many years and I'm sure he knows how good Tim Hall is, how much effort you've put into it and the people of Pelican Bay. I just think we're beating a dead horse here by going over and over and over. Nothing is going to be decided 'til April. Let that conunittee sit down and, if they want to invite you, that's up to Mr. Carroll. That's not my decision. Mary Anne and Mr. Carroll may want to sit and 7848 .._.._-~. '. ,.-..- -",-"'._--~-- _""'0_"" "'.-. Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting Ie March 4 2006 j, -, talk it out. I don't want to be rude or cut anybody off. But we're just going to get nowbere just going around and around and around in circles here. MS. CRA YENS: Well, tIley have been very, very interested in any infonnation that bas been sent them about what's already been done. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Yes. But there's nothing we can do about it. I'm sorry. I feel the same way you do; I agree with you 150 percent. MS. CRA VENS: I think I agree with Mr. Carroll. I think that there is a likely probability that the new Clam Bay Advisory Conunittee will decide the Pelican Bay Services Division is the best entity around to take care of tIlls area. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. MS. CRAVENS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak or comment? MR. MOFFATI: John, can Ijust correct tile record? CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Sure. Go right ahead. MR. MOFFA TI: I think the notices that the advisory committee sends out, at least for their subcommittee meetings and I don't recall on the main meeting, I can't imagine that it's different, states that two or more Pelican Bay Services Division board members may be in attendance. MS. eRA YENS: It does. MR. MOFFA TI: So I think they've taken care of the Snnshine laws. We can all go if we want, or nobody goes. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. John, do you want to start your administration report? Thank you. MR. PETrY: First off... MR. MOFF ATI: I'm sony. Can I ask another question related to Tim? CHAIRMAN BOLAND: I'm sorry. MR. MOFFA IT: We have a management plan. Are we going to review tins or have a discussion of tI13t, the draft? I don't see it on the agenda. MR. PETIY: It is not on the agenda, Mr. Chairman. We do not have that item on the agenda. MR MOFFA IT: Right. Are 'we going to, at some point in time, review this or have a discussion of it? MR. PEITY: No, probably not. 7849 ,',.-.' ".~.""<,, . ,,--,"' ,,,,"",,'"' '.....ll - Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 Mll ~, March 4. 2006 MR. MOFFATT: Oh. MR PETrY: It was sent based on an information request from what we bad done last year. Somebody was waiting for a copy of what the latest and greatest was. That's what we did last year. MR. LEVY: Does any action have to be taken to move thisfium a draft report? MR PETIY: Yes, sir. We are looking for an action by this board to accept it; and then we would disseminate it. But you did that at the last meeting. We asked you for that at your last meeting. Today's meeting was for the detailed discussion. MR LEVY: Thank you. MR. PETrY: And if you want any action, you would bring that up in a motion. But staffhas nothing. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. MR. PETrY: Mr. Chainnan, the first thing we... MR. BURKE: Jolm, before you start, let me ask you something. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: I don't think he's done. MR. MOFF ATI: I don't understand what was just said. Of course, tImt's not unusual in our discussions. Where the hell are we? We have a report; we accepted it. Are we never going to discuss it, read it, review it or. . . MR. PETIY: Mr. Chairman, that's not a report that was accepted or adopted. It was a draft that was done a year ago. A board member asked for the latest copy because tiley didn't bave it in their IDe. Anything we give to one member, we try to give to them all. What you adopted at the last meeting was not a draft management plan but an annual report, the tenth annual report. DR RAIA: Tills (indicating)? MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. MR MOFFATT: We've never adopted this? MR. PETrY: No, sir. DR RAIA: Can we put it on the agenda today and approve it? MR. PETIY: No, sir. DR RAIA: Why not? MR. PETIY: Well, I take that back. You can. . . DR RAJA: We looked at this thing. MR PETrY: Mr. Chairman, what would you like? 7850 ..~ --'~"" ~^".'-,,. . 10" #'" ""~".-....,,.. .'.,.....''''"''''' ~- ",._,"""," Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 P\l1 ~\\ March 4. 2006 CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Go ahead. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ERRONEOUSLY SENT AGENDA MR. PETTY: The first thing I wanted to bring to your attention is that staff made an error and sent out a wrong agenda. I've talked to all the board members about this individually but wanted to bring it up in the public meeting. We had prepared a special meeting concerning one of your members, Dr. Raia. We V'.'ere subpoenaed by a law fin1l. It appeared that we were being brought into a legal action by one of your llleIDbers. It turns out that was an erroneous assmnption; and discussions before the end of the day corrected that. But we had prepared an agenda, in case tlrnt had happeI1ed, that would initiate a certain policy, certain action, by us, which means we would bring it to your attention and we would ask you-all for direction, because 1ypicalJy if one your associates on the board would enter this entity into a legal action without your consent, well, tlrnt would usually call for an immediate removal from the board to get that ann's-length separation. So we bad prepared that doctnnent. But we heard from Dr. Raia at tile end of the day that tIlere was nothing from Dr. Raia's end at all. It turns out there was somebody else coming after Dr. Raia about an issue. And they were the ones trying to drag the Pelican Bay Services Division into some personal litigation. As it turns out, we were not needed to be deposed; we did not have to give testimony. TIrnt was cancelled at the last minute by the attorneys that sent the subpoena. But we wanted to clear up the fact that you got the wrong agenda, because we did do a special meeting for a fairly standard housekeeping issue of the management contract RFP; and that this had been in a file marked "Special Meeting" and was sent out in error. We wanted to clear up the good name of Dr. Raia. He did nothing that was improper in this matter at all. And staff wishes to apologize for sending this out in error. MR.. MOFFA IT: May I ask a question? It sounds like, from your explanation you just gave, you got a notice; you called a special meeting. You then talked to Dr. Raia all within tile course of a day, and found out the true fucts and that you had made a mistake. Why wouldn't you have followed a policy of talking to Dr. Raia first? MR. PETTY: Well, because that's not tile policy. The policy is that, once legal action bas been instituted, that staff act very quickly. And we did, in consulting the county attorney's office and checking on the policies and tile ordinances of the county and in comparing those with the ordinance that established this community. And we took the advice from legal counsel from the county who said that tI1ey would like to hear from tIlls board what their recommendation is; and then any action to remove a member can only be made through the county commissioners. We did not have anytlring within OUT oTdinance that allowed us to do so as a body. 7851 -- ~,~..",- ."~'-'-,~ ~ . .M""','" .-,-'".,.- ...., __"m,_.'_ '~"""".'---- Pelican Ba)" Services Division Meeting 161 'I ~\\ March 4. 2006 DR RAIA: I'm curious. Has that agenda been destroyed? Because the last time I asked that, you said you're not allowed to destroy any records. Even erroneous records? MR MOFF ATI: I have a copy of it. MR. IAIZZO: I have a copy, if you want to see it. MR BURKE: Have you got another question? MR. MOFFATT: No. No, go ahead. MR. BURKE: There's a lot more to this than your expLanation. And wilen we get done with your explanation, I've got three or four pages of questions to ask you. But this erroneous assmnption you made. wl1ere did tile infoffiIation come from that caused you to make the erroneous assmnption? MR. PETrY: The subpoena. MR. BURKE: You received a subpoena? MR. PETrY: Yes. MR. BURKE: And the subpoena subpoenaed what, you or Raia or who? MR. PETrY: Me, as the administrator of Pelican Bay Services Division. It was delivered to the offices of Pelican Bay Services Division. It was signed for by staff and submitted to me bye-mail. MR. BURKE: And you made the decision that the board didn't need to know about that? MR. PETrY: No, sir, I did not make that decision. MR. BURKE: How come we didn't know about it? MR. PETrY: Because you didn't have a chance to meet And you can only do this through a meeting process. MR BURKE: So, on your own, you handled this? You called up Ted Raia and said... MR. PETrY: No, sir. On my own, I did not handle this and call Dr. Raia. No, sir. MR. BURKE: The comIty attorney? MR PETrY: No. sir. MR BURKE: You went to the comIty attorney? MR PETrY: I did talk to the county attorney, yes, sir. MR. BURKE: And they advised you to contact Ted Raia to clear it up? MR PETrY: No, sir. 7852 -,- ,-"',,'~.. ,-,,~ . ...~_. -",""",,,""^~,,,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,... --... ".."~-- Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting 161 IM\ March 4. 2006 MR. BURKE: What did he advise you to do? MR. PETrY: He didn't advise me of anything. I talked with Heidi. And Heidi advised... MR BURKE: Yes. MR. PETIY: .. . that sbe would have to review the matter. She asked me to e-mail her the subpoena. And sbe recommended nothing at that time other than she would need to review it further. I asked her about the policy of the county commission, if this had happened on the commission. She gave me that policy which is" that would be terms for ilmnediate removal from the board; tbat would be considered an immediate resignation and would require no fonnal action by the county colmIlissioners; it would be the act itself that would cause it to occur. She later reported back to us that she didn't think there was anything in our ordinance that gave us tile power to do tbat. It bad not been anticipated at the time tbat tile ordinance was written by county staff. And as such, she suggested that I talk to the county manager's office. MR BURKE: And what did Ted Raia say to you that caused you to think it's an erroneous assmnption? MR. PETIY: He identified the attorney whose name was on the subpoena. MR. BURKE: He identified what? MR PETrY: The attorney whose name was on the subpoena. MR BURKE: Yes? DR RAIA: lint, he asked me if I was suing you or the COlUlty or something. I said, "No," I said, "I don't know where this is conling from." Tl1e assumption made was that I was actively suing the boord or the county or something. And I was as surprised to get the subpoena as he was. And when he was told of tbe fact, that's when it got cancelled. But apparently this agenda had already been printed up and accidentally distributed. MR. BURKE: Anybody else? IVe got some things I want to go over on this subject. This could veIy well be my last meeting on this board; and tllere's been something nagging at me ever since its inception. And I know if I don't get off my chest now, I probably never will hear anything about it But I want to go back, Jolm, the q1leStions are directed to you. So, Ted, if I need anything out of you, I will address them to you, okay? DR RAIA: Sure. MR BURKE: I want to go back to the service division board meeting at which, John, you and Ted canIe in here with very elaborate Waterpark Place, Cap d'Antibes site plans. And at that meeling, you and Ted introduced this issue, this controversy of, once agaitI, Waterpark Place, Gulf Bay was doing things behind closed doors with the county, et cetera, et cetera. Do you recall 7853 ^-' ---~"""" _.~. ~ ' -'.,._~ ~_.," 161 I 1~\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting March 4. 2006 that meeting? MR. PETTY: Mr. Chainnan. it appears that there's going to be broad statements here tIlat I don't know tIlat I can opine to agree with. Could I ask for a clear direction from this board on what is occurring at this time? MR MOFFATI: It's an inquisition. MR BURKE: No, it's not an inquisition. I 'W-allt to get things cleared up that led up to this special meeting to ask Ted to resign. I think tI1ere's a lot more that this board, this administrator, should have addressed going back a year. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, at any tinIe, any board member is free to contact me, as. Mr. Burke knows, to ask any questi~ and I will answer to the best of my ability. Certainly, if there's an issue on my response to my duties, certainly any board member can bring up their concerns on that and, also, opine to this body either through a conunittee's action or through a vote that a change be made. And as a matter of record, you have adopted a request for proposals and will be considering such a change in the very near future. MR BURKE: Okay. So you don't recall? You do or do not recall that llleeting? I recall it very vividly. MR PETTY: Mr. Chairman, aga.in, may I ask for direction? CHAIRMAN BOLAND: I think he answered the question, Jim. MR. BURKE: Well, yes, but I want to. .. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: But, you know, I'm saying you're bringing up an issue here... DR RAIA: Just get to the point, Jim. MR. BURKE: No, no. I'm going to get to tIle point. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: I think you blindsided the guy, you know. MR. BURKE: No, I'm not blindsiding anyone. It's a series of questions, and there will be "yes" or "no" answers. Look when you guys wanted to strip me of my governmental position you had no trouble ripping into me. So I've got some questions I want cleared up. I think they have to be because this conunittee reflects on John Petty's administration of the Pelican Bay Services Division, okay? Now, if you want to ignore it all, if you want to ignore wbat's taken place on Waterpark Place willi John and Ted, fine. Tell me that. I'll drop it. That'll give me the answer I need. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Well, how does the board feel? MR. IAIZZO: Maybe we need a special meeting just for that. DR. RAIA: But what is it that concerns you, Jim? And we'll give you the answer right up front. Just ask the question. 7854 -"~""""""'" - _.~_\.... -~ _.,~ ~.~___Jlil ~ ,~,.. 161 , 1~\ Pelican Bay Services Dhision Meeting March 4. 2006 MR. BURKE: I don't want to ask one simple question. But if I were forced to because obviously, Ted, you and John do not want to get into this. DR. RAIA: I would be glad to explain tllls. I didn't tlunk it was business here, but I'll give the "vhole story. MR. BURKE: When this issue was first brought up with Watcrpark Place, Cap d'Antibes, the new project, my question to John is and you are reputed to have instillItional knowledge of Pelican Bay that's unmatched by anybody. Were you aware at that time of Ted's background and history with Gulf Bay , Cap d'Autibes, Aubrey Ferrao? Did yon have any hint of it, any whiff of it? MR. PETrY: Mr. Cbainnan, again, I can answer questions of any board member based on my performance. Giving testimony though, rm a little bit uncomfortable with. MR. BURKE: Okay, John, fine. You answered it for me. MR. PETrY: But let me clarify this. MR BURKE: I got an answer. MR. PETTY: All of our actions... MR. BURKE: Okay. MR PETrY: ...regarding Cap d'Antibes and Waterpark Place are part of the public record and are available to any board member via the minutes. And any other records that we have that you don't have a copy of, we'll be glad to get for you. MR. BURKE: John, thank you. MR. PETTY: You're welcome, sir. DR. RAJA: I want to add something to this, if I may. These questions have almost. . . CHAIRMAN BOLAND: John, continue your report, please. DR. RAJA: Can we... CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Ted, let it go. John, go ahead. REPORT ON MEETING WITH COUNTY MANAGER AND COMMISSIONER HALAS MR PETrY: Next, we'd like to report on tlle meeting with tlIe county manager and Commissioner Halas. As the board knows, they sent the Chair and the administJa10r for our second round of talks to try and determine the stJa1egic intent of where we would sit in Clam Bay with the county. The directions by this board w-ere to get whatever was necessary from the county so that we could continue the maintenance of the mangroves. We discussed that witii tile COWity manager and Commissioner Halas at length. It appears to be a very open door, very open opportunity: and it is up to this board and the people of Pelican Bay on whether they 7855 ~"'~'''~ ---",._.",~. ~"",,,,",' .-'.' -'-',""'''' r>""_.'~";",-""- '-''''" ,.",,,,N'_'_"_ .......-...-- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 ~\\ 1~\ March 4. 2006 would like to continue down that road. You have l1eard today from some of your fellow board members and from other members of Pelican Bay, from the ad\-isory CIanI Bay committee that was recently created by the commissioners, tImt tIlere may be a different path than what we have been discussing with Mr. Halas and Mr. Mudd. It appears that there is a considerable amount of confusion in the nmtter, to the point where I can't bring YOll anything back from this meeting other titan Commissioner Halas and Mr. Mudd were very respectful, very responsive. And it appears the Pelican Bay Services Division does have a very nice working relationship. As to the definition exactly of what that can be with Clam Bay, I think that's going to have to be worked out. MR. LEVY: John, was there any discussion about the fact that we felt we ueeded a permit or some kind of authorization to do the channels and then to remove dead. .. MR. PETrY: Yes, sir. And it does not appear to be in confomIance WitIl what you're hearing today. But our lUlderstanding after those discussions was that Pelican Bay Services Division would be aided by the COlUlly in getting whatever permit was necessary to do the maintenance. MR LEVY: Who's going to initiate the action to get tIlls permit? MR. PETTY: Staffwould work with the county. If we felt we needed one, we would go to the county manager's office, tell them what we needed; and the county manager vowed that he would do everything within his power to obtain it for us. MR LEVY: We already heard that. I mean, we already heard that it's felt that \ve need a permit to maintain the channels and to remove the.. . MR. PETrY: And, sir, it is not that simple. And believe me, I have been in discussions with Tim on procedure. And we do have a plan, an action plan, to put into etIect. But it doesn't entail a board action directing Tim to apply for a permit at this time. What it entails is Tim and I working out what is necessary, what is required to be under permit, wbat is not. And SOUle questions are not answered yet. DR. RAIA: But we've established that this permit e"1>ires in June. That's just three months from now. And I'm just concerned. What happens after June? Do we have enough of a window to resolve that problem? MR. PETrY: Mr. Chainnan.. that's a viable question, but I can tell you that, if not for the conflict today, I would have said I tIllnk we do have time. But because I'm hearing this new turn of events, that the ClaIll Bay Advisory Group is looking at the maintenance, that Mr. Burke, in his relationships with the county, believes that they 'will make a decision on who's going to take care of it at the end of the year, that is quite a bit away fium my discussions with Mr. Mudd of a week ago. So I suggest to you that I can't answer that question today. I don't know. 7856 .. _._..,----,.._---_._~_._- .~___.m.,.'.~ -,.".,...., '-- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 11~\ March 4. 2006 DR RAIA: Yes, that's why I brought it up, because I had heard about tIris, tImt the commissioner and the comIty manager were persuaded to let us get the permits that we actnally would need to do our wOlle. So I'm just trying to follow up on that and get that done. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: I thought we discussed this for the last hour. DR RAJA: Yes, \\e did. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: That tl1ey were going to meet in April. Tim is going to .give the presentation, Jim Carroll's conunittee was going to sit down. And, Tint, when do you have to actually stop working? Or do you? No one's told you to stop, right? So you're going to keep working as long as we pay you~ is that a true statelllent? MR. HALL: I guess. I mean, in terms of work, there are monitoring activities, there's coordination that we do with Kyle and with Mr. Petty that we don't need permits for. We can keep doing those. It's the physical acti,ities within tile system. Some of them can be done; some of them, we can't. You know, SOUle of them, I don't believe, can be. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: So you can keep going 'til next month, April, right, no problem? MR HALL: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. And then you're going to give the presentation to tIle new CIanI Bay Estuary Committee. Hopefully we'll have a representative, whoever Mary Anne wants to appoint. And I think from there we could work it out. Does that sound reasonable? MR. PETTY: I'm at a loss to say what's reasonable right now, sir. But I think it's a plan. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. That's jt. Anybody else have any questions or comments? MR MOFFA IT: I'd just like to point out again that Tim has given us a report that lists seven items that he can do without a permit. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: I'm sorry, did you say seven? MR. MOFFAIT: Yes, and three items that l1e can do only with a permit So, you know, suppose we get a hurricane somewhere along the road here. He may have to do some of these items that he needs a pennit for. I don't tIrink we ought to be waiting. I think Jim's committee was charged with looking at everything affecting Clam Bay. Tbis happens to be one of the things. It doesn't say they're going to take it over. In fact, the feeling is they will probably just push it right back here. r don't see that we've had any new information that would confuse you, Mr. Petty. MR. IAIZZO: It'll be a dual effort on that Clam Bay system. It'll be a dual effort between us and tI1e advisory conunittee. 7857 "_"~6',.""""""_'>__". ._ '".-.___ u m ..---".,,-.. .--- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 '~1~ March 4. 2006 CHAIRMAN BOLAND: No one knows exactly right now. Anything else? MR. IAIZZO: Just don't pass on the buck to us, that's all. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. John. do yon want to continne? UPDATE ON THE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MR. PETrY: The nex1 item is an update on the water management system. And as you-all know, we have been talking to you about wet-weather harvesting of the storm water system. This is something that would make us better water managers of our facilities. We have talked with the county staff on this issue and find it to be in confonnance with their overall objectives as well. We have talked with tile golf course, with tl1e Club in Pelican Bay, over the issues of trying to see if there was any excess waters that were available for the use of irrigation within Pelican Bay; and the delivery mechanism for discharging storm water harvest would have to be a lateral line through Pelican Bay. And it turns out the golf course has that system So we've been working in conjunction with the club and their engineers and staff and tile manager's office on tins issue. We got permission from tIris board to get an independent engineer to talk about the feasibility, whether or not this was plausible, whether or not this could be economical and reasonable for you to consider. We went back to our roots, and we asked Mr. McKune, who did your original water-supply study back in nineteen seventy some odd. I won't say the exact year, because l1e does look a little bit older than what he should, I think, for that time period. MR. lAIZZO: Did you dig him up? MR PETIY: Literally, we did dig him up. He has been associated with special taxing districts and emerging communities in the state of Florida for over 30 years. He has been used as a testing ground for a lot of new concepts having to do with the new comprehensive plan requirements and planned growth. We thonght I1e would be an e.xcellent choice for us, looking at the feasibility of benefits and costs to Pelican Bay. And lle is here today. If you can give him a couple of lninutes, he'll give you his initial review and comments on whether or not it is plausible to consider this matter and what the steps would be in the future to go forward CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Thank you, sir. Mr. McKune? MR McKUNE: 111ank you. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Please give your name, sir, to the recorder. Thank you. MR. McKUNE: My name is John McKune, M-c-K-u-n-e. MR. IAIZZO: Put the nlie doser. 7858 _.~"- ~_.'.',-,-.. ~lIl1_ ...,,,,-,,,<,,~,.'-._...,..'.- "'-'-"-"'~ "'.m..__ Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting 161 1~\\ March 4. 2006 MR McKUNE: Okay. Thank you. As Jolm said, I've been in tIle engineering business for some 40 years here in South Florida. I'm from West Palm Beach. I have my 0\\11 small finn. I was fortunate enough to be here in 1973, '4, '5, thereabouts, when we first formed the water and sewer :facility at tIlat time. And we got this development approved through the county as part of the development of regional impact work. And since that time, what we envisioned back then has changed, obviously. And I could probably hardly recognize what we have here now compared to when I used to get lost in tile swamps and almost drmmed in Clam Pass. But be that as it may, John talked to me some time ago about his concept of u)ling to get more ure out of the water that falls from the sky on Pelican Bay. And I don't want to talk on and on, even though I could There are four basic facts that I think we have to deal with. And I made some crib notes llere. The current infonnation on ,vater shortage now in Southwest Florida, in the past four months, you lack about 78 percent of your normal rainfall. It's bad; we all know that You've gotten a total of about 2.13 inches of rain. That doesn't help the services division in irrigating and taking care of the responsibilities tIlat you have, not only on the golf course but all of the other vegetation that you have. Number two, the water managenIent system that you have in place right now produces, on an ammal average, a surplus of groundwater 1ll0Venlent to tIle west into tIle bay and tile gulf That is water that I would like to think of as being lost to the tide. It's not doing you or anyone else any good In fact, after hearing Tim talk about the stresses on the mangrove system, there are tinIes when excess fresh water is doing you harm. So this concept that we're considering right now could, in fact, in working with Tim, give you some benefit for that mangrove system. Fact number tluee is that you do, right now, have an aquifer storage and recovery 'leU installed on site here in Pelican Bay. It has never been put into use. It was installed with the intent of storing water tllat could be rerovered for eventual reure during drought times. So that's sitting there unused. MR. GIBSON: And, excuse me, not completed. It's $348,000 short of being useable. MR. McKUNE: That is something that I'm not aware of MR. GIBSON: Yes, sir. MR.. McKUNE: Andl'msurethattherewouldbesome... MR. GIBSON: There's about $400,000 to finish the prQ.lect. It's on the back burner now. MR. McKUNE: So you have that much sunk into it? MR. GIBSON: We have about $400,000 into it; we need about another three eighty to lOur hundred to finish it. MR. McKUNE: So that wouldn't be part of the solution. MR. GIBSON: Right. 7859 _...,~---_.~~,."." . ,.<~_.- - ..,,, "~^,--,,._.-... ------ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 161 !1 ~ March 4. 2006 MR. McKUNE: Item 4 is on your contract, I believe, witll the county for use of irrigation-quality water from their wastewater system. I believe John told me you're limited to 500,000 gallons per day during the dry season and tIuee quarters of a million gallons a day during the wet season. MR. PETrY: For the golf course, yes. MR McKUNE: For the golf course. MR. PETrY: Those are in round numbers. MR. McKUNE: Right. So that number, in times like this, perhaps is a little skinny fur the golf course. I'm sure they would like to have more. Most golf course superintendents I've been associated with always want more water: they can all use it. So those are the facts. That's what we CUfrentIy deal wi~ the realities. And tllere's some cost in the investment in the well. So what can we do to get benefit from any surplus rainwater, storm water, runoff that we may have? TIle concept is fairly simple. Your water management system right now is a retention system utilizing lakes on the property. TIlere are times when there would be surplus water going through the lake systenIS ending up down behind the berm, eventually seeping to the west. If we can somehow, let's say, mine that surplus water and put it into the ASR well, if it were completed, we could then recover that water when we need it There are several ways of trying to get. or mine, this surplus water. If you visualize these various lakes and consider them to be large water filters. all we need to do is find a WdY to extract the water from beneath or aqracent to the lakes, in effect simply lowering the lake levels from their flood elevations down to what would be considered normal operating levels. It's a fairly simple method of construction. I can't give you the estimated cost of doing it, because I don't know ,,'hat it would be physically as far as the layout is concerned. But conceptually, it can be done; and it can be done fairly easily compared to other complicated systems. A restriction on the use of the ASR well is that the water that goes down into the well must be of very good quality. You can't simply suck tlle water out of a lake and pump it down tIlere. You probably need to filter it, perhaps get some other chemicals out of it. But the water, I understand, is, right now, of vel)' good quali!)'. If we were to remove it from the shallow aquifer either under or adjacent to the lakes, that water would have already been filtered by going through X number of feet of sand. So the water would be in good shape. So how could this system be implemented? Obviously, we would have to have a permit We have to have a permit to get a permit these days. I've been working with agencies for 40 years. When I started, I was six feet tall and had a full head of hair. You know how that goes, the old stol)'. MR. IAIZZO: Cut you down to size, huh. MR. McKUNE: 011, I tell you, I tell you. Ws a cballenge. But if \\--e can obtain data on the water we'd be dealing with 7860 ",'"~._-'''-- ..--.," ""..... iliff 1I11 ....."""""'",.- ...--" ~""W"';__ ,-'-"'^' " ~~---- Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16] ~'I 4l<\\ March 4. 2006 and I understand we do have some; and tIlere are ways of obtaining additional data that would be relatively inexpensive we could then see what we have to wolk with. We could develop a concept We could then meet with the South Florida Water Management District and discuss with them how we can support their goal, trying to be a better steward of the water, specifically within Pelican Bay. The concept, I think, would receive a good, positive nod from South Florida. The devil, of COUIse, would be in the details. But that, briefly, is the concept. MR.. GIBSON: Excuse me. Tl1e Sootl\ Florida Water Management District bas already given the club well over $100,000 to defray the costs of what we've spent so far. So they are very big supporters; so you're a hundred percent correct there. And that's hard to believe, tIlat a state would be giving money to a private club. MR.. McKUNE: Yes. MR GIBSON: But they did. MR McKUNE: I didn't know that either. That's basically the conclusion of my presentation, just to tell you that what John has been talking about is definitely feasible. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Thank yon very much. MR. McKUNE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: John any questions for this gentleman. MR. BURKE: I have one. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. Go ahead. MR. BURKE: Are you talking about filling the ASR at the Club at Pelican Bay;. is 1Ilat the one? MR.. McKUNE: Yes. MR BURKE: Okay. Okay. MR. McKUNE: Using that one. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Any other questions? No? MR GIBSON: That well, for what it's worth, has a limit of a million gallons a day either in or out. In the dry season, the chili needs a million gallons; we have a contract with tile county for balf a million gallons. The community, on the other band, bas a need for 4 million gallons. So if we really get into this program, one ASR probably isn't going to be sufficient, at least tIle one that we've decided to install. The one we installed and designed was basically to facilitate watering the golf course. But I can say in the same breath, we are willing, as a club, to share the wealth, so to speak, with the community, becnuse we are integral to the 7861 ..---.---..-..- . .'''.'~~. O...._..._..,..M".".._.. -",,' ~~,_._._.,.-...- "'-""~'...'''' 161 :"\*1 ~\\ r ';\ Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting March 4. 2006 community. So we would be certainly willing to enter into those discussions. MR McKUNE: It could be then the ASR well would be step one. MR. GIBSON: It would be step one to finish it and determine how we're going to fill it And then what's the right ratio of the water that comes out to the community versus the golf course? Whether you play golf or not, if this course turns brown, your property values are going to suffer. MR. IAIZZO: How do you detennine to share that wen between the community and the dub? MR PETIY: Mr. Chairman, I might be able to correct tllat. I haven't asked tl1e engineer to look at that delegation yet. The question was how do you separate the costs. MR. IAIZZO: I realize. But, you know, to say that we're going to... CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Jolm, we can't hear you. Speak in the nBC, please. MR. IAIZZO: To say that you're going to share it, you know, how do you determine that share; who controls the share? I just wanted to make that clear, that's all. It's not a discussion. MR PETrY: I'm sorry. Mr. ChairmaI\ I think [can give you tile answer to that question, if you'd like. Ifnot, we'll just goon. MR. IAIZZO: Yes, let's go on. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: You don't have to answer that if you don't want, sir. Do you want to answer that? MR. McKUNE: No, sir. I'm the engineer. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. John, before you get into the financials, why don't we take a IO-minute aspirin break, okay? (Recess held.) FINANCIAL REPORT CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. Ready to return? Thank you. Jolm, do yon want to give financial report, please. MR PETrY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close on that engineering issue, if I could. Staff has been moving forward under that direction, to get that plausibility, feasibility. l11e ne>..'t step to moving forward would be doing the due diligence and collecting the data and doing the preliminary work for the preparation of the final report, defining the boundaries, so to speak. At first, when we looked at this cooperation with the go", COUISe, we were looking at this being a capital item with monies expended over basically a five-year program. We were talking storage tanks, et cetera. We would now like to separate the duties, with the responsibilities of the permit being with PBSD, because that is our water management pennit that we're talking about; and that all matters of 7862 ,,-,-- ",",.-., ~ OJ . _..~,,- ., ~.. -~,~ ---~ Pelican Bay Services Dh1sion Meeting 161 '1 +<"^ March 4. 2006 construction, which would be the deep well and the pWllpS tIlereof and any collection system or disbursement system. would be the cost of the golf course. We tllink that is probably the best way to define the responsibilities. And as such, our costs would conle way down and., instead of being a capital item, may indeed be handled under tIlls year's budget. We're looking at the first phase of engineering to be followed by a second phase and then a permit. The first phase of engineering is to be less than $20,000. The second phase is of a similar nature. The final phase ",ill be detennined once you've done your due diligence. So if that is all within the parameters of what you hoped would be a good water management program, that is what is before you today. And that is my smnmary of the report, both from this independent engineer and from staff. And we are looking for direction, Mr. Chainnan, on whether we go forward or not. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. Thank you, John. All right Due to time constraint&. I'd like to realign the... I'm sorry. MR. MOFFA IT: Could I ask a follow-up question on that? CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Sure. MR. MOFFA IT: Is the engineer still here? Because I1e didn't give us much to go on. He told us four points that we're all wen aware of. And he said he'd take the water out from under lakes., which was the only new piece of infonnation he gave us. He didn't give us anything as to what a work plan might be, what he would eX'}lect to accomplish in Phase I, "",hat the 20,000 would get us in fact, he didn't even tell us the 20,000. Is he still here? We can gel some more details. Or, do you have the details you can provide to us? Because I don't think we have enough information to act on it. MR PETTY: Well stated. Let me answer the last question first or tlle first question last. Let me answer about the engineer's status. He thought that your questions were over; and I1e has left and gone back to the east coast. I will be glad to answer all tile questions tIlat I can concerning the project. The details are basically what we would do in Phase I of the engineering report. It is difficult to come out with an exact analysis until you've collected the data Can we handle the water-{}Wility criteria of putting water down the well is a question that the engineer put before you. And the answer is tIlOUght to' be positive; but until we take qualitative analysis, we don't know. Now, samples have been pulled by golf-course people, but only gram samples. We haven't got a definitive look where a certified engineer can sign off on it. We do have some background information from the groundwater monitoring wens that the county maintains based on our effluent-reuse requirements. And it indicates that we might have just the right water quality so that we could supply, or harvest, rainwater to the deep well. But we need to do that work. And there's other questions as well: How would you get the water to the golf course? Where would you put this bubble in the second phase or a third phase? The recommendation for this type of technology is that you would do basically more than one well, typically around six 7863 - -~-~.._-~--~_._._~-_._~-----~.- "-"" -~.~_._-_."--~._,..,..._-----" -_.... . -. -~.,",. Pelican Bay Services Dhision Meeting 161 '1 ~\ March 4. 2006 wells, to try' and capture this bubble, which moves a tad. The county is fully aware of that, is working on a sinillar program. WeVe talked with the county manager's office, who is excited about the possibilities. We've talked to tile golf course, which is well along this road. We think it has positive impact to the residents in keeping the water table higher during tlle winter season, which benefits everybody's landscaping. We think that it makes us better water managers. And we think that gives this board far more bargaining position with all tll.e other agencies, in that you are still, and 'will always be, the best water managers in South Florida. So we think it has valid purpose. It's whetl1er or not you-all see it that way too. DR. RAIA: John, if I may, nobody mentioned how much this is going to cost in general and how much it really would cost the Pelican Bay Services Division. MR. PETrY: Sir, we have estimates at tltis time that the first phase of engineering would be for a nwnber not to exceed $20,000. We actually have estin1ated the mnnber at ten. But because this project has not been done before, you try and cover yourself pretty much here, or you're looking for trouble. MR. GIBSON: Excuse me. We have done a lot of that engineering already on the golf course. We have an engineer that's been working years with us monitoring water quality on tImt extensively. MR. PETrY: 011, yes. And we plan on making use of all that WOlt.. This isn't so much for the ASR teclmology. This is for getting the permit for harvesting rainwater, which isn't done everywhere. There's just one or two occurrences of this. And South Florida Water Management District giving us the permit to operate is the mountain tIlat we llave to climb. MR. IAlZZO: Could I e~llress my opinion on this? This harvesting of rainwater is a major improvement on the water system or tl1e storm water system tlmt we have l1ere. And I feel anything of tlIis quality and magnitude and cost has to be told to the residents of this connmmity. This is not a board decision in my opinion. I'd like to know what the rest of the board feels about this. I don't mind going ahead with it, but I think the decision must come from the residents of tItis cOlnnmnity and not the board. MR. BURKE: John, let me ask you a question about it, okay? I just want to be sure I have a basic understanding. What problem is it that we're pursuing this to fix? Is tl1ere a problem we're trying to fix or are we just doing the second part of it is: Are we talking about drilling our own ASR? DR. RAIA: No. MR. BURKE: So first of all, what was the problem we're trying to R'X here? MR. PETrY: There is no direct problem. We're not doing this because we have to. The question was raised during the Clam Bay permit about our water quality affecting the lllangroves~ and we connnitted in tile permit to doing any positive 7864 """ ",,~nw"_'_",^_ ,._",-~,. ..... ,~<'".....". '^'''<--.."">...."..,'',--.- ....--..--..--- Pelican Bay Services Dhision Meeting 161 11 (1<\\ March 4. 2006 improvements to the water management facilities. As you recall, that's one of the reasons why we started doing bubblers in some of the lakes, was to see if that would help. This is along that Satlle line. It isn't where we have been deficient; it is where we are trying to be more efficient. So it isn't a requirement; it is an objective. That's 'why we're looking at it. Secondarily, you asked are we going to build or have ownership of an ASR well. And, sir, it is not the intent or tlle recommenda1ion by staff that you do so. It is our reconunendation that we think you can be tile best water managers by handling the permit which concerns your water management facilities, and leave the cost of all irrigation facilities,. wl1ether they be ASRs, pumps, piping, collection systems, what have you, in the hands of either tile utilities of the county where they currently reside or on tile golf course, which also has a system that we are not get involved in it. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Anybody else? DR RAIA: Well, we should still know what those dollars are that affect the Pelican Bay Services Division, who will have to turn around and assess the general public. And you know, until I have a commitment ofwhat we're leading us into, I find it very difficult 10 say, "Go ahead." I mean, I don't have that infon113tion. MR MOFFATT: Yes. I don't think we know enough to act on it one way or the other. MR. BURKE: Jolm, the water-quality part of it, we addressed that by preventing additional water from getting into Clam Bay. We're pumping it down an ASR? MR. PETrY: Sir, when it comes to water quality, it's difficult to define it that way, that this has benefit tIlere in tile traditional sense. Typically, you're cleaning Viaref', you're removing some nutrients. In this case, we're taking rainwater, which is virtually pure, or storm water harvesting, which is fairly high-quality water, in our system anyway, and we're putting it down a well for use as an irrigation source, as a saltwater intrusion barrier, and other beneficial uses in Pelican Bay at a later time during the dry season. So would water quality improve? Not by treatment, but by keeping a diluting factor to the saltwater system from occurring. In other words, if the fresh water had been dumped into the bay during the time, it l113Y have diluted the salt water. And I can't tell you that would have an adverse effect, but it has been looked at in the past as a problem. When the pass was closed, it is considered to be a possible drowning indicator for tile mangroves. MR BURKE: Well, Pelican Bay as a community, do we have, right now, an inability to irrigate properly both the residences and the service division? I mean. do we have times of the year we don't have irrigation water? MR PETrY: We do have times during the year, sir, where our supply is limited. MR. BURKE: Okay. 7865 .~'" .... ,-.---- "'RB . ".,.--,.,",,,"'.,.,...._ l14' ~ Il. . -__", '" 0"_",_""_'" .,~~_.,_.,~~_,,_,_. Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16: 1] I ~ March 4. 2006 MR. PETrY: Restrictions, we are in fairly good shape. It is only through the supply criteria that we are now concerned, which is why we have asked the county what their overall program is, because we'd like to tie into tImt and be in sync with whatever the county is going to be building as well. MR. LEVY: Well, you'd have the same restrictions even if you had your own wells. If there were restrictions on the watering, you would have the same restrictions, wouldn't you? Even with your own wells" you would have the same restrictions. MR. PETrY: CurrentIy, effluent reuse is exempt. Currently, water taken from your ASR would be exempt as well. So you wouldn't be subject to the limitations under the current ordinance on restrictions. Tl1ere have been some discussions by South Florida where, for the sake of public education, they would like to have restrictions even on these sources, which are not under their jurisdiction. And so fur, the counties and tile Association of Florida Cities have talked with South Florida about possible legal action, should they push that way; and South Florida has, from what I understand, changed tl1eir position to one of: If you have the effluent reuse, it is allowed without restriction; if you have water supply from an ASR, it is allowed without restriction. MR LEVY: JohIL you talked about ten to twenty thousand to do a Phase-l study. Then what are the additional steps? And maybe you have ballpaIk dollars to put witIl those additional steps. MR PETTY: Phase 1 would be basically what your in-house engineer would do in defining the project scope. That's why we think it would be around $10,000. We're asking for a do-not-exceed of$20,000 to cover eventualities that may occur in this type of a project. Phase 2 is where you would bave an independent engineer write the report that we'd use as the basis of a permit application. You would compile all that data that you did in Phase I; and you would direct it towards your objective, which is to harvest storm water in a certain fashion in a certain Location and deliver it to a set spol MR. LEVY: And do we have an approximation of what that phase would be? MR. PETrY: Again, you know, we would look for not to exceed $20,000, So as a total now, we would lmve no greater than forty. The third phase is one that I really can't give you an estimate on. It could be anywhere from $5,000 up to well, basically unlinrited, since this permit is not given out on a regular basis. This is one that you basically have to walk through South Florida Water Management District. It is one that the county is committed to pursuing; and they will give us whatever support they can. The golf course is very an.xious to go forward with this and will give us whatever support tIley can. We're looking for direction from PBSD if this is an objective that you think is \\'Ortbwbile to continue on. And, of course, you don't have to decide on the funding tonight. But if you could give direction to the staff to either continue the operation or stop it, that would be helpful. DR. RAIA: That support includes everything but moDe)' for Pluase 3? Is tltat what I understand? 7866 ,,~~"" ~^-._- ~'-.,- ~ 1lII.._ ~_, ,,"-..-'~"""" 16~ 'II t<\\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting March 4. 2006 MR. PETrY: Phase 3, I really can't give you a nWllber. DR RAIA: I know. But you said that everybody's supporting this. Does the county and the golf course does their support include everything but money? MR. PETrY: 011, no, sir. The golf course has committed large sums of money. DR RAIA: But actual Phase 3 that you're talking PBSD to support. MR. PElTY: Again, the golf course bas conuniued virtually laIge sums of money for. all the construction. DR RAIA: Well, the point is: Are we talking just $40,000; are we talking $40,000 plus some unknown amount of money? MR. PETIY: Tl1ere is Phase I, Phase 2, and then the permit application. And I wish I could give yon that number now, but I won't be able to give you that until we have lnore data. I suspect ballpark, I would say $75,000 with the infommtion I have now, which brings the total up to about a hundred fifteen, a hundred twenty thousand dollars. Forty plus seventy-five, what is that. a hundred fifteen, right? MR IAlZZO: And where does that bring us, at what point, in this project? MR. PETrY: You spent about $15 million a year to date on the water management system, including the construction thereof. You have about $250,000 allocated per year to do lake-bank enhancements, basically to make the lake banks pretty. This engineering and obtaining of best management practices for your water management system is about one-half to one-tIIird of what you are currently committing to making lake banks pretty. MR. LEVY: John, has the golf course come and asked us to do this, to get the pennit, the golf course? MR. PElTY: We have had several meetings with tile golf course, who is looking for a partnership in doing this. And anything we can do, they think would be l1elpful. They have participated in good faith. And as you've heard from your other member that sits with the club, they have spent a great deal of money in tIlls search for a solid water supply during the dry season and will continue to spend money as they see fit in that regard We're looking for not to supply an irrigation supply during the dry season per se, but as a way of becoming better water managers. With that position.. it gives us negotiation with our associates, including the county. We're looking to raise the water table to stop saltwater intrusion~ and we're looking to bring the water table within the root zone of our existing landscaping. Now, tile dry season is the one tinle of year your water management system does you absolutely no good. We don't retain water if it doesn't rain. So during the winter months, the dJy season, your water management system goes afoul. This is one way for us to continue to increase the efficiencies for that system, which is why we 7867 ,.-"- .---.. _OK'-' -""""'------ "._.~~....." 161 I fl<'\ \ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting - March 4. 2006 bring it to your attention. MR LEVY: So did we, like, bring tills to the golf course. Who initiated tins? Is it our idea to bring it to the golf course? MR. PETrY: Sir, I contacted the golf course after finding out they were haying difficulties. Their original intent was to see if they could put unused effluent during the summer months do"Vll the deep well. And it turned out that an interpretation at the last minute by the Department of Environmental Protection, State of Florida, made that impossible to 00. It made storm water harvesting very possible. And, yes, sir, I am familiar with that ruling by DEP, and so I called the golf course. MR. LEVY: And we would take the water and tllen put it tllIOugh whatever process is required~ and tl1en it could go into the well? MR. PETrY: The current look, which has not been vetted; we haven't done due diligence. But it appears that we would not need to do any treatment process whatsoever other than to let the water be filtered through the ground itself. in other words, we wouldn't put the water withdrawal in the lake, because we don't want any fish; we don't want any turtles; we don't want any algae. We would take it from somewhere outside the lake that would impact the water levels of the lake, but it would be filtered through the ground some. And we think that's about all the treatment we'd haye to do. Currently, that's the way it looks. It looks very positive so far. MR LEVY: Do we need a motion? MR PETIY: If you'd like to institute the action, in which case we would go out and enter that first phase. Or you can hold it for further discussion. Or you can tell staff to just stop work in this area. MR LEVY: Just a question here, a point of order. There are lnembers of the golf course sitting on this board. Should they recuse themselves from this vote? MR. PETrY: No, sir. Just like you.. as a landowner, tIleY may have benefit from additional water tables, helping your plants or helping your irrigation system or making you slightly better off in the community. There is no conflict here unless there is some personal gain. But as a resident, that is not considered to be a personal gain. DR RAIA: But the golf course is in the original planning for Pelican Bay, the golf course was private; and they have certain prerogatives that don't exist other places. And they have a separate contract with tile county for the effluent water. MR. PETIY: They have a contract for effluent, which matches what they paid in connection fees to the old Pelican Bay Improvement District. DR. RAIA: Right. But they have a separate contract. 7868 ,,-- "-,-"_.~- -,..,-", "......._..,"~"._';"e,,~_ ,-- ' ..,..."'-',- ,._,-~.---- Pelican Bay Services Di,,'ision Meeting lot 1 t<\\ March 4. 2006 MR PETrY: Yes, sir. The residents do not; the residents are contract-less. DR RAIA: Right. So, I mean, tIley have I guess a potential problem. And I have got to see where we fit in. I like to cooperate and help my fellow residents, but I have to know how much I am committing to this thing. And it just seems too open~nded. What happens if they decide that that ""'ater isn't pure enough? You're going to have to build a filtration plant. MR IAIZZO: Yes, DR RAlA: Who pays for that? This should all be spelled out. I think it's too early to vote on it. MR. IAIZZO: The whole system, who's going to pay to maintain that system once it's in place? MR. BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that we defer tIlls to the next meeting, DR RAIA: I second tImt. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. John, do YOll want to do the financials? UNIDEN IfrlliJ) SPEAKER Vote. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Would you like to vote on it? MR BURKE: Yes. I made a motion and have a second. I need a vote. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. All those voting aye? DR RAIA: Aye. MR lAIZZO: Aye. MRMOFFA1T: Aye. MR BURKE: Aye. MR LEVY: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Aye. Mr. M. James Burke moved, seconded by Dr. Ted Raia and approved unanimously to defer until the next meeting any decision regarding engineering work tror the water management system. MR MOFFA 1T: John, when you do bring it back, if you do bring it back, I would suggest that you come back with a written proposal from the engineer spelling out what he would accomplish in Phases 1 and 2, what the deliverables are, and a work plan for those two phases, as well as a cost estimate. 7869 ".""' -,---, -'---"-"""''''''-'''- . ---,,- , "',"".,~"-..,.",, ..,"~ ,,-,~"..._-_. -,~..".- ... ^'.""~~ 161 I~\\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting - March 4. 2006 MR. PETrY: Well, sir, we can discuss that at the next meeting. And iftIlat's the direction, then I'll be glad to do so. if that's what you'd like me to do. But I'm not going to get an engineer to come up with a report without charging a fee. And l'll need your direction on whether you want to. MR MOFFATT: It's a proposal to do work. If he doesn't want to sOOmit a proposal to be hired.. then the hell with him. Hire somebody else. I mean, IVe been a professional all my life. I submitted hundreds of proposals, thousands. I mean, that's hm'\! you got hired as a professional. You do a proposal, you give tile work plan, the deliverables. and then you see if you're hired or not. You don't get paid to do the proposal. MR. IAIZZO: In most cases. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You're dealing with the county. MR. PETrY: Mr. Chainnan, as I understand it, the matter's deferred until the nex1 meeting again where we can discuss this item if that's the direction. MR GIBSON: Gentlemen., once again, I can say that tIllS guy seemed to know what he was talking about. But we've been working on tIlls project now for four almost five years. And the consultant engineer that we have is very educated. He might be able to assist somehow in this search. Rather tIUUl reinventing the wheel, be's gone; we measured every single drainpipe within Pelican Bay that goes into Clam Bay. We know what all those yearly flows are and stuff that he might be just duplicating some efforts there. MR. PETrY: We don't want to duplicate efforts, I'm sure. And we're well aware of the golf course's commitment to do whatever they can so that we don't have to spend money. And I think we've conveyed that to the board. But staff really is looking for a direction from this board more than anything else. TIlls is just something that was brought up as a "can-do," not a "should-do" or "must-do," but a "can-do." And it's appropriate to be discussed during this part of the year where we're considering budget items. And I'm sure that the suggestions for how we should word contracts or proposals are well meaning; but, of course, your staff has been involved in doing proposals and contracts for a great number of )'ears. And I think we can go further on this with a little bit of direction from the board without a great deal of commitment from the board. DR. RAIA: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of moving this along, I think we all. . . CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Yeah, we're running out of time. 'That's something to tIlink about. DR RAIA: Can we take something out? I see we have something here about the library. Can we move that up? CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. Let John finish the financials, and then we'll jump to that, okay? John, do you want to 7870 -"",""",,",,~,,;.,~_"<l'<r ~ ~-""",,,,. _1, "",""""'_._-~'''-' .,,--,,~,,-,. -.. -.-......." _ M_..... l 161 11 ~\\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting ~ March 4. 2006 go through the financials real fast? MR. PETrY: Sir, tile only tiling to bring to yom attention on financiaIs tIlat bas any deep nlealling is tIlat the $214,000 that we expect to get from Fund Ill, which is the overlay of MSTU, is still not coming in in the amounts in years past, we still have an estimated delivery of the end of the year. This is a new policy based on prior years where we received this almost on a monthly basis. And it appears that there may be a contlict with other county agencies on fue appropriateness of us receiving this money for Clam Bay maintenance. That's all we have to bring to your attention at this time. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Due to tUue constraints, we're going to rearrange tl1e schedule. And we're going to jmnp down to Item 9. MR. BURKE: Wait a minute. MR. MOFF ATI: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN BOLAND: No, let's just keep going. MR. MOFFATT: I know we're ina rush. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Let's do No.9, and we'll go back to you, okay? NO.9. Jim? MR. BURKE: Mr. Chair, do you 'want to defer Item 6 to the next to the April meeting? COMMUNITY ISSUES VANDERBILT LIBRARY MSTBU CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Yes. We're going to defer evetything down to NO.9 to the ne:\.1 meeting. MR. BURKE: Okay. Very quickly, I met witIl county attorneys concerning the possibility of the Pelican Bay MS1BU, if push came to shove, assuming responsibility for the VandeJbilt Beach librnry, and was told anything's doable. But om particular county attorney is not wild about running around forming new MSTUs or turning over county responsibility to MS1BUs. And he said it would be much more doable. when and if all the branch hbraries are close<l, to lease the particular closed branch, to lease it back to a private entity such as tile well-endowed property owners association and Pelican Bay Foundation. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. MR BURKE: Okay? CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Yes. MR. BURKE: That's what he's thinking. So he said if the commissioners come to him for an opinion, that's what he's going to tell them. So that's all I had to report. 7871 h,'-. _~,,~ m ,~ 'llII' Jill V"'Wlllfll. ""o_..._~,,_ " ---,-_. -.- ~ " ". -~~."..."~.""---- Pelican Ba~' Services Division Meeting 161 1~~ March 4. 2006 CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. Any conunents on that? DR. RAIA: Well, if there is a financial problem, and I guess there is, can we consider having the schools take over the libraries? I see a greater association between the schools and then tile general budget of the county. Let it come out of the school budget. Take it out of county hands and give it to the schoo' board. They may run a better library to begin with. MR BURKE: Well, I just wanted to toss that out. Thank you for the time. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: We don't know anything until tlle county does something. We're jmuping the gun there. Dave, do you have something for the property owners you'd like to say? MR. lRECKER: Well, Jim, you surprised nle a little bit. I was llere with a position to oppose that.. but I can't. You're saying the key decision hasn't been made yet. and I think that's right. As you folks may or may not know, the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association has begun and wiII continue a vel)' significant fund-raising effort to offset expected cuts and there certainly 'will be further cuts in service. And we certainly prefer that approach; namely, voluntary contributions to any sort of mandated taxes that would result should the local branch be folded into the local MSTBU. There are a lot of problems, obviously. associated with that. I suspect the community would not look favorable on any tax increases in these difficult times. But this is still in progress. I'm going to meet with a number of the commissioners tomorrow to discuss some of the options here. And I1I keep you folks and others in the community apprised. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Thank you. Okay. No otl1er comments? Jerry, I apologize. Go back to your question. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I apologize. MR. MOFFA IT: 011, John, just one question on two line items. Our collection of the taxes, both ad valorem and non-ad valorem, isn't complete now. Is tIlls typical ofwbere we are at this tilne of year, even though ta.xes were due by, I guess, December 31st? Do you anticipate based on prior experience that the monies will continue to come in to the budgeted amowt; or are we going to anticipate a problem of not collecting all the tax revenues that we have in our budget? MR. PETrY: Mr. Chainnan, with your permission? May I answer the question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BOLAND: I'm sorry'? MR. PETIY: Can I answer the question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Yes. MR. PETTY: Thank you. We think that you're going to get. the majority of it The payments are not due, actually, wtil May, I believe, is the right date? No, April. You get a discount llYOU pay early And there's a process where, if you don't pay by 7872 ..-...,.... '-' ~..._"-----"_."._.,^ Pelican Bay Services Dhision Meeting 161 1~\ March 4. 2006 tile timeline, then a tax certificate goes on your property and it is sold on the courthouse steps for the going rate. And that goes on for about two or tIIree years before there could be a foreclosme on the lien placed on your property. And someone else would then take title if there is a certificate sold on your particular property. And in Collier County, Pelican Bay has never, ever not sold if there has been a delinquency. So, yes, sir, "\Ie do expect to get all of our revenue, anticipated and see this as being generally in line with other years, a little bit slower maybe this year than in past, but not materially so. MR. MOFFA17: Okay. Thank you. MR. BURKE: That's it. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Any other questions? Okay. John, Jet Ole skip 6 and go right down to the budget update by Co-Chairs Mike Levy and Jerry Moffatt. Sorry to cut you short. BUDGET COMMITTEE UPDATE MR. MOFF A17: Mike, do you have anything? MR. LEW: We just had a workshop for our last budget meeting where we delved into the budget line items. And as a result of that, we hope we're better equipped to address budgeting issues, such as identifYing areas where we can have efficiencies. And, if necessary, we're going to have to schedule another meeting because tile woIksbop took tile place of a regular budget meeting, but we have high hopes that we can get what we have to get done with just our regular monthly meetings. And our next meeting, I think. is on a Monday. MR. MOFF A17: March 23rd, Monday, March 23rd. MR. IAIZZO: Third Monday. MR. fEW: Jerry, I'm sorry. Did you have anything you wanted to say? MR MOFFA IT: WelL .lust a couple of things we decided upon at that meeting. One is that we had control over payment of bills and what tile process is. Kyle is going to prepare a write-up of the controls that he follows in Ills shop on approving invoices. Secondly, on the budget book itself, we're going to have another colunm added to show not only the prior-year budget but the prior-year actual compared to the current year or the projected-year budget. And the third thing is, we said we would look into moving the office operations into the maintenance area and save some dollars that way. MR. IAIZZO: Good idea. MR. MOFFA 17: That's it. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. Anybody have any questions? 7873 ,~....~_.,~".,.".. " . "e"_m_" ... . . ""~'--' ~"-'- .16 I. 1 ~\\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting . March 4. 2006 - MR. BURKE: I have one question, and this is budget related, and since I can't talk to Jerry' or Michael in between meetings. In my various travels and activities, I will hear Pelican Bay activists get up and toss out that we're spending a million dollars a year on Clam Bay. And even though I know tllat's not accumte, I hear it often enough, even I begin to believe it. So I went into the budget. And the current budget for Clam Bay restoration, we have budgeted $108,000, for which we assess the owners and $214,000 comes from the county's fund, what is it? MRlAIZZO: Fund] II. MR. LEW: Ill, yes. MR. BURKE: Okay. Now, tIris million dollars a year or more, that's not in tile budget. I mean, I can't find it So I'mjust assunring weVe got $11,000 from TDC, which we can't spend. But we've got $333,000 budgeted for Clam Bay restoration; is that about right? Is that what it is? Are we spending another 1,000,000 or 800,000'1 MR. MOFFA IT: That's right. That's what it is. MR. LEW: I mean, tIle water management, what do they show for water management there? MR. BURKE: You're asking me tough questions. MR. LEW: Oh. I don't have the budget in front of me. MR PETIY: Over $800,000. MR. LEW: Yes. Now, the water management is not Clam Bay, but I guess it's affiliated. MR. BURKE: It fits into it, yes. Okay. MR. PETTY: It depends on the statement, I guess, that Mr. Burke is referring to on whether it did or it didn't. But it's possible, yes, sir. Both are right if whoever made the statement to you that they thought it was $1,000,000 we were spending on Clam Bay, yes, we do spend over $800,000 a year on water-quality issues and flow and hydrology of fresh water into it; and that. under Clam Bay, which is a capital projects fund, we only show those costs of the capital projects. WeVe never itemized tIlls board's involvement, your administrator's involvement, our staffs tinle, as well as you don't see Kyle's time taken out of water management or landscaping and an allocation made I1ere, because it's a capital budget. So, I think both are true. The county does participate in the maintenance at that level in that capital program. I believe people ofPe1ican Bay, though, are wholly vested into Clam Bay. MR. MOFFA IT: Well, but I think we just gave the wrong impression there. That $800,000 on water management is not all Clam Bay. I mean, youVe got $60,000 of administrative costs; you've got $200,000 of rent, telephone, legal, derks, insurance, 7874 ,.."".....,.~.,~,-~ --.~.. ^...~~""..-.q Jl'R ._---, . "-""''--,",-- .__.-. _."..".~-- 16 I 1~\\ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting March 4. 2006 stuff that you'd have in any case. Field service personneL I don't know how much of that maybe you can allocate that to Clam Bay. And tI1en you have $110,000 of that is fertilizer, herbicides, chemicals. You've got repairs and maintenance. I mean, you've got all kinds of things in there. So I don't think you can allocate that all to Clam Bay. MR. BURKE: Thank you. That's very helpful. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Any other questions on that? No? Okay. Next up, I'd like to jmnp down and llave Mr. Gibson give his scenario, please. MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITIEE UPDATE MR. GIBSON: This will be very brief And hopefully not a lot of discussion. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Good. MR GIBSON: Mary Anne Womble chaired a committee, along with Jerry Moffatt and myself, and I should also add that John Petty assisted us a great deal, in forging a 34-page request for a proposal. Mr. Jack Curran, purchasing agent for Collier County, spent a great deal of time with us, a very talented guy. He's been around the track a few times. A lot of boilerplate in this. But basically what it is, we have gone out to the community, to the state, because Mr. Petty's contract is due to be concluded June 1st. And the procedures indicate that we need to put it out again for bid. That bas been dore'via Inremet e-mail. And there has been 32 potential vendors have downloaded this package. For what it's worth, when we went through this a little over two years ago, we had three downloads. So it's probably an indicator of the times. Is this entertaining, Ted? We have a pre-proposal conference on March 11th at 10 am. at the county purchasing office. That's when anybody interested in quoting on this administrator's respollSlbilities has a good chance to ask questions. There'll be a fonnal opening of the proposals on March 19th at 3 p.m. So that summarizes a very fom1al program. And we woded very hard to put out an accurate docmnent, which should facilitate the issue in tI1e first place. I have to say, John, you were very helpful in Ilelping us put that together. It's kind of a mixed emotion. I'm sure, on your part. But we appreciate your help and assistance there. That's it, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Thank you. MR. BURKE: I have one comment. My take on wby there are so many more responses is this is now an official request for a proposal; am I correct? This is not that. . . MR MOFF AIT: Right. MR. BURKE: And our two or three previous attempts, tile community of people that could respond made the aSSUlllption, a couple have told me this, that it was a waste of time~ there wasn't enough money in it~ and it was a closed deal anyway. I tIrink 7875 ""," -. -,,><<~.'" ~,.,,, , _.___...,.' ._-_",...",,,_~~~...~w,,_,.,__ 16 , 1 t><\ \ Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting - March 4. 2006 the interpretation now is that it's an open process. So you did a good job. MR. GIBSON: Well, we hope so. Jack Curran is also very much a pro. MR BURKE: Yes. MR. GIBSON: I mean. you deal with him, and it doesn't take you very long to realize that this guy doesn't put up with anything except going by the book. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Anybody else? Okay. Kyle. CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE ON MYRA JANCO DANIElS BLVD. CROSSWALK MR. LUKASZ: Just an update on the crosswalk. TIle contractor's set to get started on that wotic ne",1 week. We'll be doing a little bit of work tomorrow, moving some trees around tIJat are right in the way of where the crosswalk's going to go. But this should get started next week. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Very good. MR. LUKASZ: That's all I've got. MR BURKE: Excellent. MR. GIBSON: What took you so long? CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Do you want to go back up to No.6, John'? Or do you want to hold that to next time for Mary Anne? MR. BURKE: Let's defer that. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Defer, yes. We'll defer NO.6. Okay. There's no Clam Bay, no government Any otl1er committee request, no plan reviews, no committee req1lests? Anybody in the audience like to make any comments? DR RAIA: John, before we get a motion, I'd like to make a motion that we approve this draft report. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: I'm sorry? DR RAIA: I w-ant to make a motion that we approve the draft management report. We don't have to do anything with it, but we approve it now because we only meet once a month, and we're just going to delay it. At least have it approved and sit on a desk until \ve decide to do something with this. So I make a motion we approve the draft management report. MR LEVY: Ted, was that diSlributed? I don't have a copy of that. MR. MOFFA IT: What report are you talking about? 7876 _.n H~~'.'" -.11(-- ",,,.~....,,.,, .- "-"'-'-""-~'''- .'- Pelican Ba)' Sen'ices Division Meeting 1.6 I 1 ~\ March 4. 2006 DR RAIA: This one here (indicting). MR. LEVY: This one here (indicating). MR. GIBSON: I don't have that DR RAIA: Well, you're absolutely right. I thought everybody had it and had an opportunity to see it Then I would like to ask the acting Chair if it would please be placed on the agenda. I asked john; but I don't know if john would put it on the agenda if I asked him MR. BURKE: I thought we approved... MR. PETrY: If you can get my contract on the agenda, I'm pretty sure you can get this on the agenda. MR. BURKE: John, I thought I heard you say we approved this at the last meeting. MR. PETry: Sir, it was a request if you recall, I said it was a request by a board member and we had distnbuted it. And if I remember correctly, we made it available to all the otl1er board members. I'm not sure if we put it on the. . . MS. McCAUGHTRY: We had stacks of them MR. PETrY: We had stacks of them here so that anybody that's interested, we had them, I think, is what Mary's telling me we said at the last meeting. MR. MOFFA IT: No. Actually, at the last meeting, we didn't have it I picked my copy up from Mary's office when I picked up my package. And she said at tllat tinle it had been given to everybody. MR. PETrY: Well, originally, sir, it had been distributed to the Clam Bay subcommittee, who was reviewing the matter. But Dr. Raia had asked what is tl1e current form. And we did distribute tlle current foml to Dr. Raia. And if you'd like all the other board members to get it we'll be glad to distribute it DR RAIA: Thank you. Try to get it well before the meeting so you have an opportunity to read it. MR. GIBSON: Let us know when to pick it up, Mary. MS. McCAUGlITR Y: They're ready anytime. DR RAIA: I'll withdraw my motion. MR PETrY: For an agenda item, typically we'll take any suggestion from the board. And as long as the Chair approves it, it ends up on the agenda. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Okay. All right. MR BURKE: Conunent from the public? 7877 .,--,"" ..- ~"'-- -'''-''--'~.'''''''-' ,-, ._..~.,....,.-.. "''''''''''''-'''- ,,~.-.. "'_""""",...,".-..,~" ._--~,.,.--- Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting 161 1 ~~ March 4. 2006 CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Comment? MR. BURKE: Mr. Chair, I'll move that we acljourn. MR. LEVY: I second it. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: All in favor? DR RAIA: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye MR. MOFFAIT: Aye. MR. BURKE: Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOLAND: Aye. Mr. M. James Burke moved, seconded by Mr. Michael Levy and approved unanimously to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 3:43 p.rn. lRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INe., BY KAREN BLOCKBURGER RPR, NOTARY PUBLIC AND FORMATTED BY MARY MCCAUGHfRY. RECORDING SECRETARY, PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION. 7878 .- . ""-"'^-_._~"..,.', ~ - -":r;__"",'I~_;WIl "-~'."- _>o.~_._H'''';'_'___~_ ,,,",,.,,,.,,,-" "...- Fiala f~J Halas Hanning , Coyle Coletta RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE OF MAR 3 0 2009 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION Board of County eommisSlOners Naples, Florida, January 26, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Budget Committee of the Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Board, in and for the County ofCoUier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:01 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Hammock Oak Center, 8962 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Jeny Moffatt. Cbainnan Michael Levy John Iaizzo John Boland GeoffGibson (arrived 5 minutes late) ALSO PRESENT: John Petty, Division Administrator, Pelican Bay Services Division; Janice Lamed, District Offices, LLC; Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manger, Pelican Bay Services Division; Mary Anne Womble, Pelican Bay Services Division Board; and Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division. AGENDA l. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Budget Calendar 4. FY 2008 Year End Hard Close S. Compare FY 2008 (Actual) to FY 2009 Budget 6. Review Carry Forwards Capital and Reserve Use Going Forward 7. Description of Process to Ensure Budget Charges are Legitimate 8. Monthly Reporting Format(s) 9. Funding of Clam Bay 10. Review Plan for Bubblers I]. Review Cost WaIkwaysIBike Paths 12. Audience Comments 13. Adjourn ROLLCALL MR. MOFFATT: Why don't we get started? We're missing one member, at least temporarily. Mary, do you want to do the roll calI? MS. McCAUGHTRY: Let the record reflect that all members are present for the budget committee except for Geoff Gibson. Mr. Gibson did tell me he would be here, so he might be just running a few minutes late. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION MR. MOFFA IT: Okay. We have an audience today. Any comments or questions from the audience? No? BUDGET CALENDAR MR. MOFFA IT: Okay. Budget calendar. Mr. Petty? MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, as you know from our last meeting, we prepared a budget calendar. This is very much a ~sc. Corres: living, breathing item that gets changed as directed by the board and as new information becomes av able to staff. The one Date:_-----. 820 Itemf, _______ - ;upieS to: -,.,~~,>< ~ .,...,,, -,,- "'-"",., Budget Committee Meeting 1-EH It 1 ~~ Januarv 26. 2009 thing I will bring to your attention is, one of the most timely issues for us to address in the budget process is capital expenditures. So we do urge you to consider capital iten1S at the earliest possible dates, because sometimes they take a little while to price and to vet out to the public. Other than that, we have no material changes to the budget calendar at this time. (Mr. Gibson entered the room.) MR. MOFFATT: Okay. This one-page document with the dates of the meetings on it, that is your calendar? MR. PETrY: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFATT: Do we know what the deliverables are for each of those meetings? MR. PETrY: Sir, we have the timelines for each one of those objectives. The deliverable, of course, is in the draft and final budgets. MR. MOFFATT: I see we're covering the same items at multiple meetings, such as efficiencies and savings, reserve policy, service levels. Does it just take several meetings to consider each of those items? MR. PETrY: Yes sir. MR. MOFFATT: Is that what you're suggesting? MR. PETrY: Yes, sir. In past budget years, we have found that it does take, indeed, several meetings to look at those issues. An example would be trying to look at the efficiencies of in-house staff versus contracted staff in various departments. We have done that exercise a couple of times; and that takes a little bit to go out and get some reliable numbers. So based on this board's suggestion on areas that they would like to consider, efficiencies or increases or decreases in service delivery, we would then go back to staff and try and come back with a response to that or an expectation. So that would be at least two meetings for that. MR. IAIZZO: I would like better clarification on some of these line items. Some of them are self-explanatory. Am I interrupting? MR. MOFFATT: No. No. I just saw you up there. MR. IAIZZO: Ob, I'm sorry. MR. MOFFATT: I didn't notice you walk in. MR. IAIZZO: I thought maybe I was breaking up your conversation. Some of these line items need to be opened up so we can understand them better and appraise the dollar value that we're getting back on that line item. Sometimes there's a line item that may be supported by one vendor or a half a dozen vendors, and we need to know that so we can appraise or understand 821 ,..""--,,^ ".- ""^'.""~"-~,-,,---,._~---~--,-- 161 \ 1 f'<\\pv Budget Committee Meeting Januarv 26. 2009 exactly how that money's being spent and have a better appreciation for our dollar value. I'd like to see more of that, I suppose. MR. MOFFA IT: John, we right get into that when we get to these reports we were each handed today. MR. IAIZZO: Yes. MR. MOFFA IT: But your point is very valid, because that won't answer the question particularly. John, you mentioned starting on capital projects, which you have on the detail sheet; but we don't have it on the agenda for today's meeting. Are we going to pick it up somewhere on there today? MR. PEITY: I would hope so, Mr. Chairman. MR. MOFFA IT: All right. MR. PETTY: If anybody has a consideration for capital, we would like to hear that from staff's perspective so that we can prepare for it. MR. LEVY: What about the walkway/bike paths? MR. PETrY: That is one item that has kind of carried over from last year. It was considered last year; we priced it out last year; but this budget conunittee has not asked for it to be formally brought forward and updated. So we can tell you that that's a good example of what we looked at last year. If you'd like to do it again this year, we certainly can. MR. LEVY: I mean, it's on the agenda. MR. MOFFAIT: All right. Mary, just a question. I see that review and approval of minutes is not included on the agenda. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Oh. MR. MOFFATT: Is that something that should be? MS. McCAUGHTRY: Yes sir, that's my fault. I apologize. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. That's fine. I'm not looking to place fault. MS. McCAUGHTRY: You did get your minutes. I just forget to place it on there. MR. MOFFATT: All right. Why don't we go to approval of the minutes of the last meeting then. Does anyone have any changes, comments, corrections? MR. IAIZZO: It's history; it's history. MR. MOFFA IT: Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion for approval. MR. LEVY: I so move. 822 ^.__'__~'.'n' -,.<....".".,....,~--,'_.."-',._.' >~._"~.~".. ......",,,." --. 161 1~~ Budget Committee Meeting - Januarv 26. 2009 MR. GillSON: Second MR. MOFFATI: Okay. All in favor? Aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye. MR. GillSON: Aye. MR. BOLAND: Aye. Mr. Mike Levy moved, seconded by Mr. Geoff Gibson, and unanimously roved the MbuUes 0 the November 6, 2008 Me . . FY 2008 YEAR END HARD CWSE MR. MOFFA TI: John. I guess that brings us up to Item 4, "Year-End Hard Close." MR. PETrY: Mr. Chairman, you have two reports reflecting the hard close. One is a simple page, singular, that we got from the finance deparlment of the county. Their staff was very good in going over this. And we're very happy to report that the hard close resulted in a little bit over a $100,000 increase in our fund balance. As you-all may know, during the budget process, we do this conservatively based off projected numbers. The hard close reflects a reconciliation to cash that is done after the end of the year. And we try and true up at that process and put it into our next year's budget considerations. So our monthly financial statements, which you also have in front of you in draft form, shows that we have approximately $3.1 million in carry-forward and reserves: some for cash flow; some for projects; and some for just standard reserves or unrestricted cash. So our year-end close, basically, we have balanced to that cash position with finance. And we're comfortable moving forward now on a budgetary basis with the proper amount of cash carry-forwards. MR. LEVY: That's why this went up by $100,000 from the prior one? MR. PETIY: Yes sir, that's exactly why. Janice, was the number $137,000? MS. LARNED: About one forty. MR. PETTY: $140,000 approximately. It went up from what you received at the last board meeting where we gave you December's close. Now, that's something that, in talking with finance at the county, we have come to the understanding that, as finance balances to cash, we should also balance to cash. If you look at the numbers that you received on your draft monthly financial that we normally do and compare it to the itemized list that we have also just handed out to you today from the county, 823 , "._...,.~--,-"-,,,... 161 1 MW-- Budget Committee Meeting Januarv 26. 2009 you will find discrepancies. Now, typically, this is due to the input in the fine detail of being the budget, and it hasn't been trued up to cash yet. So these are the projected numbers that were entered into the system, oh, I guess Mayor June, around that time frame; and they haven't been adjusted to cash. Other than that, you should see a very strong correlation. In other words, I guess what I'm trying to say is that this monthly report that you are getting, since it is reconciled to cash and we keep it reconciled to cash, is probably more up to date in total for all funds. And the report samples that we showed you from SAP are probably more definitive of line-item status than it is total budget. Mr. Chairman, that's what we wanted to bring to your attention. The hard-close number is important for us, and for your considerations as well, to determine wh~t portion of the budget may be funded by such reserves or by reallocation of funds for such projects that may be discontinued. If you recall, last year, we had a cash cany-forward where we kept three and a half months of fund availability in case taxes took a while to come in as our primary revenue service. After calculating it and checking with the property appraiser, this body recommended that we go to a three-month allocation, which we have found to be more than sufficient. As a matter of fact, we have in tracking it this year, it may be such that you would like to consider a two-and-a-half-month cash flow for this year. We believe that we can work with that amount. MR. LEVY: Those are just, like, one-time pick-ups where we do that? MR. PETTY: It's for cash-flow purposes; and it's to get by the first two and a half months. We get most of our money from... MR. LEVY: I mean, when we changed it from three and a half months to three months, we made a one-time pick-up, a... MR. PETTY: 011, I'm sorry. MR. LEVY: We got money one time? MR. PETrY: Absolutely. MR. LEVY: It's a one-time deal? MR. PETTY: And it falls to cash balance. MR. LEVY: One time, period? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. And last year, you took that money and you applied it to offset the assessment. So you can consider such an item again this year. MR. LEVY: On this 140K that we came out to the good on, was that because we spent less than we thought or the 824 ~P"."~ - ---- _....,--- Budget Committee Meeting .1.6' v41 ~\().; Januarv 26. 2009 income... MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. MR. LEVY: ... was better than we thought? MR. PETIY: A little bit of programs that were not put in place and efficiencies by our operational staff; it was a combination of both, more to the efficiency I think than anything else. Clam Bay has probably more benefit in its fund due to the program not being completed. As you recall, we were going to go for a pennit; and we stopped, so we did not have that cost with our engineer. So we saved quite a bit of money there; and it has rolled over. We tagged !t to make sure that the money did roll over, because we don't know what we were going to be held for at the time of the budget. We're still looking for that direction. MR. MOFFATT: John, do you ever prepare a report that reflects the 2008 budget by fund, at least, or at a minimum, and this hard close from the county? MR. PETIY: No, sir, I have not. But that is certainly something we could do. The report that you have in white I can break down into that basic fund category by just putting the names above the fund numbers. Fund 109, for example, is beautification and landscaping; 320 is Clam Bay; 322 is for capital; and the last one, 232, is your streetlights. But, sir, we can certainly put this in a better format and distrIbute it. We got this last Thursday from finance at 1he county. MR. LEVY: So, in other words, we would know by area where we... MR. PETTY: Where we're up. MR. LEVY: ... where we netted out this 140,000 from? MR. PETIY: Oh, yes, sir. You can compare it then to what we thought the cany-forward was. By category, I can tell you that street lights has a little more in it than what we thought. We thought it was a hundred ninety-nine; it's now two thirty-two. The general fund, again, we were up a little bit higher than what we anticipated. Clam Bay was down a little bit lower than what we thought. And capital was pretty much even, if I remember. We tend to keep the capital items in "CapitaL" MR. MOFFA 'IT: You used the term "Capital." Where is that? MR. PETrY: That would be Fund 322, sir, the third bracket down the page. MR IAIZZO: Vb-huh. MR MOFFA 'IT: That's capital? MR PETIY: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFA IT: Okay. And then what's street lighting? 825 .-- " "'w_."_,,_ .,--,..~_... ---."'-.-- -- 161 ~~1 ~~ .~ Budget Committee Meeting January 26. 2009 MR. PETrY: Street lighting is the last one, 778. MR. waO: 778. MR. PETTY: And again, I apologize for not putting those tags on there. We know it by fund. But we can certainly put this together again and show you that comparison for the next meeting, if you'd like. MR. MOFFATT: Yes, well, I guess I'm looking for something a little different. I'd like to see what the budget was in each of those four funds compared to what the actuals were, which you derive from this white page somehow, just so we then can compare that white fund to our budget for '09 and use that as a basis going forward for '10 also. MR. PETrY: Sir, that is something that we do normally prepare. It is in your first draft budget. MR. IAIZZO: You told me. MR. PETrY: Irs a book like this (indicating). And it shows you what the budget is; it shows you what the projections are to finish out this year. MR. MOFFATT: Right. No, I understand that. MR. PETrY: And it also shows you what actually happened last year. MR. MOFFATT: But as far as the hard close for '08, that's not reflected in there, because you didn't have it until just recently. MR. PETrY: No, sir. I'm not talking about this book having the answer in it. I'm saying that, when we do this draft book this year, it will have that information in it. MR. MOFFATT: Right. MR. PETTY: This is for 2009, and we're working on 2010. So when we do the 2010 draft budget, the first one, it will have those numbers, I think, those breakouts that you're asking for, unless I'm mistaken. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. When will that be? MR. PETrY: According to the calendar? MR. MOFFATT: Yes. I guess, John, what I'm looking for is something as simple as this one-page financial that shows me, for '08, what our budget was by fund and what the actual was by fund based on hard close. And then that difference should be the amount of the change in the carty-forward, if I understand what you're saying. For example, water management ops, we had a budget for '08 of some number. What was the actual hard close on that water management ops? MR. waO: You can figure it all spent. 826 ,-- -. ,-~"~ -"'-- ,--~.. Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 ~\~ Januarv 26. 2009 MR. MOFFATT: Pardon me? MR IAIZZO: You can figure it as all spent. We have very little canyover, really. MR PETTY: No, we have a considerable amount of capital carryover for water management. As you know, we didn't do a lot of the lake bank improvements that we wanted to do. MR. IAIZZO: But that money will be there for the following year. MR PETTY: But if! understand your request, Mr. Chainnan, you're looking for a line-item breakout of year -end close, which I do not have at this time. And I would have to check to see what time would be req~ired to prepare one. I'm not prepared at this time to give you an estimate. But that's something certainly the board can consider and request of staff. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. Well, that's something I think we ought to have. I mean, I can't imagine it, you know, taking a lot of time to prepare, because you already have it somewhere. If you have the cany-forward, you have the actual compared to budget Isn't that what generated the carry-forward? MR. PETTY: Sir, I don't have a line-itenI comparison in front of me, nor have I used one in comparison of the carry-forward. We have prepared the cany-forward by fund... MR. MOFFATT: Right. MR. PETTY: . .. based on our projections of expenditures. And then we trued that up with finance once finance trued up to cash. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. And I'm only looking for it by fund, not by line item within a fund. MR. PETTY: No, sir. You basically have a more definitive breakout in the monthly financials, because it breaks it out between ops and capital. MR. MOFFATT: But here again, thafs '09. I'm just trying to get a point in time that we can go from that point forward MR. PETTY: WelJ, sir, that's what you're getting now at the hard close. And what you have before you in the draft 2010, which is a December 2008 report, this financial report, you have in there basically the hard-close numbers by category, water manageIl1ent ops, water management capital; and you have it by cany-forward by project, specific projects. So I think you're getting the detail on a greater-than-per-fund basis now. So unless we do go to a line item, I think we may have hit the mark for you. MR. MOFFATT: Well, let me ask it a different way. In the bottom half of the page where you have it by water management ops, capital, et cetera, you come down to total the budget column of three million eight thirty, the subtotal you have 827 --^ - -- . ---+".+~, ~" -.-"-.----- Budget Committee Meeting 16\ ~'1 ~~~ Januarv 26. 2009 struck there. MR. PET1Y: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFA IT: All right. Is that not our budget before cany-forwards for '09? MR. PET1Y: Yes, sir. That's for operations only. MR. LEVY: Well, that's got planned cany-forwards in it within the budget. MR. PET1Y: The expenses that he just talked about, it does have $422,600 in cany-forward that was allocated to offset assessments at the very top of the page. But what he just described is coming out of this year's budget. So the answer is still "yes," but... MR. MOFFAIT: All right. Now, all I'm looking for are a couple of other colunms. What is the 2008 hard-close number that would equate to a three point three eight in that same... MR. PETTY: And, again, sir, if you'd like that comparison, and if that's something the board would like to do, we can certainly take a look at doing it. I do not have that preparation here. The carry-forward is on a separate sheet. An analysis by fund, which we then equate in-house, we have not prepared a presentation for you at this time. MR. MOFFAIT: Okay. Well, I'd like to see that, what we budgeted for '08 compared to the hard close for '08. That always tells me something about how good that budget was. MR. PET1Y: And, sir, again, let me explain to you why I'm not saying "yes" when I very much want to say "yes." Last year we had financials that were I forget how many pages. Mr. Boland, do you remember how many pages the old financial was? I think: it was, like, 15 pages every month. And it was a line item that Jean Smith used to spend about, oh, a day and a half doing. And she would take these SAP reports, and she would do just what you're asking. On a line-item basis, per fund, she would go in and show expenses to date, budgeted to date, leftover amount. And the board didn't like the report. And the budget committee was charged with coming up with a new monthly financial and, after considering several values, adopted this one and recommended it to the board. And the board adopted it by vote. So before we change this, we must first have this body approve it for recommendation and then have the entire board approve that. So, sir, for informational purposes, we can give you all of this detail that shows you how we came up with the number. But before we change the monthly financial, that would be something that we would have to take to a vote. MR. MOFFA IT: Yes. I have a number of comments and questions on the monthly financial that we11 get into here shortly. I'm not suggesting we change it for this item. I'm looking for a separate piece of paper that shows me what we budgeted 828 -_.~,....,.,"-,-_. "-,.,..",.'._,"._~......-v . ._"-""'~' ."......~...- Budget Committee Meeting 16\ 1 ~\IY Januarv 26. 2009 in '08 by fund. what we actually spent by fund or collected and spent, revenue and expenses. MR. IAIZZO: You're looking at Jean Smith's output. That's what you're asking. MR. MOFFAIT: But I only want one piece of paper. I don't want 15 pages. MR. IAIZZO: The 15 pages covered the line items. MR. MOFFATT: I don't want 15 pages. MR. IAIZZO: But you've got to understand. when you see the line items and you see the expenditures that are coming out of the line items, you know, it's already monies spent. It's like taking an hourglass and watching the sand trickle through. Let's put the dollars together on a line item. Then the county will disburse the money based on given dollars. And we'll get a flag if we're running out of money, we'll know that before we run out of money, because John is on top of that and will be flagging it for us. MR. PEITY: Well, there's three levels of control; your administrator; there is the county system, which is governed both by the accountants and by the SAP hardware which has been set up for that; and also by the clerk of courts and their finance department. So to exceed budget is not a reasonable expectation. MR. IAIZZO: Yes, it doesn't happen. MR. PETTY: We have three checks and balances there, more than most governments do. MR. IAIZZO: What I like is, if that red flag comes up, we can then decide where to take that money from, keep that line item alive and still have spending money. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. MR. IAIZZO: We then decide where to grab the money to cover that expenditure.. . MR. PETTY: That fleXIbility... MR. IAIZZO: ... we're running short on. MR. PETTY: ... to reapportion is something you've asked for in the past. MR. IAIZZO: It's a matter of putting the sand in the hourglass, not watching it trickle out. That's what we've got to watch. That's my idea, Jerry. MR. MOFFA IT: Well, I think it tells you how good you were in doing the budget a year ago. .. MR. IAIZZO: I realize what you're.. . MR. MOFFAIT: ...so if you had some fudge in it... 829 ~-- -~,_.,...",,-.- -'.~-.~- ,.~.,u.",~,__ Budget Committee Meeting W 1 ~~ Januarv 26. 2009 MR. IAIZZO: Yes, but before.. . MR. MOFFATT: .. .or something you didn't account for properly... MR. IAIZZO: But before that step, you really have to understand the line items. If it's a simple line item, it's not a problem. Some of these line items are complex. You could have as much as a half a dozen vendors on a line item, and you want to know more about how they are supporting that line item. Once you come to grip with that, then you'll control your dollars; and then you won't have to worry about it, in my opinion. MR. BOLAND: A lot of these numbers come to Kyle from the county. Kyle h~ and correct me if I'm wrong on this, Kyle, okay? Kyle gets these numbers. Kyle doesn't generate these numbers. They're generated, I guess they have a code for whatever it is. Now, I'm not accusing the county of being bad. But if someone makes an error on the coding, our dollars could go to say Golden Gate; or we could get some of theirs. So I've been saying this for a couple of years. No matter what you do, you can't authenticate these numbers. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm always used to saying, "I know if this guy's account ever had a budget" like The Foundation, you're on that budget committee. You can't say tennis is going to pick up the restaurant, because someone will say, "Hey, this isn't mine." We don't have that luxury, because, as I say, when Kyle gets the numbers, he takes it as gospel. He has no way to know if they're right, wrong, or indifferent; he hasn't got the authority. The county says, "Here's the numbers for street lighting; here's the numbers for Clam Bay; here's the numbers for this; here's the numbers for services; here's the numbers for labor; here's the numbers for material. This is what I don't like about this, that we can't say to the people of Pelican Bay, "we're guaranteed this is the right budget." It probably isn't off by much. But you see what I'm getting at? It's done completely different from the way The Foundation does everything by codes and by departments. We don't do it that way. I would like to see it that way, but I don't know how we get the original figures. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to explain that issue that Mr. Boland just brought up? MR. MOFFATT: Well, isn't that Item 7 on the agenda? At least that's where I anticipated we'd talk about that. I think... MR. PETrY: We can. MR. MOFFATT: ... it was John's point in the last meeting. MR. PETTY: We can. FY 2008 ACTUAL COMPARED TO FY 2009 BUDGET MR. MOFFATT: Yes. Why don't we wait 'til we're on 7 then. Okay. Let's go on to Item 5, compare the '08 actual to 830 -,^-',., -- .---" ~. .' '~'W"" TT_ .--.,,--.,-. ~._- Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 f' \\ ()..) Januarv 26. 2009 the '09 budget. How are you going to do that for me? MR.. PElTY: Well, sir, that's what we already did to come up with a hard close. And I think that brings us back to what you were just talking about 30 seconds ago. MR. LEVY: You said we've got an additional 140,000 coming? MR. IAIZZO: It's all in here. MR.. PElTY: Yes, sir. The finance department at the clerk of court's office confirmed that our number was off by, I think it was, a hundred thirty, a hundred forty thousand dollars to the good. MR.. LEVY: To the good. MR. PETrY: Now, our numbers were based off of our projected year-end close. And if you recall, our budget is one of the first ones approved in the process at the county, early June. So I think we did pretty good as a budget group and as your staff in coming that close. MR. LEVY: Do we usually come that close? MR.. PETrY: If I remember correctly, sir, the year before when we went for hard close, we went with finance, we were at about $114,000. So, yes. MR.. LEVY: We're talking about three close to $4 million worth of expenditures. MR.. PElTY: With $6 million actually flowing around, yes, sir. MR.. MOFFATT: John, let me ask it a different way. Water management ops I'm just picking on that one because it's the top item. We say our budget for this year is $808,000; is that correct? Well, at least. according to this report, it is. MR.. PElTY: Whatever it says on the report, sir. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. What was the actual, for 2008, for water management ops? MR. PElTY: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFA IT: The comparable amount to the '08, that's what I'm looking for. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. Yes, I understand that. And that's basically... MR. IAIZZO: It's in the book. MR.. PElTY: ...and not a line-item report, but a fund report. MR. MOFFA IT: Right. MR.. PETTY: Yes, sir. 831 ,-'"..~._._~---..,.'- , ",....",--,., ....~~_...~~...._.., .. ---~~ . .--_.- l6J ~\IY Budget Committee Meeting L! January 26. 2009 MR MOFFATT: I'm looking for 10 lines.. . MR. PETTY: Ten lines, yes, sir. MR MOFFATT: ... that show me those lines you have there, what the actual was in '08. MR. PETTY: The same thing that's in the report. MRMOFFATT: Yes. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, I understand. We don't have anything to present to you today. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. MR. PETTY: If you'd like, we will put it together and bring it back at the next meeting. MR MOFFATT: Yep, I'd like to see that. Does anyone have any questions on those at this point? MR. GillSON: No, I see what you're trying to get at, Jerry. MR. MOFFATT: I mean, I guess I'm too used to a profit-making organization. I mean, I don't know of any profit-making organization that doesn't do something like that as part of the process of doing your following year's budget. MR PETTY: Let me see if I can clarifY that then. This government agency setup, which goes through two different government accounting processes before we touch it, one by the county and one by the clerk of courts and they do not see eye to eye. They carry it this way that was presented to you. And that is by fund number; and that is by fund. So when you ask for additional breakouts, sir, you're asking for it not by fund but by further definition. So we do follow generally accepted accounting practices. I want to make that perfectly clear. And this report that you have before you does give you that carry-forward amount and exactly how we came to that amount; what the claims on cash were; what the current accounts payable is; due from tax collector, which is the tIUe-up done at the end of the year; trade payables and goods received; and invoices received. So, sir, we can put this up in a new form, but the information has been received from the county. And I don't mean to infer that that is not provided or available to us. MR. MOFFATT: Finally, on this white sheet, John, where is water management? MR PETTY: Water management is in Fund 109, sir; beautification and water management are in the same fund. MR MOFFATT: Oh, okay. MR PETTY: They're both assessed the same. We break it out more in our budget than what the county does in their budgeting process and according to SAP accounting. We do quite a bit more definition. We have been given business reports for Pelican Bay, because that's what you-all have been asking for the last 18 years. 832 - -'-.'-._,_._~- ...._"'_..._-_._'""""""-~...,- ,.,..~--- ,_.,~-,,-,~-^-- Budget Committee Meeting 1-6-1 ,1 jl<\\oJ Januarv 26. 2009 REVIEW CARRY FORWARDS. CAPITAL AND RESERVE USE MR. MOFFA Tr: AU right. One thing you told us in the last meeting, you were going to provide us with an analysis of cany-forwards by capital and reserves by fund. Now, it would help me if you would tell me what the defmition of a cany-forward is versus a reserve. MR. PETIY: Sir, I think you're referring to the monthly fInancial statements, which have our projects and our reserves. If you look at the bottom of the December report, you will see that we have east ofbenn as a capital project and what monies we brought over from the prior year; we have lake bank enhancement and what money we J?18Y have brought over from the prior year; Oakmont irrigation; hard-scape improvements; vehicles in Clam Bay. The reserves are those monies such as streetlights, which is two hundred and some odd thousand dollars, which this body had decided to keep in that fund not for a specific project but as a reserve. And it boiled down to 1he ad valorem issue. If you recall, we didn't have enough money in cany-forward to fund the entire year. And we didn't want to look like we were increasing ad valorem twice in a row. And there was a contemplation of possibly adjusting or modifYing 1he lighting stmcture, so 1he money was just categorized as a reserve. So, sir, I think you do have what is reserved and unrestricted cash along with all project carry-forwards. MR. LEVY: John, where do you get this streetlights, 240,ooo? Are you looking at this report? MR. PETrY: Since it is in reserves and/or unrestricted, it is in 1hat line item at the bottom that says "Reserves, Unrestricted" 571. MR. LEVY: Ob., I see, 571. MR. PETIY: It is not restricted to a specific project, as I just went through. So if you'll recall, it's in "Reserves" under title only. MR. LEVY: I see. But that has to be used in capital projects? MR. PETrY: No, sir. MR. LEVY: Okay. MR. PETrY: No. First:, you would want it to stay in street lighting. But there is nothing prohibiting you from moving it out of streetlights to something else, should you see fIt. It would need the county commissioners' approval to change funds. MR. LEVY: Okay. MR. MOFFATT: Well,1hen "Other Reserves," 1he 571, what's 1he breakdown of that by fund? Because I guess ifwe spent it wi1hin 1he fund 1hat it's reserved in, you don't need approval, if I understood what you said at the last meeting. 833 -- ".- --- ..,~=. .~"-'- . '..,'..." Budget Committee Meeting 16' l~\\~ Januarv 26. 2009 MR. PETTY: Sir, further detail can be brought again. This was what was decided by the last budget committee and approved by the board. MR. MOFFATT: I'm not trying to change the report. I'm looking for information. MR. PETTY: I'm trying to... MR. MOFFATT: Don't limit me by a prior committee to one piece of paper for all the information I'm going to get. MR. PETTY: Mr. Moffatt, we're not trying to limit your information. MR. MOFFATT: You keep giving me the same answer. MR. PETTY: I apologize. MR. MOFFATT: I understand that it's been approved and it has to be approved again if we change it. I'm just looking for information. Of the 57 I reserves, that should be divided into wbat four funds? MR. IAIZZO: No. MR. PETTY: Sir, that information is not available tonight. If you'd like it to be made available, we can do so either on a one-time basis or on a monthly basis or however the board decides. But it is not available at this meeting. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. I would like to see that, because, if I understand the discussion at the last meeting, and I realize that was a couple of months ago, you said we can use reserves that are in a fund against expenditures within that fund without approval. Say we ran out of money in a particular fund but we had reserves identified to that fund, we could use those funds without going to the Board of County Commissioners? MR. PETrY: No, sir, I did not mean to imply that. You are limited by your budgeted amount. If you exceed your budgeted amount, you need a budget amendment, and you must go before the county commissioners. MR. MOFFATT: By fund or in total? MR. PETTY: By fund, sir. MR. MOFFATT: By fund. But ifwe bave reserves, we don't have to look for additional revenues, because we already have the reserves in hand. MR. PETTY: We would not need to do a special assessment, sir. That would be what you would normally have to do if you did not have the funds. MR. MOFFA IT: All right. So if we ran out of street lighting funds, for example, we could go to the commissioners and say, "we have two hundred and forty some thousand in reserves for street lighting and we would like to use a hundred of that 834 --- .._'"m.'~_ ~._._- N"~"",'",,,~,,_, "~--~..-,_._,".,-~.,~ "~n""_ _,"w.__,...,..~",,~.,.__..__" Budget Committee Meeting 161 .,1 ~\~ Januarv 26. 2009 to do" whatever the project is? MR. PElTY: Yes, sir, that is a possibility. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. That's why I'd like to know what that is by fund. MR. LEVY: That's like a one-time piece of paper to see what it is. MR. MOFFATT: Yeah, right. MR. LEVY: Not necessarily an ongoing. MR. MOFFATT: No. I assume, once you get it, it's not going to change until. . . MR. LEVY: Right. MR. MOFFATT: ...you spend some of it. MR. PElTY: It does change. But we'll be glad to do that work for this body; but the numbers do change. I mean, we do earn interest on any monies that are held by the county for us in any carry-forward. MR. MOFFATT: Oh, okay. MR. PETTY: We have some monies, which we have allocated or reallocated as we've gone along. As you-all recall, you wanted the assessments dropped $40 in 2008; and we reallocated from a carry-forward to reduce the assessment by $40 in 2008. So there are changes that we will make over time. We just went over budget on a hard-scape program, and we reallocated money. It stayed in the same fund, so we did not have to walk you through a budget amendment. That's typically something that staff would do. And if you were going to cross over funds, that's usually something staff would warn you about. But certainly we can put together whatever detail you'd like to see, we can do. You just have to give us a little bit of time to prepare it. MR. LEVY: John, last year we didn't spend our whole capital budget for the fiscal year '08. I know that, because we didn't finish the modifications on Myra Daniels Boulevard. And we didn't have enough funds to do it, but we had some money to do it. So I know we didn't spend all of our capital last year. MR. PElTY: Vh-huh. MR. LEVY: But where does that show up? Where does that show up now? MR. PElTY: On the sheet that we handed out from finance, that is Fund 322. And on any carry-forward for any specific project, such as hard-scape improvements, it would be in the carry-forward. And if you look on hard-scape improvements, you see a carry-forward of$34,300 on our monthly sheet. You see the 79,800 that we have for irrigation? MR. LEVY: Yes. 835 - - -"_..._- ----_._~._--,--- --~.,..,- -- "....u,..""'~_,._" ,,".~_"_W" ~~~~'.. Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 ~\\OJ Januarv 26. 2009 MR. PETTY: And the lake bank enhancement that we didn't spend any money on is 240,000, rolled over. The east-of-berm amount, that project has been on hold now for two years. MR. LEVY: So the hard-scape improvements that would include what monies were left over from... MR. PETrY: Yes, sir. If you remember, there was some overages on those walkway lightings. We did that portion on Vanderbilt Beach Road. MR. LEVY: Yes. We used some of the money on that. I understand. MR. PETTY: So yes, a little bit of that came forward. MR. LEVY: Yes. MR. MOFFATT: John, you talked about "reserves"; and you're talking about "carry-forwards." What's the definitional difference between a "carry-forward" and a "reserve"? MR. PETTY: Sir, the way I've represented it here in the monthly report, a "carry-forward" in that same line item is unrestricted. These are basically dollars that you've saved from your account that aren't tied to a specific project, aren't limited to a specific... MR. IAIZZO: Fund. MR. PETTY: Restricted fund. In other words, they fall to your general fund, so they can be reallocated for offsetting assessments overall next year. "Reserves" are those similar to the streetlights, where this board, or our board, makes that decision to freeze a carry-forward for a specific purpose or objective; in this case, streetlights was for the objective. We wanted to do an ad valorem; we wanted to leave that money in there for improvements to the street lighting system that was undefined at that time, but anticipated. MR. MOFFATT: The bottom quarter of this schedule, you have it all labeled, "Reserves (Projects)"; "East of Berm"; "Lake Bank"; et cetera. Are they reserves, or are they carry-forwards? MR. PETrY: They are both, sir. MR. MOFFATT: They're both? MR. PETrY: We have, by county standards, carry-forwards, period, $3,144,333.16. This board has allocated a portion of that $3,144,333.16 in specific ways, which we have tried to track on this monthly sheet. MR. MOFFATT: It sounds like you're using the terms interchangeably. MR. PETTY: No, sir. 836 ---- -,,-~- ,",_..~'.".w",..._'T -,"-,',,".' - ~"'~-' Budget Committee Meeting 161 \111 ~\ ()...- Januarv 26. 2009 MR. MOFFATT: No? MR. LEVY: John, can we back up here one minute? You're using a number of three million for reserves and carry-forwards of three million, one hundred something. I'm looking at the subtotal here of two million., seven twenty-two. MR. MOFFATT: He's looking at the white sheet. MR. LEVY: Oh. MR. IAIZZO: Different page, different page. That's the problem; we're not all on the same page here. MR. PETTY: Again, that's one of the reasons why you wanted a one-page report'that indicated whether or not we were in trouble or not, with a red flag/green flag, which was designed by Chris Sutphin. The reason why you have reserves and unrestricted in the same line item is very simple: We ran out of space. I couldn't fit it all on one page; that's why you see them both there. The reason you don't have further definition is because we were looking for a one-page report that was not in a micro fashion but a macro fashion. That was the objective of last year's directive to staff. If it is the desire of this board, and of the full board, to go to any different format whatsoever for any financial reporting whatsoever, staff is not going to be in your way. We will be glad to provide to you whatever reports that we have available to us off of the SAP accounting system or any other report that you would like staff to make for you based on the board's approval. MR. MOFFATT: Why don't we go back to the question Mike was asking, because I know where you got the three million, one forty-four. Why does that number not show on our one-page financial? MR. LEVY: I know it's reflected, because if this was up by a hundred and forty.. . MR. PETTY: It is on the one-page financial. Let me show you where it is. MR. LEVY: So it must be in another spot here. MR. PETTY: No. It's because the one program divides it by four. And in our schedule we divide it by much more; we just don't hold to four categories. We try to break it out into those categories that you like to see it in, which is ops and capital and reserves and project carry-forwards. See, we have three types of carry-forwards that we identifY: the carry-forward to budget, which is the amount that we take out of our cash balance to fund the next year; carry-forward for projects, which is money tied up in projects; and then reserves and unrestricted. "Unrestricted", meaning it can go to the general fund without llI1y problem; and "resetve", meaning that it takes process, further motions, and approval by the boards before it is utilized. Now, I can show you in the formula where that number comes from for the three million. I'm sorry that it isn't bigger. But basically in the formula, for carry-forward in budget, we took 3,144,333 minus the projects and minus the money that we took out, the four hundred 837 '-"-om "_c~, - ~'-~ u. .........""......."'. -~------<"..- Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 ~\()J Januarv 26. 2009 twenty-two that we used to fund this year's budget. That's what should be left out of the pot. We know what our total is; we know what our projects are; the rest is just math. So we do have the number. We just don't simply put it out there and show you each step of the process because, again, the board directed us to do it on one page. And I'm sorry I keep repeating that. I don't mean to, but you-all made me do it. MR. LEVY: Well, I have to say, I think, compared to what we used to get, this is worlds, worlds better. I mean, what we had was this huge stack of paper. MR. PETIY: It was so hard. MR. LEVY: And it just had the year's budget and whafs been spent to date and I mean but with thousands of items. MR. PETrY: Yes, sir. MR. LEVY: And there were no meaningful totals anywhere in the pieces of paper. MR. PETTY: It was very difficult to try and tie together. MR. LEVY: I don't know what anybody did with that. MR. PETTY: The thing that I always brought up, before you all told me I had do it this way, was I always wondered why the monthly reports didn't show you what your reserves and carry-forwards were, because, in a budget hearing process and particularly the way the county does it, you don't disclose that. It's already been appropriated, so there's no need for it to come before you to be re-appropriated. But I thought maybe you'd want to know that there's $340,000 for an east-of-berm program that has basically been on ice for two years; and if you wish to re-appropriate that money for something that you think has value in Pelican Bay, that that was within your power to do so. Now, granted, there may be steps to getting approval for it; i.e., it may have to go before the commissioners. But it certainly was something I thought you'd want to know about. And in the line-item detail that you were getting in the past, all cany-forwards and project monies were not being shown. So that's why I put those items on this one-page sheet. But certainly we also understand that watching the line items and seeing how the system works is something that the budget committee members may wish to look at. And we'd like to leave that door open. As a matter of fact, I think we have an open invitation with Mr. Moffatt or any other board member, if they'd like to come over to the site, we'll walk you through SAP and show you every report that we've got anytime you want. So we have that capability. And that way maybe we can come to a consensus on what you-all would like to see. MR. MOFFATT: John, the first line in this report, "Cany-Forward Budget," which was the missing link to tie in with the three one four are you saying... 838 ... <.,._~~ ->,~-;..~~_. ,"'"~;,;~.n. Budget Committee Meeting 16-1 hi ~\\().J January 26. 2009 MR. LEVY: Thank you. MR MOFFATT: .. . are you saying that we're using that in this year's budget? MR PETTY: Yes, sir, we are. We're using that to offset our assessments to fund this year's budget activities. MR MOFFATT: Okay. So then effectively, the carry-forward we have left to utilize if we so choose is the two million, seven twenty-one, which shows there in the middle of the page there, the cash flow, the carry-forward, and the carry-forward projects. I mean, since we've already used three four or I mean four twenty-two... MR. PETTY: Yes, sir; yes, sir. MR. MOFFATT: ... we can't use that again. It's already gone. MR. PETTY: Well, we wouldn't mind if somebody would let us spend it twice. But you're right, sir. MR MOFFATT: So when we're talking carry-forwards, it's two million, seven twenty-one. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, some of which are for projects that have been defined and we intend on carrying out; some have been for projects that have been mothballed that may be reapportioned; and then you have straightforward carry-forward, which we later define down below, which is the 491,433. And we balance that with our budget and project for the end of the year. MONTHLY REPORTING FORMAT MR. MOFFATT: Since we're talking about this so much, let me ask a couple of other questions on it. We say this is for the month of December. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, for the financial monthly report, yes, sir, as of the close of December. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. The next line says "Income to Date Monthly." What does that mean? What's the term "monthly" mean? We're we talking three months, aren't we, ifit's income to date? And the same way with the heading "Monthly Expenses" in the middle of the page. We're really talking year-to..date expenses, aren't we? MR PETTY: I'm sorry, I got lost in my own sheet. I was looking on the left and thinking, "Where is he reading that?" And, of course, it's my title. I'm with you, sir. I don't like the titles that much myself. It was meant to imply that, every month. we update it for a year-to-date figure. So that's how they're calculated, sir. We do one each and every month, October, NoveIl1ber, December, January, so on; and it is income to date yearly, adjusted monthly. MR MOFFATT: Income, income year to date, and expenses year to date. MR. PETTY: Adjusted monthly, yes, sir. That's a better way oflooking at it. MR MOFFATT: Okay. Yeab, lone of the problems I have with this is, I look at the expenses, year to date, and we 839 ..'~ .. ,--",.,",-. - "'l. .. "'''''''''','"-""' "~.'" Budget Committee Meeting 161 ii~ll ~\\()V Januarv 26. 2009 have $905,000 in expenses. All right. And you give me the line item or not the line item, the fund detail, and you compare that to an annual budget. I guess what I'd like to see is what have we budgeted for the three months year to date? You can't tell me we haven't done that yet. MR. LEVY: That's the green flag; that's what the flag is. MR. PETTY: Sir, the calculation is on the page. We don't provide that in a separate report. But let me show you how that works on the sheet. Again. it is a calculation. And, again, with the directive of "Put everything on one page," this has to do with the calculation. And the calculation basically says, "Look at the month date at the top of the sheet; compare that to the appropriate line item's spending pattern, which is the definition to the right. Now, there are I think fuur or five other sheets that go with each one of these monthly reports. They're graphs. Those are spending patterns. MR. MOFFATT: Uh-huh. MR. PETTY: So that, in each particular month, you would know what percentage of the budget was expected to be expensed by this point. Now, that's compared to what has actually been expended at that point. And it's within I think it's 15 percent, which we can adjust based on how tight you'd like to look at it. And that, again, is shown on the schedule for revenue. It's at 85 percent. And expenses, it has to be within 110 percent. If it comes within those criteria for that month expense to date, based on whether it's a straight monthly increase per month for lack of a better tenn. MS. LARNED: Prorata. MR. PETTY: Thank you, prorata. And the rest is based on summer activities or winter activities or a somewhat obnoxious schedule of when does our revenue come in, which is December, January, February, March. And then basically, unless you get something sold on the courthouse steps, you're done. So we do that calculation; but it's aU internal, sir. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. So what you've highlighted up there, the "Beautification operations"... MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFATT: ... "expenses each month with greatest costs incurred during the summer months". .. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFATT: ...is what your explanation says. And therefore, that's a green flag, because you're within... MR. PETTY: The amount. MR. MOFFATT: What, as of the three months ended December, you're within... MR. PETTY: Thirty... 840 .,~"-,.- ~~..."- "_,.~,l.-"""" ",,".,.,,"."'._,-_..~- ,...- Budget Committee Meeting 161 '<<I ~\(Y Januarv 26. 2009 MR. MOFFATT: .. .15 percent of... MR PETIY: The 30 percent was expected to be expended at this time. MR. MOFFATT: Yeah. MR. PETIY: And we are within plus or minus 15 percent of that total number. MR LEVY: It's 10 percent on expenses. MR. PETIY: Excuse me, 10 percent on expenses, thanks. One thing I will bring to your attention to show you that the system works, if you look at the top under "Revenue," you will see a red flag next to Fund J 11. That's new, guys. And we asked that question when we met with finance on Thursday of last week. And we said, "we're used to seeing TDC funds coming in at late dates and, to tell you the truth, we really don't want the money, because we don't have an appropriate use for it, and that's a very restrictive revenue source." So we'll probably be returning it this year; we did last year. But Fund Ill, well, that's the majority of the money that we get from the county off of our MSTBU. MR. LEVY: Right. That's the majority of money we have for Clam Bay. MR PETTY: Yes, sir. And, typically, we get that on a monthly basis. Now, it comes in bits of dribs and drabs; they're usually quite a little bit ahead of the prorata monthly allotment. So we've never had a red flag before. So we asked, "What's going on? Are you just having a slow start?" So he checked for us. And he found out that Fund III has been restricted and will not be diverted to us until September 30th, the last day of the fiscal year. We suspect that's because Clam Bay is in transition, and the county is looking to hold those funds for whoever is responsible for maintaining Clam Bay. As you-all know, in preparing the budget last year, we anticipated this possibility which is why we hard-tagged any reserves we had for this year, just in case Fund III was so restricted. But we wanted to bring that to your attention. And, sir, that is a good example of how we show that allocation and analysis that is done. The sheet looks simple, but there's quite a bit of calculation going on in the background. MR MOFFATT: Well, I think I could save you a lot of words in your notes if, for example, you just used the terms you have on the charts, that this line is equal month; this is weighted summer; this is weighted winter; instead of all those words that you use there. You don't really need all those words. It would give you more room on the page to add something else. MR PETIY: We will take that suggestion, and we'll be glad to provide that. My explanations evidently are somewhat cryptic. I appreciate the help in that regard. MR MOFFA IT: On the three-month cash flow down on the bottom of the page, on your "Projects" there... MR PETTY: Uh-huh. It shows monthly. 841 -_._._---_.~.._._.._-"-- .~~. """,,,-_..,,,..,, -"._",-~-'~" ' ..._._",~ Budget Committee Meeting 161 ~'1 ~\\ 0..- Januarv 26. 2009 MR. MOFFATT: I don't think I can tell which funds those monies are in. Like "East of Berm," for eXanIple, which fund is that money in; or where did it come from? MR. PETTY: Sir, it is pulled from all operational funds with the concept being that we need to pay our bills for an approximate period of time before the taxes come in. We have monies that we brought into this year that we spent, October, November, and December. In December, we typically get our tax revenue, at which time we start rebuilding that fund; we pay it back. So it is a fund within a fund. We're still working with the county, who does the SanIe thing but always leaves it and calls it a "carry-forward." And it falls into the pot of all other "carry-forwards." We're trying to g~t them to actually list it as a cost item so that we can track us paying back that fund through the year. It's a difficult process, but we're still working on it. MR. MOFFATT: Are you talking the three-month cash flow; or are you talking east of berm? MR. PETTY: I'm talking about three-month cash flow. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. All right. That wasn't what I asked, but, okay... MR. PETrY: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. MOFFATT: ...1 understand that. East of berm. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. Where did it come from? MR. MOFFATT: Yeah. MR. PETTY: That's the water management fund. MR. MOFFATT: That's water management? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFATT: So you can identify each of these with a particular fund? MR. PETTY: Oh, yes, sir, absolutely. MR. MOFFATT: All right. I think I'd like to know that. I'm not suggesting we change the schedule, but I think it's just background information. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, we can certainly do that at any time. General conversation, we can do that project by project. FUNDING OF CLAM BAY MR. MOFFATT: Okay. The CIanI Bay one down there, three hundred ninety-three... MR. PETTY: Janice, do you have it? MR. MOFFATT: 393,000? 842 ._,- .~.,."-- - "#lli. .-,~ "'._.", Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 ~\\~ Januarv 26. 2009 MR. PEITY: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFA IT: Boy, that went down almost a hundred thousand from the last report we had. MR PEITY: Yes, sir. MR MOFFA IT: Why did that go down? MR. PEITY: It was incorrectly apportioned to Clam Bay when it really should be to unrestricted carry-forward. We made that correction after we did the hard close with the county. MR MOFFATT: Uh-huh. MR PEITY: From our position, sir, we didn't lose any money. We still have 3,144,000. The issue was: Is there four hundred and some odd thousand dollars in Clam Bay; and less than $571,000 in unrestricted reserves? See, they have to balance each other out. MR MOFFA IT: Vb-huh. MR PEITY: So Clam Bay went down to three ninety-two, but unrestricted reserves or reserves and unrestricted went up to five seventy-one, the same amount. MR MOFFAIT: On the Clam Bay, since that can be an issue going forward, since some of that is Pelican Bay money, some is county money, do we know... MR. PEITY: I would say it's all Pelican Bay money, sir, every dime of it. MR MOFFA IT: That's a position we can take. MR PEITY: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFA IT: But should we not be able to sustain that position? MR. PEITY: Sir, I think we already have. We've tagged the money for a specific project, Clam Bay. And according to generally accepted accounting practices and the county's own policies and procedures adopted by its Board of County Commissioners, once it has been adopted by project, it is very difficult to pull it out. So we have tagged this money that's carried over, the three ninety-one, specifically for Clam Bay; and it currently can only be spent by Clam Bay without a majority of the county commissioners. So I think we've already tagged that money for Clam Bay. That was our intent, and I had talked with management of the county, Leo, and his staff: about doing this. And they were under the understanding that we would still have maintenance items to do and that this money would be appropriately spent that way. So it isn't like we're trying to pull a fast one; this is something that I've already talked a little bit about with management staff. The transition period is something that you-all 843 .~-...,.. . .'-~'''''-'' _C'""'.."",__ Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 f>< \\0.-- Januarv 26. 2009 have been very patient with. And we have been extended month by month, waiting on a new comnlittee to come up with its duties and responsibilities and exactly how it's going to be funded and what transition there will be. It appears the county has attached any future Fund III funds waiting for that determination. And we have attached all past project monies to be spent for Clam Bay that were intended to be spent for Clam Bay. So we're both sitting there holding on to what we think is appropriate. I can tell you that I still think we have a case to go to the county and say, with the $6 million that Pelican Bay residents put into Fund Ill, we still believe that we have appropriate expenses outside of Clam Bay that we think Fund III should still fund, because, as you know, Fund III supports a lot of landscape improvements around the C?unty, entry features specifically. We have landscape costs, entry features specifically. We think that we could also qualify for some of those costs. In the past, we had been what we considered to be good neighbors by not trying to grab too much; and we were thankful for the two hundred fifty thousand that come in to Clam Bay. But even without Clam Bay responsibilities, I think we still have a claim to ask for those funds. Christopher Sutphin called it "fair-share revenue." And we had several discussions with the county on trying to keep that door open. MR. MOFFATI: So you're comfortable, based on your discussion with the county, that that 393,000 would be ours to keep; they wouldn't try taking part of that back? MR. PETIY: I have no indication that would be the case, sir, although the transition of Clam Bay, which is yet to be discussed, would set that in concrete. But right now, I'm feeling very good that this money is within our budget rights to use according to the needs of Clam Bay; and we know that those are considerable. Even without going ahead with a permit, we still have quite a bit of work and concern we have on mangrove maintenance alone. MR. MOFFATI: All right. And then on the current budget on Clam Bay, you know, we have in there revenues of, what, 350,000 or so? MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFA IT: I am just pulling a number up. I think we were one, I forget what that number... MR. PETIY: Yes, a hundred and change... MR. MOFFA TI: But what's at risk is the two hundred and fourteen from Fund Ill. We'd have to make a case to keep that to use it for something else? MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. As a matter offact, I doubt if we could make such a case, in that I don't think that that money is going to come to us unless the meeting that the chair and your administrator have with the county manager and Commissioner 844 ~ ..-- ., -~~- ".._-"~.,. o.."..._...""~ -- .....---..~. ' ,- Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 ~\\~ Januarv 26. 2009 Halas comes to some agreement on the work that we would be responsible for in Clam Bay and how we would be involved in this bigger county picture that's currently ongoing. MR. LEVY: But before this all gets straightened out, we have an ongoing responsibility with the mangroves and Clam Bay. And if we were to spend in excess of the amount of money that we have in that fund, I would hope that they would reimburse us as necessary from the 214,000. MR. PElTY: Sir, as a matter of fact, before we would go that far, we would have to determine that, because we wouldn't be allowed to exceed the current budget or revenue issues. If it's budgeted and YO!l have the money, you're capped at the budget If you're budgeted and the money's not quite in yet, you're capped at the lowest denominator there, which means, if the money hasn't come in yet, you still can't spend it. Even though your budget says you can, if the money's not there, you've got to wait. So the system would catch us then. And we would have to go to the county then and say, "Folks, we're going to be spending more than what we anticipated, and we're looking for you to reimburse." So we'd have to get that agreement in place beforehand. MR. MOFFATT: Ifwe didn't have that agreement, could we take it out of the reserves down the line, that 393,000? MR. PElTY: If it were appropriate, yes, sir, if it were an appropriate style, which typically I think it would be. In this case, your carry-forward that we retained was mostly for engineering purposes and for channel clearing and that hand work that we've done back in the mangroves. MR. BOLAND: John., all this money is what the people of Pelican Bay have put in through the non-ad valorem taxes, right? This money, we have the 331,000 right now. MR. PETTY: A hundred and some odd thousand was non-ad valorem assessment. Two hundred and some odd thousand came back to you from an ad valorem assessment put on you by the county. That's that municipal services taxing unit that they put on all the unincorporated areas. MR. BOLAND: Did they tax the entire county or just. .. MR. PETTY: Just the unincorporated people of the county. The City of Naples, Marco Island, what is it ImmokaIee and Everglades City do not get taxed. It's only the unincorporated people that get taxed. And then what they do is, they take that money, that special assessment tax, and they say, "That'll pay for these types of municipal services." MR. BOLAND: Right. MR. PETTY: So you have to qualliY. And the maintenance of a conservation area happened to qualifY, along with 845 -----~~._._"--_.._-~--- .. "~- -....--- "~.- ..._..,.,~_.-.,_.....". Budget Committee Meeting 161 \. 1 ~~~ Januarv 26. 2009 parks. So we took the $250,000 that we qualified for to help us maintain Clam Pass. MR. BOLAND: So they're paying some portion of it, the entire district besides us? MR. PETTY: Oh, yes. MR. BOLAND: Okay. MR. PEITY: Well, we're asking to qualitY for taxes that Pelican Bay residents paid in that we would like to be spent in Pelican Bay. MR. BOLAND: Okay. MR. PETTY: I'm not going to let then1 forget. Ifs coming out of your pocket, folks. Don't ever think it didn't. It always comes out of your pocket. MR. BOLAND: No problem. MR. MOFFAIT: Well, we've probably beat that horse to death. I do have one final question on it. You used a word that just caught my eye that always has a meaning to me of being something that's not good. Throughout here, you used the term "flag status, plugged." A "plug," in my view, is not something that's good. Maybe that's my accounting and auditing background. But what do you mean by "plugged"? MR. PETrY: I didn't mean it to not sound good, but I see your reference. It doesn't sound good when it's repeated back. It's meant to say "actual conditions." It is not based on a schedule; it is based on actual conditions, which can change. These are all based on when the project gets let; and you should be notified. And, as you-all know, as part of the regular budget committee and regular committee process, we do a projects report at every board meeting for every project thafs been let where we give status. And that's where Kyle typically is up there showing you, with the PowerPoint presentation, where we're at. So that's what I meant by "plugged." It is basically on a monthly basis. MR. MOFFA IT: You might try to figure out better terminology than "plugged." MR. PETTY: Thank you. I will. MR. MOFFA IT: "Actual conditions" sounds better. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. MR. MOFFA IT: I think, at the last meeting we were in agreement that you're were going to identitY carry-fOlwards by fund. Is that what you told us you were going to do? MR. PEITY: Sir, I think that's what we brought to you. We thought you were going to do a hard close, which 846 ---..., ._'"~._~ ~.__._~ .~"._.,-""" "'P<l'_ ~--'--- 161 \ 1 P<~ Budget Committee Meeting Januarv 26. 2009 basically is the same thing as what you just described. And that's that white sheet that we got from finance at the county. Those are our funds, the different numbers representing the four different funds. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. Does anyone have anything more on the monthly reporting format? MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'd like to point out the differences that we have in this draft that Mr. Levy brought up at the last meeting and that we think we've implemented properly. We just want to make sure. We have broken out basically what is your budget for this year. On the top sheet, it is labeled "Fiscal Year." At the bottom of the page, and that number should match is on the bottom of the page, "Fiscal Year Expenses." Basically, that is your operating budget without any cany-forwards. MR. IAIZZO: Let's see that sheet., that sheet you're looking at. MR. PETTY: I'm sorry. This is your monthly sheet (indicating). MR. IAIZZO: Okay. MR. PETTY: And there's a little tab to your top left. MR. IAIZZO: It says "Prior"? MR. PETTY: And if you look up here, it's basically this little tab right in this area off to the side (indicating). MR. LEVY: Fiscal? MR. MOFFATT: "Fiscal Year." MR. PETTY: And it basically says "Fiscal Year." It was meant to imply what was in your budget without consideration of prior year cash flow cany-forwards reserves. This is where you're monitoring the efficiencies. And you compare that to down below, under "Expenses," under where it is labeled, again, on the left-hand side, "Fiscal Year Expenses." And as you see, the numbers match up. The budget is three million eight on both. And then to-date revenue is well ahead of expenses, as is typical, since we get most of our revenue in the months of December or January; our expenses are throughout the year. And then, of course, when you look at prior year commitments or carry-forwards, you try and balance those as well. And at the top we do, with 2.7 million. At the bottom, you'll look at what we carried over from the budget, which is two point seven as well. And we've tracked that as we go. If you apply those to "Projects," we start throwing those costs next to it on "Month to Date" or "Year to Date." And if you reallocate, we will also explain that as well, so that you can track it. So we think this complies with what was asked for at the last meeting, which was to separate, from the monthly report, budget and prior year. So we hope we've done that. It took us three times, by the way. It isn't as if we got it on the first shot. We went with Mr. Levy and gave him three 847 ---_.._._-~~"~_..."'----,.- -_.~~._- Budget Committee Meeting 161 t_l kt \,0- Januarv 26. 2009 examples. MR. MOFFAIT: Why don't you, on the very bottom line, which is "Total Monthly Expenses," just say "Total Expenses?" because it's not on a monthly basis. Also, the line "ReserveslUnrestricted and Carry-Forwards" up in the middle of the page, "Carry-Forward (Projects)", I understand you have the detail supporting each of those. I'm not suggesting you change the schedule, but I would like to see the detail. MR. PETrY: Sir, you do see the detail. It's down on the bottom. MR. LEVY: It's these projects right down here (indicating). They add up to that. MR MOFFA IT: Oh. This million three is this a million three here (indicating)? MR LEVY: Yes. MR. MOFFA IT: Okay. Then I'll just stop at the "Reserves (Unrestricted)." I think in your discussion you said that that was, in fact, unrestricted; but there were some restricted reserves in there as well. MR. PETrY: We have unrestricted that would fall to the general fund... MR. MOFFA IT: Right. MR. PETrY: ...which are efficiencies gained of about, let's say, two hundred, two hundred twenty thousand. We also have, if I remember correctly, about $240,000 in streetlight reserves, which the board and this budget committee have wanted to keep inside streetlights at this time. So you would call that a reserve, because you want it to stay within the fund; and the other is unrestricted, which means you could spend it in any fund you'd like. In this government accounting process or procedure, typically whatever is in your unrestricted or general fund monies can be spent anywhere you-all vote it to be spent including in restricted areas. But the same can't be true of a restricted area sending you money. Now, there's some ways around that, but we don't want to go there. MR MOFFATT: So if you had another line item where you could break out the reserves between the streetlight and the unrestricted general, that would give you the total of what's in that... MR. PEITY: Yes, sir. And right now, off the top of my head, I'll tell you that's two line items. It is streetlights, which is the two hundred and, I think. forty; and the rest is unrestricted reserves that fall to the general fund. MR. LEVY: Well, you're not breaking it out because you don't have room on the page; is that what you're saying? MR. PETrY: Well, yes, sir. I did run out of room on the page, so I could not split it out. MR. LEVY: You could probably cut the top of the page down. 848 ...,,_...._,. ..-." " ,_u__ ---~..,- -".-._,---- Budget Committee Meeting 101 \1 ~'~ January 26. 2009 MR PETrY: No, sir. That header is fixed. I can't. MR. LEVY: Ob, okay. MR. PETTY: But I had to squeeze in a couple more lines to get in the separation I've got. I apologize. But, otherwise, we could... MR LEVY: If we had to go to two pages, it wouldn't be the end of the world either. That's. .. MR PETTY: The other thing... MR. LEVY: For one line, I know it's kind of stretching it. MR. PETTY: Again, whatever you-all wish to adopt, we can handle. We can also squeeze it tighter and just make it smaller and fit it on the page, if this isn't too hard to read. MR. MOFFATT: I would suggest you look at the descriptions or the notes, rather, on interest income and non-ad valorem assessments to see if you could tighten those up to one line. MR PETrY: Yes, sir. MR MOFFATT: Between the two of them, you may be able to salvage a line out of there. MR PETrY: Or skip up. MR. MOFFA IT: Then you could break that up. MR. PETTY: If you want then, we could put unrestricted and then reserves. As long as it's just two categories, I think we'll get by. Ifwe ever get more, we'll... MR MOFFATT: Consider two pages. How's that? MR PETTY: Would you like to see that as a draft then at the next meeting with the change of explanations? MR. MOFFATT: Yes, please. MR PETTY: And the breakout of unrestricted and reserves, sir? MR. MOFFATT: Yeah. MR. PETrY: All right. MR LEVY: I guess you'll be distrIbuting this at the next regular board meeting. Is that something we should talk about? MR PETrY: It is, sir. But what we can do is, we can distribute it as a draft without taking a vote. If you want to distribute it as the monthly financial, you heard the predicament that we have. Since we've adopted it by vote, you would need to 849 -~<." ,,~,--.. ~--"..~~ .,....~,..,-,^<,.... '---Y-', Budget Committee Meeting 161 '1 ~\t~ Januarv 26. 2009 recommend it. MR LEVY: Okay. MR PETTY: But I can distribute as a draft, waiting until you get done with the next change, which is, you'd like to see reserves and unrestricted also broken out, which is going to increase it one line or so for better definition and better terminology on the labels. MR MOFFATT: Yeab. Why don't you see if you can do that in the draft that you distribute at the board meeting. MR PETTY: Yes, sir, we'll be glad to. MR LEVY: Thank you. MR. MOFFATT: Is there anything more to talk about on funding of Clam Bay? MR PETrY: Sir, there is. What I wanted to bring to your attention by making this a line item is not for you to consider an amount, but to be cognizant of the time. Since Fund III is not going to be allocated to us, staff feels we must monitor our expenses very closely, because we have the one hundred and some odd thousand dollars allocated for this year, and then we're going into the reserves. So we'll be keeping the board up to date on that expense. We should be meeting with the transaction group, which is basically the county manager's office, it'll be a staff-level meeting where we will go over how the Clam Bay responsibilities are to be delegated or divvied up and when the new group will be responsible and when we will not have responsibility or Whatever the conditions may end up being. I personally believe that Pelican Bay will have some responsibilities of mangrove maintenance for a very long time. I think that's where we started when we started talking with the county two years ago. I think that's where the county is going to be directing us when we meet at the end of the month. But we'll see. MR. IAIZZO: At what level when you say we will be responsible, at what level? MR. PETrY: Sir, I think that's going to be on the interior channels and the hand-dug channels, which I will call "secondary" and "tertiary." The primary, which is the pass, I believe is going to be in the county's responsibility area. I think the county is going to be needing an overall permit for their larger scope to look at the fishery, to look at the hydraulics, to look at the entire watershed, if you will, of the coastal zone, while our main focus has been on mangrove maintenance. But our concern, of course, is on the entire Clam Bay as a citizenry. MR. IAIZW: I think what we have to understand is exactly what is the county going to be responsible for. And then we'll have to fill in where there's deficiencies in maintaining Clam Pass or not Clam Pass, but Clam Bay. 850 ._ "."U_~.. ~~~~ .".-,.,. -~...,. ..~.".,." -.-" ...-..-. . --,' --_.~._.,~,-- - Budget Committee Meeting ill 1 ;r\tCA/ Januarv 26. 2009 MR. PETrY: Sir, that is my reading as well. I've heard that from the board and also from residents. And I hope our meeting at the end of the month clarifies that issue. But we are expecting, now that the new Clam Bay group has had their initial meeting. that they will expeditiously adopt policies, procedures, and funding mechanisms so that we can begin this separation and definition of responsibilities. But we wanted to bring that to your attention, because there has been some action; there has been a change in the disbursement of Fund Ill. We wanted you to know that. Weare not caught short; we did anticipate that. MR. IAlZZO: At the same time, we're losing some of that fund, but we're actually saving some of it too. MR. PETrY: Since we captured it from last year, sir, yes. MR. LEVY: Does the effort that Kyle does, what does that cost us a year? MR. PETTY: Not... MR. LEVY: Which is what Tim does. I mean, we pay Tim, don't we? MR. PETTY: We pay both. But that's a good point, because the cost of this board and these meetings and admin and management and secretaries and accounting is not charged to Clam Bay. Basically, what is charged to Clam Bay is actual time expended out there by contracts, because thafs a capital project. So Kyle's salary is not in there. Now, do we pay Kyle to go out there and maintain Clam Bay and do inspections? He's out there quite a bit. But we pay that under the other funds, not under the Clam Bay fund. MR. LEVY: So the work that Pelican Bay does to keep those channels clear and... MR. PETTY: Ifs all the contractors. Basically it is to Tim and his firm. It is to the firms that will haul to get rid of the exotic trees and plant materials. It is to the firms that come in and do the digging of the hand channels, dredging. of course. MR. LEVY: Does Kyle's staffwork in there also? MR. PETTY: Typically as inspectors or as troubleshooters after storm events. So, yes, they do go out there, but not a regular day basis. MR. LEVY: They don't do any of the work? MR. IAlZZO: They don't do the labor. MR. PETTY: Not on a regular basis, again, only after storm events, where they would do preliminary clearing until we could do the final with the bigger groups. MR. IAlZZO: That wouldn't be charged to Clam Bay is what you're saying? MR. PETTY: No, sir. No, sir, we currently don't have a charge-back policy. 851 "" ,,-,..-'-~ " ,-",-,."'.... ~--"' .,_...".,~ Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 J.l~ Januarv 26. 2009 MR. IAIZZO: We'll be able to keep Turrell, Hall & Associates, right, through this? MR. PETTY: We hope so. We've gotten very fond of Tim Hall. We'd hate to see him go. MR. IAIZZO: Well, more than that, we want to maintain Clam Bay. MR. PETTY: Well, and the legacy knowledge that he has is really something. So, yes, we wouldn't want to have to start that over again with somebody new. MR. LEVY: And when does our six-month contract with Tim nm? MR. PETTY: We currently have extended that to the end of the year, which is O~tober I. MR. LEVY: And how much is that contract? MR. PETrY: With Tim? MR. LEVY: Yes. MR. PETTY: It's close to 200,000, if I remember correctly. MR. LUKASZ: Well, in our portion of the Clam Bay budget, there's 80,000 for consultant fees. MR. PETTY: Yes. But, I mean, Tim's budget or proposal is more than that. MR. LUKASZ: That's for some of the annual amount. MR. PETTY: There is enough money to.. . MR. LEVY: So most of that 300,000 goes to Tim Hall? MR. PETTY: WeJ.4 to Tim Hall and his two subcontractors, which are two other environmental groups, and the environment.. . MR. LEVY: Who's the third group? MR. LUKASZ: Biologists. MR. PETTY: Biologists. MR. LEVY: So we're overspent on the 111,000 then, already, on money already, if we've got a contract with Tim until the end of the year? MR. PETTY: Well, if we were going to pay him that full contract for doing that work, which includes doing the permit. So, no, sir, we don't expect to go over. That's one of the reasons why we grabbed the money from last year, in case we were set this way. And it seemed like the proper way to do it. MR. MOFFATT: I think I heard, at the Clam Bay advisory meeting two weeks ago, that we can continue to maintain 852 ",",'--- ~~"._..,,"- ""' """,,,. ~.- ,-- .o. <<-">>'. Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 ~l~ Januarv 26. 2009 the channels that have been dug without a permit; but if we were to dig new channels, that would require a permit. MR. IAIZZO: That's probably true. MR. PETTY: Not true. Close, real close. DEP does not require a permit for us to maintain in accordance with our original permit, so as long as we do the same thing. The issue is that that really only covers things like mangrove trimmings. If we actually do some dredging or hand digging where we have to remove material out of the inner channels. which I'm going to call the secondary system not the tertiary system where we deposit the soil upon the roots of the trees. But if we have to haul anything out of there. we need a permit for that. Now, Tim says we also need a permit for ~epositing it on the roots of the tree as well. And that's where we have always recommended to the Clam Bay board and to the full board that staff highly recommends that a permit be obtained so that you have that piece of paper, because we've already seen what happens if you go out there and trim a mangrove and somebody doesn't like it. We had that happen when we were clearing the dispersal swale next to the berm and we took out mangroves there. And people were very upset; and the next thing we knew, we had DEP, South Florida Water Management, and God only knows writing some very nasty e-mails. And it took us six months to clear it up. So we'd like to have the piece of paper, if we could. But what you heard at the meeting is technically correct, sir, that DEP does not require a permit for us to maintain. as long as we don't dredge or remove soil or deposit soil amongst the roots of the mangroves, which leaves us basically to trimming mangroves without a piece of paper. and we've already gotten into trouble. So, from a staff perspective. we highly recommend getting some kind of a permit or letter of understanding. I do believe, though. that DEP is willing to write us that letter that says that you can do that maintenance with those limitations. MR. LEVY: Well. we do have the one-year extension. don't we? MR. PETTY: Oll. yes. sir. And the one-year extension can become another-year extension. Basically what they offered us at the time was a continuous extension. And on the county's recommendation, we only asked for one year. MR. MOFFATT: So that is an option for us? MR. PET1Y: Oll. yes. sir. I think we have a very wide door to fit in on Clam Bay. And I'm hopeful that we'll be able to fit in. MR. MOFFATT: Based on that first meeting that the committee had. it would appear they're going to spend a couple of meetings. at least, dealing with channel markers. MR. PET1Y: From experience, sir. I don't envy them their tasks. It can take a long time to get over a few issues. MR. LEVY: Well. that's going to be the issue. 853 -.....--..^" -, .,,~ ....... .. .. . ~-~ "'-.'-'"'.~~'-'-'"''' ~__H>" Budget Committee Meeting l6J 1 "I\tv January 26. 2009 MR. PETTY: You would think it is. But, no, sir, it's not. MR LEVY: Well, for you and I, its easy. But for the people who want theIl1, it's not easy. MR. PETTY: For the people that want them, it's not easy; for the people that don't want them, it's not easy. MR LEVY: Thafs right. MR MOFFATT: John, I'm not sure we talked about Item 7 completely. We touched upon it over here with John and John. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. MR lAIZZO: Yeah. The process of the budget is, I think. where we need to spend some time. I mean, we're shooting at numbers that are behind us. Lets get to the forefront of the budget; and let's look at the budget. It won't take much time to cut through this thing. Some of it is simple; some of it is complex. If we can examine it, talk about it, understand it. then we can put a number on it. Let's not look at numbers of the past; but let's look at numbers of what we believe are realistic numbers to put a price tag on a valid service. That's where I'd like to spend some time. See, we're looking at numbers after it's all over. I'd like to look at numbers before it ever happens. I'd like to create those numbers. And then once we do that, we'll have a handle on the budget. definitely. MR MOFFATT: How would you suggest we go about that? MR. IAIZZO: We review the '09 budget and '010, well, not today. But we would review this budget for '010. But we have to understand what's in these pages rather than just looking at numbers. That's all we're doing, is looking at numbers. And we have no idea where that dollar is going. I want to follow the dollar. I want to know who's getting my doUar from Pelican Bay. I want to know what kind of service they're providing to Pelican Bay, how many vendors there are in the one item, line item. They could have a number of vendors under any particular line item. And we need to know that so we can better understand how to price it out. Or maybe we'll want to take a line iteIl1 that is possibly three, four vendors on it and break it up so that we have a better understanding of that line iteIl1 by identifYing the service that comes with that line item. Some of these are self-explanatory; but there's others that I have no idea. When you're looking at other contractual services, when you're looking at temporary labor, when you're looking at other operating supplies, we have no idea what that is. And it won't take long, Jeny, in my opinion, to look at this document. to ask questions, and to fully understand it and try to put a dollar value on it. After thats done, if we ever get to do it. I think the following years will be a piece of cake. And I think we need to all get on the same page, because we come to these meetings; you're talking about a specific problem that bothers you; he talks about a probleIl1 that's bothering him. And it 854 ,- ... --.- -,,-~,.~ _,..._...,,"0__ -,'"_.- ,,"<"". Budget Committee Meeting 16i 1 ~t\~ Januarv 26. 2009 gets scattered; we're not on the same page. We need to be on the same page if we're really going to review this budget. And then give John Petty the working machinery to come back with the answers that we need. MR. MOFFATT: Can you do that, John? MR. PETIY: The short answer is "no." The longer answer says "maybe." As Mr. laizzo fully well knows, one of the problems that we have on the vendor issue, which I don't think is the main point of Mr. laizzo's suggestion, is controlled by the competitive bidding process that has been adopted by the county. And we are somewhat limited in that we must participate. We are allowed to go outside of the award areas and bid on our own, but that just increases. our costs, because going through the bidding process does have a cost associated with it. So I don't think I can do it based on the vendors. But I believe that Mr. Iaizzo is looking more for an evaluation of efficiency and service-level determination. And that's why we specifically listed that in the calendar. That is something that we usually do every year. And I am a strong proponent of it, as Mr. laizzo is as well, that all the services that are provided by Pelican Bay Services Division, and our staff and whatever contracts we have, should be willing to go through this basic analysis of: Is this still the best way to do it? Do we buy our fertilizers on competitive bid? We do. Is there another way to do it? Well, yes there is. There's another way to do it, such as: Do we want to still do it in-house; or do we want to do this with a contractual service? You can hire guys to bring out and fertilize your fucilities X times a year. Is that something that we want to look at? Now, last year and the year before, we did that analysis of getting a contract to maintain landscaping as a whole, so you can look at it as a whole or in pieces. And so existing staff, in last year's analysis, said that the costs were very similar; probably in the beginning cheaper, by contract. But that the intrinsic value of having the staff, and our experience during storm events, and what they were able to provide after a storm made them worthwhile in keeping and basically made them a higher benefit than going out to contractual services for the landscaping. But that doesn't mean we wouldn't look at it again this year or look at things like contracting out the pesticide or the fertilizer or even the irrigation repair. All of this can be done. There are companies that provide that service. And it could be that in our group, trying to do it all, there could be an area that we may be able to get a contractor to do oversight, not lose the benefit of our internal staff, and be more efficient. And I believe that's what Mr. Iaizzo has asked for in prior years. MR. IAIZZO: Well, that would be the learning process, by reviewing this document. I mean, we really don't know where we're going to go, but once we've reviewed the document, we will cut a path. Until then, I don't really know where we're going to go with it. But this has to be reviewed if you want an understanding of the budget. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, from my perspective, that would look for some indication then of a priority on where to 855 "- -,..- "'--.'^y~ -.. - ""--'>-'""'"'- ...->....-- Budget CommiUee Meeting 161 1~\~ Januarv 26. 2009 start; what would you like to see; or we can come back to you as staff with recommendations of where we think: there would be the best cost savings. It may be difficult to look in one area where we only spend $20,000 versus looking at landscaping, where we spend close to a million or two. So we're probably always going to focus on landscaping, because the possibility of saving money there is higher than most. MR. GillSON: John, do we ever do any comparison with other, similar communities? Pelican Marsh or I don't know how, because I'm new on this, we interact with Bay Colony, who does a good job, I think; but I don't know their costs or their budget on a per-resident basis or whatever the comparison should be. Sometimes you Ieam something by seeing how other people do it. You may learn that we're doing a pretty damn good job; or we may learn that maybe we ought to focus and find out how they can do it so weU, if they are. MR. PETTY: We have in the past. MR. GillSON: Good. MR. PETTY: And we have found that we have been competitive. I'm going to tell you we are not the... MR. IAIZZO: Cheapest. MR. PETTY: .. .least expensive. We are probably a little bit above average, because we... MR. GillSON: Well, it's an above-average community. You expect that. But you can still learn something. MR. PETTY: Well, I mean, with other communities that are also affluent. MR. GillSON: Yes, comparable. MR. PETTY: And that's possibly because it's difficult to compare exact duties to exact duties. We take care of signage as well and a few other odds and ends, and we interface with the county on all the other county services, like roads and bicycle paths and all that kind of thing; where other communities, like Pelican Marsh. which are independent districts, don't get involved with the county at aU and just do their business every year. So we've left a little bit of room in there. MR.GffiSON: Yes. MR. PETTY: But, again. coming back to in this environment, in this economy, it kind of behooves us to go through the process, because pricing right now is probably at its lowest. MR. lAIZZO: It's to our advantage, right. MR. PETTY: So if there are any ways to install that efficiency or look at that through a contractual or a purchasing basis, I'm willing and I would recommend that we would do. If you'd like, we can come back at the next meeting with areas that 856 ""_"'0'- -- ~'..' """",,,,,,""""'<',~.-.,,.,.,,,,,~, - "_.~ Budget Committee Meeting I \'.\\1 ~~ Janua 26 2009 staff may have for suggestions of outsourcing where we think there may be savings. And we'll look internally. MR. IAIZZO: Well, we don't have to go there unless we feel there's a need to go there. Right now, my only suggestion is that we get a handle on this budget. This budget is where you're spending your $3 million. Okay? If you want to control that budget, you look at the budget and look at the numbers, look at the service you're getting, the value that you're getting. And then you decide as a board where to go and how to go. MR. MOFFA IT: John, you're saying that wasn't done when you developed the budget? MR. IAIZZO: No. MR. MOFFATT: I mean, I would have thought that would have been part of the budget-development process. MR. IAIZZO: No, it's never been part of the process, because I've been on this for six years. It's never been part of the process. It always comes to us as after the fact. We're always looking at numbers after they're spent, not looking at numbers before they're spent. And that's the way it's been. Maybe you have an opportunity to change it. MR. MOFFA IT: I'm confused. How do you look at budget numbers after they're spent? MR. IAIZZO: Just by what we're doing right now. You're looking at numbers that are already behind us. MR. MOFFA IT: Oh, yeah, but we're not developing the 2010 budget yet. MR. IAIZZO: I know we're not. But I'm saying the best way to review the 20 I 0 or put together the 20 I 0 budget is to have a handle on '09, and not shoot at numbers but look at what we're getting in '09 for dollars. MR. MOFFA IT: I'm just surprised that wasn't done as part of the budget process. MR. IAIZZO: It wasn't done; we've never done it. MR. PEITY: Mr. Chairman, if I may clarifY, you do have a line-item budget which is reviewed during the budget-review process and came before this committee. And the budget is compared to expenses oflast year. MR. IAIZZO: Uh-huh. MR. PETIY: And Mr. Iaizzo, I think, is referring not to that, because that is part of the evaluation. If you spent $30,000 last year and you expect to spend $30,000 this year, that's what Kyle would put in his preliminary draft budget. And then it comes under discussion. What Mr. laizzo is talking about is where you look at the line item and look at alternatives. And we've never done a line-item-by-line-item review for alternatives, probably because of the restrictions of time. We have instead gone to what I just talked about, which is taking a whole category and looking at an alternative, like landscaping and outsourcing. MR. IAIZZO: I think: some of the line items will be simple; and I think some will be complex. I think: probably 50 857 ~_._,-".,_.~ .-..".,."....<...-.--,.--- ~,-_._--..~--""~.~-~._-~ Budget Committee Meeting 16'1 \;\1 ~~ Januarv 26. 2009 percent of these line items, we may have to dig into; but I think 50 percent will be a piece of cake. MR. MOFFATT: So are you suggesting, for the next meeting, perhaps, of.. . MR. IAIZZO: Let's start. Let's start. MR MOFFATT: ... seeing if we can look at that and define where we want more information? MR. GillSON: Like a work session. MR. IAIZZO: Yeah. I think we need to just look at it, talk about a line item, and see if we understand it. Or you know, John could explain it; Kyle could explain it. And how many vendors? Can you tell us ho~ many vendors are under a particular line item? MR. PETTY: Pretty much; pretty much. MR. IAIZZO: That's important. MR PETTY: When it comes to operations, Kyle's going to understand, by who he has to purchase, on whether he has one vendor or two or quite a few. So I think, for the majority of line items Kyle's going to be able to do that for operations. I know certainly for those costs that I oversee that I'm going to know it based on you know, Turrell, Hall & Associates even though he has two subs and where that money goes, et cetera. So, yes, I think we can answer those types of questions. MR. IAIZZO: We basically have three categories: We've got personal services; we've got operational expenditures; and capital projects. MR. PETTY: A work session is certainly doable. And certainly going over what we mean by "bidding improvements" is something that we can talk: about and define are: mulch and why do we pick this particular style; and where does it come from; and how do we buy it; is it in bag, bulk, et cetera; how many vendors, et cetera. We can go into all that. MR IAIZZO: Any ideas, Geoffrey? MR GillSON: No, I think it's a good idea if, for no other purpose, education of people like me, to sit down and have a work session. That's how you learn the foundation of the number, rather than just accepting whafs been done in the past. MR. WZZO: I think that's true. MR. PET1Y: Mr. Chairman, the standard for a workshop-style meeting is one where a discussion can take place. It would be duly noted at a time and place certain, be open to the public, although the public would not be necessarily involved; but they could watch the process. You guys answer the questions. We just wouldn't ask you to vote at that meeting. That's a typical workshop. 858 _~_'.___n""_ '"""~_.-'.~'.-"'"'"",_.,-".,..-.",,,,,,,,,,,-,... ",,~--_._.,- ~".~.. ___<,~h'" Budget Committee Meeting 161 11 ~\,bv January 26.2009 MR. GillSON: That was going to be my question. To go through the formalities would be a little counterproductive. MR. PETTY: It's not hard once you get used to it; it really isn't. And a workshop meeting is a very lonely place, really. MR. GillSON: That's a good thing. MR. PETrY: It gets down to the nitty-gritty. MR. MOFFATT: Do you want to try and schedule one before or at our next regularly scheduled meeting? MR. WZZO: A workshop? MR. MOFFATT: Yes. MR. WZZO: Whatever's compatible for the group. MR. GillSON: Great idea. MR. MOFFATT: AU right. Thank you. MR. WZZO: Is that it, Jerry? MR. MOFFATT: Is that what? MR. WZZO: Can we? MR. MOFFATT: Oh. MR. GIBSON: Do you agree with that, Mr. Chairman? The thought of getting down to more of the brass tacks? MR. MOFFATT: Yes. I mean, I'm surprised we haven't done it before. MR. GillSON: Me too. MR. MOFFATT: I mean. that's how we always did it. Yes. MR. GillSON: We certainly had in prior years, you know, direction. But there may be something new or something different. MR. MOFFATT: Right. John, on these handouts you gave us today, I think we probably need some time to review those. They may come in handy as we're going through this workshop. MR. PETTY: Oh, yes, sir. MR. GillSON: Is this the water operation and the street lighting pass-out? MR. MOFFATT: Yes, yes. MR. GillSON: Okay, because I got here a few minutes late. 859 ~.._,~ ,.v...~_. --...--" "",,_.- ,-~.,,,,,,,,, -~._~-,..,-~",-,~.,--~^ ...~.-~-- Budget Committee Meeting 1 I '~1 /X\t"-' Janua 26 2009 MR. PETTY: Those are the line-item expenses as we put them in the SAP accounting program of the county. And we can update those on any given month. And that is something that is monitored by the operations analyst on a constant basis. And we roll that up into what I call the "management report," which is what I basically monitor myself and then submit to you. MR. MOFFATT: John, I just have two questions. I see on some of the line items we have amended the budget already? I assume we have, because the numbers differ from the adopted budget to the amended budget. When did that happen? MR. PETTY: That happens in-house at Collier County. That's basically through the budget office. MR. MOFFA IT: So they can amend our budget without our involvement? MR. PETrY: 011, absolutely. MR. IAIZZO: Yes. But we said it should come down to the board. MR. MOFFATT: Why are we here? MR. PETTY: Let's not misunderstand the situation here, folks. We are an MSTBU. We have no legal rights here. We are an advisory committee with benefits and privileges. The county is very respectful of Pelican Bay and has offered us this involvement in this process. Of whatever you assess and provide in special services above and beyond typical county services, you will oversee; but the systen1 is going through the county. We don't have a checking account; we don't have an accounting system; we have to use the county's. Our ability to get funds and pay bills is only as the county allows. So, as they adjust budget to actual, the hard numbers as we speak, as we go through process, they can do that internal through this amendment process. I can tell you that we do monitor it. And if we see anything material, we bring it to your attention, such as Fund III 's disbursement time table has changed. But we're not seeing anything in here that is anything that we're not used to. And typically the amendments have to do, sir, with money coming back from the property appraiser and revenue collector who charge actual fees. But we always pay them in advance the maximum allowed by law, which is their 2 percent. So typically the changes in the amendments are positive to us, not negative. MR. MOFFATT: Well, the one that I see here and the dollars aren't significant, are a few thousand dollars is reduced expenditures in a couple of areas from adopted budget to approved budget. But my second question is: There's some of these line items where the actual to date, to today, equals the budget. We've got nothing available. And I don't know how that is. MR. PETTY: Could you take one as an example, sir. MR. MOFFATT: Yes, water operations. MR.. PETTY: Yes, sir. 860 ~,.. ... Ml........__"'~.__.._, - ......'..'_.M."'.~..,_, ~. .~_.. ~'."A" .~.,--- Budget Committee Meeting 1 I '11 t<~ Janua 26 2009 MR. MOFFATT: You've got health insurance there, $8,700. It's already been spent. MR. PETTY: I'm going to let Janice explain that one, because she giggled first. MS. LARNED: Yes, that's county controlled. And, yes, they'll go in and assess us up front. So, yes, they'll take their money, because they already know what the bills are going to be throughout the year. MR IAIZZO: That's for the whole year, Janice? MS. LARNED: I don't have the report; but I'm speaking generally from a procedure perspective. MR. PETTY: And the reason I asked her to explain it, we spent a great deal o(time with finance and accounting last year and this year. And some of the policies and procedures of the county are definitely set to make sure that the county is not holding an obligation.. . MS. LARNED: Rightfully. MR PETTY: ... for this special district. And this is one of them. MS. LARNED: Right. MR. MOFFATT: Actually, as I look through the other pages of this report, it appears to be in all insurance areas where they've taken all the premium out up front. MS. LARNED: Yes, sir. MR IAIZZO: Medicare up front; Social Security retirement. MR MOFFATT: All right Well, maybe we can... MR. IAIZZO: Yes, that'll be picked up during the review. MR. PETTY: I can tell you, if we were doing this ourselves, I would expect it to be semiannual, twice a year. MR. MOFFATT: Yes. MR. IAIZZO: Twice a year. MR. MOFFATT: John, I think we're down to Item 9, although we may have talked about all we can talk about on that topic. MR PETTY: Sir, I think we have. By definition, we're waiting for the meeting at the end of the month by the chair and myself to give us a little bit more direction. We are hopeful, though. that we will continue on in mangrove maintenance. But I don't know of any capital program other than our maintenance to consider at this time to bring to your attention. MR. MOFFA IT: Is that meeting scheduled? 861 ,>~~, uu U.U '."_~;'C,'_M_""'~ __h.. "'_'~.~_"'.' , ...--.... Budget Committee Meeting 16~ ~1 {l<~ Januarv 26. 2009 MR. PETTY: It is, sir. The 29th is when we were hopefully going to be able to talk with the county manager and Commissioner Halas. MR. LEVY: On the schedule here, you've got: "Initial Consideration for Capital Projects." MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. And it's on the agenda today as well. MR. LEVY: Right So I guess the question is: How are we going to kick that oft'? How are we going to come up with ideas and are we supposed to come up with ideas for capital expenditures; or is that a subcommittee; or does there need to be the whole board for that? MR. PETTY: Sir, what we've done in the past, as you may recall, is, we have taken comments from the public; we have taken comments from the subcommittee; and we've taken comments from the full board. Last year, possibly the year before, The Foundation began a strategic plan and came to our board and asked for our cooperation. And it was given by the board, and we told them we would work with them to the best of our ability. As a matter offact, our chair is on the strategic planning committee of The Foundation for that purpose. And we expect that, very soon now, they will be coming out with their first report on what they think the objectives of that strategic plan should be. We haven't suggested anything as staff; and we're not really pressuring you-all to come up with anything, because we think we're going to get a pretty good list from the ones of the strategic planning for you to think about So other than the pathways that we considered last year, which we strongly suspect are going to be on the strategic plan anyway, we really don't want to bring up anything new. We want to kind of wait and see what that report says, because there are areas on that report that cover our responsibilities: the public rights-of-way; the water management facilities; streetlights; signage. And, of course, the pathways that are in the public rights-of-way we had already discussed as well. So any type of strategic-plan recommendation from the residents or from the committee are something that would have to go through you-all. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. There are no carryover projects that staff has had in mind that they're just waiting for the proper time to implement? MR. PETTY: We have our own wish list But we think this strategic plan probably comes first; and then we'll bring in staffs wish list for what we'd like to see for improvements. Ours have to do mostly with works along Berms 1 and 2, which have gotten to be 30 years old. And if you walk that area, you'll notice that it's starting to do this (indicating where the pipes are higher than the rest of it. So the building material is slowly sinking a quarter of an inch a year by half an inch a year into the muck. So we have to think about how we're going to be rebuilding those berms, you know, bringing them back up to elevations. 862 -~ '._._e_,_ ~ 'ilIIIIM'lf__.....-.. ,.....,.....-- r "-'~.~,,- '161 "1 ~\~ Budget Committee Meeting Jandarv 26. 2009 MR. MOFFAIT: Where are Berms I and 2? MR. PETIY: They are towards the Registry to the south, coming north, to where you would go to the southernmost community beach facility, where you get picked up. MR. MOFFA IT: So it's south of there? MR. PETTY: Everything's south of there, yes, sir. Berm I is in an eclectic shape with some pipes sticking a good three inches above the asphalt surface. None of this is material to our surface-water system. It still functions. It's just that, at some points in time, we have to look at the structural integrity of it, and we should start that pl3!ffiing process. So nothing staff has is pushing our clock, so to speak. We can wait for the strategic plan. MR GillSON: John, this is probably an educational question, again on my part. Where does the responsibility of the PBSD and The Foundation interact? What is that line of demarcation? MR PEITY: The definitive one is for Pelican Bay Services Division providing those government services above and beyond local government, the county, and that The Foundation provides amenity services to the residents affecting private property and common ground. Now, we do have a gray area where we try and get the best or the most bang for the dollar, and why should we have two landscaping crews. MR GillSON: Exactly. MR. PETIY: So they contract with us to perform that service. Now, they do so by adoption of a resolution, because it all comes from, well, guess what, your pocket. So we're able to do that function because it's in the right-of-way, or it's within an easement of the water management system. So we're able to do that work within those boundaries. Other than that, I don't see much confusion from our perspective. I know the residents have it, because we have a hard time communicating that difference. But it is really that simple. We provide government services; and they provide services affecting your private property and common grounds amenities. MR. GillSON: Okay. PLAN FOR BUBBLERS MR MOFFA IT: Item 10, "Plan for Bubblers." This came up at a recent meeting that said you're installing bubblers in the lakes on an as-you-can-afford-it basis or some such thing. MR PETrY: Yes, sir. MR MOFFA IT: What's the entire plan? I mean, how many bubblers do we need in total to do the job that's required 863 ~"........,-- ~ 17 "'" ~'-"~''''-'. ~,-- .-,......,-- --.,,~_.... .. ,.".~.~ Budget Committee Meeting 16' ;\1 A'\~ Januarv 26. 2009 to be done? What's the cost? And if you were to schedule it out on some kind ofrationaI basis, what would that look like versus just looking at money left over? MR. PEITY: Yes, sir. First off, let me say that this comes from the Clam Bay report where it was a concern that our water management system may be degrading Clam Bay and, during the initial process of evaluation, was considered a possible cause for the dying of the mangroves. We now know that is not the case; it is because of the channel being restricted. But in the beginning it was. And one of the permit criteria that was placed on us was to evaluate any and all water management improvements that we could. One of the improvements that we could do to be in confo~ce with that permit requirement, sir, was to install bubblers, as funds were allocated by the board, the bubblers basically adding oxygen to the water so that we can increase the bacterial levels in all lakes that were capable of breaking down any nutrients that entered the system into a more stable format, which is nitrate. Basically ammonia comes in from the first one inch of runoff where the nutrients are; and we take it to nitrites; and then we take it to nitrates with the biology of the lake itself. Now, in a lake system, you typically have the first two or three feet that has oxygen-enriched exchanges. And then the deep water typically has a very low dissolved oxygen, an anoxic zone, if you will. By bubblers keeping that dead zone at the bottom coming up to the surface for that gas exchange, we create more oxygen-enriched area, more bacteria, more nutrient removal. So, sir, we never did define it in total. It was to comply with the permit requirement that we include all improvements possible. And that's why we restricted it by funds versus scope. But certainly we can look at that. I don't mind taking the time to figure out how much it would cost to put aerators in all the lakes and get lOO-percent coverage. We could do so. MR. IAIZZO: Where would these lakes be, mostly on the golf course or where? MR. PETTY: Well, they're all our lakes. MR. GlliSON: Forty-three of them. MR. PETrY: And a lot of our lakes are on the golf course. MR. MOFFA IT: You've got this one right here; and there's one across the street. .. MR. IAlZZO: Well, this one's aerated but ... MR. PETIY: No, it's not, no. The fountains don't provide aeration. The fountains really only take from the top... MR. IAIZZO: Just moving the water? MR. PETIY: ...three or four feet, yes. It's a small cone. MR. IAIZZO: So you want to see bubbles; that's all you want to see. 864 - _. ,. -", .,...,-", -~.,~_.__. ~-~-,~,~-,-~,._._-------- ",. ."-~- Budget Committee Meeting l6J 1 p<\~ Januarv 26. 2009 MR PETrY: The studies have shown that the bubblers take a whole curtain and bring it up and create a much bigger turbid space of water exchange, versus fountains become a very isolated cone. MR IAIZZO: The bubbler is basically surface just bubbling, right? MR. PETIY: No, sir. These are submersed, very long boxes... MR. IAlZZO: I realize, but... MR. PETIY: ... with very fine diffused bubbles coming out of it. And as they rise, they create a curtain. And this curtain basically brings water to the surface; by surface tension, the air bubbles are pulling 'Yater as they go up. And so you create this very large turbid of water movement in a lake with bubbles, versus an aerator just as a pump, pulling. You end up like a short circuit in a stream. It's very like a straw. It doesn't create a big turbid effect like the bubblers do. So right now Kyle is taking bubblers, for example, in Lake 2 in Water Management System I, which is in front ofTierra Mar and Bay Villas. MR. LUKASZ: Right. MR. PETIY: And basically laid them out right down the middle of the lake. And I think you can see, like, six of them. MR LUKASZ: Yes, right. MR. PETIY: And that creates a great deal more of oxygen-enriched waters. It sometimes is very helpful in preventing some of the organic or plant outbreaks that we've had based on high nutrient loadings. If you control the nutrients biologically, you don't have much algae blooming in the swmner or not as much. So it typically has that side benefit. But, sir, that's why we started the program; that's why we've limited it by funds. MR GffiSON: It sounds like a good program to me if it keeps down the algae and all those contaminants, which we're constantly harassing Kyle to get the hell out of those lakes. MR IAlZZO: Yes. MR. PETIY: Well, as long as we don't spend the $60,000 for the FP&L transformer, like we almost did in front of Bridgeway that you-all stopped. Thank you very much, by the way. That was becoming very costly. Solar was the answer there. Kyle has found a place to put the bubblers from a power supply from inside Bridgeway. So we still should be able to do bubblers there. MR. MOFFATT: Well, are you looking for some direction then to identifY the number and location of bubblers throughout Pelican Bay to meet our requirements of water management? MR. PETTY: Sir, we have gotten that direction from the Clam Bay conunittee in the past and budget committee in the 865 ..""~" "~~. < -,.",,.~,.-~- ^~,....."..,.". ..~-- Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 ~\\~ Januarv 26. 2009 past by doing this based on as Kyle has the availability of electricity and as he determines from his experience as manager of the water management system what lakes would benefit. So we're trying to do it in areas that have a high profile that affect a lot of people, that we know that we've had a fairly large use of chemicals on in the past and that has readily accessible electrical supplies. That's been the criteria, I think, that Kyle has been using. But we've been utilizing Kyle's expertise to guide us there. MR. MOFFA IT: Well, why don't we come up with an entire program so that we can look at it at one time and... MR. GffiSON: Budget for it. MR. MOFFA IT: .. . schedule it out. MR. GffiSON: Budget for it. MR. lAIZZO: And cost it. MR. PETTY: We can do that. MR. GffiSON: Yes. It sounds like there's all win and no lose. Ifwe can budget for it somehow, it ought to be on our wish list and maybe rated fairly high on that list. MR. MOFFA IT: And we have significant reserves. MR. lAIZZO: Yes. We can program it, so many lakes each year. MR. PETTY: Well, apparently... MR. GffiSON: What is there, 43 lakes? Is that an accurate nwnber, Kyle? MR. LUKASZ: Yes. MR. GffiSON: It can't be that big of a deal, I wouldn't think, with 43 lakes. MR. LUKASZ: The only thing is power sometimes. MR. GffiSON: I see. So ifs availability of power. MR. PETTY: Yes. MR. GffiSON: Gotcha. MR. LUKASZ: And how many easements to get from the transformer to the lake. MR. PETTY: Cutting across the roadway can be really expensive. MR. LEVY: Do these things create any kind of a visual thing, these bubblers? Do you see them at all, or you're not even aware they're there? MR. PETTY: You usually don't know that they're there, sir. If you look at the surface of the water, you will see a small 866 --- -,",~,,-" . -".._--,,,,, - -,._.~.. . ._._~,--- Budget Committee Meeting W '1 ~ Januarv 26. 2009 movement of the water, like that (indicating). It'll look more like a current than anything else. It is meant to not take away anything from the water view. It is meant to do that. MR. MOFFATT: There's some on the golf course where you can actually see a little bubbling effect. MR PETIY: Yes, sir. MR. IAIZZO: Yes. The effect is like it's percolating. MR PETIY: In some places, in the course, because of the air bubbles or becau~e there's something on the diffuser, over time you can sometimes get a course bubble pop up. But typically you want that very fine bubble to come up that basically just starts moving the water like a sheet. It kind of looks like a club soda. MR MOFFATT: All right. How long would it take to develop such a plan? MR. PETIY: fm pretty sure that Kyle can put something together by the next meeting where he basically says, "Here's the lakes that are still to be done; here's the cost that is per-lake projected." And we can look at what we've budgeted currently and then determine whether or not that's an acceptable calendar or whether we wish to speed it up or slow it down. MR. MOFFATT: From a standpoint of availability of electricity, if you're doing a lake in the center of a community, I assume you're getting the electricity from that community. For example, I know we have, I think we have five fountains in our lake. MR PETIY: Ob, no, sir. No, sir. No, sir, we do not get it from the homeowners' association whatsoever. All of our power is from FP&L, billed separately to us. We do not run off of the homeowners' power supply. This is operation and maintenance of our fucility, not a private homeowners' lake. These are all of the lakes that are part of the water management facility. So typically we wouldn't do that without bringing it back to the board for consideration for some agreement, something interlocal or three-party agreement style. We would have difficulty in doing that. MR MOFFATT: Yes, but you'd have an agreement. I'm not suggesting you do it at night and no one knows. But from an availability of power, we can run to a building a lot more efficiently than you can have FP&L come in and run a separate line. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. We'll take power from an existing supply by FP&L to a community. MR. MOFFATT: Yes. MR. PETIY: But we try to stay away from the buildings. If it's already being metered, we try and stay away from it. We try and go off an existing line that doesn't require a transformer, but that's a capability of supply. I think he's found that in Bridgeway in two locations that we're able to do that. It is when they drop a new transformer that we start getting costs. And if 867 ~',"'~ ."......... -.-........-.. -_..'.,...~.,-,""" ._....~_.<--~. Budget Committee Meeting 16' 1 t>>~ Januarv 26. 2009 they actually have to go a couple hundred feet with their main line, that's when we get into the big numbers like we were just considering. MR. GillSON: Expense. MR. PETrY: So you're absolutely right, sir. We try and come off of existing systen1s, but independently metered. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. Well, it would be interesting to see at our next meeting. Mary, would you include that on the agenda? MS. McCAUGHTRY: Yes, sir. COST OF WALKW AYSlBIKE PATHS MR. MOFFATT: You said last year you did a review of walkways and bike paths. What did that involve, developing a cost estimate to install all new walkways and bike paths? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. We took inventory of our existing linear foot, what the average width was per area. And Pelican Bay Boulevard has a certain width; and the single~family area has a width. And we have the linear footage of that, because we have our roadway linear footage. And Kyle's probably walked every square inch of it. We compared that to the costs that we have available to us at Collier County for asphalt. Every year they put out a competitive bid for laying asphalt; and it goes by the square footage. So Kyle was able to put together the numbers that were per bid on what it would cost to do, I think we looked at four, six, and eight- foot-wide paths. MR. LUKASZ: Yes. MR. PETTY: And then we allocated monies for tearing out the old paths based on, again, some known contracts out there of similar nature, again Kyle putting together the numbers, and trying to put a number in there for removing and relocating sprinkler heads that you would have to do and a little bit of money on the side for any improvements that you want to do. And by "improvements," we're talking about where you would take a pathway that was six~foot wide, split it into two three-foot to go around the tree versus tearing down the tree, because we have a lot of pathways that are being moved by root systems now. MR. MOFFATT: Right. MR. PETTY: So we need to go around. And trying to get an eight-foot-wide pathway around may not be the right answer. The better answer may be to split and go around. And we think that may have some aesthetic value. We've talked to Jack Lieber who has done the design work for landscaping and pathways originally in Pelican Bay and is still with us. And he has several very good ideas on how we could incorporate a landscape improvement that would go with it as well. Basically from 868 ---- . -~ . .,- "-'~.." .....__...~__'.d_" - -~-' ,'''''- Budget Committee Meeting 161\ 1 ~\~ Januarv 26. 2009 anything above three stories, as you look down on Pelican Bay, you would see the landscaping making a color path following the pathway, so to speak, in the water management areas of Pelican Bay. We tried to put it a little bit of money in there for that design work as well, although we didn't have any landscape costs in there, I don't believe other than for the re-sodding. MR LUKASZ: No. MR. PETTY: And that's how we came up with our numbers. And we submitted the numbers on a linear-foot basis and whether or not you wanted to do the whole project in segments or in total. And I think that's part of the package? Didn't you send them that capital program you did last year? We do have that, we submitted it to last year's .budget committee. If you'd like to see it, we can certainly bring it to your attention, put it in next month's agenda. MR MOFFA IT: Okay. Why don't we do that. MR BOLAND: John, you talked about the path. On the right-hand side, say, walking north, I notice, like, in front of our development, I live in Crescent, we have a lot of shrubbery out there. Who actually owns that property? I never got an answer. In other words, the sidewalk to the left where the trees are, that's fine. You go to the right, say you're walking up North Pelican Bay... MR PETTY: Pelican Bay Boulevard? MR. BOLAND: Yes. MR PETTY: And this is on the east side of the road? MR BOLAND: Is the association... MR PETTY: East side of the road, you're looking at, right? MR MOFFA IT: No, south side. MR. BOLAND: Is the association going to donate this free of charge? MR PETTY: The south side? MR. BOLAND: Do you know what that would cost? MR PETTY: South oh, after the curve. MR BOLAND: That would cost you a couple million dollars. MR PETTY: Typically, on Pelican Bay Boulevard, after Gulf Park Drive, north of Gulf Park Drive, the right-of-way became restricted. South of Gulf Park Drive, we've had a much wider right-of-way in Phase I of Pelican Bay. As we went to Phase 2, 3,4, the right-of-way became more narrow. Don't ask me why. I don't know. It was for something. 869 ~-,'-_.._-~ --.,,-....',----,,""-,",. _."'~,_..,,,=.".~~.,~~- ~_._- , ~ ~_...._m.__..________.__.__._._.__ Budget Committee Meeting 16\ 1 f'\~ Januarv 26. 2009 MR. IAIZZO: The land became more scarce. MR. PETTY: So basically what you have is, on your side, on the property owners' side of the pathways, in most of those areas, that is your land; that's your property line. Not always, because it isn't that simple; it never is in Pelican Bay. But, typically, that's where it is. So in a lot of areas on Pelican Bay Boulevard north of Gulf Park Drive, we are going to be very restricted on how creative or how wide we can get because of that issue. Most of the issue with the trees, though, are not so bad there as they are on Crayton and Myra Daniels Road where we have quite a bit of problem with trees. The single-family area is intermittent; Oakmont is intermittent. I think it is more of you've got 30 years of asphalt ~t has been repaired and patched; so now it looks like a kaleidoscope; it's all different colors. And every year, we keep spending more and more on patches. It would be nice to try and get it all one color again, get it all in one good shape again. And we have that issue of the landscaping throughout Pelican Bay and wouldn't we like to make that a little bit better than what it currently is. MR. BOLAND: John, the original bike path, The Foundation brought a consultant in, I think, that they paid $25,000. But what he wanted to do didn't make any sense. There was a third option that we never got. The original was going to be you had 24 feet going across, okay, 12 and 12 on Pelican Bay Boulevard on the driveway. MR. PETTY: Oh, we're not talking about the road. MR. BOLAND: No, but I'm just saying. The original one I saw was 10 - 10 II2, 10 II2 and 3. Whatever happened to that? That was never presented to us. And we looked like the bad guys, we turned down the bike paths. MR. LEVY: The representatives said they had done that. MR. BOLAND: Huh? MR. LEVY: Ten years before, they did that. MR. BOLAND: But, Mike, the original one, there was three options: Leave it alone... MS. WOMBLE: John, it was. MR. BOLAND: ...and 10 1/2, 10 1/2 and 3. MR. PETTY: Mr. Boland, that was presented to us. That was the very last bike-path option presented to us, oh, God, last summer, last spring, and.. . MS. WOMBLE: Yeab, when he laid it out on the floor that was one of the possibilities. MR. BOLAND: No. No, on Pelican Bay Boulevard. MR. LEVY: Not by The Foundation. The Foundation only was voting on the consultant's report, which was essentially 870 -- -- ~'-''''~' '-",-'>~" "- .~~ .."'..~.,,~ Budget Committee Meeting 16-1 tfr Januarv 26. 2009 going to be one lane on Pelican Bay Boulevard for bikes and one lane on Pelican Bay Boulevard for cars. MR. BOLAND: Thafs right. MR. PETrY: Oh, when it comes to The Foundation, sir, I can't opine. I can tell you that the services division did look at that option that you're talking about. MR. BOLAND: But it made no sense to get, you know, one -l/5Oth -- MR. PETIY: Ob, no, to lose... MR. BOLAND: It's impractical. Why he never gave us that third option, I never understood that. MS. WOMBLE: May I speak, Mr. Chair? MR. MOFFATT: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: John, they laid it out here (indicating) with the DOT gentlen1an that came by. MR. BOLAND: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: And we looked at it. And they indicated that that was a very scary prospect because of the driver age that we have in our community. And, very honestly, we saw it at the time. The Foundation chose not to even introduce that to the general men1bership, only because they too saw what we were looking at, that it would be a very, very uncomfortable situation. The lanes would be so narrow as to cause some real concern among the drivers. And the bike path getting that much extra, three feet, really did narrow out the lanes to a point where we were concerned. MR. LEVY: Three feet isn't very much for a bike path. When you're on a bike, you feel a little crowded. MS. WOMBLE: Ifs not comfortable for anyone that was why, I can't speak for The Foundation. but I was there watching their faces and what they were saying. And they were in agreement with DOT. It was an un-comfortability. MR. MOFFATT: Okay. MS. WOMBLE: I believe thafs what it was. MR. GIBSON: But it seems to work on Crayton. though. down further. MS. WOMBLE: How many people do you see on a bike there, though? MR. GIBSON: Not too many, that's true. MS. WOMBLE: Yes. MR. PETrY: I think the best one to compare Pelican Bay Boulevard to that the county gave us was the Vineyards, because that is four lanes divided, just like ours. I know I went out there and took a look. And the issue is that your margin for 871 "..."',,, ~<-_. "~"""'~'-"-'>'"~''-'''"~-----,",--''''' ,,-'^^,-, , --,_.__._~-- ,.,.-..... Budget Committee Meeting 161 1 ~ Januarv 26. 2009 error in each lane, it's noticeable. MR. GIBSON: Okay. MR. MOFFATT: John, when you looked at the walkways and the bike paths, did you assume that you had adequate land to widen them; or were you going to have to acquire right-of-ways from the individual condominiums along the way? MR. PETTY: There was some funds in there for acquiring the easements for areas that we knew specifically. So, yes, there was a small fund, if you would, for those issues. MR. IAIZZO: I've got to go. MR. PETTY: We don't think it's going to be too difficult, though, to work with the associations. MS. WOMBLE: Sir Chair? MR. GIBSON: Chair to Chair. MS. WOMBLE: I'm sorry. I'm starting to feel like someone else we know. But with the strategic plan, we're trying to get the different condos and associations on board with the strategic plan. That's our hope, that we all work together. And, yes, there are some funds for this very thing, not very much. (Mr. Iaizzo left the room.) MS. WOMBLE: But what we're looking at is getting together with the Pelican Bay Property Owners, The Foundation, the strategic planning people, and PBSD and worldng as a group, aU working for the betterment of our own community. And that's the hope. When we get finished with this plan and finish rolling it out and showing everybody what we've come up with, we're hoping that everyone will come on board with us and there will be a concerted effort to be together on aU of this. So... MR. MOFF AIT: Thank you. MS. WOMBLE: ...please tell Molly that's what's wrong with the flowers. MR. MOFFA IT: Will you, John, bring that to the next meeting then, whatever you have on that? MR. PETTY: Oh, absolutely, sir. You'll see that on your agenda AUDIENCE COMMENTS MR. MOFFATT: Audience comments? We've increased our audience, you know, by infinite numbers. MR. PETTY: By 100 percent, sir. MR. LEVY: Yes, 100 percent MR. MOFFA IT: Yes. No audience comments? How about an adjournment? 872 --- 'RECEllQ,\ 1 ~ ()F Q- / Fiala ~ MAR 3 0 2009 Halas Henning Board of county commIIIIIlI*S Coyle TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF ~tta BUDGET COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISIO Naples, Florida - February 23, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board BUDGET COMMITTEE, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at I :06 p.m. in a WORKSHOP SESSION at Hammock Oak Center, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida., with the following members present: JeTty Moffatt, Co-Chairman Michael Levy John Iaizzo Geoff Gibson John Boland ALSO PRESENT: John Petty, Division Administrator; Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations M~ager, Pelican Bay Services Division; Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman, Pelican Bay Advisory Committee. AGENDA l. Roll Call 2. Review 2009 Budget by Line Item in Each Fund 3. Initial Considerations for Capital Projects a) Review Plan for Bubblers b) Cost Est. FY 2008 to Upgrade WaIkways/Bike Paths c) Other 4. Budget Calendar 5. Adjourn MR. PETTY: We are doing audio now that would be up within about 24 hours as the minutes are taking a little longer than some of you like. REVIEW 2009 BUDGET BY LINE ITEM IN EACH FUND MR. MOFFATT: John I know you were anxious to go through this years' budget. Do you have an approach for that or should we just go through each fund by line item. MR. IAIZZO: I think we ought to have an approach. I'll make a suggestion and if it looks good we will go with it and if not we can take other suggestions. My suggestion is that we really don't care initially about personal services. Are we all on the same page, I want to get everybody on the same page. MR. PETTY: Mr. Iaizzo I going to have to ask you, you can't ask for opinion we can talk about process but at a workshop we can't try an build a consensus amongst the board members this is just for discussion purposes only and you will have to wait for a regular board meeting for a vote. MR. IAIZZO: Right now I am trying to get a concept on how to approach the budget. I am on page 9 and I suggested we don't delve in to Personal Service at this time but move into the second half where it says Field Services. That's where we need to identi1)r a line item of concern or consideration and then what we do is if it cuts across all funds we look at Mise Carres: Oate'_._"._"_ ____ 874 Hem #:"_____"0'''_ :':;opies to ,__,"._~",..A.._,.,_ -_'_'.".~__,_.,_____,~,...-_ _"~ _~~M' ~-,.~_..~..,_."'... --,,.,.. "",,-~,_..,,~. Budget Committee Workshop ~ Februa 23 2009 each fund and follow it and see how it plays in each fund. If it's clear cut we... MR. BOLAND: John I can't hear you. MR. IAIZZO: After all that time you're just telling me. I was saying that if it's clear cut we don't have to cut into it too much but if it is kind of fuzzy then we need to know more about it. How the money is spent, how much we're actually drawing on that money, how many vendors are involved and get a concept and a feel for the value of that service and if it's questionable we question it and if it's acceptable we accept it. That's my suggestion Jerry. MR. MOFFATT: I was going to suggest a different approach, why not right. MR. IAIZZO: Yes, let's listen. MR. MOFFATT: I was going to suggest we go through it by fund starting with Tab 2 which is water management and go through the line items there. Let me ask you a question, you said skip personal services but that is about one-third of our budget are you suggesting we come back to that at some point? MR. IAIZZO: That is the least of our problems. That's hard numbers your looking at social security and retirement, there is nothing to earth shaking in that Personal Services. (The Budget Workshop was in session when reporter arrived at 1:06 p.m.) CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: The one item that caught my attention was the overtime salaries. MR. IAIZZO: We'll get to that. But that doesn't even play in personal services. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Well, it's part of personal services, I think. Is it not? MR. IAIZZO: Under contractual services, yes. That's a good line item we need to look at. That's one of them. It's one out of the personal services. Any other suggestions? But just to follow up on your suggestion, Jerry, if a line item plays against more than one fund, you need to see how it plays in the other funds. If you just cut it short on water management, then when you come to the next fund if it plays there again you have to go through the whole thing again. MR LEVY: John, could you give us a for instance on an item that... MR. IAIZZO: That cuts across? MR LEVY: Yes. That you would want to look at. MR IAIZZO: Well, there are a number ofline items that obviously cut across. MR. LEVY: Yes. But most of them don't. MR IAIZZO: If it doesn't cut, we don't worry about it. 875 ~---"" ,.._..~,.._".._-,,,,,-.... ~--,".",..." _.,.~ -~.~-- - - Budget Committee Workshop 1&\ \\1 ~ Februarv 23. 2009 MR LEVY: Like which one are you talking about? MR. IAlZZO: Take under contractual services. It cuts across. And they're obviously the ones that we need to look. You know, that cuts across more than one fund. So, you know, play it by that matter. MR. LEVY: Can we just ask John Petty and Kyle. We have had two suggestions how to proceed here. I'm sure you two have given some thought to this. How do you suggest that we proceed here? MR. PETTY: Thank you for asking. We've built the budget based on both concepts. We do break out our costs according to the fund and split it out between water management and community beautific.ation and street lights. And it was just mentioned that other contractual services is one that does that. And the cost allocation for each one is shown on page one. So we show you how we break that out. And the detail is under the tabs under each fund that tells you specifically what we intend to spend with that kind of money or why you would want to spend in other contractual $102,000 plus for Clam Bay and only $3,000 for street lights. So that's explained under each division, if you will expenditures on the tabs. So we do break it out across funds. And the line items are broken out to this level so that we can discuss it. We try and break it out to the farthest degree we can to have total transparency, if you will, the new phrase of today, so that the Board understands exactly where the money is going. So I would suggest to you that if you want to look at this on a line item basis and then if a line item splits amongst funds, that you would discuss that at that particular time of that line item. Of course, personnel is an issue that comes up each and every year. MR. LEVY: I mean that's one of the biggest ones there. MR. PETTY: You can't overlook it. And overtime is a policy that has been adopted by the Division through the Board for the last couple of years, but I think because of what it does should be reapproved each year. And since we're on that, if you don't mind, I will go right to that point. We'll start with that. We have used the overtime as a means of basically keeping our costs in line and our personnel pennanent. We have got people who know Pelican Bay, know how to do their work here in Pelican Bay, yet they are in a position that doesn't have a very good cap, in their minds, for salary. In other words, it is a very low cap position. It's landscape. And I do believe it is capped at about 12, $14? MR LUKASZ: Well, the high end can go higher than that. The maintenance workers. It's more like 17, $18 for them. MR. PETTY: So because of that cap it was difficult to retain staff. And then trying to get temporary staff in here that knew what they were doing, it was becoming a problem. We found we could solve the problem better if we would pay the existing staff overtime. That way they had knowledge of the system and it helped retain them in a fairly aflluent community doing the work. But that's something that should be evaluated each and every year. 876 .~-_... ,""",' .._""~ ~..~.~ ..---..................."".. -""'",~..'".'."------~ _w-'_ .....'~.- Budget Committee Workshop M\~ Februa 23 2009 MR. LEVY: Don't we get some tradeoff between premium pay and fringe benefit pay? MR. PETTY: Absolutely, absolutely. When we do the comparison and Kyle does this basically every year, the analysis show that this doesn't cost you any more money. As a matter offact, it may save you a few bucks. And for us it means that we get personnel that is reliable and has knowledge of Pelican Bay. But it is something that you should look at each and every year, dependent upon whether or not you do have that little bit of a break. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: John, let me ask you a question. MR. PETTY: Sure. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: I'm just struggling to find the detail of personal services. Let's say just in the water management, $212,500. Where is that detail broken out? MR. PETTY: It's at the very end of the book, sir. There's the breakout of personnel. MR. lAIZZO: On the back. MR. PETTY: It should be the second to last page with your last page being an organizational chart. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: No. Those numbers don't tie in. MR. PETTY: I'm sony, sir. You're looking for the breakout of health benefits and... CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: No. I'm looking to see what makes up the $212,500 in water management personal services. MR. LUKASZ: Page 14 and 16. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Okay. In tab? MR. LUKASZ: Tab Two. MR. IAIZZO: Page 16 is the fuel service and 14 is the... MR. LEVY: Administration. And the administration is just basically allocation, right? It's an allocation of the management group, so to speak? MR. PETTY: It is the percentage in water management of our administrative costs. MR. lAIZZO: Maybe we ought to take one across and see just how it works out there, try to keep everybody on the same page. Otherwise, we'll go crazy. MR. PETTY: There is no magic to this number, guys. We can cut this up any way you would really like. It all comes out of the pocket, so to speak. MR. lAIZZO: Can we start offwith one example and see how it goes? And then we can move ahead and decide how 877 _,-,,"_4""_ ~ "- _~"""m_ , ...._,... -_. Budget Committee Workshop 16 I 1 ~ Februarv 23. 2009 we'd like to go. If we look at the first one, field service. Take the first one down from field service on page one. On page one, field service, first one down is engineering. Now, if you look at it, it's only going to touch base with water management and then it's going to move over to the capital projects fund under Clam Bay. Now, if you go to page 16 you will see operating expenses. Engineering fees, $12,000. This is what you're getting for your $12,000. You're getting an engineer's review or recommendation on the facility that we have here and from time to time he will touch base. What does that mean from time to time? How often does he touch base with you, Kyle? MR. LUKASZ: It's on a request. We would request. MR. IAIZZO: You would request. That's when the time to time occurs? MR. LUKASZ: Right. MR. IAIZZO: So how often does this guy come through the facility and take a look at our facility? MR. LUKASZ: Only upon request. MR. WZZO: So we don't even bother paying him on an hourly basis we just allow $12,000? MR. LEVY: In some years we wouldn't call him at all? MR. LUKASZ: It could be, yes. MR. PEITY: If! could. You just talked about this at our last meeting. It is something that Kyle and I have talked about for the last year. And that is we used to do a facility report on the water management system every year. We've gotten out of the practice of doing it. Collier County just adopted an ordinance wherein all the associations must do one on a yearly basis or they will do it for you. So we are going to get back into that habit. This is basically for having access to that engineer to do such evaluations. Although. it would go higher than this probably for a facility report. This is basically the little bit of money that you set aside so that staff does have access to an engineer for questions regarding the details. MR. LEVY: But it's not a retainer that we pay him? MR. PETTY: We don't pay him, unless he works. MR. IAIZZO: It's money set aside. MR. PEITY: It is money set aside. MR. LUKASZ: I can give you an example, John, of something that you are familiar with. We had to do an evaluation of that swale over off of Crayton Road. And we utilized the engineering services of Wilson Miller to monitor that swale to see if it was functioning properly when we had drainage issues over there. So that would be an example. 878 --".-. --,,-- "'.;0_"" _"eo_.__" Budget Committee Workshop 161 11 ~\~ Februarv 23. 2009 MR. IAlZZO: All right. So we're setting $12,000 aside for an assessment. And if we look back, we probably have been doing that for years and years. The thing is we don't know just how much of that money was consumed. That's what you've got to find out. MR. LEVY: Well, we do know at the end of the year. MR. IAIZZO: Well, if it's broken down by line item you'll know. MR. LEVY: But I think when we look at the fiscal year '10 proposed budget, I think it goes into this level of detail and we do see actual pro rate against proposed budget for '09. That's my recollection; is that ri&ht? MR. LUKASZ: We do a forecasting. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: That's what I was asking for at the last meeting. We spent more than half the meeting trying to deal with that request that nobody seemed to think was worthwhile, other than Geoff Geoff agreed with it. But I'm glad to hear that. MR. PETTY: Well, it's part of your budget, sir. If you look on page 13 you get an idea of that comparison of what we do to prepare the budget for you. And that's what we had been explaining and took so long at the last meeting. We do this during the budget process. We wait until typically the month of May, which is when this is due, late April or early May, to get the latest and greatest year-to-date numbers before we send it off As you all know, we typically send off to the County in the end of May. But that tells you what the budget was last year, what you have expended or received to date, anticipated to complete the year. And it varies over a number of line item bases. And that's how we prep the budget and then we move forward with what we anticipate for the following year. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: I'm glad to hear that. MR. PETTY: That's why I think we were coming to the same... MR. IAIZZO: Conclusion. MR. PETTY: Hopefully that's what we got settled. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Let me ask you following up on John's example here. On the engineering fees, how do we select the engineer? Do we competitively bid that? Do we look at different criteria? I mean, how do we find out which engineer is going to do our work for us upon request? MR. PETTY: That's a vel)' good question. It starts off with the procurement office of Collier County. And we don't have to follow them. We just find it vel)' reliable to. The County goes out and gets several engineering contracts per year. And 879 --- -- ..,., _.",~..,.'.,,~..< ~. '4_~,.~, .~"-",..." Budget Committee Workshop 16 I ~ Februa 23 2009 typically I think there is four or five engineers. MR. LUKASZ: About five for engineering. MR. PEITY: And basically they have been selected by the appropriate process, according to statute and according to County policy. The engineers are the competitive negotiations type style, if you will, of our fee, which means you go for quality and then you talk about price. You never skip price, but you talk about it second because you want that base knowledge. Now, once they are on that approved list that they can do business with the County and up to a. certain dollar value and it has gone through that competitive process, then Kyle typically selects them according to their expe~e according to their history of Pelican Bay. Wilson Miller has been handling our water and sewer and water management since 1986 or '87. Post Buckley was the water and sewer and water management up to that point up with the help of Hole Montes. When Post Buckley left Pelican Bay, Wilson Miller took over. So they have that great history. Hole Montes has a pretty good history though, too. Agnoli, Barber, Brundage also has a good history. So as long as they have that good understanding of what we're doing and they don't charge us for that learning curve, typically Kyle will grab them based on their performance to date and their history of Pelican Bay in engineering. That long answer is how he would make that selection. MR. IAIZZO: So basically, Jerry, the kind of personnel that we need to bring in have already been selected through a process. It is just a matter of Kyle picking anyone of those that have been approved by the County. And he comes in and does the service. MR. PETIY: Well, let me give you an exception. The exception is what you're going to hear from an engineer at your next Board meeting on water management because we had an issue with Wilson Miller. They lost their legacy personnel. We just found some errors in their accounting of our water management systems, so we went to an outside agency. Someone that didn't have a history. And this is independent of the four or five groups that the County has done, but it's still within the County's contract range because it is for $5,000 or less, as you all recall. That's what I brought to your attention at the last Board meeting. And he is evaluating that system right now. As Mr. Iaizzo just said, most of them are preselected through the County's competitive or procurement selection process. But we go outside of that system when it is to the benefit of Pelican Bay. MR. IAIZZO: When it's necessary. MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Does that answer your concern right now? MR. IAIZZO: Yes. 880 <>._,--,.,^ ^."_._~.,, Budget Committee Workshop ~ Februar 23 2009 CHAIRMAN MOFFATI: Because I thought you were also concerned about how we know when we get charged against that $12,000. MR. IAIZZO: That's what I want to follow up. That's why I suggest that each line item we need to understand ifwe did spend that money on that line item. lfwe didn't spend it, we know that we can either retain it for the following year or the coming year. Or if it had to be spent somewhere else, I want to know where it was spent. Follow; agree? CHAIRMAN MOFFATI: Yes. MR. IAIZZO: That's what I would like to see on the budget follow-up. MR. LEVY: That's when you have a surplus for the year. In other words you know what you spent on items, right? MR. IAIZZO: Yes, that's true, Mike. But I want to know the surplus on the line items so I can control it next year and the year after. So that you can judge for yourself how to allocate dollars. I mean, we haven't allocated any dollars yet. MR. LEVY: Is that available out of the system? MR. PETIY: Absolutely. That's how we prepare these reports. If you look on page 11. Again, by line item it tells you what we have spent in what category, where we have gone over, and where we have gone under. And we give that to you during the budget process. Now, what this body decided last year was that you didn't want the 20-page report that shows you status of line item by line item. That you wanted it to be simpler on a page or two. So we quit giving you the report that we used to do, which was a line item by department summary year-to-date that used to take a great deal of time. Jean Smith used to do it. And we went to this. It gives you all the information, but not on a line item basis. It rolls it up MR. IAIZZO: I would like to go back to Jean Smith's line itemized allocation with the dollars and where they disappeared to. I would prefer that. MR. LEVY: Well, let me just go to page 12 here, John. MR. IAIZZO: Page 12? MR. LEVY: Yes. Look at engineering fees; this is fiscal year 'OS as of the end of 'OS. The actuaIs as of the end of February. So, you know, we have got the rest of the year. More than half the year that hasn't happened yet. I'm back at John Iaizzo's question. Where do we see something that shows what actually did happen for 'OS? Again, looking at engineering fees, that line item. MR. PETIY: On a line item basis we haven't ever done anything other than the monthlies that Jean used to roll up or roll down to. Because what we give you has to have the words "unaudited financials" until you get the hard close numbers. But 881 .".~""p" _, ."'..e_".,___~,......_.'_",,~ .- MV"'~ Budget Committee Workshop 16 I 1 f(~ Februarv 23. 2009 you know the issue there. It can be moved a little bit, but you're generally on target. If we go to the detail and kick out, what is it about 15 to 20-page report? MR. LEVY: Huge. If I remember, it was absolutely huge. MR. PETTY: It is like getting a little budget. MR. LEVY: I mean it was huge. I mean, it was, like, overwhelmingly. MR. IAIZZO: I still have those and they are not that bad. It is very clear and it really gives a picture what's happening. MR. LEVY: The only time you might want to look at it would be at the end of the year when it's all over. Because during the year it's just showing you the budget and what has been spent to date. That's all it shows. MR. IAIZZO: What Jean probably did... MR. PETIY: It's a preference and it depends on your oversight style. You guys changed to this from that last year. If you want to go back, that is certainly something you can do. If you want something in the middle. .. MR. BOLAND: If one line in the account is way out of whack, you question that, right, Kyle? MR. LUKASZ: Right. MR. BOLAND: Yes. So he's monitoring this pretty good, unless we get something that looks off the wall. I think he is doing all the work. We're just going to do the same job he's doing again. MR. PETTY: Absolutely. MR. BOLAND: It doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something. MR. PETTY: Because of the budget cycle, we can only get a few months' history before we show this to you. Keep in mind that it as long as the money stays within the fund, Collier County does not have to be notified. They don't have to opine. They don't have to take a vote. As long as we stay within our fund amount in total, the budget isn't controlled on a line item basis, unless you want it controlled on a line item basis. At which time we will bring to your attention anything that appears to go over. Some of the line items are material and, of course, a lot of them are not. You have a couple hundred dollars and does it really matter? If} tell you that we're over by 50 bucks or if I stop doing it and come to you for permission to go over $50, it gets to be a little bit tedious on those. But we don't have any trouble with doing the 20-page report. It just takes a little bit more time. MR. IAIZZO: It's a computer spit-out. MR. PETIY: It is not a computer spit-out. MR. LEVY: It is not. You tried it for the last meeting. 882 -';~..". Budget Committee Workshop Februarv 23. 2009 161 lfl1~ MR. PETry: Again, remember, this is not a SAP report. This is a custom-made report off of SAP. These are all hand made. MR. LEVY: John, before we talk aboutJean Smitb's report, when we do the fiscal year'lO budget, we are only going to look at the '09 budget compared to that; we are not going to see the '08 actuals or do we see the '08 actuals. too? MR. PETTY: I got lost in the years. I apologize. MR. LEVY: The budget we are presumably working on uow is fiscal year '10. MR. PETrY: Yes. And you will see this year's budget expectations. MR. LEVY: Right. MR. PETTY: What was budgeted and what is expected. MR. LEVY: Right. But we're not going to see the actuals for fiscal year '08? MR. PETrY: Typically we haven~ shown that to you in the past. MR. LEVY: Well, I mean, when you get right down to it then, we never really ever see the actuals for the year against the budget for the year in this format on page one, so to speak? MR. PETrY: No, sir. Typically that has not been shown. And I don~ know that that's a problem, other than this. If we show it to you September I st, the day after the year closes, that's unaudited. MR. LEVY: October 1st. MR. PETTY: Excuse me. I'm working backwards in time. October I st. After September. It's unaudited. So as such, we're going to pull the number. which is going to be pretty close to what we had estimated earlier. Because a lot of these adjustments are going to happen while they're closing the books. And that's why you saw our difference change by $140,000. That's that hard close change between the estimates of October I st and the hard close, which we got at the end of January. So we can do that within that margin, sure. But, again, guys, all we're talking about here is a different report at giving you either more detail or less detail, depending on your flavor, guys. Whatever. MR. LEVY: I'm not asking you for anything here. I'm just asking for clarification. CHAIRMAN MOFFAIT: John, on page 12. You updated this in February, I suppose? MR. PETrY: Well, probably in late March, early April, with February being the... CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Right. MR. PETrY : Yes. That was the last month. 883 Budget Committee Workshop 16J 1 ~ tltk/ Februarv 23. 2009 CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Why could you not update this same report as of today to show the actual 'OS expenditures against that 'OS budget? MR. PETTY: There is no reason, other than you went to a different financial report. So if you would like that done, that's certainly something we can consider. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Well, I'm just saying preparing this, the '10 budget, it would be helpful to see how you actually made out in 'OS or so a year behind. For example, if you look at the details here, lo.ok at the line chemicals on page 12. You budgeted Ill. You're going to expend 79. So you have 32,000 that you haven't eXf;'ended. And maybe you covered this when you did the '09 budget, but in '09 on page one for fertilizer and pesticide you budgeted 111,000, even though you only spent 79,000 in 'OS. MR. PETIY: Gentlemen, again, we're looking at it not so much on what we spent, but what was the condition. Was it a wet year, was it a dry year? Is that why the chemicals are down? There is a lot of other issues that go into this. Again, I think what you're saying is: Could we put in the year-end close when we do the budget for comparative purposes? And I don't see why we couldn't do that. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: I mean I don't know where you ended up in 'OS. Maybe it did end up at 111. MR. LUKASZ: It was lower. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: It looks like you had a $32,000 savings. MR. PEITY: Again, it's a preference, whatever you like to see. And I don't see why we couldn't fit it in. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Or maybe the committee carryover members know that you did talk about that and, in fact, says we need III in the budget, even though we only spent X. Kyle looks like he is about to explain something. MR. LUKASZ: The cost of chemicals at that time was fluctuating, especially like copper sulfate, which is a large portion of that budget. It was to the point that we had to go and get pricing each and every time. They couldn't even honor what the pit price was. So based on the fluctuation of the pricing is one of the reasons that we got the budget at that level. And, like John said, based upon what the weather conditions are, what kind of weather you have can have impact on how much chemicals you use. CHAIRMAN MOFFAT: I suppose you talked about that at the time you did this '09 budget to conclude that 111 is the number you want to leave in there? MR. PETTY: It starts off at a couple of different levels. This one would start off with the guy handling water 884 -.. -~..~..._".""^ _._~. ---~. .. --,-"_...~ Budget Committee Workshop 161 1~~ Februarv 23. 2009 management application of herbicides, which Kyle would talk to. And they would go over the pluses and minuses of the year. And then Kyle would use his expertise and he'd bring it to me and I would use mine. And then we would bring it to the Board and discuss. But, yes, the line item budget is always brought to you. And, as you know from your calendar, it's scheduled for a couple of meetings later on when we start calculating and running these numbers. So if we see anything that changes, of course we'll bring it to your attention. Anything out of the ordinary is something we like to bring to your attention, as well. MR. IAIZZO: Did we finish up that one line item under engineering? Let's go over to Clam Bay systems for the 205,600. Kyle, can you walk us through that one so we can openly discuss that? MR. PETTY: What page? MR. GIBSON: Page one. MR. IAIZZO: Page one. If you look down at Clam Bay systems in there, $205,600. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Under capital projects. MR. BOLAND: Wilson Miller. MR. IAIZZO: Go to page 50, Kyle. You want to take us through that and see how we spend that line item. MR. LUKASZ: Go on to page 53. That would be in cost center 183800. MR. IAIZZO: 183 or 53? MR. LUKASZ: Yes, and the 53, in that same tab. MR. IAIZZO: And that's breaking down what; the 125,600? MR. LUKASZ: That breaks down the 125,600. MR. IAIZZO: That's the engineering fee. That's what we're hearing. 125,600 is what we are paying for? MR. LUKASZ: On that particular cost center. MR. IAIZZO: Does it break down respective like the management report, the biological monitoring, and water quality? MR. LUKASZ: Correct. MR IAIZZO: Hydrographic? MR. PETTY: What you got at your last Board meeting. MR. IAIZZO: Yes. All right. That comprises the 125,600? MR. LEVY: Well, where is the rest? MR. LUKASZ: The cost center, if you go on to page... 885 ^'-.. '~'''.'-",'..' .... "" 'UIL.iI.___~..-~_ ,..".""-_,,.. ._-~-_._.,~-_._----_._-_. - Budget Committee Workshop Hr-t ~ Februarv 23. 2009 MR. PETTY: Other contractual services on engineering, page 57. MR. LUKASZ: It's in cost center 183805, which is the one that's funded with Pelican Bay assessments. There is 80,000 in consultant fees in there, which is the amount that the Board approved each year basically if something comes up in Clam Bay that there's funding required. So the funding is available for anything that may come up through the course of the year based upon the monitoring report. MR. LEVY: Now, is Tim Hall other members are saying... MR. LUKASZ: This is where our first board approved.. . MR. PETTY: And Humiston and Moore and Lewis Environmental. MR. LEVY: All right. So which one is Tim Hall now? MR. PETTY: They should all three be together, sir. The other two firms are subs of Tim Hall's, the way I understand it. MR. LEVY: So it's Tim Hall and then he subs it out? MR. PETTY: Yes. MR. IAIZZO: Look at that 125,600. Ifwe break it down, that management fee... MR. PETTY: Management report, sir. MK. LUKASZ: Those numbers are StrIctly out ot the contract that has been wntten tor each one 01 those partIcular services. MR. IAIZZO: How often do we see this management report? MR. LUKASZ: Once a year. MR. IAIZZO: Once a year. That comes out of Turrell and Associates? MR. PEITY: He's responsible for the property.. . MR. IAIZZO: Turrell and Associates puts that out? MR. PETIY: That's what I'm trying to tell you, sir. The report that you get is a compilation written by and responsible from Turrell, Hall and Associates, but there are sections that are written or advised from Humiston and Moore and Lewis Environmental. MR. IAIZZO: All right. I just need a clarification. Engineering, 125,600 is Turrell and Associates. That's their package and they do all that work prescribed? MR. LUKASZ: That is the monitoring report and everything else required by the permit. 886 -'---"". ~<..<.~"~-" - ~~" ., ------.--- .~.-- -,_.~-_.~ ".,--_.~ Budget Committee Workshop Februar 23 2009 CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Is this based on a bid and contract? MR. LUKASZ: RFP. MR. IAIZZO: Ob, they have been doing our work for.. . CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: I'm trying to conceptually see how we're putting this together. MR. PETTY: It's gone through the process. MR. IAIZZO: Now, why don't we take page 54, other contractual services. Again, who was receiving the money for this; what vendor? MR. LUKASZ: Contractual services on page 54. You've got contract labor; we always funded that amount to kind of offset some of the staff time. For instance, my own. You know, so we have always budgeted 14,100 to kind of offset some of our regular staff. We don't want to put temporary laborers out there to go collect data and water quality things, but it helps to offset the salaries. Exotic invasive plant control is the exotic maintenance that takes place on the west side of the berm all the way from one end to the other. MR. IAIZZO: How often is it done, Kyle? I mean, we're paying $29,000 for exotic plant control. MR. LUKASZ: It is a County RFP that has four or five different contractors awarded for the exotic maintenance. MR. IAIZZO: But we bring in a vendor to do this work? What do they do to pay that kind of money? MR. LUKASZ: It's approved. MR. IAIZZO: How many times a year does he come in? Do you have any idea? MR. LUKASZ: There's about ten weeks. MR. IAIZZO: Ten weeks for the year? MR. LUKASZ: Yes. They come in almost every month for one week. There are a couple of months during the winter that we skip. MR. IAIZZO: So we hire a company to do this basically? MR. LUKASZ: Correct. MR SKWRAO: We have been hiring the same company repeatedly or do we bounce around? MR. LUKASZ: I believe that we have used the same company, yes. And that's on the County's RFP. MR. IAIZZO: Do you actually call them in or do they know when to come in? MR. LUKASZ: Beginning of the year I ask them to submit a proposal. Actually, there's kind of a mirror side to this to 887 .'-"-"-'~- ~- '_""'''T'~ ".- ...__.,~..",.,." _.._......_.""_.e.~"'_~~.,_______ --" Budget Committee Workshop l-b-1 lM\(). Februarv 23. 2009 work on the water management side along the berm. And then you ask for a proposal based on the RFP process. And we'll go ahead and open up under the purchase order and take you through the fiscal year. So we'll do this like in October and open the purchase order up for the year. MR. IAIZZO: You establish primarily... MR. LUKASZ: How many visits. MR. IAlZZO: .. . how many visits to pay? MR. LUKASZ: And, again, the exotic control is part of our Clam Bay permit. MR. PETTY: It's a requirement of the permit. MR. LUKASZ: It's a requirement of the permit. MR. IAIZZO: So you've taken this company and you have broke down just exactly how much money he's going to get for exotics, for berm transition maintenance, and aerial. Well, he doesn't do aerial photography, does he? MR. LUKASZ: No. Now, we call this the transition area This is basically where we had cattail issues directly west of the berm. MR. IAIZZO: Do we do an aerial photography every year? MR. LUKASZ: Yes. MR. PETIY: Absolutely. MR. LUKASZ: That's that large 8-foot long Clam Bay photo that gets mounted on the board. MR. PETTY: Well, it is also infrared. It's not just for pretty pictures. It's infrared and they count the acres that are healthy and/or stressed or dying. The infrared shows it better. MR. IAIZZO: Go to the next page, 55. You have got interior channel maintenance. Is this another group of guys or another company? MR. LUKASZ: We get quotes for this work. This is to come in on an annual basis. We go through the Clam Bay system and clean out all those channels, of which we have 13 miles of channels out there now. MR. PETTY: That's not counting the natural interconnect. MR. LUKASZ: This doesn't include the creeks. This is all those channels throughout the Clam Bay system. MR. IAlZZO: Do we have machinery to do that? MR. LUKASZ: No. We have to have a contractor come in and do that. That is required as, you know, beach 888 ~....._- Budget Committee Workshop UJ 1 fx\~ Februarv 23. 2009 renourishment. MR. IAIZZO: Do we do that once a month or what? MR. LUKASZ: No. Once a year it's required. MR. IAIZZO: As-needed basis? MR. LUKASZ: Just before turtle season. You're supposed to get it done after beach renourishment. It is required that we go in and till the beach just prior to turtle season. MR. PEITY: To make sure that the sand isn't so compact they can't dig and us~ it for nesting. That's what the tilling does is to make sure there's no hard clumps. Kind of like farming. MR. IAIZZO: Well, we just did one line item, other contractual services. CHAIRMAN MOFFAIT: Kyle said something that triggered a thought in my mind. MR. IAIZZO: Bring it up. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: The last page in here where we have the listing of personnel and salaries. They tie into the budget in the personal services line area. Now, Kyle just said that the 14,000, which we talked about on page 54, is to pick up some of the staff time that is spent in this area. Haven't you double counted that 14,000 if you have all the payroll accounted for in personal services and now here is another 14,000? MR. LUKASZ: The payroll that is in this chart on the end of the book, that's all funded out of fund 109 and fund 778, water management and street lighting. CHAIRMAN MOFFAIT: Right. MR. LUKASZ: We use some of our staff time to go out and collect water quality samples strictly for Clam Bay, collect tide data. So to help offset the time that we're taking away from the water management and beautification, we have budgeted "X" amount of dollars in Clam Bay to help offset those costs. MR. IAIZZO: Is this our own people? MR. LUKASZ: But we don't actually have payroll costs in Clam Bay. We offset it with that temporary labor fund that we put in there. MR. PETIY: In other words, sir, it is not double counted. Kyle is trying to show you that in the first column on that last page under water management... MR. IAIZZO: What page are we on? 889 ^.-_. '" ,,----_.... ""._...0.... -~-". ~..~-, Budget Committee Workshop 1-G-1 1 k\t~ Februarv 23. 2009 MR. PEITY: The last page. Second to last page. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: We accounted for the ] 15,000 in water management. That's already in the budget. MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. Out of that 115,000, we're saying ]4,000 of that came from... MR. LUKASZ: Right. Say myself. I spend "X" amount of time working in Clam Bay. None of that salary is charged against Clam Bay. So in a way to offset some of that, we budget temporary labor, which, in turn, was used over in the water management and.. . MR. PETTY: Well, I think he understands that. It's just the allocations he's tryin~ to make sense of. In one place it's a percentage breakout. There is 100 percent here and then 33 percent for beautification, 33 percent for water management, 33 percent for street lights, and then you have got 14 grand coming out of someplace. And he goes, "Did you count it twice?" That would add up to 100 and something percent and we're trying to stay at 100 because we don't want to overtax. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Right. But I think Kyle is maybe saying this is not an allocation of your salary. It's temporary labor that you had to hire. MR. PETIY: No, no. MR. LUKASZ: It is temporary labor that we utilized but not in Clam Bay. They don't go out and collect the tide data and stuff. We do that ourselves. Our full-time staff members. But to offset the time that's going into Clam Bay, we funded some temporary labor hours, which were then used over in the areas to.. . MR. IAIZZO: That we stole. MR. LUKASZ: Yes. Not stole, but you know, utilized some of our full-time employees in Clam Bay. MR. PETIY: Allocate. MR. LUKASZ: Allocate, offset. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: All right. You could also have done it a different way. You could have allocated some of your permanent staff time to this line item, this 14,000 line item, and then put the ]4,000 over in the other budget. MR. LUKASZ: We can't get payroll out of Clam Bay. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Pardon? MR. LUKASZ: There is no personnel services in Clam Bay. It could have been done the way you're saying, but we don't have any regular personnel services. MR. PETTY: The reason we don't... 890 - "--.,.,.",,- ~---, _.".,,~ Budget Committee Workshop ~ 1 ~\l~ Februarv 23. 2009 CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: But you, in fact, do have regular personnel doing things in Clam Bay. MR. LUKASZ: And that's how we tried to offset it is for temporary labor. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: So you're fudging the books a little bit to take care of that. MR. PEITY: Part of that, sir, is we haven't been able to get the County to take this from a capital fund to an operating fund. Every year we try and get that done. We will try again this year. We did capital in the first ten years. That permit now is closed out. So I think we have a good chance of getting this converted into an operating fund, at which time that allocation would fit more cleanly than it does now. MR. IAIZZO: Can I suggest that we get on another line item because that line item was clean? I would like to go down to other contractual services, which is four lines down from field services. THE COURT REPORTER: What services? MR. PETTY: Other contractual services. MR. IAIZZO: Other contractual services, four lines down from field services. There we cut across four funds. You have got water management, you've got community beautification, and street lights. MR. LEVY: And Clam Bay. MR. IAIZZO: And the capital projects under Clam Bay. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: We talked about the other contractual in Clam Bay. MR. IAIZZO: Yes. Let's see how this one plays. Under water management it is $3,000. Let's see what that buys us. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Page ten. MR. IAIZZO: It's on page 17. It says other contractual services, $3,000. Miscellaneous, he has got 3,000. MR. LEVY: Includes electrical for bubblers. MR. IAIZZO: This is something new, right? MR. LUKASZ: Right. To hook the power up. MR. IAIZZO: Yes. So the $3,000 under water management as you can see is allocated for electrical contacts for bubblers. How did you come up with that number? You called the vendor and said, "What is it going to cost me to do this," and... MR. LUKASZ: I contacted the electrical contractor that we use and just asked him to give me an estimate on... MR. IAIZZO: I just thought of another question. Who actually produced this package I hold before me? Who actually 891 .-...... ..~p-~'" Budget Committee Workshop ~llov Februa 23 2009 produced it? MR. PETTY: Well, the list would include about 15 different people. But last year Kyle does all the field operations and prepares the numbers for administration and prints it out from our computer up at the administrative office where this sits in the excel file. But it has been prepped. Actually, I built this thing. MR IAIZZO: Twenty-five years ago. MR. PETTY: More like 18. But Jim Ward worked on it. MR. IAIZZO: Does the County get involved? I thought it came in and came out of the County office or something like that. MR. PEITY: No. We can give you the County's budget. It's not a line item budget. We can do that and save ourselves a lot of work. We don't mind that at all, if that's what you'd like. MR LEVY: The numbers aren't even the same. MR. PETTY: They class things a little bit differently than what we are used to. We try and break it out based on your perceptions. And they have been mostly business oriented, not government fund oriented. MR. LEVY: They prepare that book based on their numbers and the numbers look different, from what I remember. MR. PETTY: Yes. They are typically a bit different. If they look within a couple hundred dollars, we've done a really good job. But, yes, their carry forward is a single line and we show at least three lines in our financial status. MR. IAIZZO: All right. Now, let's go over to community beautification with the total sum of thirty-one three. That's page 30. MR. PETTY: Page 30? MR. IAIZZO: Yes. That's quite a breakdown. I guess street sweeping that's part of the cost for that thirty-one three. MR. LUKASZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Street sweeping. MR. IAIZZO: Holiday decoration, 12,000. That's it. MR. PETTY: Yes. MR. IAIZZO: Any questions on that? CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Yes, I do. MR IAIZZO: Go ahead. 892 ------ - . ~-,._._-~----_. Budget Committee Workshop Februar 23 2009 CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: When I pulled out of L'Ambience the other day a street sweeper went by heading eastbound. It was probably going 20,25 miles an hour. It wasn't quite in the gutter, out in the first lane, and just zipping by and raising all kinds of dust. MR. IAIZZO: Dust, yes. CHAIRMAN MOFFAT: I didn't see him accomplishing a thing, other than moving the dirt from one place to another place on the roadway and depositing some on cars that were driving by. And we're paying for that? MR. LUKASZ: We pay for the street sweeping, yes. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Once a week? MR. LUKASZ: On the main boulevards. MR. IAlZZO: Yes. That's described. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Who monitors this guy? Because he is not doing a job at all. I wouldn't pay him a cent. What are we getting out of that street sweeper? MR. IAIZZO: Dust. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Yeah, right. But he's getting well, $19,000. It just doesn't make any sense to me. This was a black street sweeper. MR. LUKASZ: Dark blue. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: High Tech or something. MR. LUKASZ: That is him. MR. IAIZZO: I have noticed that. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: They're not doing anything worth the money. I think somebody ought to be monitoring that. MR. LUKASZ: If you look on Pelican Bay Boulevard, not the other roadways, but where we have the micro-surface, we have some aggregate that seems to be accumulating. And, actually, I called him earlier last week to pay particular attention wherever he found accumulation of that aggregate. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: If I could, but in most street sweeping that I've seen in the past, and I can't tell you I've spent a lot of time watching it, but the front of the street sweeper seems to put down a little bit of water and then you come along and you sweep it up and you don't get all that dust. I don't know if he's picking up the dirt or not doing it, but at least he's not spreading dust. Where this guy is.. . 893 ".~ nil "'"'...,..... ..~,^,., .' -"." _.~- Budget Committee Workshop 161 ,1 k\tOv Februarv 23. 2009 MR. IAIZZO: Raising dust. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Yes. Not worth it at all. MR. PETTY: Well, let me explain to you why we do it. And, of course, the efficiency of any contractor is something that we really should stay on top of at all times. But the reason why we do it is because it keeps some of the nutrients from reaching our storm water system. You get some removal of the nutrient load off the roads by doing street cleaning. It also is part of your water management program to do street cleaning because of that issue. But, of course, it must be done right. But that's why we do it. It isn't just for esthetic value. It is also for our water quality issue. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: It's under community beautification. MR. PETTY: Well, we actually have a practical purpose. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Well, is this a bid? Do we go out for bids on this? MR. LUKASZ: No. This is quoted. MR. IAIZZO: I have seen the County machine, too. MR. LUKASZ: They only come through about every six months, if that. MR. IAIZZO: I have seen the County come through. MR. PEITY: The machinery is very pricey. I wouldn't suggest that we try and do that. That's been looked at several times. Contractors are typically your best bet. But, as you said, they've got to be watched. CHAIRMAN MOFFAT: I mean, I didn't mean to bring that up as a budget item. It just happened that John had found that page. I just thought I'd ask about that. But I will ask about it when we do the '10 budget, let me tell you. MR. IAIZZO: On street lighting is the next $3,000 was spent. And that's page 44. You will see $3,000. We don't know how it's being spent. It's just being spent or allocated in this particular fund called street lighting. I don't know if that's a justified so if you want to justifY that. It really doesn't identify any specifics. It just seems to be throwing money where possibly, you know, you suspect there needs to be money. MR. LEVY: Are all those numbers next to that line item. Is that an account number or is that a vendor number? MR. LUKASZ: County budget number. It identifies our fund to them and the object of it. MR. IAIZZO: It identifies the vendor, too. Those numbers. MR. LUKASZ: No. MR IAIZZO: It identified definitely the fund. 778 is the fund. 894 _.~.,,~--,,~,._..~-~ Budget Committee Workshop 161 ~I ~~D., Februarv 23. 2009 MR. LUKASZ: That's the fund. 182701 is the cost center and 634999 identifies contractual services. MR. PETTY: We're going to be here a long time if we have to go through all that. MR.IAIZZO: That's it. And then we go to Clam Bay again for 102. MR. PEITY: If I could, before we let that one just hang out in the air that we don't know what the money is spent on. Kyle, what did you have in mind when you put this $3,000.00 in? It isn't a big amount of money. MR. LUKASZ: If you look just above that, you will see the electrical contractors. . That's a new object code there, that 52992. That was actually all under contractual services, but we tried to identifY c!lntractual services and some of the miscellaneous supplies and break those down a little bit further. And it was $3,000 balance there. That could be used for like if we decided to try to pull out a pole ourselves and we had to bring in a crane to do so, contractual services it would fall under there. Previously, like I said, electrical repairs. If we have to bring in an electrician to work that required a licensed electrician, that needs to come out of contractual services and now would come. .. MR. PEITY: Kyle, are you saying the $15,500 for contractual services since electricians were broken out on the County's.. . MR. LUKASZ: Yes. That 3,000... MR. PEITY: You broke out as much as you could that you thought would be applicable to the electrician and you left a little bit behind for the other guys, meaning besides electricians to do the work? MR. LUKASZ: Correct. MR. PETIY: So that's basically the concept here, he put the money aside for that purpose. Now, that doesn't mean that we don't know where the money goes. We do. At the beginning of the year when we do the budget we just don't know how we're going to spend it, but we want to leave a little bit of money there anticipating the unexpected, the possibility. MR. IAIZZO: We need to give that some thought. Because miscellaneous to me is just another way to grab some more money. What I would like to see is that if we need to cover a particular fund because of unknown expenses, like you just did here, let's have a little reserve for that fund. And then monies that come out of that fund, I'm going to know where it goes. MR. PETIY: That is a possibility in each fund we could have a reserve versus these what-if scenarios. MR. IAIZZO: Miscellaneous. MR. PETTY: Which we would draw on as the need arose. MR. IAIZZO: But I want to know where it goes. 895 _._- "--, -- -.---^ Budget Committee Workshop I IN\~ Februar 23 2009 MR. PETTY: Well, you wouldn't see that until the end of the year. MR. IAIZZO: That's okay. MR. PEITY: And that's if we do it per line item. Or if you want to do the newer reports by line item, those 20-page deals, you would see it at the end of the month or you would see it in the fund total. I think Mr. Iaizzo is looking for a line item. MR. IAIZZO: No. If it goes into a reserve to support a fund for unknown expenses. MR. PETTY: I mean, if he goes into a reserve and pulls out $3,000 out for a bucket truck or something that he would need and operate... MR. IAIZZO: Yes. At the end of the year we would see that reserve being used specifically for that purpose. MR. PEITY: Well, you would see other contractual and you would see a line item that says $3,000. You wouldn't see a line item that says bucket truck. MR. IAIZZO: It should show where it's going to go. MR. PETTY: It would be said, other contractual. MR. IAIZZO: Not good, not good. MR. PETTY: That is the category that the County has broken this out into. It's not an electrician. MR. IAIZZO: That's the County's. We're looking at where the dollars go. Unless we know where it goes, we're not doing our job here. That's the way I see it. I mean, do I have concurrence on that or am I the only one that cares where the money is going? CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: I think it depends on the amount of the money. MR. GillSON: And the amount of trust you have in the people that are spending it. MR. LEVY: Exactly. MS. WOMBLE: I think Kyle has been... MR. LEVY: Kyle and John are... MR. GillSON: My trust level is pretty high, unless I'm proven otherwise here. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: I mean, you're never going to track every dollar. MR. IAIZZO: No. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: You've got to have the controls in place to make sure that what's being paid you have confidence that it's being reviewed and approved in the appropriate manner. And any company operates on the same basis. 896 m.." ~,~'~~ '--"'.'"0"'--' ~ V 'M_~. .- .....-.- Budget Committee Workshop 161 1 fxt \(1 Februarv 23. 2009 MR. IAIZZO: Wel~ I looked at two or three line items. Anybodyelse? Jerry, would you like to pick a line item? CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Well, let's go back to page 30 since you've already highlighted that one for us. MR. IAIZZO: Page 30? CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Yeah. Which is under community beautification. You have the personal service costs up there, 427,000 regular salaries. What do those people do? I mean, I know I can look at the chart under tab seven and see some names, but I don't know what they do. For example, you also on page 30 are paying $25,000 for tree trimming. Your in-house employees don't do tree trimming? MR. LUKASZ: We do tree trimming. There are certain areas, say, for instance, that you have to climb. Our guys don't climb trees. And there's certain sabal palms that we need specialized equipment to come in and trim those sabal palms. We do the majority of them. We have 3,500 sabals, but there is, say, five, 600 that require specialized equipment. MR. PETIY: Because of the height. MR. LUKASZ: Or they have to climb the tree. MR. PETIY: It's based on height. MR. LUKASZ: We didn't have the equipment to remove a lot of that dodder vine that's out on U.S. 41, which required a bucket truck that went much higher than ours would. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: You don't have bucket trucks? MR. LUKASZ: Not that go as high as that. MR. PETTY: Well, we have one. MR. IAIZZO: That 25,000 doesn't go to our people. It goes to outside people. MR. LUKASZ: Outside contractors. MR. IAIZZO: It's not our people. CHAlRMANMOFFAIT: No. That's... MR. IAIZZO: That's for bid. CHAIRMAN MOFFAIT: That's one question. MR LUKASZ: A perfect example is that.. . MR. PEITY: Well, wait a minute. The question was: You have got 813,000 for salaries and what do these people do. Do they mow the grass? 897 >-- "' .- ~~'-"-"~ --- Budget Committee Workshop 16' 1 Ik\ \().., Februarv 23. 2009 MR. LUKASZ: They mow the grass. MR. PETTY: Trim trees? MR. LUKASZ: Trim the shrubs, apply pesticides, fertilizers. MR. PETTY: On everything or please tell them if there's any place where they don't do it all and you contract for a portion. Like the tree trimming where you contract for a portion of the tree trimming that is outside the scope of either your machinery or the skill level of your guys. MR. LUKASZ: Say, a large tree, which we have a couple put in over on GulfP~k Drive. We had them put in by the contractor because it comes with a warranty and everything. Other than that, we put in all the small plants. We do all the irrigation maintenance. Naturally, the new irrigation that went in, that was contracted out. But the maintenance of all those facilities we do. Street lighting we maintain most of the electric. MR. PETTY: Well, let's stay on beautification. Do they do the fertilizing? MR. LUKASZ: Yes, they do the fertilizer. We have a licensed pesticide applicator. MR. PETTY: Do they take all the cuttings and branches away or does it get picked up? MR. LUKASZ: We take them to our site. We have a contractor that will come and remove the horticulture from our site and dispose of it. MR. LEVY: Are they the ones who change the plants three or four times a year? MR. LUKASZ: Yes. We do the annuals. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Your employees do the annuals? MR. LUKASZ: Yes. MR. LEVY: That's what I said. I mean the $427,000. MR. IAIZZO: That salary is made up of well 25 percent of it is made up of overtime. MR. LUKASZ: Application of the mulch, pine straw, trash pick up, insulation oflandscape material, fertilization. MR. PEITY: Mowing, trimming, edging. CHAIRMAN MOFFAIT: Kyle, on something like tree trimming, there again, the same procedure; the County bids it out, they give you a list? MR. LUKASZ: That would be a little different. There is no bid in place. So purchasing policy would require, if it's less than $3,000, you can go to one vendor. We usually make sure that we get the competitive price. 898 ~_'H""'~" .,.~--- ~-~..'.~""'''-'~'.~, -- -~ Budget Committee Workshop 161 1 M\rL Februarv 23. 2009 MR. PETTY: Take three bids. MR. LUKASZ: Anything over $3,000 up to $10,000, you've got to get three verbal quotes. Anything over $10,000 up to $50,000, you've got to have three written quotes. And before I get a PO for a vendor, I've got to have that. MR. PETTY: By the way, that's a lot stricter than Florida statutes for State agencies. Collier County has a very strict purchasing program. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: You know, we're sort of mixing budget preparation and auditing. With some of the questions you're asking, it probably would be helpful if we knew what the procedures were. in the Services Division for paying a bill. I mean, that's the first thing you look at as an auditor. You look at the system of internal control. What is your system of internal control? And I don't expect you to go through that now, but it might be worthwhile to get a one or two-page write up on, you know, where do the bills come from, who looks at them, who codes them, who draws a check. And I know that's the County. But somehow in-house I'm assuming, and I would like to hear you tell me, that you are, in fact, approving every bill that is charged to our budget. MR PETTY: Yes, sir. It isn't just one person. And the operation analyst that Barbara Smith represented when she was here, and who Mary is substituting for now, that's part of her job. Kyle's job is to verifY every expense that he is responsible for, which is most of what you see in field, if not all. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Okay. MR. PETTY: And that's on our side. And then on the County's side I really would like to bring in the people in finance who could tell you in detail the depths of the checks and balances that they have. I think you will be impressed. But on our side no bill gets paid, unless either Kyle or Mary has signed off on it. And that is if somebody at Collier County hasn't already given it the stink eye because they don't like the looks of it. They are very picky with bills. We usually have to help bills get paid, not stop bills from being paid. Usually they're held. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Well, that would be useful to know again. There again, not so much from a budget standpoint, well I guess it helps a little bit in preparing a budget, but I think it would satisty John's questions more. MR. IAIZZO: I want to know who did we pay. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Right. But I don't think you're going to be able to chase every dollar on here, but you're going to understand the process. MR. IAIZZO: I just want to control it somehow. 899 "-.. .-..".. -,. ,.... r ".....-,....", ~.- .._.c --. Budget Committee Workshop 16\ 1 ~\\~ Februarv 23. 2009 CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Yeah. MR. IAIZZO: Pesticide control. Now, we are on page 30 on the bottom. How does that function, Kyle? How do you do that? MR. LUKASZ: That is primarily for two different services. One is for the removal of raccoons, which we do that service because basically the raccoons have been living in Clam Bay. And it's basically a service that helps the Foundation because the raccoons are usually hanging out or skirting the operations out at the beach facilities. MR. IAIZZO: I didn't know we went after raccoons. MR. PEITY: Well, ever since the rabies scare of the last decade or so that they've become a part of government's responsibility in a lot of areas. And that's why we got involved Otherwise, we don't like chasing raccoons. MR. LUKASZ: We have traps out there like now because we had a call from the Foundation down at the south beach facility. They actually had a raccoon get inside the beach store in there. And we were having trouble actually getting a PO cut because I couldn't get the right insurance certificates from the vendor. And I've got the Foundation calling saying, "You've got to get these traps set out there because they are really becoming a nuisance." So that's based on historical spending and for the removal of the raccoons and removal of bees' nests that we have had an issue with. MR. PEITY: That was just last year. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Just sort of as an aside, we picked up a raccoon two weeks ago or three weeks ago. We trapped him in L'Ambience. He either came out of the berm between the parking lot and L'Ambience or out of the preserve area. We were actually trying to get armadillos because they've been digging up my wife's flowers, but we didn't get any armadillos. We got a possum and a raccoon. MR. IAIZZO: Did you have a physical trap? CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Yes. We hired a trapper to come in. I didn't ask what they do. MR. IAIZZO: You should have turned it over to Kyle. Mike, you got any line items you want to investigate or talk about or learn? MR. GIBSON: I would like to learn one thing, if I could interrupt here. It's not a multidivisional thing and it's something I've picked up through my experience with the golf courses. Some of the upscale golf courses now are becoming 100 percent controlled within and are not buying anymore pine straw. They're using chippers, grinders and using their own material. Sort of a green community, if you will. They're not hauling in, in our case $63,000, worth of vegetation that gradually 900 ^~-_.._,-. _N."" ------- .~- Budget Committee Workshop 16l 1 ~\~ Februarv 23. 2009 deteriorates and rots and we have to buy more the next year. MR. IAIZZO: GeotI, what line item? MR. GmSON: Sprinkler systems is above it and equipment rentaL I just see 63,000 is a significant amount. That's a lot of pine straw. I assume that's what it is. MR. LEVY: Mulch. Mulch requirements. MR. PEITY: Yes. MR. GmSON: Mulch requirements. MR. IAIZZO: You're looking at fertilizer, pesticides? MR. GmSON: Keep going down. MR. IAIZZO: Sprinkler? MR. LEVY: One more. MR. GmSON: Mulch, 63,500. That's a lot of pine straw let me tell you. And if we could do anything, if we are formulating budgets here, it may be something that we can't change today. Maybe it's something we can be looking at. Maybe the residents wouldn't like to look at the ground-up mulch, but they might like the looks of the $63,000 into their budget. So I think thafs kind of a trade-off. At the golf course ifs been received very well. MR. LUKASZ: Bob has talked to me about wanting to go over and take a look at one of the contractors doing that. MR. GmSON: Ob, I didn't know that. So you're on top of it. That's good to hear. MR. LUKASZ: That would be a decision whether the community wanted to switch from pine straw to... MR. GmSON: 63 grand in today's economy is not peanuts. It's something that you may get a few complaints, "Where is my pine straw," but... MR. PETTY: This is exactly what we want to do during the budget process. When he estimates the number, then to bring this up. And the reason we're in pine straw is because it lasts longer than the typical woodchip mulch. That's the only reason why it was used and because it was natural to a lot of the pine trees that were here at the time. But if we can go to something even more economical that comes from on site great. MR. GmSON: Just kind of recycle your own debris. And then you don't have the expense of carrying off the debris. And thafs another expense. I don't know where that is in here, but I'm sure it's major. MR. PETIY: If that's acceptable, then certainly. These are the kinds of things we want to get involved with and the 901 '-'-'k<' _. -~.....". .- -....~-~ Budget Committee Workshop 161 1 t<l \~ Februarv 23. 2009 - efficiencies and the economics of the budget during that cycle of about April. March and April I think is when we have... MR. GIBSON: And maybe you do a trial strip somewhere. You don't go 100 percent. You do a... MR. PEITY: See how they like it. MR. GIBSON: A golf park or something where people see it all the time and see how many complaints you get. MR. LEVY: Good suggestion. MR. IAIZZO: Anything else, GeoID MR. GIBSON: That's the only one. MR. IAIZZO: Michael, you didn't find a line item of interest? Michael. MR. LEVY: Well, I don't have anything really that... MR. IAIZZO: Boland. MR. LEVY: I had some questions. I mean, like under indirect cost reimbursement there's nothing under community beautification. I don't know what that signifies. I mean, that's not an important question, but.. . MR. IAIZZO: I didn't follow you. MR. PEITY: Indirect cost reimbursements is what the County charges us for the services they provide. Typically, accounting and administration management. And as long as it gets allocated according to its revenue source, whether it be ad valorem or benefit assessment, that's basically the biggest split that you have to have. To have it any other way really isn't required, but I can see where adding that detail doesn't hurt either. MR. LEVY: I mean, it's just arbitrary? We don't assign any of it to community beautification? Not that it matters. The number is the number, right, and you just.. . MR. LUKASZ: He just pays the guy, yes. MR. LEVY: It's one or the other. I mean, it's not an important. .. MR. PETTY: The County grabs that money. MR. LEVY: I understand. MR. PEITY: And they grab out of the biggest pot, which is beautification. MR. LEVY: Ob" I see. MR. PETTY: That's why we show it there because we see where they take the money from. MR. LEVY: No, no. It's zero. It's zero. 902 .- .~~ ~~._--^ ,,- ~"~"...'"- Budget Committee Workshop 16\ 1 ~[(~ Februarv 23. 2009 ~ MR. LUKASZ: It's water management. MR PEITY: Excuse me. Water management. They pull it from water management, which is the base benefit assessment or the legacy, if you will. That's how all of this got started. That's where they pull from. They don't pull from three or four different funds. They just pull from that one. MR. LEVY: And then we have under insurance general, 21,900 under water management. Insurance. MR. IAIZZO: Insurance general. MR. PEITY: General liability I believe that is. MR. IAIZZO: That comes mostly out of... MR. LEVY: Is that for the facility? That's a new one. They just levied that on. MR. LUKASZ: Yes. That's $20,000 for the maintenance facility. MR. LEVY: That was a lit bit of a slip-off they, the County, slipped it over on us, huh? MR. PEITY: Well, they left the building to us, which is something we were trying to get. And then they left the check sitting there, too. They didn't pay it when they left. MR. IAIZZO: The facilities on the golf course; the facility of the golf course? MR. PETTY: The 12-acre utility site that we, the residents, have paid for a long time ago. MR. LEVY: I've never been in that facility, I'm sorry. I was going to ask could our office, that SunTrost office, could that go in that facility? MR. PETIY: Possibly, possibly. That is something that we could consider. You should know that that facility is the old golf course metal building that my staff and I remodeled in-house in 1986. And we did a heck of a job. It looks nice. You should go down there. MR. GillSON: It's nothing to be embarrassed about. MR. PETTY: Oh, I'm proud. I'm not embarrassed. I'm proud. So, yes, we could probably add on space for the office staff. As you know, our office needs are fairly small. About 1,500 square feet, 1,200 square feet is all we're using now. And we would be close to the storage. And, like you say, it isn't anything to be embarrassed about. It's a very beautiful location. MR. GillSON: Isn't that where Kyle is? MR. LUKASZ: Yes. MR. LEVY: We're paying, what, 33,600; am I looking at the right number? SunTrust. For the building, right? 903 . ~"~..~ "'~,-,... . .-..".-.." "--~" Budget Committee Worksbop 16ij II ~\\~ Februarv 23. 2009 MR. PETTY: Ob, yes. Absolutely. This is something that has been talked about from time to time, as well as can we share space with the Foundation was another way to try and save money that we looked at. And we were going to move out to their facilities at the Commons, but then Services blossomed over the last couple years. And when it was time for us to go to our space, it was already full. So we weren't able to do that. But certainly we have talked about having either office space on the utility site assigned to administrative staff and possibly even meeting rooms have been discussed from time to time so we have our own little place to meet. So these are all things that can be considered. And your staff is amenable to any of them. And we'll be glad to throw the numbers to you if you would like to consider those. MR. IAIZZO: Well, the thing is if you do go you have to renovate that building so you can use it as an office. It would take some money to do that. MR. PETTY: It's not that bad. MR. GmSON: It's worth, I think, a committee or something to review that. The cost savings could be substantial, plus I think there's something to be said for having your people on site versus in another building which you're going to be charged for. You're on site. Possession is 90 percent of the law. If they're going to let us use it, baby, move in there in case they decide to change their mind later on and do something else with it, heaven forbid. MR. IAIZZO: You might be thinking... MR. GmSON: Maybe a subcommittee on this subject as part of the budget review ought to go over there and spend an . hour kicking tires. . . MR. PETTY: It's the fun part of the job. MR. GmSON: .. . and see where it could go. And there may be some expenses involved to get it the way you want it. MR. IAIZZO: There will be expenses, but it's probably... MR. GmSON: It would be a lot less than maybe the annual rent over in the bank building. MR. IAIZZO: I agree. MR. PEITY: Whose elevators don't work half the time. MR. GmSON: And they're slow. MR. LEVY: On the sixth floor that's a problem. MR. IAIZZO: You know, if you get discouraged-- MR. PETTY: They have been good to us. And it is a nice office. It's a beautiful view and we've been there for a very 904 .__.,..~..~, - '.,'--.0- -,,-",,"'- .,........""'...........''''",.. ~ _.- ~ ---_._~,-~ ._.~-- Budget Committee Workshop 16 ',I I Al\~ February 23. 2009 long time. But the utility site has a certain allure to it and I would be glad to look at that idea. MR. LEVY: You're not there for the sunsets anyhow. MR. PETTY: Unfortunately, no, I don't get many sunsets. MR. GIBSON: Well, I don't know how you proceed with that, Mr. Chairman, but maybe it's something you... MR. PETTY: We would take... CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: We don't have a Chairman today really as this is a workshop. MR. PETTY: We have got your direction, we can start looking at that and we'll bring that up under our normal budget process now that we know that you're interested. MR.IAIZZO: We should look into it. MR. PETTY: We can do that. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: The other thing that I would like to see you do that we have already talked about is give us a short write up on what your internal controls are on paying bills and who is involved in which bills. The second thing is I would really like to see an update of pages 11 and 12 and all the other comparable pages in here to show the budget with the '08 actual expenditures. You don't need five columns. You need three columns; the budget, the actual, and the other column. And then that gives us a basis as we start the '10 budget by line item to at least have a point of reference, even though it's a year out of date. MR. PEITY: Well, it's a preference. And if you see value in it, again, we can take that kind of direction as staff. If that seems like something you all could put value to, then we don't mind doing that. MR. LEVY: Is that something that can be done with a reasonable amount of effort as opposed to a large amount of effort? MR. PETTY: Well, I think what he's asking for is like what you have done in the budget book, which is... MR. LEVY: You mean write a separate page? CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Not... MR. PETTY: Well, I don't mind doing it in the budget. Just add another column. That way you've got it in the considerations for the budgeted amount. MR. LEVY: Well, that would be another way to do it. You mean in the fiscal year '10 budget have another column? MR. PETTY: Well, I think that's what he said. On pages 11 or so. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Oh, no. I wasn't saying put it in part of the budget. Just give it to us as background material. 905 _.._~ ~"...,"-," ~-"'." _.__~.r "..~ -- I -.... A\\~ Budget Committee Workshop 161 \ .~ Februarv 23. 2009 '. MR. PETTY: Well, on page 11, for example, what I would do if we were going to do that I'm going to suggest this and see if it fits the bill. I would put in there fiscal year 2008 actual, fiscal year 2009 budget, and then the next four columns. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: No. MR. PETTY: And that way you've got 2008 actuals. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: My columns would be this. It would be 2008 budget. . . MR. PETTY: You want actual in 2008. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: 2008 actual. MR. PETTY: Oh, two columns. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: If you want to put in 2009 budget, thafs fine. MR. PETTY: Well, that would be... CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Then you have it all together. Background material. MR. PETTY: Yes. So two extra columns? CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Yes. But I don't want the year-to-date as of February and then March and September. MR. PETTY: We use that. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Well, they don't add anything to this analysis. MR. PEITY: For us they do. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Today... MR. PETTY: As oftoday. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: As of today it doesn't matter. We have actual. MR. PETTY: We can do that. We'll just print this landscape. We can put in two more columns. Not a big deal. MR. LEVY: You're talking about when you're doing the fiscal year '10 layout; is that what you're talking about? MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. We'll kick out that draft in the next month or so. And you'll have the.. . MR. LEVY: Jerry, do you understand what he's saying? He's talking about the... MR. PETTY: Well, you'll have the draft and then we can update it the best we can as we go. So that gives you a working document at least three months out of the year with those hard numbers of that close. Does that help? CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Yes. MR. PETIY: If that's the general direction, that's not a problem for us. And if you see any other additional changes, we 906 -~ ._~.'" Budget Committee Workshop 161 1 f<U~ Februarv 23. 2009 can work on that as we go. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Let me ask you one other question in here. You have in each of these personal services a line item for salary increases, reserve for salary adjustments. How does that get allocated? MR. PETTY: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN MOFFAT: I assume it's in there because you haven't made a determination of who gets what increase. MR. LUKASZ: Right. That's a percentage that's provided by the County. They tell you what number is going to go in there based on the cost of living raise that they anticipate the Board approving. And ther~'s usually another percent in there for other miscellaneous adjustments. The number is provided. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: And then who allocates it to the employee or does each employee get the same percentage? MR. LUKASZ: This past year everybody got the same. There was no merit bonus or anything like that. It was strictly a cost of living that was set by the Board of County Commission. MR. LEVY: Do they do merit sometimes? MR. LUKASZ: Yes. MR. PEITY: In could explain. The employees are County employees that are subject to County policy. So that's why they're covered this way. They do go through a review that I sign off on and Kyle signs off on. And if there is another supervisor between him and the man, that person would sign off, as well. So it does go through the peer review process. And if merit increases were allowed that year, that is part of the evaluation. But money has been tight, so it has just been cost of living. I suspect this year will be the same. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: What do you pay for overtime? MR. IAIZZO: Time and a half. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Time and a half? Has anyone ever done a test to see if you're better offhiring a couple more full-time employees and getting rid of the time and a half? You've got a lot of overtime here. MR. IAIZZO: That needs to be looked at. MR. LUKASZ: I haven't done it yet this year. When I've done it in the past, by the time you add in all the benefits, uniforms, etc. MR. IAIZZO: It's always bothered me the other times, but what can I tell you. MR. LUKASZ: It's just about a wash. Sometimes, you know, it's actually more expensive. 907 . "".--.. ""',--,~"" "",._,,,..,,..~,,,,,,,~."-,, ..- Budget Committee Workshop 16~ 11 kU~ Februarv 23. 2009 MR. LEVY: The health insurance alone is 30 percent. MR. PETTY: It does get a little nuts with some of this stuff, yes. So we're not trying to close out positions here. We really do use it to the benefit of Pelican Bay so that we keep the employee as knowledgeable as possible here versus just a laborer. We try and keep that to a minimum. MR. IAIZZO: Well, the overtime takes up about 25 percent of your salary. It makes up 25 percent of your salary. Anyway, that said, I would like to get into capital outlay, if that's okay. MR. PETIY: Mr. Moffatt, acting as the chair. MR. IAIZZO: That's okay. MR. PETTY: If that's all right with you, certainly it's on the agenda. CHAIRMAN MOFFAIT: Well, I was going to say: Is this the next agenda item that you're talking about? Are you done with this book? MR. IAIZZO: I want to look at capital layouts. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: In this book? MR. IAIZZO: In this book. John, did you have any questions on the budget? Did you have any particular line item you wanted to talk about? MR. BOLAND: No. MR. PETIY: Keep in mind that we're going to come back to you when we have the projections for this year's budget. We'll come back to you and go over it again. MR. IAIZZO: If you go to water management, page 30. Page 20. MR. GillSON: Excuse me. What page? MR. IAIZZO: Page 20, water management. We are looking at capital layouts of thirty-two two. Office equipment we are paying about a third of that, right? 3,000. We're paying a third. We're taking $1,000 out of the budget for water management, right? On the other page there is 121. You have got machinery and equipment. Nothing is happening there. The improvements are the bubblers. MR. LUKASZ: Bubblers and maintenance facility. MR. IAIZZO: Bubblers and maintenance facility. Now, maintenance facility. How much of that 40,000; one-third of that? 908 --,,_._---"._---",..,,--,.,.,.,....~ --,',.,,",-"", 'p""-"'~"""".,. ......~'m Budget Committee Workshop 161 1 ~t~ Februarv 23. 2009 - MR LUKASZ: Yes. 33 and 33 and 34 percent community beautification. MR. IAIZZO: So we're taking out of the water management budget. We're taking a third out of the facility maintenance, okay? You know every year we do that. Every year for the longest time I can remember. And, you know what, the facility, I have seen it and nothing has changed there. MR. PETIY: Well, and every time you say that I feel so obligated to jump in. MR. IAIZZO: And you do. MR. PETIY: If I could keep that money, I would. There is no two doubts abo,ut it. If I could save that money and somehow get it into my contract, that would be nice. MR. IAIZZO: The point is... MR. PETTY: But the point is this. If you don't spend the money, it goes to your carry forward. The money doesn't leave. It stays in your account. So it's allocated for a maintenance item. If we don't do it because the County is considering moving more personnel in and we don't want to spend any money on the building for water and sewer guys. Or if we're having trouble with the County and we're at odds, we don't want to put money into a building that may be considered County property that we won't be able to use. So for the last couple of years we have not put the money in until it has stabilized because of the annexation issue or the incorporation issue or because of the Clam Bay issue. We finally feel secure enough to spend the money on the facility. And if you drive by, you'll see a fresh coat of paint and a lot of repaired panels. But we do budget for it hoping to have a good relationship. And the money just doesn't disappear. It goes into a carry forward. MR. LEVY: But do we have to put 40,000 in for the maintenance facility or is that a choice? MR. IAIZZO: It's a choice. But they put it in and we don't question it. And that's why it goes through every year. MR. LEVY: We have to allocate that money. MR. PETIY: Again, let me jump in. Because we did discuss it. And you can go back in the minutes to check. The repairs and maintenance on that building was detailed. I think we talked about it for a good 20 minutes. That building has not seen an update and maintenance since I built it in 1986. It needed it. Those T-ll panels needed to be repaired. Some of the windows needed to be reframed. Some of it needed to be redone. And certainly it needed a new coat of paint because it hadn't been painted in quite some time. MR. LEVY: So this isn't going to be an every year thing? MR. PETIY: Not at that level. Typically the $12,000 that you saw is probably closer to the anticipated annual 909 -~------,,_._--_.~.__.__._.__..- > -'~"-"-'~'----"------- ,. _d.,,"_~_' 16' 1 .\ ~l\~ Budget Committee Workshop 1 ~ Februarv 23. 2009 maintenance cost and we're just catching up on quite a few years of not doing anything because of annexation, incorporation and Clam Bay issues with the County. We weren't spending money. MR. IAIZZO: I have no problem if we don't put any monies towards the facility. Because, as you said, it's not our facility. It's the County's. MR. PEITY: Well, that's part of what comes up when you say, "Can we save the money by going on site?" People go, "Well, it's not ours." MR. IAIZZO: Again, I can't track the dollars. MR. LEVY: They're having us pay the insurance now, so there's some kind ofa deal. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. And keep in mind that the lease at SunBank is not in your name either. It's in the County's name. MR. LEVY: Referring to... MR. PETTY: The lease at SunBank is not in your name. It's in the County's name because they are the legal entity. So it's really semantics. It doesn't matter. At either location we're going to be subject to the County's oversight. MR. IAIZZO: Okay. Well, just looking at water management, if you look at page 35 you've got capital layout one more time. And, again, we're taking $1,000 out from water management fund to allocate it towards office equipment. All right. We do that every year basically. And we're buying a vehicle. Do we really need the vehicle? MR. LUKASZ: The one it's replacing is nine years old. MR. GillSON: Yes, we need one. MR. IAIZZO: Yes. MR. LUKASZ: Maybe it could be replaced by a.. . MR. IAIZZO: All right. Five years old. That would be fine. MR. PETTY: Keep in mind that the vehicle fund was reduced last year by what 112,000? MR. LUKASZ: I think more than that. MR. PETTY: 140. We basically recalculated the life span of all vehicles last year. And the vehicle replacement fund, which was on a three-year basic life term went to five. And those monies went in and that's what helped drop $40 off of the assessments last year. So when we show that a vehicle needs a replacement in here, it's typically way out there. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Do we own all our vehicles? 910 '^'m'_",.._ --,~', " .. .."......,. ".,-..- ........ ..,-..,....-- Budget Committee Workshop 'l~ il \'. k\~ Februarv 23. 2009 MR. PETTY: Well, that's why we want to keep them until the very end. Because when we're done with them, they have to go to Collier County. And Collier County Commissioners get the money. We don't. That's why we're going to make sure we've got every mile squeezed out of those that we can. The policy of the County Commissioners is all salvaged equipment that is up for resale, the money comes back to them for re-allotment. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Is there a prohibition against leasing? MR. PETTY: No, sir, there's not. Other than the value issue. But, no, I don't believe there is a prohibition from leasing. And I know we've done that in the past. We just don't get a break under it. It's just that ~ey go back to somebody else, besides the County. MR. IAIZZO: And that's a good point. You know, we ought to lease possibly or think about it in the long term, rather than continue buying and replacing. Because if you lease, then we don't have to worry about necessarily insurance. The maintenance. You don't have to worry about maintenance. MR. LEVY: We don't have to worry about residual value. MR. PEITY: Well, you do have to worry about maintenance. The lease says you have to have a certain value when you take it back. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: You probably have to insure it and maintain it. MR. PETTY: Well, we can run some numbers if you'd like. Again, these are one of those things that staff can take direction. And these are the ideas we'd like to get from you a little bit later on, but we don't mind getting them now from you. That's fine. MR. IAIZZO: All right. So we're going to have to buy a vehicle with that capital. And there's the building again. Maintenance. We're allocating one-third from that particular fund. Community beautification fund, we're going to allocate one-third towards the facility to maintain it, which we never do. And hopefully we never have to. The next one in capital layout is the street lighting. And it's straightforward. Again, it's the $3,000. We're paying one-third of that $3,000 for office equipment. We're taking it out of the street lighting fund. And, again, there is the maintenance facility where we're paying one-third. Taking that out of the street lighting fund for the facility. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Do you want to get to the big one? MR. IAIZZO: What's that; overtime? CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: No. The capital projects. The $480,000, capital projects. 911 ,---...---.., Budget Committee Workshop 1&\\ il . p<ll~ Februarv 23. 2009 MR. lAIZZO: Pick that up. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: You don't have $480,000 in there, other than in general terms of other contractual services. MR. PETTY: It should be under hard-scape and soft-scape. MR. LUKASZ: There's 158 under the hard-scape renovations and 250,000 for lake bank enhancements. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: But they are not specific projects. MR. PETTY: No, sir. They were defined last year by the budget committee as a not to exceed number because we hadn't taken on capital projects yet and there was a strategic plan ongoing. The budget co~ttee thought it was best to just set a cap amount so that we wouldn't exceed. And the target was based on assessment amounts being slightly lower than the prior year. So capital projects was capped at a dollar amount with the only real capital program definition was that lake bank enhancement. And the dollar value was carried over from the prior year's level. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: To the extent we don't spend this this year it would increase the carry forward? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. Assuming you don't spend it in some other category. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Right, right. MR. PEITY: Absolutely. When we talk about capital projects when we have our regular meeting and well, I guess, we're on that agenda item now. Let me tell you that you have about one and a half million to $2 million that can be allocated from your existing budget and carry forwards for capital projects for your consideration at this time. Now, that would be, excuse me we're going to be changing the tape. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Who listens to tapes? MR. PETTY: Not many people, Mary sometimes refers back to it to clarify something. We'll have the audio available hopefully on the website so that we can have a very quick access time. We're back live. We're going to be talking about one and a half to $2 million is available to you. And if you looked on your draft financial statement from the last meeting, you can basically pull that out from your carry forwards that are unencumbered. And looking back at your projects, start looking down at some of the projects that can be re-prioritized. In other words, you're going to redirect the funds. So let me take you frrst down to the bottom of this sheet where it says east of berm for reserves projects. That money can be reallocated or redirected. So you have 376,000 should the Board vote yes can be redirected towards another capital project. Lake bank enhancements you have $240,000 carried over from the prior year. That is money that can be redirected if the Board so votes. MR. LEVY: We don't have to go to the Commissioners? 912 . ~--_."~--~'.~=_.- ,.~"_.~., -" '~"-'~-""'-""- ,--.. ~-" Budget Committee Workshop 161 .,. ~l., Februarv 23. 2009 - MR. PETTY: As long as it stays in that fund, we're okay. Now, if you want to take stufffrom Clam Bay and spend it in beautification, then we have to go back to the County Commissioners. But if you have money for a project in Clam Bay that you wish to redirect for another project in Clam Bay, then, no, we do not. MR. IAIZZO: If it's in Clam Bay, it's a good chance it's the County's money, right? MR. PETTY: I would not say that since we pay at least a third of that, if not more. And keep in mind that your administrative costs and your field labor costs for management, supervising this and doing all the public meetings, which you know take hours and hours, are not charged back to Clam Bay. A huge amount of the wor~ of this organization is for Clam Bay, yet we do not charge them for it because it is a capital projects fund. Oakmont irrigation, that money is spent. Hardscape improvements, that money is spent. And the vehicles, as you know, we already lowered that probably as much as we really want to. So you want to leave that alone. Clam Bay. That money can be directed towards other Clam Bay issues. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: The first five you went through John are aU outside of Clam Bay and so we could.. . MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: ... use any or all of those funds on either beautification or. .. MR. PETTY: Or street lights. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Or street lights, too? MR. PETTY: You can take from a general fund source and put it to a restricted fund source. You can't take from a restricted fund source and put it to a general fund source. MR. LEVY: Is Clam Bay... MR. PETIY: One way street. MR. LEVY: ...restricted? MR. PETTY: It is considered restricted monies because it is a capital project. So once it's been allocated or tagged, that fund has been tagged for that. You can't put it to anyplace else. MR. LEVY: But these others have been tagged for capital projects. MR. PETTY: Beautification is considered operating, which is, in our case, a general fund. So if it's basically for an operating fund, it's considered to be. Now, we do have specific fund numbers, which is why we have water management and beautification as one fund because they are both considered to be in that same vein. MR. IAIZZO: 109. 913 ._.. ..- ....-~.._'- ""'-.--..... Budget Committee Workshop 1 I t.;1~1 M~ Februar 23 2009 MR. PETTY: Now, again, we check with the County to make sure about all this. Ifwe have to go through another step to get approval, we go through another step to get approval. And then, of course, your unrestricted reserves you have to look at. Now, on top of that you also have your carry forward for cash flow purposes, which you took from three and a half months to three months this last year. And what we're seeing this year, after that experiment, is you may wish to cut back again. You wanted to do this slowly. Staff is comfortable with you going back another half a year, if you would like. MR. LEVY: Half a month. MR. PEITY: Yes. Half a year would be tough, wouldn't it? Yes, sir. Half ~ year. Thank you. We just averted disaster. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: You just said half a year again. MR. LEVY: He was testing you. John, where it says restricted reserves, is that Clam Bay reserves? CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Street lighting, I believe. MR. PEITY: You delegated that last year for street lights. So, again, that money may be available within that fund. MR. LEVY: It's restricted only because of this Board. It's not because... MR. PETTY: Because of your actions, yes, sir. MR. LEVY: It's not restricted by the County? MR. PETTY: Oh, no, sir. Almost all of this is restricted by your actions, not the County. Remember, the County gives you great latitude on directing your own budget. So, yes, you do have capital projects you can consider this year. Last year we were considering a pathway improvement. You have in your agenda packages the quotes that we have on that. We're not suggesting that you do this all in one fell swoop. Although, you have to do it in certain pieces, otherwise, the residents don't see value. If you plant one flower a day, they'll never see the change. So you should do this in segments that will be appreciated by the residents so that they understand where their money is being spent. But you certainly don't have to do everything all at once. MR. IAIZZO: Mary Anne, you can speak if you would like. MS. WOMBLE: There is more because of the strategic planning committee. They want to work with us on those two specific areas. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Which two? MR. PETIY: Which two? MS. WOMBLE: Actually, there is quite a few. Berm, street lighting, pathways, and... 914 K""."._ ~_.~..~"..< _...,..,,-'......,",-... . -^.,,~. Budget Committee Workshop 1 I 1 Ml~ Februa 23 2009 MR. PETTY: And landscaping. MS. WOMBLE: Landscaping. All of those are part of the entire strategic plan for Pelican Bay. MR. IAIZZO: That's where it belongs. MR. BOLAND: John. MR. PETTY: We have been in discussions with staff for the Foundation. We met with them and we went over the survey results hard data. Because, as you know, there is analysis that may be questionable. We've kind of stuck with the hard data. The berm is proven to be, I guess, number one value recreational resource. And for us it's basically a dam separating freshwater from saltwater. The Foundation basically has a permit from us in perpetuity for recreational uses on top. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: That would make it their cost and not our cost, right? Because from our standpoint the dam is serving its intended purpose. MR. PETIY: Well, no. Yes and no. Berms one and two we talked to you a little bit about. They are starting to do this because the dirt is moving. So we have this little bit of a roller coaster. If you walk out there you can see it. Wherever there is a ficus it's about that much higher. So it's time for us to start doing stability work. And when we do that, we basically would have to sheer off everything on the surface, which includes the pavement. So you want to coordinate that with the Foundation's strategic plan, whatever monies they spent, so that we're not tearing something out that can't afford to be torn up at the time. Or that we go ahead and put something in that has to be replaced by the Foundation's strategic plan. So we want to work with them to the best of our ability. MR. IAIZW: We have to integrate our task with their task. MR. PETTY: Well, this Board has committed to doing that. Staff is working for that, yes. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: John, before you get too far down the road. .. MR. BOLAND: John, when doing the pathways it might be you said it has to be broken out in segments. You know, different areas. Come up with that so whatever one you choose, you want to spread out the costs, I assume, over a couple of years, right? But we have to do it in certain sections. Could you maybe break out that detail; section one and section two and what it encompasses or would that be too much? MR. PETTY: No. We can do that. MR. BOLAND: Do you see what I'm getting at? MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. 915 - .-. -_._--_.__."---_.~"._~_....- -.,'......-"".-.. Budget Committee Workshop lf6>ft '. ~lCv Februarv 23. 2009 MR. BOLAND: It's a lot easier because we say, "Well, we'll spend this money this year, next year we'll spend next," et cetera, et cetera. I don't think right now people want another large tax bill on top of all the other problems now. MR. PEITY: No. We were hoping to bring to your attention that we have three areas of interest after talking with the Foundation staff, as Madam Chair said. The berm and that any structural work that we needed to do be done in concert with whatever recreational additions they're looking to do. We don't want to tear it up after they put a new pavement on top. Two, pathways turn out to be almost as much of an enjoyable recreational resource as the berm. I suspect the only reason it is not as enjoyable as the berm is because of traffic. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: John, let me mention on pathways though. If you look at the survey results, 75 percent of the residents' needs were being met in 75 percent of the cases. So it's not a high priority. They're satisfied with the way it is right now. MR. PEITY: That's where we're taking direction from the budget committee. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: That's the raw data. You've got to watch how the survey results are being misinterpreted or reinterpreted by the Foundation. As time goes on, they keep redefining and changing the results from the raw data. Stick with the raw data. MS. WOMBLE: Jerry, what I took from it though was the shape that our pathways are in is in some places deplorable. And if that is an area that they're concerned with and it is. That came out in the area where people said things that needed to be relooked at or redone. You'll find that's one of the higher priorities. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Yeah. But they're saying 75 percent of them say that 75 percent or more of their needs are being met today with the pathways the way they are. I don't disagree with the statement that you made about the deplorable condition, but I didn't see a lot of community outpouring to say put in new pathways. MR. PETTY: Absolutely. You're absolutely right. And the issue here that we're sticking with is the raw data, which shows how highly the pathway is valued by the residents. MS. WOMBLE: That's what I'm going on. MR. PETTY: And what you're talking about is what I like to stay away from because I don't know the angle. So I like to stick with the raw data. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: That is the raw data. That's the survey results. I didn't take any interpretation. I took the raw numbers. The problem I've seen with the Foundation is that there are certain people in some of these committees, and our Madam 916 ...._.__.d__~.......~__,_ '~-'-~--~,'"'-"-'''''''' Budget Committee Workshop 161 ,1 ~ ll()., Februarv 23. 2009 Chair knows who in particular, is interpreting it for their own needs. MS. WOMBLE: There is another section though, Jerry, that I've got to show you. I forgot to bring that survey. I don't have the final survey, but... CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Well, 1 think I have it. MR. PETTY: Again, we're just trying to bring to you three items for your consideration this year that seem to have high value with the residents. So that if you want to consider a capital program, the residents may appreciate it because they put high value to it. So we're showing you pathways. Do we have an issue? Yes, we do. We have. trees that have matured over 30 years and pathways that, if they are going to be done for any length of time, have to be moved. We have patched them. And you can tell that by just walking the system. You'll see the different colors. Now, we can fix that with a seal coat though. Ifwe put a seal coat over it and we'll blend it in pretty much, but it isn't going to help because the trees are going to tear it up and we'll have to patch that again every year. Now, we have talked with the County and the County is willing to turn that responsibility over to us. And it does say that in our ordinance that we are responsible for it. And they will turn over whatever funding they're currently using, which is about 20, $25,000 a year. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: The County? MR. PETTY: The County, yes. MR. IAIZZO: That's their responsibility. MR. PEITY: It's not a whole lot. MR. IAIZZO: The pathways are their responsibility. MR. PETTY: No, sir. There is a level of service in the County for public roads and for sidewalks therein. And the $20,000 fits the standard. MR. IAIZZO: Well, 20,000... MR. PETTY: We have an upscale pathway system that we use amongst the landscaping. We don't have a concrete sidewalk that's built on the back side of the curb. Now, the County that is their standard level of service. And just like the street lights and just like the landscaping, we have a level above the standard. That's why it says in our ordinance that we will be responsible for sidewalks. We just haven't gone after it because we've been able to patch it with the County throwing 20 or 30 grand at it. But they just did an overlay not too long ago. It took them three years to do it, but they finally did it. And you can see in that overlay areas that are already busted out because the trees have moved an inch. The guys on the golf course know this 917 - -...."..------ .","-----_."",...< ,..-- '^~...- Budget Committee Workshop 161 1 klt~ February 23. 2009 probably better than anybody with the growing of mature landscaping and what happens to your pathways. So that's an area that we think you can consider. And we can give you pricing and we can break it up into segments so that you can look at it. We think you also have another area, which is the berms. Particularly berms one and two, which have some structural issues, which we can also bring to you in segments. But both of these so far should be worked, we think, with the Foundation so that we don't throw money away. And then the third area is the landscaping. If we're going to work on the pathways and we're going to move them, the landscaping is going to be hit. This is the best time to look at any landscape changes you want to make. So those are the three areas staff is bringing to you as a high success area we recommend you consider. ~ertainly, we can consider other items, too. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: As you heard in the last meeting, there is some community concern about the quality of the landscaping it's an area that probably needs some addressing. MR. IAIZZO: We'll talk about some of that more. Not now. Can we sum up this workshop because I think we're running out oftime? CONSIDERATION FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW PLAN FOR BUBBLERS CHAIRMAN MOFFAIT: Well, we still have a couple other agenda items. One is the bubbler plan from the capital. MR. PEITY: Now, if I could. You've got the numbers before you. Let me tell you that this is not a recommendation from staff. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Right. MR. PEITY: This started out from the Clam Bay restoration and management permit, which... CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Do we have the numbers? MR. PETIY: Yes. It should be part of your package. MR. LEVY: Is this it here? MR. PETIY: Oh, I'm sorry. It may not have been handed out. Mary, do you have them? MS. McCAUGHTRY: Sorry no, you didn't give me bubbler numbers. MR. PETTY: Kyle? CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: They weren't available last week. MR. PETTY: I'm sorry, folks. We were going to pull them from the minutes and give them to you. I'm sorry. Our 918 - ----_..__.~-----~. ,---_.. ,--,~-""' .' '-^"-"--'~'- _.......~-~,.._..,._---"" *'.' Budget Committee Workshop 161 1 !\' t ll>v Februarv 23. 2009 mistake. We didn't print it out. Kyle thought I was bringing it. I thought Kyle was bringing it. But he has the number. He can tell you what it is. But it is not a recommendation from staff From the Clam Bay restoration and management permit, when we first went after this ten years ago, we did a shotgun approach because we didn't know what was wrong with Clam Bay. And one of the responses we made to the Federal government and to the State of Florida was: We will look at doing more nutrient removal in our water management system and in limiting our amount of freshwater discharge to Clam Bay. Now, it doesn't give us in our permit a percentage requirement or a target. It just says you will give it 'best management practices', which is a good attempt. Now, the bubbler system that we started is a very good attempt at doing that nuttient removal. And we did so based on available funds on an annual basis. And Kyle can give you the numbers that we spent over the last year or so. But we never anticipated where we would do this over a one-year or two-year or three-year period. And it was meant to be in compliance with the permit, which, as you all know, is complete as of July. So as of this July we will have no requirement to further do bubblers. Although, certainly, if you would like to continue the program, it will provide additional nutrient removal in the locations where it will be installed. So Kyle has put together a cost if we installed it in every lake in Pelican Bay. MR. LEVY: Is there some way that you can test and see that we're - where a bubbler was in a lake the water is of better quality than in a lake without a bubbler? MR. PEITY: Actually, that's what we're doing now with our normal maintenance that we do in Clam Bay. And we're looking for nutrient removal. And you know we also graph that out and Tim puts that as part of his annual report. So, yes, we are monitoring it. And right now we can't see a trend where we have received any benefit yet. But, then again, it may take a year or so to find out that number. MR. LEVY: Some of these bubblers have been in for a long time now. MR. PETTY: No, sir. Those bubblers have been put in in the last year. Before that we had water fountains. MR. IAIZZO: Spritz. MR. LEVY: Only a year? MR. PETIY: Architectural. MR. LEVY: It doesn't sound like we should be in any rush until we can discern some of the improvement. MR. PETIY: We would suggest that you wait for additional data before you would commit to such a program, but I think the intent was to see what the number was now. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: How many did you put in, Kyle? 919 ~--,_.._~--< ...,..,~.._- -.,.,., Budget Committee Workshop 16\ 1 j}<t l~ Februarv 23. 2009 MR LUKASZ: We put in two. We put them in on West Myra Daniels and over on Crayton Road. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Just two? MR. PETTY: Well, that's system one, sir, which we could then monitor with water quality off of that system. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Yes. But you've got more than that on the golf course. MR. PETTY: Water management system one, sir. The water quality coming off of water management system one, we're looking for improvement. If we would have put them across the golf course, it would be across three or four water management systems. And the results of improvement to nutrients would be negligible., So we make one system par, water management system one. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Well, who put them on the golf course? MR. LUKASZ: The golf course. MR. GIBSON: It wasn't us. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: There are several on the golf course. MR. GIBSON: Oh, yes. There's a bunch of them. MR. LEVY: Have you been able to detect any.. . MR. GIBSON: We have not run tests, but we sure could. MR. PETTY: Well, they don't do it for nutrient removals as much as they do for chemical reduction and better looks on the lake. Well, I guess, you don't pay for the chemicals. We do. But you guys do it for looks. MR. GIBSON: But we didn't put those bubblers in. MR. LUKASZ: You have had to have... MS. WOMBLE: Geoff, I think the County did. MR. GIBSON: That's what I'm thinking, yes. MS. WOMBLE: The County did it. MR. LUKASZ: No. In fact, you have an ongoing contract for services. 1 was just talking to Bob about it. MR. GIBSON: I'll look into it. I should know. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: 1 would say there's at least a half dozen. MR. GIBSON: Easily. MR. PETTY: I've got to tell you that they're used to cut back on that pond scum look of algae. 920 -^ ,,- Budget Committee Workshop 161 1 A\b. Februarv 23. 2009 MR. GIBSON: There's no question about it. MR. PETTY: It causes sheet flow and it pushes everything to the side, plus the aeration and the nutrient removal stop that ammonia nitrate problem that causes it. So it has been beneficial in reducing chemical costs, as well. So I can see where the golf course would install some. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: What I'm familiar with is the big fountain right there at club nine. MR. LEVY: That's not the... CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: That's a fountain. MR. LEVY: They don't refer to that as a bubbler. MR. PETIY: No. That's just for looks, esthetics. MR. LUKASZ: There are bubblers. MS. WOMBLE: There are bubblers in there though, Geoff MR. GIBSON: Yes, there is. MR. PETTY: Kyle, do you want to tell them what the price tag was for if we do all the lakes in Pelican Bay? MR. LUKASZ: Ifwe did all the remaining lakes that don't currently have bubblers in them, it was estimated 337,000. And that was a combination of solar powered aerators where there isn't really a whole lot of power readily available and some of them would run on standard power. If we did all those lakes I estimate the operating cost to be approximately to be about $20,000 for the year for electricity, maintenance, and a little bit of money in there for replacement of parts, which the first year or two you really wouldn't have too much. But over time you would have replacement of blowers and motors and things like that. MR. PETIY: Kyle, can you e-mail what you sent me? MS. WOMBLE: Kyle, have you seen any kind of a trend at all in system one? MR. LUKASZ: The one on Myra Daniels I'm still waiting to get the power up from. MS. WOMBLE: That's right. MR. LUKASZ: But the one on Crayton Road that has been running for two or three months. You know, there's so many variables during the winter months. MR. PETTY: It's too early to tell. MR. LEVY: What about checking some of the lakes on the golf course if the bubblers have been in there for longer? MR. GIBSON: Well, I'm not sure we took readings to begin with to compare before and after. To me, the bubblers just 921 . ~--"-~------_. " ~~ ..-....-----.,-,.-.--..,-- Budget Committee Workshop 161 1 f<l\~ Februarv 23. 2009 appeared. MR. LUKASZ: We would have to look at the discharge in the system where we have the historical data. MR. PETTY: Well, you'd have to establish a baseline, but... MR. GillSON: We've had one lake tested that I'm aware of. And it came back extremely good. The north pond on Pelican Five. MR. PETTY: Typically we do not have a problem with high nutrients in our lakes because of the design of the system. It's a welL.. MR. GillSON: Well designed system. MS. WOMBLE: Yes. And the variable on there is all those golfballs are in that lake. MR. GillSON: They are not going to pollute too much. They don't pick them up in a test tube. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Does the staff have any other capital projects that we need to be considering this year? COST ESTIMATE FY 2008 UPGRADE W ALKW AYSIBIKE PATHS MR. PETTY: Well, I think you brought one up earlier that we should also be working some numbers up for you. And that is: Are there some economies with moving administrative offices on site? Other than that, I think we have more projects than we have money. And at this time, even if we split the money amongst those three and did little pieces, remember you're using a lot of carry forward and reserve. So if you did one-fourth of each project, next year's funding would be a problem. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: What are the projects? I missed that. MR. GillSON: Bubblers. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Bubblers, street lights and -- MR. PETIY: StafIis recommending berms, pathways and landscape, along with what you brought up today, which is: Is there economies in moving the offices on site? And I wouldn't suggest to you or recommend to you that bubblers be expanded beyond their existing program until we update it. MR. LEVY: We're not going to do anything, except together with the Foundation. I think thafs what we said. On the berm and on the pathways in particular. And, I guess, street lights also. MS. WOMBLE: And landscaping. MR. PETTY: Well, it's more bang for the dollar, yes, sir. MR. LEVY: But, I mean, I don't think that's going to be ready for our upcoming County year '10 budget. I doubt that's 922 -- "',.,.... .. - -'~ ~.,.._.".~...,.. . . w.o,," ."_..,,~~ Budget Committee Workshop lbl 1 A-\\~ Februarv 23, 2009 going to be ready, but I don't know. MR. PETTY: Our fiscal year will start October 1st. MR. LEVY: Right. But the budget process is over by Mayor June, right, pretty much? MR. PETTY: By May, yes, sir. We have to turn it in May. So we're asking you all to throw those ideas around. We're not looking for a decision today. And we will get the numbers to you on the bubblers that we prepared. You did get the numbers in your package for the pathways that we prepared from last year, right? CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Yes. MR. PETTY: And we will prepare numbers for you for a possibility of an office on site savings from the lease cost modification. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: It would seem to me the most critical need for walkways are where they don't presently exist, such as Oakmont. In the evening that's a very dangerous road. The island in the middle and it's a narrow road. It's only one lane. MR. IAIZZO: There's no space there. MR. LEVY: Is there a space for walkways there? MR. PETTY: No. The design ofOakmont was that the walkway would be around the lake. Our lakes are behind the system, instead of in front of the system. So the front yards are very shallow so we don't have a lot of room. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: There is no room for walkways? MR. PEITY: No, sir. MR. WZZO: They were never intended. MR. PETIY: Not without the taking of property, which I don't want to go out and do. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: From a safety concern, that's a very dangerous road. MR. IAIZZO: It is. At night you don't want to be walking, unless you have a flashlight. MR. PETTY: There is the issue that's been brought up from time to time, which is the street light and the lighting. Is it bright enough, should it be brighter, shouldn't it be brighter? CHAIRMAN MOFFAIT: Well, it just looks so antiquated. I mean, look at the street lighting in Bay Colony versus Pelican Bay. MR. PETTY: We just bought those. When did we buy those? MR. LUKASZ: 2001,2002. At the time... 923 -,..",=-_.",,,"~ - .-.-,,,, - ,~..'.~_c._.~~ Budget Committee Workshop 161 \1 A tlo.. Februarv 23. 2009 MR. PETTY: We changed out every one. MR. LUKASZ: That was the selection of the Board not to use the decorative type of.. . MR. PEITY: Go with the concrete. The light poles before were architectural street lights. They were supposed to be made out of cortin steel. It turned out that the guy that made the steel screwed up on the formula and they rusted. MR IAIZZO: They rotted out. MR. PETTY: And they were falling down. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: I've seen that elsewhere. MR. PETTY: So we had to take them down. They sued the manufacturer. It took a couple of years to work it all out. Finally, around 2001, we were able to change the street lights. They started falling down in the late '80s. So it took awhile to figure that one out. So you went to this one. So these street light poles that you have up, they probably have a 50 to 6O-year life span. And they have currently served about six years, seven years. So they may not be pretty, but... CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: It's a shame they're so ugly. MR. PETTY: We may want to dress them up with something. And that is a consideration. You guys probably have seen the downtown pendants. MR. IAIZZO: Yes. I like those. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Or even Bay Colony. MR. PEITY: There are architectural elements that you can attach without physically changing the poles. That's certainly something that can be considered. That might be able to do so without a cost element. MS. WOMBLE: Hanging baskets of flowers, things like that. MR. LEVY: Then you have to water them. CHAIRMAN MOFFAIT: We can talk about a watering system. MS. WOMBLE: That's a new committee. BUDGET CALENDAR CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: How about a budget calendar? Was there anything new on that? MR. PETTY: Other than to put in there what you just gave us. And what we're going to do is recalculate the calendar based on this workshop. And we may have to schedule another little meeting in between, but I think we'll be all right. I think we 924 ~,...".", 0."__.. ,....."......,.,..~..' ---,..-. ,,--,-, ,._-'"~-" ,,- Budget Committee Workshop lei 1 f\ tt ~ Februarv 23. 2009 , need to get the capital numbers back to you as soon as possible so that the biggest number, of course, is where you want to jump on first when you do these budget things. And at your next meeting we will also have some operating cost projections, as well. So we hope to have pretty much the capital that we discussed today and some of the operating costs that we typically go through. MR. LEVY: And we already talked about a few possibly cost saving areas today. MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And we also talked about a slight format change adding a couple of columns on that year-to-date. MR. LEVY: Yes. Right. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Our next meeting is scheduled for a month from now, 23rd of March. MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. And we're going to take a look at the calendar. And if it looks tight, we may be calling you to poll you for a date to squeeze in. But we've got a little bit of time here. MR. LEVY: To make up for today's lack of a meeting. MR. PETTY: Yes. If it appears that we got hung up, which I don't think that we did. I think you gave us a great deal of direction today. So I think we did fine. MR. IAIZZO: It was productive. MR. LEVY: It was. MR. GIBSON: I think it was productive. MR. LEVY: Do we want to talk at all about this, which is -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Well, I was going to say before the next meeting, get us this write up on what your controls are. Your internal control process. MR. PEITY: It's not a problem at all. I'm going to try and bring over the finance officer who is in charge of that to define that to you in total from the County side. Of course, from our side we'll be glad to tell you what we do in-house. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Yes. But if you can do that in advance and get it out to us that would be useful. MR PETIY: Yes, sir. You know, as a finance officer though if you're the one enforcing, you're going to want to come out and say exactly how it happens. We can get their sheet, of course, from their procedures manual. MR IAIZZO: Did we agree to get rid of miscellaneous and other expenditures, if we can't identify and if we can identify that cost, let's identify it. If we can't identify it and we need a reserve, let's caU it a reserve for that specific fund. And, you know, withdraw from that fund. But at least we'll be able to track it. When you have miscellaneous, it's a dead issue. 925 ...._. _._,,~ - .~,_..., .,~,- ,.._~.<,----- Budget Committee Workshop l 1. ~l\(l Februar 23 2009 MR. PETIY: Again, it is a workshop. So you can give staff direction for what you would like to see. But as far as making a decision as a body, we're not asking for that. Mr. Iaizzo I do believe is bringing up what we had discussed last year. And rightfully so, miscellaneous had grown to be too large an allocation. And it wasn't because we didn't have the information. It was just because we were lazy. We could define what the money was spent for. So we made that decision during last year's budget meeting that if it was an annual allocation that we could define, break it out of miscellaneous and make it a defined line item. And that really brought miscellaneous way down. Going to a reserve system versus where you see us putting $3,000 away here and $1,000 away there and $500 away there, we can do that. I think the end result is ,going to be identical to what you have now when it comes to the report. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Does that give you any difficulty with the County; will they permit a contingency reserve? MR. PETTY: They don't like it too much. They like it to fit their form. But I'm pretty sure we are going to be able to find a cost center for it called miscellaneous. It basically comes down to the issue where you put more money into miscellaneous and it is your reserve. MR. LEVY: That's what we did away with last year. MR. PETIY: So you're kind of chasing your own tail a little bit. MR. LUKASZ: The money, when you say reserve, the monies have to be available. A lot of that... MR. PETTY: You know, we're not talking about cutting the money. We're talking about just the name of it. MR. LUKASZ: When I think reserve, I think we're going to do a budget amendment. MR. PETTY: I think we're best probably served by what Mr. Iaizzo suggested we do last year and we adopted, which is: If you can define it, define it, and minimize as much as possible miscellaneous. MR. LEVY: Do we have any time to talk about this report? MR. PETIY: Mary says we certainly do. She has got the official watch. MR. LEVY: All right. This report has received a Dumber of alterations. And, you know, personally I think it looks pretty good. And what I was wondering is if we want to talk about it at all because it's similar to the report we used last year, but it's different enough that, I think, has to be approved by this body and then presented to the overall Services Division. MR. PETIY: Yes, sir. Since it was adopted before, you would have to go through that process again. But I think what you're looking at is considered upgrades to what you had last year. MR. LEVY: It is. The big difference is last year we just had the total that you see on the bottom of the page. There was 926 ~,.."- . ,.,.._.a'- , . ""--~-""" 16 I 1 r\'\\~ Budget Committee Workshop j Februarv 23. 2009 no subtotal that tied into the budget. And the total at the bottom of the page would change periodically. You know, like we had hard close or new reserves or something like that. And you never knew where you were at. This way at least we've got the budget segregated and the other stuff is below it. MR. PETTY: And you can follow the numbers if they do change. You see where they do change. The major categories. It is not a line item, but you do see it in major categories. MR. LEVY: And I think it's been cleaned up a bit. Some of the suggestions from members here have been incorporated. I think it has been. Do we want to talk about this at all? Are we ready to talk about this and see whether or not it's a report we want issued monthly and presented to the entire Pelican Bay Services Division Board at the monthly meetings? That's a thought. MS. WOMBLE: I think how you all feel about it is really important. MR. LEVY: That's why I'm bringing it up. MS. WOMBLE: Because you're working with it. MR.IAIZZO: You know, we've adopted this budget line item cost. And it would be nice to stay with this line item cost and see where the money is going, how much is left as we go along towards the twelfth month. And I think we could learn a lot how to budget the following year ifwe see how it's being spent and what remains on this particular format. Stay with one format we can all follow. I don't want to learn a new format to try to understand it. MR. LEVY: We went to this, I think, last year. MR. IAIZZO: That's because people didn't know what they were doing. MR. LEVY: Because we had nothing you know, we had either somewhere between 15 and 50 pages coming out every month with a million little itty-bitty items on it. And there were no totals or anything. You never knew where you were at. Nothing tied into anything, in terms of budget items. And, you know, it would just be a ton of items that would show spent year-to-date and budget for the year. And, I mean, it meant nothing to go through that. To me it meant nothing. MR. PETIY: Keep in mind that Jean's report as you said, had a lot of the expense and line item data. It didn't have carry forward data. It did not have revenue data. It did not have project reserve data. All that, over $3 million worth of your ongoing costs and funds was not shown to you. So this basically brought you into seeing an additional three plus million dollars worth of activity that you had not seen prior. Now, the issue of looking at this in the budget format with those two additional columns I think gives you the opportunity to compare, but it just doesn't do it on a month-by-month basis. 927 -"'- ,"",~"."'-- _.",-" ~'---",,= _...,..__..._----~----_..,~_._._~--,-_._~--_._.- Budget Committee Worksbop 161 ,1 l4t\ll Februarv 23. 2009 MR. LEVY: No. The other item is I don't know whether we talked about it once before. Issuing that old report, if that's what John wants. I think we talked about that. I don't know. In other words, issuing both. Because I think this is more of a summary Board type document. Something that, you know, as members of the Board can look at and see where we're at. Whereas, the other is just a lot of detail. There's no totals and whatnot. But we talked about doing both. I think we talked about doing both. MR. PEITY: Well, to do both would take up a considerable amount of staff time. Again, it isn't just hitting a button on SAP. The line item report coming out of SAP is the County setup, not our setup. MR. LEVY: Isn't this similar to what.. . MR. PETIY: That is. We can kick that out if that's sufficient. But that is not what Jean Smith provided. Jean Smith provided line item budgeted, year-to-date, what's left. MR. IAIZZO: 1 loved it. MR. PETTY: Over or under. That's not the same as that because you have to pull each line item out and then you have to export it to excel and then you have to clean it all up and you have to... MR. IAIZZO: This looks like a line item, is it not? MR. PETTY: I'm sorry? MR. IAIZZO: Actually it's probably a line item. MR. PETIY: Yes. And this is something we can kick out. MR. IAIZZO: Yes. This would be okay because it identifies right back to the budget. And that's what I need to see. I mean, I'm starting here. I want to be able to stay there. MR. PETTY: Well, we don't have a problem with any Board member who has an interest in looking at these things coming in and looking at whatever they'd like to look at. But if you want staff to prepare these, we can print this out and see how it works. You want to try that? CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: What is this? MR. PETTY: Don't ask me. This was an example so that Kyle could tell you how he does the budget. He looks at this at the latest time of the year he can and says, "Okay. I had a budget for a hundred bucks. I spent 50. I may not spend the other 50 because it wasn't such a bad year for temperature, it wasn't such a bad year for whatever." And then he basically does his art form and puts out a projection for actual year-to-date and then tries to do a budget amount from there. So he's looking at this for 928 ."'~"~- -~""".~ " ,.-.., - ,,,..,.."~ -'_. ."-,.,,.,......_,-''''--------._~.~--_...._-----..- Budget Committee Workshop 161 1 Po t\ a. Februarv 23. 2009 year-to-date stuff when he starts his budget process. And then he applies all his other factors, such as manpower, rain and resources and rainfall and heat and equipment, and tries to put that all together for budget projections. MR. IAIZZO: You know, is it possible, Mary, could you split water management and beautification? Because it is fund 109. Can you actually split it so that we can just look at water management and see how it's going compared to these numbers? MR. PETTY: Well, again, if you're going to be looking at it that way, use this. If you want to look at a line item, sir, then this. MR. IAIZZO: That's what I like. MR. PEITY: So let's try this. We'll, pump out what SAP has, which is no big deal. That's just going to take about 30 minutes of printing time. And we'll bring it to you and you guys take a look at it. And if you all see value, we'll continue it. If you don't see value, we'll discuss it. MR. LEVY: And this will also... MR. IAlZZO: Black and white. No colors, please. MR. PETTY: We have to, sir. That's what you've approved. MS. McCAUGHTRY: It prints out in color. [don't actually make this black and white. MR. lAIZZO: Yes. I like black and white. Don't give me any fancy colors. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: These sheets you gave us last time, is this the same thing as this? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. Without the color. CHAIRMAN MOFFAT: [actually like the color. MR. PETTY: See. MS. WOMBLE: Well, what's really funny, having listened to budget meetings for years and years, you keep changing from one thing back to the other and then back again and adding more things. Mike, you've been through it enough so you know that you just inherited a bunch of different ways of producing the same numbers that you could have in another fonnat. You just inherited it. That's it. MR. PETTY: The answer is still three. MS. WOMBLE: Yes. And all you have to do is make it work for you all. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Do we need to break? All right. Let me ask you a question before we run out. John has got a calling to do. 929 """'''',,"''~'''''''''- ...~,"_... -,..,,,,, . .... ...~.._--.. " -----"...,..-"._. , - -- Budget Committee Workshop 1 , ,1 rx\ \~ Februa 23 2009 MR. IAIZZO: Not really. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: On page 850 of the minutes of the last budget meeting you talked about having a meeting with the County Manager's office where you will go over how the Clam Bay responsibilities are to be delegated or divvied up and when the new group will be responsible. MR. IAIZZO: Hold it. MR. PEITY: I apologize. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Did you have that meeting? MS. WOMBLE: Yes. MR. PEITY: Yes, we did. MR. LEVY: You talked about that at the last Board meeting. MS. WOMBLE: We had another one. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: This sounds different. This was with the County Manager's office. It will be a staff level meeting. That sounds like a different meeting than a meeting with the Commission. MR. PETTY: Mr. Moffatt, as you may recall, you put up a motion, it was seconded and approved that the Chair and the administrator go back and talk with Mr. Halas and Mr. Mudd and get whatever we needed to take care of Clam Bay. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Right. MR. PETTY: By God, that's what we did. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: So there was only one meeting? The description in the minutes. .. MR. PETTY: No. Two. MS. WOMBLE: There were two. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: You had two meetings? MR. PEITY: We had one meeting that we told you about. And that's where you came up with your motion that said, "Now, go back now that you've got a thought of operation of Clam Bay. Go out and get the specifics. You get a tactical plan." CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: And you now have that? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, I think we do. MS. WOMBLE: And we're working together as staff and the administration. Let's put it that way. Administration team. Position of Chair and commission. So we're all working together on that at the same time. 930 . "- ~.'.-", ---",..."-._-........__.~.._._.._-,,-_._~ Budget Committee Workshop 161 1 ~\\~ Februarv 23. 2009 ... MR. PETTY: I want you to know that we all blame that on you. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: That will deal with the funding issue also? That's the section of the minutes that it was within. MS. WOMBLE: We are working on that. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Okay. MR. PETTY: I have meetings tomorrow with Tim Hall to go over that type of criteria so that we can start calculations. But we expect to have a Clam Bay budget item for you next year. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: So you had a second Halas meeting? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. MS. WOMBLE: And we'll probably have a third, maybe a fourth, maybe a fifth. MR. PEITY: It was a very good meeting though. Very positive. And I know that the Board wanted us to stay involved in Clam Bay. And the residents appeared to have that same thought. And it appears we wilL MS. WOMBLE: And I readdressed it just to make sure there were no questions. And they were both very firm that, yes, we are, indeed, supposed to continue forward. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: It will be interesting to see how the other committee comes out with the results of their subcommittee. MS. WOMBLE: I can't wait to hear about the signs. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: I can wait. MR. LEVY: They had a meeting last week, I believe. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: How was it? MR. LEVY: I was not here. I don't know. CHAIRMAN MOFFA IT: I was there. They divvied up nine or ten work steps. They divvied them up among four committees. And one of which is to address the maintenance of the mangroves. So it will be interesting to see how that turns out. MS. WOMBLE: However, you did catch that Jim Carroll was winding his way through that and indicating that we should be involved thoroughly, which I thought was very interesting. MR. PETIY: I think we need... 931 ...-.,_.~<_. -,--~---------_.- Budget Committee Workshop Februarv 23, 2009 161 1 ~\\CL MS. WOMBLE: Timely. MR. PETTY: I think we're lucky we get to focus on the mangroves and their maintenance and some of this other peripheral material is handled by others, which... MR. BOLAND: The next meeting is upstairs? MR. PETTY: Upstairs after this meeting. CHAIRMAN MOFFAT: I guess we ought to go. ADJOURN MR. PETTY: If we are all done with the workshop, we appreciate your time and participation. We'll corne back with those new items at the next meeting. Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Which may be earlier than the one scheduled? MR. PETTY: I don~ anticipate that. But just in case, keep that thought open for awhile. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MOFFATT: Thank you. There being no further business the workshop meeting was adjourned by order of the at 3:17 p.m. BUDGET COMMITTEE WORKSHOP /4.-#1 ~ Jerry MOffa~Chainnan TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC. BY KELLEY MARIE NADOTTI, RPR, FPR AND FORMATTED BY MARY MCCAUGHTRY, RECORDING SECRETARY, PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION. 932 RECEIVE~ I \ 1 ~~8 ./ MAR 3D 2009 6 Henning I ~ Coyle Board of County Commissioners ~~tta TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING O~ MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITfEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Naples, Florida. January 26, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Pelican Bay SeIVices Division Board, Management Review Connnittee, in and for the County of Collier. having conducted business herein. met on this date at 3 :30 p.1ll. in REGULAR SESSION at the Hammock Oak Center. 8962 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Mary Anne Womble, Chairnoman Gooff Gibson Jerry Moffatt ALSO PRESENT: John Petty, Division Adminisbator, Pelican Bay Services Division; J3l;k Cumm, Purchasing Dept. of Collier County; Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Mary McCaughtry, ReooRling Secretary, Pelican Bay SeIVices Division. AGENDA I. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Review Changes to the Scope of Services 4. Connnittee Requests 5. Audience Comments 6. Adjourn ROLLCALL MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Mary, Jet the reconI show that all members of the committee are here. MS. McCAUGHfRY: Yes, Madam Chair. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION MS. WOMBLE: And we welcome Jack Curran back and thank you vel}' much for being here and also for sending us the information so that we could read it in a timely manner. And I'm going to apologize right at this point in time. I thought I had sent you comments. Something happened to my computer. It's really gone phooey, and I don't know exactly why. But I have my comments with me, and so this is probably a good time for US to pull out any kind of suggestions. And would you like to get started and give us an idea of where we're heading and what we're going to be talking about today? Do we have any audience participation? Since I know the audience pretty well, it doesn't look like it REVIEW CHANGES TO SCOPE OF SERVICES MR PETIY: Madam Cbair, if we ooukl just add for process, Mary was just reflecting that whatever had been sent to the committee members had not been sent to her for" the public record. So, Jack,. if you woukl, can you follow through on that? MR CURRAN: Number one, I checked with Steve and all What we're doing here as a select colmnittee is not public until we put a proposal on the street. If I give it to Mary, she cannot let you read this. Mise Corres Date:_~__._.__. 27 item '__.. ._ Ccopies to ^-..---.-.--.-.-. -....- '. ..._--_.__._,----~_._-_..._.- ~..._"'_.""_,_"",.,'_."_.., ,"-_~"',,"",__~~ '0 _ ,,"',."'."__~...,_~ Management Review Committee Meeting 161 \~1 ~\\ '0 January 26. 2009 MR PETIY: Hold on. Who gave you this opinion? MR CURRAN: Steve with JeJIKlatzkow's office. Evel)1hing we do is public once we post tbe board. MR PETIY: Madam Chair, that is completely opposite of what we have been told for the last 18 years. And in my 25 years, I've never beard of it MR CURRAN: Well, you can re-veritY it, because I do all my select committees this way, we all do this the same. This is what we all do. MR PETlY: This isn't a select committee. This is a committee fonned by tilt: Pelican Bay Services Division under whicb the public process and the Sunshine law have always applied. MS. WOMBLE: Jack, we're WIder Sunshine laws. MR. GillSON: This one here, it's the same thing. MR MOFFA IT: Is that the one that.. MR CURRAN: I'll give you this one, because I updated it and put in the proposed time schedule. And I think I've seen comments from yourself MR MOFFAIT: Yes. MR CURRAN: And I made the changes that you mentioned. Here is... MR GillSON: Oh, if you have one, I'll... MR. CURRAN: I have it. But the only thing I really changed is, in all of the comments, and John, I gave Mary one there, just so we can check with evel)'thing. MR PETlY: Well, Jack, there's just another point. If this is S()I1If'JhillE that is not a public meeting, then we wouldn't need... MR CURRAN: That'strne, but... MR. PETIY: And I wouldn't be here, and... MR CURRAN: True. MR. PETIY: So I'm and I don't want to be out of ooler. MS. WOMBLE: This is confusing to me also, because I've done enough with my brothers for bar exams that this doesn't make sense. It's a Sunshine committee. MR. CURRAN: Well, once the committee meets, as we're just now talking about what a scope of service would be, what 28 ""'-- "'.........-- .....,--, ..- ..--~~-- ~ "...._,_,_ ........H....,' _.,-,~^., .--.-...-.-.---.-"---.-----..- Management Review Committee Meeting l6J t\\ 1 ~\ \ \) Januarv 26.2009 your requirements are, once that's put into the final package, I will then advertise it, which I think I put in here a temporary date as February the 2nd, which I believe is Monday. And once I do that, it is then public for the Sunshine law. Otherwise, you can do nothing but talk to only to me and no one else, no other vendors, no other proposers, because the scope lIaS been discovered. MS. WOMBLE: No. No. No. MR PETrY: Yes, there are a couple of things. MS. WOMBLE: See, this was publicly advertisOO under the Sunshine laws. And we talked about it at the last meeting. MR. CURRAN: I looked it up the last time, and that's why I checked. But that's f.1ne. We can continue on. I have really no objection. There's nothing that. . . MR PETIT: Madam Chair, two points. I think what rounseI may be telling Jack is that a committee appointed by the county manager in worlting up specifications internally does not have to be a an open public meeting. In other words, staff does not have to get together just because he and three other people within the <XlUIIIy staff are worlring out the specifications for the latest contract. This committee was not appointed by the county manager, this committee was set up by you, Madam Chair, out of the Pelican Bay Services Division and sits at your pleasure. As such, there is a public reconJs requirement. It is an open Sunshine issue. And, sir, this entity, as I mentioned at the last meeting, cannot authorize the specifications of the RFP. MR CURRAN: Okay. MR. PETIY: So the February timeline, you may have to wait a little bit longer because you're going to have to go back to the full board. MS. WOMBLE: Right. We have to pass whatever we do. MR CURRAN: And that's not a problem with me at all. MR PETTY: So those are the only two points I have. MR CURRAN: The only issue involved, though, is with Jobn as I mentioned prior, once we do this, and we're doing this now, he really cannot have access to this,. because it's giving him prior ~ of what we're asking for. And it's not a completely closed, sealed paper from everyone who bids to us, because he would have advance knowledge. And we're trying to keep John clean of this so that he would be capable and eligible, his firm, to propose. And that's where I think the rub comes in. I have no objections to John sitting here. But if anything John bas to see in this package and it then can be a possible protest that we are giving advance knowledge with reference to John. because he's currently an in-house person. And that's where the real rub comes. We need to keep your selection clean when everybody proposes. There has to be a meeting set up. We do not want anyone 29 .,. ,~.- . ~ IIllI'MI"A .... T ""... ___",^,,..___..~,,_,.."_ II' _,_.._..~ ,- .~ .--..--..- -"--"'- ,,_._~ .-. Management Review Committee Meeting 161 \\~! 1 ~\\~ ."1 Januarv 26. 2009 to come back to us and say, "well, of course, he worked it; be had advance knowledge." We can say, "no, we did this, we did the proposal. He was present, talking about the scope, because he does have knowledge of it." But now that your package is coming together, we need to make sure it stays clean from Jobo until we get it to the street publicly. 1ben he can have it. From that day on, he could have it. MS. WOMBLE: Well, will this... MR PETIY: Madamehair'? MS. WOMBLE: ... that you just banded us become an attachment to what she's ~ing? Because, if so, then anyone who wants to have it. . . MR PETIY: Madam Chair, as soon as the docwnents were given to you, they became public record, since you are. . . MS. WOMBLE: That's what I understand MR PETIY: It doesn't matter that the p~ is bandied differently at the county level. At this committee level and we have years of legal advice on that from Heidi Ashton, who will be here again tomorrow, and we can verifY it for the umpteenth time. But if you are meeting as a committee in a publicly advertised meeting and you receive docwnentation or you are discussing something you received by e-mail, that's a public document No two ways about it. As far as the issue ofkeeping my firm clean so that we can participate, I would very much like to }mticipate in the process, so I appreciate the ability to do so. But I have to tell you, if you keep it in the public, everybody has full knowledge of what gees on here, including wbat was discussed and what was decided. And any firm that wishes to participate can see that in the public noti.ces sectioo now and sees that we are discussing it; or, when he advertises and puts it out on the websife,. they will have access to aU the minutes that we have and will know precisely what you discussed and why. So I think we can slay fairly clean as long as I don't get up and yell and scream about what would be beneficial for my firm particularly. I'm going to stick to process, not so nmch the special conditions. MR MOFFA IT: Well, would it be cleaner if John were not here? MR CURRAN: That's just my understmding, yes. But as John says, we're posting everything that's in the minutes, and it's available for him and anyone to read at any time. MR MOFFATI': Well, but the minutes aren't going to be posted until they come back to this committee and get approved, I would assume, which could be after your Februaty 2nd Of whatever date you... MS. WOMBLE: Or it's later than that, because of the board. MR MOFFAIT: Right. 30 ..,..~....., , "'.,-.'~~' ~- ."",. Management Review Committee Meeting l6J v:jl ~\ \ 'n Januarv 26. 2009 MS. WOMBLE: But that's a moot point How long does it take for minutes to get. . . MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, the minutes should be available for all meetings that you have concerning this matter. Remember that there will be a bid time frnme of what, 30, 60, 90 days? MR. CURRAN: Thirty days. MR PEITY: And you can extend that to make sure that there is enough time that they have access to the minutes. So if it's currently 30, you make it 60; then there's 00 doubt they'd have access to the minutes. MR. CURRAN: I was not available when this was done. But once I post this ontQ my site, the vendors download it from the site; they download this package that you have in front of you. TIle only time they will have access to your minutes is to go and make a public request to you. The majority of the time since I've been here, they WOIk through purchasing to get anything they need, which is usually all these documents. The only thing that they usually ask us for, in prior knowledge, is they want to know what the bndget is and how much you are currently paying. MS. WOMBLE: But they need to know... MR. CURRAN: They all ask that to give them a guideline with the bid. And that's the two main questions that I'm always asked in all the RFPs and things I do. We give them the technical data and they go from there. MR. PE1TY: I think you can address these issues for professional servi<:es, which is what you're looking for. You're looking for management semces. And as such, in the 25 years I've been doing this business, it is highly likely that whoever responds will look for as much infunnation as they can on the entity. And, of course, our website has evel}1hing and is typically what everybody first looks at, is the website. So, I think you're going to get some very well-educated responses to what goes on here. And I think the minutes are going to be more than available to any entity that is responding to your RFP. And I think they will check Google and ched: Pelican Bay. And they'll see the pOOIic JJOtices; they'll see the meetings. And it isn't too hard a tIail to follow. And it's typical of anybody looking at government contracts. The first thing you want to do is a little bit of research. And you go to the website. MR. CURRAN: Vb-huh. MR. PEITY: So, number one, I would love not to be here,. because it ilks me to think that I could be replaced. And I would get scarred emotionally, I don't like being scarred emotionally. I'm basically here to make sure that it is proper form that we follow. And because of the issue of Sunshine and how we sbouId meet and how this should go on, I'm glad that I am here. I don't want to get involved in the special conditions or the general conditions, nor do I wish to skew it for my firm. But, on the other 31 ,. -~._--,._,,-_..,,_..- Management Review Committee Meeting ~\\b Janua 26 2009 hand, nor do I wish to act as if this is not a public meeting and excuse myself from the process. It is not my intention to upset the apple cart But, folks, when you go through this process, flns is how it should be handled. It sllOUld be in the public format; it should be discussed openly; your criteria should be understandable. And I should gain no advantage by seeing it in writing other than I've been doing the job before. And you're going to have that problem with any vendor that has been here for a while. So I don't think that we're going to discolor my position, or my finn's, in response. And I will do everything I can to prevent that. MS. WOMBLE: Considering what I know of the Sunshine laws, wlUcb I've ju&t reread again, I think, John, I'll leave it up to you. If you feel that you're comformble being here in the process, then so be it. I do be1i~ that counsel may have been incorrect in what they understood you to be asking. MR CURRAN: They could have been thinking differently. MS. WOMBLE: They might have, yes. So, John, I'm leaving it up to you. But I think I have to agree with you. As a point of law, I believe you're oorrect Once we posted this meeting, anybody that wants to be here can be. So I'm not kicking anybody out. MR MOFF AIT: Let me ask you. Our next board meeting is next Wednesday, the 4th. MS. WOMBLE: Yes. MR MOFFATT: Assuming we approve the RFP then, you could then issue your notice shortly thereafter, right? MR CURRAN: Most likely next Friday or Monday. MR. MOFFATI: Yeah, the 6th or... MR. CURRAN: Vb-huh. MR. MOFF AIT: Okay. So we're not going to change this timeline significantly. MR CURRAN: No. MR MOFF AIT: We're changing it just by a few days. MR CURRAN: This is just a draft. Anything we do decide or change today, fine. I put the dates in today just based on the calendar availability, based on where we are in the process at the present time. It could go further. MR MOFFATT: Yes, I assume that, from a timing standpoint, by the time you post the RFP notice, these minutes are not going to be public yet. MR CURRAN: That- MR MOFFAIT: I mean, I assume they have to be approved before they get made public. Or do they? 32 ..~" ,.'"~M ....1 1lI'1_~-'"'. "''''--~''--'''''____'''''''.'''' '''"'''''''' "'~'''- Management Review Committee Meeting 161 "1 tI\ \~ Januarv 26. 2009 MR GIBSON: Yes, I mean, that's pretty basic. MS. WOMBLE: Yes. MRMOFFAIT: Okay. MS. WOMBLE: Especially with the particular Jaws that \re're under. They have to be. MR MOFFA IT: So the first inclination anyone has that there is an RFP is when they read your notice. MS. WOMBLE: Next Wednesday. MR MOFFA IT: Well, it could be Friday by the time he gets it posted. MR. CURRAN: It could be. MS. WOMBlE: Well, it would be VeIy possible that \re can approve the minutes pret1y quickly as the committee is not a huge committee. If Mary can get them back to us, we can awrove them on our agenda for next Wednesday. All we're doing is approving these minutes. not any document,. just minutes. And that gives anybody the information they nred And I don't see any reason why we could not do that As Chair, I can put that on the agenda for next Wednesday and have the committee who has already read the minutes. Is that something that can happen or not? MS. McCAUGHfRY: Madam Chair, we have to get the minutes from Gregory Court Reporting first. And we're not the only committee that they do minutes for. MS. WOMBLE: Of COUISe not. MS. McCAUGHIRY: It usuaUy takes them somewhere around two weeks time, 10 business days before I get their minutes to read and fonnat the way the oommittees are used to. So I would have to ask her to rush those minutes. And I'm not sure how much, but I know there's an extra cost lOr it MR. PETrY: Madam Chair? MS. WOMBlE: Yes. MR PETTY: There's a much simpler solution to all this. You have two options: One is, you can wait until the minutes are done. MS. WOMBlE: Yes. MR PETrY: Because you do have the time. Number two, you can put out an audio immediately after the meeting. I don't need a court reporter. ru just put the copy out there as an audio file. So you have those two options that I'm aware of there. There may be others. 33 ._<-- '-"'."_.,,, """'......""...,... ~.~,,_,.'c. .."--,-~._._.,-_._-- "0'_" Management Review Committee Meeting 161 .btl ~\~ Januarv 26. 2009 MS. WOMBLE: I don't think we\re got a problem. Let's go on and get started. COURT REPORTER: Could you use a microphone, please? MR. PETIY: We've got a table-mounted one. MR. MOFFAIT: Yes. Won't one of these reach over to the table? MR GillSON: Won't one of these reach over there for you? MR PETIY: Give him a table-mounted one. MR GillSON: Will this reach? MR MOFFA IT: There's a lot of cord down there. MS. WOMBLE: That's better, yes. Where did you find the calendar? MS. McCAUGHlRY: Page 8, at the top. MR MOFF AIT: Yeah, Page 8. I assume your program is set up that, when you make changes in dates in one place, it changes them throughout Or,do you have to physically do that? MR CURRAN: Physically. MR. MOFFAIT: All right. Okay. MR. CURRAN: Well, I have a search feature~ I can search for that date. I just have to be careful, when I find it, that I don't replace it, because it should be what it is. MR. MOFF AIT: All right. MR CURRAN: But, yes, I can search for it. It's not an isIDe. I mentioned to you in my e-mail, I had to delete the entire package and start it over. MR. MOFFA IT: Is that microphone helping, by the way, or does he need it closer? COURT REPORTER: He needs it doser. MR CURRAN: How's this? COURT REPOR1ER: Better. Thank you. MR. CURRAN: I made the change that I received from you, Jeny, and I answered the question. Geoff, I don't know if I got any from you. MR GIBSON: No. MR CURRAN: Okay. 34 _. "",",.,._~v'" ....~....""..._= ~. .~~"_,"m._ Management Review Committee Meeting 16J 11 i\\\b Januarv 26. 2009 MR GIBSON: I've got notes here. MS. WOMBLE: Same here. MR CURRAN: And basically wImt it is, I brought four of the packages. One was going to be for me, but I gave it to Mary to make notes for your changes. I'll just make them on paper and then. when J get back, I'll update the package and get another one out. So if it's agreeable I can put it in final, type the dates in there based on the board meeting you will be attending, et cetera. One issue that I still need the answer for OT question for is, I think the quantity and volume. There are a number of staff that it would be administered to, which I had it highlighted in yellow. It had X amounl of employees. And I need to know the number. That number was, I think, based on I think it was from 2002. And I just wanted to make sure that we Jmve it current or pretty current MR. GIBSON: Where it says, "Currently the manager has the following people reporting to him"? MR CURRAN: Yes. MR GIBSON: Yes, that was one of my areas that I highlighted. MR. MOFFATI: Yes. That ought to come from Kyle. MR LUKASZ: I don't know the number that you've got in there, but we have 16 full-time positions presently. MS. WOMBLE: Yes, we bad it in the back of the budget. MR. LUKASZ: Yes. MR. CURRAN: Tlmt's total? MR LUKASZ: Yes. MR CURRAN: Okay. I can get that out of there. Okay. Who would like to start with the questions? MS. WOMBLE: Well, I have one right off the bat. so that may be a good spot to start Page 2, I question whether or not "management services shall include but not be limited to pwcbasing and renting uniforms for Collier County employees." I think that might have been a misprint. MR CURRAN: It is. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR. CURRAN: I will take that out. MS. WOMBLE: Thank you. MR. CURRAN: In filet.. that's the subcommittee tomorrow. 35 '__"''''~^'.'.<..~""-,,,..,,.~-, w ""...."".,.',,_....'..~_. -- -'~.".~--- .- Management Review Committee Meeting 161 "'1 t>i\\\? Januarv 26. 2009 MS. WOMBLE: And on Page 6, I need your expertise on this. Under the "Background," the Community of Pelican Bay has been designated an MSTBU. How does this work? We vote or the commissioners decide with or without our input about all the funds administered by the administrator are derived from Pelican Bay propeIty owners. All seIVices, programs, projects and it's tile manager's primary job to manage these funds. But I have a note here. And I'm sorry, but I'm having problems fignring out what.. . MR CURRAN: I think basically that was done in '02. And I think wbat they did at that time, when they selected the original fund, is your board approved and then the Collier County commissioners approved; ~ boards approved. And that's what that's saying. It's your actual money, but the commissioners become involved, because we're going to be writing the check to the firm for you. MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, that has changed. Back then, the adminismdor was under the responsibility of the COWlty manager. And in the change of ordinance that we had in 2006, the PBSD administrator became directly responsible to the board. So as snch, it should not require the Collier County colDl1lissioneJs' approval. I think, if you check with the manager's office, they'll verify. MR CURRAN: Yes, I will when I get back. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Yes, I knew something wasn't right Also, I'm concerned about the contract on Page 6. "The anticipated contract term will be for the period of 12 months. Additionally, by mutual agreement and funding availability, the contract may be renewed for three tenns of one year each. In no event, including renewal options, sball the contract exceed four years." Do we have to hold to that; or can we discuss this among ourselves and come up with something with a little more continuity to it'! MR CURRAN: If you want to do that. MS. WOMBLE: It seems a little uncomfortable having a possibility of this sort of thing happening year after year after year. And how do you keep somebody up to speed with the complexities of how we are? We're having trouble with the Sunshine law, much less all the rest of this stuff. So is there. . . MR. CURRAN: Yeah, that's completely open to what pleases you. 'That is a basic example. We do the first contract, for an example, will be for two years. And then. at the end of the two years, you would be asked if you wish to renew, and you would say "yes" or "no." If you say "yes," then we would go to the firm and say, "your contract's up. Will you be willing to renew'!" And if they say ''yes'' great or they can say, "yes, but rm requiring or requesting a price increase which is built into it." Okay. And then 36 -". -....-".---... '. rm__ --,_.,--.- Management Review Committee Meeting 16,[ 1 ~ \ \\l Januarv 26. 2009 when they say "yes," then it's a decision you make, "yes. we want to renew," or, "no, we won't." or, "no, let's go back out on the street We don't agree with this." But the key is that, in theveJy beginning,you'U bequeriOO, the boaJd would. And we'd say, "this contract's expiring. Do you want to renew it?" And if you say "yes" or "no," that depends where we go. If you say "no," it ends, and we do this all over again. If you say "yes." then we ask the .finD do they want to renew. And if they say "yes," then we continue; or whatever needs to be replaced., whatever needs to be WOI'ked on. Then we finish. It's just that this gives everyone a chance to reflect and look at what they're doing. It's not that. at the end of each of those years" we bave to do this again. It's just the option's there. You may have a desire that maybe something occurred that you no longer ~t to have the service. So that's when you get to say "no." Or, in this case, I'll use John. Jobn's here. And his finn doesn't feel that it's been worthy of them this year, so they don't want to renew. So both sides gets a chance to get out if it's not WOIking for them That's aU that's for. MS. WOMBLE: Jack, have you ever done one fiom the other direction where you have continuity? Say a president gets four years, but we can impeach him. Can we do something along those lines so that we've got a tittle more continuity, the person feels a little more comfortable and can really get in and start really understanding things? And then put something in the contract so that there is a clause that we can go back to for both sides and say, either, "this isn't working." or, "let's sit down and chat"? How do you fellows feel about that? MR MOFFA IT: I thought we talked about this last time Jack was here, and we opted to go this way because it gave us a little more fleXibility. I mean, I'm sure that whoever J>IOP05eS would ask, "well, do you intend to do this every year, or is this just an escape clause for you?" And the understanding would be that, assuming they're satisfYing our requirements, we would continue to renew. MR CURRAN: Yes. MR MOFFA IT: But in case they don't. it's a lot easier to terminate at the end of an annual contract than to try to do something else along the way. The question I have on there is the four years. Do we need that in there? MR CURRAN: Well, they need to have a tenD. As I said, you can make that a tenn of. we'll just say, two years, with a one-year renewal for a maximum of four or five. You really want to put a max to it, because eventually something is going to change, whether it be in the county ordinance or in your organization. that you may want to cover. And this would be the opportunity to do it. As I stated earlier, in the first meeting. our basic package that we're woIking off of 'was in '02, seven years ago. And things have changed. As John just mentioned, the ordinance bas changed so the County Manager's no longer involved. Fees are going up for services; different areas of the scope of service may change. What's important to us today may not be so in four 37 - w .. -" . ~.. ","H~'_''''' - Management Review Committee Meeting M\\> Janua 26 2009 years; it may be you want more or you want less. And that's where our chance is to make a change. That most of the contracts on the county side, and that's what I can speak for, they do not exceed five years. I think there may be two, one of them being Waste Management, which is almost an in-perpetuil)' contract. But all the rest of them. they go out with renewals in them on different degrees. It's what's selected, two years, then another three years, or three years and two years, a five-year maximum. We very seldom exceed a five-year contract. But there's not to say that it couldn't be done. It's really your choice. We're just giving you a chance to refresh yourselves all over these again at four or five years to say, you know. "we. need to really look at this scope and change it now." MR MOFF AIT: Well, given that, I think there is a benefit to a one-year contract. MS. WOMBLE: Geolf? MR GffiSON: I agree with that., Jeny. But only, let's say for whatever reason it is, JoIm disappears. He knows where all the levers are. He can work this thing pretty smoothly here. We all agree with that, very smoothly. But for some reason, you know, Mr. or Ms. X arrives on the scene and is the new administrator. A year isn't very long. It takes the first year, in most assignments like that, to figure out exactly where the walls are. What makes what run? What does Kyle do? What are 43 lakes or ponds? What's the difference between a Jake and a pond? What's a bubbler? You may want to put in there that it's agreed to do it for two years, as Jack suggested, and then on an annual basis, as you said, from that point on. I just think a year's short on the chance that it could be a new person. I don't know. MS. WOMBLE: I agree. MR MOFF AIT: Y cab, well. assuming it is a new person, you may find you don't like them right away. MR. GffiSON: That's true. lbat's true. But you can... MR. MOFFA IT: The flexibility stays with us on that basis. MR GffiSON: Yes. MR MOFFAIT: I mean, that's all I have. MS. WOMBLE: I have a difficult... MR GffiSON: You know, on most assignments I've taken, the first year has been kind of a fog; and it isn't until the second year that you really get them to perform up to expectations, I guess. That's my only reason for making this. It's not a recommendation necessarily, just a suggestion to consider. MR PETTY: Madam Chair, without opining on whether it should be one year or two years, let me tell you that the 38 -",," ._.'"~., ". ~... --_.-.~->"._,_..~.,..,..~.~~.",_.,"...,._.,.,,~--_... -"._.,"~._, -_.-.'-~" "-~-- Management Review Committee Meeting 161 i\'~l ~~\~ Jannarv 26. 2009 contract, whoever this is awarded to, basically serves at the pleasure of And lypically, your contracts, the county has a way of ending these contracts or terminating them as you see fit. So the one-year or two years, I think, is up to your needs versus whether or not you'll be held captive by an unwanted contractor. I think he's going to set it up so that you can get rid of any contractor you want. MR GIBSON: Kind of a loophole then. MR. PETIY: A big one. MR GIBSON: A big loophole. MR CURRAN: I have one that the contract can be tenninated at the direction of the county fur no reason. So if you are very dissatisfied with your incuJnbent, you just need to conlact myself, because fm helping you with this; and we will put out the termination clause. And then we'll go back on the street to find another vendor or finn. I always use the word "vendor." MS. WOMBLE: I'm not sure I like that one either. MR CURRAN: Well, that's always in it, but you don't have to do it. MS. WOMBLE: In fact, that's farther down in here; and I think I have a question mad on that. Okay. Let's... MR GIBSON: I have no problem leaving it alone. I just was tIying to be helpful to whoever the. . . MS. WOMBLE: The continuity... MR GIBSON: ... the new person potentially could be. MS. WOMBLE: I see that too. So you really feel uncomfortable with giving them two years? MR. MOFF AIT: Well, I just know from experience it's a lot cleaner if you have the option at the end of the year to get rid of somebody who's not working out. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Well, let's... MR MOFFA IT: I know Molly did that with a landscaper last year. MS. WOMBLE: Molly axes every landscaper. Let's go ahead and do the one year at this point But fm going to hold this in abeyance. . . MR CURRAN: Uh-huh. MS. WOMBLE: .. .because I see some other things coming up toward the end of this document that I have questions about. And that might take care of all of it. Moving right along, Page 7, anyone? I have a question under "Method of Source Selection" on Page 7. There's a paragraph there that says the county is using the competitive sealed proposals. And then the next 39 ,-;,.. ~.~-~..."'".~ ......, .. k.._ , . 11'0 --~"''''''''- "'-""'---- Management Review Committee Meeting 161 ,I ~\\~ Januarv 26. 2009 one: "The county may, as it deems necessary, conduct discussions with qualified proposers determined to be in contention to being selected for award for the purpose of verification to assure full understanding of and responsiveness to its solicitation requirements." Now, I understand that Obviously that's a good business practice so that you don't waste evel)'body's time. MR CURRAN: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: But going on to the next one, the pre-proposal conference, will our board be apprised of that? Will we have someone there? Will we also be included in that process? MR CURRAN: Yes. The pre-proposa1, in fuct, as I mentioned in the earlier ~g, I always mandate that at least one of the three of you would be there. And all three are welcome. And it's taped, and the main reason fd like you to be there is, they'll ask questions if they come, tbey don't always come, and you'll be able to give them the dire.ct answer that they need as it pertains to Pelican Bay. As to the legal parts in the paper, the document. that's what I'll be answering. Yes, you would be there. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Thanks, Jack. And also, Jack, may we have a list of anyone that does apply but you find not quite fitting the bill? MR CURRAN: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: Because the requirements aren't being met or, for some reason, they don't quite make it? MR CURRAN: Okay. The day we open the proposal, prior to that, l1t get non-responses. Some firms will tax to me and say, "I'm not bidding; I don't have time," or, "it doesn't fit into my thing', and we like to know that. I will give those to you. We'll forward them on so that you'll see that there's finns that were interested, but did not bid And it's a helpful tool for us to see why they're not elocting to bid so we can find out, if there's something wrong witb our specs; or if there's something that's not clear, then we can fix it as we're speaking with a firm. On a pre-proposaIl usually don't just answer ~ which I will ask you and advise you the questions that are being asked, so you are all aware of it And bopefuUy, some I can answer, which you'll see; others I'll need you to give me an answer for. And I post that on the site. But ()I)(e I ~ everything is checked by me then. That's where we check for the clarification. And when I open, it's usuaI1y one of you can be present and should be present. That way, you'll see that we have X amount of proposals. And then I cbeck them all oft: I go through them and read all the qua1ifications. There are mandatory things in there that we said are required submittals. And they're usually listed at the end of Tab 8. And that's what I check for. Did they give me a conflict of interest? Did they give me a declaration statement? If they haven't, I call them up, give them 24 hours or 48, depending on what we need them to get to us. And then I put it all in tile package for you. Other than that, if I disquaIi1Y a firm, it's only because they sent me for the quick way is, we asked for at least seven tabs of items to 40 ...,.--...- ~-'_. -- --- Management Review Committee Meeting 161 ~I ~ \\\> Januarv 26. 2009 evaluate them. And they may have only given me two. And I call them up and ask for the "where's the last one?" They say, "well, that's all we're giving." Then I'll disqualify tl1em, because you cannot make a fair evaluation on the proposal process if they don't submit it all. And then you would be advised of who it was and why they were disqualified. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. And when you're conducting those discussions with qualified proposers, everyone is aware that there are discussions being made, and everyone is involved? MR CURRAN: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Now, because I have been a teacher for 3O-some years but we won't go into that. At the bottom, right before "Projected Time Table" two lines up, "Pre-proposal confurences denoted as mandatory," not as... MR CURRAN: You're right. Wffre not going to have mandatory either. They will be non-mandatory. MS. WOMBLE: I would think so. MR CURRAN: And I will fix that. The reason for that is, if you pick: a mandatory mooting, it: for instance, some reason, someone, and I'm going to use John as the incumbent. He may end up being in a minor car accident, and he doesn't make the mandatory meeting. He cannot propose at all. MS. WOMBLE: Right. MR CURRAN: He's done; he's out of the game. And I do away with that in mine. I give everyone the opportunity, if they can't make it, they can still propose. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Anybody? MR GIBSON: Good idea. MS. WOMBLE: I guess we needed to check the numbers on the thing and Kyle gave those to you? MR GIBSON: The dates? MR MOFF AIT: On the top of Page 8, where you list the events and the dates in that table. MR CURRAN: Yes. MR MOFFA IT: I you know, I'm a little anal I'd prefer to see them listed in date order. MR CURRAN: Okay. MR MOFF AIT: Right now, you have the 19th coming before the 12th. MS. WOMBLE: Right. MR. CURRAN: Yes, it's the way that they did the template for the features. And I can move them. 41 . ~- -~-~~._--,< ,--.---- .,_." Management Review Committee Meeting 16' ~~~l ~t~ Januarv 26. 2009 - MS. WOMBLE: Okay. And on Page 9, there needs to be an amendment on this. In the first full paragraph, the second sentence: "The administrator will also work with committee chairs in the preparation of agendas and participate in the committee meetings of the budget committee." We're okay so far. And then: "and the Clam BaylWater Management Committee." We don't have a Water Management Committee. MR. CURRAN: Okay. MS. WOMBLE: We did have a Clam Bay. and we still do. And until we're given direction from the Board of Commissioners, I guess that still is in effect. MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, may I suggest that you say that they would be required to WOIk with the committees and t:hat:, in the last year, there has been typically two or three committees stmding. I think that gives everybody an idea of what's going on, if that's acceptable to you. MS. WOMBLE: Just eliminate the names on that MR. PETrY: I would, Madam Chair, state that Clam Bay should not be in there. We will mention that they will work with all committees that are appointed, assigned by the. . . MS. WOMBLE: I saw that. That will be good. And then as we go... MR. MOFFA IT: Do we still have that Clam Bay subcommittee? MS. WOMBLE: Yes. MR. MOFFA IT: Somebody's suggesting we get rid of them? MS. WOMBLE: No, it's stiU there. It's stiU a fonned commiuee; and there's still members on it. But we just have not had any meetings, because we have no direction. Okay. One, two, three, four, five: "The Administrator's Perfonnance," paragraph, "may be critiqued by any board member at a regular monthly board meeting. Any board member may meet privately with the administrator to discuss the adminisUator's performance." Should there be an indicabon to other board members first that there is some issue. MR. GffiSON: Perfonnance issue? MS. WOMBLE: Yes. MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, I don't want to get out ofwhack here. But typically, when you're talking about the manager, you would do so in the public-meeting process versus behind closed doors or one on one. The issue being is, you do not want undue influence to be exerted on your manager by one board member to the desOuction of the policy of the entire board. Of course, any 42 ,-~. --'., . .~n."',_._ ..."......__. _ rr . __~bH"'_~ -.--.-.- _1.1'" .._..,_...,.~,,,-,.. -'-~----"'-'-' Management RC\'iew Committee Meeting 161 \'1 ~\~~ Januarv 26. 2009 member can bring the issue up but would do so during a public meeting where all board members are present MS. WOMBLE: Right. Is there some way we can reflect that so the little private meetings kind of make me a little nenrous, especially with all this Sunshine going on. MR MOFF AIT: Just take it out. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Just take it out completely. "The manager shall report in detail on a monthly basis the time spent during that period in the perfonnance of these duties which are the responsibilities assigned to the PBSD board." Do you all feel that that's a necessary item? MR CURRAN: I think in our last meeting it was brought up that you wanted a reporting mechanism. And at the time, a month was used, every month, and that's why I put that in But it could be, as I said that day, it could be quarterly, it could be bimonthly, it could be annually. It's whatever you desire. MR GffiSON: It's something you need to lIlODitoc on a regular basis. whether it's montl1ly or bimonthly, because sometimes you have a month with, heaven forbid, a hurricane; and then the next month you don't do as much. MR CURRAN: Right. MR GffiSON: But it needs to be there, I'd like it MR MOFFAIT: Yes. MR GIBSON: Part of the job responsibility is how much time is spent. MR MOFF AIT: I know we talked about that last time also. MS. WOMBLE: We did. And that's why Jack put it in there. MR GIBSON: I don't have any problem the way it is. MS. WOMBLE: No. And the boord can define how in depth and how not in depth we'd want that particular presentation So okay. Page 10, that's where it comes. "Proposed replacements, substantially the same or better qualifications and/or experience." No. 2 this is at the veIy (q): "That the oomdy is oobfied in writing as far in advance as possible. Firm shall make commercially reasonable efforts to notify Collier County within seven days of the change. The county retains final approval of proposed replacement personnel." Is this something historically backed up? MR CURRAN: Normally, that's the way we do our RFPs. But, as John said, you no longer report to the county conmtission or need the BCC's approval on this. So then I would need to change that to say your board, the PBSD. MR GIBSON: Currently. 43 ",-.,..,'.... '"_..'"''';--''~ '~"^>"'"--"~-^_.,"",,,,_.:;- . ."~,,.-"""-' , >"--~-_._- _.,,~,.~._.< Management Review Committee Meeting 161 '1 ~\~ January 26. 2009 MS. WOMBLE: Thank you. Okay, Let me see. MR MOFFA IT: I see you still don't have county responsibilities listed in here. MR CURRAN: I'm sony? MR MOFFATI: Tbesection.,. MR. GffiSON: The "to be determined. II MR. MOFFA IT: .. .on the county's responsibilities is still "to be determined." MS. WOMBLE: Is that because of tile $50,000 and up? MR. CURRAN: That and., in these ~ for RFPs, they break them down, like when we do a construction, "just what are we or is tbe county going to supply to you? What do we need to give you to make this WOIk?" So we don't have anything on the scope. We're leaving that open if you come taX to us and say, you know, "we think you folks ought to do this," because right now I really think the only responsibility that I see that we're having in here is other than assisting you to do this is the paying of the purchase orders that come through there. MR PETIY: Madam Chair, I think you may want to throw in there a little bit more than that. I think Jack's right that that's the only thing they're responsible for cont13ctually. MR CURRAN: Right. MR. PETIY: But for informational purposes, I think you may want to put in there that the comIty is providing the accounting setvices and checks and balances and procurement services and the purchase order system and the rest of it, including HR for all personnel That makes it vel)' clear to wboever's bidding 00 this that it is administrator services without encumbering ancillary costs of accounting, HR staff. MR. CURRAN: Right. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Thank you. Anything else on that page? Down on the bottom of II: "Duty Relation of County: It is the intent of the parties hereto that the contIaclor shall be legally considered an independent contractor and that neither the contractor nor their employees shall, under any ciIcumstances" be considenxI employees or agents of the county, and the county shall, at no time, legally be respoDSlble for any negligence on the part of said contractor, their employees," or agents resulting in either bodily or personal injury or property damage to any individual, firm, or COIp013lion. and that they go to the board." Is that. . . MR. CURRAN: That's standard language. MS. WOMBLE: That's standard? 44 - . "'~.'~",;" ~ ..rtIl- .. .' ~ -.--~_. .. ...."--"",.~., ,o_,_~"_,_,,,,_ Management Review Committee Meeting 161 11 ~\\~ Januarv 26, 2009 MR CURRAN: We have firms or groups that come in to work and go to work with us. And then they get an ill card from us, and then they walk around and they say they're county employees; and they're not And they may, in the past, have caused damage; and then people come to the county, and we never knew or even heard of the folks. And we find out later on it was a contractor or a subcontractor. So that's what it's normally for. The only thing is, I think, from what you just read to me, that maybe I need that in there to the Pelican Bay Service Division, that neither one of you are having anyone, they're not going to actually physically be your employees as an employee. MS. WOMBLE: No, they're subcontractors really, right? MR CURRAN: But that they're a contractor. MS. WOMBlE: Okay. All right. Under "Termination," F OIl Page 12: "Sbould the rontractor be found to have failed to perform the services in a manner Wisfilctoty to the county, the county may tenninate the agreement inunediately for cause. Further, the county may terminate this agreement for ronvenieoce with a seven-day written notice. The county shall be the sole judge of nonperfonnance." That seems a little strnnge, when we're the ones getting the. .. MR CURRAN: Well, that was based OIl when the county and yourselves. in the past, worked together. MS. WOMBLE: Can you add in PBSD? MR CURRAN: I would change it I would take the county out and put "PBSD." MS. WOMBlE: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. MR. CURRAN: I was working off the '02 document and tIying to make everything look right. MS. WOMBlE: Well, you've done a really good job. MR GIBSON: I was going to say, I was very impressed. with that much notice. MR CURRAN: Thank you. MS. WOMBlE: And probably not a lot of sleq>. At the bottom of 12: "Firms and their agents are not to contact members of the county commission or Pelican Bay Services Division boards for such purposes as meeling or introduction luncheons, etc." Okay. I think I was concerned about John, because he's part of us at this point in time and I just wanted to cover him. Okay. MR CURRAN: Yes. The big issue with John would be, well this was not intended because John was here. We have a lot of firms, they feel that they have a contact, and all of a sudden they start calling them and hying to lean on them to "give me your vote" and all this other. . . 45 .- ...",.-.." -"-- 1 Jrt\\> Management Review Committee Meeting Januarv 26. 2009 l6J MS. WOMBLE: There goes our dinneJS, right? MR GIBSON: Yes, right. MR. CURRAN: Well, as soon as 1 hear this, 1 immediately disquaWy the linn. Now, in John's case. he does have to work with you; and he will be working with you. And he can do anything and everything he commonly does, except he cannot talk to you about where he stands on this proposal. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR CURRAN: Other than that, everything is business as nonnaJ. MS. WOMBLE: Wel~ his little heart is breaking. Hell.iusl have to gel over it. MR CURRAN: Well, he'll call me, because he's alIowerl to. EvelYone's alkm<Xi to call me. I'm the funnel here. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Anything else 00 that page? On 13, 1.-1 an expIanatioo 00 the dark lettering underneath J it says: "10 additioll, consultants that have participated and/or will participate in the development 01 scope, background informatioll, or oversight functions on this JlR!iect are precInded from sOOmitting a JlIUIIOSlIl as either a prime or SIJb.consuItant." That gets rid 01 John. MR CURRAN: No. That's where, when I was speaking earlier, that. once we gel to the phase, that he needs to step back, because he's not actually helped us 00 this. He's been present bere, but we're doing it. If he had come in with a proposal and he wrote it up and gave it 10 you fulks like I'm doing, and you sent it to me, then he would be precluded. MS. WOMBLE: So it's okay. MR CURRAN: That's a standard clause that we put into all the RFPs. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Ijustwaotedtomakesure. MR. CURRAN: And he's well aware of it, because we talk constantly. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. "The BoanI 01 County Conunissiouets," UIlder "Prolest Prooodures," "wiIJ make award of contract in public sessioo. AwanI recoouneudation will he posted outside the offices of the purchasing department on Wednesdays and Thursdays, etc. Okay. Will you... MR CURRAN: That's Steve. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Will you or Steve contact us first before this is done? MR. CURRAN: Oh, definitely. As soon as we gel a protest ill, all parties notified, such as I'm notified, the person protesting is notified we've accepled it, and you will he notified as a board that there's a protest UIlder liIe. And the main reasoll, 46 Management Review Committee Meeting 161l :I t\t\\~ Januarv 26. 2009 what Steve does nonnaIly and this is the BCC also he pulls that item to make sure it doesn't go forward 'tit he rules on which way it should go. And if he rules that be denies the protest, then he'll notifY you; and then we'll proceed on through approval. If he rules that there is an issue there, then we, at that time, will always sit down and address the issue and figure out what we need to do to correct it and go on. Sometimes it may mean that we have to pull the thing back and redo it; other times it's just a nonissue. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. And as for the award of the contract, will wealsobe... MR CURRAN: It will be your folks that will be the ones that will be approving it. MS. WOMBLE: We will be told? MR CURRAN: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR PE1TY: Madam Chair, if 1 oould, if someone does come in undtt this position that they think they've been treated unfairly, the process that the oounty's going to follow is Florida Adminisbalive Code 120 Of" Statute 120. And they may have to take control of the contract at that time. So understand that, even though our ordinance changed so that I report directly to you and you do get to control these issues up to a point And once it gets into a litigious position, the county may vety well have to take control of the situation. MS. WOMBLE: That makes sense. MR. PETIY: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: Sure. Anything else there, gentlemen? Okay. On Page 14, "Conflict of Interest." "Disclosure of any potential or actual conffict of interest is subject to county staff review." Would we also be informed about it? MR CURRAN: Tab 8, when we get back there requires that they submit that: in writing to us so it's available. It'll be in each of your packages. When they say "county," 1 need to cbeck to make sure that they did give it to us; and then I have to look at it and advise you that, you know, "This looks pretty serious; you might want to recheck. " MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Okay. 1 just want to make sure. All right Moving right along, anybody? MR GIBSON: No gifts? MR MOFFATT: Yeah. that's too bad. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR MOFF AIT: "Local prekrence." A 10cal finn gets 10 points to start off? MR. CURRAN: Yes. And that's why I was saying at the last meeting.. if we have four vendors or finns from Tampa. 47 u,.'_" ___.0__' --'..,- Management Review Committee Meeting Januarv 26. 2009 161 '11 A-t\b They won't get it. MR MOFFAIT: OrFortLauderdaIe? MR CURRAN: Well yes, Fort Lauderdale, they won~ get it. But Fort Myen;, now, Lee Coonly bas just signed a reciprocal agreement with Collier County. MS. WOMBLE: Well, this is OUIS, isn~ it'! Don~ we gelID decide wbelber or DOl we like that particular clause in here? MR, CURRAN: It's actually an ooIinance for all bids in Collier Counly, thai local vendors.. MS, WOMBLE: For all bids or fol'... MR CURRAN: For bids and RFPs. And that's why ii's in there. See, in the bids, ii's the lowest vendor with a local vendor that's within 10 perrent of his bid gets the offer to malcb that low dollar. Well, we're DOl doing low dollar, so the 10 percent then comes; they get 10 pen:ent of the points. So if it's 100 points. they're aIloi\ro 10 points. And thai's where it fulls in. That's why I was saying at \be earlier meeting, any firm thai does DOl file the affidavit atlached, they get 90 points maximum. The 10 points is nnt changeable; it's a f1a1 10 points. So if you have a local firm and he bas other qnalifications, you can change those scores to whatever you feel they honestly deserve. But the 10 stays for them. So when we add them up, thai tells us where we can go. MS. WOMBLE: Jack, do you know what onIinance that is? MR CURRAN: I don't know, I know the date we approved it. It was June the 8th of this year But I'll gel the number for you. MS, WOMBLE: Yes, because 1 think other board members are going 10 want 10 know that, MR CURRAN: It may be right there in \be affidavit itself MS. WOMBLE: It's Revision 7. 2008. MR PETIY: Is thai for goods and services? But certainly not professional =vioes. MR CURRAN: No! for CCNA, that's righl. All the rest of it applies. MR PETIY: Now. this is fur management services, which typically is a step above CCNA. Typically, that's professional services. MR CURRAN: Yes, but this is nol CCNA. MR PETIY: What is this? MR CURRAN: This is just professional services. CCNA is consulting, engineering, landscaping and those lypes of thing. 48 161 :.1 \\'\ \\l Management Review Committee Meeting Januarv 26. 2009 MR PETTY: But this is for professional services. MR CURRAN: Yeah,butthat's... MR PETry: That's actually, according to statute, that's above. But you're saying... MR CURRAN: No, professional services RFP, which we do many of, then there's a CCNA. .. MR. PETIY: Which are engineers and architects, et cetera. I'm fumiliar with the statute. MR CURRAN: That's a separate oIdinance, and that did not cover this. They specifically disavowed CCNA That's why it's in ours. MR PETTY: That's interesting, because it takes that quality issue and makes it parochial. I'm smprised. MR CURRAN: I just do what they approve. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Any questions? Can we change it? MR CURRAN: I can ask; I can ask. MS. WOMBLE: Since we're a different kind of entity than any other group you have to work with. MR. CURRAN: No, I will definitely check with Steve as soon as I get back. MS. WOMBLE: Thanks, Jack. MR CURRAN: I can bring it up as an issue. I think it's this board's meeting. We have a lot of questions with the amount of vendors, and it's been a really tIying process. But we'll get there. MS. WOMBLE: Well, you still have a smiJe on your f.tce. Okay. At the bottoIn, Page 16, under "Evaluation of Proposals," "County manager shall appoint a !dection committee to review all proposals submitted." Will we be involved? MR. CURRAN: Yoo are the selection committee. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. I just wanted to make sure because it says the "alWlly manager." And I think that needs to be changed. MR CURRAN: Well, the way our onIinances read and our purchasing policy, I cannot fonn a select committee to rule on an RFP unless he has signed off on it So he bas to know we're doing it and what's going on. I've already sent him a memo. It was before John told me that he no longer goes to the county manager. I haven't gotten it back-signed, so I think he's waiting to talk to me, that maybe he won't be signing it But either way, you three are the selection committee. MS. WOMBLE: It should come from the bomd, I believe. MR. PETTY: And, Madam Chair from that position, you would change the sentence to simply say that it was appointed 49 .,-~~- ~.."'".,~- _..".._...._.."~~,...~_,,_,_."_w....... ... _.~',".L..~'".<.~"."..___,;.,_~....,,'^ _ _'"';_'~"" ..,,,,,,,","h,~. ."".,_ ,'_"'~,"".'_~_~' Management Review Committee Meeting 16- ,~1 ~\\~ Januarv 26. 2009 by the Pelican Bay Services Board. MR CURRAN: And that's what I'm waiting for from the oounty manager. Once I get that, I'll change tImt. I'1l send a separate memo to you for your signature. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. I hope I can get it. MR CURRAN: Oh. If not, I'll bring it. MS. WOMBLE: I just can't send anything out I can get things, but I'm having trouble. Okay. On 17: "Meeting shall be open to the public, and the purchasing agent shaD publicly post prior notice of such Jl!eding in the lobby of tIle purchasing building at least one day in advance of all such meetings. Of We will be contcDed long before that, won't we? MR CURRAN: 011, definitely. MS. WOMBLE: With the date? MR CURRAN: The meeting dates will be selected by yourselves. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR CURRAN: And once I get that then, when we go back, we'll post the dates and the times and where it's going to be. And that's the public notice for the legal MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Thank you. MR CURRAN: And those meetings, as we said, in geneml,. it's a public meeting; but the public gets to speak after you've done most of your work. You will have discussion: we will read references-, and we will talk about tiebreakers. I will see if any of the firms have comments, good or bad, in our system, which is an evaluation system the county instituted five years ago. And all that'll be discussed. And then, at that time, before you do your final vote, if there are any members of the public, they would be allowed to speak for X amount of minutes to help give input or something to you, even the finns that you're looking at And then once they're done, you make your final vote; and you short-tist your finns. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. "The committee will compile individual rankings." The "committee" is us? MR. CURRAN: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: I just want to c1ariJY. "The county reserves the right to withdraw this RFP at any time and for any reason and to issue such clarifications, modifications, and/or amendments as it may deem appropriate." With input from us? MR CURRAN: When I say the "county," for the tenDs of this, it is you. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. 50 ..",., -.-.'" "._.,-"- "','.""...........-..... """"'-"', "-'". -. Management Review Committee Meeting 1 ~\\b Janua 26 2009 MR CURRAN: If you call me up or send me an e-mail and say that, "this is really drnstically wrong, I need to change it." then I will immediately put a notice out to stop it. And we'll fix whatever it is and send an addendum out and reopen it up. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR MOFFA IT: Could you say, "MaIy Anne Womble reserves the" ... MS. WOMBLE: I'm sorry. Then the acceptance or rejection of proposals would be us? MR CURRAN: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: "The right is reserved by the county," not the county but PBSO'! . MR CURRAN: Actually, you're going to select the three finns; and then you're going to take it to your board, the one that you want. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR CURRAN: Normally. what occurs is you'D short-lisl the finns. And then. in a normal RFP, I would turn it over to my contract specialist; my contract people would sit down with the firm and come to an equitable price. Because of the difference, I don't know whether you'll sit down with them and want to negotiate a price; or would you like to have the contract specialist, like I'm sitting here, and one or two or all of you sit down and talk or negotiate a price. Then once that's done, we then take it to the board, in this case it would be yourselves, and say, "Here's the price~ here's the finD." And then you approve it or not approve it. MS. WOMBLE: Then whatever we come up with, then it bas to go to the commissioners if it's over 50,000. MR. CURRAN: I'm going to check on that MR CURRAN: Well, over 50,000 should be approved by the commissioners, yes. And that's what I'm... MS. WOMBLE: Well, this may need to be rewritten: "The right is reserved by the county to waive any irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to re-soIicit for proposals., if desirod, upon m::ommendation and justification by Collier County, to accept the proposal wbich, in the judgment of the county, is deemed the most advantageous for the public and the County of Collier." So that's pretty broad-scqJed for poor old PBSD. MR PETIY: Madam Chair, I think that that paragraph would stay, because, if you come to a contractual arrangement. they're going to look to the legal entity; and the legal entity would be Collier County. We are basically acting as their agent in the decision-making process up nntil that point So I think you might want to leave that one in there. MR CURRAN: That one, I'm going to have to leave. I don't think they'll let me relinquish it. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. 51 ~..'"._..- ^.- .'k."_ Management Review Committee Meeting 161 :,1 f\\\b January 26. 2009 MR. CURRAN: But in reality, in all the relationships that I've seen going through the files to research, it's a relationship that we don't step in and do anything unless you tell us, or you oome to US and say, "We've got a really serious situation, and we need some help." Then we'll come out and look. But we don't take the initiative. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Promise? MR. CURRAN: I was going to say, I hope oot. MS. WOMBLE: All right. Something's a little different here. What did they change? Do yon recall anything through this area that we or you may have added in or something? because it's not jiving with the ~r... MR GIBSON: VeISion? MS. WOMBLE: Version, yes, thanks, Geoff. MR. CURRAN: Which area is that? MS. WOMBLE: Page 17, 18, on in there. MR. CURRAN: I don't have it. MS. WOMBLE: That has the end of it MR. PETTY: Oh, you gave your copy to Maty? MR CURRAN: I'm sorry? MR. PETTY: You gave your copy to Mal}'? MR CURRAN: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: It all of a sudden, stopped... MR GIBSON: Yes, a number of pages back, actua1ly. MS. WOMBLE: Yes. MR. CURRAN: This is procedural on 17. Is that what you're talking about? MS. WOMBLE: All of a SlKkkn, it just stopped being very similar. The pages looked the same for a while, and then, all of a sudden, boom, it all changed. MR. PETTY: Changed the tone and segued into something else. MR. CURRAN: Oh, they're constantly changing my template. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR. CURRAN: This is... 52 _~'m'~'" -.-.", '-"-""~'-""" -_._~," ,,,.--., >~--"-- Management Review Committee Meeting 16) t I ~\\b Januarv 26.2009 COURT REPORTER: I can't hear you back there. MR GIBSON: It picks up on Page 9 of the original one we received. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR. GIBSON: Where, at the bottom of that page, it said: "Contractor's Personnel Requirements." And then, on the one we just got this afternoon, that starts on Page 10. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. So it's just a template problem. MR GIBSON: So there's kind of a blank area down here. I think that's where it's getting catty wampus. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. And then it does that a couple of places. MR GIBSON: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: I think there's a different spacing between things. Okay. Well, I'll go over the new one quietly, where I don't botherevetybody. And then I'll bother Jack if I find anything. MR CURRAN: I will be here. MS. WOMBLE: Anything coming up that you-all have noticed? MR. GIBSON: This just looks like a lot of boilerplate to me. MR CURRAN: Most of it is; most of it is. MR GIBSON: The question I have, in all sincerity, is: lrnowing the talents we have here with OUT present administrator, do you really feel we're going to get some activity on this RFP? MR. CURRAN: fm really hoping we do. MR. GIBSON: I know you're hoping, but I just was curious. Are there other people out there? MR CURRAN: I've received, I know, at least two phone calls from managing finns asking me that they heard this was coming out and did I know anything about it. And I just said, "There's a process being done. You can keep checking." MR GIBSON: Okay. Fine. That's great. MR CURRAN: But the issue that's where a little bit where it comes back to that one clause we were just speaking of. We go out and we don't get any firms proposing, or we get one, and everybody says,. "that's all?" So we're actually actively drumming up finns, I think it's good. I think it's great that you'll have a choice. And, you know if John is the selected vendor, that's great; there's no pn:;udice involved. It's just that I think you need to have a selection and an open thing, because no one knows what's out there n~ and times are tight. And fm getting caDs from vendors tOr everything. I'm getting general contractors calling up 53 ,",._".".",..... ."e.,""<,e"~_',""___._",""" -- "'" "'If .,..~.,." ." "-,~"",,,,,,,,,,,,,~"'-"""""~-~,'~~"~~^"~"~-- -~",^' Management Review Committee Meeting 161 ~1 p<\\b Januarv 26. 2009 wanting to bid on lawn mowers. MR GIBSON: Well, if it's not a full-time.job and that's the way you descnDed it although it could be a full-time job, I guess, depending on how you make it MR CURRAN: Uh-huh. MR GIBSON: There's other conununities here. And going back to an earlier meeting, is there an administrator that helps run Grey Oaks; that helps run Pelican Marsh; you know, you run one... MR CURRAN: Yes. MR GIBSON: It's not thai: hard, really, to adapt the same procedures and subs to run Community NO.2. MR CURRAN: And that's part of our act of seeking. I have my technician, she's calling all of the other conununities here. MR GIBSON: Okay. MR CURRAN: To see who or what finn's managing. MR GIBSON: We're going to get oiftrack here, but I'mjust wondering. We're going through a lot of effort here, and we've got a man in place. I guess it's something you really have to go through regardless. I realize that MR CURRAN: And trntbfully, whether we get other firms, additional firms, or we don't, at least the effort's been made. And we can all know that we definitely tried. MR. GIBSON: Yes, and then we can feel good about what we're doing. And then you go to yonr board. . . MS. WOMBLE: And in die sunshine. MR GIBSON: ...and say, "Hey, this is what we've done; this is what we've ~ and this is where we're going to go." And that's a good thing. MS. WOMBLE: Well. I think it's always a good thing for the resick:nts ofPeJican Bay to know that we are tIying. MR GIBSON: Yes, that's what we're here for. MS. WOMBLE: Yes. Okay. On the tiebreaker: "In the event of a tie both in individual scoring and in final rnnking, the firm with the lowest volume of wOIk on Collier County projects within the last five years will receive the higher individual rnnking." That seems kind of contraindicated. MR. CURRAN: Well, the reason behind it I'm told is, if we have three firms or two finns tied, one's made $16 million with the county and the other's only made a million, they feel that., well, that gives the low one a chance to come in and make some 54 ~...,-~..", ,"""",__"" I>, ."",....-- --.-- Management Review Committee Meeting 161 ~1 ~\\b Januarv 26. 2009 money. So they give it to the lowest bidder. And that's wby they called it a tie. MS. WOMBLE: But there could be a dam good reason why that person only made $1 miUion with the county. MR GIBSON: Yes. MR CURRAN: Well, that's where the e'\'3luations come ftom. And that's why \\e hope that evetything we've learned, we've put in the packets for you for the short list and that we wouldn't end up in a tie,. because the information was there. And as you say, there has been times you don't have the infonnation. It's, "eveaything we looked at is rosy, and we don't know the bad. " because everything we do is public. When we start evaluating here under the ~ tabs that we put in, it has to be your direct. knowledge. We cannot do, "I heard from some friend of mine that this finn is really bad or did a bad job." We really have to know directly, because that's what you're scoring on. Hopefully, that takes us away from the tie, because there's two issues with a tie. One of the breakers is the low money there; and then the second is, by Florida Strtute, I need to request the two firms to submit to us a drug-free wmkplace signed dowment. And onre they do that because if they are tied, and if they had, and this is WlUsual, but if they neither one's made any money with Collier County before, you still have a tie, so then it comes to the drug-free workplace. MS. WOMBLE: That's our tie? MR CURRAN: Btx::ause if they both sign that and send it to me, I still have a tie. And I don't know where it will go from there, but \\e're going to figure it out But that's wbat it will be. I've De\'eT had to use that tiebreaker. I thought I was going to last week, but I've never had to use it. MS. WOMBLE: Lucky you. MR CURRAN: Ob, yes. MR MOFFA IT: Jack, your description of Tab 7 and Tab 8 is not capped It's not consistent with the other tabs. MR CURRAN: Okay. MR MOFFA IT: It's not capped or underscored MR CURRAN: Right. And I think neither one carries a score point, 7 and 8. I think 8's the submittals. MR. MOFFAIT: Yes, it is, right. MR. CURRAN: And 7 escapes me. But I don't think it's.. . MR GIBSON: "Acceptance of Conditions." MR. MOFFAIT: 011, is that the distinction? MR CURRAN: Yes, it is, because, when I highlighted them and daIk.ened them, I did not want any of OUT proposers to 55 -.. .----------.-- ~-_..._--,-~ Management Review Committee Meeting 161 ~I 1\ \ \b January 26. 2009 miss: "This is what you need to give us, because you're going to score on each of those carrying a point margin," which I listed on, I thi.nk, the next page after that or the second page after that. There's a place I bad to put that in. And it totals up OUT score of 100 with the tabs that are appropriate for scoring. MR. MOFFATI: I would think it would be highly unusual to have a tie, because you can rate them. Like on No.3, where it's 20 points, you can rate them anywhere from 1 to 20. MR. CURRAN: Yes. In a select coounittee, when we're meeting, we do a vote. We go around, and I'll ask, "Who was your No. 1 rating, who's your NO.2 rating?" Let's say we have four firms; then we'll go down to four. Then I'll ask Geoff his four and sometimes youll hear them say, "\\dl, I've got a tie for 1 and 2." And that's where we get a tie. Usually we just encourage yourselves to go back and recheck them and see if you want to change your score. If you don't, it's fine. And that keeps us away from it But with three, I'm hoping, because I always try to keep my select connnittees to an odd munber, that breaks away from any tie. MR. MOFFAIT: Yes. MR CURRAN: Not always, but usually. MR. MOFF AIT: I would think, on consIant seJVices, the lowesl-priced firm is going to get more points than the others no matter what. MR. CURRAN: Yes. And there's going to be references. Finns give us references. And they really say, you know, "we're really best friends, and this is the firm." And we call some of the firms. We will call the firms fur you. And the questions we're going to ask them are listed in the RFP right after, I think it's in Tab 6 or 5. Some of the firms are very, very honest when they answer me back, you know, that, "yes,. I've used this fino, very nice people. I'd never use them again, though. If And they tell you why. And it shocks us when we go in and tell the committee. MS. WOMBLE: You can do that, though? I thought that was against the law. MR. CURRAN: Huh-uh, DO. MS. WOMBLE: No? MR. CURRAN: I don't think so, as long as they're honest And they're the ones that have to support it We're just taking what they gave us in writing. And we have their name and everything. It shocks me that some of them come back out~~nding. But every now and then, you get one that really comes back bad. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Have you got anything else you want us to be thinking about? 56 --~, -'---~," ,~.",~~o,,_,.,~,,_,_ ....,- ,""'m_.~ ~_.., Management Review Committee Meeting 161 1 ~ \\ \) Januarv 26.2009 MR. CURRAN: I just wanted to check with you on the tabs we were just speaking about. the scoring sheet numbers, Are yon comfortable with that? Is there anything you'd like me to change or put in; or would you like me to change some of the values I assigned to them? 1 just did them in my head real quick, put them in, like this one would be 25 and this one would be 10. I can make those changes. MR. GIBSON: It was not your first time around the tJack. )'ou know. I think you have to go with experience on something like this, is where I landed on that. MR. CURRAN: I tried to put what I felt you thought was the IIlOISl important items for you to give the higher scores. So that way, it would help you weigh them. MS. WOMBLE: I think if there were to be any kind of a change, I think maybe upping the corporate experience and capacity might be. MR. CURRAN: If I uwed that... MS. WOMBLE: Yon know, it would only be 5 points probably, so it's not a big deal. MR. CURRAN: Okay. I was going to say, if I up it. I have to lower something else. MS. WOMBLE: Right MR. CURRAN: So ... MS. WOMBLE: "Local." MR. CURRAN: I can't that's the one I cannot do. MS. WOMBLE: But you're checking. MR CURRAN: But I am going to check and see. If we can legally take it out, rm more than willing to do it. MS, WOMBLE: Now, no matter what happens with this, I just want to be clear. Our statfwho is in place, Kyle and all the fellows that wOlk with us they're in place reganIIess of the management team. MR. CURRAN: COIrect MS. WOMBLE: If that were an issue, if the people who wanted to apply for this suggest that they want to bring their own people in with them, which would be understandable, can we stop that in some way? MR CURRAN: Right. In the evaluation, you can... MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR. CURRAN: . ,.putthere that, "I gave them a"... 57 ---' ."","0."'" .. ""^'"."~,,.._. ,....-.-.-.....- Management Review Committee Meeting 161 1 ~\\b Januarv 26. 2009 MS. WOMBLE: So they know from the get-go, this is the way... MR CURRAN: "I'm giving you a zero because this is not wbat we asked for." MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR CURRAN: Finns will that's why we tIy to assign a point evaluation to the tab, each tab, because they will come back and offer you everything but what you're reaDy asking for. MS. WOMBLE: Right MR CURRAN: So we tell them to be specific. And hopefully they will. Part of my job is, the day I open it I have to look and make sure that we asked for corpornte experience. llook and see if we have one. Do we have resumes? Did they give us what we asked for? Just putting a little note, I've bad one finn in the past that said, "well, I've been in business for 16 years. And my fellow that will be running this job for you, he came in the door and told me, 1 don't know anything. but I learn fast,' so I hired him, and he's been with me for eight years. " And I said, "well, geez, where's your resutIlCS; where's your qualifications; wbere's your license and all that stuff?" NOh, we don't have that stuff." So I bad to disqualify them. This is why the point scores and they need to answer those tabs and give you, hopefully, all the infonnatioo they can about their company to you, so you can make an evaluation. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. I don't want to lose Kyle and the others. MR CURRAN: No, this is SUict1y... MS. WOMBLE: I've seen them in action, and they're very good. MR CURRAN: .. .for the administrator. And if they offer that suggestion,. that's where you do the red line on the things. It'll be your direction. I'll be there to guide you. I'll be the moderator, so to speak, the facilitator;. but it's your decision that prevails. I will not tell you how to vote. I will just tell you what we asked for and what they gave us. And you'll do the deciding. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR CURRAN: Okay. MS. WOMBLE: Jack, thank you. MR. CURRAN: Okay. I'm going to make these changes. I can e-mail them? You said you can receive them? MS. WOMBLE: Yes. MR CURRAN: I can e-mail them to you. Hopefully I'll gel them in the next two days. Once we get the changes done, if you're all satisfied, I'll clean it up. And I'm going to take the dares out of the skewed ones 'til I find out when the board's meeting. 58 - - ~ ---------.----.-- ---..-,.-. ._._---.._.~..._,---"~-"'- ~-~-_._'"~.~..,- ~~"._..."-" -'--,..,"~~-- Management Review Committee Meeting 161 1 ~\\p Januarv 26. 2009 And I don't want to put in the next meeting, because we may not be ready. You may have a few more changes. But if everything's ready, I'll put in a tentative date based on your board's meetings so you can go in and get your approval for this. And then I can get you something. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. MR. CURRAN: And then. that day, anything about this proposal, John will be calling me with. MS. WOMBLE: Jack, thank you very much. MR. CURRAN: Thank you, ma'am. MR. GIBSON: Yes, goodjob. I was impressed. MR. CURRAN: Thank you, sir. MS. WOMBLE: And good luck All right. Do I have a motion to adjourn? MR.MOFFAIT: Yes MR. GIBSON: Second. MS. WOMBLE: All in filvor? Aye. MR. GIBSON: Aye. MR. MOFFAIT: Aye. ~~thegoodmtheCounly, the.-ingwasao!joomedbyonleroftheOrnirwoman "'4:46p.m ~~-/ y, WOMB, CHAIRWOMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY KAREN BLOCKBURGER, RPR, NOTARY PUBLIC AND FORMATIED BY MARY MCCAUGIITRY, RECORDING SECRETARY, PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 59 - ----_..._---_._---_._~.~.._~-_.- -....--.,-.." "'''4'''''''''''''''' . ...~- >--. FI8''J. 6 k\\'o ~ Halas Henning RECE\VED TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE Coyle MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMfITEE OF 'I'illetta MAR 3 0 2009 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Naples, Florida - February 12~ 2009 Board oICNltV ~ LET IT BE REMEMBERED~ that the Management Review Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division.. in and for County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:30 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at Hammock Oak Center, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman Jerry Moffatt Geoff Gibson Also Present: Jack Curran, Collier County Purchasing Dept.; Kyle Lukasz,. Field Operations Manager, Pelican Bay Services Divisio~ and Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secre1aIy, Pelican Bay Services Division. AGENDA L Roll Call 2. Approve Minutes of 1-12-09 Meeting 3. Audience Participation 4. Review Changes Made in Scope of Services 5. Committee Requests 6. Audience Comments 7. Adjourn ROLL CALL MS. WOMBLE: All right I am calling this meeting to order. Let the record show that everyone is present MR. MOFFAIT: Yes, Madam Chair. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION MS. WOMBLE: And let's see, we'll go from there to audience participation. Kyle, would you like to stand up and do a dance or anything? Okay. Review changes made in scope of services. Motion to approve the minutes? May I have a motion to approve the minutes? APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF 1-12-09 MEETING MR. GIBSON: So moved. MS. WOMBLE: Second? MR. MOFFAIT: I'll second. MS. WOMBLE: Any discussions? Thank you. Evidently not. Approved as read. Aye? MR. GIBSON: Aye. MR. MOFFAIT: Aye. Misc. Corres: Oate:__.._--.-- 60 .'em #. .__._._-.----- ,-:;opies to .~_..- ~-~.- .'-'.-- "'-"'~"~-~ ,r_ , ,-,~.,,_.,- Management Review Committee 161 1 ,,\\ ~ February 12.2009 Mr. Geoff Gibson moved, seconded b}' Mr. Jerry Moffatt and approved unanimously th._e Minutes_o_if__t_he J.__"_"_"__tu"J__ ' 12_,_10__09__meeti_ 'ng. ---- MS. WOMBLE: Okay. Minutes passed. That was for the 12th. You do not have on there for the latest ones, which is just as well. I have not read through them completely. So let's move on to the review changes made in the scope of services. That would be you, Jack. REVIEW CHANGES IN SCOPE OF SERVICES MR CURRAN: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: And Jack, 1 do have to tell you, I know 1 saw that you bad sent that. When 1 went back looking for it, I couldn't find it. I could not find it in my docwnents. I thought I saved it and I couldn't find it and I apologize, but I lost it. MR CURRAN: I was really concerned when I didn't hear anything before the meeting from anyone, and then the phone message this morning I said, oh, goodness all this time you didn't get it. MR MOFFA IT: I've never seen it. MR GIBSON: I didn't see it either. Don't feel bad. It's in cyberspace somewhere. MS. WOMBLE: I may have looked at the old one. MR GIBSON: That would be one of my comments, when I looked at the old one versus the new one, it didn't seem to be changed. I had to go through to find it. If it is revision three dated Februmy 4th. MR CURRAN: I did not do that. MR GIBSON: The date that's on there, revision 7, 2008, that's what got a little confusing when you're look at. I'm sure it's a master that you have because you have very similar situations back there in your office. But the fact it came over the computer yesterday led me to believe it was the latest version. There wasn't a whole lot of demarcation. MR CURRAN: I apologize what I should have done, and normally do is when I make the changes, I highlight it in yellow so you can see it quickly. And this one I made the changes, and I was into another situation, so I immediately sent it so you can organize it and I didn't do that MR GIBSON: Not a big deal. MS. WOMBLE: You're in luck, all three of us understand other situations. I just want to make sure I'm not looking at the wrong one. 61 "' --~_.. ....,,-,..,"-,..~ ,-..,,--...."'....... Management Rniew Committee 16\ 1 ~\\b Februarv 12.2009 MR CURRAN: The dates are based on when you're going to take what you consider to be the final draft to the board. I need to know that date so I can base these dates with the stream. MR. MOFFA IT: Let me ask a question, I guess the last meeting we talked about taking this to the full Services Division board. That would be early Marcil. By the time you then get it out and get the proposals back in, we're probably looking at May at the earliest. MR CURRAN: Yes. MR. MOFFAIT: Doestbat make a lot of sense? I mean.. we'll be into a situation Where, you know, there's a lot of people not even here anymore because they've gone up north. I don't know what tbe board thinks. MS. WOMBlE: Well, it gets more exciting too because John Petty's contrnct is up when? Is it May 1st or May 30th? MS. MCCAUGHlRY: Through May at least and maybe June I will have to cbeck the contract. MR CURRAN: To the first of June. There is the possibility that we can get it done, I will have to see how many bids we get. I think we're okay. We can ask for an extension of John ifwe need to go through. Normally, when we put these out, we don't have the selection committee, which is in your occasion, approves all the changes that you have made and then I take that and run with it to the street. We don't have the OUT board look at OUT selection. Ifs all done on the short list and we bring it back to them But if we do have to go to the board and in March we're calling aU out, I need to have this on the street for 30 days. If we're close to 50,000 I can put it on the street for three weeks. but not over 200,000. So I can put it out for three weeks. That will buy US a little bit of time. Then ifwe bring that back in, what day would you say in March would be your meeting? MS. MCCAUGHlRY: First Wednesday. MS. WOMBlE: First Wednesday is when we meet. We can have another meeting. We can call an emergency meeting. MR. CURRAN: If you approve on March 4th, and I know you're going to a meeting on the 4th, and I can put the dates in and we can use the date of March 6th. I can actually return this, the proposals back to us March the 27th, which would be the third week. Then I open them on the 27th and I would meet with you folks on Tuesday, give them to you, the proposals, to read and review, and usually within one week to 10 days I would ask you to meet again with me publicly on that date and we will go and select and score the people that did propose to you. Then we would be done. Then you have your finn and you need to go back to the board and have them read it and then you short-list and give the dollar amount received that you need to go to my board and we'll take it from there. MR MOFFA IT: Jack, if we're down to a short list. say what, two or three, we still don't have 100 yet. 62 ,. -, """n._.w.' ~--- .-. _.",---, Management Review Committee Fehruarv 12. 2009 1b\ .1 ",\\b MR CURRAN: No. MR MOFFATT: So we're already in whal, laIc April? MR CURRAN: In mid-April. MR MOFFATT: Then we've got 10 inlenicw tbem, make a decision. Maybe we intenicw them to get to the short list What if there's a dozen? Do you wanllo inteMCW a dozen? MR CURRAN: That's the purpose of the short list We'll knock it down. Ifwe have a dozen, we'll knock itdoWll if you wanl to two finns, three finns. Based on everything thai they submit 10 us thai we required it) IlCre and you fcellike these two finns are the best, we can then at that time and it's your option, invite tbcm to onme to a presentation review and then you do a final short lisl based on number one. Once we do the final short list we still need the conl1acl specialist to step in and talk dollar valne. Whal's Iheir price they're going 10 agree. Then we give you that price that we negotiate, then we go to lbe hoard. MR MOFFATT: Somewhere in there we've got to do a personal inleMew of the finns. MR CURRAN: That's usnaily where the presentation comes in if you want that You can have tbcm all come in like we did wben we picked them in the county's and the commissions, they had them all sil in a chair and ask specific qnestions. I've never done one. I always have my people come in. I assigo a day and a time to them. They COIllC in and they put np nsnally questions that you have. I send them in and say this is what you limit your presentation to and then yon each have all the lime yon desire to ask the public questions of them and inleIView them, so to speak MR MOFFATT: Let me ask you a question np bere. I know at the last meeting you said we would take it to our full hoard. I don~ know that we've made that many changes from the existing conl1acl what we're looking for. What ['m driving at, perhaps we carmot take it to our full board lust have us make the decision. That wonld move things along three weeks. MS. WOMBLE: Are you lalking about accepting the contmct? MR MOFFATT: No.nurfce. MR CURRAN: lust the drafting of the proposal for me to move on and get it on the street and get it back sooner. Thai's three weeks sooner it will he on the street MR GIBSON: I have no problem \\ith that MR MOFFATT: If we were changing something significantly in here, maybe we'd wdlll the whole hoard to see it This is almost like, you know. vanilla ice cream. MR CURRAN: Well, what it is basically, other than the legal jwnbo that's in our boilerplate, ii's the revised agreement 63 Management Review Committee 16\ 1 ~\\b Februarv 12. 2009 that you had with John, his finn We incorporated that into this and then took some of the things from the old contract that was already in there and we put it all together and blended them in with your review and your agreement. So basically, it is what John worked on, his finn so nothing has been changed. I put nothing in there that's really outstanding and glaring tlmt we changed. MS. WOMBLE: Well. let me ask this. Goon: have you read this thoroughly? MR GIBSON: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: The new one? MR. GIBSON: Yes. MR. MOFFAIT: I have not read the new one. MS. WOMBLE: I have not either. MR MOFFA IT: I just got it this morning. MS. WOMBLE: Me too. MR. GIBSON: I got it last night on the Internet. MS. WOMBLE: You did? MR. GIBSON: Yes. I printed it out last night I know that MR MOFFATT: Mine came in at 7:50 something this moming. MS. WOMBLE: Me too. MR CURRAN: I got in, I got Mary's message and I bad to run to a meeting so [ quickly sent one and ran to my meeting. I was hoping you got it. Then I called MaIy when I came back from my meeting and said if I send this to you will you print it in case it didn't go through, so she did MS. WOMBLE: Well, I have another meeting later this afternoon for personal business with someone in my family who has a major health issue so I did not have time. I was preparing something for the legalities that we're going to be facing. So, I don't feel comfortable accepting a proposal that I haven't read I have to tell you that right off the bat. Geoff, I do respect you and I do appreciate you and if you feel that this is really no difference and you went through it carefully, then that would give me. . . MR GIBSON: It certainly isn't my area of expertise, Madam Chair, but I didn't see that many changes. The pre-proposal conference on February 12thjust kind of jumped out at me. MR CURRAN: Those were sent. MR GIBSON: Well, that's today, best to my knowledge. 64 .- "~,,,-<~..,q.., .- Management Review Committee l-6-t '1 ~l\~ Februarv 12.2009 MR. CURRAN: I was supposed to have been advertising it as of February 2nd. ] needed to put dates so you can see the schedule. I will update them whenever you give me the okay to go on the street. Now, you do not have to give me the okay at this second. If there are no new issues raised that we need to put in a simple email to me or a phone call is fine. I'm coutent to let it go then I will put the dates in it and I will send you again another copy with the new dates and I'll send one to Mary and we'll post it and go with those dates. We can even talk dates today if you wish. MR MOFFA IT: Jack, let me just ask the question, I see my date section here on page eight is highlighted. Are other changes highlighted in yellow? MR. CURRAN: They should be. Not all. This is a key to me that I need to put the correct ones and not miss it. MR. MOFFA IT: Can you walk us through the changes since the last one? MR. CURRAN: Well, the first change is on page eight, right underneath the dates there. It says administrative assistant and 16 field employees. On the original one we were not sure what the base is. So that "'as given to me that day, the 16. And then on page two we had a comment that was in there about purchasing of wliforms. That was in there and that was corrected and changed to read Pelican Bay Services Division at the top of the legal notice. That's where it was hidden. MR. MOFFA IT: And then February 12th date on that page. MR. CURRAN: Yes. On mine it's highlighted and on page si'{ we checked the ordinance number of 200-27. And I had that verified and that is correct. MR. GIBSON: Going to the second paragraph on that page we had some discussion at our last meeting about the length of the cont:rnct. We kind of checked the minutes I guess the anticipated contrnct was for the term of 12 months additionally by mutual agreement and the funding availability contrnct may be renewed for three terms of one year each. It seemed. like a lot of work every year. I thought we had some discussion that just let it go because there's a major loophole and if we don't like what's happening with Mr. X then we have the ability to terminate that contrad very quickly and easily. MR CURRAN: We had that in there and then we were talking about making it a two year, two year, one year, three year and then you so instructed me that you would really like to have the option at the end of any one of the years for whatever reason you wanted it discontinued. MR. GIBSON: My only comment was any assignmeut that I've taken, it usually took me a year to kind of figure out what I'm supposed to be doing. And depending on how good you are at that, you can look maybe not your best that first year but then you can take off like a skyrocket from that point on after you find out where the leavers are so to speak. That gives us the ability to 65 ^"-_. ,~_..-... . . _."",_..._..._--",,",--, - --. ....-,.,...,.-."'.-.."...- ,,--"'"'" Management Review Committee 161 d\l February 12 2009 do that. MR CURRAN: Actually, the first person that agrees to renewal would be yourselves then you ask Mr. X. Okay. Now the temlination clause was a possibility, and I don't have the page for that. I think I wrote that based on what you just said, Geoff, you wanted the capability if the service was poor, but not have to wait three years to go through a termination and we stayed with that, so that's what covered that part. Then I went to page seven and I had written here, time is mandatory. At the next to the last line on the page: A pre-proposal conference is denoted as "mandatory." The pre-proposalconference we're going to do is not mandat01:Y. That word in here is part of my boilerplate. If I do a mandatory, what that requires is if for any reason that person does not show up, they cannot propose to even be an applicant. If they had a car accident on the way in to the proposal meeting. That's why it says this pre-proposal. We have to tell them what a mandatory and non-mandatory is. Your pre-proposal meeting will be a non-mandatory, which is what I say right there in the first line on the pre-proposal conference. And then page eight was the date and order that Jerry asked me to switch around so they ~' chronological, which I did. And also, page nine, the second sentence, used to have in it the Clam Bay Water Restoration Committee and so forth. I took that out at your direction. Now it just says the Pelican Community and Pelican Bay Service Division Board. MR MOFFA IT: You actually substituted the term and all committee meetings established by Pelican Bay Service? MR. CURRAN: Yes. And I took out words., tIm's not there now, we took out the clause in there that said the board could have a private meeting. Then we go to page ten. And again this was about the county attorney, the clauses. I made the changes based on county's responsibilities. It's in the county's responsibilities to include support for the Pelican Bay Senrice Board ,ria human resources, county attorney, purchasing, et cetera. The county attorney was questioned. The county attorney is not in there to select your person. AIl they're there for is if we have a legal issue that comes up, they will represent the county and themselves in defending and taking care of that issue for this contIact Nothing else. And hwnan resources. because they help to find the new employees that are sent to you for approval fur hiring. So that's basi<:ally just telling you what we're sharing and allowing or doing 'with you. MR. MOFFAIT: The county isn't showing that. MR CURRAN: Basically we really don't have accounting. per se. We have the clerk of court, and I'm not saying this facetiously. They are more of a regulator. They kind of like check the invoices, look at tIllS and say yes, you're paying the same thing, but they don't go through the funds and tell us you have this much and you should spend only this or something. I can put that in if you wish, but yon really don't have the county service. The way I look at it, the experience rm having with them, they're 66 --,.,~ " .~-,.._- ...'_0..........- --~._. ....-. 'w# Management Review Committee 16' \\1 ~\~ Febl1la 12 2009 more of an overseer. They tell us what we're doing \\TOng. MR. MOFFA IT: I don't feel strongly about it. In the top paragraph there, contractors' personnel requirements. The last sentence says, the county retains final approval of the proposed replacement personnel. I thought we bad the approval. At least I have a note on my last copy that replaced county with service division. MR. CURRAN: I may have missed that. lbat's not a problem. I will change that. MS. WOMBLE: What will you change it to, Jerry? MR. CURRAN: Pelican Bay Service Division. MS. WOMBLE: So PBSD retains final approval? MR. CURRAN: Yes, ma'am, I did miss it Then we went to page 11 and the item was Section D, relations. And I don't see Section D here. It moved to page 12 to additions. We inserted in there in the third and fourth line I inserted Pelican Bay Service Division. Then OUT next one is on page.... MR. MOFF AIT: Hold on a second. MR CURRAN: I'm sorry. MR. MOFFA IT: What was that last change you talked about? MR CURRAN: Relations of county. It's tmder Section B in that one. MR. GIBSON: Page 12. MR CURRAN: It's page 12 on the new one, but on the old one it was under D on page II. MS. WOMBLE: It relieves us from legal issues tbat might be incurred by a contractor who's done something just not quite exactly the way we'd want to. In other words, be's not OUT. .. MR CURRAN: I'm not saying either way. MR MOFFA IT: So we took Pelican Bay Service Division out of there? MS. WOMBLE: No, we put it in so we wouldn't be liable. MR CURRAN: And then we'll go to page 13, protest received. MR. MOFFA IT: Before you get there, how about F, termination? MR CURRAN: Termination? MS. WOMBLE: The county shall be sole judge of non-performance. The last sentence there. I think we had a question about that also. 67 ,---<- -""""~<"__~T -_._,~,..",..,....'","" "'_..-- """"~""""""__" "'~'._..' "'.___~", ~u'" .1 . Management Review Committee 16\ ~\t '0 Februarv 12. 2009 MR CURRAN: And I added in, and PBSD. Should the contractor be fOlmd to have failed to perform his services in a manner satisfactory to the county and PBSD, the county and PBSD may tenninate the agreement immediately for cause. Further, the county may terminate for convenience with a seven-day written notice. That is, if we both run out of money, the county can say to them, we're dropping it now, 00 reason, that's it That does not supersede you saying... MS. WOMBLE: It was the last sentence, the county shall be sole judge of non-performance? MR CURRAN: Yes. That needs to have PBSD added in. That bas a few changes. We're on page 13, protest procedure. The protest procedures are written in the past, saying Board of Collier County Commissio~, second paragraph. I have inserted and the Pelican Bay Services Division. What this paragraph is mainly for is if someone protests the way we did this or the way we're awarding, they have to send a formal protest in to Steve Carnell, director of purchasing. He will then pull it off whatever agenda it's on for vote until he settles the protest. So if it's going to your board. we would not really think you would want to approve a contract that's in protest, so I inserted in to say whichever bomd it's going to. If we get a protest, we will pull it until the protest is dealt with by Steve. MR MOFFA IT: This is just a question, but you've used PBSD throughout here. Why wouldn't you do the same thing here? MR CURRAN: We use the Board of County Commissioners on things and I gave you the same respect Where they had BCC I tried to use PBSD, even at the top of the page. MR MOFFA IT: It should already define the terms? MR CURRAN: Yes. At the very top sentence on the top of the page I did the same thing. MS. WOMBLE: I see. Better reading. MR. CURRAN: I thought if Ihe county had its full name there, then you deserve that beautiful name next to it. Where they had initials, I did initials. MR MOFFAIT: All right MR CURRAN: Then I have here page 14, conflict of interest MS. WOMBLE: We have PBSD here too. MR CURRAN: I added in the PBSD because it wasn't in there. When we review the conflict of interest, it's usually myself and the department and the staff, so I put this in at your request. It means you get to review the conflict of interest and make sure you feel it's valid. 68 .~--'". ^~.." --.-..., .".,-"."..",,~ ".-. " .- Management Review Committee \1 IVl\ b Februa 12 2009 MS. WOMBLE: And staff. MR MOFFA IT: Put the word, and, in there? MS. WOMBLE: In between time staff and PBSD. MR CURRAN: Okay. And the next one I did, which you will not see in here anymore, is the one I said you wouldn't see, here it is. That's being removed completely out MR GIBSON: Which one? MR CURRAN: The local vendor preference. MR GIBSON: Ob, yes. MR CURRAN: I'm tIying to get it completely out. You've asked me to remove it and I had a legal request to the county attorney, can I legally do it? He told me be doesn't think so, but be said we will remove it if be comes back with that answer. I haven't gotten that answer yet This really is a touchy subject with them The only time this would not apply at the present is if you were using any type of a grnnt money because all grants require no favoritism be shown and bid, and this is favoritism. So I'm waiting for his answer. You asked me to remove it and I have it on here as to be removed if I legally can. MS. WOMBLE: If YOll can't, ask him to place in the word experienced. MR CURRAN: Okay. MS. WOMBLE: With ten points for continuing or past experience with this, you know. Yon get it? MR. CURRAN: I do. MS. WOMBLE: I think we can do that. I bet we can add. MR CURRAN: Right now we have two. The new one says State of Florida and Collier County and Lee. Because Lee signed an inter local agreement with us. And page 16. MS. WOMBLE: Ob, you put in PBsn again? MR GIBSON: You have a specific date there, all proposals delivered before 3:00 p.m by February 26th. We're back into that date? MR CURRAN: I have a little button that takes me to each of those dates and I can change them. They'll all be uniform when I'm done. MS. WOMBLE: And on the next page, I think under evaluation of proposals, you have put in under number one, the PBSD board shall appoint a selection committee. That was changed out from the county managers? 69 ,_. '~-' " .'.-. -."'-.-,..---- ""~".,." ,~-""..- ,..~, ... Management Review Committee 16il 1 M\~ Februarv 12. 2009 MR CURRAN: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: So, thank you. MR. CURRAN: I have something written about page 17, but I don't see it I added at the bottom of page 17 PBSD where it says, the county and/or PBSD reserves the right to withdraw this, I added PBSD into that. You have the right to withdraw at any time. MR MOFFA IT: So that would mean, for example, if we start this process, and we don't like the results that are coming in, the vendors that are coming in, or we decide that perhaps we don't even need an a<4ninistIator, we can go on without an administIator that was suggested at one of OUT earlier meetings. At the time he was not a lnember of the board, he now is a member of the board and will not be a member of the board another month from now. But that would allow us to change our mind and say no, we're going to do it in-house, we don't need an administrator. MR CURRAN: Yes. And there's two ways. One is that you can just call me at any time and tell me as the select committee that you want me to withdraw this and that you have no desire to go forward. You can give me a reason or you can say we've met and we don't desire to go any further. I will just need to clarU)' what are you going to do A) not have the manager here; or B) are you going to do something different. Once that's done, it's done. The second way you have as your option is once you short-list a firm or once I open up the proposals and you have one, you can say we feel that's not fair. That's not enough proposals. We're not satisfied with that, let's stop here and we'll reconsider going out again or maybe doing a different method. And that can end it. There is a third. Yon may make a selection. And we go to the board and the full board says no. It's done. No contract, nothing valid. Your board said no, it's no. And the same in the county, with the Collier County Commissioners. If your board says no, we will not say yes. Those are the options. You have right up to the last minute you have the option of saying no. MR. MOFFAIT: Okay. MR GIBSON: Jeny, I wonder what the proper venne is for that, to bring that discussion out. Do we need an administIator? I'm so new to this you know, and the economy is lkmn, the tax basis are down the last time I was with the County Commissioner they were terrified about what it was going to do to the county services and everything in general. I just don't know where the venue is to discuss that subject. Do we need an administrator? Is it worth the money we spend of OUT residents here for that service in this kind of an economy, or do we anoint Kyle, ifhe wants to be anointed, and say hey, take over and see how it goes kind of a thing? MS. WOMBLE: May I answer? Kyle is not political. Our administIator is and he knows the ropes and he knows the 70 ^_.~ ",-""Ul -,~~~~~" -~",---,-",.,--,~,~' Management Review Committee tw\\ ~ Februa 12 2009 history better than anyone else sitting here or on OUT board at this moment in time. Only because he was with Severn Trent for 20 years, or however long; 16, 17 years, and then he's been our administrator on his own for the last, what Mary, two, three years? MS. MCCAUGHTRY: Three, I believe. MS. WOMBLE: Three. And he's well aware of how the water management system works. He knows about the irrigation. He and Kyle can talk quickly and know exactly what each other is thinking. I believe, at this point They are of a mind because they have worked well together for a long time. MR. GIBSON: I don't disagree with any of that I'mjust asking what is the venue fo~ the discussion? MS. WOMBLE: Well, it's political. It's all political. MR GIBSON: Is it written in stone and there's no discussion, tbat's fine, I can accept that MR MOFFA IT: I would think at least it will be at the board level, our board level MS. WOMBLE: What would be at the board level? You need to spell it out. MR. MOFFA IT: The discussion that Geoff asked. What's the venue to discuss it? I would think our board would discuss it and render a decision. MS. WOMBLE: I think that's a good idea. MR MOFFA IT: I didn't hear what you said about Kyle is what at the very beginning. MS. WOMBLE: I didn't say Kyle. I said the administrator is political. It's a more political position. Kyle is not. Kyle is out on the front line. MR LUKASZ: I think who you hire even though basically is a competent employee to the board, he's still a hired, he's a contractor from the outside. If you think about some of the issue that have come up over the last year that John bas had to communicate with the county manager's office. As a contractor administrator and what he can handle versus say an actual employee of the county, meaning myself. MS. WOMBLE: When he sits with Mr. Halas and Mr. Mudd, and I sit there too, Mr. Mudd and Mr. Petty are discussing situations that are relevant to that level Overall county-wide, city-wide, whatever, there's more of an understanding of the scope that's much broader than just our community. MR. MOFFAIT: Mary Anne, your reply to Geon: you're presupposing that Petty is the person who's awarded the contract. MS. WOMBLE: No. I was giving an explanation. I'm the teacher and have been and now I'm just bossy I guess, but the 71 -~-_.."'- c "'...,,.,....... -_.~.-~.__.,~--~, ---_._-~._..~...-..~._"~.,- Management Review Committee l-tH 1 ~l\\o Februarv 12. 2009 way I do things is to show an explanation and give an example. And John Petty is our administrdtor and that was my example. MR. MOFFAIT: But if he's not selected, do "e get firms in and we find a better one, however we evaluate that? We don't have that benefit, assuming that was a benefit MS. WOMBLE: The historical background? MR MOFFATI: Right. MS. WOMBLE: That's true. And that's a big loss as far as I'm concerned because I'm on the front line with him. And I'm watching and listening, and I also know I can go to him and he will have answers for Il}e that other people can't possibly have lmless they have his knowledge, and not vel)' many people do. It's that simple. He's been very beneficial to The Foundation and he's been beneficial to the Property Owners Association as well as our own board I know there are issues that people have, but I have watched a lot of things that have happened and I think we could have been in a worse situation bad it not been for him. And I know that there are some people who would prOOably refute that, but I would like to hear what their explanation and examples are because I haven't seen it. I know what some of the thoughts are, but tIre)' never follow them through or explain thoroughly because they couldn't. Now if they can, I'll be "illing to listen, but there's a huge amount of loss involved if we don't have someone who has historically been aware of what's going on in our community and can help us mend our way to get what we need for the conunwrity and Clam Bay. And so far, we've gotten back what we thought we lost and I don't think we really lost it and he helped us realize that, I'm talking about Clam Bay now. But it's all political. The administrator is able to suggest and advise. Since we have sunshine laws, we need someone who is a clearinghouse and Ire's been aware of this kind of a conununity and many other conununities in the State of Florida and he knows Florida laws, he knows loca11aws, so that helps. MR GIBSON: Well I didn't intend to get into all that discussion. Ijust asked what the venue was to discuss the issue. MS. WOMBLE: I think actually the administrator is important for the same reason Kyle brought out. The main issue is that they can go to the county manager and talk on a one-to-one basis without ha"ing problems understanding what the laws are and what's involved. And they'd have to have a vel)' deep knowledge of our water management, our irrigation, Clam Bay. They'd have to be really quite aware of a lot of areas that would be difficult for someone new. MR MOFFA IT: I guess I still get back to the question then, are we going through this exercise for nothing? Is this a waste of time? MS. WOMBLE: Well, I'm not sure why we're doing it, to be honest with you. I assume that somebody from our board had requested it. 72 --"",.- .._,,-"'- -_..~,.,--".._,,- -;-~_. ......-...'"..~.._.._.. m _...,-~ Management Review Committee 161 \1 w\lb February 12. 2009 MR. MOFFA IT: I thougbt it was just the contract was expiring and it was the nonnal course of events to evaluate alternatives. MS. WOMBLE: I think we have to hear from Jack. MR CURRAN: That's when I first came to Steve, to the board, Steve mentioned to the board. The contract really has not been let publicly since 2002, if I remember correctly. And it needs to go to the public, dollar limits are up, services are up, changes are needed, but it has not been publicly bid. The last time in '07 when John left Severn Trent, a quote was done and I think what it turned out to be is we got one, there was one no response, there was one finn that said the): would get back to us or something of that nature, and then there was John. MS. WOMBLE: And Severn Trent MR CURRAN: TIle Severn Trent might have been the other one. MS. WOMBLE: They actually presented but they were... MR. CURRAN: Oh, yeah. It hasn't been done. This is why we're doing it If your dollar limits are going to stay down really what yon consider low. There was two issues involved and the contract needed to be taken a look at and updated correctly. One issue was the board had a limit 0[$24,000 and you didn't have to go through the board, but at $25,000 you did. And we went to the board about a year-and-a-half. two years ago and we asked them to give us a little more leeway and raise these limits so they raised them where we didn't have to go to the board until over $50,000. Well, immediately your contract showed up from 24 to 48. And that's fine, everything is okay, but what we didn't see is what was the extra work? You were getting X amount of work for $24,000 and because we changed our limit, you were getting the same work: now for $48,000. So that's when we said you need to really go out and look at it I'm not here to dispute it, but is it fair? We need to look at the public and that's wbere we are and that's why we're doing this. Now, there's two issues here. One is, one for the board, you need to discuss, as you mentioned, do you need an administrator? That would not be my call at all. The other issue I really need to address to you is, which I do with all my select committees, and in dealing with a lot of folks in the county like I do, I make a lot of enemies, but they have favorite vendors and we have heated discussions a lot when I won't let them use them. And they say, well, this is the only one. He's been doing this for years with me. In fact, Kyle and I had that conversation just before this meeting started about a vendor. What happens if that vendor passes a'way, his business collapses the next day? Where are we? So we really have to keep OUT mind open that eventually someday we are going to need to have somebody who has experience and we really need to look, if you get any proposals back, at them open minded because they may bring something very new to the table. They may not have your history and experience, but 73 -,-- ... .._~ '_h.'.~'."'_ "- -."",""- ~..___.___..H ._"___~___~____.~_ Management Review Committee i.. I 1 1><1 \ b Februarv 12 2009 hopefully, not on the higher level you spoke of Mary, but Kyle should be able to help 'with some of the things if you need a new firm. You really have to keep an open mind for that, othernise )'ou feel like, the feeling I got from Jell)' just now is you really need John. TIlls is why we're doing it. John may be the perfect man., John may win it the nex1 time, but we need to do it, find out what their extra dollars are and what a fuir price is for yourselves. MS. WOMBLE: I can take care of that easily, historically because I have been around a long time. The reason why it went from 24 to 48 was simply because we felt that he was grossly underpaid, and because we did not want to go to the commissioners with a higher salary and we wanted to keep it in-house to make it easier begmse we had other issues on the table. That was back when incorporation and independent studies were going on and there was a lot of ballyhoo in our connnunity. We decided that it was easier and more to the point to continue witll John and Janice on the district offices and give them a raise that we felt they totally earned. The only reason tl1ey bad 24,000 before that was simply because of that 25,000 cap. That was it. Once the cap went to 50,000, we all, I believe it was a lDl3Ilimous vote, went 00ck up to the 48. And there's your answer for why we did that. They definitely earned it. MR CURRAN: No dispute, no dispute. I was just explaining it. MS. WOMBLE: You do tlle same thing I do with the explanations, but since you did bring that up, I wanted to make it clear that that was the situation. The entire board actua1ly went for the higher salary. I think somebody, I think it was Mr. Burke, decided later that he'd like to rescind on that, but it was too late. We went to the county manager, or the county legal staff. and they said no at that point; it was too late to make a change so that was it. And believe me from what I've seen, they are definitely earning their keep. But I have that capability because I'm around more with them than the rest of the board and I'm saying because it's a lot of extra time and I see what they do and I understand what they're involved in and we don't see all tllat they do. Because while we're all gone on the other ~ they're still emailing and still talking to people. So, yes, they really are putting in a lot of extra time. I do like the fact that you did put into this though that we would get a monthly idea of what they've been up to. I think that would make it a lot more clearer to everybody on the board just what these people are doing, which is a good idea. MR CURRAN: Thank you. MS. WOMBLE: No, thank you, Jack. Okay. Where are we? MR CURRAN: The last issue that we discussed at the last meeting was on tab seven. We talked about putting a tab seven in for experience for five points. As we talked during the meeting, if we put five points in for experience additional, we would have to take five points off for something else. And I think it was agreed at the time that we would not add that in; we would 74 ~"_.~._-^- -'" ~-"." ~,,-- ,-".. .~-~-".- Management Review Committee 161 1 ~l\b Februarv 12. 2009 just leave this scoring the way it is instead of adding an ex1ra in. And we did say that expertise is getting 15 for the team so we put another, it would be 20 there; but then you have to decrease from your other requirements the seven tab. We were hoping if we dropped the local vendor that you can add 10 points in somewhere, but it does not appear I would be able to knock that out. That was the last change I had on my notes to make for you. I have two now from today's meeting, three to correct. MS. WOMBLE: There's no way to take that out? MR CURRAN: At the present time 00. MS. WOMBLE: Apparently the lowest volwne of work on Collier County pro~ also gets someone the job. I find that really a weak thought actually. I mean, seriously. Who do you want? You want somebody that you don't know very well who hasn't had very much experience in the county to be the nwnber one because they just happen to have one year as opposed to five or 127 Hello. What's the thought behind that? And is that typical for every contract that you've been writing up? MR. CURRAN: Since June 8th. MS. WOMBLE: Really? MR. CURRAN: Yes, ma'am. Just to give a little history if you have a second, and it's your bid Horticulture, I just did that bid for yourselves. We got it back and we had six bidders, five bidders submitted to local vendor preference. The bidder that won it is out of Lee County. They just signed here local. The point, the dollar spread was $6.46 low bid $6.49 ne~ to low bid to $6.64. If the lowest bidder, the local county vendor preference is taking place in that bid, the $6.64 is within 10 percent of the low bidder, he could have matched that offer and we would have had to give it to him. We were fortunate five of the si.x vendors submitted the local vendor preference furm, which eliminates a local vendor preference. He's the low fellow. Nolxxly gets the change, they go. It's very confusing and time consuming. Like in this case, the reason it's ten points, with maximum score being one hundred, they have to be within 10 percent so they give them 10 percent The other thing is, if it's a local vendor they have to get to ten. No problem there. You do not have to give them all the other points, and that's what I see happening. They'll give one. He may come up with a local vendor preference and his total score is 70 and everyone else is 80 or 90. That's the judgment you will make as you do this. And you'll understand the local vendor preference for the pmpose of this and all the ones I do will include Lee County and Collier County, but only if they submit tlmt affidavit form tlle day they submit the proposals. It's not a, o~ I forgot I want to do it. They need to turn it in the day I get the proposal. If it's not there, tbe}"re not a local vendor, their maximum score is 90 because everyone else is. And those were the only issues I have to address with you. I will make those other changes. If it's easier, I can make the changes and I can send them to Mary and ask her to print them and get them to you. That way we don't have 75 >-..-, ~.. ,_.. . Management Rel'iew Committee 1-6-l 1 f\;ll~ Februarv 12. 2009 issues of downloading. And if you'd like it you can send me an email maybe or call me or something and say. we like it let's go. and I'll put dates in based on what you tell me and I'll send it back out to you with the dates and we'll go to the street. You will not have to pay for any legal advertisements. 1 do all that electronically, which would cover this. MS. WOMBLE: Aren't you thrilled? MR. CURRAN: I am. I like doing it MS. WOMBLE: Is that okay with you? MR. GIBSON: It's just fine with me. I would just ask the question, which I aske4 at the last meeting is, do we have any interest in this contract? MR. CURRAN: Yes, we do. MR. GIBSON: It's a lot of work if there isn't. MR CURRAN: I've had my technician call around. And took your suggestion and she's been calling the Estuary, Grey Oaks, Eagle Glen I think it is. They have a big managing firm there. They're calling WCI to see if there is somebody they use in some of their groups. I've had one managing linn that's out of Fort Myers that's familiar with this area. They've called and are registered as a vendor to apply for this proposal. Plus of conrse, John's company. I'm assuming that we're going to get at least three proposals, maybe more. But at the absolute last doubt, I know you will get two. Because I do know that Fort Myers :finn, they've been calling me on the phone quite regularly, when I am going to put it up. Plus I know, of course, John. I know you will get two. That will give you at least something to compare it to. MS. WOMBlE: What finn is it? MR CURRAN: I honestly don't remember the name. I can get it when I get back I can email it to you. MS. WOMBlE: Okay. I'd appreciate that As far as I'm concerned, I think it would make better sense if we could get that hard copy, take a look at it and give Mary a yes or no within 24 hours. MR GIBSON: Snre. MS. WOMBLE: And that way she can email us out that yes or 00. I mean, we need two out of three, I guess, really. Is that okay with you all? MR MOFF AIT: Yes. MR GIBSON: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: Yes, yes, yes. 76 .-----. ~ -....,.""""'......-". "._'''0__'' ,-_.._....,~-~ Management Review Committee A'l\ b Febma 12 2009 MR CURRAN: J can get this out to you hopefully today. I'm going to tIy to get it out today. I'll be out of town tomorrow and Monday is a holiday. I'd like to give it to you as soon as 1 can. For the sake of talking, if you can get me an answer back ne:\1 Thursday the 16th. MR GIBSON: The 19th. MR CURRAN: Oh, I'm in April. Thank you. If 1 can get everything back the 19th, I will post this publicly the 24th of February. And I will put the dates in this based on what I'm saying right now so you'll see them. The 24th of February will be the notice date, which is the public notice. The pre-proposal conference. Let's see. Proposal coJ;Iference, if your calendars will support it, we can do that on March 11th. Normally I do those at about 10:00 a.m in the morning or 11:00 a.m. We have the conference room with built-in speakers tll3l: records everything onto a tape. Not a tape, a little CD chip. That's available to use. I can set this date and I'll put it in here. MR MOFFATT: How long does that take? MR. CURRAN: If we have a lot of people, it will take about two bows. If we have just a few, it'll take us like five minutes or so. It's usually a question and answer. And it does not require all three of you to be there, but one of you definitely because they will probably ask questions that I will not have the answers for. That's tecbnical. That's why we require one of you to be there. You will answer those questions. If you cannot answer the questions, 1 will record the questions off of the tape, I will then go after people to get the answer and then I will put an official addendum out on the street That's why we have the written questions. They come through the Internet and they usually get that the day after we have the pre-proposal They usnally think of another question and ask me and we'll give them an answer. MR GIBSON: If it's proper protocol, maybe Kyle can be there too for questions and answers because he'll know more about it than anybody sitting up here. MR CURRAN: Yes, he can. As long as I have somebody for technical Kyle can come. Like I said, at least one of yourselves. MR GIBSON: You can pick your own boss I guess. MR MOFFATT: The reason I ask the question is I have a 2:00 meeting. So, if you do it at ten. there should be no problem. MR CURRAN: You should be out by 11 :00. Now you'll be there till I :30 because I said that That's the way life is. The longest one I had myself was I just bad one for a boat ramp. I filled in for another person, and I bad 62 vendors show up. This is 77 ,^-,.', -"'......... ...~- .". .,.""~..""",~-"~~-,..",,,,, ~~ ....",-,~ Management Review Committee 161 1 Altb Febmarv 12. 2009 the type of job we used to only get two and I had 62 vendors shmv up. MR GIBSON: Lot of people looking for work. MR. CURRAN: They really are. I've got general contractors that build million dollar big projects and they're calling me up to register to cut grass to keep their people working. That's why I don't know. Ifwe get a whole lot of vendors. they're going to have a whole lot of questions. Ifwe have a few, we'll be out of there quick. MR MOFFA IT: Can you do it at ten though? MR CURRAN: Yes. That's the best time I like to do it because that way they comejn and we're done. MR GIBSON: On the 11th? MR CURRAN: On the 11th. MS. WOMBLE: Where do we go for that? MR CURRAN: My building in purchasing. Have you ever been to the Govermnent complex? MS. WOMBLE: Yes. MR. CURRAN: You know where the museum is? MS. WOMBLE: Yes. MR CURRAN: My building faces the musewn. MS. WOMBLE: OIL across from the musemn? MR CURRAN: Yes, right across. We usually have some parking in the front. but most of the time you have to use the big parking lot. MS. WOMBLE: Is there access from the parking lot in back or do you walk around the building? MR CURRAN: Yon come out where the elevator is. 1bere's two entrances to the parking garage, and the one is towards my end and you have to walk from there if you don't find a spot. MR. GIBSON: It will be well publicized? MR CURRAN: Yes. If you are coming and you want to call me, there's like a sneaky parking spot that we use for stuff and I'll get you into that one and I'll show you where it is. When there's a meeting like this and I go back the spots are gone, I take the, what I call the sneaky one. Okay. We're going to do that and then I'm going to close the written questions on the 13th. I'm going to close the answers to that. That gives me a couple of days to ask you folks for the answers to the questions if I can't answer them. And then on the 19th I will open this proposal up. And that day I will need one of you. 78 .".._'w.,...... ,~. ,-". 161 '~l~l\~ Management Review Committee Febmarv 12. 2009 MR MOFFAIT: This is March 19th? MR CURRAN: Yes, sir. I do not strictly, absolutely without a doubt require one of you to be at that opening. What I do, just to help put your minds at ease, I open up the sealed envelopes to make sure we have everything we asked for in here. All the letters, declaration statements, that they answered all five tabs. If there's an insurance requirement, they have that in there. Once that's done, if anything is missing, depending on what the item is, I will call the vendor and have them get it to me by like Tuesday because that's the day we'll meet, and I'll have them get it to me. So if you're there, you'll get to see me open up the envelopes, count the CDs and check the list. Basically that would be the ex1ent of it Yon can help, but I meap,. it's not like you're making a decision and you need to do something. MR. MOFFA IT: This is what you're calling proposal close date? MR CURRAN: Yes. MR MOFFA IT: That would be 3/19 at what time? MR. CURRAN: That's always at 3:00 p.m. MR. MOFFA IT: I will not be there for one of two reasons; I bave two other meetings that day. MR. CURRAN: That's fine. MR. GIBSON: We're getting down to the end and I'm gone that entire week. MR CURRAN: Okay. Like I said, this is just a part for me to do. Sometimes the project manager will want to select. He always likes to be there. That's why I've offered. The next one though I do need you. That one is the 24th. And I can do that here. What that is, is what we call an organizational meeting and I come, I give ~'OU each a copy of all the proposals, I give you your score sheet and I call it charging the JUIy. I show you and I read to you what you can and cannot do as the select committee manager formally evaluating proposals. So that I can come here and do. MR. MOFFAIT: Is that the evaluation proposal line? MR. CURRAN: Actually, no. It doesn't show that in here. It's where we give it to you to study. The next meeting is the evaluation. That meeting I'd like to set up a day we meet when I give you your proposals. Because you will see how many proposals we have, if we have a lot. We can discuss at that meeting whether you want to have a fonnal presentation from all your proposals or do you want a short-list and then have it or are there things you want to see. Once I give those to you, I usually allow like 10 days for you to read them and decide and then we meet and start our scoring, or we meet and you'll say I want a proposal, I want a presentation. So then we'll just reconvene for another day. That will be towards the vety end. Once we finally meet after 79 -~----._.. """-~,~,. "..~-.-- ~-'~-"~"-'''' .,.. ....,..-- Management Review Committee 161 1 ~l\~ Febmarv 12. 2009 the presentation, you will score your vendors, you will tally up the scores in the meeting. The meeting is public. And then I will post a short list, my contrnc1: specialist will step in for the dollar equation and they'll bring it back to the project manager, which I think is Mary. And we'll bring that to you for the board's consideration. MS. WOMBLE: So now we're talking what date. MR CURRAN: My last day with you is March 24th for us to set up a board meeting, which would probably be 10 days thereafter, or sooner. You'll see how many you get. You may say, hey, I can do this in a couple of days or you may be off and out of tOWIl. If you're not going to make it that day, we can do this on an individual basis. But what I would not like to do is try to proceed with an evaluation with only two members. It really should be at least three. So if one of you miss the meeting, but you'll be back in town in a week. we need to allow you that time to have your proposal, read it and then we can join it together. So that would be the only thing that would stretch the time. rm usually always around. MR MOFFA IT: So to get back to our board, we would miss the April I meeting, but hopefully have evetything in place for the May calendar? MS. WOMBLE: If there's only a couple of pfO(XlSals, it's vel)' possible we can. MR GrnSON: Yes. We can meet on the 24th, but you've got one, two, three, four, five days to review before the next board meeting on the 1st of April. MR. CURRAN: But you have to evaluate them. That's a short-term thing. But you probably will not have a dollar value. MR. MOFFA IT: Yon also probably want to interview them. MR GIBSON: Yes. MR. CURRAN: But that's the way I try to do it. I do rush them like that sometimes. When they give me a firm dollar, I can do it. But that will be your decision. We did ask them, if I remember correctly, for an estimate of cost as one of the items. MR MOFFA IT: The meeting on the 24th to get the proposals, did you set a time for that? MR. CURRAN: Yes, I will do it. What's convenient for yourselves? I can come here. MR MOFFA IT: That's convenient. MS. WOMBLE: I need to find out when we can get a room. MS. MCCAUGHTRY: The 24th? MS. WOMBLE: That's a Tuesday. MS. MCCAUGHfRY: Right now we do have Tuesdays. Whether we're going to continue to use them or not for 80 --- ,.. ~ ".~- ""-~- Management Review Committee 101 \1 ~ll b Febmarv 12. 2009 Ordinance Committee, so we have the room. MS. WOMBLE: At ten or one? MS. MCCAUGHTRY: That Tuesday we have that at one o'clock. MS. WOMBLE: At one? How does that work for you, Jack? MR. CURRAN: It's fine. MR. GIBSON: It's ladies memorial cup day in the club so I'm not going to play in that. MS. WOMBLE: OIL I am. MR. MOFFA IT: I need to change a dentist appointment, but that's no problem. MR CURRAN: I can come earlier. TIlls only takes 15, 20 minutes. It's not a long process. MS. WOMBLE: Would it be possible to do this on Monday, the 23rd? MR. CURRAN: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: Because there's a Budget Committee. MR GIBSON: There's a budget meeting that day so a couple of us ",ill be here. MS. WOMBLE: So what we can do is change that to the 23rd and make it like 12:30 before the budget committee. MS. MCCAUGlITRY: Or right after. MS. WOMBLE: How do you know when it's going to be right after though? MS. MCCAUGHTRY: You guys have been pretty good. Last time I think it was 3:30. MS. WOMBLE: You want to do that? MR GIBSON: That's fine. I'd much rather have two meetings in one day than two meetings in two days. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. 3:30 sound all right, Jack? MR. CURRAN: 3 :30 it is. One thing about that the reason I always pick: Tuesday is to allow the vendors if there are any missing items the time to get it to me. But if I have a vendor who does not have an item, I will still bring it and I will tell you what it is and the next day I get it I will have it scanned and sent to you. That way we can see. We ID3)' not even have that situation. So it's going to be 3:30 and it's going to be in this room. MS. MCCAUGHTRY: It will be in this complex sollleplace. MR CURRAN: I need to know. When you get it could you send it to me because I need that publicly posted on my board? I don't need it today. 81 .~h~ _o~_.._ ~~"' IT'" "".~.~_..".._-"~,,.~._^, .-. ,--- ......,-" Management Re\iew Committee 1 ~[lb Febm 12 2009 MS. MCCAUGHTRY: We publicly post those at Hammock Center at 8260. That's what goes on my public notice. MR CURRAN: Okay. I'm going to put that. Any questions of me? Anything further I can do for you? Anything you like me to do for you? MS. WOMBLE: See if you can put experience. MR. CURRAN: I will try. I will try. We do have experience there. MR MOFFA IT: You mean experience with us? MS. WOMBLE: No. MR MOFFA IT: That's sort of waging in someone's favor; isn't it? MS. WOMBLE: So does local. MR MOFFA IT: No, because you have two counties to draw from. Oh, you mean if he's not local? MS. WOMBLE: Yes. MR CURRAN: I have in there specialized expertise to team members. MS. WOMBLE: If we decide that we really are going that direction then we can always skew it. but I think it's only fair to make it even more level, otherwise it's not fair. MR CURRAN: I think the customers listing when we ask for references are supposed to give us customers they did work for and the references, I will call them and we'll give them to you. You're going to find out if they're doing something very similar that you're looking for. Which means that they're doing it and getting an eX'PCrience history. And tIlen each of their team members, they're going to come in here and tell you we have two people to give to you. 1beir resmnes are supposed to be attached to those proposals so you can see their past experience, education, and any knowledge they're expounding they're going to have for you. So you're kind of going to get experience. But in this t}'pe of environment, maybe what you're looking for is on their resumes. Hopefully that will help. MS. WOMBLE: Well I've got an open mind All right. Kyle, earlier you looked like YOll wanted to say something and this is audience participation time again. MR. LUKASZ: No. We already went through the dates. I know you discussed this at the full board at the last meeting. I can't remember any kind of motion, what was the decision made? Are we bringing this back to the board first? MS. WOMBLE: I believe you are right. I believe we did have a decision that we would take this back to the board. MR. MOFFA IT: Well, actually we talked about this earlier at the other meeting. 82 .-- -_.__....~.._-,_..._.._._._.. "_.,-- Management Review Committee ~l\ b Febma 12 2009 MS. WOMBLE: I mean, at the board meeting, I believe it was that we would go to, not this past one, but when we were set up as a committee I believe we were to take this back to the board and I'm not sure if that was a motion or not. MR. LUKASZ: The full board meeting. I can't remember. MS. WOMBLE: Mary, do you recall? MS. MCCAUGHlRY: I believe that it was brought up at tbe full board meeting and it was decided at that time that tlle full board wanted to make the decision. That was a big thing for them. But, [did just get those minutes. MR LUKASZ: It might bave mentioned baving anotber meeting, a special meeti{lg to look at it rather than have to wait for the following month. MS. WOMBLE: The proposal? MR. LUKASZ: Yes. MR. MOFFAIT: What is going to be the decision ofthe full board? MS. MCCAUGHlRY: To review your scope so that... MR. LUKASZ: Review the scope. MR. MOFFAIT: ToreviewtheRFP? MS. MCCAUGHTRY: I thought so. MR MOFFAIT: I know it was done here. I don't recall a full board lneeting. I don't know why it would have even come up at the full board meeting. MS. WOMBLE: I believe when they chose us, or said yes okay for the committee, I chose the committee, they said all right, with the understanding that we were to go back to the board with something. Now whether or not it was the actual proposal or it was the people who have put in a request for proposal, I don't know. [don't remember. We need to clarifY that. MR. LUKASZ: Right. Jack was going to send you the few changes that he has here and in the meantime... MS. WOMBLE: If you can get us the hard copy of the changes so we can look at it. Mat)', that gives you time to check with the minntes and see how it actually is stated in the minutes. MS. MCCAUGHTRY: I thought the question was asked that did they want to appoint someone to have permission, and the full board said no, they wanted to have a chance; but maybe that's to select. I thought it was to review the RFP. MS. WOMBLE: That's the deal I'm not sure if it was RFP or the actual evaluation process. MR. LUKASZ: It won't make a clifIerence if there was actually a motion. 83 .~- _.'"--'"^ ""-"..... ,...~.. M.e.........,.............'_ "_'~"'" -~..~----- Management Review Committee 16> \1 \1 kH'p Febmarv 12. 2009 MR MOFFA IT: Probably at the December meeting because we didn't meet illltil after the January meeting. MS. MCCAUGHfRY: I think it was our last meeting on the 4th because it was after the 1/26 meeting in the afternoon that we had your schedule pretty well set. MR MOFFA IT: We don't even have those minutes, do Vt'e? MS. MCCAUGHfRY: I don't think Vt'e've got them. I'm working on the budget ones now. I'll double check on that. MR.. MOFFAIT: How do we go about getting a service that can provide minutes more timely? This is really ridiculous where you're waiting almost a month to get minutes and then you rush to read them. WIly can't we get them in a week or two weeks. MR GIBSON: Pay for it I guess. MR MOFFA IT: Is that what it is? First class versus bulk rate? MS. MCCAUGHfRY: Yes, and I don't know what the cost of rush is., I just know they do have that versus 10 business days. But also it's another thing of Collier County we're using a preferred vendor so, you know, we were told that's who we have to use. MR MOFFA IT: They only have one preferred vendor for taking minutes? MS. MCCAUGH1RY: I don't know. MR. MOFFA IT: Can you look into that? MS. MCCAUGH1RY: Yes. MR MOFFAIT: I mean this is ridiculous. We got things, you know, two days ago to read It just doesn't make sense to me. None of us were able to get to it MS. WOMBLE: MaIy, if you wilL would you email all three of us and Jack also and let ns know what it was exactly that was decided by the board? And that way we can know how we're going to proceed at this point MS. MCCAUGHfRY: Yes, Madron Chair. MS. WOMBLE: If we have to, we need to make an emergency meeting so tl13t they can peruse this hard copy once Jack's got it done. Jack, you said you'd have it done next week, correct? MR CURRAN: I'll have it done this afternoon. MS. WOMBLE: This afternoon. MR CURRAN: We haven't had many changes. We agreed on a date. As soon as I get back to the office, I'll do it and I'll 84 -~. ~_...- -.......-".-- """,..,,,.--.-. ._-,-,-~_..,._~...".. -,..".-'"......----.",-....--..-- Management Review Committee 16J 11 ~\\\> Febmary 12.2009 send it to Mary and then I'll be out of town, so I'll bave it to Mary this afternoon. MS. WOMBLE: Good timing, Jack MR CURRAN: I try. MS. WOMBLE: Okay. That's excellent, so then we have an idea of what we got to do. Mary, knowing what you know about getting rooms here, can we do an emergency meeting with two days bulletin to the general public for a meeting of our board if that's what we need to do? How soon can we have it? MS. MCCAUGHTRY: Within a week, Madam Chair. MS. WOMBLE: I know five days is typicaL but does that hold true for emergency meetings also? Okay. So if we were to get that back this afternoon and today is the Ith, you're going to be gone when? MR. GIBSON: 1beweekofthe 16th. MS. WOMBLE: That would be that week. 'Then that would be the week that we can give our board members time to read the RFP. And then the following week, we could actually meet before the 24th. Does that work? Or tbat's the 24th margin. MS. MCCAUGHIRY: Yes. MR MOFFA IT: There's a board room in the Commons that isn't nearly as nice or as big as this. MS. WOMBLE: That's where we used to meet. MR MOFF AIT: But it could be acceptable for a special meeting. MS. WOMBLE: Well, we're planning on meeting on the 23rd now right instead of the 24th? MR. MOFFAIT: Correct MR. GIBSON: On the 24th. MS. WOMBLE: The following week. All right. I've backed out on the same person three years in a row: I can't do it again. Well, we could meet on the 23rd of February that's a budget meeting too, so it might work that we could get the board members in and maybe some of them would actually be involved in the budget committee. Would that work for you, another Monday like at 3:30? MR. CURRAN: For? MS. WOMBLE: If we bave to go back to the board with the proposal to review it so they have you to ask questions of. MR CURRAN: No problem. Just tell me what dates you want me here and I'm here. MS. WOMBLE: Probably the 23rd at this point, but we'll have to see how this all plays out in our past minutes. It may 85 w_"w. ""'"''''-,~-'" "-,-,,,.~,",. ""~-"''''''''- ~-"""~"'-"',,,",,- Management Review.Committee 161 1 ~l\b Febmarv 12. 2009 not be necessary. MR CURRAN: Okay. When I send you the final package this evening, I will have the dates we agreed to on there. If for any reason you have to meet with this committee, the full board and we need to cbange those dates, that's a non issue. I can change the dates based on whenever you tell me and get us a new copy. So we'll work on the dates I've given, working on the dates with the board. Whenever you need me here, just have Mary send me an invite and I'll be here. MS. WOMBLE: You know what's also occurring to me is, if we had the hard copy. that quickly anyway and we find out that the board needs to meet, perhaps we could get that bard copy to them right away as SOOll as we find out that we do to meet. I'm kind of suspecting that we do not, but if we should have to, give them three days to read this. And if anybody wants to call a meeting at that point, something like that, maybe that would be more to the point rather than just. . . MR GIBSON: Calling a meeting. MS. WOMBLE: .. .calling a meeting. So I guess you two have to:figure out how we get those bard copies to all the board members. MS. MCCAUGHTRY: The final RFP? MS. WOMBLE: Yes. But that might be a good idea anyway to allow all of them to see it. MR GIBSON: Even if you just have a cover sheet: on it, I approve or I disapprove and comments below. MS. WOMBLE: Turn it back into the staff meeting to the staff office. MR. GIBSON: That way they're involved in it The real issue is selection. I think the refinement of the boilerplate, they've done a great job over here. MS. WOMBLE: Yes, I think so too. Thank you, Jack. But this would eliminate some e.xtra time. What do you think, Jerry, does that work? If you were a board member who had not been part of this (X)IIUJ}jttee, would you feel better about taking a look at it and having a chance to voice something about it one way or the other? MR. MOFFAIT: Perbaps. MS. WOMBLE: Perbaps. Okay. MR. MOFFA IT: I'm not sure we delegate it to a committee. I'm not sure I'd want to go through that document. MR GIBSON: I agree. MR MOFFA IT: I don't know who's going to read it, quite frankly. MS. WOMBLE: Right. WelL let's find out where we stand "'lth the minutes and how we voted and what we voted on as 86 .,,_...._-, --..-- . .". '___n'_ Management Re\'iew Committee February 12. 2009 1611 lk\\t~ a full board and then from that point we can go fOffi'3m. MS. MCCAUGIITRY: Okay. MS. WOMBLE: And the 23m ifwecan get bani copies, ifit sboold come down to that, then Jack kind ofkcepthe 23rd open sometime around probably 3 :30 because of the budget committee at 1:00. MS. MCCAUGlITRY: Corroct. MR GIBSON: And the fact that the chair of the whole board chaired this committee ought to have some strength with let's get it out, let's get it going. MS. MCCAUGIITRY: Well, it may be they only want to be involved in selecting. MR GIBSON: That's the WdY I feel. MS. WOMBLE: I think it's the evaIuation. MS. MCCAUGIITRY: I can't really remember. I'm going to have 10 read the minutes. MS. WOMBLE: I can't really remember either, bot it made sense to me at the time. MR GIBSON: I don't remember either, but I remember chirping up. MR. MOFFATT: Yon brought it up at this meeting. MR. GIBSON: If that's the case then that's fine. MR CURRAN: Last meeting I \\'as here you brought that up. MR GIBSON: That's fine. MR MOFFATT: I don't recall at the board meeting. MS. WOMBLE: We'll find out. MR GIBSON: I've been in thousands, if not hundreds of corporate meetings. The minntes that these people crank out are remarkable. They do take a while, but it's real careful as to what you said on them because they'll get you. MS. WOMBLE: The best part is they're doing it. not us. MR GIBSON: That's tore. AUDIENCE COMMENTS MS. WOMBLE: Any Illore audience comments? MR. MOFFATT: Thanks a lot, Kyle. MR LUKASZ: I did illY thing. 87 Management Review Committee Februarv 12. 2009 16~ 1 ~t\~ ADJOURN MS. WOMBLE: Do I have a motion that we adjourn? MR. MOFFATT: Yes, I move. MS. WOMBLE: AJI in favor? (All affirm.) MS. WOMBLE: So Illoved. There being no finther business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjoorned by of!ler of the Chainnan at 2:50 p.m. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INe., BY DANlELLE AHREN, RPR, NOTARY PUBLIC AND FORMATTED BY MARY MCCAUGIITRY, RECORDING SECRETARY. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION. 88 RECEIVED Fiala \'\;1, 1 t>0Y Halas 11.- , , Henning -....--' MAR 3 0 2009 "- Coyle Board of County Commissioners Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER 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 12, 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: CHAIRMAN, Ron Hamel VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna Bill McDaniel Brad Cornell Gary Eidson David Farmer Tom Jones Tammie Nemecek ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Thomas Greenwood and Leslie Persia of the Comprehensive Planning Department; Mac Hatcher of the Environmental Services Department; Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Land Use Section, Chief, Assistant County Attorney's office; and approximately 20 members of the public. I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at 8:05AM by Chairman Ron Hamel. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 8 of 11 members were present [Jim Howard, Fred Thomas, and David Wolfley were excused due to conflicting meetings]. III. Approval of Agenda David Farmer moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to approve the agenda as distributed. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. IV. Approval of Minutes of the March 3, 2009 meeting Brad Cornell moved and David Farmer seconded to approve the Minutes of the March 3 meeting as distributed. pon vote the motion carried unanimously. V. Presentations Ron Hamel stated that he would like the Committee to weigh in on the following before finishing the Committee's review of the CCPC and EAC comments and recommendations: (A) Executive Summary and Report to the BCC. Following a discussion between staff and the Committee, the Committee directions were as follows: a. Committee wants to receive the same Executive Summary paperwork that goes to the BCC; b. Committee Report information to be substituted [Map 1 in Phase 1 Report] and appropriate pages in Sections 1, 2, and 4 of Volume I to reflect the changes that the Committee agrees to following its review of the CCPC and EAC comments and recommendations and any updates or corrections that have been aired and/or pointed out; Misc. Corres' IlPage Date: 05 Item #: l t~ Copies to: --_."... - ,~..._~,"'" _'~"_""_'____~~_"'~M"_'_.'.',_" 161 t:'~l ~('V c. Executive Summary needs to highlight the major proposed changes to the RLSA Overlay up front and those Policies and Areas where the Committee; d. Double underline areas where the Committee has agreed with CCPC recommendations; (B) Power Point Presentation to the BCe needs to be updated to include the following: a. The presentation needs to be updated to point out the major differences between the Committee and the CCPC; b. The presentation needs to include modifications to the policy language [as agreed to by the Committee] and beef up the discussion on credits; c. The presentation needs to point out the differences in 2002 between the total credits projection at the transmittal hearing [base credits only] and the adoption hearings [i.e. the addition of restoration and early entry bonus credits to the base credits and who caused these credit additions to be added]; d. The Power point presentation should be made by the same committee members who presented to the CCPC and EAC.. . McDaniel, Eidson, Cornell. VI. Old Business A. Review the Collier County Planning Commission and Environmental Advisory Council comments, issues, concerns, and recommendations provided during public meetings held in January/February and discussion of Committee presentation to the Board of County Commissioners on April 21/22, 2009. The following attachments are a part of these minutes: . Attachment A. Consent item for the March 5, 2009 Planning Commission meeting which is the CCPC comments with respect to Section 2 of the Phase 2 Report of the Five Year Review of the RLS Program. . Attachment B. CCPC "Consent Attachment C" to RLSA Overlay . Attachment C. Received from George Varnadoe at the end of the March 3 meeting for further discussion at the March 12 meeting... ..possible language to replace the Committee-recommended language contained in the last two sentences of Policy 3.11, paragraph 2. . Attachment D. EAC comments approved on March 4, 2009 . Attachment E. Johnson Engineering "Eastern Collier County Water Resources Availability [revised. . . dated March 11, 2009] . Attachment F. Proposed language from Elizabeth Fleming of Defenders of Wildlife defining for the purposes of Policy 5.5, what the meaning is of "species of special local concern" (SSLC) as coined by the CCPe. Staff Note: For the sake of brevity, these minutes include only final actions taken. A recording of the entire meeting is available upon request. CONTINUA TION OF REVIEW OF CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 3/5/09 [Attachment A to minutes] The Committee began its review of the CCPC recommendations during its March 3 meeting. Policy 3.11: Brad Cornell moved and Tom Jones seconded to include the language shown in Attachment C to these minutes as substitute language for the last two sentences currently contained in paragraph 2 of Policy 3.11. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 2lPage -. .,- ",-pq- -_.~-~.~_.~~--"~.,"_...--,,-," --- 16\ \11 ~\V Policy 4.7.4: Tammie Nemecek moved and Brad Cornell seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 4.10: Bill McDaniel moved and Brad Cornell seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 4.14: Bill McDaniel moved and Tammie Nemecek seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 4.15.1: Bill McDaniel moved and David Farmer seconded to accept the language proposed by the Ccpe. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Attachment C to the RLSA Overlay [companion to Policy 4.15.1] and shown as Attachment B to these minutes: Following the withdrawal of a motion by Bill McDaniel and second by Gary Eidson, Tammie Nemecek moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to accept Attachment C to the Overlay provided: . The table shows "transient lodging" back in where it is shown as stricken and removed where it was placed by the CCPC opposite "Residential Housing Styles"; . Add Hamlets and show as a strike through; and . Insert under the town, village, and compact rural development columns the new uses shown in the appropriate respective policies. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 4.16: Bill McDaniel moved and Tammie Nemecek seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 4.17: Bill McDaniel moved and David Farmer seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC, but to add "of the Capital Improvements Element" directly following "Policy 1.1" in line 3. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 4.18: Tammie Nemecek moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC with the exception that the words, "including any related impact to Collier County outside of those directly generated by the SRA may" be stricken. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 4.20: Gary Eidson moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 4.21: Bill McDaniel moved and David Farmer seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 4.23: Tammie Nemecek moved and Tom Jones seconded to accept the language approved by the Committee for Policy 3.15. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 3lPage --., , ~ ~.- .,".;~..~.~..",...,. . --- 16' 1 ~\1/ Policy 4.7.2: By consensus, the Committee unanimously approved the addition of the following words following "greater than 500 acres" following "Villages" in the third to last line. This change was due to a correction made between the "Consent" and "CCPC" approved recommendations document. Policy 5.1: Bill McDaniel moved and Brad Cornell seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 5.3: Tammie Nemecek moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 5.4: Brad Cornell moved and Tammie Nemecek seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 5.5: Bill McDaniel moved and Brad Cornell seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC, but to add the definition of "species of special local concern" (SSLA) as outlined on Attachment F to these minutes as developed by Elizabeth Fleming of Defenders of Wildlife. Upon vote, the motion carried, 5-3, with Bill McDaniel, Gary Eidson, and David Farmer voting in the minority. Policy 5.6: Gary Eidson moved and Tom Jones seconded to accept the language proposed by the CCPC with the exception that the language originally proposed by the Committee on page 28 [subparagraph f.iv.] would stay the same as proposed by the Committee. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 5.7: Tammie Nemecek moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to use the language here as was used in Policy 3.15 with the exception of a minor Change specific to Group 5 policies. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. BREAK Chairman Hamel left the meeting at 10:00AM due to another commitment and Neno Spagna chaired the balance of the meeting. COMMITTEE REVIEW OF EAC COMMENTS, DATED MARCH 5, 2009 [Attachment D to minutes] 1. Preservation of Agricultural Lands. Mitch Hutchcraft stated that he needed to rebut the footnote #1. Tom Jones stated that the 28,000 acres of ag land in the footnote should only refer to ag land west of the ACSC, and does not include ag lands in the ACSC. Mr. Jones produced the March 11, 2009 revision of the "Eastern Collier County Water Resource Availability" study, which is an update of the February 15,2008 study produced by Johnson Engineering (Attachment E to the minutes). He stated that if there is not sufficient water SFWMD will not issue a permit. Mr. Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded that the Committee go on record that it has already adequately addressed agriculture land and ag land preservation within the report. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 4lPage ,,',~-.._,.. "~~.~-----_._.__.- .161 :1 ~\v 2. Program Caps. Judith Hushon stated that there was not a consensus on Credit caps by the EAC and would like to see the Committee recommend the use of Credits outside of the RLSA. Allen Reynolds stated that footnote #2 is misleading as it does not give the genesis of the 16,800 acres of SRA footprint and was the SRA footprint projected using just the baseline credits which were the only credit source at the time the Overlay went through transmittal hearings in 2002 and that DCA subsequently advised to add restoration and early entry bonus credits, which then increased the potential credit total. Mitch Hutchcraft stated that the wording in footnote #2 gives the impression that the "greedy landowners" were pushing for the credits from restoration and early entry bonus. Brad Cornell stated that the #2 footnote also does not take into consideration the SRA recalibration from 8 credits to 10 credits to enable an acre of SRA footprint. Tom Jones moved and Gary Eidson seconded for the Committee to go on record that the Committee has adequately addressed the issue of Credits and SRA footprint within the Report. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 3. Direction of Development Away from Primary Panther Habitat. Tom Jones stated that the original map addressed panther corridors conceptually and that the map should likely just show arrows. Bill McDaniel stated that he would like to see a map which just shows arrows. Anita Jenkins stated that the arrows should be shown on the Overlay Map and the Overlay map should also show public lands. Mitch Hutchcraft agreed that showing arrows on the map would be preferable to showing lines and stated that the #5 footnote leads one to believe that the alignment shown is "the alignment" when the alignment has not yet been determined. Bill McDaniel moved and Tom Jones seconded that the Committee go on record that it has adequately addressed this item in its Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously. 4. Golf Courses Should be Excluded from HSAs. Judith Hushon stated that the EAC agreed on this item. Bill McDaniel stated that he disagrees with the EAC. Tom Jones stated that when HSAs were designated in the RLSA there were row crops in much of the HSA and the feeling that golf courses would be reasonable substitute for this use. Bill McDaniel moved and Tom Tones seconded that the Committee go on record that it has adequately addressed this subject in its Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously. 5. Transportation Infrastructure to Serve Future SRAs. George Varnadoe reminded those present that there will be both transmittal and adoption hearings and the transportation planning issues will be addressed at that time. Tom Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded that the Committee go on record that it has adequately addressed this item in its Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously. 6. Water for Future SRAs. Tom Jones stated that the Johnson Engineering reports of February 15, 2008 and March II, 2009 address water needs for the RLSA and show that there will be plenty of water although SFWMD is directing that the lower Hawthorne aquifer be used which will require reverse osmosis to allow the water to be potable. He stated if there is no showing to SFWMD that water is available, no permits will be issued. He questioned footnote #6 reference to Ms. Wehle's comments and wondered whether these were a quote and in what context the statement was made as he did not attend this seminar. 5lPage 16\ "'~1 {X\ 'V Ir: He stated that the FLUM has to be supported by documentation of adequate public facilities to meet the level of service standards. He stated that the Johnson Engineering report uses 110 gallons per day per person as potable and does not include irrigation water. He stated that some of the assertions made in footnotes are not correct. He stated that water in the RLSA is not going to be a problem. David Farmer stated the county uses 185 gallons per day per person as a level of service standard for water but his experience is that this figure is overstated based upon actual usage. Al Reynolds raised the question in footnote #6 as to why the Town of Big Cypress water consumption comment is there because the TOBC is only in a DRI sufficiency status and that one cannot conclude a problem with water based upon this level of review, but the footnote seems to draw conclusions of water inadequacy. Bill McDaniel moved and Tom Jones seconded that the Committee go on record that it has adequately addressed this item in its Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously. 7. CRDs and Development in the ACSe. Bill McDaniel moved and Tom Jones seconded that the Committee go on record that it has adequately addressed this item in its Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously. 8. Other Comments Policy 1.6.1: Bill McDaniel moved and Gary Eidson seconded that the Committee go on record that it has adequately addressed this policy in its Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 3.9: Tammie Nemecek moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to correct Policy 3.9 by striking the word "aquaculture". Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 5.5: Tom Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded that the Committee go on record that it has adequately addressed this policy in its Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 5.7: Tammie Nemecek moved and Bill McDaniel seconded that the Committee go on record that it has adequately addressed this policy in its Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously. General Comment about SSA and SRA reviews by the EAC and CCPe. Tom Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded that the Committee go on record that it has adequately addressed this policy in its Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously. David Farmer stated that he would like to discuss the GMP A process. Bill McDaniel stated that the Committee has requested a special GMP A cycle for the RLSA per the letter of the Committee dated January 5, 2009 and that will be asked of the BCC on April 21. No further discussion was held on this matter. VII. New Business none VIII. Public Comments. none 6lPage ---..-- -",...~._, 16' ;"1 ~'V , ,. IX. Next Meeting. The Committee voted to hold a meeting at 9:00am on Thursday, March 26,2009 in Rooms 609/610 to: . Receive and review revised pages in the Committee Report based upon actions taken by the Committee; . Review a draft Executive Summary to accompany the Committee's presentation to the BCC on April 21; and . Review revised power point presentation for the April 21 presentation to the BCC. X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 11 :35A.M. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee ~sf.~~ These minutes approved by the Committee on 3- -z&--V/ as presented ~oras amended 7lPage ~- .. .. ~ ----......... ";'''"''.'-^"" '^.-...-- - JfW;~n.~\V I - fW:lli Section 2 of this Report includes the full RLSA Overlay Program as evaluated. The Review Committee determined that most of the policies in the RLSA Overlay did not require an amendment so often took action to "leave policy unchanged." Those policies that were amended, including those set forth in Section I, and those with minor language corrections, are shown below with strike thrsl:Igh and underlines. , In addition to all RLSA text, the following are attached with recoT~~ri~I~lmendments. ~ Stewardship Overlay Map i1k, ':.1 11: I ' i I ~ Attaclunent A - Stewardship Credit Worksheet 1111 II. ~ Attaclunent B - Land Use Layers MatrIX ! lij~llillnllWlli II 1~lllhl 'I' ,'1: j'lllIl I ~ Attaclunent C - Stewardship Receiving Ar,iFharact~~~JCS Tablel , hi'; Ii' . ,II ~~,I ~II I~ The RLSA Overlav R~' . ~~e~ Amend' nts "llll,' Goal (recommended amend men, 11~ljii!11111 i'lf! 'ii, , "i!1i I Collier County seeks to a. ess the 10ng~_II~'eeds of residents and property owners within the Immoka I' A p'!IIII~ b' I dary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area'l~ ,~es . Colli, County's goal is to preteet a!l!in land for agricultural activities; ,i ' " . '" ",. .~' lijlll '.mpalibl. .." away f,.m w.t1and. a.d upland habitat, t ' , _~, " ore habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion .f '."Il"'ltiA1..<h, I 'It("'" ,. ~riate I."ti.... t. d.......g. .,ba. .p,"wl. a.d to enc~j!Il ", la.~f110 ~nt that uflIiHs emplovs creative land use planning techniq's and thr ~~h t ~;,~se of established incentives. ''I' ~Ir.v~,~_m'.d' am..dm..t) . . . .. ,:;I' ,H . ~et th ',,' Iill desc~~ d above, Colher County's objectIve IS to create an incentIve based land Ii' use overlay S ~'II" rein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area ,!, Overlay, bl on the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163 .3177( II), 111'1;" .S. The Po'", ies that will implement this Goal and Objective are set forth below in groups I'~~tlng~~ aspect of the Goal. Group I policies describe the structure and organization of the , l~;~ff" Ilty Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Group 2 policies relate to agriculture. Group policies relate to natural resource protectioll; ftfId~ Group 4 policies relate to conversion of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to natural resource protection. Group I - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Policy 1.1 To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) that collectively contribute~ to a viable agricultural industry, protect;:> natural resources, 1lpage ,,"," ~ " . ~ ... vV' ~ .. . ~ '.""1'll - 1" \'~'1 " ~\'V I and enhance!! economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay). The Overlay was created through a collaborative community=based planning process involving county residents, area property owners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the direction of a citizen oversight committee. Policy 1.2 The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed-use development as an alternative to low-density single use development, and provides a system of compensation to private property owners for the eliminatiop,of certain land uses in order to protect natural resources and viable agriculture in eXChang~:J~:transferable credits that can be used to entitle such compact development. The strategies lil'lW ',/il;are based in part on the principles of Florida's Rural Lands Stewardship Act, Chapterl~3.317~H I) F.S. The Overlay includes innovative and incentive based tools, techniques and'~rategieS th;ft:'rle not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, re ~~~I, state a 'iftf"deral regulatory programs. , ',' . " '" 'I H, ,,1:1 ! !i~lliliH!!'I!!I'~IIH:, '" Ili"11 Policy 1.3"11 '11HI: '1:.I!flIH1i'!lliill Thl, ""~I,y to th, Fu.., LMd U" M,p ~~tt"',on :1iIi~thlP:"'~I'Y M", (""~I,y Map) and applies to rural designated landsli :, ted Wi~~lI the r' ',., kalee Area Study boundary of the ~ollier County Rural and Agricultural :, . a ~~sment re ',. ed to in the State of Florida AdmllllstratlOn Commission Fmal", fM,.. ""No.'" '''. 9-002. r " e RLSA generally mcludes rural I""" In north=t c.J1J~ count" !lilt.hJ " !,,~ G", E"",". north of th, PI.,,,, PMth~ N"wn,1 W,ldhf, R,fu ,..d B'~ .., ~ ,I P''"'N'. wuth of th, "eo Cou",y Lme, and south and west of th I ',,' /, ' ,LI, and mcludes a total of approximately 195.846 >ore,. of whloh '~'m~2.334: . '" I, p"""ly own,d. Th, O,~I,y M,p I, M ado:ted overlay to t~elFuture :~.~se ij~!afl ' M). Polley 1.4 '1~11~1,I!II!Il'II:Il" '., ' .ll!!~! ., ,'IHI.I,: ,. ,', Except as prov,i~~d inl!~,up 51~1.~, there shall be no change to the underlying density and intensity o,~...~ us ~~Iand within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as d,fi"'" ~! olloy .1. 'II!~~ . . ~nd nntll' prop,rty o~~ ,I~" to utilI" th, pro,,;,lno, of th, Steward~}p Credit Sy ~~m. tillS the Illtent of the Overlay that a property owner Will be compens ~f! for the itary stewardship and protection of important agricultural and natural Ir~~.~es. "'~:! !TIpensatl, ,,:, to the property owner shall occur through one of the following dll'inechanisms:'~Mfflqi!' ,I tr.ansfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition o.fconservation easements, iti! "acqulSltlOn~f less. an fee mterest III the land, or through other acquISItIOn of land or Illterest III "'il' land throug .~ wllhng seller program. 'j'rI 1"111 ' . .'Ilii "l\~i '~'f' Po "" J. 'recommended amendment) As referred to in these Overlay policies, Baseline Standards are the pennitted uses, density, intensity and other land development regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the GMP Growth Management Plan (GMP), Collier County Land Development Regulations and Collier County Zoning Regulations in effect prior to the adoption of Interim Amendments and Interim Development Provisions referenced in Final Order AC-99-002. The Baseline Standards will remain in effect for all land not subject to the transfer or receipt of Stewardship Credits, except as provided for in Group 5 Policies. No part of the Stewardship Credit System shall be imposed upon a property owner without that eWfteI'S owner's consent. 21Page ~.. '1>'"""- -....1I>1Il' I. '*-..... 16)' : '1 [A'l ~ I Policy 1.6 (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require a~~endment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the ap . led Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. ,~'!I~!F.wardship Sending: Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowabl~ resid~ial densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is designated as a SSA ~credits oro~~er compensation is granted to the owner, no increase in density or additional usl", lp,nspecifie 1.,. ..the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on prope~ less the is terminated as provided elsewhere herein. (a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillarv to the sale or transfer of the underlying fee title to the land. or (b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA. whether the SRA is owned or developed by a separate or related entity. and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as required by the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval; or 3lPage . -.- 16\ '1 ~t'V I 3. The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the Stewardship Easement Agreement other compensation from local, state. federal or private revenues (collectively. the "Events"). ( Formatted: Indent: Left: OS', First line: 0" ) 4lPage "~""';"''''''--'''-' '-....-_. ".""lllll IIIIlT <Ill,...__....~__ II'" . ... '" ""'..... 1:61 ~1 ~\v .' '{j I I Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment) The range .of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on the Stewardship Credit Warksheet (Warksheet), incarparated_herein as Attachment A. This methodalogy and related pracedures far SSA designatian will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier Caunty Land Devela~,~t Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include but ftEl nat be limited ta the follawing: (I) " i' redit transfers shall be recorded with the Callier Caunty Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant a~~etual restrictive easement shall also be recorded far each SSA, shall run wIth the land$tl sh lliipe m favar of Calher Caunty and the Flarida Fish and Wildlife Conserva',,, CoIIUIri's' . DepartlflcHt. .of I t,,' artment' . "Environmental Formatted: Font: (Default) limes New - --. --- --- .. ,. - Protectian De artment .of A culture and Cansume"l u rida Water Mana ement Roman, Not Strikethrough District. .or a recagnized statewide land trust: a~ {3 '"e 111$_:1: ~ Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement will identify the, s~' i IC Ian '!~~nageme' 'i'" easures that will be undertaken and the party respansible far SU<i~I;, easure~,il :It ,.,1 "1, Policy 1.8 ".d .,: The natural resource value .of I " il~n ta~ISA is !t~ured by the Stewardship Natural Resaurce Index (Index) set fort "t~e arksh ij~~ T~~' ' dex established the relative natural ,","ure' "'u' by obJoc"w'y "unn ~II ~,!mct,n,"" of '"d "d ",,,gum, " mdex factar based an each,~ara .' e .of these SIX factars ]s the mdex value far the land. Bath the characteristl ' I ~sed and th~~" assigned thereta were established after review and analysis .of detailed infarm '~ ab'l ' ' "ral resaurce attributes .of land within the RLSA '" tIuot dOVclupm-,: ~~. 'y 'rem ;mpnrtant n"urn ","ure". Tb, ,;, characteristics meas'l ,.:" ~i;ItJt, " . Overlay Designatian, Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species H~~i\fi'~I~~!il:~/" " fewate,' storatian Patential, and Land Use/Land Caver. Policy l.i~il . . 'if., "ill A Natu~l Resource ~ri~x M'Mp Serie.s (Index Map Series). indicates the Natural Resaurce Stewardslt!~ndeX va1i,far all land wlthm the RLSA. CredIts from any lands desIgnated as 'ljil~J1J~I'Will::II~~sed fiU' ,1;the Natural Resaurce Index values in effect at the time .of designatian. 1:11: ' Any change lrHi'i~!Cl1 l'actenstJcs .of land due ta alteratIOn of the land pnar ta the establishment i :Iii. of a SSA tbi either increases or decreases an?, Index Factar will result in an adjustment .of the ':!Il,,factar value, ~nd a carrespandmg adjustment In the credit value. The Index and the Index Map il~es are ~,~ ted as a part .of the RLSA Overlay. P~~~~;'l1~~~J In SSAs, the greater the number .of uses eliminated from the praperty, and the higher the natural resaurce value of the land, the higher the priarity far protection, the greater the level .of Credits that are generated fram such lands, and therefare the greater the incentive ta participate in the Stewardship Credit System and protect the natural resaurces .of the land. Policy 1.11 The Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, lists uses and activities a1lawed under the A, Rural Agricultural Zaning District within the Overlay. These uses are grauped tagether in .one .of eight separate layers in the Matrix. Each layer is discrete and shall be remaved sequentially and 5lPage ~ .......- 1:6.\ 1 ~\v - I cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix, starting with the residential layer (layer one) and ending with the conservation layer (layer eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available. Each layer is assigned a percentage of a base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added together and then multiplied by the Index value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA. Policy 1.12 Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability_criteria and standards set forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known Stewardship Receiving Areas or SRAs. 'Iiill 'i,. Policy 1.l3 'II~ MMlllllfiili'i> ."f!:/i!ll, The procedures for the establishment and tran~~,'of ".' . s. ahl~IJ~t:tjJij,J~ignation a~e set forth herel~ and wIH also be adopted as a part of ~i~' wardship 'I ,tnct m the LDC (Dlstnct). . LDRs creatmg the Dlstnct wIll be adopted wlt~lone (l~,'I~,~ar fr ~!Iir~e effective date of thIS Plan amendment. ""I, ,Ih " Ij!!,Jill' <, Policy 1.14 (recommended ame~i~~"~ '1hlli'i, ,)IiJ1i' Stew>nl.hip e",li" win b, ~'~OI fO~~~Ii>l ",ooO."';dffili>l ffilitl,mffi" ;0 a SRA on a per acre basis, as d '~'j' '.' iii .~. Stewardship density and intensity WIll thereafte~ dIffer from t~as 'tandard ,tiThe assIgnment or use of StewardshIp CredIts shall not reqUIre a GMP Arne ,lent. "", ,Iii" . " '1111i "liLiHi!f;iVI, Pohcy 1.15 ~liill '11'111' i, ' "ijll', " 'Ii 'i!I~II:I~lm~ Land becomes, desig ~ II .I~on the adoption of a resolution by the Collier Cou~ty Board Of,e1fifl, " pners (Be ) approvmg the petitIon by the property owner seekIng '"'" d~: Ii,o" ~ .' ~",Ii' ",idffili,l d=ity o,"OO.,~;dffili,liotffi'ity ,f1~d ~"o a parceli! ' land locat]wlt iB SRA shall be speCIfied In the resolutIOn reflectmg the total number ~~ansferable '. 'edits assigned to the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the ~~~,or' , in an s~all not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the pill!!' rov Ions 0 "klt~lf~' ship Credit System, the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus 'III ." "f'''lO' ;! ''''ty R'lin, Sy"= of th' FLUE, ~d 'h, d=ity ..d 'ot""',y blffidio, ill provision 0 '. e Imrnokalee Area Master Plan. IIII~ r 1161' 'S'f ' . . lrI' ,IReceiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning tecluil ~es and Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development strategies described in Chapter 163.3177 (II), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(I). Policy 1.17 Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different parcels or within a single parcel, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. Residential clustering shall only occur within the RLSA through the use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms of residential clustering shall not be permitted. Policy 1.18 6lPage " .- 16\ 1 ~\'J-, I A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited to Florida Forever, Federal and State conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private conservation organizations, local option taxes, general county revenues, and other monies can augment the Stewardship program through the acquisition of conservation easements, Credits, or land that is identified as the highest priority for natural resource protection, including, but is not limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas (WRAs) and land within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). Policy 1.19", All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intended,,~,1work within the RLSA Overlay shall be based upon a willing participant/seller approaclli,'Jtilt~not the intent of Collier County to use eminent domain acquisition within this system. " I:' " 'i ill'j., . ",lfi'I!!, Policy 1.20 ij~j~I'UII~, ' 'I The County may elect to acquire Credits thro.. aile' ,!l_ '~pgram, using sources identified in Policy.I.18. Should the County ~ this " pn, it sha . ~stablish a Stewardship CredIt ~rust to receIve an~ hold CredIts u~WI chtJm~:~s t ~~fe sold, transferred or otherwIse used to Implement uses wlthm Stewardshl~1 ,F,celvl~~1 reas. "Ii'i l"~I, :" ';'.1' :" "+1" "';.'1 Policy 1.21(recommended amen, I' 'I~~I~:: The incentive based Stewardshi~;: edit syst~m rel~* ,0 projected demand for Credits A;; ill! the primary basis for permanen: rote'iIli~!ijI~, ., lands flowways, habitats and water _tionore,,_ Tho co=~ Ifl < th~ 'y boo 1,,,, o"'''''fi=< do_dro, Cre,"" in the early years of Implerri ,tion, and alsor gnizes that a public benefit would be realized by the early designatIOn of SS .., i'O a!,t s issue and to promote the protection of natural resources, the imp~~~~f '. . ,,~ery will include an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary estabhs .. ,0 jij_lii, f1 the RLSA. The bonus shall be 10 the form of an additional <?~ml'~flilrds~,Credit pC" ere of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC a, ne-ha ,j, wa~rP Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the ACSC. " e early en", ,bon" if~hall be available for five years from the effective date of the adoPtiom~f the Stewar ~ip Credit System in the LDC. The early designation of SSAs, and retimg . r~ectlon of,,' wways, habitats, and Water retention areas does not reqUire the i i1i'II~' I~hm~ :!~fu ~R~~t otherwise require the early use of Credits, and Credits generated under 'I" the early entrY'~i\~" ay be used after the termination of the bonus period. The maximum Ibnumber oftditsthat can be g~nerated under the bonus is 27,000 Credits, and such Credits shall :::;:aot be trans., ed mto or used WIthin the ACSC. :~'_!l_~~;ecommended amendment) The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon Year of 2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, Innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs 1I1l0R the five year aa.-HyersBry of the BdolltiElR of the Stewardship Distriet iR the LDC. ill! part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows: 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. 7lPage ~"'.',',.., - .."'..,., ............""'. ...-"", 16\ 1 {IX \ 'V I 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time ofa Study and time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. 7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. incentives in order unty Rural Lands r,I:I; !il;'i :!~ < Policy 2.1 (recommended amendment) Agnculturitl landowners will be rovlded I I I Felie~' 2.3 (reeeBllllellded deletien)Pollcv 2.3 ( Formatted: Not Strikethrough ] 8lPage - _..,,- -_._---~---------- 16' 1 fx\v I V/ithin one (I) year ff<)m the effeetive date of these ameaamems, Collier CO\:lflty will establish an Agrie\:llt\:lre :\a',isary CO\:lneil eeHtflrisea of nat less taan Mye ner mere thaa nine aJlfleimea rllflresentatives of tae agrie\:llt\:lre ind\:lstry, te aavise the BCC en matters relating to ,^.grietdture. The ,\grie\:lIRue Aa"iisel)' Ca\:laeil (Af.C) will warl, ta ideatify eflflertuaities and flrllflare strategies te enhanee and flromete the eontiooaaee, eKflansien ana diversifteation of agrie\:llfure ia Callier COl:lfltl'. The A,\C will als8 iaeatify bamers to the eontiftl:l8flee, eKfl8flsiofl aaa diversifteatiaa ef the agrie\:llfural iaa\:lstry ana will flrllflar~ ree8mmenaatians ta elimiaate or millimize sl:Ieh Barriers in Collier Ca\:laty. The A;\C will alse assess ',vhelher 1l)(eej3tiolls fram staOO8faS fur e\:lsilless uses relatea to agriel:lltl:lre sko\:lld ee allowed \:Iader af! aamiRislrative permit preeess and make reeommeaaatiolls to the BCe. t Formatted: Not Strikethrough ) I { Formatted: Not Strikethrough ) Group 3 - Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas, where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. 9lPage '."'"'", ... 16 , 1 ~\'V I Policy 3.1 Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shaU occur through the establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. FSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 31,100 acres. FSAs are primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. These lands form the primary wetland flowway systems in the RLSA. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group I Policies. Not aU lands within the delineated FSAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differ~tiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analy~!S'of the Index Map Series shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; approx~m~t~~~ 96% score greater than 1.2 while 4% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA ]8"H is 1 ,8. I , " 'i, Policy 3.2 (recommended amendment) i'i', , Ih" Li,"" .m~1 md pi'" 'P~;~ md th,', h,hi". '"it ,Prol~tllii'gh Ih,'/i"hl"hm"'l of Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within t' . !Mlll!l~iI~~1 "HSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately ~ 'Ii. ~ are privately owned agricultural areas, which include both areas, '. natural c "~cteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and areas withoM: tse cha~teriSO ~h,These latter areas are included h~..~ Ihoy M' 'o"kd ,"""guo", to", ~!~ form, ....muum of Imd~,p, "'I "" augment habitat values. The overla~iovid ~:,. ."" centi~e l~,permanently protect HSAs by the creation and transfer of Credit. A:'" fting. In" . 'l'lelu~~'on of incompatible uses. and the ~"hh<hm,.1 of protecl,"' m, = d=i~' lW I Pol",~ Not ,11 '''''', w,thm th, delineated HSAs. are comp~rabld1, t~, ;"1)""""', hab' value; therefore the index shaU be used to dIfferentIate higher valulllij~ om value I '" s for the purpose of Overlay ImplementatIOn. Analysis of the Index Map Se~,ShOWS~?at II, 'lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There are approxImately,. 15. act~I\~' eared agncultural fields located In HSAs. The average Index scov!1 :~_. ignated lands is 1.3, however, the average index score of the naturaUy vegetate . , asl is 1.5. ifiFiiilHillil. . i! .1. Policy 3'~i!' ! Ii' .~~ Pf4ition for sl;ace water quality and quantity shaU be through the establislunent of ,I,I' ate' Rete . :~~,1~;' RAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the 'I';' 0'..1", Mim' .Iai. ""pro,i~I,ly 18,200 ,ot~. WRA, M' pri"kly ow.oIlmd, Ih" h,,, 'Ii' been permi : by the South Florida Water Management District to function as agricultural water "llli(ntion aT. . . . In many instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in i. . ~ cas'iW ey are excavated water bodies or may contain exotic vegetation. The Overlay pro'I.I, incentive to permanently protect WRAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group I Policies. Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% score greater than 1.2 while 26% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of WRA land is 1.5. Policy 3.4 10 I P age -~".,,' -""'" ., ...........- -,.,..",~...",,,~..~~._",,,,,,, , ... --- 16 \ 1 P<' \ 'V I Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources. Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,500 acres. Analysis shows that they score within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score of 1.5. Because these existing public areas, and any private conservation areas, are already protected, they are not delineated as SSAs and are not eligible to generate Credits, but do serve an important role in meeting the Goal of the RLSA. Policy 3.5 Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in,.IfSAs in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Con~i~ipl1al use essential services and governmental essential services, other than those necessary>~~',i$ere;e permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resourbe S ew~rdship Index value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional-drilling teChni~s and/or 'pr~~.lOusIY cleared or disturbed areas shall be uhhzed for 011 and gas extractIOn III F '~Uin order to ~w,nuze Impacts to native habitats. Other layers may also be eliminated at the elei~~ of the p' 'perty owner in exchange for compensation. The elimination of the'il_ffl!I!)JJ,Mi~[ shall not preclude the excavation of lakes or other water bodies if s~llP usl~ I '! j , .,: ~~rt of a restoration or mitigation program within a FSA. . ,pi!' h'li '",. I "ii' ,I', ''l: P I' 36 i!!'i",1 "II o ICY.. .. .11, .,:Jli('. .Y'. '. ReSidentIal Land Uses listed III the~~tnx s~'elimlllat,~ III Habitat Stewardship Sendlllg M= m ~''''''g' Co< oom'"",('1II1''' p ~ ~C, d",enb,d m Poh,y 3.8. Olbe< layers may also be eliminated at ~'. election~~,the ' (~,.,'I wner in exchange for compensation. " II'I~.)I Policy 3.7 (recommended" en' ..~I i \ 1:- General condition~ Uses, Miningand ,"i essing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed only on H~A lands. "a Nq~ ource St:wardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Cond,.o",1 "''''~o~ ". '" "t. "',,,.., '~"m, mbe< ".. 'b","""",,, to serve penrutted, :0 'iiI!i!!_q ~~,afety, shall only be allowed III HSAs with a Natural Resource S, (I. . ,'. "', '. value 0 " or less. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants are Probibitl~" r' pmcti"bl" dire";onol-<lrill;ng '''hn;qom ..dfm p,<v;oml, cleared d disturbed ' '" s s '~I be utilized for oil and gas Extraction in HSAs in order to minimize'mpacts to m( e habitats. In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for a, ~val '~~~ Conditio' Use, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of an EfS. ,It!! " '."rune'" ac" tement EIS which demonstrates that clearing of native vegetation has j!f' been minimiz ,'iljfi" 'se will not significantly and adversely impact listed species and their "f\~'b'''''' .ml.' u" will nm ';gn;"""'ly.OO .d'='ly ;mp." ..u;C=. A, on .It=.fi,, to th, ':il,~egOing, t' h applicant may demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved , ':, oration "mitigation program. Golf Course design, construction, and operation in any HSA s"Ni'i~~~~ with the best management practices of Audubon International's Gold Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Compliance with the following standards shall be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of impact: . Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the native vegetation on the parcel. . Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas. . Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13. Policy 3.8 Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, 11lPage -""'" .. - ... ~ p v ~-ij . ~ ...1>4. -'- 16' 1 ~\'V I acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. Policy 3.9 (recommended amendment) I. Agriculture will continue to be a permitted use and its supporting activities will continue to be pennitted as conditional uses within FSAs and HSAs, pursuant to the Agriculture Group classifications described in the Matrix. The Ag I group includes row crops, citrus, specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing and ranching, aquaculture (limited to Open Land desi~nation onlyl and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag I areas within ESAs and HSAs, all such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert fromlP6e type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicableij~M~' Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner recei ves .compensation a ',fViOUSlY described, no further expansIOn of Ag I Will be allowed III Fs~~and HSl!,,~eyond eXlstmg or permitted limits within property subject to a credit tra" ,~~ except foh~t.idental clearing as set forth in Paragraph 2 below. ,if .1 ';Ii/il' ,,' 2, fu "d" to ""'''g' .',bl, Ag It',_~:,!~ tb' ,'b'lily to "nv," from one Ag I use to another, Inclde I leanng !i,IOWed to In eXisting Ag I areas, square up existing fann fields, or , Ide,s to' ,from other Ag I areas, provided that the Ag I Land Use Layer half:. . en ret,: a on th "'cas to be incidentally cleared, and the Natural Resource l~d.exVal, 1,' r.~ has bel' adjusted to reflect the proposed ohang' m 1'00 "."'I~ 01" ." d'fjlllil' ~ d'=g Ih.. m,", th, ,b.., orit,,', ,,'" " limi"~tJi ,. ofth' =, ',sr' In lb, ,.", "id ioc''''n~1 "''''ng Impacts lands haVing ,.,atur~\\I'I~~re '~X Value In excess of 1.2, appropnate mitigation shall be'Jf~td . Ililll'" . . ~'I ~!, (" '~jl!L -;' .... .,: 'iil ".' ", "'I,HL..... :llihIWil!1111. ~~I~Yi~~~~des uni~ 'il~tH~~~~~_~I~~ grazing and ranching, forestry and similar activities, including r~'.r, 'cu I suppo ' es. In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such activitie~lpe . ~ .,0 .Irue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand.;' the limits ., we 'i~~ applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is ~tiIized ~ an owner re ",ives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag ~tt~om)'ij~on of Ag 2, ~ Ag I will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or pennitted IJ'III ~Wlthin~f1verty ffl~ ect to a credit transfer. ,'I' """':111',' till Poll', J"'rmm9dod ,m..dm..') !Iillk In certain Jcations there may be the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration. Examples I 'l"Jude, b~: .Ire not limited to, locations where flow-ways have been constricted or otherwise iriil' _Ii!~! 'past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Prient)' shall be gi';eR to restoratiofl ';,'ithifl the Camp Keais StFlllul. FSA or eOfltiguolis H8As. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA the Calftj"l Keais 81Tall:6 F8A or eeRligHOliS HS:\s, felir two additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. All: 1166itioRal twe 8Ie',J,'arelshil' ereelits shall be assigReel for eaek llere oflaael deelieateel for restoratioR aetivities withifl other FSAs alld HS,^.s. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with ffiI:tf additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the pennit agency authorizing 12 I P age ,..."" - -- 16 I 1 ~\~ I said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre. or for exotic control/burning at 4 Credits per acre. or for flow wav restoration at 4 Credits per acre. or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for restoration. Land Use Layers 1-6 must be removed. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration Credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. shallow wetland wadin 'vized in the RLSAO. etland restoration shall I . [ Formiltted: Indent: Left: 0.75" ) Should the landowner successful! shall be awarded. . ts for each acre desi ated for I ,.... ",: ~Wi 3.l:,'i Ilf '1 ,I'on tijla~n~i~aIYSiS of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and existing public/private [in conservationl~:: :II~ 'ae the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining to 'p, natural res;e protection. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional 'niliincentive foq( e protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp !1lt~;iS Stra~t!;all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand th ' !ii~i!MP~" herwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (0.6) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix. Policy 3.)3 (recommended amendment) Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be 13 I P age ".-'",.,"';~ p~ 1T "".. ll.~__ - T . . - ....- 10\ 1 ~l~ I designated as a SRA in such instances. However, if the WRA provides water treatment and I retention eKehisively for a SRA, the acreage of the WRA used as pri1llllIY treatment for water management for the SRA shall be included in the SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. Policy 3.14 During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with be~1 management practices. Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure, it at there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating nWi8~~lPn or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat functidn. Cc:\V'Wfnsating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Ca~Fs Keais StrllM, or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or' lqugh.1;;, f'l"i' Policy 3.15 (new policy) . :'Ii!l I V I n I <. !TO n in I d . Within 1- hall im I m n ~ r k . r r enhance safety and security. .... . .iiil:!!ll I' 11'1"1" 1+'1 . ;I" ",<\ 'I '," :. 'j Group 4 - Policies to enable ctrsionlof rurail.tib'ther uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban spr ~~~i i velopment that utilizes creative land use planning techniques bm!lt~e I ent I Stewardship Receiving Areas. ltlllll ii' Policy 4.1 ,'I" llil, 'I ill~l; '1 "'~ "I" Collier County I ~_, , ,e fact itate uses that enable economic prospenty and diversIfication of t ~II~ fUI~I~I, ,I' of the RLSA. Collier County Will also encourage dmlopOO'~I.'~~":o I~ ''''0 pl~"mg lodmiqu~ ,on! f"";I"~' oooop'" fo~ of developt to ac' : ,0 '&OPulation growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas ($, s). IncentJ " to 'courage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural ~conOmY~UCh as flexi~11 development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted 'l'IT"~~ml 1m wm~ements s~l" ' be mcorporated mto the LDC Stewardship Dlstnct. fi' ,JiihlFltl:ll ~,I'L Policy 4.2 ~~commended amendment). , . " , 'Iii~ll p""I<II'_oo I~d, ~tln" tho 'LSA wln'h ooo~ tho rnlrn"~ fo"" b~"" = d,~bl, ~1,~estgn~ I n as a SRA, except land dehneated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been d"~~~ s a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately ~ 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and approximately ~ 15.000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA I desi~ation shall be a maximum creation of 315.000 stewardship credits of 15.000 aereG. Approximately 2%, of theGe lanas aehie:', e an Inae){ seore greater than 1.2. Because the Overlay 141 P age ,~- ...- . 'l" ,rr""" r . 16\ 1 tx\ty I requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locationa] standards normally applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the )'lriaei)'l]es of the RufEll L!Ill6s 8tewardshi)'l Aet as further deseribed procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District. Policy 4.3 (recommended amendment) Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. T~~ipasis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, includin~~uired suitability criteria set forth .herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship DiStrict,~p"a~urance that the applicant ~~~~~ OOM~M""'. by 'ho oc.::~f~. ~~~:"ii" li!!I,,;, ' I "Ii'''''''1I11' illl' Policy 4.41,ii" , ". ,lli'l Collier County will update the Overlay ~!o deli~lI~e the ~~~aries of each approved SRA. Such updates shall not require an 8lfiend '\~I,' ear:" Management Plan, but shall be ."",,,,Ii,,'y 'Roo","'"""mlo CJllBllIoI ,','~~:el ' no. th, EAR b.",d =~dm'", process when It penodlcally OCC1fi' . . Iii!:"" i[ill' Policy 4.5 (recommended ameJ" . '1IUiIIHfll Hl:Ii:l!ik' 'Ind. To address the specIfics Of~~SRA~ a masteJ~n of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part . !~e pe~~~w " designation as a SRA. The master plan will d=",,"'" tim" '~:~gi,' . ...Ii""'" ."Ii"~ of th, O"MI.y ,,'" th, LDe Stewardship Dlstnc " . '~!L '.,;, '.~ that incompatible land uses are dIrected away from wetlands an , iiN~al h ',,} identl "s FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. To tlie exteat . e ',' Plan shall be eoasisteatcom I with the Count's then-ado ted Lon R 'e Trans 0" LRTP the Coun Build Out Vision Plan as ma be amended and refe ced in Poli dt the Future Trans ortation Element and Access Mana ement I Policy 4.6 SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter 163.3]77 (11), F.S. and 91-5.006(5)(1). These planning strategies and 15lPage -..--"-- ,....- - , .. n...r -- 16 ,l ,1 t\lv I techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also I include a mobility plan that includes eellSiEleFBtteft ef vehicular. bicycle/pedestrian. public transit. internal circulators. and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development and land uses. The mobility plan shall provide mobility strategies such as bus subsidies. route sponsorship or other incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services. The develo ment of SRAs shall also consider the needs iden . d in the Count Build Out Vision Plan and Ian land uses to accommodate services that wo increase internal ca ture and reduce trip length and long distance travel. Such developme!,~$~ategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawlo .encouraging alternatiVe mOfies of transportation. increasing internal capture and reducing vehicle miles travelec!k, ,. I, .':' ','; Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment) 'i ,n" 'i'i i lit; There are fetH' three specific forms of SRA permi:!~li th~,flaY. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Develo, en : !, H'_t", ,actenstIcs of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are set forth. i~~ ;JIrachm" ., F and af '~enerallY described in PolICIes 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 ftftd ~~:d1I~ ,~ " SpeCific regulations, guidelines and standards withi' '" ,e LD~\.vardsh1~IPistrict te guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative'~! .' and deYi~lopment .strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.3177 (II), F. S. and ~. t~JEl~5)(I). ,Ii ,e SIze, ,~ !!~ase denSity of each form shall be ro~i",," with tho ,'''''',"" 't o~ AIta, .. .~~ m~jm= b~o ,~idroti'l d=ity " '" forth in A''',hmrol C m . only ~Od . gb tho dro'ity h'roding p~o" ~ "I forth in density and intens~ ,ble', _iii visiolt ;f the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through tho "ron"hl~w~kf~re h~g d='ty~no : ~ ref~oc'" io tho Do~ity R,ting S"I= of tho F",ore Urnd Ure EI=ro"I"ji~1 . tI,1 dro,ity i, ""0'''''' by ""dio, tho to'" number of reSidentl~~ a S I ',;,Y tlid '.erall area therein. The ?ase residential density does not restnct net reSIde , ,Ui~I!llIf:,:' f~ls wlthm a SRA. The location, size and denSIty of each SRA will ~!,!.rii~e "q~ an indivlll 'I basis during the SRA designation review and approval I'!~~[ 'I: . '1 it <:::,J: ' ',Ii 11 process. ~'H" !Ilr"!l Policy 4: ".1 (recom~e~?ed iltiendment) 'i',' ~,~ns a"~5arges~i:most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix :.ill 'Iii~. T . L t,ha~~ ,I' an level services and infrastructure that support development that. is jip compact, mlxe JlIWiJl'i man scale, and proVIdes a balance of land uses to reduce automobIle trIps I ill and increaseii ivabiJity. Towns shall be ~ft6Hess than +;OOG 1.500 acres and \.I1l to et'-fflefe 1}i I IilHh8ft 4,000 ,. 00 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have j!~ividual j , tity and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a d~_I~m~~W ! r community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestnan and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobility plan. which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located within the town to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as ~ described in Policy 4-:-J..S. 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office. research. development companies. and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park 161 P age ~ ___w"_'_ 16' 1 \k\'V I and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE. and those included in Policy 4.7.4. Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns are s!l:&H-be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC. Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment) Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses I appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be ~fteHess than 100 acres and up to ar maRl theR 1,000 acres inside the Area of C~jlical State Concern and u to Rat !fIaRl theft I 500 acres outside the Area of Critical S , ," .Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixe~n~lii ih~illage center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilitieS.' Vi I ~~ shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including;, an interco L ~ted sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villag~~';~all have p"~ or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhoo' ;': led retail' , . 0 office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. A ro riate1 sea ''I' scn" in Polic 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in Villages. Villages are an appro~pte 1'" ~ '~IlIi.. "ge of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be 10(;, .' adjace . Ii.'. each ot 0 allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria fq~'~~ lages s .,all t\1!~" c1uded in the LDC Stewardship District. Vii I . . ;. .1 . 1 II in fi r s ti r t 'I ., v'l on i fi r Peliey 4.7.3 i"'; Policy 4.+.4 i mpact R I Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that '.vill flfO'iiae flel(il3i1ity '/'Iitk re5Jlt1ct . 'I' .. '1 i,j i . , Hamlet or Village. shall support and further Collier County's valued attributes of agriculture. natural resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and support services necessary to further these attributes within the RLSA. Primary CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to support research. education. convenience retail. tourism or recreation. }\~~ra~Fiately seal eEl ea"'Patil3le Ii3eS aesefiBed iR Peliey 4.7.4 !flay alsa l3e ~el'fRitteEI ~. A CRD may include, but is not required to have permanent residential housin& ftfIEI..the services lIRa facilities tkat sliflfleft flel'fR8Reftt resiat1ftts..i\nd the services and f!lcilities that su\Wort Formatted: Font: limes New Roman, Not permanent residents. The number of residential units shall be equivalent with the demand Strikethrough generated by the primary CRD use. but shall not exceed the maximum oftwo units per gross acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres. .~.R eK8mflle of a CRD is 8ft eeetelirisffi \ illage that 17IPage ~ 16 I 1 ~\'V I welild have a llfliqlie set ef llses afld slij9j9art services differeflt frem Ii traditieflal residefltial village. It V/sllld eefltaifl traflsieFlt ledgiflg facilities and ser'iiees aj9j9fElj9riate te ees tellrists, Blit may flSt j9rs'iicle far the Faflge sf serviees that are flecessary ts sl:lj3jgert jgeffiliUleflt resiclllflts. Exeept as described abe'ie, a CRn ":liII eSflferm te the eharaeteristies sf a Village sr Hamlet as set feAh efl l.ttaehmeflt C based afl the size €If the CRD. l.s resiclefltialaflits are Het a reEjllired ase, these gaees afld serviees that sllj3jgert resideRts saeh as retail, affiee, ei'iie, gsveTftffleRtal aHd iflstitHtieflal ases shall alse Het be reltllired, , Hhev/e'/er. fer itE)' CRD that dees iflelade jgermafleRt resideHtial hSlISiflg, the j9raj9artieflate sllj9j9art serviees listed aee,e shall be j9rsvided iH aeeerdllflee with Attitehmeflt C. Te maiEtaifl a j9roj9artisfl ef CRDs ef 100 aeres er less te Villages aRd Tewfls, Ret mere thafl 5 CRDs ef 100 acres er less, in cC;),itlbiRatisfl with Hamlets, may be apj9roved as SR:\s prier te the aj9j9r-0val ef a Village sr Tewrn lifld thereafter flet mere :: ~1l~::=1 ~~:g:~~ ~e:~s ;~:s:h:~1 :m::~:\::5l~:itt~/=~:~:~~~c:: ~" Te m inta'n a ro erti n of RD of I I 0 ViII . Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not th 5 RD f 100 res r s rov s h a Strikethrough .. . - Town and thereafter not more than 5 additional CRDs of 100 a Formatted: Font: Times New Roman to .each subs~uent Village or Town. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman 5 years ]9l1rSHaflt ta Peliey 1.22. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Strikethrough Formatted: Font: Times New Roman Formatted: Font: Times New Roman Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Strikethrough Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Strikethrough +1' .11111!lqilklilfili!ilr,'i!!", PolIcy 4.8 " ,", ,.Il:};" ""'hIW,li!il An SRA~,. 1\iliI.l'~~!gu~cto a FSA or HSA, but shall net encroach into such areas, and shall buffer su,,' areas a~"~ ~;;J~'iin Pelky 4.13. A SRA may be contigueus to and served by a WRA w~, lout reqUirin~qt~e WRJA te be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. 'ii; '1 """1' '1'1'1, 1'."1"';"1'"'' "".. ........ ' 'I! !i'L t'.' ~;" ~tl" ..,n,' li~ . l!illl,!i!iliiHHil :;1' Policy 4.9 ~~!ecOiii'mt!bd~d amendment) !. !!i!;\...S..RA. ~.u..".:;lr,contain sufficient suitable land to accommedate the, planned development in an "'~"~Ylronme.~ Iy acceptable manner. The. pnmary means of dJTectmg development away from \WIIt1_" . entlcal habItat IS the prohibItIOn of locatmg SRAs 10 FSAs, and HSAs, afle WRAs. To furt}'j~r direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception ef those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than] .2. Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses mav be exempt frem this restriction. provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to anv such areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant te Pehcy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score ef greater than 1.2. 18 I P age _n"',,"_ 'I' ~ .. .<.,_.>--,-"_.~-,,.,._,""""'- "'l" 00 All__ -,__ 16,1 1 ~\11 - I Policy 4.10 (recommended amendment) Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, ill: Village. ~ those CRDs exeeeeliHg 100 aeres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space; exce t for the allow e of uses described in Policy 4.9. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses withi,qjf RA, leeated 811tside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall norbe required to consume I Stewardship Credits but shall be counted as part of the SRA acr~~. ' ~:~:;~ 0' '"h SRA ,hall" d";gn'" "'P"i~d"~l"ro~jl~iW.~ d,,,;I, ,od mtensJty uses Within the SRA to lower denSity ancJi!~.~_' i adJommg property. The ed~es .of SRAs shall be well defined and d~ed :~~e ' . " ~h!lrith the character of "'lo,mng prop"". T"","qo" ro,h ", ~ h~:' J,~,~""" .,,,,,,,,,,,, boffm, md recreation/open space placement may be, for. . s p" ~e. Where existing agricultural "tiv;ty ,djo;", SRA, th, d";gn Ofth:S o;.m:,: lih;, ~~I' ;n'" '=0", '0 ,1I0w 'n< ,he continuation of the agricultural activiZ. an[l~~;~~ ' mize a~~ conflict between agriculture and SRA uses ," 11111"'j" . I" . "rll" "'hip" G. ~, ~, PoU", 4.12 II!, ~I~ ,1111111 Where a SRA adjoins a,~ A, _W~!I ' rxisting public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay" best manage. t and planning practices shall be applied to mllrim;" ,dvm, ~jr",~,'.m"'l'!l!! ,;gn ,h,lI d=o,,"", th" ground w,re, ''''', draw down or dlv '. tlilrnyl~9~ot all~IY pact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservatIOn land. DetentIOn and' ,tr ,lIi~ i~hall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent l~!bl~una '~~,Iand an 1ect control elevations and water tables. r ", ,',! iFl! "I' f""1 I;;: :j';!,. .,' i . , ',' "'ii", 'i., Pohcy 4'~'H,!r. ~~ :~trun n< '"Ignom '" , SRA ,b'lI b, o"d '" prov;d, , boff~ b,tw= th, SRA ,"" ~~joj" FSA, HS'!, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the "II':' ; '. ~~1 y M' 'ill!i~e,~ 1M' e contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or j it eXlstmg public' Apill te conservatIOn land may mclude: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses 'Ili,:,".nv'doo n~~')" n< o'h~ ""',,'" ore ,Ilow'" w;th;n tho fi", 200 '<<t, p=;v, re""I;""" 'HII~reas and p " s, reqUired yard and set-back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. !ling the " t boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that compnse Camp Keals Strand, I.e., the area so !ij!9fj.m' okalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet. Policy 4.14 (recommended amendment) The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA approval. an SRA proposed to adioin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open shall provide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said areas to the County's arterial/collector roadwav network as shown on the Countv Build Out 19lPage '0"",,,,'- y...... ,...".. " . . ---",._"".~.~-~-"" -'.-- 16 , \ 1 f'< \ f2; I Vi sian Plan sa as ta reduce travel time and travel expenses. imprave intercannectivity. increase internal capture. and keep the use af caunty arterial roads ta a minimum when traveling between develapments in the RLSA. I Public and private raads within an SRA shall be maintained bv the flriffiary tawn ar eafftffiullitvSRA it serves. Signalized intersectians within or adiacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the flRffiar)' tawn ar e8fftRlumt..SRA it serves. Na SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of Caunty collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accardance with the Collier Caunty Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successar regulation i~ljall be prepared for each proposed SRA ta provide the necessary data and analysis. Ta the ~tit required to mitigate an SRA's traffic impacts. actions mav be taken to include. but shaH~p. ~I~jrnited to. provisians for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossings. envir9ruU'ental n1i~ion credits. right of wav dedicatian{ s). water management and/ar fill material W'lijj~ll mav be' q~~ed ta expand the existin. ~r ro osed roadwa netwark. An such actians tel' ,}et traffic Illracts shall be memonalized m a devela er contnbutlOn a eement. ctlOns' II be consl ered Within the I area of si . ficant influence of the ro . ect traffic (, sed roadwa s tRat are antieiflatea te ee ellflllll8ea ar eefl5tf1:letea. "tll ifilllll .,j I,;, ,L <,I Policy 4.15.1 (recommended amendmenf Iii"~ <ill'! 'I""~' SRAs are intended to be mixed us~~II'~all bi~l. pwed t, , IJtliIJ range of uses permitted by the U,b~ D~ign"io' ,f tb, FL1 ~difiol by " . :o~.7. 4.7.1. 4.7.2. "'" 4 7 3""" ~d Atta,bm..' C. An ,wmpn" m it"} ~ """~homl, "~', '''"",",,''1, ~d institutional uses will be i' ,yaila,,!~1 he t . . daily needs and community wide needs of residents af the RLSA. Dep" , . ng an the size" ; Ie, and character af a SRA, such uses may be p,,,idol ,i'b" witbi, tb, '~RA'I~llf ' "SRA, in th, RLSA 0' witbi, tb, t_k"re Urban Area rov' l a a o~se ad'oinin area's facilities as described in Attachment C to i I newl created SRA can demonstrate sufficient ca acit e , he ' sired use er the standards of Attachment C. By example, each Village q~r: own sIM!.o" :~:ror neighborhaad retail/office IJses to serve. its population as well as appr~ate CIVlC anilill.~stIt {Ional uses, however, the combmed populatIOn of several Villages aHd,Ha :!smay be re1ted ta suppart cammunity scaled retail ar affice uses in a nearby Tawn. ,'b~~Si,~~ the mini ,pm amount af non-residential uses in each. categary are set farth in iulr ta ent .' 4~?:,l~~!~! e alsa mcluded m the Stewardship LDC Dlstnct. Ill, Policy 4.l5,~ '. '!iJkH iill:!he Board f~Faunty Cammissianers (BCe) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an 1'~ dev~ment, require that suitable ar~as far parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aSI 'Uim ved, and/ar dedicated far public use. When the BCC requires such a set aSide for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject ta the same provisians af the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedicatians required as a condition for PUD rezaning. Policy 4.15.3 Applicants far SRA designatian shall caardinate with Callier County Schaol Board staff to allaw planning ta accur ta accammadate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As a part af the SRA application, the following information shall be provided: 1. Number afresidential units by type; 2. An estimate af the number af schoal-aged children far each type af schaol 20 I P age ,~ ~ III . -~ - ."-",,-""",- 16' 11 ~\1/ I impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and 3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility. Policy 4.16 (recommended amendment) A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the prop.. o~ development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. Ji~' level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, acceptedc~w~11,~ngineering practices, and I LDC requirements. The capacity of essential services and infrll$iW:ct~~!,llecessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA desi'm~tion proce~.,:~nfrastructure to be I analyzed includes. but not limited to. transportation, potable W~1~r, wastewa~~,,~,rrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infra!!' cture is di.sed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community watllltl~1 I, ,ste ' I utilities are required in Townsand,Villages, . " "'"':''' ' ".'",,' . ,andmaybe I required in CRDs .' '. ", ..' , dep 'ng upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralize,Rlil~decen,~~aliz~ilwmmunity water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, ope~~~d and !~~'ntaine~~I~~ a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development Dist~ffl~;~.. ,.,1, lmmokajee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other governm~tith:entltyIJlil,nn. oV,atl~mlalternatIVe water and wastewater treatment systems such as decen". '. :ft. zed. ,.c..om.m.u.n., I ,I~~~f.t~t systems shal~ not be prohibited by this pohcy proVided that they ~mft all, .~qft,~,le. ri*,atory cntena. IndIVIdual potable water supply wells and septIc s)(~~~ms,I__~\)" a "Imum of.1 00 acres of any Town, VIllage or CRD of 100 acres ar.e. permltv~IP., n, ...an m.te, n, m. . b~~~I~ untIl services from a centrahzed/decentrahzed commuruty system are avaJ!a~I~li, Indl'1\9~! " able water supply wells and septIc systems fife permittee 18 H8ffile~~. !.!ir~Y"~,e...,.p.'~,,...\ltte&lli'R RDs of 100 acres or less III sIze. P I' 4 17 .'. "Ik.,. ..... .1 L.I "',1''1'1'1>11'.,, o ICY.. 'i'l' , 'I i~J' The BCCil~.II'lliI~~~w W~ approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the I provisio~, !~f Policy I'I~~! 2 o~,,~ Capital Improvement Element of the GMP and public facilities ursuan.' Polic 1.l '1'" dl' 'n t the followin: 'ails I w enforcement mer enc medi al service e service rnment uil in n librari fer C&tegery A pllelie faeiliaeG. Final ':~,*1(gevlil!:l1ent orde~, will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance Ilil:~'ith the CoH~"!lI"~~itll:' ~nagement System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final ,i,II'.' local develop.,.mdW'8PCler approval. 'II '/! i ,:Ii i!.o,licy 4.18"f,+ecommended amendment) fl\~!I~I,m be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizo'n 'year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable- workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. 21 I P age 16\ ~i'" 1 1\ )V I I It is ree6lffiizeaIn the event that a SRA development ia the RLSA , including any related imoacts to Collier County outside of those directly aenerated by the SRA,flHl'r' generates sUIJllus revenues to Collier County:-itft9 Collier County mav choose to allocate a portion of such sUIJllus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to compete effectively for high-value research, development and commercialization, innovation. and alternative and renewable energy business projects. Policy 4.19 (recommended amendment) .' Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SI)~ji\Vhere such Credits were created from a Stewardship Sending Area deemed vested under th Credit ratio. Ten Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in a' re such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area. . , Qpen s~~ in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4. JO or for I , that is des! ,i ~ted for a public benefit use described in Policy +.+9 4.20 do not re i e use 0 dits. In ~lfder to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the .~~u; icilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation ~\ Nles 11,1: ! j~. 1~:1 'I~,s, accessory uses and ~""ot'" u", thot pro"d,. = uf """~Itd: ~~" tu 're"d<u".] pupu].louU of a SRA, as provided for in Po!icies 4.7j: I, 4.15:,~jand" ~mchment c. Such uses shall be Identified, located and quantified In the SRI "mlaste,r~~, . ,,111 Policy 4.20 (recommended amend,~~~ 'i'iH11 I I: """'1" ,I I { Formatted: Not Highlight ) The acreage of 0 en s ac '~. _ _.. _ _ a public benefit use shall flet count toward the maximum acreage" 'ts~!~in .' 'y 4.7 but shall not count toward the consum tion of Stewards . Cre' il I' e pu~se of this policy, public benefit uses include: p,lili, "boo], (preK-t2) '1Ii~", p~ ""rornla", "".!u.uu" iu",di"g ,",iII.", uses; community parks exec: ". t'-~", :., urn acreage requirements of Attachment C, I m,mdp.] gulf rou~IIIl\lIj.!'P . ~.J . ,,~<ut.t f"i1iti,,~,''''.. .......io] ."",~ ~ defined In the LDC.' ~~. "q'If!.' _he schools shall be coordInated With the Colher County School BOJ~~~~.Ori\ ',' interloca ! reement 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193.f' cl~1 nd i "ted ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns; "Villages, b 'I, subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. ;. q r<<ii 4,~~ecommend~ amendment) q!i,lI!' .1, !'withll'J ,A~~@:~ at meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to ..Ii entitle a SRA I ,IEI1I~IIJl!' SC must be generated exclUSively from SSAs WithIn the ACSC. Further, iii" th, uo]y f}Uf SRA .Huw'" iu th, ACSC ,," uf th, Ok.]u"oo,"", S1uugh ,""'] b, ......... 'lii.iffi6 CRDs ~," 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed III the ACSC west of the I S~oo .' e Slough shall be CRDs and Villages alla CROs of not ~ore than 300 ac~es aflEi i ,.:'I" oVlded, not more than 1000 acres of SRA development m the form of Villages or CRDs h6',vever, that CROs. or two Villages er CRDs 6f flat mere thall 500 aeres elleh, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effective aate of this 8mellameat June 30. 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, 8S of the effeetive date ef these ameflameflts, had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply. 22lPage ~ , ~,,'- 16 , !, 1 ~'V I Policy 4.22 (recommended new policy) When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process. the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources. { Formatted: Font: Bold ) 'I, I, Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and qua~~ and the 'M'taining of the natural water regime and protect listed animal an~ spe. ..... ".and their 'abitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural LandtJ i,: .,~h'!I~1 I; program. l"I!. . It. "W"II" Policy 5.1 (recommended amendment) . ,rill!! "Ilt~, . i' To protect water quality and quantity a~i I '~aint~nafRe 0 l~. natural water regime in areas m,pp'" "FSA"o,"..1 Mt'" ...tomti '. 00, ,av~ ~"'" ,tio"o th, tim, ""t th,y are designated as SSAs under the St~ward ""1' . .'. dit Pro I ~m , > Residential Uses, General Condlhonal Uses, Earth Mmmg a. )"'o~smg~ ij~' and~eatlOnal Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminate ,! I . Con '_ff . essential services and governmental I essential services, except those ,essa I; (A!ilila I p" 'ted uses or for public safety, shall ~ not be allowed in FSAs. I " I i fr m thi r ri in r VI h h such areas. . . Where practicable, directional-drilling:!!~ an " reVl 's y cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil or gas extraction in' . ,,1" , '\ijj~I.~1 '.' ,Dimize impacts to native habitats. Asphaltic and concrete batc.h ma~~!II!'~,s.ha ~l\fl prohlblte'm areas mapped as HSAs. The opportumty:o voluntanly partlclpat~l the l~iI\{ds ll>ifredtt Program, as well as the nght to sell conservatIOn easements or a free:<# lesser inter'e$~,in tli i 'and, shall constitute compensation for the loss of these rights. ~* 5.2:' I I Fllf ; I'i . tect ~ ;~:$I~nd quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect fi' listed animal a'. Ii 'species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on "llii',th, av,",:,.. th" '" withio tho ACSC, ,11 ACSC "'01"",,, '~od,"" ,b,11 "Fly. inolodlo, 11;11'1!~ose that st I tly limit non-agricultural clearing. 11:1111 II: p' I 'itIi~~~iF" To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not I elect to use the Overlay, these GrollP 5 policies fellewiHg regullltieB!J are a""lieahle, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall supercede any comparable existing County regulations that would otherwise apply. These regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural use of land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system. Policy 5.4 (recommended amendment) 23 I P age ---....--.'" ..~._- ~ <--- -- 16 I 1 ~\V I Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these I potential crossing locations will be developed within 12 months of the effective date of the Growth Management Plan Amendment and shall be incox:porated into IlSeEI iR eV8hl8tiRi community. cultural and historical. and transportation planning for the RLSA. including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies. Policy 5.5 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stey;ardship program, non- I agricultural development, excluding individual single family residens~~ shall be directed away from the listed species and species of special local concern (SSLC), 1 C's to be defin in the LDC within I-year of adoption of this policy) and their habitats ~,'d~Jy,ing with the following gUidelines and standards: - U I I. A wildlife survey shall be required f?r all parcels when H~~ sp.ecies_are known to mhablt bIOlogical commumttes simIlar to those eXlstmlf ,Ite or wh ~lsted specIes Qf SSLC's ar pl'6teateEI ElJ'eeies are utilizina: . , J' e site. Th' survey shall be conducted in accordance with the require ; il_I\~~!11 ',da Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) ~U.S. i1ti; ana'. life Service (USFWS) I g";d,Ii"~. Th, C"~ty ,"'" ootify 'lit,.. . cc '""~s of th, ,,'Mwco of '"y Ii,too species Dr SSL.C'S pl'Elteeted S!'eei~" ,I may b~~scove , Ii, . 2. Wlldhfe habItat management plans' . ~!"specles Dr SSLC'S shall be submItted for County approval. A plan ~ ~,be r:' '. for ;.:projects where the wildlife survey I indicated listed species r. .' I' l'ilJ-e util Ithe.~'; or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can be antici '; ,ted ~I~' ~pl ::, listed species or SSLC'S. These plans I shall describe how t e pro ,~W .1, pat Ie land uses away from listed species Qf , . an' r habltat~ if I a. Management' s shall 'co. ; i' te proper techniques to protect listed species Q!: S ,. . ~. ~ . habitats from the negative impacts of proposed dev t current and com leted data and local state and federa uide i s shall be uflized to re are the re uired mana ement ,p: :r HumaHl~~iviti~~. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be b ;i. provided!':to minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and 'II'!!!.. encour~, wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, I iHI~~ffl~sses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. Ihgation for impacting listed species or SSLC habitat shall be considered in the management plans. as appropriate. i. THe felle :.'iRg refereflees shall be lisee, as Bj3pfflJH'iate, to prl3Jlare the reqllired maRagemeHt plaRs: I. SO\,l01 Florida MlIlti Speeies Reesvery PlaH, USF'.VS, 1999. 2. HaBitat MaRagemeRt G\,IideliRes fer the Bald Eagle iR the SOHtheast RegieR, USF'NS, 1987. 3. Eeology BfId HaBitat PrsteetioR Needs of Gopher Tortoise (GOpHef1IS polyphem\,ls) PoptIlatiofts fullRe eft LaRes Slatee fur Large Seale DevelspmeRt iR Flerida, Teelmieal Report Ne. 1, Flerida Game aRa Fre3H Water FiSH Cell.lfRissieR, 1987. 1. Eeology aad DevelopmeRt Related Habitat ReEllliremeftts ef tlte Florida Serna Jay (;\jleleeema eoeruleseeRs), Teebnieal Report Ne. 8, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991. 24lPage ,~~-,,'. ,><_"--""''C,_'" ,. 16 I t~l ~\'l/ I 5. i... I ii... I , also outliRe a public awareRess program to educate resiaeRts about the OR site presen'e aHa the Reed to maifltaiR the serub vegetatiaa. These requiremeflts shall be eonsisteftt '.'lith the UFWS SOlith Floriea MIiIti Speeies ReeO'iel)' PlaR, May 1999, subject to the flreyisieRS efpllftlgraph (3) oftms policy. a.For the balEl eagle (Haliaeetus lel:leoeephalus), the r.e€tuiree habitat maRagemeflt pl8fls shall establish protective zeaes afelifta the eagle Ilest restFietill@; eeFtaiR aCJtivities. The plafls shall also aeElress restrictiftg certain types of aetiyities dl:tfift@; the flest seaseR. These requiremeflts shall be CJ€lIlsistellt with the UFWS South Floriea MIiIti Species ReCJo';er Plafl, May 1999, slibject to the previsioas of paragraph (3) ofthis policy. e.For the red eockaded waeepeeker lpicoiaes barealis), the requirea habitat pratectioR plafl shall outliRtl measlires to avaie ae'ierse iffiflaets ta aeti ve eh:lsters aile to minifll:ize iffiflaets to foragiRg habitat. Where aEl'ierse effects CM HOt be a'/aided, measures shall be tal{ea ta miiHfll:ize OR site c1istur.eafICe 25 I P age -_.fIlI ".-~ , . 1ff ......'l1 ....-- 16 , 1 f<lv I ana eOHlJlensate or mitigate for impacts that remaia. Tilese reqlliremeats silall be eOHsisteflt witil tile UFWS Soatil Floriaa Ml:llti Speeies Reeover>, PlaR, May 1999, sllbject to tke pro'iisioR ofparagrepil3) oftms poliey. f. IR areas "/lhere tile Florida blacl( bear (Ursl:is amerieaRlls floridaalls) ma)' be preseRt, tke maRegemeftt pieRs shall reql:lire that gar-bage be pieced ia bear proof eofttaiflers, at SRe sr more eefltrel loeations. The maHagemeat pllHl shall also iaeatify methods to iafoTfR lecal resideats ef the eOHeems related to iRteraetioa bet.....eeR blael( bears aRa ilamElRs. MitigatioR for imj911etiRg habitat suitable for blaek bear shall be considered ia tile maHagemeRt plaa. g.Fer projects 10eated iR Prienty I or Priority II P~1her Habitat areas, the :::~~:: ::;pr:~::e:i~~;~I~~lla;:t;~~f;~rs ~~~~~~ryn;;ti:; direetiHg iRteftsive IllRd llses te cllrr-eRtly disl,~~ed I~~s. Prefeffed hllbitllts ., ~'::;, , '., ;: ;:" ,'e., r: "j 3Th, aronty ~!I!li\t~'h:~Il!;~I' pnlid~ 0' <hi, O,"'.y, oon,id~ .nd .tili" recommendabo ~ tiII$:~ j~~lchnical assIstance from the Flonda FIsh and Wlldhfe Conse'" ,0 " ',ion an r Pommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in I iSSU: !~~'_,t; "~S on property eoatairHRg utilized by listed species .or SSLC's. It is recCjl Ized that t ~ _ e agbncy recommendatIOns, on a case by case baSIS, may ehttttge stre. , hen the requ:: ~ments contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such "chan -, shall be d med consistent with the Growth Management Plan. However. no ,iil!tt!~'t~ducti~';_ f the life rotection olicies of Polic 5.5wiIl be considered as these shall !if' ,"n"i~r liIl' "md.." '0< wildlif, prokction IH " i i !: ;'!icPolicy 5.6,', 'ecommended amendment) I,I~W,h~~[ri nds that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, C I I! ounty shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows: l. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems. 26 I P age "0'_ ""-"'''',''''' 161 1 ~'1 t<\V I 2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy 3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area. 3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open sp~~~ and site preservation requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve:l\lf appropriate amount of native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be prese~y:~dll~~ part of this vegetation requirement according to the following criteria: j' 'i, i i. The acreage requirements specified wit~ this over,I~~ shall be met by preserving wetlands with the highest wet! 'ij~"functional~'I,cores. Wetland ',,";ornU;ty ,,,,,,moo' "ore, ,",\I b, th", '5" ;n p," ""ph b 0' thi, policy. The vegetative preservatlOrltl!m1r,ts", ~sed by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met throughdliese , n' 1'~~.~I,havlng a functIOnality assessment score of 0.65 or~,' ' , form I,~nd Mltlg ~ on Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greate~~t Ithin, o~~ ye ,ill$om the effeCl1ve date of thiS Amendment, the County: ",all de~ ,p specI :::~ntena In the LDC to be used to determine thoseinstanc~~i~I'" ich we,~jU1ds with a WRAP functionality assessment sco~~i~lilJ~S or a'{orm Vj 'i" rid Mitigation Assessment Method ""eoro.7, l ~t~ m"" b, ~ m= ofth, pre"~'''"" ,,,,"oed by Policy 5.3. ! ' , ' '1l,11 I ii. Wetlandlil nd . I ' , u buffers that are utilized by listed species...Qf SSLC's, ',' ~g as corridQ,; for the movement of listed species or SSLC's, shall be pres':'. . on.~~,;t>>1' 'and flowway functions through the project shall jj~II' . ed. '.ill. ;,1, '~~l",., ;'~ iii. Pr ;, !eCl'~.~, ,"~I ;~,shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or iiilhli1diff~yers ~~~, will not' versely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on r'ltl!'" J!lllte~'lfll,~tention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding i,i,; wet,qs anltj?e consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations : i" and w~ter tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be d:lfI!,t,!" :"'i,l"" desi~' in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.1 I and 6. I 2 of SFWMD's Basis ,IIY'" .t,I"I[ : ,,~fJ}~y!lew, January 2001. Upland veget~l1ve commumltes may be utilized to ,F' .;' !meet the vegetal1ve, open space and site preservatIOn requirements of this til,"~ 0"",, wh," the w,"", ''''',"MI ~'~'m'nt "ore;, I,,, !him 0.65 nil!, b. "i', order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review, '.'ilill' , t . pllcants shall rate functIOnality of wetlands uSing the South Flonda Water 'lb!II"!liL,!J:!1 anagement District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described in Technical Publication Reg-DOl, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999, or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency-accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above. c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (f) of this policy. 27 I P age -------..--.--.-- - 16' Itl\[V I d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25- foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allows ed. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards: i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved~l\lrisdictional line. ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved nativejVegetation. Where native vegetation does not exist, native vegetation comp~Ml~j~ith the existing soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted. :", "i! iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Cat~~ory I invasi~F, exotic plants, as defined by the Flonda Exoltc Pest Plant Counclll;,!::" "i' iv. The following land uses are considere~, t? be cori\lll;~~ible with Wijtland functions and are allowed within the buffer: i!(~lijjinlil' ,!I~~"" (1) Passive recreational areas, b~~fPwa~~,ndl_Il1'iI!n'~shelters; (2) PervIOus nature tralls;,ii'll!" (3) Wat~rmanagement struc~~~k ,'i (4) MlltgatlOn areas;'illt,!!, diUl 101.. "'I (5) Any other COnservatlOn,I~~fI,'lated oP,fP space activity or use which is comparable in ,~tli~Cl~lth tm!! , regoi~*j~es. v. A structural bUfi(maY consist 0 ~:fJtfflrall, benn, or vegetal1ve hedge WIth suitable fencing:1 , "111'11f l;i' ',II f. Mitigation shal~e r' _,1~br dire~~'impacts to wetland in order to result In no net f I "h' , ' loss 0 wet and Ij~flOns. : Miltgal10n ReqUireffl~,s: liI'l JI,I~ IIf I. "No i, !!!if~~I~ft we fuiiCUons" shall mean that the wetland functIOnal score of the p , ,S~III' _ ~,equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the " '"'IlIli':!iI!li''''''''' ity ,h,1I b, ~"" t" ""tog'''"" w;thi" FSA', '"' HSA'" :l: I' 'ii. UI'S~IQi std\i~or conveyance volume resulting from dIrect Impacts to wetlands j' ',' ,; shall fj ,I!lom ted for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance ,I, capacitY,#r site and within or abutting the impacted wetland. "',IIH' IIHj,ii. Protecti~lJl~hall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative ,i " ' 'iIH,fo~~hes offered as rrutlgatlOn by. plaCing a conservatIOn easement over the I' ltufd"ij~ pelpetulty, provldmg for Imtlal exotic plant removal (Class I invaSIve l, 'H exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic '!i", ,Ii plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal 'i 1,'1' ',' "i' agency along with sufficient funding for pelpetual management activities. !W}lill'ji'IH,,:,lliv. Exotics removal or maintenance may also be considered acceptable mitigation. fer the less ef wetlands er Hsled speeies ha9itltt if tHese Iaml.a if these 18ftds are plaeed l:IHder a pefJIeftl8l eellliefValieR 88S8ffteftt with J18fJlefttal IftsiMen8Hee ~l:IirelfteHls. ~ y. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f) i, ii, and iii of this policy and SFWMD standards. If agency pennits have not provided mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies. g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted as separate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas 28 I P age .--" .~-_.."..-._^'-,_....... ~"-- 16:' ,1 i\fv - I shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan. These areas shaH be maintained free from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant CounciL Land uses aHowed in these areas shaH be limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shaH not include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation. 4. All landowners shaH be encouraged to consider participating in any programs that provide incentives, funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat restoration on private lands including. but not limited to. federal farm bill agricultural conservation programs: private or public grants. tax incentives. easements. and I{~~ or less than fee sale to conservatIOn programs. I I 29 I P age """",;'"'''''.'._-''' ~':17 "''''... 161 ]j\tv I 30lPage - _Ill l". _ ,-.- 1 ~l'V 16 \ I ---" '- ". \ ,- I.... I ( , , / ;. j) > '-:--' I' "1:.1 r~"J ;1 - r(jj'rJ Ii -". I I II L t u 1 N ~ ! C..") Rl.-l~m......d.nip.A...a~ Aru ofCdicll1 stiHGanctm 311 P c _ =oll-f'ootRfltlQlIonlQne . R_~~~)lna --,-- 0pIn S1_.-dIhip ""- ~ w_ R9ti'mil:nAna _\ RLSA OVERLAY : MAP ) N "~l.~ , COLLIER RLSA f1"E YEAR REVIEI'\, --'" 16,:' ,1 k\1/ - I EXlSTINC An AOIMINT o4...$fI.... AJlDSIIIJ> {RED.., WO.KSltrn ~o-o, _l.oMl-,,-, -..rc__ -.. -'- w--- --- .lWliI .... ="-- ~,. - ......-- =~- --- -....rII- --1..--.-.......r..... ....li(.J I ...~J ~_:- .- i ~.=-- ---~ I -- ~ ""',-- -...., _~iI- "-...---~ -- -.-'~- ... -..-....,.....-....... ",. -.. ,.. r ...._=.J I I ~" ~ I .1 -- :==::.::::~::.::..7=..==-=::r-..:==;::-==-_u..---.----.., 32 I P age ... .Jj ~ w ...... -- t. ,~l~ 16\" r I ...n lI.C:ioNblT II........, U.E LAVE~lii (....... ..........It II .--d doIoru....l "1J1lI JID D.. t UIf'I(J..... "liIM.lIl.........,.. ...~ cu- CCJItdIi)RalUNI 1 ..Aa!!.2). 1......!':~.~...:.!J..:1E" ~ ~ a.n..J E.... N.... . """".......-... __ ~_.- CodlNI ... 'C"",*,,-,! r......' 8_'- 0... I __... U_ -"-1__ i '--", .............. .....,cw-- ........ ......... ';...fIik, - ................... ~ ...............~ == -.. =.... =... ~- I'" '='"' ==-.___ . - r f..... I r=- j.......-,., ~ ..,...... " -~. ~. ! ........~~......... .....-...:....... ..t......... ::::..... ft__............. "'-~.I..._ ~-;;-_~_j ~.....=-....bt=:.:~ ::::: == ~ ,...,"1 .....~~t...... -..v~' fOJ. i".......,...'. ~___.... .. ~ _'" ,.,.,... n '*k l . ___ ....... c..... ~...... ......., .............. fJ '-"..-.....- ..... .."'",.. ..... -- .----L .."..'" ............... -... _____ I ~- "'..... = All.....'.... B: ....... Thf. n..h-.I .... I=-' _ad .1It 1II~1I" '_ ~iokIo '- I sr...-anllbip ==- I ...--.. (.""".... ...... , ! ~....... 1II...,elII =--.. ..L I aa - per acre ~...,. tNiltc.. ~ '.........=-1 ==.~ e;:-..... ~..... ................, "J .... ._ (1:11' ,.<............. ............. L --.. -,., 1-: <__ _____ -_Il' =::' , ---- i:::"- ff........ I ~.., .- - ;;;:1 '~. ---1- -- ~Ql\-_ .........,.'1 ~ -- - t---- - ,--t- -. r- L--'-- i - -- - ..._J.__.._"_J 33 I P age ,~~" .,,,,~",~_~~~^'~....',,. ~~ _.- I" ~ -- 16' 1 M1/ I Att,,<:h.....-t C;.SI4.",;orde.hlp Receivlnll AnN. C~""'~..rl&tlc:& (fiIul and app rcMld) ~'" G6rtb.N;~~ ---- '*'-":-=-'"~~.". .":-",~T--:..;:=r. .~ .T=.= .="'~.~.J ....,-- 'M-Uo' ~ .' '''''-~~-l".--" ""...,.-- .~~......... ~_____..~....... :..-::-'"'- ._-,;~-j. ,;,:~,_;';;::'-:, ..;:;;::_-::: '-;;-';:;;::';;:-~-=+--...<.::;;;:;.._~ _;. d.~::::::-!::!:,",,:,::,' --'.--..... . r.......~..~....."...,.......__! (-.... -"""",,,_.~.,....,~ lJ.'~ ~~'-.j"""t..~:l -~--.:':.:::;0- -:;.."",,:,"="~" +--.-..... ---or- -. _:n4,..,--- -"-..........~,__ 1 ~ ~--.~_. '~---.I _. I'" -' - .... I "- - . .......-.j'-...~.. ~-M _tMIiIM... r-._.... - ----=--- '::';~~,,:~:: ~ .- N_~ J. .=-. >>-- I-~~' :'11 '- ----- ........,- =:: .~~~~:~~~:~~~~~~ ---- I I ,~. ' I ~ _I. ':-~=..:;. =--=-_~_ _1,_.__ l~~:-= I =- ---.....-,,- ....-.-......- -"... ~ -..~.,:-- - ~~ i ~ ~-.-~~............. j, ~~.....-- ~;...IJ.__"~_II,ro._~~~~.___ ~~.w...._ '::;''':;:-:-::-. -::::'1 :.:;::==--::.::.:::-:' ----.-[----....-l ::::"==--::Z:, ... .J --- I I -.-- "-..- ------- .--.-.=---iW-"-' _.-...-. "-~ _-;:;::",__1 ('"-).........""'- .--- ~ ...........--- I .__ _ I t -'l-...- .c:...... ...-.- ""J;) It: = _ =.. '-...-----......;.....-.....,-......--. -.....-- - ,...... __'-.......r_...""-__._____._,...~.....__...'___.~ - ._-' .....,--.._._.,-----~.........~ ........-......"'."..---" :...-.::'.:.:.:..--:..--=--:.: ---..----...------.- 34 I P age '"_n'''_''' llI'r _ ..--...-__ 11' 16' \1 A'IV I NtIIc:,_ C.SClewMtflftlp R_....nliJ ,jlj-.. Cheractllri$tlca {AltcGmllllOndl4 Amendl'lllnll IJIrop.....cll ,_.c-~..__ -.. I ._~.. <_K.......'-_.. J ~.,._."~, ~ '''''',;'*"_.::-~- ,.,~_._- -:,:~---- r.......__ _,ltllll....'""....".~,.. 1...1JI...;W......._.,,~~~.........~-~_~ _ ..~ .,~,.,__._ '--..... I",-"~'"""" ..,...~~=I:;:.'::;;:I_.... -;:I:~=.-:.:....-:..::.'-.. .....t......~"*-IA...- - - ....,.... '" ~........--;-" c.__~.6 :.-..Jo,~.. ..........'r,~.w.n..:.",....-.. ~\nllhtGr* "'~ ~J'" 4iS --.."...,.. Ad tJ_~)t',,...-oII'1 :.....-..~ .......- ~ -- - 1 ~~:.......-..:~....., , ........... ~-~. ,-", ........::.. ....~..... (b.: ......-;:T a:a.:.-.,J_4 c.:.....~~.. =f' ~I~ ~.o",.... -~.........[....." '*- r-~c.....os.w_......... ..."'o....r:-__t...... I'lllilf.........~......().; ,.....-............-Lu ~- -- r:....;:;......a~___......,._-. ...-c.......__~wr---...l :.;....~f#...._...~~.. ..................- L__......... ,~( .vw..~,..,_ ~ ..........-.-..... t._ ...a:a..~...... - ~- --- - 0.-.."" l'trtl,WJ 101'-,_11 ~~~~..':- ,...-cr::.....~...~=;..- '_l~.... .~~ .....,....,. 1.w3a.:-- s.._ L_ --- IiIlIl~ {.......IIc:owlI__...,..,~..,,~ ._- .....................>>~ II"JllIU.. - _..-.- '~'--;;;;'::;;-"-;:;d""_--n..._' -', ~ ::.......w;-.-.v..__.........._~ "''IlJ.. ..~ ~~_ ~~~~DlNr........._- "- .....~~.. ...1I:o:1t.... .......-..w..... .....1W:.-=w4.,........_.,.,.. '-~"'''''' ......,--.,-...-........,..........1 ........._. _ T......~ .,..... I .--. 1'........T~~ ~u. ~ ~.- ~... _. . ._.................-_....:::~ ~...........,......."..~.....,-~ -. -~~ ~'....~..........-..cs..:::"."""""'~"'I"""'loOIl&" ........t,......,......,.a ~-l:.......u,...,_. --"~aI' ..........~........----~...~ ...___~.,.,. ..........Ilo'.........-..r---.l_...._..... 1lOlIC!t I " - "_'~....~... D'.......---, -....._ ........,......~......,.,,_ ._-~.._- I 35 I P age c:::;;;:, 1 1\1 v ~ \Sl B \1- r") . <1- i" o ::> ~ '" "0 b. ~ .~ . ~ "2 "8 m 1: ~I~ "' ~~B E ::> 0 '" e ii " E 0 i ! /: &.chm - E tUl 0 ~ .Q t ~o 0" .c ~ ~~ oe~c. .0 ~ 0 I " 1J')3 on '" " .c " ~ 15 '" Gi '" m ~1l: . .. ... ~ '~ ~ Hi o>m '" '" '" If ~~ i E m I > " '" I .~U') ~ o.N" m ~ ~ E' Q)= - E " is 0 '" ~ 05 ~ .c a, 0"0 C " ii'i ~ '" E o C I- C .- -g ~ C ~15 E '" 0- Iii . to :B ::> ~ - ~ r C ,- m 0 " ~~ " "0 C D:: " a. "0 g~-E =a5~.5 UJ ~ m 'c -< ::> C iij ~ 0.- C 1:; 0 0 jll m '" ~ 5 ~ "'E f 1;; c..i II 0 ')' ~ t g (!I ~ C ::> ::> C " -< ~ - ;E?jo, m"O- lE,s 0 C "0 W u..,..: (!) ::> " oE 0 " s:::! ~ fi.~ ~ "0 N ~ C 0 ll. ll'i~ (!) ,- w I.) ~ > ~~ .~g '" .s ~.~ G ~co " m,,_ :0 rt NO C " > " ::> 0 ~ a. Ui '" C U ll. ~ ~ " 0 '5 a:U a." -< m a. .c .~ J "0 5 ~ UC I '" - 00 o .Q "' 8s::> C '" E ~g '" - '" '" ::> ,f:e ~ m - ':;: " ]; , - (!),~ 0 E '" ::> ~ o 0 t; ! :; C "O~~ E ~o> :Jl '" E o+:: :; " ~ m 0 8 Vi ~ "'0 'c o al EO. "~I 0 '5 15 m ::> 0> 0 " l{) '"5 I,{) " I ~~ E '" 15 C a. '" C 0 t; -E Ii; ro 0 J!. I '" .:~ ~ alE U ~8~ "0 '" wij II) m c .~ Hf 0-" 0.- on C '" " ~ C 1/1 ..: ~ m '" .0 C ~ ~.!! mE '" '" '" ;1' '" " u i ~o ~~ ~ C ::> 0 " ~~i ~:Li " e '" '" (!) E " ~ 1 E -. 8 E .~ "ij) Ill.S ~ '" "E ~::> ~ ~ ~ ~ 0> E '" " ,- c '" :J "''''' '" '" Z 0>"0 ~ C " E ]] g ~ 'C: Iii -" , ~ ~ :E to:-=: ,,- (!)E 0 "" me ......'ii) :> ~~ .c = ::::J ~ ffi ii'i '" 'c "!2 en 'I:: ~ N C ell 0 a. :~5 ~ 0- ...J :E _u.. o ~ 0 .q:~ >. 13 '" 0>'" 19 E ::::J "0.5 :.= (,I) " om ~ ~-~ II) ~ 1.1) l- I ::> C . i; -~ ~ ~ m ~8 t; " " al ::> i ii"" I'll I'll 0 U) :fi ell ~ 0 0" " 0 0> :.= .c 1: c:: <3 <9 - '" ~ a: C omo i w ~ .. 'Og; c"o> "0'= ~ m 0- ~ I'll 1" ~"~~ " .E <>of' " a. '" ~ e C,,) Co..c ui "'- ] >, ,!::! '" 0 > m a: ,,- ~ 0>" .c ~ en '" ,/:.0 U C " - '" " ::> 0 0 " '" C ""on C 0 0 ~~ .~ iB "ii) ~~N E ~~ -< " ~ '-;- .Q " > :J a. W c( I'll 15~ " " 0 " 0"0 :E C ~ '" l!! 5fii U Z "0 - C ~~5 II) 0 ~ m " ..J c( 0> ~ ,.0: ::::J C. - IX '" r32 'E ~ ECo. C ~ = EJ "" 0 C ~ W =s~ ~ c '" -oi:gu U: '" 0 ~ ~.~ ~2 C '> ~ "', "' on c m ~t3 "T ai~~-s ::> C ~ .8 " ~ ~.~ g i!l ] 0 LI ,~ ii E :;- ~ ~ on .c '" ! c ~ E m - al'5 '" ~ ~ ~.~ U 0 o '" ~.~ e ~ 0 '" =" '" I'll " 0 ~ :.= 'C m~l 0 0 U: " 15 E 8.8 ~ -g5~'E 0 ~:5~~ " I " 8 ::> I .L: '" == .. <Ii " C N ~~ m '" ~ E '05 ii'i '" ro +:l '(ii g- c( ,m m i~ I tI) "C , 0 a.'" on 'c a. " ICl. i '" H ~ i E2:on"- 0 ~8 'g '" E+' 0 v)~6Q. ~ :c '" 8~~5~ =V,l ~ E "0 0 'e e ~'" (!) E ~16 C -< ~.QJ:Q) 1/1 ~ 0> ~ m , 8 ~ ~ "~ - '" '" ~f' C '" ::> ~g~ '" ti.EQ>-g " E~E*~ c_ '/: " E '" "" 'in 'E 0 Iii " C (!).8 0 "" C ~~~g ~~~J: 0" '" l 'c " ~l,)~ '" '" ->- ~- ~ '" 0 ~ I'll a. 0>- ffi U>.!:: e::J " E ll. ".c ...J :E '2' ~ QE"E= C "', .- C = 0) ~~ro f- ;g ~ .~ :J '" "0_ ~ " J I ::> "iij ui " " ~ -8~ "0 ~ '" ~~ " " "0 '" Ji~~~ 0 - " " ~ .... c ". 0 c: o ~ 'c 0 m 'in E o a. ~I~u", "0- ::> a: m C ::> <<JQ><(II) "0 8 ~ "0 ::> II) 't ".::- ~ ~ " E <>0 ~ a. " 0 o .... Q> II) - 0>0> C _:::J ,!::! E '" m " t3 U (!)(O..ca.l fij .S ;5 ~ > ~ 530 ~ 0 '/: t3 C 0> " '" " QJ () ~ ~ o U ~ U " C - "0 C =t'3 ~~ ~ '" f-.8"~ E m -< a. m .~ ro C - ::> ll. a: :;0 " 0 . e 0 o<ceE -€l, 0> '" U " u...c .!1l " " .Em Iii ......Q>..cw ~5to "0 ~ ~ .~~ ~ ::> 0 :E ~ -< 0 :g >.i: ~ .... " g~-8~ "0 ~ ~E~] " '" '" " '" 0 QJ Q) m ...!.. .0 2' Q,E..c.:t::= WI " " o o.~ E .!I! t; m en.2 -- ~ . - Wi '" C '" ~~~~~ "0 j ~ " c G>> 0 :E ,Q 0>0 >.0l::J II) J a, is '" ~ :5 ~ ~ "~ ~ 0 w ~ 0 " 1;; ~ cE ~ ~ '5 a. 0- 15 0 .E ~ '" "~o~-5~ 0 I.) :s a: 0- "0 ... ;; en Iii m C ~~o'~o Q. e- O> m '" ii'i C '" .!I! C " " " '" ~ E.5; co t: ..... '" .;;: ~ a. ~8~;~ ... " '" in 0 " E ~ t; ::> :s 2' 1;; 0 " C 0 "0 -< ::> :r: 0 " m E 5.-gfij~:G m C C '" u: ~ '" E '" ~ '" "0 0 ~ ro ~u ~ 0 "0 C ji ~ ~ E E E C C ,Q ~~'~~~I " " ::> '" m 0 t "0 "0 E ~ ii'i (!) 0 ~~~~:E " 'in in x Iii ~ a. <5 '" N ~ " '" 0 ii'i al C ~:::- ~' : ~ Cii 0: ~ (!) ~ '" '" a: G .:: " : t : :J ''''"~~'".".''''''''-'''' ""'- ......'4 VA -.., - . nr ,"'.... "...<."<",,,,,,, -,- 16' ,1 fY'~ A-77: C · Should a property owner in a federally approved corridor designate the required property for such corridor, 2 Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. Issuance of the 8 restoration implementation credi ts may be phased to coincide with a phased implementation process in accordance with the federal permit. The procedures shall be set forth in the LDC. - ",-",",-., --~ -^- ,_._- A-~ '-6 rr('V COMMENTS BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) OF COLLIER COUNTY RELATED TO THEIR REVIEW OF THE JANUARY, 2009 REPORT OF THE RLSA ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT ENTITLED "FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM" FINAL March 10.2009 AS APPROVED REPORT OF THE EAC The Rural Lands Stewardship Program Review Committee has done a fine job of addressing many areas where the program can be improved. It is evident from their work that the issue of how to properly use the credits generated by sending areas while preserving the rural and natural features of the remaining lands has been considered; however, we do not believe that an adequate answer to this problem has been arrived at yet. The EAC at their February 27, 2009 meeting was not able to reach a consensus on the best way to manage growth in the RLSA. The general opinion was that there is no need to move so quickly that we cannot wait the results of several ongoing studies that would greatly improve the ability to make decisions, including the ECPO panther study, the USFWS Habitat Conservation Plan, the Future Transportation Plan, and the Build-out Vision Plan. These are the comments we have been able to agree on to as of March 2009. 1. Preservation of Agricultural Lands (1) General comment: Based upon data presented, the revised program will result in a 56.5% reduction of cultivated farm lands within RLSA. This is contradictory to the stated purpose of the program. I (2) Policy 2.2 Inclusion of agricultural credits: The EAC agrees with the inclusion of agricultural credits. It is stated that the purpose of this plan is to preserve agriculture. The County should preserve its agricultural capacity in any way possible. (3) Policies 2.3 and 2.4 The EAC voted to retain the sections calling for formation of an Agricultural Advisory Council. 2. Program Caps The EAC discussed whether acres or credits should be capped and could not reach a consensus. What they did want to convey were the following concerns: (1) There are too many credits floating around in the revised Overlay - this could devalue existing credits. 1 (2) There is a potential to generate more credits than would be used to entitle 45,000 acres of development. 3 ] According to the RLSA Phase I Technical Review, in 2007, there were 64,469 acres under cultivation consisting of citrus, row crops and specialty (See RLSA Phase I Technical Review Table 4-A (p.II)). In a Johnson Engineering report dated February 15, 2008 to Mr. Tom Jones ofthe Barron Collier Companies (and a member of the RLSA Review Committee), the introductory paragraph makes the following statement: "... using assumptions provided by the Barron Collier Companies... .(there will be) approximately 28,000 acres of agricultural land under cultivation (at build out)." This represents a loss of36,469 acres or 56.5% of presently cultivated acreage. 2 Six years ago the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) Review Committee told the Collier County Commissioners (CCBC) and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) that the GMP Amendments proposed for the RLSA would result in a potential development of 9-10 percent of the encompassed land area or about 16,800 acres, plus additional acreage required for services. Since that time, largely due to the addition of restoration credits and the way they were valued, the estimated number of credits has risen to 315,000 and developable acreage, based on those credits, has grown to 43,312 acres. (Wilson Miller, Inc., Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Five Year Review Supporting documentation, pp 74-76.) Now, six years later we are being asked to consider a proposal that allows for potentially far more than 315,000 credits. 1lPage . , - .- -,,- 16,\ '1 r(~ (3) There was a general consensus that to avoid an overload of development credits, changes to the GMP and LDC should be explored that would allow use of credits generated in the RLSA to be used in other unincorporated areas of the County or be applied to increase the density within developments beyond the currently approved base level. 3. Direction of Development Away from Primary Panther Habitat Policy 3.11 It is the obligation of the County to protect primary panther habitat and to direct development away from this area.4 We are currently lacking the Panther Technical Review Team and the USFWS Habitat Conservation Plan for the RLSA that are directly applicable to this decision. Without these studies in hand, it seems prudent to direct development away from these areas. The following are areas where the EAC was able to reach consensus and make recommendations: (l) The panther corridors as shown on the Wilson Miller Transportation map do not appear to meet the currently recommended guidelines.s (2) The more appropriately sized pathways will generate far more than the 2300 credits mentioned in the Wilson Miller supporting documentation, therefore meaning many more panther corridor credits will be generated. (3) The Environmental Advisory Council recommends that lands within a Panther Corridor as designated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service be awarded 2 bonus credits when they are placed in a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) and an additional 8 bonus credits once all lands within the Corridor have been restored and placed in SSA's. 4. Golf Courses Should be Excluded from HSAs Policies 3.7 and 4.13: Golf courses should not be considered passive recreation areas and should not be allowed in HSAs. (l) Throughout the RLSA report, golf courses are considered "low intensity land uses" and are lumped in with "parks and passive recreation areas," yet in Attachments Band C are listed as "active recreation areas." This appears to be contradictory. 3 Additional credits are envisioned through the introduction of agricultural credits (Policy 2.2), increased restoration credits (Policy 3.11 (I )), and most importantly panther corridor credits (Policy 3.11 (2)). If insufficient credits are generated under the system, the 45,000 acre cap could be regarded as a commitment binding Collier County to allow development up to that level. There is the possibility that a landowner not part of the RLSA credit system could come to the county with an SRA application and, if denied, would then make a claim that the proposed SRA falls within the 45,000 acre entitlement. 4 There has been much debate about Florida panther habitat. The Florida panther Recovery Plan of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (3rd revision) states: "The Primary Zone supports the only breeding panther population. To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality, quality and spatial extent of habitat within the Primary Zone. The continued loss of habitat functionality through fragmentation and loss of spatial extent pos serious threats to the conservation and recovery of the panther. Therefore, conserving lands within the Primary Zone and securing biological corridors are necessary to help alleviate these threats." (p. 89). The only current scientifically peer- reviewed designation of habitat is Randy Kautz, et al: How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130 (2006),pp. 118-133. 5 The current Florida Panther Recovery Plan recommends a panther corridor of a minimum I mile in width for a pathway of this proposed length (USFWS, Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3rd revision, p. 30, 2008.) As to the location of the pathways, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission's Technical Report, authored by Kathleen Swanson, Darrel Land, Randy Kautz and Robert Kawula in 2008 in Figure 12 (p. 14) and Appendix 4a (p. 42) clearly map out the least cost pathways for the northern and the OK Slough pathways. These do not correspond to the pathways shown on the attachments to the RLSA Review Committee's report. 2lPage _w'''''_., N .1111 ~ ",,,,~,,,,,,,"'''''' "~l!lMllllr 11l>1~ T1 , -- 16,1 ~llo/\ 'V 5. Transportation Infrastructure to Serve Future SRAs Not enough attention has been paid to the secondary impacts (roads, other infrastructure) required to support this expanded development footprint. The Build-out Vision Plan and the Transportation Plan are essential elements to this RLSA Process and will not be available for at least a year. 6. Water for Future SRAs (1) Comment on Policies 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3: The RLSA has not focused enough effort on determining future water quality and availability. The EAC has concerns that the potential exists for adverse effects on water quality and availability for current users and that there will be a significant increase in County expense to provide potable water in the future. 6 (2) Comment on Policies 3.13 and 4.8: The use of preserves and preserve-type areas for storm water treatment has been a concern of the Environmental Advisory Council for years. This policy explicitly allows that practice but does not always count the affected acreage against the SRA entitlement. (a) A primary objective of the revised RLSA Overlay should be to avoid the use of WRAs as part of storm water management systems for SRAs. This should be clearly stated in the document. (b) If absolutely no other option is available for storm water treatment of an SRA, WRAs designated to receive storm water need to be carefully evaluated for their functionality as part of both flow ways and aquifer recharge. If any part of a WRA is incorporated into the 6 South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Executive Director Carol Wehle, at an Everglades Conference in January 2009 said this: counties and municipalities are overly dependent on the SFWMD to preserve and protect their water supplies. You must be more proactive in creating explicit elements within your comprehensive and growth ?~ management plans. We can only use what you give us to make decisions. You must take control of your own fUtures. In repeated and duplicative comments, counsel for the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) defers to SFWMD permitting. This is not an adequate response, given Ms. Wehle's comments above. The revisions to the RLSA program need to proactively protect the water supplies for our citizens. ECPO counsel repeatedly makes the following statement: ~t. ;:it "In most cases, the conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the consumption of groundwater by a significant percentage." This assertion cannot go unexamined: water consumption estimates are based upon a Johnson ~ Engineering study dated which uses the Town of Ave Maria as the data base. The study estimates 110 gallon per capita cf~~ usage. The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in a study entitled "Public supplied population. water use, withdrawals, and transfers in Florida by county 2005, ., indicates water consumption in Collier County was 246 gallons [3~ per capita. This serious contradiction needs to be resolved. Underlying assumptions in the Johnson study need to be revealed and tested, primarily the question of whether, in the case of the Ave Maria water system, are we dealing with projected usage or actual usage? In discussion at the February 10,2009 Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) meeting, Mr. Jones stated that drinking water was "not a problem" in the RLSA. It is available by withdrawal from the Lower ~~. Hawthorn aquifer. However, in a January 16, 2009 review of the Development of Regional Impact proposal (DRI) for Town of Big Cypress (within the RLSA), the SFWMD made this comment: ".. .the response did not address the potential impacts to the water resource availability of the Lower Hawthorn aquifer. District staff is aware that this aquifer is under increased use." The report continues: ". ..chloride levels in public wellfields in this aquifer have increased more substantially than anticipated. These increases could degrade the resource and may require modifications to reverse osmosis treatment plants to handle increased salinity .Please provide additional information to demonstrate withdrawals from the Lower Hawthorn aquifer for the Town of Big Cypress will have no impact upon other users (underlining mine)." The RLSA Review Committee has not adequately addressed this issue to the fullest extent. The Johnson Engineering study asserts: "(t)here are few competing users ofthe Floridian aquifer in eastern Collier County since traditional supplies are abundant and meet existing demands." (p. 5) The Floridian aquifer is geologically below the Lower Hawthorn and separated by a confining layer (although some sources regard the Lower Hawthorn as the uppermost layer of the Floridan). Why then, is the SFWMD concerned that ".. . chloride levels . ..have increased more substantially than anticipated" when reviewing Big Cypress? Aren't we looking at an enormous public works project, at taxpayers' expense, if the Lower Hawthorn is compromised? Or is there consideration of attempting to withdraw from below the Intermediate aquifer system (of which the Lower Hawthorn is a part)? None of this is covered in the RLSA proposals. 3lPage ~.~- -- M ~'_~.m._,..c,,_,_.....,.___, --"'~~",,-,",.', '- 161 ~~'V storm water management system of an SRA, it should be counted against the acreage entitlement of the SRA. (c) The conversion of water storage locations from agricultural uses to development should be counted against SRA entitlement. There is no provision to analyze the effects of such conversion on water quality. 7. CRDs and Development in the ACSC Policy 4.7.3 Hamlets should be eliminated as non-viable. Policy 4.7.2. Development should be directed away from the ACSC. CRDs should be the only type of SRA considered there and the number of CRDs should be limited to five. Guidance should be included regarding how closely they can be located to one another. 8. Other Comments Policy 1.6.1 The EAC is in favor of allowing landowners to retract SSA designations within 5 years. However, the detail in this policy retiring SSAs should be included in the LDC, not the GMP. It there are changes required in the future, they will be harder to make. Policy 3.9 The references to aquaculture are inconsistent. It was eliminated in Attachment B and should probably be removed here. Policy 5.5 Throughout this policy, it should read "listed and protected species" and a definition should be added. Policy 5.7 There needs to be a more effective reference to lighting standards compatible with rural development in this policy as well as in Group 4 policies on SRAs. The LDC will need to define appropriate luminosity as well as down-shielding guidance. General comment: SSA and SRA approvals should go through the normal recommendation process of EAC and CCPC review, before final BCC approval. General comment: The EAC would like to see some focus on encouraging "green construction" concepts and LEED certified buildings in the RLSA's SRAs as well as more attention to encouraging compliance with "smart growth" goals in community development within the RLSA. After years of effort, the latest RLSA concept plan has it "almost right". Take the time now to reach consensus through consideration of all stakeholders (including those who speak for the children who will inherit this system in the future) so that those environmental elements so valued in the past, and which contributed greatly to the desirability of this region, shall not be relegated to a history book! This can be done with fair return to the investors in these lands as well as for the many who rely upon the proper husbanding of these lands in benefit to future generations. END 4lPage .... "'....-- ~ ~ 161 l~l2/ J()HNS(~ N 1177: E= SINCE 1946 ENGINEERING Tom Jones, V.P. Government Affairs I TO: Barron Collier Companies DATE: revised March II, 2009 Eastern Collier County Water Resource FROM: David L. Hoffman, P.G. RE: Availability Introduction This paper provides an overview of water supplies available to meet future residential development and agriculture demands in eastern Collier County. This assessment was made using assumptions provided by the Barron Collier Companies and information contained in the , Phase I Technical Report, including: a projected population of234,572 persons at build-out, a conversion of approximately 45,000 acres of existing agricultural land to residential development to accommodate the projected population, and approximately 40,000 acres of agricultural lands remaining under cultivation. The intent of this assessment is to enable the user to visualize the "big picture" of present-day and future water supply demands and availability in eastern Collier County . This assessment discusses the surplus oftraditional water supplies (i.e., shallow fresh groundwater from the Surficial Aquifer System) made available by conversion of 45,000 acres of agriculture to residential development, documented neutral water resource impact of residential development, as well as the use of alternative water supplies (i.e., brackish groundwater, reclaimed water, and storage) to serve future residential developments. This assessment assumes that future water supply approaches will be subject to present-day South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD, 2007) rules and regulations. Existing Agricultural Water Supply Use Consumptive water use in agricultural irrigation is that water consumed by the crop through evapotranspiration (ET) and through harvesting (removal of fruit and vegetable). The Modified Blaney-Criddle irrigation model (SFWMD, 2003) was used in this assessment to approximate consumptive use through irrigated crop ET. The volume of water removed through harvesting is considered minimal (<1 % of consumptive use) and not quantified in this assessment. The Modified Blaney-Criddle irrigation model is used by the SFWMD to establish irrigation allocations in water use permits based on irrigated acreage, crop type, evapotranspiration, effective rainfall, irrigation system efficiency, under l-in-to drought conditions (a drought with a return frequency of once in 10 years). Based on the Phase I Technical Report there are approximately 90,000 acres of agricultural land of which approximately 65,000 acres is irrigated (citrus, vegetable, and specialty crops) and 25,000 acres is not irrigated (fallow land and pasture/rangeland). The 65,000 acres ofirrigated acreage consists of approximately 38,233 acres of citrus, 25,035 acres of vegetables, and 1,201 acres of specialty crops. If full conversion to the potential Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) footprint of 45,000 acres were to occur we would estimate approximately 40,000 acres of irrigated agriculture (20,000 acres of citrus and 20,000 acres of vegetable) to remain. Therefore, approximately 24,469 acres of agriculture will no longer be irrigated including 18,233 acres of citrus, 5,035 acres of vegetable, and 1,201 acres of specialty crop. 2158 Johnson Street. Post Office Box 1550 . Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1550 (239) 334-0046 . Fax (239) 334-3661 ,,~, - 16' ' 1 ~(v MEMO To: Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Companies DATE: revised March 11, 2009 PAGE: -2- Based on the irrigation model and parameters given, irrigated ET for 18,233 acres of citrus, 5,035 acres of vegetable, and 1,201 acres of specialty crop cultivation is approximately 68,11, and 5 mgd, respectively (84 mgd total). Two growing seasons, each four months in length, were used to estimate irrigated ET for vegetable crops. Turfwas used for the specialty crop. Based on the Blaney-Criddle irrigation model, the average effective rainfall (that portion of total rainfall that is used by the plant to meet ET demand) is approximately 25, 12, and 26 inches for citrus, vegetable, and specialty crops, respectively, at the Immokalee rain station. This average effective rainfall equals approximately 34, 5, and 2 mgd for citrus, vegetable, and specialty crop, respectively (41 mgd total). Therefore, the total irrigated ET demand met by supplement irrigation is approximately 43 mgd (84 mgd - 41 mgd). Irrigation water to serve existing agricultural uses in eastern Collier County is withdrawn from traditional supplies, mainly shallow aquifers located within the Surficial Aquifer System (i.e., water-table and lower Tamiami). These shallow aquifers yield larges volumes of good quality groundwater, provided the production wells have been constructed properly. There have been no documented occurrences of significant impacts to other existing legal users, wetlands, or the resource from historical (>50 years) withdrawals from these aquifers. The SFWMD established maximum developable limits (MDLs) for semi-confined aquifers in Section 3.2.4 of the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications (SFWMD, 2007) to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed withdrawals will not cause harmful drawdown. The MDL are aquifer specific and represent an elevation above which corresponding aquifer water levels must be maintained. The SFWMD set the MDLs at 20 feet above the top of the uppermost geologic strata that comprises the aquifer at any point during a l-in-lO drought condition. The point of compliance for the MDLs is 50 feet from a pumping well. For example, ifthe uppermost geologic strata (i.e., permeable limestone) marking the top of the aquifer is located at 75 feet below land surface (bls), the MDL would be set at 55 feet bls. There are no reported exceedances ofthe MDLs in eastern Collier County, thus indicating an adequate water supply is present that historically has supported agriculture. A good explanation of why water levels in the water-table and lower Tamiami aquifers have exhibited a statistically significant lack of change or slight increase in southwest Florida is provided by Maliva and Hopfensperger (2007). The authors indicate that the II-fold population increase (1960 to 2004) in southwest Florida and concomitant increase in water use had an overall neutral impact on water levels in the water table aquifer because ET of residential communities is comparable to that of native vegetation and less than that of most agricultural land uses. The authors present evidence supporting their findings using United States Geological Survey (USGS) recorded water levels located throughout southwest Florida. The evidence also shows that water levels in local aquifers recover to near background levels each summer wet season because rainfall exceeds ET during the wet season. The Surficial Aquifer System consists of the water table and lower Tamiami aquifers (primary sources of irrigation water in eastern Collier County). An existing agricultural water use demand of 43 mgd for 24,469 acres of crop ET is equivalent to yield 1.1 mgd/square mile from Surficial Aquifer System. This yield/area is documented to be sustainable by lack of impacts on water levels. 2158 Johnson Street. Post Office Box 1550. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1550 (239) 334-0046 . Fax (239) 334-3661 - - 16\ 1 ~\~ MEMO To: Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Companies DATE: revised March 11, 2009 PAGE: -3- Present day SFWMD (2006) regulation requires the storage of storm water runoff on-site and thus prevention of over drainage of the developed land. Storage is accomplished through interconnected lake systems (e.g., wet detention). The result is storm water flow across impervious surfaces to the lake systems, minimization of ET consumption, and increase in water table water levels. Johnson Engineering, Inc. is actively engaged in the study oflong-term discharge of storm water management systems in existing residential developments throughout southwest Florida. Preliminary results indicate that discharge from some storm water lake systems can be considerably lower than anticipated and that significant recharge to the water table aquifer occurs. Future Residential Water Supply Demands Residential water supply demands will include potable and irrigation water. According to the Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (CDM, 2007), the Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP (AMUC) level of standard service includes a per capita water demand standard of 110 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Ave Maria has a centralized irrigation water (reuse) system that eliminates the need to irrigate with drinking (potable) water. It is assumed that future residential developments will also have a similar standard. The average annual daily demand for finished water based on a projected population of 234,572 persons each using 110 gallons per day amount to approximately 26 mgd. The irrigated acreage of a typical residential community in southwest Florida is approximately 30% of the total acreage. Using the Modified Blaney-Criddle irrigation model and assuming 13,500 irrigated acres of turf grass, the irrigated ET is 59 mgd. Based on the Blaney-Criddle irrigation model, the average effective rainfall is approximately 26 inches at the Immokalee rain station. This average effective rainfall equals approximately 27 mgd. Additionally, approximately 90% of the potable water supply (23 mgd) will be treated and reused for irrigation of the turf grass. Therefore, the total irrigated turf grass ET demand met by supplement irrigation is approximately 9 mgd (59 mgd - 27 mgd from effective rainfall- 23 mgd from reuse water). Another potential consumptive water use of residential communities is evaporation from constructed lakes. Approximately 15% of typical residential communities are constructed as lakes and evaporation is approximately 53 inches per year (FSU, 1984), which from 6,750 acres of lakes is approximately 27 mgd. The average rainfall is 50.46 inches at the Immokalee rain station, which is equal to approximately 25 mgd when applied to the lake area. Thus, the net evaporative loss from the constructed lakes is approximately 2 mgd (27 mgd - 25 mgd). The net consumptive use of water for future residential is approximately 37 mgd (26 mgd potable + 9 mgd for supplement irrigation + 2 mgd for evaporation), which is roughly equivalent to 0.5 mgd/square mile from Surficial Aquifer System. This is yield/area is less than that of existing agriculture, thus further demonstrating sustainable traditional sources of water. The following is a summary of average residual irrigation requirements (that supplemental water needed for irrigation in addition to rainfall) needed to meet the 24,469 acres of agricultural crop ET demands. The summary also provides net consumptive use for future residential development, which includes potable water use and evaporation from the surface water 2158 Johnson Street. Post Office Box 1550. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1550 (239) 334-0046 . Fax (239) 334-3661 - T -. ~1lI , "_"._".",..,,,.u~,~............ 4 & ,.,-.....,- 161 1 f\\'V MEMO To: Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Companies DATE: revised March 11, 2009 PAGE: -4- management lake system. Finally, the reduction in consumptive water use resulting from the conversion of agriculture to residential land use is shown. The results demonstrate that consumptive water use (ET) will decline when agriculture is converted to residential land use. 43 15,695 37 13,505 6 2,190 Alternative Water Supplies Another abundant source of water is referred to by the SFWMD as alternative water supplies. The alternative water supplies that can meet the future residential demands in eastern Collier County include brackish groundwater, reclaimed water, and storage. The Floridan aquifer underlies all of Florida and is characterized as moderately to highly productive in southwest Florida. This deep, brackish aquifer occurs beneath the shallow freshwater aquifers typically utilized in eastern Collier County. The Floridan aquifer is primarily recharged in central Florida (e.g., Polk County). The Floridan aquifer is prolific and stores a tremendous volume of moderate to poor quality water that is available for withdrawal but requires advanced treatment, at increased cost, such as reverse osmosis. The SFWMD points out that other than some water quality deterioration associated with pumping of the Floridan aquifer, no other environmental impacts have been identified in association with use of this resource (SFWMD 2005-2006 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan). Water quality deterioration associated with Floridan aquifer withdrawals is localized near the wellfield and is not a regional issue. The SFWMD raises concern about water quality deterioration so that the utility can design its treatment works in anticipation of the change. The SFWMD (2002) initiated a hydrogeologic study of the Floridan aquifer near Immokalee to support future water supply planning. The study consisted of exploratory well construction, aquifer testing, and long-term monitoring of water quality and aquifer water levels. According to the SFWMD, a long-duration (71.6 hours) aquifer performance test was conducted to determine the hydraulic performance ofa test zone (1,050 to 1,160 feet bls) of the upper Floridan aquifer at the test site. A high transmissivity value of268,000 gallons/day/foot was calculated by the SFWMD for the test zone. After nearly 3 days (71.6 hours) of continuous pumping at 1,100 gallons per minute (gpm: 1.6 mgd), only 3 feet of aquifer water level drawdown was observed in 2158 Johnson Street. Post Office Box 1550. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1550 (239) 334-0046 . Fax (239) 334-3661 ._~ lJo 1.\ 1 ~\'V MEMO To: Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Companies DATE: revised March 11, 2009 PAGE: -5- the Floridan aquifer at a distance of240 feet from the pumping well. Based on the SFWMD information, withdrawals of 1 mgd/square mile from the Floridan aquifer is feasible, which totals approximately 70 mgd on the 45,000 acres converted from agriculture to residential. Withdrawals of 1 mgd can also occur from the 40,000 acres remaining under agricultural production to provide an additional 63 mgd water supply for future residential use. The total available water supply for future residential use from the Floridan aquifer is in excess of 133 mgd. The SFWMD promotes the use of the Floridan aquifer and provides funding from its alternative water supply funds to encourage its use. There are few competing users ofthe Floridan aquifer in eastern Collier County since traditional supplies are abundant and meet existing demands. 133 48,545 Use of reclaimed water for residential irrigation is an alternative water supply that further reduces the overall irrigation water use demand from traditional supplies for future residential developments. Approximately 90% of the average annual daily demand for potable water is returned to a wastewater treatment plant and treated for use as irrigation. Therefore, approximately 23 mgd of reclaimed water is available for residential irrigation. While traditional supplies, brackish groundwater and reclaimed water will be readily available to meet future irrigation ET losses, storage represents one of the greatest solutions for future water supply needs. Southwest Florida gets upwards of 65% of its total rainfall during a four month (June - September) rainy season when most of this water is quickly lost to evapotranspiration and surface water flows to tide. At the same time, agriculture and residential (potable and irrigation) water use are correspondingly at their lowest. The solution is multi-year storage of water during the rainy season until times of demand (i.e., dry season) or prolonged demand (i.e., drought). Aquifer storage recovery (ASR) is the storage of water (i.e., drinking water, storm water, and/or reclaimed water) in a deep aquifer during times of excess and withdrawal (recovery) during times of demand. ASR has proven successful in southwest Florida due to the limited land surface area (< I acre) required to store hundreds of millions of gallons and thus minimized land costs and environmental impacts as opposed to a large surface water reservoir. Furthermore, water stored in a confined aquifer is not subject to evaporative losses. Existing ASR programs in southwest Florida include Bonita Springs Utilities, Lee County Utilities, Collier County Utilities, and City of Cape Coral. The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD: 2004) prepared a position paper in support of ASR that discusses recovery efficiency of ASR wells. Recovery efficiency is an indication of the amount of mixing that occurs between the stored water and native groundwater in the aquifer system. Acceptable recovery efficiency ranges between 70 and 100 percent. SJRWMD (2004) indicates that ASR recovery efficiency in Florida generally improves with successive operating cycles due to the freshening of the storage zone and that virtually all ASR wells operating for five years or more have reached acceptable and economically viable levels of recovery efficiency. Permitted daily storage in a single ASR well 2158 Johnson Street . Post Office Box 1550. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-] 550 (239) 334-0046 . Fax (239) 334-366] WI. '~o",,,~",_"._ ~'._''''~'' vql<J f ",.",.- 16' 1 P< \'V MEMO To: Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Companies DATE: revised March 11, 2009 PAGE: -6- in Florida typically ranges between 1 and 3 mgd. The spacing of ASR wells is dependent on aquifer characteristics and stored water volume. Thirty ASR wells each storing 3 mgd during the 120 day rainy season (storage cycle) would result in the storage of approximately 10,800 million (10.8 billion) gallons. An ASR recovery efficiency of 80% will result in approximately 8,600 million (8.6 billion) gallons or 35 mgd if withdrawn over the remaining 245 days of the year (recovery cycle). Summary Historical agricultural water use from traditional sources is significant with no documented impacts. Conversion of land from agriculture to residential will result in a decrease in water use due to decreased ET. The traditional sources have served agriculture well and their continued use should be pursued in the future. Studies of USGS measured water levels indicate a neutral water resource impact of residential development not only because residential irrigation ET is less than agriculture, but also that residential ET is similar to that of natural systems. Also, water levels are maintained each year as rainfall exceeds ET during the wet season. Alternative water supplies are proven and promoted by the SFWMD in southwest Florida. A large sustainable volume (113 mgd) of brackish groundwater is available from the Floridan aquifer from land area (1 mgd/square mile) referenced in this paper. A large reclaimed water volume of approximately 23 mgd would be available for residential irrigation. Finally, capture of abundant water during the wet season and storage via ASR wells represents a sustainable and drought-proof technology. Recovery from thirty ASR wells during a 245 day recovery cycle would provide approximately 35 mgd. In summary, the abundance of traditional and alternative water supplies discussed in this paper clearly demonstrates that future land uses are not limited by water supplies in eastern Collier County. ,\\\\\111111'111/ """ "i t-J\A N I-t. //1111 ", S> \.. ....... O^, "~ ,,~... ... ~ ~ g ~ .... \CENs~.... ~ S -~. " .,,- 20 i No.2164 \ -z, ~ =*: * :*= - . . - ~""tl \ STATE OF : I- 2 -::'~'. ~ ~ ..[(;::: ~ ~ ... OR\O ... 0 ~ ./ ~ .. .. 0 "- ~.... ~ ......... O~ ,,'- IIIIII/"SIONA L G-e II"~'"~ /1/111111111\1\\' 2158 Johnson Street. Post Office Box 1550. Fort Myers, Florid t:>~;(~ (239) 334-0046. Fax (239) 334-3661 3-11-09 ....,_. _._~, - 16t 1 Pr\~ MEMO To: Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Companies DATE: revised March 11, 2009 PAGE: -7- References Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM), 2007, Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, prepared for Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department, October 2007. Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee, Phase I-Technical Report, February 2008. Florida State University (FSU), 1984, Water Resources Atlas of Florida, Average Annual Lake Evaporation (p.23), editors, Fernald, E.A. and Patton, D.J. Maliva, R.G., and Hopfensperger, K,P., 2007, Impacts of Residential Development on Humid Subtropical Freshwater Resources: Southwest Florida Experience, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Paper Number J06022, Volume 43, Number 6, December 2007, p 1540-1549. SFWMD, 2002, Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Floridan Aquifer System, Immokalee Water and Sewer District Wastewater Treatment Plant, Collier County, Florida, Technical Publication WS-14, prepared by Michael Bennett, May 2002. SFWMD, 2003, Part B, Water Use Management System Design and Evaluation Aids, V. Supplement Crop Requirements and Withdrawal Calculation, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, 12 pp. SFWMD, 2005-2006, Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update. SFWMD, 2006, Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District. SFWMD, 2007, Basis of Review for Water Use Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District, Amended April 23, 2007. St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), 2004, Aquifer Storage and Recover (ASR) Issues and Concepts: A Position Paper Prepared by the St. Johns River Water Management District, in Association with R. David G. Pyne, ASR Systems LLC, September 15,2004. 2158 Johnson Street. Post Office Box 1550. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1550 (239) 334-0046 . Fax (239) 334-3661 n""_" 1T 1>''''' - , ,- 16 j 1 ~['7r' 1Jrr: -.c---.--:-------.-......- +<.' ~~~. ~(A _ ;J..-. "...-- .". . J- / <........,. .J... ) , . i. ! ;"" I --.- ---.- -----,-::----------._-------.:::::::;:::?"; { ~ ---'-.---- ~. -- -.- ---- .-. ---- . ",",,,',..- . ~- '" - -_. .. ! (1 f.1 ,_ -_._~ -.- -_... .or f"" i I t"., . .A c:: / , _ / _ _. _. _.__._.__ .."_' -. /) J / r' , / I I /-. l . //.._-- - -.... '- -- __. --- - 'r - . T' . ..--. . ;'. _' !, . I "1 / " l / ~ . ., ----. /: ' .' \. " ,. \ - ~ ! . . , . --.-. ---.- -","_,,,,,,,,_.,,~_..~_..___.,_,,.._~~__o,,~.",___,.,._~_,....,, ",.,,__._.._.",- 't! _.",-._ .....,_.,-".._- t. 'l'l1l1Jil _~ -...... ___ """-'_"_-'-<_"_'_"_~~"'_~_'" _"."",_'~"'M'" 161 1 ft~1 ~ V" , - erbilt 5each M.S.T.U. RECEIVED Advisor~ Committee MAR 2 7 2009 Board of County ComrniuIclnat 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 February 5, 2009 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Dick Lydon at 2:00 P.M. II. Attendance Members: Bud Martin, Dick lydon, Charles Arthur, Bill Gonnering, Bruce Forman - excused County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager, Tessie Sillery - MSTU Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold - Director of ATM, Pamela lulich - landscape Operations Manager Others: Jim Fritchey - ClM, Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie, Don Corace- Signature Communities, lew Schmidt-public, Sue Flynn - Mancan III. Approval of Agenda Change: VII-A should read "Vanderbilt Public Meeting" Next meeting is scheduled should read "at 2:00 PM on March 5, 2009" Charles Arthur moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - January 8, 2009 Change: V-Biii "John Lehf' Corrected spelling. Page 2 should read "Residence - 37" (Instead of 27) VIII-D, a should read, "monies cannot be spent by the MSTU without BCe approval" VIII-D, c should read, "use to install landscaping on numerous Highways" IX-A misspelling of "Advertising" corrected IX-A last bullet should read, "20 yard signs on the Finger Streets - "Discussed by the MSTU" (Instead of Paid) Darryl Richard, Tessie Sillery and Caroline Soto arrived at 2:04 pm Bud Martin moved to approve the minutes of January 8, 20~~ amended. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried un ani : 4-0. Date: OS 1;)-. D 1 ttem.;Jlo ~Li)A-\ 3 Copies to: ,_..,"~ ..,,,~,.- *"._._.<,._,^,'~' >._",.,..-_.", --",~~,,,,._-"----,_.".~-> .,-- 1,6111 *)3 v. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed. (See attached) Caroline stated the budget amendment for $4,000 had not been made because an account was not specified. Direction was given to move $4,000 out of "Improvements General" into "Other Miscellaneous" and will be reflected on the next report. ~ Operating - Remaining Open P.O. $84,153.31 ~ Available Operating Expense - $98.576.73 ~ Ad Valorem Tax $175,332.44 (Outstanding) Michelle Arnold and Pam Lulich arrived at 2:15 pm B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the Project Manager Report. (See attached) . (V A-27) Execution of Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement. FPL approved the Survey for FPL Power Line Underground Installation Project - Phase I. (See email attached) He distributed an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver and stated the County Attorney's Office is reviewing legal language within the document prior to submitting to BCC for approval. (See attached) Discussion ensued on "if' the MSTU was paying the legal fees. It was also noted every year the MSTU's are charged an Indirect Cost Reimbursement to the County. . (V A-26) New Proposal - Malcolm Pirnie for Phase One Design Review. (See attached) Staff recommended approving a proposal in the amount of $44,700 for Design Management Assistance for the relocation of the aerial utilities. Malcolm Pirnie has an existing PO with $32,400 for consulting services still remaining. Charles Arthur stated this is a separate project; FPL will draft another design. It was noted the proposal for $44,000 did not include attending meetings. Discussions ensued on easements, switch boxes, number of boxes, placement of boxes and the time frame to complete project. It was concluded the Committee does not know where easements may be required until they receive the Preliminary Design. The easements are for the large boxes and the switch boxes can be moved. Most of the smaller boxes are in the ROW. Bud Martin suggested landscaping around the boxes leaving room for the doors to open. 2 161 \~,~1 ~\? Charles Arthur moved to approve the proposal from Malcolm Pirnie in the amount of $44,700 for consultation regarding the Design Phase. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VI. landscape Maintenance Report - ClM - Jim Fritchey reported the following: . Basic Maintenance was being conducted. . Insecticide was applied. Dick Lydon asked if the County addressed the wastewater back-flow issue. Darryl Richard responded the County recognized it but no action has been taken. If the Waste Water Dept. does the installation they would then have to maintain it. He will do an assessment drive-through with Jim Fritchey. VII. Old Business A. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Public Meeting Darryl Richard distributed a draft agenda and public meeting letter addressed to the residents for the Committee to review and update. (See attached) Discussion ensued on several changes and additions to the letter and agenda and it was determined that Dick Lydon and Darryl Richard will work on the contents together. A suggestion was made to add a paragraph regarding the last public meeting. VIII. Project Update A. Utilities - Charles Arthur reported the following: . Contracting with more than one electrical contractor will expedite the work more efficiently and less costly. . An electrical contractor stated it would be cheaper if FPL installs the lines. . 2 out of the 200 people who attended the last meeting showed some interest in retaining the pole. . All the work will be done outside of the residence. . Rewiring the inside of the residence is not required. B. Maintenance Bruce Foreman had an excused absent. Lew Schmidt reported the new shrubs were doing well. He suggested hedges that separate the houses be trimmed to 6' and some trees in the ROW be trimmed before Comcast Cable trims them. Darryl Richard stated he will check the number of trees needed to be trimmed and stated there may be an initial charge for the trimming. Discussion ensued on the current height of the bushes and trimming them to 6', the effect on the Community and the benefits. 3 '.,;._--' ...... ^-"','_."~''''~ . 16 I 1 k\?J Bud Martin moved to the have Staff review and make a decision on the height of the hedges. Second by Charles Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. C. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin - distributed and reviewed Historical Comparison on Taxable Values for Vanderbilt Beach MSTU. (See attached) . Current Breakdown is 80% Multi-Family; 15% Single Family, 5% Commercial (Increasingly becoming a multi family MSTU) . Single-family homes assessed values are dropping 75%. . Vacant lots are not classified D. Liaison - Dick Lydon reported sending an email to Connie Mac, Trudy Williams and their State Senator regarding an interesting labor intensive project of a Public Works nature and asking direction for applying for a portion of the $810,000 set aside by Congress. He asked the Staff to assist the Committee to identify and apply for Grant monies where appropriate. IX. New Business Bud Martin will not be attending the March meeting. X. Public Comment Lew Schmidt announced the Annual Meeting of Vanderbilt Association was being held February 5th with guest speakers from the Sheriffs' Office and Fire Department on Code Enforcement. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 P.M. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory C e Dick Lyd These minutes approved by the Committee on y. -'S - () J , as presented or amended The next meeting is March 5, 2009 at 2:00 PM ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL. 4 ...."_..,........_..... "*"*"'_~'~_'''''_ 11'I r" ...... ;,._""_-"'"",,__,.,",,"'d,.,'_,"', <-'.' ~~..______ Flala 16\ 11 ~?J RECEIVED Halas - Henning - MAR 2 7 2009 Coyle Coletta anderbilt 5each M.S.T.~ofCountv~ Adv,sor~ Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 February 5, 2009 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: January 8, 2009 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VI. landscape Maintenance Report - ClM VII. Old Business A. Public Meeting VIII. Project Update A. Utilities - Charles Arthur B. Maintenance C. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin D. Liaison - Dick Lydon IX. New Business X. Public Comment XI. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on March 9, 2009 ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER Misc. Cones: 625111TH Ave. Naples, FL. Date: ltem#: ..::pies to _._ _~_m___._~___._..____,.,'___" .--- ,"~--,.~,.~...., ,.~ ..'---"'--" -_.._.. .-..~".^,,'~~~---...~,.~~.._-"- / , 161 1 It)? ~ ~ r-- 0 ~ 0 (J) 0 0 ~ 0 0 'iii' ...... ~ Ol .... 0 0 0 LO .... ..t 0 ~ cO 0 0 I . 0 en "'CJ ...... ...... LO i r-- (0 ...... r-- N 0 0 (0 0 .... 'n; CIO CIO ..-- r-- r-- Ol N 0 ClO ~ 10 as ri ..... u) ...: ...... M U) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c,") 0 w ro 0 " (:) co ,- OJ co (( r0 C'0 0 '1 \..j <D M C , , , 0") iX, "" "<t CJ -<;I- g -<;1 r-? C C.) CO lO C0 0 ,.",-., Li) I. e) III ,- 00 (of) W '1 "t.~"' E to ('I C'J C\J ''oj CD '<1' ..- ,-- Ql N C0 co a:: VJ U) (J) to ff) if> U} V) <J) V) v) f-f~ lh M -- 0 Ci> ~ , ~ CIO N =It! >- 0 + 0 CIO ~ LO N CO I ..... N i ,... >- M Cl. N It) ..-- Cl. r-- r-- ..-- N lii~ ~~U; ~ - Ol CO 0 Ol ~ ~ LO r-- ..- CIl U M M It) M '0 z z (0 M "f M c =~8~"t;": l!! ~ ~ I I l!! M I I "'CJ CIO (0 ...:. LO r-- (0 .!!I 0 01.0 m i:5 0 0 i:5 0 0 0 ..J _.!!I_ (J) u.. <( .~ .g ~ I a.. I- ~ 0 LL lii ...,:.. I- ;;I-~ 07;)* "l:t 0 ~ ...... ~ N ;t; M >-.... Ol LO :i M It) r-- LL b ~ 0 CIO "l:t "l:t CIO ..-- r-- ~ :::I . "").... ot; >- :a: ~ 0 0 ..-- ...... ~ ~ ~ CIO 0 M ...... ~~ !5~ 0 0 0 0 0 Ol 0 0 0 LL ~ Z ...... ..... ...... ..... Z Z Z 0 ..... ...... ...... ._ ~ CI) I/J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .!!ILL c::i~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .gg LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO ~ "l:t "l:t "l:t "l:t "l:t "l:t "l:t "l:t )(it ~ I/J ~ c: ~ ..... .~ ~ 0 ....11) ~ MN ..... c: ~ Ql Ql <<1.ot E c: '(ij c: en en N. Q) '(ij ~ ::J 0) ro i;::: ....N CD en :!: I~ 0 ~ 'C g (J).... ~ ... ... U c: 'C Q) g~ ~ "0 Q) Q) U c: E CO > '?, C ... c: :52 ~ 'C ... !!! ::J - ....N 0 Q) ::J c: ..c: '0 ~ I/J l!! >- Q) NN 2b'iii :e 0 ~ c= :J a; e 'C ::J c: U Q. Q) :5 Q) (5 I/J 0 Q) :;::; ::J III c: .... 00 ~ C9 CIJ u.. :!: [j u .E u CIJ ::> en ~~ tJ) C) :EM~ ......,. ~ I/J ..J'I""1t) Q) E ~ mC ~ :;::; "0 ~ ::> c: c: 'CP Q) a:::Zca CD ~ (IJ .Q ::J a:: c: Q) w:J= E ...J a; 0 Q) 'E ro I/J fi) C9 cu...s ell ::J .~ Q) 0 a: z 0 .~ ... a:: u Q) 0 0 z CD u ... ~ u E c: c: ~ u.. .. Q) c: '0 c: c: CD ... E CO CO !!! (5 CO "'CJ ~ "0 ~ I/J l!! u ~ ~ c E 'C 'C l!! ...J ::J 0 c: CD (5 0 0 0 0 Cl. '0 I/J ro CO > U U u:: u:: u.. LL c: c: ~ ~ 0::: ~(J)C;;-CIO 0 CIOCIOOO i i 0808....0 00N80000 ew> ~ ~ 0.... .... ~ ~ ~ v....~ .... r--NOO o 0 ClO.... 00...... 000.... ...... C':!~ ~ CIl N..t""':;! g ~:ggg N - gggg~~ I gcicici~c:ici""': ~ ci ci I I IO(J) 8 0 8 N - NCIO...... ClO 000 00...... 10 10 vlO 0 i ~!~qGq. ..- ....NIOClO N CO......OON.... 0000 101Oew> 10 O. O. CIO .... ClO ClO -OIO....~ ...... ":aia:iM t! l ""':-":""':-00 cO NIOIOO 00 .... .... MoO N t t .- ...... N ew>1O ClO ~ ... N (J) N N .... 1lI1-... ....... ~ 10 . N N ~ ....... c c C't .' -.i .. - ~~~foIJ- ~ ~~~~ foIJ- - ~~~foIJ-~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ {It {It (It ~ ~1Rmj::'a5' ~ Q)fX) ~ i 0(J)ClO(J)080 0 ~~ :! 0 0 0 8 O(J) (J) ~ .ClO(J) ...... N ocov...(J) V (J) 10 II) 0 ...... M 0 I ii~:::~~~ ~ ~Lri I . c6 ciMcOcO..tg.....: I ~ I I 'lri""': ~ i j ci ~ ~~ lri , oct ...... CO 10 .... ~ O(J)CON...... .... co...... 0 (J) .... ::1.-00.......... N ... N V ......co... CIO(J).... N...... co 0 VN CO to ..." . - . ..0 :::e 0 ":""':-cO 10 M :8 M M McD ai ci uc~..-("") i <(8,0.......10 10 ~ V N N .... ... .... CIO ....... e .... )(....... W{lt~~{It ~ ~~{It~ ~ - {It~{It~{It{lt{lt{ltfolJ-~~~~{It~ CtI't ~ CtI't {It {It {It {It ~ ~ {It CtI't J!l 0 ..- N 0 ro (0 CD M ~ ~ ::; C I 0 (') l!l <D (') "\t c"') to GI I , I I I I 1 I I . a::i ..t oct I I I I I I I . c.J <D C') ':t 'J" ,...- co M E C) C) ('r) co n tY) u; V 10 ... '::t (0 0:) 0) (0 [-- (<) .... .... 'f <'J ,- <I- N ,- ('oj <'I ..t t E (') cri co 0 O~M-~foIJ- {It U} V) (FJ VJ (I,; V) V) fF} <.I) V) tIj V.) {Ii U} (f) lh {It CtI't ~ ~ ~ {It {It (It M- .. 8 0 0 00 0 008008000000000 8 8 0 8 8 88 8 0 8 8 0 ,~ 00 0 00 00 000000000 0 0 "_ci '~ I I . . ci gg~gg~gg~~~ggg~ ~ ~ ci ci ~ cici ci ci g 8 0 00 !CIl0 0 00 0 8 8 00 0 0 C DlV_ v IOCIO ...... ov 0("1) (J)O 101010 Mv ....... ClO ClO .-=. GI"CO 8 cD aiM t OMNM N ..0..000 MM ai N N M M ...: v' ... t ~. .... E ::I ...... ...... ("1)10 N New> .... ......N V N N N N N ("I) :s <(me ... o. ~ v ... N "!. N ~ C -.i .. ~ ~ i!. v {It {It M- foIJ- {It ~~{It~ ~ - {It~{It{lt~{It{lt{lt{lt~{It~{It~{It ~ {It ~ {It {It ~ {It {It (It ~ .. ~ttiCnl:i:lWO:~~ lX:' aJ'=:~ ..J~(;) ~Z 0 W 0 0::0 <( ..... I- W ...I ~ a.. " I- ; :i: Z:::l 0:: <( :i: 0 ~ iii "w 00 ffi (.) a.. (.) I- :i:~ffi51-<(""'0 Z. W~..... WffiwZ Wo::~Z Ze" ~ 0..(.)1-0:: I- (.):i::i: O~O::O::_(.) ~ 1-5 I- (1)5:i:w >-z <(1-00<( ~~Z(.):::lOO~~(.)i~""'(.)~ wffiCl) <(0~..Jw~~5:::l (1)CI)Z(.) I- oO;:~~o::o::~o::od: .....~~.....>-CI)e,,~~ :i:~O::W5WZ.....'" Z~Ogs w ...10 I- ~~o:: (1)lO WZI-OW w W(.) "W:::l~CI)~ (.) B <( 0:: Z 00 0:: 0:: I- 0:: r (.) a.. 0 - Z 0:: Z a.. <( > (f.) aJ :i: 0:: 0:: 0:: ~ 00 >:c~~~~~~f3~;_ f3 t) ~(.)~<(~~~ ~"~~ffi ~ w~g~~~~~~m ~~~~ZCI)CI)~*CI)~~WCl)ffi~ffi~I~5C1)~..JO::I~~~CI)CI)~~CI)O::O::~ wzz I.OZ.-. 0::0 (.) -z 0 <(w..... o::-zz zww ~~~~~~~~,,~~~aZ~~~~f<(~Z~"~ffi~o..~~~gg~f3f3~ (')~~~0::1-1-(.)~.....~w~50W~~CI):i::i:50..~0~0~(')""'l-aJaJ.....0::0::g ....NM.II)CI)......CIO~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~~~~~~~~M~~~~~~ 161 \ 1 ~)?J .... lIaM."', 8IUU~ AU.7 A Ad,,'sory 6o".".ltttltl 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 84104 PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE Dear Vanderbilt Beach Resident, The Vanderbilt Beach Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) was formed in 2004 to provide funds for the beautification of the Vanderbilt Beach area. Since that time funds have been collected, and significant planning has been done to provide for these beautification efforts. The MSTU Board hired a consulting and planning firm to assist them, and they identified a number of ways to improve our area. Surveys were taken from residents of the area and a public meeting was held to review planning alternatives. The results of the survey and the consensus of those attending public meetings was that our first priority should be to bury our overhead utility lines. We have been working with Florida Power & Light (FPL) and Collier County to get all utility lines buried in the Vanderbilt Beach area. We have made significant progress in this effort and are now waiting for the engineering plan from FPL which will provide us with a binding cost estimate and detailed drawings for the construction of an underground system. The cost of this project will be paid from MSTU funds. On Monday, March 9, 2009, the MSTU Board will host a public meetin~ for Vanderbilt Beach residents from 7-9 p.m. at S1. John's Parish Life Center, 625 lIlt Ave., Naples, Florida to explain the project and its impact on the area. We will discuss projected costs, construction timetables and the impact on individual homeowners. Presentations will be made by the MSTU Board and FPL representatives. You will have the opportunity to ask questions. This is a very significant project for Vanderbilt Beach and we hope you will plan to attend. Sincerely, Richard E. Lydon, Chairman Vanderbilt Beach MSTU PS: For more information contact Darryl Richard, Project Manager, at 252-8192. ...."" ^'~"._.,----^"_._--~._..~-_.~_.,_.._-~._.._._".._-"-_.."----.---.-.-.-.----.+.--."-..- --..--.......-.. -....-..--..-...-.---.-........-... - 161 1 ~)3 Date: Thursday. February 05. 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 Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Proiect Status (V A-27)- ACTIVE- Execution of "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" between Collier County and FPL 01-29-09: Correspondence sent to FPL to confirm 'template' for "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement"; County Legal Assistance requested from Liaison Staff to coordinate with FPL Legal to prepare agreement for BCC Approval. (V A-26)- ACTIVE- New Proposal- Malcolm Pirnie; Review preliminary design provided by FPL for relocating existing aerial utilities underground within Phase One area of the MSTU. 01-19-09: Scope of Services received from Malcolm Pirnie for Phase One Design Review. 02-04-09: Staff recommends approval of proposal for total of $44,700.00; Staff will coordinate with Consultant on completion of task items listed. (V A-25)- ACTIVE -- Public Meeting - March 9, 2009 01-08-09: Date/Time scheduled for meeting: March 9, 2009; Time: 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. 01-27-09: Confirmation that sheriff's office will provide message board at no cost to MSTU! 01-29-09: FPL; Line; Burial/ /Vanderbilt; MSTU; Meeting/ /March 9; 7 - 9 pm; St Johns/ /111 A VB; For info; 252-8192 02-04-09: Invoice received for meeting room in the amount of$500.00 payment to St. Johns pending. (V A-24)- ACTIVE - RW A Survey for FPL Powerline Underground Installation Project - Phase One; RWA-FT-3944-08-08; PO 4500092247 01-08-09: RWA Finalizes Survey and submits to FPL 01-28-09: Meeting to review project activity: Charlie Arthur, Chris Tilman, Jackie Bammel, Michelle Arnold in attendance. Items reviewed: Final Survey Data; Preparation for Public Meeting; Discussion regarding " 02-04-09: FPL Approves RW A Survey as per revisions requested. 02-04-09: John Lehr confirms FPL will invoice County (MSTU) for $13,027.00; preliminary draft design work to begin immediately upon receipt of payment. (V A-23)- ACTIVE... Ballpark Estimate & Committee Approval for payment(s) to FPL for Engineering Deposit(s).; And final Engineering Cost Estimate 02-04-09: FPL notifies county of approval of survey for project Phase One. FPL to invoice county for $13,027.00 Engineering Deposit for Phase One Design; Ball-Park Estimate indicated Phase One Project Cost as: $1,943,200; Cost of Underground Conduit installed "By County" will be assessed in final "Engineering Cost Estimate" (V A-19) - ACTIVE-ONGOING - On Call Services - Malcolm Pirnie Engineering MP-FT-3657-08-03; PO 4500098566; On-going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground power line installation. Original Contract amount: $40,000 02-04-09: (V A-18) - ACTIVE-ONGOING - Maintenance Contract- Contract #05-3687 "Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance"; Original BCC Award amount: $34,697.00. 01-23-09: Collier County Waste Water Repairs Backflow at no charge to MSTU; Installation of new 2" backflow preventer completed. 02-02-09: Maintenance Drive-Through and inspection; Lew Schmidt and staff. 02-04-09: Commercial Land Contract expires June 13,2009; Draft copy of new Maintenance Contract reviewed by Staff. 02-04-09: Investigation into Property on Comer of Vanderbilt Drive and Tradewinds indicates shrub hedge is within County ROW (per County Surveyor - Markings placed onsite verify location of ROW Line) 1 "..~,...,--_.,.--_..,,"-"----~~- . ----"'-<_.,.".,._."'.-.,.,-"--,._-.---"...._,,..._~.._,~,..,,.". - 161 \1 ~\:? From: John_Lehr@fpl.com Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 200911 :15 AM To: RichardDarryl Cc: ccarthur@earthlink.net; Charlotte _ R _ Miller@fpl.com; ctilman@pimie.com; jwbammel@embarqmail.com; kathryn _ donofrio@fpl.com; maw@consult-rwa.com Subject: Re: FPL Approval of Survey Darryl, In review of the drawings provided, these should be sufficient to move forward with the underground design. There may be a few additional soft digs required, but we'll know better once we would get into the engineering. I'll bave a invoice drafted for the eng. deposit, and then, forward it on to your attention. Once we receive the engineering deposit, I'll be able to provide the request to the next available designer. !fyou need anything more, I can be reached via tbe pager below. Thanks! John C. Lebr, Jr. Project Manager RECFI\lF f Distribution FPL (office) 561.904.3431 FEB 0 4 2009 (pager) 800.447.2433, #8557 <l~r,::\ ;1 RichardDarryl <DarrylRichard@colliergov.net> :\'[ It RichardDarryl <DarrylRichard@coUiergov.net> 02/03/2009 01:14 PM To: John_Lehr@fpl.com cc: maw@consult-rwa.com, ctilman@pimie.com, Charlotte _R _ Miller@fpl.com, kathryn _ donofrio@fpl.com, ccarthur@eartblink.net, jwbammel@embarqmail.CODl Subject: FPL Approval of Survey John In anticipation of this Thursday's Vanderbih Beach MSTU Meeting. could you confirm the status of review of 100 percent (Revised) Survey for Phase One Project The Committee is eager to begin the design phase of the project Please let me know as soon as FPL Approval is confirmed Thank you Darryl Richard 253-9083 ~.~""'_""o'_~''''~__~'''''''''''o_____'__i_.~__'''''''" _....,--,'~-.......,-"""..-_-,,_......,..._-,....'-,.,"'-"'....~."","'-.~,..,.,---~'".<. ~l~ 1 . 161 1 f Fifth Revised Sheet No. 9.725 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Cancels Fourth Revised Sheet No. 9.725 UNDERGROUND FACILITIES CONVERSION AGREEMENT- GOVERNMENTAL ADJUSTMENT FACTOR WAIVER This Agreement, which is available to customers that sign the Agreement on or before October 30, 2008, is made and entered into this day of , 20 , by and between ("Local Government Applicant"), a Florida municipal corporation or county with an address of and FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ("FPL"), a Florida corporation with an address of P.O. Box 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0429. WHEREAS, the Local Government Applicant has requested that FPL convert certain overhead electric distribution facilities located within the following boundaries (the "Conversion"): (collectively, the "Existing Overhead Facilities'') to underground facilities, including transfonners, switch cabinets and other appurtenant facilities installed above ground as set forth in Attaclunent A hereof (collectively, the "Underground Facilities''). NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the covenants and agreements set forth herein. and other consideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties intending to be legally bound, hereby covenant and agree as follows: I. Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver ("GAF Waiver") EUgibility Criteria. The Local Government Applicant represents and warrants that it meets the following eligibility criteria for the Conversion: a. In order for the Conversion to incorporate a sufficient amount of overhead facilities to provide electrical continuity, the Conversion must include a minimwn of approximately 3 pole line miles or approximately 200 detached dwelling units within contiguous or closely proximate geographic areas (the "Conversion Area''). The Conversion may be completed in mutually agreed upon phases, with the project si2e minimums applying to the aggregate project - provided that any necessary subsequent phase begins within a 1 year period from completion of the prior phase and the minimums are met within, at most, 3 phases; and b. The Local Government Applicant must require all customers within the Conversion Area who currently have overhead service directly from the Existing Overhead Facilities to convert their service entrances to undergrOlmd within 6 months of completion of the Underground Facilities installation or each phase thereof; and c. The Local Government Applicant must be willing and able to execute a right of way ("ROW") agreement with FPL if the Local Government Applicant requests that facilities be placed in the ROW; and d. For any affected laterals, the complete lateral must be converted, including all stages of any multi-stage lateral; and e. There are no state or federal fimds available to the Local Government Applicant to cover any portion of the cost of the Conversion. Special Circumstances. Conversions which do not meet the project size minimums described in section 1.a are eligible for the GAF Waiver in the following special circumstances: i. 100% of the Existing Overhead Facilities within the Local Government Applicant's corporate limits are to be converted, but are less than the pole line mileage or dwelling unit minimums; or ii. A single lateral that serves at least one Critical Infrastructure Facility as determined by the appropriate local agency with the mutual agreement ofFPL; or iii. An island or peninsula where 100% of the Existing Overhead Facilities are to be converted; or (Continued on Sheet No. 9.726) Issued by: S. E. Romig, Director, Rates and Tariffs Effective: May 4, 2007 "' .~.." ------'-- ,l.d.., '11I"I"-" .,,-~--~-----..'._- . 161 \1 ~13 I . Fifth Revised Sheet No.9. 726 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Cancels Fourth Revised Sheet No. 9.726 (Continued from Sheet No. 9.725) iv. When the aggregate size of the first 3 phases of a project would satisfy the minimum size criteria but, for mutually-afeed engineering or logistical reasons, those phases are non-contiguous; provided that (a) the next (4 ) phase must be adjacent to one or more of the first 3 phases such that the combined contiguous area meets the minimwn size criteria, and (b) this 4th phase begins within 1 year from completion of the 3rd phase. 2. Contribution-in-Aid-of-Construction (ClAC). The Local Government Applicant shall pay FPL a ClAC as required by FPL' s Electric Tariff and Section 25-6.115 of the Florida Administrative Code with the Otherwise Applicable ClAC amount reduced by the GAF Waiver. i. Otherwise Applicable ClAC $ ii. GAF Waiver $ iii CIAC Due $ In the event the actual cost of the Conversion exceeds the estimate, the Otherwise Applicable ClAC shall be adjusted by the lesser of (a) the difference between the actual cost of the Conversion and the estimate, or (b) 10% of the Otherwise Applicable ClAC identified above. The GAF Waiver shall also be adjusted accordingly and the Local Government Applicant shall pay FPL the resulting difference in the amount of the CIAC Due. 3. Applicant-Installed Facilities. The Local Government Applicant may, upon entering into an applicant- installed facilities agreement satisfactory to FPL, construct and install all or a portion of the Underground Facilities. Such work must meet FPL's construction standards and FPL will own and maintain the completed facilities. The Local Government Applicant agrees to rectify any deficiencies, found by FPL, prior to the connection of any customers to the Underground Facilities and the removal of the Existing Overhead Facilities. 4. CompUance with Tar1ft'. The Local Government Applicant agrees to comply with and abide by the requirements, terms, and conditions ofFPL's Electric Tariff. 5. Timing of Conversion. Upon compliance by the Local Government Applicant with the requirements, terms, and conditions of FPL's Electric Tariff, this Agreement and any other applicable agreements, FPL will proceed in a timely manner with the Conversion in accordance with the construction drawings and specifications set forth in Attachment A hereof. 6. Relocation. In the event that the Underground Facilities are part of, or are for the purposes of, relocation, then this Agreement shall be an addendum to the relocation agreement between FPL and the Local Government Applicant In the event of any conflict between the relocation agreement and this Agreement or the Electric Tariff, this Agreement and the Electric Tariff shall control. 7. Term. This Agreement shall remain in effect for as long as FPL or any successor or assign owns or operates the Underground Facilities. 8. GAF Waiver Repayment. If the Local Government Applicant does not satisfy the relevant eligibility criteria, the Local Government Applicant shall repay the GAF Waiver within 30 days of written notice from FPL of such failure. Additionally, if at any point within 30 years of completion of the Underground Facilities installation, the Local Government Applicant elects to have electric service within the Conversion Area supplied by a provider other than FPL, the Local Government Applicant shall repay FPL a pro-rata share of the GAF Waiver. The pro- rata share (which shall reflect partial years) shall be determined as follows: GAF Waiver * [(30 - years since the UndergroWld Facilities completion date) /30} (Continued on Sheet No. 9.727) Issued by: S. E. Romig, Director, Rates and Tariffs Effective: April 4, 2006 ------- .."."...... .,.""""'....._..."'-.-..._,mo._ ~ 'i__'_,,"__, , - rnl!w'. II. ~---,.~...--"<"~~.,,,..- .-. I (YI~ ~ . 161 \~1 FLORIDA POWER & liGHT COMPANY Original Sheet No.9. 727 (Continued from Sheet No. 9.726) 9. Termination Prior to the Conversion Completion. Failure by the Local Government Applicant to comply with any of the requirements, terms, or conditions of this Agreement or FPL's Electric Tariff shall result in termination of this Agreement. The Local Government Applicant may terminate this Agreement at any time prior to the start of the Conversion and the CIAC paid by the Local Government Applicant will be refunded to the Local Government Applicant; provided however, that the refund of the CIAC shall be offset by any costs incUJTed by FPL in performing under the Agreement up to the date oftennination. 10. Assignment. The Local Government Applicant shall not assign this Agreement without the written consent of FPL. 11. Adoption and Recording. This Agreement shall be adopted by the Local Government Applicant and maintained in the official records of the Local Government Applicant for the duration of the term of this Agreement. This Agreement also shall be recorded in the Official Records of the County in which the Underground Facilities are located, in the place and in the manner in which deeds are typically recorded. 12. Conflict between Terms of Franchise Agreement. In the event ofa conflict between the terms of this Agreement and any permit or franchise agreement entered into by Local Government Applicant and FPL, the terms of this Agreement shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FPL and the Local Government Applicant have executed this Agreement on the date first set forth above. LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPLICANT FPL Signed Signed Name Name Title Title Signed Name Title Approved as to Terms and Conditions Signed Name Title Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency Signed Name Title Issued by: S. E. Romig, Director, Rates and Tariffs Effective: AprD 4,2006 ~-~~ ._~ - -----_._~-_._~-_.- _ _ _ ___ _ _.____~_ ._.______~__._~._.___~.__,.__~_.__._~__.____~___.__.,~_"._.._.~___~_w -'~~'--';~---'.",,~~.~->- 161 1/t't'J ---- . . Second Revised Sheet No. 6.300 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Cancels First Revised Sheet No. 6.300 INSTALLA TION OF UNDERGROUND ELECfRIC DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES FOR THE CONVERSION OF OVERHEAD ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES SECTION 12.1 DEFINITIONS APPLICANT - Any person, corporation, or entity capable of complying with the requirements of this tariff that has made a written request for underground electric distribution facilities in accordance with this tariff. CONVERSION - Any installation of underground electric distribution facilities where the underground facilities will be substituted for existing overhead electric distribution facilities, including relocations. CONTRIBlITION-IN-AID-OF-CONSTRUCTION (CIAC) The CIAC to be paid by an Applicant under this tariff section shall be the result of the following formula: r0 The estimated cost to install the requested underground facilities; , + The estimated cost to remove the existing overhead facilities; + The net book valUl' of the existing overhead facilities; : + The net present value of the estimated operational costs of underground facilities over 30 years; ! + The net present value of the estimated average storm restoration costs of underground facilities over 30 years; \ . The estimated cost that would be incurred to install new overhead facilities, in lieu of underground, to replace the existing ii overhead facilities (the "Hypothetical Overhead Facilities"); : - The estimated salvage value of the existing overhead facilities to be removed; i_The net present value of the estimated operational costs of the overhead facilities over 30 years; - The net present value of the estimated average storm restoration costs of overhead facilities over 30 years. ; ~. 0:0\1' waiver v-- For Applicants entering into an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver with the Company, the otherwise applicable CIAC amount, as calculated above, shall be reduced by the OAF Waiver. If the Applicant elects to construct and install all or part of the underground facilities, then for purposes of calculating the OAF Waiver amount only, the otherwise applicable CIAC shall be adjusted to add FPL's estimated cost for the Applicant-performed work. The amount of the OAF Waiver shall be calculated as follows: OAF Waiver = 25% x the otherwise applicable CIAC; + 75% x (the net present value of the estimated average storm restoration costs of underground facilities over 30 years less the net present value of the estimated average storm restoration costs of overhead facilities over 30 years). Note: The fmal term avoids double-counting the estimated average storm restoration costs embedded in the otherwise applicable CIAC. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM . Electric service facilities consisting of primary and secondary cooductors, service drops, service laterals, conduits, transformers and necessary accessories and appurtenances for the furnishing of electric power at uti1ization voltage. SERVICE FACILITIES - The entire length of conductors between the distribution source, including any conduit and or risers at a pole or other structure or from transformers, from which only one point of service win result, and the first point of connection to the service entrance conductors at a weatherhead, in a tenninal, or meter box outside the building wall; the terminal or meter box; and the meter. (Continued on Sheet No. 6.301) Issued by: S. E. Romig. Diredor, Rates and Tariffs Effective: April 4, 2006 ~..._~~_._'--'---'-_,~---,~",%,-~-,"-",-,---~-,,-~-"------=-----""~~'"'.~'.-"'''_. ","'_.,._.....___~,~_~.."..__~.,.._."._...,_w._._.__~,. rt~a 161 1 k\0 RECEIVED ""a\as -'-' MAR 2 7 2009 Henning Coyle Board of County Commlsaloners Coletta ".."."" Btuu~ AU.7 Jt. Adllisory OOlltlltittll1l 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 March 9, 2009 V ANDERBIL T BEACH MSTU PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA I. Welcome and Introduction - Dick Lydon II. Burial of Utility Lines - Charles Arthur A. Scope of Project - Jackie Bammel B. Estimated Cost C. Phasing of Work D. Use of Right of Way E. Visual impact and placement of Boxes F. Easements required G. Homeowner responsibilities for overheads III. 25% FPL Contribution - Charlotte Miller, FPL Area Manager IV. Questions and Answers March 9,2009 (7-9 p.m.) At ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER Misc. Corres: Ballroom 625 111TH Ave. Date: Naples, FL. ltem#: :'",pies to --"->- _."__~'W_"'~''''''''___''''''_''_i___'' ....... ..d, ..._...._.__,___'~.~__.~"_.__..,~_~~_.._"~.~r_,'..__.__ 161 i1A'1? Malcolm Plmle, Inc. 4315 Metro Parkway Suite 520 Fort Myers, FL 33916 T: 239.332.1300 F: 239.332.1789 www.pirnie.com January 20, 2009 Mr. Darryl Richard Project Manager Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Phase 1 Preliminary Design Review Services Dear Mr. Richard: Malcolm Pirnie is pleased to provide the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU (MSTU) of with this requested scope of work for the above referenced project. The purpose of this project is to review the preliminary design provided by Florida Power and light (FPL) for relocating existing aerial utilities underground within the Phase 1 area ofthe MSTU. Project Assumptions . RWA to provide survey to FPL of the Phase 1 area. . FPL to utilize the RWA survey as a basis for the preliminary design of the Phase 1 area. . FPL to provide preliminary design of the Phase 1 area to Malcolm Pirnie for review and comment. Scope of Services This scope of services is for the Design Management Assistance for the relocation of the aerial utilities for the project as described by the following tasks: TASK 050 - Proiect Management This task includes the work effort required for project planning, administration, and coordination. Specific activities included in this task include the following: . Managing and coordinating project activities and field personnel to control costs and maintain the project schedule. . Maintaining project files and data systems . Preparing monthly invoices . Providing internal quality control . Internal and external project-related communications _ .. __.______..~......._._._..,__..__________,__..~,~~____~~."...H..__.'_~m.'."~._""..~_~" ..,~_<__,' r_, .,..,.....,__u'-__ 161 '1A'1'b \ I iil. Ii,ll 1\1,,' I, IV1S IIJ ~II III I 1 l ! i 'l Il I II 1,11'/ [)t I r f\ \, II IN (t ~il( I , Task 100-Regulatorv Review This task includes activities related to verifying local agency permitting requirements to ascertain the cost and effort necessary to secure all local requisite approvals. Task 200-Preliminarv Design Review Under this task, Malcolm Pirnie will coordinate with FPL, Comcast, TECO (gas) and Collier County Utilities relative to the location of existing facilities and services. Issues arising from utility conflicts and potential easement locations will be coordinated and assessed. Malcolm Pirnie will coordinate up to four (4) design review meetings (Inclusive of and in accordance with Task 400, below) with FPL and/or Comcast regarding preliminary designs for proposed alignments to construct the utility lines underground. Specific activities include the following: . Reviewing FPL's preliminary design to identify issues and providing comments . Coordinating and conducting review meetings with FPL and/or Com cast within two weeks after issuing the review comments. This task involves a total of two (2) plan review iterations with FPL and/or Comcast. Additional review scope may be added under Additional Services. FPL will provide a final preliminary design based upon the outcome of the coordination review meetings. Task 300-Easement Identification Under this task, Malcolm Pirnie will review the final preliminary design and identify properties for required easements. Task 400-Meetings Under this task, Malcolm Pirnie will attend up to eight (8) meetings with the MSTU, Vanderbilt Beach Home Owners Association, FPL, Comcast or other services and venues as requested by the County. Malcolm Pirnie will provide meeting agendas, conduct the meetings and supply meeting minutes as part of this task. Additional Services In addition to performing the work identified in this scope, Malcolm Pirnie will perform Additional Services as requested by the County. The need for such services may arise from the completion of the tasks identified above, and cannot be fully defined at this time. However, it may be determined at some future date that these additional services are necessary to thoroughly complete or implement the Work. Examples of Additional Services may include technical evaluations, preparation of reports, attendance at other or additional meetings, or other activities deemed necessary by the MSTU and/or County. It should be noted that the fees for these services have not been included in this scope. Such tasks and their level of effort, associated budgets and schedules will be described in detail in work authorizations to be issued at the time such tasks are requested by the County. ..\~_'.,jl"~~lt~~!I~"_r" ~LCOt:M IRNI .., , ~ ...~ -- . .----..-.--....,--- 164 '1 -k(~ \',Ir (1, ,h, II 1;1 ,II I, ~,1() It J ~II 1",,1' , II j II 111 1,jl V!){ ( l(l! I I.!I \ l Vii \,t r \il( i ' Schedule The Scope of Work defined herein will be completed in 180 calendar days following receipt of notice to proceed. The project budget is based on the scope of work as provided and is subject to cost adjustment resulting from any change in the scope or schedule of work. Compensation Malcolm Pirnie will provide this scope of services for a lump sum fee of $44,700, payable monthly based on work completed. Malcolm Pirnie appreciates this opportunity to provide this requested scope of services, and would enjoy working with the County on this important project. If you have any questions regarding this scope or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Christopher Tilman, P.E. or me at (239) 332-1300. Sincerely, MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. ~-hJ. ~~ Robert H. French, P.E. Senior Associate l'ttlt""~;_W'~'...ll~~~ ~LCO~ IRNI f;;l" . ---~._...~-~.__.._----------"_._---~._~.._~ "-...""'..... "'T ..-,'~,...._..,.~--""--,-~~-~"..-.... 161 \11\~'b :a... .. .. -;;.. "... :s'; .. c 3:1 ... .!! '6 " .. c :I ... o liil ;;; u .. it m~~ ~ N 00 m~ $ sss~s~ss~~ N ~~~~S~ m ~~~ N ~ ~~ ~M ~ om~~mN~~MO ~ OW~~M ~ m~~ ~ 0 ~~ ~N' ~ g~~M~M~~O~ 0 ~Mm~mg m m ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~m~~m~~o ~ a~~~~N ~ 2 ~~ ~ ~ m~ ~i ~ ~~-~c~-~~~ ~ ~ ;~~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~N ~ N v v v ~ ~ v :ol~~ , ,<1; ~ ~~ ~~, ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~. ~ ~~gp::~~. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ re~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~8 ~ ~~~~~~ ~ 2 ~c ~ g ri ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~-~t~ g ~ ~~~g ~ i ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ V ~N ~ _ v v v ~ ~ v - - -- ------ -~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ o~~ ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ 8m Nm~~~lll ~ ~MN~~8 al g ~~~ ~ re ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 8~~~~o re ~~~~~N m ~ ~~ ~ m ri ;~ ~ ~ci -ti -~e g ~ ~~E~ ~ N o. O. N o. o. v N.,N o. _ v v v ~ ~ v ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~$ ~88~~~~~~~~O~ ~ ~$~~~~ ~ '~M~ . N Mm ~~~ ~..~ .~~~ . .~. ~ ~M~.' ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~,~ ~~l~~~ ~ ~og OMm~ m ~ m m~ ~~~~~~Mc.~m~ w ~ ~M~O 0 ~.~ ~- ~ ~ m~ _--~-_- ~--N ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~c~ ri ri - ri ~ ~ ri :;:Ii Ci - M ~ to")- M'" .. - w ~ U ~ ~ ~:s c ~:l : .C):IE c :S:l i ~ ~= Q () ~ .!! .. - ..., I- c C .. 'g .e Co - ~Q. ~ :8 6' tC-: ~ ~~ t . ~ i ~~ u ~ c ~ > :I lis .!!! ~ u ~ i!- c ~ u .2 "tl ~i SZ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f a ~ ~s ~ S l ~~jw =s~Q.~ ~ 8 s ~ j ~ !~ ~: ~~; ~ = t ~ ~:~i so~~~~ ~~ ~~ t ~ jt5 !~ ;! ~~; 0g~i~~ 0 ; -'u..~~ ~60w~,,> s~ ()OE:!1..fi o::~:s .!!.!~(..)g III ,,~.!:!c ll-.."'c~~.e:: ii - ..- ~~ ~! ~" ~-""e -:~~ -i-I-~" ~.. .. ~~~.. · ~:il i3~~O) ~ ~~ .~ii~ilrS~~a ~~s~s ~ s:~ E2~c:o g f 8~1Z ~~EEE_ = 0::1 !SI~l~uIU.I~ e~~~~ ~ ~eo eo;~c~iE ~ ~ ~~_~ ~- 0 III C ell ~ c~ce~ rn~~ 11Im". ~ ~ ~ _=..~ ~ ~ ~~1~ ~~i~i!! II ~~~!!~~~~iil~!i~~~! ~i~ ;~S58~ = ~ ()~~~ ...::ECCCS ~ ~c ll:C_~-WOW_~0~~O_1-1-1- ~ ()>0 C::ESS~I- () 0 ~--~~_._..,",- ---- 161 ,1 Pd~ ~~~~~~MNM~~~~N~ NN~~M~~~NN~~~~m~ -~~mm~MmOO~~MM~~ O~~~~~~~~NN~N~~M M~Nm~~~~M~~~~~~~ ~O~~N~~~~~MN~N~O ~ ., , ~ , ... , , , ~ .. .. .. .. .... ,.................................. O~~~~~~~~~~~MM~~ ~~~~~~N~~~~~M~~N ~~~O~~~~MNM~MNN~ ~~~~N~o~m~~~N~N~ ~~q~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~q~~~~~~~~ C~~~N~~~~M~~M~M~ O~~~~~~~~N~~M~O~ M~N~ N~~~mM~~ ~M MM~N ~~NN~NN~ N~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ C!.. N ~~ ~~ N ~~ ~~ N ~~M~ ~NNN~~omN >~~ ~M 0 ~~ ~~ 0 N~~~ ~~N~~M~~~ ~=~N ~~ M ~~ O~ ~ ~~N~ ~~~~NOM~m oE~~ ~~ ~ ~~ o~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~m NM~~ ~~ M M~ ~~ m ~~N~ ~m~o~~ NN I~NO ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ OMN~M~ ~m W~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 0 ~~~ ~roN~~ om ~~~N N~ ~ M~ ~M m N ~ NN~ N N~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M M ~~M N~ ~ ~ ~o m > m m 0 MM~ ~~ ~ m 00 ~ ~= m ~ ~ ~~~ O~ m M ~m ~ =E ~ ~ ro mmro ~N N 0 roN ~ ~M 0 ~ N MNM ~~ 0 m ~~ ~ x~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~q ~ <~ ~ ~ M M~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~M 0 ~= ~ ~ ~ ~ N M ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M m N N ~ m~ ~ ~ ~ 0 m ~ ~o ~ ....... ...... .. ...... ... ~.~ M ~ N ~~ ~ E ~ ;::j ~ ~ ~, ::l m E N 0 ~ m ~~ ~ o ~ 0 u ~ ~ ms: ~ ~ m ~' N N ~ ~ 0 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ N m ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ m N m ~ ~ ...... ~ m~~~~OM~~~N~N~NOO~~~N~om~~N~~Mm~ ~ o~ ~ q o~ ~ ~~ q N~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ oct ~~ ~ ~~ o~ q ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ o~ o~ ~ ~ N, ~ {2 ~ ~ ~ ~ cri ::l. ~ $ ~ r:! ~ gg ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lX; ~ ~ ~ r:! ~ ~ r:! s: ~ s ~ ~ i ~ ~~~~q~~q~q~~~~~~~~~~~~q~q~~~q~~~~ C......M~N~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~N~~~~m~ M~NN N~~~mM~~ ~m~NM N ~~NN~MN~ ~~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ......m mm ~ ~~ ~~ ~ om~~ N~m~mMO"""~ >M~ ~~ ~ ~N ~~ ~ NmN~ ~~~mN~~mm ~=O~ ~m N ~~ m~ ~ NOO~ ~m~N~mMN~ OE~N NN ro roo Nro m ~~~m m~~~~~ ~~ NM~~ ~~ ~ ~M ~~ ~ m~~~ N......~~O~ N~ I~N~ ~~ m ~~ M~...... ~~mo ~~~m~~ om w~~m ~ro ~ o~ NO ~ ~~~ ~ro~ ~ ~o ~~~N ~~ M M~ ~m N N ~ NN N ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N om~ ~ NO m ...... ~~ N > ~ M ~ ~Nm 0 ~ 0 ~ mm ~ ~= 0 0 N ~~N ~ ~ ~ ~ mo ~ =E ~ ~ ~ roON ro ~ ~ 0 om ~ ~M N ~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~ M ~ ~~ m ~~ ~ q q ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~q ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ m ............M ~ ~= N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - o~oo ~o MO 0 mo 0 0 om, oo~o~ M ~o~ 0 0 M~ ~ ~o 0 ~ ~~~~Nom ~ ON~ 0 0 ~~ N NO 0 ~ m~N~NO~ ... ... ...... ........ .......................... ...... ........ ~ ~m~ ~ ~ M~ ~ ~m ~ ~ N~~ Mm~ E ~~~ 8 8 ~~ 8 ~~ ~ ~ ~~@ ~~~ E N~ ~ ~ ro~ ~ ~~ N mmm ~ ~ o ~ N U ~ ~ U ~ ~ w w ~ ~ ~ ~ w C C~~ _ w 0 ~ C w w >Z~~ M = ~ ~~ ~~z 0 ~ > N ~-~~ ~ ~W~~ w~ - -w I ZIw 0 w~~~== {2 ~cw-=Zw~ I~~Cw~Z~Ou~ =ww~IwWW~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~;~~~~~~~~i ~~~uuuCw~~~~~~IzSSZO~~~~~~~~5>~~ 16 il tl k\~ _Omom~~~O~N~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~m ~o~~~~oo~~moo~~~~~ m~~~~o~~~m~~~~~d ~~o~o~~~ooo~~ooo~ ~o~~ooo~ooo~~~~" o~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~M " N ~E~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~O~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ O~~~ ~~~mm~ON" o O~ ~~ 00 OO~ ~oo 00 NOOO~ ooo~oooo~o~~ o~~ ~ " ~ NIIl , CUE 0 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ .a .f!J ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ 00 ~ c::i u::i >~- 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 00 " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ " ~:!: .a ~ E m ~ 00 00 0 ~ " ~E ~ 00 ~ ~ o~ = o ~ ~ ~ 0 ~" u ~ " ~ N ~ .-I ~ ~ 00 .-I ~ 00 ~ ~ N ~ 00 ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ .-I ~ 0 0 ~50~OO~N~N~~OOOO~~ I~~o~ooo~~o~~mo~d o 0 ~ m 0 N~ " , ~E~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~O.-l I ,.-IN ,N ,.-10 I ,N~ 1M 10.-lOO,.-I~00.-lOO.-l~ > N CU till :E III ,,' ~E _~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ':to "'~'~ 1,000.-1" ,.-10" ,O,"~ ,NO ,0 _.-I m ~ -.... ..... ~- :It .... :!: {:. eE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,-0 E I I . 0 I I I I I I I I I ~ I I . I 0 I I I I I I I 0 I 0 0 I Ln ........ 0 U '. _ooON.-ION~~~~~NN~~Om~mm~OO~.-Im~~m~~~o ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . ....O.-lOO~N~~~.-IOOOO~~~~.-IO.-lOOO.-l~O~.-INOOO ~ 0 ~ m 0 O~ " o N 'E~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~q~~~ CU~O.-l, ,ON,~ ,"0, I.-I~,~ ,0.-100 ,.-I~OO.-lOOOO .au.. N -!:~ CU III :E ~E ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~, 10" '~'~, ,OOOO,~,.-I", ,0" ,~,NO,~ ~u.. ~ m ~ - .... ~- .... :!: {:. - OE ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~E' I ,000,0,0, "mo,O,OO ,0 ,0 ,00000011I o U III U III ~ W W ~ 0:: V") CO W ~ g w Obb- ~ ~ ~V") ~@Z 0 ~ > ~ ~~~~ 5 ~w$~ wo:: - -w I ZI 0 W~CO$O::O:: 0 IIlcw-ffiZWV") I~~OWV")ZV")OU~ O::WW~IWWW~~ ~>ffi~~~~~~~~~~~O~OZ~~~W~~~~~OCC~~ ~~3~IO~ffis~ffio::o::~ffi~~~o~~~~~~~5~~~g~ COCOCOUUUOwu..u..~~~~I_~~ZO~~v")v")v")v")IIl~>>>~ 1611 :1~f3 Historical Comparisons % Total Tax or Value Total Units % Total Units 2003 2004 2005 2008 2004 2005 2008 2004 2005 2008 SEABREEZE 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 24 24 24 0.8 0.7 0.7 CHANNEL 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 27 27 27 0.9 0.8 0.8 BAYVIEW 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 23 23 23 0.7 0.7 0.7 Sub W. Finger 4.8 4.2 3.7 3.3 74 74 74 2.3 2.2 2.1 FLAMINGO 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.6 45 45 45 1.4 1.4 1.3 HERON 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.6 48 48 48 1.5 1.5 1.4 EGRET 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.9 47 48 48 1.5 1.5 1.4 CONNERS 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.2 54 53 53 1.7 1.6 1.5 SEABEE 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.1 23 23 23 0.7 0.7 0.7 GERMAIN 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 21 21 21 0.7 0.6 0.6 SEAGULL 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 18 18 18 0.6 0.5 0.5 WILLET 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 19 19 19 0.6 0.6 0.5 TRADEWINDS 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.3 37 37 37 1.2 1.1 1.1 LAGOON 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.3 31 31 31 1.0 0.9 0.9 BAYSIDE 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 16 16 16 0.5 0.5 0.5 PINE 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 17 16 16 0.5 0.5 0.5 OAK 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 32 32 32 1.0 1.0 0.9 PALM 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 8 8 8 0.3 0.2 0.2 Sub E. Finger 21.6 20.4 17.5 16.4 416 415 415 13.1 12.6 11.8 SOUTH BAY 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 134 139 156 4.2 4.2 4.4 VANDERBILT BEAC 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 39 40 38 1.2 1.2 1.1 CENTER 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 7 7 7 0.2 0.2 0.2 Sub South 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.9 180 186 201 5.7 5.6 5.7 FLAGSHIP 6.0 6.0 4.9 4.4 168 168 192 5.3 5.1 5.5 LAU NCH 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.6 78 78 79 2.5 2.4 2.2 Sub Regatta 7.8 7.9 6.7 6.0 246 246 271 7.8 7.5 7.7 DUNES 9.6 9.0 7.9 7.4 255 255 252 8.0 7.7 5.7 GRANDE 0.0 0.4 9.6 8.2 88 189 187 2.8 5.7 5.3 GROVE 0.3 0.3 0.2 7.0 8 8 8 0.3 0.2 0.2 INDIES 0.2 177 SEA GROVE 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.9 33 33 32 1.0 1.0 0.9 Sub Dunes 10.7 10.8 18.8 23.8 384 485 656 12.1 14.7 18.6 GULF SHORE 38.4 39.5 37.9 35.4 1083 1104 1071 34.2 33.5 30.4 BLUEBILL 10.3 11.2 10.3 10.2 640 641 633 20.2 19.4 18.0 VANDERBILT 4.3 3.9 3.4 2.6 147 145 141 4.6 4.4 4.0 UNSPECIFIED 0.3 57 1.6 MSTU Total 100 100 100 100 3170 3296 3519 100 100 100 -, , _"''''.'''"''''..._..._.d_.....'_ ~......"'_ CO" --- ~-~ 161 1 ~\~ RECEIVED Halas _.-- . . ' MAR 2 7 100Q i"',", Henr" 'J-- ... Coyle Boaro of County CommIIsIoners Coletta anderbilt 5each M.S.T.U. Advisor~ Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 March 5, 2009 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: February 5, 2009 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VI. landscape Maintenance Report - ClM VII. Old Business A. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Public Meeting VIII. Project Update A. Utilities - Charles Arthur B. Maintenance C. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin D. Liaison - Dick Lydon IX. New Business X. Public Comment XI. Adjournment Regular Meeting - 2:00 PM, March 5, 2009 Public Meeting - 7:00 PM, March 9, 2009 ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER Misc. Corres: 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL. Date: Item.: :'opies to: -- - -_._._--_.._---~-_.__._._._---------_._--- ~ . - ._--_.~--_.._..,_._-_.._---------~-_._~,----_._--,----...-"'---..- ..