Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/05/2002 W (Landscape)September 5, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 5, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Board of Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:05PM. In WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta-District 5 James D. Carter - District 2 Donna Fiala - District 1 Fred Coyle - District 4 Tom Hennings - District 3 Also Present: Ed Kant, Pam Lulich, Bob Petersen, Val Prince, Mike Entemaki, Bob Casey, Jim Mudd, Norman Feder, Sue Filson Page 1 Landscape Workshop Collier County Board of Commissioners AGENDA 2. 3. 4. Brief Historical Perspective Where are we now? Policy Alternatives - Potential Policies for Discussion Public Comment on Policy Alternatives Members of the public and members of several of the Beautification MSTU Advisory Committees have indicated an interest to staff in addressing thc Board on policy issues Policy Discussion for Future Beautification/Enhancement Projects Recently Proposed Landscaping Enhancement Projects Public Comment on Proposed Projects Members of the public and members of several of the Beautification MSTU Advisory Committees have indicated an interest to staff in addressing the Board on specific projects of local interest Wrap Up The Workshop is to be held at the Board of County Commissioners Board Room, September 5, 2002, 2:00pm -4:30pm. September 5, 2002 Collier County Board of Commissioners Landscaping Workshop County Commission Boardroom Building "F", 3rd Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 1:05 PM Minutes September 5, 2002 Chairman Jim Coletta called the meeting to order at 1:05PM. I. ATTENDANCE: Members: James D. Carter, Donna Fiala, Jim Coletta, Fred Coyle, Tom Hennings Collier County: Ed Kant, Pam Lulich, Bob Petersen, Val Prince, Mike Entemaki, Bob Casey, Jim Mudd, Norman Feder, Sue Filson II. Brief Historical Perspective Ed Kant, Transportation Operations Director, stated that the issue of Landscaping typically falls into the area of operations and maintenance. He explained that they review the designs, look at the operational characteristics, check for safety problems, and verify easy maintainability. He stated he had a power-point presentation that was divided into several parts: brief historical perspective, provide an idea of where we are now, and revie~v ideas for policies. He will then open the meeting for public comment. The second portion will address: future beautification enhancement policies, consider the requests which have come forward in the last few months, and again break for public comment. -Mr. Kant stated that we have two primary questions to answer: Where are we and where do we want to go with the landscaping median or roadway program? -He went back to the Collier County StreetScape Master Plan. It was adopted by the Board and incorporated in the LDC in 1997. The Plan called for an additional 120 miles of roadway landscaping to be performed in a 15-year timeframe. The Plan was not funded, although several projects have been constructed on an AD Hoc basis. It was sort of a "what can we do today" project. After the Collier County StreetScape Master Plan was developed Bob Fernandez, then the County Manager, asked a committee of Page 2 September 5, 2002 professionals on staff at the AG center to develop some Collier County landscaping guidelines, so that we would have a level playing field and something to fall back on in order to evaluate new projects. The committee was formed in 1998 and the team was tasked to :review the existing landscaping in R/W, develop recommended plant list, and to develop standardized maintenance specifications. At the last Board meeting, a copy of this was requested and has since been delivered to all the commissioners. -Mr. Kant then addressed where we are now. He stated we now have 36 miles of Landscaped roadways that are paid for under Fund 111 for the maintenance. We have an initial investment in excess of $10Million, this includes 2 & 3 party agreements, with private entities for the installation and maintenance of some of the landscaping. Today we annually spend about $2million just on landscaping maintenance, exclusive of street and roadway drainage maintenance. We also have some current requests that would be in excess of $2million capital costs and would be about another $1 million maintenance which would be added to our current needs. He provided a blow up of a map of Collier County landscaping roadway segments. The color code was: green segments show the landscaping and maintenance that uses the $2million, the yellow is indicative of landscape segments that someone else is caring for (City of Naples, private entity, or an MSTU), the blue represent the areas that we have had the request for additional funding, there are also one or two that are highlighted in pink, these came through after the additional funding was put together. He also presented a table of the existing landscaped roadway funding Matrix. He explained that we have a number of different roadway segments that are being funding through a number of different mechanisms. They are currently maintaining all of these through the Fund 11 I. -He then discussed maintenance considerations on the medians. We have a roadway capacity recapture program, which is a "fancy term" for saying they are funding a lot of medians and some driveway accesses. They are trying to recapture the capacity they lose when they add turn lanes and intersections. He explained that when this is done a lot of times they also have to modify the landscaping that is in the medians. This means attempting to salvage what is salvageable and having to re-work the irrigation, which adds to the cost of this program. He stated they also have to deal with plant life-cycle issuse. This is something that we don't often consider on a large picture basis. Typical the plants that are commonly used only have a life-cycle from 7~ 12 years, except for the larger trees. For the bulk of the smaller materials (ground cover, shrubbery, and flowering material), if they can achieve 10-11 years then they have found this to be very Page 3 September 5, 2002 good. One of the things they are asking and have tried to do over the last couple of years is allow an annual budget in Fund 111 for the refurbishment. He explained that this is not only due to age, but car crashes, roadway modifications, etc. (estimated at about $250,000). He explained that a lot of times the incident (in reference to car crashes) occurs when no one is present and they have no one to charge. He wanted everyone to know that when there is a crash report they are very good at collecting the money since all the information is on the court reports, and that the courts have been very cooperative in attaining the restitution. -He stated currently operating are 7 beautification MSTU's and he presented a slide to represent what these MSTU's are doing within their areas. The most recent MSTU is Livingston Road, which shows zero for annual maintenance cost because they have not yet come up with a project. He stated that later in the meeting they will have to look at how they want to treat this from a policy point of view as well as how they want to fund a project on Livingston Road. Radio Road has recently completed a very successful project. Bayshore is also a very successful project. The county is in a parmership with the Golden Gate MSTU, helping with some of the maintenance on the parkway on 951. Overall, the MSTU's and the amount that the county contributes spends another $1.5million (he reminded the commissioners to add this to the $2million previously discussed). -He explained that when considering the landscape funding they need to remember the capital costs, operating and maintenance costs (which go on forever), level of landscaping, and roadway classification. He referred back to the StreetScape master plan and stated they had seven gateways, arterials, collectors, and local streets. They may want to go back to the gateways and determine what really is a gateway. They also may want to review the arterials and collectors now that they have a better definition for them. This presentation was to provide the commissioners with some ideas of the items to consider and where they want to take this. He explained that, for example, we have the basic planting and irrigation that must go in, a maintenance operation, and overall they have to supervise all of this. He stated they could define a base level. One of the policy decisions they would like to fully establish is what exactly is a base level. He used photos from Collier County to further discuss this. His idea of a base level is primarily small planting, mounding, and trees. He also described an urban rural add-on as base level with low growing shrubs, ornamental shrubbery, flowering plants, and brick pavers. Page 4 September 5, 2002 As for the enhanced level it would incorporate heavy plantings. It's benefit is the lush look, but difficult to maintain and has to close lanes to do so. -They came up with a few policies to Fund future landscape projects outside of County budget. He added that these are more ideas to help lead you to building some polices. He stated for example they can start out on the premise that future landscape projects will not be part of the county budget. They could also endorse public/private parmerships (with a cap on public costs). He explained that this has already been done to a certain extent with road impact fee credit caps. They could form an MSTU for the urban services area. He reminded them that the urban services area begins lmile east of 951 and goes out to the gulf. They could do this one of two ways: including or excluding the existing MSTU' s). They also could do any number of combinations of the previous ideas, ~vhatever is felt is best for the county. -Fund future landscape projects outside of the county budget. They still have current maintenance costs will continue and escalate with the consumer price index. An advantage would be no added drain on limited capital and operating funds. They would need assurance that an ongoing entity will provide perpetual maintenance, if the county was not going to be a partner in the maintenance. This is the lowest cost alternative from a budget point of view. Also as the number of these projects grew, they would have to consider added staff to monitor compliance with agreements. -Endorse public/private partnerships (with a cap on public costs). Annual spending cap would require that projects be considered on a "first come, first served" basis. Spending may be limited to capital or maintenance or a portion to both. They would need to establish some fairly well defined criteria to determine which projects are considered each year. -Form au MSTU for the urban services area (exclude existing MSTU's). Costs are apportioned among a portion of urban services area landowners. Existing MSTU's continue to operate and maintain their improvements. Costs of new projects disproportionately spread among remainder of urban services area landowners. -Form an MSTU for the urban services are (include existing MSTU's). Costs are apportioned among all urban services area landowners. Existing MSTU's may continue to operate and maintain their improvements or may disband in favor of the overall district. Continuation of existing MSTU's would result in double taxation. -Review and fund projects on a case-by-case basis. This is basically the current policy. There is no cap or criteria for determining which projects should be Page 5 September 5, 2002 funded. There are a myriad of agreements in place with little in common regarding term, cost-sharing or scope of responsibilities. -Combination of above and/or other policies not listed. He is hoping more ideas will come out of the meeting. He stated these are difficult decisions and the main question is where are we going to go in the future with this. III. Public Speakers on Policy issues or Suggestions 1) Timothy Nance, private citizen. Would like to bring up several points that might affect making policies. He would like to consider using native plants (lower maintenance costs), understand negative long term affects of using irrigation water on landscape (heavily alkalined & loaded with bicarbonates), eliminate the use of 10 and 2 o'clock pruning of palms (makes them look bad), and use of palms susceptible to yellowing disease (wasting public money), and we need regionally appropriate standards (cold hardiness standards). 2) Cheryle L. Newman, Golden Gate MSTU beautification advisory board. She gave a brief history of the Golden Gate MSTU and their concern is that down the road there would be a double tax. 3) Dex Groose, would like to address three points. One: we should be building roadways and landscaping them at the same time with the same fund. Two: is concerned that developers are establishing MSTU's without taking residents into thc process, who will be the one's paying the bill. Three: concerned the makeup of the MSTU's is not representative of the communities in proportion to the tax that residents will bear, even though this is what is supposed to be. 4) Dick Lydon, Vice Chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU. Would like them to build the road and do a base level for each road at the time of construction (part of impact fees and roadway money). Then the individual communities could determine if they want upgrades and then pay for it. He discourages county wide MSTU's since the residents won't have as much say on where there money is being spent. 5) John Leach, would like to see a policy against the landscaping MSTU's since the committee's do not reflect the homeowners and their desires. He wants elected representatives and experts of the county to make the decisions, establish a plan, classify them, publicize them, and establish a budget for landscaping in the road construction. 6) Lou Vlasho, chairman of Pelican Bay MSTBU, gave an update on the partnership situation with 41. He stated that this brings up two issues: do you stand behind what your predecessors Page 6 September 5, 2002 agreed to do and do you allow a non-MSTU to work in an area that extends beyond their territory. They would like a positive reaction in policy based on these two issues. IV. Commissioner Comments and Direction for Staff -Mr. Hennings stated his concern is that the materials used in medians call for lane-closure maintenance, he would like to incorporate this into future policies and avoid the problems. He believes that an urban-wide MSTU has some good points but is not sure if people want to tax themselves extra for landscaping and maintenance through this process. Would like to use the annual survey used to ask people what they would like to do. He wants specific questions used, about what people like, what they want to do, and how much are they willing to tax themselves. -Mr. Carter stated his concern is what do we ~vant the community to look like. He feels this is important since it is tied to property value. The question then becomes how do you want to pay for the investment in your property. He does not feel that they have the money to do the roads and the landscaping at the same time, so they need to find a way to pay, public/private partnerships are a consideration. He personally likes a big-picture policy and feels that everyone will benefit because it drives property values up. -Mr. Coyle asked if impact fees were available for landscaping. Mr. Mudd stated it is not in the calculations. Mr. Coyle then asked if there was any law which prohibits this. Norman Feder stated effectively yes, because the impact fee is required to be providing the service of additional capacity relative to the road impact. He added that it is possible to establish a separate landscaping impact fee, but he believes it will need to be further researched by someone with more knowledge on this subject. Mr. Coyle wanted to know what determines the width of the median since this determines cost of landscaping & maintenance. Mr. Kant stated it is a function of design of the roadway and gave some examples of how it is determined and why. Mr. Coyle asked if the road construction standards required the sleeve necessary to do lighting & irrigation. Mr. Kant informed him that it does and it started 4-5 years ago. They also have been using a better sodding and made other slight changes that will significantly decrease cost over time. Mr. Coyle then wanted to know if it was necessary to have manicured medians or is there a different alternative. Mr. Kant stated yes and no. There are cases where more effort is spent on maintenance but they are not locked into this. He added that now a landscape professional is on staff, these lessons are being learned, and the counties interest (like this) are being taken into consideration. Mr. Coyle also wanted to know about lighting on the streets and if there were any minimum standards that they have to follow by law. Mr. Kant replied that he can't say there is a law, but that there are engineering standards and guidelines that say when they put their seal on it, they are guaranteeing it is safe. He added some descriptions of different possibilities of lighting Page 7 September 5, 2002 structures and levels of illumination. He could not, in good conscience, say they will eliminate lighting because of cost. Mr. Feder added that Mr. Kant was speaking more of the urban sections. And that the learning curve is offering a better sense of what will be best in the future for the counties safety, concern, and budget. Mr. Coyle then explained that this was a "ticking time bomb" and as they begin to assume more maintenance cost, it will continue to escalate year after year. He stated that street lighting is a substantial additional cost, not due only to their initial costs but their energy costs as well. Ultimately he stated it will comes out of "our" pockets. -Donna Fiala asked how much maintenance costs? Mr. Kant stated that it is a lot, but it varies depending on the nature of the improvements. He used Radio Road as an example, this is $40- 60,000 a year/mile, versus Bayshore ~vhich has $100,000/mile/year. On average they look at capital costs of $150-200,000/mile/year as a minimum and ongoing maintenance starting at $50,000/mile/year. Donna Fiala then asked if we could privatize some of the median maintenance and if it would save money? Mr. Kant replied that they figure conservatively that it costs -40-60% more to have it out of house versus in house. Donna Fiala then asked if the MSTU's are comprised of the people who are paying for the work. Mr. Kant told her that through the paper they invite people to apply but a lot of times the ads are not responded to. They do require an individual to someone who lives in the area or a representative of a landowner in the area. Donna Fiala then stated that she believes people are drawn to this area due to the landscaping and would like everyone to remember what they want their communities appearance and character to be. She added that landscaping adds to safety, that it actually slows people down by 5miles/hour and prevents head on collisions, and does increase property values. Mr. Coletta stated agreed that landscaping is desired but we should consider how we want to pay and what kind of landscaping we desire. He has concerns about a county wide MSTU since it does not take into consideration the difference in value certain areas have and what they will be paying. He also stated that rural areas are doing without sidewalks, streetlights, etc.., until they form their own MSTU. This determines for him that the MSTU should represent the true neighborhood, itself, and the communities should have the ability to decide what they want to invest in the landscaping. He wants to keep in mind that we have a right to express our individuality in our communities. -Mr. Hennings asked the commission for some policy direction. He believes that policy one should be based around the fact that they have some commitments to the public to honor. -Mr. Coletta stated that it should be a localities decision as to what they want to pay for and what they want in their community. He would like to see something in the way of a "sunset", were there is a unified way of doing things in the county. Page 8 September 5, 2002 -Donna Fiala wanted to ask if it was difficult for the county to maintain 15 MSTU's? Ed Kant said no, but there may be a point where they have to consider adding an extra staff person to assist with the MSTU's. He stated we are very close to this need currently, but it is manageable. -Mr. Coyle would also like to make it a policy to honor past commitments. He then asked what the voting requirements were for establishing a MSTU. Mr. Kant informed him that there are two ways, the board can determine there is a health/safety issue need and establish it, or 50% + one of those in the benefiting unit. Mr. Coyle would like the board to consider a 60% majority in order to establish them, this could provide a better indication that the people were behind it. He is opposed to a county wide MSTU, due to varying needs and desires in communities. -Mr. Kant stated they can craft language to meet the requirement of keeping commitments. He clarified that when staff was speaking of an Urban Services MSTU, they were speaking of limiting it strictly to the gateway and arterial roads. He then asked if it was the commissioners would like to see an Urban Services MSTU if it was limited to certain roadway or gateways rather than "county-wide". -Mr. Hennings, stated that he believes everyone would benefit, but he wants a survey done to gauge whether or not this is what the citizens want. He is unwilling to add any taxes till he knows this is the will of the people. -Donna Fiala asked if we had an urban wide MSTU to do the arterials, then how would you decide how to beautify them. Mr. Kant stated that it would require more work to determine what a base look would be. Mr. Coletta asked about cost and how it would be shared throughout the areas, this is where he feels there is a problem here, in how to keep everything fair throughout. Dona Fiala then added that there are state grants for the installation and asked if it was possible for the county to attain these. Mr. Coletta stated this was a good point because an independent MSTU will always strive, and if it is the county, then they will not have that individual strive. Mr. Kant encouraged them to consider that if they want to structure an urban wide MSTU with the board as the advisory board, which allows for widespread public input, and allows staff to work on a broader bases for developing criteria and standards. Mr. Coyle stated he feels it is essential for public input and along with Mr. Hennings would like to see some time spent on finding the publics interest. He added that they must be able to tell the people the cost impact of their decision, so they can make the best decision as to what the citizens want. Mr. Feder stated that if they get to issues of funding, they do need to ask the community for input. He asked if they want to discuss involvement levels on arterials and gateways, etc.. Once this is established than they will need to go to the community with the information and see if they want to fund it and how. Mr. Coletta stated he was concerned that if they go forward with this, what will happen Page 9 September 5, 2002 to the past priority of building roads, as to the extraction of funds from this program. Mr. Feder stated this is what the workshop needs to look at and consider how they may want to handle this. Mr. Coletta added that public input is essential, but it will be difficult to conduct in one room, and he maintains the best way to handle it is through the individual MSTU's. Mr. Hennings stated that they want an annual survey that asks citizens how they feel about the urban wide MSTU on arterials and gateways maintenance only, he suggested an extra survey just on this one item. Mr. Mudd informed him that they can do this, and that if they were to go in the direction of an urban wide MSTU there would be no taxes for this till the following budget year. He added that staff can expand the Legal Women's Voter Survey to add some of these issues and that this is a sampling of the people. Mr. Mudd will go about the steps to make this happen, staff is also going to take the direction of keeping commitments. Mr. Coyle stated that if we put all the landscaping and maintenance in all the arterials and roadways that they planned they are looking at over $10million, so it is essential that they look at cost reduction. He then asked if there was a better cost effective way or type of grass. Mr. Kant stated they will try a number of techniques to lower cost, but it is not realistic to eliminate it. Mr. Hennings suggested that they ask the citizens about a baseline maintenance in urban wide MSTU and ask what type of base they would like. Mr. Kant stated that the urban area is exclusive of the incorporated areas, therefore the cities are excluding unless they vote they would like to take part. Mr. Hennings would like it to be investigated if the cities have an interest in this as well. A Fifteen minute recess was taken. V. Recently Proposed Landscaping Enhancement Pro[ects -Presentation given by Mr. Kant Discussion of alternative Policies - Before you review specific new requests, in addition to the policy issues you need to think about ho~v you will evaluate them. He stated they needed to consider policy vs. project. -Mr. Kant explained he coined a phrase, "all projects must go through the "sieve'"', you can't take something outside of that and treat it differently, this will be a safer ground. A consequence is what falls out, falls out. What stays in is eligible for whatever level of funding determined is appropriate, and whether or not you want a funding level. This brings in, whether or not you want to fund everything or if you want to place a cap on it. If you want a cap, then we need to prioritize the projects that meet the criteria. Then those projects get funded based on available funding. This is no different than Roadway review every year. This does not mean that non- Page 10 September 5, 2002 funded projects are out the window, it merely means that we build up an un-funded priority list that may be revisited in the future, if more funds are available. -Recent Landscape Project Requests: Mr. Kant explained that 7 projects were brought to them recently. The total amount was a little over $2million representing an annual maintenance if they were implemented. He would like the commissioner to keep these projects in mind during the discussion and have them consider what they would like to do: 1) Airport Road fronting Tall Pines Subdivision - mask pedestrian rail 2) Vineyards Development Company - refurbish existing landscaping 3) US 41 North Pelican Bay frontage - roadway landscaping 4) Livingston Road from GGPkwy to Pine Ridge Road - roadway landscaping (MSTU) 5) GGPkwy/I-75 Interchange area - aesthetic enhancements 6) Pine Ridge Road from Airport Road to 1-75 - roadway landscaping 7) Devonshire Boulevard - refurbish and maintain Mr. Kant clarified that the three directions they heard in the last discussion were: 1) keep commitments (Mr. Coyle later added, this would include in front of Pelican Bay) 2) have as wide a span of public input as possible on all decisions, survey 3) urban services area less the incorporated area was a candidate an overall MSTU for arterial and gateway landscaping -He asked them to keep these items in mind during the public comment and see if this stays "in the sieve or falls through". -Mr. Hennings stated he would like to ask the city and the incorporated areas if they want to participate and see if they would like to survey their residents as well. -Mr. Coyle stated he would help with this and that they want the poll for the best possible public, it will take time then to make policy, in the interim there will be more requests, and he suggest that in the interim the county would provide the base for landscape median and anything additional can be neighborhood to neighborhood, then after the poll they can expand on the policy. -Mr. Mudd stated this would be fine but asked that "base" be defined. It was decided that it would be a sleeving, improved soils, be-heated grass, and sometimes add. Curbing - as is done now with new roadway construction, this is not landscaping, this is what comes with the road. -Donna Fiala wanted it stated and established that this base level is not funded out of an urban wide MSTU. Mr. Kant stated that was correct, that it comes from gas fees and impact fees. Page 11 September 5, 2002 2) 3) Public Speakers on Specific Projects Timothy Nance, private citizen, discussed (not currently on agenda) reforestation on new roadway constructed on GG BLVD proceeding eastbound on 95 lout into the estates area. He stated his firm is willing to donate 1,000 native trees to be planted in the median. Golden Gate Civic association will participate in the labor. He request the county consider the maintenance of the grass in those medians as it currently exist and contribute on-going maintenance for the first year, and after that it is minimal and could probably come from community contributions. He believes if staff considers what is done in construction of roads, that there can be very acceptable median landscaping with minimal cost and maintenance. Cheryle L. Newman, Golden Gate MSTU, stated that a previous board agreed to partner with the MSTU on Santa Barbara landscaping from the canal to Green. She wants to see the partnership is kept in mind when the road is expanded in 2004, and see that they are including in that partnership. Tom Sansbury, Livingston Road MSTU, stated he is a member of the Livingston Road MSTU and president of a developer controlled Master Property Owners Association. He informed the committee that 4 years ago area developers organized the MSTU and put together a plan for the beautification of Livingston Road. Over this time, more real-estate was sold. He stated, personally, he made a serious miscalculation of not keeping these new residents informed of the MSTU happenings. During the creation of the MSTU they no longer became the majority of the property owners. Speaking for the developer, they still believe that there are benefits to Grey Oaks through the MSTU. However he stated that it was apparent, through discussions with residents, that the residents do not agree. He stated that they believe this should be up to the property owners. He apologized to the commission, to the staff, the members of the MSTU, and the residents for not keeping them informed about what they were going to do and its costs. For these reasons, as a representative of the developer and the MSTU, that he defers putting any taxes on the MSTU this year, till the homeowners have the chance to get involved and have a say. -Mr. Mudd informed the commissioners that there have been some executive summaries that have been approved by the BCC, that have loaned money or obligated money & supplies, to this MSTU to the sum of-$248,583.08 that he is aware of. One is a $20,000 loan that will be paid over a year and the other is a $228,583.08 loan that ~vill be paid over a two year period. He encouraged the commission before they made a decision on whether or not to tax this development, (which does not have to be made till the 2nd hearing, the 1st is tonight), let staff Page 12 September 5, 2002 do some work to see what else this MSTU is obligated to so that the county doesn't end up footing the bill. He added from a staff view that Mr. Schmitt is going to be working on some language to be added to any PUD, that basically says once it is there and the developer will do a polling of the residents before they commit to any MSTU in the future. This increase in mil rate was .32 (possible maximum), the mil increase has not gone through yet, the max amount was listed on the trim rate. 4) Dex Groose, Vice chairman of the Livingston MSTU, requested that the commission make it a top priority to develop landscaping for Pine Ridge Road (from 1-75 Interchange to Airport Road). There is - 1 .Smile segment left to landscape. He added the sections completed were all done with public money and he requests the same be done for the remainder. Secondly he requested since the Kensington residents did not get to vote on the MSTU or the tax increase and that the committee was "stacked" from which neighborhoods they come from, that the make-up of the committee is changed. He also has concerns that the mil increase went from ~ of a mil to 2 mil. 5) Gerald Burns, Kensington MSTU, stated they are against the tax increase since their was no representation from Kensington at the time these decisions were made. He stated that the notification was poor, and that there is a "stacked deck" when it comes to the committee's representation, and that the beautification doesn't even cover Kensington's area and they shouldn't have to pay to landscape something they don't even have access to. He asked they used the money "that was there back in November" to pay this debt. 6) Michael Soddy, representing the Vineyards, stated they had a partnership with the county on one of their medians, also in the last few months they have been negotiating with the county to install irrigation lines and replant the median. He asks the county to help complete the irrigation and replanting process. He suggested that when they plan landscape projects in town, that they solicit opinions from maintenance workers (will help understand how to reduce cost). 7) Lu Lackore, stated it was a shame the developers of Grey Oaks did not consult the people, because there is a lot of mis-information. He explained that the based on the MSTU board's analysis there is a cost of $450,000 and Kensington would probably be paying 30% of this ($150,000 the first year and -$75,000 the second year). He said the fact that the county put this bill out with a 2mil increase may have sunk this MSTU. He then stated he was chairman of the Livingston Road MSTU and they request the county supplement funds raised by the MSTU mil tax, in the amount of $600,000 and that the county pay all of the maintenance costs. He stated the reasons he believes this is a reasonable request were: 1) The county Page 13 September 5, 2002 encourage the formation of the MSTU and informed them that they could expect 50/50 split of costs shared by the county with the county picking up the maintenance, this played a part in their decision to form an MSTU. 2) They are now asking for $600,000 rather than $900,00 (50%) because they reduced their expectations due to the counties hardship, however they have saved the county $600,000 in road construction costs. 3) Equity, Livingston Road will be heavily traveled. 4) Value, it will add value to the entire county. 8) David Hopley, on the board of directors of the Windemere Country Club, speaking for Harold Youngston. Harold is a Windemere resident and was on the Homeowners Association for four years (president the last two years). He stated that the county informed them the best way to meet their goals for Livingston Road Beautification was by forming an MSTU. They did so and spent $50,000 to start the process. Now, he is asking the county to stand by their commitments in this project. 9) Jim Kenny, vice president of the Windemere Homeowners Association, stated they have operated in good faith for Livingston Road, there are other areas that will benefit in this, and in light of earlier comments he added there is an urgency here since the road is going to be open to traffic shortly. He thinks it would be a bad decision to end this program due to all those working on this and coming to an agreement will be in the best interests of everyone. 10) Anderson Kelley, Windemere Homeowners Association, stated many were opposed to Livingston Road originally. They were once told it would not be built, then it would, then it would only be four lanes, and now they have a six lane highway. They are asking the county to do everything possible to maintain the residential quality of this area and hope they approve the request outlined by Mr. Lackore. He added that he does not believe the decked was "stacked", that this was who had volunteered, and they spent much time on this in good faith. 11) Dot I-Iagman, resident of Windemere, requested the county participation in funding for landscaping and its maintenance on Livingston Rd. She feels it should receive the same beautification as Radio Rd. since it will handle more traffic. She stated the sum was a fair request when compared to those in the past. She asked them to consider these facts in their decision. 12) E. Martin Duncan Jr., member of Windemere, stated he wanted to elaborate on Lu Lackore's reason of value. He informed them that this is a main artery seen by residents of Collier County and tourism. He asked they approve the $600,000 request and that it was less than a penny a day/car for the three year life of the MSTU. Page 14 September 5, 2002 13) Don Grandi, former president of Windemere Country Club, stated that Windemere is the only community who has both exits on Livingston Road. He stated that the communities along Livingston Rd. contributed a large tax base and made small demands on public services. They would like to solicit the support for the beautification of Livingston Rd and they have gone in good faith the way the county advised. 14) Bill Confoy, board member of the Livingston Rd. MSTU, former member of original Livingston Rd. Beautification committee, stated he was present when the county addressed the MSTU and encouraged them, verified support as it had been done in the past. He reviewed past county funding on roads connecting to 1-75. He stated that Livingston Rd. request is less than what has been previously done by the county and that the amount requested is the amount saved by the actions of the MSTU. He added that the executive summary designated Livingston as a major arterial roadway, qualifying for beautification funding from the county wide road improvement fund, and the MSTU would only be called upon to supplement county landscape funding at levels above $250,000/mile. This is consistent with the request and he asks they keep their commitments. 15) John Davis, Kennsington resident, asked that they be deleted from the MSTU since they only have 200ft on Livingston Rd. and they have no access to it. 16) Robert Greenspahn, Kennsington resident, stated they have no gates, they have no access to Livingston Rd. He feels the developer did not inform them or concern them in the process. Agrees to 60% vote. Stated if you allow the developer to chair this committee then the developer must be responsible when the residents are not kept aware. 17) Al Moore, chairman of the 1-75 Interchange advisory Ad-Hoc committee, stated they were informed that they would have a budget of $1million for landscaping, subsequent to that they were told it was $874,000, and in reality it was $300,000 for landscaping. They have been able to move another $80,000 into the landscaping. He stated they tried to integrate projects for consistency and they have tried to look at the most they could get for the dollar. He feels it is important to note that the enhancements are mandating by the FTOD. He states there is an urgency in this matter and asks them to consider their recommendations. -Mr. Hennings stated that there is a enhancement grant application going through that has been applied for on behalf of the Ad-Hoc committee to help fund these upgrades. If it is approved, the capital cost will change but not the maintenance fee. 18) Grant Grimm, president of the board of directors of the Berkshire Lakes Association, stated that they are heartened that the board is going to keep past commitments. He reminded them that on June 11,2002 the BCC approved the adoption of the Landscaping maintenance on Devonshire Page 15 September 5, 2002 Blvd. This is up for re-consideration on September 24t~, 2002 at 3PM. They hope the board will remember the pledge to honor past commitments. 19) John Leach, Grey Oaks Estates Homeowners Association, stated he has sympathy for Kennsington, but at Grey Oaks they don't believe it will affect their residents that much either. They also want to know why they are in the MSTU. He stated he has not found one resident to support this beautification. He would like committee to represent people paying taxes. He suggests they consider direct mail to people considered in the vote. He would like to see new recommendations and a new make-up of the MSTU. 20) Chuck Adams, with Moyer and Associates, representing Jim Ward, stated his firm is contracted to Pelican Bay Services Division along with several other communities throughout the district. He reminded the commission that the improvements of 41 at Pelican Bay were a previous commitment and was glad to see they would be honoring it. He added that Pelican Marsh, along Airport Rd., they are willing to pay for all of the upgrades and to do the ongoing maintenance. He sought the endorsement of the commission. -It was stated that if they are requesting this of the commission then they would like it to be part of the record since it is a public/private commitment. -Mr. Adams added that in the future they believe they can create similar partnerships in other communities. -Ed Kant stated for the record that Pelican Marsh had been in to see them 6-8months ago and they are waiting to see some final plans. 21) Fred Rogers, director of the Virtual Lakes Master Association Board, stated that Mr. Grimm has stated most of what needs to be said. He added that they are concerned that they are looked at as an enhancement when they have been there for 16yrs. He thanked the commissioners and staff for the ~vork done to date. 22) Bill Neal, Chairman of the Bayshore MSTU & Chairman of the CRA advisory committee, stated that an MSTU is like a small business. At Bayshore they put in a 3mil tax rate, they were supposed to have gotten $1.5million over 3years. The project is now going to cost them in excess of $2.5million. He stated that this is a time bomb ticking, and that when an MSTU starts it takes time to go through all of the processes, and sometimes you have to start over due to delays. He asked the committee that when they look at establishing MSTU's, to look at the process of the MSTU after it begins its work and the procedures. He wants them to look at an expense account and see that it cannot be tracked over 3years. He added that the MSTU's are all different, please consider the process and help staff to put in procedures and controls to expedite this process. Page 16 September 5, 2002 23) David Ericksen, WCI communities, stated that they would participate with the beautification of state road 951, they have submitted plans for a small portion of this and have been working with staff on this plan. They would like to continue this beautification, WCI will fund this and continue its maintenance. If this passes they look forward to continue the maintenance on this road and with the staff to continue beautification. 24) Tot Kolflat, President of the Grey Oaks Estates Homeowners Association, stated Lu Lackore has been the motivating factor in the MSTU and that there is a mandating majority at this committee. He asked that this be corrected. VII. Commission Discussion Ed Kant- stated that he was the staff referred to. In January of 2000 was they were first invited to hear the goals and objections of the MSTU. At the time they didn't know who represent who, but they were mostly developers, which at the time was appropriate. They did discuss how prior projects in the county were funded. They were asked to move forward with the MSTU. This changed on November 6, 2002 when policy changed. He wants it clear that it was not entirely one-sided that anyone was pushed into this and they presented encouragement because at the time that was the policy of the county. -Mr. Hennings asked if there was a commitment by the BCC as to plannings or maintenance of Livingston Rd. Mr. Kant replied that the commitment on behalf of the board, was that the board heard, and agreed to hire a landscape architect. Mr. Feder added that as far as specific improvements, there was no commitment. They said under public petition that they would take the concepts, hire an engineer, look at what they would do, and probably cover at least the base depending on the budget, and anything after the base would go to the MSTU. Mr. Hennings stated he was sorry people didn't feel they were involved, but they do try and advertise and get people involved. He would like to sec if there was anyway to reduce the mil rate from 2. -Mr. Kant referred back to the seven projects previously discussed. He asked the commission if they have ideas of what does or not fall through the sieve. He stated his feelings of commitments on each: Airport Road - not a prior commitment Vineyards - He is not sure whether it would be considered a prior agreement US 41 North - was a past commitment Livingston Rd - no clear cut commitment, but they did try to move this forward, so if the commission feels that is a commitment then that would be considered a previous commitment. GG Interchange - no prior commitment, but they have a $300,000 enhancement grant and they arc looking for the additional $195,000 + any additional maintenance funds Page 17 September 5, 2002 Pine Ridge Road - not a prior commitment Devonshire Blvd - is a past commitment -He then stated that if you look at the four projects that are considered to be real prior commitments (Devonshire, Interchange, Livingston, and US 41 North)represents-lmillion in capital and an additional $666,000 in operating or maintenance funds. If this is the direction they chose to go, this would be its magnitude. The other projects are -lmillion more and another $300,000 on their maintenance, he stated this might be good projects but they are not as eligible for funding if they choose to do it this way. -Mr. Mudd stated that all of this issues will come before the commissioners again on September 24, 2002. In the meantime staff will make sure exactly what the obligation issues are and they will define what the obligations are on September 24, 2002 to the commission so they can make an informed decision. -Mr. Carter stated that an MSTU has difficulties because they never thought about a PUD that was in the process of being built. He wants staff to develop a framework of how this would be handled so that similar situations (Grey Oaks/Kennsington) are avoided in the future. -Donna Fiala stated that it would be easiest if we pull out the four that were definitely committed to and set that money aside. Mr. Hennings stated he was not sure that they committed to the interchange, and that they will allow staff to research all the information first and they can make a decision based on that. -Mr. Mudd checked that staff had the proper directions to take: 1) they will keep commitments 2) change the PUD instruments to make sure the Livingston situation does not occur again, and have staff figure out the mil rates, and then decide how they are going to go about the charges, they will ask that MSTU to meet again discuss how this is going to be resolved because they made promises to the BCC regarding particular loans (they may want to speak with the developers as well), after this he states that it is fine to go dormant, but staff does not recommend that this just be forgiven and asks for this direction to sort the situation out 3) they will survey the community, they will bring the questions to the BCC before they put them in the survey to get approval 4) They need to develop landscaping standards for an urban county wide MSTU so there is something to base future decisions on if they head in this direction 5) Also he believed that Mr. Coyle and Donna Fiala will question Naples response in coming into an urban wide MSTU Page 18 September 5, 2002 -Mr. Carter stated that the MSTU should meet and discuss adding two seats on the board to obtain balance, he feels they do have an obligation to work out on how they are going to pay for the money spent, and he wants them to make a determination at some point if they want to go dormant for a time and then come back, he agrees with Mr. Mudd that this is an established body and they need to come back with some of these conclusions -Donna Fiala stated that MSTU representation, as a policy, should be prepared that these MSTU boards are actually represented by the people who are paying the bill. -Mr. Hennings advised caution that if an advisory board is established, they should be coming from within the MSTU. -Mr. Mudd stated that the wording in the ordinances talks to the residences, as he stated earlier they have had two specific requests, to change to resident or representatives of a business or property owner. One was Livingston Rd. and the other was Immokalee, this will be coming before the board. -Donna Fiala stated there needs to be a provision when the developer controls it and when he hands it over to the new residents. -Mr. Mudd said Joe Schmitt is taking care of this and will be coming back to the BCC with it. VIII. ADJOURNMENT - adjournment was at 4:38PM. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:38P.M. Attest as to Ch~an,s BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JAi~ES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN Page 19 These minutes approved by the Board on presented J or as corrected September 5, 2002 , as Page 20