Loading...
Agenda 03/11/2014 Item # 10A3/11/2014 10.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Attorney to advertise a bearing to rescind Ordinance 85-02 and to return with a new Ordinance establishing a funding source to fund seawall repair and/or replacements community wide. OBJECTIVE: To remove Ordinance 85 -02 which cannot be enforced with direction by the BCC to fund seawall repair through the MSBU process as determined necessary and to instead establish a funding mechanism and process for any Collier County community or neighborhood to seek advance funding to replace or repair seawalls. CONSIDERATIONS: On January 14, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance 2013 -70 establishing an MSBU to fund seawall repair or replacement for a private, gated community La Peninsula. On February 11, 2014, an Executive Summary to rescind the creation of Ordinance 2013 -70 failed maintaining the establishment of a funding source for La Peninsula to pay for the repair of or replacement of its seawall. During the BCC discussion on February 11, 2014, Commissioner Tom Henning brought forth Ordinance 85 -02 for consideration. A County Commissioner stated, "... going back to 1985, made the determination that seawalls do serve a Primary Public Purpose, and its enumerated in that ordinance, and that ordinance, as you know, as a matter of law, is deemed to be valid until and unless its overturned by a court of law." Rather Ordinance 85 -02 established technical criteria for seawall assessments and enforcement authority for Code Enforcement including fines. Ordinance 85 -02 states, "WHEREAS, individual property owners are presently responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of seawalls and revetments along their property; and WHEREAS, there presently exists a threat to public health, safety and welfare because of the failure of some individual property owners to maintain, repair, or replace their failed seawalls or revetments," and continues by placing responsibility of seawalls on property owners including fines of $250.00 Dailey. With the adoption of Ordinance 2013 -70, Ordinance 85 -02 is no longer enforceable as 2013- 70 establishes a new process for handling seawall repairs. 2013 -70, by precedence, establishes Collier County as the funding source through special taxing districts for seawall repairs and replacements. Therefore, Ordinance 85 -02 should be rescinded, and the County Attorney must advertise to create a new ordinance to establish a funding source for making seawall repair and replacement funding available to all including municipalities' property owners. Packet Page -142- 3/11/2014 1 O.A. County staff would then need to inspect and asses all seawalls in Collier. County, both incorporated and unincorporated areas, to determine immediate needs for seawall repairs and replacements and come forth with funding requests. FISCAL DdPACT: Potential exposure County -wide for repair and replacement of seawall structures based upon 184 total_ miles of shoreline protection is $1,626,324,500. This figure assumes an approximate cost of $1,674 per foot based upon costs know from engineering reports associated with the La Peninsula project. Isolated to the unincorporated area of the county, approximately 64.25 miles of shoreline protection exists. At $1,674 per foot, the potential repair and replacement exposure within the unincorporated area is $567,887,800. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is approved as to form and legality, and requires majority vote for approval. -JAK RECOMMENDATION: Consider that the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Attorney to advertise a hearing to rescind Ordinance 85 -02 and to return with a new Ordinance establishing a funding source to fund seawall repair and/or replacements community wide and direct the County Manger to add Staff for the sole purpose of identifying failing seawalls. Prepared by: Commissioner Tom Henning Attachments: 1) Ordinance 85-02, 2) BCC Minutes January 28, 2014 Item l OB La Peninsula MSBU Reconsideration, 3) Email from Josh Maxwell of Turrell, Hall and Associates, 4 code cases Packet Page -143- COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 10.10.A. 3/11/2014 10.A. Item Summary: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Attorney to advertise a hearing to rescind Ordinance 85 -02 and to return with a new Ordinance establishing a funding source to fund seawall repair and /or replacements community wide. (Commissioner Henning) Meeting Date: 3/11/2014 Prepared By Name: SmithCamden Title: Executive Coordinator to Commissioner, 2/28/2014 2:41:29 PM Submitted by Title: Executive Coordinator to Commissioner, Name: SmithCamden 2/28/2014 2:41:30 PM Approved By Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 3/5/2014 2:03:40 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 3/5/2014 2:38:44 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 3/5/2014 3:14:20 PM Name: IsacksonMark Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management & Budget Date: 3/5/2014 3:17:15 PM Packet Page -144- 3/11/2014 10.A. Name: IsacksonMark Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management & Budget Date: 3/5/2014 3:40:29 PM Packet Page -145- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 Item #I OB THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED FOR RECONSIDERATION AT THE JANUARY 14, 2014 BCC MEETING. RECOMMENDATION THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVIISSIONERS (1) ADOPTS THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE USE OF THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON -AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE LA PENINSULA COMMUNITY TO FUND COSTS OF PROVIDING SEAWALL IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER WATERWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE LA PENINSULA COMMUNITY, AND (2) TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH LA PENINSULA SEAWALL MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT — MOTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IN COOPERATION WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO SEEK THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A LAWFUL PUBLIC PURPOSE — APPROVED; MOTION TO RESCIND ORDINANCE 2013 -70 — FAILED Mr. Chairman, your time - certain is Item 1 OB on your agenda today. It's a recommendation the Board of County Commissioners, number one, adopts the attached resolution which would authorize the use of a uniform method of collecting non -ad valorem special assessments within the La Peninsula community to fund the cost of providing seawall improvements and other waterway improvements for the La Peninsula community and, number two, to adopt an ordinance to establish the La Peninsula Seawall Municipal Service Benefit Unit. This item was previously approved for reconsideration at your January 14, 2014, BCC meeting. .-� CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And that -- it is actually Page 1 Packet Page -146- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 whether the board is going to vote to rescind the ordinance. That's the issue -- MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- on hand. So if we can stick to that; however, after that there may be further action. But I think it's important that we hear from the public speakers, unless somebody has a burning desire to speak now. Nope. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The only thing, before we start with the public speakers, is whether or not we'd like to have the County Attorney give us, you know, the options of how to address this situation, like what the legal opportunities might be to get the question answered -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMIlMIISSIONER HILLER: -- that has been raised. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think the item is to vote to rescind the ordinance or not. That's why the reconsideration is out of there. Subsequent, I think I agree that we're going to have some further discussion, and I hope the County Attorney will participate because it's really around the issue whether it's legal or not, okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that really is the issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How many public speakers do we have? MR. MILLER: We have 17 registered public speakers, Chairman. Two of the speakers have several minutes ceded to them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MILLER: Okay. Your first speaker is Jared Griffin (sic), and he has several names that of ceded time to him. I just want to confirm that you're here. Paul Harper. Page 2 Packet Page -147- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 '-N MR. HARPER: Yes. MR. MILLER: Okay. Jared Jones. MR. JONES: (Raised hand.) MR. MILLER: Elsa Martinez. MS. MARTINEZ: (Raised hand.) MR. MILLER: Okay. They've all ceded time to Mr. Griffin (sic). So Mr. Griffin, you will have -- oh, one more, Joshua Yearout. MR. YEAROUT: Here. MR. MILLER: So you will have fifteen minutes to speak, Mr. Griffin. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think it's important. I mean, the La Peninsula community has the attorney. I would think that Tony Pires has several -- MR. MILLER: Yeah, he has several minutes, yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I think it's important to hear from Mr. Pires first. MR. MILLER: You want to hear him first? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MR. MILLER: Mr. Pires has a total of five people that have ceded time to him, giving him a total of 18 minutes to talk. Let me confirm the names of these people. Michelle (sic) Pierpaoli. I don't know if I'm saying that close to right. MR. PIERPAOLI: Michael. MR. MILLER: Michael, I'm sorry. MR. PIERPAOLI: (Raised hand.) MR. MILLER: Hakon Thuve. MR. THUVE: Here. MR. MILLER: Thank you. Jim Crain? MR. CRAIN: (Raised hand.) Page 3 Packet Page -148- MR. MILLER: Bill Bruns. MR. BRUNS: (Raised hand.) MR. MILLER: Abe (sic) Drossner? MS. DROSSNER: Abbe. MR. MILLER: Abbe, sorry. And so you, Mr. Pires, will have 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 18 minutes to speak. MR. PIRES: If I may, Mr. Vice Chair, wait until the full board is seated to begin making the presentation, if that's okay. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir. We'll wait for Commissioner Henning's return. MR. PIKES: Thank you very kindly. COMNIISSIONER HILLER: So we're going to have Mr. -- COMMISSIONER NANCE: You can make some general - purpose Valentine remarks, if you want to respond to Commissioner Hiller. MR. PIKES: I'm already on the hook, based on Commissioner Hiller's statement. COMIMIISSIONER HILLER: Damn right you are. Every man in this goddamn county is. Pardon the goddamn, but I'm just saying. If there is any man who does not give the significant women (sic) in his life in this county a Valentine's acknowledgment of appropriate proportion -- MR. PIKES: There's a scary term, "appropriate proportion," if you like to fish and -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. COMNIISSIONER FIALA: I like that. I hope you say that a lot. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I'm going to repeat that wherever I go. MR. PIKES: "Appropriate" is in the eye of the beholder or receiver, I guess. COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm handing the gavel back to Page 4 Packet Page -149- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. MR. PIRES: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Mr. Pires, yes, you have 18 minutes. MR. PIRES: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, and I represent the La Peninsula Condominium Association, Inc., and I've appeared before you back on October 8, 2013, when the public petition was presented requesting the establishment of the MSBU as well as on December 10, 2013, when the MSBU was established and the resolution initiating the assessment process was adopted by the board. It is -- unfortunately, I was not able to speak at the January 14, 2014, meeting, but I believe you all received, prior to that date, an email outlining some concerns and requests that the board at that time not vote in favor of reconsideration. Regardless, we are here today, and we're here to address these issues. I would have thought that the more appropriate -- but I don't have any issue with the process -- would have been for Mr. Grifoni to appear first. He's the proponent of rescinding this ordinance, and I'm the proponent of defending it, I guess. So unusual for the defendant or' the defense to go first, but I will take that role, relish it. And if I may, also, of the 18 minutes, preserve three minutes for rebuttal to anything that Mr. Grifoni states in his presentation. First of all, as I mentioned before, on January 13, 20145 I provided an email to the Board of County Commissioners to make sure it was clear on the record that the board understood that the characterization in the public may be clouded at best, I think may be the appropriate term. As I presented it and has it -- as it has been presented and Page 5 Packet Page -150- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 outlined, the cost of the design, repair and/or replacement project under the MSBU will be paid solely by property owners within the MSBU boundaries within La Peninsula, and the concept is for payment through special assessments on the benefitting properties within La Peninsula only collected by the tax collector on the Collier County tax bill. Only the La Peninsula property owners would pay for the repair and/or replacement, whatever is determined, of the seawall by way of the Collier County special assessment. It was the property owners within La Peninsula who petitioned the board to create the MSBU, and the property owners who will be paying. To be clear, no county ad valorem tax dollars will be utilized. No county grant funds will be utilized. No county funds other than funds generated to the special assessment within that MSBU will be utilized. Additionally, as stated in that meeting, we are willing -- and my ^ client has authorized me -- that we would enter into an agreement with the county to advance fund the costs associated with the initial administrative startup costs and legal costs associated with the MSBU to keep this revenue neutral to everybody else in Collier County. That was a -- the polestar and the north star by which we are guided in this particular process. And, apparently, that was lost in the process, too, or in the translation. The establishment of the MSBU also contemplated that the county would issue bonds or notes to fund the entire project with the payback of the bonds or notes to be paid, again, entirely and solely by the property owners within the MSBU boundaries. And, again, no individuals, residents, or property owners other than the property owners within La Peninsula would have any obligation or make any payments associated with this project. We've had the opportunity to review the materials. And I Page 6 Packet Page -151- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 appreciate Jeff Klatzkow providing them to everyone in advance as well as being in the agenda packet, the various materials associated with this. And I've been authorized by my client to ask this County Commission not to repeal or rescind either Ordinance 2013 -70 or Resolution 2013 -292. As outlined in my letter I've hand - delivered yesterday to each board member and emailed also to each board member with some attachments, what I think are some additional points that are helpful for the board's consideration, because a couple of issues were tossed out at the last board meeting in the public petition asserting that this isn't a valid public purpose. I'm not going to rehash the entirety of Mr. Klatzkow's fine opinion and that of Nabors Giblin when they stated that in their, you know, opinion this can serve a valid public purpose. And I think it's important to note, Nabors Giblin stated, from the limited facts presented to us, it appears that there are a variety of significant county public purposes in providing seawall improvements, parentheses; i.e., safety, environmental, recreational, aesthetic, and others. The facts also support the proposition that the seawall facilities constitute essential facilities. That's Page 2 of the Nabors Giblin correspondence of January 23, 2014, that is in your agenda packet. And Mr. Klatzkow went through a four -point analysis. And, again, he has advised and opined, I believe, that it's legal and the board action was legal. I think -- in addition to what has been provided to you, I provided some additional materials to show that the funding of seawalls on private property serves a valid public purpose. This county has, in the past, through the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA adopted a shoreline stabilization program. That was back in 2008 and 2009. That -- in that instance the board obviously found that it was a Page 7 Packet Page -152- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 valid public purpose to provide grants up to $5,000 to individuals who would provide shoreline stabilization, rebuilding, reconstructing, or even building, in some instances, seawalls. And I provided an example of one grant that was authorized by the board, and payment was made by the county to that individual in the amount of $5,000. The source of those monies was public funds, county funds, the TIF, the Tax Increment Financing, which are from ad valorem taxes. Again, public funds. The board found a public purpose. It's also interesting to note that in the CRA there's another program for commercial properties that people can enhance the interior of the commercial structures through the grants. The people can put mulch in their yards through grants. So that gets back to the aesthetics and to the functioning aspect of it. Additionally, to the point as to whether or not, you know, seawalls and the seawall constitutes a valid public purpose, I think it's helpful to look to other jurisdictions. In the city of Punta Gorda, I've just sent you an excerpt from their little PDF PowerPoint as to seawalls and why seawalls are important. And I think it's important to have on the record that -- and I think it falls true in this case -- seawalls perform multiple functions, all of which are important to property owners and, it says, and to the city of Punta Gorda and, I would submit, and to Collier County. The most important function is to protect private property from loss of land mass into the water due to erosion from drainage and wave action. Seawalls also serve navigational purposes by maintaining the proper water depth in a canal system, or this way, in a navigable body of water. Another function is the seawall delineates the boundary between private property, the owner's land, and public property, the water ff Packet Page -153- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 which governs sovereign lands of a governmental entity. And, furthermore, seawalls also prevent soil from eroding and property from collapsing into the navigable waterways. And, again, so I think there's more than an adequate basis for the determination of a valid public purpose. What's also important, I think, in analyzing this is not to -- it's important to know when you're listening to various statutes to get the entire statute cited and referenced to you. Mr. Grifoni last time cited to Section 125.01(Q), Florida Statute, where he said establishment of MSBUs is limited to various services and said, seawalls aren't found within that, are they? What was left out of the presentation was this portion. In Chapter 125.01, subsection (1)(Q, Florida Statutes, as to counties -- that's the home rule statute. You all have home rule. The old rule in Dillon's case, as I call it, you know, is gone. Anyone who knows Florida Constitutional law knows that. You have a lot of home rule power. To the extent not inconsistent with general or special law, this power of the county includes, but is not restricted to, the power to establish and subsequently merge or abolish those created hereunder municipal service taxing or benefit units for any part or all of the unincorporated area of the county within which may be provided, and it goes on to talk about fire protection, law enforcement, and other essential facilities and multiple services from funds derived from service charges, special assessments, or taxes within such unit only. That language was conspicuously omitted from the presentation on January 14, 2014. What was also conspicuously omitted is, I'll call it, the home rule catchall language in Section 125.01(W), Florida Statutes, that the county has the ability to perform any other acts not inconsistent with law which acts are in the common interest of the people of the county and exercise all powers and privileges not specifically prohibited by Page 9 Packet Page -154- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 law. Again, home rule power. And, again, another statute that I think is important is Section 197.3631, Florida Statutes, dealing with non -ad valorem assessments. And it talks about another section of the Florida Statutes. It's -- Section 197.3632 is additional authority for local governments -- you are a local government -- to impose and collect non -ad valorem assessments supplemental to the home rule power -- so in addition to the home rule powers -- pursuant to Sections 125.01 and 166.021 and Chapter 170 or any other law. So, again, you know, in my opinion, I think if Nabors Giblin's provided that opinion, I concur with that and Mr. Klatzkow that you -all have the ability to engage in a project and make a determination that there's a valid public purpose to establish the MSBU for the repair and/or replacement of the seawall at La Peninsula. With regards to the current process, I suggested in my correspondence, as opposed to the bond - validation process, waiting until the point in time where you've gone through the whole process and had an engineer's report and assessment methodology, equalizations hearing, and all those that are required under the statute. There's a suggestion to have a validation proceeding. I would suggest, and the board of my client has authorized me to provide an alternative mechanism, and I think a less expensive, more expedited process of apply for and request a formal attorney general's opinion on this particular issue. I think that would serve the public well, serve the community well, and serve the board well in this particular instance. And, therefore, we request that particular issue. I'm not sure what will be brought up in the presentation by Mr. Grifoni. I know that there are a number of issues with regards to comments made by county staff. There are some emails that were provided; some were not provided. But I think you go back and look at -- there are a number of engineering reports, and you have a Page 10 Packet Page -155- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 situation where some say it's a 41 -year -old -- this is a 2010 report. It's a 41 -year -old seawall, useful life of four years. We're in the fourth year. This project and the seawalls are located on a dynamic waterway with, you know, tremendous -- we all know what waterways do as far as scouring and other effects. And we believe that the mechanism of the MSBU is the appropriate mechanism, and we request that the Board of County Commissioners not rescind the ordinance, not repeal the resolution, and proceed forward. We're at the beginning of the process, and I've articulated that before. I think to short -cut it now would be a disservice to the residents and the property owners within La Peninsula. Whether or not at the end of the day when the board hears the report, the board decides or the advisory committee recommends to the board to do anything, I don't know what that answer is going to be. I don't know what this board may be. The board may say, nope, we don't want to do anything. That ultimately is your decision. In our humble opinion, in my humble opinion, I think it's premature to make those final decisions now. In essence, that's what you would be doing by killing this mechanism that, instead, I think it's appropriate to maintain it, keep it moving forward to provide a mechanism to protect the property to have these valid various public purposes implemented. Again, I would reserve three minutes to respond to anything that Mr. Grifoni may say or any other issues that I believe may be appropriate, and thank you for your kind attention. MR. MILLER: Mr. Pires has five minutes and 45 seconds left. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. Yeah, that's up to the chairman to recognize that. This is not -- we're not having a court proceeding here, okay. It's just an issue whether we're going to rescind the previous action and/or take other action, okay. Page 11 Packet Page -156- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 So if you want to use up your time, that's fine. But Commissioner Hiller has a question. Do you have anything else you want to say? COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so do I. MR. PIRES: As I mentioned, no. I'd like to reserve the time. I understand what the chair has indicated. I'd still request a reservation COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the chair was the one that changed it around so that you couldn't speak next. You really wanted to speak afterwards. He changed you to be first. So you should allow him that privilege. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I did that out of courtesy because this ordinance and this resolution affect his clients. So it was out of courtesy I did that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then you should let him speak afterwards. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not a court of law, Commissioner Fiala. COMIlVIISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't make any difference. It's also being -- courtesy -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have five more minutes. MR. PIRES: I appreciate the fact that it was unilateral courtesy not requested; that's why I would request the reservation of additional time after Mr. Grifoni has finished his -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you complete? MR. PIRES: I've finished my presentation for now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you complete. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Mr. Chairman, he doesn't get -- Mr. Grifoni doesn't even live there, and he's going to have the benefit of not having any rebuttal after he makes accusations after he's heard this presentation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Our -- Page 12 Packet Page -157- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fairness. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm telling you what I think. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know you're a very passionate person. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yet, but you know what, Georgia -- and I mean this in all nice, she's been able to interrupt -- excuse me. She's been able to interrupt all day long, and nobody's ever said anything, but now that I am -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I need some security here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, for goodness sake. CHAIRMAN HENNING: This meeting is out of control. We need control. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like to remove me, security? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You need to be silent for just a second. Can you? COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you can. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I'm trying to conduct a meeting, and it should be civil, in a civil manner. And, again, I know this is very passionate. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll get to your issues, but let's look at the board's rules, okay, can we do that, on public speakers? COMMISSIONER FIALA: You be silent, so I'm being silent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. County Attorney? The rules -- MR. KLATZKOW: This is not a quasijudicial proceeding, sir. It's not. A quasijudicial proceeding I would say something different, ^ and he would have the opportunity to rebut. This is a legislative Page 13 Packet Page -158- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 hearing, and the chair gets to preserve order and conduct the meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What is our rule about public speakers? MR. KLATZKOW: Our rules of public speakers are three minutes per person. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Unless time is ceded -- exceeded (sic) by others, the chairman may grant, right? MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I granted that, correct? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'll ask you one more time. Do you have anything further for the time that was succeeded (sic) to you by other people? MR. PIRES: Yes, I do have something further in response to comments, made by Mr. Grifoni, to make. I understand what the chair has indicated, but that's what I would request, respectfully. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Would you like to -- other commissioners have questions or comments? COMMISSIONER NANCE: I do. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner Hiller did, and then we have Commissioner Fiala and then Commissioner Nance. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I actually would like to first respond to Commissioner Fiala's comments about my comments during the day. You know, I prepare very diligently for the meetings. I address issues in depth, and so I will raise those points appropriately, because I'm here serving the public. I'm not here to sit mum and walk away. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me finish. I just want to make a point. Page 14 Packet Page -159- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know if this is really appropriate. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: It is. I want -- I'm going to make this final comment, and then I want to proceed to this. When I make comments, I hit the button, and I'm recognized by the chair, and I make those comments. And thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me in the manner in which you do to allow me to speak on behalf of the constituency and their concerns and interest. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we're all equal. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: We are. This is a board of equals for sure. So to that end, I'd like to get to this issue right here. The first thing that I would like to address -- and I need help on this. Hideaway Beach has an MSTU which raises funds for renourishment of the private portion, the dry sand portion of Hideaway Beach, which is not a publicly accessible beach. I believe the board determined that there was a, you know, primary public purpose to essentially renourish that beach for the benefit of shoreline protection. And while it's not publicly accessible, we have done that. How were we able to -- and I'm tying this into this presentation done by Mr. Pires. How were we able to do that? MR. KLATZKOW: The legislature has -- by statute has made a determination that beaches are essential to the economy of Florida, and they've made the determination that you may use public dollars to renourish beaches, period. It does not matter if they're public or private. COMNIISSIONER HILLER: So either /or, whether it's public or private, you can use tax dollars to renourish beaches? MR. KLATZKOW: General tax money, yes. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Page 15 Packet Page -160- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 MR. KLATZKOW: CDC funds, different type of conversation. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: So let me -- so to clarify -- and this is actually very interesting to me -- you're saying we could use General Fund dollars to renourish the private portion of a beach? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So that's the difference between the Hideaway Beach MSTU and the argument that's before us today. And the argument before us today is whether or not that seawall -- that the repair of that seawall serves a primary public purpose; is that correct? Is that your argument, essentially? I mean, you're saying it does. MR. PIRES: Yeah, valid public purpose, and some people would say primary, some paramount, but public purpose. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So, basically, it serves -- you know, if it's an essential facility that serves a primary public purpose, and the issue there is that purpose, as being -- as serving a primary public purpose, would be first determined by the BCC based on the evidence presented by staff. MR. PIRES: That's correct, but I also believe -- and we've mentioned before and Mr. Klatzkow mentioned it in his memorandum -- that the legislature's also indicated, under Chapter 170, that municipalities can fund seawall repairs and replacements. And, again, that shows that there's a valid public purpose to local government doing that, and that's why I referenced the other portions of the Florida Statutes says you utilize 170; local governments can utilize 170. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: Right. MR. PIRES: Plus the county's home rule power. COMNIISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's interesting that that statute has never been constitutionally challenged, the statute relating to municipalities. So the use of public funds to restore a seawall, ,--*N Page 16 Packet Page -161- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 obviously, has been constitutionally upheld in that it hasn't been turned over by any court, if you want to -- MR. PIRES: No. In fact, there's an attorney general's opinion cited by Mr. Grifoni and, I think, cited by Nabors Giblin, maybe by Jeff -- Attorney General's Opinion 90-37 where it talked about -- Question No. 5, I believe, was can the city pay to restore or reconstruct or repair seawalls on private property, and that's city of Palm Beach, I believe, if I'm not mistaken. And, at the end of the day, the Attorney General said it's up to local government to make that determination that there's a valid public purpose, which means that they can make that determination that it's a valid public purpose. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And to go further to your discussion, you said the -- you know, the expense of what needs to be done to that seawall, if this were to be approved, under this ordinance -- the expense is actually determined by the BCC, not by the owners of the unit. MR. PIRES: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if the BCC made the determination that it doesn't appear that a repair to the seawall is necessary, then it wouldn't happen. MR. PIRES: That's the -- ultimately the board's decision sitting ex officio of the governing board of the MSBU, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: In other words, it's not the residents that control the MSTU; it's the Board of County Commissioners? MR. PIRES: The Board of County Commissioners does control. They are the ultimate determining entity, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you said that the expense that would be borne would only be borne by those taxpayers within MSTU ^ boundaries -- Page 17 Packet Page -162- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 MR. PIKES: The property owners, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- only to the extent that their property would be benefited by the protection afforded by the seawall. MR. PIRES: That's correct. As part of the assessment process, the Board of County Commissioners would hold what's called an assessment hearing or an equalization hearing where an assessment methodology would be considered, and the board would then review that assessment methodology, which would allocate the benefits to the properties, which means allocating the dollars, and the board would have the opportunity to hear from the property owners within MSBU boundaries as to whether or not a particular property owner says I'm benefited or I'm not benefited and whether the allocation is appropriate or not. And the board, sitting as the equalization board, would equalize and levy and impose the special assessments. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then the issue of no county funds being used. So if the decision was made to incur any obligation or make any expenditure, it would be done -- it would be repaid or paid for only using funds through -- you know, collected through special assessments against those -- those taxpayers within the MSTU boundary? MR. PIRES: No. The concept would be -- and at the initial portion before any assessments were levied and collected in the tax bill in November, would be an advanced funding agreement, or as expenses were incurred, they'd be paid. So there would be no monies and obligations incurred by the county from a revenue perspective. And then, thereafter, everything would be paid for from the special assessments levied within the MSBU. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if someone didn't pay an assessment, what recourse does the county have to collect those funds? MR. PIRES: If the county -- which I think the county indicated Page 18 Packet Page -163- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 in its initial resolution -- would use the uniform method of collection, putting it on -- it's called on roll -- it's on the tax roll, so it's on the tax bill. And it's a separate line item when you get your notices, if you look. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it a priority lien? MR. PIRES: It's a lien of equal dignity with all city, county, and state, local taxes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But ahead of mortgages? MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's a priority lien? MR. PIKES: Yes, it's priority. Again, it has the same priority as the county -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I understand, but it's a priority lien as against any lien like a mortgage -- MR. PIRES: That's correct. COMVIISSIONER HILLER: --for example? MR. PIRES: And what would happen is the tax collector -- you can't discretely pay just your ad valorem tax and say I'm not paying the special assessment. Either you pay it all or you don't pay any. If you don't pay any, a tax certificate sale is held; the tax collector gets that money and disperses it to the local entities, including the special assessments to the MSBU. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I understand correctly, what -- if we leave this ordinance in place, the first question that this board would have to address as the board of the MSTU is whether or not that seawall and the repair of that seawall would be serving a primary or paramount public purpose? MR. PIRES: I would submit that what the board -- respectfully, that what would happen is that the staff with the advisory committee would solicit requests for proposals from engineering firms following the CCNA requirements and that those recommendations as to who -- Page 19 Packet Page -164- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 the ranking would go back to the staff or back to the advisory committee, and they would make recommendations to this board. And the board would, ultimately, make the final determination as to the ranking of professionals. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I want to know -- -the question about the primary public purpose. I mean, the -- if this ordinance is left in place, the first determination by this board would be that the repair of this seawall would serve a primary public purpose. MR. PIRES: I think, by the adoption, the board has determined that, and I think by virtue -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does the wording of the ordinance already provide that we have recognized that? MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's based on the record. COMMIISSIONER HILLER: So we have not -- we have adopted an ordinance to create an MSTU, but as of yet we have not made the determination that this specific repair will serve a primary public purpose, so that question would come back to the board for determination? I mean, that's an evidentiary question. MR. KLATZKOW: No. By adopting the ordinance, you found that there was a public purpose to this. COMIlVIISSIONER HILLER: Oh, did we? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. You can't adopt an ordinance without a public purpose. COMMIISSIONER HILLER: But this -- well, we can say that the seawall serves a public purpose. But are we -- did we make the -- maybe I'm cutting it too fine. But the actual repair. So any repair to any asset which is deemed to be essential is -- yeah, okay; I see. So we already made the finding that the seawall provides an essential -- that the seawall is an essential facility is what you're saying? 10-. Page 20 Packet Page -165- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 '-*N MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, but this is the reconsideration. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: I understand. So the issue, really, that we have on this reconsideration is the question of whether or not we properly found that that -- that this seawall serves an essential purpose. I mean, that's really the reason why we would be rescinding it if we rescinded this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, that's -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's one of the reasons. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, but the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the other reason? CHAIRMAN HENNING: The reason it's on the agenda, there was a public petition. You made the motion to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, yeah. No, I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- reconsider it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we are. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the question was to rescind it like Mr. Pires said. COMIlVIISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that's why it's on the agenda. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And -- but I want to -- I want to make sure -- I understand why, but what I want to be sure of is that, you know, if we rescind it, we're rescinding it for a specific reason, and that's what the whole purpose of this discussion is. And the reason we would rescind it is -- the first reason being that we have now decided, for whatever reason, that the seawall is not an essential facility and doesn't serve a primary public purpose. What's the other reason? MR. KLATZKOW: You could decide that you do not want to do this. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: I mean, that's an arbitrary reason. MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's not arbitrary, ma'am. I mean, this is a legislative decision. I mean, just because you can do something Page 21 Packet Page -166- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 doesn't mean you have to do something. My job is to tell you that you can do this if you want. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: But you don't -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But, you know, Mr. Grifoni in his presentations, which were very clear, raised concerns that, you know, this was an unconstitutional act, that it was an illegal act, that the seawall does not serve a primary public purpose, and that was why, to me -- this being an evidentiary question, I thought it was very important that we bring it back because, you know, if it doesn't serve a primary public purpose, then we can't do it. If it does serve a primary public purpose, we can. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any more questions for Mr. Pires? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Look, I'm going to cut to the chase, okay. Mr. Pires sent us an email asking for an AGO. I'm okay with that; however, we can ask all the questions we want, provide the public record that it is today, today right now, but you have another party involved in this. You have your other client, the Clerk of the Courts, on whether he's going to deposit the loan that we're going to borrow for this seawall and whether he's going to pay the contractor, because the payments are going to come through the county. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it has to be for a valid public purpose. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if we're going to go through this process, the direction should be direct the County Attorney to write an AGO with the cooperation of the Clerk of Court. And I'll tell you, I talked to the Clerk, Dwight Brock. He has a lot of concern of this; however, if the board throws politics into the Page 22 Packet Page -167- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 question, you're going to lose the process. So we can go through all these opinions through the AGO, which is only opinion. It's not law. If you get a bond validation, that's law, where a judge signs it whether it's lawful or not. An AGO is just an opinion. So if you do not include the clerk, then we're just wasting time. MR. KLATZKOW: You're going to need a bond validation anyway because I don't think you're going to get financing without it at this point, okay. I don't think bond counsel's going to sign off on this issue at this time without that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But Mr. Pires, through his letter -- did you see that? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I agree with that. That could be a first start, okay. And if we're -- you're saying, through your legal opinion, that we need a bond validation -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that's fine. Crystal, is your understanding -- did Dwight say anything to you about this? MS. KINZEL: Yes, Commissioner. He said we'd be agreeable to that process, to get the AGO and go with the bond - validation hearing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. KINZEL: So we're okay with that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So -- hang on. To cut it to the chase, I'm going to make a motion that we direct the County Attorney to write, in cooperation of the Clerk of Court, a question to the Florida Attorney General on whether this is lawful or not and use the public record as it exists. So that's my motion. Is that okay with you -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: --Tony? Page 23 Packet Page -168- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 MR. PIKES: Yes, sir, and to the extent that the county wishes to have additional support from my end. I won't be representing the Clerk in this matter. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no. And -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I agree. I'm going to second his motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And, you know, I don't want you to get in trouble here, because you've got two clients. MR. PIKES: No, sir. As I mentioned to you, I'm not going to be representing the Clerk in that matter. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And you're petitioning the government to spend money to take action. That's not a part of my motion; however, I agree with your letter, okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask for an amendment? And that is that upon receiving that AGO, if the AGO confirms that we can move forward or gives us the discretion to move forward, that we also have, as required, based on what bond counsel is coming back to us and stating, is a bond - validation hearing on this. Because the bond - validation hearing basically takes all of this debate as to whether it's legal or not to find this seawall to be an essential facility and the expenditure of these funds to serve a primary public purpose out of our hands. MR. KLATZKOW: What the bond validation will do is bring certainty to the lender. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: Right. But it will -- MR. KLATZKOW: Once that is completed -- COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: But it validates whether or not what we're doing is legally correct also. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. What it really does is it gives certainty to the lender, because once you're done, if a property owner now doesn't want to pay the assessment and raises that it was Page 24 Packet Page -169- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 '-` unconstitutional, it won't matter, all right. And you just need one property owner there to raise that. That's why at this point in time you're going to need the bond validation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Understood. But, again, it also serves to validate whether our determination as to whether or not we are using public funds for a paramount public purpose would be affirmed by the court. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am. COMIMIISSIONER HILLER: And so that's why the decision should be deferred to the court rather than left in our hands. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you okay with the motion, Commissioner Fiala? COMIVIISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Do you have questions of Mr. Pires? COMIVIISSIONER FIALA: No. I had to say something to Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm sorry if I made it sound like I was attacking you. I did not. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, that's okay. COMIMIISSIONER FIALA: I was just saying that it seemed that it was okay for you to, but it wasn't okay for me to. COMIMIISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. No, I understand. COMIVIISSIONER FIALA: I didn't mean that to be cruel. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I appreciate that. Thank you. You're very kind to bring that up. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance, do you have questions of Mr. Pires? COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Let me understand the motion. Now the motion is going to be for a bond - validation hearing Page 25 Packet Page -170- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 or for an attorney general's -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Both. COMMISSIONER NANCE: For both? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But if the AGO -- COMMISSIONER NANCE: What is the purpose of the AGO's opinion? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I made the motion. Can I clarify it, please? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I asked for the amendment. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The motion was have the -- direct the County Attorney to write a question to the AGO with the cooperation and assistance from the Clerk of the Court -- COMN41SSIONER NANCE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- okay, on whether this is lawful. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Got it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER NANCE: And, further, are we going to seek a bond validation? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I don't think this is the end of this issue. And the County Attorney is -- this is going to be back on the agenda. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I think at that time we can do that. COMMISSIONER NANCE: I can support that motion, but I will tell you right now that I am not going to support this project unless we have a bond validation, and I'll tell you why. I don't think that the parties in this room are ever going to come to agreement that it's legal unless some definitive authority declares it thus. Page 26 Packet Page -171- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 And I think that all our MSTUs and our MSBUs and all our determinations that we do -- and we declare things a valid public purpose all the time. And a lot of them, frankly, in my view, are more controversial than this one, and we do it all the time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER NANCE: And I think until we get a legal determination that opines and lets us know if we have the authority to do that, I think all these things are going to be in question. And I regret that, because I think that our MSTU and MSBU programs have a great deal of utility. It takes cost away from government and puts it in the hands of the users themselves. So I support that. So I will support the motion, but I will tell Mr. Pires, unless his client is willing to go forth with a bond validation, that I will not support it because I just think it's going to be an endless cycle of misery that we're never going to get around. We're going to be in this philosophical debate ad nauseam until we get a bond validation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. No. Hang on, hang on. Can I go first? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And I would need that from Mr. Pires from what his opinion is on a bond validation is at a later date. So -- but I'm not done yet. You mentioned the board has done seawall repair in the past, in the Bayshore CRA. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Have you taken a look at the law governing the CRA's, Statute 163? MR. PIRES: Yes. And, again, the legislature's made a determination that it's a valid public purpose to expend money on those seawalls. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you -- Page 27 Packet Page -172- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 MR. PIKES: And so I think, again, that shows that that expenditure is a valid public purpose, whether it's this county, whether it's a city, whether it's a town, village, or estate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, let me back up, because you stated the legislators found the determination under 170. - MR. PIRES: No. What I said was 170 is an assessment process -- excuse me; 170 deals with municipalities, and it talks about that they can impose assessments for various purposes, including for seawalls. And I looked at 197.3631 that talked about, you know, the home rule powers and other various statutes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. PIKES: And, again, 170 -- that language in 170 about the ability to fund seawall repairs by municipalities, another indication that it's a valid public purpose. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I was -- MR. PIKES: And, again, counties have home rule power, and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. MR. PIKES: -- Commissioner Hiller's familiar with the rule in Dillon's case, which used to be a law in Florida that counties couldn't do squat unless they were specifically told to, and now we have home rule power. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You didn't quite answer the question. I'll try again. MR. PIRES: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I recognize 170 has the ability. It says to repair or replace seawalls. It doesn't say public or private. 170 is a municipality, and you stated that. But my question was, CRA's are under a different chapter within the Florida Statutes; is that correct? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you know what statute that is? Page 28 Packet Page -173- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 MR. PIRES: Not off the top of my head, but there is a different statute. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. So we don't know -- you stated that the board has done this in the past. So we don't know if it calls for it in Statute 163, which governs Community Redevelopment Agencies, or whether it doesn't. MR. PIRES: But, again, I think it's the fundamental premise that legislature has determined a valid public purpose is the expenditure of monies to rehabilitate blighted properties, pay for landscaping, pay for aesthetics, and seawalls in both the CRA statute and in 170 so that the public purpose has been determined. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I agree it's under Statute 170 under municipalities, so we're not going to argue that point, okay. And you said seawalls are very important for the protection, and I agree with that, and that's why the Board of Commissioners in 1982, I .-� believe -- 1985, through Ordinance 2, created a seawall ordinance. And I will pass that out to my colleagues, and I have a copy for you, sir. MR. PIRES: Is that 82 -2? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That is a public nuisance -- one of the public nuisance ordinance in case property owners fail to repair their seawall. All right. So we recognize that it is very important. However, the board, if they're going to continue this, needs to decide what to do with that ordinance because it is an equal - protection issue, Commissioners. All right. And, in fact, you have an email in your box -- I'm sure you do, because I was copied on it -- that a community -- a private community has decided to tax themselves through their homeowners' assessments to repair their seawall. All right. So that question needs to be Page 29 Packet Page -174- 3/11/2014 10.A February 11, 2014 answered. But the most important question, Mr. Pires, why is -- your homeowners' association that you represent is not deciding to assess themselves through the HOA to do the repairs? MR. PIKES: I think I've previously raised the issue that the -- number one, there's a determination it's a valid public purpose; number two, that an expeditious appropriate financing mechanism is by utilization of the MSBU where the costs are equally apportioned or appropriately apportioned after a number of public hearings and with the certainty of payment and repayment by virtue of the special assessment being collected on the tax bill. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you recognize that there are several homeowners' associations that assess their members fees for maintenance? MR. PIRES: I'm sure that happens all the time, and I'm sure there are a number of associations where people assess their homeowners to maintain common elements and to also enforce aesthetic covenants. And then, again, in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRAs -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's very true. MR. PIRES: -- and other areas, the county has given grant monies to take care of aesthetics. So, I mean, you have a number of instances where, you know, it's an appropriate activity for the government to, in this instance, with the public purpose, a mechanism is available, and the property owner's requesting that mechanism be utilized. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you answer my question, please? MR. PIRES: And the question again is, I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why is it that your clients, the homeowners' association, is not assessing themselves to repair or replace the seawall? MR. PIRES: They have been assessing themselves over a period Page 30 Packet Page -175- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 of time. And they have -- I think the number was indicated of $2005000 is currently in the reserve, and that was planned on being utilized to help reduce the cost of the financing and/or assist in the advanced funding. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was that also used for the limerock or riprap in front of their community to purchase that. Was that -- MR. PIRES: I have no idea. I was not involved at that time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So they're choosing not to assess -- and this is a question. They're choosing not to assess themselves to replace or repair the seawalls? MR. PIRES: I believe I answered the question with the fact that they have assessed in the past and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: So they have the ability to do so? MR. PIKES: If I could finish, please. They have assessed in the past an amount, and I think it was approximately $200,000. I don't �-• represent them from the condominium association budgetary process. I don't know what assessments have been levied at all for this coming year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So they have the ability to do so? You just proved that they have assessed themselves -- NM. PIRES: I never said they did not, and no one ever has. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So they have the -- still have the ability to do so. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, this is a very interesting ordinance, because what this ordinance clearly shows is that seawalls do act as an essential facility and that they do serve, primarily, a public purpose. Now, the issue of whether or not this homeowners' association adequately built up their reserves or not is really irrelevant to the issue, and that is whether or not this wall now needs to be repaired because Page 31 Packet Page -176- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 there is a public health, safety, and welfare concern. And if the determination is made that there is then, quite frankly, we need to act, and we need to do what's necessary to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let me give you an opinion from the chief county engineer that's stating that it does not need to be replaced. All it needs to do is be repaired, minor repairs. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well -- and, again, what is the -- can the chief engineer come and speak to us, or -- can you please -- then, Mr. Casalanguida, since you represent that agency, can you come here? MR. PIKES: And if I may, on that point, I think what's important, there was a prior email of March 21, 2013, where Mr. McKenna stated, under this nuisance ordinance for seawalls, he said, I guess by Section 22 -321 this would be considered a failed seawall, as it has moved from its original position, parenthesis, certainly this would apply to many and so therefore, it is a nuisance. In reading the reports, they are taking steps towards repair and evaluating best methods currently. I don't think the county should get involved with the methodologies being debated between the consultants involved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was a prior email to his -- MR. PIKES: Yes, two months before. And once again, it's -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Two months. What's the date of that one? MR. PIKES: March 21 st, and the one you have is May 6. And on May 21 st there was another email where he says I have not been to the site. I have read the reports from four engineering firms, each having a slightly different perspective and professional orientation. Had several conversations, engage another engineer. And they've required riprap material, they're proceeding to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So let me ask you a question. Page 32 Packet Page -177- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 What is the proposed cost of the repair? MR. PIRES: There are a number of various estimates based upon the engineering reports. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not replacement. Repair. MR. PIRES: That's sort of factored in. Some of them talk about partial repair, partial replacement. We're talking, you know, two to four to six million. COMMSSIONER HILLER: For the repair? MR. PIRES: There's different components. If you look at the different reports -- and that's what's difficult here. There are four different reports. Some say the opinion of the engineers -- and this goes back to 2002 (sic) or'11, or'12. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: What's the current opinion? I want the most current opinion. MR. PIRES: I don't have that with me. And, again, there's different segments that they feel are deteriorating more than others. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, the -- if the question of whether or not this serves a primary public purpose is asked, the next question is, you know, we as the board have to make a determination of what is a legitimate expenditure based on what the need is. And I think there's a lot of question here as to, you know, what is -- what really needs to be done versus, you know, what the residents want to do, and that's up to us to decide. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think you need to determine, my opinion, whether you're going to enforce this ordinance on seawalls for other because, again, it's equal; however, what the motion is, is to seek an AGO, so -- and at that point they might say, no, you Page 33 Packet Page -178- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 can't move forward with it, but it might say other things that we would move forward with a bond validation or whatever. So it's -- you know, I agree with Tony Pires' email, a bond validation is expensive. Looks like we're going to go through that anyways; however, this might be something that could be used in the future during the process to either provide a partnership or not. And, again, I think his recommendation is a good recommendation. COMIlVIISSIONER HILLER: And as far as equal protection goes or -- quite frankly, this would apply equally to all similarly situated property owners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: If the seawalls are left in disrepair, and it obviously rises to a level of an unlawful act and public nuisance as -- based on this ordinance already exists and has existed since 1985, then, yes, we would take the necessary measures to get it repaired. So I agree with you, Commissioner Henning; I think requesting the AGO as the first step is important. It is only an opinion, so it is nonbinding, but I think we need to do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we go to other commissioners? COMIlVIISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. It's a big deal. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I don't know who was first. Commissioner Coyle -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was, but my light got turned off for some reason. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it's on. COMIVIISSIONER COYLE: Then Commissioner Nance's came on, and I put mine on after that. But you make the call, whichever you CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, you go ahead. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Coyle. Page 34 Packet Page -179- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You know, we can take statements from either side and use them to try to justify the decisions we want to make, but there is a study here by Coastal Engineering dated August 6, 2010, and it -- they make the observation that this structure, the seawall, was constructed 41 years ago and is nearing the end of its designed life. Complicating the situation is the fact that the channel bottom adjacent to the wall has significantly scoured. The large quantity of riprap placed in front of the wall has helped stabilize the wall; however, the channel has continued to scour. It is recommended that the seawall be replaced within the next four years. That would have been in 2014 that it would have been replaced. The cost of replacing the existing concrete wall will vary depending upon the type of material used and the geotechnical conditions encountered. So there is some evidence from a reputable engineering firm that the seawall needs to be replaced. Now, to the point whether the people have the ability to tax themselves to replace the seawall, I think the conclusion is absolutely. They can tax themselves to pay the seawall, and probably most of the people couldn't afford to pay it, because you've got no way of financing it. You are going to get hit with a $50,000 per unit cost for doing this, and how many of you have $50,000 lying around that you'd put into this process? So you couldn't do it, probably. So why do you come to government? Because we're supposed to be here to help. And if we can help you and at the same time be fair to everybody and lawful, why aren't we rushing to help you? You're paying for all the costs. You're paying for administrative costs associated with this. There's no money being transferred to any �. other property owners in the county. You're doing exactly the same Page 35 Packet Page -180- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 thing that dozens of homeowners are doing. You know something, the only thing that seems to make you stand out is that yours is a private community. And I have this -- I have a feeling that this is more concerned about the fact that you have a private community than whether or not we really have the right to help you. So I hope this works out for you. I think we should be trying to find ways to help our residents rather than trying to find ways to throw up roadblocks. And I'm not at all convinced by any arguments that have been made so far by the other side. They just simply are not true. And I'm ready to proceed with this. And if the AGO opinion and the subsequent bond - validation process is the way the commissioners want to go, I'm heartily in support of that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any other questions for Mr. Pires? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That wasn't a question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I know, but we're still through public comments. You know, even that I'm at odds with Mr. Pires, I respect him. So do we have any questions, because I would like to get back to the -- COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have a question of Mr. Pires. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Pires, when was the La Peninsula community built? MR. PIRES: Well, there was a bulkhead established -- built back in the '60s, because there was a bulkhead plat. COMIlVIISSIONER NANCE: Yes, yes. And when were the buildings -- when was the construction started and completed and so on and so forth? MR. PIRES: In the'70s, and it's been -- Page 36 Packet Page -181- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 '� UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 1986. MR. PIKES: 1986, and it's been going on since then. COMIVIISSIONER NANCE: It's been going on since 1986. And wasn't -- didn't it have a serious financial period of time when there were some buildings occupied and others under construction? MR. PIRES: A prior developer did and left one of the buildings. There was a -- COMMISSIONER NANCE: So this has made it pretty -- MR. PIRES: -- statement in reference to that particular building at the time. COMMIISSIONER NANCE: This has made it pretty difficult for people to have a functioning homeowners' association to do common costs and replacement and reserves and so on and so forth; has it not? MR. PIRES: It had a number of issues over the years with the prior developers and other. COMMIISSIONER NANCE: Yes, okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMIVIISSIONER NANCE: That is all. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Pires. Next speaker? MR. MILLER: Your next speaker, Jared Grifoni. I've already called the names of the people who ceded time for him. He'll have 15 minutes. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, just to remind you, you're scheduled for a court reporter break somewhere in the next 10 minutes. COMMIISSIONER HILLER: Maybe after he speaks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Maybe after he finishes speaking. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. After Mr. Grifoni speaks, we're going to take a break. MR. GRIFONI: Sure. Well, good afternoon, Commissioners. Page 37 Packet Page -182- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 It's been about a month since the last time we were here discussing this issue. A lot of new information has come to light. There's been some clarification on a lot of issues as well. I'd like to just briefly touch on some of the prior arguments that were discussed, just to bring everyone up to speed. Florida Constitution, first and foremost, Article VII, Section 10, deals with finance and taxation as well as pledging of credit. It states specifically, neither the state nor any county shall lend, give, or use its taxing power to aid any corporation or private entity. That is true. The Florida Statutes say the same thing. Statute 125, county powers are defined in 125.01, like Mr. Pires mentioned, also the power to create MSBUs. Those powers to create MSBUs, fire protection, law enforcement, beach erosion control, recreational. services, water, street, sidewalks, things of that nature. Again, seawalls are not in there. Seawall repair /replacement is not in there. There's no seawall repair /replacement in that statute. It's not in the Florida Constitution either. Escambia County, we talked about that before. They have a specific policy written out that deals with MSBUs. They're restricted to public property. They're restricted to property where the public has equal access at all times. In addition, they require easements and public property -- or property dedications prior to going into any type of MSBU. Code enforcement -- we've talked about those issues; those are all true. We can't just brush those under the rug. Code enforcement went down to the La Peninsula seawall multiple times over the past five or six years, as early -- or as late as May of 2013, just a few months before this was in front of you all, and they -- and County Engineer Jack McKenna said that there's no public health and safety concern at that time, that there's no danger of the seawall collapsing, that it just needed minor repairs and maintenance. Page 38 Packet Page -183- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 We also talked about this ordinance here that, I guess, Commissioner Henning brought up in the ordinance. You know, really the question there is who isn't doing their job? We're talking about a 40 -year life on this seawall, and now all of a sudden in six months we need to hurry up in and, you know, create a $4 million project out of thin air that's never been done before in the state of Florida or in Collier County for this matter. Two hundred thousand dollars in reserves. That was back in 2012, so I'm wondering what's happened in the past two years. And the ordinance itself only speaks of a $250 a day fine, misdemeanor. It doesn't talk about an entire construction project that's done under the auspices of the county government. The precedent that's set here is extremely dangerous. It's never been done before. Five hundred homeowners' associations in Collier County alone. If they all came here looking for the same thing, we'd be adding $2 billion to the county debt. Now, I understand that the money is paid back specifically by the benefited property owners, but we can't escape the fact that that money is owed. And until it is paid in full, it is still owed. It's still going to be on the county books. We also know that seawalls always need to be repaired and replaced over time. Ten to 15 years in some cases, 20 years, 30 years. So we know that we're going to be back in this same situation, 10 years from now, 15 years from now if we encourage homeowners' associations to be fiscally irresponsible and mismanage their funds. Now, some of the issues that have come up since that time that have been left out, the county manager, he did send a memo out on February 3rd, and that was after, Commissioner Hiller, you directed him to find the primary public purpose in the January 14th meeting. And I think we need to let that sink in for a moment, because the BCC passed this ordinance and resolution back in December, and Page 39 Packet Page -184- 3/11/2014 10.A. February } 1, 2014 we're trying to find a public purpose at the January 14th meeting, and that memo wasn't completed until February 3rd. So it's clear that this was passed on the basis of the facts as they were understood at the time of the original passage back in December, and it was for the benefit of the property owners of La Peninsula. It was not for a primary public purpose to protect any of the seawalls or waterways or anything of that nature. It hadn't even been determined yet. We can even see in the text of the memo itself, there are two items listed. They are listed as possible public concerns. Possible, not actual, concerns, not purpose. Possible public concerns arising from the failure of the seawall. But there's also no failure of the seawall in its current state. It's notated at the bottom of the memo that there appears to be no immediate public safety concerns at this time. So what are the two items that were listed? A loss of tax revenue due to decrease in property values and public relations concerns. So talk about opening Pandora's box. Are we going to accept the premise that a decline in property value is the grant of power necessary to forego the clear and -- the clear terms of the Florida Constitution and the Florida Statutes on this matter? Are we going to start creating hundreds of millions of dollars in additional debt -- in additional debt because property isn't up to the standard of maximizing whatever taxable value it may have at any given time? If the primary concern -- or is the primary concern of this board simply securing additional tax revenue rather than limiting expenditures, debt, and not executing bad public policy? One of the primary concerns addressed in prior meetings was over the county having to take an ownership interest in the seawall during the course -- or during the life of the loan. So if, ultimately, Page 40 Packet Page -185- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 we're basing this decision on an after- the -fact determination of taxable value concerns, should we anticipate the county taking ownership interest in other seawalls that are actually failing across the county today? I don't think -- and I'm not -- and I don't think I'm wrong when I suggest this, but I don't think the voters are going to be happy to find out that the county has seawall interests all over this -- all over the county. It simply just doesn't make sense. Now, we can debate the issues around the MSBU but, ultimately, it's the BCC that has to make this decision. You need to determine whether or not this is sound public policy. Now, I'm also concerned about the issue or the characterization of this as a failing seawall. I forwarded the BCC an email on January 23rd from county engineer, Jack McKenna. I mentioned that a moment ago. You may recall that at the 1/14 meeting we talked about some of the code enforcement issues at the time. Well, back in May of 2013 -- and Mr. Pires mentioned this briefly as well, that Dick Van Deelen, the president of the La Peninsula Master Board, emailed the county engineering asking for confirmation that the seawall was not -- that there was no evidence or reason to believe that there was any imminent danger with the seawall, any imminent safety issue with the seawall. And the reply was, I have no reason to believe that there is imminent danger of the wall collapsing. And he also stated that La Peninsula was proceeding in a good and logical fashion, a good and logical fashion in seeking riprap repairs to the wall, okay. So we're talking about a good and logical fashion at the time, and the good and logical fashion simply is that they were handling this themselves. It wasn't going through the county government using county government as a conduit. Now, the Giblin report that was prepared since the last meeting has some flaws as well. They state that the special assessment is not a Page 41 Packet Page -186- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 tax. Well, that's great. It's not a tax. A special assessment is an exercise of the taxing power. So AGO 85 -90 from Marion County, they attempted to levy special assessments against real property for the purpose of improving road and drainage improvements. And in that AGO, it's stated, while special assessments are distinguishable from taxes, they are levied under the taxing power and are, in a broad sense, a peculiar species of taxes. So we know MSBUs are special assessments. They're levied under the taxing power and, therefore, we need to return to the Florida Constitution, Article VII, Section 10. They also cite Statute 170. We keep going back to 170, and that really interests me, because 170 has to do with municipalities, cities. Of course, 170 only applies to cities. It doesn't apply to counties. County powers are under 125. We've discussed this earlier as well. In the report it was notated that there was -- now, this is from the Giblin report. It was notated that they were unable to find any cases addressing these types of improvements or cases with substantially similar facts. That's because this action by the board is going to set a precedent for the entire state of Florida. Not just Collier County but the entire state of Florida. Now, we talked about essential facilities, municipal services. Essential facilities, they're commonly defined as those -- the city government provides, natural monopolies, things like utilities, transportation facilities. Again, the plain language is clear that it doesn't apply to seawalls, let alone private seawalls. Now, the County Attorney, he also issued a legal opinion, and I thank him for putting that together. He notes that the central issue is whether or not the proposed project is for a public purpose. There's both a legal and factual component to that analysis. So what's the legal component to that analysis cited? We're back to Statute 170 again. Page 42 Packet Page -187- 3/11/2014 1 O.A. February 11, 2014 '� Now, there are multiple issues here that we just need to get ahold of Title 12 is for municipalities, cities and towns in the state of Florida, chartered cities and towns in the state of Florida. 170 simply doesn't apply to counties. It applies only to chartered cities. Collier County's, of course, not a chartered city. Isles of Capri isn't a chartered city. La Peninsula's a private entity. So the language is clear. Now, what we need to remember is that we're dealing with three separate things. We're dealing with city powers, we're dealing with county powers, and we're dealing with MSBU authority. Now, city powers, in 170 it does mention reconstruction of seawalls, but that's still different from the county powers and even more different than what can be done under an MSBU. MSBUs are even more limited, of course, than whatever the county can do. It's simple. Another AGO that was cited, 2002 -48, I think, again, that's being misapplied here. 2002 -48, the question that was asked to the attorney general at the time was may the County Commission expend public funds to provide private communities with services such as the repair and maintenance of privately owned roads and related infrastructure. And they give the example sidewalks, streetlighting, stormwater systems, landscaping, and water and sewer. Now, that list is actually from the Florida Statutes. And because the statutes are clear on what can and can't be done, seawalls simply just aren't there. They didn't just pull those out of a hat. They actually just mention the ones that are specifically delineated within statute. So counties and MSBUs can do things, but they can only do things that they are authorized to do. Seawalls, again, are not in there. Now, I'm not making this up. I'm -- I trust that the commission has been able to go and look at the statutes themselves, because it's very, very clear. Now, he also cites, the County Attorney, 90 -37, which deals with Page 43 Packet Page -188- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 the city of Palm Beach -- the city of Palm Beach. Now, again, that's under 170, not 125. It refers to a -- the public purpose, however, needing to be paramount, and we don't have that here. We don't have a paramount public purpose. But one thing we can take from 90 -37 is that the public purpose is something that's determined by the legislative body; in this case, of course the Board of County Commissioners. So it seems that maybe there's an attitude amongst some of the members of the BCC that we should just simply pump the issue either to a bond - validation hearing or to an AGO. And the fact is, even if we do seek that method, it's going to come back to your decision today. So the responsibility is going to fall on the board. If this is a public policy that the board wants to go forward with, then it's going to be a board policy. It's not going to be Pam Bondi's opinion. It's not going to be the bond - validation hearing. It's going to come back to this decision today. Now, two years later, there was another AGO, 92 -31, and it stated that the state constitution prohibits municipalities or other agencies for using their taxing power to aid any private interest. And the purpose of that provision, the constitutional provision, is to protect public funds and resources from being exploited and assisting or promoting private ventures when the public would only be incidentally benefited. It's only when there is some clearly identified and concrete public purpose as the primary objective that the municipality may exercise its taxing power. Again, we don't have that here. And it also states that even though the tax may -- would only be imposed on the property owners who primarily benefit, the fact is that the tax -- the fact that the tax is limited does not mean that it's not an exercise of the city's taxing power so, therefore, again, it has to fall under the purview of the constitutional provisions. Page 44 Packet Page -189- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 So just very quickly I'd like to also address some of the issues that Mr. Pires brought up -- Mr. Pires, excuse me -- with respect to the CRA: The CRA is a completely different statute. It has nothing to do with what we're doing here today. The CRA has a very, very specific procedure on how those are approved. Resolutions must be passed, and they must have certain things in those resolutions, and also we're talking with the CRA as a redevelopment of a slum or blighted area. So I'm -- I don't think that La Peninsula really fits that definition, and I certainly don't think that there's a physical or economic condition conducive to disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, poverty, or crime because of a preponderance of -- or predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential in that area, and then I certainly don't think it's a blighted area as well. That was the definition of a slum in the statute. So the goals of the CRA are completely different than what we're talking about here with La Peninsula. Now, as I mentioned earlier, we don't have that clearly identified in concrete public purpose. If anything, it was after the fact, and it's still -- it's not -- it's concrete. What we have is wishy -washy after -the -fact maybes, ifs, buts, when's, and possibles and, to me, that is -- that's nothing, to put it bluntly, nothing that justify what's going on here today. We can't pump this issue to a bond - validation hearing or to an AGO. They all, like I said, are going to come back to the decision of the board. So if you vote against rescinding this, you'll be expanding government, setting a bad precedent, opening Pandora's box, encouraging fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement amongst other condo associations, homeowners' associations, knowing that this is going to be available to them in the future, and you'll be completely ignoring the plain language of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Page 45 Packet Page -190- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 Constitution, stretching them beyond anything remotely intended at the time that they were passed. So what is, perhaps, even more telling is not only that -- does La Peninsula seem to be hoping for a bailout here by the county, but I'm worried that, perhaps, County Commissioners are also hoping for a bailout themselves, a bailout of responsibility on this issue by punting it to another board. Own this decision, because this is your policy, and it's your determination. It's going to come back here no matter what. So I ask you to please do the right thing today, vote to rescind this ordinance and resolution, and let's get this done and let's move on and let's continue to fight for good government, smaller government within the confines of our statutes and constitution. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to take a break. But before we -- does anybody -- any of the commissioners have a problem with entering in the record the county engineer's email? COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: No, and I -- COMIVIISSIONER FIALA: No. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: -- think we should also introduce this ordinance. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I agree with you. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: Ordinance eighty -five two (sic) and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're on 10- minute break. COMIlVIISSIONER HILLER: If there are any other -- Mr. Casalanguida? CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're on a break. COMNIISSIONER HILLER: I know. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. Page 46 Packet Page -191- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, you have some questions of Mr. Grifoni? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, yes. The first thing -- Mr. Grifoni, thank you for your presentation. You're a very good speaker. MR. GRIFONI: Thank you. CONMSSIONER FIALA: The microphone. COMVIISSIONER HILLER: Yes, forgive me. Mr. Grifoni, thank you for speaking. You made a very nice presentation. The first thing I think I would like to raise is that the issue with respect to whether or not seawalls serve a primary public purpose seems to have been -- to have been established by this board back when this ordinance was passed in 1985 relating to the repair and replacement of seawalls. I think the real question before us today is, you know, to what extent this seawall needs to be repaired, and that's really an evidentiary question. And so what I've done is I've asked our county staff, Mr. Casalanguida, to provide this board with all the emails Mr. McKenna has written on this subject and also to provide any and all reports prepared by any of the professionals that have submitted reports on the repair of this seawall to the county. And I think that information will be very important, because the question really is, you know, should this seawall be repaired or replaced? And, you know, what is the cost - benefit analysis between repairing it for a shorter -- for the benefit of a shorter period of time versus replacing it now and having, you know, a longer life ahead of that larger expenditure. In any event, you know, it isn't true that our determination will be the final determination. If we go -- if we reach the point that a Page 47 Packet Page -192- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 determination is made by this board based on the evidence presented to us, that this wall needs to be either repaired or replaced and that that cost needs to be financed, then bond counsel has made it clear that they're not going to move this forward without a bond - validation hearing. So your concern as to whether or not there is a valid public purpose would be determined by the Court, because the Court could find that the determination we made is not correct. It's not -- we don't have absolute discretion in that, and that is something I spoke to the County Attorney about. So your concern would basically be satisfied by the Court's determination that what we are doing does or does not serve a valid public purpose, which is your concern. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any other questions? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm very -- I want to address his comments, because he made some very important points that I think need to be -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: --discussed. So I think, you know, you raise very good questions, and I think those questions are properly asked and should properly be answered, but I think, ultimately, the answer is going to come from and -- from the courts through that bond - validation hearing. Because, again, you know, it's nice that we can get an AG opinion, and I think that is the first step in the process, but it is nonbinding, as you properly pointed out. And this is a very important issue, and it does go to the issue as to, if you do have these homeowner associations that fail to repair their seawalls, what action do we, as a board, have the right to take to protect public health, safety, and welfare. And there is no question it does appear that -- like, La Peninsula Wim Packet Page -193- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 failed to do what it should have done, which is build adequate reserves. And I don't know enough about homeowner association law to opine as to, you know -- you know, how they breached the law in failing to do that. We're not rescuing them. We are upholding our responsibility to safeguard the public's safety, and we have a legal mechanism to do that, and this is an essential facility. So I really want to thank you for bringing your questions forward because you have raised a lot of very valid concerns that, I agree with you, have to be asked and answered. So I, you know, applaud you for raising the issue. But it isn't the intent to expand government. It's really our obligation to protect the public, because I'm against big government, as you know, as you are. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other questions? COMMIISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COM.MIISSIONER NANCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: --Nance. COMIlVIISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Mr. Grifoni, what do you think of the current MSTUs and MSBUs we have in Collier County? MR. GRIFONI: I don't have any problems with MSTUs or MSBUs, currently created ones or future created ones, so long as they're within the confines of the law and they're done with the correct mechanisms. This one, I think, is somewhat different simply because of the private nature of it as well as the concern over whether or not there's a valid public purpose, a paramount public purpose. But I think what we've seen in other MSTUs, MSBUs across the Packet Page -194- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 county is that they're different; they're different in various respects than this one, and I think that the evidence for that simply is in the report that we received that stated that they couldn't find any other facts or any other cases with a similar set of facts comparable to this one, and they said that the determination by the bond - validation hearing couldn't be predicted, and there's a reason for that; it's because this has never been done before in this specific type of instance. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Do you think there are any of the current MSTUs or MSBUs that have anything other than an incidental public benefit? MR. GRIFONI: I'm unaware of any particular MSBU or MSTU that -- where there wouldn't be a -- within the bounds of the law, that it wasn't created under the correct statute and correct -- COMMISSIONER NANCE: There were corrected, but I think if you'll examine carefully the existing MSTUs and MSBUs, you'll find out that the grand majority of them have a very incidental public benefit. They've usually been enabled by government to do something that the applicants either want or in some cases need. But as far as a public benefit, I think most of it is a stretch. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Really? MR. GRIFONI: You very well may be right on that. And, in fact, you know, I just don't think that's an excuse to continue doing something wrong if -- you know, just because we've done it before in the past. And I'm not suggesting you've done that. COMMISSIONER NANCE: I just wondered if you were opposing the current MSTUs and MSBUs that we have. MR. GRIFONI: I'm not aware of any particular MSTU or MSBU that's currently in existence in Collier County that is not done within the purview of the statutes, whether it's landscaping, streets, sidewalks, lighting, utilities, drainage, things of that nature. If there's something else beyond that, I would love to know about it, but I'm not aware of it Page 50 Packet Page -195- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 at this time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. We're going to go to Commissioner Fiala and then back to the public speakers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Thank you. The way I understand it -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, Commissioner Coyle. COMIlVIISSIONER FIALA: Okay -- with the MSBU is you really don't know what you need to get done until you have a study; is that correct? Because you don't know whether the wall needs to be replaced, repaired, how far it is, if just certain segments need to be repaired or what. Isn't that the case? So, of course, you don't know how much we're even talking about until the study is done; is that correct? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to make that clear because it seems that the numbers are being thrown out, but I don't think that you folks even know yet what you need until you have divers go down and take a look. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clear that up. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Again, do we have any questions or comments to Mr. Grifoni? Otherwise, we're going to get back to public speakers. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have a question for Mr. Grifoni. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If I understood you correctly, you said that the Constitution and Florida Statutes won't permit us to do this; is that correct? MR. GRIFONI: I believe that under the Florida Constitution and the Florida Statutes, based on some of the court cases out there, as well ,-� as the various AGO opinions, would indicate that this type of -- this Page 51 Packet Page -196- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 type of MSBU would not be approved simply because there isn't a '1 primary or paramount public purpose. COMIlVIISSIONER COYLE: And who do you think determines the primary public purpose? MR. GRIFONI: The Board of County Commissioners. COMMIISSIONER COYLE: And if we determine that there was a primary public purpose, would you argue with us? MR. GRIFONI: I mean, sure. I mean -- well, I think that's why I'm here is -- I mean, this was -- this was passed. This was passed by the board back in December for some type of public purpose that we're unaware of until February 3rd. But, yeah, I mean, depending on what type of public purpose -- I mean, we could argue that there was a public purpose because you, you know, one person decided to walk on the seawall today. I mean -- but does that -- does that encompass the paramount public purpose, the nature? So -- ^ COMMIISSIONER COYLE: I'm -- MR. GRIFONI: I mean, it would be -- you know, a variety of factors would have to be considered. COMIlMIISSIONER COYLE: So you're saying that the Constitution or Florida Statutes won't permit us to do it unless we find a valid public purpose? MR. GRIFONI: Well, there needs to be a valid public purpose, but it also needs to still be within the bounds of the law. And the law, as it states in 125, does not indicate that seawall -- seawall repair /replacement is allowed under the MSBU or the county powers. But, again, you know, we've had some discussions on that earlier. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You made the observation, I think, that municipalities have the authority to do this. So, now, can you explain to me how or why a state constitution would prohibit a county government from doing something but allow a city to do the same Page 52 Packet Page -197- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 thing? MR. GRIFONI: Sure. Well, I mean, just the plain language of the statutes themselves indicate that. I believe in the January meeting I brought that up and, I mean, I think when they were drafting the Florida Constitution and the Florida Statutes, they specifically didn't decide to list that power under the county government, under 125, when they specifically did under 170. That could have been changed in any number of times. It wasn't. I also think that just because a city has the power to do so, it still needs to, again, be within the public purpose, and there is no question, really directly, of whether or not it's a public seawall or a private seawall. The statute isn't clear on that. I would assume, based on the rest of the statutes, that it's talking specifically about public seawalls, that cities can do things with public seawalls. Again, it's just a little different than what we have here. CON WISSIONER COYLE: You see, here's my problem. I just can't imagine a constitution that would say you, city, have the authority to do this, but you, county, don't have the authority to do this. I cannot understand the purpose of a constitutional provision that would reach that conclusion, and I cannot understand why anyone would interpret it that way. MR. GRIFONI: Sure. I mean, ultimately, that's a question you'd have to take up with the legislators why they left it in 170 and didn't put it in 125. But, you know, I think the concern here is whether or not -- I mean, we're looking at the law as it stands. And we also saw in the Giblin's report that there's been no other cases with substantially similar facts that has -- is similar to what we have here today. So, again, we have hundreds and hundreds and thousands of miles of coastline in the Collier County -- I mean the state of Florida, we have canals all through Collier County, all through the state, and that Page 53 Packet Page -198- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 there hasn't been one instance in 50, 609 70 years that someone has decided to create or use an MSBU to repair or replace a private seawall. I mean, otherwise, we wouldn't be here today. Just, the facts don't exist, so that's why this is a new precedent. From what I've been able to tell, and I think what the County Attorney has been able to find, as well as the outside counsel report, is that this just simply hasn't been done before. So there's -- I think, ultimately, there has to be a reason for that. And I think based on the facts and the discussion that I've been able to present today and prior, there's a clear reason for that, and I think it's simply because the law just doesn't allow it in this current state. CONIlMIISSIONER COYLE: I think that's probably an incorrect interpretation. I think the -- what they said was that it hasn't been litigated. They cannot find any case where something like this has been litigated, but I understood that there were a number of places where this had been done. As a matter of fact, I think we've done things that are similar. If one looks hard enough, you might find a period that is slightly different or a comma that's in a different place, but the essential elements are the same. But that's -- and the other thing I would -- you indicated that the people hadn't been doing their jobs or else they would have accumulated enough money to do this. I don't think it serves anybody's purpose to try to punish current residents because people in the past might not have created a large enough reserve to do this thing. So that having happened -- and we cannot undo that -- I don't think that we, as a Board of County Commissioners, should try to punish them for letting that occur. I think our job is to help them solve the problem and -- but that's Page 54 Packet Page -199- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 '"*N all I have to say, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can we go back to public speakers? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I address this last point made by Mr. Grifoni and Mr. -- Commissioner Coyle, because it's important. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it going to change the outcome of what we're going to do today? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think it's very important to clarify something for the record relating to Chapter 125, because I think there is -- I don't think this very important point has been made clearly on the record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That we can do -- it's not limited to these repairs. I understand you want to get this done. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's related to the comments made by both parties. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Grifoni, you said that 125 doesn't provide any mechanism for this seawall repair to be financed through an MSTU. MR. GRIFONI: It's not explicitly listed. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, what the -- what Chapter 125 makes very clear under 125.01(Q) is that after listing with specificity, you know, a number of items, it goes on to say, and other essential facilities and municipality services from funds derived from services charges, special assessments, or tax within such unit only. It is very clear, and then it goes on to say subject to the consent by the ordinance of the governing body of the affected, you know, and so forth. So the point being is that it does make clear that that list is not limited to only what is enumerated but goes on to provide that MSTUs can be used to fund essential facilities and municipal services, so -- Page 55 Packet Page -200- 3/11/2014 1 O.A. February 11, 2014 MR. GRIFONI: Right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- this is -- the question, again, whether or not a seawall is an essential facility is a determination that this board has already made and has absolutely, going back to 1985, made the determination that seawalls do serve a primary public purpose, and it's enumerated in that ordinance, and that ordinance, as you know, as a matter, of law, is deemed to be valid until and unless it's overturned by a court of law. So we have law that clearly establishes the primary public purpose of seawalls, and we have a statute that clearly provides that we are allowed to I create MSTUs for essential facilities. MR. GRIFONI: Sure. CONMSSIONER HILLER: So I don't think it's true that -- and I have to agree with Commissioner Coyle. I don't think it's true that 125 does not allow for the repair or replacement of a seawall such as the one that's before us. MR. GRIFONI: Yeah. I mean, the issue -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Grifoni, I don't think it's really going to matter. MR. GRIFONI: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is a burning desire by the majority of the commissioners to fund the seawall, okay? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So let's move on to the rest of the speakers. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not a burning desire. MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Keith Flaugh. He'll be followed by Peter Richter. MR. FLAUGH: Good afternoon. My name is Keith Flaugh. I'm one of the members of a group called the Southwest Florida Citizens Alliance. And we've, without exception, put together a resolution that Page 56 Packet Page -201- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 represents the view of our hundred -plus people on this particular issue that I would like to read into the record. A resolution of the Southwest Florida Citizens Alliance in support of rescinding the resolution and ordinance creating the MSBU for La Peninsula seawall. Whereas, the Southwest Florida Citizens Alliance is a grass -roots coalition of citizens and groups united to advance the ideas and principles of liberty including but not limited to individual rights, free markets, and limited government through education outreach and community involvement; and, Whereas, the Southwest Florida Citizens Alliance focuses on three areas by providing a platform for citizen -- educating the citizens on moral foundations that support the principles and values of a free society involving citizens in learning about, discussing, and influencing legislation, vetting candidates for office and then holding them accountable for their official conduct; and, Whereas, the Southwest Florida Citizens Alliance is currently comprised of over 100 activist community leaders from over 30 different groups and organizations throughout the county dedicated to the principles of limited government, economic freedom, and individual rights, and those leaders represent and influence thousands of voters in Collier County; and, Whereas, the Southwest Florida Citizens Alliance has been following closely the creation of La Peninsula MSBU as well as the petition to rescind the ordinance and resolution; and, Whereas, it is the petition -- position of the Southwest Florida Citizens Alliance that there are numerous constitutional and legal concerns with respect to the validity of La Peninsula MSBU in addition to the concern expressed in various attorney general opinions and reports from Collier County Code Enforcement with respect to the condition of the seawall, and that the -- this is an important part -- and Page 57 Packet Page -202- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 that the creation of an MSBU violates the principles of fiscal responsibility and limited county government. Whereas, it is the position of Southwest Florida Citizens Alliance, in accordance with our stated principles and platform, that the Board of County Commissioners must vote to rescind the Ordinance 2013 -70 and Resolution 2013 -292. And now, therefore, be it resolved by the Florida Citizens Alliance that we call upon the county Board of County Commissioners to immediately favor -- vote in favor of rescinding both of these ordinance and resolutions. Be it further resolved that the county shall not further entertain any future efforts by La Peninsula or other private entity that calls upon the county to lend or use its taxing power to credit -- to the credit or aid of any corporation, association, or partnership or person. And, finally, be it further resolved that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County shall draft and adopt a clear policy on the use and creation of MSBUs with the primary purpose of limiting the use of MSBUs to maintenance improvement and public record property -- and benefit of public property with equal and open access to all members of the public for the specific areas, facilities, and items listed in the statute 125. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Flaugh. Next speaker? MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Peter Richter. He'll be followed by Ray Netherwood. MR. RICHTER: Hi, thank you. I'm not an -- I'm not an attorney, like everyone else that's been speaking, just about, today, but so I'm not here to argue the law. I'm here to explain something that I think a lot of people may not realize, is that it seems like we are setting a precedent, and it would seem to me that governments have a responsibility to treat everyone equally and not to provide preferential Page 58 Packet Page -203- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 treatment to one community over another or one individual over another. And so I don't see what's stopping future situations like this from coming to the board and saying, hey, you know, we didn't repair our seawall or we didn't repair a roof; we need some help. This is, you know, a terrible situation, and you know, where is it ever going to stop? I think it's -- I think it's -- it's -- we've had enough bailouts in this country. We've had enough bailouts to last us a lifetime, and we're looking at one right here, and we can stop it right here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask you a question? Why are you calling this a bailout? We're not giving any public funds to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Please -- let's not interrupt -- MR. RICHTER: Well, it's interesting that you say that, because something I heard earlier -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the speakers. MR. RICHTER: -- it sounded like there was going to be an advisory board created to then determine the benefit for the community and then the benefit for the public, right? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. MR. RICHTER: And so wouldn't that board, then, be able to say, well, because the -- you've already determined that there's a public purpose, now -- so the -- clearly the county's benefitting. Why doesn't the county foot part of the bill, maybe half of the bill? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. MR. RICHTER: You know, there's a huge incentive to come to the county, I think, which I think is the -- really the wrong way to do it. I was -- I was on board -- I was the president of a board in Miami Beach, and we had to repair our seawall. We didn't -- we didn't get any help from the city, and it sounded like they could have done it, but they chose not to. Page 59 Packet Page -204- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 In fact, at the same time they were forcing us to open up our bay walk to the public. So they were taking away something from us, and they were going to be using, essentially, our seawall and opening it up to the public, and they still chose not to help us in any way. And then when we fought them to try to keep our boardwalk closed, they said, well, if you don't open it, you'll have a $ 1 0,000-a-day fine. So I think maybe, instead of -- instead of putting all of the county at risk, maybe what you ought to do is use your power to get them to fix it on their own. And I still haven't heard a great argument or even a decent one why they don't just go to the bank and do it themselves like we did. There's no bank that had any problem giving us a loan to -- for -- a million - dollar loan to repair our seawall. They were happy to do it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ]HENNING: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ray Netherwood. He'll be followed by Victor Rios. MR. NETHERWOOD: I'll be short and brief. In two- and -a -half hours, almost, is this what you really want to be doing moving forward every time a condo community has a problem, meetings like this, studies? I think the county ordinance puts the issue of seawall maintenance on private property owners. If these are private property owners, then the onus is on them. This board should not have to go through this with hundreds of condominiums and homeowners' associations in Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Victor Rios. He'll be followed by Jim Gault. Page 60 Packet Page -205- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 MR. RIOS: Will you pass this along, please, for the benefit of the board. Good afternoon. My name is Victor Rios. I live at 970 Cape Marco Drive, Unit 548, Marco Island, Florida. I would like to thank the commissioners for allowing me to speak on this issue. Now, a little background that hasn't been mentioned here. Now, I'm not as eloquent as my predecessors, Mr. Grifoni or Mr. Pires. I'm not an attorney. I happen to be an engineer, so I like detail, so I got a little information. I took the time to go to La Peninsula and take pictures, which I've given you. I have a little story I will explain (sic). Okay. La Peninsula have more than 500 condo -- I mean, not La Peninsula. The Collier County have more than 500 condo and condominium associations. And, by the way, they are governed by two different laws, statutes. Condominium associations, it's 718, Florida Statute 718, and HOAs are 720, and I happen to be the director and president of one condominium board and the director of the master board where I live. So I have a little bit of information, okay. I provided you with the picture. The pictures were taken last week on February the 7th of 2014, so that's just four days ago. La Peninsula on Isles of Capri is not a poor area of Collier County at all, okay. So I take issue with one of the commissioners saying about people not having the money to repair. I took the time to look at listings, okay. How many open listings are in La Peninsula? There may be more, you know, but a realtor friend of mine gave me the current listings, pricing ranging there from 450- to 700,000, okay, for sale. In addition, Isles of Capri, there's homes for sale, okay, ranging from 350- to $3.5 million. Hardly a blighted area, a poor area, or area where people do not have money to afford repair on their own buildings or facilities. Page 61 Packet Page -206- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 La Peninsula has 164 units, according to the information I have. I may be wrong, but that's what I was able to obtain through realtor information. There are several buildings, and they have very many luxury amenities. They have a pool, spa, fitness room, sauna, et cetera. Monthly fees, currently, I was told they are roughly 700 a month which, if you multiply times the number of units, they collect about $1.4 million, okay. And I also have read, like was mentioned here, that repairs or rebuilding the seawall is $4 million. That seems to me a very high price, because I've done it before. I have undertaken the repair of a very large seawall and riprap. We added 9,000 tons of riprap to the complex where I lived. That's a lot of riprap, okay. And I took a walk, and you see the pictures I gave you. I find very little deterioration. And I've seen the engineer report that was presented proves that point, okay, and I'm sure there's some cracks and fixing that needed to be done. I think I have three minutes yielded to me by some other member that you have there, that he said yielded to me three minutes. I feel to qualify (sic) about this, again, because I'm a director of a condo association. MR. MILLER: I do not have any such sheet -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MR. MILLER: -- Mr. Rios. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Rios, you need to wrap up, because you've exceeded your -- MR. RIOS: Well, I was here when the person handed the piece of paper granting me the extra three minutes. I don't know what happened to it. He says -- he wrote it, and I said okay. MR. NETHERWOOD: I thought that I was given extra time, because I had originally ceded time to Mr. Rios. Page 62 Packet Page -207- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Everybody gets three minutes. MR. RIOS: Well, since he didn't use the three minutes, can I use his remaining time? CHAIRMAN HENNING: He already spoke, sir. MR. RIOS: Oh. All right. Okay. Leaving that, the only thing I'm going to mention, the county manager report, okay. You going to have to add in loss of tax revenue in the likely event that buildings were damaged and the property devalued, the time to lose the revenue (sic). CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Rios. MR. RIOS: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. You have -- your time has expired. MR. RIOS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. I'm sorry. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jim Gault. He'll be followed by Kathleen Bruns. MR. GAULT: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm going to waive my right to speak. We've talked about this for three hours. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Right, I agree. MR. MILLER: Ms. Bruns? MS. BRUNS: And I also waive my time. MR. MILLER: Those were your final two speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I think Commissioner Hiller, Commissioner Nance, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wanted to address Mr. Richter's comments. He had discussed advisory boards and what that advisory board might try to do. The role of the advisory board is to give input to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County .-� Commissioners is the only body that has the authority to make the Page 63 Packet Page -208- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 determination as to the extent of any expenditure, you know, how that '-' expenditure will be funded and, you know, what assessments will be levied. The advisory board has absolutely no legal authority with respect to any of those three questions. So your concerns have no merit. As far as the cost to repair or replace this seawall, if the determination is made that it is -- it should be considered because the AG comes back and says that what we have done so far is legally correct, that will be, again, an evidentiary question that will be decided based on evidence presented to the board by staff. We have requested all the information they have. You know, if no immediate repairs are necessary, there won't be any assessments. If it's determined that there's no need to replace that wall, it will not be replaced. I mean, we are not going to approve an expenditure that is unnecessary. And, again, it's only -- it goes to the issue of public health, safety, and welfare. If there is no public health, safety, or welfare concern, we're not going to do anything at all; no need. So I just want to put your mind at rest. And I'm very sorry to hear what happened to you down in Miami. It sounds to me that you had a government that took your property without fair compensation, and I'm sorry to hear that that happened to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Nance? COMIlVIISSIONER NANCE: No further comments, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMIlVIISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to make note that we as a County Commission really try and support our members of our community. We try and work with them. When they want to better themselves, we want to support that effort. We worked together to try and -- I mean, many of the Page 64 Packet Page -209- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 commissioners have had issues each in their own communities, and we've tried to support them and encourage a better community and let our citizens know that we do care about their needs. And I wanted to also say that Tim Durham showed me something like this. I don't know if you showed anybody else this, but would you like to just show people this real quickly or something? COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is it? CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's a pretty map. COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is for the people who don't believe the seawall can fall in. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean the seawall falling in? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, the seawall falling in. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If that's okay. I -- you know, if that's all right with you. MR. DURHAM: Just, basically, I had some visuals that support the memo that I produced, based on the commissioners' request, the county staff come forward with the public purpose. If I may, I'll make it very, very quick. There's only about four or five pictures I'd like to show. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a reason why that wasn't delivered to the board? The board asked for information. Is there a reason why you didn't provide that in an email? MR. DURHAM: Yeah. I didn't get it til very late Friday, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: After you wrote the memo? MR. DURHAM: After the memo was written. There wasn't time to put it in on the agenda. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is this really -- Commissioner Fiala, does this really make a difference of what we're doing right now? We're going for an AGO. Is there something that maybe he can email us? Page 65 Packet Page -210- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 COMIVIISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't know that we would be able to see from this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put it on the viewer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't take long. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's just interesting -- MR. DURHAM: I have them -- I can put them on the screen there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: By the way, that's not Tim Durham's. Let's not confuse that. COMIVIISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMIVIISSIONER FIALA: Thanks. This is interesting. MR. DURHAM: Okay. And I'll make this very, very quick. The information I used to base my memo on was essentially relying on the Corps of Army Engineers out of Jacksonville. And I don't claim to be an expert on seawalls or tidal forces or anything like that, but I did -- that was my starting place, looking into the history when Collier County started dredging these waterways back in the 1930s. And my initial question was to them, given that -- the fact that this seawall was built in 1969, was did the Corps have anything to do with it, whether it was permitting or anything else. And one of the things that kind of I started uncovering -- and I asked questions about how would these things fail, and what would that look like, et cetera. This is Collier County's coastline in 1975. And as you see there, in front of La Peninsula, due west of it, there's a barrier island, which was called Coconut Island. And back at the time, you know, that afforded some of the tidal protection that would hit La Peninsula. So -- okay. So that's 1975. Fast forward. This is 2003. Those barrier islands are almost gone. Then coming forward to 2012, they're no longer there. And in -- Page 66 Packet Page -211- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 you know, in March of 2013, the board heard testimony from Coastal Engineering and approved an executive summary regarding Hideaway Beach. And earlier it was described that the tidal forces in this area are very dynamic, and that's true. The amount of sand that's shifted and pulled from this particular area is terrific. So what's that have to do with anything, these tidal forces? Well, this is how a seawall will fail or can fail, and this is, again, from the Corps of Army Engineer folks. It might only take one panel, one panel separating from the seawall, and what happens is these tidal forces are constant. They're an irresistible force that keeps working morning, noon, and night. In fact, they were telling me the biggest danger is in a storm event, because excess water is pushed over the barrier. It's the constant working and undermining. So if a panel in a seawall fails, what likely happens there, it starts taking away the earth that supports that seawall and starting to undermine the earth around that area. And the thing that's a little bit unique about the La Peninsula situation -- and let's look at -- this is the 400 condominium block at La Peninsula. They're 20 feet from the seawall. So if -- the argument would go like this: If the seawall fails, the foundation starts to shift. The first thing that would likely occur would be structural damage to these buildings. They told me this would be gradual. It would be over a period of time. So the likelihood of an instantaneous collapse that would dump these into the waterway or cause human (sic) life would be very unlikely. But the first thing you would see is an undermining of the foundations causing structural damage to these units. Just that one block, the 400 block, has a taxable value of 6.2 million. There's seven of those blocks in the La Peninsula area. And that's just -- that's what I'd prepared. Page 67 Packet Page -212- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. DURHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4 -1; Commissioner Fiala against the motion. Now, the issue on the agenda, let's get to that, whether to rescind the ordinance and resolution. Is there a motion to rescind the resolution or a motion (sic)? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll make a motion to do so. Is there a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The motion fails. So we still need to take action on the item on the agenda. So, again, it's the burning desire of the majority to fund this. So you want to make the motion, Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I think it's inappropriate to jump to that conclusion. The opinion of the Attorney General's Office will guide us as to whether -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to continue this item? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we're -- there's nothing to continue. What -- the motion to rescind this ordinance failed. If for some reason the determination is made by the courts that funding this doesn't serve a valid public purpose, then, you know, obviously it's not Packet Page -213- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 a valid ordinance. If the determination is made by the board after getting the evidence from staff that there's no need for any repairs, there's not going to be any funding even if it does serve a valid public purpose. So, you know, I think it's premature to take any action because we need both a -- we need -- first we need the evidence and -- as to, you know, what we are really talking about in terms of necessary repairs, if any at all and, secondly, we need a court opinion as well as the AG's opinion as to whether what we are doing is legally valid. So at this point in time, you know, leaving the ordinance as -is doesn't mean that at some point in time it may, you know, become moot because it's not -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- either not necessary or not legally valid. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's ask our County Attorney on reconsideration of past items. What is the process? MR. KLATZKOW: This one's a little different because you've got a valid ordinance that's on the books right now. If you do not want to rescind that ordinance, it stays on the books. You don't have to do anything right now. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So can we reconsider at a later time? MR. KLATZKOW: I think when the AGO opinion comes down COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. MR. KLATZKOW: -- that would be the time to do it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly. I agree. MR. KLATZKOW: You're the -- you're the governing body of the MSBU, okay. You can always make the decision we're not funding this. 0-M. Packet Page -214- 3/11/2014 10.A. February 11, 2014 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the action would be not fund it instead of repealing the ordinance, or can we repeal the ordinance at a later date? MR. KLATZKOW: You can always repeal the ordinance; not a problem. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Always. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So do we really need to take any action? MR. KLATZKOW: No, you've taken your action. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll take a motion to adjourn then. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, second. Page 70 Packet Page -215- F Imo. ORDINANCE NO. 85- 1 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION, RECON- STRUCT40N, REPAIR, ALTERATION, PROJECTION AND J ° PROL09CATION OF SEAWALLS AND REVETMENTS IN THE UN DICORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY1 PROVIDING DErINXTIONSt PROVIDING THAT A FAILED SEAWALL OR REY&MENT IS UNLAWFUL AND A PUBLIC NUISANCE; i� PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION BY AMEND - ei ING SECTION THREE, SUBSECTION 2 OF ORDINANCE NO. 83M44''TO PROVIDE THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 0n COLLIER COUNTY SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR ' AND DECIDE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR OTHER ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES AND PENAL - TIES; PROVIDING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR SEA- WALLS AND REVETMENTS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, there are many areas in the County which are adjacent to natural or man -made bodies of water; and WHEREAS, many of these areas adjacent to bodies of water are bordered by seawalls and revetments; and WHEREAS, properly designed and constructed seawalls and revetments serve to protoct waterfront upland property and improvements locatod thereon against wave attack and serve to stabilize the position of the shoreline; and , Y J WHEREAS, seawalls and revetments have a tendency to fail and fall into bodies of water becauso of the passage of tine, strong; winds, heavy rains, erosion, corrosion, and high and low tides among other reasono; and - WHEREAS, seawalls and revetments which have failed or collapsed are a hazard to navigation in navigable bodira of water and a hazard to drainage and flood control in non - navigable bodies of water; and WHEREAS, a failed seawall or revetment with accompanying loss of fill, unless promptly replaced or repaired, may cause continuing loss of soil on adjoining properties which can seriously and adversely affect the stability of seawalls and revetments on those adjoining properties as well as the value of adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, a failed seawall or revetment deprives adjoining property owners of the additional strength that derives from the t00K Qi9 PAq ZL61;Wb Packet Page -216- 3/11, we MR 3/11/2 014 10.A. common benefit of a continguous seawall or revetment; and WHEREAS, individual property owners are presently respon- sible for maintenance, repair, and replacement of seawalls and revetments along their propertyl and WHEREAS, there presently exists a threat to public health, safety, and welfare because of the failure of some individual property owners to maintain, repair, or replace their failed seawalls or revetments) NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section One: Definitionst An used in this Ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings: "County ": means the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida. "SeawAll ": means any solid upright structure which serves r.n aeparnte real property and /or any improvements thereon from any natural or man -made body of water. "Failed seawall or revetment ": means a seawall or revetment that has failed structurally or that has moved from its original position or that does not serve to stabilize the position of the shoreline. "Revetment ": means a sloping structure which serves to separate real property and /or any improvements thereon from any natural or man -made body of water. Section Two: Failed Seawall Or Revetment Declared To Be Unlawful And A Public Nuisance. It is hereby declared unlawful and A public nuisance for any property owner in the County to permit, cr to fail to repair or reconstruct, any failed seawall or revetment upon his property. Section Three: Enforcement Jurisdiction. In any area of the County where a Code Enforcement Board exists, such Code Enforcement Board shall have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance, however the jurisdic- tion of the Code Enforcement Board shall not be exclusive. The Code Enforcement Board shall have such enforcement powers to be 2 100K 019 ra(.! Packet Page -217- ansra 3/11/2014 10.A exercised in such manner As may be provided by county ordinance or state statute, including the authority to levy a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for each day a viola- tion continues past the data set by the Code Enforcement Board's order for compliance. In connection therewith, Section Three, Subsection 2 of Ordinance 83 -43 which created the Code Enforce- ment Board of Collier County, is hereby amended by adding the following lanquaget (j) Seawalls and Revetments - Collier County Ordinance No. 85 -_ 2 and amendments thereto. Section Fouri Other Enforcement Remedies And Penalties. Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance, or failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall consti- tut* a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this Ordinance or fsilt to comply with any of the pre.iaionc of thin Ordinance shall upon conviction thereof be fined or imprisoned, or both, as providod by law, and in addition shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case. Each day such violation continues shall be eonsidernd a separate offense. In addition, the hoard of County commissioners may take any other lawful action in any court of competent jurisdiction as is necessary to prevent or remedy any failure or refusal to comply with any of the provisions of this Ordinance. Such other lawful action shall include, but shall not be limited to, an equitable action for injunctive relief or action at law for damages or foreclosures of liens. Nothing contained in this Ordinance shall be construed to limit or otherwise adversely affect an adjoining property owner's right to seek redress for damages resulting from a failed seawall or revetment. Section Fivet Technical Specifications For Seawalls An Revettronts. There is attached hereto and incorporated by refcrencc herein a document entitled "Collier County Seawall and Revetment Regulations - Technical Specifications," consisting of pages one sm 019 rA,,' 3 _ _�„ Packet Page an 3/11/2014 10.A through nine, inclusive of design figures. All seawalls and revetments constructed, reconstructed, repaired, altered, pro- jetted or prolonged in the County after the effective date of this Ordinance must meet or exceed these technical specifica- tions as followst Minor repairs to the seawall or revatment which do not necessitate physical alteration to the existing structural support system are exempt from the technical specifications. B. Major repairs to the seawall or revetment which necessi- tate physical replacement of any portion of the structural support system, except sheet piling, shall comply with the appropriate material specification of the technical epecifi- cations for the proposed repair only. C. Reconstruction of any seawall or revetment requiring the complete reinstallntion of the sheet pile portion of the structural support system, or any new seawall or revetment section installed ndjacent to or independently from any existing seawall or revetment shall require complete con- formance with all sections of the technical specifications for that portion of seawall or revetment. Failure to comply with these technical specifications shall constitute a vic.Iation of this Ordinance. Section Six: Conflict and Severability. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, ti:e more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or pertion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. Section Sevene Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective !ipon receipt of notice 1001 019 pr,! 266 4 Packet Page -219- Ib� .ajRt, 0 3/11/2014 10.A. from the Secretary of State that this Ordinance has been filed with the Secretary of State. DA�$D4r January 8, 1985 �� 'ATTEST s y'. ifILL AM.,.".REAGAN, Clerk • w •',� � . , ?'jam _� 11r' • Xppioved as to form and egal��Nfficiencyt ruce n arson Assistant County Attorney STATE OF FLORIDA ) COMM OF COLLIER ) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By s FREDE ICR J. VOSS, C airman I, WILLIAM J. REAChN, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true original of: ORDINANCE NO. 85 -2 which was adopted by the Board of County Corarnisnionern during Regular Session the 8th day of January, 1985. WITNESS my hand and the official seat of the Board of County Comsissionere of Collier County, Florida, thin 8th day of January, 1985. WILLIAH J. REAGAN Thh endtnanes fiw with the Clerk of Courts aril Clerk 4 � e,_,_•� „fITa County Ex-Officio to Board of �'�� ",` ^' 1�� County Coahml eloncrs and aciuvw1ed2-t of rhor fit rseshred r day e Of y VLrginieKagri, Deputy erie oIV.nr • Y nag 5 Packet Page -220- 3/11/2014 10 A COLLIER COUNTY SEAWALL AND REV MENT REGULATIONS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION li DESCRIPTION nr The work described in this Specification consists of the design and construc- tion of waterfront upland property and building protection structures such as seawalls and revetments which serve to protect against wave attack and to ate- bili :e the position of the shoreline. The Design and Construction standards herein described shall provide minimum requirements for all seawalls and revetments constructed, reconstructed, repaired, altered, projected or prolonged. SECTION 2: DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. Central 1. All plans and specifications for seawalls and revetments shall be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida. 2. Th e design of the structures shall adequately address all possible soil, live, dead and hydrostatic loadings existing during the life of the structure. B. Criteria 1. Soil and site parameters essential to the structural design are summarized on Figure 1. 2. The active failure soil wedge on the upland side of the structure shall assume saturated soil to the top cnp of the seawall /revetment. ). The low water depth on the waterward side of the structure shall be assumed to he it "low, low" tide. SECTION i; GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. Location Seawalls shall be placed so that the waterward frce of the wall is coincidental with the platted property or bulkhead line, if one exists, or at the intersection of the mean high water line with the existing shoreline. Revetments shall be placed so the exposed rock face intersects the platted property or bulkhead Line at the mean high water line. B. Elevation The cap elevation for all seawalls and revetments fronting on protected tidal waters shall be equal to, or greater than, eleva- tion 4.5 feet N.G.V.D. (National Geodetic Vertical Datum) and equal to or greater than, 5.5 feet N.C.V.D. on open bays and channels. The elevation for all seawalls and revetments fronting on freshwater canals and lakes shall be equal to, or greater than, the local high water elevation as determined for a 25 year return frequency design storm avant. IOU X.VO January g, 1985 1 Packet Page -221- January R. 19A FM X3/11 /2014 10.A Filling The only filling authorized heroin shall be for backfill behind the seawalls or revetments and shall not extend any further water — ward than existing seawalls or revetments. The backfill shall be from upland sources and consist of suitable granular material free from toxic pollutants in other than trace quantitie2. At no time shall this Specification be construed to allow the filling of any County. State or Federal wetland. Cods Enforcement 1. The County Manager, or his designated representative, shall review the plant and specifications to determine if all appropriate Engineering Certifications are provided. Upon determination that all certifications are provided, the County Manager, or his designated representative, shall issue a Permit to perform such work. 2. At the conclusion of all permitted work relating to an indi- vidual seawall or revetment improvement, a certification by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida shall he provided to the County Manager, or his designated representative, verifying compliance with the design and construction requirements of this Specification. Special Conditions The County Manager, or his designated representative, may waive/ Abate only those requirements detailed herein that are in direct conflict with existing conditions at or Adjacent to the property location for the proposed ■eAwAll or revetment improvements. Substitutions may be Authorized by the County Manager, or his designated representative, for seawalls or revetments constructed of material and /or by methods other than as detailed in this Ordinance only if the design considerations of Section 2 herein are complied with. This authorization does not allow substitution of any requirement detailed in Section 4 herein. RESTRICTIVE SPECiFICATTON'S General 1. The Standard Specifications of the Florida Department of Transportation for Road and Bridge Construction, Latest Edition, shall govern all construction, including materials and workmanship, where applicable. 2. The references to tie —back rods and Anchors in the following subsection& shall not be construed as a requirement by Collier County for that particular means of sheet piling support sys- tem but are included for Specification information purpose* only. When utilized, the tie —back rods shall be straight between wall cap or waler and anchor plate. 3. Shoot piling shall be installed plumb in both the horizontal and vertical directions. boor 01.7ri'! 2v.n 2 "' Packet Page -222- RM 9419 3/11/2014 4. Sliest piling shall penetrate into firm ground a minimum of 40% of the total length of the sheet pile but never less than 4 feet. This penetration requirement may be abated in the event the toe of the sheet pile can be embedded a miniumum of 12 inches in solid bedrock. S. The toe -berm of all sheet pile seawalls shall be protected by a atone rip -rap revetment placed on a filter fabric erosion control blanket in accordance with Section 4.0 as follows: a. At locations where soils will not adequately resist toe -out failure by additional penetration depth alone; b. At locations where lateral tidal flows create excessive scour and erosion of the toe -berm; C. At any other location where the design Engineer deems it necessary for the preservation of the integrity of the seawall. E. Concrete Sheet Pile Seawalls 1. All seawalls under this Section may be of concrete, utilizing the tongue end grove, nr other Approved method of construc- tion, with poured -in -place concrete cap. 2. Tht concrete shall have a minimum test strength of 3.000 psi after 28 days. 1. Each sheet piling slab shall have a minimum thickness of mix Inches and provide a minimum reinforcing stool covtr of two and one -hnlf (2y) inches of concrete. 4. The concrete cap shall not be less than 10 inches in thick - neas, nor Less than 16 inches in width, And contain one -half (y) inch expsnaton jointa of pre - molded sealer at all property lines but in no case more than 100 foot intervals. 5. All tie -hack rode shall be of A size, material And composi- tion to ensure a three -to -one (3:1) safety factor under the design criteria outlined in Section 2.A.2. Tie rods shall be integral with the +lAb vertical reinforcing steel And be environmentAlly protected Against corrosion by "hot -dip" galvaniring in Accordance with ASTM A -153, epoxy coating in Accordance with ASTM A -775, or Any other equivalent protection material. 6. TLe -rod anchors shall have not less than six square feet of vertical surface area perpendicular to the alignment of the tie -rod and be located within the area of full passive resis- tance. C. Aluminum Sheet Pile Seawalls 1. All seawalls under this Section may be of aluminum, with all members conforming to the appropriate ASTM standards so specified. 2. Sheet piles shall be fabricated from aluminum alloy 5052 -H141, conforming to ASTM 15-209 alloy 5052 for chemical composition; also having a minimum thickness of 0.125 inches and a minimns ultimate tensile strength of 35,500 p.s.i. m 019,1-470 January 8. 1985 1 Packet Page -223- 3/11/2014 10.A. 3. Cap and joint extrusions shall be fabricated from aluminum alloy 6063 -T6, conforming to ASTN B -221 alloy 6063 for chemical composition; also having a minimum thickness of 0.15 inches and a minimum ultimate tenelle strength of 30,000 ' p.a.i. The cap shall be a minimum of six inches wide and five and threa- quarters (5.75) inches deep. 4. Anchor rods and anchor plates shall be fabricated from aluminum alloy 6061 -T60 conforming ASTM'B -I21 alloy 6061 for chemical composition; also having a minimum thickness of 0.125 inches for anchor plates and a minimum diameter of 0.75 inches for anchor rods, both with a minimum ultimate tensile strength of 38,000 p.s.i. Anchor rods shall be designed to ensure a three -to -one (3sl) safety factor under the design criteria outlined in Section 2.A.2. 5. Installation procedures shall follow the guidelines and methods required by the aluminum seawall manufact,irer. 6. If the aluminum material is brought in contact with concrete, A coatis; of clear nethscrylarp iscgtisr shall be applied to the aluminum contact surface to prevent corrosion. There shall be no dissimilar metals or metal systems bonded to the wall. D. Revetments 1. The work under this Sectiun is comprised of a heavy senor facing of precasr. co -crate blocks, natural stones and boulders, baits filled with sand- cement mixture of grout, or some other durable facing material placed on a stable natural sloping shore. 2. The revetment shall be placed on a smooth, even, compacted slope with a gradient not exceeding one foot vertical drop for every two feet of horizontal distance. 3. All revetments shall be placed on a woven plastic filter fabric in accordance with F.D.O.T. Specifications, Section 514. This fabric shall be overlaid by a layer of one inch to four inch atone which shall serve as ■ cushion for the armor lsyer protection. The fabric shall be folded over and anchored by larger rock at the toe of the revetment slope. The stone revetment armor layer shall be comprised of boulders of suffi,'ient quantity and size to withstand all :ids and wave forcue, but in no tags be .es■ than that specified by F.D.O.T. Specifications Section 530. 5. Alternative armor layers of protection "y be sand- cement bags interconnected by 14 reinforcing dowels. in accordance with F.D.O.T. Specifications Section 530, "Armorflex ", "Terrafix ", "Tri- lock" or any other approved interlocking, precast, modular concrete armor system. M 019rra Z71 Januar• R, 19B5 4 o"WOUNIMMOV "' . I I Packet Page -224- 3/11/2014 10.A. ' M « SECTION 51 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS sib• Theca Specifications detail minimum requirements for seawalls and revatments S which are to be constructed in Collier County. Individual design is the respon- sibility of the landowner, based upon specific site conditions, type of shore stabilization structure desired. method of construction. and all other factors affecting the stability of the structure. These Specifications are minimum requirements only and are not intended to be a final design relating to a specific " site or any other affecting conditions. � iaoc Q19n :t,� Packet Page -225- l 1 � + i w w » R L L Y � L v q O A > e .+ r -» > c r » • C � a L O 1 7 >• + 0 V • 7 W too 019rVI Z73 3/11/2014 10.A. r n u a i •u • a v w r + Y C a u u w • u J Y � t o • 4 9 .. L .+ 7 V s = 7 C� • C » o L s Y + o I Packet Page -226- ►� �a w �► � N C%d YpY• -� Y o� 0% E"trojh ( Min.) Z C/1 D L ®F: P 1 Z �p 1 i N m • A pz o 0 Cx � o �M o A2 O ZCQ f GI j o q In 0 a o N N r� S O� 2 0 3/11/2014 10.A. 9 - - - - - - - - _--�- on .3' R -- Z Z w N• v! --�- O•o wi1�N pa �`{ �6- -Min. 61 A N m It 9 Z ` CO • 3 a � �5u � Lrz• � X O f ;pt-jal Z r � io' CID Capes / Z 9 ^9" 8 S v n < v io'o.c. - -- s (TyP ) -� o C-� rn N .100( U19rl'•t 274 Packet Page - 227 - ��i FM PMR !R" 3/11/2014 10.A. Z (TYR) p ^. n } tl� s r n D 5� o r o $ �+ m n n 0 n � D D 1 D' Z T! ('1 C) � c Cn _ pp� D m 9 7 �- Z n ^? i Q�� �� n cn LA r 3 g _ m g° r nmm w I1. 3 Fro -{ v rn 1 n A O D < -z 055E �m All r, o n= in SOCK 9Fi<< 2z Packet Page -228- 3/11/2014 10.A. Establish Vegetation , —Armor Rip-Rap of Bonk — Rip -Rap Too Protection Stone Filler Cushbnx'l Filler Fobrlc TYPICAL STONE REVETMENT Establish Vegetation 1 Too of Bonk Interlocking Blocks HWI, Grovel Blanket On LWL. �. �;�� -Filter Fabric Seabed - -- Filter Fobric _Stone Toe Prolectwn TYPICAL CONCRETE -BLOCK REVETMENT �< W WO z ?o O ¢J in g- t -• N W Z X1.1 o -- - A A u lv i I o ►- u v� o au J U PLAN VIEW SECTION A -A oWW Cr K-:) cL o z �- >_ INTERLOCKING BLACK CO W" ip N N F- ri`' �G► ! V t SOOK �7 Figure 4 $ __ Packet Page -229- 101" SmithCamden /'1From: Sent: To: Subject: Commissioner, SmithCamden Friday, February 28, 2014 2:25 PM HenningTom RE: Collier County Shoreline Lengths 3/11/2014 10.A. Marco Island's community relations staff Nancy Peyton provided me data on seawall mileage on Marco Island verbally as 120.12 miles. The calculations then for the executive summary will include what Josh estimated for Collier County as well as the Marco Island calculations, but excludes waterfront in the City of Naples and Everglades City. So total mileage as previously mentioned is 184.37 linear miles. Respectfully, Camden Smith, MPA Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Henning Board of County Commissioners Ph: (239) 252 -8605 Email: CamdenSmithPcolliergov.net Notice to recipients: All ema.ils and attachments reeeiued or sent regarding count! business and /or BCC agenda items are public record in. compliance with the State of Florida's Sunshine Law. From: HenningTom Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:08 AM To: SmithCamden Subject: Fwd: Collier County Shoreline Legnths Begin forwarded message: From: Josh Maxwell <Josh(&turrell- associates.com> Date: February 21, 2014 at 6:19:35 PM EST To: HenningTom <TomHenning_(&colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Collier County Shoreline Legnths Commissioner Henning, n The approximate developed, navigable, shoreline in Collier County is 64.25 miles + / -, which excludes the waterfront in the City of Naples, City of Marco Island and Everglades City. Packet Page -230- 3/11/2014 10.A. The shorelines utilized for this study include known areas where the shorelines have been armored with seawalls, riprap or have a maintained mangrove shoreline. The county parks were not counted in these calculations, only include single family, multi - family and commercial waterfront was used for this data. Areas with large, un- maintained areas of mangroves were excluded from these calculations as the location of the shoreline within the mangroves is the mean high water line which can be hard to approximate without a survey. This data was not collected from a survey, the shoreline lengths were measured in Google Earth and were then rounded to the nearest 1/4 mile. Here are the shoreline calculations broken down to general areas around the County: - County Line to Wiggins Pass 10.25 miles - Vanderbilt Lagoon 11.5 miles - Seagate 2.0 miles - Naples Bay /Gordon River/Haldeman Creek 12.25 miles - Henderson Creek 2.75 miles - Isles of Capri 8.5 miles - Goodland 4.5 miles - Port of the Islands 5.0 miles - Plantation Island 4.5 miles - Chokoloskee 3.0 miles I hope this answers your question and if you need any further information please feel free to contact me. Regards, Joshua W. Maxwell, E.I.T./Project Manager Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Marine & Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, FL. 34104 -3732 Phone: (239) 643 -0166 Fax: (239) 643 -6632 Web: www.turrell - associates.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, WORK PRODUCT AND /OR EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT (OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT), YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONING US (COLLECT) AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE AT OUR EXPENSE. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: info(a)turrell- associates.com [mailto:info a,turrell- associates.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:00 AM To: Josh Maxwell Packet Page -231- 3/11/2014 10.A. Subject: Turrell, Hall & Associates: Contact Form Name: Commissioner Henning Email: tomhenning_Acollier og v.net Phone: Comments: Josh Maxwell Would you have approximate linear feet or miles of shore line protection in Collier County. Thanks Commissioner Henning Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. '_*N Packet Page -232- Legend Seawalls Length: 120.12 mi Packet Page -233- 3/11/2014 10.A. Date: To. From: Subject: Introduction: MEMORANDUM December 7, 2012 3/11/2014 10.A. &%EILMMIN Planning Board and Waterways Advisory Committee Lina Upham, Planning and Zoning Technician Seawall Manufacture, Construction, and Repair On October 5 and November 2, 2012, Planning Board and Waterways Advisory Committee held workshops in the effort to provide solutions and alternatives to the existing ordinance regulating seawall manufacture, construction and repair on vacant residential lots. Purpose of this memo is to present follow -up permitting and code enforcement related information that would be helpful in this effort. 1) Summary of the seawall staging lot permits (12/01/2008-11/30 /2012) Currently, regulations pertaining to the seawall staging on vacant parcels are codified under the Section 30 -793, Construction Temporary Use Permit, of the Marco Island Code of Ordinances. Also, most current fee schedule, adopted by the City Council on June 20, 2011 (Resolution No. 11 -10), requires a $300 fee payment for all the permits issued under the Sec. 30 -793. Permit activity. Between December 1, 2008 and November 30, 2012, City of Marco Island has issued 212 seawall staging permits. 204 vacant residential lots were used for this purpose. Eight (8) vacant lots that were used for staging more than once. Map, indicating all the seawall staging sites, is attached to your packets. The below table indicates eight (8) vacant lots that were used for staging more than once and the number of days elapsed between the final date (when the permit was officially closed by the City) of the first permit and the issue date of the second permit. Packet Page -234- 3/11/2014 10.A. Address Final date of the 1st permit Issue date of the 2nd permit Days elapsed 1207 Antigua Ct 1/13/2010 4/12/2011 454 173 Stillwater Ct 6/30/2009 9/1/2011 793 365 Wales Ct 8/16/2010 4/11/2012 605 441 Edgewater Ct 6/25/2010 5/31/2012 706 444 Barcelona Ct 4/16/2010 6/23/2011 433 451 Alameda Ct 6/25/2009 11/29/2011 887 889 S Barfield Dr 2/10/2010 2/14/2011 1369 89 Madagascar Ct 6/1012010 12/2/2011 1 540 Actual time between the issuance and dosing of the permit. As it was mentioned during the last meeting, 30 staging lot permits were issued in FY 2012 (October 1, 2011 — September 30, 2012). Of which: • One (1) is still active • Seven (7) were closed in less than 120 days (71; 100; 77; 100; 100; 60; 101 days) • 22 were closed in 120 days. However, this does not mean that all 120 days were necessary. Permits are closed prior to the permit expiration day only if the contractor informs the City that the job is complete and requests a final inspection. 10_1�1 2) Most common citizen concerns and code violations "Old" violations. During the public workshops prior to the passage of 2010 ordinance, it was indicated that most of the 25 violations (issued between 12/9/2006 and 2/9/2010) were for overstaying the allowed 120 days on the vacant lot and failure to clean up properly after vacating the lot. Also, the following complaints were indicated: • Mooring of the barges • Fixing boats on vacant lots • Dumping of debris on the lot • Breaking up of old seawalls panels on the property • Storage of commercial equipment • Cement truck entering and exiting the property • Noise Current citizen concerns and code violations. It is important to note that 2010 ordinance limited demolition activities, clarified what vehicles or equipment could be on the staging site, forbade fixing of boats on vacant lots and put the reference to the already existing Sections 54-111 and 54- 112 (i) of the Marco Island Code of Ordinances, which regulate mooring of barges and other waterway related items (attached to your packets). Within past year, City has not received seawall Packet Page -235- ralbi 3/11/2014 10.A. staging related noise complaints, complaints regarding fixing of the boats on the vacant lots, also City is not aware of any contractors overstaying the allowed 120 days. Since Community Affairs Department started issuing seawall staging permits almost a year ago it was observed that one issue continues to cause vast majordy of concerns — debris on site and general unsightliness. Requiring for six -foot fencing and imposing stricter fines should remedy that. Finally, within last year, new kind of violation emerged — using a vacant lot without securing a staging lot permit. This happens when a contractor has an active building permit to replace or repair a seawall on a vacant lot for that particular lot only, however starts pouring panels, hauls in demolition materials and performs other activities for other sites, without the City or owner of that lot knowing about it. It is staff's opinion that a staging lot permit is required with a regular seawall building permit any time the job is done on a vacant lot. This should prevent the type of violation that occurred at 1790 Hummingbird Ct., about which Mrs. Sorboro spoke during the last workshop. Requested Action: Consider provided information, public comment, and make recommendations to the City Council or staff if additional workshops are needed. Packet Page -236- Municode 3/11/2014 10.A. - --- Vsec. 54-111. - Dimensional (a) Protrusion limitations for boat docking facilities. (1) On waterfront lots located on waterways which are 100 feet or greater in width the combination of a boat docking facility and moored vessel(s) shall not protrude more than 30 feet into the waterway, provided the combination of a boat docking facility and moored vessel(s) does not protrude more than 25 percent of the platted width of the waterway in order to ensure reasonable width for navigation. The protrusion of boat docking facilities, which are located at the intersection of two waterways or in areas where the waterway widens may in cases exceed 25 feet but not more than 30 feet into the waterway. Boat docking facilities located at the end of a canal shall not protrude more than 25 percent of the platted width of the waterway. See Exhibits One and Three. (2) On waterfront lots located on waterways which are less than 100 feet in width the combination of a boat docking facility and moored vessels) shall not protrude more than 20 percent of the platted width of the waterway, except that on waterfront lots with a marginal dock as defined in section 54 -101 the combination of the dock and moored vessel(s) shall not exceed 25 percent of the platted width of the waterway or 25 feet, whichever is more restrictive. The protrusion of boat docking facilities, which are located at the intersection of two waterways or in areas where the waterway widens may in cases exceed 20 feet but not more than 30 feet into the waterway. Boat docking facilities located at the and of a canal shall not protrude more than 20 ^ percent of the platted width of the waterway. See Exhibits Two and Three. (3) No piling, boatlift, or other structure necessary to moor a vessel shall be permitted unless that structure meats the protrusion requirements set forth herein or a boat dock extension has been approved. (4) Protrusion shall be measured from the face of the seawall. On lots where the property line extends into the water, the protrusion shall be measured from the property line. (5) The platted width of the waterway shall be defined by the recorded plat. (6) Staff shall determine whether or not the proposed location and design of the boat docking facility and moored vessel(s) in combination is such that it may infringe upon the use of neighboring properties, including any existing boat docking facilities. (7) Protrusion measurement into a waterway from a waterfront lot shall include the combination of the boat docking facility, mooring piles, and moored vessel(s). Outboard motor(s), inboard propeller(s), lower unit transmissions) propeller(s), bow pulpit(s), navigational light(s), ladder(s), and other vessel appurtenances attached to the moored vessel shall also be included in the protrusion measurement (8) Boat dock decking and dock area shall comply with any other applicable local, state, or federal law, rule, regulation or policy. (9) Waterfront lots located within multifamily and commercial zoning districts may provide a parallel waterfront walkway along the waterway side of the seawall from lot line to lot line (riparian lines) not to exceed a maximum width of six feet. Staff shall determine whether or not the waterfront walkway interferes with adjacent boat docking facilities. (10) Wet slip mooring may be provided in the side yard setback adjacent to side yard property lines/riparian lines in multifamily and commercial zoning districts, provided Packet Pa a -237 - http:// library. municode. com /printaspx ?h= &cuenu i.y-- i &uuu&tlT'MRequest= http %3a %2f... 11/30/2012 Municode 3/11/2014 10.A. boat docks, mooring piles, and access piers comply with side yard setbacks set forth herein. 01) If the platted width of a waterway is unclear from available information, a waterfront property owner may, at the waterfront property owner's expense, provide a survey, which is dated no later than three months from the date of the waterfront property owners boat dock extension application, to staff as additional information regarding the actual width of the waterway. (b) Side yard setback requirements for boat docking facilities and swivel PWC lifts: (1) Boat docking facilities shall have side yard setbacks equivalent to 15 percent of the seawall length, as measured along the waterfront and from each applicable riparian line. a• The minimum required setback shall be 7.5 feet. b. The maximum required setback shall be 15 feet. Packet Page -238 - http:// library. municode .com /print.aspx ?h= &clientID= 14004 &HTMRequest= http %3a %2f... 11/30/2012 C. Waterfront comer lots that have less than 80 feet of water frontage shall have required setbacks of 7.5 feet from each riparian line. Lots located adjacent to waterfront comer lots, regardless of their waterfront length, shall have a 7.5 foot setback, but only from the riparian line shared with the waterfront comer lot. A waterfront comer lot is a "lot, comer" on the "waterfront" as defined in section 30 -10 and is also known as a "lot, shoulder" as defined in section 30 -10 d• The setback shall apply to that portion of the boat dock facility and moored vessel waterward of the property line. (2) Boat docking facilities which are constructed in an existing cut -in boat slip shall have a �-, minimum side yard setback of ten feet. (3) Any decked area which is extended or located past the waterward side of the seawall shall be considered part of the boat docking facility. All height limitations and setback requirements contained herein shall apply to such decked area, terrace or patio extensions. (4) Any boat, accessory attached to a boat, or PWC stored on the decking of a boat docking facility must meet the setback requirements set forth in this section. (5) Seawall support pilings which are not part of a boat docking facility and meet the height limitations set forth in this article shall not be required to comply with side yard setback requirements. (c) Height: (1) The decking on a dock may not exceed 12 inches in height above the seawall cap. Railings and fish cleaning tables may not exceed 48 inches in height above the decking of a dock. The railing may be no more than 25 percent opaque in any ten -foot increment. (2) Mooring piles and dolphins may not exceed 12 feet in height above mean high water. (3) Boatlifts and pilings used to anchor a boatlift shall not exceed 12 feet in height above mean high water. (4) Davits located on a boat docking facility shall not exceed 12 feet in height above the decking of a dock. Davits located on land shall not exceed 15 feet in height above the seawall. (5) Seawall support pilings may not exceed four feet in height above the seawall cap. (Ord. No. 00-04, § 4, 4-17 -2000; Ord. No. 03-15, § 1, 9 -3 -2003; Ord. No. 06-07, § 1, 6-19 -2006; Ord. No. 09-01, § 2 (1),1-5-2009) Packet Page -238 - http:// library. municode .com /print.aspx ?h= &clientID= 14004 &HTMRequest= http %3a %2f... 11/30/2012 Municode Sec. 54 -112. Additional requirements. 3/11/2014 10.A. (a) All boat docking facilities are subject to, and shall comply with, all federal and state requirements and permits, including but not limited to the requirements and permits of the state department of environmental protection, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (b) Any proposed expansion of or addition to (excluding boatlifts) an existing nonconforming boat docking facility, whether attached to or detached from an existing boat docking facility, shall require the entire boat docking facility be brought into conformance with the requirements of this article. Any repair or replacement of the structure within the existing footprint shall not require that the facility be brought into compliance with the standards set forth in this article. (c) All boat docking facilities, regardless of length or protrusion, shall have blue or white reflectors installed facing the water at the outermost end of the boat docking facility on both sides. Red and green reflectors are prohibited. (d) All boat dock facilities, regardless of length or protrusion, shall have house numbers, which are a minimum of four inches in height and a contrasting color from the area of installation, Installed facing the water at the outermost end of the boat docking facility on both sides. (e) Live- aboard vessels may not anchor or tie up in waters under the jurisdiction of the city except at anchorage sites identified on official National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) navigational charts or at facilities located in zoning districts permitting such use and at facilities within such districts designated for such use and meeting city, county, and state health standards for such use. (f} Use of boat docking facilities to moor boats for boat rentals, boat repair, boat sales, associated boat supplies storage, or the rental of boat docking facilities in all single and multifamily districts is expressly prohibited. (g) Any outside lighting on a boat docking facility shall comply with the lighting regulations set forth in chapter 6, article V of this Code. Further, the use of red or green lights or lights that emit red or green light due to a lens or other method are prohibited. (h) No owner shall allow the boat docking facility and /or associated infrastructure located at the owner's lot to become dilapidated, deteriorated, structurally unsound, unsightly or a safety hazard. �(k) A crane or barge may not sit idle for more than 15 business days. An extension of up to an additional 15 business days may be approved administratively if the barge or crane cannot be moved within the Initial 15 business days due to mechanical problems. G} Seagrass bed protection: (1) Where new boat docking facilities or boat dock extensions are proposed, the location and presence of seagrass or seagrass beds within 200 feet of any proposed dock facility shall be identified on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch = 200 feet when available, or a scale of one inch = 400 feet when such photographs are not available. The location of seagrass beds shall be verified by a site visit by the community development director or his designee prior to the approval of any boat dock extension or the issuance of any building permit. (2) All proposed boat docking facilities shall be located and aligned to stay at least ten feet from any existing seagrass beds, except where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property, and shall minimize negative impacts to seagrasses and other native shoreline, emergent and submerged vegetation and hard bottom communities. http: //Iibrary.municode.com/ print. aspx? h= &cji�e� 1ll+�ozrITMRequest= http %3a %2f... 11/30/2012 Municode 3/11/2014 10.A. - -o- - -- - (3) Where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property, the applicant shall be allowed to build a boat docking facility across the seagrasses or within ten feet of seagrasses. Such boat docking facilities shall comply with the following conditions: a. The dock shall be at a height of at least 3.5 feet N.G.V.D. b• The terminal platform of the dock shall not exceed 160 square feet. C. The access dock shall not exceed a width of four feet. d• The boat docking facility shall be sited to impact the smallest area of seagrasses possible. (4) The applicant or petitioner shall be required to demonstrate how negative impacts to seagrasses and other native shoreline vegetation and hard bottom communities have been minimized prior to the approval of any boat dock extension or the issuance of any building permit. (Ord. No. 00-04, § 5, 4-17 -2000, Ord. No. 03-15, § 1, 9-3 -2003) Sec. 84 -118.. Penalties for violation. (a) Pursuant to F.S. § 762.22, a person found to be in violation of this article may be charged with a fine, not to exceed $500.00, and may be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment not to exceed 60 days. Each violation or noncompliance shall be considered a separate and distinct offense. Further, each day of continued violation or noncompliance shall be considered as a separate offense. (b) Violations of this article may also be prosecuted before the city code enforcement board. (Ord. No. 00 -04, § 12, 4-17 -2000, Ord. No. 03-15, § 1, 9 -3 -2003) Packet Page -240 - http: //Hbrarymunicode.com/ print. aspx? h= &clientID= 14000 &HTMReciuest= http %3a %2f .. 11/30/2012 3/11/2014 1O.A. Bryan Milk From: Brian Gil more [ bdan @collierseawallanddock.com2 Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:02 AM To: Bryan Milk Cc: Brian Gilmore Subject: Vacant Lot use Bryan, As requested, by members of the Planning Board & City Council, I would like to suggest some items in the Staging Lot Ordinance, that could be tweaked to help preserve reasonable prices to residents, for marine construction work, while also maintaining everyone's right to enjoying their lifestyle. In addition to these compromises to the existing Ordinance, that were vetted & approved by previous Council's. I am obligated to mention that, to my knowledge, there are no other Industries on the Island, that are held to the standards of Marine Contractor's. These idea's are from my opinion only & do not reflect the opinions of any other marine contractor. Time frame for staging could be reduced to 90 days, anything less would create a hardship in scheduling & could compromise quality. Multiple projects on designated staging lots should be recommended. 90 day extensions, should be granted by request or if multiple jobs are being completed. Silt fence, should be installed on property lines to protect neighbors from debris or run off. Old panels being removed, will be hauled away within 5 business days. Material & equipment to be allowed on site must include everything associated with seawall & dock demolition construction. 1 am proud to say that, my company works extremely diligently, to keep our job sites clean and orderly & would like to fully cooperate with City Staff. Margins for any business in these challenging times are very tight & it is my hope, that after more than a decade of serving the people of Marco Island, that the City would choose to help & not hinder small businesses, like mine. I am confident that this goal is attainable, through thoughtful consideration of all parties concerns. a:►./Rri7V "LL } K Brian Gill nwe Oweer 9SO N� CoNet SWd- 9420 (71% 1-4700 Marco Wand, Ft W45 Fax a391 AF4,4701 waveso�ierse�awa l4andcicx:'k.ctxn ExianaFCOliitrseavratiak,c� 11/2612012 Packet Page -241- 3/11/2014 10.A. �e�ebr�;tjr�g 1�5 � MEMORANDUM Date: November 2, 2012 To: Planning Board and Waterways Advisory Committee From: Lina Upham, Planning and Zoning Technician Subject: Seawall Manufacture, Construction, and Repair Introduction: On October 5, 2012, Planning Board and Waterways Advisory Committee held the first workshop in the effort to provide solutions and alternatives to the existing ordinance regulating seawall manufacture, construction and repair on vacant residential lots. Purpose of this memo is to present a follow -up geographic and permitting information that was requested by the members of the Planning Board and Waterways Advisory Committee and /or public. 1) Single Family Lots by Type: As of October 25, 2010 * All numbers exclude SF zoned lots in Hideaway (260) and Key Marco (134) PUDs (total: 394) Packet Page -242- Indirect Access Direct Access Inland Waterfront Total Total Vacant 623 466 665 1,089 1,754 Built 2,439 2,195 1,923 4,635 6,557 Total 3,062 2,661 2,588 5,723 8,311* * All numbers exclude SF zoned lots in Hideaway (260) and Key Marco (134) PUDs (total: 394) Packet Page -242- Built v. Vacant Lots Total waterfront 5,723 69% 3/11/2014 10.A. Waterfront v. Inland Lots Inland 2,588 31% Waterfrontage of All SF Lots � a ` 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Packet Page -243- 3/11/2014 10.A. 2) Historic Single family Building Permit Activity: 2006-2012* Calendar year SF dwelling units SF demolitions Decline of the number of vacant SF lots 2006 72 48 24 2007 38 26 12 2008 27 30 -3 2009 21 14 7 2010 33 10 23 2011 35 13 22 2012* 46 22 24 Total 272 163 109 * through September Packet Page -244- 3/11/2014 10.A. 3) Total Length of Seawalls within Marco Island City Limits: 634,234 ft As of October 19, 2012 Packet Page -245- 3/11/2014 10.A. 4) Overview of the Seawall Building Permits Issued in FY 2012: October 1, 2011 —September 30, 2012 * Job valuation is the estimated cost of the job (disclosed on the building permit application), not the final price consumer is charged; Building permit fee depends on the length of the seawall, not the job valuation Below information covers only seawall replacement permits (total 77): a) Water plant (vinyl seawall in front of the old seawall) — 450 ft b) Two (2) condominiums. Total length — 600 ft C) 74 single family zoned parcels: • Total length — 8,629 ft; approx 1.63 miles; 1.36 percent of total city -wide seawall length • Average job valuation - $277/ft • Seawalls were replaced on 37 vacant lots and 37 developed lots • Staging lots were used for all the replacement jobs on developed lots, except two (2) cases. In both cases houses happened to be on a large end lots, developed with small homes with deep setbacks. In summary, there were no trends detected in job valuations, whether the lot was developed or vacant, or whether the staging lot was used or not. Packet Page -246- Number of permits issued Job valuations* Replacement 77 $3,768,837 Repair or minor maintenance (tie- backs, rip -rap, etc.) 74 $407,143 Total 151 $4,175,980 * Job valuation is the estimated cost of the job (disclosed on the building permit application), not the final price consumer is charged; Building permit fee depends on the length of the seawall, not the job valuation Below information covers only seawall replacement permits (total 77): a) Water plant (vinyl seawall in front of the old seawall) — 450 ft b) Two (2) condominiums. Total length — 600 ft C) 74 single family zoned parcels: • Total length — 8,629 ft; approx 1.63 miles; 1.36 percent of total city -wide seawall length • Average job valuation - $277/ft • Seawalls were replaced on 37 vacant lots and 37 developed lots • Staging lots were used for all the replacement jobs on developed lots, except two (2) cases. In both cases houses happened to be on a large end lots, developed with small homes with deep setbacks. In summary, there were no trends detected in job valuations, whether the lot was developed or vacant, or whether the staging lot was used or not. Packet Page -246- 3/11/2014 10.A. 5) Examples of seawall replacement jobs where "alternative" methods /materials were used ➢ 2005. 100 ft direct access vacant lot on Century Ct. Materials (sheet piling) were provided for free by the manufacturer on the promotional basis. Job valuation - $19,000. $190 /ft. 2006. 190 ft direct access vacant lot on Stillwater Ct. Materials (sheet piling) were provided free of charge by the manufacturer on the promotional basis. Job valuation - $40,000. $210 /ft. ' 2008 -2009. Palm Isle and Sunny Shadows Condominiums. Method — vinyl seawall in front of the old seawall. Total length — 450 ft Total valuation - $135,000. $300 /ft. Vacant lot on Banyan Ct was used for staging (see the next page for location of seawall replacement and staging areas) Packet Page -247- 3/11/2014 10.A. Requested Action: Consider provided information, public comment, and make recommendations to the City Council or staff if additional workshops are needed. Packet Page -248- 3/11/2014 10.A. MEMORANDUM Date: October 2, 2012 To: Planning Board and Waterways Committee Members From: Lina Upham, Planning and Zoning Technician Subject: Seawall Manufacture, Construction, and Repair Introduction: On September 17, 2012, faced with multiple complaints concerning seawall staging lots in residential areas, City Council requested a workshop between the Planning Board and Waterways Committee. Main objective — provide solutions and alternatives to the existing ordinance regulating seawall manufacture, construction and repair, on vacant residential lots. Background: City has historically allowed the use of vacant lots for seawall construction without any formal approval and /or monitoring process. Faced with citizen concerns, in 2006 City Council passed an ordinance (attached), which established the permitting process of and imposed certain regulations on the use of vacant lots for seawall staging. Nevertheless, it was still felt that seawall staging on vacant lots remained a major nuisance to the neighborhoods. In the spring of 2010, Waterways Committee along with the Planning Board brought back the discussions regarding this issue. In 2010, City Council passed a new ordinance (attached) that was intended to fix the shortcomings of the 2006 regulations. On October 1, 2012, City Council passed another round of changes to the regulations pertaining seawall staging on residential lots (full ordinance is included in the packets): - Vacant residential lot can be used only one time; - Multiple jobs con be performed concurrently on the same lot; - Only natural stone can be used for rip -rap purposes; - Demolition activities are limited to breaking apart the old seawall panels for transport; - Demolition materials can stay on -site no longer than five (S) working days; - Ordinance sunsets on April 1, 2013. Packet Page -249- 3/11/2014 10.A. Discussion: Technical specifications. Community at large has a perception that precast concrete panels is the only seawall construction method allowed by the City of Marco Island. City does allow for alternatives — vinyl (PVC); aluminum; fiber reinforced /polymer composite sheet piles, seawalls in front of the old seawalls, just to name a few. Most current technical specifications are included in your packets. Understanding that those specifications might seem too technical for non - technical eye, Waterways Committee had agreed to work on more "user- friendly" Seawall Owner's Manual. Logistics. Despite the chosen technology, seawall construction involves the following: 1. Upland staging lot for seawall construction; 2. Loading of fleet and materials (right from the staging or some other site); 3. Transporting fleet and materials to the actual seawall job site; 4. Demolition and removal of old seawall; 5. Construction of new seawall. Large map in your packets illustrates three (3) items crucial to the logistics subsection: - vacant commercial lots within the City, as well as Goodland and Isles of Capri; - indirect waters; - bridges (information on bridge clearances is on the separate sheet). What, if any, was Deltona's plan? Consider the option for allowing only off- season (May 1 — September 30) seawall construction activities. Requested Action: Consider provided information, public comment, and make recommendations to the City Council or staff if additional workshops are needed. Packet Page -250- Code Case Detail Report CDPR4204 - Code Case Detail Report CASE NBR: 2004031367 AO NBR: 245352 STATUS: OPEN INSPECTOR: CRISPRITA LEVEL: WARN CASE TYPE: ENVIRONMENTAL ADDR NBR: 189297 LOCATION: 1487 BEMBURY DR FOLIO: 0000074960480000 STORTER W 17FT OF LOT 11 + E 43FT OF LOT 12 3/11/2014 10.A. LOT: 11 BLOCK: SUBDIV: (1711) - Storter TAZ: 103 PLANNING COMM: CN ZIP: 341023423 OPEN DATE: 03/24/2004 OPEN USER :BIRESJASON CLOSE DATE: CLOSE KIMBERLYBRA DIRECTIONS: DISPOSITION:ABATED CATEGORY: SEAWALL PRIORITY: 0 LAST 835114 HEARING DATE: CONTACT ?: DESCRIPTION: PHYSICAL FILE ID: SEAWALL IS DETERIORATING /CRUMBLING -- NEIGHBOR IS AFRAID SEAWALL AT ABANDONED STRUCTURE WILL BREACH AND CAUSE WATER TO COME BEHIND HIS SEAWALL AND CAUSE EXTENSIVE DAMAGE CONTACT INFORMATION: TENANT INFORMATION: WOLFE, AMY WOLFE, AMY PHONE: FAX PHONE: FAX: OWNER INFORMATION: VIOLATOR INFORMATION: WOLFE, AMY WOLFE, AMY 1487 BEMBURY DR 1487 BEMBURY DR NAPLES, FL 341023423 NAPLES, FL 341023423 PHONE: FAX: PHONE: FAX: COMPLAINANT INFORMATION: NAME /ADDRESS: K.C., NEIGHBOR TO THE LEFT VISITS: VISIT NBR INSPECTOR 833328 CRISPRITA 833329 CRISPRITA 835114 CRISPRITA PHONE: FAX: ( )269 -3178 SCHEDULED DATE VISIT DATE 03/24/2004 03/24/2004 03/31/2004 04/12/2004 888993 CRISPRITA 04/19/2004 04/05/2004 04/12/2004 REMARKS 12:30 ON SITE, OBSERVED SEAWALL STARTING TO SEPARATE FROM GROUND DUE TO A PALM TREE GETTING LARGER AND PUSHING ON SEAWALL. PICK TAKEN ALSO ABANDONED STRUCTURE. R/C 3/31/04 JMB 12:30 ON SITE, NO CHANGE. STILL RESEARCHING TO SEE IF SEAWALL IS IN VIOLATION. R/C 4/12/04 JMB 2:25 STILL RESEARCHING TO SEE IF THERE IS A VIOLATION. R/C 4/19/04 JMB LETTERS: REF TYPE LETTER NAME RQST DATE PRINT DATE SEND DATE STATUS RECV DATE VIOLATIONS: STATUS GROUP CODE VIOL. DATE DESCRIPTION /REMARKS COMPLIED 7001 3/24/2004 SEAWALL ORDINANCE :ollier County Printed on: 01/10/2014 3:28:48PM 'D -Plus for Windows 95 /NT PaCketPage -251- Page 1 of 2 3/11/2014 10.A. COMPLIED ILU 1.5.6. 4/12/2004 PERMITTED USES & STRUCTURES VIOLATION 7001 4/12/2004 SEAWALL ORDINANCE AGES: IMAGE DATE IMAGE DESCRIPTION _ y COMENTS : ORIG DATETIME STATUS ORIG USER CObMNT : NOTES: /0-*, Collier County Printed on: 01/10/2014 3:28:48PM CD -Plus for Windows 95 /NT Page 2 of 2 Packet Page -252- Code Case Detail Report CDPR4204 - Code Case Detail Report CASE NBR: 2007100774 AO NBR: 314242 STATUS: OPEN m INSPECTOR: CAMPBELL _T LEVEL: NOV CASE TYPE: STRUCTURAL ADDR NBR: 345786 LOCATION: 2023 DAVIS BLVD FOLIO: 0000000386280007 2 50 25 COMM SW CNR OF SEC, E 3/11/2014 10.A. 662.1OFT, N 41.51FT TO POB, N 470.05FT, E 265.45FT, S 470FT, W 270FT TO POB, LESS LOT: 004 BLOCK: 012 SUBDIV: (100)- acreage TAZ: 126 ;PLANNING COMM: EN ZIP: 34104 -4206 OPEN DATE: 10123/2007 OPEN USERSgOLFELINDA CLOSE DATE: CLOSE DIRECTIONS: UNIT B - BROOKESIDE MARINA DISPOSITION: CATEGORY: BUILDxNG CODE PRIORITY: 0 LAST 1013972 HEARING DATE: CONTACT ?: PHYSICAL FILE ID: DESCRIPTION: SAFETY CONCERN - :DANGEROUS- SEAWALL IS CAVING IN AND EXPOSED ELECTRICAL WIRES, ROOF NEEDS REPAIRING... MATERIALS HAVE BEEN SITTING FOR SOME TIME NOW. CONTACT INFORMATION: TENANT INFORMATION: 0 CONNOR, PHILIP O CONNOR, PHILIP PHONE: FAX PHONE: FAX: OWNER INFORMATION: VIOLATOR INFORMATION: O CONNOR, PHILIP 0 CONNOR, PHILIP 2023 DAVIS BLVD: 2023 DAVIS BLVD NAPLES, FL NAPLES, FL 34104 -4206 34104 -4206 PHONE: FAX: PHONE: FAX: COMPLAINANT INFORMATION: NAME /ADDRESS: PHONE: FAX: ANONYMOUS VISITS: VISIT NBR INSPECTOR SCHEDULED DATE VISIT DATE 1013972 CAMPBELL T 10/17/2007 10/17/2007 REMARKS 1 -- 130 =1 /2HR BROOKSIDE MARINE, TIM STEINER (MANAGER) OBS SINK HOLE /SEAWALL DAMAGE AND MISSING ROOF PANELS (4X8 PLYWOOD) TIM S. ADVISED HE HAS CONTRACTOR SCHEDULED TO EXCAVATE SINK HOLE AND FILL WITH CONCRETE. I DID SEE SOME EXPOSED RE BAR AND ELEC CONDUIT BUT I DID NOT FIND EXPOSED ELECTRICAL WIRES. ROOF REPAIR IS ALSO SCHEDULED. NEEDS SOME TIME. SIGNED ATTACHED NOV. SAFETY CODES AND HAllARD TAPE ARE IN PLACE. TC92 R/C 11 -15 -07 DSP 1015285 C,�MPBELL T 11/15/2007 LETTERS: Collier County Printed on: 01/10/2014 3:36:05PM CD -Plus for Windoyas 95 /NT Page 1 of 2 Packet Page -253- REF TYPE LETTER NAME RQST DATE PRINT DATE SEND DATE STATUS RECV c 3/11/2014 10.A. VIOLATIONS: STATUS GROUP CODE VIOL. DATE DESCRIPTION /REMARKS n VIOLATION STR 1.8.10. 10/17/2007 NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURES IMAGES: IMAGE DATE IMAGE DESCRIPTION COMENTS : ORIG DATETINE STATUS ORIG USER COMMENT: NOTES: Collier County CD -Plus for Windows 95 /NT Printed on: 01/10/2014 3:36:05PM Packet Page -254- Page 2 of 2 C ,TTgov.itet Report Title: Code Case Details 3/11/2014 1O.A. Date: 1/10/2014 3:24:22 PM Case Number: CEAU20100008707 Case Number: CEAU20100008707 Case Type: Accessory Use Priority: Normal Inspector: JonathanMusse Status: Closed Date & Time Entered: 6/28/2010 12:44:28 PM Entered By: ShirleyGarcia Case Disposition: Withdrawn Jurisdiction: Collier County Code Enforcement Origin: Complaint Detail Description: Duplicate case - refer to case# CEPM20100007769 for further details Seawall is caving in and causing major damage to neighboring properties, Jodi Sheckton is the complainant and would like a call back on what can be done. 398 -9093 or 398 -9893 Location Comments: 223 1st Address 223 1ST ST Naples, FL Property 155850840009 Property Owner DERRICK, SILVIA Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -255- 1 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/10, 3/11/2014 1 .11 Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Enter Initial Case Information ShirleyGarcia 6/28/2010 6/28/2010 Complete Initial Inspection JonathanMuss 6/28/2010 6/28/2010 No Violation Duplicate case - refer to case# e (s) Found CEPM20100007769 for further details Generate Letter to Complainant JonathanMuss 6/28/2010 6/28/2010 Not e Required Enter Case Disposition JonathanMuss 6/28/2010 6/28/2010 Withdrawn e Verify Conditions & Close Case SusanaCapas 6/28/2010 6/29/2010 Complete ISO Violation Description Status Entered Corrected Amount Comments Legacy Fence - Building Permit FBC Corrected 6/29/2010 6/28/2010 $0 Title Reason Result Compliance Fine /Day Condition Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -256- 2 6011�ovxet Report Title: Code Case Details 3/11/2014 10.A. Date: 1/9/2014 9:34:46 AM Case Number: CESD20130003013 Case Type: Site Development Priority: Normal Inspector: JohnConnetta Case Number: CESD20130003013 Status: Closed Date & Time Entered: 2/27/2013 9:48:45 AM Entered By: ShirleyGarcia Case Disposition: No Violation Jurisdiction: Collier County Code Enforcement Origin: Complaint Detail Description: the entire seawall from the clubhouse 50 pelican st w down behind all the bldgs off of la peninsula blvd all the way to the point is caving in its detiorated and a safety issue the cracks from the seawall falling apart is starting to affect the sidewalk behind every bldg and the maintenance man is only throwing concrete in the holes but doesn't fix the problem. complainants want a call back on the violaiton status and updates as well as has an engineering inspection for investigator as back up that it is detiorating. Michael Pierpaoli 773- 875 -0369 cell and 585 - 223 -7976 home Location Comments: 50 pelican st sw all the way down behind all the bldgs off of la peninsula blvd down to 603 la peninsula blvd. Address 170 LA PENINSULA BLVD Prooertvl 1050082705 Property Owner CLUB AT LA PENINSULA INC %ROBERT MURRELL ESQ Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -257- 1 Code Case Details 3/11/2014 10.A. Execution Date 1/9, , , — , .,., Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Enter Initial Case Information ShirleyGarcia 2/27/2013 2/27/2013 Complete CE Phone Call kitchellsnow 2/27/2013 2/27/2013 Complete calledM ichael Pierpaoli 773 - 875 -0369 discussed issues concerning sea wall. advised process by which seawall con be determined structurally unsound. Case is assigned to Invest. Asaro but investigato Kincaid will assist. KS93 Initial Inspection asaro_t 3/7/2013 3/7/2013 Incomplete site inspection due on 3/7/13 ks93 ON 3/7/13 JIM KINCAID AND DAVID JONE WILL BE CONDUCTING A SITE INSPECTION ON 3/7/13 03 -07 -13 On site visit by investigators JK76 and DJ97. Walked seawall from end to end. Pictures taken of possible issues. JK76 Initial Inspection Follow -up jameskincaid 3/7/2013 3/14/2013 Incomplete 03 -14 -13 All research complete. Will fill out code case determination request form on 03- 18-13 and send to appropriate departments. Initial Inspection Follow -up jameskincaid 3/18/2013 3/22/2013 Incomplete 03 -20 -13 Determination packet prepared by TA54 and KS93 and sent to appropriate departments. JK76 (per KS93) .h Picture(s) kitchelisnow 4/9/2013 4/9/2013 Complete Photographs added ks93 Building Department Review kitchellsnow 4/10/2013 4/9/2013 Denied recieved building response on 4/8/13. Talked with County Engineer McCannea who advised there is not a code violation on the property after he had discussed the issue with Tom Degram. Initial Inspection Follow -up crowley_m 4/11/2013 4/11/2013 Incomplete 4/11 by mtc87 -- Area Inv will review case with supervisor. CE Staff Review JohnConnetta 4/17/2013 4/17/2013 Complete 4/17/13 On site and unable to gain access to the property. Telephoned the Comp: Michael Pierpaoli at 585 - 223 -7976 and some lady stated that he was tied up in a Master Asso Meeting. The femail did stated that she would have someone come outside and open the gate to allow CE Investigator onto the property. Waited outisde fro 20 minutes and then deaprted the scene. Will telephone Michael Peirpaoli andd schedule an appointment to meet himat the property. R/c JC -16 Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -258- 2 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11/2014 10:A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments CE Staff Review JohnConnetta 4/23/2013 4/23/2013 Complete 4/22/13 On site to conduct an inspection of the seawall. Photos taken and attached to case. Observed what appear to be damage to a section of the seawall behind the Twin Dolphins Tower Building. Spoke with a tenant who wish to remain anonymous who stated that there is a feud going on between the Master Board and the Condo Owners about the seawall. Certain Board members are pushing for a brand new wall and the Condo Owners believe that the wall just needs some minor repair and /or maintenance work. The cost of a new wall could be somewhere around 3 -5 million dollars that they are not willing to spend. The tenant did state that the Collier County had responded out there to conduct an inspection of the wall and sent an email according to her that there was nothing wrong with the seawall. Will research further and try to obtain this email. Will continue to monitor. JC -16 Attach Picture(s) JohnConnetta 4/23/2013 4/23/2013 Complete CE Meeting JohnConnetta 4/25/2013 4/25/2013 Complete 4/25/13 Met with Jack McKenna(CC Engineering & Environmental Services Manager) who stated that he has read the Engineering Report provided to him and he along with Acting Building Inspector Tom DeGram do not see any Health, Safety and Welfare concerns with this property. According, tot he report the seawall does have issues that need to be addressed but in their opinion nothing at this time appears to be life threatening. JC -16 Initial Inspection Follow -up JohnConnetta 4/26/2013 4/26/2013 Incomplete 4/26/13 Telephoned Masterboard President Dick Van Deeler (616- 914 -1923) and he stated that he has approval to hire Forge Engineering to developa program for the maintenance issues with the seawall. Van Deeler would like a formal determination from Collier County on the condition of the seawall. Will speak with RB83 or check with KS93 on response from the County. R/c JC -16 Initial Inspection Follow -up JohnConnetta 5/6/2013 5/6/2013 Incomplete 5/6/2013 - Investigator briefed me on this case, still waiting for a report. Will move date up to reflect to to receive report. rb83. 5/6/13 Recd call from Masterboard President Dick Van Deelen ascertaing if a decision has been reach as far as the seawall if a code violation or not. Spoke with RB83 to send email to Jack McKenna on status of seawall. R/c JC -16 Initial Inspection Follow -up JohnConnetta 5/8/2013 5/13/2013 Incomplete 5/13/13 Telephoned Master Board Pres. Dick Van Deelen at 616- 914 -1923 and left voice message. R/c JC -16 Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -259- Code Case Details 3/11/2014 10.A. Execution Date 1/9, �. , , 1. — , . 1 Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Initial Inspection Follow -up JohnConnetta 5/16/2013 5/18/2013 Incomplete 5/18/13 Placed call to Master Board President Dick Van Deelen but have not heard back from him. Also, waiting on letter from County Engineers Jack McKenna has to whether or not this is a health and safety situation. Wil address an open permit that has expired without completing inspection and receiving CO certificate. R/c JC -16. Initial Inspection Follow -up JohnConnetta 5/21/2013 5/28/2013 Incomplete 5/28/13 Spoke with Masterboard President Dick Van Deelen who was San Jose Ca and stated that he received a short memo from Jack McKenna stating that there were no violations at this time. Van Deelen further stated that he is having Forge Engineering conduct a 4th survey of the seawall to determine if there needs minor repairs or to build a new seawall. The new survey is do to begin in two weeks and Van Deelen stated that once completed he will forward a copy of the survey to the CE Investigator. Will continue to minor. R/c JC -16 Initial Inspection Follow -up JohnConnetta 6/17/2013 6/18/2013 Incomplete 6/18/13 On site unable to gain access to the community, no gate code. Telephoned the HOA Proesident Dick Van Deelen who was in — Michigan and unabel to provide an update on the 4th Engineering Report from Forge engineering. Van Deelen did stated that in a copule of days he will attempt to contact Forge Engineering and provide CE Investigator with an update. R/c JC -16 Initial Inspection Follow -up JohnConnetta 6/25/2013 6/25/2013 Incomplete 6/25/13 Waiting on Report from 4th Engineering Firm by HOA Dick Van Deelen. Deelen has stated to CE Inv that as soon as he has the report he will forward a copy to out office. Will continue to monitor. R/c JC -16 Initial Inspection Follow -up JohnConnetta 8/5/2013 8/5/2013 No Violation 8/5/13 On 5/21/13 Jack McKenna (County (s) Found Engineer) determined that this is not a Health and Safety situation that the seawall needs some minor repairs but that a permit to make the repairs is not required. If they were to change the design of the seawall then plans and drawings would need to be submitted for a permit to be issued. No violation at this time. C/c JC -16. Enter Case Disposition JohnConnetta 8/5/2013 8/5/2013 1 Complete Verify Conditions & Close Case JosephMucha 8/5/2013 8/5/2013 Complete Violation Description Status Entered Corrected Amount Comments Title Reason Result Compliance Fine /Day Condition Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -260- 4 G i rgo vet Deport Title: Code Case Details 3/11/2014 10.A. Date: 1/9/2014 9:36:12 AM Case Number: CESD20130006076 Case Type: Site Development Priority: Normal Inspector: christopherambach Case Number: CESD20130006076 _ Status: Closed Date & Time Entered: 4/2612013 2:46:41 PM Entered By: christopherambach Case Disposition: No Violation Jurisdiction: Collier County Code Enforcement Origin: Complaint Detail Description: Complainant states seawall is failing in rear of property and is concerned it will affect others properties in the community. Location Comments: 152 Henderson Dr. Address 52 Henderson DR Property 49531760003 Complainant DEBBIE GALLUCCI Property Owner MIRABILIO, JOSEPH C SHEILAGH MIRABILIO Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -261- 1 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9. 3/11/2014 10 . Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Enter Initial Case Information christopheram 4/26/2013 4/26/2013 Complete bach Initial Inspection christopheram 4/26/2013 4/26/2013 Incomplete Unable to access rear of property or see from bach any other legal viewpoint.. Contact made and meeting set for May 1 st 2013 at 12:00pm with owner on site to address issues. Initial Inspection Follow -up christopheram 5/2/2013 513/2013 Incomplete Met with owner who allowed entry to rear and bach signed consent. I observed an old wooden dock that has fallen apart. Photos taken and will be sent to Engineering for a review and determination as to how to correct the issues. Owner advised I will contact him with an update. Initial Inspection Follow -up christopheram 5/14/2013 5/14/2013 Incomplete Emailed photos and asked Jack McKenna bach from Engineering to view the photos and help determine if a violation exists. Email response below. I will meet with Mr. McKenna this week for specifics and update this case accordingly. _ Unfortunately I think it a bit more complicated, I think they need a consultant to determine where the property line is, what DEP permitting would be needed and what type of slope stabilization would be best (rip -rap is accepted as being appropriate as well as some other solutions). To me the structure looks unsafe and should be removed but beyond that how the bulkhead is reestablished will involve a bit more. Jack Jack McKenna P.E. County Engineer Growth Management Division (239) 252 -2911 Update Picture(s) christopheram 5/14/2013 5/14/2013 Complete bach Initial Inspection Follow -up christopheram 5/21/2013 5/28/2013 No Violation Meeting with J Letourneau and Engineering bach (s) Found Manager Jack Mcenna and reviewed photos taken It is Mr. Mcenna's determination that no requirement as far as seawall is concerned as well as the entire area in question is filled with protected mangroves at this point. The remaining wood dock has decayed and falling into the canal and will be considered litter at this point ands will need to be removed. A seperate case for litter is already opened and will address the dock. This case will be closed as far as the seawall is concerned. -,r Case Disposition christopheram 5/28/2013 512812013 1 Complete bach Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -262- 2 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11/2014 10:A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Verify Conditions & Close Case IetourneauJ 5/28/2013 5/29/2013 Complete Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -263- 3 { Violation Description Status Entered Corrected Amount Comments Title Reason Result Compliance Fine /Day Condition Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -263- 3 Report Title: Code Case Details 3/11/2014 10.A. ate: 1/912014 9 :40:58 AM I Case Number: ICEPM20080016613 I Case Type: Property Maintenance I Priority: Normal - Inspector:jAzureSorrels I Case Number: CEPM20080016613 Status: Closed Date & Time Entered: 11/25/2008 11:18:59 AM Entered By: DeliciaPulse Case Disposition: No Violation Jurisdiction: Collier County Code Enforcement Origin: Anonymous Complaint Detail Description: Caller states sea wall has a huge hole near it. Location Comments: ICEPM20080016613Web Code 119 Address 120 SAN SALVADOR ST Naples, FL Property 52396680001 Property Owner NICKOLAS LLC Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -264- 1 3/11/2014 10.A. Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, ..... •, Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Enter Initial Case Information Delicia Pulse 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 Complete CEPM20080016613Web Code 119 Initial Inspection AzureSorrels 11/25/2008 12/30/2008 Incomplete On 12/3/08 made site visit, observed a small area by seawall where the ground has sunken in. Seawall has small crack at the seam where it connects into next seawall. took photos. will do some research to determine if it is a violation. Initial Inspection AzureSorrels 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 No Violation On 12/30/08 did some research and spoke Steve Fontane from building and Stan (s) Found with from Engineering. I discovered that the county doesn't conduct inspections on seawalls, so there isn't anyone in the county that can declare a seawall as failed. However, Stan did state he doesn't believe it would be considered as failed. I spoke with Dave Scribner and he stated he wouldn't consider it as failed either. I will make contact with property owner and inform them of the complaint and advise they might want someone to check into the reason of why the foundation is sinking and have it fixed so it wouldn't possibly turn into something more. n violation. case closed. Enter Case Disposition AzureSorrels 12/31/2008 12/31/2008 Complete petrullipatricia 12/31/2008 1/5/2009 Complete Verify Conditions & Close Case Violation Description Title 2 Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -265- Status Entered Corrected Amount Comments Reason Result Compliance Fine /Day Condition 2 Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -265- ate: 1/9/2014 9:12:34 AM Report Title: Code Case Details 3/11/2014 10.A. Case Number: CEPM20100007769 Case Number: CEPM20100007769 Status: Closed Case Type: Property Maintenance Date & Time Entered: 6/4/2010 1:57:16 PM Priority: Normal Entered By: KimberlyBrandes Inspector: DeliciaPulse Case Disposition: I Hearing Jurisdiction: Collier County Code Enforcement Origin: Anonymous Complaint Detail Description: SEAWALL NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED. SEAWALL CAVING IN CAUSING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO ERODE. (concerned with Owner not reside at location- lives in Texas- all NOV remain in mailbox- property is forclosure) Location Comments: 223 1ST ST (LITTLE HICKORY SHORES) Community Caretaking / NNTF WEB# 2257 Address 223 1ST ST Naples, FL Property 55850840009 Historic Owner DERRICK, SILVIA Payor FLORIDA FORECLOSURES LLC Property Owner 223 BON LLC % CRAIG D BLUME P A Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -266- 1 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/1 1/201410:A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Record Violations JonathanMuss 6/7/2010 6/7/2010 Complete e Attach Picture(s) JonathanMuss 617/2010 6/7/2010 Complete e CE Case Research crowley_m 6/8/2010 6/8/2010 Complete 6/8 reviewed case file. Lis Pendens filed by bank of new york. Case belongs to Foreclosure Team 2, not Team 1. Assign Inspector (CE) SusanaCapas 6/8/2010 6/8/2010 Complete Notice of lis pendens filed by Bank of New so York. Case and supporting documents provided to foreclosure team #1 on 6/8/10. Property address also recorded on the community caretaking list. #SC46 CE Staff Review SusanaCapas 6/8/2010 6/8/2010 Complete 223 1ST ST (LITTLE HICKORY SHORES) so Community Caretaking / NNTF Assign Inspector (CE) petrullipatricia 6/8/2010 6/9/2010 Complete 6/8 Case belongs to Foreclosure Team 2, not Team 1.- mtc87 CE Case Research RalphBosa 6/9/2010 6/9/2010 Complete OPEN CASE REPORT - 06/09/2010 - Reviewed case and added to spreadsheet. rb83. CE Staff Review RalphBosa 6/9/2010 6/9/2010 Complete 06/09/2010. sent initial violation e-mail to Bank of NY CE Staff Review johnsantafemi 7/6/2010 7/6/2010 Complete Sent email request for update. a Enter Initial Case Information KimberlyBran 7/22/2010 6/4/2010 Complete des CE Staff Review johnsantafemi 7122/2010 7/22/2010 Complete Received email from BOA advising the loan a was paid and they no longer service property. I was unable to locate any recent documentation regarding the Foreclosure process and sent an email request to BNY for info. I recommend this case be moved forward under normal Code channels (NOV) by area Inv in the event OSM /CEB is required. JL -34 advised. Re- Inspection JonathanMuss 7/23/2010 7/27/2010 Non- 7 -26 -10 - On site - violation remains - picts e Compliant taken - will upload current picts to cityview and send an e-mail to Inv Santafemia with picts attach to show in the status of the violation - will continue to monitor CE Staff Review johnsantafemi 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 Complete Due to prior email received from BAC /BOA a case toted to area Inv for follow -up. CE Staff Review Ietourneau_j 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 Complete Due to Bank of America's statement that they no longer have interest in this property, loan being paid off, & a concerned complainant, case will be turned back over to District Supervisor Capasso. JL #34 CE Staff Review SusanaCapas 7/30/2010 11/19/2010 Complete QAR: Reviewing case found mention of an e so mail - am pursuing it to verify whether or not ; violation exists before proceeding with enforcement. Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -267- 2 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11/2014 10 . Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments CE Legal Review jenniferbaker 7/30/2010 7/8/2011 Rejected Returned packet to RB83 for review. JB44 CE Legal Review jenniferbaker 7/30/2010 7/29/2011 Schedule for SM /CEB Re- Inspection JonathanMuss 8/24/2010 8/24/2010 Non- 8 -24 -10 - On site - no change in violation - e Compliant case was just returned back to me from the foreclosure team - will prepare this case for hearing on 8 -31 -10 - will continue to monitor Re- Inspection JonathanMuss 8/31/2010 8/31/2010 Non- e Compliant 8 -31 -10 - unable to re- inspect this case - will address this issued on 9 -2 -10 Re- Inspection JonathanMuss 9/2/2010 9/2/2010 Non- 9 -2 -10 - as I was preparing the case for OSM, e Compliant realized that a NOV was never issued - will send NOV certified, 1 st Class mail, also will post at the courthouse and on the property - will continue to monitor Personal Service Attempt JonathanMuss 9/7/2010 9/7/2010 Complete 9 -7 -10 - On site posted NOV on property and e in courthouse also will send NOV 1 st class and certified mail - will continue to monitor CE Mailing ShirleyGarcia 9/8/2010 9/10/2010 Complete CE Phone all KimberlyBran 9/15/2010 9/15/2010 Complete call: 5min KB _ des Caller checking status of case. Will need to wear special boots or something and will step on the water pipe shut off and is burried and can not see it if stepped on will cut the water pipes- they will be without water. USE extreem caution.!! Complainant is wondering if its possible to have the coconut tree trimmed too. Concerend with the coconut with the storms. /kb Re- Inspection JonathanMuss 10/6/2010 10/8/2010 Non- 10 -6 -10 - On site - violation remains - will e Compliant prepare this case to appear before the Special Magistrate on 10 -13 -10 Re- Inspection JonathanMuss 10/13/2010 10/19/2010 Requires 10 -19 -10 - Completed packet for OSM and e Hearing turned it in to Sup Capasso for review - will continue to monitor Assign Hearing Type JonathanMuss 10/19/2010 10/19/2010 Special e Magistrate Hearing CE Staff Review SusanaCapas 10/24/2010 10/24/2010 Complete QAR: Seawall. Vacant property. Case was so turned over to foreclosure team and returned to area investigator. Case prepared for OSM hearing; forms turned in to JW44 on 11/5/10. Not Applicable SusanaCapas 10/24/2010 10/24/2010 Not so Required CE Supervisor Review (SM) SusanaCapas 10/25/2010 11/4/2010 Rejected In reviewing case found the notice of violation so should have quoted Article IX - Seawalls and Revetments. Will return case to investigator to reissue notice of violation allowing reasonable time to allow coordination with Foreclosure teams. #SC46 Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -268- 3 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11/2014 10_A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments !CE Staff Review JonathanMuss 11/4/2010 11/5/2010 Complete Jon: you will need to reissue the notice of I e violation citing the ordinance specific to seawalls and revetments: Article IX, Sec 22- 321 to Sec 22 -325. See me if you have any questions. #SC46 11 -5 -10 - met with Jack McKenna, Manager of Engineering Review Services, he stated that he'll conduct a sight inspection to verify that a code violation exist on this property. R/C 11- 19-10 CE Staff Review KimberlyBran 11/9/2010 11/9/2010 Complete CALL: 10 MIN KB des CALLER CHECKING STATUS OF CASE. READ THE UPDATES. GAVE CASE NUMBER SINCE I HAD TO SEARCH THE ORIGINAL CASE DUE TO HER CLAIMING NOT TO HAVE CASE NUMBER- FOR THIS SEAWALL COMPLAINT. READ THE UPDATES ON THE CASE- CALLER WAS VERY SARCASM ABOUT CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE PROCESS. REALLY DID NOT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING AS FAR AS THE UPDATES ALTHOUGH THAT WAS WHAT THE CALL WAS MADE FOR. REFUSED TO SPEAK WITH INVESTIGATOR AND SUPERVISOR FOR MORE DETAILS- CALLED OUT NAMES AND EXPRESSED HER NEGATIVE OPIONS ALONG WITH THREAT TO CALL COMMISSIONERS- THEN DEMANDED TO OPEN CASES ON WEEDS AND LITTER ON THE PROPERTY- HOWEVER ONE FOR EACH WAS ALREADY OPENED BY THE AREA INVESTIGATOR WHO IS WORKING THE PROCESS OF GETTING IT ABATED. GAVE CALLER ALL THREE CASE NUMBER WITH THEIR VIOLATION AND LOCATION INFORMATION FOR TRACKING PURPOSES SO THE NEXT UPDATE CALL- THE STAFF WOULD NOT HAVE TO SEARCH AND BE ABLE TO ASSIST CALLER FASTER. /KB Re- Inspection JonathanMuss 11/19/2010 11/19/2010 Non- 11-19-10- Recieved an e -mail from Jack e Compliant McKenna, he states, "I went out to look at the Seawall. Certainly I feel the wall is in need of work (as is the rest of the property) however I am not aware of a law requiring it to be maintained. Certainly as the owner I would want to be doing something before failure but I don't know what the County can do (maybe there is something I am not aware of)." will met with Sup Capasso to see how she would like me to address this issue - will continue to monitor CE Legal Review jenniferbaker 11/19/2010 6/16/2011 Rejected Returned packet to RB83 for review. JB55 Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -269- 4 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11/2014 10.. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Re- Inspection JonathanMuss 12/20/2010 12/21/2010 Non- 12 -20 -10 - Mr. McKenna responded to my e- e Compliant mail and informed me that he found an ordinance that that I could use for this violation - Ordinance 85 -2, Section 2, Failed Seawall Or Revetment Declared To Be Unlawful And A Public Nuisance - have to re- issue NOV with the correct ordinance - will also post on the property and in courthouse Personal Service Attempt JonathanMuss 12/21/2010 12/21/2010 Complete 12 -21 -10 - On site - posted NOV on property e and at courthouse - also send NOV 1st class mail - will continue to monitor CE Mailing shirleygarcia 12/21/2010 12/21/2010 Complete NOV MAILED REG. CE Staff Review KimberlyBran 12/21/2010 12/21/2010 Complete AOM ATTACH. /KB des Not Applicable JonathanMuss 12/28/2010 12/29/2010 Not e Required Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 1/5/2011 1/7/2011 Non- 1 -6 -11 on site and I received permission from Compliant neighboring property to go to the back yard at 219. 1 did not observe the seawall in disrepair at this location photo taken. I will confer with JM04.Hdsp CE Staff Review IetourneauJ 1/7/2011 1/7/2011 Complete While reviewing the 45 day report, I found this case in Investigator Musse's name. Because a hearing date has not been set, I am transfering it to Supervisor Capasso. JL #34 CE Staff Review SusanaCapas 1/13/2011 1/19/2011 Complete following up with investigator who originally so worked the case regarding an e -mail he mentions received from Jack McKenna; searched case documents and find it is not attached. Assign Inspector (CE) MarleneSerra 1/27/2011 2/15/2011 Complete no Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 2/3/2011 2/2/2011 Non- 2 -1 -11 On site and spoke to the property Compliant owner at the west who gave me permission to access back yard by her property. Photos taken. I will need to move forward. Neighbor states this problem is causing problems with her property. / /dsp Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 2/3/2011 2/4/2011 Non- Speak to MS99 Compliant 2 -4 -11 spoke to MS99 and advised of date on NOV and she stated reissue NOV./ /dsp CE Case Research DeliciaPulse 2/4/2011 2/4/2011 Complete Research of paperwork done in case and I observe the last NOV compliance date was not correct. I will speak to MS99 / /dsp Generate Notice of Violation DeliciaPulse 2/8/2011 2/14/2011 Complete CE Mailing shirleygarcia 2/14/2011 2/16/2011 Complete Please mail certified and regular to address (address of record) on NOV and courtesy regular to: Sylvia Derrick 1801 Holly Trail, Cedar Park, TX 78613 --- thx/ /dsp 2/15/11 could not send out was in Susana Capasso name and NOV was in Susana C. name DP #55 changed the nov and will mail out 2/16/11 Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -270- Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11 /2014 10:A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments CE Staff Review DeliciaPulse 2/16/2011 2/16/2011 Complete 2 -16 -11 Edited NOV and had mailed / /dsp CE Case Research DeliciaPulse 2/18/2011 2/18/2011 Complete Post property and courthouse / /dsp 2 -17 -11 1 posted the property and will post courthouse tomorrow — adjusting date / /dsp 2 -18 -11 this property is vacant and in final judgement and will need to be submitted to forclosure team #2. / /dsp 2 -18 -11 posted the courthouse / /dsp CE Staff Review DeliciaPulse 2/18/2011 2/22/2011 Complete generate affidavit of posting / /dsp CE Supervisor Review (misc) MarleneSerra 2/22/2011 2/23/2011 Complete 2 -18 -11 This property is vacant and in final no judgement and will need to be submitted to forclosure team #2 / /DSP Dee, foreclosure team was unable to obtain compliance from Bank. Please preapre case for hearing when the NOV expires, if no abatement. MS99 CE Case Research DeliciaPulse 2/28/2011 2/28/2011 Complete 2 -28 -11 After reserching the activities in case I spoke to JS38 who sent an a mail to bank for any info available. The compliance date is March 14th. I will check for any reply from bank on that day and if none will be forwarded for hearing. / /dsp 2 -28 -11 1 received an email from JS38 stating he has the banks attention and to verify if property is vacant./ /dsp 3-1 -11 1 made a site visit I did not get any response at either door as this is a duplex. While knocking on one door the interior sounds hollow but the other door does not. I will make another site visit. / /dsp CE Case Research DeliciaPulse 317/2011 3/7/2011 Complete 3 -4 -11 On site and no one was on the property. I attempted contact with neighbors to verify if property vacant. I spoke to a female who stated she was close with the neighbor to the west of structure and she states the property has been vacant at least one year. I sent an a mail to JS38 to verify structure vacant. / /dsp Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 3/18/2011 3/18/2011 Non- 2 -22 -11 Submitted paperwork to MS99 to Compliant forward to FT #2 / /dsp Compliance date March 14th. 3 -15 -11 Spoke to JS38 who stated the bank is responding to this property. I sent an a mail to him asking for a status. I will wait a couple of days for a reply. / /dsp Adjust date 3 -18 -11 1 spoke to JS38 and he sent another e mail today to the bank and we will touch base middle of next week to see if there is any reply or weather we need to go to hearing //dsp Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -271- 6 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11/2014.1 O.A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Initial Inspection JonathanMuss 3/18/2011 6/7/2010 Violation(s) 6 -7 -2010 on site obtained permission from e Found neighbor Jodi Scehecton to use her back yard to view violation. Observed a damaged seawall in need of repair -- checked clerk of courts and found an assignment of mortgage or 4553 pg 2544 will TOT case to supervisor Capasso for review so that tshe may TOT to foreclosure team. Photos taken Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 3/24/2011 3/24/2011 Non- 3 -24 -11 1 have received e mail Compliant correspondence from JS38 stating the bank is looking into it but I should go forward with the hearing process. Prepare case for hearing / /dsp CE Case Research DeliciaPulse 3/24/2011 3/25/2011 Complete 3 -25 -11 1 have received a message /e mail from JS38 to hold off that he is getting information from the bank. Monitor. / /dsp CE Phone Call DeliciaPulse 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 Complete 3 -30 -11 1 received an email from RB83 asking to give a call to Marshal Watson 954- 453 -0365 x 1862 from a message left on his phone. I called and received a voice mail of Irene Phillips and I left a voice message. / /dsp CE Phone Call KimberlyBran 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 Complete Call: 5min kB des Caller checking status of case. Read updates. States that investigators always knows can use their property to see violation. Refused to speak with investigator. Calling in another violation. /kb Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 4/6/2011 4/11/2011 Non- 4 -6 -11 From 3 -30 -11 to 4 -6 -11 1 have Compliant received e mails with the following info from our forclosure team: [ (4 -6 -11) Dee, as an update... I am working with two separate preservation companies on this property. One will be addressing the seawall and the other will address any remaining issues.] I have attached the e mail to the case documents. / /dsp CE Staff Review johnsantafemi 4/11/2011 4/12/2011 Complete 3 /31:Received email from Kelly Zingale @ a Safeguard who advises she has obtained and submitted bids to replace the seawall. She will advise on updates. Kelly Zingale Claims Estimator /Repair Specialist Safeguard Properties 1 -800- 852 -8306 ext 1294 kelly .zingale @safeguardproperties.com CE Staff Review johnsantafemi 4/26/2011 4/26/2011 Complete Sent email request for update to Kelly. a CE Phone Call KimberlyBran 4/26/2011 4/26/2011 Complete CALL: 5MIN KB des CALLER CHECKING STATUS OF CASE AND READ THE UPDATES. CALLER VERY SARCASTIC OVER THE PHONE. ALSO CHECKED MULT OTHER CASES. /KB nspection DeliciaPulse 4/28/2011 4/28/2011 Non- 4 -27 -11 JS38 came to get the file to look at to Compliant help him with communication with bank / /dsp Working with the bank to get abatement and working along side of the FT #2. / /dsp Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -272- 7 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9. 3/11 /2014 10:A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments CE Staff Review johnsantafemi 5/10/2011 5/10/2011 Complete Received call from Kelly Z advising contractor a is reporting property as occupied. Agreed to meet contractor on -site to verify vacant, left message for Contractor "Steve" @ 850 -208- 3186 to call back and arrange meet. Made an onsite inspection myself and noted dwelling is a duplex and both units are empty with no furnishings or occupants. Sent info to Kelly Z. Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 5/10/2011 5/11/2011 Non- 5 -11 -11 1 am monitoring along with the Compliant forclosure team. / /dsp Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 5/23/2011 5/23/2011 Non- 5 -23 -11 I received email notification from Compliant JS38 of the forclosure team that the lender is not abating and will need to prepare for hearing. //dsp CE Staff Review johnsantafemi 5/24/2011 5/23/2011 Complete Received email from kelly @ Safeguard who a advises the Bank is not moving to abate this violation. I recommend the case be prepared for hearing as soon as possible. Safeguard advised of same. Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 5/24/2011 6/1/2011 Requires 5 -31 -11 Submitted paperwork for hearing. Hearing Monitor. //dsp 5 -31 -11 Make on site visit. CE Case Research DeliciaPulse 5/31/2011 5/31/2011 Complete 5 -31 -11 Preparing all paperwork for submittal //dsp CE Supervisor Review (misc) RalphBosa 5/31/2011 6/1/2011 Complete 5 -31 -11 1 submitted CEB Hearing paperwork for review. / /dsp 6/1/2011. please make changes and resubmit. rb83. Assign Hearing Type RalphBosa 6/1/2011 6/1/2011 Special Magistrate Hearing CE Supervisor Review (SM) MarleneSerra 6/1/2011 6/1/2011 Rejected please make changes. no CE Staff Review DeliciaPulse 6/3/2011 6/7/2011 Complete CE Supervisor Review (SM) RalphBosa 6/7/2011 6/7/2011 Complete changes made. Attach Picture(s) DeliciaPulse 6/8/2011 6/8/2011 Complete 6 -8 -11 On site today and took photos. Violation Remains / /dsp CE Staff Review johnsantafemi 6/14/2011 6/14/2011 Complete No movement from lender. Case tot'd back for a hearing process. CE Supervisor Review (SM) RalphBosa 6/20/2011 6/22/2011 Complete re- submitted with correction. CE Staff Review DeliciaPulse 7/11/2011 7/14/2011 Complete Please make required changes to packet and re- submit. JB44 7 -14 -11 Made changes and submitted to supervisor Bosa. / /dsp Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 7/22/2011 7/25/2011 Non- 7 -25 -11 Made corrections to hearing packet Compliant and gave to Supervisor BosaHdsp CE Supervisor Review (SM) RalphBosa 7/27/2011 7/27/2011 Complete Coorections made and re- submitted for review. rb83. CE Staff Review Ietourneau_j 7/27/2011 7/29/2011 Complete I closed this activity while going through the a. unassigned activity folder. JL #34 Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -273- 8 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11/2014 10:A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 8/3/2011 8/3/2011 Non- 8 -3 -11 Paperwork has been submitted and Compliant approved for hearing and now waiting for date. / /dsp Generate Hearing Notice (CE) KerryAdams 8/10/2011 8/10/2011 Complete 8/18/11 NOH sent regular mail, evidence packet sent certified -ka Post Courthouse DeliciaPulse 8/16/2011 8/16/2011 Complete 8 -15 -11 1 posted the property at approx 1:35pm/ /dsp 8 -17 -11 Created AOP and had notarized and given to Kerry. / /dsp Post Courthouse boxheinz 8/16/2011 8/16/2011 Complete Investigator Box will post courthouse / /dsp same done HB #17 Update Picture(s) boxheinz 8/16/2011 8/16/2011 Complete Schedule Case for Hearing KerryAdams 8/17/2011 8/10/2011 Complete Case scheduled for OSM on 9- 2 -11 -ka CE Phone Call DeliciaPulse 8/30/2011 8/30/2011 Complete I am documenting that on October 25, 2010 1 had spoken to the owner of record Silvia Derrick in reference to another property she owns which had violations and she advised that she is in Texas with her ailing Mother and does not have the money to work on the property. The number called from was 512- 317- 6707. / /dsp P� Hearing Inspection DeliciaPulse 9/1/2011 9/1/2011 Complete 9 -1 -11 on site and the violation remains. Photos taken and attached to case. / /dsp r.o- Inspection DeliciaPulse 9/1/2011 9/1/2011 Non- 8 -17 -11 1 am adjusting this date due to I am Compliant out of the office/ /dsp 8 -26 -11 Date of hearing is September 2, 2011 gam./ /dsp I will adjust the recheck date for prehearing inspection. / /dsp 9 -1 -11 on site and no change. Hearing on 9 -2 -11/ /dsp Record Hearing Results jenniferbaker 9/6/2011 9/8/2011 Complete Respondent ordered to repair or re- construct seawall, obtaining any required collier county building permits, inspections and certificate of completion /occupancy by 10/2/11 or $200per day will be imposed and pay operational cost of $112.38 within 30 days. JB44 Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 9/14/2011 9/15/2011 Non- 9 -2 -11 Respondent found in violation and an Compliant order to correct by 10/2/11 was issued by Special Magistrate. / /dsp CE Staff Review IlianaBurgos 9/30/2011 9/30/2011 Complete Payoff provided to Craig D Blume, PA on 9/30/11 - ib Post Hearing Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 10/3/2011 10/4/2011 Non- 10 -3 -11 No permit applied for at this Compliant date. / /dsp Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 10/3/2011 10/4/2011 Non- 10 -3 -11 on site and the violation remains. Compliant Photos taken and attached to case. / /dsp Update Picture(s) DeliciaPulse 10/4/2011 10/4/2011 Complete Not Applicable DeliciaPulse 10/4/2011 10/4/2011 Not _ Required -egal Review jenniferbaker 10/7/2011 10/19/2011 Schedule IOF for SM /CEB Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -274- Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11/2014 10:A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Generate Hearing Results Notice jenniferbaker 10/27/2011 10/19/2011 Complete Scanned order into G -Drive and Cityview. OR (CE) Book 4721/PG 2834. Respondent ordered to repair or re- construct seawall, obtaining any required collier county building permits, inspections and certificate of completion /occupancy by 10/2/11 or $200per day will be imposed and pay operational cost of $112.38 within 30 days. JB44 Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 11/4/2011 11/4/2011 Non- 11 -4 -11 on site and the violation remains. Compliant Photos taken and attached to case. monitor. / /dsp CE Phone Call KimberlyBran 11/7/2011 11/7/2011 Complete Call: 5min kb des Caller checking status of case. I read the updates. Caller was happy to know of impose of fines- shocked it only as of 10/2/11 of this year since it had been ongoing problem for very long time. I offered caller to speak with Kerry- for more details of hearing process - Jen -for Impose of Fines process and invesigator for more details of case. Caller declined offer. Caller will check back again for more updates for next r/c 12/5 onsite notes. /kb Generate Hearing Notice (CE) KerryAdams 11/9/2011 11/9/2011 Complete Post Courthouse DeliciaPulse 11/14/2011 11/15/2011 Complete 11 -14 -11 Received posting notification for Imposition of Fines Hearing for 12 -2 -11. Post property and courthouse. / /dsp 11 -15 -11 1 posted both property and courthouse today. I created and AOP and submitted to be processed. Photos taken and attached to case./ /dsp CE Case Research DeliciaPulse 11/15/2011 11/16/2011 Complete 11 -15 -11 on site and I observed a van in the driveway and a man scraping the soffit. I observed two newly installed front doors. I spoke to the man and he called a man named Bill Shaner 239 - 465 -3263. 1 was advised the property has been purchased by an invester and that quotes for the seawall will be obtained. I have spoken to JB44 and we are going to pull the case from the December 2nd OSM hearing and give some time for the new owner to complete. Hearing for imposition of fines will be rescheduled for January. I will advise Bill Shaner —sent a mail. / /dsp Schedule Case for Hearing KerryAdams 11/16/2011 11/9/2011 Complete Case scheduled for OS IOF on 12- 2 -11 -ka CE Staff Review KerryAdams 12/6/2011 11/16/2011 Complete Changed record hearing results to CE staff review, case withdrawn, new owner may abate, will bring back in Jan CE Case Research RalphBosa 12/9/2011 12/9/2011 Complete STOP THE BLEED - owner was not aware of Hearing and IOF, rb83. Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -275- 10 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11 /2014 10:A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Pre Hearing Inspection DeliciaPulse 12/20/2011 12/21/2011 Complete I have discussed with Kerri the communication coming for Bill Shaner —owner representative and they are in the process of getting quotes for repair. We will continue to monitor and we agreed to wait until hearing in February. //dsp Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 12/20/2011 12/21/2011 Non- 12 -21 -11 1 have had great communication Compliant from Bill Shaner who is a contact representing owner of this property and they have been working on getting estimates for seawall repair. Most recent a mail stated the following: "Have reached an agreement with Greg Orick Marine Construction to resolve the code issues. I have authorized a survey if the property. Once I receive that, Greg will make application fora building permit." I have researched permit activity and none is showing at this time. I feel processes are moving forward. I will continue to monitor. / /dsp Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 1/6/2012 1/9/2012 Non- 1 -9 -12 On January 3rd, 2012 1 received an e Compliant mail from Bill Shaner advising "signed a contract with Greg Odrick Marine Construction on Friday, gave him a survey and deposit to get permit. Should be making application this week." I have checked for any permit activity and find none. I will Monitor for permit. //dsp Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 1/12/2012 1/12/2012 Non- Check permit activity/ /dsp Compliant 1 -12 -11 No permit activity found — monitor and check one more time —if none call contact for status. //dsp Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 1/18/2012 1/19/2012 Non- 1 -19 -12 1 have researched permit activity and Compliant find none. I will call Bill Shaner 239 - 465 -3263 and advise of pending hearing and get update. / /dsp CE Phone Call DeliciaPulse 1/19/2012 1/19/2012 Complete Bill Shaner 239 - 465- 3263//dsp 1 -19 -12 1 called and spoke to Bill Shaner and he advised the Marine company needed an elevation certificate and he obtained that and he will call to see what the status is on getting permit and let me know. / /dsp CE Phone Call KimberlyBran 1/24/2012 1/24/2012 Complete call: 5kb des Caller checking status of case. I read the updates. Caller wanted to speak with investigator since case has been on going for 2 yrs. /kb CE Phone Call DeliciaPulse 1/24/2012 1/24/2012 Complete 1 -24 -12 Spoke to caller and advised of what the new owners are doing and advised of permit has been supmitted and is "UNDER REVIEW" building department has until 1 -27- 12 to accept or reject. Permit number is PRBD20120101298. Monitor. / /dsp Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -276- 11 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11 /2014 10:A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments CE Case Research DeliciaPulse 1/30/2012 1/30/2012 Complete 1 -30 -12 1 received an a mail from Bill Shaner advising the work is complete and an inspection would be called.Hdsp Permit PRBD20120101298 was issued on 1- 27- 12Hdsp Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 2/3/2012 2/6/2012 Non- 2 -6 -12 research of permit activity shows on 1- Compliant 31 -12 final building inspection completed and passed. Waiting for "CO ". emailed corrdinator to advise. //dsp CE Case Research DeliciaPulse 2/7/2012 2/7/2012 Complete 2 -7 -12 1 was notified by Coordinator that "CO" has been issued. Confirmed "CO" issued February 7th, 2012. violation abated. //dsp Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 2/10/2012 2/10/2012 Non- Talk to supervisor Bosa about case —has been Compliant to hearing, now in compliance ? ?? 2 -7 -12 1 spoke to supervisor Bosa and I will create AOC and we will consult with J. Baker. //dsp Spoke to J. Baker and there will need to be IOF and I need to advise new owner of the operational costs still due. / /dsp 2 -7 -12 Submitted AOC to K. Adams to process. //dsp 2 -7 -12 1 sent an email to Bill Shaner advising of Ops Cost that are due. / /dsp 2 -8 -12 1 received a reply from Bill and he advised to let him know what needs to be done. I sent a mail advising of the OPS cost and how and where to pay it. I advisied there needs to be an IOF hearing also and notificatioin will be sent to owner of when that is. / /dsp Generate Hearing Notice (CE) KerryAdams 2/13/2012 2/13/2012 Complete 2 -14 -12 NOH sent regular mail, evidence packet sent certified -ka Schedule Case for Hearing KerryAdams 2/13/2012 2/13/2012 Complete will need to go to IOF, spoke with Dee, she said people are at the property working on abatement -ka 2 -7 -12 Kerry AOC submitted to you today / /dsp waiting to see if they pay the ops costs -ka case scheduled for OSM IOF on 3- 2 -12 -ka Post Courthouse DeliciaPulse 2/14/2012 2/15/2012 Complete 2 -14 -12 posted NOH for Imposition of Fines at property at approx 105pm today. photo taken and attached to case.Hdsp 2 -15 -12 Posted the courthouse. photo taken and attached to case. AOP created and submitted to be processed. //dsp LCE Staff Review KerryAdams 3/1/2012 2/13/2012 Complete inspection not needed, case is compliant -ka Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -277 - 12 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11w. O.A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Re- Inspection DeliciaPulse 3/2/2012 3/5/2012 Compliant Check payment of OPS cost. / /dsp 2 -14 -12 OPS Cost paid today in full. / /dsp IOF Hearing set for March 2, 2012. Recheck date set for that date. / /dsp 2 -15 -12 1 sent an email to Bill to advised of posting the property and date of hearing and thank him for the payment. / /dsp 3 -5 -12 Hearing completed and Bill Shaner was present as representative. IOF was not approved and therefore due to compliance of property fines waived. Case closed. violations abated. / /dsp Generate Compliance Letter DeliciaPulse 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 Complete Enter Case Disposition DeliciaPulse 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 Complete CE Mailing DeliciaPulse 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 Complete Verify Conditions & Close Case RalphBosa 3/5/2012 3/7/2012 Complete Record Hearing Results jenniferbaker 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 Complete All fines waived by the Special Magistrate at hearing on 3/2/12. JB44 CE Staff Review jenniferbaker 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 Complete Changed post hearing re- inspection to CE Staff review as case is closed and activity is not needed. JB44 erate Hearing Results Notice jenniferbaker 4/6/2012 4/17/2012 Complete Scanned order into G -Drive and cityview. OR book 4776/PG 2828. All fines waived by the Special Magistrate at hearing on 3/2/12. JB44 Violation Description Status Entered Corrected Amount Comments Foundation - Dwelling Corrected 6/9/2010 2/7/2012 $0 Operational Costs -ka Title Reason Result Compliance Fine /Day Condition Special Magistrate Hearing on 9/2/11 Code Review Guilty 10/2/2011 $200 Operational Costs -ka Scanned order into G -Drive and Cityview. OR Book 4721/PG 2834. Respondent ordered to repair or re- construct seawall, obtaining any required collier county building permits, inspections and certificate of completion /occupancy by 10/2/11 or $200per day will be imposed and pay operational cost of $112.38 within 30 days. JB44 Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -278- 13 Cjolergovxet Date: 1/9/2014 9:15:02 AM Report Title: Code Case Details 3/11/2014 10.A. Case Number: CESD20080003329 Case Number: CESD20080003329 Case Type: Site Development Priority: Normal Inspector: JohnConnetta Status: Closed Date & Time Entered: 3/7/2008 1:44:22 PM Entered By: JohnConnetta Case Disposition: Abated Jurisdiction: Collier County Code Enforcement Origin: Written Detail Description: Seawall collasping in rear of 236 Harbor Place in Goodland Location Comments.-1236 Harbor Place Address 236 HARBOR PL N Goodland, FL Property 46273240004 Complainant Elaine Ritchie Property Owner SANDLIN, ALAN L & LINDA J Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -279- 1 Code Case Details 3/11/2014 10.A. Execution Date 1/9, , , , "., Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Enter Initial Case Information JohnConnetta 3/7/2008 3/7/2008 Complete Initial Inspection JohnConnetta 3/7/2008 3/7/2008 Violation(s) On site observed that the seawall in rear of Found the property has collasped and is washing away into the Marco River from erosion and corrision and high and low tides. The collasp has caused soil to wash away up to approximately 1 feet way from the house foundation. Photos taken and attached to case in G- drive. Will research and monitor. JC -16. Record Violations JohnConnetta 3/7/2008 3/7/2008 Complete Attach Picture(s) JohnConnetta 3/7/2008 3/7/2008 Complete In G- Drive. Generate Notice of Violation JohnConnetta 3/7/2008 3/7/2008 Complete CE Staff Review DeliciaPulse 3/10/2008 3/10/2008 Complete MAILED NOV CERTIFIED MAIL WITH ORDINANCE TRACK # 7007 1490 0001 0804 4973 CE Phone Call JohnConnetta 3/17/2008 3/18/2008 Complete Rec'd telephone call from Jim Schuck, Contractor from Marco Marine Construction _ who stated that he has a signed contract from Alan Sandlin to obtain all Permits to repair the Seawall located in the rear of 236 & 238 Harbor PI N Goodland, FL. Schuck's office fax me a copy of the contract that will be attached to the case. JC -16. Re- Inspection JohnConnetta 4/10/2008 4/17/2008 Non- On site property looks the same. Spoke with Compliant tenant Rita about taken some photos to stay up to date of the progress of the seawall being rebuilt. Photos taken and attached to case. Attach Picture(s) JohnConnetta 4/10/2008 4/17/2008 Complete CE Phone Call JohnConnetta 4/16/2008 4/17/2008 Complete Telephoned Mr. Schuck from Marco Marine Construction and left message for him to contact me. At approximately 1430 Hrs., Mr. Schuck called and left a vioce message that he is still waiting to hear from the State of Florida and as soon as he hears back on the OK and start the work he will responded in and obatined the proper Collier County permits. R/c 5/10/08. JC -16 Re- Inspection JohnConnetta 5/14/2008 5/14/2008 Non- On site violation remains the same.No work Compliant going on at this time. Permits have not been approved and granted. Property Owner and Contractor are waiting for approval from the State of Florida. Will continue to monitor. R/c 6/13/08. Jc -16. Update Pictures) JohnConnetta 5/14/2008 5/14/2008 Complete In G- Drive. JC -16 "inspection JohnConnetta 6/17/2008 6/17/2008 Non- On site violation still remains. Permits are still Compliant awaiting approval from the State of Fla. Willcontinue to monitor. JC -16. R/c 7/16/08. Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -280- 2 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11 /2014 10:A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Re- Inspection JohnConnetta 7/16/2008 7/18/2008 Non- Status has not change. Still waiting for Compliant approval from the State of Florida. R/c 8/18/08. JC -16 Re- Inspection JohnConnetta 8/21/2008 8/21/2008 Non- On site no work being performed. Still waiting Compliant for approval by State of Florida. R/c 9/22/08. JC -16 Re- Inspection JohnConnetta 9/22/2008 9/22/2008 Non- A check on CDPIus revealed that permits are Compliant still in apply status with CDES. R/c 10/22/08. JC -16 Re- Inspection JohnConnetta 10/22/2008 10/13/2008 Non- 10/13/08 On site status has not changed. Compliant Permits are still in applied status. R/c 11/13/08. JC -16 Re- Inspection JohnConnetta 11/13/2008 11/1712008 Non- 11/17/08 Status has not changed. Permits are Compliant still in applied status. Will continue to monitor. R/c 12/17/08. Jc -16 Re- Inspection JohnConnetta 12/17/2008 12/16/2008 Non- 12/15/08 On site construction still be Compliant conducted on seawall. Permits have been issued and are active. R/c 01/16/09. JC -16 CE Staff Review JohnConnetta 1/6/2009 1/6/2009 Complete Open Case Report: Permitting Case, permit is valid for 6 months. JC -16 Re- Inspection JohnConnetta 1/16/2009 1/28/2009 Non- 1/27/09 A check on CD Plus revealed that Compliant Permit has been issued and has not been CO'ed at this time. R/c 2/27/09. JC -16 Re- Inspection JohnConnetta 2/27/2009 3/2/2009 Non- 3/2/09 A check on CD Plus revealed that Compliant Permits are still in issued status. R/c 4/2/09. JC -16 Re- Inspection JohnConnetta 4/10/2009 4/10/2009 Non- 4/10/09 Permits are still active and seawall is Compliant almost completed. JC -16 CE Phone Call JohnConnetta 4/10/2009 4/10/2009 Complete 4/10/09 Telephoned Jim at Marco Marine to check on status of case and to let him know that the permits are due to expire on 5/19/09. Jim is aware and stated thatt he job will be done by then. JC -16 Not Applicable JohnConnetta 5/13/2009 5/13/2009 Not Required Enter Case Disposition JohnConnetta 5/13/2009 5/13/2009 Complete Verify Conditions & Close Case SusanaCapas 5/13/2009 6/17/2009 Complete ISO Re- Inspection JohnConnetta 5/21/2009 5/13/2009 Compliant 5/13/09 A check on CD Plus revealed that Permit was CO'ed on 5/11/2009. Vioaltion abated. Close case. JC -16 Violation Description Status Entered Corrected Amount Comments Building Permit LDC Corrected 3/7/2008 5/13/2009 $0 Title Reason Result Compliance Fine /Day Condition I Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -281- 3 C f l�r nrxet Report Title: Code Case Details 3/11/2014 10.A. ❑ate: 1/9/2014 9:27:23 AM Case Number: CESD20110015797 Case Type: Site Development Priority: Normal Inspector: petrullipatricia Case Number: CESD20110015797 Status: Closed Date & Time Entered: 11/14/2011 11:28:58 AM Entered By: rajahindira Case Disposition: I No Violation Jurisdiction: Collier County Code Enforcement Origin: Anonymous Complaint Detail Description: Seawall caving into neighbor's boundry causing safety hazard. Owner was contacted but has not taken any steps to resolve the problem Location Comments: 1178 /180 TAHITI CIRCLE (DUPLEX) Address 178 TAHITI CIR Property 52390840009 Property Owner KOCIK, PETER D & BREDA Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -282- 1 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11/2014 10:A. Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Enter Initial Case Information rajahindira 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 Complete Initial Inspection MicheleMcgon 11/14/2011 12/21/2011 Incomplete I made a site visit on 11/16/2011 and obtained agle pemission from the tenant to enter the rear yard to investigate the sea wall complaint. I observed large holes along the edge of the sea wall where the dirt has been washed away and the seawall is no longer being supported on the land side, but the sea wall is intact. I took pictures and entered them into the case. Further research is needed to determine if a violation exists since the sea wall is not failing. I will attempt to contact the property owner and ask them to fill in the holes. Attach Picture(s) MicheleMcgon 11/16/2011 11/17/2011 Complete agle Update Picture(s) MicheleMcgon 12/19/2011 12/21/2011 Complete Researching for correct ordinance do to agle recent amendments CE Phone Call MicheleMcgon 12/21/2011 12/21/2011 Complete I attempted to contact the property owner, agle Peter Kocik using a phone number I found on yellowbook.com (389 -8812) but there was nc answer and I was unable to leave a message because there was no machine Initial Inspection Follow -up AzureBotts 12/27/2011 1/4/2012 Incomplete On 12/28/11 sent an email to John Houldsworth asking for a determination on seawall. I provided pictures and asked if wall would be considered failing. I received a response from Couonty Engineer Jack McKenna stating the seawall wasn't failing; however, the wall needed some maintenance. I asked if the maintenance could be addressed under ordinance 85 -2, response was , NO. need to verify if property maintenance ordinance could be used. CE Phone Call KimberlyBran 12/27/2011 12/27/2011 Complete Call: 5min KB des Caller checking status of case. I read the updates. Caller's concern since case has been opened over month ago. Gave contact info of Azure B -(fill in Supervisor while PP -28 is out). Caller will call back at later time- to ask questions about case. /kb Enter Case Disposition AzureBotts 1/6/2012 1/6/2012 Complete Verify Conditions & Close Case petrullipatricia 1/6/2012 1/6/2012 Complete Initial Inspection petrullipatricia 1/6/2012 1/6/2012 No Violation after researching the LDC and property (s) Found maintenance ordinance, it has been determined that the regular maintenance of seawall cannot be enforced as a violation. attached email from Jack McKenna Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -283- 2 Code Case Details 3/11/2014 10.A. Execution Date 1/9, Violation Description Status Entered Corrected Amount Comments Title Reason Result Compliance Fine /Day Condition 0 Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -284- 3 C ergc+v.net Report Title: Code Case Details 3/11/2014 10.4. Date: 1/9/2014 9:22:55 AM Case Number: CESD20110001919 I Case Number: ICESD20110001919 I Case Type: Site Development Priority: Health and Safety Inspector: MicheleMcgonagle Jurisdiction: Collier County Code Enforcement I Status: Closed I Date & Time Entered: 12/14/2011 2:34:13 PM I Entered By:lKimberlyBrandes I Case Disposition:lAbated Origin: Citation Detail Description: SEAWALL CAVING IN AND IS DANGEROUS. Location Comments: 154 MOONBAY ST Address 54 Moon Bay ST Naples, FL Property 68342000001 Property Owner SELMAN, COLE F & DEBORAH Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -285- 1 Code Case Details 3/11/2014 10.A. Execution Date 1/9, ", , , ..— Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Enter Initial Case Information KimberlyBran 2/14/2011 2/14/2011 Complete des Initial Inspection MicheleMcgon 2/14/2011 2/17/2011 Violation(s) I made a site visit on 2/16/2011 and no one agle Found was home so I could not observe the seawall from the property. I drove over to Isle of St Thomas Road and took pictures of the seawall from the opposite side of the canal. I observed that the seawall is in bad condition and falling into the canal. I am researching property ownership so I can speak to the home owner. Attach Picture(s) MicheleMcgon 2/17/2011 2/17/2011 Complete agle Record Violations MicheleMcgon 2122/2011 2/25/2011 Complete agle CE Phone Call KimberlyBran 2/23/2011 2/23/2011 Complete Call: 5min Kb des Caller checking status of case. Read updates on case. Caller was going to speak with investigator but was unavailable so caller will call back in few days for more updates at that time. /kb ..ierate Notice of Violation MicheleMcgon 3/3/2011 3/8/2011 Complete researching appropriate code agle CE Phone Call KimberlyBran 3/18/2011 3/18/2011 Complete CALL:5MIN KB des CALLER CHECKING STATUS OF CASE. READ THE UPDATES. CALLER WILL CALL BACK IN FEW DAYS FOR UPDATES OF SITE VISIT 3/15/11.KB Re- Inspection MicheleMcgon 4/5/2011 4/8/2011 Non- no contact from the property owner. I will agle Compliant continue to monitor CE Case Research MicheleMcgon 4/12/2011 4/15/2011 Complete Researching appropriate ordinance to site. agle CE Phone Call KimberlyBran 4/20/2011 4/20/2011 Complete call: 5min kb des Original owners no longer live there- New people moved in - -were renting with lease option to buy. I told caller I would add notes in the case. Caller will call back for more updates. /kb Re- Inspection MicheleMcgon 5/17/2011 5/20/2011 Non- wrong owner information. Re sending nov agle Compliant Generate Notice of Violation MicheleMcgon 5/26/2011 5/26/2011 Complete agle Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -286- 2 Code Case Details Execution Date 1/9, 3/11/2014 10 . Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Personal Service Attempt MicheleMcgon 5/27/2011 5/27/2011 Complete I posted the property and courthouse on agle 5/27/2011 and prepared an Affidavit of Posting After posting the property, the owner of the property arrived. She escorted me to the rear yard and showed me that the sea wall is in the process of being repaired. She also stated that John Iglehart of South Disrict DEP said no permit was needed for the removal of debris and repair of the seawall. I took pictures and entered them into the case CE Mailing rajahindira 5/31/2011 5/31/2011 Complete Mailed NOV regular and certified to SELMAN on 5/31/11 - it Re- Inspection MicheleMcgon 5/31/2011 6/15/2011 Compliant I made a site visit on 6/14/2011 and observed agle that the seawall has been repaired and all debris has been removed from the waterway. The violation has been abated. CE Staff Review rajahindira 5/31/2011 5/31/2011 Complete Scanned and attached AOM to case - it CE Staff Review AzureBotts 5/31/2011 5/31/2011 Complete On 5/27/11 posted NOV at courthouse. completed affidavit of posting. attached photo CE Staff Review rajahindira 5/31/2011 5/31/2011 Complete Scanned and attached AOP to case - it CE Staff Review rajahindira 5/31/2011 5/31/2011 Complete Scanned and attached AOP to case - it CE Staff Review rajahindira 6/3/2011 6/3/2011 Complete Scanned and attached GCNOV to case - it CE Staff Review rajahindira 6/3/2011 6/3/2011 Complete Scanned and attached returned mail (GCNOV) to case - it Update Picture(s) MicheleMcgon 6/15/2011 6/15/2011 Complete agle Enter Case Disposition MicheleMcgon 6/15/2011 6/15/2011 Complete agle Verify Conditions & Close Case petrullipatricia 6/15/2011 6/15/2011 Complete Violation Description Status Entered Corrected Amount Comments Legacy Building Permit FBC Corrected 2/17/2011 6/14/2011 $0 seawall is in bad condition and falling into the canal Title Reason Result Compliance Fine /Day Condition Business Management & Budget Office Packet Page -287- 3