Loading...
Backup Documents 07/24/2012 Item #16I1611 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE July 24, 2012 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Miscellaneous Correspondence: 1) Water and Waste Water Authority: Legal Notice 4.20.12 for Adoption of the 2012 Price Index Factor 2) Mediterra North and Mediterra South Community Development Districts: Interlocal Agreement 5.3.12 3) Ave Maria Stewardship Community District: Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2012/2013 5.10.12 PLEASE PLACE THIS WITH THE BOARD'S` MT I "ANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE: A COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTE WATER AUTHORITY LEGAL NOTICE PUBLISHED APRIL 20, 2012 FOR FINAL ORDER 2012 -01, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2012 PRICE INDEX FACTOR SET ANNUALLY BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. Fiala 1 'j Hiner Henning Coyle Coletta hlisc. Copes: Date: —1 f 2.L-A 112 Item Copies to: COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Notice of Public Meeting & Final Order 2012 -01 REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLI( Collier County Water & Wastewater Authority To: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a: %4-, rjo X Normal legal Advertisement ❑ Other: 11A 1 (Display Adv., location, etc.) 161 Originating Dept/ Div: GMD /Operations & Regulatory Management Person: Ken Kovensky Date: April 13, 2012 Petition No. (If none, give brief description): Petitioner: (Name & Address): Name & Address of any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: (If more space is needed, attach separate sheet) Hearing before: BCC BZA X Other Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority Requested Hearing date: (Based on advertisement appearing 10 days before hearing. May 4. 2012 Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only if important): X Naples Daily News Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common locau..n & Size: ❑ Legally Required NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND FINAL ORDER NO. 2012-01 COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY A FINAL ORDER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1 -6, COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 96-6, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2012 PRICE INDEX FACTOR SET ANNUALLY BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, FOR UTILIZATION IN PRICE INDEX RATE APPLICATIONS FOR NONEXEMPT WATER AND /OR WASTEWATER UTILITIES PROVIDING SERVICE IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA. COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY JERRY MORGAN, CHAIRMAN Companion petition(s), if any & proposed hearing date: Does Petition Fee include advertising cost? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: P.O.# 4500135541 Reviewed by: kcA— # 0087 S� Z Division Administrator or Desi a Date �3 List Attachments: A. For hearings before BCC or BZA: Initiating person to complete one copy and obtain Division Head approval before submitting to County Manager. Note: If legal document is involved, be sure that any necessary legal review, or request for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute copies: ❑ County Manager agenda file: to ❑ Requesting Division Clerk's Office ❑ Original B. Other hearings: Initiating Division head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for file. FOR CLERK'S OFFICE USE O n Date Received: C/ Date of Public hearing: "ate Advertised: 1611 Al Martha S. Vergara From: PuigJudy <JudyPuig @colliergov.net> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:18 AM To: Minutes and Records Subject: Legal ad for the Collier County Water and Waste Water Authority ( CCWWA) meeting Attachments: Signed Legal Ad for the 5 -4 -2012 meeting.pdf Hi there, Please see attached the ad for the May 4th CCWWA meeting. I will be delivering this to the County Manager's office shortly and request that it get delivered to your office ASAP (or request that I take it up to you). ,: a' b:' ' €.' -A' b t, livi Z9 €'gin C"?�¥�lt J www.colliergov.net Under Florida Law, e -inail addresses are public records. It you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic rnail to this entity. Instead. contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 161 1 A1 Acct. #068784 April 13, 2012 Attn: Legals Naples News Media Group 1100 Immokalee Rd. Naples, Florida 34110 Re: Legal Notice — Notice of Public Meeting and Final Notice for Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority Dear Legals: Please advertise the above referenced notice on Friday, April 20, 2012 and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved, to this office. The Invoice must reference the purchase order number below. Thank you. Sincerely, Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk P.O. #4500135541 161 1p' Al NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2012-01 COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY A FINAL ORDER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1 -6, COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 96-6, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2012 PRICE INDEX FACTOR SET ANNUALLY BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, FOR UTILIZATION IN PRICE INDEX RATE APPLICATIONS FOR NON - EXEMPT WATER AND /OR WASTEWATER UTILITIES PROVIDING SERVICE IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA. COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY Jerry Morgan, CHAIRMAN Naples Daily News Naples, FL 34110 161 j Al Affidavit of Publication Naples Daily News ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- BCC /CDES BUDGET OFFICE FINANCE DEPARTMENT 3299 TAMIAMI TRL E 4700 NAPLES FL 34112 REFERENCE: 068784 59686970 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEE State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared Barbara Boyer, says that she serves as the Sales Coordinator, of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida: distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: 04/20 AD SPACE: 20 LINE FILED ON: 04/20/12 ----------------- - - - - -- Signature of Affi NOTIE OF PUBLIC. AND FINAL ORDER 2012 011 COLLIER WAS EWA ER AUTHORITY D A FINAL ORDER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER 1 6, PURSUANT TO SECTION COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 96 -6, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2012 PRICE INDEX FACTOR SET ANNUALLY BY THE FL, FOR UTILIZATION SERVICE COMMISSION, IN PRICE INDEX RATE APPLICATIONS FOR NON - EXEMPT WATER AND /OR WASTEWATER UTILITIES PROVIDING SERVICE IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY MARCO ISLAND, FLORIIDA THE CITY OF II I .COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY Jerry Morgan, CHAIRMAN A ri120 2012 -- - - - - - - - -_- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sworn to and Subscribed before me Personally known by me is q� 7 day of 20 /a --=" nv�'t�INA1�s�lt�t��l��ne�7;2p1s 161 Hopping Green & Sams Attorneys and Counselors May 3, 2012 Via First A.M. Overnight Delivery ATTN: Martha Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court Board Minutes & Records Department 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite. 401 Naples, Florida 34112 -5746 1 QCEIVED MAY 0 4 2012 FINANCE Re: Interlocal Agreement between Mediterra North Community Development District & Mediterra South Community Development District Dear Martha, Please find enclosed an original certified Interlocal Agreement between Mediterra North Community Development District and Mediterra South Community Development District Regarding Mutual Cooperation for the Financing of Improvements, which I am submitting to be filed with your office in accordance with Section 163.01 (11), Florida Statutes (2011). Please file -stamp the enclosed copy of the Interlocal Agreement and return it to me in the enclosed self - addressed UPS envelope. Thank you for your assistance with this request. you have any question or need any further information. Please contact me at (850) 425 -3430 if Fiala ( Sincerell Hiller Henning �- Coyle ✓ Coletta laren F. Paralegal Enclosures Misc. Comes: Date: ­111-2--41 t 2 Item #:I�2 ('.,'lies to. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 119 S. Monroe Street, Suite 300 (32301) 850.222.7500 850.224.8551 fax www.hgslaw.com 16 I i A2 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MEDITERRA NORTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND MEDITERRA SOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGARDING MUTUAL COOPERATION FOR THE FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the MEDITERRA NORTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, a special purpose unit of local government located in the City of Bonita Springs, Florida ( "Mediterra North "), and the MEDITERRA SOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, a special purpose unit of local government located in Collier County, Florida ( "Mediterra South ") (collectively referred to herein as the "Districts ") (this Agreement hereinafter referred to as the "Interlocal Agreement "). RECITALS WHEREAS, Mediterra North and Mediterra South are special purpose units of local government located entirely within the City of Bonita Springs and Collier County, Florida, respectively, that have been established for the purpose of planning, financing, constructing, installing, and/or acquiring certain improvements, facilities and services in conjunction with the development of lands located within the Districts, all of which are located within a Planned Use Development; and WHEREAS, the Districts were created by and established pursuant to Chapter 190, F.S., (the "Charter "); and WHEREAS, the Mediterra South District has entered into a Master Trust Indenture, dated as of December 1, 1999 (the "Master Indenture ") with the Trustee to secure the issuance of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds (the " Mediterra South Bonds "), issuable in one or more series from time to time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 99 -16, adopted by the Governing Body on September 22, 1999 (as amended and supplemented by the Award Resolution hereinafter defined, the " Mediterra South Bond Resolution "), the Mediterra South District authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of not to exceed $80,000,000 of its Mediterra South Community Development. District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds (the " Mediterra South Bonds "), to be issued in one or more Series of Bonds as authorized under the Mediterra South Master Indenture, which Bonds were validated by final judgment of the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida on November 22, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the Mediterra South District duly adopted Resolution No. 99 -14, on September 22, 1999, providing for the acquisition and construction of a portion of the Mediterra South District's capital improvement program (as described in Exhibit A to the First Supplemental Indenture, the "Series 1999 Mediterra South Project ", providing estimated Costs of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Project, defining assessable property to be benefitted by the Series 1999 Mediterra South Project, defining the portion of the cost of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Project with respect to which Assessments will be imposed and the manner in which such assessments shall be levied against such benefitted property within the 1 16 I 1 A2 Mediterra South District (the "Series 1999 Mediterra South Assessments "), directing the preparation of an assessment roll, and, stating the intent of the Mediterra South District to issue bonds of the Mediterra South District secured by such Assessments to finance the costs of the acquisition and construction of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Project (the " Mediterra South Preliminary Assessment Resolution ") and the Governing Body of the Mediterra South District duly adopted Resolution No. 2000 -2, following a public hearing conducted in accordance with the Act, to fix and establish the assessments and the benefitted property (collectively, the " Mediterra South Assessment Resolution "); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No 2000 -5, adopted by the Governing Body of the Mediterra South District on December 20, 1999, the Mediterra South District issued, sold and delivered $30,495,000 of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1999 (the "Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds "), in two Series, $11,415,000 of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1999A (the "Series 1999A Mediterra South Bonds ") and $19,080,000 of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1999B (the "Series 1999B Mediterra South Bonds "), which Series 1999B Mediterra South Bonds are no longer Outstanding under the Indenture (the Outstanding Series 1999A Mediterra South Bonds are hereinafter referred to as the "Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds "), as an issue of Mediterra South Bonds under the Mediterra South Master Indenture, and authorized the execution and delivery of the Mediterra South Master Indenture and a First Supplemental Indenture to secure the issuance of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds and to set forth the terms of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra South District applied the proceeds of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds to: (i) finance the Cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping assessable improvements (the "Series 1999 Mediterra South Project "); (ii) pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds; (iii) making a deposit into the related Series Reserve Accounts for the benefit of all of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds; and (iv) pay a portion of the interest to become due on the Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the Mediterra South District duly adopted Resolution No. 99 -14, 99 -15 and 2000 -2 (the " Mediterra South Assessment Proceedings "), providing for the acquisition and construction of the certain assessable improvements within the Mediterra South District (the " Mediterra South Assessable Improvements "), defining assessable property to be benefitted by such improvements, defining the portion of the cost of such improvements with respect to which special assessments are imposed and the manner in which such special assessments are levied against such benefitted property within the Mediterra South District (the "Series 1999 Mediterra South Assessments "); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No 2001 -8, adopted by the Governing Body of the Mediterra South District on June 27, 2001, the Mediterra South District issued, sold and delivered its $5,585,000 of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 (the "Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds Mediterra South Bonds ") as an issue of Mediterra South Bonds under the Mediterra South Master Indenture 2 16 111; A 2 and a Second Supplemental Indenture to secure the issuance of the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds and to set forth the terms of the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra South District applied the proceeds of the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds to: (i) finance the Cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping the second phase of the Mediterra South Capital Improvement Program which comprised the Series 2001 Mediterra South Project; (ii) pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds; (iii) making a deposit into the 2001 Reserve Account for the benefit of all of the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds; and (iv) pay a portion of the interest to become due on the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra South Assessment Resolution was supplemented by a Supplemental Assessment Methodology Report describing the allocation of the Assessments relating to the Series 2001 Mediterra South Project (the "Series 2001 Mediterra South Assessments ") based upon the issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds; and WHEREAS, Mediterra North Community Development District (the " Mediterra North District "), a community development district and a local unit of special purpose government under the Act having boundaries adjacent to the Mediterra North District and sharing a common development plan with the Mediterra North District, entered into a Master Trust Indenture, dated as of July 1, 2001 (the " Mediterra North Master Indenture ") with the Trustee (in its capacity as trustee under the Mediterra North Master Indenture, the " Mediterra North Trustee ") to secure the issuance of its Mediterra North Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds (the " Mediterra North Bonds "), issuable in one or more series from time to time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2001 -15, adopted by the Governing Body of the Mediterra North District on April 5, 2001 (as amended and supplemented by the Award Resolution hereinafter defined, the " Mediterra North Bond Resolution "), the Mediterra North District authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of not to exceed $27,000,000 of its Mediterra North Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds (the " Mediterra North Bonds "), to be issued in one or more Series of Bonds as authorized under the Mediterra South Master Indenture, which Mediterra North Bonds were validated by final judgment of the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida on June 8, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the Mediterra North District duly adopted Resolution No. 2001 -13, on April 5, 2001, providing for the acquisition and construction of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Project (hereinafter defined), providing estimated Costs of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Project, defining assessable property to be benefitted by the Series 2001 Mediterra North Project, defining the portion of the cost of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Project with respect to which Assessments will be imposed and the manner in which such assessments shall be levied against such benefitted property within the Mediterra North District (the "Series 2001 Mediterra North Assessments "), directing the preparation of an assessment roll, and, stating the intent of the Mediterra North District to issue bonds of the Mediterra North District secured by such Assessments to finance the costs of the acquisition and construction of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Project (the " Mediterra North Preliminary Assessment Resolution ") and the Governing Body of the Mediterra North District duly adopted Resolution 3 161 1 X72 No. 2001 -18, on May 15, 2001, following a public hearing conducted in accordance with the Act, to fix and establish the assessments and the benefitted property (collectively, the " Mediterra North Assessment Resolution "); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No 2001 -23, adopted by the Governing Body of the Mediterra North District on July 25, 2001, the Mediterra North District has authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of $20,030,000 of its Mediterra North' Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 (the "Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds "), in two Series, $18,200,000 of its Mediterra North Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2001A (the "Series 2001A Mediterra North Bonds ") and $1,830,000 of its Mediterra North Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 B (the "Series 2001 B Mediterra North Bonds ") as an issue of Bonds under the Mediterra North Master Indenture, and has authorized the execution and delivery of the Mediterra North Master Indenture and a First Supplemental Indenture (the Mediterra North Master Indenture, as supplemented by the First Supplemental Indenture is hereinafter referred to as the " Mediterra North Indenture ") to secure the issuance of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds and to set forth the terms of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra North District applied the proceeds of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds to: (i) finance the Cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping assessable improvements (the "Series 2001 Mediterra North Project "); (ii) pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds; (iii) make a deposit into the related Series Reserve Accounts for the benefit of all of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds; and (iv) pay a portion of the interest to become due on the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the Mediterra North District duly adopted Resolution No. 2001 -13, 2001 -14 and 2001 -18 (the " Mediterra North Assessment Proceedings "), providing for the acquisition and construction of the certain assessable improvements within the Mediterra North District (the " Mediterra North Assessable Improvements "), defining assessable property to be benefitted by such improvements, defining the portion of the cost of such improvements with respect to which special assessments will be imposed and the manner in which such special assessments shall be levied against such benefitted property within the Mediterra North District (the "Series 2001 Mediterra North Assessments "); and WHEREAS, the Mediterra South District and the Mediterra North District have each determined that under existing market conditions, it would be in the best financial interest of the respective District to currently refund and redeem all of the Outstanding Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds, the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds (the "Prior Mediterra South Bonds ") and the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds (the "Prior Mediterra North Bonds," and collectively, the "Prior Bonds ") in order to achieve debt service savings and reduce the corresponding Assessments paid by the residents and taxpayers of each District; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, as amended (the "Interlocal Cooperation Act "), the Mediterra South Districts may enter into an interlocal agreement pursuant to which, inter alia, in order to facilitate marketing of bonds to refinance the F 16 I 1 q+2 outstanding bonds of each District, the Mediterra South Districts agree that the Mediterra South District shall issue bonds on behalf of itself and loan a portion of the proceeds of the bonds to the Mediterra North District to refund and redeem its Bonds, and may also provide for certain covenants and agreements with respect to the collection, deposit, enforcement and disposition of the Assessments of each District in order to pay debt service on the refunding bonds; and WHEREAS, the Districts wish to enter into an agreement to jointly exercise their uniform charter powers in a cost effective and rational manner and to issue Capital Improvement Refunding Bonds to refund the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Districts are each empowered by the Charter to construct improvements to benefit the lands within and beyond their respective boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Districts find it mutually beneficial and in the best interests of their landowners, future residents and the public at large that the Districts cooperate to avoid conflicting, disjointed, duplicative, or multiple financing efforts as the Districts implement the Charter for the lands within and beyond their respective boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Districts wish to ensure the timely, efficient and cost effective issuance of the New Bonds; and WHEREAS, section 163.01, Florida Statutes, known as the "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969," permits local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities on a basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and facilities in a manner and pursuant to forms of governmental organization that will accord best with geographic, economic, population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities; and WHEREAS, section 190.011, Florida Statutes, permits districts to borrow money and issue bonds; levy special assessments; borrow money from a unit of local government for any district purposes and to enter into agreements required in connection therewith; and cooperate with, or contract with, other governmental agencies as may be necessary or convenient in connection with any of the powers, duties, or purposes authorized in the Charter; and WHEREAS, section 190.016(7), Florida Statutes, permits districts to issue bonds to provide for the refunding of bonds of the district; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra North and Mediterra South Districts find this Interlocal Agreement to be necessary, proper and convenient to the exercise of their powers, duties and purposes authorized by law; and WHEREAS, the Districts desire to exercise jointly their common powers and authority concerning the cost effective refunding of the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, to facilitate the refunding of the Prior Bonds, the parties find it in their respective best interests that one district to take the lead in the financing activities. k, 1611 az WHEREAS, the Mediterra South District and the Mediterra North District enter into this Interlocal Agreement, which shall be filed as required by law with the Circuit Clerk of Collier County, Florida and Lee County, Florida), pursuant to which, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the Mediterra North District has agreed that the Mediterra South District shall issue, sell and deliver its revenue and refunding bonds in order to refund and redeem all of the Outstanding Mediterra South Bonds and loan a portion of the Series 2012 Bond proceeds to the Mediterra North District to refund and redeem all of the outstanding Mediterra North Bonds and has provided herein for the collection, deposit enforcement and disposition of the Assessments of each District, as hereinabove described, and set forth the terms under which said refunding bonds are to be issued and the terms of such refunding bonds and for the application of the proceeds thereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this Interlocal Agreement, Resolution No 2012 -[ ], adopted by the Governing Body of the Mediterra South District on it] (the "Series 2012 Mediterra South Award Resolution ") and Resolution No 2012 -[ 3], adopted by the Governing Body of the Mediterra North District on [WA +1,2012 -] (the "Series 2012 Mediterra North Award Resolution "), the Mediterra South District has authorized the issuance, sale and delivery by the Mediterra South District of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012 (the "Series 2012 Bonds ") as an issue of Bonds under the Mediterra South Master Indenture, and has authorized the execution and delivery of a Third Supplemental Trust Indenture, dated as of May 1, 2012 (the " Mediterra South Third Supplemental Indenture "), from the District to the Trustee to secure the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds and to set forth the terms of the Series 2012 Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra South District will apply the proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds to: (i) currently refund and redeem all of the Outstanding principal amount of the Prior Bonds; (ii) pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds; and (iii) make a deposit into the Series 2012 Reserve Account for the benefit,of all of the Series 2012 Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Series 2012 Bonds will be payable from and secured by the Series 1999 Mediterra South Assessments, the Series 2001 Mediterra South Assessments (collectively, the Mediterra South Assessments ") and the Series 2001 Mediterra North Assessments paid to the Mediterra South District pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement (collectively, the "Series 2012 Assessments "), which, together with the Series 2012 Pledged Funds and Accounts (hereinafter defined) will comprise the Series 2012 Trust Estate (hereinafter defined), which shall constitute a "Series Trust Estate" as defined in the Mediterra South Master Indenture; and WHEREAS, the Districts wish to enter into an agreement to jointly exercise their uniform charter powers in a cost effective and rational manner and to issue Capital Improvement Refunding Bonds to refund the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Districts are each empowered by the Charter to construct improvements to benefit the lands within and beyond their respective boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Districts find it mutually beneficial and in the best interests of their landowners, future residents and the public at large that the Districts cooperate to avoid C 161 1 pp conflicting, disjointed, duplicative, or multiple financing efforts as the Districts implement the Charter for the lands within and beyond their respective boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Districts wish to ensure the timely, efficient and cost effective issuance of the New Bonds; and WHEREAS, section 163.01, Florida Statutes, known as the "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969," permits local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities on a basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and facilities in a manner and pursuant to forms of governmental organization that will accord best with geographic, economic, population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities; and WHEREAS, section 190.011, Florida Statutes, permits districts to borrow money and issue bonds; levy special assessments; borrow money from a unit of local government for any district purposes and to enter into agreements required in connection therewith; and cooperate with, or contract with, other governmental agencies as may be necessary or convenient in connection with any of the powers, duties, or purposes authorized in the Charter; and WHEREAS, section 190.016(7), Florida Statutes, permits districts to issue bonds to provide for the refunding of bonds of the district; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra North and Mediterra South Districts find this Interlocal Agreement to be necessary, proper and convenient to the exercise of their powers, duties and purposes authorized by law; and WHEREAS, the Districts desire to exercise jointly their common powers and authority concerning the cost effective refunding of the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, to facilitate the refunding of the Prior Bonds, the parties find it in their respective best interests that one district to take the lead in the financing activities. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, agreements and mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the Districts, the Districts agree as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals and Authority. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and by this reference are incorporated as a material part of this Interlocal Agreement. This Interlocal Agreement is entered into pursuant to the provision of Florida law, including but not limited to Chapters 163, 189, and 190, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Constitution. SECTION 2. Cooperation on Refunding of Bonds. Under the Charter, the Districts are empowered to issue and refund bonds, as defined in the Charter. The Districts agree and covenant to cooperate on the issuance and refunding of bonds. To that end, the Districts have adopted Mediterra North Resolution 2012- and Mediterra South Resolution 2012 - (collectively the "Resolutions "), and a Supplemental Special Assessment Methodology Report 7 161 1 A2 for the allocation of benefits and debt over all of the lands within the Districts (the "Methodology "). A. Issuance of Bonds by Mediterra South. Mediterra South and Mediterra North agree that Mediterra South shall issue its Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2012 (the "Series 2012 Bonds ") under and pursuant to a Master Trust Indenture, dated as of December 1, 1999 (the "Master Indenture "), from Mediterra South to U.S. Bank, National Association, as successor in trust, as trustee (the "Trustee "), as supplemented by a Fourth Supplemental Trust Indenture, dated as of May 1, 2012 (the "Fourth Supplemental Indenture" and the Master Indenture, as amended and supplemented by the Fourth Supplemental Indenture is hereinafter referred to as the "Indenture "), from the District to the Trustee. A portion of the proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds applied by the Mediterra South District will: (i) currently refund and redeem all of the Outstanding principal amount of the Prior Mediterra South Bonds; (ii) pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds; and (iii) make a deposit into the Series 2012 Reserve Account for the benefit of all of the Series 2012 Bonds. An additional portion of the proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds will be loaned to Mediterra North in order to provide Mediterra North with funds to: (i) currently refund and redeem all of the Outstanding principal amount of the Prior Mediterra North Bonds; (ii) pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds; and (iii) make a deposit into the Series 2012 Reserve Account for the benefit of all of the Series 2012 Bonds. B. Collection of Special Assessments; Repayment of Loan by Mediterra North. In each and every instance in .which Mediterra South issues debt and lends a portion of the proceeds to Mediterra North in accordance with Section 2.A. above,'Mediterra North agrees and covenants to repay the loan at times and in amounts and on the terms set forth for Mediterra North in Exhibit A to the Fourth Supplemental Indenture from Special Assessments which shall be imposed, levied and collected in accordance with the terms of the Act (which may be by direct collection, use of the Lee County tax roll, or any other method allowed under the Indenture and state law). All Special Assessments collected by Mediterra North pursuant to this paragraph shall be remitted upon direction by Mediterra South within thirty days of receipt, by check or electronic transfer and shall be credited against the principal and interest due on the loan in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Supplemental Indenture. C. Remittance of Special Assessments. In each and every instance in which Mediterra South issues debt in accordance with Sections 2.A. and 2.B. above, Mediterra South hereby directs the payment directly to the Trustee in accordance with the Fourth Supplemental Indenture as the absolute assignee, for the benefit of the Owners of the Series 2012 Bonds. Any prepayments of Series 2012 Assessments received by either district shall be immediately deposited with the Trustee and designated as such. D. Covenants. Mediterra North hereby covenants and agrees to comply with each and every provision contained in Article VIII of the Mediterra South Master Indenture, Section 702 through and including Section 705 of the Mediterra Third Supplemental Indenture, and Article VI of the Fourth Supplemental Indenture as if each and every such provision were expressly set forth herein and referenced Mediterra North in lieu of Mediterra South. Mediterra North may redeem the Mediterra North Portion (as defined in the Supplemental Indenture), in whole, but not 161 1- in part, at such times and in the manner specified in the Indenture. Supplemental SECTION 3. Indemnification. Nothing in this Interlocal Agreement shall be deemed as a waiver of immunity or limits of liability of either District, including their supervisors, officers, agents and employees and independent contractors, beyond any statutory limited waiver of immunity or limits of liability which may have been adopted by the Florida Legislature in section 768.28, Florida Statutes or other statute, and nothing in this Interlocal Agreement shall inure to the benefit of any third party for the purpose of allowing any claim which would otherwise be barred under the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity or by operation of law. SECTION 4. Default. A default by either District under this Interlocal Agreement shall entitle the other District to all remedies available at law or in equity, which may include, but not be limited to, damages, injunctive relief and specific performance. Each of the parties hereto shall give the other party written notice of any defaults hereunder and shall allow the defaulting party not less than five (5) days from the date of receipt of such notice to cure monetary defaults and fifteen (15) days to cure other defaults. SECTION 5. Enforcement. In the event that either District seeks to enforce this Interlocal Agreement by court proceedings or otherwise, then the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all fees and costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for trial, alternative dispute resolution or appellate proceedings. SECTION 6. Controlling Law. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. SECTION 7. Severability. In the event any term or provision of this Agreement is determined by appropriate judicial authority to be illegal or otherwise invalid, such provision shall be construed or deleted as such authority determines, and the remainder of this Agreement shall be construed to be in full force and effect. SECTION 8. Amendment. This Interlocal Agreement shall not be modified or amended except by written agreement duly executed by the parties hereto. SECTION 9. Time of the Essence. The Districts each agree that time is of the essence of this Interlocal Agreement SECTION 10. Notice. Each District shall furnish to the other such notice, as may be required from time to time, pursuant to this Interlocal Agreement, in writing, posted in the U.S. mail or by hand delivery, or by overnight delivery service and addressed as follows: To Mediterra North: Mediterra North Community Development District 6131 Lyons Road, Suite 100 Coconut Creek, Florida 33073 Attn: District Manager 9 1611 p2 To Mediterra South: Mediterra South Community Development District 6131 Lyons Road, Suite 100 Coconut Creek, Florida 33073 Attn: District Manager With a copy to: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Attn: District Counsel Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any Notice shall be deemed received only upon actual delivery at the address set forth above. Notices delivered after 5:00 p.m. (at the place of delivery) or on a non - business day, shall be deemed received on the next business day. If any time for giving Notice contained in this Agreement would otherwise expire on a non - business day, the Notice period shall be extended to the next succeeding business day. Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays recognized by the United States government shall not be regarded as business days. Any party or other person to whom Notices are to be sent or copied may notify the other parties and addressees of any change in name or address to which Notices shall be sent by providing the same on five (5) days written notice to the parties and addressees set forth herein. SECTION 11. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. SECTION 12. Effective Date. This Interlocal Agreement and the rights conferred herein shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County and the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida, in accordance with the requirements of Section 163.01 (11), F.S. This Interlocal agreement shall expire one year from the effective date if on that date bonds have not been issued by Mediterra South as provided herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned set their hands as of the day of 2�1 , 2012. 1UV 0 OPMENT ArJ iJ 10 161 i a2 Chairman Witness: — Attest: c Se etary Print Name Witness: Print Name 11 ib l 1 q2 MEDITERRA SOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT By: ICS�,Ja ctt AJ a %A 5 Chairman Witness: � ---� � C Attest(A3� Avv-,,r 1z�ti ecretary Print Name Witness: Print Name 12 161 f pp CERTIFICATE AS TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MEDITERRA NORTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND MEDITERRA SOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGARDING MUTUAL COOPERATION FOR THE FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENTS I, CHESLEY E. ADAMS, JR., Secretary of the Mediterra SouthCommunity Development District (the "District "), DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Interlocal Agreement Between Mediterra North Community Development District and Mediterra South Community Development District Regarding Mutual Cooperation for the Financing of Improvements, which was passed and adopted by the District's Board of Supervisors at a meeting held on April 11, 2012, at which a quorum was present and acting throughout. Said resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended, and is in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the official seal of the District this day of 2012. MEDITERRA SOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT By: Chesley Adams,'Jr. Secretary . 6 161 AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT c/o Special District Services, Inc. 2501 Burns Road, Suite A Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (561) 630 -4922 Fax: (561) 630 -4923 May 10, 2012 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Clerk of Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building "L ", 61h Floor Naples, FL 34112 Re: Ave Maria Stewardship Community District To Whom It May Concern: 1 A&CEIVED MAY 18 2012 co 0 r r'+ 7K 0 n O G v Fiala !! County CWM&* " S "C Z CJJ ca Hiller ✓ Henning Coyle ✓___.. _ _ Coletta �L _ Pursuant to Florida law, enclosed please find a copy of the following document relative to the above referenced Stewardship Community District: 1.) Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2012/2013 (Oct. 1, 2012 — Sept. 30, 2013) Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, SPECIAL DIST CT SERVICES, INC. Laura J. Arc e Enclosure Mist. Comes: Date: —' 12`-4 t t 2 Item ► 3 Copies to: 161 1 A3 Ave Maria Stewardship Community District Final Budget For Fiscal Year 2012/2013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 - 161 ,,f*' A3 CONTENTS I FINAL OPERATING FUND BUDGET II FINAL DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET III ASSESSMENT BREAKDOWN IV DETAILED FINAL OPERATING FUND BUDGET V DETAILED FINAL DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET VI FINAL MAINTENANCE BUDGET AMS Budget Contents 2012 -2013 4126/2012 3:57 PM 1611 A3 PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 201212013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET O 8, M ASSESSMENTS 371,101 DEBT ASSESSMENTS 760,863 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR O & M 1,289,687 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR DEBT 3,167,217 OTHER REVENUES 0 TOTAL REVENUES $ 5,588,868 EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES SUPERVISORS FEES 8,000 ENGINEERING 20,000 MANAGEMENT 70,216 SECRETARIAL 4,500 LEGAL 20,000 ASSESSMENT ROLL 15,000 AUDIT FEES 8,600 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 2,500 TRAVEL 81 LODGING 2,000 INSURANCE 7,500 LEGAL ADVERTISING 3,000 MISCELLANEOUS 2,000 POSTAGE 1,750 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,000 DUES, LICENSE, & SUBSCRIPTIONS 500 MISCELLANEOUS FILINGS, NOTICES, ETC. 2,000 WEBSITE HOSTING FEES 1,000 TRUSTEE FEES 12,000 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 5,000 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES $ 187,566 MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES MAINTENANCE 1,445,389 MAINTENANCE/INSPECTIONS /ADMIN 0 TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES $ 1,445,389 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,632,955 EXCESS OR SHORTFALL $ 3,956,913 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE $ 3,871,016 BALANCE $ 84,897 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 39,619 DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS 45,279 NET EXCESS /SHORTFALL $ Ave Maria Sla"rdship AMS Budgets AMS Budgets 2012 -2013 AMS Proposed Budget 2012.2013 AMS Operating Fund Budget 2012.2013 0257012 3:57 PM 161 T A3 PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND FISCAL YEAR 201212013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET NAV Collection 703,798 Developer Contribution 3,167,217 Total Revenues $ 3,871,016 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments '06 Bond 465,000 Interest Payments '06 Bond 1,246,016 Principal Payments ('12 Bond) * 475,000 Interest Payments ('12 Bond) * 1,685,000 Total Expenditures $ 3,871,016 Excess /Shortfall $ - 'These payments are an estimate. The parameters to estimate this cost were $26,220,000 principal, 6.5% rate, 24 year term. Ara M.A. AM$ Budget AMS Budge42012 -1013 AMS Pmpurd Budget 2012 -1013 AMS Dad SerAce Budget 2012 -2013 4(25/2012 3:57 PM Ave Maria Stewardship District Assessment Breakdown 2012 -2013 Operation: Maintenance Asssssnm ! Number of Uttite Platted for Fiscal Year 2012 -2013 Per Residential 299.37 S 38 523.14 Townhoma, ! 122 Unit CamagelAttachad Villa 91 Unit DetacMd Vila 46!57 488 Unit 111 15 587.24 43 Unit Single Family WtW 103 UnIft Struts Family 79/75' 52 Unit single Family (10' 0 Unit 38 890.90 0.24 IS 12,305,95 Other Uses 98 777.00 Per Low Affordable Housing 1 Unit ALF Apartyierits 0 VM Rid,iVEnte"ahmorittOwylev 128.15RO Sq. Ft. Professorial as 51 F. 0 Room Medal Fedlides 10,904 SQ. Ft. InitliAlonal AM UnrmM 875 Student Private K -12 School 275 Student Tot., Ave Maria Stewardship District Assessment Breakdown 2012 -2013 Operation: Maintenance Asssssnm ! Total Operation & Malntel nce Aseessmarlt Number of Bond Prepayments Total DM Assessment Prepatmients 299.37 S 38 523.14 298.37 S 28.140.78 $ 299.37 S 145,49182 299.37 S 12.872.91 298.37 3 30 935.11 88.37 111 15 587.24 37 s 48.906.00 $ 959.00 $ 498,074.00 74.05 S 24 335.90 17.77 9W. 38 890.90 0.24 IS 12,305,95 311.13 98 777.00 .73 7,959.92 1 13897.50 24.17 S 8 .75 6 5 49 988.00 959.00 $371,100.83 Amounts per unit shown are grossed up for 3.5% County Fees and 4% for early payment discount. 'Note: 67 units included in Detached Villes 48'/52' ere classified just as "Single Family' in Liberty Park. 161 1 A3 DaW AsssaernaN r Unit Total Debt Assessment Number of Bond Prepayments Total DM Assessment Prepatmients Total DM Asseasn" Is" Prepayments 499.00 S 80 878.00 80 878.00 499.00 S 46.9W.00 s 48.906.00 $ 959.00 $ 498,074.00 3 S (2,877.00) $ 483,197.00 9W. 41237.00 959.00 98 777.00 98 777.00 959.00 6 5 49 988.00 959.00 S 763,740.00 3 S (2,877.00) $ 760,863.00 The actual unit types will be determined at a future date, but they will be single family so they will have the same assessment as the other single family properties. M Mw waawaw wa s.aPrrou -raa wsr,o,�.eawaw mrr -mta a �orx 347 wa a..�..n e,.,aoo rovmu 161 71 A3 PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 201212013 OetOber 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 201112012 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 201212013 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS 0 & M ASSESSMENTS 365,742 385,588 371,101 See Detail on Page 3 DEBT ASSESSMENTS 761.030 760.863 760,863 See Detail on Page 3 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR 0 & M 970,674 1,294,786 1 289 687 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR DEBT 2,239,628 2 263 968 3,167,217 OTHER REVENUES 5,775 0 0 TOTAL REVENUES S 4.342,849 4,685,205 5.588,868 EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES SUPERVISORS FEES 2 2DO 8 000 8,000 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget ENGINEERING 6,728 20 DO0 20 ODO No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget MANAGEMENT 55 D00 70,216 70,216 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget SECRETARIAL 2,000 4 5DO 4,500 No Change From 2011.2012 Budget LEGAL 15,936 20,000 20,000 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget ASSESSMENT ROLL 15,000 15,000 15.000 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget AUDIT FEES 7,500 8,600 8,600 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 1,575 2,500 2,500 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget TRAVEL & LODGING 359 2,000 2,000 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget INSURANCE 8,628 7,500 7,500 No Change From 2011 -2012 Bud st LEGAL ADVERTISING 801 3,000 3,000 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget MISCELLANEOUS 2,133 2,000 2,000 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget POSTAGE 1,316 1,750 1,750 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,341 2,000 2,000 No Chance From 2011 -2012 Budget DUES LICENSE & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 500 500 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget MISCELLANEOUS FILINGS NOTICES ETC. 0 2,000 2 000 No Change From 2011 -2012 Bud et WEBSITE HOSTING FEES 0 1,000 1 ODO No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget TRUSTEE FEES 11,314 12,000 12,000 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 5,000 5,000 5,000 No Change From 2011 -2012 Budget TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES 138,006 187,568 187,566 MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES MAINTENANCE 1,138,487 1 445 389 1,445,389 Total Maintenance - See Detail On Page 6 MAINTENANCE /INSPECTIONS /ADMIN 0 0 0 TOTAL MW NTENANCE EXPENDITURES 1,138,487 1 445 388 1.445,389 TOTAL EXPENDITURES S 1.275.493 1.632.955 1.532,955 EXCESS OR SHORTFALL 3,066.3U 3,052,250 3.955,913 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (2,969,804) $ (2 987 788 ) $ (3,871,016) 2013 Prindpal & Interest Payments BALANCE 96,552 84,484 84,897 CC --.ER a Tex Cau.CTOS �Mal 'NE coera Axo CCUecnawa (29,M) (39,426) (39,619) Three And One Hell Percen101 ToW Tax Rall 1.5% Tax Collector) DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS (23,610) (45,058) (46,279) Four Percent Of Total Tax Roll NET EXCESSISHORTFALL 43,077 0.00 Aw Marla Slw ~ip AMS Budgets AMS Budget. 2012.2013 AMS Proposed Budget 2012.2013 AMS Op-*V Fund Budget 2012 -2013 eR02012 3:57 PM 161 1 A3 PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND FISCAL YEAR 2012/2017 October 1, 2012 • September 30, 2013 IREVENUES FISCAL YEAR 201112012 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Interest Income Bond 0 0 DS Reserve Interest is now aoing to the Deferred Cost Account Interest Income (BAB) 0 0 DS Reserve Interest is now going to the Deferred Cost Account NAV Collection 703,798 703.798 Per Assessment Breakdown 3 bss 7.5% for D4counta and Fees Developer Contribution 2,263,968 3 167 217 Total Revenues S 2,967,766 3,871,015 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments C06 Bond 440 000 465,000 2006 Bond Principal Payment Due In 2013 Interest Payments '06 Bond 1,269206 1 246 016 2006 Bond Interest Payments Due In 2013 Principal Payments ('12 Bond) 0 475,000 2012 Bond Principal Payment Due In 2013 Interest Payments ('12 Bond) 1,258,560 1,685,000 ]t 2012 Bond Interest Payments Due In 2013 Total Expenditures 2,967,706 3, 71,016 ExcesslShortfall $ $ 'These payments are an estimate. The parameters to estimate this cost were $26,220,000 principal, 6.5% rate, 24 year term. rua ewaw. ],wa srar:av�mu ,YI] PupsMga�TO1T -]il] MK OVIawsauear TO1]ial] � Ka2O +T ]i /� 161 1 A3 PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT MAINTENANCE FISCAL YEAR 201212013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 Ave Mm SI- ciship AMS Budgets AMS Budgets 2012 -2013 AMS proposed Budget 2012 -2013 Vi CAM112 3 -.57 PM AMS MeiW -t,ot Budget FISCAL YEAR 200912010 ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES ELECTRIC STREETLIGHTS LANDSCAPE 80,198 95,000 95,000 STREET SWEEPING 197 5,000 5,000 STRIPING & TRAFFIC MARKINGS 284 2,000 2,000 STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE 26,166 30,000 30,000 SIDEWALK/ CURB REPAIRS 6,508 3,000 3,000 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ROADWAY ENTRIES): MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS 452,495 530,000 530,000 TREE TRIMMING 17,028 15,000 15,000 STORM CLEANUP 42,295 70,000 70,000 PLANT REPLACEMENT 16,013 40,000 40,000 MULCH & MISCELLANEOUS 89,739 73,000 73.000 MISC. UTILITIES 0 5,000 5,000 ELECTRICITY 0 0 0 IRRIGATION WATER 82,338 100,000 100,000 IRRIGATION REPAIR 4,968 12,000 12,000 ENTRY FEATURE WATER 0 0 0 FOUNTAIN MAINTENANCE 1,155 15,000 15,000 RODENT / PEST CONTROL 5,377 6,000 6,000 EQUIPMENT REPAIR 277 1'000 1,000 SIGNAGE REPAIR 7,739 5,000 5,000 WATER MANAGEMENT & DRAINAGE 3,600 3,000 3,000 STORM DRAIN CLEANING 0 10,000 10,000 DRAINAGE / LAKE MAINTENANCE/ LITTORALS 48,201 50,000 50,000 AERATORS 6,980 6,500 6,500 AQUATIC REPLACEMENTS 0 5,000 5,000 PRESERVE MAINTENANCE 0 40,000 40,000 TAXES & LICENSES 0 0 0 INSURANCE 0 0 0 SMALL TOOLS 725 1,000 1,000 MISCELLANEOUS MAINT. 0 0 0 MISC. REPAIRS 266 5,000 5,000 VEHICLE LEASE / FUEL / REPAIRS MAINT TECH 5,740 5,000 5 000 MOSQUITO CONTROL 83.439 80,000 80,000 FISH STOCKING 0 5,000 5,000 TEMP FIRE FACILITY OPERATING COSTS 52,876 36,000 36,000 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLIES 545 500 500 OFFICE LEASE 0 0 0 OFFICE UTILITIES 0 0 0 MAINTENANCE TECHNICIANS 47.022 60,000 60,000 BASE MANAGEMENT FEE 14,940 16,667 16,667 ADMIN PAYROLL 19.756, 79,722 79.722 TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES S 1,116,867 $ 1,410,389 $ 1,410,389 RESERVE FUND 20,620 20,000 20,000 CONTINGENCY FUND 1,000 15,000 15,000 TOTAL $ 1,138,487 $ 1,445,389 $ 1,445,389 Ave Mm SI- ciship AMS Budgets AMS Budgets 2012 -2013 AMS proposed Budget 2012 -2013 Vi CAM112 3 -.57 PM AMS MeiW -t,ot Budget 16 11 A'3 PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AVE MARIA UTILITY FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 Oct*Wr 1, 2012 • September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 201=011 ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 201112012 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 201212013 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS AMUC Income 263,697 240,000 260.000 A ximatel 2/3 of Expenditures Developer Contribution 120,000 140,000 120,000 Appro)dmately Approximately 113 of Expenditures Total Revenues 383,697 380,000 S 380,000 EXPENDITURES OMI Operati n g Fee 218,736 240,000 240 000 Estimate of $20,000 per Month AMUC Bulk Water Cha a 138,130 140,000 140.000 Estimate of $11,667 per Month Total Expenditures 366,867 380,000 380,000 Excess /Shortfall 26 831 Euws auft a�t— &. ax ao+x -m 3 noz xa w w uaw B-dw 1612 4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES July 24, 2012 2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of 10.10.11; 1. 9.12 2) Animal Services Advisory Board: Minutes of 4.24.12 3) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes of 3.7.12; 4.4.12 4) Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Minutes of 2.7.12; 4.3.12 5) Collier County Citizens Corps: Agenda of 5.16.12 6) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of 3.8.12 7) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of 4.6.12 (Special Magistrate) 8) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of 3.6.12; 4.5.12; 4.13.12; 4.19.12 Minutes of 3.6.12; 4.5.12; 4.13.12; 4.19.12 9) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of 3.21.12; 4.18.12 10) County Government Productivity Committee: Agenda of 1.18.12; 2.15.12; 3.21.12 Minutes of 1.18.12; 1. 18.12 (Outsourcing and Insourcing Review Subcommittee); 2.15.12; 2.22.12 (Outsourcing and Insourcing Review Subcommittee); 3.21.12; 3.21.12 (Outsourcing and Insourcing Review Subcommittee); 4.10.12 (Outsourcing and Insourcing Review Subcommittee) 11) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of 4.4.12 1612 12) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council: Minutes of 1.20.12; 4.13.12 13) Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of 4.4.12; 5.2.12 14) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Minutes of 3.20.12 15) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda of 3.5.12; 3.29.12 (Budget Workshop, No Quorum); 4.2.12 Minutes of 3.5.12; 3.29.12 (Budget Workshop, No Quorum); 4.2.12 16) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of 1.26.12 17) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board: Minutes of 2.15.12; 3.21.12 18) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 5.23.12 Minutes of 4.25.12 19) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency: Agenda of 5.16.12 Minutes of 4.18.12 20) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda of 5.16.12 Minutes of 4.18.12 21) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 3.15.12 22) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of 4.9.12 23) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of 1. 18.12 24) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of 3.7.12; 4.11.12; 4.16.12 Minutes of 2.21.12 (Clam Bay Subcommittee); 3.7.12; 3.26.12 (Budget Subcommittee); 4.11.12; 4.16.12 (Budget Subcommittee) 1612 A Octuoer 4, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING October 10, 2011 Naples, Florida R q, R- 9w3 S MAY a+ � 1). Ji2 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, met on this date at 3:00 PM, in a NON - WORKING SESSION, in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala v CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby _ _ Hirer Vice Chair: Cormac Giblin (Excused) Henning John Cowan Coyle / Coletta Christian Davis (Excused) Patricia Fortune (Excused) Christine Jones Bradley Schiffer Stuart Warshauer (Absent) (Vacancy — Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Kim Grant, Interim Director — Housing, Human & Veteran Services Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Housing Manager (Absent) Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor — Staff Liaison Meghan Poxon, Grants Support Specialist Commissioner Jim Coletta — BCC (Absent) . County Attorney, Office of the County Attorney Abse% Date: '► 2y Item , Codes to: 161 Altober 10, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER — CHAIRMAN: Chairman Steve Hruby called the meeting to order at 3:19 PM. ANNOUNCEMENTS — CHAIRMAN HRUBY: • Several procedural issues required investigation which delayed starting the meeting: • Quorum was not established • The terms for two Committee members expired during October, but they were allowed to participate • The County Attorney's Office confirmed that the Advisory Committee Members could hear information items but could not vote on any issues — discussion of items was permissible, as was Public Comment, but official business would not be transacted Chairman Hruby and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. 2. ROLL CALL: Roll call was taken for the record. A quorum was not established — only four members were present. 3. AGENDA AND MINUTES — CHAIRMAN: a. Approval of Agenda Change — Addition: • Staff requested to add (b): SHIP Loans — Short Sale Policy under Item 4, "Information Items" Chairman Hruby ascertained the Members did not have questions concerning the Agenda. b. Approval of Minutes — September 12, 2011 Change — Addition: • Page 6 —It was noted that John Cowan volunteered to serve on the NSP Subcommittee Due to the absence of a quorum, approval of the Minutes was deferred to the next full Committee meeting. 4. INFORMATION ITEMS — STAFF: a. Advertising for Committee Members — Kim Grant • A recent Press Release, distributed to the Committee, advertised the three vacant positions on the Committee. • Term: three years • The additional two vacancies expiring in October will also be advertised • Members were encouraged to re -apply and utilize the forms available on the website. • Applications will be presented to the Committee for review /recommendation • The recommended applications will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for approval and appointment to the Advisory Committee. • Applicants will be matched to the open categories specified by Florida Statutes, Section 420.9072 1612 '-' Oct 1, 2011 Chairman Hruby clarified the members of the Committee represent various segments of the housing development market, as mandated by the State of Florida. Vacancies are to be filled by individuals with an expertise in one of several categories, i.e., real estate, mortgage banking, advocate for low- income persons, etc. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS AND PRESENTATIONS: STAFF a. Vacancy Policy /Action Kim Grant stated: One member has accumulated a number of absences To vacate the position, the Chairman is required to acknowledge the absences at a Committee meeting. Reference was made to the County's Ordinance, as follows: "Section Eight: Attendance Requirements: B. In the event that any Board member is absent from two (2) consecutive meeting without a satisfactory excuse acceptable to the Board Chair, the Board Chairperson shall state such fact at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting and shall thereafter notify, in writing, the Executive Manager to the Commission of the Board member's failure to attend without a satisfactory excuse. The Commissioners shall review the Board Chairperson's notification at the Commission meeting and declare the Board member's position to be vacant if the Commission concurs that the Board member was absent from two (2) consecutive meetings without a satisfactory excuse ... " Chairman Hruby will take appropriate action at the next full Committee meeting. 4. INFORMATION ITEMS - STAFF: b. SHIP Loans — Short Sale Policy: Kim Grant A PowerPoint presentation was given. • On September 27, 2011, the proposed policy was presented to the Board of County Commissioners. • Recommendation: o The Board of County Commissioner approve a "Short Sale "policy and procedures for the SHIP Program loans • History: • SHIP was established in 1992 to assist very low, low, and moderate income individuals with funds for down payment when purchasing a home • Repayment was required upon the sale or refinance of the home • Background: o On September 13, 2011, a SHIP down- payment assistance recipient petitioned to request approval of a "short sale" repayment settlement • SHIP second mortgage - $24,727.50 • Bank settlement offer - $2,000 16 10210, 2A 1 • SHIP Program: • Has not established a short sale policy or procedures • Does not regulate local government's policy on forgiving/settling loans • No local policy /procedure or Grantor policy /procedure • Collier County, as the lender, has the right to approve forgiveness, settlement, or enforcement the mortgage Proposed Policy: o Recipient as seller of the property shall not receive any funds ( "proceeds of sale ") o Collier County will require re- payment of 25 % of the amount owed OR $2,500 (whichever amount is greater) • A loan amount of $20,000 would require repayment of $5,000 • Payment would be due at closing Down Payment Assistance: • SHIP loan amounts have ranged from $2,000 to $45,000 per Applicant • Ship Loans total: $22,157,158 (1996 through 2010) "Short Sale " vs. Foreclosure: o Purpose: To avoid foreclosure by negotiating a settlement which is less than mortgage loan amount owed o Parties (First Lender /Subordinate Lender) agree to accept the reduced payoff amount o By agreeing to the reduced amount, it is often possible to recapture a portion of the funds after foreclosure o The County would receive $0.00 after foreclosure of a property "Short Sale " Procedure: o Applicant will be required to provide complete documentation including all applicable forms o HH &VS will determine eligibility of Applicant, review documentation, and recommend approval if appropriate o Final approval will be issued by the County Manager's Office o After repayment, HH &VS will request approval from the BCC for Satisfaction of Mortgage Kim Grant stated the BCC directed the Housing, Human & Veterans Services Office to work in conjunction with the Foreclosure Task Force and draft a proposed policy. She suggested involving the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee in the process. Both groups would attend meetings to vet the policy, determine options, and establish procedures. Ms. Grant clarified if the "short sale" application is approved, the County would receive repayment only from the Applicant in the appropriate amount and the Bank would not be required to contribute any funds. She explained the least amount that the County would receive would be $2,500. Christine Jones noted some banks are accepting Promissory Notes from a seller if he /she is "upside down" on the mortgage, i.e., the sale will not generate any proceeds because the mortgage amount owed is greater than the appraised value of the property. Ms. Jones volunteered to serve on the "Short Sale" Committee. 4 161 c ober i01 It was noted if an owner fulfills his/her obligation of remaining in the property for 15 years, the remaining balance of the SHIP loan is automatically forgiven. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Speakers: Gladys Schneider, Technical Assistance Director, Florida Housing Coalition ( "FHC "): • Requested to participate in the NSP decision • FHC has worked with the County on the NSP Program Will provide technical assistance as needed o FHC developed different techniques to aid local governments to purchase foreclosed properties, rehab, and sell them as affordable housing o Instituted its own program prior to HUD's NSP Program o Has established tools for use by SHIP communities and non - profits o HUD requested FHC's participation on NSP Team — to provide assistance to communities participating in NSP Program on a nation -wide basis Encouraged ( "strongly advised ") HH &S to continue participating in the NPS Program o "FHC has the experience and is willing to help" Chairman Hruby stated the NSP Subcommittee advertises its meetings and the public is welcome to attend. Albert Batista, Attorney, Legal Aid Service of Collier County: • Completed/submitted online application to serve as "Low Income Housing Advocate" on the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee • Legal Aids offers free legal representation to low - income residents of Collier County o His area of expertise: Landlord /tenant issues and housing foreclosures o Represented 400+ clients during the past two years • Worked with HPRP as well as Department of Housing, Human & Veterans' Services o Expressed appreciation to HH &S for its assistance /education, i.e., completion of complicated Federal forms for payment requests submitted to the Clerk of the Court — never had a document rejected 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS AND PRESENTATIONS: STAFF a. Vacancy Policy /Action — Chairman Hruby (Continued) • Chairman Hruby stated for the record the Advisory Committee member had not been in attendance for two consecutive meetings and his position on the Advisory Committee is deemed to be vacant. b. EAR -based Amendments/Housing Element — Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning Kim Grant noted the Planning Commission scheduled a Workshop to discuss the Housing Element of the Growth Management Plan for Friday, October 14, 2011. Michele Mosca stated: • The County is required to review its Comprehensive Plan every seven years as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report • The Evaluation/Appraisal Report was adopted by the BCC in January 2011 161 211 O • Recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan are being brought to various County Committees (EAC, CCPC, AHAC, BCC) • The Housing Element is included in the Comprehensive Plan (Copies of the proposed changes were distributed to the Committee for review.) Ms. Mosca noted the following outstanding items: • Objectives 1 and 2: Still pending — will obtain additional information from the 2010 Census data to ascertain the current "demand" for affordable housing o Will be discussed at the Workshop o Planning Commission suggested reducing number of units to be built to 500 o BCC directed Staff to work with the DCA (Department of Community Affairs) o DCA requested Staff to provide "sufficient data analysis to address the demand" Ms. Mosca stated the information is anticipated to be available by December, transmittal hearings will be scheduled in January /Februiary 2012, and a supplemental report will be provided. She stated the remaining changes (strike - through or underlining of text) consisted of "house cleaning" for easier reading. (Percentages or numbers will be inserted.) • Policy 1: (originally 1.4 — changed to 1.5) • Planning Commission requested Staff revise language to be consistent with language in Florida Statutes • Staff was directed to work with Habitat for Humanity to devise additional language: ■ "except where need can be demonstrated" (added to first sentence) to provide flexibility regarding location of affordable units within geographic areas, i.e., to avoid concentrating affordable housing in one or two specific districts of the County Q. Recommendations /incentives will not be adopted until 2019. Why? A. Due to difficulties in finding funds to establish a program. The City of Naples Staff discussed changes with the City Council but no direction was given Q. Regarding Objective 8, why was Immokalee Urban Area, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and Rural Lands Stewardship Area removed from the text since the objectives relate to Immokalee? Ms. Mosca will review Objective 8 and make corrections prior to the Workshop. c. AHAC Subcommittee Report/NSP Options Chairman Hruby stated: • Ttwo Subcommittee meetings were held • Goal: to objectively review "Best Practices" of NSP Program and determine if the Program could function more efficiently in light of the concerns expressed by the Board of County Commissioners (i.e., audit by the Clerk of Court) 16 I Oc ober 1011" • Various delivery methods were discussed (local vs. other areas of country) o Option: outsource to public- sector entity or non - profit entity rather than administer internally as was done by HH &VS • Tasks were broken out into three elements: o #1 — Identify and acquire foreclosed properties (real estate function) o #2 — Analyze extent of rehab necessary, monitor progress (construction and design function) o #3 — Identification of potential homeowners and sale (real estate function) • Construction/design function has been problematic for the local ESP Program • "Best Practices" — The most successful NSP programs were located in urban/metro areas where non - profit organizations and CHODOs have been in the business for several years (40 +) — can "turn" 100+ houses per year • Limited skill sets and infrastructure available in Collier County — could handle specific tasks but not overall responsibility o Option: to outsource to a non - profit was not feasible o Option: to outsource to a public entity (housing developer) might be more successful • construction community is geared to new construction — not rehab • policy was not determined in advance The Subcommittee conclusions: o Oversight of construction contracts could have been administered more efficiently and effectively o Payment to contractors (time issue) has been a problem o Possible hybrid partnership with both public and non - profit sector in future as Subcontractors Chairman Hruby noted the Subcommittee will review and refine the options with Staff and draft recommendations for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. 7. STAFF /COMMITTEE MEMBERS: GENERAL COMMENTS (None) NEXT MEETING: Monday, November 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM by order of the Chairman. 2 2011 16 , Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee The foregoing Minutes were approved by Board/Committee Chair on JH1 �'T , 2011, "as submitted" X OR "as amended" ". 1612 Al January 9, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING .r January 9, 2012 IqA Y Naples, Florida cif' :....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN Vice Chair: Fiala L/ H. I! Hennirq Coyly Colette ... _ Stephen Hruby Cormac Giblin John Cowan Christian Davis Michael Diamond Patricia Fortune Christine Jones Bradley Schiffer Stuart Warshauer Clyde Quinby (Vacancy — Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Kim Grant, Interim Director — Housing, Human & Veteran Services Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Operations Analyst Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor — Staff Liaison Item #:\t -o=?-'P' t Copies to: 16 12.nu.Al2 1. CALL TO ORDER — CHAIRMAN: Chairman Hruby called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the informal meeting. 2. ROLL CALL: Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Eight voting members were present. (Note: Stuart Warshauer attended in an "ex- officio' capacity and not as a voting member of the Committee.) 3. AGENDA AND MINUTES — CHAIRMAN: a. Approval of Agenda John Cowan moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Vice Chairman Giblin. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. b. Approval of AHAC Minutes — October 10, 2011 (Revised) John Cowan moved to approve the Minutes of the October 10, 2011 meeting as submitted. Second by Bradley Schiffer. Motion carried, 3 — 0. (Note: Only 3 members were present who had attended the October 10`h meeting.) C. Approval of AHAC Minutes —December 12, 2011 John Cowan moved to approve the Minutes of the December 12 2011 meeting as submitted. Second by Bradley Schiffer. Motion carried, 6 — 0. (Note: Christian Davis and Patricia Fortune could not vote because they did not attend the December 12`h meeting.) d. Approval of Subcommittee Minutes — December 22, 2011 Chairman Hruby explained a new procedure was being instituted, i.e., Subcommittee minutes will be presented to the entire AHAC. Only the Subcommittee members will vote to approve /disapprove the minutes during regular AHAC meetings. Bradley Schiffer moved to approve the Minutes of the December 22, 2011 AHAC Subcommittee meeting as presented. Second by Christian Davis. Motion carried, 3 — 0. (Note: The Subcommittee consists of three members.) 4. INFORMATION ITEMS - STAFF: a. Review/Report — NSP Strategy and Implementation Plan Kim Grant provided background information: • December 13 — 14: The Board of County Commissioners accepted and approved Staff s recommendations • Revised Action Plan: o Negotiate Developer Agreement with "Habitat for Humanity" ■ Transfer ownership of property to Habitat o Amend NSP -1 and NSP -2 Action Plans to reflect new direction ■ Submit to HUD for approval 2 1612 Al January 9, 2012 o Solicit "not- for - profit" organizations (via "RFP" — Request for Proposals) to qualify to own and operate rental housing Chairman Hruby attended the Board of County Commissioners meeting and confirmed to the BCC that the AHAC supported the recommendations presented by Staff. He noted there was one caveat, i.e., the program income should be retained to support affordable housing. Kim Grant outlined the process: • March 13, 2012: A draft of the Developer Agreement will be presented to the BCC for review and approval o The Agreement will define the terms and conditions • Transfer of title will take place after the Agreement is approved • RFPs are being prepared and will be available within the next two weeks • Specific decisions concerning program income will deferred to a later date (Christine Jones arrived at 3:10 PM.) Bradley Schiffer requested information concerning the program's net worth. Kim Grant will provide the figures. b. Status — Subcommittee Review of Function, Powers and Duties of AHAC Chairman Hruby reported: • Subcommittee met on January 5, 2012 • The Ordinance was enacted when the housing crisis was at its peak — when prices the most expensive in County's history • Ordinance 2008 -17 which outlines the obligations and tasks of the Committee was reviewed at the request of Commissioner Henning to determine relevance and suggest updates • Under "Section Seven: Functions, Powers and Duties" — o Item 2 Inclusionary Zoning is no longer appropriate as a tool — it is not flexible enough or market - driven Various tools will be evaluated to determine which will incentivize when the market demands o Item 5 • Only a few applications were presented in the past • The AHAC can only recommend — not make policy • Placed an administrative burden on a developer to make an additional mandatory presentation Bradley Schiffer noted the County Attorney's Office may have revised the Ordinance Buddy Ramsey will research the issue and advise the AHAC if Item 5 was removed. Chairman Hruby stated the Subcommittee will address the issues in more detail during its next meeting. In the Subcommittee's opinion, its duties should be more policy and procedurally driven. The Subcommittee's suggestions /options to modify the Ordinance will be presented to the full AHAC for discussion. 161 2 Al January 9, 2012 c. Subcommittee Report Chairman Hruby stated: • Previously, specific Subcommittees had been created to address specific issues /tasks with Staff o Two or three Subcommittees were running concomitantly A Standing Subcommittee with three permanent members has been created o Chairman Hruby, Christian Davis, Bradley Schiffer — permanent members o No more than 5 members will sit on the Subcommittee at any time All AHAC members are welcome to attend specific meetings to discuss items of interest Bradley Schiffer suggested scheduling Workshops where a specific topic would be discussed in detail with the entire AHAC. He noted the quorum rule would not apply to a Workshop Session in the event that more than 5 members wanted to attend. Kim Grant stated all members will be notified of the Subcommittee meetings and if the response was appropriate, a Workshop would be scheduled. Chairman Hruby noted the Subcommittee could recommend scheduling a Workshop to discuss an issue with the full AHAC Committee. Mr. Schiffer requested Staff schedule a permanent date for the Subcommittee meetings. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Speakers will be heard after the topic has been discussed.) 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS AND PRESENTATIONS: STAFF a. Review pending 2012 Renewal of Interlocal Agreement between Collier County and the City of Marco Island Buddy Ramsey provided the following information: • In 2000, the Board of County Commissioner and the City of Marco Island entered into an Interlocal Agreement • Term of Agreement: 3 years, renewable • The City of Marco Island would make a financial contribution to Collier County to support affordable housing o Payment: 10% of the annual Building Permit Fees collected or $50,000 whichever is greater • Next renewal date: October 1, 2012 • Recommendation: The Standing Subcommittee vet the issue and report to the full AHAC for discussion o Will contact Marco Island and request participation in discussion of financial component o Issue: $50,000 may be more than 10% of the Building Permit Fee collected 161 Z Al January 9, 2012 It was noted the Marco Island Affordable Housing Trust Fund is held by the Clerk of Courts and spending is at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. • Funds were used to pay the permitting fees for an non - profit organization that was building affordable housing in Immokalee • Tenant -based rental assistance Chairman Hruby clarified the funds are not targeted specifically to Marco Island and may be utilized for any affordable housing application within the County b. Review BCC's Decision to Suspend Collection of Affordable Housing Contributions Buddy Ramsey: • December, 2011: A recommendation was presented to the BCC to suspend collection of Affordable Housing contributions pending the Board's decision on a Land Development Code ( "LDC ") Amendment to implement permitting insubstantial changes to Planning Unit Developments ( "PUD ") to be approved by Staff • The Board: o approved the suspension of all affordable housing contributions required by a specific PUD o authorized notifying property owners that the PUD may be amended to remove the affordable housing commitment o recommended the refund of previously collected contributions Mr. Ramsey noted affordable housing contributions were collected during 2005 through 2008 when there was a significant lack of affordable housing in Collier County. The funds paid into the account were to be used to mitigate the issue. The real estate market has changed and properties are selling at significantly reduced prices. • The Board will review the Land Development Code Amendments in July, 2012 He stated approximately $591,000 remains in the account. The issue is whether or not there is a current need for affordable housing. Bradley Schiffer noted the funds could have been used for down payment assistance but will no longer exist if the Amendment passes in its entirety. Vice Chairman Giblin asked if the County had a history of refunding funds targeted for other commitments, for example, contributions for road development. Chairman Hruby stated to refund funds previously collected for specific commitments sets a dangerous precedence for the County. Bradley Schiffer cautioned an illusion persists that the affordable housing problem has been cured. He stated while the housing inventory is great, the problem is for a buyer to afford to purchase a property, i.e., accumulate the required funds for down payment and closing costs. He stated the need has shifted. The funds would be better utilized for down payment assistance. He noted the "affordable" houses are essentially vacant properties which have become a blight on neighborhoods. Kim Grant confirmed only a small amount of funds have been appropriated for permitted administrative costs. 161 2 Al January 9, 2012 Chairman Hruby noted there are two issues: • There are commitments for land that has not yet been developed. The industry claims the contribution is burdensome and adds to developments costs. • The funds have been collected and deposited into a "Trust Fund." • The monies should be utilized for affordable housing purposes. He further stated the County could suspend the collecting the funds until the real estate market is active again and construction begins. If the availability of affordable housing becomes limited, the funds would be available. This is a "tool" to be triggered on or off as the market demands. Christine Jones concurred. As a licensed Realtor, she stated the market is "temporary." During the "boom" (six/seven years ago), available affordable housing was extremely limited. To completely eliminate affordable housing contributions by developers would place the County in a difficult position. The base price of homes currently being built is $250,000 which is not "affordable" to most first -time homebuyers. She further stated mortgage underwriting guidelines have become more restrictive. Kim Grant asked if the Committee wishes to make a statement to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on the issue. Bradley Schiffer noted PUDs are being presented to the Planning Commission to request removal of the contribution requirement. He stated the the BCC has not requested the AHAC analyze the issue. Kim Grant stated the issue was brought to the AHAC's attention by Staff for informational purposes, the AHAC should determine how to proceed or to not take action. Bradley Schiffer cited from Section Seven of the Ordinance, under "Functions, Powers and Duties" as follows: "(1) The Committee shall monitor and advise the Board of County Commissioner and the City Council regarding the goals, objectives, and policies of the County's housing element in the Growth Management Plan, and the City's Comprehensive Plan, and any other program, means, or directives which would assist or encourage the provision of affordable housing in Collier County and its municipalities. " "(6) The Committee shall investigate any other relevant areas so directed by the Board of County Commissioners. " Christian Davis referred to Paragraph 3 under Section Seven: "The Committee shall review and determine the effect of proposed Ordinances on affordable housing and make recommendations to The Board of County Commissioners and the Naples City Council, as appropriate. " Chairman Hruby stated the Committee was obligated to monitor the issues that could affect affordable housing. 16 1 Janu 12 Mr. Schiffer again stated the perception is that the affordable housing crisis no longer exists. He cautioned if the Committee is concerned that the decision could affect the availability of affordable housing, it should provide the BCC with facts and data to prove the contribution is still necessary. Chairman Hruby noted while the intention was not to supplement SHIP Funds with the contribution funds, since State funds have virtually "dried up," it may be possible to utilize the money for that purpose. Buddy Ramsey stated funds are still available and the County is meeting the current demand for down payment assistance. Kim Grant confirmed the annual appropriation has been significantly reduced and it is uncertain as to whether the funding will continue. Christian Davis noted the lack of affordable housing existed for 2 to 3 years before the issue was recognized and policies were enacted. His concern was for when the pendulum swings back in the opposite directions and it takes another 2 to 3 years to realize the problem exists. He supported "suspending" the contributions rather than completely eliminating the requirement. Vice Chairman Giblin concurred decisions should not be made during "peak" or "valley" situations. Patricia Fortune noted the last contribution was collected in 2007, and the funds were not appropriated during the height of the housing crisis. She supported refunding the money since it has sat idle in an account since that time. Buddy Ramsey explained other grant resources were available during the height of the housing crises. The Trust Funds was viewed as a "war chest" to be used when the amount rose to a significant level. The balance is under $600,000 and did not trigger a possible use of the funds. Chairman Hruby stated he thought the purpose of the funds was to be utilized to leverage the development of affordable housing. The intention was not to use the funds as an alternative to SHIP funding. The balance will not "leverage" or support the development of affordable housing. He asked the Committee if they wished to further discuss the issue and draft a recommendation for the BCC or merely kept informed. Vice Chairman Giblin stated the Ordinance mandates the AHAC to present an opinion. Christian Davis and Patricia Fortune concurred. Consensus: The Subcommittee will vet the issue and draft a recommendation to be reviewed and discussed by the AHAC before presentation to the BCC. Buddy Ramsey will confirm whether or not the BCC will hear the Amendment again and the date. It was his understanding that the petitioning developer asked only for removal of the requirement for a contribution. Bradley Schiffer confirmed the petition that came before the Planning Commission was to remove the contribution component. Chairman Giblin asked if the removal of the commitment was "insubstantial" Mr. Schiffer responded the BCC determined it was and there was controversy when the requirement was initially enacted. He stated if it has been decided to refund the funds, there is little the AHAC can do to prevent it. 161 Znuary9,2121 c. Discussion of Subcommittee Report — Assess Need for Affordable Housing Buddy Ramsey outlined current goals and objectives of the Housing Element component of the Growth Management Plan: • Goal 1 /Objective 1: To increase affordable- workforce housing units by 15% but no less than 1,000 averaged over a 5 -year period • Measure of Success: Static — Not market driven, not flexible • The goal has not been met The Subcommittee recommends new measures: • Utilize objective third -party data o median sales price o median income o Housing Opportunity Index ( "HOP') • Assess need quarterly to assess market changes • "Tipping Points" — when further review /action is necessary • Future improvement(s) Housing Opportunity Index • Developed by the National Association of Home Builders and Wells Fargo • Released quarterly • Data is reported at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) level o Local MSA: Naples /Marco Island • HOI Definition: The share (percentage) of homes sold that would have been affordable to a family earning the local Area Median Income ( "AMP') o Components: Income and Housing costs o 2011 AMI — $71,800 Subcommittee reviewed viewed the data that had been compiled since 1991 and the trends that emerged. A PowerPoint presentation was given and several charts /graphs were reviewed. Measure recommended by the Subcommittee: • A decline in the HOI for 3 consecutive quarters results in additional indicators being monitored to assess current market conditions • If the HOI falls below 50 %, action should be taken to increase /incentivize affordable housing • Investigate rental measure Chairman Hruby outlined the context under which the recommendations were formed: • The goals noted in the Housing Element were "frozen in time" (2005) • The goal was only realistic for a short period of time. • Issue: There were no "triggers" to alert that a problem was developing — need an "early warning" system to give time to determine the appropriate action to take o Not every market condition will require the same action • Flexibility was not built in 8 16 1 Znuary &Q2 Public Comment: Speaker: Marjorie Student - Sterling, Esq. • Ms. Student - Sterling is a volunteer for "Habitat for Humanity" • She stated that "Habitat for Humanity" serves a community who would be unable to afford a home — even a foreclosed property — because they do not qualify to obtain conventional financing o Obtaining funds for a down payment and closing costs is an issue • From 2008 — 2010, the average income of a "Habitat" applicant was $24,716 • There were 103 closings in 2011 — there were 10 applicants for each property • Ms. Student - Sterling volunteered to work with the Subcommittee and to provide the data accumulated by "Habitat for Humanity" Chairman Hruby stated it is difficult for an individual earning less than 50% of median income to obtain a home without a Federal or non - profit subsidy. "Habitat for Humanity" provides an opportunity for those individuals who earn 30% of median income to own a home. The population is also served by the multi - family rental market. He further stated in Collier County there is not a great deal of product or construction of multi - family units, especially for low- income families. • The "Habitat" communities are deed restricted • Habitat works with Code Enforcement to ensure the communities meet Habitat's" as well as the County's standards. • There is a better quality of neighborhood when properties are owner- occupied • Rental apartments are rarely sufficient for the size of families served by Habitat Chairman Hruby concurred alternatives are necessary in the rental market. Christine Jones commented if the median purchase price of a home is $200,000, the families who qualify for affordable housing are unable to purchase the properties. The affordable properties of $100,000 — 150,000 are purchased by investors. She stated while there are a number of properties that appear to be "affordable," the buyers are being shut out of the market by investors. A "Habitat" client could only afford a $65,000 purchase price in the open market and the properties do not exist. Bradley Schiffer suggested reworking the Subcommittee's recommendations to further define what actions would be taken when a trigger appeared. He stated the Planning Commission will need more data. Chairman Hruby noted there are very few tools in place and only a few incentives in the Land Development Code. The Subcommittee stated the indicator was first, then building tools were next. Discussion continued. Several options were suggested. It was noted the index indicated 68% of the properties sold during the third quarter of 2011 were "affordable to those earning 100% of the AMI. It did not indicate what was affordable to individuals earning less than 30% of the AMI or the status of rental properties. Chairman Hruby stated while the properties may be "affordable," they were not necessarily accessible. The need for affordable housing for the very low and low income households will always exist. He further stated the problem becomes more evident when it affects the moderate /workforce housing market. 1612 Al Jar14 9, 2012 Chairman Hruby suggested expanding the Subcommittee's recommendation, i.e., if the HOI drops below 50 %, the metric will be between 50% and where it has fallen on the Indicator. That is the number of housing units to be generated through various means using incentives. The monitoring should begin at 75 %. Bradley Schiffer summarized: • When a trigger exists for a minimum of three months, the AHAC will suggest activities to generate a percentage of affordable homes to be added to the market through the tools that exist at the time. • Two things can be done — create product inexpensively, or create financing product for the market. Bradley Schiffer moved to recommend forwarding the Subcommittee's recommended measures of the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Ramsey was requested to prepare language to provide that will achieve the GMPS's goals and will outline the type of actions to be implemented. The metric will be calculated by the difference between where the Indicator has fallen and 50 %. Second by Patricia Fortune. Mr. Schiffer amended his motion: He moved to recommend forwarding the Subcommittee's three-point recommendation to the Planning Commission. He moved to expand the second point: Establish a unit goal of the difference between 50% and the point where the Housing Indicator Index has fallen. Second by Patricia Fortune. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. d. Nominate an AHAC Member to Serve on RFP Evaluating Committee Bradley Schiffer nominated Christine Jones to serve on the Committee. Ms. Jones accepted the nomination which was approved by the Committee. 7. STAFF /COMMITTEE MEMBERS: GENERAL COMMENTS (None) NEXT MEETING: Monday, February 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 PM by order of the Chairman. 10 COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE 1612 JAI 9, 2012 The foregoing Minutes were approved by Board /Committee Chair on C7,1 .2 / 13� , 2012, "as submitted" W OR "as amended" [_J. 11 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY ( i 16 1 e A6 April 24, 2012 DOMESTIC p Naples, Florida, April24, 2012 I A Y 1 BY:... .................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier Count Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee mi and for the County Of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida, with the following members Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle �---- Coletta CHAIRMAN: Marcia f1reithaupt Marjoric Bloom Sergeani David Estes Tom Ke p, Jr. Dan M in Jim Ric ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Director. D) Nan Gerhardt, Shelter Operations Mgr Kathlene Drew, Volunteer Coordinator Dan Christenbury, Public Relations Cc Ekna Guevara, Administrative Assistai Steve Carnell, Interim Director, Public 1 ,DAS Drdinator, DAS it, DAS Serves isc. CWW DO: —t I2Lj I ►'� Item Copies to: I 161 2 A2 April 24. 201-2 I. Call to Order Chairman Marcia Breithaupt called the meeting to order at 6:36 PM. H. Attendance Attendance was taken and a quorum established. III. Approval of Agenda Jim Rich moved to approve the agenda. Second by Marcia Breithaupt. Carried unanimously, 6-0. IV. Approval of Minutes of March 20, 2012 Jim Rich moved to approve the minutes of March 20, 2012, as presented Second by Dan Martin. Carried unanimously 6-0. A correction was noted after the vote was taken. Page 3 —first bullet item:..., such as was,proposed for in Quentin's case. Page 3- third bullet item: Converting om a courtesy reminder system to a notice to comply system... Page 4- Item B. 2 "Q paragraph — Jim Rich Jim Rich restated his motion to approve the minutes of March 20, 2012, as amended Dan Martin restated his second Carried unanimously, 6-0. V. Old Business A. Directors Report Amanda Townsend introduced Steve Carnell, the interim Public Services Administrator, who was attending as a guest to become familiar with DASAB activities. Amanda provided an update on DAS activity for the past month: • A $53,000 savings, allocated to Workers Compensation, was realized due to employee safety record efforts. Staff was praised for their excellent safety record, considering the hazards in the type of work they all do. • The Budget (with its 5% cut) will be presented to the BCC in late May and reported to the DASAB in late June. • Marcia Breithaupt was presented with her 5 -year pin and thanked for her service on the Domestic Animal Services Advisory Board. • On April 15, 2012 Board member Marjorie Bloom organized a successful fundraiser at Audubon Country Club. A resident dog show, a parade and an auction was held. Over $8,000 was raised at the fun -filled event. (Marjorie noted - although no dogs were adopted, it raised both awareness of DAS and encouragement for other neighborhoods to hold similar events) Marcia Breithaupt suggested submitting an article on line about the event to the Naples Daily News. Daniel Christenbury will also put it out to other publications to give exposure to DAS. 2 • Amanda reported on the recently attended con] the new capabilities the Chameleon data base DAS's needs. She gave examples of added so] photos to be attached and uploaded to the data • Sub - Committee meetings scheduling will resui chairmen to set up dates and times with Ekna ( Assistant. The Immokalee sub - committee will Shelter and the Ordinance Revision sub -comm date with their members. 1612 AZ April 24, 2012 ace, describing some of be able to customize with Lre which will allow better as soon as possible; the .vara, the Administrative .et at the Immokalee e will coordinate time and • The Quarterly Statistics Report was reviewed 0 the overhead projector, and briefly discussed. The next quarter will reflect he Asilomar Standards reporting style. Nan Gerhardt reported: • The shelter had acquired two pigs and three h( owners, and the third is quite sickly and being • A battle with ticks in the shelter was being vip • Cross - training in operations was ongoing. • The inmate program continued to go well and • An Immokalee Shelter pet adoption of local p( two of which have for. Iv addressed. s of great help to DAS. on 4/29/12 - -11AM to 4PM Kathlene Drew reported a on the number of volun eers and hours donated. She noted many of the winter volunteers had returned n arth; but, several new high - schoolers were in training. They now need 100 hoi irs of community service credits instead of the 50 hours formerly needed. Summer camp and weekend activities would be continuing. B. Underwriting adoption fees for hard - to-place ai Amanda Townsend addressed the issue, noting w volunteer Bob McKenzie in securing a $5,000 don of adoptable cats (at least 6 months old) housed in or more. They will be featured in various DAS pi Fifty dollar gift certificates will be purchased for t thanks was sent to Mr. McKenzie and one of recol A letter of inquiry to Assistant County Attorney, ( use of Donation Trust Funds for several of the DA been sent. Attorney Greene's response was indica notes beside each priority list item. DASAB mem VI. New Business A. Selection for Recommendation to fill Animal Three applications for the Animal Activist positii Board's consideration. Two of the applicants we their interest and qualifications. Amanda Townsend read a letter to the DASAB was unable to attend. The Board then voted by paper ballot, tallied by. Guevara. There was a split vote, 3 and 3 for two pals (handouts) commending the effort of on to underwrite adoptions DAS Shelter for 4 weeks adoptions. A letter of tion to the donor. leen Greene, as to the legal .B priorities list items had I in a letter along with her ..s all received copies. :ivist Seat were presented for the present and each spoke of the third applicant, who ministrative Assistant, Ekna the applicants. 1612 A2 April 24, 2012 Amanda Townsend stated the Board could vote again to break the tie or the vote could stand and the BCC could make the decision. Amanda explained the DAS'AB makes the recommendation; but, the BCC makes the final decision. Sgt David Estes moved to recommend the split vote on the two applicants be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their decision. Second by Tom Kepp. Carried unanimously, 6-0 The Veterinarian/Vet Technician seat will be re- advertised. VII. Public Comment A. Topic TBA (open discussion) - NONE B. Individual Comments Dr. Alberto Lopez, a local veterinarian, stated he had attended the meeting as an observer. Noted, was the difficulty in filling the Veterinary seat, since the person selected must be one who does not do business with Collier County. VIII. Advisory Board Member Comments Tom Kepp commended staff for instituting the Immokalee pet adoption event at the shelter in that town. He emphasized the need for more enforcement on animals running loose, creating more animals and ultimately more of them being euthanized. Sgt. David Estes commented on the abandoned horse that he caught, on his own time. It was auctioned and bid on by the person who reported it. Sgt. Estes informed those in attendance that all types of livestock, fowl and all manner of wild, and sometimes injured, animals (not just dogs and cats) fall under his and DAS' responsibility. As an Agricultural Officer, he juggles time 24/7, handling and containing dangerous animals. He cited a need for a better containment facility. He and Nan Gerhardt expressed concern that auctioned animals may not go to a trained recipient, but just to the highest bidder. Dan Martin had several questions: 1. How many different kinds of microchips could the scanner find? Answer- Scans were done three times: on intake, every time the animal is moved and in surgery . Many times several chips were founds the scanner company services the scanners on a regular basis. 2. What was the time lapse between intake and when an animal appears on the website? Answer - Within one hour of intake 3. What was the cost efficiency of tick prevention and individual medicine? Answer — Vectra spot treatment was applied on intake; then flea and tick collars. Ticks were removed individually. Marjorie Bloom distributed a summary of the Ai Show fundraiser, which included the names ot; au committee; the amount of funds raised and a list < to use the money for: • "Permanent shelter structures in the yards metal roof built to code with a permit. Th each and three would be needed. • Collars - fleas, tick and Martingale. • Benches for the pens • Hiring of a trainer to help train volunteers • Print advertising in the classified section c awareness of DAS. • Trim the trees that block the Domestic An • Purchase of Karunda beds for the dogs as Amanda Townsend responded paid advertising o) awareness of DAS and hard-16-place animals S Dan Christenbury on a plan. The landscaper will tree trimming. Karunda beds were all set at this items were doable. 161 2 b2 April 24, 2012 ubon Country Club Pet thanks to, the volunteer seven items they would like consisting of 4x4's and cost comes under $500.00 nd dogs. the newspaper to build Services sign lappy Tails could bring suggested strategizing with r contacted regarding the :e. Most of other listed Jim Rich announced it was his final meeting and a considered himself privileged to have served on the DASAB. He wel med the opportunity to bring people together to get things done. He statei I DAS and the Board could count on him for any assistance. He was thanked by all for his service. Marcia Breithaupt commented on the good not cut. Next Advisory Board Meeting is scheduled for May Animal Training Room, Davis Blvd., Naples, Florid There being no further business for the good of the adjourned by the order of the Chair at 7:57 PM. COLLIER CO SERVICES Chairman Marcia These minutes approved by Board/Committee on as amended that the medical budget was 2012 at the Domestic , the meeting was DOMESTIC ANIMAL presented or V Fie: n;ng Coyle ✓ �c;eitG 16 0 ���� � MAY 9 2012 D BY:...'D v"- BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 7, 2012 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chair Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Maurice Gutierrez (Chairman), Victoria Nicklos, Sheila Dugan, and Sandra Arafet. MSTU Staff Present: Sue Trone (MSTU Project Manager), Jean Jourdan (CRA Project Manager) and David Jackson (Executive Director). 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Ms. Dugan. Approved 4 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the February 1, 2012 regular meeting and workshop minutes. Ms. Arafet noted a spelling error with her name and Ms. Dugan noted a spelling error to the word "March." Motion to approve, amending the minutes by correcting spelling errors: Ms. Arafet. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 4 -0. 4. Proiects Report: March 7, 2012 a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross gave his report of landscape maintenance, noting usual issues. He noted that there has been attrition of some plants in various areas where the MSTU maintains landscaping where the group could install new plants —crown of thorn beds, ixora beds, etc. b. Status Report of Landscaping on South Bayshore: Aaron noted that he observes landscaping installed for the South Bayshore Drive project seems to be doing well. Sue Trone advised that staff has observed some abuse to the last 4 or 5 thatch palms on South Bayshore but deferred discussion to later in the meeting. c. Sbroco Sidewalk Issue: The County Attorney sent a letter to ABB demanding they remove the sidewalk from Mr. Sbroco's property. At this time, the issue is between the attorneys. d. Bayview and Lunar Update: Construction plans for Bayview and Lunar is at 30 %. The plans are expected to be complete around the MO&WtWend of July. Date: —11ztiI1Z Item01-D7M Copies to: A 161 Z A3 Creativity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 e. Thomason Drive Update: Atkins has two conceptual plan options for Thomasson Drive. These will be presented to the public at a meeting on March 20 at 5 PM at the CRA office. f. Sign Poles: Sign poles are almost completely painted. This project is expected to be complete by March 15. g. Truck Transfer: The truck was transferred from the CRA to the MSTU because it is used primarily by the MSTU. The monthly maintenance, fuel, and insurance costs are around $1,500 per year. h. Lights on Haldeman Creek Bridge: The lights were put up on the bridge. Sheila Dugan asked about having extra sign poles on hand to replace unforeseen poles that get destroyed, such as the sign pole that was destroyed at the first median at Bayshore and US -41. The group decided to replace the destroyed sign pole and store three extras. The Committee tasked staff to purchase four poles in the color black: one for immediate installation to replace the one that was destroyed and three for reserve. Motion: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Ms. Dugan. Approved: 4 -0. i. CRA Stormwater Drainage Project: The CRA Board approved the contractor for construction of the stormwater drainage project and the CEI professional at the Feb. 28 meeting.. j. CRA RFP for Bank Refinancing: The Purchasing Department is preparing to put an RFP out for banks to submit proposals for refinancing the CRA's debt. 5. Old Business: a. Request to pay all invoices. Motion: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mrs. Dugan. Approved 4 -0. 6. New Business: a. Refurbishing of Benches and Trash Cans. Staff recommended tabling this item until next month when more quotes can be solicited. The committee agreed. b. Vandalism of Thatch Palms. Staff was prepared to recommend relocating the northernmost four or five thatch palms installed for the Bayshore Drive South project. During the meeting, after Aaron completed his report on landscaping, he inspected these southernmost palms. He reported to David Jackson who shared with the group that these palms appear to have been pruned with a skillful approach, removing shaggy fronds and saving the hearts. Aaron recommended leaving the trees where they were and monitoring them. The committee concurred. c. Election of New Committee Members. Seats for Victoria Nicklos, Gerry Buck, and Maurice Gutierrez expire this month. These three people reapplied for their seats uncontested. Votes were cast and all three were voted by members present at the meeting. The committee recommends the Board of County March 7, 2012 1612 A3 Commissioners approve these three applicants for their seats on this advisory committee. Motion: Ms. Arafet. Second: Ms. Dugan. Approved: 4 -0. 7. Public Comments: 8. Advisory Committee General Communications: David Jackson shared with the group details of the CRA Advisory Board's discussion about its budget. Given the 2014 bullet payment due for the CRA loan and loan terms which require a minimum of $1.5 million by the CRA for reserves, to maintain operations in the area, staff cuts have to be made. At the March 6t" meeting of the CRA Advisory Board, a recommendation to the CRA Board was made to terminate David Jackson's contract. This recommendation will be presented to the Board on March 27, 2012. Bay Days will be on April 14, 2012. This event is a volunteer effort to clean Haldeman Creek VQI/unteers who RSVP to staff by March 27 will receive a free T- shirt. '14 Approved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. March 7, 2012 t,ia Hiller Henninto C:yle - •�✓�� C:c1e>ta �4_. 1 161 2 A3 t 0 MAY BY........................ BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4, 2012 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chair Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Maurice Gutierrez (Chairman), Victoria Nicklos, Sheila Dugan, Sandra Arafet, Robert Messmer, Gerry Buck, and Carolyn Cochrane. MSTU Staff Present: Sue Trone (MSTU Project Manager), and David Jackson (Executive Director). 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mr. Buck. Approved 7 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the March 7, 2012 Minutes. Motion: Ms. Dugan. Second: Ms. Nicklos. Approved: 7 -0 4. Projects Report: April 4, 2012 a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross gave his report of landscape maintenance, noting that the weather has been hot and dry. He let the group know that there was a main line break in front of the Indian grocery Store that flooded the store's parking lot. The line was repaired within an hour of it being reported. Medians, plans and shrubs have been refertilized. He suggested that the group give thought to filling in some of the beds that have lost plants through attrition (died, damaged by traffic, etc.). Staff offered that it will research options and report back to the Committee with respect to budgetary constraints at the May meeting. Jim Ross of Flexi -Pave also spoke during the Landscape report to introduce Flexi -Pave as a material that can be installed in the right -of -way for pathways. b. Reinstatement of Committee Members. The seats for Ms. Nicklos, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Buck were up for re- election and these three persons ran uncontested. They were re- instated at the March 27, 2012 BCC meeting. c. Bavview and Lunar Drive Update. The project is en�terir permitting stage. The contract was extended to the end of July. 1 1sc. t, r es: Date: —1 12L-i 1 1 -2, Item #: � lam= 2 V=1 3 Codes to: 1612 A 3 a# P, , 23 ; Y ;;i;Cre'a6vit�y in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 d. Thomasson Drive Improvements. Nathan West from Atkins Engineering attended the meeting and reported to the group on the project. Based on results from the March 20 meeting, the public has indicated preference for Option I East (curb and gutter) and Option I West (curb and gutter from Bayshore to Hamilton curve /paved shoulder along Hamilton Ave.). Mr. West showed a video rendering example from a different Atkins project. Next steps for this project are to reconnect with the County Transportation Department to update them on the project, meet with the two County Commissioners from the area to discuss boundary expansion, produce video renderings of the options for the project and have another public meeting. e. Completion of Green Bike Lanes. Atlantic Paving filled in the empty spots of the bike lanes with green paint. f. Vacancy Haldeman Creek MSTU. Due to the resignation of a member of the Haldeman Creek MSTU member there is a vacancy on this committee. 5. Old Business: a. Request to pay all invoices. Motion: Ms. Cochrane. Second: Mr. Buck. Approved 7 -0. b. Replacement of Benches and Trash Cans. At the March meeting the committee tasked staff to provide bench and trash can options for installation along Bayshore Drive for cost comparison against the quote from Southern Signal. Staff provided quotes for comparison. Ms. Nicklos asked about the possibility of having the manufacturer of the original street furniture provide new street furniture painted black. Staff responded that the original manufacturer did not appear to still have that furniture available and it would have to be made specially. A motion was made to refurbish and repaint the existing benches and trash cans and repair /weld the damaged furniture for $10,000 and $460. Motion: Arafet. Second: Dugan. Approved: 7 -0. c. Approval of Mid -Block Crosswalks. Collier County Transportation completed the engineering of the new mid -block crosswalks, including yellow lights and red lights for pedestrians to cross. The signals also will be triggered by pedestrians pushing on the button. The device includes an audible signal for visually impaired users. The Executive Director of Lighthouse Collier (a non - profit for the visually impaired), Kathleen Peck, came to advocate for the approval of the Hawk System inclusive of the audible device as an aid for visually impaired pedestrians. A visually impaired resident from Poplar Street spoke, explaining that he uses the crosswalks daily to catch the bus and he strongly urged the committee to approve the audible devices. Motion to approve the Hawk System Mid -block Crosswalks, including audible devices and push- button trigger for a cost of $137,073.75 plus permitting and surveying fees. Motion: Mr. Buck. Second: Ms. Arafet. Approved: 7 -0. April 4, 2012 6. New Business: a. Summer Meeting Dates. Mr. Committee does not meet in Committee recess for July and called if emergent matters ariE Approved: 7 -0. 7. Public Comments: None. 1612 q3 Gutierrez explained that traditionally the July and August and suggested that the August 2012; emergency meetings could be Motion: Mr. Buck, Second: Mr. Messmer. 8. Advisory Committee General Communications: Staff reminded everyone that Bay Days is April 14, 2012 at 8 AM. Mr. Gutierrez gave a CRA update. David Jackson updated the group on the CRA budget. Specifically, the CRA is preparing to renew its lease at 4069 Bayshore Drive. The group discussed options for office space, including MSTU contributions to the lease. Ms. Nicklos and Ms. Cochrane expressed strong feelings in favor of the MSTU maintaining a presence on Bayshore Drive. r¢ w Approved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. April 4, 2012 EDEVEL0PMENT GE THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE R �11W]3 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAY � 1 bj 0 4069 BAYSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAx 239.775.4456 BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY RD .................... MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 7, 2012 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Mr. Steve Main at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Lindsey Thomas, Lary Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Peter Dvorak, Dwight Oakley, and Karen Beatty. Absent Chuck Gunther. Excused: Vicki Tracy. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan, and David Buchheit, Project Managers. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Main asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Hearing none he asked for a motion to approve. Motion to approve the agenda: Mr. Thomas. Second: Mr. Dvorak. Approved 6 -0, Mr. Oakley absent. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Main asked for a motion to approve the January 3, 2012 meeting minutes. Motion: Mr. Thomas. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 7 -0. 4. Executive Director's Report: a. CRA Project Updates. Mr. Jackson updated the Board on three items that were not in the meeting packets: Arboretum Village Mixed Use Project was approved to use 232 of the CRA's Bonus Density Units when it was rezoned. Mr. Jackson asked if the site was developed other than the approved plan, would the CRA -AB desire to have the 232 units returned to the CRA for redistribution. By consensus the entire Board was in agreement that all units should be returned. Mr. Jackson announced Fiala ,� that Ms. Sue Trone was the Collier County Employee of the Month for January 2012 Hiller and that she would be recognized by the Board of Commissioners on February 13 'h . Henning _ _ Mr. Jackson asked the Board to approve `up to' $1,250 to complete group appraisals Coyle ✓ on CRA -owned residential lots in preparation of an announcement to sell the lots to Coletta ._�(; _ private individuals. The Board agreed. He also announced that 5 -3 Bank was completing appraisals on all CRA -owned land, to include the commercial site and staff would request a copy when completed. b. Mr. Gutierrez MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman: Advised that the Bayshore Drive (south) improvement project was complete and that the MSTU was designing two side streets for sidewalk and lighting improvements (Bayview and Lunar). 5. Old Business: a. Request for Payment - Approval. Mr. Jackson informed the Board there two invoices to pay this month from Intech Printing for the CRA's 2011 Annual Report and CAPA Event Newsletter in the amounts of $3,938.68 and $2,595.71 respectively. Motion to make payment: Ms. Beatty. Second: Mr. Thomas. Approved 7 -0. b. Approval of CRA -AB Goals FY2012 -2013. Mr. Jackson advised the Bard that the Goals and Objectives discussed at the, ,J,@.rWgrys:meeting had been revised and distributed as part of this agenda item. He asked for a motion to approve the 2012 - Date: --I V ,L-4 WL- February 7, 2012 CRA -AB Minutes Item #: \�-DS'L,A ", Page 1 Copies to: 161 2 A4 2013 Goals and Objectives as modified at the January 3`d meeting. Motion: Mr. Gutierrez. Second: Mr. Dvorak. Approved 7 -0. 6. New Business: a. CRA FY2013 Budget Discussion. Mr. Jackson introduced Mr. Ed Finn, Collier County Budget Analyst, who was in attendance to present the first draft of the Finance Committee's presentation to the CRA Board on CRA finances. Mr. Finn presented a set of power point slides detailing the Finance Committee's review of CRA Finances and options to be presented for the CRA Board to discuss and take appropriate action. Following the presentation Mr. Finn and Mr. Jackson answered questions from the CRA -AB and audience. b. CRA TIF Grant SIG 04/2012 — 3042 Cottage Grove Avenue — Approval. Mr. Jackson presented the residential site improvement grant to the Board for discussion. Motion to approve: Ms. Beatty. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 6 -1, Mr. Ingram dissenting. c. CRA TIF Grant C -BIG 03/2012 — 2464 Kirkwood Avenue — Approval. Mr. Jackson presented the commercial building improvement grant to the Board for discussion. Motion to approve: Mr. Dvorak. Second: Beatty. Approved 6 -1, Mr. Ingram dissenting. d. CRA TIF Grant LIG 01/2012 — 2416 Florida Avenue — Approval. Mr. Jackson presented the residential landscape improvement grant to the Board for discussion. Motion to approve: Mr. Gutierrez. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 6 -1, Mr. Ingram dissenting. 7. Advisory Board General Communications. None. 8. Citizen Comments. None. 9. A 'ournment: The regular eeting was adjourned at 7:15pm. r__�>& A roved and forwarded by Steve Main, CRA -AB Chairman. February 7, 2012 CRA -AB Minutes 2 161 2 A4 THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AM 9")lW3 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGEN YMAY 4069 BAVSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAx 239.775.4 11 BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVIS BOARD.. "'• MINUTES OF THE APRIL 3, 2012 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Mr. Steve Main at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Chuck Gunther, Karen Beatty, Lindsey Thomas and Dwight Oakley. Absent. Excused: Vicki Tracy and Peter Dvorak. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan, and Sue Trone, Project Managers. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Main asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve with changes. Motion to approve the agenda: Ms. Beatty. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 7 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Main asked for a motion to approve the March 6, 2012 meeting minutes. Motion: Mr. Gutierrez. Second: Mr. Thomas. Approved 7 -0. 4. Executive Director's Report: a. CRA Project Updates. Mr. Jackson updated the Board on three items that were in the meeting packets. Mr. Thomas asked about the residential lot RFP that was discussed at the CRA Board. Ms. Jourdan explained that the CRA Board did not feel that the time was right to put the lots on the market. Fiala �tZ_JUL-Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman: Advised that the Thomasson Hiller nrove improvement project held a public meeting last month with a large turnout. Henning stions concerned the expansion of the MSTU boundary in order to permit MSTU Coyle f, inds to be expended on road improvements. Coletta G c. Presentation: Collier County Sheriff Office. Cpl Mike Nelson did not attend the meeting; therefore no discussion was held. 5. Old Business: a. Request for Payment — Approval. Mr. Jackson informed the Board there was one invoice to pay this month from RWA for the CRA's Overlays updates in the amount of $1,170.00. Motion to make payment: Ms. Beatty. Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 7 -0. 6. New Business: a. Cirrus Pointe PUD Amendment Discussion — Jim Fields. Mr. Jackson introduced Jim Fields and Paul Wolmarans, developers of the 10 acre parcel known as Cirrus Pointe RPUD. Mr. Fields updated the Board on the history of the project (since 2003) and related to the Board his interest in modifying the PUD's density to build 144 apartments. The 144 number comes from the least amount of units a bank would consider funding. The Board had a roundtj09•sion about the merits of the project and about how the PUD needed to be modified in order to obtain more density. The Board asked staff to work with Mr. Figlft to \ ns. April 3, 2012 CRA -AB Minutes Item Page 1 :=is to: 1612 A4 b. Intent of the Commercial Grant Program. Mr. Jackson briefed the Board on the results of the CRA Board's discussions concerning the review and approval of commercial building grants. He stated that the CRA Board was keen on approving grants that had a significant return on investment (ROI), specifically recruiting a new business or creating new jobs. It was implied by the CRA Board that the staff and Advisory Board should scrutinize applications closely for these factors before forwarding them to the CRA Board. c. Linwood Village Commercial Grant Inquiry. Mr. Jackson introduced Bonnie Holly and Falconer Jones, representatives of Linwood Village, a commercial condo project. Ms. Holly spoke to the Board about the difficulties that the complex was having trying to retain businesses, attract new businesses or buyers, and the recent number of condo foreclosures. She also detailed the deterioration of the surface parking lot, sidewalks and driveways. Mr. Jones described the buildings deterioration of stucco, roof flashing and recent water intrusion due to building settling. He estimated the building stucco repairs, roof repair and building repainting would be in the neighborhood of $150,000. The driveway, sidewalk and parking lot repairs were subject to a law suit with the builder and would cost approximately $200,000 or more. Mr. Jackson what would the group be asking funding from the CRA for. Mr. Jones stated just the stucco, roof and painting. Mr. Jackson asked if the group had enough financial strength to complete the project and pay their vendors prior to asking for reimbursement. Mr. Jones said yes. Ms. Beatty made a motion to approve staffs receipt and review of a Commercial Building Improvement Grant to come back to the CRA -AB for review and approval. Second: Mr. Thomas. Approved 4 -3 (Mr. Ingram. Mr. Gunther, Mr. Oakley dissenting). d. CRA Office Lease Renewal. Mr. Jackson stated that the CRA office lease would expire June 2012, and the CRA has a 1 -year renewal option. The CRA could ask the Bank for a longer period of time like a 2 -year with a 1 -year renewal. The Bank sent the Board a renewal agreement to extend the lease one year with a 3% increase from $10.05 per square foot (psf) to $10.32 psf. Mr. Thomas asked if we should reduce the square footage by two offices since we are reducing the number of staff and also request a price of $8.00psf. His reasoning was that with our reduced budget and reduced staff, it might be likely the CRA Board would move the office in June to a County -owned building. By reducing the leased office area and cost psf, then it would demonstrate that the CRA has been pro- active at reducing cost in order to remain in the area with the citizens they serve. Mr. Main asked if that was a motion. Mr. Thomas, I move that the staff ask the bank for a two year agreement at $8.00psf with a one -year renewal option and reduce the usable square footage by the two unused offices. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 7 -0. 7. Advisory Board General Communications. Mr. Main stated that the Board has taken the months of July and August off when the CRA Board also takes a month off. Motion by Mr. Thomas to not meet in July and August and move the September 2012 meeting date one week to September 11th to avoid travel around the Labor Day weekend. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 7 -0. Mr. Main stated that if a meeting needed to be held he could call an emergency meeting or advertise a meeting with two week's notice. 8. Citizen Comments. Ferd Isserman expressed his thoughts about the Cirrus Pointe apartment discussion and how an apartment complex must have very good maintenance to keep it from getting run down. Morten Rosenburg also discussed apartment management. 9. Adjournment: Mr. Main than ed the two gentlemen for their comments and adjourned the meetin 7:25p Appr6ved and forwarded by Steve Main, CRA -AB Chairman. April 3, 2012 CRA -AB Minutes 2 1612 A5 ty Government °R'° ions Contact: 239 - 252 -8848 www.colliergov.net www.twitter.com /CollierPIO www.facebook.com /CollierGov www.voutube.com /CollierGov May 9, 2012 MAY 2 9 1912 ' FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Cxy!n NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COMER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2012 3:00 P.M. Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, May 16`h at 3:00 p.m. in the 3 d floor Policy Room at the James V. Mudd Emergency Services Center, located at 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples. In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board /committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004 -05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Judy Scribner at (239) 252 -3600. Misc. Correa: Date: --I 1 2 y 112 -End - Item #! lvS 2 \rnk S c ,nias to: i 161 2 A5 Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda May 16, 2012 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance Chairman - Opening Remarks - Roll Call Voting Members: Sheriff s,Office MRC Fire Chiefs CERT USCGA Red Cross Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army Chamber of Commerce CAP Non - Voting Members: EMS EM Health Dept Medical Examiner City of Naples Everglades City Neighborhood Watch Physicians Regional NCH City of Marco Island LMS 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman 3:10, Threat Update CCSO 3:15 New Business Chairman Sunshine Law DVDs ? Fire Season Update EM LMS Report Summary letter sent to BCC Chairman 3:35 Old Business Chairman Individual Reports Members 4:00 Next Meeting /Adjourn Chairman http://www.citizencorps.gov/cc/CertRejzWizard.doc http: / /trainin .fg ema.gov 161 7_ p5 Sec. 2 -1101. Title and citation. This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Collier County Citizens Corps Ordinance." (Ord. No. 02 -56, § 1, 11 -5 -02) Sec. 2 -1102. Findings of fact. (a) The Board of County Commissioners ( "board ") finds that the President of the United States, through the Office of Homeland Security, has asked our citizens to volunteer through local governments to assist in the fight against terrorism. (b) Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, authorizes the board to adopt ordinances creating advisory committees. (c) The board finds that the creation of a citizens corps ( "committee ") is necessary to provide information to the citizens of Collier County and to act as a coordinating agency for the enhancement of activities that support emergency services, law enforcement and disaster prevention, preparedness and response. (d) The board finds that the committee will assist in the recruitment of volunteers by publicizing and expanding existing community programs such as: Medical reserve, neighborhood watch, community emergency response teams (CERT), volunteers in police service (YIPS) and other public safety and law enforcement programs. (e) The board finds that the committee is necessary to facilitate communication between Collier County and state and federal agencies on mitigation activities as well as to enable Collier County to identify outside resources such as grants, training opportunities and equipment. (Ord. No. 02 -56, § 2, 11 -5 -02) 161 2 p5 F L D R l D A citizen *Corps April 11, 2012 To: Board of County Commissioners' Chairman Fred Coyle The Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee is in its tenth year of activity, providing emergency preparedness coordination and cooperation in the event of a disaster, as well as in normal conditions. The Committee is composed of eleven representatives of County First Responders, as well as volunteer disaster support organizations. In addition, the Committee is augmented by eleven representatives of municipalities, hospitals, and associated entities. The Committee meets semi - monthly to keep members abreast of current and forecast threats, as well as capabilities and developments within each organization. It also oversees the Collier County Local Mitigation Strategy Working Group, meeting quarterly to discuss and, where appropriate, take advantage of FEMA disaster mitigation program and grant opportunities. This group is composed largely of municipal, county and public utility officials. The Committee therefore encourages pre- disaster damage mitigation, as well as coordinated response in the event of disaster. First response organizations are augmented by both trained units, such as Civil Air Patrol, Coast Guard Auxiliary, Community Emergency Response Teams, Red Cross, Salvation Army, and Medical Reserve Corps, as well as volunteer groups such as Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, Neighborhood Watch, Veterans Council, and Chamber of Commerce, among others. Utilizing the cooperation of member organizations, Collier County Citizen Corps further provides hazard awareness and preparedness to individual residents and visitors through annual participation in local forums, hurricane seminars, and conferences. Collier Citizen Corps works closely with the Emergency Management Department, implementing its responsibilities to communicate with and prepare citizens to mitigate, anticipate, survive, and recover from disaster. Ru ell D. Rainey Chairman cc: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Jim Coletta Leo Ochs, County Manager 0 03RMd- : f-�A r � . , 1 1uiI B% :....................... CAC May 11, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 1 of 3 1612 A6 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 8, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business Herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: Fiala Hiller ' Henning Coyle _ Coletta C- CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III Anthony Pires (Excused) Randy Moity (Excused) Jim Burke Murray Hendel Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Misc. Corres: Date: —1 12`41 12, Item Copies to: CAC May 11, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 2 of 3 1612 A6 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 7 -0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. February 9, 2012 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2012 meeting. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 7— 0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Collier County Tourist Tax Revenue FY 12 Revenue Report" dated through February 29, 2012. 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 201112012 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through 3/5/12. VIII. New Business 1. Strategy on Beach Renourishment Gary McAlpin provided an update, he stated that he has met with representatives of the Town of Longboat Key and they have expressed interest in partnering with Collier County for their major beach renourishment project. An Interlocal Agreement will be required to identify the responsibilities of each parry. Additionally he reported Captiva is not interested in partnering with the County. Chairman Sorey provided a copy of an email to Gary McAlpin dated March 2, 2012 — Subject: Funding Beach Renourishment. It was an overview of the funds available for the major beach renourishment project to be completed by the County in CAC May 11, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 3 of 3 1612 6 FY 2013/2014. The Board discussed the existing and potential available funding sources including FEMA reimbursements. 2. RAI Comments for Wiggins Pass Straightening — Update Gary McAlpin provided a copy of a letter to Stephen Keehn of Coastal Planning and Engineering from Liz Younge, of the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems — Subject: "Comments on Partial Response to RAI 41. " Staff intends to provide a response to the RAI in approximately 30 — 45 days. 3. Marco Projects Timing Gary McAlpin reported that due to funding concerns, Staff proposes to rebuild the jetties beginning in November of 2012 with completion anticipated by the end of the year. The beach renourishment would be completed in 2013 as scheduled. The Committee expressed concern on the timeline and requested Staff to review the concept and report back to them on the feasibility of completing the projects concurrently or "back to back. " IX. Old Business None X. Announcements Chairman Sorey reported Murray Hendel is resigning from the Coastal Advisory Committee after being seated for 8 years. The Committee recognized his service to the residents of Collier County. XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date/Location April 12, 2012 — Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 1:47 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee A!ohn Sorey, III, airman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on iYVX �� } as presented X or as amended 1 1612 A7 April 6, 2012 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, April 6, 2012 I; AY ', 20 j 13x. ..... .. ..... . ..., * LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Fiala I-idier Henning - Coyle r -- - -- _ — ColettaG ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. Correa: Date:---I 12� 112 Item #:1 U'= '2- Ccpies to: 161 w A7 prig, 2012 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Special Magistrate will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Special Magistrate shall be responsible for providing this record. I. CALL TO ORDER — Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9 :03 a.m. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing rules and regulations Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing. Prior to conducting the Hearing, Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officers for a Resolution by Stipulation. The goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. Recessed: 9:15 a.m. Reconvened: 9:40 a.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes (listed below as Agenda Item Numbers): Under Item V.B — Hearings, the following case was moved to IV.B — Motion for Continuance: • 91 - CASE NO: S0175270- CEEX20120003580 -ELISE A BLOCKER Under Item V.0 — Motion for Extension of time, the following cases were added: • #2 - CASE NO: CEPM20110002202 - JP MORGAN CHASE BANK • #3 - CASE NO: CEPM20110016560 -CREATIVE CHOICE HOMESXIV LTD Under Item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were moved to V.A — Stipulations: • 426 - CASE NO: CESD20110017216 - SMUDER -FA UST REALTY INC • 916 - CASE NO: CEPM20120001264 - PPTS D. CORPORATION • #22 - CASE NO: CESD20110012635 - ROCKPORT NAPLES LLC ET AL • 931 - CASE NO: CEPM20110013713 - JOHN A. MCMULLIN JR. AND AMY J. MCMULLIN • #14 - CASE NO: CESD20110011005 - AGUSTIN MORALES- RENTERIA AND BLANCA E. MORALES • #27 - CASE NO: CESD20110004498 - DANIEL E. OSBORNE AND LISA C. OSBORNE • #10 - CASE NO: PU4830- CEEX20120004084 - FIFTH THIRD BANK CORPORATE FACILITIES • 49 - CASE NO: PU4825- CEEX20120003705 - MARBELLA LAKES ASSOCIATES LLC Under Item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were withdrawn: • #2 - CASE NO: 50172054- CEEX20120000908 -JUDITH E. MACPHEE • #3 - CASE NO: SO] 74801- CEEX20120003848 -THOMAS L. MURRAY • #4 - CASE NO: 50174819- CEEX20120004227 - RUTH W. DUKLAUER • #7 - CASE NO: PR047579- CEEX20120002641 - RITA AND GREGORY MCCUSKER • #8 - CASE NO: PR047677- CEEX20120002478 - ALFRED SAN SOUCI • #11 - CASE NO: DAS12239- CEEX20120003767 - DEIBIS PEREZ • #12 - CASE NO: DAS12240- CEEX20120003769 - DEIBIS PEREZ • #13 - CASE NO: CESD20110008191- RICHARD W. GOOD • #15 - CASE NO: CEROW20110003833 - CHANTELL VIDAL AND EVELINA VIDAL • 418 - CASE NO: CESD201 1001 7559 - JACKIE PAYNE- HERSEY 2 1 161 2 A7 April 6, 2012 • #20 - CASE NO: CEV20120001647 - ELSA LAY • #25 - CASE NO: CEROW20110017402 - PERRINE MOBILE HOME SALES LLC • #29 - CASE NO: CEV20110013680 - ANNE ELENA FOSTER • #32 - CASE NO: CENA20110017696 - JERZON GONZALEZ CHILE AND YAKELIN DUARTE • #33 - CASE NO: CEF20120001522 - JERZON GONZALEZ CHILE AND YAKELIN DUARTE Under VI.A — Motion for Imposition of Fines, the following case was added to IV.0 — Motion for Extension of Time: • 42 - CASE NO: CEPM20110012536 - PHILLIP B. WHITE AND JANET IRENE NEBUS The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 17, 2012 March 2, 2012 The minutes of the February 17, 2012 and March 2, 2012 Special Magistrate Hearing were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance 1. CASE NO: S0175270- CEEX20120003580 OWNER: ELISE A BLOCKER OFFICER: DEPUTY SIEGEL VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 EXPIRED METER VIOLATION ADDRESS: GULF SHORE BEACH ACCESS, NAPLES The Respondent or a representative was not present. Deputy Siegel represented the County. Special Magistrate Garretson reported a Motion for Continuance was submitted in writing by the Respondent; however it was not within the time frame provided by the Ordinance. The Special Magistrate DENIED the Motion for a Continuance. C. Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20110005755 OWNER: MIGUEL A. MONTALVO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A SHED ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 35540200005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 126 WHITE WAY, IMMOKALEE The Respondent or a representative was not present. Investigator Rodriguez represented the County and reported the violation has been abated. 1 §ri) 6, 12 `% 7 The Special Magistrate GRANTED an Extension of Time until April 6, 2012. 2. CASE NO: CEPM20110002202 OWNER: JP MORGAN CHASE BANK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231, SUBSECTIONS 12b, 12c, 12i, 12n, 12p, 19, AND 20. VACANT DUPLEX WITH MULTIPLE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS. FOLIO NO: 77310400006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 240 BENSON STREET, NAPLES The Respondent or a representative was not present. Investigator Mucha represented the County and reported the property is under contract for sale, the perspective purchase is aware of the violations and intends to abate them. The Respondents have requested a 120 day Extension of time to abate the violation. The County has no objection to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED an Extension of Time until August 6, 2012. CASE NO: CEPM20110016560 OWNER: CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XIV LTD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(19). OCCUPIED RENTAL UNIT WITH MOLD ALL OVER THE WALLS AND CEILING. FOLIO NO: 00296840003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8664 DILIP LANE, UNIT 205, NAPLES Danielle Delgado, Representative for Creative Choice Homes XIV LTD was present and reported more time is required to totally abate the violation as the mitigation for the mold infestation was completed, however it has been determined a portion of the drywall is need of replacement. Investigator Mucha represenented the County stating he had no objection to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED an Extension of Time until June 6, 2012. 4. CASE NO: CEPM20110012536 (Case #2 from Imposition of fines) OWNER: PHILLIP B. WHITE AND JANET IRENE NEBUS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (15) AND 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 4, RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL BARRIER REQUIREMENT, SECTION 424.2.17 THROUGH 424.2.17.3. AN UNMAINTAINED POOL CREATING A SAFETY HAZARD AND HARBORING INFESTATION. NUMEROUS CINDERBLOCKS SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE POOL AREA CREATING AN UNSIGHTLY APPEARANCE. NO RESIDENTIAL POOL BARRIER AROUND THE POOL, FOLIO NO: 67340800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 100 HICKORY ROAD, NAPLES Phillip White was present and reported removal of the cinder blocks is ongoing, however more time is needed to complete the process. 4 1A ril 1, 2 2 A7 Investigator Bosa represented the County and stated he had no objection to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED an Extension of Time until May 6, 2012. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations 26. CASE NO: CESD20110017216 OWNER: SMUDER -FAUST REALTY INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). FOUR SETS OF STAIRS INSTALLED BEHIND THE BUILDING WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 35832800003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12555 COLLIER BLVD, NAPLES Investigator Mucha requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Representative Richard Faust on April S, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.03 incurred in the prosecution of this case by May 6, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by July 6, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondentfails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.03 16. CASE NO: CEPM20120001264 OWNER: PPTS D. CORPORATION OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR KITCHELL SNOW VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (11),(12)(d), (12) (b), (12)(i), (12)(p), AND (19). STRUCTURE IN A VERY POOR STATE OF REPAIR WITH MULTIPLE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS. STRUCTURE IS BEING USED AS A DRUG AND PROSTITUTION HOUSE. FOLIO NO: 00082963903 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3036 IMMOKALEE DRIVE, IMMOKALEE 16 172 A? April 6, 2012 Investigator Snow requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Representative Robert D. Pritt on April 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 6, 2012. 2. Obtain a valid Collier County Building Permit, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion to restore the windows to a permitted condition on or before May 13, 2012, or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate or, obtain a Collier County Boarding Certificate and board the structure to the required specifications on or before May 13, 2012 and obtain all required Collier County Building Permits or a demolition permit with all inspections; and Certificates of Completion /Occupancy by October 6, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 4. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. Total Amount Due: $112.3 8 22. CASE NO: CESD20110012635 OWNER: ROCKPORT NAPLES LLC ET AL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B) (1)(a). EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTION WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 391600009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3807 TAMIAMI TRAIL E, NAPLES Investigator Asaro requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Representative Michelle Welch on April 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.73 incurred in the prosecution of this case by May 6, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Completion/ Occupancy by July 6, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 1pr06, 7 101 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.73 31. CASE NO: CEPM20110013713 OWNER: JOHN A. MCMULLIN JR AND AMY J. MCMULLIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(12)(n) & (15). POOL WITH ALGAE GROWTH AND A POOL ENCLOSURE WITH TORN SCREENS. FOLIO NO: 24831240002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1223 DELMAR LANE, NAPLES Discussion occurred between the Respondent and County Staff on the status of the violation. Jennifer Baker reported the County is withdrawing the case. 14. CASE NO: CESD20110011005 OWNER: AGUSTIN MORALES - RENTERIA AND BLANCA E. MORALES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). NEW CONSTRUCTION OF SHED WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 36430680006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5433 29TH PLACE SW, NAPLES Supervisor Letourneau requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by Agustin Morales - Renteria on April 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.12 incurred in the prosecution of this case by May 6, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Completion/ Occupancy by July 6, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier IP016, L �" 'A7 County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.12 27. CASE NO: CESD20110004498 OWNER: DANIEL E. OSBORNE AND LISA C. OSBORNE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED. FOLIO NO: 38332560002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6100 DOGWOOD WAY, NAPLES Investigator Musse requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by Daniel Osborne on April 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case by May 6, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Completion/ Occupancy by June 6, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 CASE NO: PU4825- CEEX20120003705 OWNER: MARBELLA LAKES ASSOCIATES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MIKE ANDRESKY VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 134 -126, SEC. (A) 6 UNAPPROVED ALTERATION OF A BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBLY FOLIO NO: 56630501787 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6661 MARBELLA LANE, NAPLES Investigator Addison requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's Representative Audrey Dowdell on April 6, 2012. 16, li� A 7 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and assessed the following costs: 1) A fine in the amount of $1,000.00, Operational Costs of $50.00 and an Administrative Fee of $5.00 for a total amount due of $1,055.00. To be paid by May 6, 2012. Total Amount Due: $1,055.00 10. CASE NO: PU4830- CEEX20120004084 OWNER: FIFTH THIRD BANK CORPORATE FACILITIES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RAY ADDISON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 97 -33, SEC. 8, E I FIRE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE DEPARTMENT. METER NUMBER IS 75681257. FOLIO NO: 32435500101 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8771 TAMIAMI TRAIL N, NAPLES Investigator Addison requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's Representative William F. Kelley on April 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and assessed the following costs: 1) A fine in the amount of $400.00, Operational Costs of $50.00 and an Administrative Fee of $5.00 for a total amount due of $455.00. To be paid by May 6, 2012. Total Amount Due: $455.00 Break: 10:51 a.m. Reconvened.• 11:10 a. m. B. Hearings 5. CASE NO: PR047046- CEEX20110016174 OWNER: ASKOLD D. MOSIJCZUK OFFICER: PARK RANGER MAURICIO ARAQUISTAIN VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 UNLAWFUL AREA, FAILURE TO DISPLAY PAID PARKING RECEIPT VIOLATION ADDRESS: CONNER PARK, NAPLES Ranger Araquistain was present. Mr. Mosijczuk was present and testified: Ms. Baker reported the case was continued from the last hearing to determine if Mr. Mosijcuk could obtain a refund on a partially paid parking fee at Connor Park. Mr. Mosijczuk testified: • On November 4, 2011 he was informed of a location to fish near Conner Park. • He entered the Park and noticed the automated payment machine which required payment of $8.00 per day for parking. • He only had 5 one dollar bills, and assumed he could pay incrementally for parking. • He inserted two dollars in the machine, and then changed his mind. 9 1661202' 17 • He attempted to cancel the transaction, however could not. • His money was not refuned, but was issued and ticket deemed "insufficient amount" with a $2.00 payment credited. • He parked in the park for approximately 45 minutes and when he returned a citation had been issued. • He contacted the Parks and Recreation Department and a refund will be issued for the two dollars paid. • He requested the ticket be dismissed as the signage on the machine and statements on the parking receipt are confusing and he utilized aproximately $2.00 worth of parking time. The Special Magistrate noted Mr. Mosijczuk was now entitled to park for free with the return of the two dollars. She determined the Operational Costs and Administrative Fees be assessed and waived the fine amount of $30.00 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and assessed $50.00 Operational Costs and a $5.00 Administrative Fee for a total of $55.00. Total Amount Due: $55.00 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines 1. CASE NO: CEEX20110015355 OWNER: PACIFICA NAPLES LLC OFFICER: FIRE INSPECTOR BARB SIBLEY VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE NFPA 1, CHAPTER 14.14.5.1, NFPA 1, CHAPTER 13.3.3.2, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 12.7.2 NFPA 1, CHAPTER 10.4.1, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 12.3.1, NFPA 101, CHAPTER 4.6.12.1, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 5.2.7, FLORIDA STATUTE 633, TRUSS RULE 69A- 60.008, NFPA 13, CHAPTER 6.2.6.2.2, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 12.3.1.2, NFPA 13, CHAPTER 6.2.7.2. EXIT SIGN DOES NOT WORK IN BACK -UP MODE, SPRINKLER SYSTEM NOT INSPECTED, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) CAPS ARE MISSING, FLOW SWITCH COVER IS MISSING/NOT SECURE, CONTROL VALVES NOT IDENTIFIED /LABELED. FIRE ALARM CABINETS AND SPRINKLER CONTROL VALVE CABINETS ARE NOT IDENTIFIED /LABELED. HYDRAULIC NAMEPLATES ARE NOT LEGIBLE, FLORIDA STATUTE 633, LIGHT - WEIGHT CONSTRUCTION NOT IDENTIFIED (SIGNAGE MISSING) SPRINKLER HEADS ARE PAINTED, CONTROL VALVES NOT CHAINED, ESCUTCHEON PLATES MISSING. FOLIO NO: 35830040001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4520 GREEN BLVD, NAPLES The Respondents was represented by Susan Rathbon, Property Manager. Special Magistrate Order: No. 4745 - Page: 3264 Fine Amount: $500.00 /day Duration: 2/3/12 — 2/15/12 (13 days) Total Fine Amount: $6,500 Total to Date: $6,500.00 Inspector Sibley represented the County and reported the violation has been abated as of February 15, 2012 and recommended the fines be waived. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 10 Ik 612o2 A7 13. CASE NO: CESD20110007118 OWNER: JILL J. WEAVER - TESNO AND HENRY J. TESNO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22 -26(b) (104.5.1.4.4), COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 SECTION 105.1. A WHITE PICKET FENCE, 6 FT WOODEN FENCE, A CARPORT, AND A CHAIN LINK FENCE CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY WITHOUT VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 71800000543 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3411 BASIN STREET, NAPLES Investigator Botts represented the County and reported the violation has been abated and recommended the fines be waived. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Contest Nuisance Abatement Lien: 1. CASE NO: CENA20110004596 OWNER: MICHAEL KHAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54 ENVIRONMENT, ARTICLE VI, WEEDS, LITTER, AND EXOTICS, SECTION 54 -181. UNAUTHORIZED ACCUMULATION OF LITTER. FOLIO NO: 41340120007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: FOLIO 41340120007, NAPLES Supervisor Perez represented the County Mr. Kahn was present. Mr. Kahn testified: • He resides out of town and only visits the property annually. • He was cited for the accumulation of litter on his property, the litter was construction debris and was dumped there by an unkown individual. • He received notification of the violation and was communicating with Investigator Baldwin on resolving the matter, and did not hear back from him over a period of time, including no noticification on the County's intent to abate the violation. • Had the County notified him properly on the extent of the violation and abatement amount, he would have abated the violation and avoided the $3,000 cost for the County to abate the violation. Supervisor Perez testified: • There was notice given on April 18, 2011 the County may choose to abate the violation with abatement occurring in August of 2011. Phillip Young, Southwest Builders testified: • Their company removed 120 cubic yards of debris from the property. The Special Magistrate DENIED the Respondent's Motion to Contest a Nusiance Abatement Lien. I6r] 6,912 A7 B. Hearings (Continued) 1. CASE NO: S0175270- CEEX20120003580 OWNER: ELISE A BLOCKER OFFICER: DEPUTY SIEGEL VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 EXPIRED METER VIOLATION ADDRESS: GULF SHORE BEACH ACCESS, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/20/12 Deputy Siegel represented the County The Respondent was not present. Deputy Siegel testified during regular patrol he identified a vehicle parked at an expired meter. The vehicle did not have a Collier County Beach Parking Sticker displayed. A citation was issued. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to pay a $30.00 Fine, $50.00 in Operational Costs and a $5.00 Administrative Fee for a total amount of $85.00 by May 6, 2012. Total Amount Due: $85.00 6. CASE NO: PR047680- CEEX20120002946 OWNER: ALISSA EDWARDS OFFICER: PARK RANGER CAROL BUCKLER VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 FAILURE TO PROPERLY AFFIX BEACH STICKER VIOLATION ADDRESS: SOUTH MARCO ACCESS, MARCO ISLAND Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/20/12 Ranger Maunz represented the County The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A: 3 photos Ranger Maunz testified during regular patrol a vehicle without a properly affixed Collier County Beach Sticker was identified and a citation was issued. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to pay a $30.00 Fine, $50.00 in Operational Costs and a $5.00 Administrative Fee for a total amount of $85.00 by May 6, 2012. Total Amount Due: $85.00 17. CASE NO: CESS201 1 001 7753 OWNER: MICHAEL J. CONDELLO DBA DOCTOR HEADLIGHT OF NAPLES, FLORIDA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM SEABASTY 12 161 Z A7 April 6, 2012 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.06.06 A 1 . UNPERMITTED SNIPE (CLOUDY HEADLIGHTS) SIGNS, ATTACHED TO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES IN MULTIPLE RIGHT OF WAY AND MEDIAN LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY. VIOLATION ADDRESS: ITINERANT AND TRANSIENT IN NATURE Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/20/12 Personal Service to Address: 3/20/12 Investigator Seabasty represented the County The Respondent was not present. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 4/26/11 Composite Exhibit B: 2 photos dated 6/26/11 Composite Exhibit C: 4 photos dated 12/27/11 Composite Exhibit D: 9 photos dated 11/19/11 Investigator Seabasty tesified: • The violation involves affixing signs to public property in rights of ways advertising commercial services at various locations throughout the County without proper permits. • The advertisement is for service under the heading "Doctor Headlight" or "Cloudy Headlights." • The County ascertained through Sheriff Department's witness of the activity, personal contacts, telephone calls and website activity the person placing the signs is Michael Condello. • A previous case was initiated in September 9, 2011 and Mr. Condello ceased the activity. • The activity re- started in December of 2011 and continues today. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.03 incurred in the prosecution of this case by May 6, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by removing any and all illegally existing signs by April 9, 2012 and cease and desist from placing any and all illegal signs in Collier County or a fine of $250.00 per sign will be imposed for any remaining sign, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.03 19. CASE NO: CEROW20110014889 OWNER: RONALD TALERICO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA 13 A4716 12 April 6, 2012 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 110 ROAD AND BRIDGES, ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY, DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110- 31(a). DRAINAGE SWALE IN REAR OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN FILLED IN WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS. FOLIO NO: 53125000550 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 262 KIRTLAND DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/26/12 Investigator Connetta presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 10/30/11 Composite Exhibit 13: 2 photos dated 2/14/12 The violation remains as of May 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $200.00 incurred in the prosecution of this case by May 6, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by April 20, 2012 or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. Total Amount Due: $200.00 21. CASE NO: CELU20110015511 OWNER: CONEXAR GROUP LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A). DUMPED FILL /DIRT ON VACANT LOT. FOLIO NO: 36315680008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5148 24TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/16/12 Investigator Musse presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 7/16/11 Composite Exhibit 13: 2 photos dated 4/5/12 14 161 2 A7 April 6, 2012 The violation remains as of May 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $11220 incurred in the prosecution of this case by May 6,2012. 2. Abate all violations by removing all dumped dirt/fill on the lot in question by May 6, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 23. CASE NO: CEPM20120000872 OWNER: JUDITH HARBRECHT HILL TR AND WILLIAM P. HILL TR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 228(1). ELECTRIC LIGHT POLE AT FRONT OF PROPERTY IN STATE OF DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 55402400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 451 TORREY PINES POINT, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/21/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/19/12 Investigator Kincaid presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 1/20/12 Exhibit 13: 1 photo dated 4/5/12 The violation remains as of May 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.47 incurred in the prosecution of this case by May 6, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining repairing the light post and obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Completion by April 20, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. X 161 *2 A7 April 6, 2012 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 24. CASE NO: CEV20120000968 OWNER: JUDITH HARBRECHT HILL TR AND WILLIAM P. HILL TR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AN ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 130, ARTICLE III SECTION 130 -95. RED CAR IN DRIVEWAY WITH EXPIRED LICENSE TAG. FOLIO NO: 55402400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 451 TORREY PINES POINT, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/21/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/19/12 Investigator Kincaid presented the ease. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photo dated 1/20/11 Composite Exhibit B: 2 photos dated 4/5/12 The violation remains as of May 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.47 incurred in the prosecution of this case by May 6, 2012 2. Abate all violations by obtaining and affixing a current valid license plate to each vehicle and/or repairing any defects to each vehicle so they are operable, or store the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or remove the offending vehicles from the property by May 13, 2012 or a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 28. CASE NO: CESD20110000214 16 , t0ilJ2012 A7 OWNER: ROOKERY BAY BUSINESS PARK LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.13(F). FAILURE TO SUBMIT ANNUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MONITORING REPORT. FOLIO NO: 732800002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/21/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/22/12 Investigator Botts presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Investigator Botts noted the 2010 and 2011 PUD Annual Monitoring Reports have not been submitted to the County as required. The violation remains as of May 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $11247 incurred in the prosecution of this case by May 6, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by submitting two complete copies of the Planned Unit Development Annual Monitoring Form, I of 3 Traffic County Options and 1 Executed Affidavit by May 6, 2012 or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 30. CASE NO: CESD20110016465 OWNER: MARTHA BACHELOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A CHICKEE HUT ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 61480009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4801 TRAFFORD FARM ROAD, IMMOKALEE Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/21/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/27/12 Investigator Rodriguez presented the case. The Respondents were not present. 17 161 " A7 April 6, 2012 Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 11/29/11 The violation remains as of May 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of this case by May 6, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Completion/ Occupancy by June 6, 2012 or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.3 8 C. Emergency Cases: None VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines - (Continued) 3. CASE NO: CEPM20110013960 OWNER: AGRON SLOVA AND NEAT KERKUTI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 (12) (i). BROKEN WINDOW ON VACANT FIRST FLOOR UNIT. FOLIO NO: 35761000000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4637 18TH PLACE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/21/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/16/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Letouneau presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 1/6/12 - No. 4757 - Page: 2095 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 1/14/12 — 4/6/12 (84 days) Total Fine Amount: $21,000.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs for Boarding: $390.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $21,502.20 18 1 161 P A7 April 6, 2012 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $21,502.20. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 4. CASE NO: CESD20100020107 OWNER: O'NEILL PARTNERS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) . GARAGES IN DUPLEX HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO EFFICIENCIES, ADDING PLUMBING AND ELECTRIC WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 36110200007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5000 24TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/21/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/16/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Letouneau and Investigar Musse presented the case noting the violation has not been abated, however there was an email submitted this morning and the Respondent has begun to abate the violation and requested a Continuance to the case due to tenant issues. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case until the next hearing. 5. CASE NO: CEPM20110011365 OWNER: URMAS A. KASK AND ROBERT SCHULTZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15) AND (12)(n) AND SECTION 22- 228(1). POOL WITH GREEN STAGNANT WATER, POOL ENCLOSURE SCREENS IN STATE OF DISREPAIR AND TALL WEEDS, GRASS AND MOLD IN ENCLOSURE AREA. FOLIO NO: 54901480005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 121 DORAL CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/21/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/19/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Kincaid presented the case noting the violation has been abated.. Abatement Date: 2/21/12 Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 - No. 4745 - Page:3234 Fine Amount: Part 13: $250.00 /day — Part C: $250.00 Duration: Part 13: 12/10/11 — 2/21/12 (74 days) - Part C: 12/10/11 — 2/21/12 (74 days) Total Fine Amount: $37,000.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: Part 13: $3,178.05 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $40,290.43 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $40,290.43. Said amount to become a lien on the property. IN 161 2 X47 April 6, 2012 CASE NO: CENA20110011385 OWNER: URMAS A. KASK AND ROBERT SCHULTZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 185(a). WEEDS AND GRASS IN EXCESS OF 18 INCHES TALL IN REAR, SIDE AND POOL LANAI AREAS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 54901480005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 121 DORAL CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/21 /12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/19/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Kincaid presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 12/27/11 Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 - No. 4745 - Page: 3240 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 12/10/11 — 12/27/11 (18 days) Total Fine Amount: $1,800.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $1,912.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $1,912.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property. CASE NO: CEPM20110008150 OWNER: CLINT TAYLOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15) AND SECTION 22- 231(12)(1). BROKEN SLIDERS AND GREEN POOL. FOLIO NO: 38168440008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3130 58TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/21/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/16/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has been partially abated. Abatement Date: 11/7/11 Special Magistrate Order: 9/2/11 - No. 4748 - Page: 1578 Fine Amount: Part C: $250.00 /day — Part B: $250.00 Duration: Part C: 9/17/11 — 4/6/12 (203 days) — Part B: 9/10/11 — 11/7/11 (59 days) Total Fine Amount: Part C: $50,750.00 — Part B: $14,750.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs for Boarding: $1,098.10 Unpaid Abatement Costs for Pool: $1,042.10 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $67,752.58 20 161 2. , 7 April 6, 2012 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $67,752.58. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. CASE NO: CENA20110012651 OWNER: CLINT TAYLOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 186(a). WEEDS IN EXCESS OF 18 INCHES ON IMPROVED LOT WITHIN THIRTY FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 38168440008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3130 58T" STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/21/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/16/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 1/24/12 Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 - No. 4745 - Page: 3253 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 12/10/11 — 1/24/12 (46 days) Total Fine Amount: $4,600.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $30.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $4,742.20 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $4,742.20. Said amount to become a lien on the property. CASE NO: CENA20110012647 OWNER: IRASEMA LAMBERT PINERO TR AND ZONIA Z. LAMBERT R/L/T EST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 54 -181 AND 54 -179. LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: TIRES, WOOD, DRYWALL, PLASTIC BUCKETS, LAUNDRY BASKET, ALUMINUM CANS, HOUSEHOLD TRASH, ELECTRONICS, APPLIANCES, BICYCLE RIMS, LARGE PLASTIC CONTAINERS IN METAL FRAMING, AND OTHER ITEMS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 74413960006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3450 CHEROKEE STREET, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/21/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/22/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Botts presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 2/3/12 - No. 4765 - Page: 388 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 3/11/12 — 4/6/12 (27 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,700.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $2,812.47 21 lkprl 62,12 A7 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $2,812.47. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 10. CASE NO: CEV20110014863 OWNER: IRASEMA LAMBERT PINERO TR AND ZONIA Z. LAMBERT R/L/T EST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 130, ARTICLE III, SECTION 130 -95 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 4.05.03. UNLICENSED VEHICLE PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY AND A TAN VEHICLE PARKED ON THE GRASS IN THE FRONT YARD OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 74413960006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3450 CHEROKEE STREET, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/22/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/22/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Botts presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 2/3/12 - No. 4765 - Page: 408 Fine Amount: $50.00 /day Duration: 2/18/12 — 4/6/12 (49 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,450.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $2,562.56 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $2,562.56. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 11. CASE NO: CENA20100017561 OWNER: CWABS INC ASSET - BACKED CT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54 ENVIRONMENT, ARTICLE VI WEEDS, LITTER, AND EXOTICS. WEEDS IN EXCESS OF 18 INCHES AROUND THE 30 FT PERIMETER OF THE HOME. FOLIO NO: 36717400006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3240 11T AVENUE NW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/22/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/26/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigtor Ambach presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 1/24/12 Special Magistrate Order: 10/7/11 — No. 4728 - Page: 2042 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 10/15/11 — 1/24/12 (102 days) Total Fine Amount: $10,200.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $75.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 22 1 161 2 A Aril - "7 p 6, 2012 Total to Date: $10,387.38 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $10,387.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 12. CASE NO: CENA20110011444 OWNER: ELDER DUQUE AND MARIA ALICE MACEDO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54 ENVIRONMENT, ARTICLE V1, WEEDS, LITTER AND EXOTICS SECTION 54- 186(a). WEEDS OVER 18 INCHES WITHIN THIRTY FEET OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 37281080003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 620 WILSON BLVD N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/22/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/26/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Perez presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 2/8/12 Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11- No. 4745 - Page: 3247 Fine Amount: $50.00 /day Duration: 12/10/11 — 2/8/12 (61 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,050.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $30.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $3,192.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,192.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 14. CASE NO: CEPM20110015423 OWNER: VINCENT PRINCIPE JR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-23](12)(b) AND (12)( c). SOFFIT AND FASCIA DAMAGE TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 55551200003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 30 HAWAII BLVD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/22/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/20/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Asaro presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 1/6/12 - No. 4757 - Page: 2112 Fine Amount: $200.00 /day Duration: 3/7/12 — 4/6/12 (31 days) Total Fine Amount: $6,200.00 Total to Date: $6,200.00 23 161 2 A7 April 6, 2012 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $6,200.00. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 15. CASE NO: CEV20110011656 OWNER: ALICIA VIVES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130 -95. UNLICENSED VEHICLE PARKED ON THE DRIVEWAY. FOLIO NO: 371 14060006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 410 5TH STREET NW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/22/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/26/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Ambach presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 2/3/12 - No. 4765 - Page: 397 Fine Amount: $50.00 /day Duration: 2/7/12 — 4/6/12 (60 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,000.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $3,112.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,112.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 16. CASE NO: CEPM20110010931 OWNER: DALE C. HUNT AND ANNE M. HUNT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(15). POOL WAS FOUND TO BE GREEN/BLACK IN COLOR AND IN NEED OF CHEMICAL TREATMENT. FOLIO NO: 29555019103 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4972 TRAYNOR COURT, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/22/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/20/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Asaro presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 2/21/12 Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 -No. 4745 -Page: 3250 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 12/10/11 — 2/21/12 (74 days) Total Fine Amount: $18,500.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,200.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $19,812.38 24 16 12'. . 7 ril6 Q12 p , 2 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $19,812.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property. B. Rules and Regulations Review None VIII. OLD BUSINESS — (Continued) B. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 4, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida *Could be change in next meeting date per Jennifer Baker. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 1:09 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING nda Garr n, Special Magistrate The Minutes were.approved by the Special Magistrate on A(w as presented , or as amended 25 161 R EIS F-0 E23 AGENDA "Continuation from the March 1, 2012 Meeting" Board of County Commissioners COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY $E ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSWS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Fiala Hiller 11enning Coyle Coletia Note: This item has been continued from the January 26, 2012, February 16, 2012 and the March 1, 2012 CCPC meetings. This item will be heard as an Advertised Public hearing then under 9A Consent: A. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89 -05, as amended, specifically amending the Capital Improvement Element, Transportation Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub - Element, Potable Water Sub - Element, Drainage Sub - Element, Solid Waste Sub - Element, and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub - Element of the Public Facilities Element, Housing Element, Recreation & Open Space Element, Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, Economic Element, and Public Schools Facilities Element, and furthermore recommending Transmittal of these amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] Misc. Corres: Date: - 712.`+ 11 Item IU 2RTS Copies to: 16 12P At Note: This item has been continued from the March 1, 2012 CCPC meeting: B. RZ-PL20110001572: SSP Associates, Inc. -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a C -3 zoning district to a C -5 zoning district for the project known as SSP Associates, Inc. Rezone located south of Tamiami Trail East in Section 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1.75 +/- acres subject to conditions; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the March 1, 2012 CCPC meeting: C. CPSS- 2011 -1: A petition requesting a small scale Growth Management Plan amendment to the "Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict ", to remove paragraph b., relating to transportation intersection improvements, and to remove related paragraph c.v., for property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Airport Road and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East (f 10 acres). [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner.] ADOPTION HEARINGS. 9. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89 -05, as amended, specifically amending the Capital Improvement Element, Transportation Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub - Element, Potable Water Sub - Element, Drainage Sub - Element, Solid Waste Sub - Element, and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub - Element of the Public Facilities Element, Housing Element, Recreation & Open Space Element, Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, Economic Element, and Public Schools Facilities Element, and furthermore recommending Transmittal of these amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp barch' A8 March 6 2012 Continued from A 1 2012 meetin � � g) TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 6, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain William Vonier Brad Schiffer Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Paul Midney Melissa Ahern Barry Klein Phillip Brougham ALSO PRESENT: Corby Schmidt, Comprehensive Planning Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Page 1 of 46 .k 161 �A 8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the continuation of the Planning Commission meeting that started on Thursday, March 6th (sic), and we will continue and hopefully -- definitely finish it today. Everybody please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Homiak, would you do the roll call, please. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is absent; Ms. Ahern's absent. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein is absent, and Mr. Brougham is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. Last time I mentioned that we had an April 12th mobility plan update -- an update for the new phasing. That was going to occur on April 12th, noon -- or nine to noon, and then at the same time staff has informed me they have some LDC amendments that they want us to start working with. So if there's no objection, I'd like to continue that meeting or, you know, actually we will adjourn that meeting and open a new one for LDC amendments that afternoon and continue after lunch with the LDC amendments, or whenever we finish the morning meeting. And then the 13th of April is open to continue those LDC meetings if we don't finish them on the 12th. Does that work for those of us that are here? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Twelfth, I think, is okay with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twelfth is -- because we asked about the 12th earlier, and it seems okay with everybody. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How's the 13th look for you? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. COMMISSIONER VONIER: What is that, a Wednesday? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- I don't know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The 13th is a Friday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Friday. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Oh, that's probably all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This room is open on that day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No MPO? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. They just told us it was open that day, so we're trying to take it. And then the second Master Mobility Plan phasing update is needed on June 19th, nine to noon. Does anybody know if that does not work for their schedule? And I'll go over all this again next week when we have a full body here, but that's kind of tentatively where we're going with some additional meetings for this board, nontypical, that is. Planning Commission absences. We asked that last time. We're going to be fine on the 15th. By the way, the 15th will probably be a long day. Page 2 of 46 V ' 8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) Approval of minutes, there were none. Ray, was there any BCC reports since -- okay, shaking his head no. Chairman's report, there is none. First thing up today will be the EAR. We'll try to finish that up. We'll do the hearing and the one consent at the same time, basically. So we'll vote for one and then vote for the other right afterwards so that gets cleaned up. And I believe this board has met -- this will be the third meeting. I did miss the second meeting on the 16th. I have some questions from the information I received but, Corby, it's all yours. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Good morning. For the record, Corby Schmidt with the comprehensive planning section. And, you're right, we've taken parts of this under consideration in previous hearings, and today we bring you, what should be, to a close with the EAR -based comp plan amendments. Quickly, to look ahead, in some of the elements before you, we will be suggesting some small changes, additional modifications to what you have. One of those takes place in the Transportation Element. That does not have a handout for you, but when we reach that point, that would be mentioned for you. In the FLUE -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, before we go too far, how were you expecting us to move through this today? Because we had gone through page by page the first meeting I was here, and the second meeting I assume you guys accomplished some of it that we had to finish up, and I thought then we'd be here today just to finish up those items that were new. Right? MR. BOSI: That is correct. Today's really those out -- there's a number of outstanding policies, just a handful, that we're here to discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we just --when you hit those sections, like you just said transportation, why don't you just take us to the page, and let's look at it now and get done with it. Does that work for you? MR. SCHMIDT: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That might be more expeditious. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Then if -- by preference then, if you'd like to simply start and go element by element, I'll help assist and walk you through them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, again, I think we already did that. Well, I guess what I need to know is, from the meeting that I was at in January, what do we need to look at in addition that we didn't cover in January? MR. BOSI: That's what we're going to do. Each -- we're going to go through this. There's a CIE, there's the Transportation Element, there's also one of the utilities where there's changes that haven't been discussed, and then the housing will be -- the housing and then also the final will be our -- the CCME -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: CCME. MR. BOSI: -- with the marina policies, those two policies we hadn't cleaned up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. And the Housing Element -- I knew the Housing Element and the CCME were outstanding. I didn't know there was additional others. MR. BOSI: The others are --Corby's just going to note. They're minor procedural changes, but they haven't been vetted with the full body, so we wanted to mention them to you before -- you know, before we get to consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Corby, why don't you just take us in order to the elements and point us out what the changes are, and we'll comment on them, and we'll go from there. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Let's first go to the Transportation Element then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SC1 MIDT: And I'd -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Corby, do you have an extra copy by any chance, because I don't seem to have the same version as Tom. I've got February 7th. MR. SCHMIDT: I've brought along the public view, which is on the table in the hall; otherwise, I don't have one myself. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. I'll just look on with Tom then. MR. SCHMIDT: Right. Page 3 of 46 16l2 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, does that mean you've not reviewed any of the March 1 st revisions that are going to be presented here today? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. It means I have not reviewed it. I had the February 7th. I thought that's what was on the schedule. MR. SCHMIDT: That should not be a problem, Mr. Chairman. All of the changes I'm going to be mentioning are small except for the FLUE where David Weeks will be addressing that specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does it occur that the County Attorney's Office, who really is critical in reviewing legality for these things, doesn't get in the loop on a draft? I mean, I'm just curious how that happens. I can't imagine anything going this far without that office having touched it as they should have. MR. BOSI: The EAR book that was reviewed on the -- on the -- our first meeting in January was fully reviewed by the county's attorney's office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: And as we've made modifications, I think that's where there's been maybe a couple policies that haven't been fully reviewed or vetted with Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I know that they've sent me copies of things as they've made some changes. I just don't know that I've reviewed them all. I thought -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you see anything that makes you uncomfortable today -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It might be my mistake. Maybe we do have a book up in the office, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Let's go to the Transportation Element. MR. SCHMIDT: And the element itself on the final page, Page 11, looking at Objective 13 and Policy 13. 1, and in the last statement on that page, which reads through other appropriate modifications, based upon the conclusion of the Master Mobility Plan, inserting there a date, based upon the conclusion of the November 2011 Master Mobility Plan. That helps indicate what phase and which version. I will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as the mobility plan moves through the process, the reference date -- the title of that plan will still always reference that November 2011 date? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: I'll direct you to the Housing Element next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's members of the public that have comments on specific elements as Corby brings them up, please raise your hand or get my attention so we can let you talk, okay. MR. SCHMIDT: And here, also in your cover memo, these new policies under Objective 1 in the Housing Element are already a part of the materials in front of you. In Policy 1. 1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and the 1.5, the reading of the policies were left incomplete previously so we could identify the agency that would be responsible for doing so or the direction given by the policies. So in this instance -- and I believe there's a supplement being handed out or perhaps one to be put over the overhead so you can see these, Policy 1 reading, by January 2014, the Department of Housing, Human, and Veteran Services shall establish a method of indexing the demand for very low, low, and moderate housing. In each case simply identifying which agency in the county is the responsible one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any question on the Housing Element changes? I have a couple. Let's take 1.1 as an example. So in the text on the revision that we have got in front of us, the latest one -- this one happened to be dated 2/21/12. It's in the -- it was in the binder. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 1.1 was -- the one was crossed through, and now it's Policy 1.6. So what this means is Policy 1.1 is only that text that's on the handout that was given to us this morning; is that correct? MS. MOSCA: That is correct. Michele Mosca, for the record. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's not on, Michele. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then Policy 1 -- okay. So all the other policies simply just move up or later in -- so we've actually increased the Housing Element by four, five or six policies. MS. MOSCA: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: I can see -- again, for the record, Michelle Mosca. Page 4 of 46 16 1!2 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're turned off again. MS. MOSCA: It's not on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you're on. I heard that the Republicans were here last night. And from what I -- and they mixed up all the mikes, so -- MS. MOSCA: Michele Mosca, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, that one works. MS. MOSCA: That's better. Thank you. The handout that I provided in yellow text, the policies are Policy 1.1 through 1.5, and I believe Corby just mentioned that. So the other policies within the element would drop down. So if you look at your March 1 binder, we would be up to one point -- let me look. We'd be up to 1.10. So we added the five additional policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And all this stuff is referring back to Objective 1? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Objective 1 -- MS. MOSCA: All the policies following Objective 1 would match up with the text within that objective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we've changed that objective to the following: The number of affordable /workforce housing units shall increase by at least 15 percent over the units to be built in Collier County per year not less than 1,000 units per year averaged over a five -year period. Why did we go from our previous recommendation of this board, if I'm not -- I mean, I'll try to find it. We were trying to maintain a balance of affordable housing at a certain rate, not constantly increase it whether we need it or not. So how is that objective rational? So whether we need these units or not, we're still going to increase affordable housing in this county by a certain percentage, but not less than a thousand averaged over a five -year period. Why, if we've got so much of it we're flooded with it now? MS. MOSCA: And probably -- I'm probably going to ask for Commissioner Schiffer's help. But this new methodology that was developed by the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, as well as housing staff, is intended to provide for a methodology that would follow the market rate. So it would be some sort of indexing, so when the market dictated a need for additional units, then those units would come online. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what this says. It says you're going to increase it by at least 15 percent per year. MS. MOSCA: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's been crossed out. MS. MOSCA: That's been struck through. If you look at your -- if you look at your summary page, the one that Corby actually had sent out, that is the memorandum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's not the one that came in the book? MS. MOSCA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's not -- is it the one that you passed out this morning? MS. MOSCA: It is. It's the same as. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sorry. You've flooded us with some new stuff, and I want to make sure I understand it, so -- MR. SCHMIDT: The version that is in your cover memo matches the handout from this morning, and that language is different than the shaded language that was read aloud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. And it took out that -- thank you. That works. MS. MOSCA: Right. The February 21 st memorandum, that actually identifies the outstanding issues both within the Housing Element as well as the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there's one question. On Policy 1.5, could you add that -- you're going to report to the Board of County Commissioners on the status of affordable housing within the county. Would you consider adding "per commission district "? Because the whole issue right now is saturation in specific districts of the county, and you don't know that unless the report's tailored to tell you what it is per commission district. We use all these planning communities, these TAZs and other arguments that don't match up to any of the lines that we normally see. Page 5 of 46 1612 , A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) MS. MOSCA: And that's fine. We certainly can add that. And that's what we actually did for the housing study back in 2010. We provided that information per commission district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And I stepped out of the room, but I believe that perhaps Corby Schmidt identified that we did add the Department of Housing and Human and Veteran Services to the policies under Objective 1, and that was provided in the handout. I just want to make sure that that was provided to you -all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michele, let me ask you why you did that, just -- MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry. Excuse me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As opposed to county manager or his designee, why did you focus on that particular agency? It is the one that will do it now, but -- MS. MOSCA: Right. Well, we identified the Housing and Human Services and Veteran Services Department because they handle all of the intake and they identify all of the programs relative to affordable housing. We could use the manager or designee. That's acceptable as well. We did need to identify a department name, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. But -- MS. MOSCA: I mean, if that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- because we change the names of some of these departments. mean, even this one's a new name. MS. MOSCA: Right. But it would fall on that department whether the name changes or not, and we would assist them if they needed any guidance with developing the methodology. Mr. Schiffer, did you want me to retain the housing department, or would you rather see -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, that's fine. I just asked you why. MS. MOSCA: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You gave me a good answer. It happens. MS. MOSCA: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Corby. Let's move on. MR. SCHMIDT: Well, simply, before we leave Housing Element, there were minor changes, I believe, also as part of the supplement sheet handed out in Objective 4, striking some previously added language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, there's other one too. If you go back to your initial memo, it does cover Objective 2, or are you just going -- are you going through the changes to the Housing Element or just the changes to the changes to the Housing Element? MR. SCHMIDT: Just those changes that are new today through supplements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And we will go back and discuss the memo in the beginning of the book in its entirety later. Never mind. MR. SCHMIDT: As you would wish to, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the first couple pages of that memo are just housing, so did you have any -- I mean, aren't those what we're talking about now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's what I was -- but Corby's saying is there were changes to the memo which do go through more items than just the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, the ones in yellow that Michele handed out this morning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. MOSCA: And, actually, those changed in yellow for Objective 1 do not go beyond what's within that memorandum except for that name, for the addition of the department name. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. MOSCA: But I do have one addition only because it was the directive of this Planning Commission at the January meeting in Objective 4 to remove the term "substandard," and that's on Page 4 of the Housing Element, if you want to review that, and it's also on the handout that I provided to you in yellow. Page 6 of 46 March 6 2012 Continued frollikatch 7,2012 nAia The recommendation from the Planning Commission was to remove the term "substandard" and add that far below the minimum housing standards. But subsequent to that January meeting, I looked in the Code of Laws, and I found the definition of substandard, and I put that on the visualizer. So staffs recommendation would be to retain the term "substandard," delete the "far below minimum housing standards "; that would be for consistency of implementing this policy and other policies that identify the term "substandard." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't hear any objection from this board. Okay. MS. MOSCA: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Then returning to the cover memo and sticking with the Housing Element -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Before you leave there. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. MS. MOSCA: I believe that was a recommendation from the housing staff, I'm thinking, from the January meeting. The term "workforce" is identified in statute, so I'm okay with leaving workforce in there. I'd actually prefer that workforce remain in the text simply because it is found in the statutory language. So we can go ahead and add that back in. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's taken out in a number of these policies, but not all of them. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Well, my recommendation as staff would be to insert them back in, if it's acceptable to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why were they taken out again? MS. MOSCA: It was a recommendation by the housing department. My understanding is they no longer use that term "workforce." They just refer to affordable housing as affordable housing with the various categories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is workforce affordable housing? MS. MOSCA: Workforce is affordable housing, yes, but it is a statutory term as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you didn't have it in but we just left the word "affordable," would it still include workforce housing? MS. MOSCA: Yes, it would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could anybody make an argument that it didn't because it was a separately used terminology in the statute? MS. MOSCA: I would have to defer to legal. I don't know. It is affordable, though. Workforce is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we're saying is affordable affordable then, instead of -- if workforce is affordable -- so we're saying affordable affordable housing? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we say affordable /workforce housing, we've designated a certain portion of the affordable housing category specifically meaning workforce; is that correct? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what happens is when we take it out, for example, in Objective 2, the county and its municipalities in achieving a goal of increasing a number of affordable /workforce housing units, what that means is we would be only designating the goal of the workforce portion of the affordable housing. So if you take workforce out, it then designates the goal of all affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MS. MOSCA: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's why it was taken out. COMMISSIONER VONIER: That's why it was taken out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, that's what I'm trying to understand. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Then in Policy 2.9 on the -- Page 3 at the top it references affordable /workforce housing density bonus ordinance. MR. SCHMIDT: And that I can explain as well. Whereas, when talking about affordable housing, workforce is a subset or a category of; the affordable /workforce housing density bonus and the ordinance it refers to is a title or a proper term inside the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that's a specific bonus for that category of affordable housing. MR. SCHMIDT: It is. Page 7 of 46 x.61 A 8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) MS. MOSCA: It is. MR. SCHMIDT: So as it's presented, it should be accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen, does that still give you any heartburn over it, or -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I guess not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- Karen, because one thing, if you look at Policy 1, it's not in there. And let me wait till -- and, Michele, the reason it's not in Policy 1 is the state requires us to review these three categories of affordable housing, correct? MS. MOSCA: Yes, the state -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Very low. MS. MOSCA: The state requires very low, low, and moderate. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What are you looking at, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at, like, Policy 1. 1, for example, or Objective 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the Objective 1. See where it was taken out? Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, in other words, we've never -- we're only doing what the state requires us to do. Now, when we had the housing crunch, when we had people -- workforce was a problem. Would you like to add that into the -- are we able to do that, or should we just meet the standard the state sets for us? In other words, if we want to start indexing workforce housing, which to me would be the smartest thing to do if we don't want to get ourselves in the condition we had before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean by indexing workforce housing? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, in Policy 1, Objective 1, all the policies, we're only doing very low, low, and moderate. And I think workforce is one notch above moderate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's -- I guess the first question, is that true, you know? MS. MOSCA: I actually -- I had pulled the definition of workforce, and within statutory guidelines, we are to provide for workforce as well. So let me put that on the visualizer. Let me see if I have two copies. Well, let me read it into the record first. Affordable /workforce housing means housing that is affordable to a person who earns less than 120 percent of the area median income or less than 140 percent of the area median income if located in a county in which the median purchase price for a single - family existing home exceeds the statewide median purchase price of a single - family existing home. So based on the statutory requirement, we are to provide for workforce category as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michele, let me -- questions. Remember you -- at some of the meetings we had the state statute. It had four categories. We dropped the lowest one. MS. MOSCA: The extremely low, which is the 30 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But I don't remember this one. It wasn't required in that paperwork. MS. MOSCA: No, it wasn't, and I believe that may have been a requirement of House Bill 7207. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So then -- anyway, so the good thing is if we add it through Objective 1, Karen's happy because now we're keeping an eye on it, we're tracking it, and we're discussing how to solve a problem if a shortage develops, and you say we may have to do that anyway, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think your first question was never answered. How many categories of affordable housing are there and what are they called? Why don't we start there. MS. MOSCA: Right. The present statute --and I have to --and if you'll give me just a moment to look through House Bill 7207, because that's been incorporated into statute. The three categories that we have to provide for is the very low income, low income, and moderate income. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that wasn't my question. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Repeat it again then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many categories are there in the affordable housing statute? How many specific categories of affordable housing are there? MS. MOSCA: There's actually several. I'll have to pull that, if you'll give me a few minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I'm trying to figure out what it is we're not including that we may want to Page 8 of 46 1612 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) consider including if something has been selectively excluded because the particular name of it is not written on these documents. MR. BOSI: And from what I've heard is they've eliminated the extremely low. And right now we have very low, low, and moderate housing. And I think Brad's suggestion is if we add workforce housing to that list, we've got a gamut of four categories that we'll be trying to track and index and be able to make sure that that workforce is part of that indexing process. And I think then your question is, are we in line with the statutes in terms of all the categories that we need to monitor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like to know how many categories there are. If there's seven or six and we've only picked three, maybe there's others we ought to consider looking at that would be better for Collier County. I mean, I'm not sure how that was looked at. MS. MOSCA: Commissioner Strain, could we just comeback to that. Let's move ahead, and let me just look through House Bill 7207. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie's indicating she wants to contribute. MS. STUDENT- STIRLING: For the record, Margie Student- Sterling representing Habitat for Humanity of Collier County. I've done a bit of research on this point. And in the new definition section, there's a definition of extremely low. So there would be extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and then workforce in the other statutory section that was alluded to by Michele. Now, there is a glitch that I've drawn the DEO, formerly DCA's attention to, because there's still a provision in the statute that talks about providing for very low, low, and moderate, and extremely low has been left out of it. And I think it was a glitch in the statute. And I want to point out, the definition of affordable housing in the new definition sections refers to another statutory section. I don't recall it off the top of my head, but that's where you have the four categories of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate. And as I said, I've drawn this to the attention of the housing person at the Department of Economic Opportunity and the planning division so they know that there's a glitch and it needs to be addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you've identified then five types of affordable housing. MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: Yes. That would be the workforce. It would be extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and workforce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand. I just wanted to make sure. So, Michele, there's an indication there's five. You may have indicated more than that. So while we go on with the rest of this, maybe we can circle back to this after you've had time to check on to. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's -- we'll get back to Ms. Homiak's concern on workforce and how we should word it once Michele gets back to us on what the other standards are. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And one other -- in Policy 1.3, why do you -- why are you just predicting future shortages and not increases? MR. BOSI: And I guess that what you're saying is there's a conclusion that's being drawn -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. MR. BOSI: -- assumed to be drawn. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You may have an increase in -- like now. MR. BOSI: And if the indexes and -- if the index would show that we've had an increase, then I think -- then we would have an appropriate reaction. And I guess --so you want to kind of --you want to just --you want the policy to not predict that it's going to be somewhat neutral in terms of the language that we utilize? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, change the word "shortage" to "need." MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe that works. Then if you predict a future need and there's no prediction that one's needed, you haven't got to deal with it then. MR. BOSI: I agree. Page 9 of 46 161 2 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think "needs" fills it in. Okay. Well, let's move on till we can get back to Michele. Anything else, Corby, in this section, from this board? MR. SCHMIDT: What remains from your cover memo with Objective 2 and Objective 8. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have a question on 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's the last line where -- the assistance of for -profit and not - for -profit providers of affordable housing within the county and its municipalities. Does that mean that they're providing housing or their offices located, or is that even worth worrying about? In other words, are we referring to people who are -- could live outside the county yet they're providing housing within the county? I mean, is there anything that would -- MR. SCHMIDT: Well, it would certainly seem that we're talking about the providers within the county, the municipality, not simply those providers inside the county who provide housing inside the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: It's not both. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it could be a firm from Atlanta that's providing housing, and you're happy with that? Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: With Housing Element, that is it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the -- further on the Housing Element? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective 8 -- I'm trying to see if you changed it in the recent handout, but it doesn't look like you did. MR. SC1 MIDT: It was not changed further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In Objective 8 on the previous handout crossed out the reference to Immokalee Urban Area Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District within the RLSA. Why did you cross that out? MS. MOSCA: I'll answer that so Corby doesn't have to. The reason why we did that is because the process for awarding funds, grants, is a competitive process. And the policies under Objective 8 refer to other areas in addition to the rural fringe Immokalee and the RLSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the 50 rehabilitated or new residential units per year, does that go back to the concern that we've had that we readdressed in Objective 1 about maintaining a -- maintaining an inventory but not demanding we keep creating things that we already have standing inventory for? How does that theory -- or how does that mindset fit in Objective 8? MS. MOSCA: My understanding from discussions with the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, housing staff, and Habitat staff as well as some other not - for -profit providers of affordable housing is that they can meet that 50 unit per year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm not -- MS. MOSCA: So it wasn't an issue with whether or not -- go ahead. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not concerned with what they can meet. I'm concerned with why do we need to insist it has to be created if it's already -- we already have an inventory of more than we can need. I just visited a house this morning, for example, that's on our inventory, and over the last month or two, since I went there last, it was -- it's been broken into, I mean, or at least parts of it, the outside parts have been stolen because it's empty. We've got empty inventory all over the county. So why would we want to insist on a policy -- and correct me if this doesn't do this -- that requires somebody just to keep creating 50 more a year whether we need them or not. I mean, I just don't -- I don't understand what the government's objective is there. And if we don't need them, why don't we go back to like we did in Objective 1, position it so that we worked towards a standing inventory or a need, and then we maintain that instead of just creating this false ceiling that we build up and build up Page 10 of 46 1612 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) during times like we have right now. MS. MOSCA: And maybe, Commissioner Schiffer, you might want to add to the conversation, because I know it was discussed during the affordable housing advisory committee meeting about retaining that 50 -unit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And to be honest, I think the reason we retained it is we really didn't know how else to deal with it. I mean, that's kind of how it came about in the first place. I mean, I kind of agree with Mark, we have no idea whether that 50 means anything. We don't track it. We're not sure whether that's even happening. MR. BOSI: Well, based upon the discussions that we've had, and kind of sort of the point that Ms. Homiak had made, if you would modify that objective to say to provide a minimum number of rehabilitated or new residential units per year for low -- low and moderate income residents based upon need, you would eliminate a specific number -- and the nonprofit providers that are -- have every intention, I think, to continue to do the work, will continue to do the work that's based upon the need as they identify. And we're out of a quantifiable number that isn't always maybe reflective upon what the demand side of it or the supply side of it is, and it is as flexible towards the needs of the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Mike, I think what happened, once you scratched out the fact that this was a focused housing -- you know, these 50 units are in the Immokalee -- the farmworker area -- it essentially is a subset of Objective 1. In other words, we will include Immokalee in Objective 1. So we would know whether there's a shortage, and I guess in this case it would be a shortage due to the needs of the farmworkers. So it essentially is covered in 1. MR. BOSI: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The intent of 8 was to focus a special need in a special area. Once you scratched out the special area, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense just having the special need. MR. BOSI: Based upon -- based upon that, I mean -- so what the discussion would be -- and hopefully we'll hear from -- on the other side, but Objective 8 you're saying doesn't have a lot of value to us then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, that's a good point. No, I mean, that's -- if you've got Objective 1 meeting all issues, why do you need Objective 8? I think Brad's brought up a really good point. MR. BOSI: Especially if Objective 8 was specifically to target those geographic areas and we're eliminating those geographic areas, there may -- there may be some wisdom to looking at Objective 8 and its policies to see, should we retain them. I'd like to hear from Michele. MS. MOSCA: Commissioner Strain -- I had contacted Frank Ramsey, so he's on his way. If we could move on to another element -- and I apologize to ask you to move on -- but I'd like for Frank to have the opportunity to discuss why the housing staff had recommended what they did within this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, interestingly enough, the objective -- the policies that follow Objective 8 are in line with where Brad was going that they refer repeatedly to the Immokalee Urban Area. In fact, in some cases that's been added as a specific. So, yeah, you may want to look at that whole objective in regards to this issue. MS. MOSCA: And, you know, we have looked at that previously. And, actually, 8.5, which isn't in this particular document -- it was just renumbered -- just refers to farmworker housing. So it's not per geographic area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but Policy 8.1 is specific within the Immokalee Urban Area. MS. MOSCA: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 8.2 is deficiencies identified in the 2004 Immokalee Urban Area. So some are very specific to what -- MS. MOSCA: They are, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOSL• So that would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I guess we need to rethink this policy. MR. BOSI: So that would lead us to believe that there is value within eight. And if you're -- if you feel that the specific number of 50 has a problem and you just want it need based, you could make the adjustment as suggested based upon need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad's point was, if you take the references to those three specific areas out, Page 11 of 46 161 2 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) then it's no different than Objective 1. So if you're trying to focus on a specific area but it's already covered in Objective 1, what is the purpose of leaving Objective 8 in? MR. BOSI: I would say, I mean -- and Objective 1 doesn't really talk about rehab. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. MR. BOSI: It talks about new units. And the rehab effort is really, I think, where the most value, especially within this market, would contain in terms of, you know, providing for -- addressing already existing inventory and making that existing inventory usable within the system to these individual categories, I think, is something that's -- is a strategy we want to pursue over the creation of new units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Objective 1 doesn't exclude rehab. If you notice, what happens is, once the index is working, we have to come up with strategies to obtain this housing. Rehab would certainly be one of those strategies. MS. MOSCA: But Objective 8 also refers to specific funding sources. I mean, we could go back and forth. Again, why don't -- if this commission doesn't object if we wait until Mr. Ramsey -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. MS. MOSCA: -- is present, we can discuss that in more detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on. Does that move us out of the Housing Element and into another one? MR. SCHMIDT: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go there. MR. SCHMIDT: That brings us to the CCME. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe the changes in the CCME left are the ones on the handout. MR. SCHMIDT: They are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Michele, there's no new handout for those; it's the one we were given recently, right? MS. MOSCA: I provided a handout this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so that affects this one, too? MS. MOSCA: It does. There are two outstanding policies, 10. 1.6 and 10.1.7, and that's identified in the memorandum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go too far, you said you handed something out this morning that had new language for -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The second page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I just want to make sure I'm on the same page. I've got -- MS. MOSCA: I provided two sheets. They were paper clipped together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. Does that have a reference to -- I mean, I can't see 10 on it. Maybe it's on the back. MS. MOSCA: It should be in the header. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I see the reference in the header, CCME, but you started out by talking about a policy ten point -- MS. MOSCA: Well, I thought we were referring -- I know it gets confusing. We're referring to the memorandum versus the element itself in the addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: So however you'd like to proceed, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'd try to -- I'm trying to pursue this in a manner that's easily understandable, but I can see that's not going to get there today. MS. MOSCA: I think there's still hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm trying. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, if you wouldn't mind, if we could just go to the memorandum. The handout that I provided to you, those are minor changes that didn't make their way back into the document as of the January hearing. All of those items were discussed previously. Page 12 of 46 1bl 2 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) So what I'd like to do is focus on the memorandum if possible, and that would be Policy 6. 1.1 that deals with the changes as a result of the coastal high hazard line as well as the two outstanding policies from our last meeting when we discussed Policy 10. 1.5 and 10.1.6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Six point -- Policy 6. 1, if you want to refer to it in your actual document that was handed out in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element -- and I'll refer to the page. That's on Page 11 of the document. And this is to address properties that were in the coastal high hazard area previously, but as a result of the change to move that line, there's now properties that fall outside or are now within that those preservation standards in the CCME would not apply to. And, again, that's identified in your memorandum. And then Policy 10. 1.5 and 10.1.6, those are specific to new marinas as well as water - dependent and water - related uses and the destruction of wetlands. Staff has proposed to delete those two policies. And I know the Conservancy had provided an email to the Planning Commission last night, I believe, or late yesterday afternoon where they may want to address those policies. But staff, at this point, we're recommending the deletion of the two policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I find -- MS. MOSCA: And Stephen Lenberger had provided the justification, and that's within that memorandum as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm a little surprised, after last Thursday's lengthy meeting, that you would want to take these out now. I mean, prior to the meeting it might have been a different mindset. We didn't realize how clearly these could provide. But the fact that we can enforce standards more strict than what are done by state and federal law I think is advantageous to Collier County. We've done it in the past. If we continue to do it, I think we're better off. We've got a county that's far better than the other examples of the other counties that we use to try to model ourselves after. They should be modeling after us. MS. MOSCA: And if that's the directive of the Planning Commission as well as the board, then what that would require are future Land Development Code amendments so that we could define the term "destruction" or -- whether it be defining the term "destruction" or looking at impacts or other things to the wetlands as well as defining public use. What is intended by public use. So it was really a question of, one, administering the policy -- it was very difficult for staff to administer -- as well as deferring to the state for their wetland policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think to fix the administrative ability of this policy is better than eliminating the policy, with the exception of 10.1.6. 10.1.6 refers to a fiscal analysis. Those are useless. They basically are -- they come out to whatever the economist is hired by. So if you hire an economist to tell you it's going to be beneficial, he's going to say it's beneficial. And if you look at it closely, you'll find there's arbitrary language and numbers and things used. So I think that's a waste of time and money and it's pushing people into spending money on things they don't need. But I do like a reference I saw in one of the other documents. Instead of a fiscal analysis, a needs analysis because that was relevant to last Thursday. There was testimony saying there's no need to have additional docks. Now, I'm not saying I buy into that argument, but I would have loved to have seen the backup for that, okay. If there's all these docks that are available in Collier County at these marinas and all these places, fine. What are they? What's the inventory? Is there a need? So instead of a fiscal analysis, the only change to 10. 1.6 might be to put a needs analysis in order to demonstrate the public benefit and feasibility of the proposed development. Drop the word "financial" and "fiscal." That might be one suggestion. And I'm certainly looking to the rest of you -all here to combine. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my comment on it is, why would they have that in there to begin with? I mean, there's -- at one time were we having a problem where people would go in, destroy wetlands, and then the project collapsed because it wasn't fiscally sound? Because that's the only thing that would prevent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think this is for the public. Open it up to the public, I think. MR. LENBERGER: For the record -- is this mike working? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, you're on. Page 13 of 46 161 2 18 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, land development services department. We have not applied this policy because there is no destruction of mangroves. We went through this lengthy discussion at the last meeting, if you remember correctly, that the mangroves are mitigated; therefore, there's no net loss of wetland function; therefore, there's no destruction of mangroves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says marine wetlands. So you're saying the only marine wetland is mangroves? I mean, what about seagrasses? MR. LENBERGER: All marine wetlands, sure. They all have to be mitigated. You have to avoid impacts to marine wetlands, and you have to mitigate for their loss and wetland function. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if they didn't, they would have to then abide by Policy 10.1.6, correct? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sure is incentive to mitigate properly. MR. LENBERGER: I can't hear you, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sure is an incentive to mitigate properly. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I don't see why we would want to remove it under those circumstances. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if you have a problem administrating it, I think we need to write better implementation language in the LDC. In fact, after last week, I think we definitely need to write better language in the LDC. I think that would be good for everybody. MR. BOSL• 10.1.6, specifically, the only reference -- the only thing it's asking for is the public benefit analysis and the financial feasibility analysis. You've opined that you feel that the financial feasibility doesn't provide us with any value and you'd like to see modifications, and a needs analysis? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, last week, Mike, and the big -- one of the -- most repeatedly brought up by the public is that they didn't think we needed more slips. Well, that's fine. But if we had a needs analysis as a requirement or at least as a -- something that was going to be needed if they did certain things, that whole issue could have been -- testimony could have been put on there factually. I don't know if we have enough slips out there. I mean, I have no idea. So we don't know. I mean, I think that may not be a bad thing to leave in. If they do get into a point where they need to destroy any marine wetlands and they're not going to mitigate them, well, then they do a needs analysis to show us why. MR. LENBERGER: Well, they're going to have to mitigate through state permitting because of the ERP process. And as far as a needs analysis, if they have residents who need the docks and don't have docks now available to them, then they've demonstrated that there is a need. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, a private need. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. I don't -- I prefer it staying in. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think that the sentence or paragraph is a little bit difficult, because from what we're hearing from staff is that if you destroy the marine wetlands the state and federal agencies are going to require you to mitigate, and staff is telling you that if there's mitigation, then this section doesn't apply is how I'm hearing it. And I don't know that that's what it says, because it doesn't talk about if you mitigate then, you know, it's not required to be for general public use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, why -- this is -- do you think this was written prior to the mitigation requirements? MR. LENBERGER: These policies have been in place, as far as I know, since the original Comp Plan was adopted in 1989, and the ERP process came about later. It's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it really makes me wonder what they -- you know, the legacy of this. What were they trying to protect us from? If there wasn't a mitigation policy, maybe they would have thought differently. But, obviously, what they're saying is that, you know, you have to -- and the one prior to this really sets Page 14 of 46 161 Z A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) that point is you don't destroy these areas unless it is for the public good, public benefit, and then the financial feasibility, somewhere in there they had to be having trouble where people would go in and they couldn't afford to complete it and really mess up the area. So somehow what this is saying is you can only do it for the public good and you have to prove to us that you're able to pull it off, right? MR. LENBERGER: They could produce a financial feasibility that shows they have the resources to construct it, but there's no insurance that, you know, their financial backing will remain stable or it's subjective to economic conditions. You know, so there's -- it's not going to give the insurance you'd need. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's, you know, the staff reviewing that feasibility. I mean, I don't think the feasibility study is to see whether they can rent the boat slips. I think it's to see that if you're going to go in and destroy this natural wetland, you better do it for the benefit of the public and you better make sure you can complete what you start. That's what it means to me anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think last Thursday is a really good example. The state gave them permission to put that access -- well, actually the terminal platform in, but they didn't call it that, which was kind of nice for the state to decide -- up against the seagrass beds within four or five feet, increase the width and shading by the boats being moored against it and the dock boxes being on the back side of it, yet we had the opportunity not to do that because we have Policy 13.1.2,1 think it is, that we can be more stringent. This policy also would have worked in the case had they -- they actually are destroying, based on our code, that closeness in proximity to seagrasses and the report's written in the Coastal Zone Management plan as well as the Fran Stallings report seemed to indicate that that kind of shading was going to destroy that seagrass bed. Well, that gave -- this kind of a policy gives us the latitude to push the envelope, to push them away from things like that. And that's another one that would have been -- was relied upon and actually to come up with a solution to last Thursday's outcome. So I don't see the need to dismiss it. I think we just change the fiscal and financial part. Instead of the word "fiscal," put "needs analysis," drop the word "financial," and if someone wants to destroy seagrasses, they better have a really good reason to do it. And this would enforce that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't see the need to drop it. MR. LENBERGER: But these policies deal with public use. They talk about destruction of mangroves. Are you talking about any impacts -- it doesn't say you can't impact these resources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says "public benefit," by the way, not "use." MR. LENBERGER: Well, it says you can't write a public -- well, it has general public use in Policy 10.1.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at -- MR. LENBERGER: Public benefit in 10.1.6. It talks about destruction of mangroves, and they're going to mitigate with the state. So this policy doesn't say you can't impact any wetland resources, marine wetlands. It just says if you do you have to provide public benefit or public use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: And public benefit, in the narrative I gave you, talks about the state criteria, how you have to be clearly in the public interest in your OFW or you have to be non - contrary to the public interest or the test. So, you know, you are demonstrating that you're meeting their criteria. But you know, general public use, what exactly do you want, you know? And also, general public use of a private facility, you know, you look at the definition of marina in the Land Development Code, it includes a broad category, you know, all marina facilities that you typically envision; it also includes multifamily dock facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying it'd be hard to do? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and that's good, because you know what that means is then they wouldn't trigger it. So I think it's another hammer that we can use to say, if you trigger and destroy functioning marine wetlands, you've got to provide public use. Guess what? There are going to be a whole bunch of private people out there not wanting to trigger that public use action, and they're going to avoid it then. There's nothing wrong with that. MR. LENBERGER: Well, then any dock which crosses any mangroves -- and we're talking about Page 15 of 46 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) destruction of mangroves. What you're saying is impacts to mangroves or other marine resources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll use the word "destroy" then. Let's just substitute my word "impacts" to "destroy," fine. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. So use impact? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, destroy. If they destroy and they don't mitigate -- MR. LENBERGER: Well, they have to mitigate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they didn't mitigate in the seagrass issue last Thursday. The state gave permits; so did the Corps. MR. LENBERGER: I don't know the particulars of that permit. I don't know what mitigation was required, if any. I'd have to look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: God, after nine hours -- were you here? MR. LENBERGER: No, I was not here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're lucky. MR. LENBERGER: But Tim Hall possibly could answer those questions as far as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. He was the person that was arguing in the other side, so I'm sure he would love to answer those questions. MR. LENBERGER: Well, he should be very familiar with the permit conditions since he handled the permit, as far as I understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we could talk permit, but I don't think he's going to feel that comfortable when we get into the details. MR. LENBERGER: But the point is is that they mitigate for impacts and they minimize the impacts. So they're not destroying wetlands. They're mitigating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the thing. Read what this says. We're talking about to destroy a viable naturally functioning marine wetland. We're not talking about a mangrove plant. So the point is, what this says is if you're going to destroy a viable naturally functioning marine wetland, essentially, don't ever do that, but if you do, you have to -- you have to be held to an extremely high standard, and it has to be for the public benefit. So, you know, it's not a little guy in his backyard with a mangrove plant and he wants to run, you know, a dock across it. That's not going to destroy a naturally viable wetland. So, you know, you may be trying to bend this, you know, into the wrong area. It's pretty clear what this is. If you're going to build a new marina and you're going in and you're carving out and destroying a viable wetland community, you better be doing it for the public good, public benefit. So, you know, I mean, that's -- it's not -- I mean, I don't know how you would mitigate, you know, a wetland -- a viable functioning marine wetland. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, an example of a complete destruction, the place across the street from the docks we discussed on Thursday -- across the waterway, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the name of that? Surf Colony. They were a mangrove island. They dug a channel to put boats in. They filled it, killed all the mangroves, and put high -rise in. Now, they'd have a hard time doing it with Policy 10.1.6, and they'd probably have a hard time doing it with agencies today. But I like the extra impact we have by leaving some of this language in our code. I don't know why we would want to take it out. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I agree. MR. LENBERGER: And we're talking about complete destruction. And I understand what you're talking about, totally obliterating all the mangroves. But that, most likely, would not be permitted today. The mitigation standards would be extremely high. And one product I saw, at least at a proposal stage, was to dig a basin in an upland area so they wouldn't be impacting the marine resources. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But, Steve, this section doesn't talk about mitigation. It just talks about marine wetlands. So you're reading in that if you destroy it and you mitigate it, this section doesn't apply, and I don't know that that's what this section says. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'd like to leave it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, we can probably beat this to death for another hour, but what -- Page 16 of 46 e, 6I 2 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued rom the March 1, 2012 meeting) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but here's the thing. Steve's saying there's no way he can do what we're describing anyway, so how could this probably be hurting anything? MR. LENBERGER: I'm having a difficult time hearing you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you said is there's no way you could do what we're describing anyway. And I think Mark's right; think back in that time, they're building bulkheaded sites. Look at that, the site that Aqua was ultimately built on. These are things that are happening in their community when they're writing these things, and they put a stop to it with these clauses. So before we open up these gates, we better make sure we understand why they were locked in the first place. And if you're saying that they can't do what we're describing by destroying, you know, this huge marine wetland, then how could this clause being there hurt anything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You've also said that staffs ignoring it anyway in the beginning. They're not fulfilling it. So I mean, I think you are because I think the level that this was written for is not the level that you're talking about it. This is for some brutal site work that happened in the past when this was being written. MR. LENBERGER: And that's the clarification we need. You're talking about complete destruction where you totally remove the system as opposed to building a boardwalk or an access walkway for a dock. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it doesn't say you can't build a board -- it says destroy -- proposed to destroy a viable natural functioning marine wetlands. That dock going -- that access dock didn't destroy any of the mangrove wetland functions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just put out a boardwalk over the top of them, just like Corkscrew's got and other places where they've got other pristine -- but I have to think that in 1998 the Dunes property was platted to put in more fingers than canals and seawalls and bulldoze the mangrove, just like Surf Colony's. In 1998, they already had in their hands a zoning re- evaluation approval from, I think it was, Ken McGinsky or somebody at the time saying that this property can have that density and those things done to it. So while you may think it can't happen today, if it ever by chance had to for some grandfathering issue or somebody that didn't vacate a plat and we still had that sitting on the books, I'd love to have this policy to hit them with. And I think it should say in, and I -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: I agree. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- I agree with you. I think sometimes staff relies too much on the state and federal where they just say we don't need to do anything because it's supposedly covered. I would rather leave it in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen, do you have -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And you're going to change the wording -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're leaving Policy -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Take out -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I would -- and that's, I guess, where we need to be. Let's look at Policy 10.1.5. Does anybody have any need to take that out or leave it in -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- leave it back in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: And, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SCHMIDT: -- for clarification, are we looking at the shaded version now in the element itself? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at the handout that somebody now told us to refer to. MR. BOSI: We know where you're at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the handout, Policy 10. 1.5 is completely crossed out. I think we're Page 17 of 46 1612 A Q March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) suggesting as a board don't cross it out. In Policy 10. 1.6 it's completely crossed out. I think we're saying as a board don't cross it out. And I want to ask the board, additionally, if they would mind suggesting to change the words "fiscal" to "needs" and drop the word "financial" in the last line, and that puts the onus into a different kind of analysis rather than an financial analysis, which I understand is going to be difficult to do. And, yes, and, Tim and Donna, we're going to be getting to you guys in just a minute. But I want to -- first, is that -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Mark, or you could say -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Needs is correct. COMMISSIONER VONIER: -- or demonstrate both need and public benefit, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would be easier just to change that one word to "needs" and drop the "financial," rather than reword it. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, either way it says the same thing, I think. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah, it does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm still worried. Why would -- you know, I think people back when this was written knew what the word "financial" and "financial feasibility" meant. Why did they have that in there? What were they worried about? What was happening that made them write that down? MR. BOSI: I think you probably have identified it. I think you've already identified it, to make sure that there is some sort of assurety they had the financial wherewithal to carry the project through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. So why do I find that comfortable to have? I mean, granted, you could take out a financial thing, but the point is that means that you could look to an applicant's financial ability with that clause in there to do what this is doing. I mean, this is a really nasty thing that's going to have to happen here, and I'm going to make sure that the people are -- MR. BOSI: They would simply just submit their pro forma. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was just going to say, it's different -- there's two references here. The second line where it says functioning marine wetlands shall be required to perform a fiscal analysis in order to demonstrate the public benefit. Now, that one, I think, needs to have the needs analysis, not fiscal. But I think what you're referring to, Brad, is saying -- and then it says, and financial feasibility of proposed project. So what you'd be suggesting is leave the word "financial" in on the second reference, because that's relevant to the pro forma that you're talking about, Mike, and the second line, dropping the word "fiscal" and putting in "needs" changes the type of analysis needed for a public benefit rather than a fiscal analysis for public benefit, because I think a fiscal analysis for public benefit just is worthless. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. So the only thing we're proposing is you kill the word "fiscal" in front of the word "analysis." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just put "need." COMMISSIONER EBERT: "Need." MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then to leave the policies intact, and I think Steve needs to strike up the band to get LDC language that he's more comfortable with. And I certainly would be in favor of that, so -- after last Thursday, I think we need it. So I thank you for pointing all this out, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been a big help. Good discussion. And we need to have two other speakers. And, Tim -- well, let Donna come up first if she wants to speak, or shake your head no if you don't want to. You change your mind if you don't like it -- I mean, you could change our mind. We'll have to see, Donna. MS. CARON: Donna Reed Caron, for the record. No, I don't want to snatch a win here; however, I would just like to say as far as the financial feasibility is Page 18 of 46 16 1`2 A 8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) concerned, I think that's an important consideration. It would seem to me that if you're going to grant somebody the right to destroy a wetland, a naturally functioning wetland, then you want to make darn well sure that they're going to be able to carry through with the entire project and not let it drop the ball midstream because they don't have the money to do it or whatever. So I think that the financial feasibility is probably a good thing. Chances of it coming up are not going to be great, but having it in there as a safety measure for the county is good. And I'd just like to say I think it's really important and I'm glad you are keeping this policy in, because I think it is incredibly important for us to take control of our own destiny. We cannot rely on the state or the feds to do it for us. We must take control. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Donna. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: As far as the financial feasibility goes, I think that that has to be focused on the sustainability of the project, because just completing a project and then having it not used and then later abandoned is probably just as bad as eliminating the mangroves and not completing the project. So when I think they're talking about financial feasibility, I think that they're worried about the sustainability of the entire project, because an abandoned project is just as cumbersome and just as negative of an impact as one that's incomplete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Agreed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Tim, did you still want to jump on -- MR. HALL: I can go after -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're done with -- if you've got anything on the -- MR. HALL: You have another -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Jeremy. Come on up, Jeremy. MR. FRENTZ: Jeremy Frentz representing the Conservancy of Southwest. I'll just echo the last statements. I think this is a good opportunity for the county to strengthen state policies, and I just would like to make sure that along with that -- along with keeping these policies, we are making the recommendation that whatever LDC policies need to be created to be make sure that there is enough criteria for them to actually be implemented, that that is happening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the indication we provided to staff. It may take a while, but we'll get there. Thank you. MR. HALL: Good morning. For the record, Tim Hall. I had talked to the Marine Industries Association about these policies, and they asked me while I was here to speak on their behalf and just to let you know that they're supportive of the staffs position to go ahead and eliminate those. I do want to say that one of the scenarios that you guys were talking about there, if you have a residential project that was going to come in and take out the mangroves, like the development on the other side did, this policy wouldn't apply to them because it's only for marinas and water - dependent uses, and residential doesn't fit under that, so this policy wouldn't even apply to a project like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they could have applied to put a marina in the waterway. MR. HALL: It would apply to the marina -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HALL: -- but not to the actual destruction associated with any of the residential areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. MR. HALL: If the intent is to leave these policies in, then I kind of went through -- and 10.1.5,1 don't have any problems with the first sentence. I mean, I think that should happen. Any marina, water- dependent, water - related uses needs to conform to applicable regulations. That's, you know, I think common sense. The second sentence, I'd like to clarify whether that also is talking about marine wetlands or wetlands in Page 19 of 46 March 6, 2012 (Continuel6thi lh 1, 20JUIting) general. There's different terms. 10. 1.5 talks about wetlands, 10. 1.6 talks about marine wetlands, and they are different. I'd also like to define -- better define marina. In the Manatee Protection Plan that the county has, marinas are basically commercial facilities, the yacht clubs. The county definition of marinas talks about -- actually, I wrote it down because I knew I wouldn't remember it. A boating facility on navigable water frontage providing all or any combination of the following. We always interpreted that to be a combination meaning it had to be more than one. County staff in the past had said if it has any one of those, then it can qualify as a marina. And that's how the multifamily residential projects, they have boat slips or dockage, so they're counted as a marina even though they don't supply or offer any of the other things that you would normally associate with a commercial facility or a yacht club. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying when it says here "all or any combination of the following" -- MR. HALL: That it should be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that it's been now interpreted to be a stand alone? So if you have a small boat launching facility, you're a marina whether you have fuel supplies, bait, or anything else there? MR. HALL: Correct. Or if you have boat slips alone, you're a marina even if you don't offer any of the other facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did we get there? I mean, if it says "all or any combination," do you have an example of where this was -- do you have anything to tell -- when was this done? MR. HALL: How about last Thursday, the Dunes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a multifamily docking facility. It wasn't a marina. MR. HALL: No, it's a marina. It's classified as a marina. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't even pick that up, and I read everything. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think so either. I saw it as a multifamily docking facility. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It falls under the section that deals with marina in the LDC, because it says, like, multi slip and marinas, so it does fall under a section that is entitled "marina," but it -- I don't believe it falls under the definition of marina, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if that's -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- as Tim's represented, it's only one and not more than one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that was considered a marina, we need to have another hearing on it, because that would certainly affect my vote. I didn't see -- I saw that as a multifamily docking facility, because that was repeatedly the way it was addressed. You did not supply other facilities, you did not supply marine bait and fish and all the other stuff. You basically were docks for residential uplands, and I didn't see how that classified as a marina. MR. HALL: I can go back -- I'm sorry I don't have that kind of information with me right now. But in past -- and I think, Steve, can you clarify? There have been other multifamily facilities that have been designated as marinas when they go through the review with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, that would have been a different level of scrutiny last Thursday, probably a more intense one. So had you been -- I thought you were better off being classified a multifamily docking facility than a marina. But if you want to be a marina, maybe we can bring it back. MR. HALL: No. I am not saying I want to. I'm saying that from my standpoint, I don't think that we should -- that the standard should be the same for a multifamily as it is for a commercial marina. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't believe it is, from my interpretation of what I've read. MR. HALL: But when you get to these policies it doesn't really matter because it talks about marinas or all other water - dependent and water - related uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HALL: And that then means any single - family dock, any observation platform, any boardwalk that goes through those areas. It, I think, expands the scope more than what may have been intended here because other portions of your code -- if you're talking about docks, a residential dock project or a single - family dock project, which is a water - dependent use, they're not allowed to provide for general public use. They're -- those facilities are accessory to the residential, and they're not allowed to let other people come in Page 20 of 46 1612 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) to use them. So you get into a situation where you could be requiring them to do something in one portion of the code that's not allowed in another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, with staffs earlier testimony or comments, I think what they indicated was that these policies really aren't -- haven't been needed that much because the state already covers the destruction through mitigation, and mitigation offsets that destruction. So I'm not sure, by leaving this in, what it hurts, especially as a -- like I said, a tool to make sure no one does this to an extent that is undesirable. MR. HALL: And if that's the -- if that's the standard that's defined that if mitigation is -- that's how that's in -- there are people in the public that will say, if you cut down one mangrove tree, that's destruction of marine wetland. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but Tim, look at last week as an example. The state allowed the crossing of the seagrass beds with a graded spacing, and there was virtually no concern on their part, or at least it seemed, from the potential destruction of the seagrasses with the shading effect from what was being built three or four or five feet away from the seagrass beds, in some places even closer. We had the ability through our codes to come back and say it is going to have an impact, and everything we read -- I know you may not agree with this -- showed that the impact may be negative. I think those are -- these are valuable tools to have in case those circumstances come up again on some other project. So I'm not sure they're hurting anything since they've been very rarely used, from what I understand. And until we get better implementation language placed, which I'm sure we'll be working on, I don't know why we'd want to take them out. MR. HALL: Well -- and, again, I would back the staff if you do, but if not I'm offering suggestions on how I think that they could be better understood, anyway, from the general. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, you could do that better in the implementation language. You'll be more specific than you can on the GMP policies. And that may be where to leave this in collectively and then address everything in implementation. If you think there's a difference between marinas and multifamily docking facilities and how this should apply, then that's the place to be effective to get it done. MR. HALL: Well -- or opening, I mean, to any water- dependent or water - related, you know, use. I think that's -- that encompasses a lot more than may be intended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, you come in a lot, you and Rocky; I don't see you guys ever having -- finding less things to do because of these two policies, and that mere fact in itself means that everybody's doing something to avoid this kind of destruction. So if it's these policies that's causing that, that's good. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you having trouble with the staff and thresholds of when they're starting to implement this? I mean, because somewhere in -- MR. HALL: No, I haven't. I mean, I would agree with Mark. I don't know that I have ever actually seen it implemented until, you know, last Thursday. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim, I have a question for you just quickly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good comeback, Tim. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim, did -- do you feel that the Dunes docks is a marina; 49 slips, to you is a marina? MR. HALL: No, ma'am. I feel it's a multifamily. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, you just called it marina when you came up here. MR. HALL: I said that it is looked at -- I believe it's looked at as a marina by the county, not by me. In the county review it's looked at as a marina. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wasn't it a residential dock with more than 10 slips, which brought it into the Manatee Plan, which did everything else? So they differentiate in that between a marina and a residential dock with more -- 10 slips or more. MR. HALL: No. I think -- MR. LENBERGER: Steve Lenberger, for the record. The Manatee Protection Plan has a marina siting criteria which also applies to multifamily docking facilities Page 21 of 46 16 1 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) 10 slips or more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. LENBERGER: The definition in the LDC -- and I put it on the visualizer -- is the definition for marina in the LDC. And you can see that it's very encompassing. It would include a multifamily docking facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How? MR. LENBERGER: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it says "all." You have to list all those things or "any combination." So which two things did they have that would have made it a marina? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They just have boat slips. MR. LENBERGER: They just have boat slips? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that's all they've got. So it wouldn't have been a marina under this classification. I never proposed it as such when we talked about it last week. Heck, that would have brought a whole different level of review from at least me on this board and maybe others. MR. LENBERGER: And does it have -- Tim, does it also have dockage on it? MR. HALL: Well, the boat slips are dockage, yeah. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. So it's boat slips and docks, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it's not a marina. MR. LENBERGER: I stand corrected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Phew. Thank you, Steve. I didn't want to have to go back and redo last Thursday. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we never discussed it or thought of it as a marina, that I recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim, is there anything else you wanted to -- I think one point that you made on Policy 10.1.5 -- and, Steve, maybe you could weigh in on this where he says, purpose to destroy marine wetlands. I think that's well founded. I think the intent of this policy is for in -water issues, not upland issues. Upland issues are already addressed in numerous ways in other parts of our code. Do you have any -- do you see any problem with that? MR. LENBERGER: I'm not sure which language you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10.1.5, the last line. It says, uses that propose to destroy wetlands. And what Tim suggests is we insert the word "marine wetlands" to coincide with the same and similar language in 10.1.6. MR. LENBERGER: That's fine. I believe you suggested that initially also that we insert "marine wetlands." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question, though, Tim. And the last week is a good example. We, obviously, had wetland and you had a mean high -water line. Would the area above the high -water line, is that a marine wetland or is -- MR. HALL: I would classify mangroves in general as a marine wetlands whether above or below the mean high -water line because they are still regulated by the tidal action of the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HALL: -- or by the action of the tides. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are specific definitions for that, too. I had looked them up once quite a while ago. MR. HALL: Yeah. The other thing, I guess, was the -- in terms of the general public use. And what you're saying is if this goes into the Land Development Code, then exemptions for single - family docks and the use and all of that would be defined at that time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would -- that's the best place to put it, not in the GMP. All that implementation language is where we determine when and how it applies. And if it hasn't been done for these policies -- and, Steve, I appreciate you pointing it out to us, because it needs to be done. You need to be able to approach these things with a clear rule and not have to interpolate, so -- MR. 14ALL: Okay. And then, you know, I don't have any comments really with regards to the needs analysis unless -- you know, if that's defined as need by the general public or need by the -- you know, by the project Page 22 of 46 161 2 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) itself, I guess that would have to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the rules, when we do the LDC we could spell it out. But I would think for whatever type of facility there is being proposed, the needs analysis would have to relate to that. I mean -- right? MR. HALL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my thought on it, anyway. Steve? MR. LENBERGER: Couple of things. I just want to make sure I'm understanding all this. You want to insert the word "marine" in front of "wetlands" on 10. 1.5 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. LENBERGER: -- second sentence. You want to eliminate "fiscal" and put "needs analysis." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: And you're keeping "financial feasibility." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. And I heard about sustainability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't go there. That's something that you can address in the implementation language if it's warranted through the public and stakeholder meetings. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. I'll let Michele clarify the rest. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Steve. MS. MOSCA: Just for clarification -- again, Michele Mosca, for the record. The Policies 10. 1.5 and 6 have been revised. In your document if you'll refer to Page 27, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this the document that was passed out to us -- MS. MOSCA: This is the document. This is the actual Conservation and Coastal Management Element, the latest version. What's reflected in the memorandum is the existing CCME text for 10. 1.5 and 10.1.6. And as you can see within the element itself on Page 27, those two policies have been revised. I want to make sure, for clarification purposes, what we're going to include moving forward. If we refer to 10. 1.5 or the new 6, second line, are we going to retain water - dependent and water - related uses, or are we going to refer only to marina development? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My opinion is to leave the water - related uses, because there are -- MS. MOSCA: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- other things in marinas that could be itching to destroy those marine wetlands. MS. MOSCA: Okay. So we're going to retain the existing language under 10.1.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's where we're back to. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your definition of marine wetlands that is shown in parenthetical on the book that was supposedly replaced with the handout, in the book I think that -- that definition's fine. I mean, if you wanted to throw that in, I don't see what it hurts. It sure steers everybody in the right direction. Anybody have a problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All it says is what marine wetlands are, which is needed. And then in the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In the Florida statute -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, Florida Administrative Code, right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: You want to keep water - dependent, water- related uses. That would be your condominium docks. Just make sure that's understood. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, yes, yes. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need to go back to what we just said we wanted to do, and that's leave the handout language as it's seen with the exception of adding "marine wetlands" and then adding the definition that you've shown in the older document, and then we're there. Page 23 of 46 1612 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now let's move on to the next one, 10.1.6, which is now 10.1.7. MS. MOSCA: And we got clear direction on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't think we need -- MS. MOSCA: 10.1.6, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Let's just leave the handout as we discussed it with you just now. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're just taking out "fiscal" and put in "need "? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, old 10.1.6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we clear? MS. MOSCA: We are clear on 10.1.6, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have a discussion on this portion of any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. While we're at a break point -- are we done with the CCME? MS. MOSCA: No, we're not, actually, unless you don't care to go over the minor changes. And I'll just put those on the visualizer. They're changes that were agreed upon at the January Planning Commission meeting. Sol just want to put them on the visualizer so they can be incorporated into the element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's go. Then we'll take a break after that. These are the ones that we've got in front of us in the handout. MS. MOSCA: That's correct, and they're minor changes. 2.1.7, strike through "rely upon" and replace with "include in their review." Policy 2.2.5, that language was just revised in January to allow for greater flexibility. And in 3.1 point new 4, lower case "aquifer," and add the "S" to make it plural. And Objective 4. 1, strike through "more," and that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I say it more accurately, it's assuming that accurately isn't accurate to begin with. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. You don't need that. So as I said, they were minor and discussed previously, but wanted to put them on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any problems with the suggested change? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And that would complete the CCME. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we're a go. Okay. With that, let's take a break until 10:40 and come back, and we'll resume, finish up the AUIR at that point. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR. SCHMIDT: You're live. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting into a bad habit here; we're another minute late. So with that in mind, where do you want to go next, staff? MS. MOSCA: We can return back to the Housing Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Your backup isn't here, I can see. MS. MOSCA: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: What I'm going to put on the visualizer -- what we've decided to do as staff is to add affordable /workforce housing into that listing under Objective 1 in the policies. So under Policy 1.1 and Policy 1.2 -- and those are the new policies with the highlight, and it's also within the memorandum. So we'll add affordable /workforce housing. And I'll put the statutory text on the visualizer so you can all see what it includes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under Objective 1 you're going to put the word "workforce" back in as well, right? Page 24 of 46 16 12" A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the objective -- you're not going to do it, but you're going to put it in the policy? MS. MOSCA: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't put it where it was. Put it on that list of very low, low, moderate, and workforce. In other words -- MR. BOSI: Towards the end of the sentence. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, we list the four. Now we're going to have four because they're adding workforce at the upper end. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in -- where you're saying, "the future needs of residents with," you'll add it to that list also. MR. BOSI: Correct. MS. MOSCA: Yes, that's correct, in Objective 1. Again, so that will appear in Objective 1, Policy 1.1 and Policy 1.2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. MOSCA: And then we can go back to Objective 8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And that's on -- that's on Page 6 of your element. What staff would like to do there is -- I believe Mr. Schiffer had made this recommendation. What we'll do is put somewhere in Objective 8 "in concert with Objective 1" so it refers back to Objective 1 so that we don't lose the policies for the time being under Objective 8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want to keep Objective 8 and its policies? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the wording will be -- because we're going to go for consent. So let's play a second here. Will seek to provide new residential -- or provide rehabilitated and new residential units in concert with Objective 1, something like that. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Real quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're dropping the words "to provide a minimum of 50." MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Objective 8 will basically read as it reads in the shaded on Page 6 with the proviso you're going to drop the words to -- we'll provide a minimum of 50 and insert the reference to Objective 1? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that works. Everybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MS. MOSCA: And I think that -- oh, well, we do have the one additional item for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1.5. MS. MOSCA: --the housing would be the reference to affordable workforce. What we'll do is just --we'll leave it as "affordable" throughout the document, and that covers everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then your Policy 1.5, the suggestion to do it per Board of County Commissioners district, you're going to -- MS. MOSCA: Yes. We already have that change, correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have one more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 25 of 46 161 2 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sorry. In Policy 2.10 on Page 3, the fourth bullet down, when we went over it last time, that was going to be removed, and now it's here and it's changed. MS. MOSCA: The directive had been -- my understanding was to make sure it excluded Collier County because there will -- Collier County will not acquire additional properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Collier County will not, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means the county's not going to be in the housing business. MS. MOSCA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The private sector's going to be. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we're good. What's the last or -- near the end, right? MR. SCHMIDT: We'll take you to the FLUE next, and Mr. Bosi will talk about the specifics. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning. This is related to a public petition that was brought to the Board of County Commissioners on the 14th of February. They asked staff to look at the early entry bonus for the TDR program in the rural fringe mixed -use district. And with that early entry bonus, it was originally stated to expire in 2008. In 2008 the Board of County Commissioners directed it to be extended an additional three years, so the expiration date is March 27th of 2012 of this year, you know, not too far from now. The Board of County Commissioners directed staff to make the modification to the program to extend that early entry bonus. We have extended it as the handout suggests for an additional three years with also an alternative. Now, this would have been -- this would have been the second time the program has been extended. Part of the backup that accompanied the executive summary was the assessment from the original EAR report. And the original EAR report from the rural fringe mixed -use district did a calculation of all the potential credits that would be available. And if every parcel in the sending land designation that was privately held took advantage of the early entry credit as well as the base credit and the restoration and maintenance and the conveyance of all four credits, there still would only be enough TDRs total available to entitle 74 percent of the receiving lands that are available. Now, the program is not supposed to be 100 percent participation, but what that assure us, that even with the extension of three years, we could -- we won't be creating an imbalance within the supply and the demand ratio between how many credits are available and how much land is available for entitlement. Based upon that recognition, the proposal would be an additional three years or an alternative. Instead of having to potentially, three years from now, make the same change or a similar change to extend it, we may just want to eliminate the early entry bonus TDR program or credit and replace it with a participation credit. And that's strictly an alternative if the Planning Commission felt that, well, this is now the second time we're extending the program three years, so we won't be -- it won't be back, just as an alternative for the Planning Commission to consider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, the idea that it sunsets periodically and it has to be renewed probably is good, because then we are looking at the market and needs on a regular basis instead of leaving a blanket program there to go on forever. Plus, it may -- if there's a need for someone to do something earlier, it provides a little incentive because they don't know what the future holds. So I'm in favor of the first one, not the alternative. I don't know about the rest of this panel. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I am, too. MR. BOSI: And if that's the will of the body, we can bring that recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to let the Planning Commission know. The second meeting in April will be when the EAR is going to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners. Page 26 of 46 1612 A March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody object to using the first one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like that's the direction we'll go, Mike. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. And I believe, Corby, that covers all of the proposed modifications. Everything else that was presented were as agreed upon by the Planning Commission. And, of course, the books that will go to the Planning Commission (sic) will be the recommended language as suggested and as modified and as revised by the Planning Commission not only through the transmittal hearings, but also back -- remember, when this started back in August with our workshop. So everything will be as directed from the dais. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion pursuant to the way Mike just described everything? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To approve the EAR for a recommendation to the board? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Forward with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5 -0. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent. Does everybody accept the language proposed by Mike on consent? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that the -- as proposed, that it represents the hearing, thus accept it on consent. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Seconded by Diane. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries again, 5 -0. You got both, Mike. MR. BOSI: Thank you. And I think we will see you in September for the adoption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe not me. Okay. That brings us to our regular hearing items, and we have two cases left to go. Mr. Schiffer, we certainly appreciate your presence today. I know you weren't supposed to be here and other members were, so we definitely like you staying. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 27 of 46 k 161 2z� A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *The next item up will be RZPL20110001572, SSP Associates, Inc., for a rezone located on the south of Tamiami Trail East. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had emails with Mr. Fernandez. He asked me of some of my concerns. I sent him a list of them, and I'm sure we'll be going over that list today. Okay. Michael, it's all yours. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. My name is Michael Fernandez with Planning Development, Incorporated, representing the petitioner. This is for a rezone of existing commercial property. It's a portion of the property that our client owns. The land is currently C3. It's proposed to be rezoned to C5. On the telestrator you can see that there's a portion of the property that says C3, is now hatched, and that's the area that's in question. I'll call your attention to the area to the -- I'll call it to the south. It's really to the south/southeast -- but the area to the south for a length of approximately a thousand feet. All those lots, all that property is already zoned C5, which is what we're proposing to rezone our property to. The property to the north or to the left, if you will, is zoned PUD. It's part of a mixed -use project, but that property was done -- was rezoned many, many years ago, and there are many C5 type uses in that property. And also -- that's part of the Treetops PUD. And it's also worth noting that the maximum height on that property is 100 feet high. So it has a substantial height component to it. The access to the residential that's behind it that's part of the Treetops PUD is this -- these two thin lines here that go up and split that commercial property where they could actually do 100 feet of height. Across the street you have a mixture of uses but there's 300 feet of right -of -way, but that does include C4 uses, and it also includes a couple variances for what would be C5 uses. The property to the rear, which is under common ownership, will remain C3, which has been there for many years. In fact, our client has owned this property since 1985. So our client has owned this property for nearly 30 years now and is looking to really form a viable use. In our submittal to the county, in our cover letter, we wrote that there were a number of reasons that we were seeking this rezone. Our client, being the owners, have been approached over a period of years, and when they are approached, a lot of the people that would like to use their property have been requesting C5 uses. And, in part, we believe that's because this stretch of 41 is already improved with such uses. So they're looking at it and saying, well, that's what really fits. That's where they feel comfortable going. And that's -- and, specifically, we've seen people that are doing storage facilities, and there's already existing storage facilities nearby. We have a used -car dealership on site that's not actually allowed in C3, but is grandfathered in from the old commercial zoning that was on the lot -- on the property previously. And, you know, boat storage, for instance, which, again, is just down the street. In fact, just driving by to refresh my memory earlier today, we see gas station, laundromats, arcades, hardware stores, grocery stores, die metal shop, mini storage, repairs shops, quote, marinas, heavy equipment rental, bars and cocktail lounges are all in this immediate area. Our client is, as I said, looking for it for three primary reasons. One is to be compatible with the neighboring properties so that they could potentially aggregate the property and develop it consistently with the -- between properties. Two, to add those uses that -- that people are asking for which tend to be construction- related or storage - related uses. And, three, just to get -- again, to make it a more viable economic development. And I said since 1985 they've been paying taxes on this. Our client has told me repeatedly they've paid more in taxes than they've ever received in income from the property, and they believe that making this change is significant. Relative to compatible, obviously, if we've got C5 next door, we would be compatible with C5. To the other side with the PUD that allows 100 feet of pipe and has C5 type uses, again, I would tell you that we believe we're compatible. Page 28 of 46 1 A S March 6, 2012 (Continued fro m t O e parch 1 2012 meeting) What we are giving up by going from C3 to C5 is a -- we're going from a maximum height of 50 feet, which is allowed in C3, down to a maximum height of 35 feet. So you're looking at, potentially, a five -story building versus a three -story building. And probably just as importantly, what you're looking at is the ability for vegetation like trees in a relatively short time to be able to give you a solid buffer of a 35 -foot height. So in terms of mitigating impacts through buffers and development standards, I think you've got a higher threshold by limiting it to a 35 -foot height. So even though we're going to a more intense use by some measures, the buffering and the reduced height mitigate that. I'd also suggest to you that because it's still commercial property, those uses are subject to the county's architectural design standards, and because of that you're looking at a higher -end type of facility that would be developed on that property. You're also looking at the buffers that would be applicable along a corridor like U.S. 41. So in terms of impacts, we believe it's mitigating the change in intensity. Relative to residential, again, I want to point out on the telestrator a couple of items. Again, this is the C5 portion of the property that's being proposed to rezone. Adjacent to it's the C5 that's existing. You notice that the C5 that's next door actually goes back further. It's almost another 100 feet back further than what we are requesting. And we have lined up the other side so that it's only 300 feet back which equals the commercial next door that's allowed to go to a hundred feet. Additionally, relative to residential, again, I'll point out that there's some distance here between us and that residential area to the -- that's behind the existing C5. And, in fact, our client owns the lot that's actually adjacent to us, adjacent to the C3 back there. On the other side, the entry again to the Treetops residential neighborhood is right through the adjacent commercial property, and the closest building is over 100 feet away, and that area has a significant buffer and preserves right over here in the corner. I'll point that out on the aerial. Again, what we're looking to rezone this -- our client's property only goes back to 300 feet. You can see the closest residential building back here. That's over 100 feet away from the corner of the property. We actually don't abut any residential. And, again, this property right next door, which has a lot of C5 uses, can be developed up to 50 foot height. The area on the other side of the driveway over here is a C5 use, which is mini and self storage. Next door is the Naples Marina. They have boat storage outside, boat repair, boat maintenance. Then there's a milling facility, and then additional storage and retail and a gas station. All of these areas along the frontage all the way to the southwest is all C5 uses. And, again, as I said before, it actually goes back further than the subject property that we're talking about. So from our standpoint we believe that we have a very compatible type project. We concur with staffs analysis. Staff has reviewed this, and we concur with their conclusions going through the criteria that we're compatible with the adjacent properties, that the land uses that we've -- that are in the C5 district are, again, compatible with the adjacent, uses. In some cases the exact same zoning. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In your presentation you said the landowner owns the piece of property adjacent to this. What does he own? MR. FERNANDEZ: Our client actually owns this whole area that's yellowed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: All the way back, and that's been C3 since they purchased it in 1985. They also own -- and it's in the disclosure -- they own a single- family lot back here, which is adjacent to the C3. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The concern I have, or the only concern I have, is that when you -- you're going to be accessing that C3 lot through the C5 Lot. So that residential lot that he owns, there's no way in heck you're thinking that you'll ever access the C3 through that; is that right? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. In fact, if you look at it, the subdivision that was developed has a local road that's built along the rear. The zoning actually goes to the center of the street. There's a number of homes back there, and it terminates on a cul -de -sac. Additionally, if you were to look at the property records and the plat, there's a 20 -foot buffer and drainage Page 29 of 46 161 2 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) easement that separates that C3 from the single - family residential lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: So that provides a significant buffer and a transition between the existing C3 and that single- family lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And does that provide a protection that he could ever access the C3 lot through that residential neighborhood? MR. FERNANDEZ: Again, it's a platted subdivision. You'd have to go and, you know, change things through it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: But, I mean, that's not something that we're concerned about. We're not certainly doing anything to that C3 property right now to cause any problems or cause any impacts to that residential neighborhood. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you will have to access through the C5 to get to the C3. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in your design of that front end you'll be -- because C3 could have some nice uses, some nice office. You're going to make sure you keep that open and everything, right? MR. FERNANDEZ: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you lose if anybody. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, I mean, it has to retain access. We're not segregating. It's just changing the zoning for that first 300 feet that would allow us to have some different uses than what we would be able to have in the rear of the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. For staff, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Not for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you don't have any use issues? Usually you read all those commercial uses. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it's conventional uses to C5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You can't go through all those, can you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. I have a whole page of uses I thought -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I'm not understanding why one parcel of property can be split up into two uses like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but if you look at the uses that can be expanded into that property, that different -- that are different than C3 -- because C5 includes all of C4. So what happens is that parcel now has not only C3 uses that it originally had but all C4 uses and all C5 uses. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you were to look at those uses individually, as I have with the SIC code, there are some uses there that I would certainly want to bring up to the attention of this board to consider if they're appropriate for that location or not. Michael, you've seen the list. Do you have -- do you have a way of shortening this, or do you want me -- because that was the purpose; you asked me for the list ahead of time -- or are you saying you want all the uses, and we'll just start with the top and work our way down every one of them? MR. FERNANDEZ: What I'd like, if we can go through -- and you can help me, because, yeah, when I went through I had some questions, and I understand you were using a chart and -- as we went through -- and I think staff had some of the same questions -- there's some inaccuracies in there. For instance, I know there's -- at least one of those items is not permitted in any commercial district, and it's only permitted in the industrial district, and so it doesn't have any bearing. So there's a number of mistakes that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I wouldn't classify my work as a number of mistakes, Michael. You can classify it that way if you want, but I wouldn't. So we can start walking through it a page at a time, item by item. And, I mean, I'm prepared to do it. I thought you wanted this early to save some effort. But if you -- Page 30 of 46 1612 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, what I'd like to do, if we could, as we're -- if you have specific issues -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- what I would like to know is, are these issues relative to -- you propose to remove it because of either traffic or, you know, noise or fumes or, from a professional standard -- planner's standpoint and an architect, why is it that these type uses would be incompatible with property that's adjacent to it that's already zoned C5 or property that has a lot of C5 uses that could go up to 100 feet for C3? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your qualifications of the Treetops as having a lot of C5 uses, there are 99 permitted uses in the Treetops and 11, more or less, conditional uses. Did you go through -- out of those 110, can you tell me exactly how many are going to be C5 uses, rather than just saying there's a lot of them? How do you know there's a lot of them? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, a couple clarifications. Where it says that they're conditional uses, staff has interpreted those to be not conditional uses but just requiring an SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way, Michael, they're not part of the principal -- they're in addition to the principal uses. You have 110 uses allowed in the Treetops property. Of the 110, how many did you believe are part of the -- are C5? MR. FERNANDEZ: I did not count them. If I had to guess, probably at least 50 percent if you include the provision in addition to that that says any other commercial or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, which the director can make a judgment call on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we -- MR. FERNANDEZ: A lot of these uses are, for instance, generic. For instance, cocktail lounges would allow for bottle clubs and other things that are more expanded, if you will, in the SIC codes that we use. So a lot of these are old or just, I would say, placeholders compared to what we use today. And they could be readily expanded if you were asking for a director to review it and say, okay, how would that particular use be expanded? Again, for instance, book binders is one that would allow for newspapers and other types of lithography and other types of publications to be taken care of, where in the SIC codes it's broken down into multiple uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're making the assumption that because of that clause "any other commercial use," our team of staff would go ahead and allow uses there that virtually are all C5 uses. I'm not sure that's a true assumption. And I'm not going to go along with that assumption. Basically I'm going to start with the list I gave you since I thought this was done to expedite it. Instead, it's going to take longer. We will walk through every one of the 25 or 30 or 50 numbers, and we will decide which ones are appropriate for that location and which aren't. My objections are all compatibility related, and you can take that for all the varieties of compatibility that you want to insert. You're near a residential development. The residential development has a commercial component in the front. It is not C5. It is a mixture of a variety of uses. I've tried to be careful so that the uses I'm pointing out to you aren't necessarily mentioned in the Treetops, which means then they're a different use than the Treetops would be, and they're uses that may not improve the corridor of East Naples, so -- and by the way, I don't believe we have to accept a blanket rezone on this property. We can pick and choose and suggest alternatives. And if you don't like them, then I guess that will weigh in on our vote. But I don't know why your client would want some of these. What kind of livestock, vet services are you going to offer on that property? Are you going to bring cows, sheep, goats? What are you going to be bringing in there? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, again, you know, I think you've got to take it in, look at the whole picture. There are vets that will have livestock where they come back, whether or not it's for breeding purposes or some other use. And by eliminating that, you make it incompatible with, let's say, the aggregation of property next door which would allow this property, perhaps, to redevelop. And what I'm suggesting to you is C5, on the other side, is consistent with C5. And you mentioned a residential development that you're trying to protect. But, again, we're reducing the height from 50 feet to 35 feet, and there's 110 feet of separation between us and the closest residential, which we don't even abut because we only go to a corner. Page 31 of 46 March 6, 2012 (ContL61 2"Marct 1, 2012 rt'leZ't ) So our impacts are significantly less than the potential development next door of 100 feet, which is part of the PUD. So, you know, I have a hard time. And I know you mentioned a couple of them to me verbally. For instance, massage parlors which, talking with staff, for instance, will tell you that it's an antiquated term. For instance, if you go to the Costco over here in town, there's a strip center there and there's a place called Massage Envy which is classified and allows this use to be in that facility, and yet I don't see where it's objectionable. In fact, I know a lot of people that go to that facility. It's a national chain. It's in a new architectural building that meets the architectural design standards. Or, for instance, you mentioned tattoo parlor and, you know, my son has tattoos and my future daughter -in -law has tattoos. And, you know, it's something that's fairly commonplace, but I don't see the need for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, let me finish. I only asked one question, and I got a 50- minute dissertation. We're going to be here all day by the time I get done. So I wanted to ask him -- you know, Mike, I -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm trying to figure out what the impacts are between, let's say, these uses in a neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lookit, I asked you one simple question, and you seem to indicate that you want to keep this open so if you want to breed cows in the back lot, you want to have that ability to do that on this property. Is that what you're telling me when I ask you, do you need 0741, which is livestock vet services? You got off on this tangent about breeding livestock. Then you want to combine it with others to put a potential breeding place in there. That doesn't seem appropriate for this neighborhood either from smell, odor, or noise. So I'm certainly not in favor of something like that. But if you insist on having it, those are the simple answers I need. Do you need livestock vet services on this property? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I'm saying they could be inside the facility. They don't necessarily even have to be outside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen, did you have a comment? MR. FERNANDEZ: So I don't see it, that it's an incompatible use. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I didn't know if -- I did write down a few things. I didn't know you could change a straight conventional zoning like that and pick through it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's changing it. We're not. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: With the -- right, but to exclude it in the conditional uses, I wouldn't want to see bottle clubs, homeless shelters, or correctional institutes or soup kitchens allowed there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you come up with a process, because I'm worried about time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am, too, but I can't get a simple answer, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I think his answer was yes, he wants the livestock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the -- let's come up with a process where if you have things or anybody on the board has an objectionable use, we state it. If the committee agrees that that's an objectionable use, then that's going to be the condition of approval, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. It's just going to take a long time to go through if we're going to debate every single one of these. I don't think that anybody would ever put livestock vet services in that location. Just for the farmers to bring their livestock there would be ridiculously expensive. MR. FERNANDEZ: But it has -- for instance, under that use it lists animal hospitals for livestock. So a vet that has other purposes and may be serving other people, again, they might be bringing livestock in there. And I think they're going to see a lot of these things where that's a service that a vet might want to offer and it may not be its principal business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, you ought to pick the ones you want to fight on that are worthwhile rather than something that probably is never going to happen. But we can go through and do that, Michael. I just think it's a waste of everybody's time. I don't know how many people are looking at specialty vet services or animal specialty services or farm labor contractors or farm management services or outdoor storage for construction and specialty trades or installing building equipment or specialty trade contractors. And, by the way, the issue here is all outdoor storage. Page 32 of 46 16 ! A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) The printing of newspapers. I built a facility that prints newspapers. You wouldn't put one there. Printing periodicals, commercial, printing, lithographic, local trucking, general warehousing and storage, special warehousing and storage, packing and crating, communications for -- communication towers, livestock, lumber and other building materials, used -car dealers, boat dealers, drinking places, various fuels dealers, rooming and boarding houses, miscellaneous personal services of which are things like escort and tattoo parlors and things like that, heavy construction equipment, equipment rental and leasing, car washes, there's a series of repair services, drive -in theaters, bowling services, bowling centers, sports clubs, coin - operated amusement devices, amusement and recreation, which involves all kinds of things from firing ranges to who knows what else, and various social services. I'm not sure why all those are needed, and I'm not convinced that they're compatible with the residential neighborhood by noise, sound, the attraction of clients and whatever else they do there, and especially the Treetops. I looked at their commercial list. I have it in front of me, and it doesn't have all those uses in it. So I'm not sure why we need to make the change from C5 -- from C3 to C5 if the intensity is going to be some of these uses that aren't allowed there right now under C3. Doesn't make sense to me. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, again, they're trying to do it for economic reasons as much as anything else. And the guy next door, who has C5 already -- you know, we're at a disadvantage. And in terms of being able to aggregate and develop, it's problematic not to be able to say -- if you built a commercial center across both properties, then you're going to say to your realtor, okay, you can only put those uses on this side of your shopping center but you cannot put them on this side even though it's the same -- you know, same piece of property, same building even, but we wouldn't be able to differentiate between Unit No. 10 over here and Unit No. 15 because of extracting these, because most -- a lot of these uses will actually be interior, into them, and a lot of them really depends on -- like anything else, what he -- how it's handled architecturally and how you handle the use of the property. And I really don't see the nexus between a use that has 35 -foot height limit and is separated from the residential next door by at least 110 feet, over 100 feet and, in fact, doesn't physically abut that commercial development that you're speaking of. I just don't see the nexus of an impact from a professional standing -- professional planning standpoint. But I'm happy to go through those uses one at a time, because I think there are some -- in the numbers that we got, there are some corrections. Like I said, there's at least one that would not be allowed in -- that is not allowed in C5, C3, or any other commercial district. It's only allowed in industrial. We're not asking for it, but it's one that you listed in your list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So -- MR. FERNANDEZ: And there's some others that I think that will show up as being differential or that already are included in a lower use district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I've got about 40 numbers here. So you think one of them may be inadvertently in the wrong list, and the list that I got it from was a list that is on county file for charting out the different uses in both, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand. I went through with staff, and they concurred that it doesn't exist in the use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fine. It's not an issue then. But if you're not going to -- if you're going to argue with every one of these and you see the need for every one, then we don't need to go any further with my part of it. So I'd be more -- I'll defer to the rest of the members of the commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if it takes the length of time it's taking, it won't matter, because I'll be gone and we won't have a quorum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And that's -- I already know -- I mean, not going to be in favor of any project that is so stiff in the way it's going to be rezoned that we can't look for some additional protection and flexibility for the neighborhood. And if it means we've got to allow more things that are alongside it just because they're alongside it, now, that's not the right way to do things. We've made mistakes in the past. We don't need to make them in the future. If you want a rezone, the burden's on you, not on us. And if we feel something is inappropriate for that area for whatever reason, I don't see why it has to be given to you. You're asking. You can't demand, so -- Page 33 of 46 March 6 2012 Continued A Oe Jarc? 2012 me�tiii , ( g MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand we're here asking, and -- but we're looking for a rational reason why not to include a use. And, like I said, let's go through, and we can go through one by one, and I think we might find some common ground on some of the ones you think you have objections to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Corradi, wherever -- he was here. MR. SCHMIDT: He stepped out to make a call. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The gentleman that is after you has been waiting patiently for two meetings for a rather quick item, and I hate to see it delayed again till the 15th because we can't -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm happy to break for him. In fact, I told staff it might be good to bring him sooner than after. I'm happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Mark, let me -- while he's bringing him in, what if we did this, we ran down the use, you could object to it or say you want it, and then the board could do a straw vote to see if they support the denial of that use in the application, and then we could just move on. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. I've got all the uses here. I'm happy to go through them, too, and then -- you know, because in some cases the SIC code that was used, the information on that is now changed. And that the -- what's listed, if you go into the SIC code system online, it's different from what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- the issue is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we do have to make, you know, the discussion on each one kind of binary, yes or no real quick, you know. But anyway -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we -- if you don't mind then -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- let's switch gears and let Mr. Corradi get up here, because we'll never get this done; if Brad leaves that will really be a problem. * * *So let's break from this item, and we'll move into our next item, CPSS- 2011 -1. It's the Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads commercial subdistrict located at the intersection of Airport Road and Orange Blossom Drive. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures from the Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Corradi, it's all yours. MR. CORRADI: Hello. For the record, my name is Michael Corradi. I'm requesting today to amend the Future Land Use Element, FLUE, of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and remove transportation commitments relating to the intersection improvements and related provision from the Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroad commercial subdistrict language in the urban mixed -use Paragraph 11 B and 11 CV. The reason for this is that Airport Road has been determined by the transportation department of Collier County to be sufficient and currently has enough capacity and is deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan without the need of additional mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. CORRADI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get the staff report. MR. CORRADI: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll just ask for staff report now. I know, it shouldn't be so simple, but some of them might be. So we've still got a member of the public here to speak, and you'll hear what he has to say, and then we'll make a decision. Thank you. I think we all read it. It's a pretty short read. So, Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: I've got nothing to add. The staff report -- the staff report explains that, yes, the Page 34 of 46 x' A Q V 1612 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) transportation division analyzed that intersection and the improvements that may be necessary, but they agree that they're not necessary at this time or along on a fixed schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Thank you. And, gentlemen, if you'd let -- you've been patiently waiting. Please come on up, identify yourself. We'll be good to go. MR. GARBO: Good morning. John Garbo with the Orange Blossom/Pine Ridge Community Alliance. I believe I might have spoken to the petitioner. And our organization, which really is there to protect the interest of Orange Blossom Drive, don't see any real issues, just want to make sure -- and I did speak to Corby about this -- that if for any reason a development happens on that particular parcel and an interconnecting road that would cut through the corner piece, which we kind of know as the Italian- American Club, that any interconnecting road that would then go out onto Orange Blossom would not allow a left turnout or westbound onto Orange Blossom. There's currently a cut there coming out of the library to go east on Orange Blossom and coming out of the Italian- American Club parcel to go west on Orange Blossom. Our concern is is that it could be a real danger there. We have spoken to transportation. We have presented a plan to them that would probably mitigate that in the future when they redid the intersection. So no issues with, I think, what is being asked for just, if any interconnection needs to be done, we want to make sure that that cut - through at some point does go away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And I think that's a little bit out of the scope of the request, but I think putting it on record is a good thing. MR. GARBO: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will keep everybody aware of it. So appreciate it very much. Okay. Is there any questions of the Planning Commission of anybody at this point? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are there any more public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers have registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward CPSS- 2011 -1, Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads commercial subdistrict with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 5 -0. Mr. Corradi, sorry you had to wait through all last Thursday through all that. MR. CORRADI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it. It was a long meeting last week. Okay. We'll move back on to RZPL20110001572, SSP Associates, Inc., for the property located on South Tamiami Trail East. We had left off discussing the needs for certain uses. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: If I could make a suggestion. Would it alleviate a lot of your concerns if we came back and agreed to -- first of all, outdoor storage would be located behind any building and be limited to no more than eight feet of height? And I believe the code already provides for opacity as far as a buffer to the perimeter. Page 35 of 46 161 Z.� A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) And I think that would take care of a lot of the issues that perhaps you have. And then in addition to that, I would suggest to you that relative to anything having to do with vet services, for instance, that it be contained interior to the buildings so that there's no outside kenneling. And I think most of the kenneling or outdoor use or location of animals is actually only allowed as a conditional use in the C5. So if we eliminate those, I'm hoping that a lot of that will alleviate a lot of your concerns especially with -- a lot of our client is actually focusing as in our letter that -- our cover letter has to do with construction -type uses, because that's where he sees a lot of it, and also self - storage. So, again, if we can eliminate and make it so that any outside is basically buffered and to the rear of any of the most forward building. We just did that on a similar petition and, you know, I think it would work here, too. And that way if there's, like, parking in front of the building, you know, that becomes the public parking, and then everything else is kind of hidden, basically, from the rest of the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will take care of a lot of it. Let's just work down the list then. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the vet services would all be interior to buildings? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No outside vet services. So you're willing to stipulate that? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me -- quick question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you can take the animal out to go to the bathroom and stuff like that, correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I mean, we've done those before. The facilities can actually be taken care of in the interior of a facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then there will be -- the only storage -- outdoor storage will only be behind buildings, right? MR. FERNANDEZ: It will be behind the most forward building on site, yes, sir, and it will be screened, and I believe it's -- the code provides for an eight -foot -- Ray's nodding his head, eight -foot either wall or vegetation that provides 80 percent opacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you intend to do any communication towers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Not that are not already provided by the code. The code allows us -- for instance, on Capital Center on Airport Road, you can do a 75 -foot tower under the code. In fact, you can do it under any commercial zoning district. So only the ones that are allowed under any zoning district, but none that would require additional height. So no more intense than is already permitted by the C3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about farm labor contractors? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm assuming that's interior to the building, so I'm not sure what the issue is, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, farm labor contractors mean it's going to be like a local day hire facility. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Day labor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Day labor. And we generally don't like those near residentials. And, basically, I think that would be problematic in this one. So do you have a reason to need farm labor contractors? It would be 0761. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You do have less than two acres, is that correct, that you're trying to do? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am. It's only -- it's a small postage stamp piece of property, but it's important to our client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Printing presses. I understand you can have a mimeograph machine or something small, but printing newspapers require large multi -ton machines and large facilities. Do you need to print newspapers and periodicals from this location? MR. FERNANDEZ: I would suggest to you, because it's such a small piece of property, that anything would be like a neighborhood newspaper or, for instance, lithography is something that has now really become an artform. And there's a whole number that's associated with that. Page 36 of 46 161 2 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) So, again, what I'm trying to do is so that -- permit the potential aggregation of property, for instance, that would, you know, allow the better use and the economic use of this property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I'm concerned about that, because it may be difficult for staff to determine a threshold as to -- you know, if a guy's using -- doing blueprinting for architects or something, is he a printing press? Is he -- you know, a lot of reproduction now is moving into machinery that could be confused with a -- with some of those uses. So I can't see where that could create a problem. Now, one thing I think we have to say out loud is this guy could buy the neighboring site and do a project, and you've referenced that. So we aren't just talking about this parcel. We are talking about the two combined, potentially. MR. FERNANDEZ: But what would happen in that case, if we're changing it, is that, for instance, the neighborhood newspaper would be on the one piece even though it's in the same building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: They could be over here. But once you cross this line, you couldn't have that same use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I don't have heartburn on that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about local trucking? I mean, it's a two -acre parcel. What, are you going to bring in semis to that two -acre parcel and handle a trucking company in there? I mean, it doesn't seem practical. 4212 is the category. It includes carting by truck or horse -drawn wagon; debris removal; local carting only; draining; localing (sic) without storage; farm to market hauling; furniture moving, local without storage; garbage, local collecting and transporting without disposal; hauling live animals local; hauling by dump truck; local trucking without storage; log trucking. I mean, do you think you're going to be putting a trucking facility in there? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. So, yes, in other words, we can eliminate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Go ahead. 4783, which is packing and crating, and the only concern I have there is the noise that would be generated by a facility like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is a UPS store packing and crating? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. MR. FERNANDEZ: Again, it would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interior? MR. FERNANDEZ: It's an interior function unless it's outside storage. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you. Is your client asking for a blanket C5 zoning, and he will take no less than that? Is this what your client is asking for? MR. FERNANDEZ: We didn't -- ma'am, I already have agreed to reduce the number, so obviously not; however, we believe it would be appropriate to do so. But, again, that's -- but we've already agreed to reduce a number of items already. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not many. MR. FERNANDEZ: We're still early in the numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Livestock, 5154. Establishments primarily engaging in buying and/or marketing cattle, hogs, sheep, and goats. This industry -- MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- also includes the operation of a livestock auction and markets. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not needed. Lumber and other building materials. It's a two -acre site. A lumberyard with, like Naples Lumber where they millwork and do a lot of work there, did you see a need for that? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have had requests for doing millwork, for instance, and somebody who's actually approached them from time to time. And, again, if it's interior and not exterior storage except for less than eight feet, I would suggest that that's an appropriate use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as the interior storage applies to it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. Page 37 of 46 1612 March 6 2012 h m Continued from o the March 1, 2012 meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Used car dealers. MR. FERNANDEZ: They're on the property now, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's the front piece that's under -- okay. Drinking places. MR. FERNANDEZ: What's that, 85? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5813. It goes everything from bars, beer gardens, beer parlors, nightclubs and salons to wine bars and taverns, cabarets, and cocktail lounges. MR. FERNANDEZ: I assume it doesn't impact a restaurant that would have beer and wine? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Restaurant is 5812. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Various fuel dealers. My concern here is safety. These are high - explosive fuels. Everything from petroleum to diesel, gasoline. I don't know why you'd want fuel dealers there, 5983 to 5989. Liquefied petroleum, direct selling establishment -- I mean, fuel oil dealers and then fuel dealers not elsewhere classified, coal dealers and wood dealers for retail fuel. MR. FEDER: That also includes, like, bottled gas, like, retailers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bottled gas retail, that would be 5984. That's just bottled gas. So if you took off 5983 and 5989, that would leave you with the one you may be getting concerned about, 5984. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7021 is rooming -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and boarding, okay. Then miscellaneous personal services, and the problem with these miscellaneous ones, it's a catchall for a lot of different uses, 7299. Some of them aren't bad, but some of them are considered -- may bring elements into the neighborhood that would not be wanted in East Naples. MR. FERNANDEZ: Can we exclude the ones you have specific concerns about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that escort services, massage parlors, and tattoo parlors certainly don't seem to -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, when you say "massage," nowadays, again, apparently these are spas that a lot of people go to, whether at the Ritz- Carlton or -- you know, just down the street from where I live on Central Avenue -- and the City of Naples actually has -- under this SIC code has 12 facilities, most of them on U.S. 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand. I didn't even think of it that way. I was thinking of a different type of massage parlor, but that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think this is referring to legal massage parlors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, I -- right. And a lot of people -- for instance, if you go to a hair salon, they have that as another use, and I wouldn't want to put them at a disadvantage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm sure the value of the cars in front of the tattoo parlor might surprise us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then any problem with eliminating escort services? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then 7922 except escort services. Number 7353 is heavy construction equipment and rental leasing. It's just large -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and noisy equipment. Okay. 7353 is that one. 7359 is similar. It's equipment rental leasing not elsewhere classified. MR. FERNANDEZ: That has facilities, like, there's one almost across the street, and there's somebody that was looking, again, that wanted to use this, and they rent all kinds of things, whether it's for parties or for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- other facilities like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no problem. Car washes, 7542. Now, the issue there is just the noise generated from the car wash? Page 38 of 46 S 1� March 6 2012 Continued frolthk I ch 2012 mk MR. FERNANDEZ: No. I think there's specific development standards in the LDC for car washes that mitigate those things right adjacent to residential. So hopefully you would find that to be acceptable. There's a number of car washes already in this -- you know, on U.S. 41. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, out of business. MR. FERNANDEZ: And they are limited by hours of operation by the LDC and so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will work. 7699 is repair services. I'm not saying all of them, but there's a list of about a hundred of them. I'm not sure all of them are going to be something you'd want. Like engine repair, except automotive. What is it then? Is that airline engine repair -- I mean, cesspool cleaning, catch basin cleaning, boiler repair, boiler cleaning, blacksmith shops, septic tank cleaning. These are heavier uses that are going to take some -- tractor repair. They're going to take some heavier equipment. Do you need all those uses? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sure we don't. But, for instance, you also have, like, awning repair, dental instrument repair, drafting equipment repair, you know. So it's a matter of -- a lot of these, the ones that you probably find most objectionable, it's not something that the client would probably put on there. For instance, like a cesspool repair facility, that would probably hinder him as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you're going to keep it all indoors and there's no outside storage except for the eight feet in the back, that would eliminate most of these, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Drive -in theaters. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's fine. That is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bowling centers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Drive -in theaters is a use on the Treetops one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bowling centers, 7933. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's wrong with bowling center, though? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're noisy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Inside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but you -- it's pretty noisy outside. I owned one, so -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think they make them a little more sound now, don't they? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You live in East Naples. If you don't mind a bowling center, I'll leave it in. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Bowling isn't bad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it isn't bad. I was just trying -- I was concerned -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I like to bowl. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- about the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's keep it in. It might make a great place for bowling if the guy buys both lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Coin - operated amusement devices, but that's inside so I don't think that's going to be any different than some of the other things. Then 7999. This is amusement and recreation services not elsewhere classified, and there's pages and pages of stuff. Amusement rides, I mean, are you going to put a roller coaster on the property? Animal shows and circuses, fairs and carnivals, archery ranges /operation of, bookies, bookmakers, racing, carnival operation, circus companies, fireworks displays, go -cart raceway operations, go -cart rentals, motorcycle run. Do you need these -- MR. FERNANDEZ: But there's also going to be in there, like, boat rental, and there's, like, a boat rental place next door. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that, but if we give you that -- if you get 7999, you get all 150 uses, of which some of them are pretty extreme, and I'm just wondering -- MR. FERNANDEZ: How about can we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Shooting ranges. Do you want to put a shooting range there? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, again, if it's interior, they design them so you don't hear them on the outside. Page 39 of 46 1612 A8 March 6 2012 Continued from the March 1 2012 meeting) ( eet ng) Can we say interior only? That way if you have a go -cart race, I mean, no one's going to build it inside, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7999, subject to interior only. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. In other words, bridge clubs are listed there, too, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can have an interior bookie; that's good. Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: They teach bridge in the morning; they do bookie in the evening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the afternoon. Let's see. That takes us through -- and I just wanted to make sure the social services don't include homeless shelters is what I'm trying to find. MR. FERNANDEZ: We can exclude homeless shelters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you already -- yeah, that was -- you asked that earlier. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Under the conditional use, I think it -- I don't know if it's in both places or not, but under the conditional uses, it lists homeless shelters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or soup -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I want to remove that, bottle clubs, homeless shelters, correctional institutions, and soup kitchens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there would be none of the conditional uses. Do you need any of the conditional uses in C5? MR. FERNANDEZ: The ones that wouldn't be in C3 or less, no. So that would eliminate bottle clubs, the ones that you mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So no conditional uses that would be attributed to C5 only. MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I think we're there. I've got a list. I can read it to you. There will be no outside vet services, no outdoor -- the only outdoor storage would be limited to eight feet most -- behind the most forward building, and it would be screened. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mark, do you want to say no outdoor animal use or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's the same -- yeah. MR. FERNANDEZ: That way it's covered under one blanket. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, that behind, does that mean behind the front facade or behind the building entirely? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Behind the building is what he said. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's -- when you referenced the other project, it was behind the front facade. MR. FERNANDEZ: It was behind the front facade, but no further than the front of building. That way the public parking areas and so forth are all public and everything that's behind it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the purpose of putting it behind something is so it wouldn't be seen. So if you're just on the side of the building but past -- but just south of the front facades, that doesn't keep it from the -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, what we did in the one that Brad's referring to is that it required that opaque buffer also to be, again, no more than eight feet. It had to be -- it created a continuous facade, basically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight feet. What do you mean, height? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, theoretically what you could do is you could build the building and then have the fence, let's say, five feet back from the front. MR. FERNANDEZ: It would be a wall or vegetation that's 80 percent with opacity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, essentially, it's visible from the street. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, it would be visible from the street. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just want to make sure you're -- because I think your impression, Mark, is that it was actually behind the building itself CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm not sure what good it does to drive down an entry road to this community and seeing outdoor storage packed up on the sides of the building. I anticipated it -- when you said behind the building, I thought you meant behind the building. Page 40 of 46 March 6 2012 Continued Ue La2t' 1 20 CLA3nee8 tin MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, you wouldn't see it if it's got to be less than eight feet high. You basically would -- we would have opacity -- any outdoor storage has to be screened, not just on the property lines, but forward of that, and that's already -- that's in the code; is that right, Ray, I believe? MR. BELLOWS: If I understand the question correctly, you're saying the outside storage areas only, or the commercial lot? MR. FERNANDEZ: Outside storage areas. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, outside storage areas, that's correct. MR. FERNANDEZ: So if it's -- basically then if you had a building and there was a parking lot that went back further and you had some storage back there, you'd have to have that screened between the building and the property line with a wall or a vegetated buffer so you can't see beyond that point. Does that make sense because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're saying. It's just different than what I thought you intended. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Then I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Going through this -- you're still going to go through this property to get to the property in back. So you're going to have an alleyway of some type or a road of some type? MR. FERNANDEZ: It will probably just be a driveway. I mean, it's under common ownership. It would probably be under common development. Again, that's another reason you're not going to see the owners ruin the value of what they can use the back property for by, you know, using it inappropriately in the front. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I've got an idea. The site's 300 feet deep. Why don't we just limit outdoor storage 150 feet back. Can you live with that, Mike? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: And if you want, we can add screen from the road and that way, again, if there's any width to it, we would screen it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just writing this real quick so we get it right. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. I assume this will come back on a consent so we pick up any little thing that we missed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There will be no outside animal services. The outdoor storage will be limited -- will be not allowed in the front 150 feet, and then wherever it is, it will be screened from the road, and there will be no items over eight feet in height. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There will be no communication towers outside the standard towers allowed in the C3 district. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to omit the following SIC sections: 0761,4212,5813-- MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, Mark. Can you go back a couple there. Let me follow along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. 0761, 4212, 5813, 5983, 5989,7021; you'll --under 7299 it will be excluding escort services; you're going to omit 7353, 7833; and under Section 7999, it will be interior only; and then as -- then there'll be no homeless shelters or soup kitchens; and you are not asking for any of the conditional uses applicable to C5 only. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, great. That's all. Okay, thank you. Kay, do you have a staff report? MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I'm with zoning services. You do have the staff report. It's been submitted to you. It is dated "last revised" February 8, 2012. The applicant has gone over the details in the surrounding uses. Staff will just note for the record that we Page 41 of 46 1612 X18 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) are recommending that this petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. We are recommending approval. And we have provided findings of fact in support of our recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Kay or Ray, the answer to this is that when you have a parcel with a zoning district line going through it like this will now have, do you take setbacks from that zoning line treating it, essentially, as if it was a property line with setbacks or not? MS. DESELEM: I'm not sure I follow -- MR. BELLOWS: I wanted to see -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I've been involved in some projects that have had zoning lines go through it, and we're doing setbacks and everything from that zoning line, treating it like a property line. Is that what will happen in this case? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. While the zoning line doesn't function as a property line, the setbacks were building crosses over a zoning line, it would have to comply with the setback requirements for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So as Mike's laying out a building here, the rear setback of that building could be right on this zoning line. You do not have to measure a rear setback from the zoning line? MR. BELLOWS: Well, they have to file a site development plan that shows where, in fact, the zoning line falls within the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. BELLOWS: And if he's using the entire site for a Site Development Plan, the rear yard, if it falls within the other zoning district, that's the rear yard setback for that zoning district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you're saying you don't have to measure -- MR. BELLOWS: It's not measured from the building. It's measured from the rear property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But in other words, you don't measure any setback from the zoning district line? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Obviously if one district had a different side setback, you would see the jog, you know, at that line? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right. I think I was robbed on the other site, but anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Kay? Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. Is this a -- is this common that one parcel of property can be split, the zoning can be split? MS. DESELEM: It can be done, yes. In this case it's dictated by compliance with the Growth Management Plan in that they don't want the borders to extend beyond what is already designated for commercial, and that's addressed in the Growth Management Plan analysis. That's why it's limited to the first 300 feet. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But it -- so if this were -- if they used the whole parcel of property, they couldn't rezone it to C5 because it's bordering -- it has two sides with residential on it? MS. DESELEM: Something like that. It's because of the fact that the commercial only extends a certain portion into the site, the depth of it, and they can't extend the request to intensify the commercial uses beyond the smallest boundary. Like on the one side where it abuts the Treetops commercial, you notice that they align with that rather than the C5. We've seen this in other petitions as well. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So this -- when it says under -- in your staff report on Page 3 of 13 in C, it says a rezone to commercial zoning is requested for the subject property in its entirety. That doesn't mean the entire parcel of property? MS. DESELEM: That's correct. This is common along that 41 corridor because you oftentimes see this where the frontage is stripped out with the commercial zoning and then behind that is residential. Page 42 of 46 161 2' A March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think the community's trying to avoid is strip commercial. MS. DESELEM: To the most extent, but this is an infill project and it does meet that criteria. We've seen this also on 951 where there's commercial on one side or another and they do use an infill to a certain extent. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So this is not an urban residential subdistrict? MS. DESELEM: According to the Growth Management Plan, it is urban mixed -use district urban residential subdistrict, yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And it does not allow commercial zoning in this location? MS. DESELEM: Except when they utilize the infill provision, and that's what they've done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was, though, commercial before the C5. It's always been C3. MS. DESELEM: That's true, yeah. It is commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's just increasing the number of uses by going to C5. So it's always been commercial. MS. DESELEM: Yeah, good point. I'm sorry, I neglected to notice that, yes. It is C3 zoned. So it's already commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And instead of rezoning the whole thing, which would have been problematic because the south piece, he rezoned the top 300 feet because it's in line with the adjoining commercial on the north side. That's the shallowest one of the two pieces he's aligned against. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. But it can't be done where there's residential anyway. They can't -- both sides -- the back of the property has both sides against residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's already zoned C3 there, that back property against residential. Is that what you're asking? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's already C3. That was done -- this is an old zoning parcel that's left over from the old days, from what I could tell, and it's been there a long time. So Treetops already has C3 against it, and so does that subdivision to the south. But that has always been that way. And that's not changing in this meeting today. It's only the north or, I guess, the northwest or northeast section of 300 feet that's being attempted to be changed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Ray, in the future when somebody wants to see how to use this land, they would go to the zoning atlas, they would see a number, they would pull up that number, the hearing, and this is where the restrictions that we put today would be advisable to somebody in the future, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. The title of the approving ordinance will reference that there are changes, that it's not just C5 zoning without conditions, that there are conditions, so the zoning atlas, when it's revised to show the current -- or the approved zoning district, it'll have asterisks and notices that say, you know, you'll need to pull the ordinance number to find the full range of conditions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, just out of curiosity, how often is the zoning atlas updated? MR. BELLOWS: My recollection, talking to graphics department, that comes out every few months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I just happened to do some research last night and found a project from 2011 that's not been changed in the zoning atlas, and I was just wondering. MR. BELLOWS: Some projects were held up from being put on there if there was an issue with the legal description and maybe has to go through a scrivener's error. I'll -- if you can let me know which one that is, I will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm going to be meeting with you on Thursday. I'll go over it with you then. I was just curious. Okay. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Is there any public speakers, Ray? I mean, nobody's in here, so I doubt it. Page 43 of 46 1612 A8 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. No one registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we already heard from Michael. I'm sure he doesn't want to talk again. So with that, I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that we forward RZ- PL20110001572 with a recommendation of approval with the stipulations of uses as outlined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Bill. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5 -0. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, one other thing. In researching the uses on this project, remember we had a chart and we decided to put the stuff back into the description of the different zoning districts, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when we did that, since some of these zoning districts inherit uses, for example, this one, you know, inherits the uses of C4, which inherits C3, the fact that we put it in both of them is kind of confusing, because it doesn't really isolate the new uses per district. For example, let's say C 1 has -- and it doesn't; it has more -- ten uses. I go to C2, it says it inherits the uses of C 1 and then lists all these uses that are in C1. And then let's say it adds five more. So now I have 15 uses. That can be really confusing, because it's difficult to see -- rather than just see the new five, you know, you have to go through and see which one was inherited, which one, you know, is new. And it really gets confusing to review an application like this that goes through a bunch of inherited ones. That's the old charts, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But -- that's what I did. What you're getting at is the old chart. If you highlight the columns that represent the different zoning districts, you can see which ones are added by the new zoning district and which one was accompanied. So you have to do that for every page. But Brad's point is well taken. If we didn't have this sitting around us as an obsolete file -- even though it's slightly inaccurate, it's better than nothing at all, and it gives you a bird's eye view of what the changes are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the question is, why didn't we just --and the prior version of the code did that. It inherited -- you know, it just makes it easy to see that, you know, a C3 has these additional uses, plus the inherited uses. So, I guess, is that something you could look at maybe, or is there a reason why that's easier for you or -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm not sure of the -- 100 percent of all the problems with the charts that led to the need to go back to the old way of listing them, but we can look at that again and talk to those who were involved with the LDC amendments at that time to find out why the tables were problematic and why they were discarded. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- and we do continue on with the tables. We never eliminated them, right? MR. BELLOWS: The tables are no longer part of the current LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're just not updated. Page 44 of 46 i6iz as March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's not good. MR. BELLOWS: They're only for general reference. For specifics you have to go back to the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So would you look at, in the LDC, you know, treating the uses like I described where you only add the new uses to a zoning district and inherit the ones from the prior by reference? Like, it is by reference now, but then you put them all in. And wouldn't that be cumbersome, you know, just to -- MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what he's saying -- you might want to come back with a, first of all, reasoning as to why the charts aren't a good way to go. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But second of all, if we don't go with the charts and we go with our listings, like we do currently, how those listings could be amended to show what is continuous from the prior zoning district and what new uses were specifically added by going from a C4 to a C5, and separate out the -- MR. BELLOWS: On the zoning change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- additions. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That would be a big task, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's a big task when we have to use it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I understand. I think the tables would be the better way of researching that kind of information. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we either have one task where you do it once and then everybody in the future can see it, or everybody in the future whenever they use the code has a big task. MR. BELLOWS: I think what I'll do is -- because I don't know the reason why the tables were eliminated. So I'll find out what the problems were and issues, and we can look at how they -- you know, the better way to depict that information. But, you know, I always thought the tables were fine, but I'm not sure what the issues were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The new way's not fine. MR. BELLOWS: The new way's basically the original way prior to the tables. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Except I don't remember it listing all the inherited uses. It only had the new uses in the old days. MR. BELLOWS: The one thing that might have been a problem is I think maybe the tables were incorrect off the bat, and so they went back to -- instead of fixing the tables, they just went back to the old way of displaying them. But I'm not sure. So let me just check on the reasons why, and we'll get back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Old business? No new business. Motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Diane. All in favor? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. Page 45 of 46 { r It x13 16 March 6, 2012 (Continued from the March 1, 2012 meeting) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:01 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION lx�4- STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on % Z as presented �" or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 46 of 46 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION DENYING PETITION NUMBER BDE- PL2010- 979 FOR A 261 -FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20 FEET ALLOWED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A TOTAL PROTRUSION OF 281 FEET FROM THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE WHICH WILL ALLOW A NEW DOCKING FACILITY OF APPROXIMATELY 11,300 SQUARE FEET OF OVER WATER STRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE 49 BOAT SLIPS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE DUNES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 11495 VANDERBILT BEACH DRIVE IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 261 -foot extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow a 281 -foot protrusion for an 11,300 -foot boat dock facility on submerged lands adjacent to the Dunes Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number BDE- PL2010 -979, filed on behalf of Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd by Timothy Hall of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: See Exhibit "A" Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd/ BDE- PL2010 -979 3/05/12 Page I of be and the same is hereby DENIED. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this I S + day of Lt.Y CGS , 2012. ATTEST: Nick Casalanguida, Deput inistrator Growth Management Division Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: A, X A-- Heidi Ashton -Cicko Assistant County Attorney Section Chief, Land Use /Transportation Attachment: Exhibit A — Legal Description CP \10- CPS - 01042 \72 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Mark P. Strain, Chairman Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd/ BDE- PL2010 -979 3/05/12 Page 2 of 2 All of Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No. 1 Addition, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 10, at Page 8t of the Public Records of Collier County Florida, and all of Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 10, at Page 44 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 4 of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No. 1 Addition; thence N.89 152'20 "W. along the southerly line of said Lot 4, a distance of 599.96 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 4, the same being the southeast corner of Lot 10, Block 1 of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No. 1: thence N.89 °52'20 "W. along the southerly line of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No. 1, a distance of 1400.65 feet to the southwest corner of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1; thence N.00 014'00 "W. along the westerly line of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1, a distance of 1608.90 feet; thence N.34 026'15 "E. along said westerly line, a distance of 439.48 feet to a point on the northerly line of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1; thence N.87 148100 "E. along said northerly line, a distance of 1481.48 feet to the northeast corner of lot 3, block 3 of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1; thence S.02 012'00 "E. a distance of 163.77 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 3 of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1; thence N.87 048'00 "E. a distance of 200.00 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence S.02 112'00 "E. along the easterly line of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1, a distance of 668.16 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1 of said' Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1, the same being the northeast corner of lot 1 of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1 Addition; thence S.02 °12'00 "E. along the easterly line of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1 Addition, a distance of 1209.93 feet to the point of beginning, parcel contains 88.56 acres, more or less. Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. 12 — 02— A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER PDI - PL2012 -159 FOR INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE DUNES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPICTING THE AREA WHERE DOCKS MAY BE CONSIDERED THROUGH A BOAT DOCK EXTENSION APPLICATION IN THE MANMADE PARTION OF THE WATERWAY LABELLED "CONSERVATION EASEMENT/WATERWAY" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11495 VANDERBILT DRIVE IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission is authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to grant insubstantial changes to PUD Master Plans in accordance with Subsections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2.a.4 of the Land Development Code of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a duly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of Petition No. PDI— PL2012 -159, insubstantial changes as shown on the revised Dunes Planned Unit Development Master Plan, being Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 2000 -74. The Collier County Planning Commission has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2.a.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Master Plan do not change the amount of acreage to be retained for preservation, conservation, recreation or open space; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have Commission in public meeting assembled and presented. Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd. / PDI- PL2012 -159 Rev. 3/30/12 1 of 2 been given opportunity to be heard by this the Commission having considered all matters NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number PDI- PL2012 -159 filed on behalf of Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd. by Karen Bishop of PMS Inc. of Naples, be and the same is hereby approved for an insubstantial change to the PUD Master Plan having the effect of revising the Master Plan to depict the area where docks may be considered through a boat dock extension application in the manmade portion of the waterway labeled "Conservation Easement/Waterway ". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number PDI - PL2012 -159 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this !' ATTEST: day of Mr , 2012. Nick Casalanguida, Deputy dministrator Growth Management/Planning & Regulation Division Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: LL64 A-- a-0- H idi Ashton -Cicko Assistant County Attorney Section Chief, Land Use /Transportation Attachment: Exhibit A — PUD Master Plan 12 -CPS- 01144141 Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd. / PDI- PL2012 -159 Rev. 3/30/12 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Mark 11. Strain, Chairman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( . . . . . . ..................... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . PRESERVE . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......ili . . . . . . . . . . . . ......III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . �e . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 'o ifil 2-6 s— rEET PRESERVE II LEGEND . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CONSERVATION EASEMENT/ WETLAND/UPLAND PRESERVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONSERVATION EASEMENT/ . . . . . . . . . . WATERWAY goPART I CONSERVATION EASEMENT/ • WHERE WATERWAY ERE O."S . . . . . . . . . . . . MAY BE CONSIDERED THROUGH A BOAT DOCK EXTENSION APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • LAND USE AREAS CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT To RELOCATION/ . . . . . . • . • • I 1 CHANGE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING. . . . . . . Rll PRESERVE NOTE: . . . . 21' BdARD&LK TO DOCK rLIrY. --i I �— ACI - VAN THE AREA DEPICTED AS CONSERVATION EASEMENT/WATERWAY WILL ALLOW THE (� AREA - - - - - - - • �-Rl �IUL2-OVCR AREA PRaCCT M ECT E--- ACCESS USE OF THE CONSERVATION . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . • . EASEMENT/WATERWAY FOR BOATING • • . . • . . . • . . • AND OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO BOAT DOCKS SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN WATER TURKEY BAY. THE BOAT • . . • . . . . . • . • . II ly DOCKS WILL BE AN ACCESSORY USE . . . . • .. TO RESIDENTIAL. tA 03■ . • • • • • R2 R3 ■ ■ IN f* — ** "B—L —IL DUNE AREA - — -- — - T 7 �j , U'E'B L, AVENUE PUD MASTER PLAN - EXHIBIT A 161 2" 'A8 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES P!.. 6i� w art 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 1, 2012, March 6, 2012 (CCPC cont'd meeting from March P), March 15, 2012 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS Fiala Hiller 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Henning Coyle _ 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Colette A. RZ- PL20110001572: SSP Associates, Inc. -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a C -3 zoning district to a C -5 zoning district for the project known as SSP Associates, Inc. Rezone located south of Tamiami Trail East in Section 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1.75 +/- acres subject to conditions; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] Misc. Corres: Date: -1 I -2-L41 t 1 Item #.k U7= Z A Copies to: 161 2 +AB B. BDE- PL20110001409: Wahl Boat Dock Extension - A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BDE- PL20110001409 for a 34.6 foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 foot limit provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow for a 54.6 foot boat dock facility in an RSF -4 zone on property hereinafter described in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BDE- PL20110000300: Stella Maris Boat Dock Extension- A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BDE- PL20110000300 for a 15 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 35 feet for the benefit of the entire Stella Maris Development totaling 15,707 square feet of dockage and including the addition of two new docks located in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Mike Sawyer, Project Manager] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp 2 ? � � 1612 Oril 5, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 5, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Page 1 of 25 Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern Phillip Brougham Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney (Absent) Brad Schiffer Bill Vonair � x 8 xI 1 April 5, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, April 5th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman is not here. Mr. Vonair? COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is not here. Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Addenda to the agenda. We have one item on consent on --or two on consent and one on advertised public hearings. Anybody have any changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I want to bring up the -- the next item is Planning Commission absences. I want to bring up our other meetings. We have two meetings next week, one is short, one will be long. On the 12th, which is next Thursday, a week from today at 9:00 we have a workshop on the mobility master plan. It's supposed to take no longer than the morning. We've just gotten our books I think yesterday to review it. Does anybody know if they're not going to be able to make it to that meeting? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I will be out of town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're the only person then, okay. On the 13th, that one will be a longer meeting. Either today, if -- Ray, did Caroline give you the agenda for that meeting? MR. BELLOWS: I've seen it but I don't have it with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd suggested that she try to have you distribute it today. But if you didn't get it, that's not possible. It is an LDC amendment hearing. There's a lot of amendments, some are small and quick and others are going to be more intense. That will probably be an all day meeting. And then after that meeting, we will continue to an evening meeting on the 25th of April. That's 5:01 in this room. That's a mandatory evening meeting on LDC amendments that are zoning related. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: What time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5:01. It's got to start a minute after 5:00. And it's going to be in this room on the 25th, in the evening. Let's start with the 13th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on the 13th? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll be out of town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No Melissa. How about the 25th? COMMISSIONER VONAIR: I won't make the 25th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, by the way, I notice the 25th didn't make it on this calendar we have in our packet, so you may want to add that. Page 2 of 25 A 8 1 '2 6 April 5, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Okay, the 25th of April. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's -- was set up through the County Attorney's office. date, Heidi? I believe it was the 25th that Caroline arranged. I know she talked to you -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's my recollection. I'll double check to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's a change, we've got plenty of time to reannounce it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's on this sheet. Am I right, on the CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on there too? Good. I haven't seen that yet. Okay, good. And then our regular meeting is on the 19th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make the 19th regular meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: For some reason I had 9:00 to 12:00 on the 19th. Is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's the 12th. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I mean on the 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but on the 19th it's a regular meeting. I don't know yet what's scheduled. COMMISSIONER EBERT: One thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there's one item scheduled so it may not be a lengthy meeting. But that will be that. ** *Okay, approval of minutes. We were electronically provided with three sets of minutes. We'll take them one at a time. The March 1 st meeting. If there's no comments or changes, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Barry, seconded by Brad -- Barry jumped you guys. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. By the way, Mr. Midney did call in, he has an excused absence today. So he won't be here for this meeting. March 6th CCPC meeting minutes. Anybody have any changes? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VONAIR: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill Vonair. Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On page -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get the second first and then we'll do discussion. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Melissa. Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On Page 7 there's -- I know there's at least something missing on it where I brought up the question of why work force housing was struck through on the material we had for that day and not the previous material. And it's omitted here. I mean, there's nothing. And then Michele's -- there's a response to it, but there's nothing here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't know who -- Page 3 of 25 161 2 A8 April 5, 2012 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This seems -- doesn't seem right to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could someone verify the minutes on Page 7 through the video for the next meeting? I don't know if that's a court reporter who's supposed to or the staff, but -- MR. BELLOWS: We'll figure it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's a revision, let us know so that we can acknowledge that's the correct -- MR. BELLOWS: So that was Page -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 7 of 46. It's the discussion starting with -- where is it, Ms. Mosca? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, it's where I asked -- yeah, I guess it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, started on the top of the page. And her indications are that there should be more -- there was more said regarding why the document was changed. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Housing element, work force housing was omitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you could review the tape and let us know at our next meeting. MR. BELLOWS: What minutes was that from, the March -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: March 6th. MR. BELLOWS: March 6th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Subject to any corrections that come out of that, there's been a motion made and seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. The next set of minutes is March 15th. Any corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If none, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Melissa, seconded by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. ** *Okay, BCC report and recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: There were no land use petitions presented to the board during their last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, since The Dunes was a very controversial project, have you Page 4 of 25 1612 A 8 April 5, 2012 received any extension -- or requests from them to -- MR. BELLOWS: Appeals? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, appeals. MR. BELLOWS: Not to my knowledge. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a comment or a question on that. I had mentioned it to Mr. Bellows that I had a conversation with Mr. Pires, who represented Surf Colony in The Dunes hearing, and he had observed that in the wording of the ordinance that went before us on consent, he had referenced 49 boat slips specifically, even though the attached master plan was as we had altered it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County Attorney's Office did correct that. The County Attorney's Office got that fixed. I think the resolution -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it was a resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- matches the graphic now. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the future we should receive resolutions with the graphic. That probably was just something that slipped through the cracks at this point. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. During our last staff meeting we discussed that particular issue, and we'll make sure the policy is clear that on the CCPC consent that the entire resolution ordinance is attached, not just the page that was changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At least it got caught and fixed. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That was another one of my questions. I thought it was just me. I said maybe I lost the ordinance, because all I recalled was just seeing the modification to the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When it was called to our attention I checked and we had not gotten it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: BCC. Ray, there was discussion, and I didn't see it, on the eliminating or revising planning communities. Do you know what the outcome of that was? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe we -- Mike Bosi is here to be able to address that question. MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commission. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. At the prior BCC meeting the Board directed comprehensive planning staff to initiate a reconfiguration of the planning committees. And for the planning community's benefit -- for the Planning Commission's benefit, the planning communities are basically geographic areas that have been designated since the mid Eighties that have been utilized for information data tracking purposes, utilized for historical regression analysis, trend analysis type information. They felt that the prior configuration of the 11 communities that we had no longer fit some of the like geographic areas, and they wanted comprehensive planning to look at the configuration, the current configuration and vet with the public proposals for various combinations of different subsets of those geographies. So it's going to initiate over the next couple of months we'll start that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Longtime coming. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, is the Planning Commission part of that process, or -- MR. BOSI: I mean, we're in the process -- we're in the process of developing the project master plan for it. There was a number of -- or at least one public meeting that we've had anticipated. If it's the Planning Commission's wish to be involved within the planning community discussion, we will definitely make sure that the project amendment plan includes a stop at the Planning Commission before the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you very much. Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, Chairman's report. Well, I think there's some good news. During the last board meeting a certain individual got a promotion that we all know. And he is now titled His Eminence. And -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: He's got a new crown. Page 5 of 25 161 2 A8 April 5, 21012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, he's got a new crown. If you notice his style's changed a little bit. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Crown of thorns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Crown of thorns. Anyway, congratulations, Nick. It ought to be fun. And one of his things was that -- I don't know, did you get your new iPad? You didn't give it to everybody yet? That's coming, Nick. Nick's staying on top of things with his new position. Just wanted to make sure I set you up, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thanks, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Consent agenda items. The first item up is RZ- PL20110001572, SSP Associates, Inc. It's the project -- or the change in zoning on the South Tamiami Trail East. Is there any comments or anything regarding the consent agenda submissions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to approve on consent? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Motion to approve on consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Brougham. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. ** *Next item up is for consent is BDE- PL20110001409. It's the Wahl boat dock extension. Any comments from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: There is no resolution. There's the revision that we discussed and approved at the meeting, but at least in my packet I do not have a resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This packet went out prior to your staff meeting, Ray, so -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming that the resolution will mirror the packet. I feel comfortable in reviewing it -- as I sign it, if this Board's comfortable with approving it subject to that review on consent. Does that work for you, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The resolution would have been the same one that was in your packet when you originally heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, with the exception of we changed it now. They only got one dock, not two, remember? We didn't do -- so the variance didn't go through, just the resolution for the boat dock extension did. And the resolution for the boat dock extension was limited to that single extension; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll double check it now when it comes forward. MR. BELLOWS: No, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that work for everybody? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, but that works. One question. Is the railing that's shown on this plan new to this plan? In other words, why would we put the Page 6 of 25 161 2 'A8 April 5, 2012 railing on that side? With the variance not being approved, there's not enough room to put a boat on the other side. MR. BELLOWS: Say the question again? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there's a railing shown on the plan. And I don't recall whether that was on the original plan. And since the variance didn't go through, I guess the purpose of a railing is to prevent a boat from being docked on that side of the -- MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe there's anything in the code that would prohibit a boat owner to moor a vessel without a boat lift on an existing dock. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, when we consider docks we consider the boat as part of the dock, so the boat and the dock have to meet the setback. MR. BELLOWS: The petition before you last meeting was for a boat lift to raise the boat out of the water. It did not affect the ability to have a boat moored on that side. That was part of the discussion during the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think what Brad's saying is if you moor a boat there, the width of the boat still has to remain within the allowable area that they can use because the boat is considered part of the dock facility in regards to the way we do look at it. Is that not true, or true? I think that's the clarification he's seeking. Good, Tim, you have some experience with this. You have to be sworn in. (Mr. Hall was duly sworn.) MR. HALL: For the record, Tim Hall from Turrell Hall and Associates. When we went through this, I think we explained to you the variance was to put a boat lift over on that side. Because this dock is a grandfathered facility, the boat can moor there as it -- and still protrude into the setback line. It was the structures associated with the lift, the pilings and all associated with the lift that was the subject of the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And because of the grandfathering, the time frame of this dock, that's the allowable reason why the boat, if it's wider and goes into the setback, as long as it's not a structure, it's acceptable. MR. HALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that agreeable with staff? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that clarify what you're looking for? MR. HALL: And so the railing is a state requirement. They don't want them to be able to moor boats on both sides of that dock. So the side where the boat may moor is left open and the other one is railed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question, Tim, you showed that on the application, the same location of the railing? You probably did, if what you said is true. MR. HALL: I believe so. But I don't remember. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. We can move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only detail that you might look at is on the dock cross - section and then on the proposed design. The proposed design, you show the railing on the inside of the finger pier. On the dock cross - section, it looks like the railing goes out to the full 54.6 feet, which means it would go out across the end of the finger pier as well. That was your intention? MR. HALL: No, the railing only goes out the 32 and a half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 32 and a half is the -- okay. I didn't see that dimension on here. Now I understand how you did it. You had 40.8 less 7.5. Okay, gotcha. Thank you. Anybody have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve the consent as presented, subject to the review of the -- I'll review the resolution when it comes in? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Melissa, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. Page 7 of 25 1612 A8 April 5, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. ** *Okay, that takes care of consent. We'll move right into advertised public hearings. The first and only item up today is another boat dock extension. It's BDE- PL20110000300, Stella Maris boat dock extension. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think I -- Tim, you and I didn't even talk about this. No, I didn't think so. Okay, with that, it's all yours. MR. ROGERS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jeff Rogers, and I'm with Turrell and Hall Associates. Usually I don't get the honor to present this information to you. I usually get taken over by Rocky Scofield or Tim Hall here. But I'm going to give this one a shot since I've been involved with this one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At least you're honest, Jeff, this is good. MR. ROGERS: So I thought I'd break the ice this morning. So bear with me if I stumble or get a little nervous here. I'm here representing the petitioner, Stella Maris, which is located, as you can see on the overhead, down in Port of the Islands, Florida. It's down in the southeast corner of Collier County. It's a man -made canal, water basin, and it's on the south side of the Faka Union Canal, across from the hotel/marina down there, for those of you that have been down there. Our petition is for a multi - family development which currently sits with 48 existing boat docks that all protrude less than 20 feet from the mean high water line as they sit. However, the reason we're here for this petition is strictly for the vessels that are currently being stored on -site that actually overhang the 20 -foot mark. And the furthest protrusion, existing protrusion, is out to 35 feet, which is why our request is in. To give you a little history of what's been going on with this one, Stella Maris had some compliance issues in the past, and as of now we've been working on this diligently to get them all resolved, and this is -- basically we're in the home stretch coming here to Collier County. We have the BDE process, which we're doing right now. And then after that we will have the SDPI to come for making sure that the Site Development Plan reflects these changes and the boat docks themselves. Originally the boat docks were not a part of the SDP, hence the reason we have to do an SDPI, to make sure that they reflect the docks are there now. Anyways, back on December -- or March 23rd, 2010, the BCC by consent approved Stella Maris development to be allowed to have 50 slips, one per each upland unit. Also in that approval was covered the perpendicular and angled mooring. That was not originally allowed, but since then has been approved by the BCC and now we're coming in for the BDE. Page 8 of 25 1612 1-11 A 2 5, 12 0 Okay, with that being said, boat dock extension is required for the 15 feet from the allowed 20 -foot for overall 35 feet. And as I said before, this is strictly to be able to store the vessels at the site. All the docks are built right at the 20 -foot mark. There are a few pilings that stick over a couple of inches down that 20 -foot mark that are associated with boat lifts. But for the most part all the decking and everything is inside the 20 -foot besides the vessels. I keep stressing that because that's what we're asking our boat dock extension for. There is a one large sailboat that sits on the outside, I guess on the north side of the development that -- there's three vessels out there that basically are the reason we have to ask for the 15 -foot extension. Other than that, most of the vessels on -site are 20's and 25 -foot vessels. If we go to the next exhibit. As you can see, if we can zoom in, you can kind of see, it's hard to tell, the inside line where the docks are all located is the 20 -foot mark. And that's currently as it sits. That's exactly how it sits right now. If you can see on the far left side of the picture, there are some vessels that stick well beyond that 20 -foot mark that are on the boat lifts. That being said, those are the reasons why we're here asking for the extension. It's been also asked why aren't we coming in for individual BDE's for each and every upland unit. The reason for that is the seawall shoreline is part of the common space of the development, the Stella Maris HOA; therefore, the upland units do not have riparian rights to the water, and that's why Stella Maris HOA is the applicant on this for an entire boat dock extension out to 35 feet. With that being said also, let me stress that Stella Maris has adopted rules in their HOA that will not allow any future docks to be built past the 20 -foot mark, but the vessels can ultimately be stored out to the 35- foot mark. But no docks or overwater structure is allowed to go past the 20 -foot mark. You guys might have some questions on that. But it's basically when you put a vessel on a boat lift, the vessel will stick out beyond the actual structure. So that's -- like I said, that's really what we're here for. We're asking for the extension for the vessels. We are proposing two new docks at lots 46 and 63. But once again, like I said, those docks will be constructed inside the 20 -foot mark, and the vessels ultimately could potentially overhang but will be located inside the 35 -foot mark, if we're granted that protrusion. To summarize everything, we're requesting a 15 -foot extension for 50 vessels and 50 docks, extending out to 35 feet. The vessels only. And with that, I think I've covered everything. If you guys have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some, yeah. So all the docks are existing that are shown in these drawings. MR. ROGERS: There's 48 existing right now and two additional ones will be constructed. I have an exhibit that I can hand out to you that will show the ultimate finished product. It's the SDPI exhibit. It's actually here. MR. MULHERE: I can hand it out. MR. ROGERS: What's Bob ultimately passing out to you is the finished product when it's all said and done with all of the proposed reconfigurations, the two additional docks that are proposed on lots 46 and 63. I don't know if those lots are specifically labeled. There are a few lots labeled. I can probably point them out to you if you would like clarification on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On this exhibit, look at lot 32, lot 29, lot 30. It looks to me like you're building -- I mean, if the darker docks -- MR. ROGERS: The darker docks are what's proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which means those are new. MR. ROGERS: They're reconfigurations of what's existing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Meaning the old will be torn down and these would be built? MR. ROGERS: No, the decking will be torn up and new piles will probably be installed or removed. But for the most part -- we already have permits for all that, to be honest with you. What we've done here is -- I'll give you a little bit more history, hopefully this will answer your question. We started this off. They don't have state and federal permits. They do now. Not all the docks have state and federal permits. So we went back and we permitted, did after - the -fact pen-nits with the South Florida Water Management District as well as the Army Corps with the proposed changes that you have in your hand. We have permits for those, all those dock changes that you see in front of you. And we're all -- that's why we're proposing those changes through Page 9 of 25 161 2 A,8il 5, 2012 the SDPI to be recorded. But with those changes, no vessels will exceed the 20 -- the docks will not exceed the 20 -foot mark. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One concern, and the concern I have, let me say that upfront and then we'll go back and work towards it, is that we are not allowed to give you excessive dock. Some of these docks are pretty large. And you're saying that you have permits from the county to build the dock out to that 20 feet, yet the county shouldn't have given you that permit because the boat is part of that dimension within the 20 feet. If you look at the old wharf docks here, they're essentially compliant. They put a short four -foot, probably, five -foot maybe dock along the seawall and then they dock their boats alongside that, and everything is within 20 feet, and that's what's supposed to happen. MR. ROGERS: Correct. But due to the lot lines, we're not -- there are zero lot lines here, we're not able to provide any setbacks. So doing a marginal mooring is very tight when you try to put -- imagine the seawall and you put a dock out front of it, along the front of it, and you put a lift out in front. Access to that lift is very difficult due to your neighbor's dock being right there on top of you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you explained that the actual seawall is part of the homeowners association. In other words, the property lines of the townhouses, which are individual, do not go to the seawall anyway. So the point is you can build all along that, it doesn't have to be in the backyard of the townhouse. MR. ROGERS: With the dock? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dock, yeah. I mean -- MR. ROGERS: You mean covering up the sidewalk? There's a sidewalk and there's a seawall and then a gravel area and then it goes up to a sidewalk and into a grassed landscaped area. And there's no -- the HOA will not allow any decking over those areas. I mean, that's a common open area for the HOA. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not my point, though. The point is that the HOA owns the total perimeter of the seawall and the dock could jerry outside it. So they can put docks in any configuration they want. It has nothing to do with the location of townhouses or the property line, the zero line of the townhouses. MR. ROGERS: Okay. Yes, you're right. They could -- they can't -- ultimately with the way it's set up now, they could deck out to the 20- foot mark behind their house and put a boat lift next to it and ultimately the vessel would hang out over the 20 -foot mark, which is what's happened here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm okay with that. What I'm not okay with is the -- take lot 29, there's a really large dock being built there. One of our requirements is not to allow excessive dock areas. MR. ROGERS: That dock is actually being shared by both 29 and 30. If you look at it, it crosses the property line, and both those homeowners are basically building one dock with a lift on each side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the size of the dock. I mean, they don't have to be able to play basketball on it, you know, they just have to be able to access their boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But a question in this line of reasoning, Brad -- and Ray, maybe you need to answer this -- is the dock, as long as it stays within the 20 feet, subject to our excessive rule or is it only when it comes before this board as a boat dock extension that we get into the excessive rule issue? Because every one of these docks, regardless of the square footage, is within the 20 feet. So is that in our purview? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me answer that. In other words, could I as a homeowner go out and build a 20 -foot dock and that's it, I don't have a boat? I just want to place the -- MR. MULHERE: You can. As long as you meet the side setbacks and you don't extend beyond 20 feet. And no boat can be moored on the end of that, because then you would need an extension. You would have to moor the boat on the side and still meet the -- both the side setbacks and the -- what's the -- no, the kind of angle -- the riparian lines. If you did those things, there is no -- nothing in the code that prohibits you from putting in, you know, whatever amount of dock you want within that 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it true, Ray, that I could be a single - family lot, I can come in the side setbacks and I can build a dock 20 feet out and have dances out there if I want? MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that the code allows for boat docks without boat dock extensions to be permitted administratively by staff as long as they do not exceed the 20 -foot limit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's not a boat dock. Because I can't put a boat on it because the boat would exceed the 20 feet. I mean, as soon as a canoe came up to it -- Page 10 of 25 161 2 A8 April 5, 2012 MR. MULHERE: You can put the boat on the side. MR. BELLOWS: That's the key here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would be in the riparian, right, my -- MR. BELLOWS: If they moor the boat so that it exceeds 20 feet, then they need a boat dock extension. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when people build boat docks, there's the insinuation that they're going to have the boat. So it's the dock and the boat that has to be within the 20 feet. MR. BELLOWS: Most people design 20 -foot boat dock so the combination doesn't exceed 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So again, back to 29. Why do you need that large a facility? It's not to access your boat. I mean, it's that you feel you have the right to have a dock across that 20 feet, leaving a small area for the boat. MR. ROGERS: That was the wishes of the resident in that unit. MR. BELLOWS: Is this a preexisting condition that's built this way currently? MR. ROGERS: Most of them are. I believe 29 is proposing a change. MR. BELLOWS: I think the difference in this case is we're dealing with some preexisting structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aren't the preexisting structures built without permits? MR. BELLOWS: And even prior to us having the boat dock extension process, in some cases. MR. ROGERS: Excuse me? These -- some of them do have county building permits, but a lot of them do not have state or federal permits. So there are some with permits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The dock on 29 was permitted by the county? MR. ROGERS: Could very well have been. I don't know for sure. Some of them do, some of them don't. There's a handful, honestly, that only have state and federal permits, only one or two. But there are a handful that do have a county building pennit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thanks, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes, I have quite a few questions along the lines that Brad started with there. But I guess the thing that bothers me the most is some inconsistencies. Number one, is this officially a 15 -foot extension or a 35 -foot extension? I see it proposed both ways here. MR. ROGERS: It's a 15 -foot extension for a total of 35 feet. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Your application states a 35 -foot extension. Just for clarity it's a -- MR. ROGERS: That's correct -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- 15 -foot extension beyond the allowed 20 foot; is that correct? MR. ROGERS: Correct. If that's what the application said, that's incorrect. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It bothers me a great deal that there were 15 or 16 of these existing boat docks that never did get permitted. And I went back and researched at least three or four of them and it appears that the same firm constructed these docks, both permitted and not permitted. I know that's historical and so forth. Were the individual owners responsible for originally contracting to have these docks built? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir, yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can you distinguish their authority and responsibility to do that then versus the HOA's responsibility and ownership of that seawall then? MR. ROGERS: It's the responsibility of each and every individual who goes to build a dock to -- that individual gets permits for their dock. There is more history in regards to the seawall transfer from the developer in this case. There's more history in this one. The developer didn't sign over the seawall shoreline to the Stella Maris HOA. And docks were being built on technically land -- docks were being permitted to be built on land that the Stella Maris technically didn't own at the time. Since then we've done transfers and have gotten the seawall now into the Stella Maris HOA's name, and now we are here for Stella Maris representing them as an HOA to get a boat dock extension for the entire facility after the fact. Because most of these are -- all of these are existing. There are some reconfigurations being proposed to the existing structures. We encourage them to propose those changes and get them permitted now so that down the road five years from now when the permits are still valid they could ultimately make those changes two years from now up to five years. They have up to five years to do what they wish. Whether or not it's built right away or the changes are Page 11 of 25 16 12 A18, ,0„ made, that's up to the client. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Since these docks that were not permitted but yet were constructed, constructed as I understand by the individual property owner. MR. ROGERS: Constructed by a marine contractor that was contracted by the -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, by a contractor paid for by the owner, okay. The unpermitted docks were never inspected or C.O.'d; is that correct? MR. ROGERS: It's my understanding that a lot of them were not. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Then how can I as a commissioner be assured that the unpermitted, non- C.O.'d docks that were -- that are in existence conform to all of the county regulations? MR. ROGERS: That's something that the county staff is going to have to reassure you that they've gone out. I can tell you that they are constructed per the criteria, but that's -- I'm not a county staff, I'm just telling you. But the county's reviewed this, this has been ongoing for a few years with regards to negotiations between Stella Maris and county staff to get this ironed out, and what is the path of least resistance to get this worked out between the county? Because it's mistakes on both parties' ends. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. Code enforcement has been involved in this case and they have been dealing with all these owners and the homeowners association and they know which docks have not received the permits. And with this approval, they will be having to get after - the -fact building permits that will be inspected by the county. So that should take care of that issue. They'll be inspected with the approval of boat dock extension. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It seems like the cart's before the horse in my opinion. MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's already there. If they don't get the extension, then they have to remove the dock. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But what concerns me is if this commission were to vote in favor of this petition, it's like we're giving carte blanche after what's already constructed. MR. BELLOWS: No, if they don't meet the building code then they have to tear it down and rebuild it to meet code -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Why hasn't that occurred to date? MR. BELLOWS: They can't do that until they get an extension. You're just granting the distance, the protrusion into the waterway. That's the only thing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead of looking at what they've done wrong, we ought to look at what they're doing right -- MR. BELLOWS: And what they're trying to do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're coming in trying to fix -- they've recognized there's been a problem, the county's recognized there's a problem. And instead of going out and making a monumental task to do it individually and try to go through it piecemeal fashion, they're coming in to fix the whole thing at once on their own. That's a good thing. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I was just going to say -- for the record, Bob Mulhere. This has been going on for years. These folks have been trying to resolve these issues in the proper way. And they will do it in the proper way. They've spent a lot of time and effort to get to this point. We've worked with staff all the way through this process. So this process that we're pursuing is the process that was recommended by the staff for us to resolve these problems. We can only do what we're told to do to resolve the problems. They will get after - the -fact permits. If the dock doesn't meet the inspection or the county's requirements, it will have to be altered or removed. But we know that they can meet, because we've already gone out there and looked at them. So that we -- at least in talking with the owners we can adequately -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Has staff gone out for site visits and so forth? MR. MULHERE: I don't know -- MR. BELLOWS: I know our code enforcement staff has and -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Planning staff? MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure if Mike has or not. MR. SAWYER: Just for the record, Mike Sawyer, project manager for the project. Page 12 of 25 161 2 Ag April 5, 2012 County code enforcement officers have gone out and inspected. They do in fact, as Ray indicated, know which docks have been permitted, which have not, which need to get after - the -fact pennits, which ones need to be brought up to date. So once the boat dock extension gets approved, we'll be working on getting the SDP to reflect the ultimate configuration of all of the docks as those building permits come in. Whether they're new permits or after - the -fact permits, those will be accompanied with a copy of that Site Development Plan, and they will be approved according to that. Based on those permits, construction will occur, or reconstruction will occur, and then they'll get inspected. And that will also in this case, because it is multi - family, that will include fire review as well. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So you currently know, or code enforcement currently knows which docks that are existing today are going -- if this extension is approved, which docks are going to have to be quote, unquote, fixed. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can staff provide a specific list or commitment of those docks? Because in this application you can't tell. I mean, the permits are issued by address and the plan is by lot. I couldn't make the correlation between the two. I'm just hesitant in that regard. But if you know specifically which of those docks are going to have to be quote, unquote fixed, then I would like to -- I would like that to be documented. Just another question of the applicant then. Jeff? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Two different places -- different places in here, the perimeter is stated at over 2,000 lineal feet. MR. ROGERS: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And in other places, more in the historical documents, it's 973, I believe, feet. MR. ROGERS: Where was that historical? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I can go back and dig in here, but in that settlement agreement or somewhere back in there. And which is correct? MR. ROGERS: Well, I can tell you that the applicant owns 2,118 linear feet of shoreline. And that was surveyed by Court Gregory Surveying two years ago. In fact, in 2010. So based off that 2010 survey, which we reference in our notes, in our drawings, we have approximately 2,118 linear feet of shoreline. Now, I don't know where that 900 came from. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That was in the settlement agreement on Page 1, approved March 23rd, 2010, under Considerations. Forty-two residential condominium units with related accessories and appurtenances and five buildings that were constructed between '96 and '99 with approximately 973 linear feet of seawall shoreline along the Sunrise Cay canal. MR. ROGERS: That's Sunrise, across the way. Mike can answer the question for you. MR. SAWYER: Again, Commissioners, for the record, Mike Sawyer, project manager. The executive summary -- and this has quite honestly raised confusion both on staffs part as well as I'm sure on your part as well. The actual executive summary that was included in your packet, and I actually e- mailed that to you as well so that you had a full clean copy, the first two pages of that is the actual agreement that relates to Stella Maris. The remaining balance of the documentation on that is actually the agreement, the settlement agreement that was done with the other project, the Sunset Cay project. It's in there as far as back -up to show at the time it was presented to the BCC the previous settlement agreement that they had in a related community in the same general area so that they had a correlation between the two. Again, it's back -up to the Stella Maris agreement, which again is just the first two pages. The agreement itself that the BCC approved for Stella Maris is limited just to an agreement in the number of docks that they can have. In this case it's 50, one for each of the multi- family units, as well as the configuration. And that's all that the agreement is for. The remainder of that settlement agreement that you saw is actually for a different project. Page 13 of 25 f 161 2 A8 April 5, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. SAWYER: And again, honestly, that caused confusion on staffs part too. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mike, I have a question for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane -- go ahead. Are you done, Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one second. That's all for now with the applicant. I may have some more later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mike, when was this community built? MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, I would have to research that. I honestly do not remember. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. SAWYER: I would honestly have to go back to the date of the SDP, and I may have that in my notes. I don't remember, quite honestly. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And there -- how many homes are on this completely? MR. SAWYER: There are 50 residential units. They are townhomes. It's a multi - family development. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. It's -- I found it a little interesting that the developer, whoever did this, there was no foresight as to what was going to happen. You would have thought that being on the water there would have been some planning for it, that the association should have this. And it was just kind of left up in the air, do what you want or whatever. What kind of I'm looking at was the fact that you had a marine company that did some of these. Some they got permits for, you said, and some they did not. And it's the same company? MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, that's a good key point. Quite honestly, this is a very unique development to say the least. Normally you think of townhome developments not necessarily having individual lots. This one does. Besides that complication, there is also that strip around the entire development that is common property. Now, it's part of the homeowners association but originally the developer had that. Again, there's been mistakes made by everybody on this particular development. Some of those boat docks, I'm sure when they actually came in and were reviewed as building permits for a single- family boat dock were approved as single - family boat docks, because they had single- family lots. And it's very easy to miss that very small little strip of land that isn't in that particular property. That's one mistake. And county made that mistake, and we recognize that. Not only that, but it should have been recognized by everybody, including starting with the original developer, that this was a multi - family development and that the docks needed to be permitted entirely as the multi - family development. Similar to the SDP itself. The SDP is a unified development. It's got multiple parcels within it. But it's reviewed and everything is recorded on that SDP, including all of the lots, all of the lot descriptions, as a unified development. For instance, from setbacks it's the overall development setbacks, it's not the individual setbacks for the individual lots. Otherwise you would no longer have multi - family development residential buildings, you'd have individual little homes through there; which honestly on a 30 -foot lot you're not going to work real well. So this is honestly totally a multi - family development, multi - family buildings. And right from the get -go they should have been, as far as from a dock standpoint, been permitted as a multi - family development. Again, mistakes have been made, certainly by staff, certainly by the county, certainly by the developer. And right now the reason that there's the agreement that the BCC approved and why we're here today is to get all of that cleaned up so that we can get all the required permits in place, including the building permits. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? MR. MULHERE: Could I just add one comment to that? Mrs. Ebert, I think though you raised a very good point in terms of typically the design would have been coordinated, this whole thing would have been avoided, and a lot of aggravation, I mean, you know, homeowners don't really know, they're trying -- usually they're trying to do the right thing. You had a marine contractor. We don't know whether he told them he got a permit, he didn't. We don't know the answer to any of those questions. He's not here today. So we're trying to resolve -- he or she, I don't know even who it is. Whatever, we're trying to resolve the Page 14 of 25 161 w2 A8 April 5, 2012 problems that existed in the process where we've worked with staff to resolve the issues. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think this is remarkably well coordinated on the part of the developer. I think he had a good plan. I think he was smart to do it this way because what he did is he platted 50 upland lots. Non - waterfront, by the way, these are non - waterfronts lots. If you look at the plat, it says these are to be considered non - waterfront lots. And that was done purposely so that the 10 -foot piece that is owned from the seawall back could be dedicated to the HOA out of a very, what I think would be good reason. Number one, that's one way to regulate the docks and get them in without the side setbacks of the upland lots interfering with it, but also the maintenance of that seawall and all that operation is part of the HOA instead of individual units, which would have been a nightmare having every homeowner go out and fix his seawall independently. So I think just the opposite. This has been a well planned, well thought out scenario for this project, and it's a logical way in which to apply for the docks. So getting that past us, I think the issue now becomes what are we doing with this 35 -foot boat dock extension and how do we look at that in the premise under which you have presented it. You've made some points. You said that each one of these slips will be tied to the upland lot. I'd like to see that as a stipulation. Do you have any problem with that? MR. ROGERS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the last thing a homeowner there needs in an upland lot is to have the slip out front be leased to somebody else and you're in there sleeping and 5:30 in the morning someone's starting a boat up to go fishing. So I don't think that's fair at all. So as long as these are tied to the upland 50 lots, then that's a good thing. The second thing is the protrusion past 20 feet, as you said, with the exception of those existing at this meeting today, which you qualified by the various drawings you've shown, are only for vessel extensions, not for any further future dock extension. If they want a future dock extension past that 20 feet after today, they've got to come in and ask for a BDE for that specific lot. Is that agreement? MR. ROGERS: As well as the -- get permission from the HOA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there's going to be no future docks allowed past the 20 -foot mark without then coming back in for another BDE. So those three points kind of sew it all up as far as I'm concerned. And I do think that I've got to give credit to the Stella Maris people for getting this done collectively as an effort through the county. The amount of time the county would have been spent to chew on this dock by dock would have been forever. We could have just filled code enforcement up for weeks. One question, though: Since the ownership, the HOA stops at the outside of the seawall face, who owns the submerged bottomlands? MR. ROGERS: It's all man -made. It's man - altered. It's not the state, it's -- it's just man -made bottomlands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But who owns it? Someone's got to own the underlying water. MR. ROGERS: Federal. It's a federal navigable channel, so I would guess the feds would have it because it is a federal channel, so -- a federal waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you guys come in for a boat dock in those waters, don't you have to prove that you're allowed to put it there by the property owner who owns it, whether it be the state, DEP, submerged land lease? What is it you're using to allow that to happen? I'm just -- I didn't see it and I was just -- I may have missed it but I haven't been able to get into my research base -- MR. ROGERS: It's not state owned lands and the HOA has waterfront property and therefore the state allows them to put docks out into the waterway. It's not state bottomlands, though. MR. NIULHERE: Settlement trust. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you understanding the question? I mean, you're putting a dock on someone's property. I assumed it was the state's and you have a submerged land lease, and that's what I was trying to get you to say. But it doesn't -- apparently that's not the case. Page 15 of 25 A8 1612 April 5, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is none. MR. MULHERE: I do not know who owns the submerged lands, except we do know that the state doesn't. They did not require a submerged land lease so -- those were dredged -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then do you need permission from that property owner to put the docks on his, hers or whoever's property it is? MR. MULHERE: If anything, it would be the association and they've already given the permission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're assuming it's the association's property. MR. MULHERE: For the 20 feet, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, do we need to have that verified, or is that sufficient? And that's the only question. It just came up today. I would have asked you guys ahead of time had I thought of it, but -- and now realizing where the HOA definition of their 10 foot stops, which is the face of the seawall, I don't see anything telling me who's giving you permission to stick the docks on their property. I thought it was the state and I thought you were going to tell me you had a submerged land lease, but -- MR. ROGERS: We do have state -- the state and feds did give us permission through issuance of their permits, but we do not have a submerged -- we were not required to get a submerged land lease. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that means they didn't do that because they don't own the bottomlands. MR. ROGERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then who's the property owner of the bottomlands? We're back to that again. MR. ROGERS: The county. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I suggest that what we do is that -- they're representing that the association owns the rights or has sufficient rights. We'll confirm it. Mr. Williams will confirm it after the meeting. And if that is not a correct statement, we'll bring it back at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works for me. Does it work for you? I just want -- MR. ROGERS: That's fine -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- want to make sure that you can put the docks on whoever's property it is. Again, I thought it was a submerged land. I'm a little surprised, but it doesn't really matter -- MR. ROGERS: We're here to make it right. We're here to make this right. However we have to do it, we want to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those three suggestions, I'm pleased you agree with them. That's the only issues I had left on this. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIR-MAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question. Since we're only going to do the 50 docks, is there a way we could limit -- when you show in the drawing you've given us that -- all the extensions going around, could we cut the corners off of that? In other words -- well, actually, I think what I'd like to say is that the extension is only available with the extension of the townhouse property line. In other words, what I'm concerned about is the corner there, you don't need that thing to make a corner like you do. MR. ROGERS: You talking about here on these corners? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. ROGERS: Okay, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that could be dangerous. In the future somebody could think they could build a fishing pier out in there or something. And then -- and it could be dangerous maneuvering around the corner. Also, to prevent a large boat showing up, like for example, lot, I think it's probably 41 -- MR. ROGERS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- if we didn't do that, he could extend a boat quite a distance out there. MR. ROGERS: If he didn't -- well, he does have a large sailboat, and that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is fine. It seems to fit, if you've drawn this to scale. Page 16 of 25 161 Aapril 5 2012 MR. ROGERS: I don't understand your question, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is I'd like to remove some of the areas from your dashed drawing, okay? MR. ROGERS: Remove some of that decking? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'll accept the decking, I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I know -- what he's looking for is on the lot, on the side, the long side of 41 and the long side of 49, he's saying no docks there. MR. ROGERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you already have one existing there, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not -- MR. ROGERS: And that's for lot -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm saying no -- first of all, no extension there and -- because you do have a dock there, I don't want to make that a nonconforming -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was getting that part. Those are the two areas you're talking about, though, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wouldn't mind on the northern side if somebody built in there, but just the extension doesn't occur. And I guess a way to word it is that you only get the extension where it's, you know, the continuation of a townhouse property line. Other than that, it's the 20 feet stays back. MR. ROGERS: Our extension is for the entire way around the place. But honestly, it's for the dock that's located behind the house. There will never be any docks built up here in this area, even though the extension is granted for this portion of the development. This upland developer has -- this is his dock here. He will never -- no dock will ever be built there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's take it out. So essentially what it would be is -- and if you -- we could even --just if you -- the extension is only available with the extension of, and you'll show it on the drawing, the townhouse property line. In other words, everybody gets it behind their townhouse but they don't get it on the side lot of their townhouse. MR. ROGERS: That's the one exception, that's existing, the one on the southwest side -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He's fine. He can have his boat dock within 20 feet, and that's what he has, right? MR. ROGERS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And does he want more than that? MR. ROGERS: No, no. What's there is what's proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then he should be okay with the 20 feet there. And then we cut the ability to stick something way out into the corners, which could be a navigable problem. MR. ROGERS: I understand what you're saying now. Yes, we could do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, we could sum it up by saying there would be no extensions on the side lot lines. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, essentially the townhouse line, that zero line, and the staffs having trouble between townhouse and multi - family, but these are legitimate townhouses. It is the extension of that side lot that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if you say no extension on the side lot lines, it applies to the two areas that you're concerned about, which are the only two areas in question. And that boat that's down there exists because he's not looking for an extension. Covers it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I'll give them, I can pass it down so the commissioners can see, and they can hand it to him as to what I think I'm saying on this drawing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a couple more follow -up. In your application under secondary criteria, item number five, you state the Collier County Seagrass Protection Plan was reviewed for the location of known seagrass beds. I inquired of staff for such a document, and eventually we found the purported document that was authored in 1991 but never adopted by the county. Page 17 of 25 161 2 °A8 April 5, 2012 MR. ROGERS: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Certain recommendations were included in the LDC as far as protection of the seagrass. Did you in fact look at this document? MR. ROGERS: Yes. It's this Collier County Seagrass Management Plan, I believe -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Protection. MR. ROGERS: Protection Plan, excuse me. And you are right, it was -- actually, I found out through Chris d'Arco, staff at Collier County, called me, I guess per your conversation with him and I told him that is the plan that we used to make that statement in our applications, and he informed me then that the document was not actually adopted by Collier County. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Correct. And it's now 11 years old. MR. ROGERS: Correct. Therefore he asked me not to quote it anymore, because understandably it wasn't ever adopted and it's an old document so therefore -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And seagrass beds could have been present 11 years ago or could have grown since or become active since -- MR. ROGERS: I think, as you guys have learned, seagrasses grow and come and go as they please -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's why your statement here in your application didn't hold a lot of water with me. MR. ROGERS: I did get in the water and check around the site, sir, but I did not swim a 200 -foot radius around the site. But that is something that we will have to start doing now because that plan was never adopted and therefore is not an official document. So we can't -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We might want to consider -- MR. ROGERS: Updating it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- someone in the county adopting the plan, updating and adopting the plan, so we have a firm base to go forward. MR. ROGERS: Definitely something to consider. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One other thing, Mark. I would still like to see some sort of a stipulation added if we approve this extension that the current docks that are not in compliance with existing code be committed to be brought into compliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think that's a given. That's our law anyway. So why would -- and we don't generally restate our laws in our -- MR. MULHERE: We wouldn't have to restate it. If it would give you some sense of comfort, we're going to get it, we're going to have to get permits. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Quite simply, just list the lot numbers associated with those docks and that would be fine for me. MR. MULHERE: I don't know if code enforcement has the list or not. I know that was said. But look, if there's no permit, they're going to have to get an after - the -fact permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then if you insist on a stipulation for something that -- I mean, that's the problem, it's already stated. But we can just say something as simply that any unpermitted docks will go through the process to be legally permitted. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm good with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? MR. SAWYER: Commissioners, just for clarification, and Heidi was kind enough to point this out, the settlement agreement actually does in fact on Page 5 and 6 include a list of the docks and their permitting status. So you can use that list to understand what code enforcement's understanding is of the docks. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Actually the pages you have are the executive summary for Stella Maris when it went to the Board of County Commissioners. I don't know that they have that in their packets. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We do have it. MR. MULHERE: We'll get permits. MR. SAWYER: We can certainly include this with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the stipulation covers it and that puts everybody to rest. Page 18 of 25 161 April 5, 2012 Is there anybody else asking at this time of the applicant before we go to staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're there. MR. SAWYER: Staffs here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN:. Do you have anything more to throw in, Mike, before we go to public? MR. SAWYER: Just for the record, Commissioners, again, Mike Sawyer with planning services, project manager. As I said, we do have the information as far as the permits and their status. This has been a complicated project, certainly from a standpoint of review. A lot of the original staff that have been working with the homeowners association honestly are not with the county any longer. And so those of us that are remaining have picked up the ball and been trying to get the project moving forward. Again, you are looking at just the extension, principally for vessels in this case. That's what the request is. And also to recognize that they can have two additional docks, from 48 to go to 50. You've got the staff report that's been provided. We are recommending approval of the petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Mike. Any questions of staff? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Mike, can you -- I notice this is on the Faka Union Canal. MR. SAWYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So that would be South Florida Water Management that takes care of this? MR. SAWYER: Actually -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Or the basin, Clarence's department? MR. SAWYER: I believe so. But honestly, when they come to docks, they are not permanent -- they're not pervious structures, okay. In other words, there isn't, I believe, any time that somebody comes in, for instance, that would be coming in on this project to do an insubstantial change to the SDP, to show this dock configuration. And because it's out over water and isn't increasing the impervious area on the site, I do not believe that our engineering department requires a letter mod. or anything from South Florida. They've already got the state permits already from DEP as far as the dock facility itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, what -- the BCC has approved a lot of things in this, it was referenced in the application. So what have they approved so far? MR. SAWYER: The only thing that the BCC approved were the number of docks for Stella Maris and the configuration itself; in other words, finger piers and angled docks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially everything beyond -- or up to the 20 feet. They're okay with the docks -- MR. SAWYER: Honestly, Commissioner, I don't know if that was even part of that agreement or if that was their understanding. I would assume so. It certainly didn't include anything related to the petition before you as far as the extension itself goes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, what I'm trying to say is they're okay with the size of the docks, because they were shown drawings similar to this showing the large size of the docks. MR. SAWYER: The configuration and the number, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have questions of staff before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to speak on this petition? I know you were sworn in, so come on up and use the microphone, sir, and state your name for the record, please. Page 19 of 25 16! 2 Ap, 5 > 2012 . MR. KUNGLE: Good morning, everyone. Richard Kungle's my name. I was elected by the -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you hold the mic -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All these rules we've got just so we can hear you, huh. MR. KUNGLE: I was elected by the homeowners association to initiate once we found that there were some violations. I've been working with Jeff and Turrell for four and a half years. We have spent some $40,000 on this project. We wanted to comply. I met with numerous times code enforcement. They did not wish to, at the time, because we volunteered to go through with the compliance, to cite -- or write any violations. I've had to keep them posted where we were at for the last four years. The state took the longest part, over three years to get their permits and do their research studies. The Army Corps took about six to eight months. The Army Corps deemed we are not impeding any navigation hazards. And they too issued their permits not long ago. Something about -- that was brought up about permitting the docks, some are permitted, some aren't and so on. And that is true. The developer built some docks, or had a dock builder build them in order to sell some of the homes that they included that. Some of those docks, actually the builder pulled permits but they were never closed. So there was a lot of those permits pulled, inspected. It went to the county, but a time period passed and those permits were voided. So there's a number of those fit that category. And I'm sure there's a number fit the category of just didn't get pennitted, period. And as it was stated earlier, a lot of the issues can be spread around to numerous people. Initially when we bought, the developer was going to turn that property, that 10 -foot seawall over to the homeowners association, but he decided he had another buyer and was going to cut us out. So at that time the board elected me to negotiate a deal with Robert Hardy, which was the developer. And we came to terms and paid, by the time all the fees and documents were done, $240,000 some for that seawall property. So we've always been trying to make things right, to be in compliance. I've actually had Jim Seabasty from code enforcement speak at our homeowners association, I think it was three years ago. And he at that time had some of the numbers of the docks that weren't permitted, some of the electrical and so on, but he said don't send anybody down to the county to get permits, we've got to get the BDE, we've got to get the SDPI completed, then I will give you the list so those people can comply. And so that's where we're at. Now, I understand there is an updated list and -- but I was instructed don't have anybody come until this whole deal is done, then they have to come into compliance or their docks go. And association's in full agreement. What's interesting, we're listed as, I think some of you referred to as townhouses, multi - family. But we're taxed as single- family, if you look at the records. It's interesting how it can be both ways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's quite common anymore. That's quite common, sir. Up here. That happens a lot. MR. KUNGLE: It was interesting to me and the homeowner, how can we be two things. But anyway, you brought up the dock, that one large, what appears to be one large dock earlier, I think 29 and whatever the other number was. There actually is a separation. I think the county required you can't use a common stringer where two docks are side by side, you have to put two independent stringers. Although it probably looks like the decking is probably within eighth inch, quarter inch, whatever. But it should be, if that dock met the -- or those two docks met the -- they were permitted, there has to be a separation. And if they were pennitted and inspected and there was not a separation, then that's somebody else's error. So the bottom line really becomes we've been trying to bring this into conformance. I understand there's a lot of communities don't have the money to do it. We've been fortunate. And that's why code elected not to fine us and start violation immediately. Let's get it done and get on with things and make it right. And that's basically where we're at. I think at Turrell and Associates and myself, we've probably got well over 1,000 hours in this project. Pretty much on first name terms with the state and all the people at the State and the Army Corps of Engineers. And they too all say we're all part of the blame. Most people, including the dock builders, up until just recently, had no clue they had to have an Army Corps permit and a State permit, South Florida Water Management. There's only a real handful, probably in Collier County have all three permits. Code enforcement says the majority of the docks in Collier County do not have Anny Corps and State permits. Page 20 of 25 A8 161 Ap ril 5 2012 And it's going to be a mind boggling issue to straighten out that whole affair over the next years. So anyhow, we're trying to comply. And if you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish to just make a comment. I want to commend you and your organization for doing this right. I mean, a lot of people would have gone the route to fight this and try to grandfather and all these other things. You guys are doing it right, and I think that's a good thing. And I also commend code enforcement for working with you so diligently for so long to get it to this point. So those are good points, though. Thank you. MR. KUNGLE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other public comments? Okay, any other general comments from anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, I have one question for you. Whenever we verify the ownership of the water, I'm assuming it's the HOA, let's just use that as a basis, what is the mechanism that they're using to tie that dock that is outside the seawall to the upland unit? MR. ROGERS: Basically -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it a deed, is it lease, is it what? MR. ROGERS: No, it's basically just the location of the dock behind the unit. But we could work something out where we do have a document if required by the board to make it more clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I believe the HOA documents do say that the HOA will lease it out. That was in the declarations that I reviewed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm getting at is I would like whatever instrument you use, to make sure that instrument is required to tie the slip to the immediate back property line of the lot that it's directly behind. MR. ROGERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So somehow I want that to be sewn together. When we know who the actual owner is, it will make it a little easier. But whatever mechanism that is, that needs to be brought together. Because again, I'm more concerned with those upland owners, they don't want somebody that's not themselves out there owning a dock. MR. ROGERS: That's the intention of it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. You want to come back out? Got to come to the mic first. MR. KUNGLE: Richard Kungle again. Originally the developer leased that space to the homeowner. We paid a fee. The homeowners association does not charge a fee to those dock owners. So that was -- I think it was mentioned about a lease. Originally that's the way the developer did present that to us. So we all paid a fee. But the dock owner does not pay a fee to the homeowners association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Does any of the county attorneys, we have two county attorneys here, does either one of you have Internet access right now? Could one of you go to the Property Appraiser's site, bring up Port of the Islands, click on that waterway and see who the owner is registered as. And that would solve the ownership problem before we even have to wait any longer. Because if -- something you just said could be concerning, or something you said combined with another statement that Bob Hardy used to own this. If when you negotiated your 10 -foot strip you didn't negotiate ownership of those water -- the bottomlands, I'm not sure what they would entail. So I'm trying to find that out. Well, he's going to know in a minute, sir. So we'll check in a minute. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While they're checking, just to make sure, you know, these inside corner lots, there's two of them, the top and bottom. With your upland requirement, that wouldn't be a problem for those, would it? In other words, I don't know what number it would be, lots -- 68 and 69, for example, might. They both share. But anyway, I think the homeowners can keep track of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think when, Jeff, you guys, or staff when you word that stipulation, you know what the intent is. Every one of these lots is approved to have a dock based on what the Commission agreed to do in Page 21 of 25 1612 A6 April 5, 2012 the agreement. So now we just need to figure out a way to make sure the dock that they have is tied closely to their upland parcel and not to a another location. That's all we're trying to do. MR. HALL: Mark, if I could comment on the waterway. I don't -- we'll go back and look at this. The attorneys are looking at it as well. I believe when Port of the Islands was actually developed, it was all one big thing. And they dug the canal. There's a drainage easement through a portion of it. But the bottomlands there turned over or dedicated to the use of all of the waterfront property owners. It's the same as the county has over at the boat dock that they bought on the other side of the waterway and the docks all the way around it. It was done under the Port of the Islands umbrella way back in the Seventies, I guess, when that was developed, and it was dedicated to that. And I believe that's the way I remember it. But we will follow up on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically then the plat would have the dedication, right? MR. HALL: It should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have a waterway, well, it's titled canal on your plat. I don't -- well. MR. HALL: I don't know where on there it would have an address -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll have to read it -- yeah, it's too small to try to read right here now. But there's a whole half page of dedications. So if the canals are dedicated, that would take care of it. It's just a matter of knowing it. I wanted just to seal it up and make sure all the T's were crossed and I's were dotted, that's all. MR. HALL: Yeah, no, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Also while they're waiting, let me pass down, this is the drawing to make sure that that's the area I'm saying should be removed, if the Commission's okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You all remember, this is a professional architectural rendering by an architect licensed in the State of Florida. So if you want to see what his work product looks like, this is coming. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it for free. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm not getting anything. Under the Property Appraiser website, it's saying no parcel selected. But we do have software through the real property department that we can identify -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's dedicated on the plat, that works too. I'm just trying to find out to make sure that there's no conflict in the placement there. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Are you pulling something up? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's got a bigger computer than you have. MR. WILLIAMS: If you'd like me to approach, I've got my laptop, I can show you. I know you're familiar with the website -- your identify button, if you click on the lot owner -- but when you're clicking out here, it won't give you anything. It's not giving you any information -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's probably just by dedication. That's good. That's good. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, give it to the applicant, he can give one to the court reporter. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Brad, I have a question for you. Where you have the little x's there's, there's already a boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, the boat is in the 20 -foot area. I'm only taking away the extension area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, the 35. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. That boat's happy. MR. SAWYER: Commissioners, as a suggestion, as far as tying the individual lots to specific docks, since we have to bring potentially that document back to you, I'm assuming under consent, we could also number both the lots as well as docks so that we have that identification at the same time. As a suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be a real simple way to -- if that works for everybody? Yeah, I think that's a good idea. Thank you, Mike, that will work. And Brad's indications where the crosshatching are that in those areas where it's crosshatched, the additional 15 feet does not apply for extension purposes. But within the 20 feet they can still have what they've got. Is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's correct. And give one copy to the court reporter, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with it, Jeff? MR. ROGERS: I do have one question. Let me pass this over. Per this change, I understand what you're trying to do here. I believe we're fine with it. My question is what Page 22 of 25 161 2 as April 5, 2012 if the applicant -- what if the homeowner of this property here wanted to move -- get a bigger boat or do a bigger dock? Would it be all right if he moved it behind his house in this area? Would he be handcuffed to leave the dock there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, is that his little boat in the 20 feet? MR. ROGERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He could certainly bring it around the corner. He has 35 feet, the additional 15 is waiting for him there. It's only along the side. And my biggest concern is nipping off the corner for navigations. MR. ROGERS: Understand. We're fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jeff. We've had all -- yes, sir, you want to -- since you represent the whole organization, we'll give you multiple bites at the apple. MR. KUNGLE: Thank you. There's a couple docks that are angled or paralleled that they protrude over that lot line. It's been a sore spot with some of the owners. But the developer, we'll go back to the developer, he allowed that or did that himself to sell the property. So that lot line could create a problem for those couple dock boats that do show across somebody else's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have to make everything legally compliant after today's meeting. So any reinspection by the county pen-nits, if you're over a lot line you're going to have to get it fixed. So am I not right? If I'm mistaken on that, someone tell me. MR. MULHERE: This is multi - family, so the setbacks apply. They don't apply on a lot -to -lot basis; there really are no lots there. We can number each unit. Some of the lots may protrude a little bit, already existing, not any new ones but already existing, protrude a little bit over that lot line, that already exists. We'll identify those as well. And in general all lots will be assigned -- they'll be assigned to a -- all docks will be assigned to a lot and generally they'll be in front of that lot. I mean, you're only talking about a couple of feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think everything was accepting what's been already in place, so we're not trying to change and undo what the Board's already approved, we're simply saying when you go forward be a little more strict in the way it's laid out. That's all. MR. MULHERE: Which is why Brad's concern over the side, that's where you would want to have that restriction, because that's where the actual setbacks do apply. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. KUNGLE: The association has agreed that any time those properties are sold where you have a boat that does protrude across that projected line, that has to be corrected and brought back within their perimeter of their space. And there's -- and some of those modifications to the dock that's shown on the proposed drawings, that is to correct some of that too as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. foot? How far do they protrude? I mean, is this one foot, two MR. KUNGLE: I don't know what the figure is. Do you know, Bill? Maybe four, five feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's pretty big then. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's big -- MR. KUNGLE: Yeah, and it's upset a lot of people. that was the first buildings built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anybody have any questions of anyone? (No response.) But the developer created the problem initially. And CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that we'll close the public hearing and first have discussion. I have a list of six stipulations, if we want to consider that, depending on the motion. I'll read those to everybody and then we can -- if you all want to discuss them further or make a motion, it's up to you. That there will be 50 slips limited to each -- one per each upland unit, and it will be to the most adjoining unit, and that will be further delineated by a new plan showing the lot and the assigned number of the slip. Page 23 of 25 1612 AIL 5, 2012 The extension will be only for vessels, with the exception of those facilities that could be existing as of today. No future docks will be allowed past the 20 -foot mark without a separate BDE. There will be no extensions on the crosshatched area that Brad has indicated on the diagram that's in front of us now. Any unpermitted docks will go through the process to be legally permitted. And the County Attorney's Office will check the water ownership, although we've just looked and it doesn't seem to be a problem. And we'll just get confirmation on consent that there is no issue there. Those are the notes that I made on stipulations. Does anybody have any other comments, considerations? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion that we approve BDE- PL20110000300 -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- with all six stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With all six stipulations. Is there a second? Barry, with the stipulations? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. We thank you all for coming. And staff, it was an excellent job. Jeff, thank you, you did a great job without Rocky here. MR. ROGERS: I know. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice you had Bob, though, so I'm not sure -- MR. ROGERS: You have to have somebody. MR. MULHERE: That counted against him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, that brings us to the end of our advertised public hearings old business? ** *Okay, is there any new business? Nothing listed. ** *Public comment? Anybody? Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane, seconded by Melissa. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. Page 24 of 25 Is there any 16 12 A Aril 5, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We are out of here. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:24 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on S" �>' l �, as presented or as corrected pe", . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 25 of 25 AGENDA R 1: 1 MDF., -07 MAY 2 3 2012 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., FRID Y L 3 201 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUII PERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. Fiala 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANWsc, Corres: Hiller Henning 2. ROLL CALL BY SECREDWY —1 I2L-11 1 \ L Coyle ✓ 3. ADDENDA TO THE AG Coletta 4. NEW BUSINESS Copies to: A. LDC Amendment Review. Please note: A portion of LDC Amendments will be presented on Wednesday, April 25t' at 5:01p.m. The final portion will be presented on Thursday, May 3`a at 9:00am. Separate agendas will be prepared. # Subsection(s) Description Date Author/Division 1 1.08.02 Definitions - Kenneling 03/20/12, Ray Bellows 2 1.08.02 Definitions - Omission of Rural Subdivision A 03/22/12 Bill Lorenz/ John Houldsworth 3 4.05.02 Design Standards and Parking Space Reqs 03/22/12 Barry Williams 4.05.04 4 3.05.02 D Exemptions from Reqs, Native Vegetation Exception — 12/08/11 Stephen Lenberger Scrivener's error 5 3.05.02 E, Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation - Mangrove Permit 03/12/12 Stephen Lenberger 3.05.05 6 3.05.02 G 1 -7, Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and 03/12/12 Stephen Lenberger 3.05.05, 4.06.04, Preservation, Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation, Trees 10.01.02 and Vegetation Protection, and Development Orders Requirements 7 3.05.02 G 8 Exemptions from Requirements- Create an exemption, removal 03/12/12 Stephen Lenberger permits 8 4.02.14 Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC -ST 03/19/12 Stephen Lenberger 9.04.02 Districts and Types of Variances Authorized 11 10.02.06 D Submittal Reqs for Permits - Agricultural Clearing, errors 12/08/12 Stephen Lenberger 12 10.02.06 L Submittal Re s for Permits - Enforcement and Penalties 3/22/12 Stephen Lenberger 13 2.01.03 Essential Services - Aviation 03/21/12 Ray Bellows 14 2.03.01 Agricultural Zoning Districts - Error of omission 03/14/12 Bill Lorenz/ John Houldsworth C:\ Users \puig i\AppData \Local \Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook \PUSMM5UM \CCPC AGENDA 2 012 — 4 – 13.docx 1612 ea 15 2.03.08 Fringe Zoning District — Scrivener's error 03/22/12 Ray Bellows 16 4.02.01 Dimensional Stds for Principal Uses - Spelling error 11/14/12 Ray Bellows 17 4.02.01 D AC Encroachment 03/20/12 Ray Bellows 18 4.02.04 Standards for Cluster Residential Design - Spelling error 11/14/11 Ray Bellows 19 5.03.02 Fences and Walls Excluding Sound Walls — Scrivener's error 3/22/11 Ray Bellows 20 5.03.06 Dock Facilities - New admin process 3/23/12 Ray Bellows 23 5.03.07 10.02.03 Personal Storage Containers and Submittal Reqs for SDPs 03/08/12 Ray Bellows 24 5.05.04 D Group Housing - FAR change 03/21/12 Ray Bellows 25 5.06.00 Sign Regs and Stds by LUC - Errors of omission 03/20/12 Ray Bellows 26 10.01.02 Development Orders Required - Early Construction Authorization Permit 03/23/12 Jamie French 27 10.02.03 B 1 j -k 10.02.05 Submittal Reqs for SDPs, ROW process and Submittal Reqs for Improvement Plans, 03/13/12 Bill Lorenz/ Reed Jarvi 28 10.02.03 B 3 Submittal Requirements for Insubstantial change - SDPI and SIP 03/22/12 Bill Lorenz/ Claudine Auclair 29 10.02.03 B 4 b 10.03.05 Submittal Reqs for SDPs - extended and Notice Requirements for Public Hearings Before the BCC, the Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, The EAC, and the Historic Preservation Board- error 03/14/12 Bill Lorenz 30 10.02.05 B Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans - Extended 03/14/12 Bill Lorenz 31 10.02.07 C 1 b PUD Monitoring Part II Annual traffic Reports 03/21/12 Bill Lorenz 32 10.02.13 F PUD Monitoring Part I Monitoring reports 03 /22/12 Bill Lorenz 33 Appendix A Update Letter of Credit form 11/14/11 John Houldsworth ** Amendments listed in the agenda that are not discussed will be heard on Thursday, May 3` Planning Commission Meeting PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 7. ADJOURN C:\ Users \puigJ\AppData \Local \Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook \PUSMM5UM \CCPC AGENDA 2012-4— 13. docx 161 8 April 13, 2012 « CCPC/LDC Amendments Special eeting „ TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 13, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F” of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Brad Schiffer Bill Vonier Absent: Paul Midney Philip Brougham Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 of 65 . �s 16 12* A 8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. I mean, there's what, a couple people in the audience, but good morning to you that are here for this enlightening meeting today. This is one of the our more dryer meetings, unfortunately. Not that Caroline, who's new to the county, doesn't do good work, it's just that the LDC happens to be a very tedious process to walk through. And that's what today's meeting will be about is LDC amendments. We have a whole slew of them. But before we start, I want to welcome all of you to the Friday, April 13th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Friday the 13th. So I can expect we'll have a lot of issues today. If you'd all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just barely, looks like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She can give the compliments, can't she? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: She's actually right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is not here, or not here yet. Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Brougham is absent today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, addenda to the agenda. Caroline, I saw that you -- I did it without a printer around, but I saw you sent out another agenda late. Is it any different than the one you sent out a few days ago -- MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure which agenda we're using today, so do you have a new agenda that you sent out last night by email? MS. CILEK: Not by email last night. There are just two updates to the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me what those are? MS. CILEK: And those updates are that we will be discussing essential services, which is 2.01.03, essential services, aviation. It's for discussion today, but we need to vote on it on Wednesday, April 25th, the evening session. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why are we discussing it if we're going to vote on it? Why don't we just hold the whole thing -- MS. CILEK: We can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- off for that date? MS. CILEK: It's up to you if you want to talk about it or if we just want to talk about it on Wednesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know who -- if we talk about it today but we have other board members who aren't here today, there -- MS. CILEK: Then it might be off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're going to have to do it all over again. So let's -- MS. CILEK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --just wait and do it at once. So strike that one till Wednesday. MS. CILEK: Okay. Page 2 of 65 161 2 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What number is that? MS. CILEK: That is number 13. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's number 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 14. What agenda are you using? My agenda says 14. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 2.01.03. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine says -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Mine says 13. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, that's the other agenda. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You have the wrong day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a series of agendas. MS. CILEK: Yes, I'm sure. There have been several. If you need a new agenda, I can pass them out. Do you want to make sure we're all on the same one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It should say the last date is 012/4/13. MS. CILEK: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I've got that one. MS. CILEK: 4 -13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one we're working off of, that's fine. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MS. CILEK: My name is Caroline Cilek. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name, please? MS. CILEK: C- I- L -E -K. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's an outside consultant just here for a day. I'm just kidding. MS. CILEK: And I'm with the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll really confuse Cherie'. Ray Bellows said -- okay, is that the only change on this new -- MS. CILEK: And the second change is on the second page. And that is number 28, 10.02.03.B.3, submittal requirements for an insubstantial change SDPI and SIP. And that one is just -- needs to be redrafted. We have a lot of wordsmithing to do. So it will have the same substance, but we would like to provide you a new draft so we don't have to go through all those type of changes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so number 28 will not be discussed today. MS. CILEK: 10.02.03.B.3, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be for a rewrite. And the 13th will be for Wednesday night. Number 13. Okay, those are the only two changes? MS. CILEK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have an agenda question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some of the -- in the tabs there's some things in here that are not on either day's agenda. What does that mean? MS. CILEK: That is correct. And those will be heard at a regularly scheduled meeting May 3rd and May 17th. I believe that's the next date. So if they're not on this agenda and they're not on the one for Wednesday, that's okay, they're just going to be seen at the next CCPC meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're going to have cleanup of today's meeting. Anything we don't catch in the next two meetings, which is Wednesday night and today, we'll just clean up at our regular meetings as we move forward so we don't have to have another special day to show up for it. MS. CILEK: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, you look like -- you look troubled. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think then when we have the 25th meeting we'll just continue, you know, instead of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. Page 3 of 65 1612 A 8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- we'll continue that meeting to those two dates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. And we'll keep continuing them until we use up all the time needed to finish the complete process. MS. CILEK: Sounds good. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And I think item number 28, that's going to go on the 25th, correct, and you'll -- or is that just going to go -- MS. CILEK: I can have it ready by the 25th, or we can do it May 3rd. It's really -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, certain things have to go on the 25th -- MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if I'm not mistaken. Is that one, Heidi, that you're -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- indicating? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- that has to have the night meeting. MS. CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I would suggest you limit the night meeting to only those things that are needed, because that's going to drag into hours, especially with the Bayshore, it's a lengthy one. MS. CILEK: It is, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I guess we want to move through in the order that you have them on this sheet that you passed out, which is not necessarily the order that they are in the back you gave. MS. CILEK: That is correct. I'm sony for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. MS. CILEK: The book is just by chronological order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the first item up would be 1.08.02, definitions, kenneling. Is there any pre -- anything you want to discuss before we went right into it or do you want to just jump right into it? MS. CILEK: Yes, we met with County Attorney's Office. We just have one word flip and that is on line three, Page 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm waiting for -- I saw Diane move down. The three of us must have something wrong, everybody's separated just by a chair. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You want us to tighten up or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter, we're fine. Okay, let's go. MS. CILEK: On line three, instead of the new added language required to be licensed, we're going to remove that and keep the language that says, and establish a license to operate. Which is currently struck through. So we're just going to keep what was -- is there currently and remove what we had proposed for the new language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except for the last two lines of the cross -out. You're still going to retain the cross -out for the balance of the article, right? MS. CILEK: Yes. It's just one sentence, and then the rest is struck through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on 1.08.02, kenneling. It's the second tab in your book. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any issues with the change in definition? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did. First of all, I'm glad you changed that, because all's you were saying is that it's required to be licensed, it doesn't have to have one, which is not good. The question is, isn't this where code enforcement determines that when people have four dogs that they can't have four dogs in a residential area, because that essentially classifies them as a kennel? MS. CILEK: What we're trying to do here is use this definition to describe those kennels that are permitted in the zoning. So we're just defining the operation itself and not the number of dogs with animals in it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but where in the code then does it allow people to have no more than three dogs in a home? MS. CILEK: I think the intent is to remove that from the LDC, which is regulating land development, and put that in with the animal -- the Domestic Animal Services Department. Page 4 of 65 161 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it in there now? MS. CILEK: Pardon? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that in there now? MS. CILEK: They are currently going through a rewrite of their ordinance. Probably coming forward this year. And so we've been working with them to make sure that they take that into consideration as they work through their new ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there won't be a hiatus where somebody could have 10 dogs in their house and there's no regulation to control that? MS. CILEK: Well, that would be per someone owning 10 dogs. And this is just trying to regulate the actual business in where it can be zoned, just describing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my point is this was the part of the code that people would use when they had too many dogs. They would go into there and they would say wait a minute, you can't have four dogs, that considers you to be a kennel and you're not allowed to be a kennel in a residential neighborhood. MS. CILEK: It's not doing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not? MS. CILEK: No, it's not going to regulate those individuals that have 10 dogs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anymore. MS. CILEK: Correct, anymore. And this was brought in an executive summary to the BCC last year, and it says August on here, but it's actually September 27th. And the intent was to strike through the number of animals in coordination with the kennel definition. So we're just kind of continuing that process forward and making it an LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think Brad's concern is that if you take this out of here before it's implemented in another document you'd have a period of time in which someone could theoretically have 100 dogs on a property and not be in violation, and then when the code does come into play they may be grandfathered in because they did it before the code went in. So I think his concern is valid and 1 think he's trying to find out how you're addressing that concern. I haven't heard the answer yet. MS. CILEK: Right. There is no interim answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why would we want to change this until there is? MS. CILEK: Well, this was the direction of the board to take this as far as an LDC amendment. However, if we need to put it on hold until the ordinance of the domestic services go in, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When the board made that decision, did someone tell them that this would leave a loophole in the law for a period of time until a new agency's documentation was implemented to fill the gap? MS. CILEK: I don't know. We'd have to look at the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, knowing as careful as they are in scrutinizing things lately, I doubt if they'd have wanted to set themselves up for that kind of error. MS. CILEK: Probably not. I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think Brad's point is well made. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And because the only thing they achieve is a cleaner definition of a commercial kennel. And they totally pull out when residential -- you know, because obviously they have where your dog can have puppies and all the other stuff in here, and it doesn't make sense in a residential kennel, but it does make sense as a control on how many dogs a residential property can have. So I don't think we gain anything. We don't get a better definition of the commercial kennel and we just eliminate the residential threshold and essentially put ourselves in the problem of there will be a hiatus where people can have too many dogs. MS. CILEK: That might be the case. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Caroline, is there someone from code who could come to perhaps the May meeting and update them, if you'd like to continue it, to see if there is something in the works? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I definitely think we're wanting it continued. Because I think to go forward without the right information in regards to how this doesn't overlap in the other agency that may be picking it up can be -- MS. CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- harmful to the public in the meantime. Page 5 of 65 �pecia'lAeQng 99 A ril 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Udmen So why don't we just leave this one and not do anything with it and have to continue it to May 3rd. MS. CILEK: That's okay. Ray, do you have anything to add? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or till the point in time when -- MR. BELLOWS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- they can state that this is covered in another ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think it would be helpful to bring the language in the other ordinance that does cover it so we know how well it's covered and the date of enactment of that ordinance and all that -- MS. CILEK: I think it's in progress. I think it's still a draft form, but we can -- Amanda Townsend who's with Domestic Animal Services, she's been in the loop, and she may be here today. I don't know if she's coming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Barry's here. I don't know if he knows anything about dogs. Barry, you're familiar with dogs? You may not want to get up here. Thank you. MS. CILEK: So I will speak to code and see how they would work with this enforcement, and then also talk to Amanda and see where that draft ordinance is in reference to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item is 1.08.02, definitions, omissions of rural subdivision. Is that -- which one is that? It's the third tab back, is that fair to say? MS. CILEK: You skip one and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, are we skipping that third tab? MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to the fourth tab, then. We have four tabs labeled 1.08.02. It's the last one of those that we'll be discussing. MS. CILEK: I do have one change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: And that is on line 16 and 17. And the sentence is: This form of a rural subdivision shall not be exempt from the preliminary subdivision plat (PSP) process. We're going to be striking that language because it is referring to a regulation, and it doesn't necessarily belong -- it does not belong in the definition section, and it is found in another location in the code. So we're not losing something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a two -page change. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, in the top part of your introduction you start with origin, authors, department, then you go down to change. It says reinsert definition of rural subdivision. It's not what you're doing. You're reasserting and modifying the definition of rural subdivision. So I would think it would be helpful just to make that clear so when someone's reading this they know it's not exactly picked up -- MS. CILEK: I can do that, definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's no problem with it, should it be best to -- I guess Heidi, do we have to make a motion on these as we go past each one or at the end of the day? What's best? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's really your choice if you want to do it as you go. Whichever you think is easier for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be easier. Yeah, as long as you don't have a preference, we'll just do it as we go along. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's no concern on this rural subdivision issue, could I have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. Page 6 of 65 161 '2 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, seconded by Bill. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Next one is 4.05.02. It's a little further in your book. And it's design standards for parking space requirements. MS. CILEK: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4.05.02. Okay. That's quite a ways in the book. It's about halfway through. 4.05.02. The tab's on the -- it would be the second from the bottom tab. MS. CILEK: Oh, they might be different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That doesn't make it easy. MS. CILEK: I use my tabs. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mine says about parks? MS. CILEK: Yeah, parking, grass parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Design standards for -- it's under LDC section for parking space requirements. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: There are a few changes to this one. And this is also why Mr. Barry Williams is here, so he can answer any questions related to Parks and Recs bringing this forward. But the first change is on line 16/17. And we have a sentence that is a may. Applicants may consider all grass parking spaces impervious in the water management calculations. And since that is sort of an option and not the minimum requirements of the code, we're going to strike that. So that won't be included. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just the may? MS. CILEK: Just the may sentence, yeah -- no, the entire sentence. COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Oh, the entire sentence. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Say that again, where are you going to start it? MS. CILEK: Line 16, applicants may consider all grass parking spaces impervious in the water management calculations. MR. BELLOWS: And that's coming out. MS. CILEK: And that is being removed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You say that's line 16? I've got it as line -- MS. CILEK: Line 16 and 17. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pve got it as line nine and 10. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's under A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got it A. I'm looking at it, it's line -- now -- MR. BELLOWS: You must have an earlier -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: I've got it 16 and 17. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do you have a different book, Mark? Page 7 of 65 1612 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe I do. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a special book that makes it more confusion as the chairman to organize the meeting. MS. CILEK: Okay, well, let's see what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Caroline's subtle way of putting me in my place, I guess. MS. CILEK: We're going to go -- we're going to talk numbers, maybe not lines now. B.2. D. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What is it? MS. CILEK: B. So the whole section is B. 2.D. So the last D, public parks and similar community uses, that line, we're going to insert one word. Public parks and similar public community uses. So we're inserting public. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. CILEK: Heidi can take that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Actually, she's addressing the prior amendment, and these are both issues that I had raised. And the reason that I raised this is that you'll be in a situation where community uses would apply to both public and private. And the intent, when Barry went forward, was to just capture public community surfaces -- I mean, public community uses. MS. CILEK: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a private community service? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I mean, every PUD that has, you know, recreational facilities, it was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- a change, that language was added as a result of DSAC, which was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good, that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why would we want to limit private any differently than we do the public? Because actually, a private area may even have less traffic than a public. It would be more beneficial for them. What difference would it make? If we feel it's good for a public community use like a park or something, why couldn't it be for a private community? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. One of the things that was somewhat of a concern is have more control of our maintenance in a public versus a private situation. It's easier to work with the county agency to fix what could be a problem with grass parking while there would be numerous private facilities that would be much more after code enforcement issue if those parking -- grass parking spaces degraded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, with our budget crisis we have in this county, I'm not sure we're going to be the best maintainers of anything. I'm not -- I don't know why it would be fair to let the government have a benefit that the private sector couldn't benefit from as well. MS. CILEK: That's a really good question. And in the header we describe that the county is currently going through a low impact design with manual and which will go into the LDC. And that's in this year, next year, that's something we're implementing with the watershed management plans. And so we fully intend to address looking at public use -- or private uses being able to use grass parking. Definitely is something that we want to look at. And we will be -- we just didn't want to do it in this amendment because we want to be able to do more research before we start saying that these various uses can have this much grass parking versus this much grass parking, or maybe it's -- MR. BELLOWS: Pavers and -- MS. CILEK: -- grass pavers. So we want to do our homework before we start looking into other types of development besides public parks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you didn't do your homework though then for the public parks section? MS. CILEK: No, this is very specific. And we did work with Parks and Rec on how they are going to maintain -- what kind of use that they have at these public parks, and this was all appropriate. But before we go into the private realm, we really do want to do our low impact design manual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you do the manual, are you going to come through with LDC changes? MS. CILEK: You bet. Page 8 of 65 i 16 Ir2 A April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special eeting" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then if this is inappropriate for the private party at the time you do the manual, you could revert it back, right? Or revert it to whatever the manual says. MS. CILEK: Perhaps, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see the need for the government to have special privileges and things when I don't see the performance in the government any different than that in the private sector when they want to maintain a marketable product. I mean, any community doesn't take care of their product, they're going to have problems on top of code enforcement. MS. CILEK: Well, it's really whether -- if Heidi's okay with keeping it as it is -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I would change it to private recreational facilities, or recreational facilities and private developments. Because if you use community use, what is that? And then, you know, pretty much any PUD or any development that's got a clubhouse, and I'm not really sure if they already have the ability to reduce the parking already through our, what's it called, reduced parking -- MR. BELLOWS: There's administrative parking reduction. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What percentage is that, Ray, do you know? MR. BELLOWS: On administrative parking reduction? Well, it's on a case -by -case basis. They have to submit a study that demonstrates the parking demand for that particular use and the historic parking requirements. So it's a real detailed study, but it's done on a case -by -case basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the county have the same right to do that study in -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, they do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So again, I mean, we're back to providing something special to the government for reasons that to me are no different than the ones we have already imposed on the private sector. Because we have code enforcement. And if it's an enforcement issue -- MS. CILEK: Then they can handle it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they shouldn't be penalized for it. I don't -- I think we ought to make sure they're left equal. But that's just my opinion. What's this board -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa. Anybody have a concern? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, yeah. I don't -- I'm going to ask you a question about this. As far as parking lots, does this go for commercial also, like a grocery store and stuff? This is just for the park, grass spaces is what you're trying to say? MS. CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, wait a minute, that clause -- MS. CILEK: That clause. COMMISSIONER SC14IFFER: -- does. But the rest of the wording applies to -- MS. CILEK: There's already an existing provision in the code that allows for -- MR. BELLOWS: Churches. MS. CILEK: -- churches and schools. And developers -- and if you look down at D, the thing ex'd out, developers providing parking lots in excess of 200 parking spaces may surface 15 percent of the required off - street parking spaces in grass. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And you're crossing all that out? MS. CILEK: No, it's going up into the new version. We're trying to consolidate these two, because there's two places in the code that refer to grass parking. So our goal is to consolidate. So that's being capped. So the answer to your question, schools, houses of worship and this clause right here, which is about -- if you're putting a lot of parking in, then you can put 15 percent in. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, okay. MS. CILEK: That doesn't change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry? MR. WILLIAMS: Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. Page 9 of 65 A8 April 13 ,2012 "CCPC/LD16n1en?s Special Me etin " I just wanted to say, unrelated to this topic, if you'll allow me this, is the Isles of Capri paddle craft park opened the other day, and your name came up frequently. I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, thank you. MR. WILLIAMS: In a favorable light, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that's amazing. But I appreciate that. MR. WILLIAMS: I guess I -- you know, to offer context, you know, this came up ironically with the Gordon River Greenway. And one of the limitations that we had is there was a request from the EAC for us to develop the project so that it was more green. And that project is 90 percent preserved, so it is a very green project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A lot of green. MR. WILLIAMS: But the parking area was a concern. But we were limited by the current code that would only allow 15 percent of the parking area to be in this condition. So this is what the genesis of this was. We also follow the low impact development and what's happening with that. And we know that that's going to affect the LDC at some point. Certainly we can wait for that, if that's the desire. I think we were just -- we were seeing this as an issue that we would like that option, you know, as we develop parks, you know, for the same reason that, you know, it's provided in the LDC, it's, you know, you develop a parking space in a park in particular and your high use typically is at night, and so, you know, you don't want to pave paradise just for that use. And so if we had that option -- you know, it also allows us, you know, when we develop the parks, to kind of see what the utilization is. You know, you might keep it green all the time. You know, Goodland is a good example of that where as we develop that facility, the entire parking area for the boat trailer is green. It's grassed. So we're flexible in this I guess is my point. I think we just wanted to -- if we had that option, you know, to exceed the 15 percent through this change in the LDC, that would be beneficial for us for those reasons, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we ought to move forward with this, and if the low impact design comes in and we have to amend things to coordinate with that better at that time, that's fine. But in the meantime you've got the benefit of it. And I think that the more opportunity we provide the private sector with grass instead of asphalt, we're all better off for it. So I'm -- I don't know why we wouldn't leave it public parks and similar private recreational facilities may use 70 percent. Is that -- Heidi, does that language work for you? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You could either put public or private parks or you could put public parks and similar private recreational facilities in residential developments. I'm just trying to think of other community type uses that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would rather go with residential facilities, because not all clubs in private communities are considered parks. They're considered recreational amenities. So I think if we term it that way, we open the door for the benefit of all those kind of activities. And I think that's the way we ought to be looking. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So did you want to go with the private recreational facilities in residential developments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like that language. Anybody else have any problems? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any -- is there any other issues, Caroline, in this one? MS. CILEK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, just in format of this thing, if you -- you've given it, the number two, given it the same priority as the surfacing. So what you're saying is that parking lots have to meet the following standards, and you can't meet one if you're doing two. So the question is maybe in formatting this should be a subset of one. MS. CILEK: I think that's a good idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing I would do is you see in grass parking the second line where it says grass parking may be used to satisfy, should probably be the first line in that paragraph. Just to -- if you subset one and then you say grass parking could be used in lieu of, and then you start down and bump up the A's to whatever. Because otherwise you never could meet it. The -- in A it says that if the parking's in excess of 15 percent, it has to be considered impervious in your Page 10 of 65 16 April 13, 2012 A_8 CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting water management calculation. So if it's less than 15 percent, you can consider it pervious then, right? MS. CILEK: Oh, goodness. Okay. So if it's -- and our county engineer's here to clarify this impervious /pervious stormwater element of this. But if it's over 15 percent, I believe it's that it needs to be counted as impervious so they provide the adequate stormwater management elements so that in the future if there is any need to pave any portion of it, that that stormwater is taken care of at a deficit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my point is if it's less than 15, what is it? MS. CILEK: Well, I imagine it's fine, it's just considered pervious. And that remains -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, as long as that's the intent. MS. CILEK: Yeah. Remains consistent with what we have for D, which is being crossed out and put in, which is the 15 percent too. So that's where it came from. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And having experienced the rainy Sunday morning where the church had the tow truck pulling the cars out of the paved parking lot, it is a self, you know, policing thing that happens here. And then down in B, significant negative environmental, I know that's old words, but give me an example of what would be in the significant environmental impact of paving a parking lot. Because what this is saying, I guess it used to say, but -- it used to say that the county manager could say no, no, you can't pave that, you have to put grass. MS. CILEK: You know, I can't really speak to that clause. I haven't really thought about it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Ray, have we ever pulled that on anybody, or -- MR. BELLOWS: Could you repeat the question, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there's some phrasing in B that states paving it would be -- you know, cause a significant negative environmental impact, the county manager can make you not pave, or put it on grass. MS. CILEK: Have we ever done that? MR. BELLOWS: Not to my knowledge. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is that something useful then, or -- I guess keep it in our holster just in case, but -- okay. I'm done, thanks, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One point, Caroline. The number four, you're omitting it. And I'm assuming you're omitting it because it's addressed elsewhere in the code? MS. CILEK: No, it is going -- and it is being addressed in 4.05.02, and it is going in A. So we worded it in A -- no, I'm sorry, C. And then the -- so that first sentence, developers providing parking lots in excess of 200 parking spaces may surface 15 percent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in A. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's in A. MS. CILEK: It's kind of in both. The first sentence, if D is in C. And then the other things are covered in A. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We're supposed to make this much plainer, and this is not much plainer. MS. CILEK: What -- D was very important, and it had very important information in it. And so we had to take the second half of D and put it in with the broader element of what it applies to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's just getting more confusing. I think what definitely is going to have to happen, you're going to bring this one back on May 3rd with a rewrite, cleaning everything up that we've talked about. MS. CILEK: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only concern with four was to make sure it was covered, because we do want the driveways, handicapped spaces and access aisles to be paved. MS. CILEK: And it is covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. As long as that's covered, that of the point -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't have a choice. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what 1 thought. MS. CILEK: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: God's bigger than us, it will come down on that one. MS. CILEK: It's in there. Page 11 of 65 161 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that will come back on May 3rd, right? MS. CIL.EK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next one is 3.05.02.D. We're moving back forward in the book. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Say that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.05.02.D. And that one is titled exemptions from requirements for vegetation protection in preservation. Scrivener's error. Steve? MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Growth Management Division. The first amendment I have is correcting a scrivener's error to the rural fringe mixed use district of the LDC. We took a look at the language and it didn't quite look right in the LDC and so we had to go back to the comp. plan. The comp. plan has some vesting language in the Conservation Coastal Management Element which was not brought forward correctly. It was scrivener's errors. It was supposed to exempt these pre- approved development orders from the native vegetation requirements, the new stringent requirements for the rural fringe mixed use district. And there was a relettering or actually mis- lettering which we had to correct. So that's basically what we did. Basically they basically keep -- the projects that are existing keep their preserves in the same location. They're not required to have greater preserves, and they're not required to relocate them, just keep them the way they are in their previously approved development order. So we had to make sure that was clear and we were implementing the GMP correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Mr. Schiffer. Is there a -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- second? By Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Next item up is exemptions from requirements for vegetation mangrove permitting, 3.05.02.E. That's the next one in the tab. MR. LENBERGER: Right, this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, do you want to -- give us a quick rundown. MR. LENBERGER: Sure, I'll give you a brief overview. There's two sections of the code being amended here. One is 3.05.02, which is exemptions from the requirements of vegetation protection and preservation. So it's exemptions. And then the other one is 3.05.05, which is criteria for removal of protected vegetation, which is where we issue pen-nits in accordance with the criteria in that section. And we had several questions come through with a couple different applicants regarding mangrove trimming and removal. One was trimming mangroves along a canal to maintain a waterway. And I'm looking at the code and Page 12 of 65 A8 April 13 2012 "CCPC OAJen ents Special Meeting" p � p g saying to myself, well, what applies? And I didn't feel very comfortable about that. And so I got with Heidi and she was very helpful and she went through the statutes for mangrove trimming. And mangrove trimming is regulated by the state exclusively, unless the county has delegated that authority from the state. So we included -- we revised the language in the exemption section to make it consistent with state law, because county has not been delegated that authority -- this county has not been delegated that authority. And we had to reword the criteria for removal as far as removing mangroves. And we did that and we also carried forth language that mangrove removal or destruction is prohibited in all preserves or areas used to fulfill the native vegetation retention requirements of the county, unless given a variance by the BCC or authorized to be removed from allowed uses within preserves, which is the permitted uses such as boardwalks or for habitat restoration as part of an approved preserve management plan pursuant to 3.05.07.H. That would be for ecological restoration of things of that nature. And I'm glad to answer any questions. Heidi is here as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Soon Page 2 where you're eliminating the word altered, just to be more specific so that you're comfortable trimming. In other words, if you're going to remove it or destroy it, you've got to deal with it. But just to alter it you're going to be allowed to do that; is that right? MR. LENBERGER: I'm sorry, I can hardly hear you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Page 2 you have the word alter. In F you're killing the word alter and adding remove -- MR. LENBERGER: Remove or destroy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- or destroy. So the intent of that is that there are some things that can be done to a mangrove. MR. LENBERGER: They can be trimming the mangroves in accordance with DEP criteria. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anvbodv opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Next item is 3.05.02.G -1 through 7. And a series of others. That's the next one -- next tab on the sheet. MR. LENBERGER: Let me know when you're ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're good to go. It's easy to follow this one, we're in order. MR. LENBERGER: All right. This amendment -- and I'll just refer to it as a clearing and filling amendment. The vegetation removal and site filling permit criteria, VRSP. Page 13 of 65 1612 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" A couple of things initiated this amendment. One is the section of the code dealing with clearing and filling, particularly 4.06.04, is very confusing. If you read it, it's really hard to interpret it. And I had to do some interpretation for management to work through with them when we had different issues come up. So it had to be restructured. Also too is we took a fresh look at it and realized why do we have certain things in here. You know, what do we really need. And I worked with Jeff McKenna, who was very helpful with engineering staff. And we kind of looked through all the different requirements and thinking, okay, what do we need to do here? So we took a whole fresh look at it and reworded it. And the first part that deals with -- and everything kind of relates back to the clearing and filling section, that's why all these other sections were brought into the amendment. And one was the exemptions from requirements for vegetation protection/preservation. And there's a simple reference there we had to amend because we're restructuring 4.06.04. And that's line 14 on Page 2. Very minor correction, but we had to do that. The criteria for removal of protected vegetation, we just -- instead of having this paragraph form we spelled it out clearly in a list form of what needs to happen for early clearing. Basically carrying through. There were a couple changes. I met with Heidi yesterday, actually, and she had some rewording on a few of these amendments. And what I'd like to do is they're actually not too hard to follow if I put them up on the visualizer in highlight. So I'll do that. As I go along, if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. Anything to make it easier, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. And under the bottom of Page 3 where it says conservation easements are complete and have been approved by the county attorney's office, I didn't realize the process changed but which staff coordinates for county attorney's office in recording these conservation easements. So instead of approved by the county attorney's office, since the county attorney's office does forward the conservation easement for recording, we changed it to recorded in public records. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This early removal. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Certain things have to be in place now before a developer can do this; is this correct? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. There's two sections that deal with what has to be done. This section on 3.05.05, which is criteria of the early clearings, we just talked about. And at the end of this amendment there's an early work authorization section which also has criteria, and I'll go through that as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's very important, because of Vita Toscana where they went ahead and cleared everything and never had plans approved and we had to replan it and there was -- yeah, it's -- big developments that do this. MR. LENBERGER: Site plans don't have to be -- well, we can go through that when we get to it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: If we go over to Page 4, it works into the 4.06.04 section. And what we did is we took a clean slate. We just crossed through everything. And that's the clearing and filling section. And we restructured it. And basically clearing and filling -- and it has guidelines here. You -- there's an exemption which we carried forward, and this is clearing and filling associated with the Site Development Plan. We added site improvement plans because we realized that there are some site improvements plans which would qualify for this, or which could qualify for this. And plat and plans and also separate vegetation removal and site fill permits which are referenced further down. We also carried -- we also added the exclusion for the Golden Gate Estates. When this amendment was first done, it was done by a previous engineer and environmental supervisors. And there was a voice by the community that they didn't want this to apply to the Golden Gate Estates. And I recognize that, but it was never included in the amendment and I don't know why. So I made sure it was included in here that these provisions were not to apply to the Golden Gate Estates. And if you go under that first -- under A -1, in conjunction with an SDP, SIP or PPL, we have a few changes, and I'm going to put those on the visualizer. Basically just some wordsmithing. And what I did is since all the language is underlined, which means added Page 14 of 65 16 172 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" language, I just highlighted areas in there. And if it's just -- if it's highlighted and underlined it's the new language. If it's highlighted and underlined but crossed out, that's the language that we had in the amendment that you have in front of you that we're removing. And this is wordsmithing that Heidi had done with us. It's just cleaning up the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why are we not getting it cleaned up? Why are we getting documents that the county attorney's office reviewed at the 11th hour and now we're changing on the fly at a meeting so we haven't had time to read them and incorporate the changes into our mindset when we read the whole document? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Because there's not time between the DSAC review and the time it gets to me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just schedule it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- to review it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if we hear these six months from now, what difference does it make? I'd rather you reviewed them and weighed in and staff gave us a corrected document that we haven't got to change on the fly and not know what we're missing in a public meeting. It doesn't matter if we -- why are we rushing this through? I'm just curious. We do this repeatedly and I don't see the need for it. What is the -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, this is one that could be continued till May. And you can have it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Heidi, the whole basis -- staff ought to be working closely and absolutely hand -in -hand with the attorney's office. You guys need to be getting things timely and we need to be getting them after legal review, because legal review is absolutely critical. So this is -- putting these many changes on the record to do and then expect us to make a decision is an unnecessary process when we could have gotten the final language, reviewed it and taken an action on it and been done with it today. Because right now it can't be finished today this way. Because we're going to need time to chew on this after today. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The only thing I could suggest is when you set the schedule that you have like a couple month window after completion of DSAC. I think that what they do is they go through very -- a lot of different versions with DSAC. And we changed our process this year so that we don't review them until they come to the CCPC. So I get what goes to the CCPC. Because frankly, it continues to change until your book goes out. And it ends up that we review it and review it and review it and we're duplicating our efforts over and over and over and it's not really being productive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I support your position, Heidi, only because without a good legal review our legal defense in any challenge is basically the rug's pulled out from underneath it. So I would rather we see the time that you have adequate time to do whatever you've got to do. It's critical to the process. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The only way that could be accomplished is again if, you know, scheduling they have a window of maybe two or three months after the completion by DSAC, because DSAC will continue to make changes and have them go forward is the way I'm seeing, anyway. I mean, I think Chris and Caroline have done a fantastic job this year, and this does end up being very, very crazy for staff to process all the amendments when they're getting amendments from DSAC and from different staff departments and from county attorney's office, and it's not an easy task to schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Out of fairness to this board, I mean, we'll continue with the walk - through of the changes that Steve's putting on the record now. But, I mean, from my perspective there's no way that I can see this being approved today. We're going to have to come back with the ones that are rewrites after the county attorney's office has had adequate time to review them, and whatever time it takes, we'll schedule the next meeting accordingly. MS. CILEK: That sounds great. And I do apologize for some of these that have more than others, and we will definitely work with Steve and get you every draft for this one for the next meeting on May 3rd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's keep walking through this. I just -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I agree with you, because this makes me uncomfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to get it back and we'll chew on the new information Steve provides by the changes here. I'm assuming we'll get a highlighted correction sheet on the ones that we have to have rewritten, and then we'll schedule them after the county attorney's office has had time to review the changes to make sure that everything is legally sufficient. Okay, Steve, sorry to interrupt you. MR. LENBERGER: All right. DSAC did hear this a while back. Every time something gets amended Page 15 of 65 s 161 2 .. A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" through different public hearings, we don't go back to the first board every time there's a change. Just so you understand that. And this went to the DSAC a while back. MS. CILEK: And that's a separate issue. I mean, Heidi reviewed these all basically in the same time period. So whether they went to DSAC early or later, she -- I gave her a completed binder. And that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it goes to DSAC whenever it goes, their input is recommendations to this board and the board above us. But most importantly, to both boards I think is legal coordination. So I don't care when they do the review, as long as before it gets to us Heidi has had time to do her legal review. So -- and that's the critical part. MR. LENBERGER: Then we should maybe have a sign -off process before we move forward in the future, probably from the county attorney's office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever you guys work out. But I really think Heidi's input is extremely important to this process. MR. LENBERGER: And I agree with that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, it would have been a -- what we should have done or could have done is just distributed the new version for you to review for the next meeting. So that might be, you know, another option. So, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll continue plugging through it, Steve, but we'll just wait for a rewrite to actually take action on it, so -- MR. LENBERGER: Well, I mean, I could put up the language on the visualizer, but I think I'd like to just go through the gist of the reasons why this amendment is going forward, and not so much concentrate on the language tweaking which happened, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think any current changes we have or recommendation, we'll give those to you today so when the rewrite comes back it has your new input and our new input as well. Go ahead. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Sorry for interrupting. You could just go through the changes and you have a version. We can photocopy it and distribute it so you can take it home, you know, later today for a future meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we already got another rewrite, so why don't we just wait and get all the rewrites together in one lump sum. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be better. Okay, your turn. MR. LENBERGER: I could go through this whole thing, but I think it would probably be best just to turn to Page 1 and kind of give you an overview that way where it says change. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where are you at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 1. MR. LENBERGER: It says restructuring 4.06.04 for clarifications. And we changed some revegetation requirements. Revegetation requirements were that if you cleared and filled but you didn't -- if you didn't utilize the property in a certain amount of time frame, you had to remove the fill and restore with native vegetation. It didn't take into account whether the area is going to be developed anyway in the future, so we changed that to stabilization type vegetation as opposed to restoring to native habitat, because you're going to develop it anyway sometime in the future. So that's why the changes to the revegetation came about. The second one is allow site improvement plans to qualify for early clearing and vegetation removal and site filling. We realized that there were times when an SIP could qualify, and we wanted to add those. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't have it. MR. LENBERGER: Currently you're allowed to clear and fill up to 100 acres of vegetation per application. You can submit for another vegetation removal and site fill application -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sorry. MR. LENBERGER: No problem. I don't mind pausing. Currently you're allowed to clear and fill 100 acres at a time. And if you near capacity with clearing and Page 16 of 65 16i as April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" filling, you can apply for another vegetation removal and site fill permit if you meet all these criteria to clear another block of 100 acres. But in there there's a 50 -acre limitation on lot preparation. That's assuming that 50 percent would be used for other types of clearing, like infrastructure. And we really talked to Jack McKenna, really didn't need that 50 percent restriction, so we did eliminate that. There still is 100 -acre limitation per application. We kept that. So you do know if someone has an old farm field or something that's completely exotic vegetation like Brazilian pepper, there is no 100 -acre restriction when you go forward with this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: We eliminated the removal of stockpiles after 18 months. Obviously the downturn in economy has brought back a concern. You know, do we really want to have applicants, you know, fill in their lake, clear the -- basically regrade the area and plant it with native vegetation? Which I talked to you about a moment ago. So we removed that requirement. We put in some safety parameters, revegetation, things of that nature. We changed the bond requirements for the early work authorization. They're basically -- I think it was 2,000. When we get to it, we can take a look at it. We wanted to allow more time to get approval of a development plan, once an EWA, early work authorization, is issued. So we extended the time frames on there. And we also wanted to allow applicants to request another early work authorization if they need more time. That was actually a response from one of the stakeholders. And we did add that. And I think that's pretty much it for the major reasons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Steve. Any questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would really like to sit and really go over this particular one. And I know the county knows why. Because I brought this up with two projects right around my area. And Mark, I really want to redo this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're here for. What do you want to say? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I just -- I just want to make sure, it's for an early work. It is 100 acres rather than clearing the whole 600 acres? I mean, things have changed. There is now -- MR. LENBERGER: I don't know what the time frame is of the development you're talking about, but it's a 100 -acre threshold unless it's exotics or farm field. So if you're clearing native vegetation, you're 100 -acre block. When you're near capacity -- the current code says when you're near capacity, whatever that means, so we said 75 percent complete you can apply for a new application for another 100 acres. And you can do that for the entire phase of your subdivision or Site Development Plan. So it's 100 -acre increments. And once you're done with your clearing and filling, then you can -- or 75 percent complete, you can apply for another 100 -acre block to do that. The early work authorization, and that's Page 8, and that's actually brought the most attention from stakeholders. And there were just a couple of good comments. And you can see all the requirements here for early work authorization, you know, what has to be done in order for the county to issue an EWA. And if you go down here, it talks about on number 2.A, proposed vegetation removal complies with 3.05.05 -- actually, O. And that's the early clearing we were talking about in the beginning where you have to have a conservation easement in place, you have to have the clearing plan set and the preserves set where they're going to be. So we don't -- until that happens, we can't even move forward with an early work authorization. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you've changed the process. MR. LENBERGER: Well, some of this has changed. And I don't know the time frame or the history of the project you're talking about, so sorry there. And how that fell when this was first developed, this section. But what we're trying to do is to clarify it. It's very confusing. But the early work portion is this 10.01.02. Is there any other questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah, K, 2.K needs some rewrite, if you haven't done it. Page 17 of 65 1612 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" MR. LENBERGER: 2.K on 10.01.02? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. MR. LENBERGER: Developer must clearly state his understanding -- well, we can strike his there -- understanding that all such preliminary construction activities are at their own risk. We changed it once. Yeah, we could take a look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, do you -- is the intention of the vegetation removal and site filling section which starts on Page 6 and goes to 7, is that intended to apply unilaterally throughout the county? I mean, here's where I'm coming from. You have projects that are in the urban area, or urbanized area close to existing residential or within closer proximity, say, than others might be. And I think Ms. Ebert's concern is a project she ran into right next to her neighborhood up off Immokalee Road, and she's well within the urban area. But, you know, if you look out east and you go past -- even the RLSA, the rural fringe and places like that, there is no rural development out there. And to tell them that they have -- they can only -- their time frames are limited to the same standards that are imposed in the urban area may be somewhat unnecessary. You've got a stockpile in a rural area and there's nobody around it. And there isn't because of whatever, the economy or whatever you're doing, I'm not sure it's -- we have a need to do some of these things as expeditiously as you have them timed in here. Stabilization with vegetation, for example, number three on Page 7. You're looking at stockpiles if they're in place for more than six months must be stabilized with vegetation. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, if it's six months next to Diane's project, I agree, she's in the urban area and people are going to be driving by and it's going to create dust. But if it's out in the rural area and you don't have any close proximity that's going to disturb anybody, the cost to vegetate a stockpile could be substantial. Plus the material, whether it's rock, which isn't going to vegetate very easy, or just regular soils. So I'm concerned that this one - size - fits -all for this application may not be fair to the industry, and equally so, we might look at away the restrictions apply in an area where there's intense development versus areas where it's sparsely developed. And I would suggest if you're going to look at rewriting this anyway you look at ways that you could fit those kind of situations in. It might be helpful. MR. LENBERGER: I'd like to add something there. That's why we have that clause, unless otherwise approved by the county manager or designee. And we added the language, where vegetation on the stockpile does not require mowing or the four -to -one ratio is not practicable. When you -- I was talking to Jack McKenna about this. When you have a steeper slope than four to one, obviously you may not be able to mow, you could actually overturn, that was a concern. We recognize the rock issue, which is -- that's obviously not practical to do that. The rock doesn't need to be stabilized with vegetation. So we recognize -- that's why we have that in there, to account for these different types of fill material. As far as urban versus rural, you know, these criteria have been applied and I don't know the time frame of yours, Diane, the project you're referring to. But these pretty much are applying to the urban area so far, okay. You know, as far as how they apply to a rural area, I'd have to talk to Jack about that and get their ideas. But I would also like to know on your end on the urban area, are you looking -- is six months a good time frame or are you looking to tighten it up more? What's your intent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think the cost just to do this -- first of all, after six months if -- someone in this marketplace, they may not use the stockpile that they've created from. Because the lake, once it starts to be dug, you've got to dig it all. And obviously you've got to keep the material on -site, because most PUD's are not commercial excavations. With that requirement, they've got to stockpile till the market catches up to a point where they can spread the material where they intend to build. And to tell them after six months you've got to stabilize whatever size stockpiles are remaining when they're going to be constantly nicked away at as development and the market dictates sales so they can build product, I'm not sure six months is a reasonable time frame to see that happen in this economy. But I also understand it becomes more critical if that stockpile is next to housing and they've got dust Page 18 of 65 April 13, 2 12 " CPC/LDC Heilmle2specMeting" conditions and things like that. I'm just suggesting if there's away when you meet with Jack and you guys come up with a possibility that could better be addressed so that the industry isn't imposed -- isn't being imposed with something that is unrealistic for them to perform by. But at the same time there's another way there's a possibility to protect the neighborhoods if there are such, we look at that alternative. I hate to see -- I hate to see an undue burden financially put on a developer who's already struggling to meet the marketplace just because a stockpile isn't being moved as fast, but yet he was forced to dig the whole lake -- MR. LENBERGER: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --just to do economics. So, it's a catch 22 I'm trying to see us avoid. MR. LENBERGER: Right. And you could do distance from a certain development too. But, you know, when you have large stockpiles, you know, when you have windy days, it could travel a long way, depending on the type of material. So it's often hard to gauge exactly, you know, because the material that comes out of these excavations can be diverse, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, there might be an alternative. They might be able to put a large -- through a sprinkler head on the top of the pile with a pump from what they just pulled the material from and make sure it wets it down periodically. That would go a tremendous way and be hugely less costly than revegetating and trying to dig into that pile as time goes forward. So I would just suggest maybe there's alternatives and -- MR. LENBERGER: Options. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- maybe those conditions might be something to look at before we lock this in. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So he's going to do a rewrite? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'd like to talk to Mr. McKenna also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So he knows where I'm coming from on this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There will be a rewrite and as long as you need to try to go down and meet with staff then before the -- and see what your concerns are, see if they can explain better. Okay, anybody else have any questions on this one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one will come back as a rewrite then, so -- let's move on to 3.05.02.G.8. It's all yours. MR. LENBERGER: We're ready? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. LENBERGER: This amendment is to create an exemption from having to obtain a vegetation removal permit. And it's for environmental restoration projects on publicly owned land such as parks, preserves, forests or mitigation areas. So we actually spelled them out. And, you know, often when mitigation is done on properties, whether it be a park or a specific mitigation area, it's either done by the state or a lot of cases contractors who have -- working for the state or Federal government under contract to do this. So, you know, if it's already gone through all this permitting, parks have extensive management plans, so do forests. And mitigation areas obviously have specific criteria in accordance with the permits. You know, you decide that well, you know, why do we need to regulate this, it's already duplication of effort, it's already highly looked at, so we add an exemption. We also wanted to cross - reference the existing exemption in the preserve management plan section of the code. If you remember when we did the LDC, basically if you have a preserve management plan that's approved by the county, we want you to be able to implement your plan, we don't want you to have to come in for a vegetation removal permit every time you need to do that. So we created that exemption in the preserve management plan section. I want to make sure it's referenced here, and I thought appropriate it's a good spot to do that. And that's basically what the amendment is. It's the language is on Page 2. Page 19 of 65 12 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, why aren't we simply exempting state owned preservation lands from any of our vegetation, protection and removal processes? MR. LENBERGER: Why are we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why aren't we? I mean, let me tell you the incident, I think you're aware of it, that I ran into. In fact, both of them I ran into. One of them was with trying to help Rookery Bay with their reserve that they were trying to open for a walkway to the public. They came to the county and ran into a brick wall in trying to get that accomplished. And at the time it was recognized, wait a minute, this is the state, they actually have a preserve management plan of their own, why do they have to submit another one to Collier County, and why are they even coming into Collier County when their criteria is as strict in the particular cases of their property as ours was. How does this address that? Or does it? MR. LENBERGER: Well, it will address a portion of it. There's two issues here: One's a comp. plan and one's the LDC. The LDC is to say, you know, you can do your environmental restoration, go ahead and do it. The other issue is the comprehensive plan. When you're required to have a native vegetation retention requirement, a preserve, basically, doesn't exclude parks and preserves and state forests, which are basically there as preserves with the management plan. And if you remember correctly, do you remember the EAR, I have language in there that I have proposed and which is going in front of the BCC in a couple of weeks to address that, so they -- and you remember -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember it was -- I'm trying to think, it was the EAR which was recently I saw that language, and that's where it did fix it. MR. LENBERGER: They'll meet the requirements, but they don't have to designate a conservation easement to the county, don't have to do a preserve management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Memory's coming back. I understand it now. Thank you. MR. LENBERGER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to -- second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill made a motion, seconded by Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, it's approved. Okay, the next one is 4.02.14 -- MS. CIL,EK: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. CILEK: Just a note that there will be a speaker for this one, someone would like to speak in this coming one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as it isn't Rocky or Tim, okay. MR. LENBERGER: I'm going to go through this amendment and I'm also going to address the concerns of Page 20 of 65 1 I A 8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amen ments pecial Meeting" Tim as well, and explain a little bit about the whole process here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good luck. MR. LENBERGER: Actually, it's -- first I'm going to explain the amendment itself We -- there was recently a petition here for lot 80 in Plantation Island with a variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. LENBERGER: You remember. It was maybe a couple of meetings ago here where there is an agreement between the county and DCA, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, to allow for clearing and filling up to 2,500 square feet on a lot, regardless of the predevelopment vegetation, i.e., mangroves, wetlands on the unrecorded subdivision phases one, two and three of Plantation Island. And during that we met and said well, why are they going through this variance? You know, these people want to put up a mobile home. And we looked at it and said well, the development agreement. But then we took a close look at the development agreement and realized the development agreement is the variance for that, allowing it with the state. So what we did here is we started looking at this whole ST section and there's a lot of changes. As we tried to -- we wanted to get rid of the idea of having to do a separate variance for this process, because when development orders come in in the area of critical state concern, they're reviewed for compliance with those regulations by county staff. If they require a special treatment permit, ST permit, they're reviewed at that time. If it's just a billing permit in the urban areas of Plantation Island and Copeland, then they get reviewed administratively by county staff for compliance with those regulations. And what we're saying here is that that review or that billing permit for those mobile homes will be the appropriate mechanism to review for compliance with the agreement with DCA. That's why the amendment came about. There are other changes. And I'd like to just go through those, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: The section here is written -- this is the special treatment section of the code. There is another section of the code that deals with the purpose of the special treatment overlay. It's not this section. This is a section of the ST that deals with the process and submission requirements. It deals with requirements for special treatment ST land, and ACSC, which is the Big Cypress area of critical state concern, ACSC, special treatment, ST, overlay. So there's two types of ST overlays. And the ST overlay for the area of critical state concern has more stringent requirements. And it wasn't clear on the way this was written which requirements apply to the area of critical state concern and those which apply to, well, both, ST sections, both of them. So I had to spell it out, and that's what I did. And if you go to Page 3, if you look at A and you look at B and you look at C, they all relate to the area of critical state concern. And those are specific requirements of the ACSC, okay. So there was some confusion there, we needed to clarify that. If you go to Page 6 you hit a separate section which talks about under D Port of the Islands, Copeland and Plantation Island mobile home sites. Plantation Island has an agreement with DCA, and that agreement, it was honored by the state and the development proceeds in accordance with that agreement. And that's what the county utilizes when we review petitions in the Port of the Islands. I believe it's phases one, two and three. It's excluding one quadrant. On Plantation Island and Copeland a while back, this was before my time in the county, the board said why are we requiring mobile homeowners in Plantation Island and Copeland to get an ST permit just to build their mobile home? They're basically smaller lots, they are definitely smaller lots in the Plantation Island area. Some of the ones in Copeland are a little bit bigger. So the board directed staff -- this is prior to me coming here and I've been here 19 years -- to say we need to just review them for compliance with area of critical state concern regulations but not have them file for a special treatment permit to do so. But it was not clear on the language here. Although it exempted them from the permit requirements, it didn't exempt them from the review process for carrying that permit forward. So it was unclear. It was meant that they don't have to go through that separate process as well. So we had to clarify that as well, okay. So that's what happened with this section. And in this section we also reference the administrative approval for the DCA agreement I previously spoke about. When I went through the rest of this section, it hasn't been reworded in years, probably since the beginning of Page 21 of 65 Ifid z A8 AP ril 13 ,2012 « CCPC/LDC ments Special Meet in g the code, and there was obviously a lot of updates it needed. So I started cleaning up the procedures. And then I got the submission requirements and I noticed that they were kind of mirroring what I remember the requirements for site development plans and plans and plats. So I said well, we've got to update this. So I went to two people in our office who deal with a lot of that and that would be John Houldsworth for plats and plans and Michael Sawyer in zoning. He handles most of the Site Development Plan reviews. And they went through this for me and said what is already in the process for review for site development plans, site improvement plans, plat and plans? And basically everything that's crossed out there is already in the procedures, so I crossed out a lot of stuff. And under one on Page 9.G, starts on Page 8, okay, in number one underneath it, you'll see everything is crossed out over to Page 9, and at the very bottom, above two, you'll see it says submission requirements pursuant to 10.02 and 10.08. And those are application submittal requirements in the code, and conditional use procedures which also have submission requirements in the code. So -- and that section, the 10.02.00, also contains the environmental data submittal requirements as applicable. So all that was removed and just reference to those sections was added as applicable. I carried forward the beach access ordinance, which is -- I carried forward in two on the next page. And number three I added consistency with the conservation and coastal management element, the coastal portion. The coastal portion, there is essential treatment overlays also on the barrier island. They're on the undeveloped coastal barrier island as defined by the federal government under Coastal Barrier Resources Protection Act. And they're mapped as the coastal barrier resources protection system. And there's language in the comp. plan under goal 10, and also in the code under 3.03. 00 relating to that, so I referenced that in number three. And that's pretty much it for submission requirements. We do have a couple changes from the EAC, and I also want to address Rocky's -- Tim's concern. Did you want to pause until the chairman gets back? COMMISSIONER AHERN: No, we'll keep going. Continue. MR. LENBERGER: Continue, okay. First there's a typo on Page 4 under 5, middle there, it starts the sentence with access. It needs to be capitalized, the A. And for the chairman's benefit, I'm going to go through some of the changes of the EAC and also the concerns of Tim. That's where I'm at now. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Now, where -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- we're at Page 4? MR. LENBERGER: Page 4. MS. CILEK: Five. MR. LENBERGER: Number five near the top. The middle of the paragraph it says -- starts the sentence with access. See that? It should be a capital A. It was just brought to my attention. That's all. The EAC also was concerned about the variance procedure if a lot got too big on Plantation Island. So they wanted that variance procedure for Plantation Island to go up to lots under to five acres. And that was fine and that was in their motion. But if you look at the lots on Plantation Island, phases one, two and three, they're all tiny. So it won't ever kick in. And just so you know how DCA looks at these site alteration criteria, if you have -- if you own two lots or three lots, that 2,500 square feet or 10 percent site alteration limitation applies to the unit. In other words, it's all your lots. Only 2,500 square feet. So you don't get more for having more lots. So we didn't add that. It's already covered. The lots are all very tiny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you didn't add it, thank you. I mean, language that isn't necessary is the last thing we need to be thrown into this code, so -- MR. LENBERGER: And then the final one was -- now, this is Tim's concern and I'll bring this to your attention. And the best way for me to do that is to put something on the visualizer for you so you understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying he's tried to confuse the issue to a point that it's got to be -- it's a little harder to change. That's typical Tim. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think he has a page yet. This is a -- MR. LENBERGER: No, it's not. It's from the administrative code. Page 22 of 65 161 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's what I thought. MR. LENBERGER: And if you look at it it's chapter 25 -- or it's actually 28- 25.006. And that's the site alteration criteria for the area of critical state concern. And if you look at what I highlighted, number four, it says no mangrove trees or salt marsh grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise altered. That sentence is word for word out of the code. Now I want to go to the next sentence. The next sentence says: Plants specifically protected by this regulation include -- and it lists those pieces of plants, basically mangroves, salt grasses, needle rush. But there's a difference in the code and there's a difference in the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you said this is the administrative code. You mean the numbering, is it state administrative code or -- MR. LENBERGER: It's Florida Administrative Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we -- MR. LENBERGER: And the reason I'm showing you that, because I want to compare it to the code we have. And I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you run this issue past the attorney's office? Or is this the first time that Heidi's going to be hearing this too? MR. LENBERGER: Well, we can't address it in the amendment at all, but I'm going to bring it to your attention because EAC and DSAC did vote on this, and it would require a comp. plan change. So it won't affect the amendment at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: Okay? But I just wanted to bring it to -- because Tim's going to talk about it, so I'm just going to explain why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're kind of taking his thunder before he gets up here. I appreciate that. Go ahead. You brought Rocky. Looks like he had to have support himself. MR. LENBERGER: If you go to Page 4 of the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: Under number four at the top, you can see that sentence there, it says no mangrove trees or salt marsh grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise altered. Same as the administrative code I just showed you. Now, the next sentence says plans specifically protected by this regulation include -- and now it changes -- all wetland plants listed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in the Florida Administrative Code. Wow, what does that mean? So if you go to the Future Land Use Element, and I have a copy in my hand, under overlays and special features in the area of critical state concern overlay, I'll read what the language says. It says: No mangrove trees or salt marsh grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise altered. Plants specifically protected by this regulation include. Now we've got a new twist to it. All wetland plants listed by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, that's currently the DEP in Chapter 17301, Florida Administrative Code, as amended. 17301 is the old chapter dealing with determining the landward extent of jurisdictional wetlands. So it was -- it's been repealed. When they combined the Water Management District rules and the DEP rules for determining wetlands back in I think'92, they repealed this and the current wetland methodology is what would apply now. What that's telling me is that you can't impact any jurisdictional wetlands. The EAC kind of looked at that and they felt that, well, they didn't agree with that. They felt that was kind of too restrictive. So I talked with Tim and he was very helpful. And we looked through the transfer development rights. Because when you normally take away rights from people, you compensate them. And the TDR section falls underneath this section here on the code under the ST section. So it's like a subset. Okay, that was interesting. But if you look at the TDR's, it says from urban to urban. And it talks about the different rural fringe ones. And I'm thinking why is it a subset under the ST regulation, for one, and two, why doesn't it have a TDR program for these people out in the area of critical state concern? So I had to go back to the one with the knowledge, I went back to David Weeks, and he started recalling in his mind that yes, it used to be able to transfer out of the area of critical state concern to other parts of the county. And some developer did that. And to -- I believe it was Marco Island. And through time it was changed, so the board didn't like that. They didn't like buying transfer development rights from way out in the boondocks into the urban Page 23 of 65 1612 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" area to adding them to density. So it was eventually changed over time, and it apparently was like a gradual process. So the TDR compensation, I guess you want to put it, was eliminated. Maybe no one realized it, but that's what happened. So the EAC said, well, they looked at this and said well, we should pretty much go with what the state list is, which I just showed you. But they also added three plants. And these plants basically would coincide with more pristine wetlands. They added shore grass, buttonwood and salt marsh fringe grass. You can read the Latin names, but I'll spare you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. MR. LENBERGER: And DSAC, when they heard the EAC did that, they agreed with that. I got one plant mixed up with them, so there was a little confusion there. But the concept was the same. They felt that it really should fall back on these plants. And they were okay with the changes the EAC did as well. But what I told the DSAC, and I told the EAC, I didn't know if this could change because I didn't check the comp. plan yet. And I told DSAC this would have to require a comp. plan change. I just bring it to your attention because Tim's going to bring the issue up, or I already have for him. And that would require a comp. plan change. And whether you want to make a recommendation on that or not, that is up to you. But anyway, we can't effect this amendment because it would require a comp. plan change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but before we go there, you said I thought that the language in the comp. plan was basically -- the reference in the comp. plan to the administrative section or whatever law is there was eliminated. And it falls to another section; is that right? MR. LENBERGER: Right, it was updated to the new jurisdictional section -- criteria used by the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And how different is the language in 28.25.006 than the language that's effective by the comp. plan that we currently have? I mean, I know this locks in specific species. But the language in our comp. plan seems to be more general. Any wetland species listed by the Florida DEP, correct? MR. LENBERGER: It would basically be all jurisdictional wetlands, the way that's been interpreted. So you can in fact -- any jurisdictional wetlands in the area of critical state concern, according to the way our language is read in our LDC and GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it just the area of critical state concern or is it ST areas as well? MR. LENBERGER: It's only the area of critical state concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the area of critical state concern is already defined within the Big Cypress Preserve, so -- but that means there would be no expansion of development in that area. MR. LENBERGER: The site alteration criteria, which -- actually turn back, if you don't mind, under Page 3, under C. And the two -- the two major components that really affect most of the development that I have seen in my time here are number one under C and number four, which we just talked about. And number one is site alteration shall be limited to 10 percent of the total site size. And installation of nonpermeable surfaces shall not exceed 50 percent of any such area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what's happening now is if you take C.1 and you try to do it but you run into a brick wall because of CA, where CA says all wetland plant species, which is basically the jurisdictional areas, you can't do even to the extent C.1 allows you to do. MR. LENBERGER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's where the problem lies. MR. LENBERGER: And also the TDR, you can no longer transfer TDR's out of the area of critical state concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's another issue altogether. So I don't want to open that door, because -- can we hear from Tim, just to get his defense -- or, I mean his position? And then actually Rocky will have to tell us that you're telling the truth, so -- MR. HALL: For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell, Hall and Associates. And I honestly wasn't trying to make this more complicated. I wasn't aware of the issue really until these amendments came about. But when I read through and looked at it, as Steve had said, my interpretation was that the ordinance basically prevents you from impacting not only any jurisdictional wetland but any wetland plants. There are a lot of plants listed in DEP's list that grow in uplands as well. And another concern is that some of the exotic plants that are required to be removed in other portions of the Page 24 of 65 8 April 13,2012 "CCPC/LDC !§dm1entzPeciaAe8n9 " code are included on DEP's wetland list. So there's a conflict in terms of one portion of the code saying you have to remove them and this part of the code saying you can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HALL: And so that's why I just thought it would be best to go back to the Florida Administrative Code where this provision was specific towards trying to protect -- it seems to me it's specific towards trying to protect the coastal and salt marsh brackish areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, right now our code is written with the language that we have in front of us; is that correct? MR. HALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so right now the interpretation would be that any ACSC, ASCS area that has jurisdictional wetlands of any kind cannot be developed, is that -- MR. HALL: Unless you clear the whole thing for ag. You can still farm it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as far as a 10- percent limitation goes, that was allowed, this would impact that 10 percent limitation. MR. HALL: You'd only be able to do anything on upland areas that didn't contain any of those wetland plants. The way I read. I mean, if you take the strictest interpretation, it doesn't say jurisdictional wetlands, it says it's specific to the plants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the solution seems to be we can't change the amendment in front of us today because it would then be inconsistent with our GMP. We have to go back and change the GMP in order to change the amendment. MR. HALL: Yeah, you actually have to go back and change the GMP either to reference specific plants or to reference that 2825 in the code instead of 62340, which is all of the wetland plants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So actually, even though you're here today to point this out, there's nothing -- I don't see -- what can we do -- MR. HALL: Based on the conversations we had after the EAC meeting, it doesn't look like there's anything that we can do now. It's just something the county needs to be aware of, if somebody does come in to do something on property that they own in the ASCS and is told they can't. You know, I think it puts the county under -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A problem. MR. HALL: -- under some issues with regards to takings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put that Florida Administrative Code section back up again? MR. HALL: I'm actually trying to help the county out on this one. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's nice of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you do a pretty good job of helping out most of the time. Now, this particular one, this citation is from what section of the Florida administrative -- I know the number, but what's the text title of this section? Rules for the -- MR. I IALL: It's rules for the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So those rules in the Florida Administrative Code are not as strict as the rules that we've adopted through our GMP and now in this amendment. Because they're limited to less number of plants and less distinction than what we've done. MR. HALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Heidi, I guess the question then is can our rules have criteria that is more restrictive in this particular kind of instance than is required by the Florida Administrative Code? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't think I have enough information as to when this was implemented or the GMP. I can certainly take a look at the issue and advise you at the next meeting, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I imagine that would be important, because to know that before we go and structure a GMP amendment over something that has got to be changed anyway because we're inconsistent with state law would be a pretty good avenue to understand. MR. HALL: There is actually a section further down in this same 2825 that says that local regulations or local ordinances can be more restrictive. As long as they're within their -- I think it's regulatory authority or something -- there's some language, you know, legalese language in there. It says you can be more restrictive. My point is just I think the county went a little bit too far, because they took away, you know, all rights -- if a Page 25 of 65 161 z A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" person has a property that is 100 percent wetlands and there are a lot of them out there like that my interpretation of the code says they can't do anything to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they lost the ability to do TDR's as well. MR. HALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're basically up a creek without a paddle, more or less. MR. HALL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would behoove us to have the county attorney's office verify the application of this against the Florida Administrative Code to make sure where we stand before we make a recommendation either on this amendment or the GMP. Does that sound like something you can do, Heidi, before -- as we finish this LDC amendment cycle? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Do you want it for the 25th or for May? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would say May or sometime in May. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, certainly, I'll get something -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Steve, does that work for you? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, May would be good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does it work for the rest of the Planning Commission? Okay, I think that will be -- thank you. I appreciate you pointing it out, Steve -- I mean Tim. And Steve, thank you for your institutional knowledge and detail on this. It's excellent. It makes it a lot easier to understand. Before we go on to the next one, let's take a break until 10:45 and resume at that time. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, process -wise we're going to finish up with Steve with the next two and then we'll go to the docks. We have people in the audience who are here for the dock issue. And then after the docks, we'll go back into the regular routine. Based on what we've been doing, we may be out of hereby mid afternoon. We'll essentially try for that. So Steve, let's move on to your last two. MR. LENBERGER: All right. The amendment in front of you is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, 10.02.06.D. MR. LENBERGER: Correct. Agricultural land clearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's way to the back of the book. 10.02.06.D. Okay, sir. MR. LENBERGER This is actually a scrivener's error. There are two types of permits -- or I should say two types of clearing that are authorized by the Land Development Code for agricultural uses. And those are agricultural clearing permits and agricultural clearing notices. And if you have an agricultural operation that meets the requirements of the criteria of the Right to Farm Act, you just have to give us a notice that you're going to clear, if you meet those certain criteria, and the agricultural clearing permit, if you don't meet those criteria, you have to go through a little different process. But when you looked in -- on Page 1 under D at the bottom it says agricultural land clearing. It says land clearing notice. But the criteria under D.1 or agricultural clearing permits, and if you go to Page 5 on the top it says number two, agricultural clearing notice, see. And that language there was also put under Page 1 under land clearing notice. It had it two places. And I looked through some of the old amendments, I was doing a lot of research, and you know, they got it right the first time. It was -- they did have agricultural clear permit. And then I found a few other amendments and I found the recodification and it carried through perfect there as well. Somewhere after the recodification a scrivener's error happened. I don't know. So I'm just fixing what was the language when the recodification went through. And that's all this is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Ms. Ebert. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 26 of 65 M., 1612 A April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special eeting" COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Okay, Steve, we're on 10.06 point -- 10.02.06 E, which is the very next one. It's similar in nature. MR. LENBERGER: Yes, this one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from the Planning Commission on this one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Oh, wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, that means you don't have to -- you can go through the whole -- apparently it's appearing somewhat similar to the one you just got done with. MR. LENBERGER: You want me to go through the changes, or what do you want me to do? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think anybody needs any. Anybody have any issues? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have a question on Page 3.C. Kind of just explain that. Because you're removing a requirement. MR. LENBERGER: The removing the understory vegetation shall be restored to the area from which protected trees were unlawfully removed? COMMISSIONER SCI - FFER: Right. So you're removing the requirement to restore the understory. MR. LENBERGER: Well, actually, we didn't, because if you go to the following -- the page previous to that, number two, talks about replacement vegetation. And if you look there, it talks about trees. You see that where you crossed out the language? And they're very large trees. And what we did is we updated -- we had all these amendments from 2009, if you remember correctly, to different sections of the code. And this section needed to be updated and brought up to date, basically, to what happened to the other sections. So basically replacement of vegetation, if it's part of the landscape requirements, we reference the landscape requirements. If it's part of the littoral shelf planting area, we reference that section. If it's the environmental restoration of county preserves, we reference the applicable section. So we're not removing the requirement, we've actually put it over where it should be on iii on Page 2. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And which -- okay, so what you're saying, somewhere in there, these multiple requirements -- MR. LENBERGER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You would be required to replace the ground cover. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? I have one question. And I had circled the same issue that Brad brought up but with your explanation. If you look at C, iii.C. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Environmental restoration within county required preserves shall be in accordance with 3.05.07.H. So what you're saying is the only time on Page 3.0 that understory vegetation shall be restored to the area from which protected trees were unlawfully removed. So that means the only protect trees were those within county acknowledged preservation? Because that's the only way iii.0 applies for understory. MR. LENBERGER: Right, it's for understory. And it would only apply to Page 2, iii.C.D. C and D. Page 27 of 65 1612 Ff'. 'A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" Basically preserves or natural areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, got it. Okay, no further discussion, all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Steve, I think that takes us to the end of your day. MR. LENBERGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We appreciate -- your institutional knowledge is great. And thank you for the detailed way you provide everything. It's excellent. It sure helps us make decisions, so we appreciate it. Okay, we move to docks. Docks are -- our item is item number 20. It's 5.03.06, by new administrator process. Carolyn, I guess you're leading the charge in this, or Ray? MS. CILEK: I'll let Ray start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, okay. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. This amendment basically addresses some of the previous direction from the Planning Commission in regards to boat dock and boat dock criteria. And what we were thinking is that single - family boat docks that met all the criteria could be done administratively. And those that didn't meet the criteria are multi - family docks would still come to the Planning Commission. We also wanted to revise and clean up some of the language to make it more user friendly. And we also developed an advertising process for the administrative review of these boat docks. MS. CILEK: Including a public notice requirement. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MS. CILEK: For those that are approved administratively. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the commission is certainly well aware of our boat dock process, because we get it so often. And obviously we've expressed our concern that some of these minor ones should be looked at by staff in a manner for approval and avoid the public process for the cost and everything else. So with that in mind, let's just walk through the concerns from the Planning Commission. Does any -- why don't we take it a couple -- there's half a dozen -- seven pages. Let's take half of it at a time. Pages 1 through 3, does anybody have any issues? MS. CILEK: And I'm just going to let you know that we are going to be basically making the public notice requirements a little clearer and outline them more specifically per the county attorney's office. So we're going to -- we'd love to talk about it today, but we want to give you a newer draft following her recommendations. So we did talk to her about this, and we'll be updating that part. But the intent is still there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this is coming back for a rewrite. MS. CILEK: It is. I just want to let you know that it is going to comeback. And that's what we'll be looking at, as well as there's a couple of errors and we're going to fix those too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's provide our input on top of whatever else you're going to do and then -- MS. CILEK: That sounds -- CHALRMAN STRAIN: -- you'll have a complete package when it comes back. MS. CILEK: Perfect. Page 28 of 65 A 8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDIA6nlmZ Special Meeting" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. I guess we'll just start walking through the thing. But just to make sure that I understand the advertising is that we've got some criteria here that if it's met, the staff can do the work, it doesn't have to come before the board. If /when you send out notices, if any neighbor objects does it come before the board then? MS. CILEK: Yes. They have to send a letter of objection -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this has to be a clean application, no objection, everybody happy in meeting the criteria. MS. CILEK: Yes. If there's a letter of objection, then it comes to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. In one, what is the line, the statement there, H.1 on Page 3, the county manager has the ability to permit additional square footage up to the maximum square footage of the dock area approved. What is that? And where do we determine the maximum? MS. CILEK: In the sentence before it it reads: The facility envelope shall identify the maximum square footage of the dock area needed to allow for future expansion. So this is the case, if a -- Ray, step in if I'm going off track where they want to expand their dock. And they've already identified it in their site plan and they would just go to the building permit then, they wouldn't go through the SDP or the process with the zoning department. So they've already identified it, but they actually haven't built out to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in their application they can show Phase I, let's say, and then give future phases also approved at the same time. MS. CILEK: Yes. They would show their envelope of how big they could have it, which would meet all the setbacks and all the other requirements, but they didn't build it to that extent. They would have that option in the future, but they wouldn't come through the zoning department, they would just go to the building department. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then down at three, you know, one of the problems that we've always had with this is there's things that they call them, criteria, but they're essentially not. And it looks like that's expanded through 3.A, for example. It's a regulatory thing, but it's not really a criteria. I mean, it could be worded to be a criteria. But what you're saying is you're limited to two slips. And -- MS. CILEK: I think one thing to keep in mind is that this criteria you're speaking to if you meet these regular store -- like meet the number of slips, then it is going to go through administratively if you met all the other criteria. If you go beyond these number of slips, then it goes to the Planning Commission. So it's still a criteria in that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this is criteria for the administrative approval. MS. CILEK: And then if you don't meet those, then you're buffered out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, are we -- how many pages are we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to take the first three pages first, Brad, to keep it a little more organized. Anybody else have any questions on the first three pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. Caroline, in your first page number one, and this is just a clarification, three paragraphs up from the bottom you say the Planning Commission would utilize the same criteria and applicants will need to meet of the five primary and two of the three -- second dairy. That's inconsistent with -- MS. CILEK: That's a typo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Page 3. Okay, so you're going to fix that? MS. CILEK: Yes, I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 2, this is a concern in the dock facility definition, which I know isn't part of this amendment. But it may play into the amendment. Because when we figure out the distance into a waterway that a dock facility can go, we include the boat. MS. CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in this case the way this is written, if you rely on the dock facility definition we have here, it looks like the dock facility itself could go out 25 percent because the boats not considered part of it. How would you bring the boat into it through the criteria if it's not part of the definition of a dock facility? Page 29 of 65 April 13 2012 "CCPC/LD1 1e2 S eageeting" MS. CILEK: Can you -- real quick, Ray, if you may -- CHAIlZMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, I should be directing this to Ray. I'm sorry, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Either one of us. We're both working on it. MS. CILEK: Can you look at Page 3 for me, line five. And I want to see if you're looking at the copy most recently provided to the Planning Commission, which establishes sort of a dock definition for this section H. For the purposes of this section, the dock facilities shall include the farthest protrusion of both the dock and the vessels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't have that. MS. CILEK: Okay. So you have a previous version we looked at. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's my fault. I've got so many versus I thought I'd grabbed the most latest. MS. CILEK: 03.23. Do the rest of you have that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: 03.23, yes. MS. CILEK: And so the rest of them have that. MR. BELLOWS: And I just want to point out, the reason we did this was because the boat dock extension we want to account for the boat. But for a general definition of a dock, it's not necessary to reference that. So there is some confusion about that, maybe we need to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand now. But if I had seen that, I probably wouldn't have asked the question. Since I don't have that, I missed it. Sorry. MS. CILEK: Well, it's a good question. And we wanted to clear it up in this amendment -- or in this language within the code. So for dock extensions, you include both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then in number H.1, the way you ask this kind of almost suggests that -- and you come in -- and it's the second sentence I'm concerned about -- the dock area needed to allow for future expansion. So are you suggesting that everybody come in and ask for the maximum they think they can get, then any time they want to add to the dock in the future all they need is a building permit? I would think we would want to look at just the opposite, where it says the facility envelope shall identify the maximum square footage of the dock area needed. Why don't we just put a period? Why do you care if they're asking for a future extension? If that's just administrative still, they can come in and get it. Why would we want to force everybody to say you've got to ask for the maximum now, because we want to make sure you can always just get it by building permit here and in the future, what difference does it make? MS. CILEK: Would you keep the second sentence that says the county manager and his designee shall have the ability to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. CILEK: Okay. That would provide for a similar situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, no, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What does that mean then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you can't then. But then see, why would you -- why would we want to tell someone to come in for the maximum if that's not what they need at the time they're coming in? MR. BELLOWS: I think the idea was to be customer service oriented. If the maximum is still insignificant or meets all the criteria, then why force them to come back in? Because thee years later if they're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The maximum they come in for now may be more objectionable to their residence than what they need, and will automatically generate a letter of objection that kicks them into a higher level of scrutiny that they don't really need because they really -- I could see them coming to us now, well, we really didn't want this but we were told to put what we could do in the future, so we had to do it this way. Well, that just puts them into a process, because they could get more letters of objection from neighbors. Why don't we just ask them to submit what they want and base our criteria on what they're asking for, not what we want to project them for in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. CILEK: And regardless, they have to meet all these criteria, even if that is the maximum, so they likely would do that anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, why don't you just put a period after the word needed and stop the reference to future expansion. And that next sentence isn't needed. Or I guess it is, because it's up to the dock area Page 30 of 65 16 12 A8 April 13, 2012 CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting approved, because they're going to only get approved for what's needed. So, I mean, I think that next sentence is somewhat harmless. Then the -- under 2.A, the third line under 2.A in my version says shall be approved by the zoning department. Wouldn't that may be approved by the zoning department? MS. CILEK: I believe so. No, if you go to B, then you're speaking about those that go to the Planning Commission. So A is identifying those that go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the may that I'm concerned about is even if they're under 2.A but they get a letter of objection, you guys still can't approve it, it's got to go to the Planning Commission. So it's still may for you all. MS. CILEK: Yeah, and it's May in the second one too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then under 2.A, you're talking about provided the extension does not protrude more than 40 additional feet, 60 in length into the waterway. That's a concern because not all conditions in the county need 40 feet. I would rather suggest we do as we do now, we look at the alignment of the docks in a particular area if there are adjoining docks. And if they're all getting the depth they need within 35 feet, but somebody comes up and needs a total -- wants 60 feet because this allows them to get 60 feet, why would we want to -- why would we want you all to be put in a position to having to give that to them? It's out of consistency with the rest of what the neighborhood has. And you know that neighbors, generally the docks are pretty much in line where that water line is. MS. CILEK: Well, I think two things: One, that we'd have to -- the threshold is also there so that we don't go above that so that we have a number that we work within. Staff can approve. So we sort of do need a threshold of some level. And we could work with the county attorney's office to see if we could -- if that -- looking at like a linear line across where docks extend to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We do the same thing with the coastal construction setback line, build line. When you have condominiums that have been grandfathered in over periods of time and they go so far out along the coast and you've got an infill in between, instead of going back to the line that's further inland, you can argue that you can be in line with the condos on both sides of you. It's a similar application. MR. BELLOWS: Is that something that the Planning Commission would rather see instead of administrative? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you'd have more objection for people who follow this and go farther out than their neighbors than if you just try to find some level of criteria you can use that keeps them in line with their neighbors. I think you may see less objections and more people then accepting the staff administrative review instead of going to appeal it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I mean, it has to be black- and -white for staff to approve it administrative. So we could determine that it can't extend further to your property that abuts you, you know, on either side. But if they have to draw a line and start to exercise discretion as to whether it's along that line, now we're getting out of an area that they really have the administrative -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest some kind of percentage to the dock next to you. If a docks -- I mean, because you may have a bigger boat, you may have more data that gives you a need to go out a little deeper. But if you start saying everybody can go out to 60 feet but yet you only have 25 -foot or 30 -foot docks in the area, that's going to raise eyebrows. That's going to cause problems. MS. CILEK: And I do believe that we are using the other criteria to try to limit how far out you need to go. Like once you meet your need, you know, water depth or site conditions, sea grass, width of the waterway, you know, you can only protrude so far, those other criteria are helping to get to how far out you actually can go to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, this is going to come back anyway. But consider that -- if it isn't needed when it comes back, just explain as to how --why it wouldn't be needed. And I'm not -- I'm just trying to make sure we cover all bases. MS. CILEK: It's an idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the point. MS. CILEK: We can work with Heidi on it. We can look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then that's the issues I have -- Page 31 of 65 16 ! 2� April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have another -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on Page 3. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Come back in on that page. Number one, why did you remove the fact that the barrier islands are special, or do the barrier islands automatically go to the Planning Commission? MS. CILEK: That's a really good question, and I'll start and I'll have Heidi follow up on it. But there was a recent boat dock extension that came in and it was removed from the CCPC's agenda because it was on an unabridged barrier island and they are in a separate provision in the code in the dock section. So right above 5.03.06.H. And so they're already provided for. They are just reviewed so that they -- for structural needs. And then we look to see if there are any other areas outside of that, specifically things like state aquatic preserve area. And there is. There's I think federal lands. There's two types of larger governmental entities preserve areas. We had a map done just to show those two, and we spoke to counsel and they said that they would be treated the same. So there are no areas that would be left out of the provision above this section which gets to how you proceed with docks in unabridged barrier islands. Does that make sense? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If what you said is true, it makes great sense. MS. CILEK: I mean, Heidi, can -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Are you reading the text of one of the amendments or are you at the reason? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, I mean -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't know what you're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the point is that it's removed. MS. CILEK: It's removed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: hi other words, we -- in here we're allowed to give special consideration -- MR. BELLOWS: Can you point to the page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be Page 3, line 36 -ish, 37, 38. MS. CILEK: It's in the existing language with how many slips. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I really can't explain why that language was struck through, but I can tell you that there's already something in the code that does provide an exemption if it's in the state aquatic preserve, and there was one other requirement which what that meant was it was Keewaydin Island. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the next thing is you've -- up on H, line eight, in that area there, when -- you've crossed out that the Planning Commission deals with these requirements when we make our approvals. Now, we've had controversy as to whether it's a score card or whether it's a threshold. But -- so that means when it does come before us, we don't have to deal with these anymore; is that right? In other words, in order for the Planning Commission to approve, you've crossed all that out. MS. CILEK: Well, the approval for the Planning Commission, that process is located under 2.13. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me get it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 2.13. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 2.B, or not 2.B. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I guess it is covered there. Good, all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to the balance of this one, four through seven. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- and it's 3.Aii that's at the bottom and carries over. How are we going to -- you know, the water depth was always a primary thing that I would look at to make sure that they're not going further than they need or in fact they needed an extension to begin with which -- MS. CILEK: Can you bring your mic a little closer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The water depth was something that I would primarily look at to see if they really needed the extension; if they can't get the boat on the lift they probably deserve an extension. Page 32 of 65 6 2 A 8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LD Amendments Special Meeting" Do you think that describes it well enough? MS. CILEK: And you're on -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am on -- MS. CILEK: Criteria -- secondary -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- 3ii. 3.Aii. MR. BELLOWS: We took out that first part. MS. CILEK: Yes, this is a consolidation of several of the criteria into one, all dealing with site conditions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But what kind of requirement -- I mean, what are you going to look at? Staffs going to review the water depth. What is -- what is -- I mean, there's no requirements, there's no -- I mean, how were you going to determine water depth? MS. CILEK: Well, it's modeling language above it which establishes that. So -- I mean, justifies closed dimensions. I mean, you have to illustrate that the water is too shallow. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But you're removing that. In other words, don't you think maybe you should keep some of that in that the water's too -- I mean, you just say it's going to -- you're going to look at the water depth, but you're not going to say why. And the prior language said you're going to look at it because they can't launch their boat. MS. CILEK: So you prefer the water depth is too shallow -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think you should -- MS. CILEK: -- to allow launching and mooring? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, there should be a reason for people down the road as to why we're looking at water depth. I mean -- and the water depth, the reason we're looking at it is that if the boat doesn't need the extension to be launched then they probably shouldn't get the extension. MS. CILEK: Sure. Well, the intent of the new language is to get to that as well. You know, the presence of one or more of these justifying why. We can discuss adding the language up here. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I was just seeing if it was written somewhere else and I couldn't remember. But yeah, I think Brad makes a good point, we'll -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other thing too is -- MS. CILEK: This is clarifying what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can do a parenthetical after water depth to explain what you mean. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing is you're ranking water depth with some other requirements that I don't want to lose the value of water depth in this decision. So I'm not too comfortable with that. MS. CILEK: I think it's a good idea to include -- I mean, you're identifying -- MR. BELLOWS: You make a good point. We'll clarify and bring it back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what this is saying, I think, is if water depth is the issue, we can still -- they can still not meet that criteria, based on water depth alone. It doesn't have to meet a combination of any of those criteria, just any one of them could still make them lose that criteria; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's criteria within criteria. Any one of them will cause failure. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. You're not meeting the intent of that on ii. MS. CILEK: Because they were existing elsewhere and so we wanted to keep them as a criterion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the water depth is okay but they have seagrass beds, it's still a reason to lose the criteria, or any one or combination of numbers. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And in B secondary, why did you get rid of the requirement of 50 percent of the linear waterfront footage? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it hasn't been uniformly applied. And it seems to be addressed by the other provisions. You know, if you're trying to regulate the length of the facility, there are other parts of the code that are addressing that. And if it's trying to prevent the dock from stretching across the width of the lot, the riparian lines and setback address that. So it didn't seem like it was clear what that provision was trying to accomplish, so it seemed like why need it, there are other -- all the other code requirements with regard to boat dock extension seemed to address that same issue. Seemed to be redundant to a certain extent. Page 33 of 65 1612 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't particularly agree with that. I think what it did is it put the scale of boats to kind of be to the scale of the community they're in. And without any length limitation, I mean, somebody could pull the Queen Mary perpendicular to the back of his single - family house. MS. CILEK: Well, length is guided by the extension of the entire dock facility, so that includes both boat and the structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. But I think maybe when we discuss this we'll talk when we're over, but you know, the problem is that now that we're in a time, which makes sense, that we have perpendicular docks, the code I don't think was written for perpendicular docks in mind. That there is nothing to limit the size of that vessel then. Or Ray, if you say it's in here, show me. I mean, it's -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, they would be -- you know, you're getting the total request and you're looking at them. So they've got this Queen Mary coming in, you'll be knowing that the size of that is part of the request. And if that's the only criterion that they don't meet, then it still would meet enough to recommend approval of it. So to me it just didn't seem like there was a lot of added benefit for that condition to be in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you said we haven't really been honoring it that strongly. MR. BELLOWS: Well, I've read through the history of these boat docks going back, and some people of staff interpreted it a little differently and applied it a little differently. And recently we've been fairly consistent in applying it as you're implying, regulating the size of the vessel. But it seems like there are other ways that the current provisions allow for it are regulated anyways. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's an odd thing to say when you're asking to turn this over to staff to review -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that you don't consistently review it. The other item is on Page 5. MR. BELLOWS: And that's why we're trying to clarify and make it so it's understandable for everybody. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the public notice, one question I have is why wouldn't we notice people on the waterway? Why -- you know, we're going to draw a circle. So obviously it's on the water. We know half the circle is useless, essentially. So why are we telling the guy across the street who doesn't have water maybe that they're going to build a dock over there. Why aren't we figuring out a way to do it where it goes up the waterway upstream? The people who will actually go back -- obviously the neighbors adjoining on the waterway are extremely important. But also the other guys who are going to be going by this thing are important, certainly more important than the majority of the half of the circle that's not even on the waterway. Can we come up with something that would actually take that into consideration? MS. CILEK: I mean, we're using the standard county public notice requirements in this. And it's consistent with all other LDC requirements. We'd really have to talk to counsel on how they would work. Because if the code reads one way and we do it differently for boat docks, we'd have to really provide justification for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, it makes sense. I mean, you do realize half of the circle is useless. MS. CILEK: It's water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's in the water. MS. CILEK: But I don't know how far out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What good -- I mean, if you were to require notification to people down the waterway in some direction, what difference would that make? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, because these are the people that are going to be going by it. These are -- I mean, who's going to be affected by this dock? Not the guy across the street but the guy up the channel, he is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what would he complain about, that there's another boat dock going in? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it may be -- he may be the one that would say that it's hard to negotiate around that area, that this dock is going to be -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: More than 50 percent. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, anybody could say that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I'm --from what I've seen on boat dock applications, people come here just to Page 34 of 65 161 2 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" stop them. They don't really have a lot of -- I mean, I've got mine, nobody can have theirs and we want to make sure there's less boats. And that's not a criteria that this county should be weighing in on. And I think all it would -- by extending the notification to up and down channels, I think that's just going to bring people out of the woodwork for the wrong reason, Brad. I mean, we see it too often here as it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, somebody in the public might come out of the woodwork with the right reason, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they don't need to be notified by the applicant to do that. I mean, once -- I mean, their neighbors are -- if their neighbors are talking. If they're not, then they shouldn't be concerned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm not sure how much neighbors talk. But that's it, I'm done, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have Rocky or Tim, are you guys going to weigh in on this? MR. SCOFIELD: I've been gone too long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky speaks, the code changes. MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield. I do have some comments, and I'll start on the clean version, which is Page 6 under -- let's see. Well, it's 2.A. You talked about the 40 additional feet, 60 total length. When I read that, it looks like to me they're setting a maximum there that they can't -- they can review under administratively anything from there under. If it goes over that, it's going to have to come to Planning Commission. I think that's the way I read that. So I don't -- I see that as a fine rule, because there are areas a lot of places where we do go out, and South Port's one of them. We go out 50, 60 feet in that area. So I think that's fine. It just sets a maximum length that they can review. Under Page 6, 3.Ai, well, let me back up just one minute. When I go to Page 1, under the fourth paragraph, the next to the last sentence in the fourth paragraph, where it refers to reasonable deck width shall be considered up to five feet. When I read on the next page, Page 2 under the EAC recommendations, it appears to me I was not at that meeting. Was that a recommendation by the EAC? MS. CILEK: Yes. MR. SCOFIELD: To limit it -- MS. CILEK: No, staff was to have it at five feet. Staff wanted to limit it to five feet and then the EAC's recommendation was up to five feet. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Well, okay, my comment on that is is I would like to see that up to six feet. Certainly when we dealt with the BDE criteria before, the language was used -- when you all reviewed BDE, the language being used was it shall not be -- you know, it has to -- you cannot use executive deck area, okay, which I think is a good term when you're viewing things. Obviously you don't want to permit something going out 50 feet and have a big party deck out on the end. That's one of the criteria, that you don't use excessive deck area. To me six feet -- a six -foot wide dock is not excessive. It's a lot of instances where there'll be a minimal dock and it can be six feet wide. For instance, a perpendicular dock coming into a property only going out 30 feet, and a guy's parking a boat on each side. When you're accessing two boats, one pier, one finger dock, six feet is not excessive. I would like to see that go to six feet. And I think if you go over that, then it has to go to a hearing; is that correct? MS. CILEK: Yes. MR. SCOFIELD: I mean, that's the way you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the criteria for administrative level approval. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. So I would like to see that six feet. In -- Page 6, 3.13i, the first sentence, the proposed dock facility shall be limited to the minimum. Should that be deck instead of dock area? MS. CILEK: I'm sorry, what line? MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, Page 6, 3.13i. The first sentence, the proposed dock facility shall be limited to the minimum dock area. Should that be deck area? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think so. MS. CILEK: Sure. I can't find it. Page 35 of 65 April 13 2012 "CCPCAkm1nd2nts Aakeeting" p Sped MR. SCOFIELD: I didn't have much more on that other than the -- you know, when you were talking earlier discussing about the maximum area coming in, I kind of agree with what you were saying with that, Mark, on you don't come in -- people don't know what's going to happen in the future, if someone buys the lot and they want to change something. If the language is going to pertain to that, then what we're trying to do is avoid someone having to go through a BDE again. Now, it used to not been that way. When we used to come in and we had a BDE in place and somebody wanted to change something within that BDE approved area, they could just go pull a building permit. And then somewhere a few years ago, within the last five years, that got changed. And then all of a sudden staff says you have to get another BDE, even adding a lift. A case in point: I permitted a dock system in South Port. Pretty good sized dock system, like a lot of them are out there, they've got to get out a ways. And the guy had went out in a U- shaped dock and he only wanted one boat lift. Well, clearly he had several slips there. The new owner came in, wanted to put in another boat lift. He was within the side yard setbacks. Nothing else was done. Had to comeback through another $5,000 expense just to put a boat lift within that area. That's what it needs to address, things like that. If you're coming back in and you're not adding another slip and you're not adding, you know, more deck area and you're within the side yard setbacks and within the distance pennitted out, then it should be a building permit. And I don't know if we want to get into all that language, but that's where that needs -- that was the discussion on that, where that needed to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whether it's a building permit or administrative approval for the boat dock change, that threshold would still fall back to the staff on the way it's written now, so you'll still be in about the same condition. You might need one more staff just to acknowledge that it's within staffs administrative purview. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think that would cover that. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. The other thing, the last thing I have is on Page 6 3.Ai, primary criteria. The vessels -- the first sentence, vessel slips for single - family use shall be limited to no more than two slips. This has been a sticking point with county rules on this. The state and the City of Naples have the same criteria. That is, you can have two vessels. They don't limit it exactly to slips. You can have two vessels which is basically two slips at your dock. Plus you can have provisions to have personal watercraft, a canoe or kayak or rowing shell, something -- a lift for that. And so it's different criteria in the county. The county says two slips. You want to put a couple of canoes or kayaks on a boat lift, that's your other slip. And I'd like to see that changed to coincide with the state rules and City of Naples also that has that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, Rocky, my personal concern is what you open the door for when you do -- when you include personal watercraft arbitrarily. To one those are the most annoying things ever invented by mankind. MR. SCOFIELD: I agree. You can't tell my clients that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To kind of let those just flourish is I think detrimental to all boaters and kayakers and canoeists in this county. So -- I mean, and the people that ride them seem to get a kick out of making life miserable for everybody around them. So I'm not sure why we want to -- in fact, I'd rather tighten it up in the opposite direction, to be honest with you, just to avoid the proliferation of personal watercraft. But I understand that's a -- MR. SCOFIELD: Well, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- like some people, including Jack who's back there smiling at me. But, you know MR. SCOFIELD: Well, you know, you can't regulate what people buy and use on the waterway. I'm just saying, if a guy has two slips and he's got a flats boat and a center console boat and he want to put a little -- a lift on his dock to pull up his jet ski or his canoe or kayak or rowing shell, then that's precluded. Now, I don't know if that kicks it into coming, you know, before. If that would kick it into a public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what it would do. MR. SCOFIELD: That's -- well, okay, but right now that's not the way it is. Right now you are limited to two slips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but what it means is you wouldn't get one of the primary criteria. You still could Page 36 of 65 April 13 ,2012 "CCPC/LDJ6nLeL S ecia �tin " qualify for the others and it still then would be acceptable. MS. CILEK: It would just be reviewed by the Planning Commission. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Then that's fine. Because right now you can't do that under the rules the way they are now. It's two slips, period. MS. CILEK: This says that staff can administratively approve two slips. If the request is more than that then it would go before the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then if the Planning Commission feels that you don't meet that criteria, well, then you lose the one out of the four or three, whatever it is, that you can get. So you better not lose two. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, right. That's fine. I mean, we couldn't even submit up to this point if it had more than two slips under a BDE. Yeah, that's the way the county -- that's the way it's been reviewed. MS. CILEK: I think it says typical. I'm not really familiar, but let me read it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for Rocky. Rocky, we've come into this topic before, and one of the things you've always said that always made sense, I mean, we live in a water community, we really want to be, you know, water friendly to the vehicles. Remember you had always mentioned that you were the one that actually started out, that back in the old days wharf docks were the typical dock and then the boat was put outside that and the 20 feet made a lot of sense in that world. But it didn't make sense when we started putting them in perpendicular. Shouldn't we not be restudying the requirements based on that not based on whether the staff can do it? And I do agree, there should be administrative, you know, approvals to these things, but should we not set up some criteria based on the perpendicular parking, the lifts? Now that we have lifts, any lifts allow the canopy. I mean, wouldn't we be better off reestablishing criteria based on the way boats are really docked and moored today, not some legacy? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, you know, it comes from -- I mean, it all boils down, every one of them is an individual case. I don't think the majority are perpendicular still. We're having to go that way, especially on smaller lots, obviously. Are you referring to the over 50 percent? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just the whole thing. I mean, you know, we had talked years ago about reviewing all the requirements again based upon the way we're doing things now, not based upon when these criteria were written. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, I think, you know, you still have in place that you cannot protrude more than 25 percent of the waterway. That's county, that's state rules, 50 percent of the navigable waterway open. And I think, you know, if it fits and you don't have excessive amount of neighbors screaming, yelling that this is going to ruin navigability, I think it's an individual case -by -case basis. And I don't think you need to go into a whole lot of more explanation and putting more rules down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, I mean, if -- actually, I thought we could study it, make more of it administrative and just get on with it. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, just couple of things. And I want to make sure when this comes back for rewrite that any explanation relative to the maximum number of slips per unit is explained. The way I read it it's typical, that it wasn't a solid no. Although you'd have to probably -- the burden of proof for you to justify more than two is on you. And if it isn't adequate, then it could be one of the primary turndowns. And then the second thing that Rocky brought up, I want to get the weigh -in on the board, does six feet have any heartache for anybody concerning dock width? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. COMMISSIONER VONIER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. So okay, so it looks like six feet. MS. CILEK: We'll rewrite it with six feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rocky, thank you. Tim? MS. CILEK: Can I real quick? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. CILEK: For typical, you wanted to explain how it currently -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just to make sure, I just would like you to acknowledge that we have looked at it as Page 37 of 65 161 2 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" a typical -- MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- not a requirement in regards to -- not a maximum limitation that can't be broken. If that's the status that staffs looked at it, that's fine. I just want -- MS. CILEK: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- an acknowledgment of it, that's all. MR. HALL: Good morning, I guess still. For the record, Tim Hall. And Rocky went over some of the points that we wanted to make. I know with on H -1, and I'm looking I guess at the last two pages on Page 6, but on H -1 some of the comments that you guys had regarding the ability to permit additional square footage up to the maximum, when we were having some of these discussions, one of the concerns we had was with people that would buy a property and want to redo the dock or reconfigure the dock to a different shape that was shown. But if, you know, our -- our intent was if the square footage stayed the same and the protrusion stayed the same, couldn't that be done administratively, even though it's a different design in terms of maybe the layout of the dock. If it's an -- you know, if it's a straight dock now and they went to an L or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, that's not what this says, Tim. This says allow for future expansion. And what you just described is something within the same -- yeah, I think you just said it. MR. HALL: No, I'm talking about the last sentence where it says the county manager or his designee shall have the ability to permit. Where it says additional, you know, maybe alternative would be a better word there, square footage up to the maximum that was approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a good suggestion, yeah. MR. HALL: You know, something that would allow the reconfiguration to be done. As long as it's within the same footprint, why couldn't that be administratively done? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that works. Anybody? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, as long as -- MR. HALL: And the same square footage. As long as they didn't take the footprint and say okay, it's going to be all -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As long as we note that it's the existing area approved. MR. HALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that it was a legal permitted dock to begin with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For existing area of a legally permitted dock. MR. HALL: Right. Because there are -- on Isle of Capri there are a lot of docks there that were built before the BDE process. They would -- if somebody was going to reconfigure there, they would still have to come in for a BIDE and they would I guess not be subject to this because the existing that they have is not currently permitted. You know, I'd rather see them be able to do that, but I understand the concern that if it's not under, you know, the existing umbrella of a county approval then it should be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they might have vested rights which wouldn't be fair to take away either. MR. HALL: Well, the state does. I mean, for Isles of Capris, because of the aquatic preserve, if they go in to change their dock, they're forced to come back to what the state requires. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HALL: Under A, I kind of agree with Rocky that having some kind of an actual numerical extension would be good and help staff to make a decision. Just because if you get into a situation where there aren't any adjacent docks, how far out away from that property are you going to go to make that determination? You have to realize that the further away you go the more the shoreline or site conditions may change, so it may not be applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my concern was if we're trying to get staff to be able to do more, if we start getting docks that go out much past the neighbors, historically from what I've seen for the years I've been on this board, that seems to generate more objection just from the visual I'd thought of it than it really would. But I'm not -- it doesn't bother me one way or the other. I'm just trying to make it easier for staff to get through the process. MR. HALL: Nobody's talked about 3.A.iii. I'd like to get this changed to where -- the county right now Page 38 of 65 t§A1 2. A 8 April 13, 2012 "CCPCmendments Special Meeting" defines the waterway as the mean high water line to mean high water line. And in terms of this specific criteria, I'd rather see that apply to the open water portion of the waterway. Because if you've got a mangrove shoreline that you're trying to preserve, you're actually penalized by this criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. So then you're saying you've got a 250 -foot wide waterway, and you have -- I'm not sure where this would occur, but you've got a seawall on one side and mangroves on the other, this would require your 25 percent to be measured from the high water mark of -- that would be up within the mangrove somewhere, versus now you're suggesting that it would be at the exterior edge of the mangrove. So the 250 feet might be reduced to 200. MR. HALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the 200 feet, 25 percent of that would be what, 50 feet. MR. HALL: Fifty feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead of 250 feet, you'd be again -- you'd be, what, a little more than that. Twenty -five percent of 250 feet would be what, 6,750? MR. HALL: Well, if 50 feet of it is mangroves then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. HALL: -- your 25 percent of the waterway, you would be allowed -- if you measure from the edge of the waterway, you'd be allowed to go out 50 feet into the waterway and be -- this is only going to apply to the single - family, you know, I guess exemption criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does DEP look at it? MR. HALL: DEP looks at the actual open water area. When they look at 25 percent of the waterway, they define the waterway as where the boats can actually go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's actually how you looked at it in The Dunes, isn't it? MR. HALL: That is how we looked at it in terms of showing that we left 50 percent of the navigable area open. But we failed that -- The Dunes failed that criteria because it was more than 25 percent of the entire waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's because the entire waterway was measured up into the mangroves because of the high mean water line. MR. HALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, the active part of the water makes sense. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with that too. And actually, that could be more restrictive on you too, couldn't it? I mean, if you're -- let's say there's no mangrove on the other side and there's mangrove on your side, the number would be higher for the percentage you're taking up, wouldn't it, the mangrove being on your side? MR. HALL: If the mangrove is on the side of the dock, then your protrusion is going to be -- even though you're only taking up 20 feet of the waterway, your protrusion is going to be more than if it was 20 feet on the other side. What I'm saying is that the intent of this, my understanding of the intent of this is to make sure that the navigability within the waterways is maintained. So each side is allowed to take 25 percent and then you've got 50 percent in the middle to be left open for that navigation. And the way it reads right now, if you have a mangrove shoreline that is -- and I mean, just to give an example, if the mangrove shoreline is 100 feet and the waterway then on the outside is 100 feet, you're 120 feet out, even though you're only taking up 20 feet of the waterway, the same as the guy with the seawall on the other side is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I agree, that is more restrictive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if staff would consider this when you come back for the rewrite, but if you do so you're going to have to figure out a way to define open water that fits the conditions that would be applicable in the county. So maybe Tim, you could supply some -- it's almost dangerous to ask you to supply some open water definitions after what you did with marginal docks, but -- MR. HALL: Same thing I said there, go to the administrative code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well -- MR. HALL: That's where I tried to get all of my data from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it didn't work for you either. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And this is single - family only, correct? Page 39 of 65 161 2 A8 April 13, 2012 CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. HALL: Well, it would -- I mean, I guess the criteria applies to all of them. But in terms of the administrative -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Process. MR. HALL: -- process, it would be -- that would be the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, how would that edge be defined, with a survey or something? Or how would you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what -- MR. HALL: Normally we define the edge of it with a survey, the same as we do -- when we do the mean high water line we also do the edge of the vegetation or the root line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when we see that vegetation on your survey, that's been a measured calculated -- MR. HALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: How does DEP define waterways? Maybe just take their definition. MR. HALL: Off the top of my head, I couldn't give you the exact definition. But the way they apply it is the actual open water portion. Basically if you can take a canoe through that area at any point, then it's defined as navigable, and that's how the Corps looks at it that way as well. COMMISSIONER AHERN: But that's navigable, though, not waterway, correct? MR. HALL: Well, that's, I mean, the same. The definition they have, like in some cases at low tide you may not be able to get a boat through there but at high tide you can. So they look at that high tide condition and include those areas. It's basically mangroves or trees, vegetation. Usually it's mangroves or marsh grasses where you can have the mean high water line go up into them. But that would still be blocked from navigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tim, thank you. Is that the extent of the comments from the Planning Commission on dock facilities? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to make two -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, this is like how would staff handle this thing. When we do look at these docks -- and remember, we disapprove docks too. And essentially we hope that if we disapproved that you probably would have too. Is -- like a lot of times they'll put a dock in and they won't show a boat there, yet a boat could come up to the edge of that dock. So you'll be careful in your review of these docks that, you know, let's say they put it right at the edge of the setback, a boat could come along that and violate the setback. So you're going to be very careful of that, make sure there's handrails and all the other goodies to -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that part won't change. And it still has to go through the building review where all those railings and things would be checked. But in regard to safety of ingress /egress, definitely we would require the survey to show the adjacent dock areas so that clearly shows that it meets the intent of the administrative approval. Otherwise it comes to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you'll be suspicious, right, through the whole thing? Okay. MR. BELLOWS: I hope so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing is once you build the boat dock and it's extended, a lift is allowed; that's part of a boat dock facility. And the way it's worded, it says on existing lifts we can put boat dock canopies on it. Sometimes when we stick them way out there we remove that ability. So how does that happen here? Because you lift the boat -- MR. BELLOWS: You're talking about a boat canopy that's attached to the boat or are you talking about a boathouse? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're attached to the lift, I believe, right? Page 40 of 65 161 r AS April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" COMMISSIONER VONIER: Attached to the lift. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. In other words, we allowed that on existing. So obviously you would give them the extension, they would build the dock, all of a sudden they become existing, they can come back in and get the canopy permit. CHARMAN STRAIN: What's wrong with that? Is that bad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in some cases we -- MR. BELLOWS: I don't think this provision's changing any of that criteria. MS. CILEK: Right. It wouldn't go that -- it doesn't extend that far. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is in some cases we've limited that. Because they're out far, the boats are going to be lifted up pretty high and the canopy is just going to make it worse. MS. CILEK: Wouldn't that be reviewed at the time the canopy permit came in? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's -- the canopy's by right. MR. BELLOWS: I don't think this -- it still would happen no matter how it's approved, whether the CCPC approves it or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me -- MR. BELLOWS: If someone attaches a boat canopy after the fact -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In our review we might have taken that ability away, or the ability to have a boathouse and stuff like that. Which they would have to -- MR. BELLOWS: A boathouse would come back. MS. CILEK: Yeah, these would all come back to be a new permit, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but we could simply put that one of the thresholds you can't go past is canopies. And -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if they want a canopy, they have to come before us, if that's what your concern is. I'm not sure why anybody is concerned over a canopy. If you have a boat and you want to protect it, what's wrong with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they maybe -- MR. BELLOWS: I think it may be a good idea to keep it as straight forward as possible. And if they deviate from that and they want a canopy, then that comes to -- requires a CCPC -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they're allowed to come in and get a permit. Once -- the way it's written, once it exists, the lift, they can put a canopy on it. I mean, if I'm the only one that seems to -- and I don't even boat, so what do I care about canopies? But if that's a smart thing to do then, you know, shut me down here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, my only concern, Brad, is if they have an expensive boat and they want a canopy to protect it from the sun. I don't blame them for that. I think that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we'll give them the rights without -- okay, so there won't be limits on canopies. MR. BELLOWS: Well, this amendment doesn't change that right. That's what I'm confused about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's by right the canopy, though. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some hearings -- because it's so far out, I'm thinking I can't remember the waterway, but we went out -- like we've gone pretty far on some of these shallows. And, you know, out there we didn't want structures and stuff. But that's fine, I'll back off. MS. CILEK: And we're not going that far. We have a limit of 60 so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, that's true. MS. CILEK: So those that went out 100 feet, you know, we're not going there. And that's probably where the limitations for the canopies came in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a good point. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any final comments on docks? (No response.) Page 41 of 65 6l A 8 Aril 13 2012 "CCPCILD Amendmen s " April � Special Meeting CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: Ray, it's a good writeup. Thank you. I'm glad we got at least a start on the dock rewrite, because that's been bugging us for a long time. So thank you. And with that, I think we'll probably -- it would be better to break for lunch now and come back at a quarter of 1:00. So that's just two minutes less than an hour. So let's come back at a quarter till 1:00 and we'll resume at that time. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from the lunch break everyone. We will resume where we left off and try to get through this. And the intention is to break around 3:00 if we can and that way we can all be refreshed for the next meeting. We left off after boat docks. We'll go back to the beginning of the regular agenda, and that starts back up on Page 1 with the number -- I don't know what number it is on yours. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fourteen. COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Fourteen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fourteen. 2.03.01, agricultural zoning districts, error of omissions. Bill Lorenz and John Houldsworth, can we take that now, Ray, or should we -- can you handle it, or -- MS. CILEK: Yeah, let me just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just an omission, I don't know why those guys would have to be here for that. MS. CILEK: No, that's just --they're just the authors. They just brought it forward. Here we go. Yes, so this is just seeking to amend an error during recodification regarding the side yards for legal nonconforming lots trackers in the Estates zoning district. The text that's being added to the LDC is on Page 3.D. 2.03.01. I just had to get Ray there. Agricultural zoning districts, error of omission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's number 14 on the agenda. MS. CILEK: Yeah, 14. And if you flip to Page 3, that's where the new text or the text that was accidentally omitted is being reinserted. And it deals with legal nonconforming lots in the Estates zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's really simple. It's a scrivener error on line nine. You have a lot lien, which unless there's something I don't know about. MS. CILEK: Line nine on Page 3? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, the setback along the longer lot lien may be reduced. I think it's line, that's all. MS. CILEK: On line nine? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have that. COMMISSIONER VONIER: You're on the wrong page, Brad. We're on this page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, go over to Page 2. MS. CILEK: Okay. Line nine. Oh, setback along the longer lot line. I'll fix that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, spell check doesn't always help, does it? MS. CILEK: I didn't even look at the word. Yeah, I can totally take care of that. MR. BELLOWS: I wonder if that's old language too. MS. CILEK: It is old language. That's all old language. MR. BELLOWS: It's been that way for 20 years. MS. CILEK: Or existing language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: On Page 3, line nine, frontage along a collector or arterial roadway to serve such lots is prohibited. Frontage is prohibited? MS. CILEK: I think it's speaking to i, the first sentence, but I'm not very familiar, so I'll defer to -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Well, frontage can't be prohibited is my point. MS. CILEK: No, I think it's -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Reduced frontage, maybe. Page 42 of 65 1612 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, if you read the sentence before, the intent is that it's -- you know, don't try this trick on an artillery (sic) or collector. MS. CILEK: Yeah, it can't be read by itself as a sentence, it has to be in connection with the sentence prior. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So maybe -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Which is referring to reduced frontage; is that correct? MS. CILEK: Do you want to -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: So for clarity, I would add the word reduced in front of the word frontage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That doesn't hurt. MS. CILEK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, just one. On your cover page, Page one, you have after -- in the change section, the indented quote includes not to exceed a maximum requirement of 30 feet. That's changing. So you just need to make sure you don't include that, because it says you're adding the following passage. You're really not, you're dropping the last part of it, right? MS. CILEK: What I should do is say that we're adding a modified version of what was omitted. So I can fix that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Bill, seconded by Brad. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Let's move to 2.03.08. And that one is the fringe zoning district, another scrivener's error. That's just that you added the word from. MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what kind of a conversation do we want to have about that, guys? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move to approve by Brad, seconded by Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0, because Melissa had to leave for her meeting. Next item on the agenda is item 16, 4.02.01. Dimensional standards for principal uses. This is a really Page 43 of 65 161 2 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" intense spelling error. Heidi, just out of curiosity, does staff have to come back to us with some of these minor errors? I mean, we've got one in here where they're taking out a comma in front of the word and. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, we're not allowed to change the text unless it's been approved. I mean, some of them, you know, we could pull some of them that are just really minor changes and put them at the end in a group that they can all be approved unless -- you know, with one vote, unless you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just trying to think of ways to expedite. So 4.02.01 is a spelling error from the principle to principal. Anybody have an objection? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Brad, seconded by Bill. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. 4.02.01 .D. This is for an AC encroachment discussion. And by the way, I think we've all read all this stuff, so as far as getting into an explanation from staff, it would probably be more expeditious just to ask questions from the Planning Commission. So I don't mean to take your thunder, but I'm not sure there's needed -- any is needed for some of these. But on this one there may be some issues. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you state that the minimum separation of structures is maintained, where do we find the minimum separation of structures? MR. SCOTT: Building code. The minimum separation, as defined by building code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you're referring it to the fire separation distance -- MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- of the building code, which could be zero, based upon the type of construction. In other words, as you get closer to the property line, it has nothing to do with buildings, so there is no building code separation for buildings unless they're on the same lot. MR. SCOTT: Just for the record, my name's Chris Scott with Growth Management. And I'm trying to find the -- bear with me one second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And here's where I really have a problem with this, is that I don't think we should ever have a situation where we could do something on our lot that affects the development of the adjoining lot, or the adjacent lot. So in other words, theoretically what you're kind of giving the impression is that I could push this air conditioner to the property line such that the other guy has to hold back his building to prevent in the future. I mean, if it's not an existing building you're changing his development rights on the adjoining lot. MR. SCOTT: Understood. Yeah, I understand your concern, and it's a valid point. The text amendment was simply codifying previous interpretation that was done by staff. It would need to meet any fire code related building separation, whether that notation is included in the text or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think you have to tell us what you mean by separation. But again, you can adjust that separation number by the type of construction, residential code and building code. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Page 44 of 65 A8 13, 2012 "CC l/LAL pril C Amendments Special Meeting" It's also the zoning district would have -- if it's a multi - family situation, the multi- family zoning district has a set distance between structures set back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And accessory structures. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is separation means the distance between a principal structure and assembly structure, and you're implying that to the building on the neighboring lot, which doesn't make MR. BELLOWS: Well, on a multi- family situation there isn't an adjacent lot. I assume if you have a platted subdivision with a single - family home, you might have that situation occur, but there are setbacks from lot lines that apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wait a minute, you've got -- you're going to have -- we've had PUD's come through like this. And Brad's point is exactly -- I mean, he's absolutely right. When you have -- say you have five -foot setbacks on the property line and you got two townhouses or two zero lot lines or five, five and zero, whatever, set side by side. That five feet is intruded upon by the air conditioner. The air conditioner takes up three feet. Well, if you have to maintain a 10 -foot separation between these buildings but the air conditioner has to maintain by this the separation between the building now, you've pushed that guy's property over another three feet, haven't you? Jamie's shaking his head no. I'm hearing it. MR. BELLOWS: I believe the requirement is that these would be either in the rear yard -- MR. FRENCH: Let me try to help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, that's a good point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and we -- this would be the only thing in the code that affects an adjoining property. MR. FRENCH: Hello. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Jamie. How are you? How's your arm today. MR. FRENCH: My arm is fine. My voice on the other hand -- he lost his arm, I lost my voice. So I'll do my very best. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Too bad it couldn't have been just the opposite, huh? MR. FRENCH: I'll do my very best. I may have lost the fight, but he knew he was in a fight, how's that? This is simply a clarification. You must maintain, by the Florida Building Code, Brad, a 10 -foot separation between the single- family units, no matter what. No matter what the zoning allows for, we make sure this does not affect that 10 -foot separation between the structure. This is simply mechanical equipment. And what's happening is that now that we've gone through with the flood zone updates, the allowance on the pad- mounted slabs for this mechanical equipment, it has to be elevated. So now when someone's been determined to be in a VE -6 or a VE -16, what's happening now is that they can't have that mechanical equipment on the ground, it's got to be elevated. And the only other way you could do it is actually make that home actually smaller to allow for an AC pad to protrude out over three feet. It does not encroach as far as -- or it does not go over -- does not allow for the AC pad to cantilever over someone's property line, nor should it create a barrier or a three -feet buffer so to speak that would prevent that next house from coming to be built only 10 feet from the primary structure. This is simply a pad that allows for the mechanical equipment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think you can say it different. I mean, first of all you said that there's a 10 -foot requirement in the residential building. MR. FRENCH: I believe it is, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there isn't. Because you -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, there is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- move closer to the property line -- MR. FRENCH: I believe there is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you increase the fire resistent rating of your wall. There's residential structures that have zero setback. MR. FRENCH: I don't have it in front of me, Brad, but I believe it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if there is, then let's say 10 feet. If you want to say 10 feet, make it 10 Page 45 of 65 ® 1612 A8 i April 13, 2012 "CCPC /LDC Amendments Special Meeting" feet and rather than send somebody all over. Because, you know, the separation would be, you know, the fire separation distance, it wouldn't just be the word separation. But -- so the intent is that no matter what the setbacks of the situation is, that as long as your building is 10 feet or let's say five feet so we don't affect the guy on the other side, he can't get closer than five, then he'll guarantee your 10. You're saying that you can put, you know, air conditioning systems -- MR. FRENCH: It allows for it to meet the current FEMA guidelines. Because the mechanical equipment has got to be protected. It can't be below the flood zone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, but do we really have to do that? I mean, I'm an architect, and that would -- I would certainly not move the whole building back, but I would put a notch in it for my equipment. I mean, that's -- the hardball thing is that you don't have this ability and you put a notch in your building. MR. FRENCH: And that's a question that certainly we have asked. In defense of that you know, devil's advocate here is that the architects have come back and said we want to utilize as much space as we possibly can on this parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you put the word principal in front of the last reference to structures? Wouldn't that take care of it Brad? Provide the minimum separation of principal structures as maintained. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't think there is such a thing as a minimal -- there is no such thing as a minimum separation between structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is based on the type of construction, right? Didn't you just say that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then that could be zero. I mean, you could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- put it on the neighboring guy's lot, you know. That's not the intent either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what would we -- if it was zero because of the construction type, as long as it was maintained at a separation allowed by building code, what would we care? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The buildings? Well, you know, first of all, our setback is probably going to be more restrictive than five feet. Well, no, wait a minute, look what we're going to get into on zero lot line development and stuff like that. MR. FRENCH: Currently the language allows for pad- mounted units to sit three feet in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From the setback. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why can't we stay -- MR. FRENCH: Three feet from the structure into the set back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And you can pass -- you're allowed to go into the yard or into the setback, whatever concept you want. MR. SCOTT: To clarify just real quick, pad- mounted, if it's on the ground, the current language, it's allowed to encroach into the setback. There is no limitation placed on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You mean you could put an air conditioner on the property line? MR. SCOTT: It is allowed to encroach into the yard, any required yard, except for the front. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the reason also we have to be sensitive is that when the AC mechanic comes back and puts in, you know, two of the six screws that hold the cowling on it and that starts rattling, these things get really loud and annoying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the issue today is -- I mean, that might be an issue for another amendment but this one is simply trying to acknowledge that if you elevate an air conditioner to meet the FEMA rules, that elevated piece becomes part of the air conditioner allowed intrusion into the side yard. And I know why this came about. Because it came about as a complaint from Vanderbilt Beach. And I read Ross's clarification from when he had done it. And this mirrors that. But I think the part of it that is a little hard to understand and where Brad's going is provided the minimum separation of structures as maintained. Because -- and the words just before that last piece, it says, including their supporting structures. See, you've used the word structures both as a description of what the AC is mounted on and then as a separation requirement from -- for maintenance. And I'm just -- and I think he's right, by reading it like that where structures is used in both instances, it seems like if you count the AC pad as a structure, you're pushing the opposite lot further in. So I think you refer to the Page 46 of 65 161 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" principal structures as their demanding setback and I think that cleans it up to the extent we can in an issue like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think -- first of all the downside of that is some guy builds some crappy wood structure right up against my property line. I'm not happy with that. So, in other words, this thing was even more restrictive because it did count that structure. But why can't we do this, why can't we just come up with a number that we're allowed to go into the setback and leave it there? What's the problem with that? MR. SCOTT: If the Board has a recommendation as far as a maximum encroachment into that side yard, required side yard, I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me tell you something that happened -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because here's the thing. You know, the side yard's an important thing for firefighting, for a whole bunch of stuff. If you're building structures across it, you're not doing something right. But you had a story or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, just as an example, the AC companies have a certain clearance that is now required around the outside of an air conditioning mounted unit or they won't warranty the unit. And if you look at that, the unit itself is 30 to 36 inches wide. They want one foot all the way around it. That adds two feet. And then you've got to have in a lot of cases a block wall or something else to match the structure around it as well. So by the time you get into that, depending on the size compressor or size air handler you're using, or compressor, you could have quite a distance into the setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But our code doesn't require a buffer wall, correct? No, so that's -- I mean, you definitely need clearances around it. MR. FRENCH: I don't know for the serviceability of the unit you could actually screen it or put a wall around it anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you leave one foot clearance you can. MR. FRENCH: But this is simply the exception section to the typical rule. So the rule currently is that they're allowed to on pad to encroach into the setback. Now clearly they can't infringe upon the other person's property. But what's happening is that it's very specific, and Ross's determination was that he looked at it as the air space going up. So if it had to be three feet up, the pad typically is connected to the ground in some shape or fonn. In these particular cases, when you get into these VE zones, they're cantilevered out off the side of the building. So it's not creating a big -- it's not creating anymore of a encroachment into the side yard, it's just that it's much -- it's elevated, it's not on the ground. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're -- well, I mean, I definitely think if we have it where you can build it totally across the side yard -- I don't know, I can't believe there isn't -- isn't there a maximum encroachment into the yard? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, this section is amending that section of the code. Section 4.02.01 allows for exemptions such as roof overhangs or chimneys to encroach into a side yard setback or front yard setback. I think another thing that's changing with this amendment is that we're accounting for the flood zone where these air conditioning units have to be raised off the ground. Otherwise this language is already there as the first part was, that it's not underlined. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you're not reading is the limitation on those distances. I mean, you're allowed pilasters, overhang, but there is limits to that. MR. SCOTT: There are limits based off of what is actually encroaching. Some things do have limits, you're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So why don't we just add this like you say and give it a limit. See, if we just gave a number off of it, a number where they can get circulation behind it, another number where they can access it for repair, that's fine. But leaving it up to something vague like what -- I mean, the fact that you say the separation distances out of the building code, how would anybody ever come to that? MR. SCOTT: Understood. And yeah, we could -- I mean, I'm willing to go with whatever suggestion you may have, whether it would be incorporating a hard number and specifying it like a 10 -foot separation for principal structures, or if you want to put some type of limit that says an encroachment not to exceed whatever feet from the property line or a maximum -- Page 47 of 65 1612 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" MR. BELLOWS: I have a recommendation. We can put in a limit that any encroachment shall not be closer than one foot to any yard line or property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why do you think that's safe? I mean, the yards that fight fires, to access -- you know, I mean, why do you think a one -foot distance off of a side property line's a good idea? MS. CILEK: Or two feet. But rather than limiting the size of the air conditioner, which we don't know, you're saying you have up to this amount of room to work. And then you need some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, you're getting into an entire different topic that has a whole slew of stakeholders that need to be talked to. We're talking simply making sure it's clear that if you have to elevate a pad because of FEMA, it's just as legal as if you put it on the ground. That's all we've notified the public we're doing. So we get into what Brad's talking about, you're going to have a stakeholder issue that CBIA, the builders, developers, everybody needs to be involved in because it's going to involve the width of their lots, the way they plat their lots, the way they do everything. MS. CILEK: We're just asking to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what I thought we were here today about. MR. FRENCH: You're exactly right, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Brad, we need to figure out some way to fix this today and then consider what you're doing isn't -- what you're suggesting isn't wrong, but I don't think this is the right way to get there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, here's the difference, once we go above 30 inches, it's a structure. So you're telling me that I can build a structure, which could be a wall, perpendicular to my building all the way up to the property line and put a slab on top and put an air conditioner on top of that. That would be a disaster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what you're saying is the rules that provided for air conditioners to be in side yards are no different today by this amendment than they were in the past, except if you have to elevate it to meet FEMA rules, it's okay to do that. That's all it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the big exception is they're not up in the air on the side of the building. In other words, the creatures in the flood zones, you know, you stick them out of the building, there's some pretty ugly examples. Even in Vanderbilt Beach, where they've done just what you said, they cantilevered out and there these things are sitting in midair next to the neighbor's, you know, bedroom window. COMMISSIONER EBERT: May I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Yes, sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You can come to my house. We have the pool things. The next person we had to live with her four, five years. Next person came in, they put their pool -- the developeribuilder put their pool thing right -- we can't -- I mean, it is like, you're right, one foot. And you can't hardly get in there. You can't get a lawnmower through there or anything. We both had five -foot setbacks, so there's your 10 feet for the structure. But then they come in, and things are getting bigger, and we're right on the property line. MR. FRENCH: Well, but pool equipment would not be included in this whatsoever. This is only for mechanical. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Unenclosed pool equipment. MR. SCOTT: That exists currently, correct? MS. CILEK: Yeah, that's existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't it be a better way to ask the question, if we have an AC unit mounted at grade and it is accepted in the side yard but FEMA requires it to be elevated to meet FEMA requirements, shouldn't what it sits on be accepted in the side yard too? That's the question here. It's not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That is the question. And I say no. Because the thing that's sitting on the ground is sitting on a slab. This thing is sitting on structures that have supports. What you're saying is that I can take my building to the property line. All's I have to do is put one of these devices on top of the slab or on top of the wall and I've got a wall across the property line. FEMA heights are pretty high, some of these down there too. I mean, this is not a tiny thing. The only other solution is you design the AC unit into a notch in the building, put them up on the roof in some structure. I mean, people have worked around this flood zone thing long ago. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So what are people supposed to do that need a new air conditioner now, not have one? Page 48 of 65 161 Alb April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Aleeting" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, if you're grandfathered in we have vested right clauses I'm sure that will protect -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But honestly, we're going beyond the intent of this amendment. If we need to stick to the amendment, is it better then to accept this amendment language, maybe with a clarification that the -- maintain the minimum separation for principal structures. Because in PUDs you have a principal structure separation, or -- I mean, we can't -- or just deny it? I mean, but I don't know if we want to -- if we can't -- for a complete redesign of how air conditioning units should be positioned on a lot, that's a subject for another amendment. It isn't part of this amendment. This is strictly a unit on top of a required elevation, and I think we ought to stick that in the analysis and then try to get done with it. And I honestly think if you put the word principal in front of the last word where -- reference to structure, that clarifies it as much as it needs to be. And if you pull a PUD up that allows patio homes and you have a 10 -foot minimum separation between principal structures, then you know what you can do with your air conditioning units. They can go in the side yards up until the property line. That's not changing. And if Brad's suggesting the change -- it needs to be changed, well, that's another amendment. I don't know if it fits this amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not sure where principal goes. Read the -- well, first of all, the existing ordinance allows air conditioners, pool equipment and well pumps in the side yard, in the required yards. I guess it's all yards, isn't that right, the existing language? MR. SCOTT: That was the way it reads. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Pardon me? MR. SCOTT: Yes, that's how it reads. MS. CILEK: That's how it reads. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, I mean, this is -- I thought front yards were excluded. But now we could even bring these structures all the way up to the front of the property line. But anyway, so there's how I get my walkway covered to where I put my garbage cans on the property line. But the second sentence, Mark, where would you put that in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd leave it -- I'd say -- first of all it says for the purpose of this section, the section being the one we're talking about, ground monitored air conditioners include units that are required to be elevated to meet flood elevation, including their supporting structures, provide the minimum separation of principal structures as maintained. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what is -- but the other weakness in that wording is nobody ever defined minimum separation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and most of your PUD's, which is most instances where this will occur, I can't remember one that didn't have a principal structure separation. There may be some out there, but generally we have it in all the PUD's. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we don't in conventional zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we -- I don't know, I can't remember what conventional zoning has offhand for distances between principal structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nothing. I looked and -- MR. BELLOWS: On a multi- family I believe there is, but not single - family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but then your side yard setbacks would prevail -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you've got side yard -- you don't have any -- do we have any zero side yard setbacks in conventional zoning? MR. FRENCH: No. MR. BELLOWS: Distance between structures is -- in a single - family is the setbacks provided on each lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think for today's exercise, that cleans this up a little bit better and we can go on. And if, Brad, we want to have staff look into the possibility of clarifying it for another future amendment and a different way to handle air conditioning units, but I think it needs to be vetted through the architect's organization, CBIA and others to make sure everybody understands it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but I think you have a -- I mean, yes, we may have separation requirements for principal buildings or for buildings, principal and accessory building in PUD's, but we don't in Page 49 of 65 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" conventional zoning. So the people on subdivided lots have no protection whatsoever. Well, the principal structure obviously is going to hit the setback. So the building's going to have to meet the setback -- MR. BELLOWS: But these things are currently occurring under the standard zoning. I mean, this clarification is just basically trying to clarify the process that's currently occurring now when dealing with single- family lots. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, that doesn't influence my decision. I mean, it maybe gives me a chill, but the -- and then you can't use a word like separation unless you define it so that it works across the board. MS. CILEK: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Obviously the building could never not meet the setbacks due to this. I mean, nobody could go in and say I'm going to build my building five foot closer to property because I want to put an air conditioner on the other side of the exterior wall. So the setbacks are always going to be met. So they're always going to be controlled, the principal building. So that's not even an issue. The issue is where do you put air conditioners that are elevated because of FEMA. Do you put them in the same place that you put them when they're slab on grade? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this clarification's been in existence for many years. I don't think that's attempting to be changed. We're just codifying it today. If we don't want to codify it and leave it as a staff clarification, business just goes on like it always has. This just makes it a little easier for people to find it because it's going to be in the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the clarification actually says that the code will be amended, so that didn't happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's happening now. It's been -- so the last few -- the last of the comment, provided the minimum distance between principal structures is maintained. That would be the language suggestion I think out of this discussion. MS. CIL,EK: We can add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just get a yes or no from staff. So I design this nice house and I -- off of the front of my house into the yard setbacks is this pole - supported some sort of structural supported platform where I put air conditioners. That would be allowed; there's nothing you're going to say -- MR. SCOTT: In the front of the house? MR. BELLOWS: I don't think we're looking at the entire code section here. Because it's not my understanding that it is allowed in the front -- it is not allowed in the front yard. This is mostly a side yard setback issue. MR. FRENCH: Side and rear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in the rear I could do that. I could build this nice covered deck -- MR. BELLOWS: But it's a rear yard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- for the ultimate, you know, air conditioning layouts. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't care if it is a rear yard, you have neighbors. MR. BELLOWS: You've got to put an air conditioner somewhere, side or rear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what people do who don't have something like this is they do build them and -- MR. BELLOWS: If you look at most houses that are built, they're single story for the most part. You have a five to six -foot side yard setback, or seven and a half. And where are they putting their air conditioner units? They're putting it either on the side or the rear there. They're not -- they can't put it in the front. So if they're going in the side yard and you have a flood zone situation and that has to be raised, that's all the staff clarification was, to clarify that. It could still remain in there and not be affected by other setback requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or you don't have to alter the design of the building to incorporate it. MR. BELLOWS: I think if you want that, we'd have to study that as a future LDC amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then do this: If it is going to come back like this, after the first use of the word separation, put a parenthesis and define what that means. And don't send people to the building code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, what are you trying to do? Page 50 of 65 1612 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPCILDC Amendments Special Meeting" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, they say a minimum separation of structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just suggested provided the minimum distance between principal structures as maintained. Take the word separation out. Provided the minimum -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that goes without saying, Mark. There's nothing in the location of your air conditioner that could ever allow you to pull buildings together. The reason it's in there now is because they wanted to include the structural component of this raised -- right? I mean, including their supporting structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I'm completely lost on what you're trying to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay if you -- the way it's worded now, it says including their supported structures in the minimum separation. If you want to make it the primary structure, what you're saying is the supporting structure doesn't have to meet any kind of standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm saying doesn't have to meet the r4rinimum separation that the principal structures have to meet. Because the way this reads now it would be construed that you have to hive separation from the structure that supports the air conditioning unit because it's referred to as a structure to the next structure. What I'm suggesting is just make sure the distance between principal structures is what's maintained, because it's irregardless of what the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you could never change that anyway, that's my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then what would it hurt to say that then? Why are we -- what are we arguing over? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because when you do say principal structure you take out the supporting structures from that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exactly. That's what I was trying to do. Because you don't want the separation to be measured from the supporting structure. Then you would have -- then you'd be pushing your neighbor's house over further, which is the issue you started with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And here's what I would rather the outcome be, that the neighbor's house is on his setback. If you putting these things into the side yard would have to cause the distance between whatever you come up with as separation, then you should be able to -- you should pull back your construction, not force his construction to be moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is way beyond the parameters of this LDC amendment. We're getting into design and issues that I would certainly want outside stakeholders to be involved in, because this will change the layout of lots and plats and everything else in the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, since everybody's going as per the Susan Murray interpretation anyway, let's take some time and study it and see what people do want. You may find a lot of stakeholders that don't want their neighbor's air conditioner outside their bedroom window. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's bring it to -- we beat this thing up pretty bad. Does anybody else have any comments on it? COMMISSIONER EBERT: So Mark, you're saying remove supporting structures -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm saying all we need to do is take the last -- after the comma say provided the distance between principal structures is maintained. And then you take out the reference on -- the reference to the supporting structure for the AC is just like it is today, it's irrelevant, it's in the side yard, it's allowed. And if we want to clean that up, we do it at a different meeting with a whole different presentation. MR. FRENCH: We'll go into a study and we'll bring it back at another time, if that's the will of the board, if you want us to look into that. But this -- what I have here, Mr. Chairman, is this includes air conditioners that are ground mounted and those required to be elevated to meet flood elevation, including their supporting structures, provided that the minimum distance of the principal structures is maintained. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's weaker than we started out. Because no longer is there any restriction on the supporting structures of the air conditioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there isn't now. I mean, that's where we are -- MR. BELLOWS: That's what staff clarification is allowing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's the stealth code again. Somewhere out there we didn't know about a code that -- MR. BELLOWS: I really think the amendment was just to codify the staff clarification. It sounds like what Page 51 of 65 1612 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" you really want is to restudy this. Because if it requires the house to be indented, that's going to have to go through all the stakeholders. That's a big cost to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, there's a lot of other ways, too. You put air conditioners up on the roof structures, there's a whole bunch of other ways to do air conditioning, other than bowing it out in your neighbor's yard. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. But that's what should go through all the stakeholders again as a restudy, not part of this amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree. I would rather restudy it then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's a recommendation to change the language. We've gone over it a bunch of times. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the changed language? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Bill. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5 -1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- this is a good point. Ray, this is another example of the stealth code that out there there's requirements that aren't visible to the LDC. How many more of these kind of things do you think there are? MR. BELLOWS: Well, we're in the process right now of putting together executive summaries to put together to the Board of County Commissioners, all the previous staff clarifications. They're also listed on -line on our website. But as part of this process, we are eliminating those that have already been superseded by subsequent LDC amendments, and then like this one bringing them as future LDC amendments to get rid of those staff clarifications, as you call, a stealth code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is there a way with Muni. Code we could hyperlink code sections that have interpretations? MR. BELLOWS: I think it's basically being done that way. There's -- right next to the -- if you to go our website, it says staff clarifications, along with the Muni. Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the Muni. Code? So I should -- MR. BELLOWS: No, not on Muni. Code, but -- MS. CIL,EK: No, I don't think so. MR. BELLOWS: -- it's on our website, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Because what I'm thinking is as somebody's working in the code, if they could see that there's been staff clarifications on some of these things, that would remove some of the stealth properties. Page 52 of 65 161 A8 „ April 13, 2012 « CCPC/LDC Amendments pecial Meeting COMMISSIONER VONIER: Ray, for my edification are there any codes that cover the support structures for elevated air conditioners? MR. BELLOWS: Only this one that we're talking about right now. COMMISSIONER VONIER: So, I mean, because Brad's example of a wall sounded horrible. But it seems MR. BELLOWS: We're really just talking about the mount or pad that will keep the air conditioner off- - COMMISSIONER VONIER: Understand. MR. BELLOWS: -- out of the flood zone. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Understand. But there's all kinds of ways to do that. I think Brad was making that point. And I think there should be some kind of a code for how you do that so it looks decent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you don't -- you know, and let me say, as an architect I'm going to have fun with this. I mean, I'm sure every -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: We know you will, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- architect out there watching me, you know, would love to stick a knife in me in the middle of that conversation. But as the neighbor complaints in our district, this is a nightmare that a lot of people are suffering that this is just going to enhance. So my conversation -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's not that we're adding anything different that hasn't been implemented for the last 10 to 15 years that I know of. That staff clarification goes back aways. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Have you looked at other communities how they've done it? They haven't done it this way. MR. BELLOWS: Well, I don't believe they prohibit air conditioners -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the side yards? They sure do. MR. BELLOWS: -- in the side yard setback. Unless -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They sure do. MR. BELLOWS: -- it's in some other district. Well, we can look into that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Most communities you can't even see the air conditioner from the street, stuff like that. But anyway, that's -- we voted. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ray, question. Did this come about because of the new flood zone mapping? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe so. Because the -- that staff clarification goes back, like I said, 10 to 15 years. And we always have structures that are being raised to keep out of the flood level. The principal structure in some cases are on stilts. Some homes have to be placed on stilts because of the flood zone. Some people haul in tons and tons of dirt to raise the base flood elevation or the first finished floor. And that's where you get some houses newer constructed on mounds much higher than their neighbors who are built prior to the change in the code in the flood zone snap. So you have that situation. This has been going on ever since the flood zones were created where you can't have your electrical equipment under the flood elevation, so they're lifting it up anyways. Now, what Brad is talking about are other design changes that would have to go through and be vetted through all the stakeholders, because it's an added cost to building a house if you either notch it or put it on the roof. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll accept defeat, because I can walk away knowing that I can build structures in the rear property line that go right up to the property line. I can -- you, when you look over in your neighbor's porch where some air conditioner is right on your property line, this is where we did it. Let's move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to the next one. It's 4.02.04, standards for cluster residential development. And it's a spelling error. Principle to principal. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion? COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved. Page 53 of 65 April 13,2 012 11CCPCAAJendmnts S eca i Peeting" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill made the motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. 5.03.02 is our next one, is a reference to an illustration that previously did not exist and now it does. Scrivener's error. Any discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was curious, it would be fun to see, did the sketch ever exist? MS. CILEK: I couldn't find it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Ms. Homiak, seconded by Bill? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. The next one is the personal storage containers and submittal requirements for SDPs, 5.03.07. Okay, this one's a little longer. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, basically this amendment is to address situations in the Estates in agricultural zoned properties that have single- family homes. And due to typical large lot sizes in the Estates and ag., that the lawn maintenance requirements are heavier so the need to have storage facilities become more important. And this amendment doesn't apply to like the RSF -I through 6 zoning districts which are somewhat smaller lots. The idea is to allow for these personal storage containers or pods, as some people call them, to be placed subject to conditions and limitations in number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're using again the separation from the building code, which I believe in this case exists. It's a type two building and all the separations required for that will be there. But there's no structural requirement whatsoever, you just plop it on the lawn and that's it. Page 54 of 65 April 13 2012 "CCPCIUdenzents S ecia' Meetin " P � P g MS. CILEK: They're required to have a permit, a tie -down permit. MR. BELLOWS: And they're engineered structures that the building department -- MS. CILEK: Reviews. MR. BELLOWS: -- are satisfied that -- they have to meet a certain industrial classification. MS. CILEK: Right, these are very large containers made of iron, most often. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know what they are. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know what pods are, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does it say that anywhere about the permitting, or it doesn't have to say that, or -- MS. CILEK: These would be -- it would also be addressed, but limitations on use. And then again under -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's not stating that they have to be done by a -- I think that would be a good idea, that all permits are required. Because you wouldn't want somebody to think they could just drop one off one day. MR. BELLOWS: It was in there at one time. I thought it was still in there, but -- MS. CILEK: Well, two things: It would be addressed in the procedural section that would apply for this. And then also, you can pop in if you want to make comments, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paragraph A of the last sentence refers to permitting procedures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. CILEK: Yes. Yes. And we did tie it into the administrative code, which is coming under fruition, and so that would be more lengthy in there. Because we did at one point have that information here, but then we were going to move it to the administrative code. And then the important part is that this is linked with Section 10.02.03, looking at the number in square feet. And so those that are more than 400 feet in aggregate would go through sort more of a rigorous review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the square footage of a typical container? MS. CILEK: It depends. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're 40 by -- MS. CILEK: They're undersized. Number E, maximum floor area is 480. And so for the purposes of this section, that's what we're considering to be what we want to have go through this process. And then height is eight feet. And of course no stacking. So we were looking at the size. MR. FRENCH: I would tell you, Brad, in the past what has happened with these is that they would come forward with an architectural drawing or engineered drawing and they should show, because it's intended to be a permanent structure, not temporary, there were no tie -down requirements, because these things were coming in at seven or 8,000 pounds. And because of their weight alone -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm not worried about them rolling over. MR. FRENCH: Right. If those roll over, we've got far other issues that we've already worried about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. So I think the point is would you need any kind of permit for this? 1 mean -- MR. FRENCH: Still because it is a permanent structure we would require that it did have a building permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to show its location -- MR. FRENCH: Just to show its location and -- MR. BELLOWS: And help regulate the number to ensure that no minimum exceeds the -- MS. CILEK: That and make sure it meets where it can be located on the actual parcel. You know, it can't be in any required setbacks or stormwater management area. So it needs to have like a specific location. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Treated as an accessory structure. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir, just like we would a Ted's Shed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's a good one. I'm good with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Klein. Page 55 of 65 April 13 2012 "CCPC/1 OnienIdments Special MAeet8 g " All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Next one is 5.05.04.D. It's actually the next one in your book. And it's an amendment to the FAR for group housing to make it more consistent with what we've routinely approved every time they come in. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we think the graphic helps illustrate how the FAR works a little bit better, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a comment. Whenever they have come in, they've always asked for this larger FAR because of all the amenities. MS. CILEK: Correct. MR. BELLOWS: And that's why we've increased it to .60. MS. CILEK: And we address that in the header. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But you haven't increased the requirement that they have more amenities. In other words, they've always shown us that here's the beauty parlor, here's what we're going to do, here's what we're going to do, here's what we're going to do. So, you know, this isn't just your typical nursing unit, this is -- has all these amenities and thus we need the additional 15 percent. So should we, you know, carry the logic that we've always been influenced by forward in this, or -- MR. BELLOWS: I think for the purposes of determining the intensity, I think the case has been made over the last three or four years when we've approved the PUD's with the larger size, I think what we're trying to do is make the LDC provision for ALF's to be the same as we're approving for the PUD's, which they've all been at .60. And I don't think you need to have a requirement that they determine that, since that's now going to become the standard size. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But what I wouldn't want this to do is open up some really horrible ACLF's or care units that really are jamming a lot of people in that additional 15 percent. In other words, that 15 percent has always been given to us in the explanation. It's because they have all these super amenities and therefore it's not fair to hold us to -- MR. BELLOWS: Basically that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- 45 feet. But this is eliminating their need for amenities. MR. BELLOWS: Well, I think it just takes into account the modern trend or current trend is to provide those things, so why ask for deviations every time. This will be the standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think -- you know, but we can't just do the code for the good guys. We have to think of what the bad guy can do. And, you know, when the 45 was put in there it was put in there by thinking people. They had something in mind. So I don't want -- you know, I really wish that we could do this in such a way that the additional 15 percent has to be attributed to amenity areas. MS. CILEK: Well, one note is that this is an interim measure. So -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: An interim measure? MS. CILEK: Interim, yes. Sorry, it's a hard word for me. Staff understands that, even though this is a .60 FAR, it's sort of a hybrid of a FAR, because you're still looking at the height, the zoning height for your zoning district and other setbacks. So it's not a true FAR. And if you want, we can take a look at if we want to require -- you know, this is interim. And when we come back we can look at how the amenities are playing out. And if that's something we want to tie in to it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, yeah, true, we've always given them the .6. But we've always given them with the -- you know, the reason they justify it is the amenity increase. And I don't -- you know, if we go Page 56 of 65 a C7 D i at . April 13, 2012 CCP A e ents Spi eeting " to a .6 and they don't put the amenities -- there's no requirement to put amenities in, I mean, this could be horrible what they build if we're -- you know, what I would rather see is let's go with what they do is keep it 45 and then add that you can add an additional 15 for amenities. And that way we honor when we've always given it to them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, you know, it's a policy decision. Brad's making good points. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I'm saying. MS. CILEK: And they're still regulated by state, like the Florida state regulations on how big the bedrooms can be and all that. So they're not going to be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But not amenities -- but no, but you can jam -- let's go hop in the car and go to the other coast and let's put some things that meet the -- MS. CILEK: No, no, point well taken -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- state requirement. MS. CILEK: They're just not going to be -- MR. BELLOWS: I don't see a problem with adding to the current amendment to keep it at .45 with the ability to go to six, upon proof that the additional -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me use the 15 for the amenities. Let's make them give the residents what they should have. Because the .45 will work for the residents. No one's ever said here I can't build it in 45, but my problem is if I add amenities I'm taking away from the 45. MR. BELLOWS: I think we can work on some language. MS. CILEK: Yeah that's fine, yeah. We can bring it back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're going to bring it back -- MS. CILEK: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In May? MS. CILEK: Yeah, we'll just work on language for it, if we want to consider that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay, so the next one is 5.06 -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Are you going to approve that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we're coming back. MS. CILEK: It's going to come back. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We're going to bring it back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a revision. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Number two 5, 5.06, sign regulations and standards by LUC. It's errors of omission. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 5.06. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some comments. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't I always? For one thing, this is -- stating it's clarifications and omissions, but it's actually changing some of the code. For example, let's just take the definition of flag. Right now a flag is allowed to be a sign. So this is eliminating that ability, for right or wrong. So it's not a clarification and it's not an omission. And I think it should be advertised carefully, because there may be an industry that would have a comment on that. And adding the no commercial might be a problem. The other place where I think that occurs is you're changing the maximum heights for -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Where are you, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, on Page 2, line 48. You start to go in and change the heights for better or worse. That's not a clarification or an omission, that's changing the code, unless the code was -- MS. CILEK: From what I was told, this was going back to the original -- or a prior code. But I'm actually trying to find that old code so we can kind of compare and contrast if there are any changes. So that's something I'm going to locate. But I also had a question. Page 57 of 65 April 13, 2012 "CCPC116 ALe>knents sA&eeting" Heidi, did you get a chance to review this just real quick to make sure that she didn't have any -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't say no. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I do have concerns with the definition that talks about flags do not contain a commercial message, because it seems like we're going beyond and into the content of the flag, as Brad alluded to. So I do have concerns with the change under A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you reviewed this one prior to today's meeting? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I've read it but I haven't tried to analyze it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, do you think it's been properly -- you know, the reason and the change are not -- these are not clarifications or omissions, these are changes in the sign ordinance. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I think the LDC says eight feet. I can double check that. And I think the 10 feet came as one of the revisions made by DSAC to increase the height. So they were proposing to increase the height. But we'll verify that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And you'll bring it back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the legislative format is essentially correcting revisions, not the LDC. MR. BELLOWS: We're going back to -- MS. CILEK: An older draft. Which I need to find. MR. BELLOWS: We'll verify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is he looking for, 91 -102? MS. CILEK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a complete one; I can bring it to you. MS. CILEK: Great, yeah. We need to compare the drafts. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're going to bring this back? MS. CILEK: I think so. I think that we need to A, advertise it correctly if it is changing a height. And B, discuss with Heidi A, flags. Because she did not have a chance to review this prior to coming here today, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be better. Is there any other comments from the Planning Commission, or other items before it goes back? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, it's on Page 4, 14, sandwich boards. You're discussing -- and I think it's good, you can have these and you can put them at the door. That's not exactly a precise location, but as long as you leave the 42 inches clear so people can -- it's not in the way, I mean, I'm not sure if we shouldn't have within so many feet of the door, because I could put it out at the street and say that's by my door. And then the last sentence says the sign location -- I'm sorry. MS. CILEK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The sign shall be removed from the entrance door area when the business is not opened. I think you should word that in such a way that you actually bring the sign into the building as opposed to putting it out on the street for overnight advertising. MS. CILEK: That's the intent is to bring the sign in. But yeah, we can tweak that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it doesn't say that, yeah. And then on line 21, this is signs in the sports fields and stuff like that. You're keeping them so they're not visible from adjacent public or private roads. Should we also add residential development in there? In other words, if these signs are visible from some guy's house that lives near the play field. MS. CILEK: So add what language? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, at the end, you know, it's adjacent public or private roads. I would say something like or residential -- MS. CILEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- uses. Just to make sure. I mean, if you want to do -- just because I want to do it doesn't mean that's the right thing to do, but -- MS. CILEK: Other comments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Is that it? Page 58 of 65 16 I Z April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" COMMISSIONER VONIER: That's it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. Makes sense, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with it. MS. CILEK: I think it's just clarification. That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to bring that one back for a rewrite. MS. CILEK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to 10.01.02, development orders required, early on construction authorization permit. MS. CILEK: And just to let you know, we're also going to have some language tweaks to this one. The intent is the same. There's a couple typos in this draft, and so we will provide you a clean copy at the next May 3rd meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're not going to vote on this today, we're just going to take comments. MS. CILEK: Yep, that would be great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you're going to have them, so I might as well ask you first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says -- line five it says no on -site or off -site. I mean, doesn't that cover everything in the world? MS. CILEK: Can you give me a page, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, Page 3, line five. It just seemed -- MS. CILEK: Line five? That's existing language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, we can leave it. Let's move to 4.17 -- C.F. MS. CILEK: C.F? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. One thing I was thinking of adding is the portion of work to be authorized. The permit has been approved. And I was thinking of adding, and subject to the conditions of the office of the fire code official under the Florida -- because with the early start, there are some situations where fires had trouble in the past where people don't have the proper water and fire supplies. They don't have the proper hydrants and things like that on a construction site, which they would need. I mean, I guess if it's been approved by the fire code official, that might be good enough. MS. CILEK: So we're going to add language that would make the review subject to conditions of the fire official. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: C.F I think has that, doesn't it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's what I'm reading. And just with -- it's saying it's been approved. Anyway, I guess no approval would happen without subject to the conditions. So maybe it's redundant. We can -- that's it. MS. CILEK: Yeah, it be won't go forward unless the fire official has said it's good to go. That's the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the person doing the work has to meet the conditions of that approval. MS. CILEK: Sure. And that's probably when they make a review they say, you know, you have to do these things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? Go ahead, Diane. Was that you? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, it was. There's a situation right now that somebody's been waiting five and a half months for their permit and it's because of fire and the county. And they're butting heads. One says it's fine, the fire department says, the county says no, it's not fine with us. It is going back and forth for five months. MS. CILEK: Sorry to hear that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you sure you have that order right? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Usually, I mean, if it's a problem, it's the fire department, it ain't the county, I can tell you that. Page 59 of 65 A8 April 13, 2012 "CCP1h ALeZents Special Meeting" p g COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, Mark, it might be. But this is inside work on a business that's just expanding to -- and they're waiting five and a half months and they're paying their rent and nothing is done yet. They can't even start. MR. FRENCH: Which business, may I ask? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. It is a beauty salon. I will speak with you on it. But it is -- and you're right, and they actually went there and -- MR. FRENCH: There's a reason why I asked this. I've recently had the opportunity to sit down with the fire official. Very similar complaint, three - and -a -half months. And I will tell you that -- and I happened to have Brad there. And I would tell you that they -- and staffs motion, honest opinion, ma'am, they had a bad architect. They had a bad design professional who did not do enough due diligence to bring forward enough information -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had Brad there. Was he the architect? I►VJI I'M 0 Aa64[41Aki Ell And I will honestly say that Brad has helped us out quite a bit. And I asked him -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: He would. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me just say, in fairness, there was a lot of other people under the bus too. MR. FRENCH: Right, I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was a crowded under the bus scene. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but are we -- MR. FRENCH: We'll be happy to take a look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're back on the ECA. Let's try to stay on focus here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Diane, by the way, if you do have problems, call Jamie, he's the fixer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any problems with this section of the code? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's going to come back to us, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. If there's any other comments -- MS. CILEK: It's just word tweaking. So all the intent is laid out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments from the Planning Commission on this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 5, D, review times do not include EAC, CCPC and BCC. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What Page 5? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah, what Page 5? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It would be on Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, tell me what I've got that isn't necessary anymore. MS. CILEK: Yes, you might have an earlier draft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many numbers do you have under three? Oh, well, good, you've already taken it out. Fine. It's going to come back for a rewrite. Let's go to 10.02.03.B. 1.J through K. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This is coming back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, this is coming back. MS. CILEK: Yes, it will come back so we can move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10.02.03. And you've got this B -1, J through K. It's the last -- it's the bottom tab of one of your -- further on in the book. And what is this? It's submittal requirements for SDP right -of -way process and submittal regulation for improvement plans. MS. CILEK: Yes. And this is seeking to sort of assist and define the process for when an applicant gets the right -of -way permit. And this will help them know when to get it, which is right before the preconstruction meeting. So that just amends that procedure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any commends from the Planning Commission? (No response.) Page 60 of 65 161 Rs g April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments pecia eeting" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Brad. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Mr. Podczerwinsky has been sitting there waiting for us to get done with that. Congratulations, John. No problems. Number 29, 10.02.03.B.4.b. MS. CILEK: BA.b. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is submittal requirements again for SDP's, extended and notice requirements for public hearings before the board. MS. CILEK: Right. And I do have one update for this. And you can ask to bring it back, but I'm just going to tell you what Heidi and I discussed prior to today. So I'll share that with you and see if you want to see a clean copy of it, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. CILEK: So go to B.4.b.i, and it reads, the new language reads, a maximum of two extensions may be granted before an SDP amendment is required. What we'd like to do is add a period there and remove everything else. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where is this? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, what one are we on? MS. CILEK: B -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on 10.02.03.13.4. Page 2, item B.4.b.i. And she's shortening this first sentence by half and dropping the rest of it. MS. CILEK: Correct. The rest of that will go into an administrative procedural type -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I figured you were going to say. I don't think that needs to come back for a rewrite, unless somebody else has other problems with it. COMMISSIONER VONIER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's pretty simple. COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Bill. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. But let me ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we can vote, and then I'll ask my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 61 of 65 fA8 1612 April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remind me again why SDP's expire? What -- in other words, somebody goes through the expense of creating something that essentially becomes his GMP of his own property. I mean, why does that have to expire? MR. BELLOWS: It expires because the codes have changed over time, and it is felt that if you go beyond three to four years, you might have a situation that you may not approve under the code says they are amended in the future. And this gives a chance for staff to reevaluate the plans again to ensure that there are no other issues with changes to codes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but like with Burt Harris claims as a threat, why would that ever be a problem that the code changed? It's not like he's buying right futures or something. But never mind, it's -- it expires. Live with it, Brad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is 10.02.05.13, submittal requirements for improvement plans. Same kind of issue, just extending them, providing for two -year extensions. MS. CILEK: And same correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: So B.11, new language, a maximum of two extensions may be granted, period. The rest of that information will be an administrative code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. As -- I'm assuming as the language was modified. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Next one is 10.02.07.C.1.2, submittal requirements for certificates of public facility -- adequate public facility. Oh, no, this is -- yeah, okay, it's titled differently. Okay. MS. CILEK: It's striking earlier language under that 10.02.07. There's a bit of a typo on Page 3. The numbers are wrong. It should be -- actually, maybe that's not right. Never mind. The new language is on Page 4 relating to the monitoring requirements. And this is a new regulation that would instead -- instead of having people provide a monitoring report, they provide payment of $500 for each access point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a one -time payment or a yearly payment? MS. CILEK: One -time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One -time payment. Because that's a lot cheaper than a monitoring report is for each property. MS. CILEK: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By a long shot. That's good. Page 62 of 65 k 16I 2 Aa, April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Any questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Brad. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Bill. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Next one is 10.02.13.F. It's obligation of the annual monitoring reports. Anything you want to through, Caroline? Pretty self - explanatory. MS. CILEK: This is just saying that those that -- the part of the PUD that is built out no longer have to supply the monitoring report. They're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good move. Discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there any correspondence from staff to somebody telling them that? I mean, this looks like it's a condition that they know it's built out, but do you ever send them a congratulatory letter or anything? MS. CILEK: Yay, you've made it. Yes, I'm pretty sure there's a process for a built out portion of a PUD. But Ray might be able to speak to that, and so can John Podczerwinsky. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky for the record, Transportation Planning. I'm standing in for Lori Beard today, our PUD monitoring staff member. And yes, to my knowledge she does keep track of what portion of the PUD's are built out and which are not. And she keeps those that are not built out notified of their requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've seen them. Any discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Brad. Seconded by Karen. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Last one is the appendix A, update letter of credit form. Page 63 of 65 12` �A8 April 13 ,2012 "CCPC/A 4endments Special Meeting" MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I don't think it's required, but the --I just wanted to let you know that administrator has requested that you discuss the aviation LDC amendment before you conclude today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whose administrator? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Nick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He was here, why didn't he say something about it? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I'm just letting you know, because we're reaching the conclusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does this have anything to do with letter of credit? MS. CILEK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Brad, seconded by Barry. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Now we're going back to number 13, 2.01.03, essential services, aviation. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I think if someone has any changes or questions we can address it and then we can continue it to the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I understand it correctly, this is just adding a very defined sentence to the permitted essential services in a CON ST. And it reads, so I've got the right version, aviation related uses as approved in a Memorandum of Understanding agreement dated September 11th, 2001. Is that right? MS. CILEK: No. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No. Shall I read the change in, or Caroline -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, probably -- oh, it's a whole paragraph. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You're the only one who doesn't have it, probably. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've only seen it -- I've only got the one sentence. Go ahead -- well, you don't need to read it, I can read it. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, where are we at here? MS. CILEK: He has an earlier version. And it's on Page 3, letter F. MR. BELLOWS: And it's Section 2.01.03. MS. CILEK: Yes, the first one in your binder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, just further clarifies the signatories to the inter -- yeah, okay. MS. CILEK: It just lists out the people who are signing off on the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It fixes a problem. Does anybody have any problems? Well we can't -- motion is going to be coming up for discussion on the 25th, right? MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I don't have any comment. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: This requires the night meeting, that's why we're not voting on it today. Well, it arguably requires the night vehicle. She's looking for comments today. We're going to have the same thing happen on the 25th. Page 64 of 65 161 2» April 13, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Specia eeting" COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, so we'll -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, if you have any questions or issues, you can raise them today and we can address them or we'll just hear it next Wednesday. Or in two weeks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Well, that takes us to the end of today's agenda. So is there a motion to continue this until the 25th of April at 5:01 in this room? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion we continue till April 25th at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry seconds. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. We're out of here. Thank you all. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:00 p.m. These minutes approved by the board on 5-�7-C2 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION f�/ 1,�/ P,&, - MARKS RAIN, Chairman as presented for as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 65 of 65 S AGENDA &&E4ED A8 MAY 2 3 2012 Board of County Commissioner COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, APR, 19, 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. BCC REPORT - RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Fiala Hiller — Henning Coyle _ Cc;leia- A. BDE- PL20110000300: Stella Maris Boat Dock Extension- A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BDE- PL20 1 1 00003 00 for a 15 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 35 feet for the benefit of the entire Stella Maris Development totaling 15,707 square feet of dockage and including the addition of two new docks located in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Mike Sawyer, Project Manager] Misc. Corres: Date: 'i Item M I L Q =2- r-4 $ Copies to: 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1612 `A8 A. PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency, represented by Banks Engineering and Pizzuti Solutions LLC, is requesting a rezone from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Convenience Zoning District (C- 2- BMUD -NC), and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the General Commercial Zoning District (C- 4- BMUD -NC), and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Mobile Home Zoning District (MH- BMUD -NC), to the Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district to be known as Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD. The 17.89± acre site is proposed to permit 48,575 square feet of commercial (retail, office and medical office) development, a 350 seat theatre, 84,000 square feet of parking garage and 40 residential units. The subject site is located within the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District at 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp 2 16 12, A8 pril 19, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 19, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Cormnission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern Phillip Brougham Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney (absent) Brad Schiffer Bill Vonier Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 of 28 16 12 A8 April 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, April 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'd all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Vonair. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is absent, or is he not coming? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, he's not here now, though. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Brougham. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, are there any changes to the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Planning Commission absences. Our next special meeting is the 25th in the evening at 5:01 in this room. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I will not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're good. We have a quorum then. Our next regular meeting will be May 3rd. Anybody know if they're not going to make it to the May 3rd meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On May 17th we have an agenda that shouldn't take us past the morning. We have a clean -up of some LDC amendments, but we're also having those on May 3rd, which I would hope we could finish them then. On May 17th, we need to fit in a workshop, finishing the workshop for the master mobility plan. I don't think it will take too long, but that may put us into the afternoon. So unless there's an objection, I'd like to make sure that gets on our agenda for the May 17th meeting at the end. Anybody have any problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The more we can fit in one day, the less days we'll be having to occupy this room. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Does that mean these two days that they have it on we won't do, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, those are different. THE COURT REPORTER: Ms. Homiak, would you pull your mic closer, please? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm sorry. I just asked if these two other meetings for the master mobility plan were going to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is a -- no, the 17th will be the completion of the workshop that we had last week. We only got halfway through it. So those two are for the final language that's coming after the workshop is Page 2 of 28 1612 A8 April 19, 2012 complete, so -- ** *Okay, we have no minutes. ** *Ray, any BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: On April 10th the Board of County Commissioners had a meeting but they did not hear any land use items during that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, there's no Chairman's report. * * *So we'll move right on to the consent agenda. And it's the -- first and only consent agenda item up is 8.A. It's BDE- PL20110000300, Stella Maris boat dock extension. We have it in our consent packet. I think I have one clarification I would ask of Steve. And then Heidi I think had a question or two. And we'll see if Planning Commission has anything afterwards. Morning. MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I needed to know, as we left off last meeting, that we were supposed to have some research done to let us know who actually owns the bottomlands. MR. WILLIAMS: Again, just as we anticipated when we reviewed the Appraiser's report, it is with the state, so perhaps -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the State of Florida. So outside that seawall is owned by the State of Florida. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. There is no bay bottom lease to it or anything else, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't too concerned about a bay bottom -- well, maybe I -- see, if you have a -- if the state owns the bay bottom and they're a multi -slip facility, wouldn't they need a submerged land lease? MR. WILLIAMS: Not for what they've got here. If it were a marina, so to speak, or anything else, but these are individual boat docks, so they're not. They're in good shape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah. No, these are individual residential boat docks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, that's not how they -- this is a multi -- because they actually didn't connect them to the uplands docks, I mean, upland residences, remember how they laid that out? MR. WILLIAMS: I know how they've got it but, yeah -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're non - waterfront lots. MS. WILLIAMS: Understand. They are not waterfront lots, but these are the docks attached to the multi- family units. We don't have a severance, and we're very clear in this ordinance that there is no severance of the dock lots from the units. If there were the ability to sever these, I would have great concern, and -- as I think you would as well. But these are, for purposes of each unit as we have put in the stipulations and the conditions, you've got a dock to a unit. Then in terms of what we would need from the state, or if they need a bay bottom lease, I haven't seen a need for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, at the time you would get your submerged land lease from the state, you wouldn't know the arrangement we've made here with our recommendations, because they would have brought that into us ahead of time. So how -- I'm just wondering why they wouldn't have looked at it as a multi -dock facility, which multi -dock facilities and commercial facilities require submerged land leases, single dock facilities don't. Okay. I mean, I understand. I may look into it further. It would kind of be irrelevant, I think the project was fine, but I just wanted -- I'll get with you then Steve, if I -- MR. WILLIAMS: That sounds fantastic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Heidi, you had some comments you wanted to make? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, just a clarification of the resolution, more for administration purposes. But we'd like to insert in the caption on Page 1 and also in the text on Page 2 that it's to allow for a total protrusion of 35 feet to allow for mooring of vessels. So there's not any confusion when staff administers it on the -- even though there's a condition regarding the decking not going beyond the 20 feet. And then just wanted to draw your attention to condition number two. There's just a slight change in that lot -- I believe it's lot 41 does not currently have a dock on the side yard. So we would delete the second line where it Page 3 of 28 161 2 A8 April 19, 2012 says except for the existing docks off lot 49 (sic) as shown on the map. So that's a change that you could -- we need to make. And then there's alternative language, if you would like, that you could consider. Because the current language with the modification that I just made would probably allow for somebody to remove the dock that they have on the short side and put it on the side yard, if they stay within the 20 feet. But I think you as a body in approving this layout can not allow the protrusion within the 20 feet, since you're approving the whole layout, if you don't want them on the sides, period. So if that's your intent, I can give you some alternative language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Brad came up with the comment. Brad, what was your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I have no problem if they're within the 20 feet along the side. It's only they don't get the additional -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay, so then the language that I read in as modified would be what you would be going forward with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're sure that's enough to make sure that it's only the boat that's coming past 20 feet. Because we do word it here is we give them a 15 -foot boat dock extension of a boat dock. I mean, if you read the thing carefully, especially the -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm comfortable because of condition three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, you could say no dock structures if you would like, if that -- or facilities -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- dock structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That will cover it, that's good. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Dock structures? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I think if you look in the resolution, it's not as clear, but the condition is definitely clear. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so we understand, so number two you're suggesting at the end of the second line we drop the plurality of the word lots and make it lot. And then strike 44 and 41 and make the word "and ". MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and that gives us a completed -- and the other reference you made on Page 1, could you tell us that one more time so I make my notes accurate? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Sure. It's the number one on the caption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's number one? Pardon me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Her microphone. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The change that I read in at the beginning would be seven lines down in the caption where it says 35 feet would be the insertion of the words to allow for mooring of vessels. And then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa, what page are you on? I'm sorry. Page 1 of the -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Page 1 of the resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the resolution. You're in the header? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Capitalized header? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 35 feet. And then you're suggesting we add? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: To allow for mooring of vessels. That just makes it clear that it's just the vessels that's going to protrude out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And then on Page 2, the first line, being the same is hereby approved for a 15 -foot extension, and you would delete the words of a boat dock. So it would be: It's hereby approved for a 15 -foot extension over the maximum 20 feet to allow for a 35 -foot protrusion for the mooring of vessels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 35 -foot protrusion, how's that affect the rest of that sentence? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: For the mooring of vessels for the entire waterfront exposure of the waterfront Page 4 of 28 1612 April 19, 2012 development. It does -- I mean, you could delete the dockage language in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm saying. So you're saying 35 -foot protrusion for the mooring of vessels and dropping the words boat dock facility, and then continuing for the entire waterfront exposure of the development. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well that works. I just wanted to make sure everybody understood the language. Is staff comfortable with that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, it's not exactly true, because we do limit that it's not for the entire waterfront. But Heidi, wouldn't the attachments, the exhibits, if it's clear on the exhibit, that's clearly what's going to happen? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I'd prefer not to have a conflict. Because that's where you read in some problems. You could probably delete all the language up to as shown on the proposed site plan. So it could read: Is hereby approved for a 15 -foot extension over the maximum 20 feet to allow for a 35 -foot protrusion for the mooring of vessels as shown on the proposed side plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's better. Ray, are you okay with that? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Couple questions. On conditions of approval number one, I pressed for this, but educate me on the time frame of that. All docks found to be out of compliance must either comply or remove the existing boat dock. When? Anybody? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, I mean, Ray, what's their time frame on a non - compliant BIDE, or just boat dock itself? MR. BELLOWS: That would be determined as part of the code enforcement action, how much time frame they grant to have the dock be made conforming -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is generally done at a code enforcement hearing where they negotiate between the owner and the magistrate the time frames needed to correct the failure -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so it does vary. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But who takes the initiative to file a code enforcement complaint to start the process then? MR. BELLOWS: It typically would be a result of a complaint by somebody, or if during some other inspection by county staff a violation is noted -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm still uncomfortable with that. I mean, they've not had C.O.s on a number of those docks for a number of years. MR. BELLOWS: But there is currently, as discussed during the last meeting, a current code enforcement case on all of these, so they are subject to those being brought up. And this whole process is as a result of code enforcement action. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could we add some wording for clarification on that? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: There was some discussion at the last meeting along the lines of a Site Development Plan and substantial change shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. And that may have come out of your discussion. That's something that you could add, if the Board feels that's appropriate. Page 5 of 28 161 Zi,,9,A28 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, whatever is appropriate legally. I'm not trying to mess up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is there any question -- is there any reluctance from staffs concern that code enforcement wouldn't be following up with this project now that it's gone through this process? Because it's kind of highlighted for not just any particular dock, but all 50 of them. So I think what would happen is all 50 now by this action would have to be brought into compliance, and they would stay on it until its done. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think they can -- I don't think anybody could say it hasn't been turned in or it hasn't been brought up. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: As long as there's an active, quote unquote, code enforcement case that's going to be resolved -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will have to go through to resolution completely. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's fine. Conditions of approval number five, any future changes to the boat docks will require a new boat dock extension. Any changes would require an extension? What if they want to remove a dock or reduce the size of a dock? MR. BELLOWS: Say that again? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It says any future changes to the boat docks will require a new boat dock extension. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, they're approved subject to the plans proposed. I also have an e -mail from Mike Sawyer indicating that they've already submitted an SDP for the entire docks to be brought into compliance. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But going forward into the future, if this is all resolved and someone decided they want to reconfigure their dock, stay within the granted extension, then they would still have to come back for a new boat dock extension? MR. BELLOWS: Based on that language they would have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's because they testified and we approved what they asked for. They asked for only boats. So we didn't give them a blanket saying all of you can build your dock out whenever you want to. We've said no, what's there is there, and you automatically get the extension for the boats, because that's what they asked for. But the rest of it doesn't happen unless you come individually to see what the impacts are. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm not going to belabor it. But I'm a boat owner, boat dock owner. It's a big dock out there. I don't like it. So I want to remove it. MR. BELLOWS: This dock? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Any existing dock. And I want to remove it. That's a change. I'm being picky, I understand that, but -- MR. BELLOWS: In this particular case the dock that is being approved has language that restricts them. Other boat dock extensions don't necessarily have that revision, so there could be some alterations to the dock consistent with codes that do not require it to come back in for -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But that's not what it says here. So if they wanted to make changes within the 20 -foot protrusion, they couldn't do it, based on that condition. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: They could not? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, could not. MR. BELLOWS: That's the reason this language was added. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So any changes they can -- I suppose they could remove it but not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's back up. Now you're saying that if they want to do something within the 20 feet, which they have the absolute right to do without it coming before this board, they're not allowed to do that now? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Not with that condition there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's wrong. Why are we imposing something harsher than the conditions we already have, which are plenty harsh enough in this county? If they have the right to do what they can within the 20 feet, maybe we ought to reword five to -- I'm glad you've picked up on the language, Phil, because this would inadvertently, if Heidi's correct, impose greater restrictions Page 6 of 28 1612 April 19, 2012 on someone for something they already have the right to do. So wouldn't this be any future additions to boat docks outside the 20 feet will require a new boat dock extension? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You could put except for modifications which stay within the 20 -foot protrusion limit under section -- and I don't remember the exact number of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we have to address something that's already covered by right? Why don't we just leave it by right and just address something that goes beyond the by right status, which is all we are trying to address through the boat dock extension? You're saying so long as they do this. Well, so long as they do whatever they're allowed to do by right, they should still continue to be allowed to do it. We shouldn't be taking that away from them. Wasn't that the intention of this Board? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just prefer not to put by right, because then you've got to figure out what that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I wasn't suggesting using that language, I'm using that to try to explain what I'm -- my point. We say any future additions to the boat docks will require a new boat extension if out beyond the 20 feet or something like that. Does that get us there? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Or if exceed current code. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I have some language I could propose which I'm comfortable with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's try it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It was except for modifications which stay within the 20 -foot protrusion limit under section of the LDC, and does not increase the number of boats, and subject to these conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that works. Anybody else have any concerns with it? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm good. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But it needed to be changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you say it -- Ray, did you get the language? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we got it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You want me to read it again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he said -- you guys can get together. I understood what you said. As long as Ray's comfortable with it, we're fine. MR. BELLOWS: No, we got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Phil. Anybody else have any questions about this consent? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve the consent as directed and amended here at this discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Brougham. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Thank you, Steve. Page 7 of 28 1612 A8 April 19, 2012 ** *Next item up is our regular agenda for an advertised public hearing. It's PUDZ- PL2010 -592. It's the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD. It's within the Bayshore Drive mixed use overlay district at 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, good morning. It's all yours. MS. JOURDAN: Good morning, Jean Jourdan with the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency. We're an agency that was established in 2000 pursuant to a findings of slum and blight. The item before you today is the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore rezone. And I would like to introduce our main presenter, which is Chris Wrenn with Pizzuti Company. MR. WRENN: Thank you, Jean. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Collier County Planning Commission, I'm pleased to be here before you today. Back in 2009 Pizzuti Solutions was hired by the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA to help craft a vision, physical embodiment and plan. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can you move a bit closer to the mic, please. MR. WRENN: In 2009, Pizzuti Solutions was hired by the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA to help craft a vision and plan to implement a catalytic development to advance the CRA's goals. The vision for the Bayshore cultural arts district is to become a southern focal point for the city and a beacon of activity and culture, and a potential catalyst for neighborhood revitalization. At its heart, the CRA's 17 -acre site that we are proposing for the MPUD rezoning is viewed as a pilot project for the district, kicking off the potential redevelopment of the area and growing organically over time, helping to drive the culture, creativity and identity of the district. In addition to cultural uses, a combination of retail, restaurant, entertainment venues, housing and community gathering spaces will be needed in the district as a whole, including key destinations beyond just the CRA site to create a regional attraction desired by the county. My name is Christopher Wrenn, as Jean said, Planning Manager of the Pizzuti Companies. We oversaw the planning and the project here for the CRA. We have brought selected team members here to help answer questions relative to the MPUD rezone. Our entire team included Banks Engineering, Bellomo Herbert, Schenkel- Shultz, TG2, AMS, Project for Public Spaces, Dexter Bender and Associates and TR Transportation. To give a little context into the site -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have something on your screen that you wanted us to be seeing as well? Because it's not coming through. MR. WRENN: Yes, I do. I don't know how to get that through -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, can you give him a hand? Well, that's all there is to it. The guy in control takes care of it, okay. Thank you, Ray. MR. WRENN: Here's the intro slide, as we said, with the logos of the individual team members. For some site context, this is 17.89 -acre site located essentially in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA. The site is located just west of Sugden Park. You can see here from the aerial some of the surrounding uses for the site. And here's a close -up aerial of the site. You can see there's a certain amount of vacated flat land, some existing vegetation that has both natural and exotics, as well as a significant portion of the site being open water between the site and Sugden Park. So as part of our overall process with the CRA, again we responded to an RFP in 2009 and were hired to help create a vision that really -- for a project that really embodies the goals of the CRA. It's been an exhaustive, somewhat, and very lengthy but enjoyable process at the same time. We had some initial project visioning meeting with the CRA, trying to understand their goals, and performed a market study for the project to understand what kind of uses could be supportable on -site. There was a significant community outreach component to this project, including stakeholder interviews in 2009, as well as a place- making workshop in 2009 that was led by Project for Public Spaces. After the public workshop there was a conceptual plan refinement period where we came up with the final Page 8 of 28 161 2 A8 April 19, 2012 proposed concept plan that was approved by the advisory board of the CRA, and we began the entitlement process for the MPUD rezoning. To date we have received sufficiency, obviously, from Collier County staff. We have held our neighborhood information meeting on January 18th of this year, where there was significant public support expressed by residents of the CRA. We are here today in front of the Collier County Planning Commission and we are currently scheduled to appear before the Board of County Commissioners on the 12th of June of this year. I would like to point out as well, we did receive the Collier County staff report for the MPUD rezone dated April 19th of this year. We agree with and concur with the findings of the staff report. As I described before, this project is envisioned as a catalytic development here in the CRA to help advance the CRA's overall goals. That being such, it requires a significant amount of thoughtfulness into the place- making of the site as we are trying to combine retail, restaurant uses, along with the cultural arts, including performing arts, physical arts and also art education, as well as some needed community services in the Bayshore /Gateway CRA. In order to do that, it requires some great place- making. So in working with Project for Public Spaces, you know, we had our place- making workshop in 2009 and asked the question: What makes a great place? Typically uses and activities are very important. Again, we've got cultural facilities proposed on sites, entertainment recreation facilities, retail, restaurants and marketplace, art and public education and community resources, as well as we're proposing a relatively small amount of multi - family rental residential. Image and identity branding is very important for any project success, especially in a tough economy, as well as the ability for the project to grow organically in bits and pieces over time. To that end we've crafted a plan that has small and manageable scale with small buildings that can be incrementally developed over time, copious amounts of green space and gardens on -site. We focus on the water element that we have present on -site, turning what could be considered by some to be a detriment to a positive for the development. And we have implemented a Florida architectural style, somewhat coastal style. We'll show some examples of that later in the presentation. Again, consistent with many architectural buildings you have right now in the Bayshore /Gateway CRA. Sociability is very important to have a successful project of this nature, a place for locals in the CRA and outside the CRA to gather to embrace the arts and enjoy their time. A place to meet and discuss community events, create a casual atmosphere, and provision of social services as well. Also, access and linkages are very important to the success of this project, therefore we have proposed a boardwalk connection to Sugden Park and ample parking on -site for community events. With that, I would like to ask Dean Ziegler to stand up just to talk a little bit about some of the existing and surrounding zoning, as well as some of the deviations we have proposed, along with the rezoning. MR. ZIEGLER: Hello, my name is Dean Ziegler with Banks Engineering. And I want to talk a little bit about the location of the site with respect to the current surrounding zoning. The site itself is zoned predominantly mobile home - Bayshore mixed use development NC. In addition, along the frontage of the site we have C -2 BMUD -NC. And there's also a section down at the corner, you can't read these very well. Down in the corner of the site we also have a small section of C -4 BMUD -NCs. So we have C -4, C -2, and the mobile home classifications existing on the site. We're surrounded to the north, mobile home. To the south is an R -3 classification. Across the street is mobile home and to the east is Sugden Park. This shows where Sugden Park takes up predominantly our entire east property line. And then this exhibit basically shows the deviations, as well as this is our master concept plan that is part of the actual -- our PUD document. The use -- it is divided into tracts, Tracts A through F. And basically what we have is Tract A is -- basically is mixed uses divided into 40 residential units, 35,000 square feet of commercial, 350 -seat performing arts theatre, 925 square foot classroom studios and 1,650 square foot of administrative offices, an 84,000 square foot parking garage, as well as an 11,000 square foot commercial community building. These are all as a net result of the market research that Pizzuti did in the beginning to determine how we put the site plan together. The actual site plan was prepared by Bellomo Consultants out of Orlando. We then developed this into the actual master concept plan to become part of the PUD document. The deviations we proposed, I'll just briefly go through those. We have seven deviations. And across the Page 9 of 28 161 2 A8 April 19, 2012 frontage in yellow you will see the -- in yellow we have proposed which areas that the ordinance calls for the installation of a block wall or a solid wall as part of that. And that is -- we have amended that deviation to consist of a Type 3 buffer, 3A buffer, which is basically trees that are 30 -foot on center. In addition, we have modified the deviations to, for example that's one, two and three, and then deviation number four, which is in the blue, we have modified that to be clustered trees and eliminated the wall. Because we are substantially a distance away from the property to the north -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could you point to that, the blue, please. MR. ZIEGLER: It's right here. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thanks. MR. ZIEGLER: We're back away. This is all water to the north, this is all water. So this deviation, basically it was the same requirement of these against the residential, but what we did is we propose to cluster the trees and eliminate the wall. And then the next deviation, which is deviation number two, I'm kind of jumping around here a little bit. But the number two, which is on the north side and the south side, we are proposing no buffer at all because of the substantial amount of water. And likewise, we have no development adjoining the properties at all. And then deviation number six is -- which is basically, this is the proposed location for the theatre, is a proposal for a -- the existing height limitation is 12 feet minimum and no more than 18 -foot for the first floor. We're proposing that to be raised to 42 -foot minimum inside. And that is to accommodate the theatre use only. And then deviation number seven, which is likewise in this -- let me get this arrow to work -- in this area right here, we are -- this would be the parking garage. This is a theatre proposal. And we are proposing -- the ordinance states that we have to have a minimum building separation of -- for multiple story parking structures of one foot of accessory height for one foot of building separation. We are requesting zero separation or to allow the building to actually abut the parking garage, which allows for commercial use to become, which would be the theatre, to become part of the parking garage. So that's the purpose of that deviation. Hopefully I've kind of covered those. I kind of jumped around a little bit. And I think now -- and then we'll be glad to answer any questions, you know, detail. Because I have a couple more slides which I'll not necessarily cover at this time. But these are the details of the deviations, which we can come back to if you have any questions. And then I'm going to turn it back to Chris and he will discuss the site plan in a little more detail. Thank you. MR. WRENN: Thank you, Dean. As Dean mentioned, the site plan was developed initially by Bellomo Herbert, a landscape architecture and planning firm based out of Orlando, Florida. This is the illustrative site plan that we have. It illustrates the artists' live /work village that's currently envisioned as six separate buildings with retail uses ground floor and residential uses on the second story. As Dean mentioned, it's proposed 35,000 square feet of commercial uses and 40 dwelling units. As you can see with the plan, there's a significant amount of hardscape and landscape elements surrounding these buildings. The intent was to create an environment where you could have a number of things, including artists' housing, artists' space for both studio work, presenting and sale of their material, as well as a community marketplace that you could use to handle farmer's markets, as well as have local vendors potentially have a shared space where they can offer their fare. The tract D that Dean was pointing out south of this open water here where we were proposing a landscape deviation with a cluster of trees is essentially a recreation area. So it's open space, pavilions, as well as the entrance into the boardwalk that would connect over to Sugden Park. There is a public performance and participation area that's shown as a great lawn here with a proposed amphitheater that can handle outdoor musical events, other performing arts events. And that is adjacent to the community performing arts center, which is approximately 13,000 square foot, 350 -seat black box theatre as it is envisioned here, with approximately 1,100 square feet of offices and then the parking deck that is attached. And then the community services building that's shown down here, which is proposed as a two -story 11,000 square foot office building that could house both commercial office uses as well as community services such as senior services, meeting rooms, medical office, the CRA office, a post office or potential sheriffs office substation. Following this we just have some examples of the architectural style that we are proposing for the project. Page 10 of 28 16 12 X8I 19, 2012 This here is an elevation looking east from the other side of Bayshore Drive towards the artists' village. This is looking north along the same stretch of the project. This is looking south. This is an interior view of the courtyard at the artists' village so you can see the relationship that we're proposing between buildings. You get a very comfortable, engaging social space that is created on -site. This is a perspective view, bird's eye perspective view of the cultural arts center and grand lawn. You can see the front of this building, we're proposing it's not just to be flat but pretty articulate, with architectural fenestration. And then this just embodies the village character that we are proposing with hardscape and landscape elements, public art, hoping to create an environment wherein, you know, again we attract visitors from both the CRA, Naples and the general area. So that completes our presentation today. If you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If you could go back to one of the slides you put up that showed the positioning, conceptual positioning of the buildings on the tract, particularly on tract A, which would be the -- MR. WRENN: Would you like the illustrative plan or the -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That one. One of your deviations speaks, I think it's number four, to the area to which would I think be the south of the lake on the easternmost side but the south portion -- down, down, down. MR. WRENN: Over here? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, down. Which way is south? There you go. One of your deviations speaks to not having a buffer along that section because it's an existing lake and you don't feel it's necessary. Move further to the east -- west, I'm song, where you have the existing mobile homes and then you have street and access into some of your facility there. Now, what buffer are you proposing on the southern border of that entranceway there? MR. WRENN: Excellent question. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Adjacent to the mobile homes. MR. ZIEGLER: That will be, as required per the ordinance, where it will have a wall. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It will have a wall. MR. ZIEGLER: Will have the wall. Yes, it will have the wall as well as -- in fact, the way it reads is it's a minimum 10 -foot wide landscape area to include a six -foot high opaque masonry wall, a row of trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center, and a single row of shrubs at least 24 inches in height and three foot on center at the time of planting. And the landscaping shall be on the commercial side of the wall. So that's per the ordinance. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, that's good. Now, as you move down, again directionally to the east, I believe now, and approach that lake, okay, what type of buffer is going to extend up as you -- I would assume that's a driveway or something that comes up towards those buildings? I wish I had a -- there, right there. MR. ZIEGLER: There is no buffer proposed along that side right there. But that will be accented with landscaping. There's no specific buffer inasmuch as the -- we've got a substantial amount of distance to Sugden Park, which we likewise -- so there is no buffer actually proposed. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I guess my -- to be quite honest, my concern is if you're going to put the wall along that stretch that we previously described, have you considered or would you consider extending that to go north to shield that driveway coming in there from those mobile homes? MR. ZIEGLER: We could do some, or some tapering down maybe to accommodate -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, tome it would be kind of blunt to just end that wall and a buffer there, because you're still going to probably have some view and some level of noise leaking around the corner there. Because that's going to be a loading area and so forth and there's still some homes down there -- MR. ZIEGLER: I think the intention would be that it would be highly landscaped as we go through there. And likewise we'll leave some of that natural vegetation. But there are also a lot of exotics that we'll be removing in that area. But that makes sense to transition that -- Page 11 of 28 1 6 1 §1 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just come up -- MR. ZIEGLER: Yeah. Extend the wall around the corner and then transition it down. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning Commission? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Deviation number six, you mention a height but it doesn't show what maximum height you're proposing in here. MR. ZIEGLER: All right, I'll bring you back to -- I'm going the wrong way. That would be this one. That is deviation -- I can't read these on the screen. That is deviation number six. And the way it is written is 12 -foot minimum, 18 maximum for the first floor. And on the right side -- and I'll try to get this arrow to work here -- can you see this side of the building? This is where it shows that on the inside of the building we would go from 12 feet to 42 feet, which is right here, inside the building, and that is for theatre use only. And that's to accommodate perhaps the fly for the theatres that they use and so on, and seating as you go up in the theatre. So that's what that -- that's where that is. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I understand that. I'm asking why it's not -- right now the deviation as written in the ordinance doesn't show a max, so I'm just asking to have that put in the deviation. MR. ZIEGLER: I'm song, the deviation in the ordinance? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct, the way it is written. MR. ZIEGLER: It just doesn't cover it in the ordinance for the theatre use for that height. And I think that we may have even -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think what she's trying to say is instead of where it says no more than 18 feet in height, if you want to go to 42, say no more than 42 feet in height. I think that's what you're getting at. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. I'm saying right now to read it there is no height limit. MR. ZIEGLER: It says 12 foot to 42 foot max. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mine doesn't. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does on the -- MR. ZIEGLER: On our deviation it says max. It does not say in the ordinance, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think you're -- on Page 19 you have a deviation listing. Maybe that's where we need to -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm on Page 14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 14, I'm sony. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Fourteen of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I always seem to have the wrong pages. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Heidi, are you comfortable with it not listing in the ordinance? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think you can add it if you're comfortable with that. But it is -- the height limitations are in the development standards, so we just have to confine that the 42 feet is there. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay, as long as you're fine. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, it should say the maximum 42 feet. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just -- if you look at the drawing that you provide for deviation six, the maximum height, the zoned height of a building would actually be measured to the midpoint of that roof. So your intent is you want to keep the zoned height of the building to be 42 feet, correct? MR. ZIEGLER: The intent is that we could actually go I think higher than 42 feet to the building, consistent with the ordinance. What we are proposing that is within the inside that we go, we go to a maximum of 42 feet. So it's kind of like from the trusses down or if it happens to be a cathedral type ceiling or whatever, it still would be a maximum of 42 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move that mic a little closer to you, if you don't mind. Thank you. MR. ZIEGLER: So it would be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're describing the ceiling height then. Page 12 of 28 4 1612 A8priI 19, 2012 MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, the inside ceiling height would be a maximum of 42 feet in the theatre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I would recommend on that exhibit is to get rid of the building height that's showing the ridge of the roof. Because that's actually -- you wouldn't -- MR. ZIEGLER: That is correct -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You wouldn't measure it to there anyway. MR. ZIEGLER: You're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you don't want to cheat yourself of that. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, we will correct that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I do think the first floor building height, 12 to 42 max less roof system, that doesn't exactly describe what you describe. In other words, I think you may want to say plus roof system. MR. ZIEGLER: Well, actually, the 42 feet is less the roof system. In other words, if you look at where our arrows go, in other words, if they have a truss system, for example, it would be from the truss system down would be the 42 height, would not count the actual roof. Now, if they did a cathedral type, open type, it would be to the top of wherever those improvements are for the ceiling. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this is an interior dimension. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, it's an interior. MR. WRENN: Would you prefer to see the language say excluding the roof system? Would that be more clear? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, you call it a ceiling height. I mean, I think you get that. If you had sloped rafters there could be some confusion as to what the height there is, but -- MR. ZIEGLER: Instead of less, we'll change that to excluding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then your drawing does clearly do it. And I would get rid of the maximum building height notation. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, definitely get rid of that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess while I've got the floor, there is that intent when the original Bayshore came through to have this grand street with nice first floor, you know, 18 -foot, 12 -foot, 18 -foot. That is coming up for review for an LDC change. So would you like rather leave it where it's subject to the LDC? Obviously the performing arts, you want to pull away from that. But the stuff along Bayshore, rather than lock yourself into the current, wouldn't you rather, you know -- because if we do change it, you would want the option to go with that, wouldn't you? You see what I'm saying is we're reevaluating that 12 to 18 next Wednesday night. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, definitely, I think so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So maybe I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull the mic when you respond, please. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, we would, definitely. I think we would like to be able to be flexible with those changes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the image you show on Bayshore is not the image that the overlay was written. It was looking for, you know, four -story downtown, you know, not exactly what you showed. And you wouldn't want to be trapped -- MR. ZIEGLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and not take advantage of any changes we make. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have a couple. If you could turn to Page 5 of your PUD. It's -- basically it's pretty simple. I can just read it. You have interim uses for all tracts, excluding Tract B. And it says: Community events such as but not limited to festivals. How do you intend to address the parking for festivals? Do you have enough parking for any anticipated festival calculated into that parking garage based on the uses you have on the site now? Or what will the festival generate that we may not have on -site parking for? Anything? Page 13 of 28 16 12 A0,119,2012 MR. WRENN: Well, the parking garage was sized to accommodate outdoor events, as well as overflow parking for the artists' village. I could see there being a parking issue if maybe there was an indoor performance happening in the theatre and an outdoor event happening at the same time. But that's a programmatic issue that the performing arts center and the other co- owners in the development could figure out. The parking deck was sized to handle any events that we figured would be programmed on -site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the parking was -- parking deck was sized to figure any event you could hold on -site. So when it says community events such as but not limited to festivals, you could have a rock concert out there and whatever number of people could come to that rock concert, you would have enough capacity in that parking garage to handle the parking. The reason is I'm not against you doing that, but see, under normal conditions you would come in for a temporary use permit and you would explain how you're handling the parking. But here it's going to be a permitted use by right and I'm not sure those restrictions would then apply to you. And if they don't, how do we know you've covered the parking? Jean, do you have an answer? MS. JOURDAN: Well, I can just tell you, we had a festival on Bayshore Drive on that site two years ago, and what we did is we worked with Gulf Gate Shopping Plaza and we trollied people in. That was how we accommodated the parking at that time for a large event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did that on your own. MS. JOURDAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but how -- is this facility intended to be always owned and operated by Collier County or the CRA? MS. JOURDAN: No, no. Yeah, okay -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm real concerned that someone's going to walk in, have a greater concert than you anticipated based on that. I'm not saying not to do it, I just want to make sure it somehow gets covered and in the process. If you have a temporary use permit requirement for special events and it's looked at, then John and his team and everybody else takes a look at the parking situation, the traffic flow, the need for officers to direct traffic. You don't have that the way this thing's worded now and I'm a little concerned about it. MR. WRENN: I think we would be okay with adding language into the PUD ordinance that requires a temporary use permit for the outdoor festivals on -site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me add, like every other private developer has to do, you don't need to add those words, that's just a comment that if, you know -- MR. WRENN: That's an excellent question. And I hope the solution solves -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does. I just want to make sure it's covered. And again, it's a great idea and I hope you have a lot of them. I just want to make sure every time you come in we don't -- the County doesn't get a complaint saying wait a minute, how can they have done this without any controls. Now you've got the controls. Now at least it goes through staff. And like the Italian American Club or the Greek Church and the rest of them have these events, they're checked out and everybody can close the book on them, so -- On Page 15, 2.A under planning, building permits shall not be issued to more than 20,000 square feet of commercial floor area prior to the issuance of C.O.'s for a minimum of 40 dwelling units. But you only are allowed 40, right? MR. WRENN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's not a minimum because you can't have any more, and it's not really a maximum, it's just all dwelling units, all 40 dwelling units, correct? MR. WRENN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe minimum should be all 40 dwelling units. Is that what your intention was? MR. WRENN: That was not our intent. That was language that was added in by the staff as a requirement to ensure that the development remains a mixed use development. The concern was that there would be an over supply of retail delivered on -site without the provision of the residential uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But 20,000 square feet is what percentage of the overall square footage? I can't recall without -- MR. WRENN: Within the artists' village there's 35,000 square feet total, so that's, you know -- Page 14 of 28 16 12 A83ril 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would you want to do 100 percent of -- why is -- staff, Nancy, I could ask you this when you're up, but since this came up with his presentation, would you mind just addressing that one question. Why did we request they'd have to have all of the dwelling units up with only 50 percent of their commercial? MS. GUNDLACH: I can speak on behalf of other staff who requested this. And we just want to make sure that we do have our residential uses and that in fact will be a mixed use development. So that's why we put the trigger points in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we normally -- okay, who have we done that to before? Have we had another mixed use where we've required the 100 percent ratio to 50 percent commercial? MS. GUNDLACH: Heidi, would you remember? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just seems extreme if they're only going to have 50 percent of the commercial, why we want -- why do we -- we can do it in stages and that would make it more economically feasible. Why are we forcing it down them to do 100 percent so early when it may not -- and then the 100 percent of the locations of those units may not dovetail in the best way with the commercial construction. So is there a dying need to do that that way? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe there's a specific need to do that. In regards to the Mercato mixed use there was a requirement to have a certain amount of maximum number of dwelling units that had to be provided on the main street, so to speak, but not that they had to be in place or C.O.'s issued prior to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would be more comfortable just suggesting that we do -- I understand the need to make sure it happens as mixed use, because it's a great idea, but a lot of times it doesn't happen. But I don't think the ratio is good. So my suggestion would be at least to a minimum of 20 dwelling units instead of 40 and let the rest carry out as the project is completed. But it at least shows we've got a foothold into the mixed use. Does anybody have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's a good point, Mark. And actually, if you are building mixed use buildings, this thing could kind of tangle you up in your feet where, you know, if you want to do a second floor artist studio, how are you going to do it with these terms? But anyway, I think it would be good to not have it, just so that it doesn't mess up a building that has a mixed use within it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that will be one of the stipulations you'll see. Thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I still have some questions for your presentation when we get back to that. I have one other question. At the neighborhood information meeting, one of the things that was stated, it says they also stated the architectural design will go through the public hearing process of which they can be a part of. What did you mean by that? I mean, architectural design is through an SDP process. What public process are you talking about? How is it locked in so we know that what you've said is what can be done? MR. WRENN: Jean, or Dean? MS. JOURDAN: I think where that comment came from was the people said -- they were talking about the conceptual plan and we said this is just conceptual. The actual buildings may vary from -- and letting them know that this was conceptual. And they said well, we have advisory board meetings all the time and anything that we're doing and presenting we always present to the public at the advisory board meetings and those people always come. So it was just a comment saying that they will be part of the process as we're going along. And we were ensuring them that it would be the CRA who would be deciding what the architectural style would be, not the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who made the comment? Was it you? The reason I'm asking is -- MS. JOURDAN: You know, I don't remember who made the comment, I just recall it being made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You worked for the government for a long time, so you know what a public hearing process is. You stood before the public at a neighborhood information meeting and said it will go through a public hearing process of which they can be a part of. Now, I'm concerned about what you said to the public to calm someone's question or whatever reason it was for and not following through with it. We always toe the line. If you've said something in the public neighborhood information meeting, that's what you do. So I need to get clarification so we make sure the documents are written Page 15 of 28 16 12 April 9, 2012 right -- MS. JOURDAN: Actually, I didn't make the comment, so let me find out. MR. ZIEGLER: I think the comment -- I don't know how it was written. The comment was actually about the Site Development Plan, in other words, the final details of the Site Development Plan, not necessarily about the architectural plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: SDP's don't go through a public hearing process in this county. MR. ZIEGLER: Well, I think that the -- it was about the Site Development Plan as part of the process of review of the site plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem is, and I'm -- by the way, I'm all in favor of this project, I'm trying to do everything I can to cross the is and dot the is to see it happen. But then again, at the same time we can't let you do something we would deny a public applicant from coming through a private residence. And if a developer came through and said something at a neighborhood information hearing, we make them toe the line. I'm trying to get there with you guys. MS. JOURDAN: Well, the CRA advisory board meetings are public meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it a public hearing process? MS. JOURDAN: Oh, no, no. Did it actually say public hearing process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Someone gave me that sheet that's in our packet and you can look at it, it's on attachment B, and I don't know who wrote it. The meeting adjourned at 6:25 attachment. And Nancy, who wrote the neighborhood information hearing minutes, do you know? MS. GUNDLACH: I may have just put it wrong in the minutes. Advisory board. We told them advisory board meetings are public meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, it says there's an auto (sic) tape. Did somebody -- MS. JOURDAN: Yeah, we have an auto (sic) tape, so I can get that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, you know the value we put on statements made at neighborhood information meetings. This one -- and again, I'm trying to get this to work, but we can't change the rules because it's Collier County. So where it says that, that last sentence, they also stated the architectural design will go through the public hearing process of which they can be a part of, how strong does that carry in regards to the discussion you're hearing me have right now? Do you know? Is it something -- a public hearing process, is it different than a CRA board meeting? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm not really clear on what your question is. I think that, you know, for purposes of the NfM, I think the public was probably adequately advised of what the project that is being proposed today is. I think the language could have been written better. But, you know, if the project goes forward as planned, I would envision that the concept in architectural renderings would go to the Board or the CRA for approval before it sold to -- you know, before a developer goes under contract to build a project or to sell part of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that the public hearing process could be just putting the architectural renderings through the Board of County Commissioners? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I didn't write it, you know, but that is a process that I would expect would go forward in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, did you have something to help? I hope. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. David Jackson, executive director for the CRA. Commissioner, I think that it's one of those things that yes, we do have an audio tape. We had a group of over 50 people in the room. It was a very lively discussion. And in there, what you're looking at there on paper is a summary of transcription of what we recall for those minutes. It's not a verbatim issue like you have here where you get verbatim. The intent in that discussion I believe in which I was a party to was the questions, which they saw the architectural renderings. The public was concerned about what would the buildings look like when they get built. And the conversation was around well, these are conceptual and they do have to go through a public hearing process, which is this meeting and the Board of County Commissioners meeting. And then there will be a follow -on during the SDP and architectural review, that's when it will be determined if it's going to be a certain height or a certain width or setbacks. And that's part of the SDP process. Page 16 of 28 1612 A So I think what you're getting here is you're latching onto a summary of a hearing that was of a meeting, and in there the discussion had to do with the public was very concerned -- or let's say not very concerned, were interested in am what I seeing going to be built or you the developer come in and build something, solid concrete flat walls? And the answer was no, that the CRA would still have the ability to control, because before we would release the land to the developer, the building type, color, shape, would all be reviewed and agreed to. Does that help you some, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It did and didn't. Here's unfortunately one thing you said in the beginning has caused the problem. You said that part of the public hearing process this may have been alluding to was the process we're here for today. And you actually brought in the renderings that you brought in your presentation today. If that's the case, then those are made part of the record and they become part of what you're required to build to. I don't think those renderings are of a stage that you know that's what you want to build. But if they are and we make their part of the record and attach them to this document, you're locked into them. And I would suggest a better solution. Now, maybe we ask that you take your architectural renderings when they're at a stage that is near final and require that to go to the Board of County Commissioners for sign -off, whether it's on consent or summary or whatever manner it goes. MS. JOURDAN: That's another item, Commissioner Strain, is that we, the CRA, our advisory board looks at things. We don't approve anything, even when it comes down to the final architectural details. We will take this to the CRA board for approval. They will see everything. So it will go to a public hearing. They are a public advertised hearing CRA board. They adjourn from the BCC to the CRA board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the board that -- there's a citizen's board as well. MS. JOURDAN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the board now you're referring to is, the citizen's board will make a recommendation to the BCC, which is the CRA board. MS. JOURDAN: Correct. Yeah, we don't do anything or approve anything without it going back to the CRA board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the architectural design -- MS. JOURDAN: We will take that to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the Board of County Commissioners as the CRA board. MS. JOURDAN: As the CRA board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, is that a requirement that normally happens or can we just make that a stipulation to make sure that it's consistent then with the neighborhood information meeting? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, when she's referring to the advertised hearing, she's referring to the noticed hearing. So I don't know that it's going to be advertised in the sense that you think of it as a separate ad running for that item, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm only trying to get to the qualification of a public hearing process. And if the public hearing process is in front of the Board of County Commissioners, I'm fine with that. I just want to make sure that we stand to the plate on what the public was told would happen. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's correct, the staff doesn't have the authority to approve the architectural design and the project. It would still go back to the community redevelopment agency, which is composed of our Board of County Commissioners. That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Does it need to be stipulated or is that going to happen regardless? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That will happen regardless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we're done. Thank you very much for the explanation, it helped. As confusing as it seemed, it did help. Now that's all I have. I do have a staff question. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The permitted uses, can I go through those now or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go through anything you want. No, now is the time to go through them. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The permitted uses, on your table on Page 2 of 16, number 23, after drinking places and the SIC code number, there's a listing there. Does that mean that those are the only uses under that number Page 17 of 28 161 8 Ap r, 19, 2012 or does it include all the listing? MR. ZIEGLER: That includes all of the uses as stipulated under 23, for Tracts A and C -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That you've listed there? MR. ZIEGLER: -- and pursuant to Section 505. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just the ones you've listed or all? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What she's trying to say is SIC code 5813 has a long laundry list of different kinds of places that you could have that are considered drinking places. Are you saying that out of all that list you only want the ones printed on number 23, or you want whatever's in the list depending on how you develop? MR. ZIEGLER: All that are allowed under 5813. Because otherwise we would have accepted it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I think the question is trying to get at. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's a few of these that I'd like to suggest being omitted in the -- throughout the whole table, but on this one. No bottle clubs. MR. ZIEGLER: I'm sorry, no? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No bottle clubs. MR. ZIEGLER: Model clubs? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Bottle. And then on -- in number 30, after -- at the top says group care facilities, category one and two, except for homeless shelters. I'd like to see included also except for offender halfway houses. MR. ZIEGLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And then number 41, to exclude pawn shops. MR. ZIEGLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And number 52, to exclude tattoo parlors. MR. ZIEGLER: I'm sorry, which number was that again? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Fifty -two. MR. ZIEGLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And on the next page, 4 of 16, number 58, to exclude -- to prohibit adult oriented sales. MR. ZIEGLER: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And on -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you may have to define that a little better. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's the term we've been using. If there's any other term you'd rather use to exclude, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what is the code -- the intent is obvious, but the word adult sale -- oriented sales could be -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We have been using adult oriented rentals and sales for quite some time. And it's not -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And then on number 73 would be the same, adult oriented rentals would be prohibited. MR. ZIEGLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And that's it. But I just have a question on number 15 for churches. You're thinking that you would maybe have a church there or it would be a storefront church with people living above it? MR. ZIEGLER: It's for flexibility. David says we can omit it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, what if you wanted to -- MR. ZIEGLER: It's a flexibility thing I think is what it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What if you wanted a church service in your auditorium? MR. WRENN: Well, in the performing -- the Tract A includes the performing arts center, so potentially that space could be used for religious services. But if it's the preference to omit the use, we can omit the use. But the intent wasn't to put churches on the ground floor in the artists' village but to put -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But that's what it could be -- MR. WRENN: Right, it does allow that, but that was not -- Page 18 of 28 1612 Apri , 2012 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- and they're loud and people would be living above or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's wrong with a -- we go from the extreme, no adult orientated services and now no churches. I mean everything in between we could take out then. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because there's storefront churches. And sometimes -- if you're going to have people living above them, sometimes there's loud music. We've had problems with that in the Village Place, wherever that is, on the East Trail. There's churches in there going all night long sometimes. And this is a live /work area. MR. JACKSON: Commissioners, if I may. Again, David Jackson. The intent -- I understand where you're going. I can understand an Easter service on the lawn area or some kind of a facility where religious using the performance arts center, I can understand that. The intent, and I know where you're going, is that we have a quite a bit of problem with this, is that churches can go into a strip mall storefront and they take up the parking and they take up that, tying it. So I think you're talking about a permanent residence of some church facility on -site. I agree with that, because it does become a little bit of a problem when they start coming in and then you hold large services and they take up all the parking and they're there, and there is a noise and disruption factor. We do know that they happen on Sunday, but there's a lot of places that have Tuesday and Wednesday night and Thursday night services. So that could be a thing where you don't get a chance to, as Commissioner Strain pointed out, you don't get to control the crowd, the activity there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you list it as churches as special events only. Then when you want to have a church there, you come in and get a special events permit and you have it. MR. JACKSON: I agree. This is a very good point. It's a very good point. And I think we can get -- if we can get the language in that way, that they're there for special events but they're not on a permanent residence site. If that would be okay with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think everybody is fine with that. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else of the petitioner? Go ahead, Brad, then Bill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is on the use, and this is for arts' sake. But what's the problem with the tattoo parlor, other than there's people with tattoos hanging around, you know? Is that something you really, really don't want? I mean, what does -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, yeah, I'll say yes. In East Naples, I'll say yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, they can say no, they can say no. The Commissioners can say no. But that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they won't have -- I mean, we'll go forward and they'll -- I don't think they'll pull it out. I mean, how about the owners of the CRA, do they have a concern with that? MR. JACKSON: Tattoo parlors, pawn shops, some of those other type of facilities we have plenty of spaces that we could go. There is I think probably a mystique about them more than anything else. There is a health issue, though, but they are controlled because of the needles and that type of stuff and disposal of, you know, tissues and blood and stuff that comes from it. I just think it doesn't really fit with the intent of where we're going. The neighborhood and residents, I think they're not really supportive of it. I think it's a good point in not eliminating it. It's not that we're saying that they can't be anywhere in our CRA, they're just saying just not in this location. So we're not saying they can't be anywhere on the CRA, but just not at this location, it just doesn't quite fit with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you go to Fort Myers, I think the gallery's name is Howl. There's a really nice gallery, has a tattoo parlor in it, and has a lot of contemporary art in it. It does seem to fit there. But you can pull it out. You're the owner. MR. JACKSON: I think it's a good recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, and then Tom. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Under your permitted uses, three, I'm a little curious about the boat rental, canoe rental, et cetera. Are you intending to use that water in any fashion with boats, canoes or anything else? MR. WRENN: If you look at the screen, this water body here would be accessible for small watercraft. The Page 19 of 28 1612 A8 April 19, 2012 idea was to have some type of small boat, canoe rental opportunity here. Again, in a way to embrace and engage the water that's present on -site. Due to engineering constraints, I don't know that that access will be able to extend beyond this particular boardwalk connection, where this to be constructed is as shown. But yes, that was the intent -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: That green area in the middle of the lakes, is that Tract E? Is that Tract E where your arrow is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tract A. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Tract E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but it's Tract A is one where that green area is in the middle. MR. WRENN: Yes, Tract E. COMMISSIONER VONIER: E. Go back to the -- there. MR. WRENN: This space. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Show me Tract E. MR. WRENN: Tract E, okay. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Does your boardwalk run Tract E to Sugden? MR. WRENN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VONIER: To the Sugden interface? MR. WRENN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VONIER: And you do not interface exactly there with the Sugden Lake, however. MR. WRENN: No, sir, there's no water craft access to Sugden Lake from this -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: And that's not intended in the future? MR. WRENN: That is not intended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody -- oh, Tom, I'm sorry. MR. EASTMAN: Going back to the use of potential church services. It may be that the auditorium would be a suitable place to lease to churches for Sunday services. And it may help the economic viability of the project. I know with the school district we lease auditoriums to churches on Sundays. And if you needed to get a special permit to lease every Sunday, that may be a hassle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you intend to lease your facilities to churches on a permanent basis? I think that will sum up the question then. Because if you do, then the temporary use permit doesn't work and we have to figure out something else. But is that what your intention is, you're going to take that building and lease it to churches on a long -term basis or a more permanent basis where a temporary special event wouldn't work? MR. WRENN: That is not the intent as the project was envisioned. At current the final owner of the performing arts center could be public or could be a private entity. And that's not currently known at this time. But the intent was not for providing a space for religious services. However, it would be nice to have the flexibility. As you understand, there's an income stream involved with that that may actually improve the feasibility of the performing arts center moving forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure does change the concept, though. If you're going to have a permanent church there on a regular leased basis every Sunday morning, that's a little different than -- MR. EASTMAN: A lease could run for three months. A lease could run for a period of a month while a church is renovating its current facility. I mean, it's not necessarily a long -term lease. It's just allowing that use to create that income stream to help make the project more viable. And also to give the community an opportunity to have religious service in a nice environment. MR. WRENN: I agree. MR. EASTMAN: They also might want to do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's your suggestion, Karen, do you have any concerns? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just don't want to see storefront churches. MR. WRENN: Just creatively thinking, is there a way that we can not allow church uses under a square footage so that they would not be applicable to the artists' village component of the site but would be of a size to where they could lease the plus or minus 13,000 square foot performing arts building as is envisioned? Yeah, we could limit it to the theatre or we could add a requirement that it has to be over "X" amount of Page 20 of 28 1612 - rl A� 2012 P square feet in size just to exclude the artists' village. But I think we would be happy to just limit church or religious services to the theatre and/or the outdoor amphitheater, the component to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't we just -- could we say just churches as a primary use. And then that means any other use of a church would work, so -- MR. WRENN: That's acceptable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that blocks the store front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a principal use you mean, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Principal, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let's make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we limit the church use, to whatever extent they would be, to that Tract A, which is where you said they would have them anyway, because everything else is storefront. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is A and C. I mean, we could -- why don't we take it off of C, because I don't think that would ever be the case. MR. WRENN: Yeah, it would not be the case. We could take it off of C. But Tract A does include both the ground floor retail and residential above and also the performing arts center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think, Mark, the difference between -- principal use is what we use as an allowable use throughout the code. Primary use would mean that you can't have a function in there that is primarily a church. It's not a matter of being permitted or not, just can't have a church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have a definition for primary use in our code? I don't recall one. That's what struck -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then we go to the dictionary and I think we might be covered there. So Heidi, can -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's why I bring my box. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got it electronically, but I don't think it's going to tell us anything. MR. JACKSON: Commissioners, does the word temporary or as permitted or -- would help? I think if we find language to say that they will be only in the performance area of the cultural center, not in the mixed use or the commercial building areas, and it would be on a temporary or as permitted use or as -- not permitted, but I mean, as per permit to do it. I mean, I definitely do not want the community to not be able to use it for religious services or events or baptisms or whatever it maybe that would work. We just don't want a permanent church to be there forever and use that space in that intent. So I'm not trying -- I think you understand where we're going. I think we just need to find the words that make it work for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we could -- I think if the church was somehow attached to the internal Tract A, we wouldn't have a problem, because there's no storefront possibility there. MR. WRENN: The internal A? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one that you've got your parking garage on. MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't that cover it? MR. WRENN: Well, would a viable solution be just to move churches as an accessory use permitted in Tract A and take it off of the principal use table? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How would you get the approval to use it then as an -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Oh, as a -- well, because it could only then be used where they've got room for it, but then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there has to be a principal use that this is accessory to. And what would the principal use be? I mean, you can use the words only in the performing arts center or, you know, exterior or amphitheater or -- MR. WRENN: That's -- we're fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only in the performing arts center, that would cover it then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the adjoining amphitheater. Because I think David's right, an Easter Page 21 of 28 1612 A8 April 19, 2012 service there would be great. MR. JACKSON: Right. I think the word Commissioner Strain used was internal Tract A or you could say in the performance and amphitheater lawn. That helps also with the garage providing parking, etc., for them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It kind of would have been nice if you'd have broke Tract A up into two tracts. MR. JACKSON: Too late now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it's too late now, you're right. Okay, are we done with the applicant? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll go on to staff. Thank you. MR. WRENN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Cherie', this is the only item on today's agenda, you want to run right through this one or do you want a break? THE COURT REPORTER: We can keep going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Land Development Services. And it would be my pleasure to answer your questions first and then I'd like to go through some of staffs recommendations with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I have questions about staffs recommendations. But let's go forward. Anybody on the Planning Commission have any questions from the staffs perspective to begin with? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. Deviation seven, which is the park garage separation, if a parking garage is attached to a building, it's not considered an accessory use at that point, it's part of a primary structure. So why -- you know, this deviation only makes sense if you have a standalone parking garage. And what they want to do is attach it to the building. So wouldn't they then just meet the setbacks and the requirements of the building in which it is part of? I mean, you can have mixed use buildings which part of it's parking, part of it's the assemble use. So why do they need that deviation? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I believe it's because of the mixed use nature of the garage that wouldn't be solely for the tenants of the building. That's public parking, so to speak. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it is -- so it's an independent accessory building. Okay. I mean, I guess let's get the deviation so that's not a problem, but -- MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have questions of staff? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, go ahead, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, your recommendations. I'm not even going to spend my time on the recommendations that the EAC sent forward. You've cleaned some of those up, thankfully. But the recommendation number two that you left in, can you tell me, first of all, the applicant shall incorporate, and it's capitalized. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Page 21 of the staff report under recommendations. The applicant shall incorporate, and then the following words are capitalized, low impact development, and it says standards into the design of where appropriate. Ray, or Nancy, do we have standards for low impact development currently in our code? MS. GUNDLACH: Would you like me to answer that, Ray? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That are identified as -- Page 22 of 28 1612 09,2012 MS. GUNDLACH: Not that I know o£ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how can you enforce that? Let's strike recommendation two because I think it's unenforceable at this time with our county. Not that it's not a bad idea. But so many people come up with many ideas on what they think LID is and then end up, how do you enforce it. And so I would rather not put confusion into any more documents. And I suggest number two be stricken. I'm not -- like I said, I'm not going to go back to the other ones, so the only recommendations I would agree with staff that are supportable is numbers now one and three. Lighting will be prohibited along the proposed boardwalk. But number three I had a simple question. All required monitoring reports shall be submitted annually for a period of five years following the completion of construction. Well, if there are required monitoring reports, why do we have to put that in here as a recommendation? Don't they have to do it anyway? MS. GUNDLACH: We can ask environmental. I have my specialist here to assist us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's records. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went in there the other day and he's working the records counter. I thought this is odd, but okay. Maximum flexibility, cross training. MR. D'ARCO: Yes, I was temporarily in the records department. For the record, Chris D'Arco, Environmental Services. I'm sorry, what was the question? I was not listening, I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the recommendations of staff for this project is all required monitoring reports shall be submitted annually for a period of five years following the completion of construction. Well, if they're required, then why do we have to have it as a recommendation? MR. D'ARCO: Actually, well, the monitoring reports would be for the progress of the wading bird habitat management plan that basically was put together. So it's -- it's actually -- it's actually not a requirement of the code, it was something that the EAC thought would be a good idea to see progress in terms of that management plan being developed to see how it's progressing over time with the wading bird habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's not a requirement of code. MR. D'ARCO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it says here -- okay. So the stipulation, the recommendation is that all required monitoring reports shall be submitted. But if there's not one required by code, then what is it they're submitting every five years? MR. D'ARCO: Basically what they would be submitting is resurveying of the nests to see if the -- where the nests are located, if they're still on -site or have they shifted over to the area that the wading bird habitat management plan has encouraged them to shift to, to the east. So it's basically just monitoring that plan to see how it's working out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then again, like everybody else, it's not a code requirement. MR. D'ARCO: No, it's not a code requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why are we doing it? I understand what it's going to accomplish, but what is the need for? If the birds don't go there, so what? Are we going to change the plan? MR. D'ARCO: No, it's literally just to -- it's basically this management plan is something that was drafted that wasn't required from the state, for example. But basically staffjust wants to see based on this design how it would be working out for, say, future projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But staff wants it. This is a recommendation from the EAC. So staff requested the EAC to stipulate this? MR. D'ARCO: No, staff supported it. They made a recommendation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So staff didn't initiate it -- MR. D'ARCO: Right, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is that it's going to cost money. Someone's going to have to do these reports for five years to see if some birds moved into an area that we hope they move into. Why? If staffs so concerned, drive out and take a look. I just don't see the need of putting that burden on a developer, whether it's the Page 23 of 28 1612 ril 19 2012 developer being the county or it's the private sector. So recommendation three, I just can't see the need to support it. If we have a code that says you've got to do it, then by God, we all live to the code. But if we don't, then it doesn't go that way. MR. D'ARCO: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You want three -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? My suggestion is three isn't supportable based on the code, so why are we doing three? It's not because it's the county, it's because what's fair for one is fair for all, and it works both ways. Nancy, I don't have -- anybody else have anything of staff? Go ahead, Brad, then Bill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, does the boardwalk have limited hours? MS. GUNDLACH: Not that I know of COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why are we taking the lighting off then? What are we creating there? MS. GUNDLACH: I'm simply forwarding a recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know there's nobody with tattoos around, but what's going to be happening on that unlit boardwalk? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They might be, because it will be dark. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Is it safe at night if it's unlighted? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Probably not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, you know, the police do come before architects and discuss crime, you know, deterrents. That's certainly a major one. I mean, I can understand you wouldn't want tall lighting, but maybe, you know, bollard lighting, like only bollard lighting along something would make sense. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Can't they even build it into the deck -- I mean, into the railings and things just to light the walkway? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They can do whatever they want. But I think keeping it dark -- MR. WRENN: There could be a provision of pedestrian lighting along the boardwalk. But to answer the question about access, as the boardwalk would connect to Sugden Park, as designed, the boardwalk would close when Sugden Park closes. I don't know what the hours are of the park, but the intent would be sunset. So the boardwalk would likely -- the access would be closed at that time as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you say closed, the gate at Sugden would be closed or would there be a gate on the other end also that closed -- MR. WRENN: The gate to Sugden would be closed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So people could meander down it from your side and meander back. MR. WRENN: I agree. From an access control standpoint, the owner ultimately may decide to limit access to that at sunset as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the boardwalk is accessing Bill's boat rides and all that stuff too. So, I mean, I just don't -- I mean, then why did they not want light on it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you know, that's a good point, Brad. Why aren't we simply saying that the lighting -- whatever lighting goes on the boardwalk should be low intensity lighting such that is not over, say, 42 inches high, which is -- so you can incorporate it into the rail or the foot, toe kick. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, that would be consistent, I think, with the lighting proposed for the greenway boardwalk area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that also would then, that would provide for the safety needs should you -- some people get done canoeing after dusk, they want to walk back, you want some minimum safety there. MR. OWEN: Good morning. I'm Paul Owen with W. Dexter Bender and Associates. I'm the environmental consultant on the project. I believe they wanted to remove the lighting because they were concerned about its effect on the potential wading bird habitat and the wading birds. They didn't want to disrupt their nesting, their potential nesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you are an environmentalist? Page 24 of 28 6 A �ri119,2012 MR. OWEN: I'm an environmental consultant, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a low intensity lighting along the -- incorporated into the rail or the toe kick or bollards not more than 42 inches directed onto the boardwalk would disturb wading birds? MR. OWEN: Not in my opinion. But it wasn't my recommendation. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That says it all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it does. Well, I think number one should go to the wayside as well, but I think with some comments that should any lighting be incorporated, it be no higher than the railing of the boardwalk and directed onto the boardwalk and of low intensity lighting. MR. OWEN: That makes a lot of sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, thank you for pointing that out. I -- wow. Okay, anybody else have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I think I have more questions of how this was written than anything else. Some of this stuff in here, the way it's written, developers would love to get away with this. The element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community and it's justified. It seems like we're making exceptions for the county. And in reading this, I underlined several parts of it where you also have the evaluation, the extent, the development standards and deviations -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Diane, where are you reading from? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm reading from Page 16, number eight down there. The criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this mixed PUD depart from the development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning. I guess it's the way it's written. And it looks like it's favoring; it's okay that the county does it, a developer can't do this. MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, I can assure you, this is boilerplate language that we often write into private sector developments as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, a PUD, Diane, is supposed to incorporate creative language specific to that zoning district with the intention of departing from a conventional zoning district. That's why we allow PUD's. So as long as they are not consistent with the conventional zoning district they're what we are trying to promote. They're creative districts. Though it's just the opposite of what I think you're trying to get at with regards to they're not similar to conventional zoning districts, and that's a bad thing. Well, they're not supposed to be. If they're conventional then they could go conventional. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I guess it's just the way that it's written. I've never seen this in a PUD written like this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't want you to think that there's no -- there's no unbalanced privileges provided here. In fact, the scrutiny that this is being provided to is probably equal to or greater than what you would get in the private sector simply because it is the county. At least from my perspective. So I don't think there's a problem between the PUD and the conventional zoning. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any people from the public who would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nancy, did you have any more you wanted to add? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, there is just one deviation that I wanted to clarify. And we had discussed it earlier in our hearing this morning. And it's in regards to the ceiling height, deviation number six. I just wanted to clarify that that would only apply to the theatre use. Page 25 of 28 ' AB pril 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Anything else, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: And that we're recommending approval, of course. I just had to state that for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And right now your recommendations have gone kind of by the wayside, with the exception of some corrections. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, on that last point, in their little exhibit they do show commercial and/or residential use. I think they should take those words out and use theatre use in that diagram. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Thank you for that catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think with that then, is there any rebuttal needed by the applicant? I would hope not. Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing. I have a list of deviations we talked about, in case the motion is for approval, at least. Maybe whoever makes it would like to incorporate these. First one would be that they would move the south wall up along the loading area, it would continue up along the loading area to buffer those residences to the south. Number two, the inside ceiling height, it would be at 42 feet regarding the, what do you call that, the amphitheater? MS. GUNDLACH: Theatre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Theatre. Regarding the theatre. And the detail would be corrected to reflect that. They're going to provide current changes -- the upcoming changes to the Bayshore overlay, should they pass, they'll also be applicable to this particular PUD. They're going to add temporary use permits as a requirement for the special events in item, I think it was 2.A under the planning. I'll get the number just to be accurate. Actually, no, it was on Page 5. After the table of permitted use, it was D.1. The minimum number of mixed use residential uses, they'll have to construct with the first 20,000 square feet on Exhibit F.2 -A will be 20 instead of 40. The following change will be made to the permitted uses table, 5813, which is number 23, will have no bottle clubs. On number 30, they're going to eliminate the halfway houses -- offender halfway houses. Number 41, excluding pawn shops. Number 52, excluding tattoo parlors. Number 58, excluding adult oriented sales. Number 73, excluding adult orientated rentals. Number 15, the churches will be only in the performing arts center or in the adjoining amphitheater. That's all I had on the permitted uses. Number seven, boardwalk lighting will be permitted but to be limited to a height not greater than the boardwalk rail, and it must be directed onto the boardwalk. Number eight, deviation number six will only apply to theatre use. Those are the notes I made. Does anybody see any additional ones or corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion from anyone? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll-make it, Mark. But let me -- I kind of lost the -- I move we forward PUDZ- PL2010 -0592 with the stipulations you noted and a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, one stipulation I forgot to make -- or comment I forgot to make, I need you to confirm it, is that we are not accepting any of staffs recommendations, or the EAC's for that matter. Is that so moved by -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I accept that. Page 26 of 28 4p' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Diane -- okay, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. 16 12- 0 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Thank you very much. It's a heck of a good improvement for East Naples and I'm pleased it's going forward. That's a good thing. Thank you all. ** *Okay, that takes us to old business, of which there's none listed. New business, don't have any. Public comment? We're gone. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Brougham, seconded by Melissa. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We're out of here. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:38 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P STRAIN, Chairman Page 27 of 28 ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK P119,2012 1612 V These minutes approved by the Board on s' ( 7 —( L , as presented (/` or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 28 of 28 161 2' 'A9 ? r.4 March 21, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING March 21, 2012 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Excused: Thomas Lykos ALSO PRESENT: Michael Ossorio - Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office James F. Morey, Esq., Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Misc. Corres: Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer Date: —1 12'-{ V2, hem #:xuz `3-."9 C, , CHAIRMAN: Lee Horn Fiala Vice Chair: Richard Joslin Hiller - Michael Boyd Henning ��- -- Coyle Terry Jerulle Coietta -- Kyle Lantz Robert Meister Jon Walker Patrick White Excused: Thomas Lykos ALSO PRESENT: Michael Ossorio - Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office James F. Morey, Esq., Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Misc. Corres: Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer Date: —1 12'-{ V2, hem #:xuz `3-."9 C, , CIS, Cor County COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD AGENDA March 21, 2012 9:00 A.M. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. ROLL CALL ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE: February 15, 2012 V. DISCUSSION: VI. NEW BUSINESS: (A) Brian Hemenway —Waiver of Examination(s) (B) Keith Sherwood — Waiver of Examination(s) (C) Joseph lafornaro - Cerdit review/ question #3 on application VII. OLD BUSINESS: (A) Orders of the Roard VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (A) Case number 2012 -03 Linda Curiale- D /B /A Global Maintenance & Restoration, Inc. (B) Case number 2012 -04 Brandon M. Acosta- D /B /A Brandon Acosta, LLC. IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY APRIL 18, 2012 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING THIRD FLOOR IN COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS 3299 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FL 34112 r 1 b' 2 MarcAQ 12 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is to be based. I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Lee Horn called the meeting to order at 9:02 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Six members were present. IL ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Changes: • Agenda noted the date of Minutes was February 15 — correct date is February 16Th. • Under Item VII, "Public Hearings" — Case #2012 -04, "Brandon M. Acosta," was deleted. The case was settled. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Kyle Lantz moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Carried unanimously, 6 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 16,2012: Corrections: • Page 11, under Item VIII, "Public Hearings" — o James F. Morey, Esq., Attorney for the Board, noted on Mr. Jerulle stated he would abstain from voting during Case #2012 -02, Raymond V. Trotta, due to a possible conflict of interest. He requested to include Form 8 -13, entitled "Memorandum of Voting Conflict," in the Minutes and to reference it as County's Exhibit "A." • Page 11, 4th paragraph — o Patrick "Walker" was changed to Patrick "White" (Terry Jerulle and Michael Boyd arrived @ 9:07 AM.) Terry Jerulle read the following "Disclosure of Local Officer's Interest" into the record: "The measure which came before the Board involved possible discipline and revocation of a Contractor's license. The Subject Contractor had in the past provided services to my company as a sub - contractor. While there are no current pending jobs for which the Contractor is providing services to my company, given the past relationship, I thought it was prudent to abstain from voting on the matter." (Mr. Jerulle signed the document, which was marked as County's Exhibit "A," on March 21, 2012.) 1612 A9 March 21, 2012 Patrick White moved to approve the Minutes of the February 16, 2012 meeting as amended. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. V. DISCUSSION: Michael Ossorio, Supervisor — Contractors' Licensing Office, noted the Respondent in Case #2012 -03, under Item VIII, "Public Hearings, " was represented by Attorney Patrick Neale. He suggested the Board consider hearing the case first. Patrick White stated he filed a Form 8 -B in the case and asked the Board's Attorney if his vote to change the item's place on the agenda would be considered as improper. Attorney Morey stated the vote was simply administrative and had no bearing on the merits of the case. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve hearing Case #2012 -03 before the other business noted on the Agenda. Second by Patrick White. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Note: In the case(s) heard under this Section and Section VI, "New Business," the individuals who testified were sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Case 92012 -03: Linda Curiale, d/b /a Global Maintenance & Restoration, Inc. Patrick H. Neale, Esq., of Patrick Neale & Associates, appeared on behalf of the Respondent, Linda Curiale, who was also present. Chairman Horn outlined the general process of the Public Hearing: • The County will present an Opening Statement to set forth the charges and, in general terms, how it intends to prove the charges. • The Respondent will present his/her Opening Statement setting forth, in general terms, defenses to the charges. • The County will present its Case in Chief by calling witnesses and presenting evidence. • The Respondent may cross - examine the witnesses. • After the County has closed its Case in Chief, the Respondent may present his/her defense, i.e., to call and exatnine witnesses, to introduce Exhibits, to cross - examine witnesses, to impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. • After the Respondent has presented his/her case, the County will present a Rebuttal to the Respondent's presentation. • When the Rebuttal is concluded, each party is permitted to present a Closing Statement. 161 2# A9 March 21, 2012 • The County is allowed a second opportunity to rebut the Respondent's Closing Statement. • The Board will close the Public Hearing and begin deliberations. • Prior to beginning deliberations, the Board's Attorney will give a "charge" to the Board, similar to the charge given to a jury, setting out the parameters on which the decision will be based. • During deliberations, the Board can request additional information and clarification from the parties. • The Board will decide two different issues: • Whether the Respondent was guilty of the offense(s) as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and a vote will be taken on the matter. • If the Respondent was found guilty, the Board must decide the sanctions to be imposed. • The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the sanctions and the factors to be considered. • The Board will discuss the sanctions and vote. Attorney Neale stated a "Request for Continuance" was filed in the matter which could be held in abeyance pending the adoption of the Stipulation which his client and the County entered into and signed. He further stated if the Board adopts the Stipulation, the Request for a Continuance will be withdrawn. If the Board does not adopt the Stipulation, the Request will remain. Michael Ossorio stated the terms of the Stipulation were agreed to by the County but if the Board does not adopt the Stipulation, a full Hearing will be held next month. He outlined the protocol: • Ian Jackson will present the County's Opening Statement and the Respondent will also present an Opening Statement. • The Stipulation will be read into the record. • The Board will vote to close the Public Hearing. • The penalty phase will begin and the Board can accept the Stipulation. Attorney Neale stated he created a new Stipulated Order form to simplify the process for the Board. (A copy of the document was distributed to the members and to the Attorneys for the County and the Board.) He stated the document incorporated both the Stipulation and the Agreed Order. The Board would not be required to read the entire Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into the record. Patrick White stated he filed a Form 8 -13, "Memorandum of Voting Conflict," in the matter and provided a copy for each Board member. 4 1612' A 9 March 21, 2012 The "Disclosure of Local Officer's Interest" is as follows: "Linda Curiale, d/b /a Global Maintenance & Restoration, Inc., (the Respondent) came before the Board for a Public Hearing. The Respondent made a Request for a Continuance by written Motion submitted prior to the Public Hearing. The Respondent is the General Contractor on a project owned by a client of mine for whore I am retained. Any possible discipline to the Respondent could result in a special gain or loss to my client. Therefore, prior to any participation in the discussion regarding the Continuance and/or Public Hearing, I thought it appropriate to make this disclosure." (Mr. White signed the document on March 20, 2012.) Attorney Neale requested to enter the Request for Continuance into evidence. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering Case No. 2012 -03, Board of County Commissioners vs. Linda Curiale, Collier County License #CGCI508927127333, d/b /a Global Maintenance & Restoration, Inc., into evidence. Second by Chairman Horn. Motion carried, 7— "Yes 71— "Abstention." Mr. White abstained from voting. • Chairman Horn entered the information packet into evidence, marked as County's Exhibit `B." Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering Form 8 -B, "Memorandum of Voting Conflict, "signed by Patrick White, into evidence. Second by Jon Walker. Motion carried, 7— "Yes " 11— "Abstention." Mr. White abstainedfrom voting. • Chairman Horn entered the document into evidence, marked as County's Exhibit "C." Kyle Lantz moved to approve entering Respondent's Requestfor Continuance into evidence. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Motion carried, 7— "Yes " /1— "Abstention." Mr. White abstained from voting. • Chairman Horn entered the document into evidence, marked as Respondent's Exhibit "1. " Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's Opening Statement: "The County is prepared to show through sworn testimony and documented facts that Ms. Curiale violated Collier County Ordinance 490 -105, as amended, Sections 22 -201.1 and 22 -202 by willfully violating the Florida Building Code by performing construction activity at 8787 Bay Colony Drive, exceeding the scope allowed by an Early Work Authorization." 1612 March Al, 2912 Attorney Patrick Neale presented the Respondent's Opening Statement: • "We have facts in evidence to show that my client did not, in fact, violate the provisions of the Code and we are prepared to put on an adequate defense to show that she is not guilty of the violation." Attorney Neale stated the Respondent and the County have agreed, with reference to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, to admit the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. He outlined the terms of the Agreement: • The Respondent will be subject to probation for a period of twelve (12) months and will be subject the supervision of the Board while conducting her contracting activities. • The Respondent will personally apply for all permits and be present, either in person or telephonically, for any reviews or questions as to the contracting operations of the company which she qualifies during the probationary period. o This includes permits issued by the Cities of Marco Island or Naples and for Fire Code reviews. • In the event the Respondent violates the above terms while on probation, her license /certificate will be immediately suspended for any new permits and a hearing on the suspension and violation will be held at the next scheduled Board meeting. • The Stipulation and Agreed Order will be forwarded to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board with a recommendation of "no further action." Chairman Horn asked for the County's recommendation. Michael Ossorio stated there are no objections to the Stipulation. The Building Department's concern is that the qualifier understands that she is responsible for pulling building permits and for being responsible on the job site. He further stated the terms of the Stipulation were agreed to by the Respondent's Attorney and himself as the Licensing Office Supervisor. Kyle Lantz stated he was not aware of another instance when a State Contractor was placed on probation by the Board. Attorney Neale stated it is not permitted by a Code or statutorily but a Contractor can voluntarily agree, and his client has agreed voluntarily in order to continue to work. Michael Ossorio confirmed the Code does allow cities and municipalities some flexibility concerning restricting or modifying building permit pulling privileges. He stated probation is a restriction. Her privileges will be restricted for twelve months. 0 161 2' A9 March 21, 2012 Mr. Ossorio explained if the Respondent violated the terms of the Stipulation during the probationary period, (1) her license will be suspended and she will not be allowed to pull any new permits, and (2) a Public Hearing will be scheduled before the Board. Her permit pulling privileges could be suspended or revoked. Mr. Neale clarified, according to the terms of the Stipulation, his client could continue to work on jobs where permits had been pulled but could not pull any new permits. Terry Jerulle asked about the status of the project that was the subject of the violation. Linda Curiale replied there were four permits and the project should be completed in approximately 45 days. For the first permit, after the violation, she met with the County to determine how the remainder of the job was to be permitted. It was broken out into sections — three additional permits were obtained last week. She clarified the current job is under permit. Attorney Morey suggested verifying with the Respondent that she thoroughly read the Stipulation, agreed to the terms, had the benefit and advice of Counsel and is prepared/willing to freely enter into the Agreement. Chairman Horn questioned the Respondent and she replied affirmatively that she read and understood the Stipulation, had the advice of Counsel, and agreed to the terms. Vice Chairman Joslin asked if the Stipulation and her admission of guilt would be entered into the Respondent's record with the County and the response was "yes." Terry Jerulle asked Ian Jackson if he had spoken with the owner of the building. Mr. Jackson responded it was Condominium and the Association's representative had been in contact with the County's Building Department. Michael Ossorio stated he had spoken to one of the building managers and an Association member. He confirmed there were no issues — the goal was to complete the job. Kyle Lantz moved to approve accepting the Stipulation. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Motion carried, "Yes" "No 71— "Abstention." Vice Chairman Joslin was opposed and Patrick White abstained from voting. The Stipulation was signed by the Chairman and the Respondent. Chairman Horn stated: • This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board on March 21, 2012 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint in Case #2012 -03 filed against Linda Curiale, d/b /a "Global Maintenance & Restoration, Inc.," Collier County Certificate #CGC1508927/27333. 161 2 A9 March 21, 2012 • Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended. • The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence, and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, issued its Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Board. Attorney Neale noted the Stipulation incorporated the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Order was written to state that everything contained in the Stipulation was adopted by the Board. He stated the purpose was to save the Board from having to read the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into the record. Attorney Morey concurred, stating the Order also adopted the penalty phase. Vl. NEW BUSINESS: A. Brian Hemenway — Request for Waiver of Examination(s) • Had moved out of state several years ago and allowed his license to lapse • Returned to Florida and obtained a license in Lee County • In process of obtaining a license in Cape Coral where he resides • Requested to reinstate his license in Collier County without being required to take an examination • Specialty license: Cabinetry installation and millwork Michael Ossorio noted to become a cabinet contractor, the Code requires an applicant to take the Business Procedures test. He stated Mr. Hemenway took and passed the exam in 2004. His license was cancelled ( "null and void) in 2009. Recommendation: The County has no objection to waiving the testing requirements. Mr. Ossorio confirmed no complaints have been made concerning Mr. Hemenway. Kyle Lantz asked about his inability to pay his credit cards. Brian Hemenway replied he filed for personal Bankruptcy. Mr. Ossorio asked how long his company, "Level Line of Naples, Inc." had been in business and the response was since he returned earlier this year. He noted there was nothing in the Credit Report to indicate the applicant was unable to pay his debt as a Contractor. Brian Hemenway stated he obtained his Certificate of Competency in Lee County and will appear before the Cape Coral Licensing Board on March 28t'. He stated he has been active in the industry for 27 years. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve Brian Hemenway's request to waive testing requirements. Second by Robert Meister. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 1619 49, 2012 B. Keith Sherwood — Request for Waiver of Examination(s) • Lived in Collier County for 25 years and operated his painting business ( "Keith Sherwood Painting, Inc. ") • Moved to Lee County in 2004 and obtained a license as a painting contractor (2004 through 2008) • April 2008 — obtained employment with Kurtz Homes of Naples • September 2008 — changed status of license to "Inactive" • Has been unemployed since March 2011 • Has the funds necessary to reopen his business • Requested to reinstate his Collier County license without being required to take an examination Michael Ossorio explained that while the status of the license can be changed to inactive or dormant, it still must be renewed. Mr. Sherwood's license was cancelled in 2005. He has petitioned the Board to waive taking the painting exam and the Business Procedures test. Keith Sherwood clarified he continued to work in Lee County after he moved from Collier County. Chairman Horn noted Mr. Sherwood took the Business & Law Exam and the painting test in 1998. He asked Michael Ossorio if there have been any significant changes in the painting exam. Michael Ossorio responded there have not been any changes over the years. Patrick White noted an address was specified in Mr. Sherwood's cover letter and asked if the activities outlined were appropriate for the location, i.e., storing equipment and maintaining an office. Mr. Ossorio explained if the application is approved, Mr. Sherwood will apply to obtain a Business Tax Receipt through the Zoning Department which will determine if the zoning requirements are met. Recommendation: The County has no objection to waiving the testing requirements. Patrick White moved to approve Keith Sherwood's request to waive testing requirements. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Terry Jerulle asked if recent changes concerning lead paint were incorporated into the exam. Michael Ossorio stated he reviewed the exam and the requirements were the same as it was in 1998. Kyle Lantz noted Mr. Sherwood has been working in the field since 1998 either for himself or as an employee of someone else. Vice Chairman Joslin asked if the County required any Continuing Education hours when a license is renewed. Mr. Ossorio stated there were no requirements and noted Mr. Sherwood has been 161 2 Ag March 21, 2012 active in the field in Lee County as well. It was noted lead paint is usually found in older homes, i.e., built prior to 1978. Chairman Horn asked the applicant if he was familiar with the new lead paint procedures. Mr. Sherwood stated he has kept up his reading on the subject but has not had a lead paint issue to date. Kyle Lantz stated lead paint is not as common in the area. Chairman Horn called for a vote. Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/] — "No." Terry Jerulle was opposed. C. Joseph Iafornaro — Credit Review /Question 93 on Application • He applied for a carpentry license in 2007 but his application was denied • He still has skills and wishes to obtain a license Chairman Horn asked the applicant if he has been working for someone in the trade from 2007 to the present and the response was affirmative. He asked the applicant to summarize why his license was denied by the Board. Joseph Iafornaro stated he had an agreement regarding a project but there was a disagreement concerning the scope of work and it went to Court. He was convicted of a misdemeanor. Michael Ossorio provided background information: • The applicant initially appeared before the Board on September 19, 2007 to apply for a carpentry license • The application was forwarded to the Board because (1) he had been found guilty of working without a license and (2) his credit was sub - standard • He continued to work as a handyman and for contractors • Has satisfied the 2007 debt owed to the homeowner • There are no issues with compliance but he may have credit issues Mr. Iafornaro stated his bike was stolen approximately 4 months ago and he has not been able to pay off the difference not covered by insurance. Patrick White questioned a closed account for Harley- Davidson in 2005. Mr. lafornao replied he bought a Harley in 2005 and paid for it. He stated at the time he purchased the bike, his credit was good. Chairman Horn referenced Page 2 of the Credit Report and noted there was an unpaid charge -off under the Harley- Davidson entry. He stated there were at least two other accounts in collection and requested an explanation. Joseph Iafornaro stated the down -turn in the economy has made it difficult for him to pay his obligations. He stated if he is issued a license, he can become more productive and pay off his debts. Chairman Horn asked what type of work the applicant was doing presently and the response was as a handyman doing various odd jobs. Mr. Iafornaro stated he has been licensed as a handyman for several years. 10 1612 March 21, 2012 Vice Chairman Joslin asked the applicant why he had not found a permanent job since 2005. It appears as if the applicant was not looking for a job. Joseph Iafornaro stated he worked as a handyman. He stated he had a valid LLC until recently and did have liability insurance until last year. Chairman Horn noted one of the criteria for approving an application is how much experience the applicant has had in the field and have been learning under a licensed Contractor. He asked the applicant to explain where he obtained his experience. Mr. Iafornaro outlined his carpentry experience: • Worked for the former Vice Mayor of Naples at his home in North Carolina; • Worked for real estate brokers — both carpentry and handyman work — under a homeowner permit; • He stated he did not write down everything on the application. Kyle Lantz stated to obtain a license from the State, an applicant must provide proof of experience under a licensed contractor in the field, i.e., a plumber cannot verify for a general contractor. The Affidavits submitted do not verify work in the trade. Michael Ossorio stated the requirement was the number of years of experience. The application has not undergone a full review due to the credit issues which is why it was submitted to the Board. Individuals from out -of -state are necessarily not licensed so the Licensing Office does accept affidavits regarding experience and work product from persons other than licensed contractors. Joe Iafornaro stated before he moved to Naples, he lived and worked in Orlando (since 1970). He is 47 and began working as a carpenter when he was 20 years old. He showed his portfolio to Mr. Ossorio. He built approximately 80 boat docks during a period of 10 to 15 years while in Orlando which are still standing. Years ago, structural engineering or architectural seals were not required. He stated he made his own drawings which have been recorded in Orange County for the structures that he built. He noted a license was not required in Orange County to build boat docks. He further stated he has worked for licensed marine contractors. He continued he has worked for Joseph "Vee" who is a licensed General Contractor and builds custom homes in the Port Royal area. He can provide a reference from him. Chairman Horn noted his concerns: • The credit history; • The applicant has not submitted proof that he has worked in the field for a licensed contractor i.e., a carpenter, a G.C., or a homebuilder -- references from someone in the industry who knows the trade and can evaluate the applicant's work product. Terry Jerulle concurred and stated he would not the applicant as a carpenter based on the experience presented. 11 1612 A9 March 21, 2012 Kyle Lantz stated the experience must be documented by licensed contractors. Michael Ossorio stated the applicant has applied for a Carpentry License. He took and passed the Business Procedures test and Carpentry Exam. Code requires at least 36 months experience to take the exam. He continued if the Board determines the applicant's experience is not sufficient, the applicant can be restricted to performing certain types of work, i.e., granting a cabinet license which will limit him to installing baseboards, trims, and millwork. Vice Chairman Joslin asked the applicant what he intended to do if the Board approved his application for a Carpentry License. Joseph Iafornaro stated he would legally be able to subcontract for local licensed contractors and would do any kind of carpentry work. Mr. Joslin stated while he has a number of reservations, he is willing to give the applicant "a break" and let him work as long as he is restricted to certain types of work. Chairman Horn asked if the applicant had a "handyman agreement" with the County in the past. Michael Ossorio stated there is an exemption for handyman activity. The Tax Collector issues a maintenance license (Business Tax Receipt). There have been no complaints made against him. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve allowing the applicant to submit a full applicant/information packet to the Licensing Office obtain a Carpentry License. Second by Patrick White. Mr. Ossorio stated he will review the applicant's portfolio and full application to ensure that the criteria has been met before issuing a Certificate of Competency to him. Patrick White stated due diligence has been done and if there are problems in the future, the Board will see him again. Mr. Ossorio explained the Code allows him to restrict the applicant's license if he does not provide sufficient proof of experience — he can be restricted to working on single - family homes, or cabinetry, or counter tops, etc. Vice Chairman Joslin amended his motion to allow Licensing Supervisor Ossorio to determine which portion of the Cabinetry License the applicant is qualified to obtain. Second by Patrick White. Kyle Lantz objected and stated the applicant has not "paid his duds" and does not have the required experience in the trade. Vice Chairman Joslin stated the applicant must submit a full application packet to the County. The Board must decide whether to let him go or allow him to take the next step. If he cannot provide proof, he will be back before the Board. Patrick White noted there has not been enough documentation submitted for a full Carpentry License and Michael Ossorio can restrict him. The Board was asked to review Question 3 on Page 3. The Board has done that. The applicant 12 1612 A9 March 21, 2012 can submit a full application to the Contractors' Licensing Office. If Mr. Ossorio determines the applicant has not submitted sufficient proof, he can restrict his license on behalf of the County. The Board has not been asked to grant a Carpentry License to the applicant. Jon Walker agreed and noted the applicant has taken some steps toward obtaining his license. Chairman agreed with Patrick White. He stated the Board was asked to review the Credit Report and has done so. Chairman Horn called for a vote. Motion carried, 6 — "Yes "12 — No. " Mr. Lantz and Mr. Jerulle were opposed. Chairman Horn suggested to the applicant that he bring as much documentation with him as possible when he submitted his full application. VII. OLD BUSINESS: B. Orders of the Board Patrick White moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. IX. REPORTS: • Patrick White noted the 2012 Florida Building Code became effective on March 15th. There were significant changes to the 2010 version. X. MEMBER COMMENTS: • Kyle Lantz stated there have been a number of requests to waive taking an examination. The problem is not because an applicant doesn't know his trade — it is because he doesn't know how to run a business. People wash out of a trade for a reason. He suggested the Board should consider making applicants take the Business Procedures test before granting a license. Michael Ossorio stated the majority of requests are not seen by the Board because during the pre -app meeting, the applicant was encouraged to take the exam. Vice Chairman Joslin agreed stating the Business & Law exam has changed. He further stated because an individual has passed an exam does not guarantee he will be successful in business. He stated he thought the Board has made good decisions. Patrick White stated he agreed with Mr. Lantz. He stated applicants must be allowed an opportunity to appear and state their case and the reasons why a license was not renewed at the time. 13 1612' pg March 21, 2012 XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor (Government Complex), 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chairman at 10:27 AM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Lcc Horn, Chairman r r 1 The Minutes were approved by the Board/Ch irman on , 201, - "as submitted" �] OR "as amended" V. 14 RECEI4A 12 MAY 16 2012 Board of County Commissioners MINUTES OF THE April 18, 2012 COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING April 18, 2012 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Vice Chair: Excused: Lee Horn Richard Joslin Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Michael Boyd Robert Meister Jon Walker Patrick White Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office James F. Morey, Esq., Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorne�iw• Corres: Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer Date: —"11 -) Lq i 1 ,2, ItemAIU-X2ick°f Copies to: �ak Ic �� Co'�er County COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD AGENDA APRIL 18, 2012 9:00 A.M. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ROLL CALL ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE: March 21, 2012 V. DISCUSSION: VI. NEW BUSINESS: VII. OLD BUSINESS: (A) Orders of the Board (B) Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Inc. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (A) Case # 2012 -05 Christopher McHugh D /B /A- PMC Enterprises Division, Inc. (B) Case # 2012 -06 Walter Paesano D /B /A- Paesano's painting, LLC. IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: COD ER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING THIRD FLOOR IN COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS 3299 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FL 34112 161 2 d9 April 18, 2012 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is to be based. I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Lee Horn called the meeting to order at 9:05 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Five members were present. II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Chanties: • Under Item VII- (A), "Public Hearings" — Case #2012 -05, "Christopher McHugh," has been continued to May 16, 2012. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 5 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —March 21,2012: Corrections: • Page 7, "Motion" — o Vice Chairman Joslin stated he did not oppose the motion — he merely coughed/cleared his throat when Chairman Horn called the vote — the Hearing Reporter misinterpreted his response. The language was revised as follows: "Kyle Lantz moved to approve accepting the Stipulation. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Motion carried, 7— "Yes "W — "Abstention." Patrick White abstained from voting. " Kyle Lantz moved to approve the Minutes of the March 21, 2012 meeting as amended. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Carried unanimously, 5 — 0. V. DISCUSSION: None. VI. NEw BUsnvEss: None. 2 161 2 A9 April 18, 2012 VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, S — 0. (Note: In the following case and the case heard under Section VIII, "Public Hearings," the individuals who testified were sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) B. Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc. It was noted that Bobby James Phillips, II, was present and was not represented by Counsel. Bobby James Phillips stated he applied to request restoration of his permit pulling privileges. Michael Ossorio provided the following information: • On May 20, 2009, the Contractors' Licensing Board continued Case No: 2009 -06 (Code violation) to the June meeting, allowing Mr. Phillips an opportunity to correct the violation and make restitution to the consumer. • Mr. Phillips left the area in June, 2009. • In June, the Board permanently revoked Mr. Phillips' permit pulling privileges • Mr. Phillips is a State - certified Contractor, and the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board was notified on May 21, 2009 of the Board's decision. The recommendation was that "no action" should be taken. • Mr. Phillips has requested a modification of his suspension. Chairman Horn noted the homeowner had been reimbursed by Mr. Phillips on March 7, 2012. Mr. Phillips stated he did not agree with the Board's decision. He stated he had been doing "service work" for the past two years. Mr. Ossorio contacted the homeowner who stated he was pleased that he had been reimbursed, and had no objections to Mr. Phillips' request to be reinstated. Chairman Horn asked Mr. Ossorio if there had been any other complaints made against Bobby Phillips and the response was, "no." Mr. Ossorio noted the Board has to option to uphold the suspension, or revoke it, or to modify it. He suggested if the Board choses to modify the suspension that Mr. Phillips remain under the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board and to restrict his permit pulling privileges, i.e., only Mr. Phillips can sign for a permit, in person. If the Board's Order is violated within a two -year period, the suspension will be reinstated. 1612 p9 April 18, 2012 It was noted the new Florida Building Code went into effect on March 15th and the provisions affect Air - Conditioning Contractors. Michael Ossorio stated Mr. Phillips is a State - certified Contractor and will renew his license with the State in September, 2012. "CityView" [County's computer system] tracks Workers' Comp insurance and Mr. Phillips can only pull permits if his certification is active and current in the system. Thomas Lykos moved to approve reinstating the permit pulling privileges of Bobby James Phillips with the following stipulations: • Mr. Phillips will be required to personally pull all permits for his work; • Mr. Phillips will be placed on probation for a period of two years; • During the probationary period, any violation will result in an immediate revocation of his permit pulling privileges and would require him to appear before the Contractors Licensing Board. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Discussion: Vice Chairman Joslin remembered the case and was pleased Mr. Phillips was able to make restitution to the homeowner. He advised Mr. Phillips to be conscientious in the future because any appearance before the Board would result in his license being revoked. Kyle Lantz objected to the use of the word, "probation." He stated the Board was overstepping because Mr. Phillips was State - certified. Thomas Lykos explained the reason for imposing a probationary period was if Mr. Phillips were to accept a project and not pull a permit, without probation, the only recourse would be to cite him for not having a permit. He would not necessarily be required to appear before the Board. Vice Chairman Joslin agreed with Mr. Lykos, stating the probation was a deterrent. Michael Ossorio clarified Bobby Phillips, as a State license holder, is not on probation, but his Certificate of Competency with Collier County is on probation. Attorney James Morey stated when imposing any sanction on a State - certified contractor, the Board has the ability to impose specific conditions in terms of the permit- pulling privileges. Mr. Lantz countered there were two different issues: being required to pull permits in person, and being on probation. Thomas Lykos amended his motion as follows: To approve reinstating the permit pulling privileges of Bobby James Phillips with two stipulations: 1. He must personally pull all permits for all future work, and 2. For a period of two years, if he is found to be guilty of any violation, his permit pulling privileges will automatically be revoked. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Mr. Phillips stated he did not have a problem with the conditions. 4 1612 A9 April 18, 2012 Chairman Horn called for a vote. Motion carried unanimously, S — 0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Case #2012 -05: Christopher McHugh, d/b /a PMC Enterprises Division, Inc. has been continued to May 16, 2012 (per amended Agenda). B. Case #2012 -06: Walter Paesano, d/b /a Paesano's Painting, LLC Chairman Horn outlined the general process of the Public Hearing: • The County will present an Opening Statement to set forth the charges and, in general terms, how it intends to prove the charges. • The Respondent will present his/her Opening Statement setting forth, in general terms, defenses to the charges. • The County will present its Case in Chief by calling witnesses and presenting evidence. • The Respondent may cross - examine the witnesses. • After the County has closed its Case in Chief, the Respondent may present his/her defense, i.e., to call and examine witnesses, introduce Exhibits, cross - examine witnesses, impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and rebut any evidence presented against the parry. • After the Respondent has presented his/her case, the County will present a Rebuttal to the Respondent's presentation. • When the Rebuttal is concluded, each party is permitted to present a Closing Statement. • The County is allowed a second opportunity to rebut the Respondent's Closing Statement. • The Board will close the Public Hearing and begin deliberations. • Prior to beginning deliberations, the Board's Attorney will give a "charge" to the Board, similar to the charge given to a jury, setting out the parameters on which the decision will be based. • During deliberations, the Board can request additional information and clarification from the parties. • The Board will decide two different issues: • Whether the Respondent was guilty of the offense(s) charged in the Administrative Complaint, and a vote will be taken on the matter. • If the Respondent was found guilty, the Board must decide the sanctions to be imposed. • The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the sanctions and the factors to be considered. • The Board will discuss the sanctions and vote. 1612 A9 April 18, 2012 Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's Opening Statement: • The County will show through sworn testimony and documented facts that Walter Paesano, the Respondent, violated Florida Statutes 440.10(1)(a) by failing to provide and maintain Workers' Compensation coverage for his two employees. • Said violation of Florida Statutes constitutes a violation of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, Section 22- 201(6). Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering Case No. 2012 -06, Board of County Commissioners vs. Walter Paesano, d/b /a Paesano's Painting, LLC, Collier County License #27889, into evidence. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, S — 0. • Chairman Horn entered the information packet into evidence, marked as County's Exhibit "A. " Chairman Horn asked Mr. Paesano if he wished to present an Opening Statement and the response was, "no." He also stated he was "ashamed." Concerns were raised about the Respondent's ability to understand the charges. • Thomas Lykos asked Mr. Paesano if he required the services of a translator. While the Respondent again replied, "no," Mr. Lykos stated he was not comfortable with the Respondent's fluency in English as a second language. • Vice Chairman Joslin agreed. • Attorney Morey noted Mr. Joslin's concern about whether or not the Respondent understood the gravity of the situation, and also noted the issue of due process. He suggested taking a brief recess to explore options. RECESS: 9:28 AM RECONVENED: 9:38 AM Chairman Horn reconvened the Public Hearing at 9:38 AM. Attorney Morey stated Martha Vergara, who is employed in the Minutes and Records Department of the Collier County's Office of the Clerk of Courts, was present to assist the Respondent by serving as a translator (English to Spanish). Mr. Morey was noted Ms. Vergara would not give testimony but will translate fairly, honestly, and accurately from English to Spanish (for the Respondent) and from Spanish to English (Respondent's responses to the Board's questions). He thanked Ms. Vergara for graciously volunteering to help Mr. Paesano. [There was a brief pause in the proceedings: Martha Vergara read the Administrative Complaint and Case Summary, and then translated the document for the Respondent.] 1612 A9 April 18, 2012 Vice Chairman Joslin requested the translator advise Mr. Paesano he has the right to be represented by a Spanish- speaking attorney. Walter Paesano declined to be represented by Counsel. Chairman Horn asked the Respondent if he wished to present an Opening Statement which was his overview of the case. Walter Paesano stated the case was opened because he did not have Workers' Compensation coverage for his two workers. Terry Jerulle asked the Respondent if he had read and understood the Complaint and Mr. Paesano replied, "yes." Ian Jackson presented the County's Case in Chief. • On March 1, 2012, the Contractors' Licensing Office received a complaint concerning possible unpermitted remodel work at 1204 Hernando Street. • He performed a site inspection and met with the Respondent who was in the process of either painting a small portion of the exterior of the home or cleaning some materials. • Mr. Paesano escorted Mr. Jackson through the home where he observed two individuals painting the interior. • Mr. Paesano explained he had been subcontracted by Elaine Higgins, B.K. Services of Naples, LLC, for the painting work. • Mr. Jackson asked the Respondent if he provided Workers' Compensation coverage for the two employees, his response was "yes." • Mr. Jackson researched the County's data base and found that Mr. Paesano had a Workers' Compensation exemption for himself. • The Respondent acknowledged he did not provide the required coverage. • Mr. Jackson instructed Mr. Paesano to stop his employees (Omar Osorio and Jose Mercario) from continuing to work. • Mr. Paesano was advised that only he could complete the painting because he was an exempt officer of the corporation, Paesano's Painting, LLC. • The Notice of Hearing was issued to Mr. Paesano, via hand delivery, on March 8, 2012. Chairman Horn inquired about a previous violation. Mr. Jackson replied the Respondent had been cited on November 17, 2009 for a similar violation. At that there, only one employee was not covered by Workers' Compensation insurance and the fine was $300. He noted, for the record, the fine had been paid. Thomas Lykos asked if other work was being done at the house in addition to the painting and Mr. Jackson responded "no." Mr. Lykos stated the complaint referenced possible unpermitted work and asked Mr. Jackson if he noted any violations, and the reply was "no." Ian Jackson stated a "Stop Work" Order was not issued because there were no permitting issues. 7 1612 19 April 18, 2012 Mr. Jackson noted the Respondent stated he had been hired as a painting sub- contractor by Elaine Higgins, the qualifier of B.K. Services of Naples, LLC. Chairman Horn asked the Respondent to identify who had hired him, i.e., the homeowner or another Contractor. Walter Paesano explained: • Elaine Higgins called him and asked him to paint the laundry area, a closet area, and two doors. • He was not hired to paint the entire house. • Ms. Higgins was painting the interior of the house — he had been subcontracted to paint the areas that were difficult for her. o Ms. Higgins was also present at the proceedings. Vice Chairman Joslin asked the Respondent why he hired helpers when the job would have taken only 3 or 4 hours to complete. The Respondent replied to make sure; the job was done in one afternoon. Kyle Lantz asked if the two gentlemen worked for the Respondent on a regular basis and Mr. Paesano responded when he had jobs, he always worked by himself. He stated the two men were at his house when he received Ms. Higgins' call and he asked them to come along with him. Mr. Lantz asked if Omar Osorio and Jose Mercario were his friends; Mr. Paesano said, "yes." Terry Jerulle directed his question to the Respondent, "When you were first asked by Mr. Jackson if you had Workers' Compensation for the two employees, you said `yes., 7 Mr. Paesano stated he thought the Workers' Compensation "papers" said he had coverage for one to four employees — he remembered that — but he checked again and found it was different. Chairman Horn asked the Respondent when friends helped him on a job, how did he pay them, i.e., were they paid in cash, or by check, or did he use a payroll service — how did he compensate his employees. The Respondent stated Ms. Higgins would pay him, but because this job was not finished, he was not paid. Chairman Horn asked Elaine B. Higgins to come forward and be sworn in. Chairman Horn asked Ms. Higgins if she was a General Contractor. Elaine B. Higgins stated she was a Painting Contractor. Chairman Horn asked if she "subbed" the job out to Mr. Paesano. She responded she was behind on the job and asked the Respondent if he could help her with one of the rooms in the back. She stated she has worked with Walter for ten years. Vice Chairman Joslin asked Ms. Higgins if she was aware she was to obtain a 8 1612 A9 April 18, 2012 copy of Mr. Paesano's Workers' Compensation Insurance as her subcontractor. Ms. Higgins responded she had his license, Workers' Compensation exemption, and his insurance. She stated she was not present at the job site during the time of Mr. Jackson's inspection. When she had seen Mr. Paesano, he was alone. Chairman Horn called for a brief recess. RECESS: 9: 53 AM RECONVENED: 9:56 AM Chairman Horn reconvened the Public Hearing at 9:56 AM. Vice Chairman Joslin asked if there was a written contract between the Respondent and B. K. Services of Naples, LLC, or if it was verbal. The Respondent stated there was no written contract. Chairman Horn asked if everything was verbal — on the phone or in person. Mr. Paesano replied Ms. Higgins hod called him. Kyle Lantz asked the Respondent if he brought in friends in the future to help him paint, how would he pay them and ensure they had Workers' Compensation coverage. Walter Paseano stated he has very few jobs and does not need people to help him. He further stated if he found a large job, he would call the "Small Business" people to help him with the right papers. At the moment, he doesn't have any jobs. Chairman Horn stated it is a good policy to ask for help when you are not sure and Mr. Paesano replied, "yes." He asked Mr. Paesano if he understood the reason why Workers' Compensation insurance is required — to protect him, the homeowner, and employees. Mr. Paesano stated he understood. Thomas Lykos asked the Respondent if he understood Workers' Compensation coverage is required by law when other people are working for him on a job site. Martha Vergara explained Mr. Paesano understood he needed his paperwork and now understands that the paperwork is to be completed in advance if anyone will be on a jobsite helping him. Mr. Lykos again asked the Respondent if he understood he was required to obtain Workers' Compensation coverage. Mr. Paesano replied, "yes." Mr. Lykos noted the Respondent admitted, on the record, that he did not obtain Workers' Compensation coverage for his workers. [There was a brief pause while Ms. Vergara translated for the Respondent.] Mr. Paesano replied, "yes." Terry Jerulle questioned Ian Jackson concerning the 2009 Workers' Compensation violation. Mr. Jackson explained a Citation had been issued and a fine of $300 had been 161 2 A9 April 18, 2012 imposed. He stated he had paperwork to distribute to the Board for consideration in the event Walter Paesano was found in violation. The documents were applicable to the penalty phase of the proceedings. Terry Jerulle questioned Elaine Higgins. She replied she is a licensed to work in Collier County and reiterate the name of her company, "B. K. Services of Naples, LLC." Chairman Horn asked Ian Jackson to present the County's Closing Statement Ian Jackson noted since Respondent acknowledged the violation, the County had nothing further to present. Chairman Horn asked Mr. Paesano if he wished to present a Closing Statement but the Respondent declined. Vice Chairman Jerulle moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, S — 0. Attorney Morey outlined the Charge to the Board: • The Board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were accorded to the Respondent • Pursuant to Section 22- 203(g) (5) of the Codified Ordinance, the formal Rules of Evidence set out in Florida Statutes do not apply. • The Board shall consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its deliberation of this matter. • The Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony. • The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs, whether or not the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a Court of Law or Equity. • Hearsay evidence may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence but hearsay, in and of itself, is not be sufficient to support a Finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. • The Standard of Proof in actions where a Respondent may lose his privileges to practice his profession is that the evidence presented by the Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. • The Burden of Proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the "Preponderance of Evidence" Standard set in civil cases. • The Standard of Evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the Complaint. • The only charges the Board may decide upon are the ones to which the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense. • The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges. • The decision made by the Board shall be stated orally at the Hearing and is effective upon being read, unless the Board orders otherwise. 10 161 2 A9' April 18, 2012 • The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors' Licensing Board, the Courts, and the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, pursuant to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. • The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and if the Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint. • The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the charges set out in the Complaint. Chairman Horn reiteration there had been an admission of guilty. Thomas Lykos moved to approve finding the Respondent was "guilty" of the charges submitted by the County. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Carried unanimously, S — 0. Attorney Morey stated since the Board found there was misconduct by the Contractor under Section 22- 203(b) (1), the Board may, but is not required to, impose any of the following Disciplinary Sanctions individually, or in combination: (1) Revocation of the Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (2) Suspension of the Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of the Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (4) Imposition of a period of probation of reasonable length, not to exceed two years, during which the Contractor's contracting activities shall be under the supervision of the Contractor's Licensing Board, and/or participating in a duly- accredited program of continuing education directly related to the Contractor's contracting activity. Any period of probation or continuing education program ordered by the Contractors' Licensing Board may be revoked for cause by said Board at a Hearing noticed to consider said purpose. (5) Restitution; (6) A fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000); (7) A public reprimand; (8) Re- examination requirement; (9) Denial of the issuance of Collier County (or City) Building permits or requiring the issuance of permits with specific conditions; (10) Reasonable legal and investigative costs for the prosecution of the violation. Attorney Morey advised the Board that when imposing disciplinary sanctions on a Contractor holding a Certificate of Competency or a State - certified Contractor who has been found to have violated the Ordinance, the Contractors' Licensing Board shall consider the following: (1) The evidence presented at the Hearing; (2) The gravity of the violation; (3) The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare; (4) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; 11 16 -1 A9 April 18, 2012 (5) Any previous violations committed by the violator, and (6) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction which is appropriate for the case given the nature of the violation or the violator. Ian Jackson requested to distribute documentation to the Board. Michael Ossorio stated it was marked as Exhibit `B." Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering the documentation provided by Ian Jackson into evidence as County's Exhibit `B." Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, S — 0. Ian Jackson stated the evidence was from 2009 case that was referenced during the Public Hearing which consisted of a copy of Citation No. 5098 which was issued for not providing Workers' Compensation coverage (one employee). The jobsite was locatcd at 1130 San Marco Drive. There was a "Detail Report" from the County's data base confirming the $300 fine had been paid. Vice Chairman Joslin noted the Respondent had been previously cited for violating the requirement to provide Workers' Compensation coverage. He asked Ian Jackson about the severity of the 2009 violation. Ian Jackson stated he did not recall any details about the case. Chairman Horn asked for a recommendation from the County. Michael Ossorio stated the County recommended: • The Respondent is to pay $350.00 for investigative costs; • Imposition of a fine of $1,000.00 to be paid within 60 days; • Placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years during which time he is to report all jobs to the Contractors' Licensing Office on a weekly basis; • The Respondent will be required to take and pass the Business Procedures test within one year. It was noted the Business Procedures Test is given in Spanish on a daily basis in Gainesville and Ocala. The test is given on a monthly basis in English in Bonita Springs. Thomas Lykos stated the Respondent apparently did not learn the gravity of the violation since it occurred a second time. Vice Chairman Joslin stated he agreed with the imposition of a $1,000 fine as a deterrent but stated he did not want to drive the man out of business. Terry Jerulle stated the Business Procedures Test should be taken as soon as possible and suggested a deadline of three months. Michael Ossorio outlined the costs involved: $130.00 — sponsors; $ 80.00 for the exam plus the cost of one book. A preparatory class is also available for an additional fee. 12 161 2 p9 April 18, 2012 Kyle Lantz suggested extending the time for the Respondent to pay the fine to 120 days while requiring him to take the exam sooner than one year. Discussion ensued concerning the amount of the fine; the risk of injury to the Public, i.e., homeowners, business owners, employees; the responsibility of the Contractor. Thomas Lykos recommended increasing the fine to $2,500 because it was a second offense. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve imposing the following sanctions on Walter Paesano, d/b /a Paesano's Painting, LLC, as a result of being found guilty: • Payment of investigative costs in the amount of $350 within seven (7) days; • Placing his Certificate of Competency on probation for a period of two (2) years; • During the probationary period, Mr. Paesano is to report all jobs to the Contractors' Licensing Office on a weekly basis; • Imposition of a fine in the amount of $1,500 to be paid within 120 days; • Mr. Paesano is to take /pass the Business Procedures test within 90 days; • Any violation will result in the immediate suspension of his Certificate and he would be required to appear before the Board. Second by Terry Jerulle. Discussion ensued concerning the amount of the fine and a case previously heard by the Board. It was noted the Business Procedures Test contained a Workers' Compensation component. Chairman Horn called for a vote. Motion carried, 4 — "Yes " /1— "No." Thomas Lykos was opposed. Chairman Horn stated: • This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board on April 18, 2012 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint in Case #2012 -06 filed against Walter Paesano, d/b /a " Paesano's Painting, LLC," the holder of record of Collier County Certificate #27889. • Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended. • The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, therefore issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows. Findin ,es of Fact: • Walter Paesano, d/b /a " Paesano's Painting, LLC," is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate #27889. 13 161 2 A9 April 18, 2012 • The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors' Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter. • The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent. • Respondent, Walter Paesano, was present at the Public Hearing held on April 18, 2012, and was not represented by Counsel at the Hearing. • All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered • The Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County Ordinance and is the one who committed the act. • The allegations set forth in Administrative Complaint as Count I, under Section 22- 201(6), "Disregards or violates, in the practice of his contracting business in the County, any of the building, safety, health, insurance, or Workers' Compensation laws of the State, or Ordinance of this County, " have been found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing Conclusions of Law: The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the. Administrative Complaint as Count I have been approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to wit: "The Respondent violated Section 22- 201(6) of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, and Florida Statute 440- 10(1)(a) in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the Section set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity. Order of the Board. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of 4 in favor, and none in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above. Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of 4 in favor, 1 in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary sanctions and related Order are hereby imposed upon the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency #278895, to wit: • Payment of investigative costs in the amount of $350 within seven (7) days; • Placing his Certificate of Competency on probation for a • period of two (2) years; • During the probationary period, Mr. Paesano is to report all jobs to the Contractors' Licensing Office on a weekly basis; • Imposition of a fine in the amount of $1,500 to be paid within 120 days; • Mr. Paesano is to take /pass the Business Procedures test within 90 days; • Any violation will result in the immediate suspension of his Certificate and he would be required to appear before the Board. 14 161 Z A9 April 18, 2012 Chairman Horn noted the case was closed. Martha Vergara stated she translated the Order of the Board for the Respondent and Mr. Paesano understood the Board's decision. IX. REPORTS: (None) X. MEMBER COMMENTS: (None) XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor (Government Complex), 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chairman at 10:32 AM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Lee Horn, Chairman The Minutes werioR ved by the Board/Chairman on , 2012, "as submitted" [ "as a mended" U. 15 Collier County Government Productivity Committee Meeting Agenda County Manager's Conference Room January 18, 2012 2:00 P.M. a fYx 4 P P 0 BY........................ Introduction A. Welcome /Call to Order -Steve Harrison, Chairman B. Approval of today's meeting agenda. C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 11/16/11. D. Acceptance of the Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcommittee meeting minutes from 11/9/11. E. Acceptance of the Outsourcing /Insourcing SubcomMjge me inutes from 11/29/11. Hiller Henning Coyle .sG Old Business Coletta A. Brief Update from the Outsourcing /Insourcing Subcommittee -Gina Downs New Business A. FY 2013 Budget Policy Preview -Mark Isackson, Director, Corporate Financial and Management Services. B. Recommendations (to the BCC) for Appointment/Reappointment of Members to the Productivity Committee. IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments A. Next meeting (2/15/12)- Selection of Productivity Committee ChairNice Chair, 2). Review /Comment on Budget Policy for FY 2013. V. Public Comment VI. Adiourn -The next meeting is currently scheduled for February 15, 2012 at 2pm in the County Manager's Office Conference room. Mist Corres: Date: -7 12.x-+ 112 item S: t U_ 2- f-A 10 Copies to: 1612 A10 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida January 18, 2012 Let it be remembered, the Collier County Productivity Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, net on this date at 2:00 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, the County Manager's Conference room, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: Steve Harrison Vice Chairman: James Gibson, Jr. Janet Vasey Joe Swaja Douglas Fee Gina Downs Vlad Ryziw Cheryl Pavlick Leslie Prizant Rich Federman Joe Wall (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jim Coletta, Commissioner, BCC Liaison Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager— CMO I. Introduction A. Call to Order— Steve Harrison, Chairman Mr. Harrison called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. Also present Andrea Marsh, Sheriff's Office; Mark Isackson, Director Corporate Financial & Management Services; Susan Usher, Senior Budget Analyst OMB; Tom Wides, Director Operations Support Public Utilities B. Approval of today's meeting agenda. Mr. Swaja motioned to accept the agenda with the changes to the order. Second by Mr. Federman. Carried unanimously 10 -0. 161 2 A10 C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 11/16/11. Mr. Ryziw motioned to approve the minutes of the Productivity Committee dated 11/16/11. Second by Leslie Prizant. Carried unanimously 10 -0. D. Acceptance of the Public Utilities Capital Projects review Subcommittee meeting minutes from 11/9/11. Ms. Vasey motioned to approve the subcommittee meeting minutes. Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 10 -0. E. Acceptance of the Outsourcing /Insourcing Subcommittee meeting minutes from 11/29/11. Ms. Downs asked that this item be continued to the next meeting because her revisions to the minutes were not included. Ms. Vasey motioned to move the item to the next meeting. Ms. Downs seconded. Carried unanimously 10 -0. II. Old Business A. Outsourcing /Insourcing Subcommittee review. Ms. Downs reported that the subcommittee has almost completed their research. She said that she is pleased with the attempts that the county has made in their outsourcing and that much more outsourcing is being done than she had originally thought. The subcommittee will meet with Len Price to discuss Fleet maintenance. Mr. Ryziw asked if there were any written procedures or processes to determine whether outsourcing was appropriate. Mr. Wides stated that Public Utilities had some guidelines regarding outsourcing. III. New Business A. FY2013 Budget Policy Review— Mark Isackson, Director Corporate Financial & Management Services. Mr. Isackson spoke to the group about the FY13 budget policy and why mid -year cuts for this year are necessary to position us for the beginning for FY13. He stated that ad valorem revenue is dropping and will not be righted until 2015. A 5% decrease in taxable value is also being estimated for next year. He told the group that we need to look for alternative revenues to provide maintenance of our current infrastructure and to continue to prioritize safety issues. He informed the group that producing the budget for FY13 will be the most challenging budgeting process in many years. B. Recommendations (to the BCC) for Appointment /Reappointment of Members to the Productivity Committee. Mr. Sheffield asked the applicants present to introduce themselves to the group. (All applications were given to the members in their information packet.) He passed out the ballot and gave instructions to the group (each member had 6 votes —1 for each opening). The ballots were collected and tallied. Results are as follows: 1612 AIU Jim Gibson 10 Steve Harrison 10 Tom Lykos 5 John Mitchell 5 Vlad Ryziw 10 Joe Swaja 9 Janet Vasey 10 Jacob Winge 0 Ms. Vasey motioned to submit the top 5 names for reappointment, along with the 2 tied names to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for the Board to decide the tie. Seconded by Mr. Federman. Carried unanimously 10 -0. IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments There were no comments from members or staff. V. Public Comment There was no public comment. VI. Adjourn There being no further business for the good of the County, Mr. Swaja motioned to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Federman. Carried unanimously 10 -0. The meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 3:39 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 15, 2012. This meeting will be held in the County Manager's Conf. Room in Bldg F, 2nd floor at 3299 Tamiomi Trail East, Suite 202. Steve Harrison, Chairman Date 16I 2 A10 f�I Productivity Committee's Outsourcing and Insourcing Review Subcommittee Meeting January 18, 2012 11:00am Draft Minutes Subcommittee Members Present: Gina Downs, Rich Federman Staff Present: Mike Sheffield, John Torre, Dan Summers, Troy Miller, Lavah Hetzel, Janet Curran, Christine Boni Gina Downs called the meeting to order at 11:00. John Torre introduced his staff and g� overview of the functions performed in the Communication a (CCR). John distributed a handout and presented a power -point presentation outlining the various sections of the CCR Department: Public Information, TV Operations, County Switchboard, Graphic Specialist, North Collier Government Services Center, Legislative Affairs, and website. In regard to areas being outsourced, John pointed and the state and federal agenda printing, the printing of the annua l report, legislative lobbyists. John stated that there are several areas where it is more cost - efficient and practical to keep certain functions internal, such as operation of the TV station, which is operated e hours ire quick turnaround for of the year. John stated that the TV operations q broadcasting meetings that often last late into the evening. In addition, John stated that the County saves money by having an in -house graphic designer. Dan Summers gave an overview of the Bureau of Emergency Services. Dan stated that the services of the Medical Examiner are via an outsourced contract. Dan further stated that the County is saving money by conducting pump testing in -house by certified staff. Dan stated that the Collier Emergency Medical Services (EMS) has the least amount of employees per population in the State. Dan also stated that the Board recently outsourced post - hospital transports, such as from nursing home to doctor's office. At the next meeting (TBA), the subcommittee will begin la process Fia formulating a final report with recommendations. Hiller Henning The me s ln_q c Co oncluded at 12:15. le mac- Date---I 1_22_4 112. Item #: Vl \ 0 Collier County Government Productivity Committee Meeting Agenda County Manager's Conference Room February 15, 2012 2:00 P.M. 161 2 A10 v" ....................... I. Introduction A. Welcome /Call to Order B. Approval of today's meeting agenda C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 1/18/12 D. Acceptance of the Outsourcing /lnsourcing Subcommittee meeting minutes from 11/29/11 (continued from the 1/18/12 meeting) E. Acceptance of the Outsourcing /lnsourcing SubcommittqFqbfgeeting minute from 1/18/12. Hiller Henning Coyle ,r II Colette . Old Business - A. Nominations /Selection of the Chair and Vice -chair for 2012 B. Presentation - County Manager's FY13 Proposed Budget Policy - Leo Ochs, County Manager and Mark Isackson, Director, Corporate Financial and Management Services C. Prepare comments (to be submitted to the County Manager and the Board) regarding the County Manager's FY13 Proposed Budget Policy 111. New Business Misc. Corres: A. Discussion regarding the workplan for 2012 Date: 'I 1?-'-/11-2- IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments Item #t: IlsZ2V:a-A 0 Copies to: V. Public Comment VI. Adjourn -The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 21, 2012 at 2pm in the County Manager's Office Conference room. 1612 February 15, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, February 15, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Productivity Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, in the County Manager's Conference room, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: Steve Harrison Vice Chairman: James Gibson, Jr. Gina Downs Rich Federman Cheryl Pavlick Leslie Prizant (excused) Janet Vasey Joseph Swaja Vlad Ryziw Tom Lykos Joe Wall (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Jim Coletta, Commissioner, BCC Liaison Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager — CMO Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director, Clerk of Courts Office Mark Isackson, Corp Financial and Management Services — OMB Ray Milum, Fiscal Operations Manager, Clerk of Courts Office Susan Usher, Senior Budget Analyst — OMB Andrea Marsh, Finance Director, Collier County Sheriff's Office Page 1 A10 161 2' A10 February 15, 2012 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department. I. Introduction A. Call to Order — Steve Harrison, Chairman Mr. Harrison called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. B. Approval of today's meeting agenda. Ms. Downs moved to approve the agenda with no changes. Second by Mr. Swaja. Carried unanimously 9 -0. C. Approval of the Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes from 1/18/12. Mr. Ryziw moved to approve the minutes of the January 18, 2012 Productivity Committee. Second by Mr. Swaja. Carried unanimously 9 -0. D. Acceptance of the Outsourcing/Insourcing Subcommittee Minutes from the meeting held 11/29/11 (were continued to the 1/18/12 Meeting). Ms. Downs motioned to accept the Outsourcing/Insourcing Subcommittee Meeting Minutes from 11/29/11 and the Minutes from 1/18/12. Second by Ms. Vasey and carried unanimously 9 -0. II. Old Business A. Nominations /Selection of the Chair and Vice -chair for 2012. Mr. Swaja nominated James R. Gibson for chairman. Second by Ms. Down. Mr. Gibson has other commitments and does not think it is prudent to serve as Chairman. Mr. Federman nominated Steve Harrison to continue to serve as Chairman. Discussion followed and Mr. Federman withdrew his nomination. Mr. Ryziw nominated Ms. Vasey for Vice - Chairman. Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously 9 -0. Mr. Ryziw re- nominated Mr. Harrison for Chairman. Second by Mr. Federman. Mr. Swaja nominated Ms. Downs for Chairman. Ms. Vasey requested both nominees speak in regards to their interests and opinions to help improve the committee if appointed Chairman. Mr. Swaja withdrew nomination for Ms. Down's after hearing her idea to request more participation from members, including providing a list of pros and cons that the committee would present to the Commissioners with their final analysis. In conclusion, Mr. Harrison was unanimously (9 -0) selected to continue serving as Chairman and Ms. Vasey will serve as Vice - Chairman for 2012. Page 2 161 A10 February 15, 2012 B. Presentation - County Manager's FY13 Proposed Budget Policy County Manager, Leo Ochs and Mark Isackson, Director, Corporate Financial and Management Services provided Productivity Committee members the "FY 2013 Proposed Annual Budget Policies Submission to the Collier County Productivity Committee" packet for their input and recommendations regarding "annual" policies to be adopted for the fiscal year. Final recommendations are to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners by February 28, 2012. It was discussed that county wide taxable value has dropped by one -third since FY 2008; a report projects that Collier County's taxable values will decrease 3.6% by July 1, 2012. In regards to obtaining a realistic taxable value estimate, it has been proposed that a 5% reduction is a reasonable and conservative budget for planning purposes. The County Manager proposes to submit a millage neutral budget along with service level and related budgetary and millage implications. This will require a combination of operating and capital cuts based upon need, priorities and service levels. The necessity of engaging in County Manager Agency mid -year expenditure cuts was emphasized to ensure a sufficient amount of fiscal year beginning cash is available in the General Fund (00 1) and Unincorporated Area General Fund (111). Consideration was given regarding future infrastructure repair costs if routine maintenance is cut back. Consolidating fire departments was also mentioned and how that could help reduce costs. Lastly, it was recommended that a 2.5% Contingency Reserve be established to help reach a goal of having General Fund reserve level cash balances that total $40 -$42M. C. Prepare Comments (to submit to the County Manager and the Board) regarding the County Manager's FY13 Proposed Budget Policy. The Committee motioned in a unanimously (9 -0) to have Mr. Federman draft a letter in response to the FY13 Proposed Budget Policy. Mr. Sheffield will forward Mr. Federman's letter to all committee members for review, and will subsequently forward the letter to the Board of County Commissioners. III. New Business A. Discussion regarding the 2012 Workplan The Committee discussed the workplan and gathered a list of key points to consider: • Look at trends, revenue and expenses over time and make recommendations to manage reductions and increase revenues • Level of staffing and organizational structure; look at staff and span of control • Bench marking (public and private salaries) • Ms. Pavlick was tasked with contacting the director of Human Resources. • EMS migration to fire districts — impact to the County and Tax Payers /users • Review new economic innovations with new initiatives • Support City management in assessing new initiatives; mobility fees • Total tax burden analysis; sources and uses of your tax money IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments Page 3 1612 AA10 February 15, 2012 The Committee discussed Section 7 of Ordinance 2001 -37, and was further affirmed of their duties and responsibilities by Mr. Sheffield. The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 21, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in the County Manager's Office Conference Room. V. Public Comment There was no public comment. VI. Adiourn Ms. Downs motioned to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Swaja. Carried unanimously 9 -0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:54 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Chairman, Steve Harrison These Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended Page 4 161 Productivity Committee's Outsourcing and Insourcing Review Subcommittee Meeting February 22, 2012 11:00am Draft Minutes z A10 Subcommittee Members Present: Gina Downs, Joseph Wall, Rich Federman Staff Present: Mike Sheffield, Len Price, Joanne Markiewicz The subcommittee discussed completing the Outsourcing /Insourcing study and formulating a final report with recommendations. It was noted that recommendations from this subcommittee could offer the county opportunities to be more successful. One opportunity would be to develop a county -wide outsourcing approach and practice. The group discussed several areas where the county has used outsourcing with a successful result. Three areas of note were security, landscaping, and the concession stand at Vanderbilt Beach. Joanne will provide copies of the RFP's and contracts for those three successful areas to each subcommittee member via Mike Sheffield. Another area of opportunity for the county is in cross training employees to work in other areas within county government. County staff posses many skills and may find cross training an enriching experience. Joe Wall was tasked with preparing the first draft of the final report, for review at the next meeting to be held on March 21 at 11:50. misc. Cones: Date: I item #: 1 U=2Vc� 16 Codes to: Fiala Hiller - Henning - Cooyle yle --- -- Coletta G Collier County Government Productivity Committee Meeting Agenda County Manager's Conference Room March 21, 2012 2:00 P.M. A10 BY........... .............. Introduction A. Welcome /Call to Order -Steve Harrison B. Approval of today's meeting agenda C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 2/15/12 D. Acceptance of the Insourcing /Outsourcing Subcommittee Minutes from 2/22/12 Fiala VV Hiller All _ Henning Coyle Old Business Coletta A. Quarterly report on impact fee revenue -Amy Patterson B. Brief report on current information from the Human Resources Department - Cheryl Pavlick C. Review and approve the Workplan for 2012 (with emphasis on indentifying objectives for each workplan item and subcommittee assignments) III. New Business IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments V. Public Comment VI. Adiourn -The next meeting is currently scheduled for April 18, 2012 at 2pm in the County Manager's Office Conference room. Misc. Corres: Date:--I 12,-4 11'2- Item #: I LA Z 214 %o Copies to: 1612' p10 March 21, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 21, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Productivity Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, in the County Manager's Conference room, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: Steve Harrison Vice Chairman: Janet Vasey Gina Downs Rich Federman James Gibson, Jr. Tom Lykos Cheryl Pavlick Leslie Prizant Joseph Swaja Vlad Ryziw Joe Wall ALSO PRESENT: Jim Coletta, Commissioner, BCC Liaison Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager — CMO Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director, Clerk of Courts Office Andrea Marsh, Finance Director, Collier County Sheriff's Office Amy Patterson, Manager Impact Fees & EDC Amy Lyberg, Director Human Resources Len Price, Administrator Administrative Services Winona Stone, Corporate Planning and Performance Improvement Consultant Joyce Fletcher, League of Women Voters Page 1 1612 A10 March 21, 2012 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Communication and Customer Relations Department. I. Introduction A. Call to Order — Steve Harrison, Chairman Mr. Harrison called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m. and a quorum was established. B. Approval of today's meeting agenda. Mr. Swaja moved to approve the agenda with no changes. Second by Mr. Wall. Carried unanimously 7 -0. C. Approval of the Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes from 2/15/12. Mr. Ryziw had a correction to change the word "city" to "county" on page 3. Mr. Swaja moved to approve the minutes (with the correction) from February 15, 2012. Second by Mr. Ryziw. Carried unanimously 7 -0. D. Acceptance of the Outsourcing/Insourcing Subcommittee Minutes from the meeting held 2/22/12. Mr. Swaja motioned to accept the Outsourcing /Insourcing Subcommittee Meeting Minutes from 2/22/12. Second by Ms. Downs and carried unanimously 11 -0 (4 additional members joined the meeting). E. Introduction of Ms. Stone, new liaison. Ms. Stone passed out some information regarding strategic planning and her biography for the members to review. She will be the new liaison to the Productivity Committee upon Mr. Sheffield's promotion to Interim Communication and Customer Relations Director. Mr. Sheffield gave Ms. Stone a folder containing the Productivity Committee's official meeting procedures. II. Old Business A. Impact Fee Revenue. Ms. Patterson passed out information for the group regarding impact fee revenues for the past several years. She went over the differences and answered questions. Ms. Vasey asked what the school impact fee collection would have been had the rates not been changed. Ms. Patterson will send the information as requested. The group will add an item to their work plan regarding their options for reviewing upcoming impact fee studies. Ms. Patterson explained that the major studies will include Roads, Jails and Parks for this fall and the indexing will begin in November or December. Mr. Lykos would like to have information on the Crestview Park Apartments and the Summer Lakes /Sawgrass Pines Apartments impact fee deferral payoffs. Ms. Patterson will provide a breakdown for each payoff as to which impact fees were credited and the dollar amount of each allocated based on the total amount refunded. Page 2 March 21, 2012 B. Report from Ms. Pavlick regarding Human Resources. Ms. Pavlick started her presentation with a review of the compensation policy. She thanked Ms. Lyberg and Mr. Walker for their cooperation and helpfulness shown her during her investigation. She stated the last increase given to employees was a COLA only raise in 2008. The HR Department does salary surveys every year. She added that the Wellness Program was a really positive program with employees being given opportunities to earn healthy bucks by taking health motivated classes. Ms. Price said that the county uses the Archer System for salary justification and field interviews and job shadowing is also performed. Mr. Harrison asked Ms. Pavlick about the total benefit package versus private companies. Ms. Pavlick said she would like to do some more fact finding regarding that issue. C. Work Plan 2012. Mr. Harrison suggested that the committee do an Overhead Value Analysis (OVA). This information could help determine cost of management, find fragmented activity, better align resources and other benefits for the county. If the committee would like to put this on their work plan, they could craft a questionnaire, conduct interviews and load the data base. Mr. Gibson said they could plot an org chart based on the responses from the survey. Mr. Harrison passed out a letter from last year with some suggestions for the 2012 Work Plan. Ms. Vasey passed out information regarding possible tasks regarding the Public Safety Integration Proposal. Mr. Harrison will talk to each Commissioner one on one to determine their interest in this project. Mr. Harrison will draft a letter to the County Manager to include Public Safety Integration, Overhead Value Analysis, Compensation Strategy, Budget Millage and Maintenance of Capital Items in the proposed 2012 Work Plan. III. New Business IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments The next meeting is scheduled for April 18, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in the County Manager's Front Conference Room. V. Public Comment There was no public comment. VI. Adiourn Mr. Swaja motioned to adjourn the meeting. Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously 10 -0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:20 p.m. Page 3 March 21, 2012 COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Chairman, Steve Harrison These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on , as presented or as amended Page 4 1612 Productivity Committee's Outsourcing and Insourcing Review Subcommittee Meeting March 21, 2012 10:30am Minutes Subcommittee Members Present: Gina Downs, Joe Wall Subcommittee Members Absent: Rich Federman Staff Present: Joanne Markiewicz, Barbetta Hutchinson A10 i '> BY: ....................... Fiala Hiller -- Henning Coyle Coletta___, Gina passed out information from outside websites that could possibly be added to their final recommendations to the Board. She also included sample procedures from other cities outside of Florida. There were also articles from Business Weekly and a publication from Pharma, Italy with information about outsourcing. Gina noted that she had received samples of bids and contracts that have been successful as she asked for, but did not get any that were not successful. Joanne Markiewicz was called into the meeting and said that she would get examples of the unsuccessful ones to the group. Gina had given out a list of possible inclusions for a policy. Joanne reviewed the list one by one and added on for more clarity. Joanne gave the members the current checklist. Joanne answered and clarified all of the questions from the subcommittee. An outsourcing policy was discussed and Joanne said that she was currently working on purchasing procedures and would be happy to develop an outsourcing policy if so directed. Barbetta will talk to Mike Sheffield and see if the County Manager would like Joanne to work on revamping the list. Joe Wall will write the final recommendation paper. Gina suggested the goal of the final product should be a one page report and a page of recommendations for outsourcing attached. The goal is to have recommendations ready for presentation at the next full committee meeting in April. In the meantime, the subcommittee will reconvene on Tuesday, April 10th at 2:00 p.m. to finish their discussion and finalize theiriVftp(s: The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. �2`��i2 Item s: 11.E = 214 16 Copies to: Codes M: 1612 A10 t Productivity Committee's Outsourcing and Insourcing Review�'- ....................... Subcommittee Meeting April 10, 2012 2:00 pm Minutes Subcommittee Members Present: Gina Downs, Joe Wall by phone Subcommittee Members Absent: Rich Federman Staff Present: Winona Stone, Barbetta Hutchinson Anorove Minutes from March 21, 2012: Joe asked that the section regarding the "full plan" be removed. The minutes were approved with that change. Report Review: Discussion was heard regarding the report to the Board that was written by Joe. Gina suggested that Joe try to pare down the report to one page by reducing the font size and possibly removing the title and using a cover page. She said she feels a shorter version would be easier to read. He agreed to try to reduce without changing content and will also change the title on the considerations page to "Guideline Considerations in Outsourcing ". Gina told Joe he did an excellent job with the report and fully incorporated all of the findings of the subcommittee into the report. Gina asked Joe to include his name as the person who prepared the report. Joe will make the corrections as stated. The report will be approved at the next meeting of the Productivity Meeting on April 18, 2012. Adjourn: A motion to adjourn the meeting was given by Joe at 2:18 p.m. and seconded by Gina. Fiala Hiller Henning _ Coyle Colette ::YG Misc. Corres: Date:--I ►Z, Item #:1 %-a= 2aA \ U Codes to: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA April 4, 2012 3:00 p.m. Conference Room 610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a "Speaker Request Form," list the topic they wish to address, and hand it to the Staff member seated at the table before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman, and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order, and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. I. Call to Order - Chairman II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from March 7, 2012 Meeting IV. Public Speakers V. Staff Announcements /Updates A. Public Utilities Division Update — [Nathan Beals] B. Fire Review Update — [Ed Riley] C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Engineering — [Jay Ahmad] D. Growth Management Division /Planning & Regulation Update — [Jamie French] VI. Old Business VII. New Business A. Collier County's Draft Corridor Preservation Ordinance [Reed Jarvi] B. LDC Amendment updates [Caroline Cilek] VIII. Committee Member Comments IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates May 2, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm June 6, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm July 11, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm August 1, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm September 5, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm { 1612 All April 4, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECEIVED April 4, 2012 MAY 2 3 2012 Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator — Growth Management Division Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Reed Jarvi, Manager — Transportation Planning Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.S., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Carolina Valera, Principal Planner — Comprehensive Planning Chairman: William Varian Vice Chair: David Dunnavant -�V% James Boughton Fiala �— Clay Brooker Hiller Henning ur Laura Spurgeon De John p g Coyle ✓ Dalas Disney Co►etta— Marco Espinar Blair Foley George Hermanson Misc. Corres: Mario Valle Dame: �`� 12 Ronald Waldrop item #:1u s2P (Vacancy) Copies to: Excused: Ray Allain Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator — Growth Management Division Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Reed Jarvi, Manager — Transportation Planning Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.S., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Carolina Valera, Principal Planner — Comprehensive Planning Al 1 t6 I pri14, 2012 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. A quorum was established. Eleven members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Dalas Disney moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 79 2012: Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes of the March 7, 2012 Meeting as submitted. Second by David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 10 — 0. (Note: Clay Brooker could not vote because he did not attend the March meeting.) W. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (None) V. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES: A. Public Utilities: Nathan Beals, Project Manager • Continuing review of Standards and Gravity Sewers — Maximum Depth • No changes have been made • Evaluation of cost analysis B. Fire Review: (The Fire Code Office was not represented.) • Monthly Activity Report for February 2012 was submitted o Plan Reviews conducted — 854 (January 2012 — 686) o Expedited Reviews: 7 were conducted • Overtime hours (16) were reimbursed by the contractor(s) ,who requested an expedited review C. Transportation: Jay Ahmad and Reed Jarvi Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering • Update: Odwell Road Project • Paving is underway • Recent "Change Order" was submitted for fencing and other items ■ Deadline was extended — days were added • Anticipated completion: end of June — eastern and western segments • Update: Collier /Davis Project 0 30% completion (slightly ahead of schedule) o Anticipated completion: December, 2013 2 1612 X411 April 4, 2012 • Update: White Blvd. /23rd Street Bridges Project • Received bids • During a general discussion during the February meeting, the BCC directed County explore option to construct a temporary bridge at 23 Street in lieu of a permanent bridge ■ Revise design/specs • The low bidder was asked to submit a "Change Order" and quote ■ Amount of quote: $916,000 • Other options are under consideration • Detours • New Bid process: request bids only for temporary bridge from other bidders • Current bids will expire in 120 days • Will return to BCC • May begin new round of bids - Scope of Work has changed • Single bid for revised project Reed Jarvi, Manager — Transportation Planning: • Update: I -75 /Everglades Blvd. 1JR ( "Interchange Justification Report") • Draft of Report should be completed by Friday, April 6th • Will present at next DSAC meeting o Process: • Draft will be sent to DOT to finalize (3 to 4 months) • Final version will be sent to Feds for approval • Master Mobility Plan • Phase III Team has met twice • 3rd phase — implementation of Comprehensive Plan changes and LDC changes • Will present to DSAC at the May 2na meeting • Important Dates: • April 12 — (9:00 AM —12:00 N) Workshop with Planning Commission at BCC Chambers • May 15 — Public Meeting (early evening) • June 19 — Workshop with Planning Commission • After approval has been obtained, will present to BCC D. Planning & Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management and Nick Casalanguida, Administrator — Growth Management Div. • Florida Building Code became effective on March 15th o The Business Center remained open until 5:00 PM. • Activity Report (A copy of the March 2012 Monthly Statistics was distributed to the Committee.) 3 1612 pril 4, 2012 All o Level of complexity — more data and tables on "CityView" to access o Report provided a "snap shot" — an 18- month overview o Building Department Statistics ■ All Permits Issued by Month ■ New Construction Permits ■ Building Inspections (including 800 series which were not tracked previously) o Land Development Services Statistics ■ All Land Development Applications ■ Pre - Application Meetings by Month ■ Commercial Zoning Certificate Applications ■ Temporary Use Permit Applications ■ Site Development Plan ( "SDP ") Applications ■ SDP Re- Submittals (Corrections) ■ SDP Amendment Applications ( "SDP -A ") ■ SDP -A Resubmittals ■ SDP Insignificant Change Applications ( "SDP -I ") ■ SDP -I Re- submittals Jamie French stated job bankers (building inspectors) were hired as "spikes" (trends) were noted — A/C and electrical were the most requested trades. Dalas Disney suggested adding one more category to measure the dollar volume of business — construction dollar volume. Mr. French cautioned he could only provide estimates. Chairman Varian stated in March there were 2,200 Permits and 8,000 inspections. He asked if the figures could be broken down into trade permits, i.e., mechanical, remodeling. Mr. French stated his concern about breaking down the numbers was that an inspection could have already taken place in addition to the number of corrections or revisions. Chairman Varian clarified there were approximately 120 permits for new construction and asked about the remaining permits. Nick Casalanguida stated the top 5 business permits can be provided. Dalas Disney stated of the 7,000+ inspections noted in February 2012, some will track and correlate as new construction. The remainder should be trade permits and "other." He stated his interest was the correlation between new construction work and the building inspections. Nick Casalanguida explained determining a correlation will be complicated because while a permit may have been pulled, the work may not start for 2 to 3 months later. Additionally, a pre - construction permit may be issued before an SDP is approved and the gap could be as much as three months. 4 161 2April Al 1 Mario Valle commented the other aspect of the bulk number of inspections will be in remodeling /renovations. The figures may tie into being closer to the number of inspections for new construction. While there may not be structural inspections, there will be framing, insulation, and the mechanical trades. Those figures will track closer together than just the trades. Chairman Varian suggested tracking the following categories: plumbing, electrical, mechanical, building, site, and "other" Nick Casalanguida stated the report can be configured to meet DSAC's needs and requested that the members discuss and determine a consensus. Jamie French asked the members to email their comments to him. He Stated if the Committee wished, the report can track the number of inspections instead of permits in order to obtain the level of activity in the field. He stated DSAC members to specify the level of detail they wanted included in the report. • SIRE Active Review Project (in process) o DSAC members have requested the ability to copy /paste a Reviewer's Letters /comments onto their own documents via Word format o Currently PORTAL issues only PDF documents o Trying to utilize SIRE to transfer data from PORTAL into Word o Also consulting with CityView representatives to determine if PORTAL'S scope can be changed Chairman Varian stated he is a member of the SIRE working group — the focus is to help "build" the system — the group offers comments /adjustments as the system is under development. Jamie French confirmed applications can be searched by company name, owner's name, address, and permit number. New Topic — Fire Review: David Dunnavant asked if a Workshop had been scheduled with the Board of County Commissioners concerning Fire Review. Nick Casalanguida stated he met with the three Fire District Chiefs; the discussion was productive. They admitted not understanding the complexity of a Fire Review. He also met with Ed Riley, Fire Code Official. He gave a brief overview of the current review process: • The Fire Code Office reviews the building plans, • Plans are accepted or rejected and corrections are made as required, • Once the plans are approved, a permit is issued. • Problems can occur in the field when a District Fire Inspector decides that changes are necessary — Ed Riley may not know anything about the changes. Mr. Casalanguida explained the Field Fire Inspectors do not work for the Fire Code Office — they are employed by the Fire Districts. One solution is to place the Field Inspectors under the control of the Fire Code Office. Zil , �, A11 16 I • While the suggestion has the support of the three District Chiefs, it is not known if the Union will concur and support the proposed change. • The Field Fire Inspectors are firefighters with additional duties. The salaries can become an issue. Building Inspectors earn $55,000, while Field Fire Inspectors can earn between $80,000 to $100,000 per year. He continued, as each Field Inspector retires, Mr. Riley can hire non - firefighters to conduct inspections. Until that time, the Fire Code Office would absorb the Field Fire Inspectors who will report to Horseshoe Drive. As employees of the Fire Code Office, they will follow the same process as the Building Department Inspectors and if the Fire Districts pay their salaries, the Union may not object. • The Inter -local Agreement between Collier County Government and the Independent Fire Districts will be amended to achieve consistency by applying the same performance standards and customer service requirements. • Scheduled hours between the Building Department and the Fire Code Office will be included in the Inter -Local Agreement. Mr. Casalanguida noted the Fire District Chiefs and their Boards are independent — there is no accountability. If Mr. Riley worked along with the Fire Chiefs and a forum was scheduled every quarter with an open discussion about process, there would be accountability. There would be a learning curve during the first year of the new system. He stated on April 23rd a meeting will be scheduled with all interested parties at the Horseshoe Drive conference room and invited DSAC members to attend. He further stated he will request the Board of County Commissioners impose a deadline of 180 days to accomplish the negotiations. If a new Inter -Local Agreement has not been agreed to by the end of the period, with input from DSAC and the CBIA ( "Collier Building Industry Association "), it all "goes away." David Dunnavant asked if Immokalee and Big Cypress were included in the process. Mr. Casalanguida stated when the transition takes place, the Fire Code Office may open a satellite office for inspectors. Questions were directed to Jamie French concerning an issue with the Chamber of Commerce and complaints made about the Building Department's review times. He stated there are no negotiables with Staff. Staff is also aware that if a plan meets the minimum Building Code criteria, it should not be failed. Nick Casalanguida stated as changes or improvements are requested by clients, there must be an orderly process and a mechanism developed to prioritize recommendations. Chairman Varian stated it was suggested to the Chamber to funnel any issues or complaints directly to DSAC for discussion and vetting. Jamie French noted if permits are too difficult to obtain, new business will not come 161 A24, 2012A 11 to Collier County. He stated the Business Center is available for a "pre" pre -apps meeting to provide a cursory review of a project for a new client in order to determine the best way to work out specific points of a plan in advance of submittal. There is no cost to the client, and a meeting can be requested through PORTAL after plans have been submitted to ask questions of the Reviewer concerning his /her comments. Mario Valle suggested contacting Commercial Realtors through NABOR ( "Naples Area Board of Realtors ") as a good source of information for pinpointing issues. New Topic — Record Room Chairman Varian asked if plans can be scanned to a disk or emailed in lieu of coping. Jamie French stated a disk can be ordered (cost: $5.00) but the turnaround will not be as quick (possibly 24 hours) as requesting a copy. New Topic — Project Rejections Chairman Varian noted there have been issues with NOA ( "Notice of Acceptance ") not matching the design pressures entered on the plans by the design professionals. He recently met with Tatiana Gust to discuss the problem. Tatiana cited an example of 200 plans from one builder that were rejected due to: (1) expired NOAs, and (2) others did not meet the wind pressures. He recommended if the NOA was the only item being rejected, to place a note on the residential Permit card to alert the Inspector to check with the builder. Another suggestion was to remind design professions to check the NOAs against the County's pressures. Tatiana Gust stated one problem is trying to educate the technical applicant about what is required by the County and why. Classes are offered and educational models are being designed to help alleviate the situation. VI. OLD BUSINESS: (None) VII. NEW BUSINESS: A. Collier County's Corridor Preservation Ordinance Draft — Reed Jarvi (Copies of Reed Jarvi 's PowerPoint presentation were distributed to the Committee.) Corridor Management Plans have been successfully created in Broward, Palm Beach, and Pasco Counties. Collier County's proposed plan has not been compared to other plans. Purpose: Provide advance notice of future plans, meet long -range needs, promote orderly growth, and eliminate building on Protected Corridor land 161 i14, 20A � 1 • "Protected" corridors — design plans are at 60% or greater and could be funded for Right -of -Way acquisition/construction • "Planned" corridor — future possibility — location is not specifically known • Provide owners /builders with a mechanism to work with the County to avoid conflicts between Transportation Corridors and development sites George Hermanson asked if credits were available toward future developments. Reed Jarvi stated the Impact Fee Ordinance has provisions for credits for land that has been dedicated to the County. He will research the issue and report to DSAC. Clay Brooker noted the purpose of the Ordinance was to save the County spending money to purchase ( "take" private land for public use under Eminent Domain) properties that were built in the corridor's path. The County could also be required to pay "severance damages," i.e., damages that occurred to the remainder of the property as a result of the taking. He stated several corridor management plans have not been successful and suggested the County Attorney's Office research the plans that were overturned by the Courts and the reasons why the plans were rejected. Other concerns: "Bert Harris" Law o In 1995, the State of Florida enacted the "Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Protection Act" that created a new cause of action for aggrieved property owners. If property owners can demonstrate that a governmental action "inordinately burdened" their property, they could be entitled to some form of compensation. • Is density of the entire parcel transferred to the remaining portion of the property which is outside the Protected Corridor? There can be dimensional issues. • Set -backs will be measured from the Protected Corridor's new boundary which, in turn, pushes the vertical construction further back. Mr. Brooker cautioned the issue should be carefully vetted to achieve a balance between the needs of the County and the rights of individual property owners. Reed Jarvi referred to Page 6 of the proposed Ordinance at #6: "If no funding is available, the County shall not require the preservation of the land needed for the Transportation Corridor, but shall work with the property owner /developer to encourage site planning and utilization that preserves and limits encroachment into the future Right -of -Way to the greatest extent possible. " Clay Brooker cited Page 5, under "A. Development within Protected Corridors:" "2. On both residential and commercial property, the set -backs for new construction shall be measured from the future ROW line 161 2 All April 4, 2012 shown on the 60% or greater design plan of the Protected Corridor. 3. Development shall follow current Land Development Codes and site specific resolutions and ordinance to determine permitted, interim uses and/or improvements allowed within the anticipated future ROW. " Dalas Disney stated his concern that the "Protected Corridor" places property into a type of limbo where it can't be developed and can't be sold. During the period of time from identification to actual development of the Corridor, the land is useless — it becomes "burdened" without compensation of the land's true value. David Dunnavant noted in 2010 — 2011, the Legislature placed a heavier evidentiary burden on the taking authority than the land owner and some of the corridor plans that had previously been upheld might not survive a challenge under the new requirements. Laura DeJohn asked if the transportation corridor plan had been incorporated into the Master Mobility Plan. She stated if the Mobility Plan is headed in a different direction and the County is trying to evaluate the best growth model for future transportation mobility for the County, the dictum to "to not perpetuate sprawl" appears to be contradicted. Reed Jarvi stated the Master Mobility Plan is specific to new development but also review connectivity between two -lane roads and subdivisions. Long range plans are developed using modeling, data obtained from the Census Bureau, and review of the ability of existing roads to handle anticipated increase in traffic. He stated he will research the questions /issues discussed. Presentations will be made in May to the Planning Commission and to the Board of County Commissioners in June. B. Update — LDC Amendments: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Caroline Cilek noted the LDR ( "Land Development Regulations ") Subcommittee met on March 19th and reviewed several new Amendments. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012 — CYCLE 1 1. Section 10.01.02 — Development Orders Required — Early Construction Authorization ( "ECA") Author: Jamie French The LDR Subcommittee recommended: • forwarding Amendment to the County Attorney's Office for review (language), and • presenting it to DSAC for review. Jamie French stated the purpose is to provide the ability to move forward with "Florida Specialties " - types of projects (also discussed during the March 7th DSAC 9 2 All 161 'K P ri14 2012 meeting), i.e., to pull permits and start construction more quickly to attract new manufacturing client to Collier County or assist an existing business to expand its facilities to meet the demand of a specific contract. He continued the intent was not to by -pass any other provisions of the Building Code but to allow an alternative approach. All conditions of the Code must be met and either a performance -based bond or cash bond may be required as surety. If the project were abandoned by the developer, the County would restore the property to the original condition if necessary. Caroline Cilek explained there were limitations to early construction, i.e., the sites be cleared and comply with environmental issues. She referred to Page 4 of the Amendment, stating the criteria was outlined in Paragraph "C." • The "red" language denoted changes made by the County Attorney's Office which will be presented to the Planning Commission and the BCC. George Hermanson objected to the requirement for a bond as unnecessary. Caroline Cilek replied the bond was required because the SDP had not been approved and it was considered as a "good faith" effort. Dalas Disney agreed with Mr. Hermanson, stating the risk was on the developer — adequate protections were in place and it was an unnecessary, additional expense for the developer. Jamie French stated the BCC directed the County to develop an alternative approach and not place an additional burden upon the tax payer. He stated after the SDP has been approved, the bond will be released. He cited examples of failed projects. Suggested Revisions: • Page 4 • Line 70 — Change the term "zoning approval" to "SDP approval" (Zoning approval should already be in place.) • Line 73 — Add language following the last sentence to clarify a bond or surety will be released after the SDP has been approved o Line 87 — Add the word "application" following the word "permit" o Line 88 — Change "though" to "through" Dalas Disney moved to approve the revised Amendment as discussed. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 10 — 0. (Blair Foley was absent from the conference room.) David Dunnavant asked if the County Attorney's Office made other changes to the Amendment. Caroline Cilek noted the process related to timing was removed since it was a procedural issue, i.e., requirement that an initial review was to be completed within 15 days. 10 iA 11 161 �pri14, 2012 2. Section 10.02.13 — Planned Unit Development ( "PUD ") Procedures Author: Nick Casalanguida Purpose: To add a minor change provision authorizing the County Manager or designee to make a text change to remove the requirement of an affordable housing contribution from a PUD, Development Agreement, or Settlement Agreement. The procedure would be an administrative approval process. Public notice to abutting property owners will be required. If a notified property owner submits a letter of objection, the text change will be reviewed during a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. (The BCC was notified in December via an Executive Summary.) (Note: The change will be included in the new Administrative Code.) Clay Brooker explained to amend a PUD currently, a full public hearing before the Planning Commission is required for a "substantial" change. The process has been shortened for an "insubstantial" change. The proposed Amendment allows a request to remove the requirement for an affordable housing contribution from a PUD to be categorized as an "insubstantial" change. He stated the Amendment had not been reviewed by the LDR Subcommittee during its March 19th meeting. The proposed Amendment will be presented to the Planning Commission in May. Clay Brooker moved to approve the Amendment as presented. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 10 — 0. (Blair Foley was absent from the conference room.) Caroline Cilek noted the following Amendments had been reviewed and approved by the LDR Subcommittee: • Section 4.02.14 — Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC- ST Districts and Section 9.094.02 — Types of Variances Authorized • Section 4.02.01 — A/C Encroachment • Section 4.06.02 — Buffer Requirements • Section 5.05.02 D — Group Housing FAR change • Section 1.08.02 — Definitions ( "Usable Open Space ") • Section 2.01.02 — Essential Services (adds an "Aviation" component to the permitted uses — clarifies that the Marco Island airport can exist) Clay Brooker confirmed the Subcommittee voted unanimously to approve the seven Amendments. Ms. Cilek noted Staff made changes to Section 1.08.02 concerning usable open space specifically to Page 3, Line 17, and cited the change: "areas, which are accessible to and usable by residents of an individual lot, the development, or the general public." 11 A11 16l ri14 2012 P, George Hermanson moved to approve the Amendment s as submitted. Second by Mario Valle. Discussion: David Dunnavant stated he did not have an opportunity to review the text. Dalas Disney stated DSAC's approval was based on the Subcommittee's recommendation. Clay Brooker concurred, stating the motion is to approve the Amendments that the LDR Subcommittee had reviewed and unanimously approved. Marco Espinar asked about the list of protected wetland plants referenced in Section 4.02.14 at Page 4, Line 39 that was amended by the EAC. Steven Lenberger noted the regulation states, "No mangrove trees or salt marsh grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise altered. The plants specifically protected by this regulation include all wetland plants listed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in the Florida Administrative Code. " The protected plants are: • Red mangrove — Rhizophora mangle • Black mangrove — Avicennia nitida • White mangrove — Laguncularia racemosa • Needlerush — Juncus roemerianus • Salt cord grasses — Spartina alterniflora, S. patens, S. cynosurdes, S. spartinae • Seashore saltgrass — Distichlis spicata • Buttonwood — Conocarpus erectus (added by the EAC) • Costal fringe rush — Fimbristylis caroliniana (added by the EAC) Mr. Lenberger noted Chapter 17 -301 of the Florida Administrative Code no longer exists. Marco Espinar recommended adding the language to the Amendment. George Hermanson amended his motion to include all wetland plants noted on the Big Cypress list plus the two varieties added by the EAC. Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. (Chairman Varian left at 5:15 PM. Vice Chairman Dunnavant presided over the meeting.) 3. Section 5.05.08 — Architectural and Site Design Standards Caroline Cilek stated Staff met with several members of the CBIA ( "Collier Building Industry Association ") concerning changes made to the Amendment which has been originally initiated by the CBIA. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner — Comprehensive Planning, stated she had been requested to review the architectural standards. She found two issues that did not work in the Code: 12 161 2 PUDs are required to go through the hearing process. • Architectural standards were previously amended to require that any requested exceptions to the Code should go through the hearing process. • She stated a PUD should be allowed to go through an administrative process to request a deviation from the architectural standards. The other portion referred to buildings in a shopping center which are required to meet primary fagade requirements. The proposed amendment was designed to make the fagade requirements for secondary facades ( "back" of the building) more functional and less burdensome for developers and architects. Caroline Cilek stated the changes were made because Staff could not recommend the CBIA - sponsored Amendment. Clay Brooker asked if the three updates were Amendments that DSAC or the LDR Subcommittee had previously reviewed and approved. Caroline Cilek explained she was presenting the updates for informational purposes only and a vote (motion to approve) was not necessary. Dalas Disney asked why the revisions reviewed and recommended by DSAC were removed by Staff and only the new Amendment would go forward. Ms. Cilek responded Amendments that were not supported by Staff could not go forward. Vice Chairman Dunnavant noted to sponsor a "private" request, the CBIA would be required to pay $3,000 but there was no cost if Staff sponsored an Amendment. In response to a statement by Staff, he asked what was the intent of architectural standards -- if not to make buildings more attractive? (Clay Brooker and Mario Valle left at 5:30 PM.) Carolina Valera stated buildings that are part of a shopping center or a PUD are currently not allowed to request deviations from the standards in the Code and every single facade must meet primary facade requirements. She proposed to reduce the number of primary facades from four to three. One fagade would be exempt from meeting primary fagade requirements if it did not face an arterial collector or an exterior road. This would enable developers to design a usable service area for the back of the building. Members asked what language has been proposed by CBIA and deleted by Staff. Caroline Valera noted the standards proposed were those of CBIA. An extended discussion ensued. Members were concerned that Staff arbitrarily changed amendments which had previously been reviewed and approved without prior notice or explanation. Dalas Disney asked if a DSAC member could propose the Amendment in its original form. He noted County Manager Ochs specifically requested assistance 13 161 2 from CBIA to review the Amendment and propose changes. CBIA held a number of meetings to obtain input from Industry. Vice Chairman Dunnavant asked if there was written documentation explaining why Staff could not support the CBIA- sponsored Amendment. Caroline Cilek stated she had been given direction to bring forward only those Amendments that Staff could support. CBIA provided input and Staff made changes. She further stated CBIA was advised last week that its recommendations were not support by Staff. Dalas Disney asked if Staff's reasons could be shared with the DSAC members. Vice Chairman Dunnavant stated County Manager Ochs requested that CBIA submit recommendations, from the Industry's perspective, to make the Code more user - friendly for permitting and development. Blair Foley agreed with Dalas Disney. He noted there were a number of re- development issues, including parking and water management, items that DSAC had been working on for six or seven years. He stated, "We finally had support from the County Manager — there was a list of about 20 or 30 different items that were being considered for modification in the Land Development Code to help where we are right now in this economy — but now it's in the gutter." He noted the Amendment had been discussed last month and the items were reduced to three (including a drive -thru sign) — this was all part of the effort put forth by the County Manager and CBIA. George Hermanson asked if it would be possible to place the Amendment back into the Cycle. Blair Foley clarified the Code was originally designed for the development of raw land but Industry had specific components concerning the re- development of blighted properties within the County and was attempting to obtain some relief from the overall standards. Everything is gone. He asked if it would be possible for CBIA to obtain a waiver of the fee. Laura DeJohn asked if due process required DSAC to "weigh in" on the Amendments. She asked if the package going forward would contain back -up materials indicating where and how the Amendment started, the original author, and the chronology of revisions before Staff terminated the process. Caroline Cilek stated she could revise the Header (Page 1) of the Amendment to identify what had been approved by DSAC. Laura DeJohn noted it had been a unique situation — it was a major movement of people from Industry volunteering their time at the request of the County Manager to work on ideas. Vice Chairman Dunnavant stated DSAC and the CBIA spend time -- the ideas and suggestion revisions have been summarily dismissed. "The question is whether it's going to the Planning Commission with some explanation of what had been requested and why it was changed." He stated members requested a copy of the reasons. 14 1b12 All April 4, 2012 Carolina Valera stated when the Amendment was revised approximately two years ago every standard was discussed, analyzed and debated by the Committee which consisted of architects, engineers, and planners before going through the Land Development process. There was input throughout the hearing process. She stated when she met with the CBIA and asked for specifics concerning their suggested changes, they were not able to justify what was the basis for any of their amendments. Vice Chairman Dunnavant noted CBIA was asked to participate because the LDC provisions have increased costs to develop, and have had a negative impact on Industry. She stated when Staff is requested to prepare an Amendment to the Land Development Code, Staff must be able to justify why the proposal was made — why the change was made, i.e., did it create a hardship or additional cost. She noted the CBIA- sponsored amendments did not identify a specific author. It was difficult for Staff to shepherd an amendment that was not fully justified. Q. Does "Staff' refer to the County Attorney's Office or internal staff on Horseshoe Drive? A. I am referring to Collier County government. It was noted in the past there were other Amendments that Staff did not support, and while the cover or heading may have specified that Staff did not recommend the Amendment, it still went forward. If an Amendment has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, suggested by CBIA, and approved by DSAC, even if Staff may disagree on points, it is Staff s responsibility to move it forward. Staff should not have the ability to single - handedly stop an Amendment from moving forward. Carolina Valera stated if the Board of County Commissioners directed Staff to strike through every portion of a specific Amendment, it would be done. She further stated she was requested by management to bring something that would help the development community go through the review press for architectural standards. She noted there were two issues that caused problems during compliance reviews, and explained "her hands were tied because the Code doesn't allow me to offer anything else." Issue #1: Primary facades within a PUD Issue #2: To allow buildings that are part of a PUD to request deviations from architectural standards. Dalas Disney stated he sat on a Committee for 22 months along with Carolina and her predecessor to review the Code — none of the architects in the group agreed with every suggestion — but time and time, the suggestions from the prior meeting were not included because "someone" didn't like them. The Code is supposed to be the best we can get — but it is not all good. "If you are saying the County Manager told you to ignore the Amendment because CBIA would not pay to sponsor it — that is one thing. I would like to understand who is saying the Amendments are not good." 15 161 2 Ail I April 4, 2012 (Marco Espinar left at 5:45 PM.) Ms. Valera stated "we were requested to ask the CBIA to justify the Amendment. If we found the justification was solid, it could go forward." Vice Chairman Dunnavant acknowledged that Caroline Cilek and Carolina Valera met with CBIA representatives but someone else in the County said the Amendments were to be "justified." He explained the answer was that every one of the Amendments proposed by the CBIA were based on cost reduction — the whole exercise was to reduce the cost to develop in this community. "To cavalierly state that you didn't receive a reason is absurd. The reason for every proposed CBIA amendment was to reduce the cost impacts to develop in this community related to this particular section in the Code." Caroline Cilek noted a part of the County Manager's request was not to change the community's character. Dalas Disney asked how the community's character would be impacted by whether or not Spandrel glass was used in construction. From an appearance standpoint, he stated it is difficult to determine if glass is Spandrel in most instances. It would be good to have a revision concerning its use. Carolina Valera stated she drafted a proposed Amendment at the "eleventh hour" that she thought would make a difference. She noted she was not included in the discussions with the CBIA or DSAC. She brought forward "something" as requested. Dalas Disney agreed her proposals were excellent but he objected to the dismissal of everything else contained in the Amendment. Vice Chairman Dunnavant stated CBIA brought their comments to DSAC for review. DSAC suggested revisions — every Amendment was brought with the intent to try to improve the application of the Code to design standards. Laura DeJohn asked if a motion should be made to include attaching supporting documentation to the CBIA's proposed Amendments that were dismissed and overhauled by Staff It was noted request had been made to Staff to not include such documentation. Vice Chairman Dunnavant stated there were pieces in the proposed Amendment that should not have been objectionable to Staff and to state that none of it would be brought forward because the proposed Amendment was not part of a previous process was difficult to understand. (George Hermanson left at 5:55 PM.) Caroline Cilek reiterated Staff worked closely with the CBIA throughout the process. 16 1612 All April 4, 2012 She stated she could add the previous language to the document and would present a new draft at the DSAC meeting in May. Ms. Cilek concurred "tweaks" will happen through the entire process whether initiated by the EAC, Staff, or the CCPC. She noted some Amendments had been completely changed by the time of presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS: (None) NEXT MEETING DATES: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless otherwise notified) • May 2, 2012 • June 6, 2012 • July 11, 2012 • August 1, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice Chair at 6:00 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Davi unnavant, Vice The Minutes were ap ed by the Board /Committee Chair on 2 , 2012 "as submitted" [_ V1 R as amended" 17 i 161 492 January 20, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD EMERGENCY MEETING January 20, 2012 Naples, Florida APR 1 6 202 2 LET IT BE REMEMBERIJD that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5 :00 PM in EMERGENCY MEETING SESSION, at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 12 Goodlette Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiller Henning ` Gayle C-uletta -'rte ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: James Talano, MD Vice Chair: Chief Robert Metzger Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher Rosemary LeBailly, RN Todd Bethel, MD (Ex- Officio) Misc. comes: Date: 'l i 2`—I 1 12 Item # :kt,_Q ":.2W`2 Copies to: Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director Walter Kopka, Intexim Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Wayne ,Watson, Duty Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Jorge Aguilera, Deputy Chief, Medical Services /Community Relations Orly Stolts, Chief, North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District James Cunningham, Deputy Chief, N. Naples Fire Control & Rescue District 612 1 2 January 20, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Robert Metzger called the meeting to order at 5:05 PM. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. A quorum was established. Three members were present. (Note: Todd Bethel, AT D., attended in an "ex- officio" capacity since he had not yet been appointed by the Board of County Commissioners.) 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES: A. Approval of Agenda Chan es: • The topic, "Tablets," was added to the Agenda as Item (B) under 113. Old Business." Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Rosemary LeBailly, RN. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. (Chairman .Tames Talano, MD, arrived at 5:07 PIV) B. Approval of Minutes: November 18, 2011 Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. 3. OLD BUSINESS: A. Medication /Protocol Changes — Walter Kopka, EMS Interim Chief (A copy of a letter from Dr. Robert Tober, CC Medical Director, to J. Christopher Lombardo, Chairman — North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District dated 12!15/2011 was included in the information packet provided to the Board members) Interim Chief Kopka: • Dr. Tober granted permission to all fire district paramedics to use medications (except narcotics) Reauirements: , • Accountability (Q /A Process) o kiage Trend is a software utilized by the County, North Naples, the City of Naples, and the City of Marco Island to ensure the Office of the Medical Director ( "OMD ") has access to patient care reports • Monthly Reporting o Reports of procedures and administered medications will be sent to the OMD for review • Transport Vehicle Response Time o Recognized: A transport unit may arrive on scene at a different time than an ALS First Responder which may arrive first 2 tl r 612 1 2 January 20, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Robert Metzger called the meeting to order at 5:05 PM. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. A quorum was established. Three members were present. (Note: Todd Bethel, AT D., attended in an "ex- officio" capacity since he had not yet been appointed by the Board of County Commissioners.) 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES: A. Approval of Agenda Chan es: • The topic, "Tablets," was added to the Agenda as Item (B) under 113. Old Business." Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Rosemary LeBailly, RN. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. (Chairman .Tames Talano, MD, arrived at 5:07 PIV) B. Approval of Minutes: November 18, 2011 Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. 3. OLD BUSINESS: A. Medication /Protocol Changes — Walter Kopka, EMS Interim Chief (A copy of a letter from Dr. Robert Tober, CC Medical Director, to J. Christopher Lombardo, Chairman — North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District dated 12!15/2011 was included in the information packet provided to the Board members) Interim Chief Kopka: • Dr. Tober granted permission to all fire district paramedics to use medications (except narcotics) Reauirements: , • Accountability (Q /A Process) o kiage Trend is a software utilized by the County, North Naples, the City of Naples, and the City of Marco Island to ensure the Office of the Medical Director ( "OMD ") has access to patient care reports • Monthly Reporting o Reports of procedures and administered medications will be sent to the OMD for review • Transport Vehicle Response Time o Recognized: A transport unit may arrive on scene at a different time than an ALS First Responder which may arrive first 2 tl .4 1612 Al2 January 20, 2012 o Providing a full protocol of medication and procedures to the Districts and Cities allows ALS to be administered prior to the arrival of a transport unit Chairman Talano asked if response times for First Responders or the transport units would be reviewed. Dr. Robert Tober replied "both." The correlation between arrival of a BLS unit and patient survival rates will be examined. Chairman Talano asked if comparison data was available. Interim Chief Kopka stated EMS response times have been tracked for years. Chairman Talano asked what was the data being compared to, and if a standard had been established. Dr. Tober replied there are national standards for BLS to arrive within 4- minutes travel time — and that ALS arrive within 8 minutes travel time — with one minute turnaround time. Interim Chief Kopka noted the standard was 90% of the time. Dr. Tober stated there was not as much data from the Fire Districts as from EMS. Chairman Talano stated it was important information to have available. Interim Chief Kopka continued: Medication/supplies o Will be purchased and distributed by the Cities and Fire Districts Call -in o City and Fire District paramedics were required to consult the receiving facility's ER physician(s) before administering medication or performing a procedure outside of their standard protocol. • Evaluations o Six -month timeframe Discussion: • Dr. Todd Bethel commented: • There was some validity to the concern that more risk accompanied having more "toys in the tool box." • He cited his experience teaching BLS, stating the paramedics kept up with basic skills and compressions. Adding more things to the arsenal could become more of a distraction. • The goal was to place the patient on a rig and bring him/her to the hospital as quickly as possible, rather than playing around with different meds while in the field. • In certain cases, administering meds may be lifesaving. • The data should be monitored. • Dr. Tober: • Previously, Collier County EMS paramedics administered the majority of drugs • The program was expanded to include District Fire paramedics — to equal what is available to transport medics, minus controlled substances 3 d . Al2, January 20, 2012 o Information will be obtained from the Drug Enforcement Administration ( "DEA ") concerning what type of control EMS is to assert over controlled substances Dr. Tober noted there are new, severe rules for Medical Directors. He stated a consultant will conduct a seminar to explain the most agreed -upon methods of controlling drugs. He continued the new rules require better security regarding drug storage and access, and some "wasted" drugs will be sent to a lab for testing. B. Tablets (added topic, per Ainended Agenda) Interim Chief Kopka: • Background: At a previous meeting, Chairman Talano asked if the use of tablets had improved response times. • Response times for November and December, 2010 were compared with response times from the same period in 2011; o Result; Almost all zones showed improved times (2 did not) • There were two 12 -hour ambulances in 2011 • Will have an "apples to apples" comparison using January's data at the next Board meeting 4. NEW BUSINESS: A. House Bill #739 — Automated External Defibrillators( "AED ") Interim Chief Kopka: • Topic has been discussed in previous meetings • Challenge for Sheriff's Office: notifying a caller of the location of a AED — concern was potential violation of patient's medical privacy (Public Records law) • Bill 739 was introduced into Florida House of Representatives — would permit a 911Dispatch Center to contact the owner of a defibrillator during a coronary emergency • Has been attached to another Bill — moving along in both the House and Senate Chairman Talano reiterated that, currently, information concerning the location of the nearest AED cannot be released under any circumstances. Dr. Tober confirmed the concern was related to patient privacy and confidentiality of medical information. The Attorney for the Sheriff's Office advised releasing the information could violate State laws. Interim Chief Kopka thanked North Naples for appearing in Tallahassee during the most recent Legislative session to help push the bill. B. North Naples COPCN Renewal Application — Review/Recommendation to BCC Vice Chairman Metzger: Stated he read every page -- the document appeared to be substantively complete 1612 Al2 January 20, 2012 Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve the docrrment and recommend renewal of North Naples COPCNApplication to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher. Discussion: Battalion Chief Butcher asked if there were any statistics regarding the impact of the COPCN on the community. Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera stated when North Naples initially applied for a COPCN, there were very specific requirements that the Board of County Commissioners mandated were to be met, i.e., response times and providing appropriate care within the confines of the protocol developed by the Office of the Medical Director. The requirements have been met. Chief Butcher asked if there have been instances where the COPCN has been a benefit, i.e., the ability to administer drugs. Chief Orly Stolts noted North Naples was not able to administer drugs until after the COPCN had been approved. Dr. Toher responded the same drugs were available under the ALS Agreement. Deputy Chief Aguilera reiterated the drugs were carried on only one truck. Battalion Chief Butcher asked if having drugs on additional trucks has made a difference. Deputy Chief James Cunningham provided the following statistics: • Total Medication Administration 0 2010-177 0 2011-343 0 2012-28 • BLS Procedures 0 2010-1809 0 2011-1987 o A drastic increase was noted in call volume toward the end of the year. ALS Procedures o 2010-278 o 2011-776 o 2012-32 Assisted EMS to Hospital o 2011-279 o Number of Personnel — 310 o A commitment was made to the BCC that if ALS was administered prior to the arrival of EMS on scene, North Naples personnel would accompany the patient to the receiving facility to ensure continuity of care — especially for cardiac or seriously ill patients. Deputy Chief Cunningham noted the figures were updated on January 16, 2012. He also stated until last month, North Naples could not provide ALS beyond its boundaries even though its engines responded to calls in East Naples and Golden Gate. Vice Chairman Metzger asked if data was available that addressed patient outcome. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated data was not tracked beyond instances of cardiac arrest. 161 2 Al2 January 20, 2012 Interim Chief Kopka stated trauma alerts are tracked and survival rates were up in all Districts. Deputy Chief Wayne Watson confirmed there was no information from Immokalee but they went up in North Naples and in Golden Gate. Interim Chief Kopka stated lie requested the statistics to be fine -tuned — track if AED was used by the public or the Sheriff's Office — who was first on scene. He stated there have been several changes in the cardiac arrest protocol — CPR has changed. It is difficult to know which one of the changes contributed to the increase in survival rates. Deputy Chief Watson replied: • City of Naples — 29% survived to discharge (all rhythms) • East Naples --12% • North Naples —12% Interim Chief Kopka stated it was hoped that linking the computer systems to the receiving facility versus the necessity to make a phone call in every instance — the paramedic's impressions — admitting diagnosis — hospital discharge — to link the three electronically for tracking purposes. Chief Stoltz cited an example of a call made to "911" due to an allergic reaction to a bee sting — the patient did not have an "Epi pen" — North Naples arrived on scene first and dispensed Epinephrine. The patient was very grateful the correct medication was available for him. Interim Chief Kopka will research if more detailed data is available from Medicare in addition to any data from hospitals. Dr. Tober stated there was no automatic way to obtain the information — he has hand - pulled cardiac arrest outcomes from the charts. Interim Chief Kopka stated there may be away set up a link. Deputy Chief Cunningham stated the working relationship and interaction in the field was very good. The program is working. He asked EMS for recommendations for the field personnel concerning ALS practices. Interim Chief Kopka noted morale from North Naples was good. Dr. Tober stated he has received both positive and negative comments but did not have any specifics. Deputy Chief Aguilera asked about the possibility of instituting a joint Quality Assurance program. Dr. Tober stated until recently he had received very little information from North Naples and did not know North Naples would be receptive to a joint bi- lateral Q/A program. Deputy Chief Cunningham replied North Naples will share its data with anyone — also sharing protocols -- the goal is to be transparent. Every month reports are sent to EMS. Deputy Chief Aguilera confirmed emails have been sent to Dr. Tober and Collier County EMS since March, 2011. Deputy Chief Watson asked for specific questions — data to be tracked in addition to survival rates and other activity reports — to direct training to any perceived shortcomings Deputy Chief Aguilera stated questions about whether or not the program is effective should have been answered. We are working together and looking at the entire call — not just the mechanics of whether an IV was started. Whether the Level of Service provided 6 16I2 .12 January 20, 201 to patients is meaningful is a comprehensive Q/A question. He further stated, "We all should be sitting at the table and looking at the data from first engagement to diagnosis to discharge." Deputy Chief Watson replied the system success rate for RSI, for example, goes up each year — or it if remains consistent within a high percentage of the national standard, shows the standards are being maintained. It gives a general comparison of whether skills have improved through the training offered — outcomes are variable based on the criteria. His point: there should be agreement regarding the type of information being reported. Deputy Chief Aguilera concurred, stating a coordinated, joint effort should be part of the EMS system. Vice Chairman Metzger agreed stating it was a journey in the right direction. He asked if anything had been heard or seen to compel the Advisory Board to deny the application. Vice Chairman Metzger restated his previous Motion: To recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to approve the North Naples application for renewal of the COPCN. Second by Battalion Chief Butcher. Chairman Talano called for a vote on the Motion. The motion was carried. (6: 00 PM- Vice Chairman Metzger left.) 5. STAFF REPORTS: • Interim Chief Kopka cited a newspaper editorial which mentioned EMS overtime. He stated the overtime is factored into the paramedic's salary ($52,000) and voluntary overtime is less than 1/3 of the budget and is federally- mandated overtime. • The editorial suggested placing all paramedics on a 40 -hour work week. • Result.- Would be required to hire approximately 144 new paramedics • There is approximately $1M in the budget for discretionary over -time. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) 7. BOARD MEMBERS DISCUSSION: (None) 8. NEXT MEETING DATE: • Friday, March 23, 2012, at 3:30 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by order of the Chair at 6:05 PM. x 1612 .Al2 January 20, 2012 COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD /+A, a�""- . James Tala o, .D., hairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on t �j , 2012,/ "as submitted" [_] OR "as amended" [_j 8 ®I 1612 Al2 April 13, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD MEETING April 13, 2012.'; Y F y i i 11 Naples, Florida BY:: :................. LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION, at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 12 Goodlette Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiller �- Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta C ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: James Talano, MD Vice Chair: Chief Robert Metzger Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher Todd Bethel, MD Excused.• Rosemary LeBailly, RN Dr. Robert Tober, Medical Director — Collier County Walter Kopka, Interim Chief — Bureau of Emergency Services Wayne Watson, Deputy Chief — Bureau of Emergency Services Jorge Aguilera, Deputy Chief — Medical Services /Community Relations Dan Bowman, Deputy Chief — Bureau of Emergency Services Misc. Cdres Cunningham, Assistant Chief — North Naples Fire Control & Date: --1 \ -L-- 11 V2— Rescue District item #:\Le = t- %2. C;,pies to: a: 161 Z 112 Y April 13, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Robert Metzger called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. A quorum was established. Three members were present. (Note: The appointment of Dr. Todd Bethel to the EMS Policy Advisory Board was approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners.) 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES: A. Approval of Agenda Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. A second in support of the Motion was made by Todd Bethel, MD. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. B. Approval of Minutes — January 20, 2012 Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher moved to waive reading the Minutes aloud. A second in support of the Motion was made by Todd Bethel, MD. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. For Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. A second in support of the Motion was made by Todd Bethel, MD. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. 3. OLD BUSINESS: A. Response Times — Walter Kopka, EMS Interim Chief (A copy of the "Response Times Comparison Chart" was distributed to the Members.) • November, 2011 —Chairman Talano requested a comparison reflecting the operational changes that had been made: • Ambulance dispatch — using tablets for mapping • Tracking "kick -out" times and response times • Station assignments • EMD • Changes were also made to staffing levels — ambulances were added in November and December due to increased inter - hospital transports • Chart compared 3 -month period • Range: Jan/Feb/March, 2011 to Jan/Feb/March, 2012 • Same number of apparatus was available during each period • Compared the number of calls, the number under 8 minutes (goal), and the number under 12 minutes for the City of Naples and the various zones ■ "Key" — figure shaded in yellow indicates improvement (Chairman Talano arrived at 5: 05 PM and presided over the meeting.) • Assessment: • Improvements were noted in most zones, especially in March (each year) • Overall — no significant increases or decreases • Higher response times were noted for rural zones 2 1612 Al2 April 13, 2012 Chairman Talano requested an explanation of the results for East Naples, Quail Creek, and Bonita Shores. Chief Kopka responded: • East Naples (Zone #23) • Volume of calls decreased in January • Improved response times • In February, the call volume increased • Response times decreased slightly • Zone #23 is big — encompasses a large land mass • Considered to be an "urban" area but is mostly rural • Quail Creek (Zone 942) • Also a large zone — fairly busy • Also considered to be an "urban" area but is mostly rural ■ includes Immokalee Road from North Collier Hospital to east of Collier Boulevard • Bonita Shores (Zone #43) • Extends to the Lee County line • No other zones surround it • When the primary ambulance is on a call, the next ambulance is taken from a bordering zone to the south • Rural zones: (Response times are generally higher in the rural zones) • Big Corkscrew • Immokalee • Ave Maria • Everglades • Golden Gate Chairman Talano asked what could be done to improve response times, i.e., bring in neighboring units. Chief Kopka replied: • The long -term goal of the AUIR ( "Annual Update and Inventory Report ") is a tool used by the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission to estimate when additional assets or resources may be needed • If a pattern is ascertained for a particular zone, the cost to add more equipment or a fire station can be justified • It may take several years for a pattern to be tracked • In the short term, there are other resources such as single -car paramedic vehicles that can be moved as needed • Zone coverage can be adjusted to compensate for areas that are lacking Dr. Tober asked if there was a similar comparison for BLS response times. Chief Kopka stated he can retrieve the information. The report stems from EMS' asset inventory. 3 1612 A-42 April 13, 2012 Dr. Tober noted law enforcement comprises the largest "army" of potential BLS providers (4 to 1 ratio). He stated BLS response time determines survival -to- hospital /discharge — there is almost no ALS component. Chief Kopka will research the type of data that can be retrieved and will report to the Advisory Board at the next meeting. B. Data Reports — Deputy Chief Wayne Watson, EMS • Background: During the November, 2011 Advisory Board meeting, Deputy Chief Aguilera and Deputy Chief Watson discussed reviewing quality assurance data and the types of reports available in the system. • The information packet provided to the Members included Standard Operating Guidelines sample reports: • Quality Assurance Guideline • Protocol Change Submission Procedures • The Quality Assurance Guideline include the following topics: • Responsibility: All Pre - hospital Emergency Medical Responders • Purpose • Background • Reporting Process • Medication by Crew Member reports • Procedures by Crew Member reports • General Activity Summary Report • Procedure Competency Report • Deviations from Protocol are classified by "level" (Level 1 — 4) • Document is to be approved by Dr. Tober, Medical Director for Collier County EMS and Dr. Lee, Assistant Medical Director • The Protocol Change Submissions Procedure includes the following: • Responsibility: All Department Employees • Purpose • Background • Process • Prepare an Executive Summary • Prepare a Detailed Report including a bibliography of relevant literature used for medical research and a list of salient keywords • Submission • Document is to be approved by Dr. Tober, Medical Director for Collier County EMS and Walter Kopka, Interim Chief, EMS • Goal: Provide access to pertinent information and track trends • Meds Box: • Is a particular medication not being given — consider removing • Is a medication consistently requested that is not carried — consider adding • Crew: Is specific training needed in a particular area, i.e., "refresher" or full training course — determine competency for various procedures 4 1612 Al2 April 13, 2012 • Summary Report: (Excel spreadsheet) 0 20 employees were pulled from EMS ranks o General Activity — Meds and Procedures ■ Patient exposure — adequate or lacking — why? ■ Assistance with documentation — acquired skill • Provides a sample overview over a nine month period — not representative of entire system • "Season" is a factor — variations from season to season Dr. Tober noted when paramedics were rotated from busy to quiet stations they were not familiar with local "shortcuts" and the lack of knowledge impeded response times. • Rotations have been temporarily halted to determine the impact of geographic familiarity on response times. He further stated the paramedics working in Immokalee have more opportunities to perform a number of procedures, especially emergency obstetrical. • The data had not been available previously — still in the process of determining how to "mine" the data effectively. Data categories are automatically populated by computer. 4. NEW BUSINESS: A. Medical Directors Ride -a -Long — Dr. Tober • A new devise has replaced the drill system. The "Bone Injection Gun" allows an IV to be started in the bone. Instructional presentations are in process. B. Injured Athlete — Deputy Chief Watson (A copy of a draft, "Common Medical Protocol re: Injured Athletes, " was distributed to the Members.) • North Naples Fire District suggested a protocol should be devised addressing how to move and secure a patient wearing athletic equipment. • A County -wide standard had not been established previously. • North Naples provided data used to train Athletic trainers to standardize procedures for the various types of equipment. • Concepts were presented and are under review to develop a standard for each type of specialized injury • EMS met with Golden Gate Fire personnel to try different techniques and equipment • Will present results to Dr. Dara and draft will be finalized with Medical Directors prior to the start of football season • An "In- Service" presentation will be made in July o A video will be filmed for use by remove districts Deputy Chief Watson noted the St. John Neumann football team served as "patients" for the field test. The boys ranged in height from 5'10" to 6'5" and weighed between 150 to 285 pounds. 5 }. a 161 2 2 April 13, 2012 C. North Naples Fire Rescue EMS Council — Walter Kopka • There was some confusion about how the North Naples EMS Council related to the EMS Policy Advisory Board. • Battalion Chief Butcher and Interim Chief Kopka attend the North Naples EMS Council meetings and provide information requested. • Neither Battalion Chief Butcher nor Interim Chief Kopka are members of the North Naples EMS Council. D. ALS Engines: Status Report — Walter Kopka • A brief presentation was made to the Board of County Commissioners in early April • Commissioner Fiala requested the status of engine programs throughout the County • North Naples Fire Department has its own COPCN and delivers care under that Certificate • EMS has Memorandums of Understanding ( "MOU ") with the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island to deliver ALS under EMS' Certificates • There are Inter -Local Agreements concerning the two dependent fire departments under the County to deliver ALS care and engine apparatus utilization • In discussion with East Naples regarding training of their personnel as ALS, as well as with Big Corkscrew. • Big Corkscrew has requested an estimate of the costs for ALS training and equipment. The target date to begin the ALS training program is in the next Budget year. • The Fire Chief for Big Corkscrew is also the Chief for Immokalee. E. North Naples Fire District Concept — Walter Kopka (A copy of a Power Point presentation was distributed to the Members.) • The presentation will be made to the Board of County Commissioners' during the Workshop on April 261h (four topics will be presented) • Chief Aguilera noted there is no requirement to vote since it is not a proposal — merely a concept • A member of the Board requested the presentation • Medical units: o 23 — full time (24 hours) o 2 — 12 hour o 1 — contract o One helicopter 5. STAFF REPORTS: Interim Chief Walter Kopka • News Story on NBC -2 o NBC -2 News requested a report on Thursday as the "busiest" day of the week 0 1612 Al2 April 13, 2012 • There is less than a 5% difference between the volume of Thursdays and other weekdays • An significant difference was noted on weekends for Trauma Alert patients transported to Lee Memorial Hospital ER and their subsequent admission to the facility — 30 to 40% increase • Peak periods: 9:00 to 10:00 AM — remains steady until 4:00 to 5:00 PM • For overall calls, there is no significant difference • "Step Wise" • Coalition with North Naples Fire Department and Physicians Regional Hospital • A "Step Wise" Workshop will be held on April for the residents of the Carlisle • Elderly are more likely to be injured from a trip /fall than from passing out ■ Contributing cause: area rugs (not anchored) • 17% of calls from that community are due to falls • Other topics: medications and potential interactions; vision care; footwear • Also available: • Balance station • Blood pressure station • "Operation Medicine Cabinet" — disposal of old /unused prescription drugs • The Carlisle Physical Therapy Department will conduct home safety inspections before releasing a patient from treatment • Vice Chairman Metzger suggested developing a pilot program to take on the road. • Deputy Chief Aguilera noted the Lee County Coalition (which has a comprehensive membership) invited participation from all the Fire Departments to develop the "Southwest Florida Step Wise Program" ■ Vice Chairman Metzger suggested making a presentation to the Fire Chiefs at their next meeting 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) 7. BOARD MEMBERS DISCUSSION: (None) 8. NEXT MEETING DATE: • Friday, June 15, 2012, at 4:30 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by order of the Chair at 6:05 PM. 7 :F 1612 A.12 „{ S b 3 } April 13, 2012 COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD James Talano, M.D., Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee Chair on "as submitted" [_I OR "as amended" [_I 8 2012, AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ROOM, TIL E COUNTY GOVERNMENT C ENTER 3 99TAMIAMADMINISTRATION RAI AST, NAPLES, FLORIDA ORIDA I. Call to Order Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of March 7, 2012 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions None VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business A. Surface Water Management Business Plan Update — Jerry Kurtz B. LDC Amendments — Review by EAC C. Update members on projects IX. Council Member Comments X. Staff Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify Summer Ara ue Senior Environmental S ecialist no later than 5:00 .m. on March 30 2012 if ou cannot attend this meetin or if ou have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition 252-6290L General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 1612 A13 April 4 2012 BY: ...................... MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, April 4, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business Herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon Fiala ) VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman (Excused) Hiller Michael V. Sorrell Henning Coyle David Bishof Coletta Gina Downs Gary McNally (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist Jerry Kurtz, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Manager Fred Reischl, Sr. Planner Caroline Cilek, Sr. Planner Misc. Cones: pate: -, ��..� I ►2 Item #: \ LQ Z 2*A ►'b 1 Copies to: 1612 A13 April 4, 2012 I. Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:OOAM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Ms. Downs moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of the March 7, 2012 meeting minutes Ms. Downs moved to approve the minutes of the March 7, 2012 meeting subject to the following changes: • Page 3, paragraph 4, line 2 — from "...for impact to...." to "...for impacts to..." • Page 3, paragraph 6, line 5 — from "...available science that still exists today." to "...available science at that time." • Page 4, paragraph 5, line 1 — from "...create a disincentives...." To "...create disincentives... " • Page 4, paragraph 5, line 4 f- from "... large amounts of exotics..." to "...concentrations of exotics..." Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5-0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Mr. Sorrell reported he may be absent for the July meeting. VI. Land Use Petitions None VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business A. Surface Water Management Business Plan update — Jerry Kurtz Jerry Kurtz provided a Memorandum to the Environmental Advisory Council dated March 21, 2012 - Subject: "Surface Water Management Business Plan Project Prioritization " for information purposes. He provided an overview of the memo which outlines the status of capital projects to be completed on the basis of prioritization. The following meetings are scheduled for members of the public to provide input on the concept: April 17, 2012 — 5 - 7pm — Rookery Bay Environmental Center April 30, 2012 — 5 — 7pm — St. Johns, The Evangelist Catholic Church He requested the- Council to endorse the list as proposed by Staff. 2 1612 A13 April 4, 2012 Ms. Downs moved to endorse Staffs proposed prioritization list as presented. Second by Mr. McNally. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. Break: 9: 48am Reconvened 9:53am B. LDC Amendments — Review by EAC Caroline Cilek provided the document "LDCAmendment 2012 Cycle 1: Amendments for EAC Review and Recommendations — Wednesday, April 4, 2012 — EAC Meeting" for consideration. The following Amendments were brought forth for review. 3.08.02 Definitions, - Usable open space, 4.012.01 Dimensional Standards for Principle Uses in Base Zoning Districts, and 4.07.02 Design Standards for PUD usable open space. Caroline Cilek presented the proposed Amendment last revised March 20, 2012. She noted it was previously recommended for adoption by the EAC, however it has been further revised. LDC SECTION(S): 1.08.02 Definitions 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principle Uses in Base Zoning Districts 4.07.02 Design Standards for Planned Unit Developments CHANGE: To amend Section 1.08.02 to include "required yard" in the usable open space definition. Discussion occurred on Section 1.08.02 and the rationale for allowing areas in street rights of ways dedicated for public uses being defined as usable open. Ms. Downs moved to recommend striking the language of Section 1.08.02 — Definitions, line 19 "except where dedicated or donated for public uses." Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously S — 0. Mr. Sorrell moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment subject to the above recommendation. Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously S — 0. 4.02.14.1) and 9.04.02111— ACSC -ST (03912 — SL) Steve Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment last revised March 19, 2012. LDC SECTIONS: 4.02.14 Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC -ST Districts 9.04.02 Types of Variances Authorized 3 1612 A13. April 4, 2012 CHANGE: Clearly identify in 4.02.14, the requirements which apply to the Special Treatment (ST) Overlay District and those which only apply to the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Special Treatment (ACSC -ST) Overlay District. Speaker Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall and Associates expressed concern on Section 4.02.C.4 which includes "all wetland plants listed by the Florida DEP in the Florida Administrative Code." This would prevent any alterations to wetlands and defeat the purpose of the proposed Amendment. He recommended Section 28- 25.006(4) of the Florida Administrative Code be cited. In addition, Section 4.02.14.C.11.H of the proposed Amendment provide for exceptions for properties owned/operated, etc. by Collier County Parks and Recreation and/or the Florida Division of Recreation and Parks. Ms. Downs expressed concern the proposed amendment continues a trend of the County moving toward administrative approvals of applications, eliminating the requirement of public review in certain cases. If the County's purpose is to reduce time for processing applications and permit fees required of applicants, they should address this issue directly. Discussion occurred on the recommendation by Mr. Hall noting it is not the County's intent to eliminate all wetland alterations for the development applications in question. Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment subject to the striking of Section 4.02.14.C.II.H addressing "Exceptions for Public Hearing Requirements. " If the fees and the processing of these variances are a burden on Staff, the County should review the processes and address the concern. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Motion carried 4 `yes" — I "no." Chairman Hushon voted "no." Chairman Hushon indicated her no vote was predicated on the concept Section 4.02.14. C.II.Hshould remain, however be limited to properties 5 acres or less in size. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment subject to: 1. Section 4.02.14. C.II.H "Exceptions for Public Hearing Requirements" be applicable to home site parcels S acres in size or less. 2. Section 4.02.14.C.II.H.I.c to read "No pollutants will be discharged from the area that will further degrade the air, water or soil." 3. Section 4.02. C.4 read "No mangrove trees or salt marsh grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise altered. Plants specifically protected by this regulation include the plants listed in Section 28- 25.006(4) of the Florida Administrative Code and the following species: Shore grass — Monanthochloe littoralis, Buttonwood — Conocarpus erectus and Saltmarsh fringe rush - Fimbristylis spadicea Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously S — 0. Chairman Hushon stated the above action supersedes the previous action. 4 1612 A13 April 4, 2012 9.04.08 Administrative Adiustment — new process Caroline Cilek presented the proposed Amendment last revised March 8, 2012. LDC SECTION(S): 9.04.08 Administrative Adjustment CHANGE: The LDC provides several forms of relief and flexibility for dimensional, technical and land related hardships. Variances, defined in Section 9.04.03, provide relief for a non self- imposed land related hardships. Administrative variances, Section 9.04.04, are limited to "minor after - the -fact yard encroachments for structures, including principal and accessory structures." Both residential and non - residential structure encroachments may be approved. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) provide for the greatest flexibility and allow developers to define the standards within the development. The Code also offers alternatives for landscape plans, architectural and parking standards. These applications are processed administratively and can be applied for during a site plan submission. Speaker Jeremy Frantz, Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed concern the proposed Amendment does not provide criteria for the adjustments to the Preserve boundaries. Clarity should be provided if the proposal is for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) wide adjustment or individual lots. 6i} Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioneaa the proposed Amendment subject to the following that Section 9.04.08B.I.b apply lot by lot basis, not the entire Planned Unit Development. Second by Mr. McNally. Council discussion occurred on the ramifications of the motion and whether the Amendment should be applicable to an original site development plan for a Planned Unit Development (i.e. requiring an average preserve setback dimension or establishing dimension reduction criteria, etc. at the time the PUD is originally proposed). The motion was withdrawn. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment subject to the following: Section 9.04.08B.1.b to read "A reduction of a preserve setback, up to 25 percent, but no greater than S feet for a principal structure on a single family lot only; no reductions allowed for secondary structures. Adjustments greater than 12 inches shall be due to the irregular shape of a parcel, lot or preserve." Second by Mr. Bishof. Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney stated the proposed Amendment is intended to streamline a policy for cases involving minor adjustments for individual building permits, or minor incursions by a landowner into an existing preserve buffer. The motion was withdrawn. 1612 A13 April 4, 2012 Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment as proposed. Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously 5— 0.. 10 01 02 Development Orders Required Early Construction Authorization Caroline Cilek presented the proposed Amendment last revised March 28, 2012 LDC SECTION(S): 10.0 1.02 Development Orders Required CHANGE: To include an Early Construction Authorization (ECA) provision within the LDC. This would allow limited building construction to occur prior to an approved site development plan (SDP), site development plan amendment (SDPA) or site improvement plan (SIP) in certain situations and at the owner's risk. Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Amendment as presented. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5— 0. C. Update members on project Summer Araque reported: • The Collier County Planning Commission recommended the Board of County Commissioners deny the Lost Groves Mine application. • Sabal Bay was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. IX. Subcommittee Reports None X. Council Member Comments Chairman Hushon reported an Administrative Law Judge has upheld Lee County's March 2010 amendments to their Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource Area and that they complied with the state's Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act. Ms. Downs noted the recent application for Lost Grove Mines brought to light conflicts between some Collier County and Lee County land use regulations. She recommends the Council conduct a review of adjacent Counties Growth Management Plans and/or Land Development Codes so they are more aware of how the Counties are administering land use controls. The Council determined to conduct Growth Management Plan reviews of area Counties. Members were assigned the followingfor review: Chairman Hushon — Glades County /Hendry County Mr. Dickman — Miami - Dade /Broward County Ms. Downs —Lee County Mr. McNally — Sarasota County Mr. Bishof — Monroe County Cal 1612 A13 April 4, 2012 Mr. Sorrell reported he supports the concept, but currently has a time constraint due to his seasonal business. XI. Staff Comments Ms. Araque requested Council members to review their County emails on a weekly basis. XII. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 11:49 AM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman, Dr. Judith Hushon These Minutes were approved by the Board /Chairman on as presented , or as amended y' 11 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2012 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of April 4, 2012 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Marco Island Executive Airport Expansion Special Treatment Permit ST — PL- 2012 -0900 Section 26, Township 51, Range 26 VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business A. Surface Water Management Business Plan Update — Jerry Kurtz B. Land Development Code Amendments C. Update members on projects IX. Council Member Comments X. Staff Comments XI. Public Comments Xll. Adjournment * * * ** Note that the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) LDC GMP Subcommittee will meet immediately following the Regular EAC meeting * * ** Council Members: Please notify Summer Araque (252 -6290) or Stephen Lenberger (252- 2915) no later than 5.00 p.m. on Thursday April 26 2012 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition. General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 1612 May 2, 2012 A13 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, May 2, 2012 i 11k, 0 ''G''` BY. �'q ,., LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: Hei Coyic Coletta CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman Michael V. Sorrell David Bishof Gina Downs :e, s,.," ; :# Well ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Chris D'Arco, Environmental Specialist Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist Caroline Cilek, Sr. Planner Fred Reischl, Sr. Planner Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Robert Tweedie, Marco Island Executive Airport Manager Disc. Comes: Jerry Kurtz, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Manager t�e:�'�2` -'��2 Itemt Copies to: 1 161 May 2, 2012 I. Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:OOAM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Dickman moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 3 -0. 2 IPi 3 IV. Approval of the April 4, 2012 meeting minutes Chairman Hushon f moved to approve the minutes of the April 4, 2012 meeting subject to the following change: • Page 5, paragraph 5, line to from "...apply to a lot by lot..." to "...apply on a lot by lot..." Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously S - 0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Mr. Sorrell may be absent for the July meeting. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Marco Island Executive Airport Expansion Special Treatment Permit ST — PL- 2012 -0900 Section 26, Township 51, Range 26 All person testifying were sworn in Chris D'Arco, Environmental Specialist presented the application noting: • The item is a request by the Collier County Airport Authority for an "after the fact" approval of County permits for the construction of a taxiway and related facilities. • Staff was directed by the Board of County Commissioners to bring the - application forward upon a determination by the Clerk of Courts the area of construction facilities is not subject the proper zoning requirements. • The Authority has submitted the necessary County development applications and obtained the permits as required from the South Florida Water Management District and the US Army Corps of Engineers. • Staff recommends approval of the application with no stipulations for approval. Council discussion occurred noting the area in question is subject to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated September 11, 2001 between Collier County Airport Authority and several other parties. Concern was expressed some of the conditions of the MOU have not been met including compliance with the requirements outlined in #2 (development of an approved Vegetation Management Program and #5 (proper execution of a Conservation Easement for a portion of the property). 2 r 1612 Al May 2, 2012 Additionally, all parties participating in the agreement have not been notified of the request. This may restrict their ability to provide comments as necessary. Heidi Cicko, Assistant County Attorney noted the development area was previously approved by the parties and notification of a request for the related construction permits is not required. Speaker Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the Council noting she was not with the Conservancy at the time the MOU was executed, however understands the MOU was developed to preserve the most environmentally sensitive lands. A "recorded" copy of the Conservation Easement cannot be located and recommends the conditions of the MOU be satisfied and the project/application be allowed to move forward. Chris D'Arco reported the parties agree to fulfill the requirements of the MOU as a condition of approval. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Marco Island Executive Airport Expansion Special Treatment Permit — ST -PL- 2012 -0900 subject to the following conditions: 1. The Conservation Easement (required in #S of the September 11, 2011 MOU) and Vegetation Management Program (required in #2 of the September 11, 2011 MOU) be prepared within 3 months and adopted/approved within 6 months (of issuance of the permit). 2. Upon development of a draft "Vegetation Management Program," the necessary parties begin operating under the auspices of the proposed Program. 3. Said Conservation Easement to be "recorded." Second by Ms. Downs. Further discussion occurred on proposed conditions of approval. Ms. Downs withdrew her second of the motion. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Marco Island Executive Airport Expansion Special Treatment Permit — ST -PL- 2012 -0900 subject to the following conditions: 1. The Conservation Easement (required in #S of the September 11, 2011 MOU) and Vegetation Management Program (required in #2 of the September 11, 2011 MOU) be prepared within 3 months and adopted/approved within 6 months (of issuance of the permit). 2 Upon development of a draft "Vegetation Management Program," the necessary parties begin operating under the auspices of the proposed Program. 161 A1.3 May 2, 2012 3. Said Conservation Easement to be "recorded " 4. All signatories or their successors (The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, The National Audubon Society, The Florida Audubon Society, The Environmental Defense Fund, Izaak Walton League - Florida Division, The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, The South Florida Water Management District, The Florida Department of Community Affairs, The Deltona Corporation and Collier County) to be notified of the process (for developing the Vegetation Management Program) and given an opportunity to participate in an information /agreement meeting. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously S — 0. VII. New Business None Break: 10: loam Reconvened: 10: 20am VIII. Old Business A. Surface Water Management Business Plan Update — Jerry Kurtz The Council viewed the Slideshow "Collier County Regional Water Resource Priority Projects" dated April 27, 2012 which outlined the parameters of prioritized projects identified during development of the Watershed Management Plan. B. Land Development Code Amendments Caroline Cilek, Sr. Planner, presented the proposed Amendment. LDC SECTION(S): 2.01.03 Essential Services CHANGE: The proposed amendment amends subsection 2.01.03.13 to allow aviation related uses as approved in the September 11, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the Collier County Airport Authority and the Environmental Intervener Signatories to the Deltona Settlement Agreement (July 20, 1982), including The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the National Audubon Society, the Florida Audubon Society, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Izaak Walton League, Florida Division, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, The Deltona Corporation, and Collier County. REASON: This LDC amendment is intended to clarify that aviation related uses are permitted as an essential service on the portion of the Marco Island Airport development footprint that is zoned Conservation. The change will make the zoning consistent with the Airport Master Plan adopted by the Collier County Growth Management Plan per Policy 11.1 of the Transportation Element. Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment. Second by Mr. Dickman. 2 IX. X. XI. MIry 6 J„2 9113 Council discussion occurred noting it may be prudent to identify the Marco Island Executive Airport as the subject of the Amendment as necessary. Ms. Downs move to amend the original motion to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise the language in Section 2.01.03.B.f to read "Marco Island Executive Airport aviation related uses as approved in the September 11, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the Collier County Airport Authority and the Intervenor Signatories to The Deltona Settlement Agreement (July 20, 1982), including The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, The National Audubon Society, The Florida Audubon Society, The Environmental Defense Fund, Izaak Walton League, Florida Division, The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, The South Florida Water Management District, The Florida Department of Community Affairs, The Deltona Corporation, and Collier County." Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously S — 0. C. Update members on projects Summer Araque reported: • The Bayshore Cultural and Performing Arts Center application was approved by the Board of County Commissioners absent of the conditions proposed by the EAC. • The permit fees collected by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for Gopher Tortoise relocation is disbursed into a land acquisition fund utilized to fund goals of the Gopher Tortoise Management Plan. Council Member Comments None Staff Comments None Public Comments Dianne Rhodes, Naples Network for Climate Action addressed the Council and provided "white papers" on the issue of climate change and a rise in sea level. The papers outline growing concerns on the economic impacts for Florida coastal communities as result of the environmental change. She recommends the County begin to develop the necessary responses to address future conditions that may occur due to the phenomenon. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 11:17 AM. 1612 A13_ May 2, 2012 COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL 6h irman, Dr. Judith Hushon These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented , or as amended no ,1 . I 16 1'2, 'aia GOLDEN G A T E M . . I �f"I'll � .,. D wve4 �„ 4 ltc m 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Nil. a F 2 0, 2 . MINUTES APR 2011 BY -. — ........o I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura, Michael McElroy (Excused) County: Darryl Richard – MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich – Landscape Operations Manager, Gloria Herrera – Management Budget Analyst Others: Michael McGee – McGee & Associates, Manny Gonzalez - Hannula, Isaia Herrera – Hannula, Robert Kindelan – Commercial Land Maintenance, Sue Flynn – Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: VI. A. Commercial Land Maintenance Report Richard Sims moved to approve the March 20, 2012 Agenda as amended. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried, 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes – October 11, 2011 Changes: V. B., Page 3, 6th paragraph – Ad Hawk Committee should read Ad "HOC" Committee and 7th paragraph; last sentence should read each "3rd„ Tuesday Richard Sims moved to approve the December 13, 2011 Minutes as amended. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried, 3 -0. MISC. Corres: Date: -112-`a 1 % -1, Item # :\'--� '2--`A \`'a 1 C . °r,2s to: Henning .__. Coyle Colev:a WU — 4 ltc m 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Nil. a F 2 0, 2 . MINUTES APR 2011 BY -. — ........o I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura, Michael McElroy (Excused) County: Darryl Richard – MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich – Landscape Operations Manager, Gloria Herrera – Management Budget Analyst Others: Michael McGee – McGee & Associates, Manny Gonzalez - Hannula, Isaia Herrera – Hannula, Robert Kindelan – Commercial Land Maintenance, Sue Flynn – Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: VI. A. Commercial Land Maintenance Report Richard Sims moved to approve the March 20, 2012 Agenda as amended. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried, 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes – October 11, 2011 Changes: V. B., Page 3, 6th paragraph – Ad Hawk Committee should read Ad "HOC" Committee and 7th paragraph; last sentence should read each "3rd„ Tuesday Richard Sims moved to approve the December 13, 2011 Minutes as amended. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried, 3 -0. MISC. Corres: Date: -112-`a 1 % -1, Item # :\'--� '2--`A \`'a 1 C . °r,2s to: 161 2 A14 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report Gloria Herrera distributed the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153 Report dated March 20, 2012. (See attached) • Current Ad Valorem Tax Collected $194,878.62 • Operating Expenses Available $102,801.14 • Capital Outlay Available $524,795.90 • Total Budget Available $634,592.72 • Purchase Order - Paid $232,636.46 B. Project Manager Report Pam Lulich distributed proposals received on costs to oversee and report on the Grant Sidewalk Project. (See attached) ➢ McGee & Associates for landscape architectural design services for sidewalk modifications along the south right -of -way of Coronado Parkway from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Parkway based upon grant application information dated February 20, 2012 $27,308 Project Man Hour and Fee Support Calculations was also provided ➢ Johnson Engineering - LAP /EEO Assistance and Construction Inspection Observation Scope of Services for Collier County dated February 10, 2012 $94,500 It was noted the Grant funds applied for on this project are $148,000. Staff asked the Committee would like to pursue the Coronado Sidewalk Grant. Richard Sims moved to drop this project for now and forget about the Grant. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried, 3 -0. Staff reported receiving calls regarding the condition of the light poles and distributed a quote from Southern Signal & Lighting to refurbish 12 -light poles on Tropicana in the amount of $11,700. (See attached) Richard Sims suggested the Committee drive by and view the poles condition and discuss at the next meeting. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report A. Hannula Report Manny Gonzalez reported the crews are currently working on: ➢ Trimming trees ➢ Structural tree trimming ➢ Changed the fertilization program made. McGee is working with County on this issue Barbara Segura arrived 3: 20 p.m. Pat Spencer expressed concerns and received multiple complaints regarding the light at the Welcome to Golden Gate signage due to the 2 ib 12' 1A14 light shining into the drivers' eyes as they drive. She suggested placing a bush in to block the shine. Mike McGee reported an email was made to the County to request a proposal from Hannula to address the issue. B. Commercial Land Maintenance Robert Kindelan reported the following: • Normal weekly maintenance on Hunter and Coronado • Post trash service inspections performed • Lantana mimosas on curb issues to be addressed He expressed concern for oak trees not flushing out. VII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado Mike McGee distributed and reviewed the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Landscape Architecture Report for period January 2012 — February 2012. He responded to the issue on the oak trees not flushing out and noted Hannula is in the process of fine tuning the irrigation on Hunter and Coronado and will give their recommendations. He addressed a previous concern made by the Committee regarding the medians very sparse appearance with wide areas of mulch. It was noted installation was according to Master Plan. He emailed Pam Lulich some suggestions to fill in, reviewed the suggestions with the Committee and asked how to proceed. He will provide costs on options of interest. Discussion was made on the expiration of the warranty date and it was decided to take action in November 2012. He reported irrigation pump system in need of repair. He recommended the pedestrian shelters at 31St Avenue SW and 281h Avenue SW be pressure cleaned and sealed. Staff noted the pressure cleaning is a budgeted item. Barbara Segura moved to pressure clean the pedestrian shelters on Tropicana. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried, 4 -0. IX. Old Business A. Trash Cans on Tropicana Graffiti on bus shelters had been reported. IX. New Business A map showing the new asphalt bicycle paths was available to view after the meeting. X. Public Comments 3 161 2 A14 Bill McDaniel introduced himself as a candidate running for Commissioner. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 3:55 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee Richard Sims, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee /Board on as presented Y or amended 4 t -1 -►.z' The next meeting is scheduled for April 17, 2012 3:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, FL H :P AAAW A W N O W W W W to co V 0) N N N 0 — Omm ;u c c��D� -ICnln DO O DD vm m m cznm m aiczn D0 O V V J J O cmm v gym) m� X� �mprm � ; 0� m m 0 z z Cl) f z 4 z cn U) � o 0 U)n c ?�O A c co 0 v c) 0 0 z A z O O G) r M A W m= �m zO Gi m mD 0- wo mU) c W49169 149169 60140109 M1EA 149169 a) N N V J J N N N D m V J O O V V J J O O Ot O OD CO A A A A — — U W O O O O O O O O O O O O A A A c co 0 N N N O W O 00 W CA O W D) O O A A A 00 Cn O O t0 (O W Cn J O O -+ N A 00 O O 01 CA N N A r N V J N W O O A N O N DA� a O � a° 0 � 0 5 < 3 m S, n• mm° 0 D z Gi D J H n -i m c m u D m m A m � W fly K (Np C N ae ° a 3 3 s X O fJN �N 3 ° 0 p + V i A O V OI pq ♦� (Ap IJ V ip (w0 V OI N O O N GG n �t 3 a ° ° 3 m o 3 u o O O W W N N N N N N N N N N N O CO 00 V W N A W N O t0 co V m Ot A W N 0 0 0 V O) i ,, M �ppmr mr��(n —mvpr m m-1 �zC�f�,, 6r 1 2 S C) _G� c20r0 i0 z z0 �mDD�� m�cTmc $ 1-0 -10, 0 ,az0��zz mc"m�r� 2 Om�r(n ZZn27D.��1m:Un n m mrT ,- -< -< TT zm��oDp IX c q m G)G)D� mn(�mOv cmn m�umiOO�� m m�DD W -n m< Mu zDm �m�G)zm 0 O z m,i,i �I��Opr K a)��� �mD mm vno x x m NO�00 00m?K� mG co KX (n cm m Cl) � OO D crXmzyy O zzD gD D� �) Timm MmNmXX Om� D U) c W cz)z�� mm�(mn 69 EA 69 EA EA 69 69 69 V) CA 69 69 V) V) EA 69 .s &� 69 'm 169 169 69 69 69 69 169169 w 69 fA 69� — N 8— 0 co Cn O (T CO J N M J A O (n N O fit O O Cn 0 00 co O Cn N O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 co O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O( b O O O O 000000 O O O J O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O L" (9 V) 69 69 6A 6A EA 69 6A 6A 6A 69 6A EA 6f) 69 69 69 69 _ _ N Cn N O (A A A J to CA O W O W N CD J U) t" (D N O Cn O Cn Cn (n A O N O O co co Cn co J O O O N N CD U( J Cn O 69 V) 69 69 en En w 6f) 6A 6A w w 6A w w co 69 69 fA O N J N N A O W J A IV J CW -+ W 9) A p co O O A OO A On O V N 0 00 00 CAD O 0 Cn Cn O 00 69 69 69 (A 69 69 69 69 (A 61 69 in V) 69 69 69 69 69 69 C V CC.IiOA A wO'CD CD V Ln 00 0) 0 m 0 a D w 0 O O C, m =1 C4 O O O O CL O O O O v O O O O s) 69 69 69 6e 69 EA 6A 6A 69 69 0 O 3 3 tD 7 A 69 69 69 w in W 69 6-A 69 69 69 69 69 69 -- C a °2 N A C C ? N 00 C � � N W A N > O v W N 96949 fA 49 n OO 0 _ �� CA �N N 00 m 1 ► N to OC N N O an O O N A 0) 0 N (n 00 O A N) J— Q J 0 0 0 0 O Qf CO O A N O O A N W O w O N CA O W N W 0 0 0 0 O A W O O O O 0 N W O W O W N N CD (D 0 0 0 0 000010 0 OD O O J i Cb OOO W co O W W N 0000 0(0 NOO 000 O J 0 ACOON W Cb -o z3�� c > > 22:E -,n o1 mlm)C�m q O O CD N O C) C) m .(1 N a 0 N 6) N N O p O r 0 N q fD y N CD CD (D OI n C_ C_ c C_ C .N.n O�j OOj N C O" 7 OR- Sp 9. � T. fv N N m m � 3 � Cn CD E cQ N Cn y O to m o CD CA O Z O O O 7 CD N N CD CD N y Q C) CD 3 N O N tD CD CD J U W V A T T T V 1 N u� x Q m m m t° o r 2 W A A? A A A A A A A A A tAT A A A A A tAn A ()1 ()1 Cn f)1 t71 (.J1 Cn (n Cn Cn Cn (n O J Cn Cn Cn (n O } O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O W O v 0 0 O O O O O Z Z 0 0 0 0 200 O_ O_ O_ O W CD W W (D W N N W N D D c- W W W ON O W A A A Op W A W W W w W N w W (n co Oc W N N A U) CA w O A A C O O A J W J J A V W W N Cn co W O O 2 N 0) O J CO O W O 0 ml Cnp G) -a rD O T (n K 7 c)r2 Zu C n m9 mVX 'O N O m 0 N C 7?? O ID C L C= Q S °°—) d ai o A 3 c O m m 3 c N' 7C S N N C'1 'O y S CV' 7C' N CD CD Cn (n N D r w �< D `� go m o a n. N CD f2o d m _ a < O (n C CD e�'i 0 CD O N° n W O O n Z O 2 o D = m CD CG N. v: O (D (7 7 O N m p a> > >_ e i 7 C0 .Si 7 to 7 Z M N 7 0 X ,..n D1 CL CO) (R CD CO co W 7 6 CD N 0 r. O rte► 3 .. Q° d N p A •- 7 f/! x C) CL N C < N 0 CL C O O W < m Q• n m a S. CD A 69 6A 69 6A 6n 69 69 6A 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA 09 60 69 69 (A (n (A A N J W p) O J O J CO + 0) 00 D N(A — CO WN N V A A A n 3 O O (D W N A O Co W N A O O O r (n A CD V Cn J (11 (O Cl N O O j 0 U1 Cn -+ to co m O N O N O Cl (n N (O 49 69 fA EA 69 69 4) 49 4) 49 6A 49 49 6A 49 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA 6A W -• W N A W W N J N A CO CO J W OO W O V A N 00 O J N A (n cD CO O O W J O W O O O -+ m O A J J J A m O CA W A O O O W O O N N 00 A A J A O co (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn -• A O O O O 0O 00 O 00 OD 0 0 00 0 0 0 Cn 0 0 Cn A14 G) O r v m Z Q 3 �Zm o C O W -n N n O Z 3 C N N A r N V J N W O O A N O N DA� a O � a° 0 � 0 5 < 3 m S, n• mm° 0 D z Gi D J H n -i m c m u D m m A m � W fly K (Np C N ae ° a 3 3 s X O fJN �N 3 ° 0 p + V i A O V OI pq ♦� (Ap IJ V ip (w0 V OI N O O N GG n �t 3 a ° ° 3 m o 3 u o O O W W N N N N N N N N N N N O CO 00 V W N A W N O t0 co V m Ot A W N 0 0 0 V O) i ,, M �ppmr mr��(n —mvpr m m-1 �zC�f�,, 6r 1 2 S C) _G� c20r0 i0 z z0 �mDD�� m�cTmc $ 1-0 -10, 0 ,az0��zz mc"m�r� 2 Om�r(n ZZn27D.��1m:Un n m mrT ,- -< -< TT zm��oDp IX c q m G)G)D� mn(�mOv cmn m�umiOO�� m m�DD W -n m< Mu zDm �m�G)zm 0 O z m,i,i �I��Opr K a)��� �mD mm vno x x m NO�00 00m?K� mG co KX (n cm m Cl) � OO D crXmzyy O zzD gD D� �) Timm MmNmXX Om� D U) c W cz)z�� mm�(mn 69 EA 69 EA EA 69 69 69 V) CA 69 69 V) V) EA 69 .s &� 69 'm 169 169 69 69 69 69 169169 w 69 fA 69� — N 8— 0 co Cn O (T CO J N M J A O (n N O fit O O Cn 0 00 co O Cn N O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 co O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O( b O O O O 000000 O O O J O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O L" (9 V) 69 69 6A 6A EA 69 6A 6A 6A 69 6A EA 6f) 69 69 69 69 _ _ N Cn N O (A A A J to CA O W O W N CD J U) t" (D N O Cn O Cn Cn (n A O N O O co co Cn co J O O O N N CD U( J Cn O 69 V) 69 69 en En w 6f) 6A 6A w w 6A w w co 69 69 fA O N J N N A O W J A IV J CW -+ W 9) A p co O O A OO A On O V N 0 00 00 CAD O 0 Cn Cn O 00 69 69 69 (A 69 69 69 69 (A 61 69 in V) 69 69 69 69 69 69 C V CC.IiOA A wO'CD CD V Ln 00 0) 0 m 0 a D w 0 O O C, m =1 C4 O O O O CL O O O O v O O O O s) 69 69 69 6e 69 EA 6A 6A 69 69 0 O 3 3 tD 7 A 69 69 69 w in W 69 6-A 69 69 69 69 69 69 -- C a °2 N A C C ? N 00 C � � N W A N > O v W N 96949 fA 49 n OO 0 _ �� CA �N N 00 m 1 ► N to OC N N O an O O N A 0) 0 N (n 00 O A N) J— Q J 0 0 0 0 O Qf CO O A N O O A N W O w O N CA O W N W 0 0 0 0 O A W O O O O 0 N W O W O W N N CD (D 0 0 0 0 000010 0 OD O O J i Cb OOO W co O W W N 0000 0(0 NOO 000 O J 0 ACOON W Cb -o z3�� c > > 22:E -,n o1 mlm)C�m q O O CD N O C) C) m .(1 N a 0 N 6) N N O p O r 0 N q fD y N CD CD (D OI n C_ C_ c C_ C .N.n O�j OOj N C O" 7 OR- Sp 9. � T. fv N N m m � 3 � Cn CD E cQ N Cn y O to m o CD CA O Z O O O 7 CD N N CD CD N y Q C) CD 3 N O N tD CD CD J U W V A T T T V 1 N u� x Q m m m t° o r 2 W A A? A A A A A A A A A tAT A A A A A tAn A ()1 ()1 Cn f)1 t71 (.J1 Cn (n Cn Cn Cn (n O J Cn Cn Cn (n O } O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O W O v 0 0 O O O O O Z Z 0 0 0 0 200 O_ O_ O_ O W CD W W (D W N N W N D D c- W W W ON O W A A A Op W A W W W w W N w W (n co Oc W N N A U) CA w O A A C O O A J W J J A V W W N Cn co W O O 2 N 0) O J CO O W O 0 ml Cnp G) -a rD O T (n K 7 c)r2 Zu C n m9 mVX 'O N O m 0 N C 7?? O ID C L C= Q S °°—) d ai o A 3 c O m m 3 c N' 7C S N N C'1 'O y S CV' 7C' N CD CD Cn (n N D r w �< D `� go m o a n. N CD f2o d m _ a < O (n C CD e�'i 0 CD O N° n W O O n Z O 2 o D = m CD CG N. v: O (D (7 7 O N m p a> > >_ e i 7 C0 .Si 7 to 7 Z M N 7 0 X ,..n D1 CL CO) (R CD CO co W 7 6 CD N 0 r. O rte► 3 .. Q° d N p A •- 7 f/! x C) CL N C < N 0 CL C O O W < m Q• n m a S. CD A 69 6A 69 6A 6n 69 69 6A 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA 09 60 69 69 (A (n (A A N J W p) O J O J CO + 0) 00 D N(A — CO WN N V A A A n 3 O O (D W N A O Co W N A O O O r (n A CD V Cn J (11 (O Cl N O O j 0 U1 Cn -+ to co m O N O N O Cl (n N (O 49 69 fA EA 69 69 4) 49 4) 49 6A 49 49 6A 49 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA 6A W -• W N A W W N J N A CO CO J W OO W O V A N 00 O J N A (n cD CO O O W J O W O O O -+ m O A J J J A m O CA W A O O O W O O N N 00 A A J A O co (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn -• A O O O O 0O 00 O 00 OD 0 0 00 0 0 0 Cn 0 0 Cn A14 G) O r v m Z Q 3 �Zm o C O W -n N n O Z 3 C 69 69 69 69 -- C a °2 N A C C ? N 00 C � � N W A N > O v W N 96949 fA 49 n OO 0 _ �� CA �N N 00 m 1 ► N to OC N N O an O O N A 0) 0 N (n 00 O A N) J— Q J 0 0 0 0 O Qf CO O A N O O A N W O w O N CA O W N W 0 0 0 0 O A W O O O O 0 N W O W O W N N CD (D 0 0 0 0 000010 0 OD O O J i Cb OOO W co O W W N 0000 0(0 NOO 000 O J 0 ACOON W Cb -o z3�� c > > 22:E -,n o1 mlm)C�m q O O CD N O C) C) m .(1 N a 0 N 6) N N O p O r 0 N q fD y N CD CD (D OI n C_ C_ c C_ C .N.n O�j OOj N C O" 7 OR- Sp 9. � T. fv N N m m � 3 � Cn CD E cQ N Cn y O to m o CD CA O Z O O O 7 CD N N CD CD N y Q C) CD 3 N O N tD CD CD J U W V A T T T V 1 N u� x Q m m m t° o r 2 W A A? A A A A A A A A A tAT A A A A A tAn A ()1 ()1 Cn f)1 t71 (.J1 Cn (n Cn Cn Cn (n O J Cn Cn Cn (n O } O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O W O v 0 0 O O O O O Z Z 0 0 0 0 200 O_ O_ O_ O W CD W W (D W N N W N D D c- W W W ON O W A A A Op W A W W W w W N w W (n co Oc W N N A U) CA w O A A C O O A J W J J A V W W N Cn co W O O 2 N 0) O J CO O W O 0 ml Cnp G) -a rD O T (n K 7 c)r2 Zu C n m9 mVX 'O N O m 0 N C 7?? O ID C L C= Q S °°—) d ai o A 3 c O m m 3 c N' 7C S N N C'1 'O y S CV' 7C' N CD CD Cn (n N D r w �< D `� go m o a n. N CD f2o d m _ a < O (n C CD e�'i 0 CD O N° n W O O n Z O 2 o D = m CD CG N. v: O (D (7 7 O N m p a> > >_ e i 7 C0 .Si 7 to 7 Z M N 7 0 X ,..n D1 CL CO) (R CD CO co W 7 6 CD N 0 r. O rte► 3 .. Q° d N p A •- 7 f/! x C) CL N C < N 0 CL C O O W < m Q• n m a S. CD A 69 6A 69 6A 6n 69 69 6A 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA 09 60 69 69 (A (n (A A N J W p) O J O J CO + 0) 00 D N(A — CO WN N V A A A n 3 O O (D W N A O Co W N A O O O r (n A CD V Cn J (11 (O Cl N O O j 0 U1 Cn -+ to co m O N O N O Cl (n N (O 49 69 fA EA 69 69 4) 49 4) 49 6A 49 49 6A 49 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA 6A W -• W N A W W N J N A CO CO J W OO W O V A N 00 O J N A (n cD CO O O W J O W O O O -+ m O A J J J A m O CA W A O O O W O O N N 00 A A J A O co (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn -• A O O O O 0O 00 O 00 OD 0 0 00 0 0 0 Cn 0 0 Cn A14 G) O r v m Z Q 3 �Zm o C O W -n N n O Z 3 C J U W V A T T T V 1 N u� x Q m m m t° o r 2 W A A? A A A A A A A A A tAT A A A A A tAn A ()1 ()1 Cn f)1 t71 (.J1 Cn (n Cn Cn Cn (n O J Cn Cn Cn (n O } O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O W O v 0 0 O O O O O Z Z 0 0 0 0 200 O_ O_ O_ O W CD W W (D W N N W N D D c- W W W ON O W A A A Op W A W W W w W N w W (n co Oc W N N A U) CA w O A A C O O A J W J J A V W W N Cn co W O O 2 N 0) O J CO O W O 0 ml Cnp G) -a rD O T (n K 7 c)r2 Zu C n m9 mVX 'O N O m 0 N C 7?? O ID C L C= Q S °°—) d ai o A 3 c O m m 3 c N' 7C S N N C'1 'O y S CV' 7C' N CD CD Cn (n N D r w �< D `� go m o a n. N CD f2o d m _ a < O (n C CD e�'i 0 CD O N° n W O O n Z O 2 o D = m CD CG N. v: O (D (7 7 O N m p a> > >_ e i 7 C0 .Si 7 to 7 Z M N 7 0 X ,..n D1 CL CO) (R CD CO co W 7 6 CD N 0 r. O rte► 3 .. Q° d N p A •- 7 f/! x C) CL N C < N 0 CL C O O W < m Q• n m a S. CD A 69 6A 69 6A 6n 69 69 6A 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA 09 60 69 69 (A (n (A A N J W p) O J O J CO + 0) 00 D N(A — CO WN N V A A A n 3 O O (D W N A O Co W N A O O O r (n A CD V Cn J (11 (O Cl N O O j 0 U1 Cn -+ to co m O N O N O Cl (n N (O 49 69 fA EA 69 69 4) 49 4) 49 6A 49 49 6A 49 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA 6A W -• W N A W W N J N A CO CO J W OO W O V A N 00 O J N A (n cD CO O O W J O W O O O -+ m O A J J J A m O CA W A O O O W O O N N 00 A A J A O co (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn -• A O O O O 0O 00 O 00 OD 0 0 00 0 0 0 Cn 0 0 Cn A14 G) O r v m Z Q 3 �Zm o C O W -n N n O Z 3 C A 69 6A 69 6A 6n 69 69 6A 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA 09 60 69 69 (A (n (A A N J W p) O J O J CO + 0) 00 D N(A — CO WN N V A A A n 3 O O (D W N A O Co W N A O O O r (n A CD V Cn J (11 (O Cl N O O j 0 U1 Cn -+ to co m O N O N O Cl (n N (O 49 69 fA EA 69 69 4) 49 4) 49 6A 49 49 6A 49 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA 6A W -• W N A W W N J N A CO CO J W OO W O V A N 00 O J N A (n cD CO O O W J O W O O O -+ m O A J J J A m O CA W A O O O W O O N N 00 A A J A O co (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn -• A O O O O 0O 00 O 00 OD 0 0 00 0 0 0 Cn 0 0 Cn A14 G) O r v m Z Q 3 �Zm o C O W -n N n O Z 3 C W -• W N A W W N J N A CO CO J W OO W O V A N 00 O J N A (n cD CO O O W J O W O O O -+ m O A J J J A m O CA W A O O O W O O N N 00 A A J A O co (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn -• A O O O O 0O 00 O 00 OD 0 0 00 0 0 0 Cn 0 0 Cn A14 G) O r v m Z Q 3 �Zm o C O W -n N n O Z 3 C A14 G) O r v m Z Q 3 �Zm o C O W -n N n O Z 3 C Quote No: RFQ # 022112.01- d.g.c. Project: Refurbish light poles (repaint) Location: Various - Tropicana County: Collier Estimator: James T Coleman Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 Comments: PLEASE SEE BELOW 1 COMMENTS: 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) .,< ' r iii Provide all labor, equipment & material to perform the following work Refurbish light poles (repaint) EA p14 P.O. Box 5142 Hudson, FL 34674 Ph: 727 - 819 -2061 Fx: 727 - 857 -4097 12.00 $ 975.00 $ 1 1,700.00 ABOVE QUOTE AS PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FPL IMPACT FEES, PERMIT FEES, PERMITTING AND SURVEYING NOT INCLUDED. IF AWARDED, SSL REQUEST TO ATTEND THE PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. ABOVE QUOTE IS VALID FOR 30 C /D. ANY BOND REQUIREMENTS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRIME CONTRACTOR / OWNER PLEASE CALL JAMES COLEMAN AT 727 - 919 -5508 WITH ANY QUESTIONS. Naples Branch Phone: 239 - 331 -8438 3884 Prospect Ave., Naples, FL 34104 Page 1 of 1 Fax: 239 - 331 -8439 1612 i VIA, M—Ed, .. i �. Landscape Architecture February 20, 2012 Darryl Richard, r.l.a., Project Manager, Transportation Services Division Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Proposal of Landscape Architectural Design Services for sidewalk modifications along the south right -of -way of Coronado Parkway from Santa Barbara Blvd. to Golden Gate Parkway. (2011- 022P1), Contract No.: 08 -5060 Project Name: Coronado Parkway Sidewalk Development LAP FM No.: 430880 -1, Contract No.: 08 -5060 Dear Mr. Richard: As requested McGee & Associates is providing the following proposal of services for your review and approval. This proposal is based upon grant application information and on -site observations of the project area. Our Sub - consultant engineering firm will be Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, P.A. McGee & Associates (M & A) agrees to provide the following "Scope of Services" related to the planning, final design and contract administration services for the proposed sidewalk and bridge modifications project listed above. The project area will be generally defined as the south right -of- way along Coronado Parkway from Santa Barbara Blvd. to Golden Gate Parkway. The project area contains 2,978 L.F. of existing asphalt sidewalks, 120 L.F. of bridge sidewalk and 1,089 L.F. of concrete sidewalk. The existing concrete sidewalk on the south right -of -way of Coronado Parkway from approximately the east right -of -way line of 50th Terr. S.W. to the north right -of -way line of Golden Gate Parkway (approx. 1,219 L.F. + / -) will only require indication in the plans for replacement of damaged sections and is not included in the topographic survey. The intent of the construction plans is to upgrade the existing asphalt sidewalk to concrete, repair existing concrete sidewalk and upgrade the existing canal bridge south side pedestrian walkway crossing by adding concrete curbing and pedestrian railings and to the extent feasible, make the project compliant with Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Scope of Services Task 1.1 Planning Review existing roadway construction record drawings, existing utilities and contact utility agencies, and existing site conditions; along with any future proposed roadway improvements and adjacent property improvements. 1.1.1 Base Map Development: Develop electronic computer cad files to create a set of base maps derived from existing on -site conditions observations, survey information, and County aerial photos. Review record drawing information provided by Collier County, and /or other utility agencies with utilities within the project area. 1.1.2 Field Observations: Review and map on -site existing conditions. Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East / P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707 * Fax (239) 417 -0708 mcneeassoc0aol -corn FL LCC 098 * FL 1023A pia 7 1612 Page 2, 02/20/12 Darryl Richard, r.l.a., Project Manager Coronado Pkwy. Sidewalk Modification Proposal- 2011 -022P1 1.1.3 Research & Review: Review applicable Collier County, F.D.O.T. and Collier County development, grant and funding documents, ordinances, codes, standards, guidelines, indexes and regulations related to the project. 1.1.4 Meetings and Correspondence; attend two on -site and local meetings for project planning and development prior to starting services. Collier County is responsible for providing and making access to existing roadway as- built/record drawings and /or electronic cad files to McGee & Associates. Task 1.1 Planning Total: Task 1.1 Planning Sub - Consultant: $ 1,966.00 $ 1,500.00 (LS) 2.1 Surveying 2.1.1 Provide limited surveying for final design purposes. a. Provide a topographic survey of the sidewalk (2,900 I.f. +/- of existing asphalt sidewalk ) along the south R/W of Coronado Parkway sufficient to establish cross sections at 100' stations and the grade breaks to help identify sidewalk cross slopes that would establish existing drainage patterns. We will also locate multiple side street and driveway crossings to provide design criteria for ADA requirements with some detailed topo on the south side of the bridge at station 8 +50 + / -. The limit of this topo will be from the south edge of pavement of Coronado Parkway to the south right -of -way line. Previous survey baseline and stationing information will be used. Median improvements and elevations will be based on NGVD 29 vertical datum. b. The collected survey data will be submitted in an AutoCAD Digital Exchange (DXF) format on a CD and electronically drawn in the Florida State Plane East (US Feet) Coordinate System (NAD 83/90). The drawing will reference established Permanent Reference Monuments (RPM's) derived from the RTK (Real -Time Kinematic) GPS Network as provided by Collier County. Information layers shall have common naming conventions (i.e. right -of- way -ROW, centerlines -CL, edge -of- pavement-EOP, etc.), and adhere to industry CAD specifications. C. Existing concrete portion of sidewalk project is not included in topo survey. Task 2.1 Survey Total: Task 2.1 Survey Sub - Consultant: $ 614.00 $ 2,400.00 (LS) 3.1 Final Design Prepared construction plans and details per F.D.O.T. " Plans Preparation Manual" Volume I & II criteria, "Design Standards" Indexes, "Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Handbook ", M.U.T.C.D. manual for streets and highways processes and in general compliance to the Collier County Right -of -Way Ordinance 93 -64 current editions. All plans will be signed and sealed by the Landscape Architect and Engineer of Record. 3.1.1 Attend necessary public, staff and /or project on -site meetings for the project design development and provide required written correspondence, verbal communications or presentations for the project development. 3.1.2 Develop sidewalk design to determine location relative to available right -of -way area, drainage, existing utilities, existing site conditions and providing for a safe facility. To minimally include items or services as follows: A14 a 1612 Page 3, 02/20/12 Darryl Richard, r.l.a., Project Manager Coronado Pkwy. Sidewalk Modification Proposal- 2011 -022P1 a. Roadway striping and sign relocation. b. Develop plan details, notes and quantities from referencing FDOT Indexes and Specifications for sidewalk, curbing and bridge railing construction improvements. Applicable signing and markings will be provided. C. Provide cross - sections as needed to convey design and grading intent for construction and presentation purposes. d. Reference and /or amend specifications from FDOT "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction" 2004. e. Prepare final quantities bid tabulation sheet. f. Reference Maintenance of Traffic requirements from FDOT "Design Standards" Indexes 600 series as applicable. 3.1.3 Prepare FDOT & County approved bidding and installation construction drawings for exhibits or attachments to the final Contract Documents. 3.1.4 References and /or amend FDOT "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction" current editions for exhibits or attachments to the final Contract Documents. 3.1.5 Develop opinion of costs related to the approved final construction plans. 3.1.6 Excluded Services: The services to be provided are limited to those described within the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded, including, but not limited to the following: a. Environmental Services, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Structural Engineering Services, Hydro geological Services, Site & Street Lighting, Field Traffic Counts, and Intersection Analysis. b. Roadway asphalt pavement overlay or design. C. Survey information /data relative to the existing concrete sidewalk portion of the project area. d. Verification of down stream existing storm water flow or piping conditions directly or indirectly connected to proposed storm water and drainage improvements related to the sidewalk installation. e. Structural analysis of the existing bridge structure. Task 3.1 Final Design Total: Task 3.1 Final Design Sub - Consultant: $ 3,991.00 $ 3,000.00 (LS) 4.1 Permitting 4.1.1 Assist Collier County by supplying permit drawings for FDOT & Collier County permit approvals. Any other permitting services will require additional services proposal. 4.1.2 Provide required written correspondence for the project permitting. Task 4.1 Permitting Total: $ 439.00 5.1 Contract Administration 5.1.1 Assist Collier County in developing contract documents for bidding and contract purposes. 5.1.2 Assist in bidding process and provide review and recommendation of award of construction contract. A14 94 ibiz' Page 4, 02/20/12 Darryl Richard, r.l.a., Project Manager Coronado Pkwy. Sidewalk Modification Proposal- 2011 -022P1 5.1.3 Provide limited on -site observations and attend weekly on -site progress meetings during construction to determine compliance with plans and specifications, as well as review and approve pay request applications and record drawings. Task 5.1 Contract Administration Total: $ 8,148.00 Task 5.1 Contract Administration Sub - Consultant: $ 4,500.00 (LS) 6.1 Reimbursable Per Design services "Professional Landscape Architectural Services" Contract #08 -5060 Task 6.1 Allowance $ 750.00 FEE SUMMARY Task 1.1 Planning $ 3,466.00 Task 2.1 Surveying $ 3,014.00 Task 3.1 Final Design $ 6,991.00 Task 4.1 Permitting 439.00 Subtotal $13,910.00 Task 5.1 Contract Administration $12,648.00 Task 6.1 Reimbursable 750.00 Total $27,308.00 Note: Please see Project Man Hour & Fee Support Calculations Schedule for details 7.1 Suggested Design Services Schedule and Budgeting 7.1.1 M & A shall render its services as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care. During the course of the Project, anticipated and unanticipated events may impact any Project schedule. Plan submittals shall be base upon the following schedule to be determined. Task Description 1.1 through 4.1 Notice to Proceed: _/_/11 60% Plans Submittal: 45 days 90% Plans Submittal: 30 days Final Plan Submittal: 15 days Task Description 5.1 Services During Construction: Estimated 90 days to final completion 7.1.2 County agrees to promptly notify M & A, if schedule or budget changes. County acknowledges that significant changes to the Project schedule, budget or the Project's scope may require Additional Services of M & A. 1� xc% 02/20/12 Michael A. McGee, r.l.a. Date: President, McGee & Associates. LC 098 A14 104 1612' 1A14 T O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O o O O O O O O O r O Z d 2 � J W Q LL 0 0 c0 N_ V V r V V c0 69 ffl 69 69 <O t0 �! M w O O (o to _ _ 69 (n O M w N V (0 N c0 ,, M (A 69 EA Q) <O w t� M r w r N M (f3 (fl M w N O M V N 00 69 69 69 m ID N O 1� w O M h N w L 0 N H N o O O O O o O O 0 O o o O O O O O O O O O O L 4% (L) -d C C :3 W f- z < O O (o O O h 0 O O O N N O O V N O O O co O O O M O O O (O O O Ll V O O N R O O Q O Q F- CO Lu J O m LU J J z U in W <= LL 69 69 69 ffl w <» f» w w w w w U3 w w 69 (Al w w w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O o O o o o O O O O o O o 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 CD. 0 0 0 0 0 Ag VO N N 0 W Q H W W Ui (o (o (o C6 m � V I� V �' M 69 69 (fl 69 6 w 01 r w r- O O co co w 0) v cO w ai o0 0o m o� N V (D r N (° I� M w 69 69 i» 69 r 01 07 m w r In (D w �_ co N M t» 69 (n M w �i N. V n (o 00 M m N (,.� w E» 69 co V r co w co In r w m V V M O N V V 00 (D o O M N O W w CO V co V O M V N N (O Q CO r a O N N 09 o W ~ T G v/ T N =1 W 0 ZF N T Z a# N o 0 0 o o 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 O 0 o O O N r Q cn ' LV U a U J z 0 d ¢ w W o W o W Lo LL LO w O O O O 69 64 '613 69 O w (O (O N (o (» (» O r rw (o o o o O to w w w w w N W) w t/) t0 rw LO O U) EA N (O w O O O co M W (Mw m 00 O It u� is O e0 n is = 0 0 0 0 O N c O O O O M o (D D CD w N N Cl) Q U r Z Cw C I.f. O E W H < L 6 W O W N LL w o O o o O O o 0 N N N N I— co 0 0 Cl) 69 EA w 64 O 0 00 N U) w 0 0 0 o V V N N 69 w 0 O co d' N w 0 0 0 0 o o o O O o N V V N O 0 N_ V c0 69 w I- 69 w w O O N Q) 0) w O O w Of h w o o o o 0 0 69 69 O O O w o O O O o o W O O 00 w 69 69 o O w 00 ' w O O to co N Mw Q. o a LV > W Q Z CO Y O H W I Q W m d in �' O C7 co Z 40 �_ I1I 0 0 0 F- 70 CD LL C O Fes- o z a U z = (U Q= � U 0 M N N V r N N- O r (O r m N O O O V' O O N 7 N M N 0 W a � aN U 0= z z U n' Q a W Q L p W O W LL (� 0 0 0 0 O O O o V '7 V (D m W N m M M M N (A 69 CO 64 0 0 w O � 0 0 0 0 00 00 N N 69 w 0 0 to .n N w 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o O N V V m m N N )o N_ )o 0 o N EA 69 69 � Q O O v v m N w o o m 0 w v w 0 0 O O (0 00 O N N w 69 0 o v co M w 0 0 0 0 0 0 V V N N N 1— O O O - M �� w 0 0 O N 0 w O O N O w x M M M N r —1c.41 'R o0 N N r N M N M W O !"m r L . O(.) >0 m U a' ZLW Q J G U m 0U W c H <9 Z U Q CO W Z J W Z O V V LU U Z O a O O ( i w ii Q N O Z d O O U O W N u Qc ° > o cm m Z -0 p 2 c ° ° a) n c aS w ° > m U o m Z o o o'o a E ac o? .� o O 2� a O r y 9 z o .o U a z 8 g a 0 0 w p-0 J n Q U) m � � . U Z ° w p rn c L) N W 6 L) ri U v � a LO m rn 0) L L) m -° w O p 1 '( U p U °- a U n > n o 0 F-m z@ ¢ m L of U Q z �- L r .-- a N M V LL N M V 0 N 0 N M m N M (O c0 y w 0 F- I1. 161 X14 LAP /EEO ASSISTANCE AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OBSERVATION SCOPE OF SERVICES For Collier County Project Description: Coronado Pkwy from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Sidewalk Financial Project ID(s): 430880 -1 17.• 161 Z 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE .......................................................................................................... ..............................1 2.0 SCOPE ............................................................................................................... ..............................1 3.0 LENGTH OF SERVICE .................................................................................. ..............................1 4.0 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................. ............................... 2 5.0 ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE COUNTY TO THE CONSULTANT ......................... 3 6.0 ITEMS FURNISHED BY THE CONSULTANT ........................................... ..............................3 6.1 OFFICE AUTOMATION ..................................................................................................... ..............................3 6.2 FIELD OFFICE .................................................................................................................. ..............................3 6.3 VEHICLES ........................................................................................................................ ..............................3 6.4 FIELD EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................................... ..............................4 6.5 LICENSING FOR EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS ....................................................................... ..............................4 7.0 LIAISON RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONSULTANT ........................... ............................... 4 8.0 PERFORMANCE OF THE CONSULTANT ............................................... ............................... 4 9.0 REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSULTANT .............................................. ............................... 5 9.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 5 9.2 SURVEY CONTROL .......................................................................................................... ..............................5 9.3 ONSTTE INSPECTION ........................................................................................................ ..............................5 9.4 SAMPLING AND TESTING ................................................................................................. ..............................6 9.5 ENGINEERING SERVICES ................................................................................................. ..............................6 9.6 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ........................................................................................ ..............................8 10.0 PERSONNEL .................................................................................................... ..............................8 10.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................. ..............................8 10.2 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... ..............................8 10.3 STAFFING ........................................................................................................................ ..............................9 11.0 CONTRADICTIONS ...................................................................................... ............................... 9 12.0 THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY .................................................................... ..............................9 13.0 COUNTY AUTHORITY ................................................................................. ............................... 9 I3. 1612 A14 FPID No. 430880 -1 - Coronado Pkwy from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Sidewalk - LAP/EEO and CEI Services SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OBSERVATION 1.0 PURPOSE This scope of services describes and defines the Construction Inspection Observation services which are required for contract administration, LAP/EEO Administration, including Field Inspection Observation for the sidewalk construction project listed below as discussed in the 01/31/12 general scoping meeting between Collier County (COUNTY) and Johnson Engineering, Inc. (CONSULTANT). 2.0 SCOPE Provide services as defined in this Scope of Services, the referenced COUNTY manuals, and procedures supplied. The projects for which the services are required are: Financial Project IDs: 430880 -1 Descriptions: Coronado Pkwy from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Sidewalk County: Collier County Exercise independent professional judgment in performing obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement. CONSULTANT's lead person, such as the LAP/EEO Administrator, and the CONSULTANT's Field Inspector Observer shall assist the COUNTY's assigned Resident Engineer and Project Administrators respectively and shall be interpreted as such. Services provided by the CONSULTANT shall comply with COUNTY manuals, procedures, and memorandums in effect as of the date of execution of this Agreement unless otherwise directed in writing by the COUNTY. Such COUNTY manuals, procedures, and memorandums should be provided to the CONSULTANT prior to CONSULTANT services including any FDOT documents. As discussed during the scoping meeting on 01/31/12, COUNTY will be providing all Resident Compliance Specialist (RCS) functions in regards to LAP/EEO administration reporting directly to FDOT. COUNTY to facilitate communications between all parties (i.e. architectural, mechanical, materials, landscaping, local agencies, CEI representatives, but not limited to) ensuring responses and resolutions are provided in a timely manner. Maintain accurate records to document the communication process. On a single Construction Contract, it is a conflict of interest for a professional firm to receive compensation from both the COUNTY and the Contractor either directly or indirectly. 3.0 LENGTH OF SERVICE The services for each Construction Contract shall begin upon written notification to proceed by the COUNTY to the CONSULTANT. February 10, 2012 ME I *W 1612 00, IA14 FPID No. 430880 -1 - Coronado Pkwy from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Sidewalk - LAP/EEO and CEI Services Track the execution of the Construction Contract such that the CONSULTANT is given timely authorization to begin work. While no personnel shall be assigned until written notification by the COUNTY has been issued, the CONSULTANT shall be ready to assign personnel within two weeks of notification. For the duration of the project, coordinate closely with the COUNTY and Contractor to minimize rescheduling of CONSULTANT activities due to construction delays or changes in scheduling of Contractor activities. For estimating purposes, the CONSULTANT will be allowed an accumulation of thirty (30) calendar days to perform preliminary administrative services prior to the issuance of the Contractor's notice to proceed on the first project and thirty (3 0) calendar days to demobilize after final acceptance of the last Construction Contract. The anticipated letting schedules and construction times for the projects are tabulated below: Construction Contract Estimate Financial Letting Date Start Date Duration Project ID (Mo/Day/Yr) (Mo/Day/Yr) (Days) 430880 -1 T.B.D. T.B.D. Currently 120 Days Subject to increase or decrease depending on design option chosen. 4.0 DEFINITIONS A. Agreement: The Professional Services Agreement between the COUNTY and the CONSULTANT setting forth the obligations of the parties thereto, including but not limited to the performance of the work, furnishing of services, and the basis of payment. B. Contractor: The individual, firm, or company contracting with the COUNTY for performance of work or furnishing of materials. C. Construction Contract: The written agreement between the COUNTY and the Contractor setting forth the obligations of the parties thereto, including but not limited to the performance of the work, furnishing of labor and materials, and the basis of payment. D. Construction Project Manager: The COUNTY employee assigned to manage the Construction Inspection Observation Contract and represent the COUNTY during the performance of the services covered under this Agreement. E. Construction TraininWOualification Program (CTOP): The program for training and qualifying technicians in Aggregates, Asphalt, Concrete, Earthwork, and Final Estimates Administration but not limited to. Program information is available at CTQP website. F. Consultant: The Consulting firm under contract to the COUNTY for supervision of Construction Inspection Observation services. G. County Construction Engineer: The administrative head of the COUNTY's Construction Office. H. District Contract Compliance Manager: The administrative head of the District Contract Compliance Office. February 10, 2012 -2- is% 161 e X14 FPID No. 430880 -1 - Coronado Pkwy from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Sidewalk - LAP/EEO and CEI Services I. Engineer of Record: The Engineer noted on the Construction plans as the responsible person for the design and preparation of the plans. J. CountyEngineer: The Engineer assigned to a particular County or area to administer Construction and Maintenance Contracts for the COUNTY. K. Public Information Office: The COUNTY's office assigned to manage the Public Information Program. L. Resident Compliance Specialist: The employee assigned by the CONSULTANT to oversee project specific compliance functions. M. Resident Engineer: The Engineer assigned to a particular County or area to administer Construction Contracts for the COUNTY. 5.0 ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE COUNTY TO THE CONSULTANT A. COUNTY, on an as needed basis, shall furnish the following Construction Contract documents for each project. These documents may be provided in either paper or electronic format. • Construction Plans, • Specification Package, • Copy of the Executed Construction Contract • Utility Agency's Approved Material List (if applicable), • Applicable COUNTY reports for documenting COUNTY construction work, and • Necessary applicable LAP/EEO forms and or COUNTY specific forms. 6.0 ITEMS FURNISHED BY THE CONSULTANT 6.1 Office Automation Provide all software and hardware necessary to efficiently and effectively carry out the responsibilities under this Agreement. 6.2 Field Office CONSULTANT will work out of their local Fort Myers/Naples Office and maintain documents as necessary. 6.3 Vehicles Vehicles will be equipped with appropriate safety equipment and must be able to effectively carry out requirements of this Agreement. Vehicles shall have the name and phone number of the consulting firm visibly displayed on both sides of the vehicle. February 10, 2012 -3 - 144 f6f? A14 FPID No. 430880 -1 - Coronado Pkwy from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Sidewalk - LAP/EEO and CEI Services 6.4 Field Equipment Supply inspection observations, and testing equipment essential to perform services under this Agreement; such equipment includes non - consumable and non - expendable items. Hard hats shall have the name of the consulting firm visibly displayed. Equipment described herein and expendable materials under this Agreement will remain the property of the CONSULTANT and shall be removed at completion of the work. Handling of nuclear density gauges shall be in compliance with their license. Retain responsibility for risk of loss or damage to said equipment during performance of this Agreement. Field office equipment shall be maintained and in operational condition at all times. 6.5 Licensing for Equipment Operations Obtain proper licenses for equipment and personnel operating equipment when licenses are required. The license and supporting documents shall be available for verification by the COUNTY, upon request. Radioactive Materials License for use of Surface Moisture Density Gauges shall be obtained through the State of Florida Department of Health. 7.0 LIAISON RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONSULTANT For the duration of the Agreement, keep the COUNTY's Construction Project Manager in Responsible Charge informed of all significant activities, decisions, correspondence, reports, and other communications related to its responsibilities under this Agreement. Submit all administrative items relating to CEI Invoice Approval, Personnel Approval, Time Extensions, and Supplemental Amendments to the Construction Project Manager for review and approval. 8.0 PERFORMANCE OF THE CONSULTANT During the term of this Agreement and all Supplemental Amendments thereof, the COUNTY will review various phases of CONSULTANT operations, such as construction inspection, materials sampling and testing, and administrative activities, to determine compliance with this Agreement. Cooperate and assist COUNTY representatives in conducting the reviews. If deficiencies are indicated, remedial action shall be implemented immediately. COUNTY recommendations and CONSULTANT responses /actions are to be properly documented by the CONSULTANT. No additional compensation shall be allowed for remedial action taken by the CONSULTANT to correct deficiencies. Remedial actions and required response times may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: A. Further subdivide assigned inspection responsibilities, reassign inspection personnel, or assign additional inspection personnel, within one week of notification. February 10, 2012 -4- 1%74 161 ? A14 FPID No. 430880 -1 - Coronado Pkwy from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Sidewalk - LAP/EEO and CEI Services B. Immediately replace personnel whose performance has been determined by the CONSULTANT and /or the COUNTY to be inadequate. 9.0 REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSULTANT 9.1 General CONSULTANT shall provide onsite inspection services during construction as necessary to observe the general progress and quality of the various aspects of the Contractor's work. Such visits and observations by CONSULTANT are not intended to be exhaustive or to extend to every aspect of the work in progress, or to involve detailed inspections of the work beyond the responsibilities specifically assigned to CONSULTANT in this Agreement and the Contract Documents. Based on information obtained during such visits and such observations, CONSULTANT shall endeavor to determine in general if such work is proceeding in accordance with the design concept and the design information shown in the Contract Documents and CONSULTANT shall keep the COUNTY informed of the progress of such work. The responsibilities of CONSULTANT contained in this paragraph are expressly subject to the limitations set forth and other express or general limitations of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not, during such visits or as a result of such observations of Contractor's work in progress, supervise, direct or have control over Contractor's work nor shall CONSULTANT have any authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction selected by Contractor, for safety precautions and programs incident to the work of Contractor or for any failure of Contractor to comply with laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes or orders applicable to Contractor's furnishing and performing the work. Accordingly, CONSULTANT neither guarantees the performance of any Contractor nor assumes responsibility for any Contractor's failure to furnish and perform its work in accordance with the Contract Documents. 9.2 Survey Control Providing survey control is not applicable to this scope of services. 9.3 Onsite Inspection Monitor the Contractor's onsite construction activities and observe materials entering into the work in accordance with the plans, specifications, and special provisions for the Construction Contract to determine that the projects are constructed in reasonable conformity with such documents. Maintain detailed accurate records of the Contractor's daily operations and of significant events that affect the work. CONSULTANT employees assisting with such services shall be qualified in accordance with the COUNTY's procedures. The COUNTY will monitor off -site activities and fabrication unless otherwise stipulated by this Agreement. Monitor and observe Contractor's CPM Schedule, Work Zone Traffic Control Plan and review modifications to the Work Zone Traffic Control Plan, including Alternate Work Zone Traffic Control Plan, Lane Closure Requests in accordance with the COUNTY's procedures. February 10, 2012 -5- 116.4 161' A14 FPID No. 430880 -1 - Coronado Pkwy from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Sidewalk - LAP/EEO and CEI Services 9.4 Sampling and Testing CONSULTANT shall gather a sampling of materials to be tested by an independent laboratory hired by the COUNTY for compliance of component materials and completed work in accordance with the Construction Documents. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for coordinating the transportation of samples to be tested in an appropriate laboratory or appropriate local facility as directed by the COUNTY. 9.5 Engineering Services COUNTY to coordinate the Construction Contract administration activities of all parties involved in completing the construction project. Notwithstanding the above, the CONSULTANT is not liable to the COUNTY for failure of such parties to follow written direction issued by the COUNTY. Services by the CONSULTANT shall include maintaining the required level of surveillance of Contractor activities, interpreting plans, specifications, and special provisions for the Construction Contract. Maintain complete, accurate records of all activities and events relating to the project and properly document project changes. The following services shall be performed: (1) Attend a pre- service meeting for the Agreement, provide appropriate staff to attend and participate in the pre- service meeting including CONSULTANT's RCS. (2) Schedule and attend a Final Estimate informational meeting with the COUNTY Project Manager. Provide appropriate staff to attend and participate in this meeting. (3) Schedule and attend a meeting with the District Compliance Manager prior to the Pre - construction Conference. The County Resident Compliance Officer shall attend this meeting along with the CONSULTANT's RCS. In most cases, the above will take two separate meetings based on experience and knowledge of the particular firm. (4) CONSULTANT will assist COUNTY verifying that the Contractor is conducting inspections, preparing reports and monitoring all storm water pollution prevention measures associated with the project. For each project that requires the use of the NPDES General Permit, provide at least one inspector who has successfully completed the "Florida Stormwater, Erosion, and Sedimentation Control Training and Certification Program for Inspectors and Contractors ". The CONSULTANT's inspector will be familiar with the requirements set forth in the FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 57, No. 187, Friday, September 5, 1992, pages 4412 to 4435 "Final NPDES General Permits for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Sites" and the Department's guidelines. February 10, 2012 -6- 114 16121`jA14 FPID No. 430880 -1 - Coronado Pkwy from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Sidewalk - LAP/EEO and CEI Services (5) Analyze problems that arise on a project and proposals submitted by the Contractor; work to resolve such issues with COUNTY staff, and process the necessary paperwork. (6) COUNTY will monitor, inspect and document utility construction for conformance with Utility Agency's Standards and the Utility Agency's Approved Materials List. Facilitate coordination and communication between Utility Agency's representatives, Department's staff and Contractors executing the work. Identify potential utility conflicts with the resolution of utility issues including Department and Local Government owned facilities. (7) Produce reports, verify quantities and field measure for payment purposes as needed to prevent delays in Contractor operations and to facilitate prompt processing of such information in order for the COUNTY to make timely payment to the Contractor. (8) Monitor Prime Contractor and Subcontractor's compliance with specifications and special provisions of the Construction Contract in regard to payment of predetermined wage rates in accordance with COUNTY procedures. (9) Provide a RCS for surveillance of the Contractor's compliance with Construction Contract requirements. The RCS will be responsible for reviewing, monitoring, evaluating and acting upon documentation required for Construction Contract compliance, and maintaining the appropriate files thereof. Typical areas of compliance responsibility include EEO Affirmative Actions for the prime contractor and subcontractor, DBE Affirmative Action, Payroll, and Subcontracts. The RCS must keep all related documents and correspondence accurate and up to date; attend all compliance reviews and furnish the complete project files for review; and assist the District Contract Compliance Manager as requested. (10) CONSULTANT shall provide the functions of the RCS. CONSULTANT shall perform the field interviews; and supplies for project compliance files. (11) Video tape the pre- construction conditions throughout the project limits. Provide a digital photo log or video of project activities, with heavy emphasis on potential claim items /issues and on areas of real /potential public controversy. (12) Provide a digital camera for photographic documentation of pre- construction state and of noteworthy incidents or events during construction. February 10, 2012 These photographs will be filed and maintained on the CONSULTANT's computer using a Digital Photo Management system. Photographs shall be taken the day prior to the start of construction and continue as needed throughout the project. -7- Zo. 1612 1A14 FPID No. 430880 -1 - Coronado Pkwy from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Sidewalk - LAP/EEO and CEI Services 9.6 Geotechnical Engineering a) N /A, The COUNTY will provide as necessary. 10.0 PERSONNEL 10.1 General Requirements Provide qualified personnel necessary to efficiently and effectively carry out its responsibilities under this Agreement. 10.2 Personnel Oualifications Provide competent personnel qualified by experience and education. Minimum qualifications for the CONSULTANT personnel are set forth as follows. Exceptions to these minimum qualifications will be considered on an individual basis. However, a Project Administrator working under the supervision and direction of a Senior Project Engineer or an Inspector working under the supervision and direction of a Senior Inspector shall have six months from the date of hire to obtain the necessary qualifications /certifications provided all other requirements for such positions are met and the CONSULTANT submits a training plan detailing when such qualifications /certifications and other training relative to the Department's procedures, Specifications and Design Standards will be obtained. CEI Resident Compliance Specialist - Graduation from an accredited high school or equivalent with one (1) year of experience as a resident compliance officer on a construction project or two (2) years of assisting the compliance officer in monitoring the project. Should have prior experience in both State funded and Federal Aid funded construction projects with FDOT and knowledge of EEO /AA laws and FDOT's DBE and OJT programs. Ability to analyze, collect, evaluate data, and take appropriate action when necessary. Must attend all training workshops or meetings for Resident Compliance Specialists as determined necessary. CEI Inspector /Engineer Intern - High school graduate or equivalent plus two (2) years experience in construction inspection, one (1) year of which shall have been in bridge and /or roadway construction inspection, plus the following: Must have the following as required by the scope of work of the project: QUALIFICATIONS: CTQP Concrete Field Inspector Level I CTQP Asphalt Roadway Level I CTQP Earthwork Construction Inspection Level I CTQP Final Estimates Level I FDOT Intermediate MOT CERTIFICATIONS: Nuclear Radiation Safety Florida Stormwater, Erosion, and Sedimentation Control Training and Certification Program for Inspectors and Contractors February 10, 2012 -8- 2.14 1612 r* IA14 FPID No. 430880 -1 - Coronado Pkwy from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Sidewalk - LAP/EEO and CEI Services 10.3 Staffing Once authorized, the CONSULTANT shall establish and maintain appropriate staffing throughout the duration of construction and completion of the final estimate. Responsible personnel, thoroughly familiar with all aspects of construction and final measurements of the various pay items, shall be available to resolve disputed final pay quantities until the Department has received a regular acceptance letter. Construction inspection observation forces will be required of the CONSULTANT while the Contractor is working. If Contractor operations are substantially reduced or suspended, the CONSULTANT will reduce its staff appropriately. In the event that the suspension of Contractor operations requires the removal of CONSULTANT forces from the project, the CONSULTANT will be allowed ten (10) days maximum to demobilize, relocate, or terminate such forces. In the case where the Contractor is granted increased scope of work, or additional contract time added to the contractor's scope of work the COUNTY and CONSULTANT will negotiate additional CEI Scope and fee's needed to complete work. All records shall be kept at the CONSULTANTs Fort Myers/Naples Office and shall be subject to audit review. 11.0 CONTRADICTIONS In the event of a contradiction between the provisions of this Scope of Services and the CONSULTANT's proposal as made a part of their Agreement, the provisions of the Scope of Services shall apply. 12.0 THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY It is specifically agreed between the parties executing this Agreement that it is not intended by any of the provisions of any part of the Agreement to create in the public or any member thereof, a third party beneficiary hereunder, or to authorize anyone not a party to this Agreement to maintain a claim, cause of action, lien or any other damages or any relief of any kind pursuant to the terms or provisions of this Agreement. 13.0 COUNTY AUTHORITY The COUNTY shall be the final authority in considering modifications to the Construction Contract for time, money or any other consideration except matters agreed to by the Contractor through contract changes negotiated by the CONSULTANT. February 10, 2012 -9- 01. L 0 February 10, 2012 -10- 23. 1 6 1 T '114 4 FPID No. 430880 -1 - Coronado Pkwy from Santa Barbara to Golden Gate Sidewalk - LAP/EEO and CEI Services FEES Indicate Basis of Task Amount of Compensation Number Task Title Compensation LS or NTE 1.0 LAP / EEO Assistance $32,500.00 T &M 2.0 CEI $60,000.00 T &M 3.0 Expenses/Nuke Calib. $ 2,000.00 NTE TOTAL $94,500.00 T &M February 10, 2012 -10- 23. -o 3 0 m CD N W t0 r j 0 V 0 b <D V W O * T r-n ox w� D ^� W co A V ' 0 V 00 V ` A O. 0 to z >E m 7 O CD 7 a9 Q CD CD >F Sy cc �F D rr CA T-0 A14 G) :E 4 m = 0 p n ._. EE CD 0 CD o � 99999EM O � 0 m &E 9 9 'D 0 m v CD m CD C. m (2 m iZ m C. m C. m G m C. m C. C 7. m C. m C. CD C. m C. C �. CS D D e 0 0 D 2 m W 00 ° CO W V (D �� A W N o ' r A C 0 0 o CD M n m m m I 0 CL Cl) v Z CD � (c � N d D N O It (D m N cn j N D m m m N Nk N N N N N c 3 NJ mv-0 o-o -o0 :a70 x -0 -0 Cn n c 3 ^> m N U—) =O 00 a) 'm0 -a -0 -0 < m < <. 3 7 7 m ° CD O 0 (7D (D Q =. O -1 0 (<D N N N N 0 (D m O m m 3 W N -' = Q "� o �. N S O N (D (D CD (D o 0 °_ v N (D n. �7 a O O 97 (° p —(n 0 0 �. 0 Q Q C/ ('— Q v m 2 ((DD ? (aD cn ((DD 6 0 ?• ID O O O O =O N .-• •-• w (D m_ ° m 0= 3° m m 0' ° ov °° E O° 0 OS 3 N' v p 3 v 3 v 3 a.1 3 fl+1 a< 3 m v m l0 00 0 o *' ((D D _° (<D ° C O O 0 m 3 s Q° �. _T m „m, ♦ 0 >> 0 0 °° 0 0= 3 o_ _ w O m S 0 (n �' p 3 (O °:`, 00 N O* CN ° O a p (D O 0 (° g 7 �t 0 3 5 ° N (D m 3 � 0 N° ° o 0 0 0 0 w II7 00 p 0- 1% C o ro �.c�v'QQQQQ m 3° o 0 0 0 m° 3 ?. =W' Z co (o �'. X v �' (n cD < v v° w 0 o ;07 m 0 -°- cn o m° 0 (� -i o v D 0 m° mo- n) < m (D m 3° 3 D c v 0. m m Z m o' Z Q m (Q o N (D v v v v a D a (n m° 0 v 0 CD D o p o 3 O O (D 0- (D 0 0 -« (D o (D 0 (D 0 (D 0 (D ° 0 0- O t �' m ° (0 °< C" v m 0 0 0 3 O O Z (n3 v� Q o- (° m m m m ° X 0 ° 7 0 3 3 I S 0 @° a)= m c °(0 < m (Dm ° CD °- v, (D o-p3333 ° vo CD v m m(D lomCD Qm m 0m ° (D 0 c cn a (n�. m x. ° m v� Q m 0 ty m v ° v w v w o(D a° v v° m '' cn CD =3 m (n 7 N 0 fl) m (D N m v Z3 () N° 3 p m (o °' a a a a 3 °-' m a p� N o Da° o' D 3' Q C7 _^ ° o m° m m m m (a (D Q °° Qo ° (D p o v m O m m QQQQ ° ° (n' 0°m Q cD C) CD 2 Vf ° °° Z O ° O 0" O < sv w N q) m° 7 7 3 p m nr�s0 7 •-• 0' Q L ° m �. ... W m m j, Q .0-. �. m m < (D O Q W N a O 0. 0 3 N m m 0 . O ° 0 (fl p N — O Q C_ (>-0 o D -a Q 0 O o _ 3 °? G 3 0 3 -°- v� L. L. a' 0 o v c W w 3' D En . CD 2 o Q 0 c 3 (� a m°° m 3 O D � o m. o Sv o(n N (3D -0 (D 0 O 0-1 m< m 0 mD° vC7�' m oo v Qm Q o v 0 Q (nmvm -00- o -ID° m O C-,) 0 ° 0° ma° ° m C)°-' N Z Cn o (n m a 3 voQ3 0 a °' o (A I c O 0 S (mn O Q N p - 7' cn ° (1 ° Qp ° o °. (n a (u o m T Co m o 0 70 vas a0 0� 1 3 v m= 0 (n m C m ° o o o a 0 cn n �(0n2 00 �' m o m�� O Qrn0 0 �� m cn o 0 0 w m CD ° (Da- *3oQ v O o I vy ° m o -. ° m 73 f m - v :3 °' � o a m w< 0 0 o CD (D 3 Qa C' v ° ° 0 ° o m' v_ (n v o 1 z I o ° m c _ 0 m ° o �co w F mm m v �o ° o o 0 0 N m = (n C O p O <n, N O O O � N � Q N (U (n � m `< a O O < v Q O (D Q (n ma Z3 m 0. `n v 3 v ° 0 0 o Z 0 Vf 0 a m (D O m Q � r) 0 0 (o 0.9 (O m o Z a N 0 a ° w w ° c a- 3 CD Q Z:2� O (D O ID W (D C7 @ 0 0 0 c �• (D m c c D m cn 0 °_ m Q 0 0 0 O `< Q 3 0 3 0 0 CD a 0 CD CD (D rn cn a cn cn ° 00 E; 00 MCD(n .x. N 3 O 7 O Z� (D N (n N CL 7 Q Q ; O � �. = C Q- N N cn m m CDCD 0 ern cn n' Sll -p 0 0 0 Q c (D co CD '� 0 0 O a 3 m v -I (a N (D o O L E N 3 CD CD C) Q a (D 3 N CD r, m Q 100Io I A14 oC O � N O � CD 4 m = 0 p n ._. CD 0 CD o � O � 0 m L �m0v° —O v CD m m r R M Z o0NrQ0 C Iv Qv, .-DD t o 0 M m tea) - V i CO 9- D nn go N- v Ivy. DO �i O (Q (a n �v 17> N R. — -s 7 0 (D 0 Z o v � Q < CD CD (n O CD Z v CL C O n Z3 n� (D 0 i D 0 0 0 N . v � o N y -0 -0 (n CD (D CD v sli <' <' (D (p m Z, �. CD a m N m 0D 0 2L 0 CD 0 N (D v v S O (D (D N w m n � O V W * O 0 r V r x� 0 W T D K CDN W v W DD N O W N A_ V O V O 00 v m to m 1� O CD O cc m m m cr �F N D 1,612 0 r C7 m z G7 D m CA m D C C) O z `0 0 p O m m d 3 2) d D T (CD (CD m ((DD 00 p CD Ali M p -n O. O.. O. M S O (D w 00 D D 0 -0 N a o m= g _ � ado a(n i c C N C o ' 0 a CD m CD O ci 3 m y �a 3Z y D0 n y W y O .Z1 O ,O-. 7 0 �_ M to ? O O ° CD CD O O O CAA o c(�D q z _ cn c o O D. O O = w aofD w = a T. C — -4 90 CL 0 in a 70 ° D A qt CD O 90 a) O (D W W W W Cl) co W W W W W W co W W W W I iLi o �. (D n < os(n-0 v n z6(n ° ° 7 za ° ;u (D om (D -n O U) 97 n ;a N n ° m m o N ^vm O (] N C 7 S (D "p �- 7 S O. O_ (D 'O �' (D 'p _O O <. (Wn (D ° 7 S O y' m O O °_ (Q N W �� 00 -=-o_W W m m so m m �� o�.3 �° c °mm� (� ° (oo�mmm C W T. cfl o CD O (D a O o_ m (n (D S m -o W o_ -a o 0 a. 6 (D W m m o o m W 0 pi O W W o (D (D O (n (n O O -O O 7 p O_ O 'O O a' 6 0 6 (2 W a O- O (D (D S C (D O -O O< W C (D O 0 0 -� 'O 0< W a O T (D .+ 'O W W T. W N (D (D (O �`G O W W 7 (n W S W CD W (D 'O in W (D O" 0- O° O O. -O S (n 3 7 O Co N — N (n 3 O p (o ? W — W Cn — (D a• N W O -� o_ O_ (D = 3 -O -p (D W O W O Q o C O OO O O= (D O =- (<D W O S O O (D O S Ox N W CO 0 +0 0 0_ Q .3' W O_ N 0 S N -O 7' (D -O (D -O CO (D Q (D O. O N O (D 0 (D Ci v 0 6 Ci v S n 6 (D (Wi -O ? (n m O O a. O_ C 3_ (n gin' ° C W (n 97 O S �' z W p (D W p -° N O_ (D 'O O 'O 6 (D Q -O CD a Q O O (Q (D O_ p Q .< (D 6 N O (D CD W W 7' W T -O O p n (D 0 (D (p N (D (D O W W W O W (� N n �• o W O C-0 N (D W= 7 O(D (n <D (O W =r O S c .� z (D (n s,< CD cn (Q o o- o. c in Q a s c m m D o 0 am(fl Qm m °- W O 0om?@ ID 1 n (n (D 0 (Q'm 0 (D a ,... C (D Q N 6 -0 N C Q. � n O j N SU C O LA N W W =r N J (D W W O" W -O N n `< W W W �% ° -° (o (OD o ° �' ° (o (=D o � ° Q m W (W-i o 0 m -o (D p W o. (n c c W o W� (D (D 0 -o (° (D m 3 v 0 � �, (o CD C s p to O_ p C0 O_ O_ m 0 (D Z Z v' n O (D O W .a — m V1 W° (D N 3 v o_ N 3 -D N o_ N Q -' (n W Q (� -- ((D �' m o_ m o o �, ::r CD 7D0 O W W o 0 0 (D o O (� (� o n W� o_ cn m w CA O o- O O "O 0 (7. < m o ° 6 (n (W-n ((nn (Nn (<D "p." CD to (D (fl C W (o a(Q mW �O 3 =E o = v 70 (3, a v > C N 7 W W C >_ C > < (D p 3 O T W (n O (D n 7 O_ -O T. (D S (D .-o = = O O v iV O (D 0° _> 0 o -° ° v o Z3 a. Q° o (fl o= v a- w m z X m �. (o �. W m m > 0 p_ O a a Q o Q �' m rn N cn W� (oa W N (o W Q-o N o N s (D � � S v =g p7 x in' C) (n o O m i� -a W m 7 CL 7 m O o- 'O ni O m O (n Q (O (Q Q O S co m m m 0 0 a r« _. s a m a W oc m ° m ° 2CD =r -o � (DNm rs O °c °c m s ° m 3 °c (D - A (° o (Wn (<D o 0 W m 3 m0 ° o —o o (D m m W o O Q. W �°0(D CL 3 O_ o. O_ O_ �_ (D '..' V N (D v W o o n o a � m (D S 0 m (o D S C �, C p co — o p (Q. N (D Q j 3 7" (D S O �- S (D -p o 7 � cn W o 0 a (fl (O v m W O _o- a 0 0 0 C 0 ° C W Q ° ° (n (D W 3 3 0 �' 0 0 m o (n 3 z (n _ N Cm Q °' °' o a (D (° (o o� 0 � (� �' — 3 — o o Wn t, _ 0 0-0 m W 0 ° CL (D 7 N Q 0 P (D 'O C N O O O �. N O (1^ l7D (n 7 W n O O° W (p Lnn o m m ° 0 — m N M O z N m O O z N `0 0 p O m m d 3 r- 0 n o� 3 (7 I < Q D Ro m 3 CL (D CD v C. �D a O CD O W c W N O_ N i CD c W N O N W "C O z O CD CD A14 o (D (D ' N ! W . � I ! n � � o - . Do o ' * V ° C. o *I W T D x i v v 0o w 0 w �+J N � A ME O 4 O DD D rQ� a >E m a O 7 lw O as m CD 7E fl9 a rQ D a' O rr r- 0 n O O n O W < Q D 90 W sv 7 Q ci m CD W Q M m a O II. C- v 7 s= v N O_ N I TI CD ar c v N O N X m O z O CD CD G) A14 O r O m ^^z UJ m 3 co m D c c a c7 a o. O a Z a C (n W 7 7 7 7 < . i it CMG .. Q- W N -� O r O � � n w c. —DI m C O co <Q D m D CD c W W W W N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Po (D (p (n n T = o' w (� O O C a' (n n ;u (D ?7 - i� C o' ;u �. (D N � O O = a' W p� n a' ;Q (D. (D m T = W n Z7 (D -j S o' ;Q �. (D = 3 m Z O C =� O ?7 < a' w p� O �. O °" ..O _ (D (D _ (D n '� 3 'a = (D n 3 = n 0 a' n 0 = (D n (0 0 p = = O (p (D = n (° ° Q n �' S (D = S n Q 3 v ° Cl. c 3(D Q c (°D (n O_ c< O 3 S a a 3 (D 0 S— o v Q m c ( ° 3 pj (D C 3 Q o c v v p a 3 S 0— (D 3 c "' c (D °' 90 °' (D (D = 3 O _. (D (D 3 w : N 3 m 0-0- w w (D 3 a° _' g o (D o g ci (On cn m Ul Cr o CD m= a- Cr 0-0 O o S m°(D= �' T= 6-9 (p Cl 6 (D (D C -o =. (O ` c m N 7 v C m �, p 7 Co Q O- o m d• 7' co (D Q C m O Q O- m O Q a• c fn (D 3 '_.. a CD Q O- o m _• _. N m (D Qm C o (0 = 3 o (0 0 ° o Q 3° o (0 3 v O 3 (D Q v g 3 'o 0 (0 O 3 y v o ° o= -0(0 v v Q O 3 �.0 = __ ° a c 3 o cQ (D O _� 'O < o < O < O `< n 0 "'^ (D 3 < o n p (D = 0 0 "^..a (� O 97 = O O < OS (D M (D a Q- (� Q (D (� - o O<° (n _ 3 O o O v In— S L m O (o � O p<j v — Q O p S_ ° (D S �.. O - v '' (D _ N (n -, (D p C S W (D p c 0 3 (n = 0 0 -. �i (D �' (p D o o o 60 o a.�._ a v(Q'o 0' �.m vo o (� O o z m a- ° w -a ° (D 3 v o m v a v -O 77 o 7 n. Q v m = � o v v °� (D o n � ° �. cr °(D o O o co ' a � (D �- a" (n (D o m O° 0 0 o a O m m m (° m 0- m z �'(Q c (D 3 _O (D 3 Q �_.� o Q m (D 3- o m 0 O 0- 0 3 o m y (D N .+ 5,< -. �_ N N 5, -' �_ -a• (D ff1 S - S (D Q .< - �- Q .O-. (D -a O (D Q fl1 (D = SD (n 3 `< z °' O (D (D Q (D (n == O- '-� Q (D (n O �, C Q (n (D a c- C (n Q (D O O- O (D o = C N a' �, Q (D O n Q C = O N Q �- O � iV^ (n o S= S = p o O O O < y =- -o (n (n (n fn (n (n a" s v fl S CD OO o O O O v 7.-- v o S n a 3 • S d 1 m 3 Q • -p a v Ut O cn -a O = -a OT, = C' C C ° Q .-. _ _• v, (fl S O = _ m (Q = Q _ <D n , .T v ((D _ >' (O (1 (p � °Tt C n �' _ -a -o (Q = = m n o -'+ m m O Q O m v v o =- N O �o v m S� v 0 3 0 v x �� v a°_ �O�a• CQ m cn (D 0 3 3 = a 3 0 a' 3 3 < v m 3 —n m O (D < 0 < D o < °` 0 v(D o < v v v 3 N 3 CD o v o ° m (o � o °c N °c 0 o= p n 0 m j. l0 0. O CD = Q N �O Q Q' N Q ?= 6 n C _ (0 ((n = in 0 m a cn o v cfl a v s o (n D N (D o 3 3 � v j v cr ?� 0' �°_= v O cn n (o (o CO co i Q e (n Q = RO (p ((D S (D (p Q S (D 0 (SD S (D S (D a S O (° N m (n Q W. Z3 O_ 0 p CD n v m= = Q m 0 0 _ E a _ E o ° QTC Q n O (� 3 _(D (D S O 3 n> O 3 = m cn = m O 3 O O cn — a" a 0 _ ° K (0 v cn v m v co CD Q m m j(n °- 3 L �' Q ° n I C CD v = ° CD Q m z ° 7 i o v o' c(Di� v o' w S Q m Q O Q C C � = o c D o' o' o n �' (L' o o v o -a 0 vo z N (i 0 v < (D 0 w a' (D 0 N a" (D 3 O (D CD P- S T O w Q N CD v c v m T 0 � 3 O ° v ° N m (n (nn N n w m (D v v (D (n v O o v= o m (D n m M m N O z m O n O m z --I N r- 0 n O O n O W < Q D 90 W sv 7 Q ci m CD W Q M m a O II. C- v 7 s= v N O_ N I TI CD ar c v N O N X m O z O CD CD 1612 A14 O r O m ^^z UJ m co m D c c7 O Z C r- 0 n O O n O W < Q D 90 W sv 7 Q ci m CD W Q M m a O II. C- v 7 s= v N O_ N I TI CD ar c v N O N X m O z O CD CD A14 c rn � 7 ° 3 m CD 0s ) 0 O V tto O _ Er 00 O V -n *O Co N X O W CD Dwo w N m p Z M m -4'a O (D V N CD W T 0 3 3 ca �. m � W A 1(. D a� O 1. N K Z -00 moo *uo 1612 N 7 OD 7 7 n 0 tD y O� N O M O ..o� �m��,oM a -O M m -o m a- cc .. m � m C n C O O (n O 7 (p .C-. 0' Q L =� ���ii rii � Q O n� m o�i c m m m p � Q �m � ° m rvrSp�� Z (D °N o�D��G� nDQy — D m � y m � D`� W to -O N 6 � y Cn D r � o' o °_' go D � o � � m 7 (D y v 'O .x-.'6 N F. —I y 3 � � � 0 � O y � � Z .7Y Q n m O S (D Q � Dt p1 vi m a y 2. (D O l � y ,N d C O (D S i) N I (D m D 0 C O O rt (D y (D m Q (°p � (7 O O N y(Q O ��� ill .Z-{ y y (D n (n ° C CD � N � 3 m � m m S Q � � CD �' o D (D N � m n y N m N N m - o v n m m o_ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 O O (D ( (D ( (D m m m m ( (D m m m m ( (D m m O O a a a c c a a a a a a a a o o a a o o W V V T T ( N N N . ..r CIO W (M A A W W N D c c r r O � a a l l7 -0 m m C CD O ( (D (^ Z O O N N Z O C N C C O D I In m D co W W W W W W W W W W � ��i C S S X X ' '0 Z ZJ m m C Cn " "0 - -0 - -71 T T o o a- ;u C C7 o m m m m v v S S. n n ( (D ( (D � �. _ _. o o S. ° ° ° m 5 S S C CD m m a a m m m m 3 3 3 3 m CL m y m 5 (D C C 7 7 O y v 7 3 3 7 7 7 7 ( v,' v v � m o 7 O o C 0 C CC CD ZT � 3 3 ° ° C CD 3 3 s s 3 3 3 3 C Q Q y m m° 3 3 o N N m o C_ m m m m m m y y m m m m m m 9 9Y v v m m Q Q o o 0 0 o m n " D (D O o o O f fn 7 7 O O 7 7 p p1 7 7 7 7 " "O O d a C 'D C CD m � �C m CD O O O y C C ( O O O = = O O O O m m ( n C CC DL m m 3 ( m m o �_ m N Z Z (D y y y y N N y y y y C CD f fn y y a a O S . O. X m m C CD m ° ° y S ry O m m "O L L . N ( (D 7 ; d (D Q (D Q N ( (D 7 O S O m m n n n y .°-. N O' N D y v v s s m .0.. ; m o o m m N N m m m m S S � (D 7 7 y - -p O � �'I y n N N O O N N O O. ( ((DD ( (D C CDD N N C C m m 0 0 0' j j' (p w o(°°m�n T T m ( m m m ° ° C CD ( (� m m m m y y y y I i i ��m c Yam N T T C m m m N N y m o y p p y y y y y y y y m g - m _ o ° _ (D O y m f f7 C CL El O O y _ m C N N ° ° C CD � �. C CD C CD y y C CD m 7 7 y • •-• (Q " O N N C C C. ( (D = = ( (D ( (D M M C CD ( (D = = C CD c ci y O O'O � � (D O � � C Q Cn 7 70 y ( (D a a Q Q�< y y O O O< y y O O' °o n n C CD m m C CD_Eo(° C CD yC_� D D < < o G (D F C� y � 7 O S ° 'O m O O O D D (D ( (D = = y y ? ? C CD (D C C CD O O d 0 O O 7 f O S S O 0 -0 % %.� � m m �' m Q m m Z CL o o i is ( (D , m o o -o a a y m m { {/) N N m Q Q- m m > >> w w o �. m m Q Qp y N N N N N 7 0 0 m �n 0 � ° 0 3 3 m m m m m N N _ ( ('1 p ( (� N < ° 7 * * F a�O O m ` `< f f O O m m m m C) > >( O1 ( (o v1 C1 0 T T CD o o ° ° m m° m m ° 3 Z Z ° - - _ ° C 0 0 0 ° D D S X X W ° _ 0 C. CD y 3 3i�3 o y m m m O C ... a a , o m v w V Z (Q . mvm m ,o» v m-a (D C CC T T (D o, O O C = = O O_ O p O O O � � � Q I 0 0 0 � � 0 0 0 o ° 0 D D o m C o v coco o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o . .t w N f ff1 (D 7 7 7 y y n n y y 3 3 ( (n ( (n = OnOOno = (D (D ( (D ( (D ( (C CC CC ( (D - 7 B B. a 2.2. 3 3 C_ (O N (C (O L L N ° 3 3 yo o � 1 (D m m m m m N 0 N -C Z (D V V) m m m n C C fl s. O O c o a m m o Z Z o H H y a 3 m a m C CL m n n n n n n n n n n n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m m m m m m m m m m m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 01 V VI A A W W N N N N 4 L _ �' o D (D N � m n y N m N N m - o v n m m o_ 0 V m v3 3 m N � W w O o V F+ M W O p N T 0 D K CO O N N �Z � M V N w oa 0 AA A ,4 1 j � d O -n O O O. w A O v CD La ca. 7 >f m 7 G O I� li CD 17 I � �t .D N 7 >F is O N M 3 a 3 0 1612 A14 G) O r D m z G) D m W m D C n D O Z C w t' N n m r O n M p N. 7 ((DD 0 G 0 EL- (D 3 c) y .o G Q O CD C M O SZ L C C N O N I m CD cr C w N O A M O a O Z O 3 (D CD 9 9 9 9 9 9 E 3-0 9 f M 3 3 A fD N O CD A O CD �' O R= W O O ci v d Cl 7 7 3 7 7 7 7 3= O T(n 7 7 7 O O 00 V Cn cm A W 0 N O Q 1 v 1 * 1 m , 3 w o f7 D < a 11 CL 0 .= Q °, o QD y Z no o O 3 w w O N O CD 'w n cu O C Ja (D yi Z7 � O �v o y xCD = FL m D m sn C" G) � G7 ww — icn w m -� E3 C; 0 o < m �m m m m 5 3 a,3 Q< a,°o.00O.3 5.< o (D N '-' D CD w (D CL w w CD �(D w w m N *mm n) w w < Q CD 0 �mnvm w n w w O ��3 O W CD CD CD �nc� o m o 0 (p o m o o o °_ CD CD a CD o y Q N 3 CD cn 3 N E •°•' B cn 3 3 cn o O 3 ° CD ° W p_ 03 3 cn s N w .y-. 1 v w Q7 v w O' F c°'i (D . 7 [J (D y" p7 w y- a o' m o' CD o CD o' m o' o moo o o o d m D 0 7 7 7 N 7 0 7 �. 7 O 7 7 w. O O w C Cr O CD d FD Z 0 C- w O O O w 0 O w O .y-. N N O w Q D3i n y 3 m y -_' �• y 3 y y 3 ai y (D CD C v, co m y 3 w C p M 7 0 0 w y! O O v! O O ! y y O Q O Q y y W O �- ,y... ° O N W O Q Q y y Q Z C) v m C7 m v o m Oo_ 3 m 3 fD (D ° 0 ° Q y y 0 Q Q CD (D o= 3 m D Z ° CD v -° CD m o y CD ° n ° Q 3 r) (D O 0 O O n (D O n CD O n CD 7 O n (D n CD 0 O C °- w 0 CD w �- O °' C i�0 n (D O O 0 O m .-. N (D 3 0 3 3 3 (D 3 3 3 D° 3 i O V O m v3 0 � 3 (D N d C13 m n A o -4 V � aD O „ o O r V o O ^' T x D x O N N 0) 'a CD V fn O T O O 00 � o: v al as rD w 0 A l 1 IV 0 0 0 Q �E m m 0 7 B 0 v Q7 CD B 7 v 3 S D cr O CA 161 2 A-14 0 0 r O m Z m m m D C m n D O Z C r w ` 0 a m (1 ro 0 o n x � r• n O h Q 0 7 O D) CD C� G X CD 0 0 CD 1 O Q L v C SU N O N m CD CS c iy N O L M 0 a 0 Z O CD (D 3 n 3 3 3 0 3 333 0 3 -q 3 3 3 3 L? 03-�a3 3 CD 3 CD d d a Q d A W N N 1 �° f Q � ci i v v ai m m v v 4 ni ci a° o a m 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 F O y 7 to V W A W N# N # N d G N N O S c N W O CD D O + 0 n O O O 7 Z D7 p N m O Cn W N � A � 7 D o °• a A m ID a D 'm V N ()9 S a w w w w w N ODDS C (D (D (D D o� ° N N ° n O N O S p(D C1 7- Q 7 CD Q Q Q (D a) 07 N 7• 3 _. l0 N al .7. '7.. (D 7 (n C Q ? 7 N (D O O O N O 3 (D (D T 3 K n C p Q° 0 CD ((D (D a °� C 7 0 0 Q o (Q a) O< (D n (D n (D 7 a �' 7 (O tU N o O n 3 a C N d (D 7 Q 0 0 4 7 (D S N (D N 7 (D (p N= O O O �, S .-. N T -° C) K i7 ! C- a) O (SD a N 7 Q CD 3 (D N N C �' Q n o 1• m (D v m _.c S al -° n n ° ('') . Q C C7m -' 0 n v m 3 3 � o CD (D Q (Oi� (D (D S p 7= 0 (OD (D 7 7 7 7 N N 7 (D 7 7 7 CL (D N to v W m N n O (O �" N •-•. _—". O m o a) Q' m c 7 (Q C- N �. c o N Q 7 S -Op m C p -n o pt (n (D Q° 7 0' D N 0 o 3 Q O 3< 7 �, Q c) 7' m Q< d N o N C) O. a C N 9Y a �-• 7 (C CD Q. (D N 7 C Z p •--. p v 7r O N (O (D = Q a, CC LL U^ (n W 3 3 W C W (D (D N .7-. (D O• 3 C (D N � Q° C- w <D 7 a) N= S Q 7 A n L�1 O S Q c N 10 N (D a (D ^ N � 11 3 _• D 0 fD C) N O� C 0 J N O N 0 p O m Z 0 O 0 N 0 S 61 (D a 7 Q 0 Q (D C 0 CD C 7 `� C) Q< N O !! `.-' (O N N 7 7 Q O != `< (D N W .7 N= (O °• � (D a N! a) (D O (/� z Z p O (D ° Q fn 0 O .N.. ° (D O 0 w O (n N O. °m Q Q 0 C P N y N Q J O r �< O O C (] � p) <_ (D (D 3 (D d 3 0 N ID ° Q (OS �. p0 N CL Q N O O n N n N N� a (/) N 0 S 7 N (D Q N N 7 C i 1 m CL _� 7 0 7 o r o C- :7 �c CD Q o o m 0 C ° 0 ? n m C ° ° 3 a vi m N 0 m 3 (D (D N O p a .C-. � v C (D � a7 0� 7 w (n CD 3 3 3 .� al Q O (D 3 3 O F a (O 7 0 7 j- CD lD N a% a o(° m-a° W 3v, v, Q m c•°D O (D`�n r.'v,mm m G 0 0— O C 9 00 O N N— N 7" a= _' Lll' (n < Q p O ... D 7 n C (D C p� y * i) = 3 7 CD 7 3 N CD ° Z3 (n (D ° (D O (D — N S (D CI (D = T 7 (D m -0 (D N (O Q O o— .+ fn O C *<° (D �' CD 3 N C 3 C 3 3 N CD 7 (O 6 (D Q a .-.. C 00 w S =`. (n o A O O Q N O O O N —' =� N N .N-. Cn (D N O< O t11 q O (D O ° N P. 61 7 �. O M C J 0 N m a O s Q a Q W (n N n N O � 0 0 cOn fl. C (° N (QD m CD 5- "o c (D CL m O N o C p 3 Q .. O 7 N N (D 7� 0 (D 7" O' ° a) (D m (D /a G C 7 (D N= "00 ,+ N 3 ? C. a) 3 3 3 = N 7_ N O a N N =' 7 Q CD co (D = m j (D 7C .°' n 0 o D Q N D ° 'O o ON p o y 0. n ;D O< Q v 7 p =. . Q < 3 O 0 -I 0 7' (D a 0 1 SU (7D 0_" N a O CD a Q O N 7 O 3 ... < N N (D C �i N O 7 0 Q S a ° Q N N -6 = '-. n (O N N N O 6 S 0 (D N v C (D a r' O N (n O Ln p- (D Q _ 7 7' 7 [L) C C S 0 ? .... al 7 O (T 61 ) O 7 a) n o W N Q (D m N i� Q (D 0 7' (O 3 p� 7 n .7.. O O (n 7 CD a' ° m r ° Q � i °C 3.0 E5 :3 n C'o o f) CD 0 = <° v o o a' =a O m n Q (3D CD .7_+ C' W OC 7 (n OS vC 4J .< C 7 v C D �. 7 (D o— 7 (O (D CD (O (/1 S C N =z 7 .�+ (p 7. Q C O O co 7 o Q al w 7' C 3• Q 3 (D a) 3' N S (D 7 3. (° 3 m a1 0" _ m Z (D N — S v o 3 CD Q' v o N v fl v a) (D o v 0 D 0 m CD Q (D Q w w 3 o < _vx 7 N ° m O N N W Q N (O N (D C) n a S -- O 7 QO S-' 3' O CD m = o 0< .N-. - D Q n N c� m o C Z Q n 7 cn CD m 7 � C7 (D O a1 -O C N o (D p O C N 7 O o N N Q S 03 C 7 n N o Q C a1 7 (D Q 3 o o =_ p ID �.Q = CD Q v ci CD o o s m CD Q — S (D N CD C- N a.: (n O (o O N rn m N O Z ul m O l7 O m Z 161 2 A-14 0 0 r O m Z m m m D C m n D O Z C r w ` 0 a m (1 ro 0 o n x � r• n O h Q 0 7 O D) CD C� G X CD 0 0 CD 1 O Q L v C SU N O N m CD CS c iy N O L M 0 a 0 Z O CD (D n n n 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 d d m d A W N N 1 � i 4 161 2 A-14 0 0 r O m Z m m m D C m n D O Z C r w ` 0 a m (1 ro 0 o n x � r• n O h Q 0 7 O D) CD C� G X CD 0 0 CD 1 O Q L v C SU N O N m CD CS c iy N O L M 0 a 0 Z O CD (D 0 o; CD C• N I W 1 n A 1 O V i l0 00 # O , T 4 1 r V CD * I 0 N T D K 1 1 N I W. A � V � O - O I 00 ; f 'O 0! ao rD A O A J J Ql 1612 A14 v N N 0 S Cf * 0� m (D O C4 O njm G W V W --4 0 C7 � -n N K x w� N CO D W O N M Z M N V "O O N M W -n O � 7 CL 3 Cl W s o D as O N M AV to r-K)Mr -, -tnr-0 a C 0 53c VD Nyo m � C .n•' C .ni• n a � Q S m fC n ? z S I C C C C C C " 3 •" r 7 -ED " D 3 a (n S ti O v = ai 7 ci 3 w 7 SP 7 N La m�('om(D m°:� 01 N A W N ? co fD r .�. cow o �T o to ¢ v O f7 0w0g mD C N C °� C o —i CD S CD = <m w C 0 A � ID at = Z m CO go �N M I N S N CL M. C N to cn too 3 N - N D X Zn M m D3 m D 0 c - -itn00cp0 -ri in z7wn Cl) in N O• Q m O= O= (OD 7 m m 7 N m m (D Q m Q= C' �' ... C O M — N m N ' 7 p (D 41 .-. m C C (D m {D m O m N n CA T= Q (7 ID (CD: N y ZT C 'v-. (D .N-. (D .-. (D .-. (D C .-. (D N O _ C �; N a CD 0 3 � N N O C (D N `< C CD (D m O 61 3 tl1 3 = N 3° = n� _. N' (p W -O m D y_¢ �� 0 3= O 7� m(o = 3 C o 'p N N (D m (D m 3 0 " O 0 m N� m N m¢ 3 = O m ¢ N n o 3 in N = � N = m p 0 (O ¢ = m _ (D _. o ° a = in o� O m o a, m N O 3 __ __ _¢ Q `NG d p y O = _ = C C C O o CL o a j== CL CL C= m CD_ C N m S 3 ET � 9= C 3 a m m d 9' N a v j O 9 m o "O c 0 a Z n l =_= l= m a y p' N O N = `< = O l< m N C N N N N v m y y- W D O N N aU ! ! S S ! ? o ¢ m N = (O <D D M m n. m p p D O < (D o. — 3 � y O C m o 7 m z y y () 3 3 y 3 .N-. y N ('D 'q� ¢ 7= N y= O• y ii ¢ n, (1 5 C N y � O _' M ¢ y S O = ry ¢ m= m m N O� = O n n y S p N N (D o• N _' O' (p ¢ m V1 s 0 m Q Q Q m N_ O = 0.N 3 D Q N my = y m 10 O l y y y 0 � N N m 3¢ y N ^A y O v N 3 3 CO = m y (D (D _ _ 3 -- p¢ 0-1 m 0 c G 1, v v m � . �� m CN m� o O (D v M v n¢ 0 z vmi 0 v M C ¢ in O O C O = y? _ (D = m' N r Vf m 0 0 m y(D� o y? °c D G 2 y��, a v m a y N y= cr° m D 0 n (D 'D N in (O Q- M (D m m N Z 3 A m N M 0 y N N 3 (D N p_ = o m p < N Q m Z) m v go = ¢ O• N N O m 3 N y = O m = m W y m m y D �, *. (D m i' 0 o M X '� v� 0 m m m = v m n F,, o 7 n y ?. n E5. T CL n z O 7' O p = y S D. v D 0 o m �� U� y 0 �' N O M <O m m O N y z �C = m O _ ¢ ( O D O c 0_ c =. (D N y ~ a _ m N -0 D ID p v ID A N �G O_ O N N 1 y O O �. p d Q N CD y 4 N = d m p c c n = o Cl) m 0 CL = i ¢ m m m C = v y < m < m' i -op O- N _ 'p 0 o m t!f °— < v mn 0 o _ ° ¢ a to CD o m m 3 O <- CD ! ° n C O Ct ¢ o K CD ? a. 3 N� m N z 0 v 3 a 0 C = CL N v m n 0 3 3 m z _0 0 0�0 N (D m n � � O -O C n .0 c n c m o m o (D 000 0 Ol< Q 3 0- 0 (D 3 0 0 7 � y O O 3. m m m y N N = O 0 c a� o O m = N _ (D N x N 3 O O y = ( O � m O. cn to _ O. 0 O --j _ = C Q- N N n' S (D m < = FD. FD' a M N -a a0 cn n CD En (D -. 0 cn = 0 (D CL M z N -I m n 0 y E N 3 CL m N C (D 3 cn N CD n 0 m n a = N N C 0 c = n 3 m r N m m = a) Nr- SN� m Z oN DrWO = y < C NO cn Q� �_ °� m m -0 N D w Qo D N 1I O (0 > N Ey 0 _ Z n N O � m C Z O n S 4 m � O I D O O � _ N C o c(o -a M m N p� N< m N C N m m �D 0 N N CD m v r a p N n 1 10 11 (D ((DD n ct n (D A14 161 ;000-or--al oo ,on' 0 53c VD Nyo m � C .n•' C .ni• n a � = N N C 0 c = n 3 m r N m m = a) Nr- SN� m Z oN DrWO = y < C NO cn Q� �_ °� m m -0 N D w Qo D N 1I O (0 > N Ey 0 _ Z n N O � m C Z O n S 4 m � O I D O O � _ N C o c(o -a M m N p� N< m N C N m m �D 0 N N CD m v r a p N n 1 10 11 (D ((DD n ct n (D A14 f7) v O 1 Ot v3 �v � 3 C N @ w m U) 00 67 4 r » W O 0 N T X D X CO 0 N N V y v v oA N O N A V h O T O O w c: m A o v m cn 7 N� m 0 7 m C7 C1 3 ¢1 CD B CD 91 7 3 ra D rr 0 N M ,izrNmrcnr Or °mco c(a o c a 33 C c a g C 3 o 3 C D D �Er z 3 y cn - S "'• " "' N of v N 97 Gi Oi S S it # # a a (p C O 0 O N N 0) '° O 0 y n N A C) B 3 w W 7 Q = n c 0 W � m o O1 _ ' C N 0 2 v w A U2 y (D (n DC ID ' 0 z :3 ID # O W (n N cc C N Q to fn v N O y O D C: cn ?o '� m (D D D co =4 cn �p O < < °- n O 0 z N N -1-1 N N N N N T O <_. X W CL D T T T T W ID 0 '� °< '0 N r O O p X O ci 0 0 CD 0 E: CD C> C ^" 3? (D O D) N y G (D C (D C (D C (D a 0 N N N O N N .0-. D) y= ID w O y m O C < O iV w (O O C = N °. N a 23 = X. 3 0 7' -° O m O m o Z3 3 S 3 <o ry _ y° y O_ m w, Q S S N m_ 0- o '� y 'B CD '? •y„ O 0 < 0 0 0 0 O o< O (D N n' (D C N r 0 W ID y N � C .Z- - N (° °- (D X, Q N ((D y f0/i y o O- 0 X (D O D 6 O. - O = N (D (D a. ° Q Q. ° D) W 91 p j W N Q (D _ .y. _ °- _ O 3 Q p O_ 0 i °' = .y Q O O -I'O - T O O C D 3 v 0 Q d Off_. -O C 3 0 y 0 N 3 y D) O � 0 W 0 v \C/ C Qom �. N Q3. D S mm O' N (D (D =�� 0 n�oo "m mN O y yO_ `° W ° 0 (JD O_ = 0 Q QO 0 Q Qmg� _FD" 3 d � :-« � W `° °' 0 0 '"I (Q v _ m N � D z N °0 p Q i O- 3 0 ! (D ��d D) °-ate N = O Q °o CL N --o m N o N _ w'y Qw 0 0 -_ 0 o O N � �3co. °- 7 O N CO' Z CD 0 p (D Q O ty X J 0 (� 0 p) 0 "'• O (n (D O U) v<i' y (D N a. 0 o 0 0. 7 Cr 0 0 O v O" O y 0 D n CD ,... O 3 S 0 J = 3 Q. - (D O D) n= S 3 0 C `< = 3 0 L, C z 3 M 3 Q Vyi Q ° Vyi. 3 O 3. a) y y "O n• c N fIl Q = y N 0> Z (D CD Q >° (D 0 j m o m CD fl (a � o y . v N m o o o i_ Q 0 W CL co m Z3 V o v 3 p o O 3 =. D n �r 3 i. -I ^ F,' � D D m N Q 3 D) 3 °C J Q C n [_ -`. (7 (D N y __ �, C O. W m [ID C 0 D) (=n Q O o J= = O O O ° = c (� N 0 ° m Q cm y o �syNo�(° y o m o U;m ci (D co=-o ° o ° < n Z N- m O °- O O C = �. (D Q N� Q y Q 3° m p N 0 "O 0 0 o O_ D 0 m °°° 9i CL p)' CL m 0 _ v 0= (n v �� mom O ° CD m v oco Z o o S, D 3 c0=° m °co m T. O CD (D W 0 O O O O< Q 0 7 -0 - (D a C,(O N S o O 0 Q 3 0= -.(C o 0 C S O X23 23 amv n s� m E30 a _3D 3 o QO W CD Q °= o= 0 m m -'oc 0 -° m Z _ ° O 0 = (D 7 (D o (p 3 o d O 3 O i (D = y o D C (n 4) O_ OJ y 'O 0,� 0 O< N= 3 v y m 3 O __ O CD O CD C 7 D 0 W y y Q Q S O S ° S 7 O p "O 0= Q Q Z H X X 0 C D) CL m O a) Co y S F (D 3 m O O °< S= v N C7 i7 0 2 O (D (D 0 y N r2 w o o 0 o 0 X .y- D) 3 0 0 O 4�, 3 m N= CD v =' _. 0 S 0 CR D) C N Q 0= O O - O (n _y co = (D = = O O. (O O N S = O O 0 (7 77 O O S O O {y < = 7 = 7 A CD (D (D 5. 0 CD CD CD CD CL o. ZY 0 =r 0 m c y 0 w w z m W W zt 0 N N n O m Z N 161 2 X14 n r w c` a Q. y n ID r 0 n y D 7 C 3 N m 00 Q. ;U m Q O m D Q. L W c N N O N I T CD +S c N N 0 CD a 0 Z C� C 0 Y. m n C (D v CD o y m 7 3 d O 3 CD Gi 7 CD tQ w� O n � w V M WO O O V — o. -n O r D) N X O W O0 CD D N O CD CA N Z O N 00 -n o � W 3 W o D rr 2. c rF D D 3 g v 9 E E 'V 9 9 O N C. C. C- 4. C Q Q. FS G. Q. N (D CD O C W. y 0' V Off) W � N A W 7 N -� o r- 0 C- CD CD f. C ro a W A D c = W A I CD CD O W m Z f N G O N N (b W Ft O N m � � o N N W W W N W N W N W D W T - (nC)�aD3'= o - �J�JZJ?���C�(p p�J� v- �G) ;U U) a c n (D 0 W m D- o- o o S � 3= m (D 5. m 0 (D 5. c 0 o. m m° T °� o m m m c m (D 3= m °3 CD m v_ m j o 3v N3 v m oo `-'.o m ao rnZ3 W S ° 0 3 W w Q Q , ° _ ° < n C o == _ w Q W= a O N _ W � W Q W Q ° mo S N (o W CD O° CD O Q W N° _ W W O Q == N n O 0. T. W (°D 7 •_-•. (U D O =� pmj N ph1 CD W CO N O Q °" 6 (D X W °O 7C W W= 'O O= m y Q = c S W °- Q CD C °- (On C0 N O 4— O =. O. = CD Q Cr C. W= O c Q -0 3 S W Q O S W W CD O. W < 0 r 0 (n Q N O O �. CD y N m N = N = S O W "O = 0 .c-. 0 CU (n N = O .WS. () (D SU _' CD m 3 = CD (D W QN N (D ((DD O (D W Q O .^ CD S (D m W () Q CD .y-' -o °- S CD (D S CD (D N O W Q W (0 "6 N P=W� 0 � -., o CDD (D = (0 �JVQ��Q m m 3 m 97 o'er L c N• CD Cr (D WC)� m N o N CD _ W S (n (D 3 < N CD = (n (D m 3 _ W (n (n = W N � "O o c (D m 3 P N S 6 cn= O °- Q g 3 Q Q CD �. Q D. W 3� 0 _ v ° O O O m 0. W (n O� m m O =. 3 °0 O .T (D Q D O CD LT 3°n S = (0 -o O N N En N (D In � 3� �. (� (� 3oQ CD 0 O W Z -� v°3'm m= d ::r Q W O O y3 N �' -+, 0Nm (� o= m fl1 C N O = _ _ w CCDD (n N °< D N Q 3 (n (n = (D (n ° Z 'Tj fn °- W CD 0 n Z O (D (n O N D. C W < S11 c CU 3 Vi N ❑. C 3 6> A 3m � mom mW° CD > 3 m CD m n O v CD cQ CD O TQ CD CD m c m =r CD ° c y 3 W o CL cc CD CL 3 7T (D ID Q = CD m s (D C _ o' CD « Q CD m 3' v =. o m W C Q D O S N 0 n O Q° W Q O O N S S= O Z N 00 LU Q CD = Cn ...I S W CCD 0 O N N 3 W 3= N O 0 c C c �, N Z Q C ° CD N Q Cn O M Cn O S M N 0 3 0 0 CD = 7 (0 W 3 r W o- W (n � = � (D '° N = r T N o CD O D Q N Q �, (n (n W Q Cn 0 m N N c Q Q o 7C (D TIN = W CD y m N N .... 'O _ O (� (D (D (fl 70 m ° (D 00 < °—' W O (D = N ° (SD m N ,.,,, o n _° CD Q S (D m N Z �. CD (D V1 (D 3n S EF 3 (D 3 j CD N W cn Vf s -n yW m o °' 7 7(D Q N �(D � i0 N 3 r m °'° = m W a (n m O CD os 0 p m N m m m (n m 3 o c CD ° 0 (D 3 CD v CD 0) 3 �o c W ._-. -° W 3° o W m A 3 (D ° CD m _ =_ � o c S m O n D 0 0 m n m Q o .c-' p J CP (n O c N= CD (7 W (O W CL Q m = (D m CD O Q N - = Q _ Y CL � v� y� m Z Q3 n m I=D' �c 4 P (a m m C- i0 W r v y =" � > CD o can cr m 0! Q n �. � G N = W — N 3 'p6 N CD 0 o (C_ CD ° 3 W 3 N CD `G 0 90 W CD (D O . (D N G m X N C N CD W Q_ 7 (D 0 fn N Q 3 W D N 3(n* 7C O __0 W o N W N O� CD CD •' O" (p' (SD Q W T. W N C O O "NO O CD =1 (D CD 0 (D =1 c_ y S fl S (D W < < N W = (D W Q C J CD Q C p 0 CD W Q = O CD 0 'O m m (n W N 0 W ° 0 CD W Cn in T S. I r— (n O CD CD a N C m m ° CD O Q- Z W 0 = V) ° W CD m ° O C o O oa = CD ° m m m o Q Z 3 0 CL N 0 _ (n 0 rw • `�'$ . {w �� rt vmW No 0 , o . °zN � - oo oN. 0 n a W C M C 0 W K 7 O p a. m m a 0 m -0 CD C n N N O N O = Cp 0 0 7 W n W 0 0 O c= B 3 6 f O fl v c(D W° O 3 p (D gL N r O O O W > C_ 0) Z D (D c N = w r 02 G) S : _ O 6 N cn O n' Q- —I O 3 -, N O S' m (xD CD O CD -0 W D W m m CO -w (0N� D Q ° o cn z Qo D _I S = O N m (D = W Z D = N (n N r �5, o ?' N 00 N 3 z l0. W N O U' Cn CL Qc- i o --10 v C _ C= < (D c (p O -1 O O = D c w i (D O N Q 0 CID n CD O O a (n Wa =F� (D _O.'0 W Q _ C) W Z O = m C C-n cn a fD cn Z?�� N c n m N 0 (On ` (D N (D W 0 .=3 O W W M W � = 3 cn c m 0 m CD �D o Nco 0 Ez z N (D = `° W _ Q co S O (D 3 S (D zs W CD _ W 0- Q (D cn N CD Q 1612 A14 a N n ro (D p' Y• N 0 Cy. (D (D , v O H O O tD �. V CI � 3 � sy < � � O N 0) W m A � .N•n O W O � V � n°+-n x Co D W N M Z x C V N 07 O � � O O a (G m w D o > O M a w I'll 1612 A14 O O r m z D m w m D C n C7 D O Z C r .a N n r O n M � O N. O (D rr O G 'O (D n S11 O fU Q CD 'a O O Q., C- v J c v N 0 N CD 0- CD fl7 N z O O 0 (D CD -nvv-a v 'ovr�r��S7o�_vm 3 (c 10 ID ID 3 w 3 �CCw (D vN» L n o 0 �Cn ' N N C 3 J C Z1 N 7 7 > > 3 J '�• p D) N .. N O d O O l< A It w it N XL N N J J ,.. 0 0 .• O 0 J O 0� � S r' O S S 3 0 N 0 n n D 4 .Oi O c N (D m v 3 (D 0 p O O (D K) m CD m D (D !Z 6 J N _a O N O O J ^. O� R° CD N Z N w � O CD (D Cl) D F ID "' ID v ('n ° 0 N (= v r D D D 90 (Q r m (D 5D = q 3 D 90 NJ w p 7 _ O (C � n C.d W W W W W W N N N N I� noZ! O< O -u N -u 11 m m N (nO (7 Cn N mv)inE:CD(nr� C C LD n N (<D .-. a C Q (o Co V Cn CT .p W N �_ N C C C d v Q(D zr (D N C (n C 0 SU p_ < C (D C Q_ (D Oa O ;U --+. TJ W Q ZJ �' ZJ < 0 Q m J W (D O N J (� (D N (D J n O J N J O (D "6 C (D O (D O N N N D) N < -0 (D (D (D J (D CD (Jn 5. X. 7 �� �. N< y O CD w p' Q O' CL (D N J (D �. J 5. .y-. N 3 O< m = (D — N N N (D o. � N .J-. Cr °' 3 N J, J N A CD (D y C J (>] m N N 25. O v Sy () a O (o N 7< (D O N O Cn n °-o -� °° o° (D � C cr C o• J n m v C: O 0 CO (D (D C O � 7 p y 3 .y-. Q m O M J J J (D N 0 J (D °(D (D "6 N C (D g (D (D o '6C o y m .n-. 3 /^O� \G C C 7 d CD (D =) (D -n (n �. N J X O J y 0 O N 0 C < O o W CD n CD O O CD CD 3 O• CO "O CD W CL (D M CD J CD 3 CL Cn CD -° p O O o_ O n v v y N O Q N N J ! (JD () C N `G c o (D -' CD C. y N o JO. 7• � J m O �' -_.. N c(Dj �O v (D Q r° (o �D ° y J Q J d — n N "6 a. N .J-. N O d < f7 C' O O S O_ 00 N (D 7 N •O 3 L O ID O N O J (D N N O D C N p ❑) (D O (D C J \ v �, .-. Q < v 0 < C O (n Z O. O O J Q (D J Q .< (D (D () �' O O C (D <- .O X J O X 'g' C Q (D O C N SV T CD N 0 L N Z 7 < y y (D (yD < .-. 3 0 n O N -^ v (D J �' N m (11 n J< J •O 'O 7C CD (D M J CL D J J J N O. O n O (p N p• C\ CO X. O N '�' -O C (D (D J y N 0 CD (D J ? =t _. (D (D Q CL n _ N << d y x N N O J i X 7 O O. N O (D v N (D (n J N CD- (D O (D (D O. • Vi n o' O N (OD fl) Q � (D N '00 v N (p' C Z3 CD CL O (O O O O J CL : ? y (D C (N D CD CC C D O O O O y X CD C,) I VVC (D S 3 O N N Q f) O (D Q J N Q C a JJ O W !' N D C D QI d pS� N ((O � C 1 nN . z N 0) � L D C =5 CD 7 Qo �7 6 C 7 -O O N � CL) ) O ' I Q. O C O. D O l 'O D — Q= T Q C (D ) < O (D O O O OO < " a O O N ( Q ( O C) Z CL Z3 (D r. O C). C (D (<D (D _ C O COD O (D N (D j (D 7 S. p C C/) •-• R0 0 z3 CL CD X (O CD (D O Q CD p 0 N (D J Q CD Js CD C2 (D O y 00 fD °" (p O. (D N C O. CD Q- Q <. O J fD Q < (11,., �, °� q C N Q CD o O .-. J N y N "C * � CD y'— N N Cv C T y :3' zr (D O O C v N n J (OD tt O CO 5. y Z J O o N C N N (n T C D ° acn N 7 cc 3 N < COD O O' J ID J Z3 � p= C O Q Q N CD 0 N O N .y-. J 'O Z Q (D N (D N N J Q 7 O N CD fD (D S (D M C) [D � (D (� Sy y l 10-9 .!: S O N C O (D d N N 00 (D O N CD (D N CD O �B "O N O CD (O Q C X N p al ° 0 0 CD c C v Q O< ° < w J (D O_ Q J v (D (D � a O n v y C S (D J (D (D C CL N �' �_. C y N CD N N Q C O N O. S (n 0 (D CD J m V) O Z LA m O n O m Z 1612 A14 O O r m z D m w m D C n C7 D O Z C r .a N n r O n M � O N. O (D rr O G 'O (D n S11 O fU Q CD 'a O O Q., C- v J c v N 0 N CD 0- CD fl7 N z O O 0 (D CD O V O Ct -u3 3 3 CD -q N 07 W °m a O '4 Oo O D V 00 a * 00 N 91 O ,, x D x o N N Z m V N v oa CD 0 w T 7 0 —15 AV c �1 O TI O O O �. O. N W A O N� m O <D 3 ra (D 3 CD D) 3 �E c >S O U 161 2 ►I O r O m z O D m m m D C -i C7 D O Z C r- 0 a� O O 13 0 7 a7 W Q Z O Q L v 7 N O N I TI fD a' c v N O L m m N O (n M m O O O n � O Z O M s Z N N a w (D N. rr m 0 ft G H Alt 161 2 A15 COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF PUBLIC SERVICES Parks and Recreation Department 15000 Livingston Road — Naples, Florida 34109 — Phone (239) 252 -4000 -- Fax (239) 514 -8657 Website: coiliergov.net GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA March 5, 2012 I. Call to Order II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — February 6, 2012 V. Public Comments VI. BMX State Qualifier Presentation VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights — Vickie Wilson B. Playground Update —Vickie Wilson C. Media Update — Kaydee Tuff D. Shading for Playground E. Future Topics 1. MSTU 60/40 Split 2. Wheels Funding VII. New Business A. Month to Date Budget/ Year to Date — Annie Alvarez B. BMX State Qualifier Budget Report C. Advisory Board Resolution D. 5 -Year Plan — Annie Alvarez E. Roof Maintenance VIII. Member Comments IX. Adjournment The next meeting April 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida t �, 1612' A 15 March 5, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, March 5, 2012 MAY BY.._.._,__w- ___._._... . LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Rooms "D" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Kaydee Tuff James Klug III Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris Misc. Corres: Date: —112" 112 Item #:I Le--r— ")-)A! 6 Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager III Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor Ray Coriano, Program Leader 1 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. 1612 March 5, 2012 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:03 PM by Chairman, Kaydee Tuff. Attendance — Establish a Quorum A quorum was established. Approval of Agenda Bill Arthur moved to approve the March 5, 2012 Agenda as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 5-0. Approval of February 6, 2012 Minutes Bill Arthur moved to approve the February 6, 2012 Minutes as submitted Second by Peggy Harris. Change Header Page: James Klug III from Chairman to Vice Chair Kaydee Tuff from Vice Chair to Chairman Jim Klug moved to approve the February 6, 2012 Minutes as amended. Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried 5 -0. Public Comments None Old Business A. SSA of BMX — Addressed after VI. B. B. Recreation Highlights Vickie Wilson distributed a report on the February and March Events. (See attached) She reported attending a UCl/National BMX event February 10 & 11 held in Oldsmar to research what it would take to host a National BMX Event. The event would bring revenue into the Golden Gate and surrounding areas. Other events reported were as follows: ■ February 11 — Yard Sale was held with 41 participants. ■ February 11 - CC Sheriff and the GGCC held an outdoor movie with approximately 50 participants and noted it was a cold night. ■ March 5 — Harry Chapin Food Bank truck distributed food between 2:00 — 5:00 pm. ■ March 9, 10 & 11 — Frontier Days with a parade on March 10. ■ March 17 — PAR float in the St. Patrick's Day Parade Peggy Harris suggested Staff revise information to the GGCC sign on the Frontier Day Events: ■ It starts on March Stn ■ Change time from 4:00 pm to 3:00 pm. ■ If room on sign, advertise parade. PA A15 1 kalch . 2012 A 15 A. SSA of BMX Ray Coriano gave a PowerPoint Presentation on the Sunshine State BMX Qualifier held January 13 — 15, 2012. He described the event activities for each day and made overall comments. The event had a direct economic impact of $485,940. It was noted BMX racing is an Olympic Sport. Kaydee Tuff reported the GGCC Facebook page has been setup. Upon approval by the Media Director; Rafeala Zapata will become the Website Administrator. Staff will provide Kaydee Tuff with additional pictures from the BMX event. The Advisory Board asked for an update on the letter Alex Hutchinson wrote to the BCC and County Manager regarding his track safety concerns during the BMX State Qualifier. Ray Coriano provided his response to Leo Ochs Mr. Hutchinson's letter via a certified letter. (See attached) Discussion was made on track improvements required for the track to become a sanctioned track and it was decided Staff would contact the Track Designer for possible improvements and costs. The Track Designer agreed to donate time and only charge for material. The project will be added to the 5 -Year Plan. Staff will provide the GGCCAB with periodically /quarterly status reports. C. Playground Update Vickie Wilson reported the surfacing and sidewalk project was completed. She distributed quotes from Swartz Associates, Sun Shade, Shade Systems and Creative Shade Solutions. Some discussion was made on the durability and the life of the shade materials as quoted it was decided the GGCCAB will review presented quotes and discuss the project at the next meeting. Staff will research possible shade issues with Fleishman Park. D. Media Update — Previously addressed E. Shading of Playground — Previously addressed F. Vacant Position: Program Leader Annie Alvarez reported the Program Leader position will be re- advertised and may have position filled by mid - summer. VII. New Business A. Month to Date Budget/ Year to Date 1612f - A15 March 5, 2012 Annie Alvarez distributed the 130 Monthly Report dated March 5, 2012 and reported the Projection, Revenues and Expenses were on track. (See attached) An Account Major Expenditure Detail Item 2011 -2012 Budget was distributed. (See attached) Staff is currently waiting for Budget Instructions with a 5% budget cut. She recommended the Advisory Board hold a Budget Workshop. A consensus was formed to hold the Budget Workshop meeting on March 29 at 6:00 pm. Staff will provide a draft budget. It was suggested Staff include actual costs from the previous year for comparison. A second consensus was formed to have Jim Klug meet with Ilonka Washburn or Cheryl Pryor to clarify the final carry forward funds, calculations and transfers. GGCCAB has only received an estimated amount. B. 5 -Year Plan Annie Alvarez distributed the PAR 5 -Year Plan and reviewed the following GGCC Projects. (See attached) She confirmed the Advisory Board suggested shade structures and the refurbishment of BMX Track. C. Carry Forward — Addressed previously D. Roof Maintenance Vickie Wilson reported the roof was repaired and never replaced. Kaydee Tuff asked Staff to double check. She had recollections that some part of the Center roof had been replaced. It was suggested roofing be included in the 5 -Year Plan. VIII. Member Comments Jim King addressed several items as follows: ■ Requested an update on the sod and sidewalk drop -offs. Staff responded this is an unfinished unfunded project. He suggested Staff add to 5 -Year Plan. Future Blue Grass Festival He stated the GGCC facility is perfect and he would like the GGCC partner with the Lions Club to hold a Blue Grass Festival next season. Lions Club has expressed interest on this event. Advisory Board Resolution regarding the Advisory Board Terms. He suggested meeting with Ian Mitchell and Tom Henning to get this issue resolved. After School Business Plan Staff will provide a comparison on transportation versus walking students by Staff Cost Analysis/ Cost Effective on After School Care. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:20 PM. rd 1612 X15 March 5, 2012 COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY Kaydee Tuff, Chairman These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on `� 2 - za i Z as presented or as amended - -7_-�— 161 2 A15 FEBRUARY 2012 F. 10 & 11: Vickie attended a UCI /National BMX race in Oldsmar, Florida. After hosting the state qualifier we had folks telling us that we could host one of these. It was a real experience and would definitely bring money into the Golden Gate and surrounding area. A lot of work and modifications would have to go into this to make it happen. FEB. 11: Had a Yard Sale with 41 spaces sold. Folks said it was a good day, despite possible rain and being so cold and windy. FEB. 11: Collier County Sheriff and the Community Center held an outdoor movie "The Perfect Game ". Cold night, but about 50 in attendance. Sheriff Department brought the Rock Wall, footballs and materials_ Plan to have another movie night in April. MARCH 5: Harry Chapin Food Bank Truck: 2:00p.m -5p.m MARCH 9,10,11: Annual Frontier Days. Parade Sat. March 10, 2:00p.m. MARCH 17: Parks and Recreation Float in St. Patrick's Day Parade P'REP'ARING FOR CAMP COCKIER 2012. if you know Grandparents that care for the grandchildren, please have them call me concerning grant money to send grandchildren to camp. 2-15 Hold _R ms, '44S,5,9(40� 00 h Friday. Jan 13 t , 2012 (Day 1) d • Events started early in the morning with the arrival of all State Sponsors, such as Profile Racing Team, CS Cycle Team, Cyclecraft Racing, Corsa Race Wear, Power Cycles, and Peddler Bike Shops. Then State vendors such as J &R Bicycles Mega Trailer, Smoothie King, Capt'n Bob's Pizza, Robert Korson's Photography, and Bob's Subs. And with the arrival of BMX families in their campers made the day very challenging in accommodation everyone in such a condense.area, and yet strive to accommodate their needs. • The first venue started at 3pm with a BMX riding clinic performed by Intense Racing team from Cape Coral. A total of 32 riders had the opportunity to learn techniques of racing along with Elite rider Todd Lackey. • After the clinic, open practice for all riders began at 6:00pm and finished at 9:00pm, giving all riders the opportunity to learn the track. Pro Riders (both, male & females) took over the track for their practice time and culminated the practice event at 9:30pm. • At the end of the evening, all sponsors, vendors, and campers were set -up, and track was maintenance and ready for next day. Saturday. Jan 10. 2012 (Day 2) • The chilly morning began at 7:00am with open practice for all riders, post registration, and preparations for order of motos. By the time the pro riders completed their practice round, all riders were ready to race. • Event officially started at 11:00am, with the playing of the national anthem and a 50 rider's parade lap. Pro riders initiated the action with the amateur riders following what became an ongoing battle of great bmx moto racing. State and local volunteers assumed all official positions, and assisted in all facets to ensure we could provide a safe race and a great show. • During the race event, the track also hosted a Strider Cup Series racing event for toddlers of 2 — 4 year old riders. Where they also compete to receive not only score points, but also great awards. • After a great day of racing, 525 riders and over 3500 spectators, slowly but surely, departed the track to their accommodations in preparation for day 2. • By 9:00pm park staff and volunteers had the track and track area prepared for the next day. Sunday. Jan 15th. 2012 (Day 3) • Track opened the gates at 8:00am in what seem to be another chilly morning, but quickly warmed -up, with the preparation of the final day. Racing began at 9:00am, again with the pro riders leading the way to another non -stop moto racing. Another great day of racing with 500 riders registered, and still over 3500 spectators. With staff and volunteers in place, Naples BMX provides another day of safe riding and an outstanding event. As the main races were completed, riders began receiving their awards and the crowd began to drain out of the area. By 3:00pm the event breakdown initiated, and by 6:00pm with the help of staff and volunteers, Naples BMX and its' facilities were set -up back to normal operation. 1612 !A15 overall Comments • Naples BMX ( "the little track that can ") host their first state season qualifier in an excellent manner. • Sunshine State BMX Association (SSA) lauded the efforts of all staff and volunteers in providing the best "Mini BMX Race Fair" they ever experience in Florida. There were no write -ups per event contract and SSA stated it will be the first to many other state events they will consider the track to host. They commended our facilities, track, and everyone who was part of the event. • Throughout the weekend, many people provided great feedback and commented on our great facility. All state sponsors, vendors, and campers were very satisfied with the service and assistance provided to them. • The economic impact of this event was not only felt by our host hotel, Quality Inn, but also by all the other local merchants in Golden Gate City who provided their services to "BMX Racers ". Thankyou • My staff, Victor Yedra and Antonio Suarez, for doing such a great job and working long hours in preparations for the event, during the event, and post event. • My supervisor, Vickie Wilson, the person I'm so fortunate to work for. For her great support with the event, and all the duties she got involved during the event, including picking -up trash. • Our GGCC staff: Greg Torres, Zack Hendry, and Rogelio Orta, for your assistance, during preps, the event, and teardown. • Our following Naples BMX Council members and volunteers: • Mike LaPlatte, and Wife Lorraine • George Monahan • Derrick Newberry • Matt & Casey Nance o Brian o Rene Couch & Brother Dean • Andy Reites, and Wife Amy • Dana & Ronda Gregory • Mike Orstad, and Daughter Emily • Jorge Barba • Michele Sandifer o Chris Rabkin o Sheryl Munston o Mama Terry Young • To Fran Smith, Group Sales Coordinator @ Quality Inn, for her great job in accommodating everyone who needed lodging assistance. • Last, but definitely not least, Laura Lykins! My program & volunteer coordinator, who without her help there will be no way this event could be successful. With great pleasure and sincerely yours, R" 6 Program Leader, Golden Gate Community Center Track Director, Naples BMX 1619* "A15 February 2nd, 2012 FROM: Ray Coriano Program Leader, Wheels Skate & BMX Park Golden Gate Communitv Center To: Mr. Leo Ochs County Manager SUBJECT: Response to AIMS Issue 4997 The following is my response to AIMS 4997 initiated by Mr. Alex Hutchinson. To begin, I would like to inform you of how stunned I am on the comments Mr. Hutchinson have presented. We were introduced this past November during one of our local races, where he immediately expressed how great our facility and track looked. He stated he was interested in helping us with our website, based on his experience, and has been doing so since. Mr. Hutchinson is actually a newcomer to the BMX sport, and has taken a considerate interest in developing web -based media to market the sport. For that action I coimnend him, but not for the continents he states on his AIMS. Yes, during the weekend of Jan 13 -15`h, 2012, Wheels Skate & BMX Park, home of Naples BMX, hosted the Sunshine State BMX Association State Cup Series Qualifier #3 and 44. Based on the feedback provided by the State Association, State Sponsors, Vendors, and even by a good number of fans and families, the event turned out to be a great success. Everyone was pleased not only with our facilities, but also with the race results. Our track has always been known for being a small track, and it's always been a concern to the State to be able to accommodate over 3500 people in one day, which we did! It's a small track, but yet very technical for that same reason. Because of the size of the track there are limitations to the amount of modifications we can do in order to compare with big constructed tracks as to the ones Mr. Hutchinson tries to compare us. I strongly disagree with the comment of our track being the worst track in the State of Florida. I been Track Director and active volunteer member of the Sunshine State Association for over six year, and I have visited mostly all of Florida tracks and I have seen tracks in worst rideable conditions than ours. So as to the number of people who agreed with his comments is very questionable. As to the number of crashes and or accidents, I also disagree with the number he's stating. I'm happy to announce that during our first day of competition we had 525 riders registered, and no serious injuries to any of those riders. On our second day of competition we had 500 riders registered, and no serious injuries to any of those riders as well. Overall, there we no serious injuries reported to the USA BMX Organization from the State Race Report. This information was provided to me by Mr. John Pingol, Florida BMX Commissioner, who was not only in attendance, but also acted as head official at our event. I agree with Mr. Hutchinson comment of BMX being a dangerous sport and crashes are expected, but the number of crashes he states is also questionable. Eighty -nine (89) rounds of motor were ran during the first round of competition, so it means every moto had a least one or more crashes per moto according to the number he states. I'm sorry, but that was not the reality. Commissioner Pingol will be pleased to provide any information if needed. We had two EMS certified personnel on the track infield, a tents set- up for immediate care, and our local EMS unit was on stand -by to respond and/or assist any injured rider. Besides taking care of scrapes and bruises, these individuals had a chance to enjoy the races. 161 If 115 As to the care of the track, I would like to inform you my staff and I take great pride on providing care for the track. We always ensure our track is in safe rideable conditions according to our track manual, not only for our sanctioned riders, but for our park members as well. The loose clay Mr. Hutchinson is referring to is the build -up created by the high number of riders at the race on our porous concrete turns, which were swept constantly during the race to prevent any accidents. I believe we did a great job in not only taking the appropriate steps in assuring a safe weekend race, but also following the contract rules stated by the State Association. Nevertheless, I do agree with Mr. Hutchinson on our track having the potential for future regional, national, and even international races. I also agree the track will need major changes in order for these events to happen, and I'm also aware of the economic impact it can generate to our County. We had the opportunity to experienced this potential and impact during this our first State Qualifier. The one thing I can understand, where Mr. Hutchinson may not, is with the ongoing budget cuts in our department these improvements will have to undergo serious consideration and make take some time to take place. Even Charlotte BMX went through so many changes in a long peri od of time in order to host state, regional, and national races. I believe the intentions of Mr. Hutchinson on seeing our track potential and the possibilities of track growth are sincere, and those intentions are appreciated. But to read comments on how Naples BMX is the worst track in the State of Florida, and not provide the correct data or testaments to substantiate these comments degrades not only our BMX program and track, but also the Sunshine State BMX Association and the efforts of all Collier County staff along with all volunteer members. Mr. Ochs, during my six years as a County employee, and even as a Retired Armed Forces member I been able to recognize any unsafe situation and/or act, and as much as I enjoy the sport of BMX and my job, the one thing I would never do is to jeopardize my career or the safety of any other individuals by ignoring any potential hazards my workplace may bring. Sincerely yours, associatesSinc varound Equipment, Site Furnishings, Bleachers & Shade Structures TO: Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Pkwy Naples, FL 34116 239 - 252 -4180 1 1 Attn: Greg Torres, CPRP gregorytorres @colliergov.net 239 - 252 -4185 161 Z P.O. BOX 280196 TAMPA, FL 33682 813- 949 -2288 • FAX: 813- 968 -3534 E -mail: mail @parkplayusa.com v, rww.parkplayusa.corn Other Office Locations: Ft. Lauderdale Naples /Ft. Myers Orlando BUDGETARY QUOTATION # 01301 Date: Janua 30, 2012 Ship Date: Allow 4 -6 Weeks Lead Terms: Net 15 Da s F.O.B.: Destination Salesperson: Mike Landis 239 - 597 -9500 Shipped Via: CC Webcoat/Superior Shade 58'x 28'x 13' Shade Structure w/ 2 Dome Hip Design, 6 Embedded Posts & Glide Elbow (Select Colors) 30' x 24' x 12' Suspended Cantilevered Shade Structure w/ 2 Embedded Posts & Glide Elbow (Select Colors) Less 6% Discount (per Charlotte Co. S.B. Bid #07/08- 516/1011 R) I Shipping Charges & FL Sealed Engineer Drawings TOTAL PRICE Price based on Charlotte Co. S.B. Bid #07/08- 516/1011 R Price does not include off - loading, assembly, or installation. ,Price does not include any permits or associated fees. Price based on standard Superior Shade colors. Price valid for 30 days. Thank you. (NOTE: 3rd Party permitting & installation services available. Budgetary Price Range: $9,000.00 - $15,000.00 $ 9,800.32 $ 9,800.32 $ 6,511.00 $ 6,511.00 $ 16,311.32 $ (978.68) $ 15,332.64 $ 2,820.00 $ 18,152.64 Subtotal $27,245.00 Terms AS PER AGREEMENT Sales Tax (6.0 9/6) $0.00 ACCEPTANCE OF ESTIMATE - The above prices, conditions and specifications are hereby accepted. You are Total $27,245.00 authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be as outlined above. Any past due invoices are subject to a 1.5% monthly finance charge. Any invoices turned over to a third party for collection are subject to a 33% collection fee and other applicable fees. Unit(s) shall remain the property of SunShade Inc, DBA as Industrial Shadeports, until order is paid in full. Proposal valid for 30 days. ALL SALES ARE FINAL. Please note: Fabric must be removed if and when a huricane or snow warning is predicted or posted in the area Signature / Date * SERVING OUR CUSTOMERS SINCE 1992 www.shadeports.com 1612 15 PROPOSAL ® Sun., ShadOr I _.., ! f,in �[ ( t'r 1; h— :_; '.�?J Date Estimate # 1975 NW 18 th street 11/1/2 011 103785 -A Pompano Beach, FL 33069 954 977 -7373 Fax 954 977 -7315 Ship To Name / Address Colier County Parks & Rec 4701 Golden Gate Parkway. Naples, FL 34116 Contact Person Tel Fax Rep E Mail @colliergov.net Gregory Torres 239- 252 -4185 239 -455 -9556 CJ gregoryTorres Description Total Qty Item 34'x 30' x 12 entry H GALVANIZED STEEL SHADEPORT STRUCTURE (4 POLE LAYOUT) 7,650.00 1 CUSTOM LAYOUT WITH Y 12' TO CLEAR 15' PLAY EQUIPMENT 8,250.00 1 CUSTOM GALVANIZED STEE T STRUCTURE 15,900.00 SUB TOTAL 5" COLUMNS 5" GALVANIZED STEEL COLUMNS AS PER ENGINEERING UV STABILIZED WOVEN SHADECLOTH 0.00 0.00 COVER REMOVABLE, HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE HOOPS FABRIC. COLOR CHOICE - - GALVANIZED STEEL HOOPS AS PER ENGINEERING SPECS ADVANCED METH OD OF APPLYING A PROTECTIVE 0.00 1,500.00 POW DERCOATI... OPTIONAL - POWDER COATING IS AN FINISH TO THE STEEL. DRAWINGS (4 SEALED COPIES) FOR PERMITTING IF CALCULATIONS ARE 750.00 ENGINEERING ENGINEERING NEEDED BY BUILDING DEPARTMENT * ** ADD $ 250.00 *** * ** 295.00 PERMIT PERMIT REGISTRATION ** *(MUNICIPAL FEES NOT INCLUDED IONS-NO 6,300.00 FURN. &INSTAL..- DFOR ROCK REMOVALADEWATERGNG, DUIMPSTER RENTAL AND ALLOWANCE UNFORESEEN GROUND CONDITIONS INCLUDING TREE ROOTS, SPRINKLER SYSTEMS AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF $125.00 PER HOUR MAY BE AND UNDERGROUND PIPING - ADDITION ADDITIONAL DSOIL BE NECESSARY ARY TO BREAKTHROUGH CORAL/ROCK. I TESTING REQUIRED THIS IS CONCRETE TO BE DONE BY OTHERS CONCRETE COST @ $150.00 PER CUND INCLUDING REBAR 1,800.00 450.00 12 1 DUMPSTER DUMPSTER FOR DIRT REMOVAL 250.00 S/H SHIPPING AND HANDLING CHARGE OF ORDER AND RECEIPT OF DEPOSIT DUE AND /OR 0.00 DELIVERY 4-6 WEEKS UPON PLACEMENT PERMIT APPROVAL Subtotal $27,245.00 Terms AS PER AGREEMENT Sales Tax (6.0 9/6) $0.00 ACCEPTANCE OF ESTIMATE - The above prices, conditions and specifications are hereby accepted. You are Total $27,245.00 authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be as outlined above. Any past due invoices are subject to a 1.5% monthly finance charge. Any invoices turned over to a third party for collection are subject to a 33% collection fee and other applicable fees. Unit(s) shall remain the property of SunShade Inc, DBA as Industrial Shadeports, until order is paid in full. Proposal valid for 30 days. ALL SALES ARE FINAL. Please note: Fabric must be removed if and when a huricane or snow warning is predicted or posted in the area Signature / Date * SERVING OUR CUSTOMERS SINCE 1992 www.shadeports.com 11 ` J� ,,..: -n, I 1 1-1, 1_1 C�� 4150 S.W. 19th Street Ocala, FL 34474 1- 800 -609 -6066 • FAX: 352/237 -2256 E -mail: marcus @shadesystemsinc.com www.shadesystemsinc.com TO: Greg Torres, CPRP Program Leader /CPSI Collier County Parks mid Recreation PH: (239) 252 -4185 PROJECT: Golden Gate Community Center Ft, Myers, FL 34116 SALES ORDER FROM: Marcus Smith 1 -800- 609 -6066 ext. 22 DATE: December 29, 2011 PAGE: 1 of 1 Thank ou for our interest in Shade ,Systems. We are happy to cote the TIM IM r TOTAL DESCRIPTION Model No. R286012 — 28' x 60' Rectangular Shade System consisting $ 23,990.00 $ 23,990.00 1 of (6) columns and (1) cano 1' — 12' lllg 10,128.00 10,128.00 1 Model No. R233212 -23' x 32' Rectangular Shade System— 12' High 5,328.00 5,328.00 1 Model No. R181910 — 18' x 19' Rectangular Shade System— 10' Hior (9,861.50) Less: Discount per St. John's Contract 411- MCC -SHA -02059 Included 3 Florida Professional engineer sealed draw g & calculations Shipping/Handling to Naples, FL 34116 Included OPTIONAL - Truck unloading and installation, including all labor and 18,638.24 materials (consisting of approx 15 yds of concrete and 14 rebar ca es) COLORS: Fabric: Metals: v IMPORTANT TERMS & CONDITIONS: 22.74 '' • All products quoted are per standard Shade Systems specifications p TOTAL $ 4$,22 per our current brochure -,kith in ground bury and including our easy -to -use Turn- N- Slidei1izfabric removal and re- attachment fastening system factory- installed at each corner. • While we take care to protect property, no site work, landscaping, concrete cutting or replacement of damaged playground surfacing or pavers is included. We are not responsible for any damages to maderground utilities or irrigation lines, nor for replenishment of any damaged sod or landscaping/trees. Customer is responsible for identifying any underground utilities, and capping or re- routing same. Customer to provide clear access to site for heavy machinery, including removal of any fence sections as required. Because we must access the installation site with heavy equipment, we can not be responsible for any damages to existing sideivalks, pavers, or oilier hardscapes or sod as we pass over them ■ Customer to provide a current survey of the site for permitting purposes. Permitting submittals to include our standard professional engineer- sealed drawings and calculations only. Any additional building department requests such as,, community appearance board" meeting(s), soil borings, testing, spot survey, etc., which require the services of a professional engineer are not included in this quotation. This quote assumes normal ground conditions; unusual underground conditions such as high water table, loose /unstable soil conditions, underground boulders, or other unexpected underground obstacles which necessitate extraction or soil testuig and /or re- design of footings are not included and ti�d11 be quoted as an additional cost if encountered. ■ Prices quoted are valid for a period of 45 calendar days from the above quotation date. This quote does not include any applicable state or federal prevailing wage requirements; if this project requires compliance with prevailing wages, please advise required wage rates so that a revised quotation can be submitted. Current shipping schedule is estimated at 4 - 6 weeks after issuance of permit. ■ To place thus order, please return signed copy of this Sales Order with color blanks completed above, along Avith your official municipal purchase order. ABOVE APPROVED AND ACCEPTED. By signing below, Buyer accepts the terms and conditions of this Sales Order and directs Shade Systems to provide the products listed for the amounts shown. Buyer agrees to pay to the seller interest on accounts past due at a rate of costs involved ed inhthe collection n o any accounts rpast due- yBuuyer agrees this order is not collection costs deposit is non-refundable. BY: effu dabley s fees, and other BY: TITLE: DATE: 161 2 415 R EAT I V E !�14ADE S0LUTI0r-,JS-.. INC. Shade a luxury everyone can afford INVOICE NO. 2011-00173 all DATE November 3, 2011 CUSTOMER ID Torres TO SALESPERSON 1 Greg Torres Quote from Collier Cnty Park and Rec (239) 252 4185 SHIPPING SHIPPING JOB i METHOD TERMS Creative Shade Solutions Inc. 651 Kenneth Way Tarpon Springs, FL, 324689 (727) 947 3067 DELIVERY PAYMENT DATE TERMS 'E DUE DATE Werner Due on receipt I QTY ITEM # i DESCRIPTION U NIT PRICE I DISCOUNT i LINE TOTAL Shade Structure # I - main play 6 posts 60x28 - 6 post 12' shade structure $ 11,125.00 $ 11,125.00 i 5 OD 7 ga steel post gaLv posts 3.5" 11 ga steel gals frame (1) piece cloth full coverage quick release cable Color - TBD f install installation materials concrete 4,875.00 1 powder powder coating - If needed 1,175.00 1,175.00 Shade Structure # 2 - second p!ayset A posts 23x32 - 4 post 12' shade structure $ 4,575.00 4,575.00 1 5 " OD 7 ga steel post - gaLv posts 3.5" 11ga steel gals frame quick release cable 'install Color - TBD Installation materials concrete 2,400.00 j 2.5" 11 ga steel galv frame quick release cable Color - TBD 1 install !installation / materials / concrete 1 powder powder coating - If needed Engineered drawings Permitting / permit application V County / City Permitting Fees Delivery / FOB Dest Naples area Quote by: Werner Furstenberg 350.00 TOTAL DISCOUNT (Client to provide site plan. Client will do the locating services. No site work included, client will fix any damaged underground pipe or wires. Client will provide water and electricity. Dirt will be moved 59 away at no costs. Client will provide easy access to the work area, buy removing fences etc. ) Warranties limited 10 years on shade cloth - limited 20 years on steel frame R by client $ s I_ SUBTOTAL! $ SALES TAX; TOTAL! $ 1,000.00 350.00 750.00 750.00 575.00 i 30,750.00 30,750.00 16 1 2 X15 AcCOLIr1EMajoi' Exp—alldi[E �e Del:cil fcC- lla -B'Ld_ ic- 4c;POupecl rij/ susiriii L�eio- E- •rind r1i:r_�• - - 0 157710 -130 513100 Other Salaries And ` 1 0 p 0 0 p "'ages 7,800 0 0 ASA counselors - 1 x $9.77 x 20hrs x 40wks (347990) 1 500. 0 0 p Breakfast with Santa 8 x $9.77x 6 hours 312 0 0 0 0 p 1 DCF Training - 3 x 10hrs x $10.38 1 206 0 0 0 Early Release - 1 x $9.77 x 3hr x 7 days 800 0 0 0 1 p 0 Frontier Days 8x $9.77 x 10hours 1 900 0 p 0 Holiday Camp - 2 x $9.77x 4 days x 1 0 0 11 hours(347290) 900 0 0 No School Days - 2 x $9.77x 4days x 11 hrs 1 82 0 0 0 0 0 rounding 1 400 0 0 0 Snowfest4 x$9.77 x 10 hours 1,100 0 0 1 0 0 Spring Camp - 2 x $9.77 x 11 hours x 5 days (347290) 1 700 __ p Tropical Fest 3 x$9.77 x 8 hours �— �_ — a� — — 0/23120/1 Gov-Max V5 0 0 0 0 our : +sore- Mervin =° 516,900 � 60 Operatinq Expense 15/710130 63t207IT Capital Allocation 1,800 0 0 0 0 Per IT B..dget Instruction - Capital 1 ly'1710 -130 634210 Info Tech Automation Allocation 0 0 0 Per IT Budget Instruction - Shared 1 21,100 0 157710 -130 634211 IT milting Hours Allocation 0 0 0 0 Moved from 634210 1 5,000 157710 -130 634970 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 125,300 0 0 0 0 Indirect Cost Plan 1 157710 -130 631999 Other Contractual Services 4,000 0 0 D 0 Excercise classes (347990) 1 0 1 12,000 0 0 0 Cheerleading (347990) 3,000 0 0 0 0 Entertainment Skate/BMX events (DJ, bands, etc) (347990) 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Family Special events 1 8,000 0 0 0 D Futsal 1 D Karate (347990) 1 8,000 0 0 0 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Marcia Galle Dance Class (347990) 1,000 0 0 0 0 Pee Wee Sports (347990) 1 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Referees 2,000 0 0 0 0 Security for events 1 0 1 4,000 0 0 _ � i ropical Fast 0 157710 -130 634999 Other ContractualSen,ices 49,000 0 0 0 157710- 130 639965 Locksmiths Services And Supplies 0 0 u 0 Locksmiths Services and Supplies 1 500 157710 -130 64020011ileage Reimbursement Regular 1,000 0 0 0 0 Mileage 1 157710 -130 640300 Out Of County Travel Prof Eevel 0 0 0 FRPA Conference 1 1,000 0 1 900 0 0 D 0 NBL BMX Conference 500 0 0 0 0 Other DOC Training 1 157710 -130 640300 Out Of County Travel Prof Devel 2,400 0 0 0 D 157710 -130 640=510 1'Lotor Pool Rental Charge 400 0 0 0 0 Per Fleet schedule 1 157710 -130 641230 Telephone Access Charges 2,500 0 0 0 0 Per IT Budget Instruction - Telephone 1 157710 -130 641700 Cell ularTelephone 0 0 0 Supervisor - $57 /mth x 12 . 1 700 0 157710 -130 651900 Telephone Sys Support Allocation 0 0 0 0 Per budget instructions 1 5,800 157710 -130 641951 Postage 0 0 0 Postage for letters /Packages 1 200 0 157710 -130 643100 Electricity ------- - - - - -- - -- -- 93 6/2812011 Govili VS 157710 -130 644620 Lease Equipment Copier Lease agreement 157710 -130 645100 Insurance General Per Risk Budget Instruction 157710 -130 645200 Property Insurance Per Risk Budget Instruction 157710 -130 646110 Building R And ]i'I outside Vendors Facility Painting 157710 -130 646180 Building R And Ri Isi Billings Special service repairs on skate park/BMX track 157710 -130 646311 Sprinkler System R'iaintenance Sprinkler Maintenance ' C t i d Ball Field Nlaint 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,400 0 0 5,400 0 0 21,800 0 0 5,000 0 0 5,000 1,000 0 0 D 0 157710 -130 646315 Alhletic out r n 1,000 0 Clay for BMX track 1 1 2,000 D Gym Floor Cleaning 1 1,700 0 Soiltac for BMX Track 157710 -130 646315 Athletic Court And Ball Field 10ainr 4,700 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 157710 -130 646316 Allaint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc 1,000 0 .1612 0 A15 benches 1 Account l�Rajor• Expenditure Detail i'terrr [3uciget grouped by f usirless Unit, t=une Fiscal Year 2012 0 Collier COu17f;/ Governmenf ___ __ _ --- -- _--- - - - -�- - -�— ` — F1' 2012 FY" ^0'13 0 FY 2014 FY 2015 �_— F1' 2016 157710 -130 646317 FencingB4aintenance _ Service Level Issue = Eudget Eudgrti 0 Eudget Budge _ Budget Fence repairs and maintenance 1 Expenditure Detail lien Description _ 157710 -130 646318 Mulch 4,000 € 807 Parks n Rc– cmatlon Deperfl-CFC - -ni 0 0 0 Playground mulch 1 1 2,000 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 0 0 0 Red Mulch 157710-130 6463131\4ulcli 6,000 0 60 Oper'a'ting Expense 0 0 157710 -130 646319 Tree Trimming 5,000 0 0 157710 -130 643100 Electricity _ 68,800 0 0 0 0 GGCC Electricity 1 157710 -130 646320 Landscape Materials 4,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 643300 Trash And Garbage Disposal 6,50D 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646430 Flect l faint Isf Labor And overhead GGCC Trash Pick ups 1 157710 -130 643400 Water And Sewer 15,000 0 0 0 0 Per budget instructions - actuals x 1.0523 1 157710 -130 6 4 4170 Rent Temporary Storage 3,500 0 D 0 0 Guardian Storage 1 157710 -130 6,14,600 Rent Equipment 000 D 0 0 0 BMX Qualifier (31,7400) 1 1 1,000 p 0 0 0 Halloween Howl 1 1 000 0 0 0 0 Misc Events costumes,equipment etc... 1,500 0 0 0 0 1 Senior Expo (347400) 1 2,000 0 D 0 0 Sound System $2000 (347400) 1,000 0 D 0 0 Spring Wing Ding (347400) 1 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 Tropical Festival ( sound system,tents & generators) (347400) r 157710 -130 644600RentEquipment 13,�OD 0 p 0 0 157710 -130 644620 Lease Equipment Copier Lease agreement 157710 -130 645100 Insurance General Per Risk Budget Instruction 157710 -130 645200 Property Insurance Per Risk Budget Instruction 157710 -130 646110 Building R And ]i'I outside Vendors Facility Painting 157710 -130 646180 Building R And Ri Isi Billings Special service repairs on skate park/BMX track 157710 -130 646311 Sprinkler System R'iaintenance Sprinkler Maintenance ' C t i d Ball Field Nlaint 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,400 0 0 5,400 0 0 21,800 0 0 5,000 0 0 5,000 1,000 0 0 D 0 157710 -130 646315 Alhletic out r n 1,000 0 Clay for BMX track 1 1 2,000 D Gym Floor Cleaning 1 1,700 0 Soiltac for BMX Track 157710 -130 646315 Athletic Court And Ball Field 10ainr 4,700 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 157710 -130 646316 Allaint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc 1,000 0 0 0 0 benches 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Picnic Tables 157710 -130 646316 Maint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc 3,000 0 p 0 0 157710 -130 646317 FencingB4aintenance 2,000 0 0 0 0 Fence repairs and maintenance 1 157710 -130 646318 Mulch 4,000 0 0 0 0 Playground mulch 1 1 2,000 D 0 0 0 Red Mulch 157710-130 6463131\4ulcli 6,000 0 p 0 0 157710 -130 646319 Tree Trimming 5,000 0 0 0 0 Tree Trimming 1 157710 -130 646320 Landscape Materials 4,000 0 0 0 0 Flowers, plants and ground covering 1 157710 -130 646430 Flect l faint Isf Labor And overhead Govl.gax VS 1612- 115 Major Expondi'Lul'o Detail Item E3Lrdc,,et a rou pc by SushiecS UniC, Fuld Certev AXCOLH-tt Fiscal Year 2012 Collier County_ Government FY 2012 FY 2013 FY Q'i 4 FY 2015 FY 2016 Servicc Level issue E Budget Budget Eudgct Budget Budget ":pendituve Detail I'Lem, Description DepaV'LlYlel-It 0807 Parks o Rest-eaUcin i JISMO-i30 Golden Gate Con-imunity Gen ter 60 Operating Expense 157710-130 646430 Fleet Rlaint Isf Labor And Overhead 0 0 0 Per Fleet schedule 3,100 0 157710-130 646440 Fleet Mqint ISF Parts and Sublet 0 0 0 Per Fleet Budget Instruction 2,800 0 157710-130 646452 Playground Equip ATainfen2rice, 0 0 0 2,000 0 Playground pails 157710-130 646510 Machine Tools Rm Outside Vendors 0 0 0 1 1,500 0 BMX starter gate repairs 157710430 646710 Office Equipment And hl 0 0 0 0 1 500 Copier Maintenance 157710-IZO 646910 Data Processing Equip R And 11l 0 0 0 Flex care and Child Care Station Soo 0 157710-130 646970 Other Equip Repair Nfainte"a lice D 0 0 Security Cameras R&M 3,000 0 157710-1110 64711OPi-ink-iii- Binding OLIfSidCVendors 0 0 0 0 Printing and or Binding outside Vendors 6,200 157710430 64.8160 Other Ads 0 0 0 0 Yard sales advertising 200 157710-130 643170illarlceting Find Promotional 0 0 0 Tropical Fast and seasonal events 2000 , 0 0 D D 0 8,000 Marketing 157710-130 64817ON4arketiiigAiidProiiiotioi)aI 10,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 649010 Licenses And Permits D 0 0 0 DCF License (347990) 100 200 0 0 0 0 Frontier days (347400) 100 0 0 0 0 Health Dept.(347990) 200 0 0 0 0 Right of Way for special events (347400) 0 0 0 0- Special events (347400) 600 0 0 0 157710-130 6490101,icciises And Permits 1,200 0 157710 -130 649035 Judgernents/FinesAnd Costs 0 a 0 1 200 0 False Alarms 157710-130 64-9930 Credit Card Discount Fee 0 0 0 1 Credit Card Fees 3,500 0 157710-130 64999OOtlierNliseellaneoiisServices 0 0 0 Miscellaneous NBL Services (347230) 1 400 0 D 0 0 D Movie privileges for outdoor movies (347400) 400 0 0 D 0 NBL Insurance (347230) 2,000 4,000 0 0 0 0 NBL Memberships (347230) 200 0 0 0 0 NBL Race Report Fees (347230) 0 0 157710-130 6499900ilierl\lisccliaiirOLISSC1-\'iCeS 7,000 0 0 157710-130 651110 Office Supplies General 0 0 0 200 0 ASA 1,900 0 0 0 0 Misc. Programs 3,000 0 0 0 0 Office supplies 100 0 0 0 0 VPK 157710-130 651110 office Supplies General 5.200 0 0 0 0 157710-130 651210 Copying Charges 0 0 0 0 1 100 ASA flyers 1 3,500 0 0 0 0 Program flyers 137710-130 6517-10 Copying Charles 3,600 0 0 0 0 612 912 011 95 G 1") V5 1612 115 Major'- ,penoiture Detail Kern oudgeE grouped lay BUSIlIeSS Unit, l=Llnd Centel' !-account Fiscal Year2012 Collier County_ Government__- FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 'FY 2015 FY 2016 Service �xpcndi'urc Detail Item Description Level Issue # Budget Budget budget Budget Budget 0807 Parks & Recreation Depai'ilnent P 157710 -130 Golden Gate Gorrlrlunity Center 60 Operating Expense 157710 -130 651910 Minor Office Equipment 0 0 0 Scanner /Printer 1 500 0 157710 -130 652110 Clothing And Uniform Purchases 0 0 Athletic program shirts 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 p 0 ASA counselors shirts - 2 x $5 x 5 1 100 0 D 0 0 Namefags - 15 staff x 1 nametag x $12 1 200 0 p p 0 Pre School Shirts - 4 x $5 x 5 sessions 1 100 0 0 0 D Safety Boots - 2 x $150 1 300 0 - 0 0 157710 -130 652110 Clotliiug And Uuifomi Purchases 2,200 0 157710 -130 652130 Clothing And Uniform Rental 0 0 0 Maintenance Uniforms - 1 x $405.60 1 400 0 157710 -130 652140 Personal Safety Equipment 0 0 0 Personal Safety Equipment 1 5oD 0 157710 -130 652210 Food Operating Supplies 0 0 0 5th Grade Dances - 3 x $400 (347400) 1 1,200 0 0 0 0 ASA Food 1 1 100 400 0 0 0 0 0 Late Skate Nights (347230) 100 0 0 p 0 Preschool (347990) 1 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Programs and Special Events Food (347400) 0 0 D 0 Tropical Festival (347400) I 1,300 — - 0 0 157710 -130 652210 Food Operatu ng Supplies 4,100 0 0 157710 -130 652310 Fertilizer Herbicides And Chemicals 0 0 Fertilizer for common grounds 1 2,000 0 0 157710 -130 652490 Fuel and Lubricanfs ISF Billings 0 0 0 Per Fleet Budget Instruction 1 5,400 0 157710 -130 652510 Household & Institutional Supplies 0 0 0 Paper & Cleaning Supplies 1 3,900 0 0 0 0 0 VPK 1 157710 -130 652510 Household & Instituti onal Supplies 100 0 0 0 4,000 0 157710 -130 652720 rledical Supplies 0 0 0 1 First Aid Kits 700 700 0 0 0 p 0 First aid re- stock 1 1D0 0 0 0 0 VPK 1 157710 -130 652720 Medical Supplies 1,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652910 Miuor Operating Equipment 0 Audio equipment 1 3,000 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 Equipment for programs 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Equipment for programs and game room 1 0 0 0 0 Remove tables & chairs to balance budget 1 4,000 0 0 0 1 4,000 0 Tables & chairs 157710 -130 652910 Minor Opera tingEquipment 10,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652940 Merchandise Resale 0 0 0 BMX Merchandise (347903) 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 Skate Merchandise (347903) 1 5,000 D 0 157710 -130 652940 Merchandise Resale 10,000 0 0 157710 -130 652990 Other Operating Supplies 0 0 Art Supplies (347990) 1 1,500 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASA (347990) 1 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 BMX/Skate (347400) 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 Game room equipment 000 2, 0 0 0 0 Lumber, building supplies 1 4,000 0 0 p p Preschool supplies (347990) 1 0 0 0 0 Reduce supplies to balance budget 1 -- - - -- ---- - - - - -- - - -2,800 --- _— _ — = =— -- - - - - - -- - - -- Govhia V5 c- 6/2312011 NII �I C Ni ra Co N 'p L}L. L 1 w C U O L7 L7 O C_ N n iU C� U i� 0 02 r- 23 15 Cf) Q � � I f n O W I2 v iI N 'O J II LL CJ Y o O N 'p I�w oso { 010 O o O; o I{ a 0 o O o o a � V e� I 0 .O O O O O O O� O O 0 O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 no 1 o O LJ N =O O O d (U m I R O O w O O � � C ro U x O m F` o O� U,I i U 47 O ci 4i o ILL m � i r r = r I Q ID p m 0 (7 I I CU C) O O F (D O I O L I N O U N C C O � � o I " W uJNi _ � I co U o In Bs v � c m u O � G � � N T ° N C j O .? N N ro o o E. >_ Lei EAAR I � o ] o Q R O N O` j �I co ® N I � O O .-� N N � O p O •' N O N N <;• -Y Ln n° n 0 In O V I � N O bD O O 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 O V e� I 0 .O O O O O O O� O O 0 O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 no 1 o O LJ N =O O O O OI d 10 m I R C'I w O O � � C ro U x O m F` o O� U,I i U 47 O ci 4i o N 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 O o O 0 .O O O O O O O� O O 0 O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 i o 0 o O o o O O O OI o 10 O O O O 0 N r O O O N ON! O O O O 00 V O O O 00 0 0 0 0 i IT N I �I 1612 0 0 0 o o� o 0 0 0 i O O I O 000 O o o� o 0 o W c o i 0 0 0 0 0 O O � L1 0 Ln p Ln p In I'- O LO W Q- CJ r i Ln L(1 N p R eo w J U � � C ro U m c 'E U E o F- m o n r r = r ID p m 0 (7 n C) O O F (D O O C r O N O N C C O � o u " W O U o In "Cl (D O v � O � G � � N T ° N C j O .? N N ro o o E. >_ Lei N U G ] o R O N O` j O p O- V ° a E � O u .-� N N � O O O •' N O N N <;• -Y Ln n° n 0 In O V C C N O O O O O O U O D] O O O CJ p C O C b 0 0 H •� H .O 'y Q <L E K .�-ni LJ n d , U II-n-i � n U) d U d Q U 0 1612 0 0 0 o o� o 0 0 0 i O O I O 000 O o o� o 0 o O o i 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O_ O Ln 0 Ln p Ln p In I'- O LO O CJ r i Ln L(1 N p R U � � C ro U c 'E U E o o n r r = r ID p m (7 n C) O O F (D O O C r O _ r T u (II T O O U o In v � O � G � � N T ° N C j O .? N N ro o o E. >_ N U G ] o R O N O` j O p O- V ° a E ) 15. - 15 ZH z z z Z 00 0 000 WwwwwNwow zzzzzzz ,Wzzzzzzzzz z IL CL o- 0- IL CL CL z z z z z m°- 00 0001 -0000000 1:�R0000000000wwo>->->-.,i-�Z�-;� >- I (A >- ;,- -- (0 Go U) (D th 0 05, w (n U3 (1) (A U) 0) U) (fj En 0 (A L00-1-3 -j-j-j-j-j-JEn(l)Q)W-J-j-j0000 co 0) Cl) -j cq -i ED m -1 -j -j _3 _3 -:4 =� =4 4 000 cj C> a C7F 6: I 0 0 OF m m 0) 01 m In m 9 0 cn m to T C, Ce) 4M CV 0) CF) m 0) CY) 0) ce3 M 4w IRr co ALO to coic') M 04 CM m o) 0) m 0) m lKr *r -4qt � %- C-j V), M VI M C-3 V'> Nr lw --T l4v vr to (D Cr It- �1- M Inv A I -t 't A 'r CCS to cq c) to m m m 'gr 'w 'D to en Cl) lc� Gti to cD CD (D tD (0 (D (D w 0 w w w 0 0 w I wlt Z I I co to IrD 1 0 co (q) C3 C-.) LD W, C) T A C"i Cp V) c1l. in V- m 't C3 kD v C11 rl n (N a 0 -T N) o to J Di c6 6 6 6 cj Q 6 *D' (JD (,6 tri ai (a ei C5 a)' C�' C:)' 0' C�" Cj P-- to N co rq co if) in eq cfl Lo c c a & CD C> -4t W to Co C.) r- r- -4V tl'T r- CV m CA to in 'T I,-- m r-- 4n -it (0 C-i L6 C%i (14 0 LO to 0 co 0 0 00 co w o 00 L47) w 40 C> .0 r- 0 MCOCV 'm C) csj c'-.4 to r.0 C7 q 0 a o P CS 0 t- 'T to 00 0 to cit c' C) C%l 0 0 0 N 0 CD Cj "U' CO 6 9 6 '6 6 m w 0 to 0 In co C'� cp C> 0 0 N I= C> ce) Cp I- Cry in -0 (a to to If) lao a C) C' to cu CE) 0 CV C*4 00 to �; 0) to k0 Q) n in I,- N in - (a C4 m I, I, cq 0 CO 53 v (0) in it) (0 to 00 n - I - - - C%i vi cli C6 OD V) C11 r tv ri 00 C04, Nv(DC> 00 co (4 m Cl) cl) QD 0 Co C) n cl C's Ck Cl 0 m M C3 (0 C� (:� C� C] C) U" 6 4 6 46 6 0' a* 0' N' W, C5 C5 0' C5 0- io <> 0 ID ri (6 -4 ria 0 to Cl 0 LO 0 0 ID C) W C; W C, CM C> 00 to 0 0 V) (o 0) (D co w r-- Ln - f- 0 t- CI). Ul in in Ln m U) (Ili, C6 0 c) 0,0 0 0 (D p C) 0 to 0 C5 CD, Q 0 0 0 C� 0 0 C5 0' 0' 0 0 6 40 6 (0, Cli' 0, if) C 1 0 0:> 0 0 to 4'3 C3 W n M 0 " C� C) 0 M Q f- C� ") 0 Cl a a C) a C) cli a 00 C) IT C3 Ul) (o to C11 Vr3 C.) 00 1`3 V 0 r- 'V M) C-) C) to el 0) U.) Tr in &J r' 0 00 In in CY in in 0 00 c %0 CV V3 r 04 C4 C 7 r (%I to Cl (0 10 C%i cy; Cd Cq cli 6 M 00 t9 N M 0 r-- to O 'n M 'r to A- '- - - - r in = V-3. M M Eo 00 0) Ce) in to d " c%j U) CO CD M CO Co CD 0) r- 0 U7 t cq a) V? Ul W,) r.- r,- r-- to 4n k6 0 E0 ED (D in to 00 V) Ca 'qt M Cl) U* r-- t- in in m o -* 't 'r Co 0 0 t- 400 (a to C3 CD C4 C4 00 CD Cq o - C4 ca 0 C'4 C*4 cm -%r C� M M 'w (� � A " �- - � co Ono U" 04 04 C-4 M" rc- m C'j M �q f9 - �; I- - - IN CM C) S C) m C11 CW3 V) C.) n 0 cl) m m Cl) C5 CD 0 0 C) C3 0 a ce) (1) 1" C) M m 0 C.) m m m 0 C) C'S CD 0 0 C) —00 0 C) C> N- ­ ­- O C n C C a C3 C n C]Cl C o 0 =) daOC) tO67C)OC)CDC3 C3 C C Cn0 a C) C 0 0 I C) C� CD CD n n (D 0� C� CD a 0 0 C� C3 n VI) V) in r- to in ul I-- W) in :cj 2 %a m kn W3 U� 2 0 n al ca C) a CD C3 C� 0 C) 0 0 C� Cl 00 0 C� C:) m C$ C) 0 0 0 C. m U*j to to U') U") ko %1) Lcl in to I-- f- r- r- P- f- P- V) r- F- U:) kc) lit I-T IT 'cr a ererery vvvv v V" Nr V- 'I*' 'Kr 'Cr I;V It nr V '9t "T 'T V V- '4 't Nr v It Lb D� CL UJ 0 W Ld z tr z co 0) 0 V) ul < LLI (f) Z Y. z 00 w 0 0 0 H - 0 z z z w w w w W 0 In W LU af z 7i -_j 71 z z w w w z (.) (.) --: < - t- , I m I -jm < -- (-) u >- ma < w Ix W 0-0 0 w -i MT .6 w::i Ul - - A I Ix O� W z IMQZZZ�>>�- z W z c) 0 -j CL CL 0 0 Uj M < w Cfj a. T x w w w Lu W m < D m < 0 Q X X T LU T "- :D LL 0-3 LLI LIJ Ul Lli Ul W (9 UJ Ci: C) < mz<>--<Wwmww 0 < LL — 0 W LL :E P: 0 9 > >- w.-,,"` w amww ww(j) .J w 0 5 ><- w uj w < :0 --i w (0 U w 0 x I Z) w , :5 is0 M 00 zw00 Cb 0 zw wF 00 X w > O0zw— wmzo<6Oa w > 52 0 a US z 0 0�-Q w C3 Q w ch 0 w 31: D S 0 Lu c2k uj cl zoo -j Fx -j -1 -5 F- UJ Lij U) � 0 (0 Co < 0 R z w m w w Z jr m 0 w < w <00 W<0 lxw LLW)t-j<zzz000<z000w 29 Z< < z z < 0 'r -i w Lu rz �- ui w a V- in < U) Cj 0 m > 0 < 3: 0� 161 � A15 z 6 i 10 z z z z Z zow Z�z i000§--o a-�1-5000 000 (622:i 0 0 X T- 3: u C.> c>�o � 0 t> Q, 0 0 co t9 c9 U3 t- u) " C> "'O f7 0 d 0 C3 Ck 01 C) CG K7 C) Q C'I I%- un cq C'4 m C� Ci W,IC5 Q 0 CD, 0 N V- CO t-, �o 0 0 C:) CD Q C4 Cl, CD Cli V) kn w 0 C> 0 0 OR t- 0, W,C> CI Q 01 C3,04 M LO M w C4 9 LO 1- CSC (:)Io a a C) 0 0 'D q Q 0'" C9 et 6 es g a 's g 0 - 0- C11- C:)-.,-- o 0 , �, cv - tn In LO M r- NWNM,rm 4"m inn CV .r � & cv m MQ r- 0 V) M trt tri m m M M C - cq cq M a ID 0 0 0 0 cl C-21 Lo LO V) to 0) 0 U7 0 V) U) to U-0 i in 0- _j a. cr a fr 007-1 n. O'LL C) QZ F- F- j= Moo > w1: UiZ w 0 Is- 0 < W �- UJ CC tvw cc m 0 4 Ww-j-�fowu)ZbT580 t—m UJ z < iq w m m m z -0 < W:Z LL. UJ w3 Jr_ -jin n W 2 C) W LU 0 < P Z 0 w T Wowy)zu) >2 nwoujwzF-ww 161 Lr" A15 A* J yK Plc;��� ,) G) G) mmmmmmmrnmmmmmmmrnmmmmmmmpp Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z w w w w w w w (�(7nnn(�C)(')ao o o v w w w w w Wcuw w w co w w D w L7pG)Q ���G7 Z O n Q n 0 0 n Q 0 0 0 n n O 0 0 u?mmm aam w w� 0 0 3 w x w x w x w x w m m m m m v m 'D 'U _u v m o v o v m m m �c m m m 3 3 o a 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 rrrrrrr m m w d d 9�'D "c1 w a a a a a o 0 0 0 o r c T w ;u X T X T C7 -i CO S W- O w W m p C W 2 m T ^O % w m x m m w m m m m �- m m m x m 3 a 3 a T d N N m N w N w N w N w w S m w p N w w O < w m O C O a N (p x O O -- w N N N N N N N T T m N N v y pmt ' G N G w 0 c Q f = (a = (D CD O. N m 0 fn m EL n �' O N f�^D o 4^ O �c 3 m O , CC s , T , T . 'O . W , W w w ' . W �_ Z m T m T m Z m (n O S O S o S O S O S T m v m W 3 .m.. w `G w O 7 T TI O r o O- O �! m O O a W N x' a m N 7 T 7 C` T m O w w N O 7 m y W O O m x 7 T 3 m T , 2 m , r Z C G N .Z7 °—' N , 02 x r c d 2 a n O N n N CD °^: N ci �- .mom.. m , `' 0. 3 � 5 j N 00 .O+ Q (� anF (D o 0 o O :OS y S 0 c 0 o CO W N r� c a m o_c 'G 921 d .--i T w O 0 m 3 >> N 0 m m T ^O y O N �O 2 CD y CD m m �. c 0 a T w (J1 Ow CL — O 3 N 3 x m m N c O c a, N G O N y C C 7, N O N 2 m y .Gm.. c 3 X y 0 n 2 m 0 C w 3 c Q ^ 0c y > O OW �. 3 G1 7 O (p N a N O CD N CL n CD m 7 n 3- m c � (n w — .Tl j a (11 O w v < S tL (A N W _' 0 ' m C O N O" W (0 (O 3 CD G) 0 CD CD 5 O O — 41 0 CD � 3 w cW W W W w 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 w 0 W 0 w 0 w 0 W 0 W 0 �� =- w O w o W a W 0 W 0 w 0 w 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 :. O 01 o 01 0 61 0 01 0 0D ., wO O T - m w 0 01 0 01 0 0) 0 O) 0) 01 61 01 01 01 01 m 01 T 0 0) O) 01 0 �: O) 01 O7 0 01 01 01 01 Q1 0) d1 01 61 O c O n 163 fA fN b9 Efl (A ffl ffl Hi (fl (Vji N O cn O O O N U1 (n 0 N 0 (11 O U1 O � U1 00 0 O O O O O O O 0 p (p Efl ffl IW 69 <fl FA 69 fA 44 fA fA 61 <fl H3 (f1 <A 69 EA Hi (A FA fA w V N N O w O w O _ O N O 0 O 0 O 0 U1 O A O O O ut O w O O O N O N U1 N O Ut 00 0 O O w O 0 A 0 '. p O O p C1 p °o O O 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 a ao 0 00 0 o a o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rf1 v+ 69 'A en in O O O N O U N Ur O O O O O O 0 O y -CA ffl fA � O O O CNO 71 0 O O O O O O 69 N UI 0 O O Ep H9 EA 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O J yK Plc;��� 1612 A15 0 V O O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 'S K N N N N N N N O o O O G! O O O in O O O N O W O iI W (D O cD O cD cD cD cD O O O O "tl O O O O ;1 O O T7 O it O W X W X W X W X W X W .T X 7c' m y 7c m m xT m m N lD fD N 0 0 -" O n W W n W n W n W o W p pv- .� ;) ovv�vvvm Z7 .Z1 m m m m m--- {--� -� o 0 0 cjc�� W t� o o > >> —I •--1 p C G) C N N N N N N M m y y O O O W W �.W x o C W W. W A W Cl W n W n N W W W W W W W W W W W W ® N y^ O co W v p) n O N CD I p N C O cD N N N m N M@ N c6 N N m 0 0 ^-., 0 a 0 a 0_ c.' .. — -. 7. CD ,N_,. s. 3 W W O o O o $� N N S 0 S 0 3 s� c Z W c71 —I W TI �l a a Z A= Q� N O r -s W 3 V Z .i1 r W N cD ID O N O W W cD (D T CO O .� A -� N D W N 5 CO W T -O CD CD O �• N O_ (D ID CD O W (D cD N N N a W a. O_ D Z O O O j W II. O ry C O ?� > 7c CO N O_ 0 0 W W B � n N O O cA r O C Q O. O- C C a. 7C O �O_ N N O O g l O cD y O N .O-. N r d .O. -U c0 W O d C n cD O O O T O N= n a. W o• p 'O . N N N —� O O r0v O' O� W W < O� O a '} oD� W .ZJ N W O 3 cD O_ W n O fD N '^1 K W W W- N N N N S O_ (p v C O T cTl C � D) C CCD m O ... O 5' .W.. CD cN C O O W 7C fT1 0 r- �l O O D�1 O_ cD N O O C 7 —' A cD W W O W C/D —• r W < W Cn W .. N 7 y A C 3 rn W O W N A .ZI W O C O O C. �. �%. C N cA C X 7 W 7 O. N 2 d y m m N �% 3 O O_ O N O N O_ N N O CD W S W N 0 O C C to a, N 'O N W O W CD 7 C C - x 7 W 'O W 7 fD O c 3 G7 cfl = an Z CO W N CL OJ N n 7s N C N ^` � D) CD N a C W W W G GL - - W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 - W 00 W W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 m W 0 m W 0 m W 0 m W 0 m W 0 m W 0 m = .' j W 0 m W 0 m W 0 m W 0 m W 0 m W 0 m 000 w w W w �O m m m m m m m- m m m m m m m m m m m m 000 c m rfl sr> us � N O 01 N O O O O O O !A -9 H3 69 69 -f9 69 fA Hi kA iA 49 19 fA fA Vfl Sfl {f1 ffl Efl 69 N N 0 tP O O O N N W m O N O O N N O N N N m 0 tJ O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O OO O " O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O fA :a EA ffl fA fA fH <-A N N O (N71 O (N71 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 p O O (fl ffl O O O O O O 0 O N lJC O t1c O O 00 O 0 O O O O EA N O O O O 161'2 A15 «««««««««<1 N Cn 3 0 3 3 3 7 3@ .@.. m @ @ 7 C C @ U @ N @ 41 d N d 41 d N @ N N 61 N 61 6) N C1 Q 7 7 3 7 7 3 3 ? 3 O a s d d �. Q d Q �- y y' N N N N N N N y � v N W O in T :0 i �. U N@ O O< ID O C @ Q@ O y S v N @ 57 N N < p� — �; @ D N C Q x v C N ip Q @ o`fCD o •C co (D < @ v@ Za v O cn3 n @ scno °' cn o 3@ o@ 3 m G) o° c m to o@ N m N o j G N Q C) Cn Q7 N N @ 3 N n C N W n 3 C O tQ @ N D@ T. 3 a j W@ (p N O N? v y m y@.. r< Q W O n N CO @ — o a y a v W o N ;u c N @ m rr m D v N .� N N N v C °' CL a N m O N < Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0— _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '. -T Q m m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn -� rn m rn rn rn rn rn a c m 49 4A ffl -4 v cn O N O O O O O {p -69 to EA V3 69 Efl N O ri p O W N O fn O N A O to O- r N p p O O O O 0p 0 O p O O O O O O O O O 4A ffl b9 Efl -b9 ifl ffl ffl ffl N O O O y O GT O Cn O O O O O O O p O O O 6% ffl 4w fn ffl iA O O O N 00 0 O O 0 0 O d9 W N O O O 4A 41 A O O O O 1612' X115 WilsonVickie From: WilsonVickie Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:39 AM To: Washbumllonka Cc: AlvarezAnnie; WilliamsBarry Subject: Advisory Board Question Jim Klug has requested the following and I am not sure where to get an answer, so will start with you'all. Carry Forward in the budget every year? What amount is in there and How does this amount get carry forwarded? Vickie Wilson Golden Gate Community Center Supervisor Collier County Parks and Recreation 4701 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, Fl. 34116 239 - 252 -4181 239 - 455 -9556 FAX voCl<IP_rllSC�ily)�{.rii(, , r.p,,-? Stay connected with Collier County Parks and Recreation 1 60 1 161 2 A15 WilsonVickie From: WilsonVickie Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 3:06 PM To: GurrolaSandra; MorrisJenny Cc: AlvarezAnnie Subject: Program Leader Position at GGCC I need to get an update on the position that Evelyn Vidaurri vacated before her probation period was up. The GGCCAB is looking for an answer on how this position can be filled, whether it is still available? Please let me know ASAP, as I have a board meeting Monday, and need to update them. Vickie Wilson Golden Gate Community Center Supervisor Collier County Parks and Recreation 4701 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, Fl. 34116 239 - 252 -4181 239 - 455 -9556 FAX Vif,K4 '•liI C7iv( !:C l;i "eG net Stay connected with Collier County Parks and Recreation Al I� A,f.coilie; p,r <s_corn '' 1 '0 161'2 A15 WilsonVickie From: LinguidiDennis Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:56 AM To: WilsonVickie Cc: JonesHank Subject: RE: Need Information Vickie, As tai' c S 41 ItC3'`i fit <st •' f ! ':� _5 3l£?ti i3t? 11 I'P_t)ic:C:. " It.3s been niched and iepaii £ Ef'i the Past. Let me know if you need an,Ihing else. Dennis From: WilsonVickie Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 3:30 PM To: LinguidiDennis Subject: Need Information Not sure who can answer this question, but I need an answer. When was the roof last replaced or redone at the Golden Gate Community Center. I need this information for our Advisory Board meeting on Monday, March 5` ", greatly appreciate getting the information by the time 1 have to attend the meeting. Thanks Vickie Wilson Golden Gate Community Center Supervisor Collier County Parks and Recreation 4701 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, Fl. 34116 239 - 252 -4181 239 - 455 -9556 FAX Stay connected with Collier County Parks and Recreation << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> � \ , v \ \ / \§ �I �\ \ \^ \ �) J � � \ 161 )(&:\ � �� \���\ � �� N ri C) to N O O to O \ ••O MVcM O H ;J a d) d) d) 4-1 F! • ri (d - ri r-I QHU fi O 04 N a 3 ,d ri r� rt •r♦ 'Lf N N H co W m ,q .71 O d-I U) � N Oro U R. q N O U) U .rl H r1 r-I (d O 0 U-) 4 O 13 v b) .b O PO .1 H OI HI U) U H z U O U W H C7 z W Q a O 0 H z U O U W H C7 z W Q a O 0 O 00 4.) 4-) +) r-I xro w +� H O zH U ,o N >-I U) OHH 4-)zH (dUz co U D I:: 'OX R, 0..00 x riUUW HWw10 (UHH I., O<F�4 (o •rioU' +-) (1) U)2z �J •riWWq roaa � +) O O N U)CDCDa M r-1 a0-► r-i N r r-ioor O M N D N 11 -1 U) is is 1 H Fi ii Fi to N (D q N H 'd U a 1 Ul LS o gr.rlHw r. 00616100 WMMC\I"MNOOOO V• 0616161 M LnN 00000 00 OLn NV' c) [�61� aV1LnLnr N r1 CDV'd'ODMM H LnMM10 M MM LnLnLn1O LO Ln Ln� � ' <V�` 61NA I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I r-i r-I �O 10619 N1OO10 006110. --I 010 ('0 0-) C) oNN061 d+100 CD CD m m 00000000000';*, r U") 00160 Ln Lnr9ln NLn N( DMCDMCDmNNd' OMO1N, tTL) OON�,OOOOM00006110000000 r- IOOCDmmi -OOM0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -4 -I M CnCD N(' M r-i Ln 0000 M 10 Ln M Ln r �� Lo-- C; 61 10 10 00 00 to a; 10 01N 000000 N r- C; C; .C)r -I 1000M0 d' lzv kO 100 ri N 6161 H r1 M r-1 Ln Opal 619 -IM CD CD m-4 �11:31 I'D IO M O C OO 000 r-I 010000 31 Or 000ff)00N00610 co CO Ln un9 Or Ln lzwOOV•rm Ncw a' 00 HMro M Ln Ln r 61 M 10 �w Ln M O 0 O to M M V• LO t.C) a' C14 Ln Lf7 CO 000 lfl Olao d+r r-I 1061 V'O Ln MO OOOMMO 9100" OLnNN N C H H N r-i Lo 11 ri co M N r Ln ri 1-1 r1 Ln MMNN Ln MrA r-i r-I H I 7�-, a r-I (n r= w° U 1 =! 1 -1 fc ',IF, Q or W u)UW ZQ UO O' 1 ,Wx U UZ O OHH N OUHr7u) O aHC7UHU) W0�7 H C7 H zzOWHZU H E4r4, GVWZ �+ U HF f7 Z. zx�arr,0 1 H H '. y iOUH p >iHH�O QI U) �HU) u]U��I -IHOH 17+0WW U -1 E, U HE-4 HWHUU)mr4 II =1 WU) �H Zu)un igUUHW P4 0 H 0mo Q(� HHFCFC�LU)aH� H O;oc rQ H��W xH : %,I �WaW XC�a ),�WGN40P, HU+�x�C�GSCHWtW�hlxc!) k-I FG 01 -{ LO C4HC4 0.i H 1= =1H UHIXMU)4 (YPrr W aEA'I.'Y U OW O ;a UUH HHWH xO >Q -V -4MC4WHHOL7W QUHWHW."I,W Orzlr7WHHUU)W \WElo, 1-1(14 xWUWC4 ," UWEAZHHU)[ -,o',0 pqx U)uEA GaIY; C N xUa ElaaaU)U)W ,H ej CqF: �-Q UQSCa4K4 U)NP44HHo(xU,Qt1R+W OCJfYtJ) �xa WHH0HH0Fl X &iXE-AUHNP4 WH: IC7� I S3 U ri Cf) U -� (do I =70o100000MLn00000000 000000o0000Oi - +V rOri06)LO0000000HOO � WJOOITM rOIOOOO-ITMNOOOU7�OOoo00O0omw01 00Hr-ir6)1000"M00i1)U)00 O ' �,�r;NV'NNNV'616)6)610)M6)Mru)O ri lO COHr-iri.-ir -IO ri ri r{'=4 N N N N 01010) N MCM N r M 0161 ri M l HcDZr, 7ei r- i.- Irrrrrrrrr,Hkoa)0);�u)NNNcn-,Tm iNNMM-zTe d'14- zVzT'cTc,,6)00(DHH -i.-Ir-IMMVI, H41> H "--V IV --1 11 --1 -4 IV l W WWkOF,lF6 r- l.- iriri r-i r-i NN(N NNNfr7MMMMMMff)�T�V 'V° Vic ePV°ri' PST Aj Or W�MM( r) MMMMMMMMMM MMMwIritnL ()1nLntnLnLnln(nLoLf)Lnnoo kowkOIOwwI kolq $4 A r C7 11 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I Ln Ln 1,41 V -A r-NM00;;.400. -1 XM MCDN 00M M.-i OIO NN I H 1 10000. -i 0000 OM NO WLn Ln NOLn NN N N V' M Ln r O N 61 N O O r r- -IT O M 01 dv Ln VOOr lO -A 100000611000 ON 000 r-I r-Ir r-Im -i 10 10 10, 10 61 N M O. 6 4 (. (31 o. IV. M V M 1� 9 4 CN 4 CN O (3l M 1O . r. N OD r. o1 4 C 0 0 . O. r . 4a; 4 Ln 10 Lo Ln d. 0 OM(1)m -iN 0 0 00 00 10 0) ;:v -11-1 CD IA M QV O1 co 0') IV If) w Ol 0O -Izv 0O 0O O C° 0100 (D LO N61 vr-N Mc-iM (101"NN NW N06161Ln V°r r- -V r-I r 1010 r 1O HLn r 61M w (Y) Ln 61w mw r-1 r-ir roo 00000000 N r-i CD Vc MOIO 61rN MV' olO(MO r -i.-IN O OOM r-i mMLn O O N N 1-1 N r-I Ln N O r-1 (N r-1 u') N H I N N ri-1MmN d'Nr-i N 0 0 O o r 00 m v o 'ir-i i r OD 00+n 00 NN N N N N V'OLn M M M M O V• ko m H l0 l0 l0 l0 M Ln M r 10 N r N r 0 0 O O N M r-i r-1 r-I r-I 1 1 1 1010 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I O 10 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co coo0 0 . . . . . 000000000 . . . . o ODOOO 0 000 0000 00000000000o O000 0) 61000 . . . . . 000000000 . O . . . . 61040 . 0 . . . Corr . . . . OD lO OO . . . . 000000000000 . . . . . . . . . . . . C 0C 0 rro00 000000000 O 90100 O IOMOD lOroo 000000000000 OOOO MM ODm(D MV+00Ln000N10 O r-i 1090 r Mr0 61rN,� OJr- 10lOOLnO�wCLnrdu NOOLnO 6101 N 00 6) 00 O (3) V• N N a' 9 w Ln CO 00 r r-i v O m O r-i M cr r-i r1 Ln r 61 r-i N N Ln 0010 Ln NN Cl) Mr N Nr-i Ncr wNOD r 1-1 NN O r N 61C 10 r-1 Ln Ln Ln Ln N r-1 O Ln N I I I 00000 I I I I I I I I I 000000000 I 0 0000 o O0o 0000 0000 0000000 0000 00000 . . . . . 000000000 . . . . . . . o O000 O Oo0 0000 0000 0000000 O000 00000 000000000 O O0C0 (D ODrr QOl00o 0000 CD CDC)C 00 0000 00000 000000000 O OO100 O 10 M CO 10 r 00 0000 CD 0000000 0000 N NMNO MV'M Ln OOONW O 010 r0 r Mr0 619 N01 ODr -iOH Ln O V°VcLn r OO N LnO ri r-I CO CO 61 CO O 61 N N d' r l0 In O ao r r1 1 O OO O - M 61 c-i r-I Ln M r1 N N Ln 0010 Ln MMMMr N Nri NV rN00 r HN N O W N rI W H In Ln Ln Ln N r-I O Ln N r1 C r1 r-I H I 7�-, a r-I (n r= w° U 1 =! 1 -1 fc ',IF, Q or W u)UW ZQ UO O' 1 ,Wx U UZ O OHH N OUHr7u) O aHC7UHU) W0�7 H C7 H zzOWHZU H E4r4, GVWZ �+ U HF f7 Z. zx�arr,0 1 H H '. y iOUH p >iHH�O QI U) �HU) u]U��I -IHOH 17+0WW U -1 E, U HE-4 HWHUU)mr4 II =1 WU) �H Zu)un igUUHW P4 0 H 0mo Q(� HHFCFC�LU)aH� H O;oc rQ H��W xH : %,I �WaW XC�a ),�WGN40P, HU+�x�C�GSCHWtW�hlxc!) k-I FG 01 -{ LO C4HC4 0.i H 1= =1H UHIXMU)4 (YPrr W aEA'I.'Y U OW O ;a UUH HHWH xO >Q -V -4MC4WHHOL7W QUHWHW."I,W Orzlr7WHHUU)W \WElo, 1-1(14 xWUWC4 ," UWEAZHHU)[ -,o',0 pqx U)uEA GaIY; C N xUa ElaaaU)U)W ,H ej CqF: �-Q UQSCa4K4 U)NP44HHo(xU,Qt1R+W OCJfYtJ) �xa WHH0HH0Fl X &iXE-AUHNP4 WH: IC7� I S3 U ri Cf) U -� (do I =70o100000MLn00000000 000000o0000Oi - +V rOri06)LO0000000HOO � WJOOITM rOIOOOO-ITMNOOOU7�OOoo00O0omw01 00Hr-ir6)1000"M00i1)U)00 O ' �,�r;NV'NNNV'616)6)610)M6)Mru)O ri lO COHr-iri.-ir -IO ri ri r{'=4 N N N N 01010) N MCM N r M 0161 ri M l HcDZr, 7ei r- i.- Irrrrrrrrr,Hkoa)0);�u)NNNcn-,Tm iNNMM-zTe d'14- zVzT'cTc,,6)00(DHH -i.-Ir-IMMVI, H41> H "--V IV --1 11 --1 -4 IV l W WWkOF,lF6 r- l.- iriri r-i r-i NN(N NNNfr7MMMMMMff)�T�V 'V° Vic ePV°ri' PST Aj Or W�MM( r) MMMMMMMMMM MMMwIritnL ()1nLntnLnLnln(nLoLf)Lnnoo kowkOIOwwI kolq $4 A r C7 NN100 M crM MIS r-1 In O 10 Min l -[- In In OM 10N0[- Ode dv of In In in CC) MM 19 31 O O NN1031 mot' ON Nr-I 1D NlD r-1 r-IM N r-, -I 1--1 -1 41 -1 I I I 1 I I O to OOOOI- 00000000 I-- 00100000 000000000000"W 10 O N O 000000001D 10 O fn O In 0006 O 0 0 0 O O O O N O 0610000 O OM O 0001- 00;V O 1O[- O 1001n O 00000 WW . . . . . . . C. . C. . . ... . . . . . . C. . . . C. . C. . . . . C. . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O M CO I� 00[� O In 00000006100000000 In OM 0000100M Ol O r� CM O N OCO 00000[ 0101 010 r-i MOOOOI- 0000010 V0000000 [- 01000006)ON[- (D OU- )O�OIn OOO OIDO I- [- tnl- ,p M M(D W(D N In O 0000[ -O In Cn OD O if) N NwN[ -61 In r -ice m(D m'r In r-C)H nIn C) r-I r-1 r-i r I M 1010 N�N00 Cl) O OM I- O 00610 v NO 10�TIn6)In(Ni CD C) NIn InO -i O O[- -1 O [-Ot O M L In CMNN MN In C) C) . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . C. . 100N0 N In NO 10 In lONM10 10 ON N10QONOr-1 OM 1061100 61 r- (Y) if) -4 [- MInM10 O 1010 61 -v [-d+O Cn m 1061061 ri 6l 00 10 N 0O[-O[- 10 d+61 Oln 1:31 r- ri 1010) Mw O 6l O O Or-IO w NO In 6l In 10 O 0 O r O O ONO M Nr-i [ -6l[ -O O . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . 6) r1 O N O O 0010 - � lO 400 r-i C Ol [- O 1061 O 61 O O -W IOCl) m 10if) Nr -161N M Om In r-, I- (D O�w6) M N InInIn[- .-i N (M ri 000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000001D 10 000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000000000000000000000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O MM O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DC 0 O[-[- ,nln'C v00000[- OOOOOr- 10001n In 000 N N0 NNInON101nN� Inr-IOd OIn00[ -In In O' k-Or- Ir I MMNInr- Ilnlnr- I�'MN101nd'MNNr -I M00 O N V'Nln�'. -i00r- INN. -I r -Ilnln ri N r-✓ r-I r-I ri l0 Lfl 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O In u) i ,x'00000[- OOOOOr-10001nIn000NNa MMNIn ri In In r-I d'MN101n tl'MNNr -I M00 O r-1 N r-1 00000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000000000000000000000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NN InON10 If) N ';zMln- iOd+Oln00[- IntnO-zzt�lO In In N In In (xwE -1 UEi[ -IP,O tY ((a P, HNa[--1C9 U)1:j1- 1OxHpO z Wry T� G, 1-14 w �LPIEi HU)U IOZ`�'� U)OUH H FIN 0HU)P,(7�� �W C.1P, U(C�G HUD1- iPar�.W ;J H H(14 U�,��tt,, 0zz O.�D �U)frU(D, I-IFt;( U2 A; al 'IDQ`iU7�I.�I.�Cfl tDr-1 P4 W G1H� EIOU� U) 0 Hr�M2 )Uw V4M PWWHw�CRG oU�UUWUa H04 r*1000QZ U)',z, HU) NU' UI ,- r�7 , z P, NUUO PI HZZ FIM0 a,�C��,oW p4wz HHW X oozz�PlW a,IAoF -IHz C4HHxH z E -1 P;zWP, H H U)H Wz HHzOx u, A, Ri�H W W(�qq WHHx 0)EiHt)HU (XE-A _ UIzwHMUHP;xxo WUP4x".4HHH U) P,aI "I-4zUUW wwrixHA,wzw wwC7AWH�IoHHU)(aHaU)HoUwUUz ,SMOHHp4xHz1-1 WW�UNE-ixl -Ix I-au( 11rXa0,z00fY004PI )QZr4xWWH Wz(Y��P+H wP4 aar[+ aHPiH�F4CH1?Lx ,HruOHI4aWOW7Or?1Haa� aHNmm�n4 H� NNa onoao ma UooU�;UUP,N4, x. oWWP1 OOOOOOH nwr-m 6) OOONOOOO0000OMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HNM tDrA04 - Ir-IMMMMMMMV'�* T Ill L- 0) 61 r1.- 1rA0OO(3) 6) r -INOlri.-1riNM1* in[,6161616)M(3) �j If) InWWI.D10101010101O101DI WWkO10[° 00 00 41 61 61 6 )6).- Iri.-iNNNNNNNNNNNNNN r pVTVI- IVCG TdI cp 'IT I'll ep 'vcpcpcicvdv" ,* CpVq-1-pdvo' u' InInInInInInInInInInInInInInIn If) M w (D W w w w W w w w w w w wl olO1010161010101010ww10wkowwtDk .0 too tDwlDl0-01DlDwww 4'� 1612 X15 k.; <A I ic C; -1 -`�Coo U %' nrlston RoEl-', F I oi'd,& 34 1, UOU Phon,-- (239) 21-2-4CX)0 - F a,.: (.2.390 5 1 -865-/ VVebsita cc:!�ergo--net GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA Budget Workshop March 29, 2012 1. Call to Order 11. Attendance ® Establish a Quorum Ill. Budget FY 2012-13 IV. Member Comments V. Adjournment The next meeting April 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "D" Naples, Florida 1612 A15 I I I IJ k.; <A I ic C; -1 -`�Coo U %' nrlston RoEl-', F I oi'd,& 34 1, UOU Phon,-- (239) 21-2-4CX)0 - F a,.: (.2.390 5 1 -865-/ VVebsita cc:!�ergo--net GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA Budget Workshop March 29, 2012 1. Call to Order 11. Attendance ® Establish a Quorum Ill. Budget FY 2012-13 IV. Member Comments V. Adjournment The next meeting April 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "D" Naples, Florida 161 2"', A� o xG -, MA Y d�� BY. ....................... Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board Unsigned Minutes/No Quorum Unadvertised Budget Workshop Held on March 29, 2012 Fialav Hiller 7`-- Henning Coyle Coletta Misc. Comes: Dace: —I IV-1 1 i -2. Item *: kk-a7= 2A 15 Copies to: 1612 A15 March 29, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, March 29, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in an UNADVERTISED SESSION in Conference Rooms `B" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kaydee Tuff (Absent) VICE CHAIR: James Klug III Bill Arthur (Excused) Darrin Brooks (Absent) Peggy Harris ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager III Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor 1 r I 161 ?r'-A1_ March 29, 2012 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:03 PM by Vice Chair, James Klug III. II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum A quorum was not established. III. Budget FY 2012 -13 Annie Alvarez explained 306 Funds as Repair and Capital Projects and the procedures and the process the Department takes prior to the approval of actual projects by Public Services. Staff distributed a GGCC 5 -Year Plan for consideration to be funded by 306. • FY 2015 Resurface Parking Lot - $50,000 (moved to 2014) • FY 2015 Roof - $100,000 Staff noted Facilities made this entry. No indication the roof needs to be replaced. Roof has been patched. Staff will check on the roof entry and report to Advisory Board at the April 2"d meeting. • FY 2013 Shade Structure Playground - $50,000 • FY 2014 Redo BMX Track - $50,000 • FY 2013 Pavers at Wheels (removed - completed) • FY 2012 Playground - $60,000 (currently in budget to September 30th) • FY 2013 Parking Stops (removed — completed) • FY 2015 Signage - $20,000 It was noted 5 -Year Plan can be revised at any time. Jim Klug suggested adding a roadway into the bandstand between the retention area and the fence by moving the fence back to the palms. It was suggested the item be discussed at a regular meeting. Jim Klug also suggested adding the sod and sidewalk drop -offs to the plan. Staff responded the project was not a Capital Project and not expensive. Staff plan to complete the project this year. Changes discussed will be made and presented to Advisory Board for approval at next meeting. An Expenditure Service Level Analysis grouped by Fund Center for FY 2012 report dated June 2, 2011 was distributed and reviewed. Staff disclosed property values and ad valorem would not be available until June 1 and made a recommendation the Advisory Board make the 5% budget cut of $27,790 in Capital Outlay. The cut would not alter Operating Budget of $354,000 or the Personal Service Budget of $559,700. Jim Klug expressed concern in the replacement of Capital Outlay funds and asked how the MSTU funds would be replaced. Staff responded it would not be replaced. K .a 161 2 A15 March 29, 2012 Peggy Harris asked numerous questions regarding Operating Expenses and Personal Services line items. Staff addressed all questions and agreed to look further into the following items for possible cuts: ➢ 644170 — Rent Temporary Storage ➢ 647110 —Printing Binding Outside Vendors (cut 5 %) ➢ 649990 — other Miscellaneous Services She suggested that next year Staff provide a Profit and Loss Statement on every event and monitor the profitability for the Center. Discussion was made on revenue received from groups that meet at the Center and revenue lost from groups grandfathered in. Groups with 50% of the membership who live in the district do not have to pay rental. Staff noted several groups give donations to the Center. Jim Klug recommended Staff review rental facts on groups and organizations that utilize the Center facilities and come back with a recommendation and provide current Bi -Laws for further discussion. The Advisory Board Members present were in agreement and recommended the budget as presented be adopted by the Board. The revised 5 -Year Plan and proposed Budget will be presented at the next meeting. IV. Member Comments There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:43 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Kaydee Tuff, Chairman These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on as presented or as amended V Q '^ rb i O +J s 161 2 r) r) O n m m U U 0 U m O O O O O eri O O O O O LO � vs O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O C 00 O O O C O C O O O In (5 (O 0 to 0 LO C5 O r V) N- 0 O O O co O Lo O O O (D O N O O 69. EA ud 69 ed 6F} b% &* EA 69 1 6% -1 11 1 - � D O 00 CD C, O ol 00 p C O 7 LO N O O LO M f3 ER 69 6" (� C) O O O O O O O O 0 0 C) C) O p C C O O O O µj O O O O LO U) LL r N ER (i9 (fi 69 U9. O O p p O O O p O O O � W t{} d4 cn N O (� CL rn � c a m 0 @ N ° E ° o 0 m w° aj o 0 ° c o .N '0 ca y U 6 cr, c7 ca d N CD Y_ C ',l- O° O rn N y E O 12 N O1 @ d y@ > N 0 7 X - @@ E ° CL N O O O O C `� Y @ @ O O LWL co (D D N 2 lO N C N �' J U E U @ C° m N O Q V Y tn N -@ �_ Y a U F- x >° O 7 q'S U O U UO N Y N C 4 > N n N@ U o 'C o rn O O m N m N U) J °� Y @°— U C m a N o m E@ aj a o m O °- 3 N 't U L J 7 'OO N 't N -O m` (� N O) rn C rn C @ a c 9 @ U c y Y N n_ i U 'O -O @ -_ - �[ d 7 @ d U .O Q O E 7 w O co L v O N@ > U >� LY.. @@ .Y.. C N U) 'C d N W N @@ '� O @ @@ N 2' N [0 (n N@ Ll Q' L (n o d' Cn Q' d 7 n- a n- U N > O Y y .D @ N C •-• a1 -O u U @ U (` N @ �n n .aa.n an.UU UUU �U UU U O Um @ U) cnii �in� O @ -.2 -0 0 v- o F-F E U U U U U U U -an.a U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 'O n a d U a U U E N N @ @@ C7 U C� C7 U C� U U U C7 U C� U U C� C� C7 L C7 U U U c U U U T U Cn cn E m m J J J c9 C9 c9 (7 C7 c9 c9 c9 c9 C7 c9 C9 c9 c7 F- C9 �_ c9 c7 .-- c� U — — — — — — 40 161 2 A15 Expenditure Service Level Analysis grouped by Fund Center Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2012 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Adopted Object Code and Account Name Actual Adopted Annualized Current Expanded Total % Change 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 50 Personal Services 512100 Regular Salaries 252,801 291,907 228,700 287,764 0 287,764 -1.42 512600 Er 457 Deferred Comp 1,002 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 0.00 512700 Cell Phone Allowance 181 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 512800 Taxable Deposit 25 -30 3,552 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 513100 Other Salaries And Wages 51,206 61,500 61,500 74,700 0 74,700 21.46 514100 Overtime 607 0 300 0 0 0 0.00 518100 Termination Pay 0 0 3,100 0 0 0 100 519100 Reserve For Salary Adjustment 0 72 0 32 0 32 -55.56 521100 Social Security Matching 22,347 27,208 22,100 27,950 0 27,950 2.73 522100 Retirement Regular 30,696 38,263 29,000 19,538 0 19,538 -48.94 522800 Allowable Taxable Deposit 25 -30 -3,552 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 523150 Health Insurance 84,432 90,960 92,900 101,968 0 101,968 12.10 523151 Health Insurance - Vsip 0 1,900 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 523160 Life Insurance Short - Long Term 988 790 800 748 0 748 -5.32 524100 Workers Compensation Regular 18,000 5,100 5,100 3,200 0 3,200 -37.25 527200 Allowance For Cell Phone -181 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 50 Personal Services 462,079 518,700 444,500 516,900 0� 516,900 -0.35 60 Operating Expense 634204 It Direct Client Support 2,490 2,900 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 634207 IT Capital Allocation 0 1,200 1,200 1,800 0 1,800 50.00 634210 Info Tech Automation Allocation 20,000 17,200 17,200 21,100 0 21,100 22.67 634211 IT Billing Hours Allocation 0 4,700 4,700 5,000 0 5,000 6.38 634970 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 77,400 90,600 90,600 125,300 0 125,300 38.30 634980 Interdept Payment For Sery 2,200 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 634999 Other Contractual Services 59,750 46,100 46,100 49,000 0 49,000 6.29 639965 Locksmiths Services And Supplies 0 500 500 500 0 500 0.00 639966 Pest Control 0 500 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 640200 Mileage Reimbursement Regular 937 600 0 1,000 0 1,000 66.67 640300 Out Of County Travel Prof Devel 1,893 2,000 3,000 2,400 0 2,400 20.00 640410 Motor Pool Rental Charge 0 400 300 400 0 400 0.00 641230 Telephone Access Charges 0 0 0 2,500 0 2,500 100.00 641700 Cellular Telephone 434 700 700 700 0 700 0.00 641900 Telephone Sys Support Allocation 4,138 5,800 5,800 5,800 0 5,800 0.00 641950 Postage Freight And Ups 101 200 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 641951 Postage 0 0 100 200 0 200 100.00 643100 Electricity 63,661 68,800 66,000 68,800 0 68,800 0.00 643300 Trash And Garbage Disposal 5,656 6,500 6,500 6,500 0 6,500 0.00 643400 Water And Sewer 14,091 9,700 14,200 15,000 0 15,000 54.64 644170 Rent Temporary Storage 0 0 0 3,500 0 3,500 100.00 644600 Rent Equipment 5,632 16,000 16,000 13,500 0 13,500 -15.63 644620 Lease Equipment 1,949 2,400 2,400 2,400 0 2,400 0.00 645100 Insurance General 6,900 5,600 5,600 5,400 0 5,400 -3.57 645200 Property Insurance 14,457 25,800 25,800 21,800 0 21,800 -15.50 646110 Building R And M Outside Vendors 7,120 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0.00 646180 Building R And M Isf Billings 7,110 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0.00 646311 Sprinkler System Maintenance 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 0.00 646315 Athletic Court And Ball Field Maint 3,680 8,700 8,700 4,700 0 4,700 -45.98 646316 Maint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc 11,038 4,000 4,000 3,000 0 3,000 -25.00 646317 Fencing Maintenance 553 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 0.00 646318 Mulch 3,286 6,000 6,000 6,000 0 6,000 0.00 646319 Tree Trimming 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0.00 646320 Landscape Materials 2,876 5,000 5,800 4,000 0 4,000 -20.00 646430 Fleet Maint Isf Labor And Overhead 2,890 2,200 2,200 3,100 0 3,100 40.91 GovMax V5 1 6/212011 161 2 A15 1 xpendRure Service Level Analysis grouped by f=und Center Collier County Government 991000 Reserve For Contingencies 0 37,000 0 23,600 0 23,600 -36.22 Fiscal Year 2012 79,200 0 86,000 0 86,000 8.59 99 Reserves 0 116,200 0 109,600 FY 2011 -5.68 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 -5.68 FY 2012 Adopted Object Code and Account Name Actual Adopted Annualized Current Expanded Total % Change 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 60 Operating Expense 646440 Fleet Maint ISF Parts and Sublet 6,537 2,700 2,700 2,800 0 2,800 3.70 646445 Fleet Non Maint ISF Parts and Sublet 89 100 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 646452 Playground Equip Maintenance 1,944 5,000 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 -60.00 646510 Machine Tools Rm Outside Vendors 0 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 1,500 0.00 646710 Office Equipment R And M 305 0 500 500 0 500 100.00 646910 Data Processing Equip R And M 0 800 800 800 0 800 0.00 646970 Other Equip Repair Maintenance 1,102 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 3,000 0.00 647110 Printing Binding Outside Vendors 8,366 8,200 8,200 8,200 0 8,200 0.00 648160 Other Ads 0 0 0 200 0 200 100.00 648170 Marketing And Promotional 8,079 8,000 8,000 10,000 0 10,000 25.00 649000 Sales Tax Expense 148 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 649010 Licenses And Permits 1,600 1,300 1,700 1,200 0 1,200 -7.69 649035 Judgements /Fines And Costs 680 200 200 200 0 200 0.00 649930 Credit Card Discount Fee 3,333 3,000 3,000 3,500 0 3,500 16.67 649990 Other Miscellaneous Services 6,063 9,400 7,000 7,000 0 7,000 -25.53 651110 Office Supplies General 2,175 5,200 5,200 5,200 0 5,200 0.00 651210 Copying Charges 166 3,600 3,600 3,600 0 3,600 0.00 651910 Minor Office Equipment 0 500 500 500 0 500 0.00 651930 Minor Office Furniture 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 651950 Minor Data Processing Equipment 232 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 652110 Clothing And Uniform Purchases 323 1,500 1,500 2,200 0 2,200 46.67 652130 Clothing And Uniform Rental 0 500 300 400 0 400 -20.00 652140 Personal Safety Equipment 443 400 400 500 0 500 25.00 652210 Food Operating Supplies 825 5,000 5,000 4,100 0 4,100 -18.00 652310 Fertilizer Herbicides And Chemicals 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 0.00 652490 Fuel and Lubricants ISF Billings 6,398 3,200 3,200 5,400 0 5,400 68.75 652510 Household & Institutional Supplies 1,572 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 4,000 0.00 652720 Medical Supplies 74 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 1,500 0.00 652910 Minor Operating Equipment 20,408 16,000 16,000 10,000 0 10,000 -37.50 652940 Merchandise Resale 8,061 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 10,000 0.00 652990 Other Operating Supplies 19,504 14,500 14,500 11,700 0 11,700 -19.31 652991 Electrical Supplier 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 0 2,500 0.00 652992 Electrical Contractors 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 0 2,500 0.00 652999 Painting Supplies 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 0.00 654110 Books Publ & Subscriptions 69 400 2,000 400 0 400 0.00 654210 Dues And Memberships 1,064 600 600 600 0 600 0.00 654310 Tuition 1,805 1,900 0 0 0 0 - 100.00 654360 Other Training Ed Exp 964 2,300 1,500 1,700 0 1,700 -26.09 60 Operating Expense 422,571 475,400 a 467,800 502,100 0 502,100 5.62 70 Capital Outlay 763100 Improvements General 23,678 60,000 30,000 51,500 0 51,500 -14.17 764150 Heavy Equipment And Trailers 18,092 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 764370 Audio Visual Equipment 3,870 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 70 Capital Outlay 45,639 60,000 30,000 51,500 0 51,500 -14.17 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 930,289 1,054,100 942,300 1,070,500 0 1,070,500 1.56 919010 -130 Reserves 99 Reserves 991000 Reserve For Contingencies 0 37,000 0 23,600 0 23,600 -36.22 993000 Reserve For Capital Outlay 0 79,200 0 86,000 0 86,000 8.59 99 Reserves 0 116,200 0 109,600 0 109,600 -5.68 919010-130 Reserves 0 116,200 0 109,600 0 109,600 -5.68 GovMax V5 2 602011 161 2 A'15 Expenditure Service Level Analysis grouped by Fund Centel* Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2012 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Adopted Object Code and Account Name Actual Adopted Annualized Current Expanded Total % Change 959010 -130 Transfers - Elected Officers 33 Transfers to Constitutional Of'. leers 930600 Budget Transfers Property Appraiser 2,915 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 3,000 0.00 930700 Budget Transfers Tax Collector 7,046 8,000 8,000 5,500 0 5,500 -31.25 93 Transfers to Constitutional Officers 9,962 11,000 '11,000 8,500 8,500 -22.73 959010 -130 Transfers - Elected Officers 9,962 11,000 11,000 8,500 0 8,600 -22.73 [report Total 940,250 1,181,300 953,300 1,188,600 0 '1,188,600 0.62 GovMax V5 3 6/212011 161 2 IA15 Account Major Expenditure Detail Iten-i BUdgat grouped by Fund Center Collier County Government 1 7,800 0 Fiscal Year 2012 0 0 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue 4 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 0 0 Early Release - 1 x $9.77 x 3hr x 7 days 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 206 0 0 50 Personal Services Frontier Days 8x $9.77 x 10hours 1 800 0 0 157710 -130 512100 Regular Salaries Holiday Camp - 2 x $9.77x 4 days x 11 hours(347290) 1 900 0 0 50001347 - Salary - WILSON VICKIE 1 64,694 0 0 0 0 50001564 - Salary - ORTA ROGELIO 1 28,406 0 0 0 0 50001735 - Salary - REYES JACQUELINE 1 10,658 0 0 0 0 50001740 - Salary - Vacant 1 23,504 0 0 0 0 50001741 - Salary - Rafaela Zapata 1 23,504 0 0 0 0 50001743 - Salary -ALLEN JULIE 1 43,645 0 0 0 0 50001744 - Salary - TORRES GREGORY 1 30,300 0 0 0 0 50001745 - Salary - Vacant 1 30,300 0 0 0 0 50001746 - Salary - CORIANO RAMON 1 32,753 0 0 00 0 0 0 157710 -130 512100RcgularSalaries 287764 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 512600 Er 457 Deferred Comp 157710 -130 519100 Reserve For Salary Adjustment 0 50001745 - FICA- Vacant 1 1,884 50001347 - DC50 - WILSON VICKIE 1 500 0 0 0 0 50001743 - DC50 - ALLEN JULIE 1 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 512600 Er457 Deferred Comp 1,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 513100 Other Salaries And Wages ASA counselors - 1 x $9.77 x 20hrs x 40wks (347990) 1 7,800 0 0 0 0 Breakfast with Santa 8 x $9.77x 6 hours 1 500 0 0 0 0 DCF Training - 3 x 10hrs x $10.38 1 312 0 0 0 0 Early Release - 1 x $9.77 x 3hr x 7 days 1 206 0 0 0 0 Frontier Days 8x $9.77 x 10hours 1 800 0 0 0 0 Holiday Camp - 2 x $9.77x 4 days x 11 hours(347290) 1 900 0 0 0 0 No School Days - 2 x $9.77x 4days x 11 hrs 1 900 0 0 0 0 rounding 1 82 0 0 0 0 Snowfest 4 x $9.77 x 10 hours 1 400 0 0 0 0 Spring Camp - 2 x $9.77 x 11 hours x 5 days (347290) 1 1,100 0 0 0 0 Tropical Fest 8 x$9.77 x 8 hours 1 700 0 0 0 0 VPK 2nd Instructor- 1 x $10.38 x 540 hours(347990) 1 5,600 0 0 0 0 VPK lead teacher 1 x$14.57x 790 hours 1 11,500 0 0 0 0 Wheels - 2 x $11.30 x 30hr x 52wks 1 36,000 0 0 0 0 Wheels camp counselors- 2 x $9.77 x 40hr x 10 wks 1 7,900 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 513100 Other Salaries And Wages 74,700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 519100 Reserve For Salary Adjustment 0 50001745 - FICA- Vacant 1 1,884 0 adj - rounding 1 24 0 0 0 0 rounding after retirement rate change 1 8 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 519100 Reserve For Salary Adjustment 32 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 521100 Social Security Rlatching 50001347 - FICA - WILSON VICKIE 1 4,053 0 0 0 0 50001347 - MEDI - WILSON VICKIE 1 948 0 0 0 0 50001564 - FICA - ORTA ROGELIO 1 1,766 0 0 0 0 50001564 - MEDI - ORTA ROGELIO 1 413 0 0 0 0 50001735 - FICA- REYES JACQUELINE 1 661 0 0 0 0 50001735 - MEDI - REYES JACQUELINE 1 155 0 0 0 0 50001740 - FICA - Vacant 1 1,461 0 0 0 0 50001740 - MEDI - Vacant 1 342 0 0 0 0 50001741 - FICA - Rafaela Zapata 1 1,461 0 0 0 0 50001741 - MEDI - Rafaela Zapata 1 342 0 0 0 0 50001743 - FICA -ALLEN JULIE 1 2,744 0 0 0 0 50001743 - MEDI - ALLEN JU LIE 1 642 0 0 0 0 50001744 - FICA - TORRES GREGORY 1 1,884 0 0 0 0 50001744 - MEDI - TORRES GREGORY 1 441 0 0 0 0 50001745 - FICA- Vacant 1 1,884 0 0 0 0 50001745 - MEDI - Vacant 1 441 0 0 0 0 50001746 - FICA - COMANO RAMON 1 2,036 0 0 0 0 50001746 - MEDI - CORIANO RAMON 1 476 0 0 0 0 Addtl FICA on Other Sal per Schedule 1 5,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 521100 Social Security Matching 27,950 0 0 0 0 157710 - 130 522100 Retirement Regular 50001347 - HA -WILSON VICKIE 1 3,448 0 0 0 0 50001564 - PA - ORTA ROGELIO 1 1,514 0 0 0 0 GovMax V5 1 612/2011 1612 d15 Account Prlajor Expenditure Detail Item Dudget grouped by Fund Center Collier Ccunfz Government 1 175 0 Fiscal Year 2012 0 0 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue # Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 0 0 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 1 63 0 50 Personal Services 0 0 50001743 - LIFE - ALLEN JULIE 1 118 0 157710 -130 522100 Retirement Regular 0 0 50001744 - LIFE - TORRES GREGORY 1 82 0 50001735 - HA - REYES JACQUELINE 1 568 0 0 0 0 50001740 - HA - Vacant 1 1,253 0 0 0 0 50001741 - PA - Rafaela Zapata 1 1,253 0 0 0 0 50001743 -HA -ALLEN JULIE 1 2,326 0 0 0 0 50001744 - PA - TORRES GREGORY 1 1,615 0 0 0 0 50001745 - HA - Vacant 1 1,615 0 0 0 0 50001746 - HA - CORIANO RAMON 1 1,746 0 0 0 0 Addtl Retirement on Other Wages 1 4,200 0- 0 0- 0 0 157710 -130 522100 Retirement Regular 19,538 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 523150 Health Insurance 0 0 157710 -130 639965 Locksmiths Services And Supplies 50001347 - HLTHall - WILSON VICKIE 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001564 - HLTHall - ORTA ROGELIO 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001740 - HLTHall - Vacant 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001741 - HLTHall - Rafaela Zapata 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001743 - HLTHall - ALLEN JULIE 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001744 - HLTHall - TORRES GREGORY 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001745 - HLTHall - Vacant 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 50001746 - HLTHall - CORIANO RAMON 1 12,746 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 523150 Health Insurance 101,968 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 523160 Life Insurance Short -Long Term 50001347 -LIFE -WILSON VICKIE 1 175 0 0 0 0 50001564 - LIFE - ORTA ROGELIO 1 77 0 0 0 0 50001740 - LIFE - Vacant 1 63 0 0 0 0 50001741 - LIFE - Rafaela Zapata 1 63 0 0 0 0 50001743 - LIFE - ALLEN JULIE 1 118 0 0 0 0 50001744 - LIFE - TORRES GREGORY 1 82 0 0 0 0 50001745 - LIFE - Vacant 1 82 0 0 0 0 50001746 - LIFE - CORIANO RAMON 1 88 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 523160 Life Insurance Short- Long Tema 748 0 0� 0 0 157710 -130 524100 Workers Compensation Regular Per Risk Budget Instruction 1 3,200 0 0 0 0 50 Personal Services 516,900 0 0 0 0 60 Operating Expense 157710 -130 634207 IT Capital Allocation Per IT Budget Instruction - Capital 1 1,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634210 Info Tech Automation Allocation Per IT Budget Instruction - Shared 1 21,100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634211 IT Billing Hours Allocation Moved from 634210 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634970 Indirect Cost Reimbursement Indirect Cost Plan 1 125,300 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634999 Other Contractual Services Excercise classes (347990) 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 Cheerleading (347990) 1 12,000 0 0 0 0 Entertainment Skate /BMX events (DJ, bands, etc) (347990) 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Family Special events 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Futsal 1 8,000 0 0 0 0 Karate (347990) 1 8,000 0 0 0 0 Marcia Galle Dance Class (347990) 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Pee Wee Sports (347990) 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Referees 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Security for events 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Tropical Fest 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634999 Other Contractual Services 49,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 639965 Locksmiths Services And Supplies Locksmiths Services and Supplies 1 500 0 0 0 0 GovMax V5 2 612/2011 1612 *IA15 Account Major Expenditure Detail I em Budget grouped by Fund Center Collier County Government 1 Fiscal Year 2012 0 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 157710 -130 645100 Insurance General FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue # Budget Budget Budget Per Risk Budget Instruction Budget Budget 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 0 0 0 157710 -130 645200 Property Insurance 60 Operating Expense Per Risk Budget Instruction 157110 -130 640200111ileage Reimbursement Regular 21,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646110 Building R And M Outside Vendors Mileage 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 640300 Out Of County Travel Prof Devel 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646180 Building R And M Isf Billings FRPA Conference 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 NBL BMX Conference 1 900 0 0 0 0 Other OOC Training 1 500 0-- 0 0 0 157710 -130 640300 Out Of County Travel Prof Devel 2,400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 640410 Motor Pool Rental Charge Clay for BMX track Per Fleet schedule 1 400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 641230 Telephone Access Charges 2,000 0 0 0 0 Soiltac for BMX Track Per IT Budget Instruction - Telephone 1 2,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 641700 Cellular Telephone 4,700 0 0 0 0 GovMax V5 Supervisor - $57 /mth x 12 1 700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 641900 Telephone Sys Support Allocation Per budget instructions 1 5,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 641951 Postage Postage for letters /Packages 1 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 643100 Electricity GGCC Electricity 1 68,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 643300 Trasb And Garbage Disposal GGCC Trash Pick ups 1 6,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 643400 Water And Sewer Per budget instructions - actuals x 1.0523 1 15,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 644170 Rent Temporary Storage Guardian Storage 1 3,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 644600 Rent Equipment BMX Qualifier (347400) 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Halloween Howl 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Misc Events costumes,equipment etc... 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Senior Expo (347400) 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 Sound System $2000 (347400) 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Spring Wing Ding (347400) 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Tropical Festival ( sound system,tents & generators) 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 (347400) 157710 -130 644600 Rent Equipment 13,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 644620 Lease Equipment Copier Lease agreement 1 2,400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 645100 Insurance General Per Risk Budget Instruction 1 5,400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 645200 Property Insurance Per Risk Budget Instruction 1 21,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646110 Building R And M Outside Vendors Facility Painting 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646180 Building R And M Isf Billings Special service repairs on skate park/BMX track 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646311 Sprinkler System Maintenance Sprinkler Maintenance 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646315 Athletic Court And Ball Field Maint Clay for BMX track 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Gym Floor Cleaning 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Soiltac for BMX Track 1 1,700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646315 Athletic Court And Ball Field Maint 4,700 0 0 0 0 GovMax V5 3 6/212011 j 161 .A15 Account Major Expenditure Detail Itern Budget grouped by Fund Cental• Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2012 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue ?# Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 60 Operating Expense 157710 -130 646316 Maint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc benches 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Picnic Tables 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646316 Maint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc 3,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646317 fencing Maintenance Fence repairs and maintenance 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646318 A4ulch Playground mulch 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 Red Mulch 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646318 Mulch 6,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646319 Tree Trimming Tree Trimming 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646320 Landscape Materials Flowers, plants and ground covering 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646430 Fleet Maint Isf Labor And Overhead Per Fleet schedule 1 3,100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646440 fleet Maint ISF Parts and Sublet Per Fleet Budget Instruction 1 2,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646452 Playground Equip A4aintenance Playground parts 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646510 Nfachine Tools Rm Outside Vendors BMX starter gate repairs 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646710 Office Equipment R And N1 Copier Maintenance 1 500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646910 Data Processing Equip R And N1 Flex care and Child Care Station 1 800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646970 Other Equip Repair Maintenance Security Cameras R &M 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 647110 Printing Binding Outside Vendors Printing and or Binding Outside Vendors 1 8,200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 648160 Other Ads Yard sales advertising 1 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 648170 Marketing And Promotional Tropical Fest and seasonal events 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Marketing 1 8,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 648170 Marketing And Promotional 10,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649010 Licenses And Permits DCF License (347990) 1 100 0 0 0 0 Frontier days (347400) 1 200 0 0 0 0 Health Dept.(347990) 1 100 0 0 0 0 Right of Way for special events (347400) 1 200 0 0 0 0 Special events (347400) 1 600 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649010 Licenses And Permits 1,200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649035 Judgements /fines And Costs False Alarms 1 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649930 Credit Card Discount Fee Credit Card Fees 1 3,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649990 Other Miscellaneous Services Miscellaneous NBL Services (347230) 1 400 0 0 0 0 Movie privileges for outdoor movies (347400) 1 400 0 0 0 0 NBL Insurance (347230) 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 NBL Memberships (347230) 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 GovNIax V5 4 6/212011 1612" b15 Accouni. Major Expenditure Detail Ram Budget grouped by Fund Center Collier County Government 1,500 0 0 Fiscal Year 2012 ASA counselors shirts - 2 x $5 x 5 1 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue # Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 0 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 0 0 Safety Boots - 2 x $150 1 - 300 60 Operating Expense 0 0 0 157710 -130 652110 Clothing And Uniform Purchases 2 200 0 15771.0 -130 649990 Otlier Miscellaneous Services 0 0 157710 -130 652130 Clothing And Uniform Rental 0 0 0 NBL Race Report Fees (347230) 1 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 649990 Other Miscellaneous Senices 7,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 651110 Office Supplies General 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652210 Food Operating Supplies ASA 1 200 0 0 0 0 Misc. Programs 1 1,900 0 0 0 0 Office supplies 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 VPI< 1 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 651110 Office Supplies General 5,200 0 �w 0 0 0 157710 -130 651210 Copying Charges ASA flyers 1 100 0 0 0 0 Program flyers 1 - 3,500 0 0 y 0- 0 157710 -130 651210 Copying Charles 3,600 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 651910 Minor Office Equipment ScannerlPrinter 1 500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652110 Clotting A nd Uniform Purchases Athletic program shirts 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 ASA counselors shirts - 2 x $5 x 5 1 100 0 0 0 0 Nametags - 15 staff x 1 nametag x $12 1 200 0 0 0 0 Pre School Shirts - 4 x $5 x 5 sessions 1 100 0 0 0 0 Safety Boots - 2 x $150 1 - 300 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652110 Clothing And Uniform Purchases 2 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652130 Clothing And Uniform Rental 0 0 0 0 Maintenance Uniforms - 1 x $405.60 1 400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652140 Personal Safety Equipment 6/2/2011 Personal Safety Equipment 1 500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652210 Food Operating Supplies 5th Grade Dances - 3 x $400 (347400) 1 1,200 0 0 0 0 ASA Food 1 100 0 0 0 0 Late Skate Nights (347230) 1 400 0 0 0 0 Preschool (347990) 1 100 0 0 0 0 Programs and Special Events Food (347400) 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 Tropical Festival (347400) 1 1,300 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652210 Food Operating Supplies 4,100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652310 Fertilizer Herbicides And Chemicals Fertilizer for common grounds 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652490 Fuel and Lubricants ISF Billings Per Fleet Budget Instruction 1 5,400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652510 Household & Institutional Supplies Paper & Cleaning Supplies 1 3,900 0 0 0 0 VPK 1 100_ 0 0 _ 0 0 157710 -130 652510 Household & InstihrtionalSupplies 4,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652720 Medical Supplies First Aid Kits 1 700 0 0 0 0 First aid re -stock 1 700 0 0 0 0 VPK 1 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652720 Medical Supplies 1,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652910 Minor Operating Equipment Audio equipment 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Equipment for programs 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 Equipment for programs and game room 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Remove tables & chairs to balance budget 1 -4,000 0 0 0 0 Tables & chairs 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 GovMax V5 5 6/2/2011 1612�p15 Account Major Expendituva Detail Iteln Budget grouped by Fund Cancer Collier County Government 1 1,500 Fiscal Year 2012 0 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue 9 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget BMX/Skate (347400) 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 4,000 60 Olaeraiincl Expenso 0 0 0 Game room equipment 157710 -130 652910 Minor Operating Equipment 10,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 65294011lercbandise Resale Lumber, building supplies 1 2,000 BMX Merchandise (347903) 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 Skate Merchandise (347903) 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652940 Merchandise Resale 10,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652990 Other Operating Supplies Art Supplies (347990) 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 ASA (347990) 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 BMX/Skate (347400) 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 Game room equipment 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 Lumber, building supplies 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 Preschool supplies (347990) 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 Reduce supplies to balance budget 1 -2,800 0 0 0 0 Senior expo 1 500 0 0 0 e 0 157710 -130 652990 Other Operating Supplies 11,700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652991 Electrical Supplier Repair and replacement of electrical parts 1 2,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652992 Electrical Contractors Electrical Contractors 1 2,500 0 0 0 0 157110 -130 652999 Painting Supplies Painting Supplies 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 654110 Books Publ G Subscriptions CPR books 1 400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 654210 Dues And Alembersbips FRPA - 3 x $200 1 600 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 654360 Oilier Training Ed Exp ASA training 1 200 0 0 0 0 CPRP certifications 1 1,100 0 0 0 0 DCF mandated 40 -hr training and in- service trainings 1 200 0 0 0 0 VPK 1 200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 654360 Other Training Ed Exp 1,700 0 0 0 0 60 Operating Expense 602,100 0 0 0 0 70 Capital Outlay 157710 -130 763100 Improvements General Access to Wheels Driveway 1 7,000 0 0 0 0 Playground replacement 1 60,000 0 0 0 0 Remove Wheels Driveway & $8,500 from playground 1 - 15,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 763100ImprovententsGeneral 51,500 0 0 0 0 70 Capital Outlay 51,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 1,070,500 0 0 0 0 919010 -130 Reserves 99 Reserves 919010 -130 991000 Reserve For Contingencies Reserve for Contingencies 1 23,600 0 0 0 0 919010 -130 993000 Reserve For Capital Outlay Reserve for Capital Outlay AC and Roof Accumulation 1 86,000 0 0 0 0 99 Reserves 109,600 0 0 0 0 919010-130 Reserves 109,600 0 0 0 0 959010 -130 Transfers - Elected Officers 1 IMMUMNA GovMax V5 6 6/2/2011 161 A15 Account Major Expenditure Detail item Budget grouped by f=und Center Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2072 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 Expenditure Detail Item Description Level Issue # Budget Budget FY 2014 Budget FY 2015 Budget FY 2016 Budget 959010 -130 Transfers - Elected Officers 93 Transfers to Constitutional Officers 959010 -130 930600 Budget Transfers Property Appraiser FY12 Transfer 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 959010 -130 930700 Budget Transfers Tax Collector Transfer to Tax Collector for 12 1 5,500 0 0 0 0 93 Transfers to Constitutional Officers 8,500 0_ 0 0 0 959010 -130 Transfers - Elected Officers 8,500 0 0 0 0 Report Grand Total 1,188,600 0 0 0 0 GovMax VS 7 6/2/2011 1612 1 A15 276,900 Account Major Revenue Detail {tern Budget grouped by Fund Centel- 0 0 0 Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2012 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 NBL Memberships - 100 x $45 Revenue Detail Item Description Level Issue Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 0 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 30 Revenues 157710 -130 311100 Cun'ent Ad Valorem Taxes Millage Neutral Ad Valorem 1 276,900 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347230 Permit Membership Sales Parks And Rec NBL Memberships - 100 x $45 1 4,500 0 0 0 0 Wheels Memberships - 150x $25 1 3,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347230 8,300 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347270 Athletic Programs Parks And Rec, Futsal tournamentl5 teams x $200 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Adult Basketball League - B teams x $150x 2 1 2,400 0 0 0 0 Futsal soccer 300 players x $40 1 12,000 0 0 0 0 Summer Teen Basketball program 10 teams x $150 I 1,500 0 0 0 0 Youth Basketball League - 50 kids x $30 I 1,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347270 20,400 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347290 Recreation Camps Parks And Rec BMX/ Camps - 6 campers x 4 wks x $110 =$3520 1 3,500 0 0 0 0 Holiday Camp - 35kids x $65 1 2,300 0 0 0 0 No School Camps - 18 kids x $15 x 5 days 1 1,400 0 0 0 0 Spring Camp - 30campers x $85 =$3000 1 2,600 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347290 9,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347400 Special Events Community Yard Sales 1 1,000 0 0 0 0 5th Grade Dances 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 BMX races - 23 x 26 racers x $12 1 7,200 0 0 0 0 Frontier Days 1 2,500 0 0 0 0 Halloween Howl - 200 x $2 I 400 0 0 0 0 Senior Expo 1 3,000 0 0 0 0 Spring Wing Ding - 200 x $2 1 400 0 0 0 0 Tropical Fest 1 8,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347400 24,500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347903 Merchandise Sales Taxable Wheels resale merchandise - $10,000 + 20% mark up 1 12,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347905 Admission Daily Admission to Wheels- 400 walkins x $5 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347908 Concession Fees Vending Machines 1 4,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347940 Facility Rentals Culture Rec Facility Rental 1 23,000 0 0 0 0 Senior Food Program $350 x 12 months 1 4,200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347940 27,200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347990 Instructional Services Culture Rec ASA - 36 x $500 x 2 sessions 1 36,000 0 0 0 0 BMX clinics 16 sessions x 10 participants x $5 1 800 0 0 0 0 Cheerleading 12 sessions x 50 participants x $40 1 24,000 0 0 0 0 Karate 8 sessions x 34participants x $45 1 12,200 0 0 0 0 Pee Wee Sports- 3 sessions x 15 participants x $36 1 1,600 0 0 0 0 VP K- $2710 x 24 1 65,000 0 0 0 0 Yoga /Aerobics /Zumba -100 sessions x 10 participants x $7 1 7,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 347990 146,600 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 366900 Contributions Private Source Cool Cruisers Annual Donation 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 30 Revenues 636,700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 536,700 0 0 0 0 GovMax VS 1 6/2/2011 161 t Account. Major Revenue Detail €tem Sudget gl,oupeci by Fund Center Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2012 Service FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Revenue Detail Item Description Level Issue Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 40 `transfers & Contributions 919010 -130 489200 Carryforward 12 Budgeted Carryforward Carryforward - Capital Reserves 919010 -130 489900 Negative 5% Estimated Revenues 919010 -130 Reserves 1 227,100 0 0 1 86,000 0 0 919010 -130 489200 313,100 0 0 5% advalorem reserve 1 - 13,800 0 0 0 0 5% of total revenues excluding advalorem 1 - 13,000 0 0 0 0 919010 -130 489900 - 26,800 0 0 0 0 40 Transfers & Contributions 286,300 0 0 H 0 0 919010 -130 Reserves 286,300 0 0 0 0 929010 -130 Transfer 40 Transfers & Contributions 929010 -130 481111 Transfer From 111 Uninc Area Mstd Gen Fd 11 Transfer 1 362,000 40 Transfers & Contributions 362,000 0 0 0 0 929010 -130 Transfer 362,000 0 0 0 0 989010 -130 Interest 30 Revenues 989010 -130 361180InvestmentInterest 361180 INVESTMENT INTEREST 1 3,600 0 0 0 0 30 Revenues 3,600 0 — 0 0 0 989010 -130 Interest 3,600 0 0 0 0 Report Grand Total 1,188,600 0 0 0 0 GovMax V5 2 612!2011 i612 A15 Revenue Service Level Analysis grouped by Fund Center Collier Counfiy Government Fiscal Year 2017 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Adopted Object Code and Account Name Actual Adopted Annualized Current Expanded Total % Change 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 30 Revenues 361170 Interest Sba 341 311100 Current Ad Valorem Taxes 348,053 321,300 305,200 276,900 0 276,900 -13.82 311200 Delinquent Ad Valorem Taxes 591 0 0 0 30 Revenues 3,674 4,000 4,000 341446 Sales Of Xerox Copies - Taxable 75 0 0 989010 -130 Interest 3,674 0 0 0.00 347230 Permit Membership Sales Parks And Rec 4,822 12,500 7,000 0 8,300 0 0 0 8,300 0.00 -33.60 347270 Athletic Programs Parks And Rec 3,154 14,700 14,700 20,400 0 20,400 38.78 347290 Recreation Camps Parks And Rec 17,262 9,000 8,200 9,800 0 9,800 8.89 347400 Special Events 17,693 19,100 19,000 24,500 0 24,500 28.27 347903 Merchandise Sales Taxable 8,433 14,000 12,000 12,000 0 12,000 -14.29 347905 Admission 1,414 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 0.00 347908 Concession Fees 6,246 4,000 _ 4,000 4,000 0 4,000 0.00 347911 Facility Rentals Taxable 19 0 0 0 347940 Facility Rentals Culture Rec 27,155 27,200 27,200 27,200 0 0 0 27,200 0.00 0.00 347990 Instructional Services Culture Rec 72,461 87,000 85,000 146,600 0 146,600 68.51 361320 Interest Tax Collector 33 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 366900 Contributions Private Source 11,402 7,500 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 -33.33 369300 Reimbursement For Prior Year Exp 533 0 0 369700 Cash Over Under -14 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 30 Revenues 519,332 518,300 489,300 536,70 0 0 _0 536,700 3.55 1 5771 0 -1 30 Golden Gate Community Center 519,332 518,300 489,300 636,700 0 536,700 3.55 I:-919010 91901 -130 Reserves 40 Transfers & Contributions 489200 Carryforward 434,800 311,800 400,000 313,100 0 313,100 0.42 489900 Negative 5% Estimated Revenues 0 - 25,900_ 0 - 26,800 0 - 26,800 3.47 40 Transfers & Contributions 434,800 285,900 400,000 286,300 0� 286,300 0.14 919010 -130 Reserves 434,800 285,900 400,000 286,300 0 286,300 0.14 929010 -130 Transfer 40 Transfers & Contributions 481111 Transfer From 111 UnincArea Mstd Gen I'd 392,700 373,100 373,100 362,000 0 362,000 -2.98 40 Transfers & Contributions 392,700 373,100 373,100 362,000 0 362,000 -2.98 929010 -130 Transfer 392,700 373,100 373,100 362,000 0 362,000 -2.98 959010 -130 Transfers - Elected Officers 40 Transfers & Contributions 486600 Transfer From Property Appraiser 406 0 0 486700 Transfer From Tax Collector 3,125 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 40 Transfers & Contributions 3,531 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 959010 -130 Transfers - Elected Officers 3,531 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 989010 -130 Interest 30 Revenues 361170 Interest Sba 341 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 361180 Investment Interest 3,334 4,000 4,000 3,600p 0 3,600 -10.00 30 Revenues 3,674 4,000 4,000 3,600 0 3,600 -10,00 989010 -130 Interest 3,674 4,000 4,000 3,600 0 3,600 -10.00 Report Total 1,354,037 1,181,300 _ 1,266,400 1,188,600 0 11188,600 0.62 GovMax V5 1 61212011 1612 A15 COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF PUBLIC SERVICES Parks and Recreation Department 15000 Livingston Road — Naples, Florida 34109 -- Phone (239) 252 -4000 Fax (239) 514 -8657 Website: colliergov.net GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA April 2, 2012 I. Call to Order II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — March 5, 2012 V. Public Comments VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights — Vickie Wilson B. Playground Update —Vickie Wilson VII. New Business A. Month to Date Budget/ Year to Date — Annie Alvarez B. Review Budget FY 2012 -13 — Annie Alvarez C. Review Updated 5 -Year Plan — Annie Alvarez D. BMX State Qualifier Budget Report E. Advisory Board Resolution F. Roof Maintenance VIII. Member Comments IX. Adjournment The next meeting May 7, 2012 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida 1612 April Z,. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, April 2, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate A15 BY: ....................... Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Rooms "C" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: Fiala V/,/ Hiller _ Henning — Coyle Coletta J� Kaydee Tuff James Klug III Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris Misc. Comes: Date: Item Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor 1 1612' Al April 2, 2012 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:03 PM by Chairman, Kaydee Tuff. II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. The Advisory Board discussed possible future involvement in providing input regarding Vickie Wilsons' and future Center Supervisors evaluations since the MSTU pays 40% of the cost of the Center and the Board is involved during the hiring process. A consensus was formed to have James Klug do research on procedures on how supervisors are evaluated and if there is an opportunity for Advisory Board input and bring back his findings. III. Approval of Agenda Bill Arthur moved to approve the April 2, 2012 Agenda as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Approval of March 5, 2012 Minutes Bill Arthur moved to approve the February 6, 2012 Minutes as submitted Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried unanimously, 5 -0. V. Public Comments None VI. Old Business — Addressed After VIII. VII. New Business —Addressed After VIII. VIII. Member Comments James King reported meeting with Commissioner Henning and Ian Mitchell regarding the staggering of the Advisory Board Terms from 3 -2 -0 to 2 -2 -1 as approved by the Advisory Board in February 2008. James Klug moved to direct Staff to provide a copy of the minutes showing the motion where the Advisory Board requested the change of Advisory Board terms. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Staff will provide a copy of the Resolution approved May 2008 regarding the staggering of terms. VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights Vickie Wilson distributed and reviewed the report on March and April Events. (See attached) NA 161 r.-AII-- April 2, 2012 • March 10 & 17 — PAR participated in the Golden Gate Frontier Day Parade and the City of Naples St. Patrick's Day Parade • March 21 & 22 — Energy Assistance Program was held • March 23 — Coalition for Aging Workshop was held • April 14 - "Got Camp" Expo will be held at NCRP VPK/Summer Camp registration opens - Community Yard Sale • April 28 & 29 — American Cancer Walk B. Playground Update Vickie Wilson researched shade structures installed at Fleishman Park and reported the following: (See attached) • Shade structure was installed in 2006. • Did not have an issue with wear and tear. • Maintenance crew had to take down once for a tropical storm and it took 4 months to get it back in place. • They plan to replace them with the method that the center staff can take down and put up themselves. Staff was directed to research cost of installation from the City. Public Speaker Bill McDaniel asked if it was possible to have a copy of the "meeting packet" emailed to anyone prior to meetings. Staff will email meeting packet to bigislandbillnaol.com. VII. New Business A. Month to Date Budget/ Year to Date — None. It was noted Annie Alvarez had a meeting in Immokalee and would not be able to attend meeting. B. Review Budget FY2012 -13 Vickie Wilson reported the Workshop held on March 29th had not been advertised. It was noted the minute taker requested advice on how to proceed on the unadvertised meeting from the County Attorney's office. Peggy Harris suggested due to the Sunshine Law prior to conducting any business the Public Notice is stipulated to avoid wasting time. Kaydee Tuff moved to avoid any errors in public noticing of the meetings; we (Advisory Board) follow a procedure where Vickie (Wilson) would submit to Peg Ruby and also copy Sue Flynn; so that she knows, even before her meeting notices are sent out that the meeting has actually been noticed and will be an official meeting. Second by James Klug. Motion carried unanimously, 5 -0. 16 12- A15 April 2, 2012 Jim Klug stated at the end of the meeting, both Peggy and him self were in agreement on the budget and the 5 -Year Plan as presented. He noted the review of more expense items and not much on revenue items. He has questioned himself on whether he wants to approve the budget. The Advisory Board has had many requests and many commitments to find out the accounting figures that make up the Carry Forward. He said he never received an answer he was confident o£ He requested Staff provide a Carry Forward analysis similar to the analysis provided on Direct Costs. Jim Klug suggested deferring any further discussion on the budget until the next meeting. He reiterated the Board should be involved in every single meeting in the County that involved specifically on the GGCC. Vickie Wilson distributed and reviewed an After School Comparison report and the Tropical Fest Expenditures /Revenue report. She reported the roof is not normally replaced until the roof is 15 -20 years old. Staff will have Facilities inspect the roof. Discussion was ensued on not getting full cooperation from Staff and concerns in not receiving requested documentation, information and not all questions were answered. Disappointment was expressed in Staff being overwhelmed with responsibilities and not being able to complete direction from the Board. The Advisory Board questioned other options available as far as representation and stated this affects meetings and agenda items. The Chairman will email Barry Williams their concerns. C. Review Updated 5 -Year Plan Staff distributed and reviewed the updated 5 -Year Plan. (See attached) D. BMX State Qualifier Budget Report The report will be provided when total revenues are in. E. Advisory Board Resolution — Addressed previously F. Roof Maintenance — Addressed previously VIII. Member Comments Kaydee Tuff reported the setup of a Golden Gate Community Center webpage in Facebook. She deleted the website because the County required her password. She prefers not to provide this information. Staff responded the Collier County Government can not setup a website on Facebook, only the Board can do it. Kaydee Tuff will set website back up again and set Board members up as administrators. 2 I 1612 � A1.r April 2, 2012 Kaydee Tuff will draft a letter directed to Barry Williams regarding concerns the Advisory Board has on representation. She will provide a draft for the Boards review at the next meeting. Bill Arthur moved to adjourn. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:20 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD wao6k i�l� Kayd e T ff, Chairman These Minutes w re approved by the Committee /Board on J , as presented_ or as amended 5 1612 A15 it A K G 1112-1,ZE f 4 io & , Collier County Parks and Recreation Department participated in the Golden Gate Frontier Day Parade and the City of maples St. fatty's parade. Threw out candy and handed out Summer Carap information. Energy Assistance program was held Coalition for Aging Workshop was held -% A P iL 1a "Got Camp" Expo will be held at NCRP- Vickie received word currently from 15 vendors and still looking for more. This ievent is set for all camp groups to showcase their programs. APRIL 14 VPK /Summer Camp registration opens. APRIL 14 Community yard Sale /Spots available APRIL 26,& 29 American Cancer Walk if you know Grand arenas that care fo )lease have them contact s as there �s grant to heiu therm with summer camp tuition. 161'2 A'15 Fleischman Park Playground Cover: 1. Has been in place since 2006 2. Maintenance crew had to take down once for a tropical storm and took 4 months to get it back up. 3. Wear and Tear has been good, they have not had a problem. Though they are getting ready to replace it, and get the method that the center staff can go out and take the structures up and down by themselves. 4. Could not get an estimate of how much the $ amount was. 161 2 A15 After School Comparisons Staff: Currently 1 staff x 20 hrs.p /w x $10.30 x 36 weeks= $7420.00 salary * ** *Van costs are estimated * * ** $.55 p /mile x 2miles p /day x 180 days= $198.00 Total Expenditures: $7700.00 (rounded) Walking ration is 2 staff /15 children Salaries would be $7420.00 x 2= $14,840 Parents do not put their children in a program that they have to transport or walk to; all our parents are working households. Revenue: Fall Session 11 children x $500= $5500.00 4 children (4c's) fees vary = $ 4917.84 Total Revenue: $10,417.84 Revenue: Spring Session 9 children x $500= $4500 1 child x $400 = $400 (20% scholarship) 1 child x $300 = $300 (40% scholarship) 4 children (4c's) fees vary = $5908.44 Total Revenue: $11,108.44 ** 4c's pay $13.60 p /day ** ** County kids pay $5.00 p /day ** 161 2 A15 Tropical Fest Expenditures /Revenues 1 Supervisor x $31.00p /h xlOhrsp /dx2 days= $620.00 (event coverage Fri. & Sat.) 2 workers x $15.00p /h x 8 hrs = $240.00 (Sat. & Sun. cleanup) 1 Supervisor x $31.00p /h x 8 hrs= $248.00 (contacts for music and food vendors) Port o Lets: $250.00 Sound Personnel: $500.00 Music: $2500.00 Sheriff: $500.00 Garbage: $113.00 Permits: $450.00 TOTAL: $5421.00 Revenue received: TOTAL: $5800.00 PROFIT: $379.00 m U Q m m U U U U m m m m Q 00 ! I C: N m L to C a o c E oN � O h 6:R U V 2I N C .0 = U of o d V a m- d 3 6s v 0 O >> f6 N d !' v O U E inaa��� �tOtl� d CL aaaaan - aaaa- 00000000000 (9 (D (D (9 (9 0 0 0 (9 (9 (9 (D(D(D(D00(i(9(9(9(9 UUULLMMO U 612 A15 U U m m U U U oI H F H d Y Y Y tri ds c m E a n c 5 F w Cr C L N wU J 0 C m .. LL LL �m N N m m m 1X6 x J N U d p� N p X o m O w d o d w -o o !/ 0 U /6 w d CD (n = ° Y LL CO 'UU U�0(_(n E 0 0(U7 to 612 A15 U U m m U U U oI H F H d Y Y Y tri ds c m E a n c 5 F w Cr C L N wU J 0 C m .. LL LL �m N N m m m 1X6 x EXPENSE Sub Total $ 913,700.00 PERSONAL SERVICE $ 559,700.00 OPERATING EXPENSE $ 354,000.00 130 2010/2011 Fund Ctr / Comm Item Adopted Budget 157710 GOLDEN GATE COMMUNIn $ 535,800.00 $ REVENUE Sub Total $ (518,300.00) REVENUE - OPERATING Sub -Total $ (518,300.00) Curr Ad Valorem $ (321,300.00) EXPENSE Sub Total $ 1,054,100.00 PERSONAL SERVICE $ 518,700.00 OPERATING EXPENSE $ 475,400.00 CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 60,000.00 1612 A15 as 20� 26,790.00 $ 509,010.00 1W 1612 A16 Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board January 26, 201f'2-01 2 6:00 p.m. Collier County Boardroom - Building F p maRnW3 MAY ? Z ................. Members Present: Chairman Manuel Gonzalez; Ileana Ramos; David Correa; Valaree Maxwell; Zetty Rivera; Walter Call; Albert Batista Members Absent - Excused : None ✓ Others Present: Everildo Ybaceta count y staff liaison. k!'1 �r Call to Order: Quorum was established and . C�J j /{v cUle�� Approve the Meeting Agenda: Agenda was approved. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of August 25th, 2011: David Correa motioned to approve the minutes, Valaree Maxwell seconded. New Business A. Opportunity to meet with BARB Board inquired about what they would like to discuss? Why they would like to meet ?. B. Elderly Hispanics in the area Elderly Hispanics are working with government agency with funds to do auto reach program such as literature and others. Zetty mentioned Spanish assisted living programs and centers. Albert Batista was assigned to the committee "Assistance for Elderly Hispanic C. Education by Valaree Maxwell Gulf Coast High School dropout is high. Collier is ranked 37tH Manny - Teachers are teaching to the FCAT, when you to FCAT they lose creativity. Issues of learning begin at home. New president policy will affect performance. Valaree — Looking for volunteers to send as tutors in February at International Learning Academy. She has contacted Florida Gulf Coast and Edison to encourage participation. David — As a golden apple award monitor, he found that teachers are buying their own supplies. Albert — Have you considered the Elderly to help with education activities? Ileana presented handouts about Pre -K and Head Start. Walter Call was added to the HealthCommitte. Misc. Cares: Date: 12, Item = 2 Copies t0: Member and Staff Comments Aplication for Mrs. Bayona was placed standby. Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 7:40 pm. Next Meeting: February 23, 2012. Chairman Date 161 ?_ p16 161 P A17 February 15, 2012 7 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATIO JOARD � 9Y3 Naples, Florida, February 15, 2012 MAY BY:....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division - Planning and Regulation Building, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: Fiala Hiller l Henning Coyle Coletta Craig Woodward William Dempsey Matthew Betz Patricia Huff Sharon Kenny (excused) Elizabeth Perdichizzi Rich Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager — Zoning Services Fred Reischl, Staff Liaison Glenda Smith, Budget Analyst :a Comes: Dave Wainscott, Dave Wainscott Designs te: —111,H11 ' _ n* tU=21q►1 ,) a to: 161 a February 15, 2012 I. Roll Call/Attendance Vice Chairman, William Dempsey called the meeting to order at 9:16 A.M. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. II. Addenda to the Agenda Add. Under Item V. Old Business - C. Inter -local Agreement Add. Under Item VI. New Business - C. Horse Creek D. Collier Charter Booklet E. Olde Marco Inn renovations Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to approve the Addenda to the Agenda. Second by Patricia Huff. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. III. Approval of the Agenda Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to approve the Agenda, including the four Addenda Items. Second by Will Dempsey. Carried unanimously, 5 -0 IV. Approval of the Minutes: January 18, 2012 Corrections: Page 3 item VIII 2nd paragraph 1 sr bullet Page 3 item VIII 2nd paragraph 2nd bullet and Nicholas Petrucci, not Page 3 item VIII 2nd paragraph 4 1 bullet Page 3 item VIII 3rd paragraph 1 S` bullet - Brian Trainor (sp) - artists Connie Bransilver Jeff Ripple, will be featured February 26 not 29 Hiahwaymen (sp) Patricia Huff moved to recommend approval of the Minutes of January 18, 2012, as amended. Second by Will Dempsey. Carried unanimously 5 -0. V. Old Business A. Chokoloskee Island Update Patricia Huff stated the road was supposed to be paved within 45 days of the court order which would have been up February 27. However, no work had been done to the road yet. Will Dempsey mentioned Florida Grove had appealed, but he was unaware of any further confirmation of that action. Ray Bellows commented further updates will be forthcoming from Assistant County Attorney, Steve Williams, who was unable to attend the meeting. B. Revisions to the Historic Guide Patricia Huff distributed copies of the revised and updated Historic Guide. She asked the Board Members to contact her if they knew of any additional websites for any item in the Guide, not already listed. Ray Bellows commented the Guide was much improved with sharper photographs and website additions to many of the sites. He was impressed with all the old photographs the Board was able to come up with. 161 A17 February 15, 2012 Fred Reischl was commended for providing the graphics for the map. He stated it was ready to be uploaded to the proper format for the website. Funding for the printing was still being sought. Sources previously mentioned were the United Arts Council, Tourist Development Council and John Torre, Public Information. Ray Bellows will make inquiries to see if they might find room in John Torre's budget to help with the printing. Craig Woodward arrived at 9:25 and took over the chair. C. Inter -Local Agreement Discussion — Addenda item — Craig Woodward Chairman Craig Woodward stated the new Marco Island City Planner had reviewed the file and was anxious to go forward with the Inter -local agreement to comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Also, archaeological work on new sewer installations for the City of Marco, in the bidding process, will need the agreement. Craig will meet with the City Planner and the archaeologist concerned to bring them up to speed and assist them in moving the Inter -local agreement process along. VI. New Business A. Discussion of Everglades City walking tour for APA FL State Conference Fred Reischl reported the plans had been approved for mobile workshops as part of the American Planners Association State Conference to be held in Naples, September 12 -15. The walking tours Committee Chairman, Lynee' Rodriguez, requested a walking tour guide for the Immokalee to Everglades City tour. The tour will meet at the Waldorf Astoria and go by bus to both places. Patricia Huff, having led many such tours, offered to conduct the tours. She has a walking tour guide book for Everglades City; and, will contact the Chairman for details. B. Discussion on Possible Future Guest Speakers and Field Trips Ray Bellows asked for discussion and follow -up on guest speakers and site visits the HAPB had previously inquired about. The Board Members were agreeable to visit any sites relative to what will be coming before its Board. The Olde Marco Inn was mentioned due to the proposed renovations there. The Board will look to inviting speakers on historic preservation. Rich Taylor will follow up with the prior invitation for Nick Penniman to speak on the Calusa Indians. C. Horse Creek - Addenda item — (handout) Fred Reischl Fred Reischl provided a map and copies of a Resolution relating to Petition ST -99 -3 regarding the Little Palm Island Subdivision; now called Horse 1612 A17 February 15, 2012 Creek Estates. A portion of the proposed subdivision contains Old Tamiami Trail, a "possible archaeological site ". Instructions to the petitioner were: to provide a historic marker on site and to submit an application for historic designation prior to plat approval. Old Tamiami Trail, within Horse Creek Estates, provides access to five lots in Palm River Estates, Unit No. 2. Plat approval was currently on hold until completion of the cited conditions. Fred asked the HAPB to discuss appropriate wording for the marker. Will Dempsey suggested using the # 40 Historic Marker shown on page 24 of the Historic Guide as a template. Patricia Huff noted the site will need to be added to the Historic Guide. Ray Bellows will send out the application for historic designation to the owners of Horse Creek subdivision. The Application for Historic Designation and the Historic Marker wording will be placed on next month's agenda. D. Collier Charter Booklet — Addenda item — Elizabeth Perdichizzi Elizabeth Perdichizzi passed around a copy of a booklet titled Collier County Charter, dated 1971. A winter visitor to Marco Island gave the Marco Island Historic Society an old video tape of Jack Paar's visit to Marco Island and the copy of the Charter Booklet. Neither Ray Bellows nor Fred Reischl knew of a Collier County Charter. They will look over the booklet and check with Collier County Museum Director, Ron Jamro. It may have been a proposal at one time. Collier County had not adopted a charter, to anyone's knowledge. E. Olde Marco Inn renovation project — Dave Wainscott Dave Wainscott of Dave Wainscott Designs, addressed the HAPB regarding renovations to the Olde Marco Inn. Planned was: • renovation and re -use of the second floor level of the original structure, making it into boutique guest suite facilities in the design of the 1930- 1940's era • recreating the original entrance exterior back to its former look as depicted in older photos of the building expanding and renovating the restaurant • completing renovations over the summer months Discussion followed on the procedures to follow due to the fact the Olde Marco Inn was a designated historical building. Also, the property was now located in the City of Marco; which pointed out the tie -in with the need for an Inter -local Agreement. Ray Bellows explained the Certificate of Appropriateness and its presentation to the HAPB, who will review the criteria to determine if the plans were in compliance. Coordination with the Building Officials of the City of Marco had been assured and they will go along with Collier County's procedures. 1612 A117 February 15, 2012 Chairman Craig Woodward spoke about the many old photos he had of the Inn and provided interesting information and history about the original and added on portions of the second floor, the north side entrance and the bar area. He was in favor of the proposal, citing examples of well -done area restorations - the Useppa Island Club, a Barron Collier structure and The Everglades City Bank, turned into a Bed and Breakfast. Elizabeth Peridchizzi commented she was happy to see what the owners were planning and that fire safety issues would be addressed. Patricia Huff stated the Historic Guide would need updating to reflect the changes and the current owners. Elizabeth Perdichizzi offered to provide information she had about the Olde Marco Inn and about the new owners. Ray Bellows will provide the necessary forms to Mr. Wainscott to begin the process. The HAPB will review them at the next meeting. VIII. Public Comments- None IX. Board Member Announcements Elizabeth Perdichizzi announced: February 18 at the Marco Island Museum - Frond Zoo — for the children. An artist from Goodland paints animals on palm fronds, which will be on display at the Museum. Currently they were being displayed at the Marco Library and at Tommy Barfield School. Chairman Craig Woodward reported the County had delivered several supplies to build out the Calusa Village and finish the mound. The public is able to watch the progress. The Museum had received $150,000 from The City of Marco. They were still waiting for $100,000 from the Tourist Development Council, which he will check into. February 24 he will be speaking on "Surveying Problems in the 10,000 Islands" at the Everglades City Annuai Meeting, held at the Seafood Depot. It will cover early pioneer surveying problems and how they were solved. Patty Huff noted events in Everglades City: 1. The month of February, at the Museum of the Everglades, exhibits of Connie Bransilver's photography of orchids on silk panels and Nicholas Petrucci's paintings of various Floridians titled "Guardians of the Everglades" 2. February 21 -24, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Festival 3. February 25, Paddle Thru the 10,000 Islands — a benefit for The Ted Smallwood's Store to help with the legal battle over Mamie Street. 4. March 10 from to 5 pm, the Annual Homes Tours. Old Historic signs had been passed out and were up on several buildings. 1 § bu2 A17 erary 15, 2012 The next meeting is March 21, 2012 at 9:15 AM at Collier County Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation Building, Room #610. There being no further business for the good of the County, Rich Taylor moved to adjourn. Second by Will Dempsey. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. The meeting was adjourned 10:12 A.M. Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board airm , Craig Woodward These minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on Z' l 15 ' as presented or as amended 0 1612 March 21, 2012 A17 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, March 21, 2012 BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610 at the Collier County Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation Building, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Fiala Hiller Henning _ Coyle - Coletta 7� CHAIRMAN: Craig Woodward (tele- conference) VICE CHAIRMAN: William Dempsey (excused) Matthew Betz Patricia Huff Sharon Kenny Elizabeth Perdichizzi Rich Taylor (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager — Zoning Services Fred Reischl, Staff Liaison, Growth Management Division Glenda Smith, Budget Analyst Cindy Penney, Customer Service SpeffiQdiWes: Date: --' 12y 1 12 Item #: I U MI-44 1-1 Cc ?ies to: 1612 A17 March 21, 2012 L Roll Call/Attendance Sharon Kenny called the meeting to order at 9:19 A. M. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. Sharon Kenny moved to recommend allowing Craig Woodward to attend the meeting via tele- conference. Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. Craig Woodward moved to allow Sharon Kenny to run the meeting. Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. II. Addenda to the Agenda - NONE III. Approval of the Agenda Craig Woodward moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Patricia Huff. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — February 15, 2012 Correction — Page 5 item IX, line 5 spelling- Tommie Barfield Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to approve the minutes of February 15, 2012, as amended. Second by Patricia Huff. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. V. Old Business: A. Chokoloskee Island Update Ray Bellows announced Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams was not able to be present to provide the update. However, Patricia Huff had some information to share. Patricia Huff noted, to the best of her knowledge, two extensions through March 13 and March 27 had been granted to the developers to pave the road. Equipment was there on the site and the road was being leveled, but not paved and not widened. Detour signs had been erected, directing people to the Smallwood Store. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams had indicated to her, a settlement was hoped for before next week. She will keep the Board informed if any additional progress is made. She stated no compensation to the Smallwood Store owners was part of the settlement and fund raisers were going on. She asked about work on the property needing an archaeological assessment for any excavation of the site, as stated in the November 16, 2011 minutes. Ray Bellows will see to providing notice to have an archaeologist on premise if any excavation was occurring, such as digging for the road. Discussion followed on the enforcement of the order by the Judge in the case; and, the legal status of the road - (public or private). Ray Bellows will check with Attorney Williams and e -mail answers to the HAPB. 2 161 Z A17 March 21, 2012 B. Horse Creek Estates Update Fred Reischl distributed a copy of the draft language for the Historical Marker that will go at the entrance to the Gopher Tortoise Preserve area as ordered by the Special Treatment permit. Patricia Huff will add the site to the Historic Guide. Matthew Betz provided explanation of the exact location and directions to Old Tamiami Trail area of Horse Creek Estates. Discussion followed on the historic information and re- configuration that had been done on Tamiami Trail over the years. Craig Woodward suggested the HAPB work on improvement to the historical information language and accurate dates. Some title work on the area could be found in the Public Records. Updates will be provided at the next meeting. Fred Reischl stated a road vacation process dedicated road access to the owners of the properties. Patricia Huff mentioned a PBS program on the history of the Tamiami Trail through its eastern segment was being planned. She will be meeting with representatives and will make inquiries about any relevant information. Craig Woodward cited a site visit before putting the information in the Historic Guide to be sure access and parking would be feasible for visitors. Sharon Kenny inquired about information on the changes to the Trail since the 1960's. Fred Reischl will do a site visit before next meeting, e -mail the Board copies of the map and research available on the Tamiami Trail in County records. C. Old Marco Inn Update Ray Bellows reported the architect planning the reconstruction at the Old Marco Inn had not submitted the Certificate of Appropriateness. Craig Woodward had scanned photos of the interior of the Inn and sent them to the restaurant owners. He sent copies of the relative parts of the County's Ordinance to the City of Marco planners dealing with land use for the City. He had not heard back from either of them. Ray Bellows will contact then\rn for an update on their intentions. Elizabeth Perdichizzi will send Ray Bellows information she had gathered on the owners of the Old Marco Inn and Ray will copy the rest of the Board. D. Revisions to the Historic Guide Patricia Huff noted some additions and corrections need to be completed and the website needed updating. She requested any changes to be sent to her next week for finalization of the Guide. Craig Woodward suggested a deadline be put on the project with the date put on the Brochure. The Guide and the website could be updated every 3 to 5 years. Patricia Huff agreed that April 30 would be the appropriate date. She asked everyone to check the Brochure Guide and website for any final adjustments. She also reported the United Arts Council would not be a viable source of funding for the printing. They are a non - profit entity for members only. HAPB did not meet their criteria. 161 A 1 March 21 2012 E. Discussion of Everglades City walking tour for APA FL State Conference Fred Reischl reported on the Conference Committee Workshop's progress and the excitement over the mobile tours planned. Patricia Huff had agreed to conduct the Everglades City walking tour. Penny Phillipi will conduct the Immokalee segment. Fifty people were expected to take the tour. Patricia Huff stated the Punta Gorda Tour, with its rebuilt city will be of interest on how a city rebuilds after a hurricane. She was looking for a person to lead the bus tour from the Waldorf Astoria to Immokalee, who could provide information about the Collier County area. Craig Woodward suggested Fred Thomas of Immokalee as a knowledgeable speaker. Fred Reischl said there would also be a tour of Naples 5h and 3rd St areas. Ray Bellows suggested the Guide Book should be available to participants. Elizabeth Perdichizzi suggested the Historical Re- enactors group could have "Tommie Barfield" give her perspective on Collier County on the ride to Immokalee. VL New Business: None VII. Public Comments: None VIII. Board Member Announcements Sharon Kenny suggested an Old Tamiami Trail site visit following an upcoming meeting. Craig Woodward announced March 23, 2012 at 6PM - Friday night movie at the Church on the Circle in Everglades City. Two episodes of the TV program, "Everglades" from the 1960's will be shown. Fifty -six episodes on DVD were purchased from a Canadian company. Many areas of Collier County are featured. Free Popcorn and coke will be served. He also reported on the progress of the Calusa Village at the City of Marco Museum. The monies due from the County had been moved to the City of Marco's Museum Budget. Patricia Huff announced Sunday March 25, 2012 at 3PM - Sun Cruise to Fakahatchee Island, with a naturalist along to provide commentary. It includes a walk to the top of the Island to the cemetery and reservations were required. She also commented on the latest exhibits at the Museum of the Everglades. Elizabeth Perdichizzi commented the Calusa room at the Marco Museum was shaping up and would warrant a site visit in the near future. Fred Reischl and the HAPB thanked Glenda Smith for her service and wished her well on her retirement. He introduced Cindy Penney, Glenda's successor. IX. Adjournment Next Meeting Date — April 18, 2012 at 915 AM -followed by a site visit to Horse Creek Estates. 4 .. 16 'A17 Malffil 101? Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to adjourn. Second by Patricia Huff. Carried unanimously, 5-0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 10:26 A.M. Collier County Historical/Archaeological Preservation ctin airman, Sharon Kenny These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on L> I ( Z as amended 5 as presented_ or MSTU Board Commissioner Chair Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Georgia Hiller MSTU Advisory Committee Cherryle Thomas Chair Lucy Ortiz William Deyo Andrea Halman Norma Ramirez CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director Bradley Muckel Project Manager Christie BetancOnrt Administrative Assistant IBDC Staff Marie Capita IBDC Manager Rosemary Dillon IBDC Administrative Assistant 239 - 269 -9628 MSTU Staff Jeffery Nagle Project Manager 239.867.4121 AGENDA Immokalee Lighting and Beautification MSTU 1320 North 15t Street Immokalee, FL 34142 May 23, 2012 - 10:00 A.M. A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. C. Introductions. D. Announcements. 1612 jA16 CRA/MSTU on the job! E. Adoption of Agenda. F. Communications. a. Public Notices G. Approval of Minutes for April 25, 2012. (Enclosure 1) H. Old Business. a. Budget Report (Enclosure 2) i. PO Report (Enclosure 3) ii. Expenditures 1. Fund 162 (Enclosure 4) 2. Fund 111 (Enclosure 5) b. Code Enforcement Report c. Project Manager Report i. Sidewalk (Carson Road) Report ii. Main Street Improvements Report iii. Street Lighting Report iv. Christmas Decoration Update v. Ninth Street Sidewalk d. Contractor Reports i. Maintenance Report — CLM (Enclosure 6) ii. Landscape Architect Report — JRL Design e. Community Redevelopment Agency Report i. Stormwater Project Update ii. Crosswalk Project Update I. New Business. J. Citizen Comments. K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting June 20, 2012 at 10:00 A.M. L. Adjournment. * The next MSTU Advisory Committee meeting will be held June 20, 2012 at 10:00 A.M. at 1320 North 15`h Street Immokalee, FL 34142. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239.867.4121 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the MSTU Lighting and Beautification Advisory Committee may also members of other Boards and Committees. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Committee may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. Immokalee Lighting and Beautification MSTU 1320 North 15th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 Minutes 2 A18 ` Enclosure 1 O Immokalee Lighting and Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Meeting April 25, 2012 H.- Action. Immok1" Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 10:00 a.m. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee Members Present: Cherryle Thomas, Norma Ramirez, Lucy Ortiz, and William Deyo. Advisory Committee Member Absent/Excused: Andrea Halman. A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Richard Tindell, Robert Kindelan, Steve Hart, Jeffrey Nagle and Kitchell Snow. Fiala Staff. Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel, and Christie Betancourt. Hiller / C. Introductions. All present introduced themselves. Henning D. Announcements. Coyle ✓ E Adoption of the A enda Coletta _G . g Action: Ms. Ramirez made a motion to approve the agenda; it was seconded by Ms. Ortiz and the motion passed by a vote of 4 -0. F. Communications. Ms. Phillippi passed around the Communications Folder which contained Notice of Public meetings. G. Approval of the Minutes. Action: Mr. Deyo made a motion to approve the minutes for the month of March 2012. The motion was seconded by Ms. Ortiz and the motion passed by a unanimous vote of 4 -0. H. Old Business. a. Budget Report. Christie Betancourt reported on the current budget, provided Purchase Order and Expenditures Reports to the Committee. The report was accepted by consensus. b. Code Enforcement Report. - Kitchell Snow discussed Community Task Force and other services provided by Code Enforcements. The Committee requested that Al Sanchez attend the next meeting to discuss utilities. C. Project Manager Report i. Mr. Muckel discussed the downtown Carson Road sidewalk project. ii. He also discusses the FDOT Joint Participation Agreement, requesting the Committee recommend the JPA to the BCC for approval. Action: Ms. Ortiz made a motion to recommend to the BCC that they approve a resolution to sign the JPA with FDOT and accept funding reimbursement of $61,947. The motion was seconded by Mr. Deyo and the motion passed by a unanimous vote of 4- 0. Misc. Comes: Date: -1 12L-1 11-2- Immokalee CRA 2012IMSTU Master File /Agendas /May 2012 /April Minutes Item 9,1 Lo S -2—wc1 1 Conies to: Immokalee Lighting and Beautification MSTU Certification of Minutes Approval Form by: Penny P Hippi, Executi)k )birector Immo ee Lighting and Beautification MSTU Liaison 161 ?'- UP Approved by: Chcrryle T6ilias, Chairman These Minutes for the April 25, 2012, MSTU Advisory Committee Meeting were approved by the MSTU Advisory Committee on May 23, 2012 as presented. 417 The next MSTU Advisory Committee meeting will be held June 2ff, 2012 at 10:00A.M. at the Immokalee CRA located at 1320 North 15t" Street Immokalee, FL 34142. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239 -867 -4121 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hairs before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the MSTU Lighting and Beautification Advisory Committee may also be members of other Boards and Committees. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Committee may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees fi•om time to time. CRA Board Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Georgia Hiller State Enterprise Zone Development Azeney Board (EZDA) Michael Facundo Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Robert Halman Ex- officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews James Wall Eva Deyo Carry Williams Daniel Rosario Angel Madera CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director Bradley Muckel CRA Project Manager MSTU Project Manager Jeffrey Nagle Marie Capita IBDC Manager Christie Betancourt CRA Administrative Assistant Rosemary Dillon IBDC Administrative Assistant Place IJTJI*J riku 4 4 aig im i The s Home 1 EZONE MEETING AGENDA State Enterprise Zone Development Agency Southwest Florida Works 750 South Fifth Street Immokalee, FL 34142 (239) 658 -3300 May 16,2012 -9:30 to 9:45 AM 1612 A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. C. Adoption of Agenda. D. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. EZDA Meeting —April 18, 2012 (Enclosure 1) ii. EZDA Quarterly Report January 1 — March 30, 2012 (Enclosure 2) E. Old Business. F. New Business. G. Citizen Comments. H. Next Meeting. June 20, 2012 at 9:30 A.M. I. Adjournment. A19 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency 1 6 1 1 IMMOKALEE CRA 1 losure 1 i The Place to Call Nome MINUTES State Enterprise Zone Development Agency — April 18, 2012 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Michael Facundo at 10:30 a.m. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. C. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Present: Michael Facundo, Floyd Crews, James Wall, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Jeffrey Randall, Carrie Williams, Ski Olesky, and Dan Rosario. Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Absent /Excused: Julio Estremera, Robert Halman, and Angel Madera. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Steve Hart, Chris Curry, Bill McDaniels, Larry Wilcoxson, Pam Brown, Bob Krasowski, and Colleen Greene. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel, Marie Capita, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. D. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. EZDA Meeting — March 28, 2012 Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Randall seconded the motion and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. E. Old Business. a. EZDA Ordinance 95 -22 Action: By consensus, the EZDA Board chose to leave the Ordinance as it is written. F. New Business. G. Citizen Comments. H. Next Meeting. May 16, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. I. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m. 1 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency MM KALEE CRA i The Place to Coll Home 1 Certification of Minntes Approval Form by: Pemiy.Prillippi, Exectt Director InimqValce Conununity Redevelopment Agency 1612 A19 JUN 0 2112 BY : ....................... Approved by: ichael "Mike" Facundo, Chairman These Minntes for the April 18, 2012, CRA Advisory Board /EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board/El ZDA on May 16, 2012 as presented. X The next joint Advisory Board /EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held June 20, 2012 at 8:30A.M. at the Immokalee Comnntnity Redevelopment Agency office located at 1320 North 15t" Street, Immokalee, F134142. xx There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5t" Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and armounced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239 - 867 -412I for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. Tile public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also menrbers of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and tire Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. .. _lL—✓ Fiala. .�.- -.-- -- Hiller _- Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta - r Misc. Cones: Date: -10-H112- Item #: 'A `°r Copies to: CRA Board Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Georgia Hiller CRA Advisory Board Michael Facundo Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Robert Halman Ex- officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews James Wall Eva Deyo Carrie Williams Daniel Rosario Angel Madera CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director Bradley Muckel CRA Project Manager Jeffrey Nagle MSTU Project Manager Marie Capita IBDC Manager Christie Betancourt CRA Administrative Assistant Rosemary Dillon IBDC Administrative Assistant Collier IMM Redevelopment OKALEECRA 1612 i The Plate to Coll Home 1 Regular Meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee Southwest Florida Works 750 South Fifth Street Immokalee, FL 34142 (239) 658 -3300 May 16, 2012 - 8:30 A.M. A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. C. Introductions. a. Immokalee MSTU Project Manager D. Announcements. a. Executive Summary to BCC E. Adoption of A eg nda. F. Communications. a. Public Notices b. Articles G. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. CRA Advisory Committee Meeting April 18, 2012 (Enclosure 1) H. Old Business. a. IAMP i. Public Meetings — Update ii. Public Petition (Enclosure 2) b. MSTU — Update c. Downtown Immokalee Stormwater Project — Update d. IBDC Manager Report i. April Report (Enclosure 3) e. First Street Plaza Project — Update I. New Business. a. Code Enforcement Highlights — Cristina Perez - Presentation b. 2013 Budget — Presentation J. Citizen Comments. K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting June 20, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. L. Adjournment. A20 * The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held June 20, 2012, at 8:30 A.M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South Fifth Street in Immokalee. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239.867.4121 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the CRA Advisory Board are also members of other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA and the Immokalee Fire Commission. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. Collier County Gomtnunity Redevelopment Agency imimbkaLEE cRA 161 A20 i The Place to Coll Home! Enclosure 1 MINUTES Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency April 18, 2012 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Michael Facundo, Chair at 8:30 a.m. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Present: Michael Facundo, Floyd Crews, James Wall, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Jeffrey Randall, Carrie Williams, Ski Olesky, and Dan Rosario. Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Absent /Excused: Julio Estremera, Robert Halman, and Angel Madera. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Steve Hart, Chris Curry, Bill McDaniels, Larry Wilcoxson, Pam Brown, Bob Krasowski, and Colleen Greene. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel, Marie Capita, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt. C. Introductions. All present introduced themselves to the Committee. D. Announcements. Ms. Phillippi announced that staff had submitted three grant applications to HHVS: $1.3 million- 9th Street Plaza $360,000 — IBDC $353,750 — Is' Street Plaza E. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to accept the Agenda, Ms. Deyo seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. E. Communications. a. The Communications Folder containing the Public Notices and various news articles. F. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes for the March 28, 2012 CRA Advisory Board meeting. Action: Mr. Randall made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda, the motion was seconded by Ms. Deyo and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. a. IAMP i. Executive Summary — Ms. Phillippi provided an overview of the Executive Summary to gain BCC approval of a plan to bring the IAMP back for a public hearing in Immokalee. Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to take the Executive Summary to the BCC recommending the staff plan and request to bring the IAMP back for a public hearing approval in Immokalee. Ms. Deyo seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. b. MSTU Update Ms. Phillippi announced that Mr. Jeffery Nagle had been offered the position of MSTU Project Manager he accepted the offer. It is anticipated that he will begin May 1, 2012. C. Downtown Immokalee Stormwater Project t k � fA 161 � A2 Brad Muckel, Project Manager, requested that the CRA Advisory Committee recommend to the BCC that they donate a 10' utility easement to the Immokalee Water & Sewer District for the purpose of moving the sewer line for the Immokalee Apartments out of the Stormwater retention pond. It was feared that the problem would delay construction for up to 3 months and create a costly change order. Action: Mr. Wall made a motion to recommend to the CRA a donation of a 10' utility easement to the Immokalee Water & Sewer District and the CRA cover the cost of conveyance. Mr. Randall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. Ms. Deyo abstained from the vote. d. Code Enforcement Highlights Kitchell Snow announced that Code Enforcement will conduct a neighborhood clean -up in the Eden Park area. e. IBDC Manager Report Marie Capita, IBDC Manager, reported on the activities of the IBDC. She stated that 4 more persons graduated from the Entrepreneur School; the computer lab is up and running and the first class will be Quick Books on the 12th of May; and Business Plan workshop. She requested approval to apply for an EDA grant to construct an incubator building. Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to approve the recommendation to apply for an EDA grant application to construct an incubator building, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. f. First Street Plaza Ms. Phillippi announced that the CRA closed on the land purchase on April 12 and staff has submitted the RFP for design to the Purchasing Department. g. 2013 Budget Ms. Phillippi reported that the she has not completed the 2013 Budget and will bring it to the May CRA Advisory Committee meeting. h. Fayade Grant for not - for - profit agencies Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to deny Commercial Fagade grants to not-for- profit agencies. Ms. Deyo seconded the motion and the motion passed by a 7 to 2 vote, with nay votes from Mr. Olesky and Mr. Wall. H. New Business. a. Sunshine Law Presentation Assistant County Attorney Colleen Greene made a presentation on the highlights of the Sunshine Law answering questions by Committee members and the Public. b. Leadership Collier Ms. Phillippi requested approval to send the Chair, Mike Facundo to Leadership Collier at a cost of approximately $3,000. Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to approve the expenditure of $3, 000 for Mr. Facundo to attend Leadership Collier, Ms. Deyo seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. J. Citizen Comments. Mr. Crews requested staff to ask Mr. Casalanguida why sidewalks are being built so close to the road by FDOT. 2 161 7 A20 Mr. Krasowski requested the CRA post the upcoming Agendas on the web page. It was suggested the CRA Advisory Committee send a letter of comendation to the various entities who sponsored the Harvest Festival, i.e., Chamber, Casino, Airport Authority and Sherrif£ He further stated that he is concerned about the Growth Design Corporation regarding incinerators, trucks of garbage and burning. After the presentation by the Assistant County Attorney, the JRA Director requested approval of the items for which she had requested approval by email specifically, approval for Marie Capita to attend the NBIA International Conference on Business Incubation to be held in Atlanta, Georgia. The Conference will be held May 6 -9, 2012. The total cost for the tip is $1,821.00: Flight - $359.00; Per Diem - $120.00; Registration - $895.00 and; Hotel - $447.00. Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to approve Marie Capita's travel to the NBIA in Atlanta, Ms Deyo seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting May 16, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. L. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. 3 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKALEE CRA 1 The Place to Coil Home 1 Certification of Minutes Approval Form by: lee Conmiunity Redevelopment Agency 161 A20 J ii N BY: ....................... Approved by: Michael "Mike" Facundo, Chairman These Minutes for the April 18, 2012, CRA Advisory Board /EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on May 16, 2012 as presented. x The next joint Advisory Board /EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held June 20, 2012 at 8:30A.M. at the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency office located at 1320 North 15 °i Street, Immokalee, F134142. *X There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5rt' Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will he publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239 - 867 -4121 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Innnokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle .i Coletta -'c. Misc. Corres: Date: --71 2-L-4 11 z, Item # :� U = 21A 20 Copies to: 1612, A 2 1.. ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MAR. 159 2012 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ATTENDEES: Joe Langkawel, Chairman Jim Hughes, Advisory Committee Member Ted Decker, Advisory Committee Member Kevin Walsh, Advisory Committee Member Jim Gault, Advisory Committee Member Fia!? Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Hi;;;:.,r=-------- Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer He;:r,ing Coyi _ ,�- Coiet�a I. CALL TO ORDER Joe Langkawel opened the meeting at 6:33 p.m. 11. OLD BUSINESS A. Chief s Report. 1. Monthly report produced by Image Trend has a new format. 2. Ambulance calls are not included on this report. 3. Mutual aid calls identify which fire district aid was provided to. B. February 16, 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve February 16, 2012 Minutes by Kevin Walsh. a. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Langkawel. C. Report from Isles of Capri Budgetary & Oper. Investigative Committee Phase 2. 1. "Phase 2 Committee" formed. a. List of members requested by Minutes Preparer. b. List of members not provided to Minutes Preparer. c. Kevin Walsh will act as Committee Chairman. Mice. Corres: 2. Committee has received BCC approval to continue their study. 17---411-2- 3 . Committee has met with Chief Murphy again. Date: 4. Committee has met with Marco Island Council Member. Item # :�� cZ2A"2--1 5. Marco Island Counsel believes ICFD administration transfer to M.I. is legal. 6. Committee met with Dwight Brock. Copies to: a. Dwight Brock is willing to assist the committee. 1612 A21 b. Dwight Brock accepts the role of final blessing of new model. 7. Committee to meet with County Manager Ochs on 03/19/12. 8. A. C. Edgemon to act as committee liaison to the ICFD firefighters. 9. Advisory Committee Member Gault asks, "Why are we doing this ?" a. Many residents believe the motive is to hire Emilio Rodriguez back. b. Rumors state that the committee's goal is to rehire the former chief. c. The committee states denies any rumors of hidden agendas. D. Discussion on the hiring of a new ICFD Fire Chief. 1. Fire Chief position has been advertised by Collier County H.R. 2. Interviews have not been scheduled. 3. County Manager Ochs has not made a decision to proceed at this time. 4. The ICFD budget status may have an impact on when and if to hire. 5. Only the Collier County Manager can hire or fire a Fire Chief. E. Discussion of the acquisition of a skid unit for brush firefighting. 1. Six bids were obtained. 2. Low bid, after shipping fees, will be selected. 3. A budget amendment is required to transfer funds to capital items. F. Discussion of the sale of the brush truck. 1. Recommended minimum bid of $30,000. 2. The commission owed to the auction company is unknown at this time. 3. John Rogers remains opposed to the sale of the brush truck. a. Possible FEMA reimbursement of $5000 from slope fire. b.John Rogers believes the County repair charges are unreasonable. c. John Rogers believes the County is not equipped for repairs. 4. Brush truck is currently in need of an additional $6000 in repairs. 5. Brush truck will be sold "as is." III. NEW BUSINESS A. Installation of new Station 90 security cameras. 1. Cameras will be hooked into the Collier County Facilities Dept. 2. Approximate cost of $400. 3. ICFD will maintain 30 day storage, Collier County for additional time. B. Anticipated ICFD FYI budget. 1. Large unknown factors still remain. a. Back pay owed for holiday pay. b. Proceeds of brush truck auction. c. If and when a new Fire Chief will be hired. 2. Barbara Shea states her best guess will show FY13 net reserves of $10,000. 3. Chief McLaughlin states that budget information will be available June 1. C. Distribution of the 2011 ICFD Annual Report to the Advisory Committee Members. 1617" A21 D. Public Comment. 1. Firefighter reserve program. a. Matt Crowder asks if the program still exists. b. Chief McLaughlin states that the dept. maintains active reservists. 2. Future of Chief McLaughlin as the provisional chief of ICFD. a. John Rogers asks what lies in the future of Chief McLaughlin. b. Chief McLaughlin was directed to provide a service to ICFD. c. Chief McLaughlin will continue until directed otherwise. d. Chief McLaughlin is also very busy with many Ochopee projects. e. Chief McLaughlin is not looking to become the ICFD Fire Chief. £ Chief McLaughlin states that he is not being paid by ICFD. 3. Discussion on emergency response to Marco Airport. a. A resident asks which fire district responds to Marco Airport. b. East Naples Fire District is first responder to Marco Airport. c. ICFD would also respond to any Marco Airport incident. d. Marco Airport is on Collier County property. e. East Naples Station 23 is the closest ENFD station to Marco Airport. E. The next ICFD Advisory Committee Meeting will be held on April 19, 2012. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Kevin Walsh at 7:50 p.m. 1. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. 2. Motion carried unanimously. Approved: Date: 161 D� A22 T „ // , ( �,, , � April 9, 2012 Byc .. ................ •. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, April 9, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: Fiala 12'1 Hiller Henning --,-- it Coyle ✓ Colotta 7G CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet VICE CHAIRMAN: Clarence Tears Tony Pires Jeffrey Curl Jeremy Sterk Lauren Gibson John Burton, II Todd Allen Tracy Dewrell ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Melissa Hennig, Prin.Environmental Spec., Program Man. Misc. Corres: Date: --11-2- -4 ( l 2 Item S: t co "r_ 21A 22 1 Copies to: 161"2 April 9, 2012 I. Roll Call Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:OOAM. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Curl moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 8 -0. III. Approval of March 12, 2012 minutes Mr. Curl moved to approve the minutes of the March 12, 2012 meeting as presented. Second by Mr. Tears. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. IV. Old Business A. Real Property Management update Alex Sulecki reported: • She received an email from An Trinh -J, owner of a parcel in Unit 53 offering his property for sale to the Conservation Collier. • The asking price is $60,000 with an estimated market value of $17,000. • She made him aware of the directive of the Board of County Commissioners authorizing acquisitions only in the event of "a really good deal." • The term "a really good deal" has been interpreted as a property offered at a price below fair market value, thus the proposal does not qualify for acquisition. Committee discussion occurred noting it is their understanding acquisition of parcels within multi parcel projects could take place if the land was offered at a cost equal to, or below fair market value. The Committee requested Staff to clarify the direction given by the Board of County Commissioners regarding acquisition of properties in multi parcel projects. Mrs. Gibson arrived at 9: 06am B. Gordon River Greenway Project update Alex Sulecki provided the following documents: • "Florida Communities Trust - Declaration of Restrictive Covenants" executed by Collier County June 26, 2007. • "Summary Notes — Gordon River Park Stakeholders Meeting March 23, 2012 " • "Conservation Collier Boundary Survey Exhibit— Gordon River Greenway Park" prepared by Kimley -Horn and Assoc., Inc. dated January 2012. • The document "Sketch of Florida Communities Trust (FCT) parcels, Collier County Parks and Recreation" dated March 2012. She noted: .: .r. 2 f:F.ti f 2 16 '2 A2 C April 9, 2012 • There is a violation of the above referenced FCT Declaration and Restrictive Covenants on a parcel owned by the Parks and Recreation Department within the project. • To mitigate the violation, the County is proposing to encumber a Conservation Collier property within the project with the FCT Declarations of Restrictive Covenants. • The Outreach Subcommittee and Ordinance Policy and Rules Subcommittee discussed the proposed concept at a recent meeting. Mr. Pires provided an overview of the Subcommittee meetings where the mitigation concept was discussed. He expressed concern on encumbering the Conservation Collier parcel of land given the FCT did not provide any funding for acquisition of the property, and the property would be subject to any restrictions or penalties, including forfeiture should the restrictions be violated. Chairman Poteet noted other members of the Subcommittee agreed with this assessment, however in order to move the project forward in an expeditious manner, recommend the concept be approved. Additionally, Ms. Sulecki noted: • Staff has drafted a draft Inter - Departmental Agreement outlining the Parks and Recreation Department responsibilities for fulfilling monitoring or reporting requirements for Conservation Collier properties under the FCT declaration. • The Naples Airport Authority requested, but not required the funds they are contributing for exotics removal on the Conservation Collier parcel be expended this Fiscal Year. Staff is still evaluating the concept, as it will be more cost efficient to complete the activity on a project wide basis. • Permit processing is ongoing with construction anticipated to begin in September or October. The construction duration is estimated at one year. She requested the Committee provide a recommendation on encumbering the Conservation Collier property with the proposed FCT Declaration and Covenants. Sneaker Chris Curry, Executive Director, Collier County Airport Authority provided an update on the proposed Avigation Easement. Mr. Curl moved to recommend the County move forward with the proposed mitigation concept and encumber the Conservation Collier lands in question with the FCT Declarations and Restrictive Covenants. Second by Mr. Sterk. Mr. Dewrell moved amend the motion and add the condition the recommendation be subject to a satisfactory agreement being executed between the Parks and Recreation Department and Conservation Collier whereas the Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for any costs associated for the monitoring and reporting required under the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. 3 2 4 � � Y .. ... .......... I A22 1b 2 April 9, 2012 Second by Mr. Tears. Motion to add the condition carried 7 "yes" — 2 "no, Mr. Curl and Mr. Sterk voted "no." Chairman Poteet called the vote for the original motion, including Mr. Dewrell's amendment. Motion carried 7 "yes" — 2 "no." Mr. Pires and Mr. Sterk voted "no." V. New Business A. Coordinator Communications None VI. Subcommittee Membership — Call for Members Alex Sulecki provided the document "Conservation Collier Subcommittees — March 29 2012 " for information purposes. She queried if any of the newly appointed Committee members would be interested in serving on a Subcommittee. Mr, Burton volunteered to join the Outreach and Lands Evaluation and Management Subcommittees. Mr. Allen volunteered to join the Lands Evaluation and Management and Ordinance Policy and Rules Subcommittees/ Mr. Sterk volunteered to join the Lands Evaluation and Management Subcommittee. VII. Sub- Committee Meeting Reports A. Outreach — Tony Pires, Chair The Subcommittee met and discussed the Gordon River Greenway project including the FCT Declaration and the Donor Recognition Program. B. Lands Evaluation and Management — Lauren Gibson - Vice Chair None C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures — Bill Poteet, Chair The Subcommittee met and discussed the Gordon River Greenway project including the FCT Declaration. VIII. Chair Committee Member Comments Chairman Poteet recommended, given the ongoing discussions for the Everglades Blvd exit for I -75, an item should be placed on a future Agenda to discuss the "I -75 properties" Alex Sulecki noted she had invited a speaker from the Happehatchee Center to talk about efforts to acquire the Gore properties. IX. Public General Comments None X. Staff Comments Alex Sulecki requested members to review the contact list for Committee members and contact her if any changes are necessary. 4 1612 A22 April 9, 2012 Melissa Hennig reported the Eagle Scout projects at Nancy Payton and Caracara Prairie Preserve have been completed. She will present a Slideshow on the projects at the next meeting. XI. Next Meeting/Adjourn None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 9:35 A.M. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Bill Poteet, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Comm. eon as presented or as amended 5 161 Z -� 23 January 18, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD p 300% RV Naples, Florida, January 18, 2012 I) 0 h '101L By: ................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. at North Collier Regional Park Exhibit Hall, 15000 Livingston Road, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Misc. Corres: Date: Item #:\ U `A ')—*b Copies to: CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes VICE CHAIR: Edward "Ski" Olesky Barbara Buehler Phil Brougham David Saletko Murdo Smith -idia --- " Hiller � r;enning _ -- ;ayle ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Nancy Olson, Regional Manager I 1 16! 2 A23 January 18, 2012 I. Call to Order John Ribes called the meeting to order at 2:05 PM. A quorum was established II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held. III. Approval of Agenda VI. Should read Election of Chairman and Vice - Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky moved to approve the January 18, 2012 Agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried unanimously 6 -0. IV. Approval of December 21, 2011 Minutes VI. b. — Last sentence "BBC" should read "The BOCC previously VII. b. —Page 1, 3rd bullet "oat" should read "boat" Barbara Buehler moved to approve the December 21, 2011 Minutes as amended. Second by David Saletko. Motion carried unanimously 6 -0. V. Staff Highlights a. October 2011 Employee of the Month None. b. Turf Irrigation Highlights Barry Williams reported Rick Garby will be reporting quarterly on Turf Irrigation Highlights. The next update will be in March. c. Capital Project Highlights The "Capital Projects Update" dated December 1, 2011 was distributed. Barry Williams responded briefly on status questions on the Gordon River Greenway Park, Pulling Boat Park and Port of the Islands. VI. New Business a. Election of Chairman and Vice - Chairman John Ribes opened the floor for nominations for Chairman and Vice - Chairman. Phil Brougham moved to nominated John Ribes (Chairman) and Edward "Ski" Olesky (Vice- Chairman) to serve another year. Second by Murdo Smith. Motion carried unanimously 6 -0. Barry Williams reported Gary Davis offered his resignation from the PARAB due to health reasons. Ian Mitchell will advertise the vacancy in the near future. b. Gordon River Greenway — Addressed after VII. a. VII. Old Business a. Standard Operation Procedures (SOP) on Overnight Parking 0 00� 161 2 A23 January 18, 2012 Nancy Olson reviewed the draft Policies and Procedures for Overnight Parking Permit for Port of the Islands Marina and 95 1. (See attached) ➢ Overnight visitor must complete the Collier County PAR Overnight Parking Permit Registration form. (See attached) ➢ Boat owner pays the overnight parking fee, per night and the boat launch fee if they do not have a Collier County Boat Launch sticker. - Overnight parking fee is $10 per night. - Boat launch fee is $8 per vessel per launch ➢ Marina employee will complete the Overnight Parking Permit and instruct visitor to place permit inside the vehicle on the dashboard. (See attached) ➢ Overnight visitor must read and sign an "Indemnify and Hold Harmless" Collier County, the PAR Department and any employee of Collier County against any and all claims, etc. (See attached) Discussion was made on the parking size required for an RV versus an automobile, availability for Permit Registration and to pay and print permit online, designated overnight parking spaces, restrictions on limit of overnight parking spaces and overnight permits, advance time limit restrictions for reservations and it was decided Staff would review items and return recommendations to the Advisory Board. VI. New Business b. Gordon River Greenway Barry Williams presented a design layout on the Gordon River Greenway Project and reported PAR received a "Warning" letter regarding the land swap between CC and the zoo in June 2010. They cited any changes need to be reported to the Florida Community Trust. The land swap had not reported previously. The intent of the land use was for conservation. The zoo is private use and does not meet the Intent of Land Use. To satisfy the Intent of Land Use and for Florida Community Trust to withdraw the "Warning" letter; PAR will need to provide: • A new land survey • Revise the Declaration of Restricted Covenants • Get support from Conservation Collier • Revise a Land Management Plan • Submit to BCC, PARAB and Conservation Collier VIII. Adopt A Park John Ribes reported on drive -by observations on Barefoot Beach Preserve /Access, Vanderbilt Beach/Parking Garage, and North Collier Regional Parks. Barefoot Beach Preserve - no changes, the same as his previous report. He noted the guard house remains an eyesore. Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garay - is clean and the turnaround condition is run down. North Collier Regional Park — looks very well managed and very well maintained except for the entrance. He stated the signage does not reflect the quality of the park and suggested attention be given to that. 1612 oft A23 January 18, 2012 IX. Director's Highlights Barry Williams reported: • Internal Staff changes made are: - Jeanine McPherson will fill the vacant Regional Manager position. - Sidney Kittila will take over responsibilities and run Max Hasse. - Shannon Peters an Office Coordinator • The BMX State Qualifier was held at GGCC had over 1500 participants. • Next years Budget will be cut 5% cut that equals approximately 1 million dollars. • Working with Housing Human Services to rewrite Grant for Eagle Lakes Center, Naples Manor and Immokalee South Park. • The Max Hasse Expansion is schedule on the BCC February 14th Agenda. X. Informational Items — Read only. XI. Public Comments/Board Comments Murdo Smith referred to a previous request made and asked for an update regarding an entry way for Seagate residents at Clam Pass. Staff responded the BOCC directed some projects not be pursued. Staff will revisit the issue. Next meeting will be held on February 15th at the Immokalee Community Park, 321 North 1" Street in Immokalee. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 3:10 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on /5 = /a , as presented k'_ or as amended M 1612 A23 Collier County Parks and Recreation Capital Projects Update December 1, 2011 709 33128 East Naples Community Center Hazard Mitigation Grant • Project for shutters and waterproofing is complete, final paper work has been submitted to FEMA 33121 Home Depot Donation • Home Depot completed the project at East Naples Project, finalizing paperwork with East Naples Fire District 306 80024 Margood Resort Land— Construction in progress, site cleared • building is being renovated and site work is proceeding— anticipate completion 02/22/12. • Review completed by DHR, cistern will remain intact. 80026 Caxambas Conversion • DEP indicates cannot change conversion, may ask for an extension if not able to complete. • Have completed survey, will move forward with contract documents to build recreational trail and picnic area. 80042 Pulling Boat Park —MOR 80065 Gordon River Greenway Park- • Entrance Road and NE design —Q Grady Minor has submitted for all necessary county, state permits and coordinating with Kimley -Horn— anticipate permits acquired by 12/11. USACE by 02/12. • Agreement between Conservancy, Zoo, and BOCC has been drafted by Real Estate Services with location map— awaiting approval by Zoo and Conservancy. • Anticipate SDP approval by 12/11. • Meeting scheduled with Clarence Tears, SFWMD for construction funding. • K/H submitted 2" d round of comments to USAGE, SFWMD and GMD. • County to submit ST permit for approval to EAC on 12/08/11 • CCPC set up for 01/19/12 and BOCC 02/14/12. 80066 Bayview Park Playground- • 2nd Phase being permitted, construction to begin 10 /11. • Playground will be placed on hold until decision regarding expansion of boat trailer parking at Bayview is completed. • Conceptual plan includes small footprint for playground. -1- 1612 80075 Immokalee Sports Drainage— Heaters are installed, however injection well has elevated pressure readings - CDM pulling permit for drilling into aquifer. Anticipate well to begin construction 12/12/11. 80086/80156/80146 Port of the Islands-- • Will solicit bid from contractor on contract to revaluate the work by 10/11. • Hole Montes working on design of boat trailer parking- anticipate approval of plans by GMD 12/11. • Will put out to bid to local GC's for pricing 01/12. 80100 NCRP Pump Replacement • Bid awarded to Pinnacle —work to February opening. begin 01/03/12 —work to be finished by 80103 ENCP Resurface Parking Lot— Will resurface Golden Gate Community Park —Tony working with purchasing on soliciting bids —work to be completed by 03/12. 80115 Pelican Bay Tennis — Completed 10/31/11 —completing close out documentation. 80118 Starcher Pettay— received two quotes will begin work 12/11. 80129 Vineyard's Park lmprovements- • Received quotes, will evaluate low bidder at $206K and bring to the board for approval 01/24/12. XXXX Eagle Lakes Playground— Kathy Topoleski has quote to replace, will communicate with Commissioner Fiala, order new playground and demolish existing playground 01/12 upon arrival of new one. 80147 Security Cameras • Annie to get price for Immokalee Community Park Skate Park area by 10 /11. 80149 Corkscrew Lake Road Access- • Meeting with Stantec 12/05/11 with pre app to determine how best to proceed with Solid Waste and Parks project. • Anticipate price from Stantec after pre app meeting. 80174 Max Hasse Expansion- • Cell Tower being reviewed by new project managers assigned by AT&T — anticipate revised drawings to be submitted to GMD 02/12. • Project bid out —bids will be received by purchasing on 12/02/11. �2� p23 161 2 80182 Skate Park • Slab and ramps installed 80600 Exotics Removal— Rain has delayed plantings in the preserve at NCRP —will address when preserve is sufficiently dry. 346 80039 Orange Tree Regional Park • Pending funding 80059 Golden Gate Estates— Vanderbilt Beach Extension Park — acquiring land for expansion of road. • Tony reviewed 60% design plans from Transportation on 02/02/09 with Michael Greene. After 60% is completed, Transportation to place project on hold for approximately 5 years. 80085 Immokalee South Park Community Park • Received approval from HUD to expend funding for design work— clarifying funding for construction versus construction services • Project to be re -Bid for compliance with HUD requirements for Grants - 12/11. 80602 North Collier Regional Park- * Conveyance to Public Utilities accepted by the BOCC on 04/26/11. xxxxx Eagle Lakes Community Park Community Building- Sub-recipient agreement between the BOCC and Parks and Recreation going to the BOCC 01/12. Parks will bring a companion item to accept the funds and recognize them with total costs associated with Eagle Lakes Community Center and traffic light same meeting. ti3� 1612 A23 Old 46, meeS5 /—d-fl, m COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION EFFECTIVE DATE: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DATE: Nov. 15, 2010 SUBJECT: OVERNIGHT PARKING PERMIT FOR PORT OF THE ISLANDS PAGE: 1 of 1 MARINA CATEGORY: Marina Employee Duties NUMBER: MA0004 POLICY: This policy outlines the procedure to be followed when Port of the Islands Marina visitor requests an overnight parking permit. PROCEDURE: 1. Overnight visitor must complete the Collier County Parks and Recreation Overnight Parking Permit Registration form. a. The completed form will be kept on file at the Port of the Islands Marina. 2. Marina employee will complete the Overnight Parking Permit and instruct visitor to place permit inside vehicle on the dashboard. Employee will staple paid launch receipt and overnight parking fee receipt to the permit. a. Overnight parking fee is $10.00 per night. b. Boat launch fee is $8.00 per vessel per launch. 1617 A23 COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION EFFECTIVE DATE: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DATE: Nov. 15, 2010 SUBJECT: OVERNIGHT PARKING PERMIT FOR PORT OF THE ISLANDS PAGE: 1 of 1 MARINA CATEGORY: Marina Employee Duties NUMBER: MA0004 POLICY: This policy outlines the procedure to be followed when Port of the Islands Marina visitor requests an overnight parking permit. PROCEDURE: 1. Overnight visitor must complete the Collier County Parks and Recreation Overnight Parking Permit Registration form. a. The completed form will be kept on file at the Port of the Islands Marina. 2. Boat owner pays the overnight parking fee, per night and the boat launch fee if they do not have a Collier County Boat Launch sticker. a. Overnight parking fee is $10.00 per night. b. Boat launch fee is $8.00 per vessel per launch. 03. Marina employee will complete the Overnight Parking Permit and instruct visitor to place permit inside vehicle on the dashboard. Employee will staple paid launch receipt and overnight parking fee receipt to the permit. 1612 A23 c"o cot%;,, Collier County Parks and Recreation Marina Operations d Overnight Parking Permit Registration Form Please print. Applicant's Name: Date: Applicant's Address: Applicant's Daytime Phone: Emergency Contact Information: Vehicle License Plate Number: Vehicle Make, Model, and Year: Please read and sign the following Overnight Parking Rules and Regulations: 1. The parking permit, with paid receipts, must be displayed at all times while vehicle is in the marina. 2. The parking permit shall only be displayed in the vehicle identified on the permit. 3. The parking permit is not an authorization to violate any local, state, or federal parking regulation. 4. The parking permit is valid for 24 -hours from time of issuance. 5. The parking permit, with paid receipts, must be displayed on the inside of the driver's side window, with the permit facing out to be viewed from outside the vehicle. understand the rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the overnight parking permit and agree to comply with said regulations. Further, I understand that failure to comply with these regulations may result in issuance of a parking citation. Applicant's Signature I 1612 ow O � �- o z asON �_ a) am as am d y o Mc .�.+ s O = ,+ .m IL > O I 1612 3 �° as c- 3" C > 'y a) as >am am am as o o as .� as = 3 ._ ,as s as am o � 3 � O CL _ U) 'v •_ I+ E am CL 0 t am m L 3 0 �- o z asON R a) am as am d y o 0 0 .m c CL Wac ow ,+ .m 0. 3 �° as c- 3" C > 'y a) as >am am am as o o as .� as = 3 ._ ,as s as am o � 3 � O CL _ U) 'v •_ I+ E am CL 0 t am m L 3 1612 p23 Please read and sign the following: agree to indemnify and hold harmless Collier County, the Parks and Recreation Department and any employee of Collier County against any and all claims by or on behalf of any person or legal entity arising from the Applicant's use of the premises and /or participation in this program, and will further indemnify and hold harmless the County, its Departments and Employees against performance of any agreements arising from any act of negligence of the Applicant, or any of the Applicant's agents, contractors, employees, or licensees, and from and against all costs, attorney's fees, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or about any claim or proceeding brought thereon, all to the extent of the County's liability under general law. The County Parks Department reserves the right to deny registration, and to charge fees where applicable. The Applicant must adhere to all County Ordinances, and Parks and Recreation Rules and Regulations. Applicant Signature Date 16 CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012 12 s4 p ,s p BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Tuesday, February 21 at 4:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108. The following members were present: Clam Bay Subcommittee Dave Trecker, Chairman Tom Cravens Pelican Bay Services Division Board Geoffrey S. Gibson Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Mary Anne Womble Michael Levy Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E., Humiston & Moore Engineers Fiala Hiller - -;�,.✓ �-- Henning J °'-- Coyle ,/ Coletta - 37_____ In the audience: thirteen (13) attendees. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Permits and Regulatory Updates bj� Dave Trecker, Chairman 3. Clam Bay Tidal Monitoring Procedures & Purpose; Update on Status of 2011 Annual Report by Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E., Humiston & Moore Engineers 4. Clam Bay Restoration 2011 Annual Report by Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Misc. Co re3: 5. Public Comments 6. Adjourn —t 2 -1 11'2 Date: ROLL CALL Item #: IlP-M' 2-�q Z.�1 The Clam Bay Subcommittee was all present. INTRODUCTION BY CHAIRMAN TRECKER Copies to: Chairman Trecker explained the purposes of the workshop were to receive updates on bathymetric and mangrove monitoring and provide an opportunity for those in the audience to ask questions and make suggestions. PERMITS & REGULATORY UPDATES BY DAVE TRECKER, CHAIRMAN Chairman Trecker gave a brief presentation about Clam Bay matters including: 1) Services Division's Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Clam Bay channel and mangrove maintenance permits and responsibilities; 2) Seagate appealed the FDEP decision denying an administrative hearing and the lawsuit is still pending; 3) water quality regulations that would define site specific nutrient limits in Clam Bay were approved by the FDEP and Florida Legislature, but approval by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pending and environmental groups are challenging the legislation; and 4) Collier County applied to USACE and FDEP for a Clam Bay dredging permit to provide a framework to maintain the Clam Bay estuary, and use sand for beach renourishment. Triggers for dredging are hydrologic, but not quantified. There are no biological "triggers." Approval is pending. 0� 1612 A24 Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes February 21, 2012 CLAM BAY TIDAL MONITORING PROCEDURES & PURPOSE; STATUS OF 2011 ANNUAL REPORT BY KENNETH K HUMISTON P.E HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS Mr. Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E. gave a presentation about Clam Bay tidal monitoring procedures and purpose, and the status of the 2011 Annual Report. He explained the purpose of tidal monitoring is to maintain tidal flushing and to keep the Clam Pass inlet open. Prior to monitoring, the inlet was unstable and would close and need to be dredged frequently, so the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management plan was developed and implemented to stabilize it. Gauges are deployed throughout Clam Bay to measure tidal range and phase lag. The smaller the phase lag is the more efficiently water is flowing through the inlet. The larger the tide range is in the bay the more efficiently water is flowing through the inlet. This data tells whether shoaling in the inlet is going to interfere with circulation important to water quality, the health of mangroves, and other environmental issues. Inlets have a natural equilibrium condition that is determined by measuring velocity that helps indicate whether dredging is necessary. The higher the velocity is the better and indicates the Pass will stay open longer. The Pass was dredged twice since 1998 in 1999 and 2007. In his opinion, the current entrance channel dredge cuts are appropriate to maintain tidal flushing. Mr. Humiston explained that due to malfunctioning gauges, the tidal data is incomplete. However new gauges were deployed and will be retrieved for analysis prior to coming to any conclusions or making any recommendations. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Marcia Cravens was concerned about dredging cut parameters in the new permit application. Mr. John Domenic asked what the function of the ebb shoal is. Mr. Humiston explained the ebb shoal is the platform allowing sand to be transported across the inlet to naturally maintain tidal flushing. Ms. Mary Johnson asked how the inlet cross - section survey was done and was concerned whether increasing the width of the dredge cut would contribute to beach erosion. Mr. Humiston said cross- section surveys are done using GPS kinetic systems and appropriate dredge cut width is between 40 -80 feet to maintain tidal flushing and minimize beach erosion. CLAM BAY RESTORATION 2011 ANNUAL REPORT BY TIM HALL, SENIOR ECOLOGIST & PRINCIPAL, TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. Tim Hall presented the 2011 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Project Status & Monitoring Report. He explained the Services Division has two permits in place allowing the activities required for continued health and recovery of the Clam Bay system including: 1) maintenance of flushing channels; 2) monitoring of nutrients and other compounds to indicate water quality; and 3) biological monitoring of mangroves growth and density, and presence of seagrass to indicate physical recovery, as well as ongoing monitoring of white mangroves susceptible to boring beetle damage. Additional activities being done include removing exotic vegetation and clearing fallen trees. He concluded that with the exception of a few areas, the mangrove restoration plan is a success and the Clam Bay system is healthy. Recommendations made were to continue monitoring and maintenance activities, and in regards to tidal monitoring to consider purchasing new equipment or put redundancies in place to improve data collection and minimize data loss. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Audience comments included questions about testing for herbicides and whether there was any evidence of damage from oil spills. Mr. Hall replied that testing for herbicide byproducts was done once, but results showed they were 2 161 2 A24 Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes February 21, 2012 not present and there is no evidence of any oil spill damage within the system. Other comments made expressed support for the Services Division to continue to monitor the Clam Bay system. SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD Mr. Cravens made a motion to make a recommendation to the full Board to support requests to hold a collaborative Army Corps of Engineers workshop. The Subcommittee agreed clarification of the process was needed. lMr. Cravens made a motion, second by Chairman Trecker for tine Clam Bay Subcommittee to make a recommendation to lire full Pelican Bay Services Division Board that lire "PBSD/MSTBU Board acknowledges, supports and endorses requests for a collaborative Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass - Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club, Conservancy of SWF, Mangrove Action Group, and Collier Audubon Society and others to review and propose remedies of deficiencies in permit annlicadonmaterlals". The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed ADJOURN Discussion concluded and the meeting was adjourned. Dave Trec r, airman Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/7/201210:06:09 AM 161 A24����IId�D M A v p .t ,.;il/ PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTJbsk. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012 ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron Hunter H. Hansen W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Fiala _ Jim Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Hiller Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Henning Tim Hall, Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Coyle Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Coletta 35 in the audience REVISED AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. January 10, 2012 Landscape Water Management Subcommittee 5. Administrator's Report a. Pathways i. Pelican Bay Foundation's request for reconsideration of February 1' Board action ii. Pathway walk notes & statistics (Chandler) iii. Obstructions between pathways and roadway blocking street lights at night on Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Glenview to the Phil (Levy) b. Discussion of proposed projects to implement summer 2012 i. Community Crosswalks ii. Community Landscaping c. South berm restoration i. Ownership of berm and water management easement improvements (O'Brien) ii. Berm engineering plans to date (O'Brien) Misc. Correa: d. Revisit proposal to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard early (O'Brien) e. Monthly financial report Date: 1 I Zy 1 17- 6. Chairman's Report a. Dorrill Management Group contract renewal Item #: I t-oT. 2 is 2,9 b. April meeting schedule c. Announcements D7^ s to: 7. Committee Reports a. Budget (Levy) b. Clam Bay ( Trecker) i. Clam Bay Permits Annual Reporting and Aerial Photography Requirements Status (Levy) ii. Recommendation to Support Collaborative Workshop Request (Cravens) c. Landscape Water Management (Cravens) i. Erosion along the west side of the berm (Cravens) d. Strategic Planning Committee (Womble) 8538 161 2 A24 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes March 7, 2012 8. Old business 9. New business 10. Audience comments 11. Miscellaneous correspondence 12. Adjournment ROLL CALL All present. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Chandler suggested the Board discuss the Foundation's request to reconsider Feb. 1 Board action first under Pathways; and Vice Chairman Cravens added "Erosion along the west side of the berm" to Landscape Water Management Subcommittee report. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amended The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2012 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimous) in avor and the motion was passed. JANUARY 10, 2012 LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the January 10, 2012 Landscape Water Management Subcommittee meeting minutes as presented The Board voted unanimous) in favor and the motion was passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT PATHWAYS PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FEB. 1 BOARD ACTION Mr. Chandler and Ms. O'Brien stated reasons why it was appropriate to reconsider the February 1 Board action, as well as how one could come to a different conclusion than what was recommended by the Community Improvement Plan (CIP). Mr. Chandler said the CIP pathway analysis did not include usage counts, incident reports, statistics, or references to publications relating to accident prevention; however he made his own observations and reports, this Board has reviewed his reports, Collier County Sheriff s incident reports, received information from Florida Department of Transportation regarding the risk of having a shared -use pathway adjacent to a roadway, and the operations manager communicated project plans with residents of adjacent condominiums. Ms. O'Brien added that the County is responsible for maintaining roadways and pathways, and was not planning to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard until 2016; the County was not doing an adequate job maintaining the pathways; pathway widening project bids came in higher than anticipated; and engineering plans found there was not enough space in some areas to widen pathways to 8 feet. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens to consider the Pelican Bay Foundation's request to reconsider the February I Board action. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. 8539 Pelican Bay ervices Division Board Regular Session Minutes 1612 Y g March 7, 2012 AUDIENCE COMMENTS OPPOSED TO WIDENING PATHWAYS TO WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET Mr. Harry Weingartner (Avalon), Mr. Henry Bachman (Claridge), Mr. Bill Hennig (Grosvenor), and Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) were not in favor of widening pathways to eight feet because: (l) concerned about tree removal to accommodate greater width; (2) perceived that wider pathways encouraged more and faster bicyclists creating unsafe conditions at driveways, particularly from bicyclists going against traffic; (3) pathways in the project area are not in as poor condition as in other areas, and pathways in the worst condition should be redone first; and (4) it was not the Services Division's responsibility to maintain the pathways, because residents pay property taxes to the County to maintain pathways. IN FAVOR OF WIDENING PATHWAYS TO WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET Mr. Carson Beadle (past member, Strategic Planning Committee), Mr. Charles Bodo (Strategic Planning Committee), Mr. Mike Kitchen, Ms. Patty Vlasho (Crown Colony), and Dr. Peter Collis (L'Ambiance) were in favor of widening pathways to eight feet. Comments made included: (1) February 1 decision should have been postponed because three members were absent; (2) that the decision made February 1 did not represent the community majority, but a minority of dissenters; (3) Board should recognize that the CIP recommendation was based on a significant amount of work; (4) that they had stopped using the pathways because pathways are too narrow, surface is uneven, and one could easily injure themselves on the existing pathways; and (5) agreed that wider was better to encourage an active lifestyle and would mesh with the community's conceptual design. OTHER COMMENTS Ms. Diane Lustig (Hyde Park) was concerned about bicyclist safety and suggested putting bicycle lanes in the roadway. Mr. Cal Grayson said the pathways on Crayton and Myra Janco Daniels are unsafe. Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt said the CIP study did not address the standard width of multi -use pathways. However the current Florida Department of Transportation standard for multi -use pathways is 10 -12 feet. Wider pathways are more stable and 8 feet is a compromise. BOARD DISCUSSION The Board discussed the concerns expressed including (1) that the community could not accommodate the standard width for multiuse pathways, so the CIP recommended widening pathways to eight feet, and that the CIP only addressed pathways along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard and north side of Gulf Park Drive; (2) whether the width should stay uniform throughout or transition between 6 -8 feet at some areas to avoid having to remove trees or to address safety conditions at driveways; (3) that although the pathways do not meet the standard for multi -use pathways as defined by Florida Department of Transportation, they are shared by many types of users for recreational purposes; (4) the perception that wider pathways would encourage more bicyclists to ride on the pathways and ride faster. There was general agreement that bicyclists who currently ride in the roadway would stay in the roadway; and (5) that because of the County's failure to provide adequate maintenance due to shortage of funds, that the community might eventually have to assume responsibility. MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD TO WIDEN PATHWAYS TO EIGHT FEET Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen recommending that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board move forward to widen the pathways to eight feet along Pelican Bay Boulevard from The Commons to the North Tram station with the following caveats (as determined by the civil engineer or landscape architect): (1) that the removal of any trees due to unavoidable design or because of the health of the tree be replaced in kind nearby; and (2) at driveways, that the pathways be positioned as close to Pelican Bay Boulevard as possible to improve lines of sight between motor vehicles and pathway users. The Board voted seven (7) in favor, (Gibson, Baron, Hansen, Dallas, Cravens, Levy, Womble) to /bur (4) opposed (Tracker, Iaizzo, Chandler, O'Brien) and the motion was passed. I 16 I Z A24 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes March 7, 2012 Mr. Dorrill said the engineer would complete the plans and apply for necessary right of way permits then the project would then be put out to bid for the Board's review and recommendation prior to construction. OBSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN PATHWAYS AND ROADWAY BLOCKING STREET LIGHTS AT NIGHT ON PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD FROM THE GLENVIEW TO THE PHIL The Services Division was informed by Mr. James Morrison (Glenview) that high shrubbery was blocking street lights from reaching the pathways along Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Glenview to the Phil. Staff began trimming and Mr. Morrison sent a follow -up letter March 5 that the lighting had improved significantly. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT SUMMER 2012 COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that February 13, the Budget Subcommittee discussed whether to do additional crosswalk and associated landscaping projects this summer in advance of FY 2013. The proposed projects would renovate existing crosswalks along Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of North Pointe Drive, Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, and Crayton Road to make them consistent with the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) crossings recently completed. The cost is approximately $50,000 per intersection. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Steve Seidel (San Marino) conveyed residents' complaints of the noise made by vehicles driving over the cobblestones at the Beach walk crossing; Dr. Peter Collis (L'Ambiance) said the cobblestones were not effective as rumble strips; Ms. Diane Lustig (Hyde Park) observed that the crosswalks are not uniform throughout the community and agreed with Mr. John Domenie (Breakwater) that the crossings needed to be illuminated at night; Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) said the cobblestones created a tripping hazard, and suggested the Board add a blog to its website; all agreed with Mr. Dave Ritger (Oakmont) that the Board should obtain community feedback before implementing more crosswalk projects; and Messrs. Domenic, Ritger and Bill Hennig (Grosvenor) agreed the projects were a waste of money. Mr. Dorrill said that the statement made about cobblestones was untrue; cobblestones do not create a tripping hazard. Mr. Levy did not agree that the Crayton Road intersection should be left out. Vice Chairman Cravens was concerned with the Board moving forward without doing a survey first. Mr. Gibson reiterated that safety was the Board's first concern, but purpose of the CIP was to retain property values. Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Gibson to implement crosswalk projects during the summer of 2012 along Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of North Pointe Drive and Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING Mr. Lukasz proposed that additional landscaping renovation projects be done this summer in house and in advance of the FY 2013 budget at five intersections along Pelican Bay Boulevard: 1) Myra Janco Daniels; 2) North Pointe; 3) Glenview; 4) Crayton; and 5) Hammock Oak. Each intersection is estimated to cost $18,000 - $25,000, dependent upon the number of plants and irrigation improvements needed, and design was based on the landscape architect's typical conceptual plans. Ms. O'Brien suggested that the Board, on a future agenda, discuss performing an annual survey to obtain community feedback prior to moving projects forward. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Marcia Cravens was concerned about the irrigation heads that were installed with the landscaping and water conservation. Mr. Lukasz clarified that the appropriate rotator pop -up low- volume irrigation heads were installed. 8541 161 2 A24 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes March 7, 2012 Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve in -house landscaping improvement projects to be done this summer at five intersections along Pelican Bay Boulevard. 1) Myra Janco Daniels; 2) North Pointe, 3) Glenview; 4) Crayton; and S) Hammock Oak. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was Passed. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION OWNERSHIP OF BERM AND WATER MANAGEMENT EASEMENT IMPROVEMENTS (O'BRIEN) Mr. Dorrill explained that the parcel of land upon which the berm sits is owned by the Pelican Bay Foundation; that within this parcel are drainage easements upon which the former Pelican Bay Independent District (PBID) used public funds to construct improvements to the water management system; therefore, any improvements constructed by the PBID within the drainage easements are now assets of Collier County/Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD), as successor to the PBID. The PBSD is responsible for operations and maintenance of the Pelican Bay water management system and assets located within the drainage easements. Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt clarified that the Foundation owns the underlying land; Westinghouse granted an easement to the PBID to construct the water management berm; PBID permitted the Foundation to use the land atop the berm to access the Foundation's facilities and the Foundation is responsible for operating and maintaining the asphalt atop the berm; that the Foundation established rights of access over the land atop the berm as private property; and the land atop the berm is maintained as Foundation private property. For the current restoration project, the Services Division is responsible for reestablishing the slope of the berm; and the Foundation is responsible for replacing the asphalt path atop the berm. Ms. Marcia Cravens was concerned about PBID dissolution, succession, and with using PBSD funds for this project. BERM ENGINEERING PLANS TO DATE (O'BRIEN) Mr. Dorrill reported that due to miscommunication, Wilson Miller did not submit the Army Corps of Engineers nationwide permit application. However, Mr. Dorrill would make certain that the permit application is submitted. If no hiccups, the permitting process should be complete in 90 days; and concurrently, the engineers will complete specifications and design plans and project put out to bid. Construction could begin as early as this summer. REVISIT PROPOSAL TO RESURFACE PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD EARLY (O'BRIEN) Ms. O'Brien explained that the County is not planning to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard until 2016 and suggested the Board perform a survey soon to help decide whether the Services Division should take responsibility. Chairman Dallas addressed this issue in recent correspondence to Commissioner Hiller that strongly suggested the County provide adequate funds to the County's road maintenance budget. Mr. Hoppensteadt supported the Services Division accepting responsibility for resurfacing. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT =as e a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve into the record the monthly financial with revised income statement. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the CHAIRMAN'S REPORT DORRILL MANAGEMENT GROUP CONTRACT RENEWAL Chairman Dallas said that it was time to renew Mr. Dorrill's contract as Division Administrator, adding that per the terms of the original contract, this was the contract's final year; next year the Board would have to go through a formal open bidding process. 8542 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 16 1*2 A March 7, 2012 Dn Trecker made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens to renew the Dorrill Management Group contract at the existing fee structure: annual contract is $75,360 to start July 1, 2012 and end June 30, 2013. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. APRIL MEETING SCHEDULE The majority of the Board agreed to cancel the April 4 Board regular meeting and rescheduled April 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced that the Coastal Advisory Committee meets March 8 at 1 p.m.; Foundation Board meets March 23 at 8:30 a.m.; the Foundation's Annual Meeting is March 26 at 9 a.m.; and the Services Division's Budget Subcommittee meets March 26 at 3 p.m. CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT COLLABORATIVE WORKSHOP REQUEST (CRAVENS) Vice Chairman Cravens and Dr. Trecker reported that at the February 21 Clam Bay Subcommittee meeting, a motion was passed to make a recommendation to the full Board that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board provide support to several environmental groups request to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that the Corps hold a workshop to allow these groups to participate and express concerns about the County's Clam Bay dredging permit application. Mr. Tim Hall clarified that anyone can make a request to the Corps to hold a workshop. However, it is the Corps sole decision as to whether it is necessary; the Corps is not obligated or mandated to do so. If the request to hold a workshop has already been made, then the Board could provide its support to the groups that made the request and send to the Corps regional office in Fort Myers. Ms. Cravens confirmed that the letter of support should be sent to Corps reviewer, Ms. Linda Elligott. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by as amended, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board acknowledges, supports, and endorses requests for a collaborative U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass- Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Mangrove Action Group, and Collier County Audubon Society. The Board voted 8 -1 in favor and the motion was passed. Chairman Dallas was opposed. Messrs. Baron & Hansen were not present. CLAM BAY PERMITS ANNUAL REPORTING & AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY REQUIREMENTS STATUS (LEVY) Dr. Trecker recapped the February 21 Clam Bay presentations and noted that Mr. Hall's report showed the mangroves were healthy; and that the tidal report was incomplete due malfunctioning equipment and missing data, and that Mr. Humiston recommended the Services Division purchase four new tidal gauges. Mr. Lukasz said he would obtain cost estimates. Mr. Hall said that because of the missing tidal data, the firm requested an extension to file the report and aerial photography of Clam Bay was completed last summer. LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT EROSION ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE BERM (CRAVENS) Vice Chairman Cravens observed areas of erosion along the west side of the berm that starts at mile marker 0.4 and heading south, ends at mile marker 1.2, generally from the north boardwalk to The Commons that he believed was caused by the nesting behavior of Florida soft -shell turtles. He planned to show Mr. Lukasz areas where he noticed the problem, so that staff could address before the rainy season. Vice Chairman Cravens reported that the County did a decent job removing exotics along the beach, but at R 38 there were still several Brazilian Peppers and Australian Pines. 8543 1612 r* A24 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes March 7, 2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT (LEVY) Mr. Levy reported that the County was in the process of drafting its FY 2013 budget policy, so the next Budget Subcommittee meeting is March 26 at 3 p.m. At this meeting, staff will introduce the very preliminary FY 2013 budget and discuss proposed projects and cash flow and the annual assessment. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE (SPC) REPORT Ms. Womble presented schematic design plans for two Foundation restaurants that illustrated what could be done within the current "footprint" or available space; and reported that Mr. Carson Beadle stepped down from the SPC and that it was not yet known what the plans were to replace his spot. ADJOURN Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to adjourn. The Board unanimously In favor and the meeting was adlourned at 4.27 n.m. e"--Za / A � Ke t . Dallas, C aidn Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/23/2012 4:46:30 PM 8544 61 2" A 2 4 D � 1X t1' Y ri !U1t BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BA SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012 "—\ A-k-, LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Monday, March 26, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, with the following members present: Budget Subcommittee Members Michael Levy, Chairman John Chandler absent Keith J. Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo late Susan O'Brien Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also present Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman, Pelican Bay Services Division Board AGENDA 1. Roll call 2. Approval of February 13, 2012 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes 3. Audience participation 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Budget 5. Discussion of non -ad valorem and ad valorem cash flow spreadsheets with and without the resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard (Dallas) 6. Initial discussion of capital components (ad valorem and non -ad valorem) to be included with FY 2013 budget 7. Audience comments 8. Adjourn ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Chandler, all Budget Subcommittee members were present. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 13 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTE Misc. Corres: Date: -712`-1 112, Item Al: I t_¢-r- 21:�i 'Z14-1 Copies to: Mr. Dallas made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to approve the February 13 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes as resented The Subcommittee voted unanimous! v in fa vor and the motion was iassed. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION No audience participation INITIAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2013 BUDGET The County had still not provided FY 2013 indirect costs, but Mr. Lukasz presented the preliminary FY 2013 budget that staff prepared using the County's FY 2012 indirect costs and the financial goals that the Budget Subcommittee directed on February 13: 1) to hold the non -ad valorem assessment at $370.64; and 2) to hold the ad valorem millage rate at 0.0531 and strive to provide funds for the Community Improvement Plan (CIP). Holding the non -ad valorem assessment at FY 2012 would provide an additional $125,200 to the Capital Projects Fund 322. Also, $333,000 was rotted to Capital Projects Fund 322 from Water Management and Community Beautification, and $2,013,330 is available in FY 2013 Capital Projects Fund 322 as carry forward. Within Clam Bay Fund 320, $5,000 from Reserves (2' /Z months for operations) was transferred to Tree Trimming for exotic removal. The south berm restoration project is expected to total $160,000. $100,000 is available in Clam Bay Fund 320. To cover additional construction costs, $65,000 has been budgeted in Water Management Reserves. 1129 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 1612 A24 March 26, 2012 DISCUSSION OF NON -AD VALOREM AND AD VALOREM CASH FLOW SPREADSHEETS WITH AND WITHOUT THE RESURFACING OF PELICAN BAV BOULEVARD (DALLAS) Mr. Dallas reviewed his cash flow spreadsheets: 1) Fund 322 non -ad valorem cash flows "Don't Repave PBB" shows identified Capital expenditures and projected savings over ten years using the current assessment rate of $398.13; and 2) Fund 322 non -ad valorem cash flows "Repave PBB" shows identified Capital expenditures and projected deficit over ten years if the Board loaned the County $1.3 million to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard and kept the current assessment rate of $398.13. The Subcommittee discussed that the County was responsible for repairing pathways, not the Services Division, but the County did not appropriate funds for rebuilding pathways. Mr. Dorrill pointed out that because the County was not appropriating funds for this purpose, the argument of being double taxed is moot. If the Services Division was to fund pathways projects, and the County was to appropriate funds for this purpose in the future that the Services Division should be eligible for reimbursement. The Board had voted recently against lending the County funds at this time that were collected for CIP projects for the purpose of resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard. The Subcommittee also discussed the Fund 322 ad valorem cash flow sheet that shows projected expenditures and savings over fifteen years for identified CIP street lighting projects. INITIAL DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COMPONENTS (AD VALOREM AND NON -AD VALOREM) TO BE INCLUDED WITH FV 2013 BUDGET Chairman Levy said that the preliminary FY 2013 budget does not yet contain a CIP component. The CIP ad valorem and non -ad valorem cash flow sheets show projected funds available for identified CIP projects at the current ad valorem millage rate of 0.0858, and at the current assessment rate of $398.13. Consensus was to direct staff to use the same figures used last year to provide additional CIP funding: 1) an additional $27.50 non -ad valorem assessment; and 2) an additional 0.0327 ad valorem millage rate. Mr. Lukasz said the street lighting fixtures are obsolete. Mr. Dorrill would check with FPL for their cost for LED street lighting fixtures and suggested Pelican Bay Boulevard (from U.S. 41 to Ridgewood) as a location for a street lighting demonstration project. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Marcia Cravens suggested the Services Division budget provisions for beach renourishment reserves, and FY 2013 funds for Turrell Hall to perform fish and bird wildlife surveys as part of their biological monitoring studies contract. Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division provided funds for beach renourishment several years ago along public access sections of the beach between the north and south Foundation restaurant facilities, but he would look into the exact location and cost and report back. Mr. Dorrill planned to discuss Ms. Cravens' suggestions for fish and bird wildlife surveys with Mr. Todd Turrell to find out what has been done in the past and to create a sense of importance. At the next Budget Subcommittee meeting on April 16 at 3 p.m., staff would present an updated FY 2013 preliminary budget including the County's FY 2013 indirect costs and by holding the assessment at last year's rate of $398.13 and ad valorem millage rate at 0.0858. Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Dallas to adjourn. The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor,' the motion was Passed. and the meetinr was adiourned at 4.49 a.m Michael Levy, diairmatler Minutes by Lisa Resnick 4/10/2012 3:46:11 PM 1130 1.6 1 -A24 rM I? wy O ' M /Ay is �? Li 11 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION V1� 4 Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit y0I ;Z NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2012 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11 AT 1:00 PM, AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: Fiala 1. Pledge of Allegiance Hiller 2. Roll Call Henning 3. Agenda Approval Coyle ,/ 4. Elect Chairman and Vice Chairman Coletta Vic: 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee b. March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6. Administrator's Report a. Pathways b. Cobblestones at North Pointe Drive (Chandler) c. Beach Renourishment d. South Berm Restoration Permit e. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairman's Report a. Letter to Commissioner Hiller and response regarding resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard b. Letter to Army Corps of Engineers and response regarding dredging workshop c. Announcements 8. Committee Reports 9. Old Business 10. New Business 11. Audience Comments 12. Miscellaneous Correspondence 13. Adjournment ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749 OR VISIT PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. Misc. Corres: Date: 1 � 2`—`I 112, Item #: k lam= 2 a 2`�l Copies to: 3/30/2012 2:35:19 PM 161 � A24 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board ,a aug Keith J. Dallas, *Chairman *Vice Susan O'Brien I MAY Tom Cravens, Chairman Dave Trecker John P. Chandler Mary Anne Womble Geoffrey S. Gibson John Baron absent BY'• John laizzo Hunter H. Hansen absent . ......••........ �� Michael Levy �• Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Jim Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation *Re- elected for one-year terms expiring 411012013 Fiala Hiller REVISED AGENDA Henning 1. Pledge of Allegiance Coyle 2. Roll Call Coietta _X 3. Agenda Approval 4. Elect Chairman and Vice Chairman 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee b. March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6. Audience Comments 7. Administrator's Report a. Pathways b. Cobblestones at North Pointe Drive (Chandler) C. Beach Renourishment d. South Berm Restoration Permit e. Monthly Financial Report 8. Chairman's Report a. Letter to Commissioner Hiller and response regarding resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard b. Letter to Army Corps of Engineers and response regarding dredging workshop C. Announcements 9. Committee Reports 10. Old Business 11. New Business 12. Miscellaneous Correspondence 13. Adjournment Misc. Cwes: Dace: —712-L-411-2— Item #: t (.ems 2{q Z `1 8545 Copies to: 161 12 A24 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 ROLL CALL With the exception of Messrs. Baron and Hansen, all members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas amended the agenda moving audience comments after approval of meeting minutes. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. ELECT CHAIRMAN Mr. Gibson nominated Chairman Dallas to continue to serve as Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the nomination was seconded by several members in unison. The nomination was closed by Vice Chairman Cravens and seconded by Dr. Trecker. The Board voted unanimously in favor and Chairman Dallas was elected to continue to serve as Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board for a one -vear term expiring April 10, 2013. ELECT VICE CHAIRMAN Dr. Trecker nominated Vice Chairman Cravens to continue as Vice Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the nomination was seconded by Mr. Chandler. The nomination was closed by Dr. Trecker and seconded by Ms. Womble. The Board voted unanimously in favor and Vice Chairman Cravens was elected to continue to serve as Vice Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board or a one- ear term ex irin A ri110, 2013. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FLmotion n Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the February 21, 2012 Clam ittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board meeting minutes as amended by Ms. 6, to read, '... that due to malfunctioning...': The Board voted unanimously in favor and s passed. APPROVAL OF MARCH 7, 2012 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as amended by Ms. Womble, page 8540, to read, "... Beadle (ast member...'. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. AUDIENCE COMMENTS CROSSWALKS On behalf of San Marino's Board of Directors, Mr. Steve Seidel read a letter to the Foundation regarding residents' discontent with the new midblock crossing on Pelican Bay Boulevard that is adjacent to the San Marino community for reasons that included deterioration of safety conditions and loud noise that resonated from vehicles driving over the cobblestones that affected property values. Ms. Womble requested the names of residents most affected by noise. Mr. Jim Higgins (San Marino), Mr. John D'Aquanno (Pebble Creek), Ms. Linda Roth, and Ms. Rita Seidel agreed the San Marino crossing was unsafe. Solutions suggested were to install flags, pedestrian motion - activated lighted crossing, additional lighting for better visibility at night, and barrier to not allow vehicles to crossover the median at the North Tram station crossing. i MI RI 161c A24 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 Ms. Diane Lustig (Hyde Park) disagreed. Cobblestones were alerting drivers that a pedestrian crossing is ahead, but it is also necessary that all crossings are uniform. Mr. Gerald Moffat suggested implementing a driver's educational program about yielding to pedestrians. Ms. Annice Gregerson observed that overgrown vegetation in the medians hindered visibility. Mr. Hoppensteadt said that the Foundation Board did not make any formal recommendations to San Marino residents, but petitioned the Sheriff's department to patrol the area and pointed out conduits were installed at all new crossings. Mr. Dorrill said the cobblestones were intended to provide a tactile surface to alert drivers that they are approaching a pedestrian crosswalk. Thermoplastic striping was installed at all crossings, is reflective at night, and the preferred method recognized by experts. The Board discussed what could be done at pedestrian crossings to increase safety and driver awareness. Mr. lazzo made a motion to install a motion - activated lighted crossing, but with no second, he withdrew the motion. Mr. Dorrill recommended deferring traffic safety solutions decisions to traffic engineering experts. The Board agreed to discuss further at a future meeting with experts in attendance. PATHWAYS Mr. Rick Galli (St. Maarten) supported preserving and protecting the trees in Pelican Bay. According to a certified arborist's report, he said that the pathways widening project could cause many trees within the project area to die -off and suggested installing bicycle lanes in the roadway instead. The Board discussed Mr. Galli's pathways evaluation and arborist reports. Based on preliminary observations by a different certified arborist from the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida (IFAS -UFL), Mr. Dorrill recommended that the Board get a second opinion and advice from a certified arborist as to what could be done to minimize tree -root damage and he would obtain names of qualified arborists from the Board's Landscape Architect, Ms. Ellin Goetz. Mr. Dorrill added that the Board was on record agreeing to replace any trees that might be removed as part of the pathways widening project because root upheaval is already a problem and the number one complaint within the community is that the pathways are in poor condition. The majority of the Board agreed. As far as timing, the project was on track to be complete by the end of December. Mr. Chandler requested that Mr. Lukasz start documenting calls made to the County for pathway repairs. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to authorize the Administrator to obtain a second opinion from an independent certified arborist to investigate and report the impact to trees of widening pathways to six feet and widening pathways to eight feet. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was aced. ADDITIONAL CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that based on prior Board direction, staff is preparing to do two additional crosswalk projects this summer. Bateman Contracting, the firm that constructed the recently completed crossings was chosen to do the work. However the Board of County Commissioners must first authorize a change order to approve of Bateman's contract. In addition, the beveled or chamfer- edged fire -red clay brick pavers used to construct the recently completed crosswalks was not currently available and on back - order. The wait could be as long as one year. The flat -edged fire -red clay brick pavers are slightly different, but are currently in -stock and available. Staff would take photographs and evaluate the minor differences between the chamfer -edged and flat -edged pavers. 8547 161 Z A24 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 BEACH RENOURISHMENT Mr. Dorrill reported that the Board of County Commissioners voted on April 10 to move forward with a massive beach renourishment project that is estimated to cost $30 million. Chairman Dallas said in 2006, the Services Division contributed more than $1 million for beach renourishment starting at the Contessa (Bay Colony) south to approximately 1,500 feet of the Sandpiper beach facility. The Board agreed that currently the beach in Pelican Bay was in fine shape, and to avoid an appearance of impropriety that the Services Division should not use public funds for any beach renourishment projects and instead, suggested using Foundation funds for beach renourishment projects. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PERMITTING STATUS Mr. Dorrill reported that Wilson Miller understands clearly now that the south berm restoration project is a maintenance project requiring an Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide permit, a relatively short form -type process; and a South Florida Water Management District Letter of Modification to the original construction permit. The project bid specifications would include a contingency plan outlining the organization responsible for funding and repairing damaged facilities. Mr. Dorrill would coordinate mobilization with the Foundation continue to provide permitting and project status on a monthly basis. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported the financial report month - ending March, 2012. About 95% of assessment revenue was received; and due to seasonal landscaping services, total operating expenses were about $160,000 below budget. Staff would continue to adjust the formatting to show seasonal year -to -date expenditures better. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Levy, to approve the March 2012 Monthly Financial Report into the record. The Board voted unanimouslv in favor and the motion was passed. COBBLESTONES AT NORTH POINTE DRIVE (CHANDLER) Mr. Chandler reported that the Board is considering installing cobblestones at the North Pointe Drive crossing. Cobblestones were installed at mid -block crossings to calm traffic by producing a tactile feel and unusual sound. However they are not serving their intended purpose, aggravating residents, and he made a recommendation to not install cobblestones at the North Pointe Drive crossing. Mr. Dorrill would look into having an engineer make a presentation about uniform traffic standards and the rationale and science behind the original recommendation for further discussion at the May 2 meeting. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT LETTER TO COMMISSIONER HILLER AND RESPONSE REGARDING RESURFACING PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD Chairman Dallas acknowledged the Board's letter to Commissioner Hiller regarding the failed Pelican Bay Boulevard "Microsurfacing" experiment and the County's plans for future resurfacing of this roadway. LETTER TO ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND RESPONSE REGARDING DREDGING WORKSHOP Chairman Dallas acknowledged the Board's letter to the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Board's support for the Corps to hold a Clam Bay dredging permit workshop and the Corps responded they did not have a function to support one. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced upcoming meetings. The April 12 Coastal Advisory Committee was canceled; Foundation Board meets April 12 at 9 to discuss priorities and April 20 at 8:30; the Budget Subcommittee meets April 16 at 3; and the Services Division's next meeting is May 2 at 1. M p24 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 COMMITTEE REPORTS BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE (LEVY) Mr. Levy reported that the Budget Subcommittee met March 26 to review the initial proposed Fiscal Year 2013 budget. A revised proposed budget would be presented at the April 16 meeting. CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE (TRECKER) Dr. Trecker reported that Mr. Humiston completed his annual Clam Bay tidal analysis that concluded there is no basis for dredging at this time. Mr. Hall reported that the borer beetles infesting susceptible white mangroves were identified as a local species and monitoring would continue. LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE (CRAVENS) Vice Chairman Cravens gave a presentation about the purpose of the berm and erosion observed along the east and west sides from the Commons to North Tram Station 8. The berm was built to provide a storm water retention area or spreader - swale that removes nutrients from the water before it crosses the weirs and into Clam Bay. Erosion, along with overgrowth, and duckweed have caused the spreader - swale to fill -in and it cannot clean or spread the water effectively, and suggested the Board have an engineer do an evaluation and make a recommendation to repair the erosion. Mr. Hall confirmed that the current operational permit allows removal of mangroves and clearing of other material from the spreader - swale. Mr. Dorrill agreed that this is maintenance work and would do a survey and obtain proposals from backhoe contractors to clean out the spreader - swale during the rainy season. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE Ms. Womble reported that Ms. Mary Johnson is the new Chairman and Ms. Noreen Murray is the new Vice Chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee; and Ms. Ronnie Bellone is the new Chairman, and Mr. Bob Uek is the new Vice Chairman of the Foundation Board. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor, the motion was passed, and the meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m. L/. Keith J. Dallas, Ififiirman 8549 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 5/3/20121:47:07 PM . 1 61 A24 CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Tuesday, February 21 at 4:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108. The following members were present: Clam Bay Subcommittee Dave Trecker, Chairman Tom Cravens Pelican Bay Services Division Board Geoffrey S. Gibson Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Mary Anne Womble Michael Levy Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E., Humiston & Moore Engineers In the audience: thirteen (13) attendees AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Permits and Regulatory Updates by Dave Trecker, Chairman 3. Clam Bay Tidal Monitoring Procedures & Purpose; Update on Status of 2011 Annual Report by Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E., Humiston & Moore Engineers 4. Clam Bay Restoration 2011 Annual Report by Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 5. Public Comments 6. Adjourn ROLL CALL Chairman Trecker gave a brief presentation about Clam Bay matters including: 1) Services of Engineers (USACE) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Clam Bay maintenance permits and responsibilities; 2) Seagate appealed the FDEP decision denying an lawsuit is still pending; 3) water quality regulations that would define site specific nutriewk approved by the FDEP and Florida Legislature, but approval by the Env and environmental groups are challenging the legislation; and 4) Collier ( Bay dredging permit to provide a framework to maintain the Clam Bay Triggers for dredging are hydrologic, but not quantified. There are no bi 5 pproval is pending. 161Z A24 Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes February 21, 2012 CLAM BAY TIDAL MONITORING PROCEDURES & PURPOSE; STATUS OF 2011 ANNUAL REPORT BY KENNETH K. HUMISTON, P.E., HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS Mr. Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E. gave a presentation about Clam Bay tidal monitoring procedures and purpose, and the status of the 2011 Annual Report. He explained the purpose of tidal monitoring is to maintain tidal flushing and to keep the Clam Pass inlet open. Prior to monitoring, the inlet was unstable and would close and need to be dredged frequently, so the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management plan was developed and implemented to stabilize it. Gauges are deployed throughout Clam Bay to measure tidal range and phase lag. The smaller the phase lag is the more efficiently water is flowing through the inlet. The larger the tide range is in the bay the more efficiently water is flowing through the inlet. This data tells whether shoaling in the inlet is going to interfere with circulation important to water quality, the health of mangroves, and other environmental issues. Inlets have a natural equilibrium condition that is determined by measuring velocity that helps indicate whether dredging is necessary. The higher the velocity is the better and indicates the Pass will stay open longer. The Pass was dredged twice since 1998 in 1999 and 2007. In his opinion, the current entrance channel dredge cuts are appropriate to maintain tidal flushing. Mr. Humiston explained that due to due to malfunctioning gauges, the tidal data is incomplete. However new gauges were deployed and will be retrieved for analysis prior to coming to any conclusions or making any recommendations. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Marcia Cravens was concerned about dredging cut parameters in the new permit application. Mr. John Domenie asked what the function of the ebb shoal is. Mr. Humiston explained the ebb shoal is the platform allowing sand to be transported across the inlet to naturally maintain tidal flushing. Ms. Mary Johnson asked how the inlet cross - section survey was done and was concerned whether increasing the width of the dredge cut would contribute to beach erosion. Mr. Humiston said cross - section surveys are done using GPS kinetic systems and appropriate dredge cut width is between 40 -80 feet to maintain tidal flushing and minimize beach erosion. CLAM BAY RESTORATION 2011 ANNUAL REPORT BY TIM HALL, SENIOR ECOLOGIST & PRINCIPAL, TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES. INC. Mr. Tim Hall presented the 2011 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Project Status & Monitoring F explained the Services Division has two permits in place allowing the activities required for continued health and a of the Clam Bay system including: 1) maintenance of flushing channels; 2) monitoring of nutrients and other indicate water quality; and 3) biological monitoring of mangroves growth and density, and presence of 4see ti physical recovery, as well as ongoing monitoring of white mangroves susceptible to boring beetle dam damage from oil spills. Mr. Hall replied that testing for herbicide bypr a.. do but results showed they were N 161 2 A24 Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes February 21, 2012 not present and there is no evidence of any oil spill damage within the system. Other comments made expressed support for the Services Division to continue to monitor the Clam Bay system. SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD Mr. Cravens made a motion to make a recommendation to the full Board to support requests to hold a collaborative Army Corps of Engineers workshop. The Subcommittee agreed clarification of the process was needed. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Chairman Trecker for the Clam Bay Subcommittee to make a recommendation to the full Pelican Bay Services Division Board that the "PBSD/MSTBU Board acknowledges, supports and endorses requests for a collaborative Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass - Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club, Conservancy of SWF, Mangrove Action Group, and Collier Audubon Society and others to review and propose remedies of deficiencies in permit annlication materials ". The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. ADJOURN Discussion concluded and the meeting was adjourned. Dave Trecker, Chairman 7 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/7/2012 10:06:09 AM 1612 4 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION (DRAFT) MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: 31 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron Hunter H. Hansen Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Jim Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation 35 in the audience (REVISED) AGENDA 853 1612 124 Pelican Bay Services 'Di Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 8. Old business 9. New business 10. Audience comments 11. Miscellaneous correspondence 12. Adjournment ROLL CALL All present. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Chandler suggested the Board discuss the Foundation's request to reconsider Feb. 1 Board action first under Pathways; and Vice Chairman Cravens added "Erosion along the west side of the berm" to Landscape Water Management Subcommittee report. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2012 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as presented The Board voted unanimous) in favor and the motion was passed. JANUARY 10, 2012 LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the January 10, 2012 Landscape Water Management Subcommittee meeting minutes as presented The Board voted unanimousiv in favor and the motion was passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT areas to widen pathways to 8 feet. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Vice Chair IM, d er the Pelican Bay Foundation's request to reconsider the February I Boar d v ed unanimously in favor and the motion was passed 8539 A 16 IA24 S Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 AUDIENCE COMMENTS OPPOSED TO WIDENING PATHWAYS TO WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET Mr. Harry Weingartner (Avalon), Mr. Henry Bachman (Claridge), Mr. Bill Hennig (Grosvenor), and Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) were not in favor of widening pathways to eight feet because: (1) concerned about tree removal to accommodate greater width; (2) perceived that wider pathways encouraged more and faster bicyclists creating unsafe conditions at driveways, particularly from bicyclists going against traffic; (3) pathways in the project area are not in as poor condition as in other areas, and pathways in the worst condition should be redone first; and (4) it was not the Services Division's responsibility to maintain the pathways, because residents pay property taxes to the County to maintain pathways. IN FAVOR OF WIDENING PATHWAYS TO WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET Mr. Carson Beadle (past Strategic Planning Committee), Mr. Charles Bodo (Strategic Planning Committee), Mr. Mike Kitchen, Ms. Patty Vlasho (Crown Colony), and Dr. Peter Collis (L'Ambiance) were in favor of widening pathways to eight feet. Comments made included: (1) February 1 decision should have been postponed because three members were absent; (2) that the decision made February 1 did not represent the community majority, but a minority of dissenters; (3) Board should recognize that the CIP recommendation was based on a significant amount of work; (4) that they had stopped using the pathways because pathways are too narrow, surface is uneven, and one could easily injure themselves on the existing pathways; and (5) agreed that wider was better to encourage an active lifestyle and would mesh with the community's conceptual design. OTHER COMMENTS Ms. Diane Lustig (Hyde Park) was concerned about bicyclist safety and suggested putting bicycle lanes in the roadway. Mr. Cal Grayson said the pathways on Crayton and Myra Janco Daniels are unsafe. Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt said the CIP study did not address the standard width of multi -use pathways. However the current Florida Department of Transportation standard for multi -use pathways is 10 -12 feet. Wider pathways are more stable and 8 feet is a compromise. BOARD DISCUSSION would encourage more bicyclists to ride on the pathways and ride faster. There was general ag currently ride in the roadway would stay in the roadway; and (5) that because of the County's maintenance due to shortage of funds, that the community might eventually have to assume respond M1 lists wh A adequate 1612 024 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 Mr. Dorrill said the engineer would complete the plans and apply for necessary right of way permits then the project would then be put out to bid for the Board's review and recommendation prior to construction. OBSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN PATHWAYS AND ROADWAY BLOCKING STREET LIGHTS AT NIGHT ON PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD FROM THE GLENVIEW TO THE PHIL The Services Division was informed by Mr. James Morrison (Glenview) that high shrubbery was blocking street lights from reaching the pathways along Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Glenview to the Phil. Staff began trimming and Mr. Morrison sent a follow -up letter March 5 that the lighting had improved significantly. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT SUMMER 2012 COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that February 13, the Budget Subcommittee discussed whether to do additional crosswalk and associated landscaping projects this summer in advance of FY 2013. The proposed projects would renovate existing crosswalks along Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of North Pointe Drive, Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, and Crayton Road to make them consistent with the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) crossings recently completed. The cost is approximately $50,000 per intersection. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Steve Seidel (San Marino) conveyed residents' complaints of the noise made by vehicles driving over the cobblestones at the Beach walk crossing; Dr. Peter Collis (L'Ambiance) said the cobblestones were not effective as rumble strips; Ms. Diane Lustig (Hyde Park) observed that the crosswalks are not uniform throughout the community and agreed with Mr. John Domenie (Breakwater) that the crossings needed to be illuminated at night; Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) said the cobblestones created a tripping hazard, and suggested the Board add a blog to its website; all agreed with Mr. Dave Ritger (Oakmont) that the Board should obtain community feedback before implementing more crosswalk projects; and Messrs. Domenie, Ritger and Bill Hennig (Grosvenor) agreed the projects were a waste of money. Mr. Dorrill said that the statement made about cobblestones was untrue; cobblestones do not create a tripping hazard. Mr. Levy did not agree that the Crayton Road intersection should be left out. Vice Chairman Cravens was concerned with the Board moving forward without doing a survey first. Mr. Gibson reiterated that safety was the Board's first concern, but purpose of the CIP was to retain property values ETrecker made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Gibson to implement crosswalk projects ing the summer of 2012 along Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of North Pointe Drive a ra Janco Daniels Boulevard. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING dr. Lukasz proposed that additional landscaping renovation projects be done this summer in hou ad 113 budget at five intersections along Pelican Bay Boulevard: 1) Myra Janco Daniels; 2 and 5) Hammock Oak. Each intersection is estimated to cost $18,000 - $25,000, depen er i tion improvements needed, and design was based on the landscape architect's t . I con an vls. O'Brien suggested that the Board, on a future agenda, discuss perfor ual to obtain cot prior to moving projects forward. 1UDIENCE COMMENTS As. Marcia Cravens was concerned about the irrigation he in with the landscaping at ion. Mr. Lukasz clarified that the appropriate rotator pop -u lume tion heads were installed. 8541 161 ? X124 Pelican Bay Serviceg Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 F an Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve in -house landscaping projects to be done this summer at five intersections along Pelican Bay Boulevard: 1) Daniels; 2) North Pointe; 3) Glenview; 4) Crayton; and S) Hammock Oak. The Board ousl in favor and the motion was passed. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION OWNERSHIP OF BERM AND WATER MANAGEMENT EASEMENT IMPROVEMENTS (O'BRIEN) Mr. Dorrill explained that the parcel of land upon which the berm sits is owned by the Pelican Bay Foundation; that within this parcel are drainage easements upon which the former Pelican Bay Independent District (PBID) used public funds to construct improvements to the water management system; therefore, any improvements constructed by the PBID within the drainage easements are now assets of Collier County/Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD), as successor to the PBID. The PBSD is responsible for operations and maintenance of the Pelican Bay water management system and assets located within the drainage easements. Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt clarified that the Foundation owns the underlying land; Westinghouse granted an easement to the PBID to construct the water management berm; PBID permitted the Foundation to use the land atop the berm to access the Foundation's facilities and the Foundation is responsible for operating and maintaining the asphalt atop the berm; that the Foundation established rights of access over the land atop the berm as private property; and the land atop the berm is maintained as Foundation private property. For the current restoration project, the Services Division is responsible for reestablishing the slope of the berm; and the Foundation is responsible for replacing the asphalt path atop the berm. Ms. Marcia Cravens was concerned about PBID dissolution, succession, and with using PBSD funds for this project. BERM ENGINEERING PLANS TO DATE (O'BRIEN) Mr. Dorrill reported that due to miscommunication, Wilson Miller did not submit the Army Corps of Engineers nationwide permit application. However, Mr. Dorrill would make certain that the permit application is submitted. If no hiccups, the permitting process should be complete in 90 days; and concurrently, the engineers will complete specifications and design plans and project put out to bid. Construction could begin as early as this summer. REVISIT PROPOSAL TO RESURFACE PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD EARLY (O'BRIEN) MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve into the record th ena report as amended with revised income statement. The Board voted unanimou t motion was passed. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT '_ Pelican Bay ervices Division Board Regular Session Draft Minutes 16 1 A24 Y g (Draft) March 7, 2012 Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens to renew the Dorrill Management Group contract at the existing fee structure: annual contract is $75,360 to start July 1, 2012 and end June 30, 2013. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. APRIL MEETING SCHEDULE The majority of the Board agreed to cancel the April 4 Board regular meeting and rescheduled April 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced that the Coastal Advisory Committee meets March 8 at 1 p.m.; Foundation Board meets March 23 at 8:30 a.m.; the Foundation's Annual Meeting is March 26 at 9 a.m.; and the Services Division's Budget Subcommittee meets March 26 at 3 p.m. CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT COLLABORATIVE WORKSHOP REQUEST (CRAVENS) Vice Chairman Cravens and Dr. Trecker reported that at the February 21 Clam Bay Subcommittee meeting, a motion was passed to make a recommendation to the full Board that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board provide support to several environmental groups request to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that the Corps hold a workshop to allow these groups to participate and express concerns about the County's Clam Bay dredging permit application. Mr. Tim Hall clarified that anyone can make a request to the Corps to hold a workshop. However, it is the Corps sole decision as to whether it is necessary; the Corps is not obligated or mandated to do so. If the request to hold a workshop has already been made, then the Board could provide its support to the groups that made the request and send to the Corps regional office in Fort Myers. Ms. Cravens confirmed that the letter of support should be sent to Corps reviewer, Ms. Linda Elligott. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by as amended, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board acknowledges, supports, and endorses requests for a collaborative U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass- Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Mangrove Action Group, and Collier County Audubon Society. The Board voted 8 -1 in favor and the motion was passed. Chairman Dallas was opposed. Messrs. Baron & Hansen were not present. aerial Vice Chairman Cravens observed areas of erosion along the west side of the that heading south, ends at mile marker 1.2, generally from the north boardwalk to on by the nesting behavior of Florida soft -shell turtles. He planned to show Mr. that staff could address before the rainy season. Vice Chairman Cravens reported that the County did a were still several Brazilian Peppers and Australian Pines. the beach, but at R 38 there 1Ai 7 7A24 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT (LEVY) Mr. Levy reported that the County was in the process of drafting its FY 2013 budget policy, so the next Budget Subcommittee meeting is March 26 at 3 p.m. At this meeting, staff will introduce the very preliminary FY 2013 budget and discuss proposed projects and cash flow and the annual assessment. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE (SPC) REPORT Ms. Womble presented schematic design plans for two Foundation restaurants that illustrated what could be done within the current "footprint' or available space; and reported that Mr. Carson Beadle stepped down from the SPC and that it was not yet known what the plans were to replace his spot. ADJOURN Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 4:27 .m. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman - I I Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/23/2012 4:46:30 PM s� a ResnickLisa April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regulartession 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways #24 Page 1 of 12 1612 Subject: 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. 4/11/2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session From: Keith Dallas Lmai Ito: keithidallas(aOgmai1.coml Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 1:16 PM To: LukaszKyle; Neil Dorrill Cc: ResnickLisa Subject: Arborist Kyle & Neil, The Foundation today discussed Rich Galli's letter where his arborist said 40 or 50 trees would be killed by our pathway widening. Initially they were going to pass a motion saying the PBSD and the Foundation would jointly hire an arborist to look at trees throughout the community. Then realizing how little they liked the PBSD motion about paving the upland at the Commons for parking, Gerry Moffat withdrew his motion. Then they debated sending us a letter requesting we hire an arborist, but finally agreed that letter was unnecessary since I assured them we would discuss the item April 1 Ith. For your information, at least Mary Ann and Susan also were there (a couple other PBSD Board members attended earlier in the session, but i think had left by the time this was discussed at the end of their session). Before the next meeting, I'd like you to think about hiring an arborist and at the 11th be able to : Discuss how we would go about hiring an arborist, possibly with ideas about some specific individuals, or • Have a good discussion about why it is unnecessary Someone also brought up that some of the condo associations had used a County Extension arborist for their trees, which is a free service. The issue about the trees is currently being primarily driven by those who don't want the pathways widened and those who don't like our recent landscape decisions. Nonetheless, I think there is an underlying issue that we should address: should we use an arborist to advise us on the ramifications of widening specific pathways, and also where trees throughout our community have lived their useful life and should be replaced. Having a professional advise us on the pathways will become even more major if in future years we decide to work on pathways to the north of North Tram Station or the east side by the driving range where whatever we do may harm nearby trees. If we can do whatever possible to assure the public we care about the trees and are doing everything practical to make sure we don't have unintended consequences, I believe most people will support our projects. Keith k March 22, 2012 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 2 of 12 161*2 A4 To: Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors: Ms. Bonnie Bellone Mr. Bill Carpenter Ms. Mary McLean Johnson Mr. Jerry Moffatt Ms. Noreen Murray Mr. Robert Naegele Mr. Robert Pendergrass To: Pelican Bay Services Division Board of Directors: Mr. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Ladies & Gentlemen, RECEIV J) i PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION I have been an owner here in Pelican Bay as a resident of St. Maarten for 24 years (since our building opened ). We love the ambiance of PB & all that it has to offer. I am very disturbed at what I for see as a disaster with the plan to widen the West side of Pelican Bay Blvd. walkways to 8 ft. Until recently, I was under the impression that they would be 6 ft. I personally do not know, professionally, the impact of such action, but logically as I view the landscape along Pelican Bay Blvd., it would decimate a hugh amount of trees. This would be totally unacceptable!! My friend here at St. Maarten, who is a qualified engineer & builder of high quality homes in Southern New Jersey, sent you the attached study that he has done & the impact of what you are planning. I would ask that you evaluate his recommendations in the attached & reconsider the current plan to widen the walkways. The last thing we need to do in our community is destroy the beautiful trees & landscape that has taken years to mature for the sake of a walkway. Perhaps a 6 ft. wide walkway is sufficient & would prevent much of the destruction that Rich Galli describes in his memo. Please check it out TO BE SURE we preserve the beauty of Pelican Bay Blvd. I would appreciate a response to my letter with your evaluation & next steps before the Board proceeds. truly hil} Gutermuth 6101 Pelican Bay Blvd. Apt. # 401 St. Maarten Condominium Naples, FL 34108 Phone 591 -3160 judesterz @aol.com Copy: St. Maarten Board of Directors Mr Rick Galli, St. Maarten, Mr. Phil Dabill, Montenero, Mr Jack McHugh, Cap Ferrat April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session w 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways .424 • Page 3 of 12 1612 t, ResnickLisa From: g.moffatt410bgmail.com rmailto:g.moffatt4l @ gmail.coml On Behalf Of Gerald Moffatt Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 12:35 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Gerald A Moffatt Subject: Re: Pelican Bay Services Division Board March 7 Recap Lisa -- Please forward this email to all Board members. Thank you Jerry As you move ahead with repaving and widening the pathways I ask that you consider why Pelican Bay, the premier community in Southwest Florida, will be the only community that has asphalt pathways. You will be hard pressed to find any sidewalks or pathways in North Naples that are not concrete, which is a much more premium look. I sat through the very limited discussion at the joint SPC meetings when the comment was made that concrete is 3 times more expensive than asphalt. That same rational did not prevent the use of pavers for crosswalks which is also 3 times more expensive that paint striping. This is a 30 year decision. When you put in the crosswalks, you used concrete for all the approaches. A great upscale look. Before you begin this work in the summer, please revisit the decision to use asphalt. With the proper root guards, reinforced concrete should be the premium answer. Thanks for reading and considering. Jerry April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session a 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 4 of 12 161 124 ResnickLisa Subject: 6a. Admininstrator's Report. Pathways 4/11/12 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session From: Keith Dallas rmailto :keithjdallas(�bomail.coml Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:45 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Cost of Pathways. Lisa, Would you also see this email is distributed to the Board before our next Budget Meeting. It explains where numbers came from and hopefully eliminates some past confusion as to what is included /excluded from various numbers. Keith Begin forwarded message From: Keith Dallas <keithdallasta'�.comcast.net> Subject: Cost of Pathways. Date: February 20, 2012 3:50:46 PM EST To: Kyle Lukasz <KyleLukaszCa.colliergov.net> Cc: Lisa Resnick <LResnick(rDcolIiergov.net >, Neil Dorrill <neil01)dmofl.com> The question you asked about my estimates of the cost of pathways. All came from Wilson/ Miller report, and then I increased them 40% to reflect the one quote that was obtained for the central section of PBB. Here is a summary: Item W/M Cost Increased 40% Central PBB $205,700 $288,000 N & S PBB $351,700 $492,300 Gulf Park $138,000 $193,200 Confusion is that the total of N & S PBB and Gulf Park Drive, increased 40 %, is $685,500, which may have described by some as "the remainder of PBB ". That with the central section gives you almost $975k. We will have to be careful (me included) to make it clear that the higher # includes Gulf Park, or to say rest of PBB is only $492k. Keith April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways° Page 5 of 12 16 14 e 1 1. ,. .1 T •.-- t t ` t c tx-3Z-- yo k -cam. \ K1 F;cl 1 4,r Z-- TO: Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RECEIVED BILL CARPENTER NAR 2012 RONNIE BELLONE per"" BAY SUMS 01VISO BOB UEK JERRY MOFFATT NOREEN MURRAY ROBERT NAEGELE ROBERT PENDERGRAS S FROM: RICK GALLI, Resident Owner Attached is my 2 page report, that I prepared for your information and consideration, on what I think will likely happen if we proceed with this project as now designed, along with my recommendations to prevent or minimize the damage that I think it will cause. 111r. Richard J. GxW 6101 Pelican Bay Blvd Umt 12 1�aplles, FL 34108 ....M w April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways } Page 6 of 12 J, 1612 To: Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors, & SPC, PBSD Chairs MARCH 16, 2012 REVIEW - PATHWAY PR 01ECT I want to warn you about an unrecognized major threat to our Pelican Bay Boulevard streetscape that we are facing from the proposed West pathway expansion to 8 feet. I have practical experience with Northern Species trees and believe that the health and survival of our trees have been overlooked. The extensive tree root cutoff that is planned will probably weaken and disfigure or kill 64% of the irreplaceable large old growth trees (Some up to 20 inches in diameter). Before any damage is done, I wanted to point out the specifics and ask you to have a professional, certified arborist address these concerns and either dismiss them with his independent appraisal, or show you how to minimize the forecast damage. Today, for 3 hours, I took the June 2011 Construction Plans for the 8 foot expansion and walked the proposed project route both ways to observe, measure and understand how the pathway would impact the treescape. You may not realize it, but when you cut into the existing root structure of a tree down to the planned depth of 17 inches, you will weaken the structural strength and reduce it's resistance to overturning from storm and hurricane winds; lower it's biological resistance to disease and infestation; and curtail it's uptake of nutrients and water. By my count this project will put most of the other established trees at risk in addition to the 10 trees that you are planning to remove. This represents a major reconfiguration and change to our streetscape and I wanted you to be fully aware of what you are planning to do to the community before you start. I would like to show you what I found and review my findings with a certified tree arborist to develop a better, knowledgeable path forward for our community. The Construction Drawings do not show the extensive root damage an 8 foot pathway would inflict on the trees *. I have actually measured the proposed level of root removal and predict that 33 trees will be structurally and biologically weakened. The proposed tree removal of 10 trees will decimate one of the prettiest natural canopy archways that we have and I would like to show you a way to avoid that with a simple realignment. The alarming conclusion, that apparently no one has reached, or expressed, is that 83% of the total 52 trees along the pathway will be removed, damaged or killed. Or only 17% or 8 of the 52 trees will be unaffected. *One section of the design calls for a subgrade compaction to a 10 foot width which would do more damage. I used the 8 foot width. A24' April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways LJ 1612 /� Page 7 of 12 -2- If we had unlimited space I would have no objection to a wide pathway and in 60% of the route that is the case. But in 40% of the route we will suffer a progressive deterioration and die off like the Mangrove die off of a few years ago. I am sure that you do not want to be responsible for inflicting that kind of blight on our community. A tree is a living element and the idea that if we cut to within 2 feet of the trunk we will not damage the tree is false. The roots extend out as far as the canopy drip line and any construction inside the drip line will disturb the tree. In the cases that I cite, you are proposing cutting off up to 3 feet of the root structure which is a huge damage level that will have serious consequences over time. You can save 4 critical trees that are scheduled to be removed, by rerouting a section to preserve a beautiful canopy archway in front of the Montenaro. One tree is missing from the plan and another tree that is shown on the plans was removed and sodded over the stump area. I do not have a problem with removing dead or diseased trees, in fact there is one big dead tree that is not mentioned on the plans. I am concerned about this project because the mature treescape along the Boulevard is a signature element that elevates Pelican Bay above other high end residential communities. The established old growth trees that line the street create a distinctive, tranquil and aesthetically pleasing road thru the center of our community. The well developed green canopy and lushness of these trees is an irreplaceable hallmark that developed over a 25+ year growth period and needs to be maintained to preserve our identity as the premier residential West Coast Florida community. The trees attract people to a walking and driving adventure thru the shade, provide shelter for wildlife and enhance property values. We need to maintain and preserve it and not allow it to be inadvertently destroyed by shortsighted good intentions. Thanks for your consideration. I would be glad to help in any way I can. Rick Galli, St Maartens ResnickLisa April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 8 of 12 161 2 A24' From: Keith Dallas [keithjdallas @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:58 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle Subject: Pathway Evaluation Attachments: Pathway Evaluation copy.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Lisa, I have attached an evaluation of the Pelican Bay pathways that Kyle recently provided me. Please see it is distributed to Board members before the Budget meeting. In his transmittal, Kyle said: "Attached is a modified pathway evaluation that includes the section from Commons to the North Tram Station west side. I have modified some of the ratings, I found that some parameters weren't scoring correctly. After going back and looking at Hammock Oak I noticed that although it ranks 23% and 29% it wouldn't need to be overlayed but could just be repaired at this point, especially compared to others that are below 20 %. As a point of reference a 1000 foot sidewalk with two patches and one are of root damage with minimal edging problems would score 92 %, the same 1000 foot sidewalk with 10 areas of root damage (one /100') would score 20%." I hope this will help us think about where the PBSD goes in future years. Keith • April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 9 of 12 161 124 2 i Pelican Bay Pathway Evaluation Pathway Location Length * Overall Rating Pelican Bay Boulevard 3960 63% Pelican Bay Blvd. - South Entrance to Commons, West Side 5430 29% Pelican Bay Blvd. - South Entrance to Gulf Park Drive, East Side 5950 21% PBB - Gulf Park to North Tram Station, East Side 5675 7% PBB - Commons to North Tram Station, West Side 6240 28% Pelican Bay Blvd. - North Entrance to North Tram Station, East Side 4900 10% Pelican Bay Blvd. - North Entrance to North Tram Station, West Side 4900 10% Gulf Park Drive Gulf Park Drive - North Side 3960 63% Gulf Park Drive - South Side 3960 66% Pelican Bay Boulevard Side Streets MJD Blvd. - Bridgeway to Seagate, West Side 1220 11% MJD Blvd. - PBB to Bridgeway, West Side 725 73% MJD Blvd by Phil, East Side 725 62% Crayton Road 2050 60% Glenview Drive 440 37% North Point Drive, West Side 2150 87% North Point Drive, East Side 2150 57% Hammock Oak Drive, West Side 1625 23% Hammock Oak Drive, East Side 1625 29% Ridgewood & Oakmont Single Family, Commercial @ Ridgewood Dr. /Laurel Oak Dr. Ridgewood Drive, Laurel Oak Drive 6300 22% Oakmont Pkwy, Greentree Drive 6300 55% * Rating is based upon the number of repairs estimated to be necessary in the next 18 months from root damage, amount of cracking on the edges of the pathway and the general condition including amount of existing patches. L 4. ResnickLisa ? , q t; April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 10 of 12 1612 424 Subject: 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways 4/11/2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: John Chandler <johnchandler219ggmail.com> Date: Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:18 PM Subject: Pathway Repair/Replacement To: Neil Dorrill <Neil(cr�dmgfl.com> Cc: "Keith J. Dallas (keithdallasgcomcast.net)" <keithdallasgcomcast.net> As you know, the one issue for which there seems to be unanimous support in our community is the need to repair /replace our pathways. At our 4/11 PBSD Board Meeting, I'd like Kyle to show us his log of calls or emails to the County for pathway repair /replacement so that we can all see how many requests have been issued since 1 /1 /11, when those requests were issued and when the repairs were made. Also, Kyle can educate us on his program for reviewing all pathways and prioritizing his requests to the County. John Chandler April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Wal Page 11 of 12 161 2 124 .g ResnickUsa Subject: 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. 4/11/2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session From: Keith Dallas fmailto :keithdallasCd)comcast.netl Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 6:50 PM To: LukaszKyle Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Re: Motion for Pathways Kyle, Thanks. When you have a plan I'd like a copy. Also have you considered going over the plan with the impacted condos? Specifically I'm thinking of the Marbella. The question is if we remove trees to allow the pathway to be moved away from their driveway entrance to help visibility, or leave the trees and possibly make a difficult situation slightly worse. I would leave that decision up to the condo association, as long as they understand the tradeoffs and accept the consequences of their decision. Keith On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:32 PM, LukaszKyle wrote: First, none of the trees at the Montero will need to be removed. There is a total of 1–pine tree, 3– sable palms, 3- mahogany trees, I– orchid tree and 4–oak trees that will need to be removed. Of the materials above to be removed the 3- sables can easily be replaced with the exact same size palms, the pine, orchid, one oak and one mahogany are in poor condition and would eventually be removed regardless of the pathway (see attached pictures). Also, two of the other oak trees only need to be removed in order to realign the pathway for improved visibility at the two Marbella driveways. The proposed alignment will allow a minimum of approximately 2 foot clearance from all remaining trees and a minimum 2 foot distance from the edge of curb. Any questions please let me know. Kyle From: Keith Dallas fmailto :keithdallasacomcast.netl Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 12:22 PM To: LukaszKyle Subject: Fwd: Motion for Pathways Kyle, Will you have the answers today? We are having a Montenero Board meeting tomorrow morning and it would be nice if I could confirm that the latest plans don't require the Montenero's oak trees to be removed. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Keith Dallas <keithdallas(dcomcast.net> Subject: Re: Motion for Pathways Date: March 12, 2012 12:19:33 PM EDT To: Robert Lauer <ralau43(dhotmail.com> Cc: <aecummins (d)comcast.net >, <rdiarvis1469a-Qmail.com >, "'kevin "' <kcshanahanna comoast.net> Bob, That is my understanding. I have asked staff to show me the latest plan and to confirm our trees do not need to be removed and to make sure what other trees are being recommended to be removed. I should hear early this week, and will confirm this when I have heard. Keith On Mar 12, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Robert Lauer wrote: All —fyi Keith —does this mean that the Oak Trees at the front of our property will be preserved? Bob April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways vf z " Page 12 of 12 A24 16 12 From: med5acomcast.net fmailto:med5Acomcast.netl Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:08 AM To: Bob Lauer Cc: Mike Wooldridge Subject: Fwd: Motion for Pathways Bob, I just received this email from Susan Boland. We have checked with two certified arborists and our oak trees are in OK. It is winter and some lose their leaves now. We pruned them a couple of weeks ago and they look great. I don,t know how they will fit in the pathway without losing quite a bit of landscaping. Note that Keith voted for the 8 ft. along with Mrs. Womble and the commercial board members. Womble and the commercial members were not present at the February meeting. Elaine From: JOHNSUSANBOLANDAaol.com To: walt()kovacicusa.com, med5na"comcast.net Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:51:23 AM Subject: Motion for Pathways MR. GIBSON MADE A MOTION, SECOND BY MR. HANSEN RECOMMENDING THAT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PATHWAYS TO EIGHT FEET ALONG PB BLVD FROM THE COMMONS TO THE NORTH TRAM STATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS (AS DETERMINED BY THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT): 1) THAT THE REMOVAL OF ANY TREES DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE DESIGN OR BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH OF THE TREE BE REPLACED IN KIND NEARBY; AND (2) AT DRIVEWAYS, THAT THE PATHWAYS BE POSITIONED AS CLOSE TO PB BLVD AS POSSIBILE TO IMPROVE LINES OF SIGHT BETWEEN MOTOR VEHICLES AND PATHWAY USERS. THE BOARD VOTED SEVEN(7) IN FAVOR(GIBSON, BARON, HANSEN, DALLAS, CRAVENS, LEVEY, WOMBLE) TO FOUR (4) OPPOSED (TRECKER, IAIZZO, CHANDLER, O'BRIEN) AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED. THIS WAS TAKEN FROM THE DRAFT OFTHE MINUTES. Susan April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 1 of 10 %' 161 2- PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION BOARD: BILL CARPENTER RONNIE BELLONE REC BOB UEK APR 1 JERRY MOFFATT NOREEN MURRAY PELICAN BAY SEAyICES DIVISION MARY JOHNSON ROBERT PENDERGRASS PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION CHAIR: KEITH DALLAS & PATHWAY PROI CT This follows up on my previous, March 16 memo regarding the un- anticipated immediate and long term damage that I expect would result from this project. I have not received any direct reply to that memo so a group of Owners selected and retained an experienced, certified, local Arborist, Signature Tree Care, of Naples, to look at the proposed project and provide their independent assessment of tree damage potential; to have something concrete for the scheduled April 11, PBSD meeting. Their report is attached for your information and use. On Friday, April 5, we reviewed the .Tune 2011, Agnoli Barber & Brundage, 15 Page Plans that I used for my survey and together walked the project area to physically observe the field situations, tree sizes, tree conditions and proposed changes that the construction would impose on the tree roots. They told me that it is common for trees that are weakened from root cutting by nearby sidewalk projects to fall over and gave me the attached University of Florida root cutting Guidelines. They confirmed my concerns and more clearly define the expected resulting damage that would occur with the proposed 8' widening plan. With this additional credible information, I ask you to reconsider going back to your earlier decision of a 6' or less width. My concerns are not only from the safety hazard from falling trees, but also the hazard of mixing pedestrians and cyclists on the same sidewalk, when a clear, safer alternate is adjacent and nearby. The attached color chart illustrates my suggestion is that you reconsider doing a test section in the same area of Pelican Bay Blvd. of a temporary street bike lane, similar to what exists on Crayton Road. In that case the open carriage way is 8'9" wide with opposing traffic. On PBBIvd. We would have a 10' carriage way with parallel traffic which is 1'3" wider than Crayton. This would put all high speed wheeled traffic on the same hardscape and improve walker safety, minimize tree damage/loss and save considerable construction money by keeping the 5` width. Furthermore, these recommendations would better align with the intent of the SPC Master Plan - Priori 11 SAFETY & SECURITY: #2 Convert asphalt paths along one side of the main streets (how about in the streets ?) to dedicated multi use paths... (by providing a safer and flatter dedicated biking surface), and begin following Priority fit OUR ENVIRONMENT — NATURAL & BUILT: #3 Develop a complete "Streetscape ", (by utilizing the attached, or another professional Arborist, in dealing with the Blvd. Streetscape this "Recommended Action" would be achieved) Thank you for your consideration. RICK GALLI, ST. MAARTEN APRIL 9, 2012 *p24 I cu 0 N U N C � O (O � 1 11 CD- -2 `o U O N CO a� N >a o N N T 3 U_ Z N N u� a T @ O m Q cu C N U d U N N O N m --z O N C 'O N Q N O) Q O O Q CO d AY M E �,v t, m. 617 c l i r 1424 cyc✓L 3' April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 3 of 10 1612 Signature Tree QUt;,LLC 481 i 0th Avenue N.C. * Naples. f 1O6 la W120 Oifice: €? 3')3 348-1 130 * VaN €231)i 348 -31 33 t:n��.�i1; irtie��3>i�;naturf�trf�f >t arr =.€ i�n� IAN QRLIKOFF is•1 t r,rotie(fAtht)rist #0 M4 7,I lifmd,i ( cvtiiucrl I1t)rtt( u1t rro 1"116036 i April 6, 2012 Attention: Rick Galli, Galli Builders Re: Pelican Bay Services Division, Pelican Bay Blvd. Pathway Project from Westside- Commons to North Tram Station Arborist consultation completed this date regarding tree and root related issues in proposed pathway project. Client requested an arborist site visit along with report concerning tree health and safety issues relating to current proposed redesign which would require the severing of roots for a pathway / bike path. Area of concern would include but not limited to, as per plan given to me this date, the right of way trees on West side of South bound lanes of Pelican Bay Boulevard on either side of walk and bike pathway. Pathway is proposed to be widened with various distances between it and the trunks of multiple trees of various sizes and species. Pathway level of use would be considered high with day to day ingress and egress of pedestrian, bicycle and residential and commercial vehicular traffic. The targets and liabilities of any future tree failures would be considered high. Targets include pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. These tree failures could also impact (but are not limited to) structures such as the pathway itself, irrigation lines, utilities, landscaping, hardscape and lights. Emergency services and evacuation routes would also be impaired with failure of right of way trees. Benefits of trees along a road include but are not limited to: *Realtor studies show communities with a mature tree canopy have increased property values *Privacy screen of traffic, poles, buildings, etc. *A collective canopy produces a wind buffer reducing wind damage to property when compared to wide open areas in the community *Shade creates a cooling effect for people who use pathway and increases pavement life by 40 to 60 Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 2012 A24 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) t Page 4 of 10 16 I A24 Signature Tree dare, 481 10th A�enuf, N.E. •viii lvS I Jorida 14120 ( )tii( t- 12 11b 348 i t tot • i,tt � 2 39= 348! t 3 i 3 l..rtldil: iniU`�i 41indli3E't "Irf`t't Are ( km) IAN ORUKOFF Ps 1 ( oil tie(/ <sl rhoor t #11- .` 4 Fl<)rede t erttt ed / lortr( ulturf� Prwi-„iolwl #! Benefits of trees along a road include but are not limited to (continued) *Sound buffer qualities reduce traffic noise *Safety: studies show tree lined streets reduce accidents / injuries by 5 -20 % *Speed reduction: multiple studies show drivers naturally slow down with speed differentials between 3 and 15 mph when traveling streets lined with trees *Storm water runoff remediation, in their given area. Trees absorb the first 30% of rainfall through their foliage and another 30% with their roots. *Trees create a greater sense of community having a reduced rate of crime and fewer incidences of road rage The benefits of trees increase as the canopy matures. Many of the statistics above are based on a mature canopy. A majority of trees are not considered to be productive trees until they reach maturity. Some of the trees on Pelican Bay Blvd are considered to be mature trees. In order to retain a mature and productive urban canopy tree roots vs. their nearby structures is a very significant consideration when dealing with development / design as well as pre and post construction. Tree roots and the surrounding urban structures are typically not considered during the early stages of development. It is not until tree health declines or tree failure occurs that the true causes are identified. Considerations during the design Phase should include but are not limited to: Design factors, site conditions, soil compaction, media utilized, level of accuracy that specifications are carried out, contractor knowledge and quality of work are some of the considerations when dealing with a successful tree retention program for urban development. Other factors include: * Size of roots to be cut, how many, what percentage of root zone affected, distance to trunk, area of distribution, past history of root loss, * Soil conditions 2 Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 2012 I April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 5 of 10 Si:gm r1k1l0*^ A=e Tree C, LLc 481 10th Avenw, N .F. * Naplt -,, I loritla M20 ()i1ite:? -Vj 1.18 -1110* Fak:t2Vb 148 31'1 Fniail: «ni IAN ©RLIKOFF I °§ t c>rtrfirstl < §rlar,rist #11 il) 7A Oorid,i ( ertim -(l t Prruio>,ifni' l #lt /tt ?i!i'> i Considerations during the desittn phase _should include but are not limited to (continued): * Tree species characteristics, condition, age, tolerance to root cutting, stability (lean, root to crown ratio) * Right of Way frequency and targets * Future tree maintenance costs * Potential targets if tree fails and corresponding liability It is not recommended in any situation to remove any roots as they collectively provide support. Removal of buttress or stabilizing roots is not an accepted arboricultural practice as this may impact tree health and will certainly increase risk potential for catastrophic failure. Buttress roots or stabilizing roots have a poor ability to seal, which may provide an open door for decay / disease rendering the tree more unstable in the future. Decay / root rot may traverse unseen into the tree (basal flare) or base. This increases the risk for tree failure and is multiplied as the canopy develops. Trees that may appear to be stable after root zone integrity has been compromised may in the future have an increased risk of failure. This is in part due to size of roots removed, decay issues, as well as percentage of root zone relative to canopy size. This is known as root to crown ratio. The main stabilizing roots (or buttress roots) support the tree under the forces of compression and tension. Compression occurs when a tree leans on roots. Roots act as a brace or buttress on the leeward side of the tree. Tension occurs when the tree pulls and the roots act as an anchor on the windward side of the tree. During a wind event any rain increases the impact of that wind. The weight of the tree increases (weight of the rain on the leaves) with rain as well as reduced root tension from wet soils. Increased weight on canopy set in motion by wind creates a wind throw effect. Decreased root tension coupled with reduced root surface area exponentially increases risk of failure. When dealing with structural conflicts and roots, removing any roots as a short term or temporary solution to one issue only lends to a far greater problem in the future. If root removal occurs managing crown size and density through a proper pruning program can help alleviate wind throw effect. However, a pruning program is not a tool to compensate for root loss. Rather it is a last resort to help decrease future canopy losses. Removing roots can result in tree stress. Stressed trees have a Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 2012 A24 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session r 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 6 of 10 1612 A24 Signature Tree Ca,Lw re 481 1 Oth A\ ('11U0 N,1- * N aple,,, f1t)rida '14120 ()ffkc,.t139 148 -1 110 • f,ix:(219) t48 -3i 1 Et�ttiiil: it�dr�« �'si);nat�iretre��tare�.E�,crr IAN ORLiKCIFF NA 1r1n)riq ; ;1 / 10; A //rfritl<r ( e�rtitio( /furli( idtore flrw-(r� simml 0 /1i07(�i i reduced ability to heal injured root zones and removing foliage further increases the effect of stress weakening the tree. Oations to Root cutting: 1. Curve pathway: curve far enough away for a stable root zone to remain intact. This may require cooperation with individual or multiple properties if they are open to preserving the present tree canopy. This is the highest standard for community involvement. 2. Flexible permeable pavement: allows roots to remain in place while providing a quality surface for pedestrians and bicyclists. 3. Bridging: a structure that is built over roots for pedestrian and bike access. Toot to determine existing roots to be impacted: Signature Tree Care would be able to perform a diagnostic root zone inspection, if requested, by carefully excavating soil from individual root zones using an Airspade (use of compressed air) to identify what roots would be impacted if root cutting was to occur during the project. Decisions could then be made by Pelican Bay Services Division if and how tree roots should be managed for the pathway project. Follow uv: 1. Due to possible defects or canopy, developmental concerns within an individual tree, it is recommended that each candidate for preservation be evaluated to compare the cost of preservation to the cost of replanting a better option. Example: sheet 12 of 15 in plan, tree second from left, top row, #5 on Mr. Galli`s plan (Shows x8.27 on tree image). Arborist recommendation would be for removal due to poor wound closure and poor structure (see picture attached of wound). Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 2012 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) r Page 7 of 10 161 2. A24 51:gmawre Tree Q1114,LLC e 481 it)th Avenue \I • N,1p t ,, 1714wida 14120 f:n7aif: in1�a��5i n,rt�err >tra4�r «�r>.��an� IAN ORUKOFF /5A ( vrtifir-gl,1rhtui,t u I I 10 lloracl,) C ortific (l f It)rfic idtoto Prralt�s,io ,iI I.,I/of) io i 2. Specifications must be written to avoid and monitor any tree damage during construction. Example* sheet 11 of 15, bottom row, first tree on the right, (shows x8.73 on tree image). Tree has poor wound closure and is leaning towards road. Arborist note: Any impact to the root zone of this tree is extremely detrimental (see picture attached of tree). As an ISA Certified Arborist I discover on a daily basis that trees are not able to develop into productive mature trees due to design in- considerations. Often, it is the upfront costs of an engineering design and cost to build that push the trees into unsustainable growing conditions /environments. As a result, future maintenance costs increase associated with tree development, vigor, health, structure, tree value and loss of function. Ultimately, trees do not become productive trees in the urban landscape as intended if not properly planned for in the design phase of any project. Regards, Ian Orlikoff 5 Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 2012 I U N l9 E C � O N N N C (n N � a (4 C � O O) O' N m -O U O f6 — O (6 m C C O O V1 O >a o6 tq T v 3 Z m co ma m o m n c a� (U � CC) = Q rn < 10 IL 161 2 {A24 a April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (fro li, r cei d -4/10) ii Page 9 of 10 1 I t �lL}'7�Ny R )t 3 syt $ a April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 f 2 A24 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 10 of 10 Cutting roots - Maintenance - Landscape plants - Edward F. Gilman - UF/1FAS Page 1 of 1 Cutting roots See: removing.stem girdling roots See: rooi_prunging guidelines Cutting roots for any reason under existing trees can severely damage the tree (see right photo). Many roots are located just below the surface of the soil. Adjust the location of the utility lines, driveways, buildings, and planting holes to avoid cutting roots under the canopy. Even cutting small (less than one- half inch) roots under or outside the edge of the canopy for long stretches can cut off water supply to the tree. This can cause the tree to decline or die during the next several years. The rare spruce pine tree shown at right was cut on two sides of the trunk about ten feet from the trunk. Older trees treated like this can decline and die over a 10 to 15 year period. Make root pruning cuts only with sharp pruning tools, not tractors and trenching devices. Cutting roots dose to the trunk as shown below right can cause tree failure a decade or more later. The roots of this tree were cut to construct a driveway about 15 years ago. Driving vehicles under the canopy compacts soil. Even lawn mowers can compact soil. Severely compacted soil can cause severe tree health issues. Vehices also damage and break surface roots as they turn on the soil. If mature tree health is important to you, do not allow ANY vehicles to operate underneath trees. If there appears to be no option, then consider the preventive solutions listed below. Preventive solutions . Hire a consulting arborist. • Construct a fence at the edge of the tree canopy to prevent ALL vehicles from operating there, establish fines for violations. • A 12 -inch thick layer of coarse bark mulch can be spread under the canopy and mulch can be covered with steel plates. Vehicles drive on the plates. This system has been successfully used on many sites to preserve mature trees. Do not use the area under the canopy as a parking zone or materials storage area. • Restrict ALL vehicles to fenced -off transportation corridors and materials storage areas. Tunnel under the roots using a trenchless technology device which installs utilities without cutting a trench. Copyright 201 t i University. _Qf Fbrida _I $te Feedback_) last Modified December 12. 2011 http: //hort. ifas .ufl.edu /woody /disturbing.shtmi 4/10/2012 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Additional correspondence re: pathways (3 of 4) Page 1 of 1 � � � � A24 ResnickLisa Subject: FW: Letter from Rick Galli From: Keith Dallas Imailto :keithjdallasC&gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:07 AM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Fwd: Letter from Rick Galli Lisa, Have this as a handout for today's meeting. Thanks. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Neil Dorrill <Neil(D.dmgfl.com> Subject: RE: Letter from Rick Galli Date: April 11, 2012 10:13:56 AM EDT To: James Hoppensteadt <iimh(a)pelicanbay.org> Cc: Keith Dallas <keithidallas(a)grn ail. corn > Jim: Thanks and I agree. This issue is scheduled to be discussed at the meeting later today. Neil - - - -- Original Message---- - From: James Hoppensteadt [mailtoJimh(_&pelicanbU..org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:17 PM To: keithidallas(2gmail.com; Jerry Moffatt; Mary Johnson; Noreen Murray; Robert W. Uek; robpender a,gmail.com; Ronnie Bellone (vbellnplsAyahoo.com); Suzanne Minadeo; William Carpenter Cc: Suzanne Minadeo; LukaszKyle; Neil Dorrill Subject: Letter from Rick Galli Attached is a letter from Rick Galli. Apparently, Mr. Galli independently hired an arborist, but I'm not sure the arborist's report supports Mr. Galli's conclusions; as any pathway work will require root pruning. The reality is that not enough room was planned for mature trees planted between the road and the pathway. Sincerely, Jim Jim Hoppensteadt President Chief Operating Officer Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. 6251 Pelican Bay Blvd. Naples, Florida 34108 Tel: 239.260.8460 Cell: 239.398.7074 Fax: 239.597.6927 pelicanbay.org "A Guaranteed Quality Customer Experience" * * * * * The information transmitted is intended only for person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and /or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. * * * ** April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional Correspondence (4 of 4) Page 1 of 1 1612 h ResnickLisa Subject: FW: Trees along pathways. From: Keith Dallas jmailto :keithjdallasCalgmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:09 AM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle Subject: Fwd: Trees along pathways. Lisa, Please distribute this also. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: LukaszKyle <KyleLukasz(o)collierciov.net> Subject: RE: Trees along pathways. Date: April 11, 2012 8:13:30 AM EDT To: Keith Dallas <keithidallasaa.gmail.com> Cc: Neil Dorrill <Neil(a)dmd.com> You were correct on the number of palms. Also, I did meet with the arborist with the County Extension to look at the trees and what potential impacts could be expected from the pathway widening. They did think there would be some impacts from some partial die -back to possible loose of a tree. Depending on the root structure and the roots required to be cut it could also cause a tree to become unstable. As indicated in the recent report from Signature Tree that Mr. Galli obtained the representatives from the Extension Service also thought that removal and replacement with some alternative trees would be advisable. If the root damage that is presently being experienced is going to be addressed using a root barrier, then some of these tree impacts could be expected even with the paths at 5 and 6' in width. Maybe a planned removal and replacement program designed to accommodate a pathway of a certain width is advisable. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keith Dallas Imailto:keithjdallas2amail.coml Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 3:51 PM To: LukaszKyle Subject: Trees along pathways. Kyle, I recounted the number of trees to be removed because of the 8 feet pathway on your new diagram. I get 12, not 11. The difference is I still see 3 sable palms to be removed north of Commons Driveway, not the 2 you state. Agree? Keith g s o � H g z p i z .'16 -12, 'A24 � O r It �° [�ZI z y �myA �K 'a eoc°x 0 P � ° "t�WO�am � vA�X W ° a O � y p O g�z r7l C C Mo a � tr1 cb °Oa "pp"�O h b b b tb" t7l aryrt�* Naia� �rtgC�S nS mNa uySzd Oyu _�F <n 111mmnnn Z CO yypppp "� C/� to gm W CA CA CA fA VJ V! wrm :v ortf wf I I I I 1 I tCtf R+ V, 1 I I y0 y r ti G� G1 G] � C7 G7 C1 G1 47 47 O aaaaaaaaaaa�, t� I I I 1 I I I j C G d Cl 1 C^`r'iJ C G a c a G a G a G a a a a a o o X x a b o b b b b b b b b b � v � v p ODD � V A W N .�•- z m 9 p r m m m H m .'16 -12, 'A24 veer, E k " 24 m A ro � 0 m � O o O 3 owr sZ ry co N N I.i ro A Q D � ly m m N a � CD x 'G9 o p w 0 yg� h �4 ) 3 ) i � O r It �° [�ZI z �33"y� ���� �myA �K 'a eoc°x 0 P � ° "t�WO�am a vA�X W ° cyz NoDO9 O � y p Op jJ g�z r7l C C Mo a � tr1 veer, E k " 24 m A ro � 0 m � O o O 3 owr sZ ry co N N I.i ro A Q D � ly m m N a � CD x 'G9 o p w 0 yg� h �4 ) 3 ) i ob � O r It �° s n 0 c D O r o v O y u rD�K a�n�S W ° O � y p Op jJ r7l cb °Oa "pp"�O h b b b tb" t7l aryrt�* Naia� �rtgC�S nS mNa uySzd Oyu _�F <n 111mmnnn Z CO yypppp "� C/� to gm W CA CA CA fA VJ V! wrm :v ortf wf H wDK w R+ V, y0 y r ti G� G1 G] � C7 G7 C1 G1 47 47 O aaaaaaaaaaa�, t� ob W r It �° dd zz O r o v V o r) .. u A W ° O 20 y C„6 J MN "pp"�O h b b b tb" tab" tb" o AN d�• fW[ y t� p�a lQe� CO yypppp "� C/� to Cq W CA CA CA fA b O b r� ITI O z° O l 1 O O�)Iggog� o � C� n CD p o w CD Uj 0 � r 0 � < �. r v� tz�v O�O�] �z�~d ���� >u A W N O V u A W N O 20 y b tb" h b b b tb" tab" tb" ra ra y t� � "� C/� to Cq W CA CA CA fA VJ V! Ln H R+ G� G1 G] � C7 G7 C1 G1 47 47 aaaaaaaaaaa�, t� C G d Cl G C G a c a G a G a G a a a a a a a b b b b b b b b b b b � v � v p ODD � V A W N .�•- w 161 2 A24 16 12 A24 to I SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET ... f ,} .....................���.s.rs .y.... .�......... o I I I -Z 5og M z z +; ti I . I T3 9 A G) I �° mb F'B i z D T I Q uz mm I} m } 4 a mx 090 T+ i N ss mm z / mm 0 � � ca r �3 o O p D 0 �+1`omX G �I ,,' --y- '-- m y o 9 L I I NU, , p ti G1 w !' -i IN z I P I I ° z i2m w o� I ,- oD�= i I .,.L I 0mm © m o v . 0 II Ii O m pm0 I (y O 96.G 1 I r -1 If - mb (SNOWWOO) y m m 9m l i 3ARJa 31HAIJd I� yNX L)Q I N I IJDz Z. , +P f GI CINN tnAO� Q m I m3AZ0 l + f ` I wDDA X0pv> Z�� I 7491 x''7 J) Izz OtOmn 45 p0 nm0 �-mm m OArn A 5'o'I Ar a $�mw C� /1 � Dom zow— Z paa Z �� 11 Z DJGm O Q Z +Z ��.8 Oymarp I l r1 Dmpp M_y- Dz m P J A� a vz, �A I i mmD� 03 y0 y ymz -aA I O zc3n� amp L� 40L yti T�_ wry ONCn3 .v om< a in z n DA 3m� N ly O aDA l f ADO Dy AS2 (n -+` i° egg I nm m0 z0 I I 1 I l►\ o °' =o s I A m J V K l $z > __� �z M I I Paz; �p< I LI� ZA" ®® nib/ m 9A I m N 3 C z a p N G) Q 3 (7.., 00 B z O A m O 1 z m Z I I y \ti -..✓ I l ; trml ,t`+ m c3 m *� a 8 N 9. z 4. I I 2X m ODA _� �y � N m .0 z8 T° ° ° I m Bak D P- D d! O ti ra p v C ' _ l m J e� 6L f p v mmo I i� °f 1 �� y zep � � I mm z41 AO MrOo. A D 30 m C �AZR0 m V p V I II I y iQ CIO z-pi O O C r m N9 N P yL l _: IIt n 5 z I o 1 Z I >-8 oZ ° z l z u y 48� I o I y I I C2 J/7UeJ0 .......... . ..................... SEE SHEET 4 �- .� ... SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET om 9 REVISION: C� 5o a m A M pp0]ECT NAME: YY .R -29 -11 ADJUST PATH ALIGNYF.NT &HEST ROII LINE, �b < h CLIENT NAME: F l g ip r 13 - A3ATlFIDTtl AI:NMN 4 PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY TO B WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO -12 ADJUST PATH IRDTH & MENT �, x; ; u ......:.. ,9.3 -30 ALIGN C O H S e c PELICAN BAY g �� a < K NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 a w " SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 9 s GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (1) f, 16 12 A?'4 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 3 I i ye i I� I I +' 10+ 1 ��r► I I I t mT °A t I AZO TDAffO I I I I D i I O �'o N " I II >go I I Z �1 IEgV � i� I J. 1Wy Owl T X I 9� 6g obB j`} mV o 96'1 �Ng99 III < p O i o w / s 66'L lt0 e � ,zm I OW n C Z 2 yym -I N X + +� +s s ss`r9 +R cQe T O Z Y Q,� _ I ^ mao F p N DZ Tz° uy^ Tzm p� I ? A p A I O m II 5 I 1. ,m z b mY D I CL'L W9 � I Q 0 I 64 Iv z LL L I n � ! t6 '[ �k .L I > I , o -c s ° (vion-i -is) I I 1 °° °� 3AR1a 3.LVAlSd .: r C o o nJ y ' o ►I mm vv n I I LL'L .( m i tmn m A o n< Oym kbW mZ A A7JaQ�rn- Z Tbm � II Tmi I I )1 %2 mDr Dm -rr 23W y 3z>m <f/1 m Bin Z I 2 n —mv, �n��v [Dtl rmo moz,+� r $W m< I ^IOOp Z`ogl.=i� 2 O zmmm A� 59Br lt.8x o N MO y 0 A m 3y o y D m Q W 60.8 I D m O O X D o 4J mmn1 O3 �A1 fl90 9 a x fl8 Tmz O `2 P Z Z m 3 n D w i n3DC O3maTi 7'6 x 3i ' I omvN v Q >o C' O p y D ? 3 1� ti�� o n N I yZ rWrr ��2 N�r &I,�.� �Zy I o OL'L #�g ❑ r y0'6 • jZO� . p N s�rp� D I 'mss T ' N Si Si S< o C `' II I i y °o : i I I of I z z z ° T ° I I o I ' I� f I I ELI 0 0 0 m N y + ^ T Z I I I z63m ° ° A A -� LxW I, wm o° o g p o A* Z F A Lt'H,.. I I I Sz I ,, y y� I I I w Gp.. P I 1 IN P I II I m 9 I SL L;K: ! m m n I 'PUflN% I I +lUNd I I I ----- ---­------------- ° r�r-- - - - - -- ...... ����������������� .V ��--- ° SEE SHEET 5 SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET T ° '� n G REVISION: A118-29-11 ADJUST PATH AIJENMENT k REST ROW LINE, Y 5° = m �N m w S A m m PROJECT NAME: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY CLIENT NAPE: yy F 6 e S 8 R, a °I! g =- �� G^ k ••••••••• X ^:::::�•:: R: r ••: •:••• • !� A00 BIOBARRIER , +,10 -8 -11 HEMOVE 2) THBES O rn o m O �j m l� m m .� o WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO PE LICAN BAY Q G a -�•i _2 -13 -12 ADNST PATH FIBTtl & ALIGNMENT 4,3 -30 -12 ADJUST PATH WIDTH 1 NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION C2 - TITIR DRAWING : o w 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES FL 34108 Ch GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (2) s a lb 12 124 SEE SHEET 4 �- --------- - - S- - -TOP VIEW THIS SHEET ---------- - - - - -- - - -�. - 1 ------------- - - -r. F G - - - - .. - •-- - - - - -- Sb 3 0 W I I I J}J mz }I v Nz�n AOp3� m I . 2 mtirA �mAm� m I f _N �y I I Z�tDnX z3.m� vn��6 =_� �mp yOm�m r � Z moOA z °_NOD Z I I I I N;mm A3e N m Ig1.L `�L 9s rA`2 nA o�DO �33CniD 19 LI I'; I D { p�U C 1 �ot41/J 4J I I I s I a m I I I Bb9 t p + ) r G I �L4 k N o c'c I + i > D m m x O IC fD 001r. 1 5� A I4o m� I I I I \�moz _ � � •> > � � � I __ I � � � � mom' S --lp l yzat 1 O O EE uJ Nz A I s rn np F3 ^a,p y a� mcA3l 'o. E zo �, m z v,E,mo I to n - o =.z z w zEw< 4�az � � m l � L. ism A v II rn O z NO CJi Z r 8A$m G1 ag�l I I f� I + °v I� I anl8 I1 3 V 4 Nom£ SVIOHOIN dl I 1 DmX % z Lo d I I mAy I I o I(AJJ z Z 1 W0 I �� 1 � o � ti 1 Y.Z y-I I W.2 Do COI�t I 11 LD my I I "0 mP nZZ m i zo Aml �.� .m yom I Z z;G) 4 m m � Oq'v oo GS'gx F° S + m� I I male 0 �a'O 6-1 M, a mm le3q v X1 �� o o I }I I L I A y I I 1 y D O I �bE Ci'0 I L Z CZ) I I I DO 1 mm I I S mp3 I I m y0 0 I 11 I ?a Ei ��aS 1 i SUS I W W9 y I 9 I I N 3, so 1DN m - l x� asp IN k 4 S''' • S .a I �a i �' �I V �.�/ W B 1 11 1 z 1 1 I 11 i A 11 S 1Ne I Nc 11 1 1"i {845 x oPG _y uA H:lHNdO ......... Y, -.�.@"-' - ---- 5! - - - -- o -- --- --- --- ----'-- - - - -- -------- (�------------ - - - - -- o SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 6 tl �5 m S m REVISIan: A PRJECT NAME CUE" NAME: Rg 7 u S ' F.E -ZB -11 ADJUST PATH ALICNMRNT d: IPEST ROW LINE, PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY ADD BIDHARRIER �" ; z m PELICAN BAY �, o �, - ,4,2 -1N -12 ADJUST PATH NIDTtl & AIJGNMENT WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO i3 -90 -12 ADJUST PATH RIDTtl & ALIGNMENT TO 4 o NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION E. Ft ►� ^w $ ` ; ; m DINNING TITLE: 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 € e a , 4' SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (3) g 161 2 A24 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 5 ....... ..�......---------- -- ----- iii S ?' `e,. IN e LL i p0 O`er pmph Z ) I r 'mod mDDA �9�� I D m a �vlm <In `QSO�mp woz� P I t O 98I 0e i uv } S� m m mmo 0Dr A J " >Z N D0 , O6 �T o pC_D, z I I Z p0 �_ y oNCn3 Iw I I I O�NC -1�nN N I )roN m —__ OQma0 OTto I I %Z m z l e m j' A 2 I m g+ ? 04 mot 3 0.0. v �y�/ ILti k >B,6g.�m ZiOD I I I I I S 0 S O ` + F Tt }m� s > I �y yb t I m m p A \ 1 mAZO "a m0 T I Oa II o�po 0. _ mm�O FSB� I I T'f0 p I �asm I I A i II �y 30 m�m 1 � ',�p� � rii I mbs V j I� pz8 0- y0 ( III i I ^ m o .t.. S7 ✓ a �o I I� y I I � srs. ± e i i m i 1 I S ivy` a i I S W+ I bib 1 I ICJ i z m p m � 1 1 r; I m °o II i,�ty 1 m A z 0 +�JgC}tp — _.. I I r mz i O ❑ ❑ 0 ❑' r N a I III I/\ 90+ I mA o n p r J, A N Gmj •n �`'� `°' w °. t!. w 'fir I \ 5 DDmS� n o C' S O m / V 1 Z "�_� O m O y Z Qe M1I' o M n n i A y A xvn 1 oz oNO s Z �: c � , g'e1 I I s g0 � 0� li d0 O m Q gZ" i 1 ' Ent 4A6 I I D a I I tie amz I J ooD� t i mAm L +f� + l0Aa1 1 I II 44$ �6+ 4a6 + *�m ��rn t 90zw 0. . I I o R'��.Q 1 j 3 3o 3ARla 0 I A +� mb� � �em 6Z �� I �m m m 6i I m °J•8 � t << eat F 6 I or. I r� s� b �< x e I Irsc °Fm 1 1 �Nn IN "Uzi Km I Jb, jl�/ •, •, i "OA2Q r � I I . 44 I Z gg 2 C A mG1y Z�pr X m MN yz$ I uraoa I f I mmzo mm I 1 �O a �' < og �m� g� Z" W i69+ _ 1 ? 0mD �AD I\ n < �m NINAT A $$? Iy zzt�nD T < 6A 1 ly8l ~0 1 ND1< .0 I )) I {I Z S 1 O It ig i p e.. I I I mom \ m�3 y = 4i I m Q 9 I I _ I 1 Ayy�o(yyl S y 11, gbg+ N U I I I I ze., ............. _.. ...... .�... SEESHEET 7 ...L�........._ ....1 ..................'. y,. SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET ' 8 6 " a• ":� :: ': m RBVISION: C C C m ROJECT NAYfi: CLIENT NAPE: ° - n �••...o• YY .e -2B -11 ADJUST PATH ALICNNF.NT k HEST ROrt LINE, �p R: 7 9 .••• " "' �„ r O "D B10BARRIER _ '1�' - < m PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY a� sae •�••••• o o +I ,9,2-JS-12 ADJUST PATH. ZDTH. k ALGNYENT K C WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO PELICAN BAY lx I! w Y• � O � 5 -30 -12 AONST PATH rtIDTH k ALIGNMENT TO 0 O ��gyy A m p -71 by ': i � � E!1 ? ? NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION = �� �� o � r H CD p DRARING TITLE: p n R c v °° 0 " > m m 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 " o, SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 a O� GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (4) 8 161 2' A2A !!E12! VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 6 I I } I I �� • %� 1 i I I I � m $. Dim S I 7 bL TO O m a I o p G I I b I ,T0 z In> S �yj y ��DTTT Y Z 0 -i> Z03A 1 n y B C m 3 bU& .11 fj 0 + amO 4 } mcmu A i ,qN. ab 1 j m m $ 1 I i 75 Apy OtnA r m I ' o� -� 1 :} D 0 =1 R, W 1�*J� J II Y + £ I AHEAD AHEAD I m f m a -Z A y 9 m Oy O ✓ iu "421 m a v=�o T�A I pp -DOA I / o p 3 �yicm< I y_CI zGZir7i V r✓ O Z yp I I Dw% } znA y �Y I.� m vTmo m I (33V-ld .* )l21VdN3lVM) 3A1210 31VAibd Nz'm �T 1'Y�' m0 i0 II \bY ;boa A Ay m0 p�-p; wi5))a ds_yy I ! ti P N I A V m A n T ' :'i.s y S�trn d l m syal L70 as � o' O 0 O03Z D 0y J u � / \n I RRR 3 `O 4' J Dm Am pl 8' 5 0 I 'm r o ,3 o� � O � • I I D -i -lz > O A m j} � m '0 .y- q I �mm r D 0 mS m m Z C I y5 �r f � s qY� 9 9 Z m A p 0 I I r�Om y �� ONC0 M. Z a zmo mo K S m, D- I A JS OAOy O0 >Z I m m (( <$ I � II I XbW rr i Y.2 DyA Syel � I II � j� gz8 p0 05 vi i i i $y I I I ro a A > m G W I W i x 0. I ~NT I r I I�u e I � d mm 61AD -DIN X 2 1) y �D� V L7 0000� p ^cam m0 y$ z$ o= Z W A 6. --z ti I I I S' >A I 2 p p < Z pyp i npp 9y 19 A y Bs I 7 I rP N I i I D ' 1ygy6 --------- - - - - -' a- m: - .,R .......... i 7II NCO o ------ {--------------------- 'i- r - - - -- SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 8 a v, 9 pJ > y C REVISION: ('.B -2B -It ADJUST PATH AIACNNENT & 11ESf ROW WNE, a AO �p �1 m y PROJECT NAME: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY P AN T Y CWENT NAEiE: !Q a� 6� �ro _ i - n HE.,..H ee.�y ADD RIDRARRIEa - - - -- - ADJUST PATH WIDTH & ALIGNMENT N .. �y m o WESTSIDE COMMONS TO PELICAN BAY ° -� g - € ° �" a -30 -12 AD— PATH WIDTH & AI -"ITT TO B -4 .q - NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION x ¢ [��; E o y s ,_, c W m 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 x 0 6 a a 3 DRAW NG T TLE: SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 v� J GRADING &DRAINAGE PLAN (5) o a 161 2" 7124 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 7 -- - --- -- -- -r7 -- - -- - - -- --- ---- -- - -ti=- _yW -- -- ------ - - - - -- 1e m mGD (S381 NV .a dVa) I I 3ARJ4 31VARId }�� I I I I 1 tiol,{� a9 1O YI m I *m 1 z r o I I �I i m _ 8.52 z. 1 ._ 0 41 m I Ij Pw,` f o I Q nl I asz m o 0 m $ v tom o 1 A I bq • I II .10 A m 1NW��rAN I I o I2ny �pz ❑ D o o m N q� - � mi I ' o I I ZAT # ,m zN S" zo9b I 6L'9 mo opo �� I Z. qo Q A �� oyo �f y :Z2 I I i- -ouzo 9�' 0 I �n gv I I TDA A a ~ O Hl6i , y 1 W�vN por 60' 6 y� 1 tDiI Z D DV H U 2 j Y} m VI}Iii o w vF N�z�� �o�w� z z <m o o� O v� N�mOR vie �N m y y z 0 O ti D p N S W I W s IQ > mmrl ZC D� In I I I �zy'pym D O-1 Z m Xo-C1 I I I 3 00.0" I �g e£b� t6 o o Z6'k 9Z'6 I U I _ 1 I x jII t�EJt I 1 qti �x I 7II yV }4 �JJ 41 £9Hx 0£6 )) { I }Z mAZO m D 0 0 I }I : 5 S II I I DDpI 5Y6 Z Z T E� <I �n< 1 p n m V El � Am - xo 6 H IjW 600 Co 4 )))S I Z y w Zom myy 60 I I I I I I 3! v b I � I N I I I I %z I I I HZ'6�YZ'6 to I I 8Z'6 I w• � �B) 1 I 4 LI t0ou q �e L1 0 I Io .q pS6� y I I I al .1 +y r Y\ I I a I � £z•o� � �- Vr j pf �. I 7 0� O I �d• I I `Y, ' 5 I� I i i I I k I l I i - IV I P I I j IN, cl x w I rn e o I m 1,x`71 O a `O I m o r I I o ❑ (A`/T 2 �T }qUU r- D u [ o 1 -------------- a -- --_ -- - - ` .O t mi 0 p N 3HN 4 AI' �te J 0 6 q 7t4 tlJ o v k y o- ....___gs, d' - o SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET r � II SEE SHEET 9 H a„ m 9 j REVISION: H �� - m < N PROJECT NAME: CLIENT NAME: r Ra iii_iiiiii x ......� Uw Nw �E -ZB -11 ADJUST PATH ALIGNMENT A, WEST ROIL LINE, ADD RIORARRIE.R _ ,42 -13 -12 ADJUST PATR 1110Ttl A: ALIGNMENT G '•I �p w N ' GI x PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY PELICAN BAY °. R: 5 ` ° ° = O N Fes'„ 0 C m .` C WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO r C77o �T ] -30 -12 ADJVST PATH 1110Ttl &ALIGNMENT Toe aP O NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION z - DRAIIING TITIE: F+� ON K m Z• m n y m 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 e - SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 g li GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (6) $ a 161 'A24 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET r yI 1 w 6 ' r ......f£.A1 ----------------- 1 I 1 I n I II jl m I I 11 4 A I I I t � I ,�fia't I I I r Ij oti �a , y 0 u I I S6'L I I I I � z \ Cm Zkm Zp'6 ! v.Ii.�4 9 T Nzcm AcmNI xC9'9 r vTmO<I n wm r O1myI I I �I x ('0A-18 N31aVN3N!D) I > 3nlaa 31dnlad 0 m o d �I- Nm I ti n rV (-13`dHd'VN ' Ls) .1 A s° y No 3nRla 31t/nRld 21m11 r�r m I 4• X49'6 'o y Zt'6 O A m � i 3� i W a 'b ��_ ✓• mo • yy�� z D`<m3 6 x I mom K�m� pram I a,* - .x8.77 ao a I b I x - Iy� .A� Hl1YM m m ', I +I i' �' -i , a& _ #89'9 nP I �D �. I _ A X y x J ww iJJ c �m- OIR F. 1->1 3mm {m m 49'M yz nul I > nH3 11 � 1 v 0 ) 9� D PO O�iZm�m D m00 A4) I \ m61m P w mooA zOwND a0's j� L't)5 ^.:. I < O m Q o I 1 zQ mm z 9� ENO D m y��ZE DD m OO b I I mp, u 9S'L } 9• �m m () lxyjo N I 3y I iW zm p � 'zo) mt v '�... I (a JI fx3DC �w3 MT "w I I Tb� I " i �milcm IAIW '1 �?s,J 0 • O D O G' O T ( ° m I I m -=1 I p O m j. CN w >0.2 m N � I I D y I I a I U b 1� D N y r Ar {j9 69L 4 0� O Zv I m I 1( v y ! Q� o / I . z (er'ox } a ' 0 �s I I iI n is A I Ii; uzj �, I I I zo IM) .o a 4 m3om n mn}Zm m'zo I 1�mv m I I Ho. 9Z'R �y I i 4-0 yti , h i1t 1 ti m�<yDFF o � m n IT' N I I zoINy i laAmDi m N X Wc o mm 0 ° z m _j TO O i N D oyDr m A . z ' I I I I y z o oy� 2vyO °f v yr,A m mm N Z C) T° Z 1 I Z S A R A y I 1 m II III ; mo °Fig �+ 1< lb �n I I I i S t m S �� = N m ) I I S m m I XtlW 1 3 `2 D i � 4 I Imo. 1 l 1 a ^r #a 7,- m_8F.om O L I r io. III i o 0 ..........:. I.... ----- 1�-m.....• ryi............ -..r -------------- SEE SHEET 10 SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET s " 9" Y 9 REVISION: Y a� ydy PROJECT NAME: --T YAME: ••••'•'•• m i�A -29 -11 ADJUST PATH - NMP.NT k WW ROW IJNE, y V In C R ] r„ m R,6RARR,ER W N i PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY $ "" S o -JO -J2 A9JUSf PATH RIOTtl Sc AIJONMEMT m 6 �E •••••• N i s -90 -12 ADJUST PATH A 9Ttl k A JGNY6NT TO 6 e WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO PELICAN BAY I x a a7 `� ° NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION Crl o F�oHO °""" "° 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 e a M Lo SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 _ N 4' GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (7) 1612 JA24 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET ...I . 7,—% ', ; -� _ - -- SEE SHEET 9 --- .. .,I 1 ' I I4 0 Lo I I I I I pp7x I i yI s mc�o I i I I NvNA 1 'ms 42^ 0+44 OZ 00 �I I I ' I 1 _ L \\ N N f 1m (nn x llm�z ) T Az Z O I 6-1 4i >I Il+ 11'S9`r `m D Oq AO I o ppl I I LU r X9 �mDm0 m mm0 p� V I I A ,Z) A> DymC DOO 20 Al 1J S mym � Ar mAZO 1 �' OmrCyU NZ >$ i0yD�0 ( m AN + Oti a0 OA TEA Z03 COm Tim <0 I � If m I N N 0 t'n vOo 0 AyC ( - 4H V U •13 ) 'p5m 3ARI0 31VAINd z y mm >m I �l ° z��'^�° -' 5r(' p m A D I I I 4 Z m y ar A Il 5 p 1 8Z9 SiL/ Nm r A m z o rA y 20 0 OW / _ _._.._....___. w nDmr Sm� I I Lf.B .`y OO �S TD DA/ 0 Cl �l I /'y! 1 AO« \ �e47 m�k N�- I .R�/I IOie'ix %m o mm,~xN y<,' I S �aI kRI �� °yymJooym' 0 fn s6t I � 85'e 4 o <x�ml Yi 9g f Y ',�r �yyy�yl Z>. Csi 4Z; I 1 lYl 9 4 I j I.RyBm V£p �� Am0! 1 a m?�m I 10 Sb R ,JD48 t J/I fn1 -'I<IJ 1 y 9 > UDZD` m I I I �<Cm �O 1 x�pa r xvo0 I 3iD o 0 1{ Om-v 3 i<pm I Om moo. _]l� O3pNN TINTI (]� $P° m �m =mCT Sr N 6 ml.]m D O= Ormp OAX O ,11A�' �mn 1 YI yy myDp pOOiD m m0'. mz OppTri ( %m m v3DZm( �m c y Im AEo y I I i4 mm3 m Z 05; 2� mO l a k mOOp zo O NOD Z m D m mX zo 1anoA moo °a 'M T I? �mp a0 y p ZR�t Bet mom=' IS m m D O >- Q ��D� ���m, gym! mm mmzy�OyN �xF1 ym p Rb'B ZZO� Y �� 0 iYaMl It �p -Dr1Z mOW� mm, mDO ' m z N7r �o <"� m .mo, I r 1 (OaVN0N00 V-1-11A) 0 mA�o ill O ^ N Z I I N y p I 3AI2la 31VAINd D S m p z 0 I I 9 , �5 ,� `�/ J Z x` opQ m g y v IP. pZy Zc Om I 125z1l y N O \ �4 I y mm<O I �f IS1 i m i y Sr Nz x Z a ^'8.47 °a� I i iI n S m 8 oA W - -- Dm m m 9t'R °mi° i i $ r° $�o bRC ip �pn I II �5� II ijl I 0 5 Tq yip mm L ° yg8 ��vv ZD3 ONw� Nm R£ N k m yi 8. I tlll� Is m o 9 a O w m Z TA20 n -�v m- p I mmm 1l11II I zZON H O XZ� o p 0 ,L4 1 mCrO z Ohm \ O Nr \ A P �Dme,rvm m2 Z Z Dm I I U JI ! t J T 1�!i KA �N }1I I} + I I YIJI \� .0 mFD I I �• mArO I z xmy yv l I I�. -aiog I I Awz t E-J Z y I N 0FZO �yo -pO r o ;A OT mR ) - ,-0l by m O i t i I .0 0m 5ov 3 80 6- mZOm>C v l Sao wm� mm> msy >21 1� mP� _o y'I pm0 (J�Ir Il j I yOO ]J ZyAO I I I 2y 3Dm1 Z.1mI CalRT M. ,<ODy Ij 9by zo�'9��n /Am I� I m 59x2p2 <I II _r Z °mAy� jmvm. 6L' ¢ \..` ,.b . mIfi U1� £o "R Cl >OA I I OCyNnv ps%{ BII n °?m .Y,ew Lo'sTf -.,�/ £o'a oz °O I \'' Aezi��z$ '��aN: xX m1T m I I u SLCL " RI p II x O m ' z - O 51 Z M O SZV'Z O i •Sm zm z O / I Lo 'B 0 I? 'oY Lys I >4', r m 2'. m E p m o o (V113EIUVW 1V 3A00 31-11) I Imo mmx mx° o mI 3AWO 31.VAINd mm o why m y SvI I zfv0 9mmI I �' % clF,. I,Yc, 1 $nRo I I I a 4 Q �¢DVmi n > O I Mm�m I II P O y 3 N Y, p N pmDA I I III Ion D IV f p W �KypC J � I ��x��, 9b'[ 1,[� ....5w� ................. �Tl ` NaR'A SEE SHEET 11 SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET a6 REVISION: 'j p � ADD BIOHARRIERST PATN ALIGNMENT k REST R011 LINE, � � � S � � � PROIEET NAME: CLIENT NAME: O y 5 �, Q ,,.., m (l,2 -13 -11 ADJUST PATH MIOTfI w� „��„� - AN , m PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY 8 ; 9eeeee9 Q_3 -30 -12 ADJUST PATN RIOTtl k ALIGNMENT TO B O ,S o WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO PELICAN BAY° a s x s ° ° ” �y C� y K g ; — — NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION _ s� I � W� %� o a m m DRARING T]TLE: ~O ° - SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 S ° NAPLES, FL 34108 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (8) R s g o j VIEW THIS SHEET '--r-r-.-----_-_rSEE�TOP I ' l o19-12 I I I .(X7 Ili I I} I C) y m ° 'm O p I o m,Zo O j A 0 mcO m I 131 I I D m m y z lyi mom '� + } �jSl�'17 mDOA 9 -9D -]z AwosT PAIR mores k K 1 ZDON mor < n ° DSO I I c.zp I`I ZIDpr pppm c. N � I I ID-I (nX mv�0 I I I I I• =_STN z i<I -rl C) z � 1 ~� p I i A I I I I I I w �i mPZO 03 Am I mc�m gAO I I m s= o r a t� BG'Bx d66, Z I NTD I III W � DSA I I J O Z 9 I N I 0 Ltt4 y m �ZW� i I; NOCm m0°1 �-NI ° J� 9 v 3- 0 to � �2 A3 SCg � 79 I PN'mm p 3ARla 3.LVAlad aE� I r'v 11 O y � m 20 w cJ A I S ¢e w _ mx I'A# x y�yznm� IyZOm xn OA iO ' <i aT mp I9Z'81f I 9A4TN `' Acpm ; =% CSrtI � 0 11 � mN/ B� 11 6 e B i #II I I BI 5 1 3 I 1 I I I r l I 1 II �I XvW m O I I I 1 01 m1ZAO I I mjAO zzom I I z c o hu ��r n I mnm II Sp I gz8 I} 1 I� I I 1 1 I I I T I ' W I 1 I 4 I I I 0 1 m 1AZ 1 mDA 0 0 I I s5I .ro m z O N A AOm A p ay I yz o$ I z� II I I rT I 1 ...................... I��rrrrk i*Tr r`�r r SEE SHEET 12 NAO TT �' O r m 0M m?�z pmOC_vr Z`1 S3 I m N p< N Y mDN 3Dm o vz3�m o �ND N mm3O Zo Z m.<M O�OT r Q �>mm m3�3 yD M Dm 0 00 y3 aD Ap mtA (R p; 33CDlD w �D� 0,Z) 03NC 7ti7��N OINiIN 3] N D�OmD �OPz v o r t m z m ° m E M A A s7 C A A A w n Z m 0 z 9 v z (P -N oz ZO p 9 L Z M A m Q 's y� xm Fi A£ J K P w O n N j Y D z o m m II ° •yifl NCO 16 12 4A 2 4 SEE SHEET 10 m 4� '.r-rrrrr s9z� Ir�ll8cs j }� II j I c I I 1 I 'S III 1 1 I x I I I$ Ill I mmpp i, mKA °o ZZON l6 "L �nmOw 6L� .v Icy Il a� ��jlFl O�po I �PZ� K NC1�A ` I l I F LIp, Nm Om tl l mm m z o m �pN I I I m C r m I �j �DmO zo I III �I "10Npp I i Iyl T>A I r� I Ij zg-I m�0� 1 it jai N T TAO ' V' D m m y O p , W OWyy N m� il_� 92m (z�X _ pp 1 Omm 1 p`L N�IN zDF I <$�� mpm 'O I I SN m MM Op�z I vi II'�~ ZpA ( zprr���iiiY Nz K NmQA 1 1 I I.I�: < m� l'lf mxzo I I _ A G) m mOm y�yC- ���yyyF�Z <p 1 O�O mmom � m I� PZO N `7fT 03�m w9N 2C m I zz I j 7 Arm m N ( I } N N Z L1'61 I� Q 5A op I J v 1 mAZO 1 L 020 N jI N m?�o i dqq amw I 6 - o0w m I �y?� I T 5 m n �', >0, y j zog N P �A 1 0m O x m H f � Z 5..= mo.56 �Q =j kz�m i I l V p j_ mr p m N p I j 'ro ON 01 BO'B Cm NO I w~ m f % 3Alao 31`dA1ad OLIENT NAPE: ! $ ° � g a o19-12 YY REVISION: /�0 -2D -I1 ADJUST PATH A13GNYENT k HEST 1011 LINH, > M 5 �° `� 3 y < - O C) y m ° PROJECT NAYS: PELICAN BAY BOULEVAR WESTSIDE - COMMOT AOD RIDRARRIE ADJR UST -PATH FIDTR k AWGNNENT -., k AucNYHrer TD e O y r~•� C 9 -9D -]z AwosT PAIR mores k K •• K NORTH TRAM STAT � ►.J. +IyyJII I � •, • -� � � O � 3 m � i � p m ORA1lINC TITLE: w �i SITE, SIGN & STRIPING o GRADING & DRAINAG] to � OLIENT NAPE: ! $ ° � g R 5 .- n I-MS "' 3 PATHWAY PELICAN BAYY� �° COtl [S TO [ON SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 3 PLAN (9) I TN. Ii I I i wti 1 rte, I ara i lo'a:r I 9 I � r .w ry m1cm I �T aO I I m c R, 1 9T Am� 2�A �y0 I - 2 w� N�ST yy m 9m�y N I � I`Q .9 I Ix Oro IOAm �fc xp �� i p I �O xA viO A ff 8 I pZ%i�T N r y y y Z y 0 0 i. 9I'zx m(�20m (Ob3N31NOW) 3AMG 31VAF8d --------------- I ' I� 0 I I I I I .. :_ i f Q I I TN. Ii I I i wti 1 rte, I ara i lo'a:r I 9 I � r .w ry m1cm I �T aO I I m c R, 1 9T Am� 2�A �y0 I - 2 w� N�ST yy m 9m�y N I � I`Q .9 I Ix Oro IOAm �fc xp �� i p I �O xA viO A ff 8 I pZ%i�T N r y y y Z y 0 0 i. 9I'zx m(�20m (Ob3N31NOW) 3AMG 31VAF8d r ,U m GJm 2 y �b 0 Imo n T O m yANp1 m a m D pDp O�Zp Aop ^yzmp 161 2 A24 mV p'o mAzo Im�AO °y } so B.i g g o „a i a� ah I ' I I I{ 1LC .. :_ i S0I' XB.a7 c I � t { I mil i a' m N tail A p % N $99 Z LYIT I i 'o 30 {I 3 + ��1V11 9 I ?9oZ I 0 1Xtlw 5 1 O I i > i r ,U m GJm 2 y �b 0 Imo n T O m yANp1 m a m D pDp O�Zp Aop ^yzmp 161 2 A24 mV p'o mAzo Im�AO °y } so B.i g g o „a i a� ah I ' I I I{ 1LC .. :_ i I c I � t { I it mil i a' m N tail A p % N 41 � O - II I {I { K 9 A m P m Tltl� { y s 0 0 i y N CD � y / Iyzp I f9 I I I * I 1 k II I IBS? I I II �6.Js I 1 I f Nmp9 mAZyy- m DAO N � I I I I I I 1 YI Zpn tl "�- b ^ ` *v2: _ 1 t�5pppp W r�90tOiJ 1 DDy I I I, S p Z y p� � m� GO I �^/r`• I I I x5 ! 4� — I I I II I I I II I II 4 � I a og mm �Jp Z9 mO m or I I I I II II I 1 I I 1 1 r ,U m GJm 2 y �b 0 Imo n T O m yANp1 m a m D pDp O�Zp Aop ^yzmp 161 2 A24 mV p'o mAzo Im�AO °y } so B.i g g o „a i a� ah SEE SHEET 11 ....L........ ............ICI` .. :_ i ........... T7 I it { N d m N tail A p % N 41 � O - II I {I { K 9 A m P m Tltl� { y s m " 0 i y N CD � w / Iyzp I > >m' 2 v W I I m�m I � VGG) I 0 C!� N I 1 i I r ,U m GJm 2 y �b 0 Imo n T O m yANp1 m a m D pDp O�Zp Aop ^yzmp 161 2 A24 Dpx Ormp T-zi>A A1vCC Vr Z ND mI� D fm/IA�N RI y ]J O N Z m- m BOO A ZOI/~JOD 2 m ZOJmm A� N Oi O m D (nD >>e o . 0 0 O X o Z N O y O .. p m D ti Z 3 3 n w T D y O C m 9N� -0 3p20 iJ y mpDO <o n ,-iZ I I 111 I I I II .I II I I I I I I I I I i II I \ I I �I / I 1 I I 1 I I mV p'o mAzo Im�AO °y } so B.i g g o „a i a� ah SEE SHEET 11 ���� ....L........ ............ICI` .. :_ i ........... T7 I it { N d m N tail A p % N 41 � O - II I {I { K 9 A m P m Tltl� { pO I mAzO m DAp ( m " W mp I i y N II.IL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (10) / Iyzp I > >m' 2 v W I I m�m I � VGG) I 0 I I I I I 1 i I I I I I 1 YI I tl "�- b ^ ` *v2: I I ! 4� — I II I V b1 (, W 10 L1t mm �Jp Z9 mO m or ww Z 1 H A y tb 17i m�p LLI � 69'9i N�Ng I I I k I D1Ap I yp0 ZZi I I � I I I I I I I I I I ,.I II II I I I I I mw OR, Am I II '-m ry( I I xw, I � l I I u f v I CSY � I Dpx Ormp T-zi>A A1vCC Vr Z ND mI� D fm/IA�N RI y ]J O N Z m- m BOO A ZOI/~JOD 2 m ZOJmm A� N Oi O m D (nD >>e o . 0 0 O X o Z N O y O .. p m D ti Z 3 3 n w T D y O C m 9N� -0 3p20 iJ y mpDO <o n ,-iZ I I 111 I I I II .I II I I I I I I I I I i II I \ I I �I / I 1 I I 1 I I • P w O L mi m a ` mV p'o mAzo Im�AO °y } so B.i g g o „a i a� ah 2. C } ❑ ....L........ SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET ❑ ❑ H E �'rn m F? m m I I it I N d m N tail A p % N 41 � O - = R 3 0 x a K 9 A m P m y= I: y p p- O T 2 - Z pO oA� P041 30 �f m " y� w • P w O L mi m a ` ....... I I I I II ....L........ SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET ❑ ❑ H E �'rn m Ig Z PROJECT NAME: WAY PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATH I it I N d m N tail A p % N SERVICES DIVISION = R 3 0 x a K NORTH TRAM STATION y p p- O T 2 - Z OWING TITEE: oA� P041 30 �f m " y� w NAPLES, FL 34108 y N GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (10) / g o I m D 3p ( I GG� l NC • P w O L mi m a ` ....... ....L........ SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET Y AC m % m N _ PROJECT NAME: WAY PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATH CllENT NAME: PELICAN BAY •'° R' °y' N d WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO SERVICES DIVISION = R 3 0 x a K NORTH TRAM STATION 6 ca; °a OWING TITEE: 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 m " SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 g GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (10) g 09I x , 044 I 4 " � I 0 lOk sL•�i x ro ti m v V �gs'e I 49'8 I I I II I II I II i II I p90 I I I I II I I I I II I I I I I I i i I9f'8 I I II I II 01'a iC 0 z om Ay sz Z w 3p mbN A my� z Wq m r D W -AC v . 6 A'03� = 11 71 e O •7 tDII m ti r A�n o fj`?�o ®o o 0 r- ca m A 1 .. I '. ymqqy;; S mN OD I I t m ?t G1 I I xvw j ml r A 1 %z I 2 <m z m m N' mm >mao I1�' OO 2-1 ; 3a �3go V! , .W I '_ S3 S� a n. 47 yl ly 4 4 O N � j / m ...� �7. 75__T. J O �g� u x r'B>' W � I g 7BY J�ZDIn,1 k m r �zl ZmI 9Lx.' .�+ i I m El 161 A24 -r.............. A'03� = 11 71 e O •7 tDII m ti r A�n o ) O O D j ®o o 0 r- ca 1 .. I '. L• 'Sk-. t m ?t G1 I xvw ms A 1 %z I 2 <m z m m N' mm >mao I1�' OO 2-1 ; 3a �3go V! , .W I '_ S3 S� I I I I I I w�yp is � II I I N N Z A p I 'H -H N Dr 9 0 r 1 I ti I ZOD Om m a�z+� 0 Z A- I �i I I I ZN�Om A �H O m m'. 3Ap I I I n m I � 1 I I mTEm i ((} y �~ A O n H7flNJ V I I V 1' 1 > �I I � I 0ti � y 1 1 1 I I I I 9 i 11 f I I J j I j I I I 1 I { � I 1 yyL� o 15 I t I I I IF Ir I� it I I II ow £S L v A 5 tb i I { 757 W � I g 7BY J�ZDIn,1 k m r �zl ZmI 9Lx.' .�+ i I m El 161 A24 -r.............. Dm P m`L Dp m= li Z tiI m I lu • W rr �'� otie+ Iti� � I I 5 m + s I I I 1� I1 m 1 rA Z�m mxi 5b v D Z�D A'03� = 11 71 e O •7 tDII m ti r A�n o ) O O D j ®o o 0 r- ca 1 .. I '. L• 'Sk-. t m ?t G1 I II m A a II Ip 1 i <m z m m N' mm >mao I1�' OO 2-1 ; 3a �3go V! , .W I '_ S3 S� fn fZHD _I I I �t S Imo• I v 11 t)Zb w�yp I I I 5 N N Z A p I 'H -H N Dr 9 0 I I I x i I I ZOD Om m a�z+� 0 Z A- I II y I I I ZN�Om A I O m m'. 3Ap I 1 5? n m I y ! I I,m A O n H7flNJ V I I V 1' 1 > �I m I1,� I I 0ti � y 1 1 1 I I i 11 f I I, 1 4+ I I I III I1 1 1 I I 1 I { � £ 15 I t I I II ow £S L v A 5 tb i I I I III _Do y \ I A m I I Dm P m`L Dp m= li Z tiI m I lu • W rr �'� otie+ Iti� � I I 5 m + s I I I 1� I1 m 1 rA Z�m mxi 5b v D Z�D A'03� = 11 I `. ND NN I I e O •7 tDII m ti r A�n o ) O O D j ®o o 0 r- ca 0 mZ t m ?t G1 I II m A I I II II II <m z m m N' mm >mao I1�' OO 2-1 ; 3a �3go V! , .W I I III '_ S3 S� fn fZHD _I 00 _D$ }I 0m Imo• I v 11 t)Zb w�yp 033NN I I Omv� Nm I III e I 1 11 f I I I I O w � I 1 ! A O n H7flNJ V VMO�.1 1 � � I m I1,� I III < I ............. III t 111 I, 3 X {�' L 0 x I << 1 b 0 IIn 3 3 N 3 zf'B k 1 �b yV � I1 w m m 00 0 -7 �D9At ZyT ON I NOi3 mFW fz �YLX CIBLn O�pNmO.'y 'z DO I/ �omx <z m fB' \ 9mNN i Z 4L "L I( 14'L x p L I y G] 4zQ M z .._r tYL � 1 - o O �. � • e O •7 t:i `'y tij FYo � o v s ®o o 0 r- ca I t m ?t G1 I II A o t I I I I tDi N Z� 9 i CLIENT NAME: , I , Lp, I I 4 I p � I � to 11 I I I I I I I I 1 m I LR I I 1 °kZ I I II ' I I I' I kc;�6 IIyy jj 1 �.. vI 1 m � I pI I i I I I II III , I (OH3N31NOW) 3ARI4 31vAI?!d W mA ZO mi ON �= o OC nr �mga mT D 9 N y Omm N X N SV� T�A Z ism �rl Li DMA ggo N 0 a P m o P �7HN� m =J " °'E`T N" E: BAY z PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY SERVICES DIVISION NORTH TRAM STATION K 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 60 URA1lING TITLE: SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (11) "s 5 LfBx 1 2 B o o 1 I ®o o 0 r- ca I t m ?t G1 I II A o t I I I I tDi N Z� 9 i u n tII i I I n O o A x Z Z I C I I I I I I III e e I I I I Ix 4 w � I I A O n H7flNJ V VMO�.1 1 � � I --- - ............. , I , Lp, I I 4 I p � I � to 11 I I I I I I I I 1 m I LR I I 1 °kZ I I II ' I I I' I kc;�6 IIyy jj 1 �.. vI 1 m � I pI I i I I I II III , I (OH3N31NOW) 3ARI4 31vAI?!d W mA ZO mi ON �= o OC nr �mga mT D 9 N y Omm N X N SV� T�A Z ism �rl Li DMA ggo N 0 a P m o P �7HN� m =J " °'E`T N" E: BAY z PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY SERVICES DIVISION NORTH TRAM STATION K 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 60 URA1lING TITLE: SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (11) "s 5 1612 --I -�2 r11 2� ��r —III A �•- �� u ;vm co /'� //A mo AM 3 z n x •y y m 8 2'� o � � m A ,y � N � ➢ N m c) C G D i 1 rn � �� c1 N N I o "AD p y z C /• ? ro co c ::0 mm m m 000000 °' W _0 000000 °' W 3� Z =1 W 5� mp mp a I I I I p'o CP 5� mO C I I I App ° NA = Z m 2 N I I I no�D jI �.p D N zp 2 r= N -Z f 0o y$ mfr= y mII �m n III__ II „_� go D 9 F ° L) C7 8 m I I n a n a y A m y$” m yD p r om s� m Ida " y m mo N m r m 9 � I m � < °� v mop „ _ m D =' _o y m n v OJ A I A a m A 1 8 p 7\ I/,W m i m z co f< �O Z v I N yQ .. N 9 Oa0 .J ° rT-r = rT-rl rzlz 11 1 w 9 a= I I m 9 A. i ,J•, o 88' a Q Fel r`o y o I hn o�_.„ 'I a ;gip 1'� ®A 3!. °§� 1 1 11 Z 11 Cy lei gg ii i i ii �g m f • I • �m `off 3 $_� i� ,,,vf rye bbb !s � �� to li•J ~� g /Yi s s m y. f I I q 3 =m v �i I E A Ai a o m 9 H s o c p • m ssb :7 .� . ,2 9 --1Sr O 9 --1J-2 2 w IRI H b OEi e YV1I 5SE E S9ESCCfTIIOOI N N A 6 i t 1� HB . x , AOD y ADPA>s�Yk Mv fee E R D��E= D TA ' " d � � * � m Zq. NAYS: : vv o a� c3 o � l a F g _ • m p _� � l o } 1.2 A '? y sf RVO PROJE I.— NY: A @ PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY PELICAN BAY g Zr C WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO €� `NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION m DRWING TITE 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS NAPLES, FL 34108 r �d w a' a 8 aa 9a; 6_ 'a . .•0 O = j.�° .•°..�m b ' •.; • .; � a ��I 1 I � i I 4 I Vii► m 0 m cZ --I z� it . e� M "� F �^` 9a.UptlL I iii p $ 3o1k 1's 5 RRA3� ij a Am 12P dill flip �Fa 4ig R �' I I 1 II 1 I 1 1 I 11 I II I I I I I I I I I I \\ 9 \\. \ \x \ \u \ \n \ \a \ \ 1y 1 1� 1 \+ \ Ih 1 Ix 1 1� 1 1 � 1 1 l � 1 1 � , 1 1" 1 1 � In 1 Ix Iw I1 ,� q� I. IP i I w 0 I� 16 V 2 A24 \I I I I / I /ry I In I /n / /p+ I /w l IR l Ix l In 1 l� 1 I I � I 1+ I , IC I cus „r nave: ao N PROJECT „°"e: PATHWAY PELICAN BAY N x z PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD WESTSID E - COMMONS TO SERVICES DIVISION NORTH TRAM STATION SUITE 605 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SOIL EROSION & NAPLES, FL 34108 SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS Q z C), 0 ;z 'o • r z , ir. s � a� m s aK °c W , ! LA \\ 9 \\. \ \x \ \u \ \n \ \a \ \ 1y 1 1� 1 \+ \ Ih 1 Ix 1 1� 1 1 � 1 1 l � 1 1 � , 1 1" 1 1 � In 1 Ix Iw I1 ,� q� I. IP i I w 0 I� 16 V 2 A24 \I I I I / I /ry I In I /n / /p+ I /w l IR l Ix l In 1 l� 1 I I � I 1+ I , IC I cus „r nave: ao N PROJECT „°"e: PATHWAY PELICAN BAY N x z PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD WESTSID E - COMMONS TO SERVICES DIVISION NORTH TRAM STATION SUITE 605 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SOIL EROSION & NAPLES, FL 34108 SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS Q z C), 0 ;z 'o • r z , ir. s � a� A 4 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Division and Regular Session 6b. Administrator's Report. Cobblestones at North Pointe Drive Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa From: John Chandler Doh nchandler219 @g mail. com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:22 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Keith J. Dallas (keithdallas @comcast.net) Subject: Cobblestones at North Pointe Drive Lisa, At the 4/11 Board Meeting, I would like us to have a brief discussion of the merits of installing cobblestones as part of the revised crosswalk that we are planning to install across Pelican Bay Blvd at North Pointe Drive. I just learned that the Board of Directors of San Marino has asked the Foundation to remove the cobblestones from the crosswalk that was recently constructed adjacent to their community. They claim that the cobblestones have had no impact on reducing the speed of traffic approaching the crosswalk and that the noise from cars crossing the cobblestones is an irritation to their residents. John Chandler April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Seryices pivision Board Regular Session ac. Ad'ministrator's °Report. Beach RenourMrnent 161 2 %24 Page 1 of 13 From: McAlpinGary To: HambrightGail Subject: FW: Funding Beach Renournishment Date: Monday, March 05, 2012 8:57:16 AM Importance: High Gail, Please distribute to the CAC, TDC and Leo. CAC and TDC Board members- - I am distributing Mayor Sorey email at his request. This is intended to be a one way communication. Due to Sunshine Laws, please do not respond back to me or to each other. This will be discussed at the next CAC meeting on 3/8/12. Gary McAlpin - - - -- Original Message---- - From: John Sorey [mailtoJsorey(q)na I�esgov.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 3:19 PM To: McAlpinGary Cc: Bill Moss Subject: Funding Beach Renournishment Gary: I have had an opportunity to reflect on some of the comments from the last TDC meeting and would like your review and comments on the following. Once completed, please add to my comments and share with the CAC and TDC, and Mr. Ochs. The comments must be done quickly, as I would like this to be an agenda item on the March 8th 2012 CAC agenda. As we have communicated multiple times, the scope of the next beach renourishment is unknown and will depend on the funds available. We should permit a true ten year design which is anticipated to cost approximately $30,000,000. This will provide the most flexibility and is consistent with the direction from the BCC and the Naples City Council which was to maximize the time between beach renourishments while maximizing the economics of the project. At the last TDC meeting, Mr. Hill appropriately questioned the reserves available for the next beach renourishment. He cited an availability of $25,000,000 based on the financial information provided by you in the TDC packet. I know based on our various discussions in the past, that this is "carry forward" which represents unspent monies from existing projects and set aside reserves. We must do a better job of communicating these numbers in the future. My understanding is the reserves are $23,951,950 and consist of the following: Catastrophe Reserve - -- $5,000,000 as required by the BCC Major Renourishment reserve $12,000,000 Pier Reserve $79,000 which is inadequate and should be addressed. Reserve for FDEP reimbursement $3,400,000 Currently earmarked for FY 2013 Projects $3,026,950 As indicated, of the $23,951,950 reserves identified, the only current source of funds available for beach renourishment is $12,000,000. If only the $12,000,000 was available, we would have funding in FY13/14 to duplicate the 2005/06 project. This is not acceptable and is inconsistent with our guidance. As you indicated, you expect the basic renourishment project cost after anticipated savings to be approximately $16,000,000. In FY13/14, I understand you expect reserves and unspent project funds to be $16,500,000. This funding is without any state or federal monies and does not accomplish BCC or City Council direction to maximize the time between renourishments. III�M April 1 a; 2012 Pelican Bay Seryices•Division Board Regular Session 161, / 6c: Adrhinistrators Report. Be ch RenoL#ishment ` A2 # Page 2 of 13 1 In addition to the $16,500,000 identified for the basic beach renourishment project, funds have been budgeted for the Wiggins Pass Channel Straightening project($1,700,000); and the Marco South Beach renourishment /structure rebuild project($ 3, 000, 000). Additional renournishment, hot spots, groin removal, and the jetty spur at Doctor's Pass will require additional funding. These funds could come from: the FDEP State Cost Share program; FEMA Tropical Storm Fay ($5,000,000 to 7,000,000); Fund 183 - -Beach Park Facilities ($10,000,000+ -) and /or the Catastrophe Reserve ($5,000,000). The Beach Fund does not have enough money to accomplish the scope of work directed by the City Council and the County Commission. Some of the issues that need to be addressed are the life of the renournishment plan, and the funding thereof. Funds are accrued on a ten year funding cycle, however the amount accrued is not sufficient to fund a ten year or maybe even a six year cycle. When we renourish in FY13 /14, eight years will have elapsed since the last cycle, and already a number of beach sections are inadequate for our residents and tourists. Visit the area just south of the Naples Beach Hotel for instance. As we discuss allocation of TDC funds, the beaches must receive more resources to protect one of our most valuable assets. 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. _ April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Service's Division Board Regular Session 1612 A24 ,, ac. Admin'strator's Report. Beach Renourishment CAC March 8, 2012 t' Page 3 of 13 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 4of6 excerpted MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY from: COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, February 9, 2012 VIII. New Business 1. Conceptual Plan /Schedule Collier County Main Beach Renourishment Gary McAlpin provided the document "TS Fay FEMA funding renewal discussion" dated February 9, 2012 as a primer to the item. a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin noted the item contained backup material and presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve the Conceptual Plan for the FY2013114 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples Beaches" dated February 9, 2012. He provided an overview of 4 options available for the major renourishment project for City of Naples /Collier County Beaches proposed by staff (based on previous input from the Coastal Advisory Committee): Option 1— Execute the TS Fay FEMA design This would place 175,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at a cost of approximately $ l OM. This sand placement would only restore damage from TS Fay and not extend the life of the project whatsoever. It would not address any hot spot locations and would not include any jetty work to stabilize the beach. Only a minor permit modification for the extra nourishment would be required. Option 2 — Execute the 2005/2006 design This would place 482,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at an estimated cost of $19M. This would continue the six -year design project life that most likely could be extended. This project would not maximize the renourishment cycle and does not address Clam Pass or Barefoot Beach renourishment needs. Additionally, it does not address beach hot spots, the groins at Park Shore or the need for a jetty spur south of Doctor's Pass. Option 3 — Execute the 2005/2006 design with beach and hot spot enhancements This would place 612,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at a cost of approximately $24M. It would also include: removal of the groins at Clam Pass ($400K); renourishment of Clam Pass Park Beach (30K CY's at $950K); and for the repair /rebuild of Barefoot Beach (IOOK CY's at $2.8M) that has lost 200 linear width of beach over the last 15 -20 years. This approach does not maximize the renourishment cycle and continues with a six plus year design that has the potential to be stretched to a longer life. It does however begin to address significant hot spots that have been identified through beach monitoring and modeling. Option 4 — Execute a ten -vear project that maximizes the renourishment cycle This option would maximize the time between renourishment events with a 787K CY renourishment for an estimated cost of $31 M. This plan would increase the beach height (5 feet NAVD or 6.3 feet NGVD) as well as construction width in sections required to increase critical mass to resist erosion and produce a true ten -year beach renourishment. A jetty spur on Doctor's Pass is included to help minimize erosion on down drift beaches. April 11, 201 -N Pelican Say Services Division BbArd Regular Session 6c. Administrators Report. Beach Renourishment Page 4 of 13 2 2 4 CRC March 8, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes t 5of6 In addition to the renourishment of Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches, this option includes renourishment for Clam Pass Park Beach, rebuild /repairs at Barefoot Beach, the removal of groins at Park Shore Beach, a jetty spur for Doctor's Pass and it addresses additional hot spots by adding critical mass through increased sand placement. A FDEP permit modification is required for this option. Speaker Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida The Committee recommended the Executive Summary (andlor any other similar presentations) clearly identify the cost savings associated with each Option. Mr. Moreland moved for the Coastal Advisory Committee to recommend that Option 4 be executed Additionally, proposing the Option 4.A which includes the scope of work proposed in Option 4 and the concept of the County providing stockpiles of sand at strategic locations to assist in the renourishment of "hot spots" or other renourishment emergencies that may come to light overtime. The project incorporates concepts of "Scope Management" as necessary. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8-- 0. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1612 . 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment A24 0 Page 5 of 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the Conceptual Plan for the FY2013/14 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches. OBJECTIVE: A conceptual plan has been developed that addresses various options and costs for the next major beach renourishment in Collier County. The renourishment is currently scheduled for FY 2013/14. Staff is requesting direction and approval from the BCC on how to proceed. CONSIDERATIONS: The BCC directed staff in the 2011 joint Collier County and City of Naples workshop to maximize the interval between major beach renourishments. To accomplish this, past beach performance was analyzed, the coast was modeled, hot spots identified and options developed that incrementally increase the scope and cost to maximize beach renourishment. The Conceptual Plan and the Conceptual Design Report are attached. The four options developed are: • Option 1 — Execute the TS Fay FEMA design This would place 175,000 CY's of fill sand at a cost of approximately $1 OM on the beach. This sand placement would only restore the damage from TS Fay and not extend the life of this project whatsoever. It would not address any hot spot locations and would not include any Jetty work to stabilize the beach. Only a minor permit modification for the extra nourishment would be required. • Option 2 — Execute the 2005/2006 desi ;n This would place 482,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at an estimated cost of $19M. This would continue with the six year design project life that most likely can be extended. This project would not maximize the renourishment cycle and does not address the Clam Pass or Barefoot Beach renourishment needs. Additionally, it does not address the beach hot spots, the groins at Park Shore or the need for a jetty spur south of Doctors Pass. • Option 3 — Execute the 2005/2006 design with beach and hot spot enhancements This would place 612,000 CY's of fill sand at a cost of approximately $24M on the beach. It would also include: The removal of the groins at Clam Pass ($400K); the renourishment of Clam Pass Park Beach (30K CY's at $950K); and the repair /rebuild of Barefoot Beach GOOK CY's at $2.8M) which has lost 200 Linear width of beach over the last 15 -20 years. This approach does not maximize the renourishment cycle and continues with a six plus year design that has the potential to be stretched to a longer life. It does however begin to address significant hot spots that have been identified through beach monitoring and modeling. • Option 4 — Execute a ten -year project that maximizes the renourishment cycle This option would maximize the time between renourishment events with a 787K CY renourishment with an estimated cost of $31M. This plan will increase the beach height (5 feet NAVD or 6.3 feet NGVD) as well as the construction width in sections as required to increase critical mass to resist erosion and produce a true ten year beach renourishment. A jetty spur on Doctors Pass is included to minimize erosion on the down drift beaches. In addition to renourishment of the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beach, this option includes renourishment for Clam Pass Park beach, the rebuild/repair of Barefoot beach, removal of groins in Park Shore beach, the jetty spur to Doctors t 1 i5 I April 11 2b12„pel Bay Servjces Divigion Board Regular Session IwA24 6c. Administrators Report. Beach R6no &shment Page 6 of 13 Pass and addressing the additional hot spots with additional critical mass through increased sand placement. A FDEP permit modification is required for this modification. Savings on the project cost could be expected if it was possible to achieve the following items: • Approximately $5M- $7M could be achieved if the TS Fay PW was extended. • $1M could be saved if this project is combined with similar projects from the Captiva Erosion Control District and /or the City of Longboat Key to share mobilization costs and take advantage of economies of scale. The economies of scale are significant as well as early bidding before contractors have committed their production capacity to other projects. • $1M - $2M savings can be expected if schedule flexibility is enhanced to allow year round renourishment. Examples of schedule flexibility that would result in a price reduction are: stockpiling sand off shore in the non -peak renourishment timeframe; early contracting that would allow maximum planning and minimizing equipment mobilization costs; schedule that permits renourishment during off season and /or low equipment utilization periods; ability for the contractor to pursue "projects of opportunity" with clear and specific guidelines /restraints and schedules that identify start and completion dates and with approval, allow the contractor the flexibility to manage the schedule. • Maximizing FDEP's cost share contribution to this project. • If the schedule cost savings are to be pursued, a FDEP permit modification must be applied for that will permit year round renourishment or renourishment during a portion of turtle nesting season. Turtle nesting season begins on May 1" and ends on October 31" of each year. The FDEP, USACE, FWS and FWC will allow year round renourishment and FWC and FDEP have indicated they have "No Objections" to granting a permit for year round renourishment. No Collier County Ordinance prohibits renourishment during turtle nesting season. However, Collier County has always strived to be excellent environmental stewards and avoid any negative impacts to nesting by renourishment during turtle nesting season. Additionally, the Conservancy of SW Florida recognizes the importance of healthy, cost effective beaches to our local economy and both organizations agree and support without objection the following renourishment schedule. 1. Renourishment to begin on September 15, 2013 on the Naples beach segment which has the lowest nesting density of all beaches within Collier County. This will require any nest laid after 7/7/13 on a Naples beach segment to be relocated to a designated relocation area. Offshore mobilization can proceed prior to 9/15/13 and the landing of the offshore pipeline on the beach prior to 9/15/13 is permitted. Pipe and equipment staging on the beach will not be allowed before 9/15/13. 2. Renourishment will proceed from south to north renourishing the Naples, Park Shore, Clam Pass, Vanderbilt and Barefoot beaches. All renourishment activities will be complete by 6/1/14. This equates to an 8.5 month renourishment cycle. 3. A permit modification will be supported by the Conservancy of SW Florida to begin renourishment on 9/15 and complete all renourishment activities by 6/1 the following year. Recommendations: 1. Seek a permit modification to allow beach renourishment from 9/15 to 6/1 of the following year. 2. Options will be developed and presented to the BCC for their decision making as funding; schedule coordination and scope definition is resolved. April 11, 2012 Aelican Bay BeYvice$ Division Board Regular Session tic. Administrat rs Report. Beach Renouhshment Page 7 of 13 1612 A24 3. Scope manage this project based on direction from the BCC to match available funding with sand placement quantities at the time of renourishment. 4. Assure appropriate staffing, training and permitting of turtle monitors and relocation specialists. Work with State and Federal agencies in the development of this plan. 5. Aggressively pursue partnership with the City of Longboat Key and Captiva Erosion Control District to reduce mobilization costs and take advantage of economies of scale. Additionally, pursue early bidding before contractors have committed production capacity to other projects. 6. Maximize leverage with FEMA and FDEP to secure project funding. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project will be from Tourist Development Tax, Fund 195. It is estimated that the construction costs for Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples Beaches will be between $20,000,000 - $30,000,000 depending on the project approach, scope and funds available. It is also estimated that the permit design, plans and specifications for this project will cost $400,000 to $600,000. Pre - construction, during construction and post- construction activities are estimated to cost an additional $800,000 and $1,000,000. No additional carrying costs, operating or maintenance costs are expected with approval of this Conceptual Plan. No additional carrying costs, operating or maintenance costs are currently anticipated as a result of the Beach Renourishment project itself. As the design and permitting process advances, the maintenance and lifecycle costs will continue to be evaluated. Using today's dollars, the total cost to replace the asset is $20,000,000 to $30,000,000. The project has an expected life expectancy of 10 years generating a hypothetical annual depreciation cost of $2 to $3 million. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. — RECOMMENDATION: To approve the Conceptual Plan for the FY2013/14 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches. PREPARED BY: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Director, Coastal Zone Management Department April 11, 4012 Pelican Bay Services,,Divisign Board Regular Session 6c. ddrnin,islratof s Report. Beech Renourlshment Page 8 of 13 Subiect: Collier County and FWC Video Conference Call Date / Time: Tuesday, January 17`h, 2012 —10:00 am 16I 2w A24 , Purpose: Discuss plan that would allow construction of next Collier County Nourishment Project to extend into sea turtle nesting season (requiring a modification to Permit No. 0222355 - 001 -JC) Collier County is interested in requesting a modification to Permit No. 0222355 - 001 -JC which would, in part, allow construction of the next beach nourishment project to extend into sea turtle nesting season, if necessary. The duration of the project (including mobilization and demobilization), especially if the project is constructed jointly with other nearby counties, will likely make construction entirely outside of nesting season impossible; therefore, the County seeks the flexibility to construct during nesting season when necessary. Collier County is committed to sea turtle conservation, and believes that through proactive coordination with FWC a plan can be developed that will balance the need for nourishment of Collier County beaches with conservation measures that will avoid or minimize impacts to nesting and hatchling sea turtles. Collier County proposes the following suggestions as possible ways to accomplish this goal, and welcomes comments and discussion from FWC. Advance Planning and Coordination: • Local Coordination and Management: Collier County will ensure that all project activities comply with local codes and ordinances, and the County Manager can provide a letter which states this compliance and approves the project. The City of Naples is a partner in this project and can provide similar assurances. • Prepare Necessary Resources: Collier County will ensure that the necessary resources are available which will enable the County to conduct all sea turtle conservation measures (i.e., nesting surveys, relocation, data collection). If necessary, the County would apply for another FWC sea turtle permit and /or secure outside help with proper credentials, which would allow more trained personnel to assist with these activities. • Plan Potential Relocation Sites: For each construction reach, find potential suitable nest relocation sites that will protect nests and hatchlings from construction activities while also maintaining a safe environment with minimal impacts from lighting. Potential areas include those stretches of Collier County beaches not receiving nourishment, as weld as areas back towards the dune in cases where fill will only, be placed on a portion of wider beach sections. Wide beaches in less developed areas (such as gaps between large condominiums), parks and gaps in the fill are potential candidate sites. For example, Lowdermilk Park or the condominium gap in Parkshore between R49 and R50 have potential. Significant coordination with FWC will go into the final selection of relocation sites. April 11; 2012 Pell' n Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 0c. Adnintstra;, *report. Bgach Renourishment R Page 9' of 13 Pre - Construction Planning: 161 ;F `'i124 • Determine construction optimal direction and timing: Once a contractor has been determined and it is time to schedule construction, Collier County will coordinate with FWC to devise a construction plan that would minimize impacts to turtle nesting. For instance, if construction is going to begin in sea turtle nesting season, it will make sense to start the project in the Naples Beach segment (which has the lowest nesting density of the project reaches) and then work north from there. By scheduling the construction in this way, the construction in the higher nest density areas may avoid peak nesting season. Minimizing impacts to higher nesting areas also reduces the management and effort required by sea turtle personnel responsible for relocation and monitoring. Implementation of Sea Turtle Protection Measures: • Compliance with all permit conditions: Collier County will conduct the pre - application meeting with FWC and the contractor. Throughout construction the work will comply with all FWC and USFWS permit conditions to avoid or minimize impacts to sea turtles, and FWC will be contacted with any questions or concerns that may arise. 0- 161 2 A24 - f .� a 59 to 41 V) In LI) O (n co 0. IF, qd uj CJ E L L C:) C) > in 'O CI a, 10 ry 0 co co C (U tn C) (U C -tt U) CO 0 C-1 0 In �4 C3 2, C, a, 11) CD cn 'o 0 S C, c C4 CA IL N 04 a t-0 2 2 co ci 17 zz W, 0- 161 2 A24 - f April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board,Regular Session Collier County 6c. Administrator's Repo4rt. Beach Renourishment d t Page 11 of 13 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2006 Capital Projects Fund Clam Bav Restoration Program Appropriation Analysis: Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance Clam Bay Improvement Program (183805) Engineering (320- 183805- 631400 - 511051) Restoration Consultant Services The Clam Bay monitoring program includes biological, water quality and hydrographic analysis which is performed on an annual basis. Findings of these analyses are developed into an Annual Management Report used to identify any potential improvements in the restoration of the Clam Bay System. The fees being requested are for the consultant services necessary for these improvements. Also, included is 520 hours for biologist time to assist staff in the Clam Bay Restoration Program, Pelican Bay Beach Renourishment This funding will allow PBSD to participate in the permitting process with Collier County which will give the Pelican Bay community a cost effective option for beach renourishment. Other Conti-actual Services (320 - 183805 - 634999- 511051) Pelican Bay Beach Renourishment These fees are the renourishment of Pelican Bay Beaches from the Contessa south to approximately 1,500 feet south of the Sandpiper Beach Facility. TDC will fund the beach renourishment from the Contessa north to the Ritz Carlton. Interior Tidal Channels Fees are being budgeted for the contractual services necessary for the construction of the Interior Tidal Channels. Cattail Enhancements & Plantings These fees are for cattail replanting within the Clam Bay System. 58 161 2*�* $80,000 $0 $840,000 $5,000 $25,000 A24 $80,000 $870,000 . a April 11, 201 Pelican Bay Services` Asion Board Regular Session p *2 A 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Re nourishment Page 12 of 13 16 ' �� From: Johandomenie @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:57 AM To: smith b; WardJ @glmoyer.com Subject: (no subject) Barbara: Could you please include this in the packets going to the Sub - Committee as well as the Board, and make sure the subject of "Beach Renounshment" is included on both Agendas On Friday, July 22nd , Kyle Lukasz and the undersigned met with Gary McAlpin (Senior Project Manager - Coastal Projects, Tourism) at our offices. I had been under the impression that it was to discuss the Proposed Inlet Management Policy, but instead it was to update us on the present status of the Beach Renourishment Project. The shocker was that the overall cost to bring in 673,000 cubic yards of sand from a "deposit" located about 33 miles northwest of Wiggins Pass to be deposited on Collier County beaches stands at $25,000,000 about $6,000,000 above previous estimates. (The work of placing sand stands at $20,450,000 and the balance is for monitoring costs, approving and building the artificial reef, etc) As far as the status of the permitting process goes: The design phase has been completed. The DEP permit has been obtained. The County has drafted the Biological Study (turtles, nesting shore birds, etc) and it is anticipated that the review by Fish and Wild Life will be completed within a month. Then the US Army Corps of Engineers have to provide their Notice to Proceed by early September - no delay is anticipated. It is hoped to present everything to the Board of County Commissioners at their September 16th Meeting for final approval, and that actual work will commence on November 1st 2005 and terminate by May 1, 2006. The problem both for the County and Pelican Bay is the same: In order to meet budgeted allowances we must either: a.- reduce costs, or b.- obtain additional funding. For the County this means to look for funds from the state, and for us to look for a source of funds - beyond the $840,000 presently allocated for this project. The County is funding the renourishment as far south as one half mile south of monument 30.5 - (the southern access from the Ritz - Carlton) - or about monument 33 (the monuments are 1,000 feet apart). We in turn would have to pay $1,011,539 to bring in 36,904 cubic yards of sand to our beach - stretching from monument 33 down to monument 37 located 1,300 feet south of the Sandpiper Restaurant. (based on a cost of $27.41 per cubic yard) file : //H:\Barbara Smith F drive\Beach Renoudshment\Beach Renourishment Update - Aug.- 3/29/2012 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Aa- To 2 of 2 tic. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment 1612 I Page 13 of 13 complicate matters the County will conduct a survey in September to measure the exact amount of sand to be brought in - depending on the profile of the beach at that time. If large amounts of sand have been washed away during summer storms it might cost us as much as $1,200,000 to obtain the approved profile. We thus have two choices -for which the County wants an urgent answer: a.- Do we work within the $840,000 approved budget and receive about 6,300 cubic yards less than estimated - and where do we reduce the profile? (there also exists the possibility that if less than the 36,904 cubic yards are placed on the beach the per cubic yard unit cost may go up! - and hence even less sand!) b.- Do we look for additional funds from within the budget (or the Foundation ?) and restore the beach to the desired profile It is anticipated the beach renourishment will be subject to a six year cycle. Mr. McAlpin has agreed to make a presentation to both our sub - committee as well as the regular board at our next meeting in August. OTIrly file: //H:\Barbara Smith F drive\Beach Renourishment\Beach Renourishment Update - Aug... 3/29/2012 i April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 1 of 11 161 2 A24 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments 2,301,231.69 Interest Receivable - Vehicles 96,538.00 Due from Property Appraiser - Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 2,397,769.69 Total Assets $ 2,397,769.69 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable $ 2,146.82 Accrued Wages Payable - Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd 28,676.87 Total Liabilities $ 30,823.69 Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved 1,292,615.54 Excess Revenues (Expenditures) 1,074,330.46 Total Fund Balance 2,366,946.00 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 2,397,769.69 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 2 of 11 F. "A w 16 12L) Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - March 31, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,523,861.00 $ 3,539,892.81 $ 16,031.81 Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense Annual YTD YTD 1,194.13 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: 400.00 200.00 200.00 - Carryforward $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ Special Assessment - Water Management Admin 666,300.00 619,659.00 624,033.04 4,374.04 Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification 1,907,800.00 1,774,254.00 1,786,576.40 12,322.40 Special Assessment Past Due 26,900.00 13,500.00 2,603.19 2,603.19 Charges for Services 1,500.00 2,000.00 - - Surplus Property Sales 3,000.00 - - - Miscellaneous 11,300.00 5,700.00 403.48 403.48 Interest 15,300.00 7,648.00 3,976.70 (3,671.30) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,523,861.00 $ 3,539,892.81 $ 16,031.81 Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 20,700.00 $ 19,505.87 $ 1,194.13 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 200.00 200.00 - IT Office Automation /Billing Hr. 4,800.00 2,400.00 2,200.00 200.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 84,500.00 42,300.00 42,250.00 50.00 Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 13,500.00 10,216.00 3,284.00 Telephone 3,900.00 2,000.00 1,45930 54030 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 300.00 107.69 192.31 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,300.00 5,700.00 6,113.73 (413.73) Insurance - General 1,200.00 600.00 600.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,300.00 200.00 - 200.00 Clerk's Recording Fees 2,000.00 200.00 450.00 200.00 Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,000.00 1,000.00 254.34 745.66 Training and Education 1,100.00 600.00 85.00 515.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 89,691.93 $ 6,908.07 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 66,400.00 $ 62,283.88 $ 4,116.12 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 6,000.00 23625 5,763.75 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 3,500.00 812.65 2,687.35 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 300.00 - 300.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 11,300.00 4,919.25 6,380.75 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 500.00 286.42 213.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 24,400.00 25,056.00 (656.00) Telephone 500.00 300.00 180.20 119.80 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 3,400.00 2,803.87 59613 Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 - - - Insurance - General 2,300.00 1,150.00 1,150.00 Insurance -Auto 900.00 450.00 450.00 Building Repairs & Mntc. 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 5,400.00 2,700.00 1,004.59 1,695.41 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 4,500.00 1,213.40 3,286.60 Tree Trim ing 30,000.00 15,000.00 9,984.00 5,016.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 700.00 760.38 (60.38) Page 1 of 3 Right of Way Beautification - Operating Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 20,095.85 $ 1,204.15 6e. Administrator's Page3of11 Report. Monthly Financial Repp 1 6 1t A24 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 1,318.70 (818.70) - Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 39,900.00 36,356.11 3,543.89 Other Contractural Services Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 800.00 381.25 418.75 3,900.00 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 2,800.00 3,058.37 (258.37) 500.00 Total Water Management Field Operating $ 394,300.00 $ 184,600.00 $ 152,255.32 $ 32,344.68 6,612.75 Right of Way Beautification - Operating Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ 21,300.00 $ 20,095.85 $ 1,204.15 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 200.00 200.00 - Office Automation 14,100.00 7,100.00 7,000.00 100.00 Other Contractural Services 34,300.00 17,200.00 12,763.00 4,437.00 Telephone 3,900.00 2,000.00 1,461.30 538.70 Postage 3,000.00 500.00 (92.28) 592.28 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 12,500.00 6,300.00 6,612.75 (312.75) Insurance - General 500.00 250.00 250.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 200.00 33.00 167.00 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Office Supplies General 2,500.00 1,300.00 434.63 865.37 Training and Education 1,500.00 800.00 105.00 695.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 57,550.00 $ 48,863.25 $ 8,686.75 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense $ 807,300.00 $ 403,700.00 $ 345,621.23 $ 58,078.77 Emergency Maintenance and Repairs 3,300.00 - - - Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) 89,900.00 45,600.00 43,918.51 1,681.49 Pest Control 5,000.00 5,000.00 8,325.00 (3,325.00) Landscape Incidentals 2,500.00 1,300.00 471.44 828.56 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 18,700.00 17,688.00 1,012.00 Temporary Labor 190,100.00 117,100.00 119,556.62 (2,456.62) Telephone 3,200.00 1,600.00 1,132.36 467.64 Electricity 3,400.00 1,700.00 1,047.14 652.86 Trash and Garbage 17,000.00 6,600.00 6,060.33 539.67 Rent Equipment 2,500.00 1,300.00 1,123.38 176.62 Motor Pool Rental Charge 300.00 200.00 76.93 123.07 Insurance - General 8,800.00 4,400.00 4,400.00 - Insurance - Auto 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 - Building Repairs and Maintenance 1,700.00 700.00 - 700.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 25,100.00 13,600.00 14,396.97 (796.97) Fuel and Lubricants 67,300.00 30,700.00 14,269.66 16,430.34 Licenses, Permits, Training 800.00 400.00 101.94 298.06 Tree Triming 63,600.00 61,800.00 57,759.25 4,040.75 Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 3,400.00 3,251.06 148.94 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 1,500.00 1,471.70 28.30 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 31,700.00 33,547.00 (1,847.00) Landscape Maintenance 46,000.00 33,000.00 31,326.75 1,673.25 Mulch /Landscape Materials 53,100.00 47,800.00 22,941.40 24,858.60 Pathway Repairs 6,000.00 3,000.00 - 3,000.00 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 11,000.00 4,757.45 6,242.55 Painting Supplies 800.00 400.00 28.66 371.34 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 1,500.00 1,562.08 (62.08) Other Operating Supplies 9,000.00 4,500.00 3,379.53 1,120.47 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating $ 1,556,600.00 $ 858,700.00 $ 743,214.39 $ 115,485.61 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,289,200.00 $ 1,197,450.00 $ 1,034,024.89 $ 163,425.11 Page 2 of 3 I April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 4 of 11 � A24 16 I 2 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment $ 1,000.00 $ $ $ General Improvements - - Total Water Management Field Operations Capital $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Right of Way Beautification - Field Autos and Trucks $ 102,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 - - Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital $ 103,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Capital Expenditures $ 104,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,393,200.00 $ 1,294,050.00 $ 1,130,562.89 $ 163,487.11 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 49,352.00 48,212.00 1,140.00 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 40,315.00 38,714.56 1,600.44 Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) 538,000.00 540,300.00 540,300.00 - Reserves for Equipment 94,800.00 94,800.00 94,800.00 Reserved for Attrition (31,700.00) (31,700.00) (31,700.00) - Revenue Reserve 129,500.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 1,320,000.00 $ 1,129,567.00 $ 1,126,826.56 $ 2,740.44 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 2,423,617.00 $ 2,257,389.45 $ 166,227.55 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 1,100,244.00 $ 1,282,503.36 $ 182,259.36 Page 3 of 3 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance l April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Repol. Page 5 of 11 1 -jwA 2 /. Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Assets $ 508,249.56 $ 508,249.56 $ 508,249.56 Liabilities and Fund Balance 42.95 $ 42.95 194,157.20 314,049.41 508,206.61 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 508,249.56 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Rep&t A24 Page6of11 t 61 w Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Admin Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Other Contractual Services Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Building Maintenace & Repairs Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast $ 41,400.00 Pelican Bay Services 20,700.00 $ 19,505.75 $ 1,194.25 Municipal Services Taxing Unit $ 2,650.00 2,650.00 $ Income Statement w/ Budget - Marh 31, 2012 26,900.00 $ 13,450.00 10,216.00 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2012 3,234.00 3,900.00 $ 2,000.00 (Unaudited) $ 921.77 2,000.00 $ Annual YTD YTD $ 192.31 12,100.00 Budget Budget Actual 6,402.83 Variance Operating Revenues: 300.00 $ 150.00 150.00 Carryforward $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ - Curent Ad Valorem Tax 436,800.00 406,224.00 409,145.99 $ 2,921.99 Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax - $ $ - Insurance Claim 46,250.00 18,330.25 $ 18,330.25 Interest 4,500.00 1,575.00 605.09 $ (969.91) Total Operating Revenues 598,900.00 565,399.00 585,681.33 20,282.33 Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Admin Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Other Contractual Services Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Building Maintenace & Repairs Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast $ 41,400.00 $ 20,700.00 $ 19,505.75 $ 1,194.25 5,300.00 $ 2,650.00 2,650.00 $ - 26,900.00 $ 13,450.00 10,216.00 $ 3,234.00 3,900.00 $ 2,000.00 1,078.23 $ 921.77 2,000.00 $ 300.00 107.69 $ 192.31 12,100.00 $ 6,100.00 6,402.83 $ (302.83) 300.00 $ 150.00 150.00 $ - 800.00 $ 400.00 15.36 $ 384.64 1,000.00 $ 500.00 - $ 500.00 93,700.00 355.50 46,250.00 40,125.86 6,124.14 62,500.00 31,300.00 29,456.46 1,843.54 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 400.00 - 400.00 400.00 200.00 191.51 8.49 44,200.00 22,100.00 17,218.39 4,881.61 800.00 400.00 400.00 - 900.00 450.00 450.00 - 1,700.00 4,300.00 2,200.00 1,055.02 1,144.98 1,200.00 600.00 210.35 389.65 200.00 100.00 64.40 35.60 500.00 300.00 - 300.00 7,300.00 3,700.00 3,899.00 (199.00) 12,400.00 2,500.00 2,144.50 355.50 Page 1 of 2 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report A;24 Page 7 of 11 16 1 Total Street Lighting Field Operating 146,800.00 64,250.00 55,089.63 9,160.37 Total Field Expenditures 240,500.00 110,500.00 95,215.49 15,284.51 Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery/Equipment 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 General Improvements - - - - Total Capital Expenditures 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Total Operating Expenditures 241,500.00 110,700.00 95,215.49 15,484.51 Non- Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees 13,500.00 8,775.00 8,225.77 549.23 Property Appraiser Fees 8,900.00 4,895.00 - 4,895.00 Reserve for Future Construction 2281100.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 Reserves (2 1/2 mos. for Operations) 54,900.00 54,900.00 54,900.00 - Reserves for Equipment 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 - Revenue Reserve 22,000.00 - - Total Non - Operating Expenditures 357,400.00 326,670.00 321,225.77 5,444.23 Total Expenditures 598,900.00 437,370.00 416,441.26 20,928.74 Net Profit /(Loss) - 128,029.00 169,240.07 41,211.07 Page 2 of 2 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance i April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 8 of 11 OF , I Pelican Bay Services A24 1612 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 425,400.97 425,400.97 $ 425,400.97 Liabilities and Fund Balance 303,213.58 122,187.39 425,400.97 $ 425,400.97 Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Special Assessment Past Due Fund 111 Transfer from Tax Collector Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Tree Trimming Other Equipment Repairs Aerial Photography Minor Operating Other Operating Supplies Total Clam Bay Restoration Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 9 of 11 161 � A2h Pelican Bay Services 442,414.88 Municipal Services Taxing Unit 941.63 Income Statement wJ Budget -March 31, 2012 81,700.00 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2012 64,042.25 (Unaudited) 35,100.00 Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual - 14, 500.00 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 127,100.00 118,203.00 119,010.42 341000.00 34,000.00 34,000.00 700.00 700.00 834.21 Variance 807.42 134.21 $ 451,311.88 $ 442,414.88 $ 443,356.51 $ 941.63 $ 163,368.75 $ 81,700.00 $ 17,657.75 $ 64,042.25 70,151.60 35,100.00 9,728.00 25,372.00 29,000.00 14, 500.00 - 14, 500.00 349.77 - - - 7,500.00 - - 588.01 - - - 1,000.00 - - - $ 271,958.13 $ 131,300.00 $ 27,385.75 $ 103,914.25 $ 7,253.75 $ 100.00 $ - $ 143,000.00 1,200.00 - Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 150,253.75 $ Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ Non- Operating Expenditures: 19,762.57 $ Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ Property Appraiser Fees 2,600.00 Revenue Reserve 6,700.00 Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) 15,900.00 1,300.00 $ - $ 132,600.00 $ 27,385.75 $ 2,730.00 $ 2,380.20 $ 1,818.00 1,482.37 15,900.00 15,900.00 Total Non- Operating Expenditures $ 29,100.00 $ 20,448.00 $ 19,762.57 $ Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 153,048.00 $ 47,148.32 $ Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 289,366.88 $ 396,208.19 $ Page 1 of 1 100.00 1,200.00 1,300.00 105,214.25 349.80 335.63 685.43 105,899.68 106,841.31 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 10 of 11 16 15 r A 2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,575,171.35 Interest Receivable - Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 2,575,171.35 Total Assets $ 2,575,171.35 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable $ 39,832.15 Goods Received Inv. Received 9,067.34 Total Liabilities 48,899.49 Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved 2,582,848.52 Excess Revenues (Expenditures) (56,576.66) Total Fund Balance 2,526,271.86 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 2,575,171.35 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 11 of 11 'IA 2 4 1612 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - March 31, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Transfer from Fund 109 General Foundation Payment for Crosswalks Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Hardscape Project (50066) Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Sprinkler System Repairs Landscape material Permits Electrical Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Other Road Materials Traffic Sign Restoration Project (50103) Traffic Signs Lake Bank Project (51026) Swale & Slope Maintenance Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Contingencies Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures: Total Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ - 436,500.00 436,500.00 436,500.00 - - - 53,487.00 53,487.00 331,900.00 308,667.00 310,738.42 2,071.42 19,500.00 6,825.00 5,925.14 (899.86) $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,305,376.04 $ 3,360,034.60 $ 54,658.56 $ 131,654.37 $ 15,798.52 $ 13,854.20 $ 1,944.32 2,956,362.25 532,145.21 429,605.74 102,539.47 171.23 9,370.03 (9,370.03) 72,615.50 (72,615.50) 1,000.00 (1,000.00) 17,500.00 13,680.14 (13,680.14) 39,568.70 39,568.70 38,553.60 1,015.10 21,323.00 - - - 50,000.00 - - - 85,000.00 - - - 500.00 - - - 22,275.72 - - - $ 3,306,684.04 $ 587,512.43 $ 578,679.21 $ 8,833.22 $ 10,300.00 $ 6,386.00 $ 6,214.77 $ 171.23 6,800.00 4,216.00 3,896.51 319.49 17,500.00 - - - $ 34,600.00 $ 10,602.00 $ 10,111.28 $ 490.72 $ 3,341,284.04 $ 598,114.43 $ 588,790.49 $ 9,323.94 $ - $ 2,707,261.61 $ 2,771,244.11 $ 63,982.50 Page 1 of 1 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Correspondence re: resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard Page 1 of 5 it p �� - A 2 161 _ ResnickLisa Subject: 7a. Chairman's Report. Correspondence re: resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard 4/11/12 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session From: Keith Dallas jmai Ito: keithdallas(a)comcast.netl Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 1:57 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Pelican Bay Road Resurfacing Lisa, Please forward this to Board members for their information. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: HillerGeorgia <GeorgiaHillerCcDcolliergov. net > Subject: FW: Pelican Bay Road Resurfacing Date: March 20, 2012 1:13:06 PM EDT To: Theodore Raia <tedraiaCrDvahoo.com >, "nsdorrillCcDaol.com" <nsdorrillaaol.com >, "Bob Naegle (ronirOnaegelnet.com)" <roniranaegelnet.com >, "Keith Dallas (keithdallasacomcast. net )" <keithdallasacomcast.net >, "nsdorrillOaol.com" <nsdorhllOaol.com> Cc: HillerGeorgia <GeorgiaHilleracolliergov.net >, RaineyJennifer < JenniferRainevCrDcolliergov .net> Commissioner Hiller asked that I send you this email for your information. Thank you, Jennifer Rainey Executive Aide to Board of County Commissioners Aide to Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District #2 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite # 303 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252 -8602 (239) 252 -6407 Fax - - - -- Original Message---- - From: HillerGeorgia Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 12:06 PM To: OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick; KlatzkowJeff Subject: Pelican Bay Road Resurfacing Leo /Jeff: The roads in PB were superficially resurfaced with a product that was supposed to extend their life. This has not happened. What's the warranty on the product and what recourse does the county have against the manufacturer and /or contractor. Please provide a copy of the contract and product information for my review. In light of this failure, the road resurfacing will need to be scheduled other than as would have been anticipated had this product/application worked. Please provide the revised schedule. With thanks - Georgia Hiller Commissioner, District 2 N April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Correspondence re: resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard Page 2 of 5 1612 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive • Suite 605 • Naples, Florida 34108 • (239) 597 -1749 • Fax (239) 597 -4502 February 24, 2012 The Honorable Georgia A. Hiller Commissioner, District 2 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 -5746 Dear Commissioner Hiller, The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) is studying ways to maintain the Pelican Bay community and keep it appealing to current and future residents. In this process, we have looked at the current condition of our roadways and pathways. As you are well aware, Collier County is responsible for maintaining both. In 2006, Pelican Bay Boulevard was unfortunately resurfaced using an experimental and low cost method called Micro - Surfacing, a mixture of slurry seal and emulsified aggregate of asphalt, water and mineral fillers or "gravel" applied overtop of the existing roadway surface and intended to preserve and extend the life of the pavement an additional 5 - 8 years. However this process was unsuccessful and within a year the new surface revealed significant wear. The attached photograph shows the current condition of a section of Pelican Bay Blvd, in front of the Philharmonic. We have been told that the County is scheduled to repave Pelican Bay Blvd. no sooner than 2016. Similarly, the County is deficient in maintaining Pelican Bay's pathways. The County uses the "patch" method to repair our pathways. However many of our pathways have been patched to the extent that they are now hazardous for walking, particularly by some of our older residents. The attached photos illustrate the problem. We have been told there is no money in the County budget to rebuild the pathways in the foreseeable future. Hence, the PBSD Board is faced with the dilemina of either waiting indeterminately for the County to make repairs or use our Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit (MSTBU) monies collected for other purposes. It is difficult to explain to residents the current conditions of the roadways and pathways, but it is even more challenging to rationalize using MSTBU monies for maintenance items that we have already paid through our County property taxes. Also, we understand that to the extent MSTBU monies are used for these items, we would have to defer other projects for which the monies were originally intended. Clearly, staff can only provide as much maintenance work as has been funded, and the County has experienced a significant decline in revenue. Nonetheless, the County should recognize its; responsibility to maintain its essential infrastructure, On behalf of the PBSD Board, we implore you advocate strongly to provide adequate countywide funds to maintain roadways and pathways. Regards, ..jj Keith J. Dalkairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board C u t C n u w L �• A24 2 CD O co m m c U7 N (n U f6 N _a C m CM W m O N m c O_ y N N C U O .Z n co T o �U m � C O M n U_ N ry N IL N N c � f6 O � � N � t M U Q m Q1- a m 161 Z. A24 0 0 m c T O m N m N m C m U) U Q. 7 � � C Q' U m ca � o N c 0 N � U N � � C U O � N U � U T O @ U CO ,: c o @ n U Q) n C, O � � N L V n m m 12 A24, 3 O m O m Fn N C N Co () U m N �a rnm m c a � m U) o m c 0 .N m > c (D �'D U_ O Z N U) � O mU m .0 c o m n U_ N N � d y N c r m C) E in N O L In U N rn Q 1- a 161 2 A24 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Additional correspondence from Commissioner Hiller regarding resurfacing Pagel of 2 p. A24. ResnickLisa A ' ' Subject: RM 3452 Micro surfacing and Pelican Bay Blvd Information Tentative list # 4 and 5 Year Plan From: Keith Dallas [ mai Ito: keithdallas(alcomcast.netl Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 7:57 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: RE: RM 3452 Micro surfacing and Pelican Bay Blvd Information Tentative list # 4 and 5 Year Plan Lisa, Include in Wednesday's package. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: HillerGeorgia < GeorglaHlller(o)colllergoy.net> Subject: Re: RM 3452 Micro surfacing and Pelican Bay Blvd Information Tentative list # 4 and 5 Year Plan Date: April 9, 2012 5:18:44 PM EDT To: KlatzkowJeff <JeffKlatzkow(a-)C011iergov.net> Cc: Dorrill Neil <nsdorrill a)aol.com >, Dallas Keith <keithdallasna.comcast.net >, Ted Raia <tedraia(@gmail.com >, Naegle Bob <ronirat7naegelenet.com >, "lor3lor30aol.com" <1or3lor3na aol.com> Jeff- Staff reported that the road is in very poor shape. I'd be glad to take you for a drive. Again, please provide answers to my questions about warranties and recourse. Note also the life expectancy per the executive summary when this was approved. With thanks - Georgia Hiller Commissioner, District 2 On Apr 9, 2012, at 4:33 PM, KlatzkowJeff <mailto:JeffKlatzkow(a,collier ovg.net> wrote: Commissioner: I have spoken with staff, who believe that the condition of the road is acceptable, normal wear and tear excepted. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow County Attorney (239) 252 -2614 From: HillerGeorgia Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 7:34 PM To: KlatzkowJeff Subject: Fwd: RM 3452 Micro surfacing and Pelican Bay Blvd Information Tentative list # 4 and 5 Year Plan Jeff - I would appreciate a response to my email of March 20th regarding this contract. The repaving schedule was extended based on the micro - surfacing, which clearly has not worked. What recourse does the county have? April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Additional correspondence from Commissioner Page 2 of 2 With thanks - Georgia Hiller Commissioner, District 2 regarding resurfacing 61 2 A24 Begin forwarded message: From: "ChesneyBarbara" <<mailto:BarbaraChesne(a,collier og v_net>> To: "HillerGeorgia" <<mailto :GeorgiaHilleracolliereov.net>> Cc: "CasalanguidaNick" <<mailto: NickCasalanguida @,colliergov.net>, "VlietJohn" <<mailto:JohnVliet collier ov.net >, "GossardTravis" <<mailto :TravisGossard(&colliergov.net> >, "BlancoAlexander" <<mailto:AlexanderBlanco a collier ov.net >>, "OchsLeo" <<mailto:Leo0chs(i4collier og v.net>>, "SheffieldMichael" <<mailto:MichaelSheffield(&collier og v.net> >, "MarcellaJeanne" <<mailto:JeanneMarcella @collier og v_net>> Subject: RM 3452 Micro surfacing and Pelican Bay Blvd Information Tentative list # 4 and 5 Year Plan Commissioner Hiller: Please find below the questions that you asked about relative to Pelican microsurfacing and repairs on Orange Blossom Drive. Q: Repair work on Orange Blossom Drive. A: Temporary filling of the areas where repair was needed on Orange Blossom Drive was i asphalt on 3/26/12. Travis Gossard of Road Maintenance has just advised that the contractor work on 4/23/12. Q: Microsurfacing in Pelican Bay. A: Pelican Bay Boulevard was micro surfaced in FY 05 -06 with work completed on 5 -06 -( #4 is "Tentative" subject to change. Pelican Bay Boulevard is tentatively scheduled to be All Boulevard with a cold mix begin permanent repair Please note that the List in FY 15 -16. roadways are evaluated on an annual basis. After expenditure of this year's budget, Jo Vliet will perform the annual evaluation of all roads inclusive of Pelican Bays, and if the rating changes we w 11 advise. Attached is the information you requested. On behalf of Nick Casalanguida Barb April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7b. Chairman's Report. Board and Corps Correspondence re: support for Clam Bay dredging workshop Page 1 of 2 16 12 A4 ResnickLisa From: Elligott, Linda A SAJ [ Linda .A.Elligott @usace.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:49 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: RE: On Behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division Board Chairman Dallas - response from ACOE (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Lisa, Thank you for your request on behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division. The Corps does not have a function that supports a Permit Workshop such as you have requested. I appreciate your understanding and thank you for your interest in this project; if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks, Linda - - - -- Original Message---- - From: ResnickLisa fmailto:LResnick n,collier o v.netl Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:48 AM To: Elligott, Linda A SAJ Cc: Jim Powers (jim e,dm,gfl.com); Keith Dallas Subject: On Behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division Board Chairman Dallas Dear Ms. Elligott: On behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division Board Chairman Keith J. Dallas, please see attached. Regards, Lisa Resnick Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 lresnick@collier og v net < mailto :iresnick(a,collier;;ov.net> http: / /pelicanbayservicesdivision.net < http:/ /pelicanbayservicesdivision.net/> 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. Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7b. Chairman's Report. Board and Corps Correspondence re: support for Clam Bay dredging workshop Page 2 of 2 A 161 p 24 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Pelican Buy Servicess Divislion $01 11,4urcl Oak Vvivv - Suite 015 • Naples. FlMda :14103 * (239) $97.1731. Pax (239) 597,-4502 March 15, 2012 Ms. Linda A. Filigott U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville Regulatory Division Fort Myers Section 1520 Royal Palm Square Blvd., Suite 310 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 RE: Permit Application No. SAI-1996-02789 (IP/LAE) 'Clam Pass" Dear Ms. Elligott, The Pelican Bay Services Division/Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit (PBSD/MSTBU) Board acknowledges, supports and endorses requests for a collaborative US. Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass - Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club Calusa Group, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Mangrove Action Group, and Collier County Audubon Society. Regards, Keith 1. Dallis, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board — I U H T L C O (0 C a) to a) IL` E a� m m L C O L 0 O C Z 0 0) N C � Y O L J aJ e 7 01 O a) O_ Q a) 'O d' cc a) O Q) m c E O E N O 5 j U � U C a) U) a) 0) ca co f0 C m m C U Q) C3CL N N O � N N U O N C J O) O aS d QOO ham; ^L MW ^W� ^W i C N T" m O i N O Z � cn = CL �- 3 O O J ✓ s +A" SkS 1612 A24 CD U F c 0 m c a� N 0 a` E a� m m c 0 L r 0 c Z g rn 'N c N Y O U! O O (0 = 7 .0 O N O_ Q' N 'o m o o m m= c � o E .N o N (q U C N N N T f0 f4 C m (6 C f0 � U N acu (V N Q N U N o N QJ C W Q d k tYr'Wx . S 161 2 A24 @ T C O C N N O a` E m L c 0 L O c Z o � In c Cl) Y o � o � J O � o O O n � N -0 @ N O N CO c E O E N O > U N � N .- U C j N N � 0) > @ @ C m @ C @ U O O m a- 04 N O m N N U _ N O � a M @ N J 0) O_ @ Qnnn. 161 2' A24 > m T 0 m N N d Q7 m N L_ C O L O c Z o rn N C N Y U O � O � J m= 7 � � O N n � N 7 m a� O N M C E �> O E N O U 3 N � U C �> N N N Cl) T m m c m m C m U U d � N O N N N U O N "O .y � C — m m 07 n , m Qwa 1612 A24 161 '*? A24 U H c 0 N C N m U H c 0 m c m a� CL E ro m m L c 0 L 0 O c Z 0 rn 'ti c fA Y O O O J m c C a O N 0_ � N 'O Q' m N O N m ?�- C E o E N O > U 0 j y � N .. U C N N N 0) T m m C m m C m � U N CL N N Qr N V ti O C m N �C J O) d m ¢aod 161'7 A24 1612 A24 U H T C O (O C N U1 N d E N m N L c O L 0 O c Z o � 'm c M Y N O (n O L J (0 e 7 .0 O N D_ � N "O r' f0 N 02 C O E y O >_ U F j co N U C C .Z N N N a1 T (0 (4 C m m C 0 U N N_ N O N U N r N O N C J O O. f0 Qada N C N (6 U H T C O C N N N d N OJ C L O N C N Y U) O � J (4 c 7 a1 O N d (0 N O N m C O E N p N N U C N N � co f0 C m f0 C f0 4) U N d N_ N r O N N O O - N a CO QJ N Qaon. 161 r.; p24 N C O (6 U T L C O C N N N a` m a� L_ C O L O c Z o m 'N c N Y O O U) p � J 7 � 01 O N 0_ � Ql "O d' 16 17 A24 c AM C� O O� N 0 00 J f0 c 7 C a O N n X N aOf m N O N C O E N O N L N .r U C .Z N N N U T c f0 C Cn f0 C W a) U N a� N O N CL N V O N O a m a� -i a ` n Qooa m 161 2 A24 N C a) N U H c 0 m c aU ti a` E m a� L C O L 0 O C Z o rn U) Y O � J aJ = 7 .0 O a) O_ a a) as `o a) o m m w c E o E N O >_ O y � a) w. U C m aEi U a7 (a C m a7 C U U a) a3 N O N d N V O to � — ca a� QJ ¢aoa ca 16 17 A24 161 Q' A24 N �..F C 017 --a p . k; , t a r c U H T C O c6 c N a E a� m m L 0 0 0 cz o rn N C_ N Y O c J (0 _ 7 m O N O Of N a `m o o ar m C E E O N O >_ U N � N U C '2 N N N ca co (0 C m c0 C (6 � U N a� N O N O. N (0J O _ N C J 01 C1 Qadd f0 1612 A24 I �y. r A24 O UI c U H T .O C O f6 C N N CL C U7 m N L C O L 0 O Z 0) 'n C N Y O � J (0 e c� O N a d' N 0 N O N m c E O E N p N � U C N N � T (0 O C CO f0 C L) U N a� N O N d N (L} O -a N t2 m a� C J L77 d f ¢eo0 d 1617 A24 m U H T C O m C O N N Q. E N m O L C O L O C Z O O) N C N Y O O O J m = 7 t� O) O o n Of a) -o a� m a) 0 0 m w c E o E � o > U m Cn U C j N N � T m m C m m C 2 CU U U N a N N O n N N V O N c — m � C J 07 n m Qood 16112 AV N C U H T C O C N N N d U7 co L_ C O L O C Z o CY) N c N Y O O C� O J co = O O) O N 0_ CO E t1 -3° sa Q ul-uo) T m T ca C: c r ;. U � Co Co c C L O �N C N Y O O O c J (9 � O N D_ � N a � f6 N o m w c E O E N O >_ U 6 N lq N w U C 'Z N N N T f0 W C m f0 C f6 U N CL N O N O_ N V O N � � C Q.a 161 2 A24 161 2 A24 c U H T C O a7 C a) N a) a` E a`) m a) L c O L 0 O c Z o � '<n c y Y O Ui O O c- J a3 e 7 O) O a) n Of a) P m a) O a) m c E O E N O >_ U d N Cn U C QI a) N m T m t0 C m a7 C a3 U a) d N O N d N V O N N c cu QJ N Qaod 161 2 A-24 161 2 q � a e AA �i�4 A«�y�•Z:4;< r. � to az �� .� , r P, ° °r - r t` t a: � U c 0 c 0 N N a` E a� w c (U ° i � J f4 = O " 'O o ` a� m .cc � �h•y C CC ° C N O 0 � 7 U) U U C C t. m co U NU p+r. U N .• C 04 t7. = O Q J ca ¢aod 161 2 q � a e AA �i�4 A«�y�•Z:4;< r. � to az �� .� , r P, ° °r - r t` t a: � .$mot 1612 A24 d. cz 0 - P ! Yy N m� r x° C z o � rrr co zi o # N ' 2 a a m (3) o m m C E o E N o 2P 0 , C N N U C N � T (6 (0 C m m C U � N ` � 5 N N N V O N CO a N C Q J N o6 a- .$mot 161 f t ! t ` L 3 e J r • ui `. @ N O N � � t= r ; E N ° Sib Q N t. U N N co (0 U Y a� _ U H a c 0 �o c aD N 0) IL E N m 0) L C O L 0 O C Z o rn N C N Y O O O c J co 7 C D) O N d � 0) a� c0 O) o m CO c E .� o E o �> U N Cn U C '2 N 0) � T fa N C m O7 C 0 U N a- N_ N O O' N U N a C N J Q 00 161 2 A24 Em U 1- T L C O (0 C N N N a` E m L c O L r O C Z O m N C N Y O O O c J (0 c 7 01 O N O Of N 'O Ix (0 N O N m c E O E CO O N fq N .. U C N N N T (0 (0 C m (U C. C U UJ a� N N r- d N N (Oj O N (O a N C — f0 N d c6 OT 161 2 A24 c U H T C O 03 C N co 0) a` E m m m L c 0 L 0 0 c Z o � N C N 2 O O O cc c J 7 cn O N d � N 'O d (0 N O N m c E O E N O N � U C N N T N co C m f4 C N � U_ 0) N d 0 N_ N O O N U co a c m Q J Q 00 1612 A9r r 161 A-2 4 � x MAY o PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING BY........................ MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012 THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET ON MONDAY, APRIL 16 AT 3 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 Fiala _ ✓ Hiller A Henning AGENDA Coyle / Coletta _ 1. Roll call 2. Approval of March 26, 2012 Budget Subcommittee minutes 3. Staff presentation and discussion of Proposed FY 2013 Budget 4. Audience comments 5. Vote to approve Proposed FY 2013 Budget 6. Adjourn ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749 OR VISIT PELICAN BAYS ERVICESDIVISION.NET. 4/12/2012 3:51:33 PM Misc. Correa: Dabs: —1 J 21-4 lt`2- Item *: I LO-- 2 2``i Copies to: 161 A24 0 NUIR 3 MAY "�' �> u BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD APRIL 16, 2012 $Y; LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Monday, April 16, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, FL. The following members were present: Fiala Budget Subcommittee Members Hiller _ Michael Levy, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson Henning John Chandler John Iaizzo Coyle r/ Keith J. Dallas Susan O'Brien Colette �G Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary 1. Roll call AGENDA Misc. Corres: 2. Approval of March 26, 2012 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes Date: —7 3. Staff presentation and discussion of Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Budget 4. Audience Comments 5. Vote to approve Proposed FY 2013 Budget Item #: l 6. Adjourn Copies to: ROLL CALL All Subcommittee members were present. APPROVAL OF MARCH 26.2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Mr. Dallas made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to approve the March 26, 2012 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes as presented. The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. STAFF PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2013 BUDGET Ms. McCaughtry explained that the Proposed FY 2013 Budget to be presented today would change slightly because it was prepared using the County's FY 2012 indirect cost rates. The County's FY 2013 indirect cost rates became available today, April 16 and increased modestly. Mr. Lukasz presented the Proposed FY 2013 Budget that was prepared as the Budget Subcommittee directed on March 26 to hold the non -ad valorem assessment at $398.13 and ad- valorem millage rate at 0.0858, or at FY 2012 levels, providing approximately an additional $188,000 to Capital Projects Fund 322 and approximately an additional $154,000 to Street Lighting Fund 778. It was noted that estimated revenue and some estimated expenditures were determined by the County and based on expected usage, i.e. fuel; and in the next rendition, staff would adjust the formatting so that carry forward is not shown as a negative number, but as a "transfer" to the appropriate fund, i.e., Capital or reserves. The Subcommittee and staff also discussed 1) the Capital Project Fund 322 Projection Summary sheet that showed estimated revenue and identified CIP project expenditures over five years starting in 2012 until 2016; 2) Chairman Levy's Pelican Bay Pathways summary sheet that showed the pathway location, condition rating, project parameters, and that current cost estimates are higher than cost estimates provided previously by Wilson Miller; 3) 1131 -/( / 161 27 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes April 16, 2012 how to determine which projects are priorities; and 4) how to obtain effective community feedback. However the Subcommittee did not make any recommendations to bring any of these items to the full Board. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience to make comments. VOTE TO APPROVE PROPOSED FY 2013 BUDGET Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mn Dallas to make a recommendation to the full Pelican Bay Services Division Board to approve the Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget as presented with the following changes: 1) adjust formatting of the budget summary to show revenue reserves at the top o the page under "Revenue" as a negative number, 2) to include the County's FY 2013 indirect cost rates. The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. ADJOURN There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 4:03 p.m. ichael Levy, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick 4/27/2012 11:38:33 AM 1132 1612 A24 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Monday, March 26, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, with the following members present: Budget Subcommittee Members Michael Levy, Chairman John Chandler absent Keith J. Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo late Susan O'Brien Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also present Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman, Pelican Bay Services Division Board AGENDA 1. Roll call 2. Approval of February 13, 2012 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes 3. Audience participation 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Budget 5. Discussion of non -ad valorem and ad valorem cash flow spreadsheets with and without the resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard (Dallas) 6. Initial discussion of capital components (ad valorem and non -ad valorem) to be included with FY 2013 budget 7. Audience comments 8. Adjourn ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Chandler, all Budget Subcommittee members were present. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 13 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTE Mr. Dallas made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to approve the February 13 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes as presented The Subcommittee voted unanimous) in favor and the motion was passed. JW budget AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION No audience participation INITIAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2013 BUDGET The County had still not provided FY 2013 indirect costs, but Mr. Lukasz presented the prelil that staff prepared using the County's FY 2012 indirect costs and the financial goals that the Budget Su February 13: 1) to hold the non -ad valorem assessment at $370.64; and 2) to hold the ad valor it strive to provide funds for the Community Improvement Plan (CIP). Holding the non -ad valore provide an additional $125,200 to the Capital Projects Fund 322. Also, $333,000 was rolled to C Water Management and Community Beautification, and $2,013,330 is available in F pita forward. Within Clam Bay Fund 320, $5,000 from Reserves (2' /z months for exotic removal. The south berm restoration project is expected to total To cover additional construction costs, $65,000 has been budgeted . P 1129 INWairectea on r 531 and W12 would and 322 from Fund 322 as carry d to Tree Trimming for in Clam Bay Fund 320. 1 A2 4 Budget Subcommittee of & Pelican Bay Services Division Board March 26, 2012 DISCUSSION OF NON -AD VALOREM AND AD VALOREM CASH FLOW SPREADSHEETS WITH AND WITHOUT THE RESURFACING OF PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD (DALLAS) Mr. Dallas reviewed his cash flow spreadsheets: 1) Fund 322 non -ad valorem cash flows "Don't Repave PBB" shows identified Capital expenditures and projected savings over ten years using the current assessment rate of $398.13; and 2) Fund 322 non -ad valorem cash flows "Repave PBB" shows identified Capital expenditures and projected deficit over ten years if the Board loaned the County $1.3 million to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard and kept the current assessment rate of $398.13. The Subcommittee discussed that the County was responsible for repairing pathways, not the Services Division, but the County did not appropriate funds for rebuilding pathways. Mr. Dorrill pointed out that because the County was not appropriating funds for this purpose, the argument of being double taxed is moot. If the Services Division was to fund pathways projects, and the County was to appropriate funds for this purpose in the future that the Services Division should be eligible for reimbursement. The Board had voted recently against lending the County funds at this time that were collected for CIP projects for the purpose of resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard. The Subcommittee also discussed the Fund 322 ad valorem cash flow sheet that shows projected expenditures and savings over fifteen years for identified CIP street lighting projects. INITIAL DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COMPONENTS (AD VALOREM AND NON -AD VALOREM) TO BE INCLUDED WITH FY 2013 BUDGET Chairman Levy said that the preliminary FY 2013 budget does not yet contain a CIP component. The CIP ad valorem and non -ad valorem cash flow sheets show projected funds available for identified CIP projects at the current ad valorem millage rate of 0.0858, and at the current assessment rate of $398.13. Consensus was to direct staff to use the same figures used last year to provide additional CIP funding: 1) an additional $27.50 non -ad valorem assessment; and 2) an additional 0.0327 ad valorem millage rate. Mr. Lukasz said the street lighting fixtures are obsolete. Mr. Dorrill would check with FPL for their cost for LED street lighting fixtures and suggested Pelican Bay Boulevard find out what has been done in the past and to create a sense of importance. At the next Budget Subcommittee meeting on April 16 at 3 p.m., staff would present an ated F eliminary budget including the County's FY 2013 indirect costs and by holding the assessment at las $ 3 and ad valorem millage rate at 0.0858. Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Dallas to adjourn. The Subcommi nani y in favor, the motion was passed, and the meeting was adjourned at 4:49 p.m Michael Levy, Chairman 1130 Lisa Resnick 4/10/2012 3:46:11 PM "41 Is O C O w v a N N M "LS R W U U �O a a c� Pa PLO 161 2 'A24 O O O N N - O M O O �D O vi M 00 69 kn 00 69 M N 6R 69 6+4 N 6R 69 x- N N O C Q O O - �•r in to O O O vi kn 14C 6's m r.q N H kn N N 00 69 el N b�3 6��9 N 6R b4 fft 6R O O N N O O O 0 0 O O N N ,b vi O O O kn to H N O �- N Qq 6R � 6R in kn O 6s O � eq 64 64 N N .-i 69 O O O N N O Q Q O O O N N O O O M M 0 0 O O O O %0 \p t t N N DD O O O O - et to to M Q M [� O� O to kn O 1�0 M '-y 00 rt N N 00 .-+ kn M O N = Q-� m vi 6s 69 6 [- Np rA ej N 6R R 6R ON cV N 69 � O C O O C O O O O O O C O O Q O O Q O O O O O O O O O V'1 V'1 '% " ri n M 07 00 N N \O d\ 00 M O O N M r- r-- O I- O rl M - — kn O U .-a O_ to '-+ N 6 4 6R f "O N 6M�4 � � 69 6M9 "p 6F} v Q cz .5 kn In o PQ '� r'3 00 a � `� l p" M W Q N o 0 °? 4 c� ° y m E a U v ° o ,� O w 0 3 V Q m i eu o 0 0 fu cl v 'Ci z C) U p v 6 cz o o ++ m O a� > +o R3 -� -� o � y a en a uS¢o wa �w vaa a o m� v a A - ' +4 lquivalent Residential Unit's: 7618.29 7618.29 Collier County 7618.29 7618.29 7618.2' 'rejected Rate: ERU or Millage 4 -13 -2012 0.0858 Pelican Bay Services Division $337.622 0.0858 60.512 $398.13 actual Rate (FY 2012) $337.88 Fiscal Year 2013 $398.13 actual Dollar/Millage Change 1612 0.0000 $0.26 Operating Budget -0.08% 100.00% 0.44% 0.000/ General Funds Capital Projects Funds Water Community Street Clam Bay Capital Total Revenue Management Beautification Lights System Projects All Funds Cauryforward $243,070 $450,730 $373,830 $21,350 $322,000 $1,410,980 Rolled Capital Project/Program Canyforward $0 $0 $0 $64,020 $2,013,330 $2,077,350 Interest Income $4,100 $10,900 $6,700 Si $700 $25,700 $48,100 Plan Review Fee Income $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Interfimd Transfers (Fund 111) $0 $0 $0 $32,300 $0 $32,300 Assessment or Advalorem Tax Levy $667,500 $1,904,600 $436,800 $124,300 $336,700 $3,469,900 Total Revenue $916,170 $2,366,230 $817,330 $242,670 $2,697,730 $7,040,130 Appropriations Projections Personal Services $163,300 $831,300 $105,700 $1,100,300 Administration: Indirect Cost Reimbursements $84,500 $0 $5,300 $89,800 Other Contractual Services $29,700 $37,100 $26,900 $93,700 Storage Contractor $0 $800 $800 $1,600 Telephone - Service Contracts $400 $400 $400 i' "' $1,200 Telephone - Direct Line $3,500 $3,500 $3,200 I "! $10,200 Postage, Freight &Ups $2,200 $2,200 $2,000 i ;; $6,400 Rent - Buildings $9,500 $9,800 $9,500 I $28,800 Rent - Equipment $1,500 $1,600 $1,500 i $4,600 Insurance- General $1,000 $500 $300 $1,800 Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment Fees $13,400 $0 $0!'' $13,400 Information Tech Automation Allocation $4,800 $9,600 $0 '' "'_ $14,400 Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors $1,800 $2,600 $0 j $4,400 Legal Advertising $1,500 $2,000 $0 $3,500 Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. $1,500 $2,000 $0 $3,500 Office Supplies - General $2,000 $2,500 $800 $5,300 Other Training & Educational Exp. $1,100 $1,500 $0 $2,600 Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $1,000 I, $1,000 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs $8,800 $7,400 $0 $16,200 Field Services: Engineering $10,000 $0 $0 '_' $73,600 $50,000 $133,600 Plan Review Fees $1,500 $0 $0 $1,500 Electrical Contractors $0 $0 $7,300 $7,300 Other Contractual Services $1,000 $29,500 $800 $20,000 $239,400 $290,700 Landscape Incidentals $0 $2,500 $0 j? $2,500 Pest Control $0 $6,000 $0 $6,000 Tree Trimming $30,000 $64,500 $0 $34,000 $128,500 Temporary Labor $44,900 $201,400 $0 $246,300 Berm & Swale Maintenance $14,000 $0 $0 $85,000 $99,000 Water Use Charges $0 $89,900 $0 $89,900 Landscape Materials $8,500 $52,000 $0 $225,000 $285,500 Celluar Telephones/Radios $500 $3,200 $500 $4,200 Trash & Dumpster Fees $5,700 $17,000 $0 $22,700 Water Quality Testing $30,100 $0 $0 $30,100 Insurance - Vehicles $900 $10,000 $900 $11,800 Insurance - General $2,300 $9,300 $900 $12,500 Bldg. Repairs/Mntc. $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $5,100 Electricity $0 $3,400 $44,200 $47,600 Fertilizers, Herbicides, Chem $98,400 $62,000 $0 $160,400 Sprinkler System Maint $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000 Mulch $0 $46,000 $0 $46,000 Equipment Rental $0 $2,500 $0 $2,500 Licenses and Permits $0 $800 $0 $800 Repairs & Maintenance & Fuel $7,400 $82,700 $2,600 $500 $93,200 Road and Bike Path Repairs $0 $6,000 $0 $6,000 Photo Processing (Aerial) $0 $0 $o $7,500 $7,500 Minor Operating Supplies $0 $3,700 $0 $2,400 $6,100 Employee Uniforms $1,100 $9,400 $0 $10,500 Other Operating Supplies $2,500 $9,000 $0 $500 $12,000 Light, Bulb and Ballast $0 $0 $13,100 $13,100 Personal Safety Equipment $500 $3,000 $500 $4,000 Paint supplies $0 $800 $0 s' $800 Traffic Signs $0 $3,000 $0 (' $50,000 $53,000 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs $0 $3,300 $9,600 $12,900 Capital Outlay $1,000 $36,000 $1,000 $11,000 $49,000 Rolled Capital Projects/Programs & Reserves Clam Bay Projects $64,020 $64,020 Hardscape Imp. Project $2,013,330 $2,013,330 Lake Bank Imp. Project $0 $0 Reserves (2 /1/2 mo. for Operations) $139,045 $394,980 $59,730 $16,350 $0 $610,105 Reserve for Operating Fund Capital Imp. $65,000 $0 $440,100 $505,100 Equipment Reserve $45,325 $62,550 $32,500 $140,375 Other Charges/Fees Tax Collector $20,400 $58,300 $13,500 $3,800 $10,400 $106,400 Property Appraiser $20,600 $52,100 $8,900 $2,500 $6,900 $91,000 Revenue Reserve $33,300 $94,900 $22,100 $6,500 $17,700 $174,500 Total Appropriations $916,170 $2,366,230 $817,330 `' $242,670 $2,697,730 $7,040,130 lquivalent Residential Unit's: 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 7618.2' 'rejected Rate: ERU or Millage $87.618 $250.004 0.0858 $16.316 $44.196 'rojected Total Rate: ERU or Millage $337.622 0.0858 60.512 $398.13 actual Rate (FY 2012) $337.88 0.0858 $60.25 $398.13 actual Dollar/Millage Change ($0.26) 0.0000 $0.26 $0.00 -0.08% 100.00% 0.44% 0.000/ 0 A24 Collier County 1612 A 2 4 _ tY Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Assessments Interest Income Developer Plan Reviews Miscellaneous Income Prior Year Expenditures Carryforward Total Revenue: Appropriations: Administration Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries and Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adj. Social Security Matching Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractual Services Telephone - Service Contract Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Building Information Tech Automation J Insurance - General Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment F Rent Equipment Printing (Outside) Legal Advertising Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Other Educational Sub - total: Emergency Maintenance/Repai Sub - total: Total Administrative: 2 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $728,400 $702,260 $666,300 $607,709 $31,891 $639,600 $667,500 $3,500 $4,460 $4,600 $1,185 $3,415 $4,600 $4,100 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $188,831 $0 $187,527 $0 $0 $0 ($6,300) $922,231 $706,720 $859,927 $608,894 $35,306 $644,200 $666,800 $28,000 $28,106 $28,000 $10,294 $17,706 $28,000 $28,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $2,142 $2,096 $2,200 $754 $1,446 $2,200 $2,100 $3,304 $2,554 $1,600 $502 $1,098 $1,600 $1,900 $7,504 $7,504 $8,400 $4,206 $4,194 $8,400 $8,800 $76 $76 $100 $39 $61 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100 $41,200 $40,436 $41,400 $15,845 $25,555 $41,400 $41,000 $108,200 $108,200 $84,500 $42,250 $42,250 $84,500 $84,500 $30,800 $28,011 $26,900 $8,216 $18,684 $26,900 $29,700 $600 $336 $400 $160 $240 $400 $400 $3,500 $2,417 $3,500 $1,037 $1,763 $2,800 $3,500 $3,000 $14 $3,000 $108 $2,492 $2,600 $2,200 $11,100 $10,293 $9,500 $4,752 $4,748 $9,500 $9,500 $8,200 $8,100 $5,200 $2,400 $2,800 $5,200 $4,800 $1,300 $1,300 $1,200 $600 $600 $1,200 $1,000 $14,600 $14,600 $13,400 $6,700 $6,700 $13,400 $13,400 $2,500 $1,240 $1,800 $431 $669 $1,100 $1,500 $2,300 $595 $2,300 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,800 $2,000 $677 $2,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,500 $4,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $500 $500 $1,500 $2,500 $453 $2,000 $233 $367 $600 $2,000 $1,100 $143 $1,100 $85 $515 $600 $1,100 $195,700 $176,379 $158,800 $66,972 $84,328 $151,300 $158,400 $8,800 $0 $8,800 $0 $0 $0 $8,800 $204,500 $176,379 $167,600 $66,972 $84,328 $151,300 $167,200 $245,700 $216,815 $209,000 $82,817 $109,883 $192,700 $208,200 2 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 161 2 A24 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: FY 2011 Budget FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget Received Expended Year -To -Date Anticipated Mar. /Sept. 2012 Total Received Expended Proposed FY 2013 Budget Plan Review Fees $1,500 Regular Salaries $79,400 $79,655 $79,400 $29,155 $50,245 $79,400 $79,400 ER 457 Contributions $665 $165 $700 $39 $661 $700 $700 Reserve For Salary Adjustment $59 $0 $2,600 $0 $2,600 $2,600 $0 Reserve For Salary Attrition $0 $0 ($9,500) $0 $0 $0 ($9,500) Overtime $15,500 $15,587 $15,400 $5,576 $9,824 $15,400 $15,400 Social Security Matching $7,300 $6,886 $7,500 $2,481 $5,019 $7,500 $7,300 Regular Retirement $11,300 $8,896 $5,300 $1,650 $3,650 $5,300 $6,300 Health Insurance $17,400 $17,396 $19,500 $9,750 $9,750 $19,500 $20,300 Life Insurance $217 $217 $200 $110 $90 $200 $200 Worker's Compensation $2,500 $2,500 $2,200 $1,100 $1,100 $2,200 $2,200 $123,300 $49,861 $82,939 $132,800 $122,300 Sub - total: $134,341 $131,302 Engineering Fees $16,400 $7,706 $12,000 $200 $14,000 $14,200 $10,000 Plan Review Fees $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Other Contractual Services $1,000 $0 $1,000 $286 $714 $1,000 $1,000 Tree Trimming $30,000 $29,952 $30,000 $7,488 $22,512 $30,000 $30,000 Temporary Labor $42,400 $53,077 $42,400 $22,120 $20,280 $42,400 $44,900 Swale Maintenance $14,000 $13,745 $14,000 $813 $13,187 $14,000 $14,000 Water Quality Testing(Ind Pay) $22,600 $29,198 $22,600 $2,528 $20,072 $22,600 $30,100 Telephones (Includes Cellular) $500 $432 $500 $144 $256 $400 $500 Trash & Garbage Disposal $8,300 $4,519 $5,700 $2,511 $3,189 $5,700 $5,700 Insurance - General $2,400 $2,400 $2,300 $1,150 $1,150 $2,300 $2,300 Insurance- Auto $900 $900 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 Bldg. Repairs/Mntc. $0 $0 $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 Autos Trucks RM $900 $0 $900 $0 $900 $900 $900 Motor Pool $200 $0 $100 $0 $100 $100 $100 Labor - Fleet Maint. (ISF) $1,000 $996 $1,900 $632 $1,268 $1,900 $200 Fleet Maint. Parts $600 $329 $1,600 $174 $1,426 $1,600 $400 Fleet Non. Maint. ISF Parts $1,500 $0 $500 $41 $459 $500 $500 Boat R &M $500 $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 Other Equip. R &M $1,500 $3,821 $1,500 $381 $1,119 $1,500 $1,500 Uniform Purchase & Rental $1,100 $913 $1,100 $720 $980 $1,700 $1,100 Fertilizer, Herbicides, Chem $98,400 $80,693 $98,400 $30,074 $60,326 $90,400 $98,400 Replanting Program $8,500 $11,141 $8,500 $0 $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 Fuel & Lubricants - Outside $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fuel & Lubricants - Inside $3,200 $2,525 $8,900 $1,061 $3,839 $4,900 $3,300 Other Operating Supplies $2,500 $2,870 $2,500 $2,880 $1,920 $4,800 $2,500 Personal Safety Equipment $500 $500 $500 $500 $0 $500 $500 $261,500 $74,153 $178,847 $253,0001. $261,000 Sub - total: $260,400 $245,7171. 3 161 2"` +A24 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Capital Outlay Building Improvements Improvements General (Mnt. F, Other /Off. Mach. & Equip. /Tru Sub - total: Total Field Services: Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/12) Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Carryforward Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) Funding Reserve for South Berm Improvements Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/12) Fiscal Year 2013 Additions Fiscal Year 2013 Transfers to Carryforward Total Equipment Replacement Cost $37,600 $380,670 $136,200 $282,070 $243,045 $0 $39,000 $65,000 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $139,045 $39,025 $6,300 $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $45,325 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $184,370 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $13,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $14,200 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $408,941 $377,019 $385,800 $124,014 $261,786 $385,800 1 $384,300 $24,750 $15,425 $23,900 $14,085 $1,015 $15,100 $20,400 $22,600 $13,395 $22,000 $11,440 $1,560 $13,000 $20,600 $42,100 $0 $38,800 $0 $0 $0 $33,300 $89,450 $28,820 $84,700 $25,525 $2,575 $28,100 $74,300 $744,091 $622,654 F $679,500 $232,356 $374,244 $6067,600 $666,800 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/12) Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Carryforward Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) Funding Reserve for South Berm Improvements Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/12) Fiscal Year 2013 Additions Fiscal Year 2013 Transfers to Carryforward Total Equipment Replacement Cost $37,600 $380,670 $136,200 $282,070 $243,045 $0 $39,000 $65,000 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $139,045 $39,025 $6,300 $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $45,325 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $184,370 Collier County 1 6 1 Pelican Bay Services Division $0 $0 Operating Budget $0 $0 Fiscal Year 2013 $94,386 $1,842,200 Community Beautification Operating Department $0 $0 Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance $0 For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures $0 $0 Received Anticipated Total FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Datr 2012 Expender Revenue Assessments Interest Income Miscellaneous Reimburse P/Y Expend. Carryforward $1,938,600 $1,869,03 $8,200 $10,40 $0 $9,97 $0 $ Total Revenue: $2,441,870 $1 Appropriations: Administration: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries & Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adjust. Social Security Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: IT Automation Allocation & Capit Other Contractual Serv. Storage Contractor Telephone- Service Contract Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Buildings Rent - Equipment Insurance- General Eq. R &M Printing & Binding Legal Advertising Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Training & Education Sub - total: Emergency Mntc./Repair Sub - total: Total Administrative: $1,907,800 $1,739,869 $10,700 $7,945 $0 $0 $0 $0 $498,338 $0 $2,416,838 $1,747,814 $91,631 $1,831,500 $2,755 $10,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,386 $1,842,200 A24 Proposed FY 2013 $1,904,600 $10,900 $0 $0 $1,908,700 $28,850 $28,959 $28,900 $10,606 $18,294 $28,900 $28,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $900 $2,200 $2,160 $2,300 $776 $1,524 $2,300 $2,300 $3,400 $2,631 $1,600 $517 $1,083 $1,600 $2,000 $7,740 $7,732 $8,700 $4,334 $4,366 $8,700 $9,000 $78 $78 $100 $41 $59 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100 $42,400 $41,660 $42,700 $16,324 $26,376 $42,700 $43,300 $7,000 $4,200 $14,500 $7,200 $7,300 $14,500 $9,600 $37,500 $21,784 $34,300 $12,283 $22,017 $34,300 $37,100 $0 $0 $800 $243 $557 $800 $800 $400 $392 $400 $161 $239 $400 $400 $3,500 $2,266 $3,500 $1,037 $1,863 $2,900 $3,500 $3,000 $40 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $2,200 $11,400 $11,877 $9,800 $4,896 $4,904 $9,800 $9,800 $2,600 $2,187 $1,900 $462 $1,438 $1,900 $1,600 $500 $500 $500 $250 $250 $500 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,600 $1,219 $2,600 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $2,600 $2,000 $633 $2,000 $0 $500 $500 $2,000 $4,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $2,639 $2,500 $371 $1,229 $1,600 $2,500 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $105 $695 $800 $1,500 $79,000 $47,737 $79,300 $27,008 $45,992 $73,000 $76,100 $7,400 $0 $7,400 $0 $0 $0 $7,400 $86,400 $47,737 $86,700 $27,008 $45,992 $73,000 $83,500 128,800 $89,397 11 $129,400 $43,332 $72,368 $115,70011 $126,800 Collier County w, * Pelican Bay Services Division 1612 Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Overtime Reserve For Salary Adjust. Reserve For Salary Attrition Social Security Retirement - Regular Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: Water Use Charges Landscape Materials Other Contractual Services Tree Trimming Pest Control Temporary Labor Motor Pool Rental Cellular Telephone Electricity/Utilities Trash & Garbage Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Insurance - Vehicle Bldg. Repairs/Mntc. Sprinkler System Maint. Landscaping Maint. Auto & Truck R &M Fleet Maint ISF Labor Fleet Maint ISF Parts Fleet Maint Non -ISF Parts Other Equip. R &M Licenses & Permits Uniform Purchases & Rental Fert. Herbicides & Chem. Fuel & Lubricants - Outside Fuel & Lubricants - ISF Road & Bike Path Repairs Minor Operating Equip. Other Operating Supplies Landscape Incidentals Personal Safety Equipment Paint Supplies Traffic Signs Sub - total: Emergency Mntc./Repair Sub - total: Total Field Services: A24 I Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Dat( 2012 Expended Budget $442,400 $382,516 $430,700 $137,800 $251,800 $389,600 $424,300 $2,200 $1,170 $1,700 $590 $1,110 $1,700 $1,700 $103,000 $82,227 $99,200 $32,240 $54,960 $87,200 $97,400 $100 $0 $15,300 $0 $15,300 $15,300 $15,300 $0 $0 ($22,200) $0 $0 $0 ($22,200) $41,900 $33,105 $41,900 $12,200 $25,700 $37,900 $41,300 $64,600 $42,100 $29,200 $8,481 $13,019 $21,500 $35,000 $133,500 $133,500 $149,600 $74,819 $74,781 $149,600 $155,800 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $601 $599 $1,200 $900 $38,800 $38,800 $38,500 $19,250 $19,250 $38,500 $38,500 $827,700 $714,618 $785,100 $285,981 $456,519 $742,500 $788,000 $83,800 $78,415 $89,900 $36,600 $51,300 $87,900 $89,900 $53,100 $40,406 $53,100 $22,500 $31,100 $53,600 $52,000 $29,500 $35,890 $29,500 $15,800 $13,700 $29,500 $29,500 $35,900 $48,713 $63,600 $57,759 $13,841 $71,600 $64,500 $5,000 $4,475 $5,000 $2,325 $4,275 $6,600 $6,000 $204,500 $197,787 $190,100 $100,488 $119,812 $220,300 $201,400 $700 $480 $300 $77 $123 $200 $500 $3,200 $3,026 $3,200 $897 $1,503 $2,400 $3,200 $3,400 $2,502 $3,400 $905 $1,595 $2,500 $3,400 $24,900 $7,960 $17,000 $5,400 $11,500 $16,900 $17,000 $5,500 $1,000 $2,500 $1,115 $1,285 $2,400 $2,500 $9,000 $9,000 $8,800 $4,400 $4,400 $8,800 $9,300 $9,900 $9,900 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $30,000 $31,318 $30,000 $3,688 $24,312 $28,000 $30,000 $60,200 $53,273 $46,000 $31,300 $15,500 $46,800 $46,000 $100 $1,811 $100 $270 $130 $400 $100 $8,500 $8,496 $10,600 $3,532 $7,068 $10,600 $7,200 $9,600 $7,661 $11,400 $3,520 $7,880 $11,400 $7,200 $1,000 $1,038 $1,000 $150 $850 $1,000 $1,100 $2,000 $16,572 $2,000 $4,281 $219 $4,500 $2,000 $800 $0 $800 $30 $770 $800 $800 $9,400 $7,084 $9,400 $2,943 $6,057 $9,000 $9,400 $62,000 $62,782 $62,000 $22,900 $37,200 $60,100 $62,000 $100 $0 $100 $0 $100 $100 $100 $44,100 $46,403 $67,200 $11,042 $24,058 $35,100 $64,500 $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $3,000 $6,023 $3,000 $1,334 $1,666 $3,000 $3,700 $11,500 $8,898 $9,000 $2,713 $6,387 $9,100 $9,000 $0 $0 $2,500 $500 $2,200 $2,700 $2,500 $3,000 $793 $3,000 $644 $2,156 $2,800 $3,000 $800 $0 $800 $30 $570 $600 $800 $3,000 $3,620 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $717,500 $695,326 $746,000 $342,143 $407,257 $749,400 $749,300 0 0 $3,300 $0 $0 $0 $3,300 $717,500 $695,326 $749,300 $342,143 $407,257 $749,400 1 $752,600 $1,545,200 $1,409,944 $1,534,400 $628,124 $863,776 $1,49-1-,9-0-0-11 $1,540,600 I wM Collier County 1612 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements General Autos & Trucks Other Mach. & Equip. Total Capital Outlay: Other Fees & Charges Property Appraiser Tax Collector Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: A-2 b Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations $69,500 Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $888,230 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $300,300 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $657,430 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/12) $601,680 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $206,700 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $394,980 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/12) $55,750 Fiscal Year 2013 Additions $41,800 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfers to Carryforward $35,000 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $62,550 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $457,530 7 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $13,600 $355 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,000 $23,597 $102,000 $96,538 $0 $96,500 $35,000 $17,000 $12,200 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $58,600 $36,152 $103,000 $96,538 $0 $96,500 F77777T36,000 $52,700 $31,255 $51,300 $26,694 $6,206 $32,900 $52,100 $57,750 $35,994 $55,700 $32,865 $2,835 $35,700 $58,300 $98,000 $0 $90,700 $0 $0 $0 $94,900 $208,450 $67,249 $197,700 $59,559 $9,041 $681600 $205,300 $1,941,050 $1,602,742 $1,964,500 $827,553 $945,185 $1,772,700 11 $1,908,700 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations $69,500 Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $888,230 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $300,300 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $657,430 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/12) $601,680 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $206,700 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $394,980 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/12) $55,750 Fiscal Year 2013 Additions $41,800 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfers to Carryforward $35,000 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $62,550 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $457,530 7 i Collier County 1617 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Current Ad valorem Taxes Interest Income Miscellaneous Income Carryforward Total Revenue: Appropriations Administration: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries & Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adjust. Social Security Matching PBSD Retirement Worker's Compensation Health Insurance Life Insurance Sub - total: Indirect Cost Reimb. Other Contractual Services Storage Contractor Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Building Rent - Equipment Reimburse P/Y Expend. Insurance - General Info Technology Automation All( Office Supplies Copying Charges Minor Office Equipment Other Operating Supplies Sub - total: Emergency Mntc./Repairs Sub - total: Total Administrative: A 2�� w Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $273,200 $275,688 $436,800 $396,200 $23,200 $419,400 $436,800 $1,200 $1,623 $4,500 $600 $3,900 $4,500 $6,700 $0 $6,578 $0 $18,330 $0 $18,330 $0 $0 $0 $157,684 $0 $0 $0 ($158,500) $274,400 $283,889 $598,984 $415,130 $27,100 $442,230 $285,000 $28,000 $28,107 $28,000 $10,294 $17,706 $28,000 $28,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,140 $2,096 $2,300 $754 $1,546 $2,300 $2,300 $3,300 $2,554 $1,500 $502 $998 $1,500 $1,900 $100 $100 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100 $7,500 $7,504 $8,400 $4,206 $4,194 $8,400 $8,800 $100 $76 $100 $39 $61 $100 $100 $41,215 $40,437 $41,400 $15,845 $25,555 $41,400 $42,200 $6,300 $6,300 $5,300 $2,650 $2,650 $5,300 $5,300 $20,800 $25,654 $26,900 $10,216 $16,684 $26,900 $26,900 $0 $0 $800 $243 $557 $800 $800 $600 $325 $400 $159 $241 $400 $400 $3,500 $1,663 $3,500 $735 $2,065 $2,800 $3,200 $2,000 $15 $2,000 $108 $1,892 $2,000 $2,000 $11,100 $10,010 $9,500 $4,752 $4,748 $9,500 $9,500 $2,500 $1,958 $1,800 $431 $1,069 $1,500 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $15 ($15) $0 $0 $400 $400 $300 $150 $150 $300 $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $0 $800 $0 $500 $500 $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $49,000 $46,325 $52,300 $19,459 $31,541 $51,000 $51,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,000 $46,325 $52,300 $19,459 $31,541 $51,000 $51,700 $90,215 $86,762 $93,700 $35,304 $57,096 $9L,400J $93,900 w Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Overtime Reserve for Salary Adj. Social Security Matching Retirement Regular Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Vehicle Allowance Sub - total: Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Cellular Phones Electricity Auto Insurance Insurance - General Bldg. Repairs/Mntc. Fleet Maintenance Electrical Contractor Light Bulbs Ballast Personnel Safety Equipment Sub - total: Emergency Electricl Repair Servi Sub - total: Total Field Services: Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements - General Other Machinery & Equipment Sub - total: Total Capital Outlay: Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Sub - total: Total Other Fees & Charges Total Appropriations: 1612 A24 0 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar./Sept. Received 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $40,400 $40,585 $40,500 $14,856 $25,644 $40,500 $40,500 $165 $165 $200 $39 $161 $200 $200 $4,000 $3,745 $4,000 $1,640 $2,360 $4,000 $4,000 $100 $0 $1,400 $0 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $3,400 $3,200 $3,500 $1,178 $2,322 $3,500 $3,500 $5,300 $4,270 $2,600 $758 $1,842 $2,600 $3,200 $8,300 $8,300 $9,300 $4,652 $4,648 $9,300 $9,700 $100 $110 $100 $56 $44 $100 $100 $1,100 $1,100 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,865 $61,475 $62,500 $23,629 $38,871 $62,500 $63,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $0 $800 $0 $500 $500 $800 $500 $432 $400 $144 $256 $400 $500 $44,200 $35,100 $44,200 $14,452 $29,548 $44,000 $44,200 $900 $900 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 $800 $800 $800 $400 $400 $800 $900 $0 $0 $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,500 $1,011 $5,700 $1,076 $4,624 $5,700 $2,600 $7,300 $13,567 $7,300 $3,900 $3,100 $7,000 $7,300 $12,400 $9,950 $12,400 $2,145 $8,655 $10,800 $13,100 $500 $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 $68,900 $61,760 $74,700 $22,567 $49,733 $72,300 $72,500 $9,600 $0 $9,600 $0 $0 $0 $9,600 $78,500 $61,760 $84,300 $22,567 $49,733 $72,300 $82,100 $141,365 $123,235 $146,800 $46,196 $88,604 $134,800 $145,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $14,200 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $14,200 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $8,400 $5,295 $13,500 $7,967 $1,533 $9,500 $13,500 $5,500 $0 $8,900 $0 $8,900 $8,900 $8,900 $14,400 $0 $22,000 $0 $0 $0 $22,100 $28,300 $5,295 $44,400 $7,967 $10,433 $18,400 $44,500 $28,300 $5,295 $44,400 $7,967 $10,433 $18,400 $44,500 $274,080 $215,292 $285,900 $89,467 $156,133 $245,600 $285,000 0 1612 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations $196,630 Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $177,200 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $0 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $373,830 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/12) $115,730 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Transfer to SL Capital Reserve 556.000 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $59,730 Reserve for Street Light Capital Improvements Capital Improvement (Opening Balance 10 -01 -2011) $228,100 Transfer from SL Operations $56,000 Addition to Capital Reserve $156,000 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Improvements: $440,100 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/12) $30,000 Fiscal Year 2013 Additions $2,500 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfers to Carryforward $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $32,500 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $532,330 A24 10 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Revenue Projections Carryforward Interest Income Transfer from TDC Transfers from Fund 111 Assessment Levy Appropriation Projection Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance (511001) Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Photo Processing Tree Trimming Repairs & Maintenance Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Capital Outlay Clam Bay Capital Projects (511051) Engineering Consultant Services Other Contractual Services Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve 161 f 142k $5,000 $700 $0 $32,300 $124,300 Total Available Funds: $162,300 $73,600 $20,000 $7,500 $34,000 $500 $2,400 $500 Sub Total Operating Expenditures $138,500 $11,000 Total Operating Expenditures $149,500 $0 $0 Total Ecosystem Enhancements $0 $3,800 $2,500 $6,500 Total Other Fees & Charges: $12,800 Total Appropriations: $162,300 11 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Revenue: Carryforward Assessment Levy Transfer from Fund 322 Interest Income TDC Funding Interfund Transfers (Fund 111) Carryforward of Encumbrances Total Revenue Appropriations: Operations (183800) Engineering Other Contractual Photo Processing Tree Trimming Repairs & Maintenance Minor Operating Eqpt. Computer Software Other Operating Supplies Total Operations Ecosystem Enhancements (183805) Engineering Other Contractual (Amended Budget; Other Contractual Total Capital Projects Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser 'Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees and Charges Total Appropriations 1612 A24 12 Adopted Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $209,458.00 $0.00 $301,300 $5,000 $35,000 $33,744 $127,100 $115,900 $6,200 $122,100 $124,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,300 $3,200 $700 $832 $268 $1,100 $700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $34,000 $0 $34,000 $34,000 $32,300 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $280,758 $71,944 $463,100 $116,732 $40,468 $157,200 $162,300 $102,944 $51,175 $163,369 $12,900 $111,600 $124,500 $73,600 $137,390 $67,238 $70,151 $0 $45,000 $45,000 $20,000 $0 $7,500 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $29,000 $7,488 $21,512 $29,000 $34,000 $485 $842 $350 $0 $350 $350 $500 $4,800 $4,005 $580 $0 $580 $580 $2,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $1,000 1 1 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 1 $500 $246,6191 $271,950 $20,388 $187,542 $207,930 $139,000 $11,300 $4,046 $7,254 $4,800 $48,500 $53,300 $0 $143,000 $0 $143,000 $0 $96,700 $96,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,3001 $150,254 $4,800 $145,200 $150,000 $0 $1,100 $675 $3,900 $2,318 $1,582 $3,900 $3,800 $700 $0 $2,600 $1,482 $1,118 $2,600 $2,500 $1,800 $1,800 $0 $0 $0 $6,500 $3,6001 F $8,300 $3,800 $2,700 $6,500 $12,800 �0 F 11 $404,519 $127,981 $430,504 $28,988 $335,442 $364,430 $151,800 12 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations ($207,230) Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $292,600 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $o Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $85,370 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Opening Balance (10 /01 /12) $85,370 Rolled Capital Projects /Programs - Transfer to Carryforward $64,020 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $0 Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward $5,000 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $16,350 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $16,350 1612 A24 13 Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (50103.1) Traffic Signs $50,000 Total Improvements 50,000 Tax Collector $10,400 Property Appraiser $6,900 Revenue Reserve $17,700 Total Other Fees & Charges: $35,000 Total Appropriations: $684,400 Equivalent Residential Units 7618.29 Projected ERU Rate: $44.20 A24 14 i 1617 0. - Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Revenue Summary Carryforward $322,000 Interest Income $25,700 Assessment Levy $336,700 Total Available Funds: $684,400 Appropriation Projection Capital Projects Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (50066.1) Engineering $50,000 Other Contractual Services $239,400 Landscape Materials $225,000 Mulch Requirements $0 Other Operating Supplies $0 Total Improvements $514,400 Lake Bank Enhancements (51026.1) Engineering $0 Berm and Swale $85,000 Total Improvements 85,000 Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (50103.1) Traffic Signs $50,000 Total Improvements 50,000 Tax Collector $10,400 Property Appraiser $6,900 Revenue Reserve $17,700 Total Other Fees & Charges: $35,000 Total Appropriations: $684,400 Equivalent Residential Units 7618.29 Projected ERU Rate: $44.20 A24 14 161 2 A24 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Revenue: Assessment Levy Interest Income Miscellaneous Income Foundation Contribution Carryforward of Rolled Pr Carryforward Total Revenue Appropriations: Pelican Bay Hardscape I Engineering Fees Other Contractual Service Sprinkler System Landscape Materials Mulch Requirements Road Materials Licenses and Permits Electrical Contractors Other Operating Supplies Lake Bank Enhancemen Engineering Fees Other Contractual Service Sprinkler System Mainten Swale Maintenance Landscape Materials Other Operating Supplies Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Traffic Signs Total Operating Expense: 15 Received Anticipated Total Proposed Budget Amended Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 FY 2012 Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $331,900 $331,900 $276,575 $42,000 $318,575 $336,700 $19,500 $19,500 $5,925 $13,575 $19,500 $25,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $53,487 $0 $53,487 ($53,487) $0 $2,080,626 $0 $0 $0 $0 $442,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $322,000 $794,300 $2,432,026 $335,987 $55,575 $391,562 $630,913 ,enovations (50066.1) $75,000 $131,654 $12,346 $48,000 $60,346 $50,000 $549,700 $2,956,362 $426,540 $400,000 $826,540 $239,400 $5,570 $6,000 $11,570 $0 $0 $69,365 $100,000 $169,365 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $21,323 $16,500 $16,500 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $7,004 $2,500 $9,504 $0 $39,569 $38,553 $1,200 $39,753 $0 $624,700 $3,148,908 $560,378 $575,200 $1,135,578 $514,400 s (51026.1) $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $0 $0 $22,275 $0 $22,275 $22,275 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $85,000 $0 $85,000 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $107,775 $0 $107,775 $107,775 $85,000 Renovation (50103.1) $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $759,700 $3,306,683 $560,378 $682,975 $1,293,353 $649,400 15 1612 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations ($918,891) Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $2,572,000 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320 $436,500 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $2,089,609 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Capital Outlay Opening Balance (10/01/12) $2,089,609 Transfers from Funds 109 $245,700 Rolled Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward $2,013,330 Capital Projects/ProgramsTransfer to Carryforward $321,979 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $0 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $0 'A24 16 Received Anticipated Total Proposed Budget Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 FY 2012 Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector $10,300 $5,532 $4,768 $10,300 $10,400 Property Appraiser $6,800 $3,897 $2,903 $6,800 $6,900 Revenue Reserve $17,500 $0 $0 $0 $17,700 $35,000 Total Other Fees & Chgs. $34,600 $9,429 $7,671 $17,100 Total Appropriations $794,300 $569,807 $690,646 $1,310,453 IF $684,400 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations ($918,891) Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $2,572,000 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320 $436,500 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $2,089,609 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Capital Outlay Opening Balance (10/01/12) $2,089,609 Transfers from Funds 109 $245,700 Rolled Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward $2,013,330 Capital Projects/ProgramsTransfer to Carryforward $321,979 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $0 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $0 'A24 16 1612 A24 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Appropriation Analysis: Capital Projects - Irrigation Sytem, Community Landscaping Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (50066.1) Engineering (322-183825-631400-50066) $50,000 These fees are being budgeted for engineering services as may be required for the implementation of the proposed community capital improvements identified and approved by the PBSD Board. Other Contractual Services (322-183825-634999-50066) $239,400 These fees are for contractor services that would be required for the construction services required for the implementation of community capital improvements identified and approved by the PBSD Board. Westside PBB Pathway (Est. Total Cost $557,000) $199,900 Myra Janco Daniels Pathway (Concrete) $39,500 $239,400 Landscape Materials (322 - 183825- 646320 - 50066) $225,000 Landscape Improvements $200,000 Littoral Plantings $25,000 $225,000 Mulch Requirements (322 - 183825- 646314 - 50066) $0 Other Operating Supplies (322 - 183825- 652990 - 50066) $0 17 1612 � Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Appropriation Analysis: Lake Bank Enhancements (51026.1) These fees are for contractor services required for the installation of Erosion Barrier Tube for the enhancement of the water management system lake banks. Engineering (322-183825-631400-510261) $0 Berm and Swale (322- 183825 - 634251- 510261) $85,000 Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (50103.1) Funds are being budgeted for the renovation of the community enhanced ornamental traffic signage to be completed over a three year program.. Traffic Signs (322-183825-653710-50103. 1) $50,000 Other Fees and Charges: Tax Collector: (322- 959050- 930700) $10,400 Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments to be collected. The Tax Collector charges three percent (3 %) of the assessments collected. Property Appraiser (322- 959050- 930600) $6,900 Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments levied. The Property Appraiser charges two percent (2 %) of the amount levied. Revenue Reserve (322-919010-489900) $17,700 The Board of County Commissioners policy and State Law requires the Division to appropriate 95% of estimated revenues, which will cover discounts and non - payment of assessments. Total Other Fees & Charges: $35,000 Total Appropriations: $684,400 A24 18 N T-- C) N T- ai IR C D U .N A O A V RS �Q v 0� QI PC C 0 W �Q o � N y L > a rUi, O W 8 E R 1612 00" d W cl W U d e L U d Tj �A24 Q N ^-�00 01 0 0 tn O tn00In rn6so Y 'no o root- 00 N W tn lc� O M CC O N O 00 "D \O r- O O V' O to v a. +' G N - 00 M N v1 t - r-1 'tt N to M et C� C\ O "J' L t 00 M V� •-• M 69 O "o le .--� 69 9% " . � N F Gz, Cd 669 M r 69 N 6e 69 69 V9 .- N Q QA 69 6+4 69 69 O v N YO y 'O O r7 0 twin ^ C� ON O O O t- O M O O O Cl O 69 69 69 69 69 O O ^ 69 69 C N M O\ O O 00 In O O 14 t M N i, N O M �•' 00 �o N C� h M 00 N �t .. F4 C-4 Z -+ M t, 00 vs 6s V 1:4 N 0 q X O C O 64 669 o 0 N N C C "O � vOVi aVi v 6N9 - 69 69 rA V Q Owwa � PC L A. a o00 0 0001 °0 0 6oyo)6C> o 0 N CC N 10 M M F M O .N M CQ tz N W PC N N 609 669 � cc w V U 669 69 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 69 O M M 69 O M O O O 69 O M O �O N 00 I n O r- Otf) in M M h r M O\ O O N N N 00 a- .--i M 69 � IT 669 � kn ti ,O 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Ln O O O O kn O O M O to O O kn O O _ 69 Cl � O CC -- n � [ -O O Oro C v, o t- �o 00 a kn et It oo kn t- F O M �D M .� cl' t M O1 7 rn O It C1 T 0 n 69 Ef3 69 O 64 609 69 6Nc.- 69 69 0 � on b O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O ice. v+ O O M M 00 69 O 00 69 O O tn M O Iq M N It rw C l 00 O to kn ON O •-� O\ O 00 t- ri V �- 1 7 in + V N t� 0 .O ai �o O 00 in kn 11, M w W) C� 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 v Fly O U 0 0 0 o o kn o v� O o In 0 0 O O t, t- IT 69 O 7 69 N O 69 N tr O rl O N M ON �o kn 'et t- M m 00 00 It M M M 69 le 00 ON 64 � fie +�+ 69 6N9 69 R9 3 d W cl W U d e L U d Tj �A24 Q N 6. pa m w Y W H .d d � '� � 'o v a. °� d O Y N 00 ~ S. �. i°, era E H W U �" Q, a w p G ca d YO ti y N ' O O v N YO y 'O O r7 0 twin a� o ... pi, M E O E N i, C O :3 C M 6 O O F4 C-4 Z N N p` eoe O V 1:4 N 0 q V N�0 d Ir s. s. Q o� 4)i (D42 U s.w o 0 N Ny.� U C C "O w vOVi aVi Owwa � PC .0 a a a 4 4 o 4. w w W w F d W cl W U d e L U d Tj �A24 Q N April 16, 2012 Budget Subcommittee (Pelican Bay Services Division Boar Submitted by Michael Levy, Budget Subcommittee Chair "'A22i Page 1 of 1 16 2= VV/ '77- avmx &.Qj" 3YY 'I" I VI 7.4 '1 • '55 37S 1 7V16 76 4 25 301 331 3e-I :5 91 Lt -2-1 122, 133 t • '75'70 z.N k r � c� 2sa . 22� z.sz + z��s lip 93 r. 13; T7 ?w � I ts- 12. 1612 0 �IId� PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit BY:......... .......... NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2012 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, MAY 2 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749 OR VISIT PELICAN BAYS ERVICESDIVISION.NET. 4/27/2012 3:35:00 PM AGENDA Fiala The agenda includes, but is not limited: Hiller Henning - I: W �i 1. Pledge of Allegiance Coyle Coletta 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. April 16, 2012 Budget Subcommittee 5. Administrator's Report a. Crosswalks i. Uniform Traffic Standards Misc. Corres: ii. Bateman Contract Update Date: —7) 2 I 112, b. Pathways i. Arborist's second opinion report and recommendation Item #: t C.o� Zi4.2 1--f ii. County's plans to "overlay" Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways c. Berm i. South berm restoration permitting ii. North berm maintenance d. Landscaping (Phase II) update e. Monthly financial report 6. Chairman's Report a. Board summer schedule b. Board member terms c. Announcements 7. Committee Reports a. Budget Subcommittee recommendation that full Board review; and vote to approve the Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (Levy) b. Strategic Planning Committee (Womble) 8. Old Business 9. New Business 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjournment ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749 OR VISIT PELICAN BAYS ERVICESDIVISION.NET. 4/27/2012 3:35:00 PM 1612 X24 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, *Chairman Tom Cravens, *Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson JohnIaizzo Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Jim Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation *Re- elected for one-year terms expiring 411012013 1. Pledge of Allegiance REVISED AGENDA 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Elect Chairman and Vice Chairman 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee b. March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6. Audience Comments 7. Administrator's Report a. Pathways 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 8545 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 ROLL CALL With the exception of Messrs. Baron and Hansen, all members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas amended the agenda moving audience comments after approval of meeting minutes. L e Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amended. The ard voted unanimous) in avor and the motion was passed ELECT CHAIRMAN Mr. Gibson nominated Chairman Dallas to continue to serve as Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the nomination was seconded by several members in unison. The nomination was closed by Vice Chairman Cravens and seconded by Dr. Trecker. The Board voted unanimously in favor and Chairman Dallas was elected to continue to serve as Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board for a one-year term expiring April 10, 2013. ELECT VICE CHAIRMAN Dr. Trecker nominated Vice Chairman Cravens to continue as Vice Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the nomination was seconded by Mn Chandler. The nomination was closed by Dr. Trecker and seconded by Ms. Womble. The Board voted unanimously in favor and Vice Chairman Cravens was elected to continue to serve as Vice Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board or a one-year term expiring April 10, 2013. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 21 2012 CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board meeting minutes as amended by Ms. Womble, page 6, to read, "... that due to malfunctioning...'. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. APPROVAL OF MARCH 7, 2012 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as amended by Ms. Womble, page 8540, to read,, "... Beadle (past member...': The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. AUDIENCE COMMENTS CROSSWALKS 1-3•11 161 2w" A24 Pelican Bay Services Divisidn Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 Ms. Diane Lustig (Hyde Park) disagreed. Cobblestones were alerting drivers that a pedestrian crossing is ahead, but it is also necessary that all crossings are uniform. Mr. Gerald Moffat suggested implementing a driver's educational program about yielding to pedestrians. Ms. Annice Gregerson observed that overgrown vegetation in the medians hindered visibility. Mr. Hoppensteadt said that the Foundation Board did not make any formal recommendations to San Marino residents, but petitioned the Sheriff's department to patrol the area and pointed out conduits were installed at all new crossings. Mr. Dorrill said the cobblestones were intended to provide a tactile surface to alert drivers that they are approaching a pedestrian crosswalk. Thermoplastic striping was installed at all crossings, is reflective at night, and the preferred method recognized by experts. The Board discussed what could be done at pedestrian crossings to increase safety and driver awareness. Mr. Iazzo made a motion to install a motion - activated lighted crossing, but with no second, he withdrew the motion. Mr. Dorrill recommended deferring traffic safety solutions decisions to traffic engineering experts. The Board agreed to discuss further at a future meeting with experts in attendance. PATHWAYS Mr. Rick Galli (St. Maarten) supported preserving and protecting the trees in Pelican Bay. According to a certified arborist's report, he said that the pathways widening project could cause many trees within the project area to die -off and suggested installing bicycle lanes in the roadway instead. The Board discussed Mr. Galli's pathways evaluation and arborist reports. Based on preliminary observations by a different certified arborist from the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida (IFAS -UFL), Mr. Dorrill recommended that the Board get a second opinion and advice from a certified arborist as to what could be done to minimize tree -root damage and he would obtain names of qualified arborists from the Board's Landscape Architect, Ms. Ellin Goetz. Mr. Dorrill added that the Board was on record agreeing to replace any trees that might be removed as part of the pathways widening project because root upheaval is already a problem and the number one complaint within the community is that the pathways are in poor condition. The majority of the Board agreed. As far as timing, the project was on track to be complete by the end of December. Mr. Chandler requested that Mr. Lukasz start documenting calls made to the County for pathway repairs. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to authorize the Administrator to obtain a opinion from an independent certified arborist to investigate and report the impact to trees of w pathways to six feet and widening pathways to eight feet. The Board voted unanimously in favor motion was Passed ADDITIONAL CROSSWALKS AffA 8547 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 161 2 A24 April 11, 2012 BEACH RENOURISHMENT Mr. Dorrill reported that the Board of County Commissioners voted on April 10 to move forward with a massive beach renourishment project that is estimated to cost $30 million. Chairman Dallas said in 2006, the Services Division contributed more than $1 million for beach renourishment starting at the Contessa (Bay Colony) south to approximately 1,500 feet of the Sandpiper beach facility. The Board agreed that currently the beach in Pelican Bay was in fine shape, and to avoid an appearance of impropriety that the Services Division should not use public funds for any beach renourishment projects and instead, suggested using Foundation funds for beach renourishment projects. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PERMITTING STATUS Mr. Dorrill reported that Wilson Miller understands clearly now that the south berm restoration project is a maintenance project requiring an Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide permit, a relatively short form -type process; and a South Florida Water Management District Letter of Modification to the original construction permit. The project bid specifications would include a contingency plan outlining the organization responsible for funding and repairing damaged facilities. Mr. Dorrill would coordinate mobilization with the Foundation continue to provide permitting and project status on a monthly basis. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported the financial report month - ending March, 2012. About 95% of assessment revenue was received; and due to seasonal landscaping services, total operating expenses were about $160,000 below budget. Staff would continue to adjust the formatting to show seasonal year -to -date expenditures better. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mn Levy, to approve the March 2012 Monthly Financial Report into the record. The Board voted unanimousl in avor and the motion was assed. COBBLESTONES AT NORTH POINTE DRIVE (CHANDLER) Mr. Chandler reported that the Board is considering installing cobblestones at the North Pointe Drive crossing. Cobblestones were installed at mid -block crossings to calm traffic by producing a tactile feel and unusual sound. However they are not serving their intended purpose, aggravating residents, and he made a recommendation to not install cobblestones at the North Pointe Drive crossing. Mr. Dorrill would look into having an engineer make a presentation about uniform traffic standards and the rationale and science behind the original recommendation for further discussion at the May 2 meeting. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT LETTER TO CO BOULEVARD Chairman Dallas acknowledged the Board's letter to Commissioner Hiller regarding the failed "Micros urfaci ng" experiment and the County's plans for future resurfacing of this roadway. Chairman Dallas acknowledged the Board's letter to the Army Corps of Engineers rega ` " d's ort for the Corps to hold a Clam Bay dredging permit workshop and the Corps responded they did not ha - u upport one. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced upcoming meetings. The April 12 Coastal iy tte canceled; Foundation Board meets April 12 at 9 to discuss priorities and April 20 at 8:30; the Budget Su pril 16 at 3; and the Services Division's next meeting is May 2 at 1. M. 161 A24 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 COMMITTEE REPORTS BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE (LEVY) Mr. Levy reported that the Budget Subcommittee met March 26 to review the initial proposed Fiscal Year 2013 budget. A revised proposed budget would be presented at the April 16 meeting. CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE (TRECKER) Dr. Trecker reported that Mr. Humiston completed his annual Clam Bay tidal analysis that concluded there is no basis for dredging at this time. Mr. Hall reported that the borer beetles infesting susceptible white mangroves were identified as a local species and monitoring would continue. LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE (CRAVENS) Vice Chairman Cravens gave a presentation about the purpose of the berm and erosion observed along the west side of from the Commons to North Tram Station 8. The berm was built to provide a storm water retention area or spreader -swale that removes nutrients from the water before it crosses the weirs and into Clam Bay. Erosion, along with overgrowth, and duckweed have caused the spreader -swale to fill -in and it cannot clean or spread the water effectively, and suggested the Board have an engineer do an evaluation and make a recommendation to repair the erosion. Mr. Hall confirmed that the current operational permit allows removal of mangroves and clearing of other material from the spreader - swale. Mr. Dorrill agreed that this is maintenance work and would do a survey and obtain proposals from backhoe contractors to clean out the spreader - swale during the rainy season. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE Ms. Womble reported that Ms. Mary Johnson is the new Chairman and Ms. Noreen Murray is the new Vice Chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee; and Ms. Ronnie Bellone is the new Chairman, and Mr. Bob Uek is the new Vice Chairman of the Foundation Board. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor, the motion was passed, and the meeting was ad'ourned at 3:07 .m. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman M• 1612 " +A24 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD APRIL 16, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Monday, April 16, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, FL. The following members were present: Budget Subcommittee Members Michael Levy, Chairman John Chandler Keith J. Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo Susan O'Brien Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary AGENDA 1. Roll call 2. Approval of March 26, 2012 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes 3. Staff presentation and discussion of Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Budget 4. Audience Comments 5. Vote to approve Proposed FY 2013 Budget 6. Adjourn Rni.i, CA 11, All Subcommittee members were present. APPROVAL OF MARCH 26.2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7Lthe ade a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to approve the March 26, 2012 Budget meeting minutes as presented. The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor n was assed. STAFF PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2013 BUDGET Ms. McCaughtry explained that the Proposed FY 2013 Budget to be presented today would change slightly because it was prepared using the County's FY 2012 indirect cost rates. The County's FY 2013 indirect cost rates became available today, April 16 and increased modestly. Mr. Lukasz presented the Proposed FY 2013 Budget that was prepared as the Budget Subco directed on March 26 to hold the non -ad valorem assessment at $398.13 and ad- valorem millage rate at 0 , or at showed estimated revenue and identified CIP project expenditures over f Wars 2 until 2016; 2) Chairman Levy's Pelican Bay Pathways summary sheet that showed the pat on rating, project parameters, and that current cost estimates are higher than cost ea � Wilson Miller; 3) 1131 161 A24 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes April 16, 2012 how to determine which projects are priorities; and 4) how to obtain effective community feedback. However the Subcommittee did not make any recommendations to bring any of these items to the full Board. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience to make comments. VOTE TO APPROVE PROPOSED FY 2013 BUDGET Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Dallas to make a recommendation to the full Pelican Bay Services Division Board to approve the Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget as presented with the following changes: 1) adjust formatting of the budget summary to show revenue reserves at the top o the page under "Revenue" as a negative number; 2) to include the County's FY 2013 indirect cost rates. The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed ADJOURN There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 4:03 p.m. Michael Levy, Chairman 1132 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 4/27/2012 11:38:33 AM May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session q ' 5ai. Administrator's Report. Uniform Traffic Standards, Page 1 of � A24 16 12 ResnickLisa From: San Marino Communications [earlross @prodigy.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 4:37 PM To: office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net Subject: Crosswalk discussion at May 2nd meeting We are sorry not to be able to attend the May 2nd meeting. I wish to support our San Marino Association feeling that the crosswalk installed in front of our development is much less safe than what we have had for the past 21 years. It is much less safe because in past years you had to watch for no traffic before you crossed the street. Now the folks assume that cars will stop and they rarely do. We have had several near accidents. Even though I am aware of the rules have been guilty of driving over the crosswalks when pedestrians are starting to cross. It is very easy to miss the pedestrians when you trying to avoid the bikers who own the right lane and trying to move over to the right when safe because of faster moving cars and trucks. I found our crosswalk to be much nosier because of the rocks that are on each of the pavers. The ones set in concrete are much quieter. Even though we live on facing the golf course anytime we are outside the noise sounds like a bunch of trucks are going by. Thank you for your attention to this matter Earl Ross 6865 San Marino Drive #312 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Uniform Traffic Standards 0 ` Page 2 of 6 161 A2' ' ResnickLisa t From: sunny beaulieu [slb1632 @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 4:33 PM To: office@pelicanbayservicesdivision.net Subject: San Marino /Crosswalk My name is Sunny Beaulieu. I live at 6860 San Marino Dr. #408. I use the crosswalk on a daily basis. Vehicles are not obeying the Stop even though a car has stopped in one of the lanes. Some have slowed down with the sheriffs sign in place and others continue to fly by. I think it might help to have a sign saying it is a state law to stop for someone in the crosswalk. It has become more dangerous to cross when one vehicle stops and the next lane to it does not stop. The cobblestones make a loud noise as each set of wheels go over them. Could you please take those out and restore our peaceful neighborhood. Thanks, Sunny May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Uniform Traffic Standards Page 3 of 6 A24 Resliik Lisa' l 161 Subject: New Cross Walk Adjacent to San Marino Association From: Don and Suzanne Scheu rmailto :pointabinoCcbhotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 4:39 PM To: office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net Subject: New Cross Walk Adjacent to San Marino Association Dear Service Division Board Members, As I will not be able to attend the next Services Divisions Board meeting on May 2nd, I am writing to express my concerns. Like those San Marino residents who have spoken the past few months to the Services Division and Foundation about the new cross walk adjacent to San Marino, as an owner I am writing to request that the noisy gray cobblestones be removed from the new cross walk and be replaced with cement. As I understand it, the cobblestones were installed as a sort of speed bump to slow vehicles down on Pelican Bay Blvd. I can attest that they do NOT slow traffic! They also produce noise that I consider to be noise pollution and may reduce the value of San Marino condominiums that are nearest to the cross walk. The new cross walks at Gulf Park Drive that have cement are not as noisy. Additionally, the safety of pedestrians using the new cross walk is in jeopardy! Both my wife and I use the crosswalk on almost a daily basis and we have experienced many instances when we are clearly within the cross walk and vehicles do NOT stop as per Florida law. As a quick and relatively inexpensive solution, I suggest installing the bright yellow signs that are often seen at Florida cross walks. These signs read: Florida Law, Stop for Pedestrians in Crosswalks. These signs should be placed at each lane on the Pelican Bay Blvd road surface. You may recall these signs were placed at the cross walk at the North Station over a year ago and worked well for the benefit of pedestrians and also helped to slow traffic. I do NOT understand why those signs were removed. I believe this type of sign will indicate what Florida law requires stopping for pedestrians for those out of state drivers who may not be aware of the law. These type of signs will also be easily seen, no matter which lane a vehicle is driving in. These type of signs will be more effective than flags or the present signs that are off to each side of Pelican Bay Blvd. This type of sign may be more effective during day light hours when crosswalk lights may not be easily seen due to bright sunshine. In closing I would ask the Board two questions: 1) Will it take a severe injury or a fatality before action is taken? 2) Would you want your children or grand- children using the crosswalk adjacent to San Marino? Thank you for voting to resolve these situations as soon as possible. Don Scheu San Marino Owner and Board Member 3� a 4. Res nickLisa May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Uniform Traffic Standards Page 4 of 6 A2. 4 161 2 From: Keith Dallas [keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 9:34 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Traffic speed indicator Lisa, See this is distributed to the Board, neil and kyle. Thanks. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: "Henry Bachman" <h.bachman(a_ieee.org> Subject: Traffic speed indicator Date: April 18, 2012 5:47:55 PM EDT To: <keithdallas a�comcast.net> Keith, a follow -up to our brief discussion at Tuesdays coffee. I mentioned the traffic speed indicator signs that I saw when I visited Boynton Beach. These are the same technology that we have on Pelican Bay Blvd which the Sherriff puts out on occasion when there are enough complaints about speeding. What I saw were similar speed indicator signs which were about the same size as the speed limit sign and mounted on the same pole under the signs. These seem like a very effective way to keep reminding drivers of the speed limit and I would welcome the PBSD looking into it Henry Bachman h.bachman2ieee.org 239 - 325 -9234 Telephone & FAX 207 - 776 -8418 (c) May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Uniform Traffi�Staydar I� Page 5 of 6 �1jjj 66 L 1- t allots No: U62211.01 d9C1l1ERN S /6' Project= Illuminated Cross Walk Location: Pelican Bay - North Tram Station County: Collier Bid Letting: Estimator. James T Coleman - Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 A sessrrsr Procurement Construction Days: P.O. Box 5142, Hudson, FL 34874 Comments: TOTAL OF 5 COMMENTS BELOW Ph : 727.819 -2081 Fx : 727-857.4097 1 Installation of Illuminated Cross Walk LS 1.00 $26,260.00 5 26,260.00 Price includes the following: • Labor & Equipment • Solar Powered Cross Walk Control Unit • Four (4) Flashing Beacons • Four (4) Ballards • Signs Price does NOT include: • Poles & Permit Directional bore will be additional at $20.00 per LF with a minimum charge of $500.00 per location. GRAND TOTAL: $ 26,260.00 COMMENTS: 1.) ABOVE QUOTE AS PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, 2.) FPL IMPACT FEES, PERMIT FEES, PERMITTING AND SURVEYING NOT INCLUDED. 3.) IF AWARDED, SSL REQUEST TO ATTEND THE PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. 4.) ABOVE QUOTE IS VALID FOR 30 C/D. ;5.) ANY BOND REQUIREMENTS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRIME CONTRACTOR / OWNER 6.) PLEASE CALL JAMES COLEMAN AT 727 - 919 -5508 WITH ANY QUESTIONS, Naples Branch Phone: 23 9-331 -8438 3884 Prospect Ave., Napes, FL 341 04 Fax: 239 -331 -8439 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Uniform Traffic Standards Page 6 of 6 `2 4 ' e A. 1612 R 1 A ;g V, Community Improvement Plan March 31, 2010 Joint Workshop Meeting Minutes Pathway Light Bollards Gardco bollard, bevel top, 36" height with LED light source Review /straw poll of body colors (color chips provided) • Sandstone = 0 yes votes • Bronze = 11 yes votes • Dark green = 3 yes votes Clay brick crosswalk pavement summary /materials review - Compression strengths for both meet vehicular strength standards - Concrete paver color will fade over time due to wear of integral concrete color revealing non- colored larger aggregate - Opinion of Probable Cost is based on present day cost • Material and installation cost • Future cost may vary - Straw poll of material and installation method • Concrete pavers = 0 yes votes • Clay pavers =15 yes votes • Square side up = 0 yes votes • Chamfer side up= 15 yes votes - Straw poll of 3' wide cobble paver strips to both sides of crosswalk pavers at mid -block crosswalks (additive to safety /traffic calming through repetitive driver awareness through change of tactical surface to sounds /feel of road) • Add cobble pavers = 11 yes votes • Do not add cobble pavers = 4 yes votes North Tram Station median curb cut relocation versus infill review - Relocation less expensive primarily because of additional landscape and irrigation - Places turn maneuver closer to curve in Pelican Bay Boulevard but landscape revisions are included to improve corridor site visibility in both directions - Straw poll o Relocate median curb cut = 13 yes votes o Infill median curb cut = 2 yes votes The Commons - Option 3 (physical separation between south service area and north operations) comparison with Option 4 o Review of shared design elements (PBB mid -block crosswalk, pedestrian sidewalks, tram station relocation, physical separation of community berm, slight realignment of vehicular movement at north entry) o Discussion of parking counts Concern over loss of spaces 3200 Bailey lane Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 800.649.4336 239.649.4040 F 239.643.5716 tftfilsonMilier.com ResnickLisa May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Additional corresponden e; Page 1 of 1 161 2 Subject: 5ai. CROSSWALK IN FRONT OF SAN MARINO AND BEACH ACCESS! From: Dolores E. Stillings [mailto:westlakecog(�bcomcast net] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:27 AM To: office@)Pelicanbayservicesdivision.net Subject: CROSSWALK IN FRONT OF SAN MARINO AND BEACH ACCESS! LADIES /GENTLEMEN: I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING ON WEDNESDAY MAY 2ND. 4 THEREFORE, WOULD LIKE YOU TO KNOW THAT I OWN AND RESIDE IN A FIRST FLOOR CONDO WITHIN SAN MARINO. THE BACK OF MY CONDO (BEDROOMS AND LANAI) FACE PELICAN BAY BLVD. SINCE THE INSTALLATION OF THE COBBLESTONE CROSSWALK I CAN'T OPEN A WINDOW OR MY LANAI. IN THE MASTER - BATHROOM, THE VIBRATION IS AWFUL. THIS IS SO VERY DISTRUBING!!!!!!!!! I HAVE MY UNIT FOR SALE AND HAVE BEEN TOLD BY MANY LOOKERS THAT THEY FEAR THE NOISE LEVEL WOULD REALLY BE A CONSTANT DISTURBANCE TO THEM!!! I HAVE HEARD THAT THE PBSD TESTED THE NOISE LEVEL AND FIND IT ACCEPTABLE ...... THEY SHOULD COME LIVE IN MY HOME FOR A WEEK. THE NOISE LEVEL MIGHT HAVE BEEN TESTED DURING OUR OFF SEASON! DURING THIS PAST BUSY SEASON, I HAVE SUFFERED GREATLY. THIS SITUATION IS NOT ONLY AFFECTING MY PEACEFULNESS, BUT IT HAS IMPACTED MY RE -SALE VALUE! I HAVE PAID $520K FOR THIS CONDO AND COMPLETELY RENOVATED AT A COST OF $80K. PLEASE, AT LEAST, CONSIDER THE REMOVAL OF THE COBBLESTONE FROM EACH SIDE OF THE SMOOTH PAVERS. IT WAS A REALLY AN IDEA THAT HAD NO CONSIDERATION FOR THOSE OF US THAT LIVE RIGHT ON PB BLVD. THERE ARE A FEW CROSSWALKS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE COBBLESTONE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PAVERS, AND IT DOES MAKE IT MORE ACCEPTABLE. I WOULD LIKE YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS E -MAIL AFTER YOUR MEETING. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR ME AND MOST OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTS FACING PB BLVD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION TO MY REQUEST DOLORES E. STILLINGS 6855 SAN MARINO DRIVE #202 239 - 513 -1410 732 - 310 -2359 CELL May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standards (Additional C rres ondence) Page 1 of 1 I A24 ResnickLisa From: Kate [kfweath @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 6:52 PM To: office@pelicanbayservicesdivision.net Subject: Crosswalks I am a resident of San Marino and as such, I cross the nearby crosswalk several times daily when in residence at San Marino. It is becoming more and more hazardous because the traffic generally does not stop for pedestrians. Something needs to be added to the signage —lights, closer signage, a warning — something. The signs at that crosswalk are small and very far from the crosswalk. Someone is going to be hurt or killed at the crosswalks due to pedestrians thinking they are safe to cross and traffic not stopping. I have had cars actually honk at me when I have been crossing in the middle of a lane and they whiz by. More go by than stop. One suggestion is to put LARGE signs —maybe even temporary - at each entrance to Pelican Bay announcing that it is Florida Law to stop at crosswalks. And, we definitely need flashing lights to note the crosswalk. They are not visible until you are in them. Kate Weathersby San Marino May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Additional CorrespondencpWo. 3 A24 Page 1 of 1 � � � ResnickLisa Subject: 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Additional Correspondence No. 3 From: Cliff Landers fmailto:clifflanders 2000@yahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 5:29 PM To: office (a)gelicanbayservicesdivision net Subject: Crosswalk at San Marino Pelican Bay Services Division To whoever may be reluctant to reverse the unstudied project of the crosswalk near San Marino, I would say: Put aside ego, acknowledge the mistake, remove the cobblestones, and fill in and cement over the holes. Done. The danger and annoyance level of the crosswalk has already been discussed and proven, so let's put an end to this long and fruitless dialogue. Sincerely, Clifford E. Landers San Marino #305 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brendan P. Culligan fmai Ito: pebblepostCaagmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 4:46 PM To: 21 Lisa Resnick Subject: STOP FOR PEOPLE video link Lisa, Please click www.vimeo.com /41366160 to view my three minute STOP FOR PEOPLE video. Please test it so you can access it for presentation at the PBSD meeting on Wednesday at 1 PM. If you have any technical problems, please call me at 239 -597 -7957 in the morning so I can resolve them before the meeting. Thanks for you help. Brendan Culligan Pebble Creek at Pelican Bay 17 -201 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Additional correspondence no. 4 Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa From: Ktm140 [ktml40 @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 12:37 PM To: office@pelican bayservicesd ivis ion. net Subject: RE: The crosswalk located at San Marino 2 RE: The crosswalk located at San Marino. In my opinion, there are two issues with the crosswalk at San Marino. Unfortunately, I have a last minute work conflict so I am not able to make the meeting this afternoon. The issues are — Noise & Safety. The noise issue -As a resident of San Marino, I walk my dog at least twice a day on Pelican Bay Blvd. & I am very much aware of the thump- thump as cars cross the cobblestones. When I mentioned this at a Pelican Bay Foundation meeting, the comment back was that they had a noise gun & it wasn't too loud. It's not so much the loudness but it's the fact that the noise has become a constant presence. The designers of the crosswalks have created a source of noise pollution & have taken one of the prettiest areas in Naples and made it sound like an urban center. I understand that the concept is that the cobblestones would act as a warning & a speed deterrent to drivers when, in reality, neither of these things occurs. I grew up in Mid -town Manhattan, certainly one of the busiest areas of NYC, & if there was a loose manhole cover which is a very similar sound to the cars driving over the cobblestone, one could call the NYC DOT and they would come out to fix it because it was considered a noise nuisance. It would be great if that were possible in this situation. Again, it's not the loudness it's the fact that it is a noise that was not part of our community prior to the installation of the crosswalk. The 2nd issue is even more crucial — Safety. Again, spending as much time on the Blvd as I do both in the morning and the afternoons I have had the opportunity of seeing many "near misses ". I have seen drivers ignore pedestrians; drivers stop on 1 side but not the other; cars in the right lane stopping but not in the left lane & even cars speeding up so they don't have to stop. It has actually created an unsafe situation — pedestrians don't know whether the cars are going to stop or not. The crosswalk definitely needs further signage to make it safe. I have heard remarks that the only people complaining are the San Marino residents. It only takes a bit of common sense to realize that the residents of San Marino and Calais are most directly affected since the crosswalk is closest to those communities & most pedestrian's traffic originates from them. I think it would be a rare occasion for some one from St Raphael to cross over to the east side of the street. It is my recommendation that the cobblestones be removed & the crosswalk has better signage. When a decision is made by the Pelican Bay Services Division is any consideration give to the impact of that decision to the residents of the Pelican Bay & the communities most affected? It seems like there is very little regard as to how the design has impacted the area & our concerns seem to be ignored. Kathy Mahoney Kathy Mahoney Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate 8200 Health Center Blvd. #101 Bonita Springs, 34135 800 - 547 -3019 239 - 992 -0059 (0) 239 -404 -0677 (C) 239 - 992 -0231 (Fax) Mai lTo :kathv.mahonevafloridamoves.corn http: / / /kathv- mahoney.com May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Board Correspondence (Chandle Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa 161 2 A24 From: John Chandler Dohnchandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 10:30 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: North Pointe Crosswalk Please forward this email to all Board members as a one way communication. At our May 2 meeting, we will be discussing whether or not to include cobblestones as part of the new crosswalk across Pelican Bay Blvd at North Pointe. Another issue that I believe we should discuss is whether or not to move the location of that crosswalk. The current crosswalk runs from the west sidewalk of North Pointe. I'm thinking that the new crosswalk should run from the east sidewalk of North Pointe. I believe that this will improve pedestrian safety. My observation is that there are a significant number of left turns from eastbound PBB onto northbound North Pointe. Conversely, I believe that most vehicular turns from North Pointe onto PBB are right turns. If the crosswalk across PBB originated from the east sidewalk of North Pointe, none of these turning vehicles would go through the crosswalk. John Chandler May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Arborist's second opinion report and recommendation Page 1 of 1 GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. April 30, 2012 TO: Mr. Kyle Lukasz Pelican Bay Services Division FROM: Ellin Goetz, FASLA ELLIN GOETZ 16 Ir2 A124 FELLOW, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS RE: INSPECTION OF TREES ON PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD We engaged the services of Ralph B. Jimison, a Certified Arborist based in Naples, to review the site conditions on Pelican Bay Boulevard along the route of the proposed pathway widening improvements to ascertain the effects of path construction on existing trees. The pathway construction will impact most frequently the root system of established live oak trees. The trees are already in suppressed conditions due to the root system being impeded by both roadway and curbing, and in many cases by shade from adjacent trees. This is positive for the tree root system being able to withstand root pruning. The trees are also in a fully irrigated location, which is conducive for successful root pruning activity. We are of the opinion that root pruning to allow for pathway construction can be accomplished without causing damage to the trees. The recommended actions are: • Make individual assessments of affected trees based on species, growing conditions, proximity, overall tree habit and size. • Maintain a minimum distance of 24" to tree trunk of any root pruning or excavation. • Assessment of individual trees may determine that optimum distance of root pruning must exceed 24" due to specific site conditions. For example, if a tree caliper exceeds 26" DBH, consideration should be taken to adjust distance of root pruning to 30 " -36" from the trunk. • Vary pathway widths in specific locations to maximize distance of root pruning from tree trunk. Width of pathway will not affect the tree, but the distance of the root pruning to a tree trunk is the determining factor. • Reduce the canopy mass of affected trees based on the area of root disruption to lessen impact. • Prune dead wood and lesser branches of affected trees prior to root pruning, with a maximum reduction of 30% of the overall canopy mass. • Install a solid root barrier at 18" depth along the edge of the affected tree roots no closer than 24" to tree trunk. • Maintain correct irrigation during all construction phases to ensure new root establishment and lessen shock on tree. 185 1 OTH STREET SOUTH NAPLES FLORIDA 34102 T 239.643.0077 GOETZLAND @aol.com EGOETZ@GSNAPLES.COM LA #1152 LC #26000378 WWW.GSNAPLES.COM .. . April 30, 2012 RECEIVE#) PELICAN .BAY SERVICES DIVISION MR. KEITH DALLAS, Chair PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE 16 12 A24 CC: Ronnie Bellone, Chair, PB Foundation Board 6101 Pelican Bay Blvd. Unit 1205 Naples, FL 34108 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board SUITE 605 Regular Session NAPLES, FL 34108 5bi . Administrator's Report. Pathways (R. Galli, 4/30/12) Dear Mr.Dallas, ANTICIPATED TREE LOSS mom PATHWAY PROJECT This letter seeks to reaffirm my March 16 and April 9 written cautions that I delivered to you and my presentation at the April 11 PBSD meeting, seeking to point out the massive damage that I and a professional Florida Arborist expect will occur if you proceed with the currently designed 8 foot pathway widening project on Pelican Bay Blvd. I also speak for a number of Owners who express what we believe represents the common largely held sentiment of Pelican Bay Owners in general, that preserving our existing Natural Streetscape is eminently more important than converting the existing sidewalk to a dual use bike path. Furthermore Owners and Professionals also point out that you will be creating multiple hazards by increasing injury potential from: combining foot and wheeled traffic; encouraging more and higher speed cycle traffic on the sidewalk; and from weakened trees falling. The attached April 27 clarification from Signature Tree Care, further supports my previous warnings and is enclosed for your consideration. The Arborist, Ian Orlikoff points out the proposed root cutting will create a liability and includes several references for your review. As I mentioned before the excavation cut specified in your March 30 AB &B construction plans is 10 feet wide to accommodate the 8 foot pathway I have not received any reply yet from the PBSD so I ask that you give me the courtesy of a written response to my requests which are restated below: 1. RECONSIDER GOING BACK TO A 6 OR 5 FOOT PATHWAY WIDTH 2. KEEP THE SIDEWALK AT 5 FEET AND CONSIDER A DEDICATED BIKE PATH ON THE STREET (My revised sketch shows a 4' bike path which Collier Co. requires) 3. ENGAGE A LICENSED FL ARBORIST TO MONITOR AND DIRECT SIDEWALK REPAIRS SO THAT TREE DAMAGE IS PREVENTED OR MINIMIZED 4. ENGAGE AN ARBORIST TO DEVELOP A "MASTER STREETSAPE PLAN" AS SUGGESTED IN THE PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION SPC PRIORITIES Thanks for your consideration, Sincerely, RICHARD GALLI 0 1 -2M G. A13 a0i r I 1 LNU" kt 7j-4 F7 7n 04tV. -T WOS V, LAI �w ;ZJ �w 16 isSi atue Tree Carem 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office: (239) 348 -1330 • Fax: (239) 348 -3133 Email: info @signaturetreecare.com IAN ORLIKOFF ISA Certified Arborist #FL- 10.37A Florida Certified Horticulture Professional #H605655 12 A24= April 27, 2012 Attention: Rick Galli, Galli Builders Re: Pelican Bay Services Division, Pelican Bay Blvd. Pathway Project from Westside- Commons to North Tram Station This is my second letter regarding the great concerns of cutting tree roots for this proposed project: As an ISA Certified arborist it is my responsibility to make known the hazards whether existing or potential which will be created. I again stress the importance of not cutting tree roots. It is in my professional opinion that this project which will involve the cutting of tree roots will indeed create a liability whether a wind event takes place or not; even if the trees receive pruning j support after said project is completed. I strongly urge all members involved in this project to reread my report from April 6, 2012 and carefully read the below professional references for your review. 1. Email response from Joe Samnik to Ian Orlikoff, Signature Tree Care: Joe Samnik s joesamnik @experttreeconsultants.com> Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:51 AM To: Ian Orlikoff <ian@signaturetreecare.com> "The committee which you reference is ill advised in ignoring the dangers of cutting structural roots close to trees. I would go on record as having someone instruct them on the biology of tree roots and the extreme high risk and result in hazard that will occur if structural roots are cut..... I do reiterate my professional concern that cutting roots close to trees is cutting; structural integrity and the result can be catastrophic. If you are involved in the decision - making process regarding this matter please make sure that you go on record as having voiced your opinion against such actions. At the very least somebody should get an air knife on the job to excavate dirt and demonstrate what type of root would be cut." -Joe Samnik, President, Sarnnik & Associates, LLC, Expert Tree Consultants (Joe Samnik is a certified and consulting arborist, State of Florida. He is entering his 43rd year of practice and was awarded the Edward W. Bok lifetime achievement award for excellence in arboriculture. He has been named as an expert witness in over 500 litigation matters involving trees and tree disputes. Joe is entering his 43rd year of practice encompassing tree issues, arboreal and horticultural consulting, dispute resolution, permitting and compliance with tree ordinances. ) Arborist Consultation, Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 27,2012 16 12 A24, IAN ORLIKOFF l5A i:'ertified.Arborist #tft -/037A florhlra Certified Horti( :ulture Professional #/- 2. 'Sidewalks and tree roots: cracked up the way it shouldn't have been', By DOUG CALDWELL, Posted September 4, 2009. at 4:02 p.m. on Naples News.com: (see also attached article) 'We tell people to avoid cutting large roots. Ed Gilman, the University of Florida tree guru, says roots greater than one or two inches in diameter within five times the trunk diameter should not be removed (well maybe just one is OK ?): For example, say the trunk diameter is 15 inches, then large roots could be cut but only 75 inches out from the trunk. There are horror stories of municipalities doing sidewalk repairs by using the "cut the roots out" techniaue and trees blowing over and crushing occupants in cars.' 3. Tree Roots in the Built Environment' By John Roberts, Nick Jackson, Mark Smith, page 259, Section 8.3.4: "In addition to their role in taking up essential resources for growth from soil, roots provide anchorage for trees, ensuring that they remain upright. There is a danger that root cutting can compromise the support function of roots and increase the risk from trees falling during periods of strong wind. Particularly in an urban environment, this would pose an unacceptable danger to life and roperty." 4. as per website: http:// shadetreeexipert .com /sidewaiks.html 'Cutting Roots: An additional problem with root pruning is the loss of tree stability. Trees have stability against wind throw because of the lateral roots. Tap roots are rare and quite small in most broadleaf trees and provide virtually no support. When the important lateral roots are pruned, tree stability can be reduced. Research at the Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories has demonstrated that cutting large lateral roots within the root plate which is a distance from the trunk of three times the trunk diameter, can destabilize a tree. For example a 20 -inch diameter tree should not have roots cut closer than 60 inches from the tree (3 X 20 = 60). In a 6 -foot wide Swale with a growing tree, that does not allow space to root prune at the edge of the sidewalk. So root pruning should only be done as a last resort when all other methods have been judged as not feasible. And those ordering cutting of major lateral roots should be aware of the liability for tree failure that root cutting creates.' 5. As quoted from 'Urban And Community Forestry in the Northeast' By John E. Kuser, page 280, Section on Sidewalk Interference: 'Great care must be taken in any root - cutting operation used to correct sidewalk problems so that the tree retains its structural support system." Arborist Consultation, Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 27,2012 161 20'Off A243 40 $gna.=e Tree Ccueuc 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office: (239) 348 -1330 s Fax: (239) 348 -3133 Email: infoC'si�,,naturetreecare.com IAN ORILIKOFF 1S 4 C- ertitied Arhorist #Ft -1037A Floricla Certified Horticulture Professional #/460565.5 6. See attached article from Tree Care Industry Magazine, July 2001, "Prioritizing Risk Trees in a Community" by Brian Kane, certified arborist and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Massachusetts researching tree risk analysis, Dr. H. Dennis P. Ryan, Professor of Arboriculture & Community Forestry at University of Massachusetts, and Dr. David V. Bloniarz, head of USDA Forest Service Northeast Center for Urban and Community Forestry at Amherst. 'Ultimately responsible for a tree's structural stability, the roots also provide water and dissolved minerals from the soll...Root damage or loss accounts for a lame percentage of tree deaths and failures.' Last section of article titled Conclusion: "Some communities are under the assumption that if they don't know about a hazard tree, then they are not responsible when it fails. NothinK could be further from the truth. In a 1994 court case in Connecticut, for example, Judge Anne C. Dranginis ruled that "all property owners -state and private, city and rural -have the legal obligation to inspect their road or streetside trees for age, condition or weaknesses that might make them a hazard to passersby." 7. See excerpt from National Arborists website: (article attached) https:/Zwww.natlarb.com/html/broward county fl php 'The current philosophy in most cities in Broward County, FL is to not remove the tree, but to just eliminate the tree roots damaging the sidewalk. How are offending tree roots eliminated? Sometimes the tree roots near sidewalks are chopped out with an axe, or the tree roots might be pulled out with a backhoe, or the city might use a stump grinder to grind out the offending tree roots near a sidewalk. All of these methods place the tree, and city residents, at risk in two ways. Cutting lame tree roots can affect the stability of the tree. The next windstorm might cause the tree to be blown over after the root cutting has been done. Cutting large tree roots near a sidewalk might also lead to decay fungi ^ entering the tree The end result of this will also be a fallen tree at some point in the future Cutting large tree roots is usually a temporary fix to the problem The roots will be cut a new sidewalk will be put in and then the tree will grow new roots to damage the new sidewalk. Every time root cutting is done the chances of the tree being _blown over, or decay entering the tree increases.' Respectfully, Ian Orlikoff Arborist Consultation, Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 27,2012 16 IT A24 WUNIVERSITY of FLORIDA If•: \ti t "xtz`si�n�n t3nrticu(ture Sidewalks and Tree Roots: A little flexibility needed Doug Caldwell Left, these two oaks are not only in a tiny spot, but also planted by the utility and water lines in a new north Naples community. Choosing one smaller tree species such as a fiddlewood, Simpson stopper or pigeon plum would have been more appropriate. Right, this cracked up sidewalk is an extreme case in New Orleans, but again, proper placement and species selection would have avoided this situation. We have major irregular sidewalk problems in too many Naples communities which should have been avoided. But like the Sunday morning "quarterbacks ", it is always easier to criticize ` after the fact. Twelve to fifteen years ago or more, southern live oaks (Quercus virginiana) were selected as the native canopy tree to meet County landscape. requirements in many communities, perhaps I should say 98% of the communities. Even though there are 21 large tree species and 15 medium to small tree species (see list at: http: / /collier.ifas.ufl.edu/ and type, 'collier county extension plant selection' in the search box) that could have been selected from the County approved list. OK, so live oak is a large species (eventually reaching 70 feet tall by 90 feet wide), with a moderately rapid growth rate. I like to say it is a pasture tree. Let's plant them about 3 to 5 feet from sidewalks or 5 feet from utility boxes and lines. Now the sidewalks are lifting. 1612 1 J A24 it's not like when I was a kid back in Indiana and the roots of the huge sugar maples along the sidewalks created much sought after skateboard ramps ... lots of fun! No, here and now, i should add, sidewalk irregularities are viewed as a possible law suit when a person fails to navigate the sudden elevation of a projected slab in our concrete jungle. if one stumbles and sprains or breaks an ankle or wrist, we are talking some creature discomforts and litigious actions. Communities are looking for solutions. Oh, and this 1963 homemade- skateboard pro wannabe sees another wrinkle, the ADA Americans with Disabilities Act issued in 1991 guidelines states "surfaces must be stable, firm and slip - resistant." What to do? Surprisingly, tree roots find the area beneath a sidewalk a favored environment to collect the right combination of both water and air, so they tend to congregate there. Generally, the protruding slab, which is being lifted by the increasing girth of the tree roots, is either ground down (short term results) or the slab is broken up and the offending roots cut out and a new slab poured (longer term results, but tree may fall over in high wind events). We tell people to avoid cutting large roots. Dr. Ed Gilman, the University of Florida tree guru, says roots greater than one or two inches in diameter within 5 times the trunk diameter should not be removed (well maybe just one is OK ?): For example, say the trunk diameter is 15 inches, then large roots could be cut but only 75 inches out from the trunk. There are horror stories of municipalities doing sidewalk repairs by using the "cut the roots out" technique and trees blowing over and crushing occupants in cars. There are some 10 or so approaches: 1. remove trees and replace with smaller species; 2. remove slab add fill soil , then re -pour; 3. root prune and re -pour; 4. root barriers; 5. re -route sidewalk; 6. alternative sub - base /reinforce; 7. bridging; 8. alternate surface materials; 9. slab - jacking and 10. prune shade trees (maintain their natural shape, no round -overs or !ollypops) to keep them maintained at a shorter stature so the roots will be less likely to grow as large as well. If you are interested in exploring various approaches to mitigate tree roots and sidewalk conflict, the University of Florida, Collier County Extension Office is holding a free class on Friday August 21 from 9:00 to 11:00 at our office at 14700 Immokalee Rd. to discuss various treatment options. Call 353 -4244 to register. Seating is limited. ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) CEUs are pending. Reference text Reducing Infrastructure Damage by Tree Roots: A compendium of strategies By Laurence R. Costello and Katharine S. Jones. 2003; $17 for non - members. http• / /wcisa. net /Publications /ChapterOnly.asp . Doug Caldwell, Ph.D., is the commercial landscape horticulture extension agent and landscape entomologist with the University of Florida Collier County Extension Service. The Cooperative Extension Service is an off - campus branch of the University of Florida, Institute of the Food and Agricultural Sciences and a department of the Public Services Division of Collier County government. E -mail dougbugoWl.edu ; phone, 353 -4244 x203. Extension programs are open to all persons without regard to race, color, creed, sex, handicap or national origin. For updates on Southwest Florida Horticulture visit: http: //collier.ifas.ofi.edu Broward Cou*4, FL -Tree Service, tree care, tree trimming tree removal, ... National Arboris #s Your online rLsource for local tree service companies 8 tree care information, Homeowner Information aFind aTiE8 �C', JtCe Whai is ---I S-A Certified Arborist? Protectn_g_i`rQes n-9—C2 Q-SY9 —tt i400rl Orgwic Tree Care_ trrformation Information for Tree Services &Arborists Arr_4 oils T 4 n_p_g information & Ceriibcatsan Programs Advertise your Tree Service Coryngansfon this site. Bevel Sudddv Chipper Knife Shamctna Tnat https:/IivNvw.mtlarb.com/hunnroward—county_fl.php 161? „G Browarcl County. FL Tree Care Serrywe do not have a tree service or arbodst listed. Please fill out the form below and we can help find a local tree care service to help. If your a tree care service company and would like to have your information displayed on this page, please fill out the form or visit our riser tl_ Us, page. First name Last name Address Zip City County State Phone E-mail How Can We Help? Enter theshown code: X I Submglnr�rn�lin , Pnnie's List Local Rating Read L o_a, Ratrys € Ra •.ws. F n7 Cor- %racto-.c_ In Yot,r roar ...•.:a _ v -.r„ _ n__s. Tree services Read RsMev4s & Get Quotes From Local Tree FxgerL�. Free Searchi ;:...- s «r. +;FStadc F CrthP Weed B Gon Max': Trr• Rwoltborrry Fon"Wa Kifls ever: 11 P- Tw, -he -t Weeds, G;zrarreed s- 6f""•' °`° i Tree Roots And Sidewalk Damage It's not uncommon for tree roots to cause damage to sidewalks in Browrard County, FL. The problem of tree roots lifting sidewalks is evident in every major city in Browrard County, FL Tree roots damage sidewalks by raising individual sidewalk slabs and by cracking sidewalk slabs. The questions that arise are howto stop tree roots from damaging sidewalks, and what to do when tree roots have already damaged a sidewalk, Cities in Broivard County, FL, and throughout the country, are sensitive to tree roots that damage sidewalks because of potenfial liability issues that go along with damaged sidewalks. Obvious tripping hazards put cities at the risk of a lawsuit, but the continued cost of repairing sidewalks puts a strain on city budgets. SIDEWALK DAMAGE FROM TREE ROOTS The best . way to stop tree root damage to sidewalks is through proper planning..Atree species that is going to grow large is also going to produce a significant root system to support the tree. Planting a large tree species in the narrow . strip between the road and sidewalk is asking for future problems with tree roots and sidewalks. Cities in Brweard County, FL know this because they spend thousands of dollars fixing sidewalks damaged by tree roots. So, should cities in Broward County, FL only plant small tree species between the road and sidewalk? Although this may be a viable solution, city foresters want to incorporate a variety of tree species in their urban forest and it is nice to see a street lined with large, mature trees. Mature trees impart many positive social and economical benefits to a neighborhood. Maybe cityforesters could take a different approach needs to the management of trees between the road and sidewalk --� The current philosophy in most cities in Brovard County, FL is to not remove the tree, but to just eliminate the tree roots damaging the sidewalk- Howare offending tree roots eliminated? Sometimes the tree roots near sidewalks are chopped out with an axe, or the tree roots might be pulled out with a backhoe, or the city might use a stump grinder to grind out the offending tree roots near a sidewalk. At of these methods place the tree, and city residents, at risk in two ways. Cutting large tree roots can affect the stability of the tree. The next windstorm might cause the tree to be btowm over after the root cutting has been done. Cutting large tree roots near a sidewalk might also lead to decay fungi entering the tree. The end result of this will also be a fallen tree at some point in the future. Cutting large tree roots is usually a temporary fa to the problem_ The roots will be cut, a newsidewralk will be put in, and then th a tree will grow new roots to damage the new sidewalk, Every time root cutting is done the chances ofthe tree being blown over, or decay entering the tree, increases. r Oftentimes, the effects of cutting tree roots are not immediately apparent. Deciduous trees have stored food ,1 reserves and will compensate for damage done to the tree roots. Even though the tree looks healthy it does not s i Connected on Goog ,rn- :7 L`rn_na L +� 1v E-- ", rr•.. , Ile I t „r.lr, 1 V 1m VT r,. r. 1 of 2 4/29/2012 4:57 PM swn,w�v.r� arb.con-ghtml/broward Coiurty_fl.php $rov.arcl Cotu�rty, FL -Tree Service, tree care, tree tritYmtirlg, tree rettloval, ... �P ' )A2 — mean significant structural damage has not been done to the tree. dust as it can take years for a tree to become large, it can take years for the effects of root damage to become evident. Should a city create potentially hazardous trees by cutting large tree roots, or-just remove the trees for the safety of city residents? This choice can put a city forester in a no win situation. Removing a mature tree can be an unpopular option with city residents even though the overall liability to the city may be reduced by removing the tree instead of cutting larger roots. The city forester must consider if the liability of the trip hazard caused by a raised sidewalk may be outweighed by the damaged caused by cutting large tree roots. Cutting large tree roots' away from sidewalks now may cause future problems greater than the current liability if the entire tree falls over, The fallen tree may damage property, injure or kill a city resident, and will likely damage the newsidewalk Instead of continually damaging and weakening a mature tree by cutting large roots the tree could be removed and a new tree planted to replace ft. There are several things that could be done to extend the useful life of trees planted between the road and the sidewalk. (toot barriers can be installed to prevent or redirect root development near sidewalks. Foam has been used below sidewalks as an underiayment for the sidewalk The foam gives support to the concrete and will compress to accommodate diameter growth of tree roots. Altematives, such as rerouting the sidewalk around encroaching tree roots should be used Wienever possible. Most other alternatives, such as, adding asphalt to raised edges, grinding dorm raised edges, or re- pouring the concrete to create a mounded sidewalk are short term foes. The tree roots will continue to increase in diameter and quicklylift the sidewalk again _. Another alternative would be to view the urban forest with a crop rotation approach, if large tree species are _ going to be planted it can be done with the knowledge that removal and replacement of the trees will be done if sidewalk damage starts to occur. Some city residents would be upset, but continually replacing sidewalks, and be damaging trees in the process, can be a strain on any city budget. Although most urban foresters would cu able to relate to this long term view, convincing some city residents that this is the right approach could he difficult. = YERlFIED _ Most urban foresters, and city residents, would prefer to not remove mature trees. But at what price should a city adhere to this type of policy? City foresters must either work around the normal growth pattern of the tree or consider, removal of the tree. Continually cutting large tree roots will eventually result in a large fallen tree. [Hence Lgr fact Us] [ rs.o,.s =v ce] [. ac }, Paligyl L Copyright 2010 -2012 crosscut-'M rl 9,n9, ervic_s_LLC 2 of 2 4/29/2012 4:57 Plvi Prioritizing Risk Trees in a Cortirtiunity By Brian Kane, Dr. H. Dennis P. Ryan and Dr. David V. Bloniarz ree wardens, community ar- borists and urban foresters are responsible for maintaining park and street trees that are safe from prob- lems that could lead to property damage or injury. The literature offers a general consensus about what makes a tree haz- ardous and how to rectify the risks once identified. Without exception, published references agree that a hazard tree must contain both a structural flaw - which could cause the tree, or part thereof, to fail - and a target of some value. In ad- dition, a tree may be a hazard if it stands in an environment that might contribute to the potential for failure. Ex- amples would be sites that are prone to high wind or wet soils. Another problem that tree wardens must consider when inspecting for risk trees are trees planted too close to street signs, traffic lights, or street lighting, because branches obscur- ing such signs or lights could lead to traffic acci- dents or personal injury. Trees in urban and subur- ban areas can also create hazards to pedestrian and vehicular traffic with low branches that block side- walks or streets. The minimum street clearance for thorough- fares is 14 feet_ This is enough to allow standard -sized tractor - trailers to pass with- out encumbrance. Sidewalk clearance is most often on the order of 10 feet. Never- theless, one can walls or drive through many neighborhoods, urban and rural, and The weak crotch is all too common along our public streets and in some loca- tions is the No. 1 reason for a tree failing. Early identification and correc- tion is required. -.-:t 4i A large street tree that had the roots cut by the town aunng a ruau widening project. A 15- minute thunderstorm in August toppled the tree and nine others on this Long island, N.Y. street find streets and sidewalks without the specified clearances. Trees can also present a hazard in com- munity settings with their roots. Planted too close to sidewalks and curbs, trees may grow roots that can interfere with adjacent physical infrastructure. Tree roots search- TREE CARE INDUSTRY - JULY 2001 ing for oxygen, water, and nutrients will upset concrete sidewalk slabs quite easily. This is especially obvious when trees are planted in the utility strip, where soil con- ditions are frequently poor. In search of better growing conditions, tree roots travel under the sidewalk to nearby residential 45 Basal decay on a street tree. At what point do you remove the tree? Smaller defective branches may be present, but do not present a hazard risk. Weak branch crotches are also a common defect in street trees. Depending on the size of the branches involved, the stress on the crotch can be severe. In a recent survey of New England arborists and tree wardens, most respondents listed weak crotches and decay in the top three most common tree defects, Weak crotches are a leading cause of branch and whole tree failure. They can be found not only between the stem and a lateral branch, but also between co- dominant leaders in a decurrent tree. Because tight, "V- shaped" crotches with included bark have little sound wood holding the branches together, they are more likely to fail when subjected to wind stress or snow load. In fact, as the branches continue to increase in girth, if annual rings cannot envelop both branches, the included bark acts like a plate preventing the stems from support- ing one another. Eventually, the respective girths push each other apart enough to cause cracking or failure. Vi- sually, included bark appears as a disappearance of the branch bark ridge one normally detects between stem and branch. It appears as if the branch bark ridge has been pulled back into the branch /stem union. Stem and branch defects are com- monly associated with wounds that lead,' to decay and open cavities. Cankers and 161 � A24 of a problem for street trees. Vehicular contact and vandalism are more likely causes of wounds on street trees. Again, certain decay thresholds need to be es- tablished, such as the 30 percent strength loss limit for considering a tree hazard- ous. With decay, trees can be up to 70 percent hollow before they approach the 30 percent strength loss threshold. With cavities, trees can have an open cavity between one -third and one -half of the stem circumference before reaching the 30 percent strength loss threshold. As a tree defect, wood decay has re- ceived close scrutiny. Decay is common on tree trunks, branches and roots be- cause any time bark ruptures the decay process can proceed. Dr. Walter Shortie of the USDA Forest Service called de- cay in living trees the most damaging disease for all species around the world. Dr. Thomas Smiley and Dr. Bruce Fraedrich of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company have published that they con- sider decay to be the most common hazardous defect of urban trees. Decay undermines wood strength properties. Each tree warden needs to determine just how much decay the community is will- ing to live with, since there is no national standard at this time. In the root zone, the tree warden should look for cut roots, decay on the Oct crown, soil heaving or root plate lift - 'ing, and fruiting bodies in the soil indicative of root rot fungi. Trees that cracks, common in park settings, are les have lost up to one -half of their root sys- t TREE CARE INDUSTRY - JULY 2001 tems should be considered hazardous. Sometimes root crown investigatiohs are insufficient, and the inspector must ex- cavate around the root crown to look more closely at the buttress roots. Trees without a root flare (they appear to go into the ground like a telephone pole) must be carefully evaluated below the ground, since root flare defects might have been hidden by the excess soil piled around them. Ultimately responsible for a tree's structural stability, the roots also provide water and dissolved minerals from the soil. Large, woody roots offer support and anchor the tree; tiny root hairs and mycorrhizae absorb nutrients and water r� in the soil. Root damage or loss accounts' C for a large percentage of tree deaths and failures. Through a variety of injuries caused by construction, installations of irrigation systems, improper drainage, and soil compaction, roots can sustain exorbitant amounts of damage. Often, root injuries are covered with grass, fill, or concrete and this successfully hides the severity of the damage. This creates an especially dangerous situation since a casual tree examination can easily overlook the root system. Symptoms of root damage are manifested in the crown by poor growth, thinning and chlorosis of the foliage, as well as a general de- cline starting from the top of the tree. Other visible signs of root damage in- clude bleeding wounds on the trunk; loose, peeling bark around the stem but- tress; sunken areas around the lower stem and buttress; girdling roots and ad- ventitious roots growing above the root flare, and cracks extending into the stem from the soil line. Any time an inspec- tor notices recent roadwork, landscaping, irrigation system installation, or paving near a tree, they should inspect the root system for potential damage. A final flaw to look for is the presence of a lean. Trees will lean as a result of vari- ous external forces. Competing for light or in reaction to prevailing winds, some trees naturally lean away from others. Leaning trees reacting to natural forces have built up reaction wood to compen- sate for the lean; this is not a hazardous situation. When trees show signs of lean- ing, but have gradually straightened up over time, this too is usually not a hazard- 47 ous situation. These trees leaned due to a past impetus, but by straightening, they have regained apical dominance and, in moss cases, will ultimately balance the crown. In scenarios where trees are unnatu- rally leaning, however, a hazard results. Poor soil conditions, mounding and crack- ing of the soil behind the leaning tree, and exposed roots protruding from the soil all manifest an unnatural lean, where the tree is in danger of completely falling over. In addition to the structural defects listed above, the tree species is a closing element to consider when determining a tree's hazard potential. Different species have different wood characteristics. Oaks generally have strong wood, which is less likely to fail than a tree with weak wood, such as willow. Because of this, similar defects on different tree species will not necessarily represent similar risk. Different species also have varying abilities to compartmentalize wounds. Certain species are prone to forming poor branch attachments, such as silver maple and American beech. Some are less'likely to fail than others. The inspec- tor must be knowledgeable regarding local trees and their growth habits. Assessment System Given all the data an inspector would collect from the defects listed above, it is imperative that a priority rating sys- tem be used in order to develop a risk - management strategy for a community's trees. This way, the in- spector can assign numerical rating values to each defect and target. For ex- ample, a simple rating system would rank defects in terms of their likelihood to cause failure: a rating of 1 means low failure probability; a rating of 3 means high failure probability. Next, the in- spector ranks the size of the defective part: a rating of I indicates a small de- fective part (between 2 and 5 inches diameter); a rating of 3 indicates a large defective part (greater than 10 inches di- ameter). The inspector then evaluates the target from two perspectives — the like- lihood of it being damaged if a failure occurred and the amount of damage likely to be incurred from a failure. Lastly the inspector would take into con- sideration the tree species. These variables would also be ranked 1 through 3, with 1 indicating a low damage prob- ability and small amount of damage and 3 indicating a high probability of dam- age and a large amount of damage occurring. When totaled, the numerical values would fall between 3 and 12, lend- ing an idea of the hazard priority of each tree. Using this rating system, a commu- nity will have identified problem trees and have them ranked by number. The tree warden could then start work on the trees highest ranked, reducing a municipality's potential liability. Assessment systems can be as detailed or simple as preferred. Simple systems that account for fewer variables are less powerful for analysis and prediction, but would require less time and effort on the inspector's part. Currently, there are sev- eral forms for ranking trees being used by arborists. The International Society of Arboriculture has published a refer- ence book on hazard trees, and the park agencies of California and Minnesota have been using a system designed for their parks for many years. The Community Tree Evaluation Form that is attached to this article was first developed by Jill Pokomy of the USDA Forest Service St. Paul, Minn. It has been modified by the authors over the last three years with input from the New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Manage- ment and the Massachusetts Tree Wardens and Foresters Association. The intention was to give tree wardens and community foresters an easy -to -use and cost - effective too] designed for the effi- cient evaluation of street trees. Corrective Action Identifying hazard trees and then ig- noring them undermines the original intent of performing the evaluation. Managers should establish hazard tree correction measures based on thresholds from the rating system. In other words, numerical or verbal ratings should cor- respond to a given remedial action to mitigate the problem. Corrective treat- ments, pruning, cabling, tree removal, moving the target, augmenting tree vigor, and excluding visitors from haz- ardous sites are some of the options. Astute tree managers will explore all possible ramifications of any corrective 48 TREE CARE INDUSTRY - JULY 2001 161 F A24 action. Community opposition to remov- als will vary, so an urban forester must be willing to explore different options for hazard reduction. Corrective actions depend on what part of the tree is likely to fail, how likely it is to fail, and what special significance the tree might hold. Despite being hazardous, certain trees demand preservation efforts because of their historical, cultural or physical significance. An excellent ex- ample is the Balmville Tree in Orange County, New York. Although most con- sulting arborists agreed the tree was hazardous, residents of the community expended considerable effort and financial backing to preserve the tree because of its historical significance. In many cases, haz- ard tree correction can be as simple as moving playground equipment. Conclusion Some communities are under the im -' -- pression that if they don't know about a hazard tree, then they are not responsible when it fails. Nothing could be further from the truth. In a 1994 court case in Connecticut, for example, Judge Anne C. Dranginis ruled that "all property owners — state and private, city and rural — have the legal obligation to inspect their road or streetside trees for age, condition or weak- ness that might make them a hazard to passersby." The key to a community's tree inspec- tion and maintenance program, then, is to establish a systematic protocol for assess- ing the community's trees. The procedure should be formalized in writing and should contain methods for assigning values for tree defect severity, size of defective part, target value, and probability of defective part damaging a target. This is the most efficient way to manage hazard trees and reduce a community's exposure to liabil- ity from a tree failure. Brian Kane is a certified arborist and Ph.D. candidate at the University of�Vfas- sachusetts researching risk tree analysis. Dr. K Dennis P. Ryan is Professor ofAr- boriculture & Community Forestry at the University oflblassachusetts, Annherst. Dr. David Y. Bloniarz is an Urban Forester and head of the USDA Forest Service Northeast Center for Urban and Commu- nity Forestry at Amherst. lawns. Over time, the roots grow in diam- eter and lift up the sidewalk, creating a trip hazard. Given our culture's current fond- ness for litigation, such a trip hazard has the potential to result in a large lawsuit. A final hazard that trees present to communities deals with utility lines, above and below ground. Utilities across the country spend over $1 million per day clearing power lines along road- ways. In spite of this, power failures often occur as the result of tree - related damage. Here again, the trees are pre- senting a problem that is not necessarily the same as a hazard tree structural fail - ure. In severe weather, even structurally sound trees are apt to fail. From this in- troduction, it should be clear that every community needs to prioritize its tree risk potential in a systematic way. Community Tree Management Program It is essential that a community's tree risk management program be system- atic. This point cannot be overemphasized. In a court of law, a plaintiff must prove negligence on the defendant's part in order to win a law- suit' Negligence arises from: 1. the responsibility to maintain safe trees in the community; 2. a subsequent breach of that re- sponsibility, such as when a hazard tree is not removed; 3. damage or injury resulting from the breach of responsibility. For ex- ample, if the hazard tree failed and damaged a car. In many instances, it is impossible for a municipality to remove all the poten- tially hazardous trees in its streets and parks. It therefore must abide by the rea- sonable person standard. The standard is Wed to judge if an action was reasonable and prudent. In other words, would a rea- sonable person, given the same situation, have behaved similarly? The best way for a community to obey the reasonable per- son standard is to develop a written, systematic procedure for locating and evaluating potentially risky trees. Because it is not feasible for a community with lim- ited financial and personnel resources to remove every potentially hazardous tree, having a systematic procedure, in writing, is the best defense against negligence. The procedure should detail a rating system that prioritizes trees based on their risk of fail- ure and potential to cause damage. The procedure should also provide a standard timeframe for inspecting, on some level, the community's trees. Inspection Cycle It is reasonable for a community to in- spect their street trees annually (park trees and open space trees are not in- cluded here, because their target ratings are usually less than for street trees). The extent of the inspection will vary available resources, but some form of inspection should occur annually.. For This large hanger in a sugar maple over a park bench was on a heavily used public common in New England for over three months before it was removed by the townl many cities, this might be purely a wind- shield survey, where the urban forester drives each city street in the course of a year and looks for major and obvious defects in trees. As long as the procedure is standardized, systematic, and estab- lished in writing, a municipality can justify this inspection system given a limited budget. With adequate funding 46 TREE CARE INDUSTRY - JULY 2001 16 I E A24 and labor, towns can undertake more in- tensive surveys, spending more inspection time on each tree. It's impor- tant that — at a minimum — every tree be inspected using the visual windshield survey method. One exception is trees in low priority areas. After undertaking an initial hazard tree inventory, the urban forester can de- prioritize areas of the community where target risk is so low that tree failure is extremely unlikely to cause damage. If it is reasonable to do so, surveying high -risk areas, like a downtown business district, should oc- cur more frequently than undeveloped nature areas. This is reasonable priori- tizing, designed to reduce tree risk. This type of prioritization has been imple- mented for recreation and park areas and is also useful in a community set- ting. Inspection Process An evaluator must inspect each part of the tree, crown, stem, and roots, es- pecially if root damage is suspected. The tree should be viewed from all sides, although a windshield survey might miss something on the side of the tree facing away from the road. The in- spector should proceed in the inspection in the same manner each time in order to achieve a pattern of in- vestigation that will help make comparisons to other trees and defects. The next section introduces crown, stem and root defects that are common to municipal trees. Municipalities that do not have qualified arborists on staff who can perform this type of tree in- spection should contract with a consulting arborist to do the inspection each year. A list of commercial ar- borists is available from the National Arborist Association at 800 - 733 -2622 or ww,.v.natlarb.com. In the crown, the inspector looks for problems with the branches. These can come in the form of broken, hanging branches; cracked branches; branches with significant decay or cavities; or dead branches. It is recommended that a threshold for defective branch size be es- tablished, generally around two inches in diameter (conforming to the ANSI A300 pruning standard for crown cleaning). c� C• P O N Wo V C a G U i O U K 0 4J C c t= � R W�o U 4 '.O F q m °a a T m 3 9 3 a 3 m a 3 0 �a `D a M c 4 T R ° O � 4 o ° m L r n m o O � = O E ° m C -O m ° m � b � Y `o U Q 0 3 G Vw p O cs m U N G m U n w m m m � c :C m 'ni a m Y °m E yJ, m ° m m � m a G _T ° L e �+ V � c 0 m m c •o s G � m Q - m G a ° a O L y w m t m C v o Q U � m c � m m Y C m Q T ° u a � O c � z c E c d c �y 1 m r m E E G L E m 5 v c m OD G L O N q c D E c • D g as a a a F z q r- (V M 7 IL w U w p N rn TREE CARE INDUSTRY - JULY 2001 1612�'A24 Q 0 o L E c � a a m E c ° m m 0 � a — °o E. m a o U � m �pp m U LL � b a m O D O o � ° F D p 5 F V � G D m m P c O U G p C D C ... L O 3 0 C ✓ O p G 9 X R m _L c E m ° m D D � � m C °m Y o W Gp T V m i4' O m o E u m w ° Z 3 m ° a Q m m p c m � L - � O T � O a. • D O I V O O 0 L G Q m ° 9 9m O � Q• .°c L° � 3 2 c m o a c m° m m y Ol N o V I W 9 _p C E •D c O o C m^ m °. m „ai D` a ' o m v my a Y E m m E u° o a m m m a e Q 3 a m N t'1 17 O { N O � o N o V) w LL V ¢' d1, O w 4 c q v a� 49 �s May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Arborist report and recommendation (D. Trec rt5/2/12) Page 1 of 1 I � � /, 16 4 TREES IN JEOPARDY FROM SIDEWALK WIDFNING The Goetz /Jimison Report (4130/ 12) Kavc 4ytrw txr r+ritritrr+lrtth trot damage to trees that might be impacted: by sitiewirtk widerrin . ( )Iw til the recommendations was "Maintain a ininitnum dixialiwe t +i 24" to tree trunk of any runt pruning or excavation. Can 5/1/12,11 walked the sidewalk on the west side of llelicutr Buy Blvd, inert the Commons to the North Trams Station and measured distances irum troc trunks to where the sidewalk could be widened to h or 8 feel - I ignored shrubbery and hedges. some of which wtmid lx hive Io tie removed, and l assumed that some back- and -forth curving of tire• widenetl sidewalk was acceptable. If you agree with +Goetzlaimison that 24 inches fnmY tree trunk it) lire Mart of excavation is acceptable (I'm tim sure l do) alul rr+ing no wher criterilt, their the following applies; 4$ trees would be unaffected by widening it) 8 feet • 23 trees might be affected by widening; to g feet • 4 trees might be affected by widening it) 6 feel 'The impact is area specific, with the trees in fm)nt of the Motitcrw -n), tit, Lucia- Comnwns and the Sandpiper parking lot affected the mast. S1dcwalks along the rest of the road could be widened to R fc-rt with only a few trees erected. Dave Trecker 5/2!12 t t May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bii. Administrator's Report. County's plans to "overlay" all Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways Page 1 of 3 ResnickLisa Subject: RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US-41 S to US-41 N) From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithjdallas @gmail.com] 161 Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 12:30 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: FYI - Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Lisa, For distribution to the Board. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Neil Dorrill <Neil@dmefl.com> Subject: RE: FYI - Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Date: April 26, 2012 9:48:33 AM EDT To: GossarclTravis <TravisGossard(@ col liergov.net> Cc: Keith Dallas <keithidallas@gmail.com> Thanks. I will get back in touch if we want to cost share in a larger project to widen these paths. Neil From: GossarclTravis [ mailto :TravisGossard @colliergov.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:52 PM To: Neil Dorrill; Casalanguida Nick Cc: VlietJohn; BlancoAlexander; MarcellaJeanne; ChesserEddie; WrightTodd Subject: RE: FYI - Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) � A24 Hi Neil, yes the sidewalks are scheduled for this year. We have not issued the Notice to Proceed to Better Roads yet, but it will be issued in approximately two weeks and they will have till about July 31, 2012 to have the sidewalks completed. Regards, Travis D. Gossard Sr. Road & Bridge Superintendent Growth Mgmt. Division Collier County Government PH# 239 -252 -8924 Fax# 239 - 774 -6406 Travisaossard0collieraov. net From: Neil Dorrill [mailto: Neil @dmgfl.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:38 PM To: Casa languidaNick; GossarclTravis Subject: FW: FYI - Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Nick/Travis: Can you confirm the scheduling of the overlay? We are in the process of preparing bids for the expansion of these paths to 8' and would desire the project be complete before the end of the calendar year. Neil From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithjdallas @ gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 3:57 PM To: Neil Dorrill; Kyle Lukasz Cc: Lisa Resnick Subject: Fwd: FYI - Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 6 12 A24 5bii. Administrator's Report. County's plans to "overlay" all Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways Page 2 of 3 My first question does this mean they are intending overlaying all the Pelican Bay Blvd pathways, both sides, this summer (before end of September)? If so, this might solve our short term problem with the condition of the pathways, although I suspect will not solve the long term problem because this project will do nothing with root barriers. I'd like to hear both your thoughts. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: ResnickLisa <LResnick @colliergov.net> Subject: FYI - Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Date: April 17, 2012 3:23:30 PM EDT To: Keith Dallas <keithidallas @gmail.com >, Neil Dorrill <Neil @dmgfl.com> This work is (tentatively) scheduled for this FY 2011 -2012 From: BlancoAlexander Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:07 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: GossardTravis Subject: RE: Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Lisa, It's both sides of sidewalk on Pelican Bay Blvd. Thanks Alexander Blanco Supervisor of Contracts & Projects Road & Bridge Maintenance Dept. Growth Management Division Tel. 239 - 252 -8924 Fax 239 - 774 -6406 AlexanderBlanco @colliergov. net From: ResnickLisa Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 1:36 PM To: BlancoAlexander Cc: GossarclTravis Subject: Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Hi Alexander, One question re: [Pelican Bay Blvd (Sidewalk Overlay) (US 41 to US 41 South & North Sides Pelican Bay Is this sidewalk overlay for the (east) side or (west) side or (both) sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard? Thanks, Lisa Lisa Resnick Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 Iresnick collier ov.net http:/ /Delicanbayservicesdivision.net May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bii. Administrator's Report. County's plans to "overlay" all Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways Page 3 of 3 1 ? A24 16 From: BlancoAlexander Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:32 AM To: AbbottAlicia; AhmadJay; AhmadVicky; Archibald George; ArnoldMichelle; AtkinsonDayne; AuclairClaudine; BarlowGreg; BathonDale; BealsNathan; Beard Laurie; BetancurNatali; BishopMargaret; BlancoAlexander; BuchheitDavid; CalvertEugene; CamposKristin; CampSkip; CarterGlama; ChesneyBarbara; ChesserEddie; ChmelikTom; CoxShane; DeaneConnie; DelateJoseph; DelgadoTania; DennieShannon; Mike Dolan; DuganKevin; FarrisDaniel; FaulknerSue; FederNorman; FlaggDiane; FrenchJames; GammellJim; GossarclTravis; HallDaniel; HallErin; HapkeMargie; HendricksKevin; Hendrickson Lisa; JacksonDavid; JarviReed; Joe Boscaglia; Johnsonlrene; KhawajaAnthony; KomornyJesse; KrumbineMarcy; KurtzGerald; LantzLorraine; LehnhardPat; LibbyPamela; LorenzWilliam; LukaszKyle; LulichPamela; LynchDiane; MagsumbolRamon; MartinezOscar; MattauschPaul; McAlpinGary; McCaughtryMary; McKennaJack; MessamMarlene; MottToni; MuckelBradley; NagySteve; OrdonezJulio; PajerCraig; PhillippiPenny; PodczerwinskyJohn; PonceRamiro; PutaansuuGary; RamirezTrudi; RamosMargaret; RamseyMarla; RodriguezDan; SmithRay; SorianoLiz; Sridhar5andy; StoneMichael; SunyakMark; VlietJohn; VorthermsJonathan; WalkerShawn; WattsTom; WeaverDenise; WidesTom; WilliamsBarry; WrightTodd; XueYuejin; YilmazGeorge Cc: GossardTravis Subject: Review Overlay tentative overlay list #4 Good morning to all, Please review the upcoming tentative overlay list #4 that Road Maintenance is going to do. Please email me if you have any concerns. Thanks Alexander Blanco Supervisor of Contracts & Projects Road & Bridge Maintenance Dept. Growth Management Division Tel. 239 -252 -8924 Fax 239- 774 -6406 AlexanderBlanco(cDcollieraov. net Pelican Pelican Bay Blvd (Sidewalk Overlay) (US 41 to US 41 South & North Sides Bay Pelican King Bird Ct. (Buttonbush Ln. to Dead End) Bay Pelican Whimbrel Ct. (Buttonbush Ln. to Dead End) ...Not in Road survey (looking into) Bay Pelican Tramore (Greentree to Dead End) Bay Alexander Blanco Supervisor of Contracts & Projects Road & Bridge Maintenance Dept. Growth Management Division Tel. 239 -252 -8924 Fax 239- 774 -6406 AlexanderBlanco(cDcollieraov. net I Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Vehicles Due from Property Appraiser Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 1612 ,A2 4Pelican May2,2012 Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Pelican Bay Services 5e. Monthly Financial Re ort Municipal Services Taxing Unit P Balance Sheet - April 30, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Assets 2,051,204.44 96,538.00 $ 2,147,742.44 $ 2,147,742.44 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 40,947.75 12,926.94 1,292,615.54 801,252.21 $ 53,874.69 2,093,867.75 $ 2,147,742.44 161 2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - April 30, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Operating Revenues: Carryforward Special Assessment - Water Management Admin Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification Special Assessment Past Due Charges for Services Surplus Property Sales Miscellaneous Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenace and Repairs IT Direct Capital IT Office Automation /Billing Hr. Indirect Cost Reimbursement Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings and Equipment Insurance - General Printing, Binding and Copying Clerk's Recording Fees Advertising Other Office and Operating Supplies Training and Education Total Water Management Admin Operating Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense Engineering Fees Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. Landscape Materials /Replanting Program Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) Plan Review Fees Other Contractural Services Temporary Labor Telephone Trash and Garbage Motor Pool Rental Charge Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Building Repairs & Mntc. Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Tree Triming Clothing and Uniforms Variance A24 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ - 666,300.00 622,990.50 624,023.58 1,033.08 1,907,800.00 1,783,793.00 1,786,576.40 21783.40 1,500.00 - - - 2,400.00 - 20,418.00 20,418.00 84,500.00 84,500.00 701.48 701.48 15,300.00 8,923.00 6,098.99 (2,824.01) $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,538,006.50 $ 3,560,118.45 $ 22,111.95 $ 41,400.00 $ 23,900.00 $ 21,954.21 $ 1,945.79 8,800.00 - - - 400.00 300.00 300.00 - 4,800.00 2,400.00 2,200.00 200.00 84,500.00 84,500.00 84,500.00 - 13,400.00 10,100.00 10,050.00 50.00 26,900.00 15, 700.00 14,396.00 1,304.00 3,900.00 2,300.00 1,633.80 666.20 3,000.00 300.00 107.69 192.31 11,300.00 6,600.00 7,060.68 (460.68) 1,200.00 600.00 600.00 - 2,300.00 200.00 - 200.00 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 2,000.00 1,200.00 314.61 885.39 1,100.00 600.00 85.00 515.00 $ 209,000.00 $ 149,100.00 $ 143,201.99 $ 5,898.01 $ 132,800.00 $ 76,600.00 $ 70,615.06 $ 5,984.94 12,000.00 7,000.00 2,212.50 4,787.50 14,000.00 4,100.00 812.65 3,287.35 8,500.00 300.00 - 300.00 22,600.00 7,500.00 7,187.50 312.50 1,500.00 - - - 1,000.00 600.00 286.42 313.58 42,400.00 27,400.00 28,688.00 (1,288.00) 500.00 300.00 216.24 83.76 5,700.00 3,600.00 3,539.87 60.13 100.00 - - - 2,300.00 1,150.00 1,150.00 900.00 450.00 450.00 1,700.00 - - - 5,400.00 3,200.00 1,162.59 2,037.41 8,900.00 5,200.00 1,593.01 3,606.99 30,000.00 17,500.00 14,976.00 2,524.00 1,100.00 700.00 792.38 (92.38) Page 1 of 3 Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Other Repairs and Maintenance Other Operating Supplies and Equipment Total Water Management Field Operating Right of Way Beautification - Operating Payroll Expense Emergency Repairs and Maintenance IT Direct Capital Office Automation Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Printing, Binding and Copying Clerk's Recording Legal Advertising Office Supplies General Training and Education Total Right of Way Beautification Operating Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenance and Repairs Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) Pest Control Landscape Incidentals Other Contractural Services Temporary Labor Telephone Electricity Trash and Garbage Rent Equipment Motor Pool Rental Charge Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Building Repairs and Maintenance Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Licenses, Permits, Training Tree Triming Clothing and Uniforms Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Landscape Maintenance Mulch /Landscape Materials Pathway Repairs Sprinkler Maintenance Painting Supplies Traffic Signs Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating Total Operating Expenditures ib i A24 500.00 500.00 1,423.60 (923.60) 98,400.00 45,700.00 36,737.11 8,962.89 1,500.00 900.00 388.11 511.89 2,500.00 3,000.00 3,405.53 (405.53) $ 394,300.00 $ 205,700.00 $ 175,636.57 $ 30,063.43 $ 42,600.00 $ 7,400.00 400.00 14,100.00 34,300.00 3,900.00 3,000.00 12,500.00 500.00 2,600.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 1,500.00 $ 129,300.00 $ 24,600.00 $ 22,618.32 300.00 300.00 10,600.00 7,000.00 20,000.00 16,963.00 2,300.00 1,633.80 600.00 (92.28) 7,300.00 7,673.91 250.00 250.00 200.00 33.00 200.00 - 200.00 - 1,500.00 494.90 900.00 105.00 $ 1,981.68 68,950.00 $ 56,979.65 $ $ 807,300.00 $ 465,800.00 $ 383,629.37 3,300.00 - - 89,900.00 52,300.00 50,427.76 5,000.00 5,000.00 8,325.00 2,500.00 1,500.00 526.74 29,500.00 20,500.00 19,223.00 190,100.00 145, 600.00 146,192.78 3,200.00 1,900.00 1,347.55 3,400.00 2,000.00 1,177.93 17,000.00 7,400.00 6,924.80 2,500.00 1,500.00 1,132.57 300.00 200.00 76.93 8,800.00 4,400.00 4,400.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 1,700.00 700.00 - 25,100.00 17,100.00 17,063.45 67,300.00 35,800.00 21,635.86 800.00 500.00 101.94 63,600.00 67,100.00 60,715.50 9,400.00 3,700.00 3,490.72 3,000.00 1,800.00 1,576.60 62,000.00 39,500.00 39,497.71 46,000.00 38,800.00 38,716.65 53,100.00 37,200.00 23,259.40 6,000.00 3,500.00 - 30,000.00 12,800.00 4,914.68 800.00 500.00 28.66 3,000.00 1,800.00 - 3,000.00 1,800.00 1,664.00 9,000.00 5,300.00 3,641.16 $ 1,556,600.00 $ 981,000.00 $ 844,690.76 $ 2,289,200.00 $ 1,404,750.00 $ 1,220,508.97 Page 2 of 3 C� 3,600.00 3,037.00 666.20 692.28 (373.91) 167.00 200.00 200.00 1,005.10 795.00 11,970.35 82,170.63 1,872.24 (3,325.00) 973.26 1,277.00 (592.78) 552.45 822.07 475.20 367.43 123.07 700.00 36.55 14,164.14 398.06 6,384.50 209.28 223.40 2.29 83.35 13,940.60 3,500.00 7,885.32 471.34 1,800.00 136.00 1,658.84 136,309.24 184,241.03 1612 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment $ 1,000.00 $ $ - $ General Improvements - Total Water Management Field Operations Capital $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Right of Way Beautification - Field Autos and Trucks $ 102,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 - - Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital $ 103,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Capital Expenditures $ 104,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,393,200.00 $ 1,501,350.00 $ 1,317,046.97 $ 184,303.03 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 49,352.00 48,212.00 1,140.00 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 40,315.00 38,714.56 1,600.44 Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) 538,000.00 540,300.00 540,300.00 - Reserves for Equipment 94,800.00 94,800.00 94,800.00 Reserved for Attrition (31,700.00) (31,700.00) (31,700.00) Revenue Reserve 129,500.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 1,320,000.00 $ 1,129,567.00 $ 1,126,826.56 $ 2,740.44 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 2,630,917.00 $ 2,443,873.53 $ 187,043.47 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 907,089.50 $ 1,116,244.92 $ 209,155.42 Page 3 of 3 112 4 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - April 30, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Assets $ 500,266.87 Liabilities and Fund Balance 2,592.56 161 $ 500,266.87 $ 500,266.87 $ 2,592.56 194,157.20 303,517.11 497,674.31 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 500,266.87 A24 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - April 30, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Operating Revenues: Carryforward Curent Ad Valorem Tax Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Insurance Claim Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Admin Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Other Contractual Services Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Building Maintenace & Repairs Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast $ 157,600.00 $ 436,800.00 4,500.00 598,900.00 161 Lf A24 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 414,960.00 416,820.89 1,440.00 574,000.00 18,330.25 996.96 593,748.10 Variance 1,860.89 18,330.25 (443.04) 19,748.10 $ 41,400.00 $ 23,900.00 $ 21,954.10 $ 1,945.90 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 5,300.00 $ - 26,900.00 $ 15,691.67 14,396.00 $ 1,295.67 3,900.00 $ 2,300.00 1,207.11 $ 1,092.89 2,000.00 $ 300.00 107.69 $ 192.31 12,100.00 $ 7,100.00 7,441.74 $ (341.74) 300.00 $ 150.00 150.00 $ - 800.00 $ 500.00 15.36 $ 484.64 1,000.00 $ 600.00 - $ 600.00 93,700.00 2,517.83 55,841.67 50,572.00 5,269.67 62,500.00 36,100.00 33,419.18 2,680.82 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 500.00 - 500.00 400.00 200.00 227.55 (27.55) 44,200.00 25,800.00 19,806.65 5,993.35 800.00 400.00 400.00 - 900.00 450.00 450.00 - 1,700.00 4,300.00 2,500.00 1,215.52 1,284.48 1,200.00 700.00 324.65 375.35 200.00 100.00 64.40 35.60 500.00 300.00 - 300.00 7,300.00 4,300.00 3,899.00 401.00 12,400.00 5,800.00 3,282.17 2,517.83 Page 1 of 2 Total Street Lighting Field Operating Total Field Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery /Equipment General Improvements Total Capital Expenditures Total Operating Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Future Construction Reserves (2 1/2 mos. for Operations) Reserves for Equipment Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) 161 A24 146,800.00 77,150.00 63,089.12 14,060.88 240,500.00 132,991.67 113,661.12 19,330.55 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 11000.00 200.00 - 200.00 241,500.00 133,191.67 113,661.12 19,530.55 13,500.00 8,775.00 8,379.21 395.79 8,900.00 4,895.00 - 4,895.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 - 54,900.00 54,900.00 54,900.00 - 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 - 22,000.00 - - 357,400.00 326,670.00 321,379.21 5,290.79 598,900.00 459,861.67 435,040.33 24,821.34 - 114,138.33 158,707.77 44,569.44 Page 2 of 2 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - April 30, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 424,930.84 424,930.84 $ 424,930.84 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 5,092.20 15,468.75 303,213.58 101,156.31 20,560.95 404,369.89 $ 424,930.84 161 zr A24 Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Special Assessment Past Due Fund 111 Transfer from Tax Collector Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Tree Trimming Other Equipment Repairs Aerial Photography Minor Operating Other Operating Supplies Total Clam Bay Restoration Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services 1612 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget -April 30, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual A24 Variance $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ - 307.50 127,100.00 119,474.00 121,125.20 1,651.20 34,000.00 Revenue Reserve 34,000.00 6,700.00 34,000.00 - - 700.00 - 700.00 1,207.60 507.60 $ 451,311.88 $ 443,685.88 $ 445,844.68 $ 2,158.80 $ 163,368.75 $ 33,900.00 $ 33,126.50 $ 773.50 $ 70,151.60 $ 16,900.00 $ 15,717.95 Net Profit /(Loss) 1,182.05 - 29,000.00 352,537.88 14,500.00 375,177.11 - 22,639.23 14,500.00 349.77 - - - 7,500.00 - - 588.01 - - - 1,000.00 - - - $ 271,958.13 $ 65,300.00 $ 48,844.45 $ 16,455.55 $ 7,253.75 $ 4,200.00 $ 2,018.25 $ 2,181.75 143,000.00 1,200.00 - 1,200.00 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 150,253.75 $ Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ Non - Operating Expenditures: 5,400.00 $ 2,018.25 $ 70,700.00 $ 50,862.70 $ 3,381.75 19,837.30 Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ 2,730.00 $ 2,422.50 $ 307.50 Property Appraiser Fees 2,600.00 1,818.00 1,482.37 335.63 Revenue Reserve 6,700.00 - - Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) 15,900.00 15,900.00 15,900.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 29,100.00 $ 20,448.00 $ 19,804.87 $ 643.13 Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 91,148.00 $ 70,667.57 $ 20,480.43 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 352,537.88 $ 375,177.11 $ 22,639.23 Page 1 of 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - April 30, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets 1612 A24 $ 2,641,799.46 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 6,918.00 2,582,848.52 52,032.94 2,641,799.46 $ 2,641,799.46 6,918.00 $ 2,641,799.46 1612 A�4 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - April 30, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: $ 10,300.00 $ 6,386.00 $ 6,325.21 Carry Forward $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ - Transfer from Fund 109 General 436,500.00 436,500.00 436,500.00 - Foundation Payment for Crosswalks - - 53,487.00 53,487.00 Special Assessment 331,900.00 311,986.00 316,255.37 4,269.37 Interest 19,500.00 11,373.00 8,630.63 (2,742.37) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,313,243.04 $ 3,368,257.04 $ 55,014.00 Operating Expenditures: $ 10,300.00 $ 6,386.00 $ 6,325.21 Irrigation & Landscaping 60.79 Property Appraiser Fees 6,800.00 Hardscape Project (50066) 3,896.51 319.49 Reserve for Contingencies Engineering Fees $ 131,654.37 $ 23,697.79 $ 19,481.60 $ 4,216.19 Other Contractural Services 2,956,362.25 532,145.21 429,605.74 102,539.47 Sprinkler System Repairs - 9,370.03 (9,370.03) Landscape material $ 10,602.00 $ 10,221.72 75,615.50 (75,615.50) Permits $ 3,341,284.04 1,000.00 (1,000.00) Electrical 8,485.36 Net Profit /(Loss) 13,680.14 (13,680.14) Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) 39,568.70 39,568.70 38,553.60 1,015.10 Other Road Materials 21,323.00 - - - Traffic Sign Restoration Project (60103) Traffic Signs 50,000.00 - - - Lake Bank Project (51026) Swale & Slope Maintenance 85,000.00 - - - Engineering Fees 500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 22,275.72 - - - Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures $ 3,306,684.04 $ 595,411.69 $ 587,306.61 $ 8,105.08 Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 10,300.00 $ 6,386.00 $ 6,325.21 $ 60.79 Property Appraiser Fees 6,800.00 4,216.00 3,896.51 319.49 Reserve for Contingencies - - - - Revenue Reserve 17,500.00 - - - Total Non - Operating Expenditures: $ 34,600.00 $ 10,602.00 $ 10,221.72 $ 380.28 Total Expenditures $ 3,341,284.04 $ 606,013.69 $ 597,528.33 $ 8,485.36 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 2,707,229.35 $ 2,770,728.71 $ 63,499.36 Page 1 of 1 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. PBSD Board Member Terms a Page 1 of 2 161 A24 PBSD Board Member Terms The terms of the current 9 residential Board Members expire unevenly, 4 one year, 3 another, 2 another, and no one this last year. In a more ideal world, 2 slots would be up for election every year except every 4th year when 3 positions would be open. The purpose of this write up is to explore whether or not we should change our procedures, and if so, how. The current terms are as follows: Year Term Expires Current Incumbents 2013 Cravens, Dallas, Gibson, Womble 2014 Chandler, O'Brien 2015 Iaizzo, Levy, Trecker 2016 No one Why would it be better to have more even terms? More even terms would: • Produce more continuity with the Board. Having as many as 4 members change in a year could leave a Board with less understanding of prior decisions than would be desirable. • Make it easier to recruit Board members. The PBSD has had problems at times filling open positions (last year it took multiple tries to fill all open positions). The fewer positions open in a given year, the easier to fill them. If we wanted to change how would we implement the change? At this writing I am not sure of actual mechanics. I've asked staff to look into how we could legally make such a change. I don't know if it would require change in our charter, or whether the BCC could merely appoint May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. PBSD Board Member Terms Page 2 of 2 161 2 ^ C qLJ new members using new rules. That will have to be determined if the Board decides to explore the concept. The actual changes could logically happen in 2013. At that point if 2 members were appointed for 4 years and 2 members for 3 years, we would be on a 2/3/2/2 pattern. Assuming we decide to do this, the 2top vote getters could be appointed for 4 years, and the next 2 vote getters for 3 years. If 4 or less people ran for election, we could draw names randomly to decide terms. If we decide this is a good idea, we should explore the logistics and make the decisions this year before we know who is running in the 2013 election. It is a lot easier to make decisions in a vacuum, without knowing specific people that will be impacted. What next? I would like us to discuss this issue at our May 2nd meeting and decide if the Board wants to go forward to explore the concept. IMH May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. Code of Ordinances re: board member t of office / Page 1 of 6 161 F-4 A24 Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Chapter 122 - SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI. - PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 1. – GENERALLY Sec. 122 -1651. - Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit Sec. 122 -1652. - Boundaries of the unit. Sec. 122 -1653. - Governing body. Sec. 122 -1654. - Purpose: powers Sec. 122 -1655. - Annual estimates of expenses taxation and assessment rate Sec. 122 -1656. - Tax and assessment imposition and collection Secs. 122- 1657 - 122 -1660. - Reserved. Sec. 122 -1651. - Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit Pursuant to Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance No. 88 -23, the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit (hereinafter "Unit ") is hereby created for the purpose of providing street lighting, water management, extraordinary law enforcement service and beautification, including but not limited to beautification of recreation facilities, sidewalk, street and median areas, identification markers, the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas, including the restoration of the mangrove forest preserve and to finance the landscaping beautification of only that portion of U.S. 41 from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road. While repealing prior ordinances pertaining to the unit, the purpose of this article is to adopt a new ordinance that consolidates said preexisting ordinances into one easily read and understood article, with some modifications that express the will of the property owners within the unit. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 1, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 1) Sec. 122 -1652. - Boundaries of the unit. The Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit is comprised of and includes those lands as described on the attached Exhibit "A "* and as depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "B ". (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 2, 5- 28 -02) Note— Exhibit A is not set out herein, but available as an attachment to Ord. No. 02 -27 Sec. 122 -1653. - Governing body. The governing body of the unit shall be ex- officio the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 3, 5- 28 -02) Sec. 122 -1654. - Purpose; powers The unit is formed for the purpose of providing street lighting, water management, ambient noise management, extraordinary law enforcement service and beautification, including but not limited to beautification of recreation facilities, sidewalk, street and median areas, identification markers, the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas including the restoration of the mangrove forest preserve and to finance the landscaping beautification of only that portion of U.S. 41 from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road in the above - described taxing and benefit unit and to that end shall possess all the powers to do all things reasonably necessary to provide such services. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 4, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 2) Sec. 122 -1655. - Annual estimates of expenses; taxation and assessment rate. For the purpose of carrying into effect and the administration of this article, the Board of County Commissioners shall annually, at the time required by general budgetary law, review and adopt an itemized estimate of the amount of money required to carry out the business of the unit for the next fiscal year, which shall be from October 1 to and including September 30 following (the "budget "). The proposed budget shall be prepared and reviewed by the Pelican Bay Services Division Board prior to its consideration by the Board of County Commissioners and after review by the Pelican Bay Services Division Board, the budget shall be heard, considered and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as provided for herein. The proposed budget shall describe the purpose or purposes for which the moneys are required and the amount necessary to be raised by taxation and special assessment within the unit. At the time and place for establishing the annual rate of taxation for county purposes, the Board of County Commissioners shall fix and cause to be ........... ........................ ... . May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. Code of Ordinances re: board member terms of office Page 2 of 6 16 12 A24 levied on all property within the unit subject to taxation or assessment a millage and assessment sufficient to meet the requirements of the budget; provided, however, the total millage shall not exceed the millage authorized by law for municipal service, taxing and benefit units. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 5, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 3) Sec. 122 -1656. - Tax and assessment, imposition and collection. Taxes and assessments herein provided for shall be levied and assessed, imposed and collected in the same manner and form as provided for the levy and assessment and collection of general county taxes subject to the same fees for assessing and collecting as general county taxes in accordance with general law. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 6, 5- 28 -02) Secs. 122 - 1657 - 122 -1660. - Reserved. DIVISION 2. - ADMINISTRATION Sec 122-1661. Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee Known as the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Sec 122 -1662 - Composition nomination and appointment. Sec 122 -1663 - Terms of office of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Sec 122 -1664 - Removal from office: failure to attend meetings. Sec 122 -1665 - Officers: quorum: rules of procedure. Sec 122 -1666 - Reimbursement of expenses. Sec 122-1667. Functions powers and duties of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Sec 122 -1668 - Duties of the county manager. Sec 122 -1669. - Review process. Sec 122-1670. Opportunity to comment prior to initial implementation or use of the unit's taxing and assessment authority. Secs. 122 - 1671 - 122 -1700. - Reserved. Sec. 122 -1661. - Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee Known as the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Concurrent with the passage of the article, an 11 member advisory committee to be known as the Pelican Bay Services Division Board (PBSD Board) is hereby created. Those individuals who are members of the PBSD Board pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -111, as amended, as of the moment prior to the effective date of this article, shall continue on as members of the PBSD Board until March 31st of the year in which their term would have expired as set forth in the prior ordinances, and shall continue to hold over and serve in that capacity until their position is filled as provided for in this article. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 7, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 4) Sec. 122 -1662. - Composition, nomination and appointment. (a) The PBSD Board shall be representative of the residential, business and commercial interests and landowners in Pelican Bay. To that end, nine of the PBSD Board members shall be representative of the residential interests within the unit and two of the PBSD Board members shall be representative of the commercial and business interests within the unit. Members of the PBSD Board shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the procedure outlined herein. The nine PBSD Board members representative of the residential interests within the unit shall be residents of and qualified electors within the unit. The two PBSD Board members representative of the commercial /business /other interests shall be residents of and qualified electors in Collier County. Appointment of members to the PBSD Board shall be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, which resolution shall set forth the date of appointment and the term of office. Any member of the PBSD Board who ceases to meet the requisite qualifications during his or her term of office shall immediately advise the Board of County Commissioners in writing of such change in status. Upon the Board of County Commissioners receiving such notice, otherwise becoming aware of such vacancy, or if a vacancy occurs by any other process, the Board of County Commissioners shall declare the position to be vacant and shall promptly consider filling the vacant position with a person from among the unsuccessful candidate(s) vying for the position from the immediately May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. Code of Ordinances re: board glembef term of mice 4 i Page 3 of 6 Ar-4 161 2 preceding recommendatory balloting that receives recommendation from the PBSD Board. In the event the PBSD Board should fail to provide its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners within 20 days of the Board of County Commissioners being informed of "member's change in status ", the Board of County Commissioners shall appoint the recent unsuccessful candidate that received the greatest number of votes among those unsuccessful candidates. In the event that there are no prior unsuccessful candidates available for appointment to the PBSD Board as provided herein, the vacant position shall be filled pursuant to the procedures of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55, including as may be amended or its successor ordinance. (b) The terms and provisions of section six of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55, titled "Process of Appointment ", shall not be applicable to appointment of members to the unit. (c) Upon adoption of the ordinance from which this section derives, all of the members of the PBSD Board shall be appointed by, and all vacancies shall be filled by, the Board of County Commissioners, in the manner outlined herein, beginning with appointment to the PBSD Board of members to fill expiring memberships. All appointments of members to the PBSD Board shall be at the sole and complete discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Provided however, that the Board of County Commissioners will take into consideration and give great weight to the recommendations of the property owners within the unit, utilizing the process outlined herein. Beginning with the second Tuesday in December, 2002, and each second Tuesday in December thereafter, the Board of County Commissioners shall publicly announce and advertise all current vacancy(ies) on the PBSD Board as of that date and shall request that applications be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners to fill the expiring term(s). All such applications shall be submitted in writing to the Board of County Commissioners no later than 28 days after said announcement as determined by the postmark on mailed applications and the time stamp on hand delivered applications. The name(s) of all appropriately qualified individuals timely submitted to the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered nominees for appointment to fill said expiring term(s). The Board of County Commissioners shall then publish said list of nominees and the positions on the PBSD Board for which they have been nominated (i.e., for the "residential interests" or for the "commercial /business /other interests ") and deliver a conformed copy thereof to the clerk of courts (the "clerk "). The clerk shall cause the name of each nominee as reported and published by the Board of County Commissioners to be included on the mail ballot, which ballot shall be mailed to all of the nongovernmental property owners of the class (i.e. "residential or commercial /business /other ") corresponding with the class for which the balloting is occurring ( "residential or commercial /business /other ") within the unit no less than 30 days prior to the balloting date. Said balloting date being set by the Board of County Commissioners. (d) (1) One indivisible vote may be cast for each parcel in the unit regardless of the number of persons who have an ownership interest in the property or the manner in which title is held by them, with each discrete parcel being those as listed by the property appraiser of Collier County and as approved by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. Commercial /business /other owners cast ballots only for "commercial/ business /other interest" positions and residential owners cast ballots only for "residential interest" positions. Only one ballot shall be counted for each parcel. If multiple ballots are cast for the same parcel by owners of record, all ballots for that parcel will be deemed invalid. It is not the responsibility of the clerk or the county attorney to determine or select the ballot to be counted wherein multiple ballots for a parcel are cast as described herein. (2) For purposes of determining record title owners of property entitled to cast ballots, the listed record title owners of property as evidenced by the Collier County Property Appraiser's tax rolls as of 60 days prior to the balloting date shall be utilized and deemed conclusive. Not less than 45 days prior to the balloting date, the property appraiser shall provide the clerk and the Board of County Commissioners with the list of all parcels within the unit, each parcel's identification number, the names of the property owners and their addresses, with said list designating each parcel as either residential /commercial /other (based upon the property appraiser's classification system). (3) The mail ballots shall be cast directly with the clerk. At the place and time stated in the notice of the balloting published by the Board of County Commissioners, the clerk, with the assistance of the county attorney's office, shall open and count the ballots, which have been returned to the clerk as of the date and time stated in such notice of balloting, in a manner which the clerk deems advisable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this section. Any member of the public shall be entitled to attend and observe. The determination of the clerk and the county attorney of validity of any ballot shall be final. (4) The nominee(s) receiving a plurality of the ballots cast in each category of membership shall be deemed the successful nominee(s) and their name(s) shall be reported and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners shall then, at their next regularly scheduled meeting, make the necessary appointments to fill said positions. (e) The cost of the nomination and balloting process shall be borne by the Board of County Commissioners. May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. Code of Ordinances re: board member term of office Page 4 of 6 A24 y 161 (f) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the number of nominees for the position which they have been nominated (i.e., for the "residential interests" or for the "commercial /business /other interests ") does not exceed the number of open members for that position, then there shall be no balloting for such position. Instead, the list of nominees for the position shall simply be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, who, following public hearing on the matter, will make the necessary appointments to fill said positions. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 8, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 5; Ord. No. 2009 -05, § 1) Sec. 122 -1663. - Terms of office of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. In 2002, of the four terms which are expiring: i) two positions shall be filled with persons representative of the residential interests who shall each be appointed for a four -year term; and ii) two positions shall be filled with persons representative of the commercial /business /other interests, wherein one person will be appointed for a four -year term and one person appointed for a two -year term. Thereafter, each appointment or reappointment shall be for a term of four years. Each new term of appointment will begin on the date of appointment and expire on March 31st. A member of the PBSD Board may be reappointed by the Board of County Commissioners without limitations. Appointments to fill any vacancies on the PBSD Board shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of office. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 9, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 6) Sec. 122 -1664. - Removal from office; failure to attend meetings. (a) Any member of the PBSD Board may be removed from office by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55 as to attendance, if any member of the PBSD Board fails to attend two consecutive board meetings without a satisfactory excuse, as determined by the PBSD Board, or if a member is absent from more than one -half of the PBSD Board's meetings in a given fiscal year, the PBSD Board shall declare the member's seat to be vacant and the vacancy shall be filled by the Board of County Commissioners in conformance with this article. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 10, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 7) Sec. 122 -1665. - Officers; quorum; rules of procedure. (a) At its earliest opportunity, the membership of the PBSD Board shall elect a chairman and vice chairs from among the members. Officers' terms shall be for one year, with eligibility for re- election. (b) The presence of six or more members shall constitute a quorum of the PBSD Board necessary to take action and transact business. In addition, an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present shall be necessary in order to take action, except that an affirmative vote of seven or more members present shall be required to recommend the budget for the unit to the Board of County Commissioners. (c) The PBSD Board shall, by majority vote of the entire membership, adopt rules of procedure for the transaction of business of the PBSD Board and shall keep a detailed record of meetings, resolutions, findings and determinations. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 11, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 8) Sec. 122 -1666. - Reimbursement of expenses. Members of the PBSD Board shall serve without compensation, but shall be entitled to receive reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred in the performance of their duties upon prior approval of the Board of County Commissioners after approval by the PBSD Board. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 12, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 9) Sec. 122 -1667. - Functions, powers and duties of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. The functions, powers and duties of the PBSD Board shall be as follows, and shall be carried out consistent with the provisions of the memorandum of understanding /letter of understanding referenced herein: (1) With the assistance of the county manager, provide input to the Board of County Commissioners in carrying out the purposes of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit as set forth in this article. , I May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. Code of Ordinances re: board member terms of office ' c Page 5 of 6 � � � A i� t � L (2) Upon any decision by the Board of County Commissioners to dissolve, merge or otherwise change or discontinue the functions or services provided by the Pelican Bay MSTBU, the PBSD Board shall be prepared to and shall aid, assist and provide input to the county manager and the Board of County Commissioners, within the time frame requested, in effectuating a smooth and expeditious transfer of street lighting, water management and beautification services, responsibilities and obligations to the unit. (3) With the assistance of the county manager, to prepare and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners an itemized budget of the amount of money required to carry out the business of the unit for the next fiscal year. (4) The PBSD Board shall recommend work programs and priorities to the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the adopted budget or budget amendments which may be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with law. The execution of work programs shall be under the direct supervision and responsibility of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board to be executed by the Pelican Bay Services Division staff with the assistance of any additional county staff needed in accordance with the memorandum of agreement/letter of understanding. Said work may be performed under contract (in accordance with law and county policy) or by county forces. (5) To enter into a memorandum of agreement/letter of understanding with the Board of County Commissioners, and with the county manager, wherein the parties outline that the intent in the operation of the unit is to allow the PBSD Board to exercise decision and control of the day to day operational affairs of the unit to the maximum extent allowed by law, unless and except when there is some overriding governmental reason to do otherwise. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 13, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 10) Sec. 122 -1668. - Duties of the county manager. The duties of the county manager or his designee shall be: (1) To participate in the administration of the activities of the unit in accordance with the memorandum of agreement/letter of understanding, and the established policies of the Board of County Commissioners, subject to the terms of this article. (2) To assist the PBSD Board performing its functions as defined by this article including the preparation of the proposed annual budget. (3) To require any contract manager or employee manager of the unit to report directly to the county manager. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 14, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 11) Sec. 122 -1669. - Review process. This article shall be reviewed once every four years, in accordance with the procedures contained in Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 15, 5- 28 -02) Sec. 122 -1670. - Opportunity to comment prior to initial implementation or use of the unit's taxing and assessment authority. Prior to adopting the budget for the unit and implementing any taxing or assessment authority under this unit, the Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing upon reasonable notice in a local newspaper of general circulation. At such public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider the budget recommended by the PBSD Board and provide the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed budget and the implementation or use of the unit's taxing and assessment authority. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 16, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 12) May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. Code of Ordinances re: board member terms of office Page 6 of 6 1612 24 EXHIBIT A The Pelican Bay Services District is comprised of and includes those lands described as follows: A tract of land being in portions of Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East; together with portions of Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, being one and the same as the lands encompassed by the Pelican Bay Improvement District, the perimeter boundary of same more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 33; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds West along the South line of Section 33 a distance of 150.02 feet to a point on the West right -of -way line of U.S. 41 (State Road 45), said point also being the Point of Beginning; thence Southerly along the West right -of -way line of said U. S. 41 (State Road 45) the following courses: South 00 degrees 58 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 2.49 feet; thence South 00 degrees 55 minutes 41 seconds East a distance of 3218.29 feet; thence South 01 degrees 00 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 3218.56 feet; thence South 00 degrees 59 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 2626.21 feet; thence South 01 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 2555.75 feet to a point on the North right -of -way line of Pine Road as recorded in D.B. 50, Page 490, among the Public Records of said Collier County; thence departing said U.S. 41 (State Road 45) South 89 degrees 09 minutes 45 seconds West along said North right -of -way line a distance of 2662.61 feet; thence South 00 degrees 51 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 70.00 feet to a point on the North line of Seagate Unit 1 as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 85 among said Public Records; thence South 89 degrees 09 minutes 45 seconds West along said North line of Seagate Unit 1 and the South line of said Section 9 a distance of 2496.67 feet to the Southwest corner of said Section 9; thence continue South 89 degrees 09 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 225 feet more or less to a point on the mean high water line established May 15, 1968; thence a Northwesterly direction along said mean high water line a distance 15716 feet more or less; thence departing said mean high water line South 80 degrees 29 minutes 30 seconds East and along the Southerly line of Vanderbilt Beach Road (State Road 862) as recorded in D.B. 15, Page 121 among said Public Records a distance of 7385 feet more or less to a point on said West right -of -way line of U. S. 41 (State Road 45); thence South 00 degrees 58 minutes 36 seconds East along said West right -of -way line a distance of 2574.36 feet to the Point of Beginning. Secs. 122 - 1671 - 122 -1700. - Reserved. Pelican Bay— Exhibit B Exh_1M B Iz � rl O N rl N O N M O i N N' O N C °o cNn 'd N t-;, N 69 N rl M 'Tt 6R 69 69 9F N N 1fi Off? M 00 69 6R 69 O M O l d� N ? � N N Irf1 l� 6R M O 69 69 CA `00p O O N N 000 N N 0�0 O N 69 M �C N 69 69 N 6R 69 O O O O O O O O O O O O O V'� � \O lI'1 r•i N �O 01 0o M O l� M ,� •--� Vl O N 69 rq 69 69 U C i U U � N • O Get a •� 0 o H w w � -b w U � S o � o o y S � Y f/1 Y U H S d O 1612. A24 �I rl O N �I rl O N O N MI r•i O N N O N O C L F+ a� w 0 Cd � U C y al 1 w 914 May 2, 2012 Regular Session of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 7a. Budget Subcommittee Report 0 00 00 00 kn 00 -- M 6R — 914 69 6R M6R O O O O O N O O O O N 00 O --� [� l� O O O V) kn �10 kn cl� 00 O N N r q 69 bF? 6R 6R 69 O O O O O O O O O O O O N 00 O --� [� l� O O CD �10 O O O 6R rzoq O O � C O O O Vi vi O �O O N 00 N .� tn 69 N 69 69 69 69 69 69 6R 69 6R 0 0 O O O O �- 000 � � C C O Vi kn O �O V') M O N 00 kn --i V'1 69 N 6R 69 6R 69 6R c H O O O O O O O O O O (= O V'1 M 00 00 O --� [� l� O l� O V') .-• 69 69 69 6R rzoq 69 rl 69 N r-i rl br4 N M r ON 6R O O O rl M 69 O O � C � O tn 69 QS Gn 6R 0 0 C Cd U E c H o o s, U 3 O �, 0 zo��� ui o 0 -- 0 o zox � o Y Q 1 a C i � 3 b o � A-i a s g 4 a O 0 z O o w a U U 1 Gn o Revenue Carryforward Interest Income Plan Review Fee Income Interfund Transfers Revenue Reserve Assessment or Advalorem Tax Levy Total Revenue Appropriations Projections Personal Services Administration: Indirect Cost Reimbursements Other Contractual Services Storage Contractor Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight & Ups Rent - Buildings Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Mntc. Site ins. & Assessment Fees Information Tech Automation Allocation Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors Legal Advertising Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. Office Supplies - General Other Training & Educational Exp. Other Operating Supplies Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Field Services: Engineering Plan Review Fees Electrical Contractors Other Contractual Services Landscape Incidentals Pest Control Tree Trimming Temporary Labor Berth & Swale Maintenance Water Use Charges Landscape Materials Celluar Telephones/Radios Trash & Dmnpster Fees Water Quality Testing Insurance - Vehicles Insurance - General Bldg. Repairs/Mmc. Electricity Fertilizers, Herbicides, Chem Sprinkler System Maint Mulch Equipment Rental Licenses and Permits Repairs & Maintenance & Fuel Road and Bike Path Repairs Photo Processing (Aerial) Minor Operating Supplies Employee Uniforms Other Operating Supplies Light, Bulb and Ballast Personal Safety Equipment Paint supplies Traffic Signs Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Capital Outlay Rolled Capital Projects/Programs, & Reserves Clam Bay Projects Hardscape Imp. Project Lake Bank Imp. Project Reserves for Operations Reserve for Operating Fund Capital Imp. Equipment Reserve Other Charges, Fees & Transfers Tax Collector Property Appraiser Total Appropriations Equivalent Residential Unies: Collier County 7618.29 7618.29 Proposed Bud et Projected Rate: ERU or Millage Pelican Bay Services Division Fiscal Year 2013 0.0858 1611,71 ^ L Projected Total Rate: ERU or Millage Operating Budget 60.318 $398.12 Actual Rate (FY 2012) $337.88 0.0858 $60.25 General Funds Actual Dollar/Millage Change ($0.07) Capital Projects Funds $0.07 ($0.01) Water Community Street hl Clam Bay Capital Total Management Beautification Lights System Projects All Funds $282,070 $657,430 $373,830 $85,370 $2,089,609 $3,488,309 $4,800 $11,000 $6,700 q $800 $25,700 $49,000 $1,500 $0 $0 $o $0 $1,500 ($39,000) ($191,700) $0 $32,300 $230,700 $32,300 ($34,700) ($93,600) ($22,100) ($7,100) ($17,100) ($174,600) $695,100 $1,878,400 $436,900 $134,400 $325,121 $3,469,921 $909,770 $2,261,530 $795,330 € W., $245,770 $2,654,030 $6,866,430 $174,600 $810,700 $104,200 $1,089,500 $85,100 $0 $8,700 ;; $93,800 $29,700 $37,100 $26,900 �� $93,700 $0 $800 $800 $1,600 $400 $400 $400 $1,200 $3,500 $3,500 $3,200 $10,200 $2,200 $2,200 $2,000 $6,400 $9,500 $9,800 $9,500 k $28,800 $1,500 $1,600 $1,500 $4,600 $1,000 $500 $300'? $1,800 $13,400 $0 $0 t` $13,400 $4,800 $9,600 $0 $14,400 $1,800 $2,600 $0 € j $4,400 $1,500 $2,000 $0 E!j $3,500 $1,500 $2,000 $0 r $3,500 $2,000 $2,500 $800 $5,300 $1,100 $1,500 $0 ii $2,600 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $8,800 $7,400 $0 $16,200 $10,000 $0 $0 ' "`I' $73,600 $50,000 $133,600 $1,500 $0 $o $1,500 $0 $0 $7,300 $7,300 $1,000 $29,500 $800 $20,000 $214,000 $265,300 $0 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $o $6,000 $0 $6,000 $36,000 $64,500 $0 Yiiili $38,000 $138,500 $44,900 $201,400 $0 $246,300 $18,000 $0 $0 $85,000 $103,000 $0 $89,900 $0 $89,900 $8,500 $52,000 $0 $225,000 $285,500 $500 $3,200 $500 $4,200 $5,700 $17,000 $0 $22,700 $30,100 $0 $0 $30,100 $900 $10,000 $900 $11,800 $2,300 $9,300 $900 $12,500 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $5,100 $0 $3,400 $44,200 f $47,600 $98,400 $62,000 $0 " $160,400 $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000 $0 $46,000 $0" i $46,000 $0 $2,500 $0 �a $2,500 $0 $800 $0 $800 $7,400 $82,700 $2,600 $500 $93,200 $0 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $3,700 $0 $2,400 $6,100 $1,100 $9,400 $0 $10,500 $2,500 $9,000 $0 $500 $12,000 $0 $0 $13,100 $13,100 $500 $3,000 $500 $4,000 $0 $800 $0 $800 $0 $3,000 $0 iiiiiii $50,000 $53,000 $0 $3,300 $9,600 fi $12,900 $1,000 $36,000 $1,000 11051 $11,000 $49,000 fliN $64,020 $64,020 $2,013,330 $2,013,330 `^ $0 $0 $139,045 $409,980 $59,730 3 ?j $21,350 $0 $630,105 $65,000 $0 $438,300 $503,300 $45,325 $62,550 $32,500 $140,375 $24,000 $55,300 $13,500 $4,200 $10,100 $107,100 Equivalent Residential Unies: 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 Projected Rate: ERU or Millage $91.241 $246.565 0.0858 $17.642 $42.676 Projected Total Rate: ERU or Millage $337.805 0.0858 60.318 $398.12 Actual Rate (FY 2012) $337.88 0.0858 $60.25 $398.13 Actual Dollar/Millage Change ($0.07) 0.0000 $0.07 ($0.01) -0.02% 100.00% 0.11% 0.00% Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 161 A24 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Assessments Revenue Reserve Interfund Transfers Interest Income Developer Plan Reviews Miscellaneous Income Prior Year Expenditures Carryforward Total Revenue: Appropriations: Administration Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries and Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adj. Social Security Matching Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractual Services Telephone - Service Contract Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Building Information Tech Automation Insurance- General Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment F Rent Equipment Printing (Outside) Legal Advertising Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Other Educational Sub - total: Emergency Maintenance/Repai Sub - total: Total Administrative: Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 . FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $728,400 $702,260 $666,300 $607,709 $31,891 $639,600 $695,100 - - - - - - ($34,700) - - - - - - ($39,000) $3,500 $4,460 $4,600 $1,185 $3,415 $4,600 $4,800 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $188,831 $0 $187,527 $0 $0 $0 $282,070 $922,231 $706,720 $859,927 $608,894 $35,306 $644,200 $909,770 $28,000 $28,106 $28,000 $10,294 $17,706 $28,000 $28,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $100 $2,142 $2,096 $2,200 $754 $1,446 $2,200 $2,100 $3,304 $2,554 $1,600 $502 $1,098 $1,600 $1,900 $7,504 $7,504 $8,400 $4,206 $4,194 $8,400 $8,800 $76 $76 $100 $39 $61 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $50 $50 $100 $0 $41,200 $40,436 $41,400 $15,845 $25,555 $41,400 $41,000 $108,200 $108,200 $84,500 $42,250 $42,250 $84,500 $85,100 $30,800 $28,011 $26,900 $8,216 $18,684 $26,900 $29,700 $600 $336 $400 $160 $240 $400 $400 $3,500 $2,417 $3,500 $1,037 $1,763 $2,800 $3,500 $3,000 $14 $3,000 $108 $2,492 $2,600 $2,200 $11,100 $10,293 $9,500 $4,752 $4,748 $9,500 $9,500 $8,200 $8,100 $5,200 $2,400 $2,800 $5,200 $4,800 $1,300 $1,300 $1,200 $600 $600 $1,200 $1,000 $14,600 $14,600 $13,400 $6,700 $6,700 $13,400 $13,400 $2,500 $1,240 $1,800 $431 $669 $1,100 $1,500 $2,300 $595 $2,300 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,800 $2,000 $677 $2,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,500 $4,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $500 $500 $1,500 $2,500 $453 $2,000 $233 $367 $600 $2,000 $1,100 $143 $1,100 $85 $515 $600 $1,100 $195,700 $176,379 $158,800 $66,972 $84,328 $151,300 $159,000 $8,800 $0 $8,800 $0 $0 $0 $8,800 $204,500 $176,379 $167,600 $66,972 $84,328 $151,300 $167,800 $245,700 $216,815 $209,000 $82,817 $109,883 $192,700 08,800 161 2 A24 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: FY 2011 Budget FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget Received Expended Year -To -Date Anticipated Mar. /Sept. 2012 Total Received Expended Proposed FY 2013 Budget Plan Review Fees $1,500 Regular Salaries $79,400 $79,655 $79,400 $29,155 $50,245 $79,400 $79,400 ER 457 Contributions $665 $165 $700 $39 $661 $700 $700 Reserve For Salary Adjustment $59 $0 $2,600 $0 $2,600 $2,600 $200 Reserve For Salary Attrition $0 $0 ($9,500) $0 $0 $0 $0 Overtime $15,500 $15,587 $15,400 $5,576 $9,824 $15,400 $15,400 Social Security Matching $7,300 $6,886 $7,500 $2,481 $5,019 $7,500 $7,300 Regular Retirement $11,300 $8,896 $5,300 $1,650 $3,650 $5,300 $7,400 Health Insurance $17,400 $17,396 $19,500 $9,750 .$9,750 $19,500 $20,300 Life Insurance $217 $217 $200 $110 $90 $200 $200 Worker's Compensation $2,500 $2,500 $2,200 $1,100 $1,100 $2,200 $2,700 $123,300 $49,861 $82,939 $132,800 $133,600 Sub - total: $134,341 $131,302 Engineering Fees $16,400 $7,706 $12,000 $200 $14,000 $14,200 $10,000 Plan Review Fees $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Other Contractual Services $1,000 $0 $1,000 $286 $714 $1,000 $1,000 Tree Trimming $30,000 $29,952 $30,000 $7,488 $22,512 $30,000 $36,000 Temporary Labor $42,400 $53,077 $42,400 $22,120 $20,280 $42,400 $44,900 Swale Maintenance $14,000 $13,745 $14,000 $813 $13,187 $14,000 $18,000 Water Quality Testing(Ind Pay) $22,600 $29,198 $22,600 $2,528 $20,072 $22,600 $30,100 Telephones (Includes Cellular) $500 $432 $500 $144 $256 $400 $500 Trash & Garbage Disposal $8,300 $4,519 $5,700 $2,511 $3,189 $5,700 $5,700 Insurance - General $2,400 $2,400 $2,300 $1,150 $1,150 $2,300 $2,300 Insurance - Auto $900 $900 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 Bldg. Repairs/Mntc. $0 $0 $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 Autos Trucks RM $900 $0 $900 $0 $900 $900 $900 Motor Pool $200 $0 $100 $0 $100 $100 $100 Labor - Fleet Maint. (ISF) $1,000 $996 $1,900 $632 $1,268 $1,900 $200 Fleet Maint. Parts $600 $329 $1,600 $174 $1,426 $1,600 $400 Fleet Non. Maint. ISF Parts $1,500 $0 $500 $41 $459 $500 $500 Boat R &M $500 $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 Other Equip. R &M $1,500 $3,821 $1,500 $381 $1,119 $1,500 $1,500 Uniform Purchase & Rental $1,100 $913 $1,100 $720 $980 $1,700 $1,100 Fertilizer, Herbicides, Chem $98,400 $80,693 $98,400 $30,074 $60,326 $90,400 $98,400 Replanting Program $8,500 $11,141 $8,500 $0 $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 Fuel & Lubricants - Outside $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fuel & Lubricants - Inside $3,200 $2,525 $8,900 $1,061 $3,839 $4,900 $3,300 Other Operating Supplies $2,500 $2,870 $2,500 $2,880 $1,920 $4,800 $2,500 Personal Safety Equipment $500 $500 $500 $500 $0 $500 $500 $261,500 $74,153 $178,847 $253,000 $271,000 Sub - total: $260,400 $245,717 1. 3 Collier County 161 A24 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Total Appropriations: $744,091 $622,654 1 $679,500 $232,356 $374,244 $606,600 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget Reserved for Operations Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) Capital Outlay Building Improvements $13,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: Improvements General (Mnt. Fa $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other /Off. Mach. & Equip. /Truc $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Sub - total: $14,200 $0 Total Field Services: $408,941 $377,019 $385,800 $124,014 $261,786 $385,800 $405,600 Reserves Reserved for Operations (2 1/21 - - - - - - $139,045 Reserved for Operating Fund C - - - - - - $65,000 Reserved Capital Outlay - E ui - - - - - - $45,325 $249,370 Other Fees, Charges & Transfers Tax Collector $24,750 $15,425 $23,900 $14,085 $1,015 $15,100 $24,000 Property Appraiser $22,600 $13,395 $22,000 $11,440 $1,560 $13,000 $22,000 Revenue Reserve (Prior Years) $42,100 $0 $38,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $84,700 $25,525 $2,575 $28,100 $46,000 Total Other Fees & Charges: $89,450 $28,820 Total Appropriations: $744,091 $622,654 1 $679,500 $232,356 $374,244 $606,600 L$909,770 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations $37,600 Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $380,670 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $136,200 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $282,070 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) $243,045 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $39,000 Funding Reserve for South Berm Improvements $65,000 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $139,045 Improvements Funding Reserve for South Berm Improvements $65,000 Sub -total for South Berm Improvements: $65,000 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance - Carryforward 10/01/12) $39,025 Equipment Amortization Funding Requirement $6,300 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $45,325 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $249,370 4 Collier County 161 A24 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Overtime Reserve For Salary Adjust. Reserve For Salary Attrition Social Security Retirement - Regular Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: Water Use Charges Landscape Materials Other Contractual Services Tree Trimming Pest Control Temporary Labor Motor Pool Rental Cellular Telephone Electricity/Utilities Trash & Garbage Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Insurance - Vehicle Bldg. Repairs/Mntc. Sprinkler System Maint. Landscaping Maint. Auto & Truck R &M Fleet Maint ISF Labor Fleet Maint ISF Parts Fleet Maint Non -ISF Parts Other Equip. R &M Licenses & Permits Uniform Purchases & Rental Fert. Herbicides & Chem. Fuel & Lubricants - Outside Fuel & Lubricants - ISF Road & Bike Path Repairs Minor Operating Equip. Other Operating Supplies Landscape Incidentals Personal Safety Equipment Paint Supplies Traffic Signs Sub - total: Emergency Mnta./Repair Sub - total: Total Field Services: Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Dat( 2012 Expended Budget $442,400 $382,516 $430,700 $137,800 $251,800 $389,600 $426,300 $2,200 $1,170 $1,700 $590 $1,110 $1,700 $1,700 $103,000 $82,227 $99,200 $32,240 $54,960 $87,200 $97,900 $100 $0 $15,300 $0 $15,300 $15,300 $1,600 $0 $0 ($22,200) $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,900 $33,105 $41,900 $12,200 $25,700 $37,900 $40,400 $64,600 $42,100 $29,200 $8,481 $13,019 $21,500 $33,700 $133,500 $133,500 $149,600 $74,819 $74,781 $149,600 $142,600 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $601 $599 $1,200 $1,200 $38,800 $38,800 $38,500 $19,250 $19,250 $38,500 $23,000 $827,700 $714,618 $785,100 $285,981 $456,519 $742,500 $768,400 $83,800 $78,415 $89,900 $36,600 $51,300 $87,900 $89,900 $53,100 $40,406 $53,100 $22,500 $31,100 $53,600 $52,000 $29,500 $35,890 $29,500 $15,800 $13,700 $29,500 $29,500 $35,900 $48,713 $63,600 $57,759 $13,841 $71,600 $64,500 $5,000 $4,475 $5,000 $2,325 $4,275 $6,600 $6,000 $204,500 $197,787 $190,100 $100,488 $119,812 $220,300 $201,400 $700 $480 $300 $77 $123 $200 $500 $3,200 $3,026 $3,200 $897 $1,503 $2,400 $3,200 $3,400 $2,502 $3,400 $905 $1,595 $2,500 $3,400 $24,900 $7,960 $17,000 $5,400 $11,500 $16,900 $17,000 $5,500 $1,000 $2,500 $1,115 $1,285 $2,400 $2,500 $9,000 $9,000 $8,800 $4,400 $4,400 $8,800 $9,300 $9,900 $9,900 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $30,000 $31,318 $30,000 $3,688 $24,312 $28,000 $30,000 $60,200 $53,273 $46,000 $31,300 $15,500 $46,800 $46,000 $100 $1,811 $100 $270 $130 $400 $100 $8,500 $8,496 $10,600 $3,532 $7,068 $10,600 $7,200 $9,600 $7,661 $11,400 $3,520 $7,880 $11,400 $7,200 $1,000 $1,038 $1,000 $150 $850 $1,000 $1,100 $2,000 $16,572 $2,000 $4,281 $219 $4,500 $2,000 $800 $0 $800 $30 $770 $800 $800 $9,400 $7,084 $9,400 $2,943 $6,057 $9,000 $9,400 $62,000 $62,782 $62,000 $22,900 $37,200 $60,100 $62,000 $100 $0 $100 $0 $100 $100 $100 $44,100 $46,403 $67,200 $11,042 $24,058 $35,100 $64,500 $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $3,000 $6,023 $3,000 $1,334 $1,666 $3,000 $3,700 $11,500 $8,898 $9,000 $2,713 $6,387 $9,100 $9,000 $0 $0 $2,500 $500 $2,200 $2,700 $2,500 $3,000 $793 $3,000 $644 $2,156 $2,800 $3,000 $800 $0 $800 $30 $570 $600 $800 $3,000 $3,620 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $717,500 $695,326 $746,000 $342,143 $407,257 $749,400 $749,300 0 0 $3,300 $0 $0 $0 $3,300 $717,500 $695,326 $749,300 $342,143 $407,257 $749,400 1 $752,600 $1,545,200 $1,409,944 $1,534,400 $628,124 $863,776 $1,491,900 $1,521,000 161 ? A24 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements General Autos & Trucks Other Mach. & Equip. Total Capital Outlay: Reserves Reserved for Operations (2 1/2 D Reserved for Operating Fund C, Reserved Capital Outlay - Equi Other Fees, Charges & Transfer Property Appraiser Tax Collector Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Dat( 2012 Expended Budget $13,600 $355 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,000 $23,597 $102,000 $96,538 $0 $96,500 $35,000 $17,000 $12,200 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $58,600 $36,152 $103,000 $96,538 $0 $96,500 $36,000 _ _ _ _ _ _ $409,980 - - - - - - $0 $62,550 $472,530 s $52,700 $31,255 $51,300 $26,694 $6,206 $32,900 $0 $57,750 $35,994 $55,700 $32,865 $2,835 $35,700 $0 $98,000 $0 $90,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,450 $67,24911 $197,700 $59,559 $9,041 $68,600 11 $0 $1,941,050 $1,602,742 $1,964,500 $827,553 $945,185 $1,772,70011 $2,155,330 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations $69,500 Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $888,230 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $300,300 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $657,430 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) $601,680 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $191,700 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $409,980 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance - Carryforward 10/01/12) $55,750 Equipment Amortization Funding Requirement $6,800 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $62,550 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $472,530 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Current Ad valorem Taxes Revenue Reserve Interest Income Miscellaneous Income Carryforward Total Revenue: Appropriations Administration: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries & Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adjust. Social Security Matching PBSD Retirement Worker's Compensation Health Insurance Life Insurance Sub - total: Indirect Cost Reimb. Other Contractual Services Storage Contractor Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Building Rent - Equipment Reimburse P/Y Expend. Insurance - General Info Technology Automation A114 Office Supplies Copying Charges Minor Office Equipment Other Operating Supplies Sub - total: Emergency Mntc./Repairs Sub - total: Total Administrative: 161 c A24 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received 2013 Bud et Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $273,200 $275,688 $436,800 $396,200 $23,200 $419,400 $436,900 - - - - - - ($22,100) $1,200 $1,623 $4,500 $600 $3,900 $4,500 $6,700 $0 $6,578 $0 $18,330 $0 $18,330 $0 $0 $0 $157,684 $0 $0 $0 $373,830 $274,400 0.283,889 lr$598,984 $415,130 $27,100 $442,230 $795,330 $28,000 $28,107 $28,000 $10,294 $17,706 $28,000 $28,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $100 $2,140 $2,096 $2,300 $754 $1,546 $2,300 $2,200 $3,300 $2,554 $1,500 $502 $998 $1,500 $1,800 $100 $100 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100 $7,500 $7,504 $8,400 $4,206 $4,194 $8,400 $8,800 $100 $76 $100 $39 $61 $100 $100 $41,215 $40,437 $41,400 $15,845 $25,555 $41,400 $41,100 $6,300 $6,300 $5,300 $2,650 $2,650 $5,300 $8,700 $20,800 $25,654 $26,900 $10,216 $16,684 $26,900 $26,900 $0 $0 $800 $243 $557 $800 $800 $600 $325 $400 $159 $241 $400 $400 $3,500 $1,663 $3,500 $735 $2,065 $2,800 $3,200 $2,000 $15 $2,000 $108 $1,892 $2,000 $2,000 $11,100 $10,010 $9,500 $4,752 $4,748 $9,500 $9,500 $2,500 $1,958 $1,800 $431 $1,069. $1,500 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $15 ($15) $0 $0 $400 $400 $300 $150 $150 $300 $300 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $0 $800 $0 $500 $500 $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $49,000 $46,325 $52,300 $19,459 $31,541 $51,000 $55,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,000 $46,325 $52,300 $19,459 $31,541 $51,000 $55,100 $90,215 $86,762 $93,700 $35,304 $57,096 $92,400 $96,200 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Overtime Reserve for Salary Adj. Social Security Matching Retirement Regular Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Vehicle Allowance Sub - total: Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Cellular Phones Electricity Auto Insurance Insurance - General Bldg. Repairs/Mntc. Fleet Maintenance Electrical Contractor Light Bulbs Ballast Personnel Safety Equipment Sub - total: Emergency Electricl Repair Servi Sub - total: Total Field Services: Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements - General Other Machinery & Equipment Sub - total: Total Capital Outlay: Reserves Reserved for Operations (2 1/2 M Reserved for Operating Fund Ca Reserved Capital Outlay - Equip Other Fees, Charges & Transfer Tax Collector Property Appraiser Transfers Revenue Reserve (Prior Years) Sub - total: Total Other Fees & Charges Total Appropriations: 1612 " -A24 U Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $40,400 $40,585 $40,500 $14,856 $25,644 $40,500 $40,500 $165 $165 $200 $39 $161 $200 $200 $4,000 $3,745 $4,000 $1,640 $2,360 $4,000 $4,000 $100 $0 $1,400 $0 $1,400 $1,400 $200 $3,400 $3,200 $3,500 $1,178 $2,322 $3,500 $3,400 $5,300 $4,270 $2,600 $758 $1,842 $2,600 $4,000 $8,300 $8,300 $9,300 $4,652 $4,648 $9,300 $9,700 $100 $110 $100 $56 $44 $100 $100 $1,100 $1,100 $900 $450 $450 $900 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,865 $61,475 $62,500 $23,629 $38,871 $62,500 $63,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $0 $800 $0 $500 $500 $800 $500 $432 $400 $144 $256 $400 $500 $44,200 $35,100 $44,200 $14,452 $29,548 $44,000 $44,200 $900 $900 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 $800 $800 $800 $400 $400 $800 $900 $0 $0 $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,500 $1,011 $5,700 $1,076 $4,624 $5,700 $2,600 $7,300 $13,567 $7,300 $3,900 $3,100 $7,000 $7,300 $12,400 $9,950 $12,400 $2,145 $8,655 $10,800 $13,100 $500 $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 $68,900 $61,760 $74,700 $22,567 $49,733 $72,300 $72,500 $9,600 $0 $9,600 $0 $0 $0 $9,600 $78,500 $61,760 $84,300 $22,567 $49,733 $72,300 $82,100 $141,365 $123,235 $146,800 $46,196 $88,604 $134,800 $145,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $14,200 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $14,200 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 - _ - _ _ - $59,730 $438,300 $32,500 $530,530 $8,400 $5,295 $13,500 $7,967 $1,533 $9,500 $13,500 $5,500 $0 $8,900 $0 $8,900 $8,900 $8,900 - - - - - - $0 $14,400 $0 $22,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,300 $5,295 $44,400 $7,967 $10,433 $18,400 $22,400 $28,300 $5,295 $44,400 $7,967 $10,433 $18,400 $22,400 $274,080 $215,292 $285,900 $89,467 $156,133 $245,600 $795,330 U 1612 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations $196,630 Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $177,200 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $0 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $373,830 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) $115,730 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $0 Transfer to SL Capital Reserve $56.000 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $59,730 Reserve for Street Light Capital Improvements Capital Improvement - Carryforward (Opening Balance 10 -01 -2012) $228,100 Transfer from SL Operations $56,000 Additions to Reserves $154,200 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Improvements: $438,300 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance - Carryforward 10/01/12) $30,000 Equipment Amortization Funding Requirement $2,500 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $32,500 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $530,530 A24 10 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Revenue Projections Carryforward Interest Income Interfund Tansfer (Fund 111) Revenue Reserve Assessment Levy Appropriation Projection Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance (511001) Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Photo Processing Tree Trimming Repairs & Maintenance Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Capital Outlay Clam Bay Capital Projects (511051) Engineering Consultant Services Other Contractual Services Reserves & Rolled Projects Reserved for Operations Reserved for Rolled Projects Other Fees, Charges & Transfers: Tax Collector Property Appraiser Transfers 1612 1z4 $85,370 $800 $32,300 ($7,100) $134,400 Total Available Funds: $245,770 $73,600 $20,000 $7,500 $38,000 $500 $2,400 $500 Sub Total Operating Expenditures $142,500 $11,000 Total Operating Expenditures $153,500 $0 $0 Total Ecosystem Enhancements $0 $21,350 $64,020 $85,370 $4,200 $2,700 $0 Total Other Fees & Charges: $6,900 Total Appropriations: $245,770 is Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Revenue: Carryforward Assessment Levy Revenue Reserve Transfer from Fund 322 Interest Income TDC Funding Interfund Transfers (Fund 111) Carryforward of Encumbrances Total Revenue Appropriations: Operations (183800) Engineering Other Contractual Photo Processing Tree Trimming Repairs & Maintenance Minor Operating Eqpt. Computer Software Other Operating Supplies Capital Outlay Total Operations Ecosystem Enhancements (183805) Engineering Other Contractual (Amended Budget) Other Contractual Total Capital Projects Reserves & Rolled Projects Reserved for Operations Reserved for Rolled Projects Other Fees, Charges & Transfers Tax Collector Property Appraiser Transfer 'Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees and Charges Total Appropriations 161 2 `A24 12 Adopted Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $209,458.00 $0.00 $301,300 $85,370 $35,000 $33,744 $127,100 $115,900 $6,200 $122,100 $134,400 - _ - - - - ($7,100) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,300 $3,200 $700 $832 $268 $1,100 $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $34,000 $0 $34,000 $34,000 $32,300 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $280,758 $71,944 F $463,100 $116,732 $40,468 $157,200 $245,770 $102,944 $51,175 $163,369 $12,900 $111,600 $124,500 $73,600 $137,390 $67,238 $70,151 $0 $45,000 $45,000 $20,000 $0 $7,500 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $29,000 $7,488 $21,512 $29,000 $38,000 $485 $842 $350 $0 $350 $350 $500 $4,800 $4,005 $580 $0 $580 $580 $2,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,000 $246,619 $123,260 F $271,950 $20,388 $187,542 $207,930 $153,500 $11,300 $4,046 $7,254 $4,800 $48,500 $53,300 $0 $143,000 $0 $0 $0 $143,000 $0 $96,700 $96,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,300 $4,046 $150,254 $4,800 $145,200 $150,000 $0 _ _ - - - _ $21,350 - _ _ - $64,020 $85,370 $1,100 $675 $3,900 $2,318 $1,582 $3,900 $4,200 $700 $0 $2,600 $1,482 $1,118 $2,600 $2,700 - - - - $0 $1,800 $1,800 $0 $0 $0 - $3,600 $675 F $8,300 $3,800 $2,700 $6,50011 $6,900 $404,519 $127,981 J $430,504 $28,988 $335,442 $364,430 $245,770 12 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) Rolled Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward Sub -total Reserved for Operations: Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) ($207,230) $292,600 $0 $85,370 $85,370 $64,020 $0 $0 $21,350 $21,350 1612 13 A24 1612 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Revenue Summary Carryforward $2,089,609 Interest Income $25,700 Interfund Transfer $230,700 Revenue Reserve ($17, 100) Assessment Levy $325,121 Other Contractual Services Total Available Funds: $2,654,030 Appropriation Projection Capital Projects Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (50066.1) Engineering $50,000 Other Contractual Services $214,000 Landscape Materials $225,000 Mulch Requirements $0 Other Operating Supplies $0 Total Improvements $489,000 Lake Bank Enhancements (51026.1) Engineering $0 Berm and Swale $85,000 Total Improvements $85,000 Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (50103.1) Traffic Signs $50,000 Total Improvements $50,000 Reserves Reserved for Operations $0 Reserved for Rolled Projects $2,013,330 $2,013,330 Other Fees, Charges & Transfers Tax Collector $10,100 Property Appraiser $6,600 Transfers $0 Total Other Fees & Charges: $16,700 Total Appropriations: $2,654,030 Equivalent Residential Units 7618.29 Projected ERU Rate: $42.68 1124 14 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Revenue: Assessment Levy Interest Income Revenue Reserve Interfund Transfer Miscellaneous Income Carryforward Total Revenue Appropriations: Pelican Bay Hardscape I Engineering Fees Other Contractual Service! Sprinkler System Landscape Materials Mulch Requirements Road Materials Licenses and Permits Electrical Contractors Other Operating Supplies Lake Bank Enhancement Engineering Fees Other Contractual Service Sprinkler System Mainten, Swale Maintenance Landscape Materials Other Operating Supplies Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Traffic Signs Total Operating Expenses 161 2 A24 15 Received Anticipated Total Proposed Budget Amended Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 FY 2012 Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $331,900 $331,900 $276,575 $42,000 $318,575 $325,121 $19,500 $19,500 $5,925 $13,575 $19,500 $25,700 - - - - - ($17,100) - - - - - $230,700 $0 $0 $53,487 $0 $53,487 $0 $442,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,089,609 $794,300 $351,400 $335,987 $55,575 $391,562 $2,654,030 tenovations (50066.1) $75,000 $131,654 $12,346 $48,000 $60,346 $50,000 $549,700 $2,956,362 $426,540 $400,000 $826,540 $214,000 $5,570 $6,000 $11,570 $0 $0 $69,365 $100,000 $169,365 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $21,323 $16,500 $16,500 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $7,004 $2,500 $9,504 $0 $39,569 $38,553 $1,200 $39,753 $0 $624,700 $3,148,908 $560,378 $575,200 $1,135,578 $489,000 s (51026.1) $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $0 $0 $22,275 $0 $22,275 $22,275 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $85,000 $0 $85,000 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $107,775 $0 $107,775 $107,775 $85,000 Renovation (50103.1) $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0,000 $759,700 $3,306,683 $560,378 $732,975 $1,293,353 161 2 A24 15 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Reserves Reserved for Operations Reserved for Rolled Proj Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Chgs. Total Appropriations Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Capital Outlay Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) Transfers from Funds 109 Rolled Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward Capital Projects/ProgramsTransfer to Carryforward Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) ($918,891) $2,572,000 $436,500 $2,089,609 $2,089,609 $230,700 $2,013,330 $306,979 $0 $0 16 I ?` W1 A2 Received Anticipated Total Proposed Budget Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 FY 2012 Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget - - - - $0 - - - - $2,013,330 $2,013,330 $10,300 $5,532 $4,768 $10,300 $10,100 $6,800 $3,897 $2,903 $6,800 $6,600 $17,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,600 $9,429 $7,671 $17,100 $16,700 $794,300 $569,807 $740,646 $1,310,453 $2,654,030 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Capital Outlay Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) Transfers from Funds 109 Rolled Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward Capital Projects/ProgramsTransfer to Carryforward Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) ($918,891) $2,572,000 $436,500 $2,089,609 $2,089,609 $230,700 $2,013,330 $306,979 $0 $0 16 I ?` W1 A2 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Appropriation Analysis: Capital Projects - Irrigation Sytem, Community Landscaping Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (50066.1) Engineering (322-183825-631400-50066) $50,000 These fees are being budgeted for engineering services as may be required for the implementation of the proposed community capital improvements identified and approved by the PBSD Board. Other Contractual Services (322-183825-634999-50066) $214,000 These fees are for contractor services that would be required for the construction services required for the implementation of community capital improvements identified and approved by the PBSD Board. Westside PBB Pathway (Est. Total Cost $557,000) $174,500 Myra Janco Daniels Pathway (Concrete) $39,500 $214,000 Landscape Materials (322-183825-646320-50066) $225,000 Landscape Improvements $200,000 Littoral Plantings $25,000 $225,000 Mulch Requirements (322 - 183825- 646314 - 50066) $0 Other Operating Supplies (322 - 183825- 652990 - 50066) $0 161 2 A24 17 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Appropriation Analysis: Lake Bank Enhancements (51026.1) These fees are for contractor services required for the installation of Erosion Barrier Tube for the enhancement of the water management system lake banks. Engineering (322-183825-631400-510261) $0 Berm and Swale (322- 183825 - 634251 - 510261) $85,000 Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (50103.1) Funds are being budgeted for the renovation of the community enhanced ornamental traffic signage to be completed over a three year program.. Traffic Signs (322-183825-653710-50103.1) Reserves Reserved for Operations Reserved for Rolled Projects Other Fees, Charges & Transfers: Tax Collector: (322- 959050 - 930700) Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2013 assessments to be collected. The Tax Collector charges three percent (3 %) of the assessments collected. Property Appraiser (322- 959050- 930600) Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments levied. The Property Appraiser charges two percent (2 %) of the amount levied. Transfers Transfers to other funds. $50,000 $0 $2,013,330 Total $2,013,330 $10,100 $6,600 $0 Total Other Fees & Charges: $16,700 Total Appropriations: $2,654,030 161 2 A'24 18 Rs O i. O C.' O A C� C c� U Qi O a a w M Q O � N y i > � 0 u +. o w � c� E a 1612 C� d i u CC i u i/ i N H o o O\ It o, o O kn O O o kn o kn o 0 D\ 64 O O M h o wl O O o o l- O r 00 N r- M U O M ti .--� N M r- �O M r M y N O 00 W lD n O 00 vi M 'ct kn O M 7 '� O a L N oo M 00 7 M O v) 1- O M N n �O O N kn t- [� isr m .--� M 6v 64 N N 69 64 69 .-+ 69 69 64 .--i N N 69 M M N rl N QA 69 69 64 69 M 66 G CC .-. O 0 0 O °M N Cd N N Q\ O O O O 604 O 0 C ON 00 kr) O \�o CN d O M 00 oo �O N a1 p - D, m y 00 ° C-4 O a�U eAa aRi O 6v4 69 e4 O O r (S U Ctl �n f- C 6N9n C R 4�oq r4q CJ bz C r.' bq 40 O d cG N N Ocz v 0 0 "o O�6 L a i Cl 0 0 O O °� ° o O °� ° O O M 64 O [� l� O V'i 6R kn N CC N R N \O M M I M M O +.. M � N in r O ri --i 7 In U U �:Iq 46S C) 0 0 0 Cl 0 Cl o O o o O o 0 0 0 0bD M 64 O M M 64 O M O O O O O O M O ��' I'D N 00 l O rl --� N M O kn V) V^ l a \0 r- M kn �O ON o0 O_ 00 O N N O V' .d 01 r- r v1 to N ") M 69 M M in C �+ — — M 64 6R N N eF 69 69 kn ri a v 64 64 6R 64 64 69 64 69 64 O O O O v) O In O O O v'l Cl kn O O O O O O N C) N 69 O O l� O t- O O r- v, Cn M N l O O O l-- — 00 ON �O rii O I� ,6 ob a O 0 Vl 7 r O F O M 110 M M t �� 01 .M-i O N a 7 N O1 00 N to 64 69 69 64 .-+ (- N 64 64 IS 6R 64 64 69 64 64 v bA C w R y O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M 00 O 00 64 64 6R v1 O in M O O M N 7 00 try W) a\ O d 01 O o0 h .--� .--� Q\ Vl 116 N N 4 a 0.1 � O oo kn o 0, O kr) 64 �o r 00 IS � � � � 69 Os o 64 6e fzj U 0 0 0 O v) O kn O O O In Cl V'i O O r.+ O O l- [� It O 7 69 O O N O N h O \IO N \, 110 O O N O O M O O O O M tM M l i l� M M 00 00 01 :1* M a Vn Oi \10 110 M 69 kn O N S M 64 69 64 69 66 v 64 69 69 64 R 3 C� d i u CC i u i/ i N H o �T, o y Cn � O'a0+ ppO�� .�. 'A O E #}-- . D O cC ou U O N I 0 M ti CC .-. O 0 0 O O¢� N Cd N tC a) O-- M .may CD ,may O E O 0 M ON _O O OD RR �O+. r-. G O d O s0. O 00 c.C, oo °: a�U eAa aRi O GJ cO c0 0 0 0 4r d w U Ctl �n f- C }' C 0 0 C R O O CJ bz C r.' bq 40 O 4. 'O cG N N Ocz v 0 0 "o O�6 L a °'Owwx to C� d i u CC i u i/ i N H