Loading...
Backup Documents 05/11/2010 Item #16I161 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE May 11, 2010 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Airport Authority: Minutes of March 8, 2010. 2) Animal Services Advisory Board: Minutes of April 21, 2009; November 17, 2009; March 16, 2010. 3) Clam Bay Advisory Board: Minutes of September 24, 2009; October 8, 2009; October 28, 2009. 4) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of January 22, 2010 Wiggins Pass Subcommittee; February 1, 2010 Clam Bay Subcommittee; February 8, 2010 Wiggins Pass Subcommittee. 5) Collier County Planning Commission: Minutes of March 18, 2010. 6) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of March 12, 2010. 7) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of March 3, 2010. 8) Floodplain Management Planning Committee: Minutes of January 4, 2010; February 1, 2010. 9) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda of March 1, 2010; April 5, 2010. Minutes of March 1, 2010. 10) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board: Agenda of April 21, 2010. 11) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of March 4, 2010. 161 12) Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force: Minutes of June 2, 2009. 13) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of March 8, 2010. 14) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of January 12, 2009; October 19, 2009; January 11, 2010. 15) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of February 10, 2010 Budget Subcommittee; March 3, 2010; March 8, 2010 Budget Subcommittee; April 7, 2010; April 13, 2010 Budget Committee; April 14, 2010 Improvement Plan Work Group. Minutes of February 10, 2010; February 25, 2010 Improvement Plan Joint Workshop; March 1, 2010 Improvement Plan Joint Workshop; March 3, 2010; March 8, 2010 Budget Subcommittee; March 12, 2010 Improvement Plan Joint Workshop. B. Other: 1) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate: Minutes of March 5, 2010; April 2, 2010. 2) Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program: Minutes of March 1, 2010. Fiala COLLIER COUNTY AIT MINUTES OF REGULAR MONDE) , 2010 MEI MEMBERS Michael Klein PRESENT: Jim Murray STAFF: Bob Tweedie Jennifer White PUBLIC: Marvin Cartwright Ernest Sittenfeld Richard Rice Lloyd Byerhof Byron Meade Debi Mueller Debbie Brueggeman Jim Kenney Mark Minor Kristi Bartlett Carol Ogilvie I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 16I��.A1� F— 9 ! 777 D APR I A410 I�tPaMht ?:- +r,at,:� GE:����cs�ti5ic3n��S Floyd Crews Lisa Morris Curtis Sittenfeld Meeting called to order at 1:00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA At the request of Mr. Klein, the following item was added to the Agenda, as Item V. V. Construction overview of Everglades T- Hangars Mr. Rice then made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. Mr. Crews seconded, and the Agenda, as amended, was approved unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 8, 2010 MINUTES Mr. Crews made a motion to approve the February 8, 2010 minutes. Mr. Rice seconded the motion. The February 8, 2010 minutes were approved unanimously. V. CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW OF EVERGLADES T- HANGARS The Authority discussed the construction schedule for the T- hangar. The Certificate of Occupancy (C.0) is expected by March 30, 2010. VI. FINANCE REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2010 Mr. Meade commended Ms. Mueller on the outstanding work in compiling the Airport Authority's budget. Ms. Mueller indicated that rental and lease revenues are below budget in Immokalee primarily because revenues from sod cutting are below budget. Sales for jet fuel at Marco were above budget for January 2010. VII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Milo, Corms: I� Updates and discussion of the following projects took place: Data, p 5 7 l l Item * LI YAAdministration\AA Board\Minutes/FY2009- 2010dab CCAA Minutes March 8, 2010 • ADMINISTRATION Page 2 of 3 �� r • An ordinance to restructure the Airport Authority similar to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) is on the 3/9/10 BCC Summary Agenda, Items 17C and 17D. Mr. Meade and Mr. Klein will speak at the BCC meeting. Mrs. Jennifer White will draw up a list of bullet points outlining the impact on the responsibilities the Airport Board. • Executive Director Search: 84 applications; 57 qualified applicants received • BCC -CCAA Workshop — Mr. Meade has requested that the annual workshop be postponed until the new Director is hired. • IMMOKALEE • Metro Energy, renewable energy company — Mike Thompson, URS has identified an 86' x 1170' area of land where this facility might fit. • The Planned Unit Development (PUD) is complete. It was approved by BCC on 1/23/10. • CCAA -USDA Building — Following review of contract documents, the USDA will schedule the "grant closing" and preconstruction meeting(s). A groundbreaking is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, 515110. • The CRA -CCAA Business Development Center Interlocal Agreement is on the 3/9/10 BCC Agenda. It is scheduled to be heard at 1:00 PM, Item 14A. • Funding Status — Ms. Brueggeman provided the Authority with a breakdown of how funds set aside for development of the Immokalee Airport have been utilized to date, emphasizing that the Authority has borrowed nearly $275,000 for development at Everglades Airpark . • MARCO ISLAND • A Ground Breaking Ceremony for the Apron Expansion project was held on Friday 2/26/10. There were about 40 people in attendance, including three Commissioners and two Marco Island Councilman • Taxiway Funding — The Project Manager at FDOT has added this project to the list of "shovel ready" projects for possible American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) funding. • EVERGLADES • Ms. Brueggeman provided the Authority with a cost breakdown for T- Hangar project. • A Ribbon- Cutting Ceremony will be scheduled for the week of 4/12/10, contingent on T -Hanger completion. VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. Mr. Byerhof updated the Board on the proposed brewery at the Immokalee Regional Airport. Mr. Curtis Sittenfeld, guest speaker, presented the brewery proposal. A formal written proposal has not yet been submitted. Mr. Sittenfeld estimates the project will require about six (6) acres initially and possibly more in the future. They would like to break ground in about sixty (60) days. Mr. Murray made a motion to approve the concept of the brewery at the Immokalee Regional Airport. Mr. Crews seconded, and the concept was approved unanimously. Mrs. Jennifer White suggested tabling this T UdministrationWA BoardWinuteslFY 2009 -2010 CCAA Minutes March 8, 2010 16 111~3 A : 1 , issue until legal opinion is obtained as to weather a bid is required, what is the maximum term of lease, and are there any obstacles to this project, especially in light of the "Brownfield" designation. B. The Authority reviewed and discussed revising the rates set at the February 8, 2010 meeting for the T- hangars at Everglades. T -hanger rates set at $224.47. Mr. Meade made a motion to approve to set the t -hangar rates at $224.47 per month, plus applicable Florida sales tax. Mr. Crews seconded, and the monthly T -hanger rate of $224.47, plus applicable Florida sales tax, passed by a 3 -2 vote. IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Selection of the Interview Committee for Executive Director Position. The Committee consists of Byron Meade, Debbie Brueggeman, Penny Phillippi, Richard Rice, and Winona Stone, and Diane Janson. B. Resolution No. 10 -29 recommending the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the Airport Authority's Chairman to execute the Master Joint Participate Agreement 2010 -A between the Collier County Airport Authority and the Florida Department of Transportation. Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve. Mr. Rice seconded, and Resolution No. 10 -29 was passed unanimously. C. Adoption of Collier County Airport Authority Proposed FY2011 Budget. Mr. Rice made a motion to adopt the proposed BY2011 Budget. Mr. Byerhof seconded, and the FY2011 budget was unanimously adopted. X. PUBLIC COMMENT The meeting was then adjourned "without objection." COLLIER COUNTY i Y. IAdministrationWA BoardWinutesWY 2009 -2010 RECEIVED Fiala 16 Halas APR 2 6 2010 Henning April 21, 2009 Board or county comers Coyle Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF C LLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida., April 21, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: Michele Antonia Marcia Breithaupt Dr. Ruth Eisele Sergeant David Estes Tom Kepp, Jr. Sabina Musci Jim Rich ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Interim, Director, DAS Nan Gerhardt, Shelter Operations Mgr. Kathlene Drew, Volunteer Coordinator, DAS Hailey Alonso, Administrative Assistant, DAS A2 � Misc. Comes: 1 ".O5 lI/( D ftem: ��C 16I1 A2 �1 April 21, 2009 I. Call to Order: Chairman Michele Antonia called the meeting to order at 6:39 P.M. II. Attendance: Attendance was taken and a quorum established. Also in attendance were several members of the public. III. Approval of Agenda: Sabina Musci moved to approve the agenda. Second by Tom Kepv, Jr. Carried unanimously, 7 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: March 17, 2009 Dr. Ruth Eisele moved to approve the minutes of March I7, 2009, as presented Second by Marcia Breithaupt. Carried unanimously, 7 -0. V. Old Business A. Directors Report Amanda Townsend reported on a recent cooperative and educational opportunity at the Collier County Sheriff's Golden Gate sub - station. An overview of the Animal Control Ordinance was presented to: • Enhance the exchange of information and keep the databas-- updated • Aid in streamlining the citation process and enforcing the Ordinance • Provide a new training system on line, with the aim of w&cing in cooperation with the Sheriff's office in that area. Other activities mentioned: • Educational talks recently given various groups including the Immokalee Rotary and the Pelican Bay Kiwanis, schools and civic gro•.ips • Animal Control Officers were recognized by the BCC duri:lg National Animal Control Appreciation Week (April 12 -18) • Budget reviews (June presentation to DASAB) • Volunteer luncheon on March 28, 2009 • May 3 -9 Be Kind to Animal Week, outreach with school children • ASPCA sponsored Henry Berg Book Award, for children'- literature that promotes a humane ethic. (DAS will partner with the Public Libraries to provide information for the award display and a story-time by Animal Control Officers). Nan Gerhardt noted new benches will be installed to be used for interaction between the pets and perspective adoptees prior to adoption an -i for the picnic tables in the play yard. Sergeant Estes suggested electronic distribution of the monthly statistics sheets in order to save paper. A power -point presentation for the audience can be set up at the meeting. The DASAB members and staff agreed. 1611 Q2 April 21, 2009 Dr. Ruth Eisele moved to recommend the idea suggested by Sgt. David Estes to have future monthly statistics distributed electronically with a power point presentation provided at the monthly meetings. Second by Michele Antonia. Carried unanimously, 7 -0. B. Departmental Statistics and Reports (March 2009) Amanda Townsend reviewed the various statistical reports with the DASAB Members, noting: o The decline in intake due to the seasonality of the area o The increase in volunteer hours o An explanation of the various revenue funds o A new program planned to streamline the licensure procedure by improved notification processes with veterinarians through the computer system and renewal notices to pet owners. C. Change DAS Mission Statement (handout) Stephen Wright distributed copies of a portion of the current Mission Statement, and his proposed changes, which focused on adoption and enforcement as priorities; and less broad. He commented on the reasons for the change and asked for the DASAB support in voting for the proposed version. Discussion followed in which each Member of the Board stated their reasons for or against the proposed version. Sergeant David Estes moved to recommend retaining the current Mission Statement at this time, with the option of re- evaluating it at a later time. Second by Jim Rich. Carried unanimously, 7 -0. D. Licensing Breeders Tom Kepp, Jr., Jr. asked to postpone this item until the next meeting. More discussion time with various local breeder groups was needed. Amanda Townsend will research the current fees, which she stated cannot be punitive; and the fines as addressed in the Ordinance. Currently, licensing fees are slightly higher for unaltered animals than for altered ones. (One proposal had been for the fee to be siQni rcantlx higher). Ann Dee Yurick, a local proponent of breeder regulation noted the aim was not to punish responsible people and to keep it positive. Tom Kepp, Jr. moved to postpone discussion on Licensing Breeders to a later date. Second by Dr. Ruth Eisele. Carried unanimously, 7 -0. VI. New Business A. Volunteer Recognition — (handout) Kathy Drew, DAS Volunteer Coordinator provided a list of the Volunteer Job Descriptions for each of the Volunteer opportunities with DAS. She also provided detailed listings of the number of volunteers and hours served. There was a significant increase in both. She noted that National Volunteer 1611 1Q 2 April 21, 2009 Week was celebrated with a Volunteer Luncheon. A power point presentation of the events, activities and statistics regarding volunteer contributions to DAS operations, saving the County over $89,022 from Oct. 2007 to Sept. 2008 and $67,754 from Oct. 2008 to April 2009, was given. B. Service Award Recognition of Tom Kepp, Jr. and Sergeant Estes Amanda Townsend announced Tom Kepp, Jr. and Sgt. David Estes will receive Community Service Award Recognition for their five years of service on the DASAB at the BCC meeting, May 11, 2009. She thanked them both for their dedicated service on the DASAB. VII. Public Comment VIII. Advisory Board Members Comments Sergeant David Estes thanked Stephen Wright for bringing up certain DASAB issues and his untiring attendance at meetings, reaffirming the reason for the DASAB. Sabina Musci mentioned `Bark in the Park" at Fleishman Park on Sat. April 25 from LOAM to 2PM. Dr. Ruth Eisele handed out an interesting article on Legislative updates regarding Veterinary issues for information and future discussion. Tom Kepp, Jr. spoke about the progress made by the DASAB, noting "it takes time to implement changes ". He also expressed the Board's appreciation of the continued attendance of the public citizens present. The next meeting of the DAS Advisory Board is scheduled for May 19, 2009. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 7:48 PM. COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES )W, r � 01 - Chal man, Miche 'An onia These minutes approved by Board/Committee on as presented tl� or as amended 4 RECEIVED APR 2 6 2010 Board of COU* CO M60W M Fiala 1611 Halas 2 Henning November 17, 2009 Coyle Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, November 17, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Resource Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michele Antonia Marcia Breithaupt Dr. Ruth Eisele (excused) Sergeant David Estes (absent) Tom Kepp, Jr. Sabina Musci Jim Rich ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Director of DAS Kathlene Drew, DAS Volunteer Coordinator Misc. Correa: Date: i hem t Copies to: ibii1n21 November 17, 2009 I. Call to Order: Michele Antonia called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. II. Attendance: Roll call was taken and a quorum established III. Approval of Agenda: Sabina Musci moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Marcia Breithaupt. Carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: October 20, 2009 Correction: Page 4 G: Italicized line - Change November to December Page 5 VI. A. 3 Motion is to read: Marcia Breithaupt moved to recommend approval to include in the Animal Control Ordinance, additional Anti - Cruelty Provisions, including And- Chaining. Second by Tom Kipp. Carried unanimously, 7 -0. Jim Rich moved to approve the minutes of October 20, 2009, as amended Second by Sabina Musci. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. V. Old Business A. Directors Report Amanda Townsend reported the following: • Announced Howl -a -Day Jubilee to be held Saturday, November 21 from 12:00 to 5:00 PM at Veterans Community Park. • Kathlene Drew, Chairman, spoke about the various activities, contests and vendors who will be contributing to the success of the fundraiser. • Karen Acquard was thanked for her efforts in collecting an array of raffle prizes for the event. Michele Antonia suggested having a second andlor third prize in the costume contest in the form of gift certificates. It was agreed to do so. • Announced the upcoming Florida Animal Control Conference to which 3 DAS staff members will attend. Amanda will confer with Laura Bevins, the S.E. Regional Director for the Humane Society for the United States, regarding large scale impounds. She will also speak with other Directors about the backyard breeder issue at the Director's Meeting. (Amanda Townsend moved on to agenda item A. under VI. New Business) She noted the BCC established a new three -phase DAS Mission statement: • To insure compliance with Local and State animal related laws. • To return strays to their owners and promote adoption of homeless animals to new families. • To work toward ending the community problem of pet overpopulation. She announced the BCC approval of revisions to the Animal Control Ordinance and thanked the people who spoke up at the BCC meeting on issues that are important to the community. The three revisions were: Pa 1 1�, 09 A 2 November 26 Accommodate Trap Neuter and Release (TNR) concurrently with an agreement with the Collier Community Cat Coalition and the County. Anti - Cruelty- Anti - Chaining of dogs. Specifics of Anti- Chaining measures and sample language and wording of the Ordinance change is still being worked on and will come before DASAB at the December meeting, before going to the BCC on Jan. 12, 2010. Dangerous Dog appeals cases have been transferred to from the three - person panel to the Special Magistrate, as well as the determination of the type of trial, if an owner further appealed to the Courts. Agenda Item V Old Business resumed B. Departmental Statistics and Reports 4 Year Statistics Review (Handouts) Amanda Townsend gave a slide presentation to go along with the individual 21 -page detailed handout showing in chart and graph format the following statistics over the past 4 years: • Intake —By Animal Type; Source; Intake Method and Per 1000 Population • All animal Outcomes; Rescue and Public Adoptions • Officer Activities by Type; per 1000 Population; Dangerous Dog Investigation Outcomes • Spay/Neuter Surgeries • Active Volunteers (doubled in 3 years); Volunteer Hours (more than doubled in 3 years) • Outreach Events Attended or hosted; Outreach Contacts Made • General Fund Expenditures; General Fund Revenues; Net Cost to General Fund; • Cost to General Fund for all Services per Capita; Cost to General Fund for all Services per Animal Amanda explained the Accounting Funds and the Services between City and County. She reported that most revenue comes from licenses, impound fees and adoption fees. Cost to the taxpayer for all services per person is $6.06. Cost to the taxpayer for care per animal is $3.06. . Discussion followed on the various graph statistics. Jim Rich brought up the influx of abandoned cats on Marco being dumped into feral colonies and asked about the number of rabies cases in Collier County. Amanda noted animal abandonment had risen with the increase in foreclosures. She will obtain the statewide update on rabies cases at the FACA Conference. V1. New Business: A. Proposed Changes to the Animal Control Ordinance Discussed previously under Old Business B. Five Year Strategic Plan Balance Scorecard Amanda Townsend reviewed the four categories in the 5 -year Strategic Plan Balance Scorecard, namely: o Serve the Customer o Manage Financial Resources 161 IA2 November 17, 2009 • Run the Business • Build the Team She stated these items contain the goals for the 5 -year Plan. The 10 prioritized projects voted on by the DASAB have been encompassed in these goals and have become the foundation for action in steps that will accomplish these goals closer to a 3 year window than a five year window. VII. Public Comments Janet Rossano, of For Footed Friends and a founding member of Animal Advocates of Collier County spoke on the following issues their group is working on to assist DAS: • Emphasis on Education to reduce overpopulation • Better awareness and exposure of animal issues • Working for changes of Ordinances and Laws to increase awareness of the need for a more humane way to treat animals • Working with a volunteer photographer to better bring out the best in animals advertised for adoptions and post information in many areas and web sites • Have a volunteer Certified Trainer to help improve adoption options • Use Media contact, video and print exposure to highlight plight of animals, • Contacting W1NK, Fox, Florida Weekly and Naples Daily News for exposure and education purposes • Website will be available in December to ensure better exposure for animals, with links to DAS and other rescue groups • Will attend Collier County events promoting spay & neuter and adoptable animals in the area • Organized and named Volunteer group -Ride to Freedom Rescue Group or Freedom Riders. • Will do an E -mail blast for DAS on Holiday Jubilee and other events • Have doubled their volunteers since August inauguration and will work with DAS and rescue groups to make a difference • For Footed Friends Dog Run now in preparation- to benefit DAS Trust Fund Karen Acquard asked for the correlation between the number of foreclosed properties and the number of abandoned animals. She also asked to have confining animals in small quarters wording as well as anti - chaining wording as part of the Ordinance revision. Amanda Townsend explained the reason to outlaw chaining was that dogs are social creatures. Chaining causes mental stress which leads to aggressive behavior. A balance between prohibiting "continuous fixed point restraint" and providing minimal restraint for dangerous dog enclosures will be a provision of the law. Care is needed in wording local law so as not to conflict with State Law. The Pet Retail Industry Standards Manual cites acceptable square foot standards. VIII. Advisory Board Members Comments Tom Kepp, Jr. acknowledged improvement in outcomes. With the help of TNR and all things in Ordinance getting passed, he foresees a big change for the better. 1611 A2 November 17, 2009 Sabina Musci mentioned fixed crate training and the flu vaccine now being suggested along with annual exams. Amanda Townsend responded the length of time spent in crate training was the issue. Dogs are pack animals and need to socialize. Away from the pack they act out. She will ask at the conference about the flu vaccine for dogs. Jim Rich commented on the informative 4 -year statistical report. He thanked the attendees for their constant support & attendance at DAS meetings. Marcia Breithaupt encouraged everyone to be creative and emulate the success stories. She challenged Board Members to increase their volunteer work and push for animal improvement. Michele Antonia mentioned the renovations and needs at the DAS Shelter in Immokalee, and noted adoption opportunities were now available there. She encouraged everyone to get involved with the Collier Community Cat Coalition and to come to their meetings every 2nd Thursday from 6:00 to 7:00 pm at the County offices on Orange Blossom Drive. The next meeting of the Domestic Animal Advisory Board is December 15, 2009. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 7:50 P.M. Collier County Domestic Animal Services h irman Michele Antonia These minutes approved by the Board/Corgmittee on /71, Z 0/ 6 as presented or as amended RECEIVED APR 2 6 2010 Board of County Cor�am Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Colette 1611 A2 March 16, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 16, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michele Antonia VICE CHAIRMAN: Marcia Breithaupt Dr. Ruth Eisele Sergeant David Estes (absent) Tom Kepp, Jr. Sabina Musci Jim Rich ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Director of DAS Nan Gerhardt, Shelter Manager, DAS Kathlene Drew, Volunteer Coordinator, DAS Hailey Alonso, Administrative Assistant Misc. Corres: Date: item t 1 Copies to: 16 11 A2 March 16, 2010 I. Call to Order el Chairman Michele Antonia called the meting to order at 6:30 P. M. II. Attendance The roll was called and a quorum established. III. Approval of Agenda Marcia Breithaupt moved to approve the agenda. Second by Jim Rich. Carried unanimously, 6-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: February 16, 2010 Correction: Page 3 New Business A. 4'h bulleted item – ADD- if not done by DAS P bulleted item – Clarification — is to read. Per changes in adoption contract, to save expenses of DAS paying veterinarian bills. Last paragraph- Clarification - is to read. The consensus was that it was best for the animals and the new owners for DAS to spay /neuter after adoptions are completed, but prior to placement in the home. Strays brought in are altered prior to being reclaimed by their owner. Jim Rich moved to approve the minutes of February 16, 2010, as amended Second by Tom %pp. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. V. Old Business A. Director's Report Amanda Townsend 1. Reported the dog bed assembly session was completed in 2 hours. Kelly Fox, Bibi Barrett and Teri Licastro were acknowledged for their time, fundraising success and assistance with the bed project as well as for their future endeavors to provide other items for the animals, such as beds for the cats. This activity was filmed for future use, for DAS to serve as a model nationwide for those kinds of activities that provide enrichment to animals. 2. Commented on a recent news item regarding two dogs who attacked horse riders. One rider was thrown from the horse. The horse was later found dead. No cause of death was determined prior to its burial. One dog had returned to its home; one was running loose and was impounded. Both will probably be declared dangerous dogs under the current statutes. Investigation is ongoing. 3. Concerns noted in the press were that Collier's dangerous dog statute was not strong enough in comparison to some other Florida counties. Under State 6 ! 1 A2 arch 16, 2010 statutes the dogs would not be declared dangerous. A brief discussion followed. Kathlene Drew reported volunteerism was way up, citing the Disney's "Give a Day -Get a Day promotion. It was reported by Disney that one million vouchers have been given out. DAS was the only animal industry group that participated and 450 volunteers participated there. All coordinators from other agencies (Habitat for Humanity, Naples Equestrian, etc.) reported a great response. The program was a huge success and an example of the community giving back. VI. New Business A. Recommendation to the BCC to fill Vacancies Chairman Michele Antonia announced the candidates for the two positions on the DAS Advisory Board (Citizen at Large and Pet Related Business.) Each candidate was given the opportunity to speak on their qualifications, interests and reason they wanted to serve on the DASAB. Six candidates had applied. The board members then voted by written ballot on two choices. Those with the highest vote were selected for recommendation to the BCC for approval. The two selected were: Marcia Breithaupt and Larry Kenner. Michele Antonia moved to recommend Marcia Breithaupt and Larry Kenner for approval by the Board of County Commissioners to serve on the Domestic Animal Advisory Board Second by Dr. Ruth Eisele Carried unanimously, 6-0. Sabina Musci, retiring member, was thanked for her service on the DASAB B. Creative Brainstorming Session Amanda Townsend initiated a unique brainstorming session which included the members of the public present as well as the DAS Board Members. Four flip - boards were placed around the room each containing a question. The questions were: 1. What are the most pressing animal issues facing the Collier County community? 2. What resources are available to address the community animal issues? 3. What resources are needed to address the community animal issues? 4. What actions can citizens take to address the community animal issues? The instruction was to split everyone into four groups. Each group had 2 minutes at each flip - board. Upon return to their starting board, they were to mark the three most important issues on each chart. The top issues selected in this manner for the four questions were: Question 1. Euthanasia tied with spay & neuter — licenses/enforcement - overpopulation Question 2. DAS — Broadcast TV — Humane Society Naples Question 3. Education — Rescue groups - Money Question 4. Volunteer tied with promote adoption — educate on spay & neuter tied with animal abuse — get involved 161 1 , March 16 2010 Everyone enjoyed the informative exercise. This information and format will be used to identify future items for the DASAB to work on. VII. Public Comment Stephen Wright spoke about focusing on pet adoptions and finding ways to increase the numbers of adoptions and reduce the number of euthanasias. Some suggestions were to • Bring more people out to DAS. Hold "fun activities" events • Partner with other rescue groups • More off site adoption opportunities such as shopping centers for exposure of animals to the public. • Approach condominium and home owner associations to give education and adoption opportunities. • Collect ideas and act upon what is feasible such as spay & neuter, Trap Neuter & Release and adoption. Brief comments by Board Members on the above topics followed. Amanda Townsend then reported on an upcoming fundraiser by Parks and Recreation on April 17 at Sun & Fun called "Towels for Tails." Five dollars off admissions will be given for anyone bringing a towel for use by the animals at DAS. Animals will be available for adoption. Kelly Fog thanked everyone involved with the bed drive and told about efforts they are working on: • Donations from The Kong company owner Joe Markham of 100 Kong toys, the "Through a Dog's Ear" CDs and the wiring installation for music in dog and cat areas • Defining difference between Humane Society and DAS. • Possibility of a foster program. • Creating a more inviting look to the shelter. Asked for a list of what was needed. They will help to provide it. • Flyers in utility bill blitz could be instituted. • Getting out the word on what DAS is all about. Rose Scarisbrick and Janet Rossano, owners of For Footed Friends announced the success of the 2nd annual Poker Run to benefit the Spay & Neuter Clinic and the DAS Emergency Fund. Sixty -six riders participated resulting in a $625 check presented to DAS for a donation to the DAS Emergency Fund. They thanked Kathlene Drew for her untiring efforts in this cause. They will continue to promote rescues in their store. Fifty -two adoptions took place there last year. They were saddened by the decision to stop adoptions there, noting that happy and fun activities do work and the community will be behind any of those types of activities. Amanda responded time spent in non pet related places yielded more adoptions for the hours involved. 4 1 ZVl 1 I 'I A uch 1010 VIII. Advisory Board Member Comments Tom Kepp spoke about the Humane Society's contributions and stated there was no competition between them and DAS. He proposed utilizing as many places for adoptions as possible. Sabina Musci spoke about her goals while she was on the Board and was pleased that some of them were being addressed. She will continue to be active in animal issues at DAS. Jim Rich reported that most groups are working together for the sake of the animals, nursing them back to health so they can be adopted. Dr. Ruth Eisele spoke on the differences between services provided by Humane Society and DAS. She hoped more people can become involved and off -site adoptions can continue at For Footed Friends. Marcia Breithaupt thanked the Board for recommending her re- appointment to DASAB. Michele Antonia commented on the answering machine at DAS with old information in the message. Amanda responded the phone system has been an ongoing issue and for anyone who has a problem with the phones, to report it to her. The next regular meeting of the Domestic Animal Services Advisory Board is scheduled for April 20, 2010. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 8:15 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ha' an Michele An nia I . These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on U as presented , or as amended RECEIVED APR 15 2010 E {oard of County Commissionzrs Fiala \ ✓ Halas Henning.._._�� Coyle Coletta _ SelCm r J4, 109 I MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, September 24, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Clam Bay Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M., North Collier Regional Park in the Administration Building in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: John Arceri Ronald A. Glah Noah Standridge (Excused) Robert Rogers Kathy B. Worley David Roellig Tahlmann Krumm, Jr. David Farmer(Excused) James Carroll (resigned) ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Gail Hambright, Tourist Tax Collector Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist - Co res: ae: 0 �z . I A ; em k 1 A Copies to: A3 16111 A3 September 24, 2009 I. Call to Order Chairman Arceri called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll Call was taken and a quorum established. It was noted Chairman Carroll has resigned from the Committee. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management noted a revised budget has been provided in regard to item X.4. Mr. Krumm moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Rogers. Carried unanimously 6 -0. V. Public Comment Bob Naegele, Pelican Bay Resident addressed the Committee expressing concern with the advertisement procedure for the Mr. Carroll's replacement. The advertisement for a replacement was posted by the County on August 28, 2009, and the individual's application to fill the vacancy was dated August 17, 2009. He questioned if the County followed proper procedures in advertising the vacancy? Gary McAlpin noted the Policy is at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, to the best of his knowledge, proper procedures were followed; however Staff will review the issue. VI. Approval of Minutes 1. August 13, 2009 Mr. Roellig moved to approve the minutes of the August 13, 2009 meeting. Second by Ms. Worley. Carried unanimously 6 -0. VII. Chairman's Comments Chairman Arceri recognized Jim Carroll's service to the Committee. County Staff informed him, he automatically assumes Chairmanship of the Committee.. VIII. Staff Reports 1. Activity Update on the Following: a. 10 Year Tidal Flushing Maintenance Dredging Permit Application Gary McAlpin noted Staff continues to work with the Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in its review of the permit application. It is anticipated Staff will be resubmitting additional information requested by FDEP within 2 -3 weeks. In response to Committee questions, he noted the following: 2 16111 A3 September 24, 2009 • The existing permit expired, and the County may not dredge the area unless an application is made under the auspices of an emergency permit in the event a declaration of "State of Emergency" by the Governor of Florida or President (of the United States.) • At this point, there are no interceders to the application • It is estimated the permit may be issued within 6 months unless an interceder requests an Administrative Hearing. • Any responses to request for additional information will be addressed by Staff; however the comments from FDEP are posted on line; if Committee members have any comments, contact Staff. b. Navigational Markers FDEP Permit Gary McAlpin noted: • A Petition presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to overturn the decision to apply for a permit to install "aids to navigation" in Clam Bay was denied by the BCC by a 4 -1 vote. • Presented a letter from David S. Hobbie, Chief, Regulatory Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers to Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management dated September 10, 2009 verifying the "Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan requires the installation of navigational markers." • A permit to install the "aids to navigation" was issued by the United States Coast Guard on September 2, 2009. (A letter from J.B. Embres, US Coast Guard, and 7th Coast Guard District to Pamela Keyes, dated September 2, 2009 was submitted for informational purposes). • The County is still required to obtain the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's ( FFWCC) approval of the wording for the signage to be placed in Clam Bay. • Staff has provided a copy of the proposed language to be submitted to the FFWCC to the Pelican Bay Foundation for comment. • The FDEP issued the permit for the "aids to navigation." • Three parties have requested an Administrative Hearing regarding various issues involved with the FDEP permit for the "aids to navigation ": Pelican Bay Foundation, Mangrove Action Committee and Marcia Cravens. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney noted FDEP is required to rule whether or not the request for an Administrative Hearing is warranted. If the hearing is granted, it will be a lengthy legal process before the issue is resolved. Speaker Jeanne Findlater, Pelican Bay Resident noted the primary use of the System is Conservation and Wildlife Refuge. The 1998 Management Plan required the placement of markers to ensure the health of the Mangroves and the preservation of the sea bottom. The existing markers are functioning 3 1611 A3 September 24, 2009 appropriately and the Plan does not specify the types of markers which need to be placed in the System. c. Water Quality Study Gary McAlpin noted the Study is ongoing and a Draft Report should be available at next month's CBAC meeting. Staff will provide the Report several days in advance of the meeting to Committee members. d. Safety Signs at Clam Pass — Beach and Channel Gary McAlpin noted the proposed "Safety Signs" to be placed in the Pass and Beach Area may require Staff to pursue issuance of a separate permit by FDEP should an Administrative Hearing be required under item VIII.b. IX. New Business 1. Resignation of Jim Carroll and Appointment of New Vice Chairman of CBAC Mr. Rogers moved to nominate Tahlmann Krumm as Vice Chairman of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Glah. Carried unanimously 6- 0. 2. Public Outreach Program — Tahlmann Krumm Mr. Krumm provided an overview of the Public Outreach Program which developed 3 main points: 1. An Open letter from the Chairman is required for residents in the vicinity of the System to update and communicate the Clam Bay Advisory Committee status. 2. Provision of electronic exchanges or posting of information via websites. 3. Conduct a review of the existing informational signage on and around Clam Bay to ensure educational goals are met. It was noted these recommendations have been included in the "Clam Bay Advisory Committee — Status Report" discussed under item IX.3 Discussion occurred on the following: • Direct mailings may be cost prohibitive and are there other avenues for mailings (inclusion of letters in homeowner's quarterly maintenance bills) • Concern not all individuals utilize the internet as a basis for information. • Feasibility of submitting an "article" for print to the Naples Daily News. • Contacting the individual condominium associations within developments for presentations by a Committee member. • Submit an article for print in the "Pelican Bay Post." 11 6 Ili A 3 1 September 24, 2009 Gary McAlpin recommended the Section in the Status Report indicates the need for the Outreach and its funding, without identifying specific costs for items. Sneaker Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident, recommended the Outreach focus more on educational standards such as the recommendation in Dr. Tomasko's Report (proper fertilizer applications, control of roof gutter runoff, proper disposal of grass clippings, utilization of Florida- Friendly Landscaping concepts, etc.) She expressed concern the focus is on providing Committee information to the public, when interested parties already have avenues for obtaining the information (minutes, reports, etc.). She recommended the $16,000 recommended for direct mailings (in the "Clam Bay Advisory Committee — Status Report') be disapproved. It was noted Outreach and Education is required to ensure the long term viability of the Estuary and will be further addressed under item IX.3 3. Review and Approval of CBAC Report to CAC/BCC Gary McAlpin provided the document "Clam Bay Advisory Committee — Status Report" dated September 24, 2009. The Report will be forwarded to the Coastal Advisory Committee and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners for approval on October 20, 2009. The Committee determined the Report should be forwarded to the CAC for approval and if significant changes are made, the CBAC will review the changes at an "Emergency Meeting" before submitting it to the Board of County Commissioners. Under Committee review the following amendments were recommended: 1. Throughout the formatting of the document change "Actions Taken" and "Status" to "Status " and "Future Action(s) " respectively. 2. Page 2, Permits, item 2. line -1 -4 - from "A new 10 year permit application... dredging of Clam Pass." to "For tidal flushing maintenance dredging Clam Pass, a new 10 year permit application on exactly the same technical basis as the previously permit has been submitted to FDEP and the USA CE. " Gary McAlpin noted the contents of this Section may require ongoing amendments to reflect any permit updates or timing before the CAC/BCC meeting. 3. Page 2 last line to first line page 3 from "If this is required, it will lengthen the permitting... at Clam Pass." to "If this is required, it could lengthen the permitting time frame considerably due to, among other issues, the 1611 A3 � September 24, 2009 controversy associated with the ebb shoal and the width of the cut at Clam Pass. " 4. Page 3 — paragraph I, line 3 from "Clam Pass is the only County Pass where... " to "Clam Pass is a County Pass where..." 5. Page 3 — "Water Quality, Mixing and Runoff' to "Water Quality, Mixing and Runoff/Discharees " 6. Replace any references to the term "runoff' cited within the document to the term "Runoff /discharges. " 7. Page 4, paragraph 1, line 4 -8 - from "...working in similar estuaries in SW Florida and their neutral consultant... best science available." to ... "working in similar estuaries in SW Florida. The CBAC felt they were qualified to effectively collect and analyze the scientific data and make recommendations based on the best science available." 8. Page 4, paragraph 4, item 1, line 2 -4 - from "...modeling studies along with setting the ... which are largely done." to "...modeling studies along with proposing the water quality standards in Clam Bay, in consultation with FDEP and recommendations for a sampling program. " 9. Page 4, paragraph 4, item 2, line 2 - from "...and characterization of the plant and marine life in Clam Bay." to "... and characterization of the sediment in Clam Bay. " Break: 11: 00am Reconvene: - 11:10am 10. Page 5, — Mangrove Maintenance and Estuary Habitat Section to read: Status The Committee is working with Pelican Bay Services Division to review their successful Mangrove Maintenance Program. To accomplish this, prior technical reports on the condition of the mangroves, trend analysis and previously recommended actions will be reviewed to assure long -term health of the mangrove community. The Committee has accepted the past practices as a basis for future mangrove maintenance. However, specific firms contracted for implementation may vary based on the cost effectiveness of proposals received at the time of implementation. Review of the benthic community has already begun with the sediment samples analysis performed in the data collection phase of this project. D 161 `1 A 3 September 24, 2009 Future Actions 1. Finalize the Mangrove Maintenance Plan (MMP). 2. It is recommended interested parties convene in the future to review the historical, biological and ecological data, identify gaps in data sets, and make preliminary recommendations based on these reviews to determine the future direction in regards to improving the health of the Estuary. 3. Develop the appropriate budgetary requirements for the actions. 4. The Report (MMP) will be completed and integrated into the final Management Plan issued in 2010. 11. Page 5, paragraph 5, line 2 -3 - from "....dredging cross section to the stability of Clam Pass, the optimum flushing levels of Clam Pass and the re- nourishment needs of the surrounding beaches. " to "...dredging cross sections to stabilize Clam Pass, and develop the levels of optimum flushing levels within the Clam Bay System." 12. Page 6, paragraph 3, item I to read: "An open letter from CBAC's chair to the Pelican Bay, Seagate, and Naples Cay communities to update and communicate Clam Bay/Pass status. This direct mailing would ensure maximum exposure reaching approximately 8,500 households on and contiguous to Clam Bay. Updates may follow by mail as needed until the CBAC ceases to exist and/or the project is completed. In addition, every effort should be made to place similar information in all available media and community outlets. " 13. Page 6 paragraph 4, item 2 — to read: "A direct information communication for every available website. " 14. Page 6, paragraph 5, item 3 — deletion of the last sentence "A significant, modern updated approach to signage wouldn't investigated." Discussion occurred on the Section "Committee Future" and its reference for an extension of the Committee through June 30, 2010. Some members felt the extension request should be through December 31, 2010 to eliminate the need for returning to the BCC for another extension after June 30, 2010, if necessary. The Committee determined the June 30, 2010 extension was an acceptable request. Sneaker Marcia Cravens, Pelican Bay Resident expressed concern the Committee has made an assumption the System is degraded, when it is not. She mentioned the System is in a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) and is to be left in a natural state. The proposed modeling study and competing uses (activities) of installation of markers and signage and potential dredging for VA 2611 September 24, 2009 navigation, removal of sand for beach re- nourishment, etc. may be incompatible with the NRPA. The Committee was mandated to review the uses associated with the NRPA and make recommendations how to best manage the area to ensure its protection. She expressed concern the priorities of the Committee have been focused on permits, etc. as opposed to wildlife protection and habitat optimization for the area. Mr. Krumm moved to approve the "Clam Bay Advisory Committee — Status Report" dated September 24, 2009 subject to the amendments above. Second by Mr. Rogers. Carried unanimously 6 -0. 4. Review and Approval of CBAC Proposed Budget to CAC/BCC Gary McAlpin presented the document "Clam Bay Advisory Committee — Operational Budget and Capital Requirements — August 2009 through July 2010" dated September 24, 2009. Under Committee review, the following amendments were recommended: 1. Request $20,000 in the "Other Capital" Section for "Estuary Wildlife Preliminary Analysis" Speakers Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident requested the funding sources be identified for the various line items in the budget. Marcia Cravens, expressed concern the budget is driven by Moorings Bay and Doctors Pass issues and their relation to the System. No consideration has been given to the estuarine habitat and other areas of resource protection. She recommended funding an Environmental Impact Study to determine the affects of any recommendations provided in the Modeling Study. She urged the Committee dedicate more than $20,000 cited in #1 above. Jerry Moffatt, Pelican Bay Services Division requested deletion of the statement "This includes all capital and expense items." found in the Section "Mangrove Maintenance," paragraph 1, lines 3 -4. The Committee concurred with the recommended amendments requested by Ms. Roth and Mr. Moffatt. Gary McAlpin noted that much of the Committee's undertaking is in the "environmental data collection" phase, and the concerns expressed by Ms. Cravens will be addressed in future budgets. Mr. Glah moved to approve the "Clam Bay Advisory Committee — Operational Budget and Capital Requirements — August 2009 through July 2010" dated September 24, 2009 subject to the amendments outlined above. Second by Mr. Rogers. Carried unanimously 6 -0. 8 6 A3 September 24, 2009 5. Approval of Procedures for CBAC Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Review, approve and authorize the Chairman to sign Procedures for Clam Bay Advisory Committee" dated September 24, 2009. The Committee recommended the following amendments to the Procedures for Clam Bay Advisory Committee" 1. Section B.2 "Speaker Registration" sentence 6 -7 from "...maximum of three (3) minutes each." to "...maximum of three (3) minutes each, unless the Chairman allows additional time. "or similar language. 2. Deletion of Section F - "Reconsideration." Speaker Marcia Cravens requested clarification if the Committee has formally adopted Roberts Rules of Order? The Committee should ensure they are not in conflict with other Ordinances and the procedures should reflect this. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney noted the document cites the procedures are governed by "Roberts Rules of Order." Mr. Roellig moved to approve the document ( "Collier County Clam Bay Advisory Committee — Procedures for Clam Bay Advisory Committee dated September 24, 2009) subject to the amendments above. Second by Mr. Glah. Carried unanimously 6 -0. 6. Open Position - CBAC Applicants Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Review of Clam Bay Advisory Committee (CBAC) Applicants " dated September 24, 2009 and Advisory Board Application Form for Susan O'Brien, applicant for the Clam Bay Advisory Board dated August 17, 2009. Mr. Roellig expressed concern on the advertising procedure (advertised over the Labor Day holiday, many people were unaware of the vacancy, etc.) for the filling of the vacancy on the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. Mr. Roellig moved to recommend the notice to fill the vacancy on the Clam Bay Advisory Board be re- advertised. Second by Mr. Glah. S esker Marcia Cravens expressed concern on the County's Public Notice Procedure as many individuals were unaware Mr. Carroll had resigned. Sue Filson (Executive Director to the Board of County Commissioners) informed her there was no newspaper advertisement for the general public. Ms. Cravens expressed concern the announcement was limited to a link on the Collier County Government website, which many individuals could not find. L'� m,6 1 A3 Septeer 24, 20 Jim Burke noted he has been involved with Advisory Committee's for a long period of time, and it is his understanding, an applicant may apply for a position for a Committee at any time, regardless of a vacancy. When an opening occurs, you are contacted to re- apply, (which would explain the date of Ms. O' Brien's application.) Jerry Moffatt noted if the County followed proper procedures in the notice, the application should be deemed acceptable. Motion failed I "yes" — S "no. " Chairman Arceri, Mr. Rogers, Ms. Worley, Mr. Glah and Mr. Krumm voted "no. " Mr. Roellig moved to find Susan O'Brien qualified to serve on the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Arceri. Discussion occurred whether recommending an applicant to fill a vacancy is required by the Committee. Some members felt this is outside the scope of the Committee. Colleen Greene noted the Board of County Commissioners encourages a recommendation from an Advisory Committee when there is a vacancy to be filled. Motion failed 3 "yes" — 3 "no." Ms. Worley, Mr. Krumm and Mr. Glah voted "no. " Members who voted "no" noted their vote reflects an opinion that "making a recommendation for any applicant may be outside the scope of the Committee" (not a vote on the "qualifications of the applicant's. ") Mr. Rogers moved for the Clam Bay Advisory Committee (CBAC) to make no recommendations on an applicants request to be appointed to the Committee, as it is not within the purview of the CBAC. Second by Mr. Glah. Carried unanimously 6 -0. X. Old Business 1. Mangrove Maintenance Discussion Mr. Arceri moved to eliminate this item from the Agenda. Second by Mr. Roellig. Carried unanimously 6 -0. XI. Announcements Chairman Arceri requested members notify Staff if they are interested in continuing service beyond the original sunset date of December 31, 2009. He requested the issue be placed on the next Agenda. XII. Committee Member Discussion None 10 161 1 1 A3 September 24, 2009 XIII. Next Meeting Date To be determined. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:35 PM. COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE These Minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented \X or as amended 11 RECEIVED 161 APR 15 2010 Octobfil$W00 Board ni (,,tjf # Gommiss'011> s Halas Henning Coyle MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COP CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, October 8, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Clam Bay Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met for a Special Meeting on this date at 9:00 A.M., Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: John Arceri Ronald A. Glah Noah Standridge (Excused) Robert Rogers Kathy B. Worley David Roellig (Excused) Tahlmann Krumm, Jr. (Excused) David Farmer ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Gail Hambright, Accountant Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: Copies to: ibI A3a October 8, 2 I. Call to Order/ Roll Call Chairman Arceri called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM 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. Glah moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following additions: Item IX.1 - Review of "Clam Bay Advisory Committee - Status Report" Second by Mr. Rogers. Carried unanimously 5-0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of Minutes Mr. Glah moved to continue the item. Second by Ms. Worley. Carried unanimously 5 -0. VII. Chairman's Comments Chairman Arceri noted the main purpose of the meeting was to approve changes in the budget before its review by the Coastal Advisory Committee this afternoon. VIL Staff Reports None VIII. New Business 1. Review and Approval of Revised CBAC budget Gary McAlpin noted: • The budget approved by the Clam Bay Advisory Committee on September 24, 2009 has been decreased by $48,200. • The reductions were based on the lack of available funding in Fund 111, the General Fund. • The Tourist Development Council's funding portion of the budget is unaffected by the revisions as funds are available from this source. • The main items of reduction are for the "Peer Review" and "Public Outreach" portions of the budget (reduced from $50,000 to $15,000 and $16,000 to $6,000 respectively.) • The committee may re- allocate funds within Fund 111 as they see fit. • The "Peer Review" will be conducted by authorizing 1 consultant for a total review, separating portions of the study for review by different consultants, identifying qualified parties who may conduct the review at "no cost," etc. 2 1 161 . A 3 October 8, 2 09 He requested the CBAC approve the revised budget before the Coastal Advisory Committee Meeting on October 8, 2009 at 1:00 pm. Ms. Worley moved to approve the revised budget. Second by Mr. Rogers. Carried unanimously 5 -0. IX. Old Business 1. Review of Clam Bay Advisory Status Report The Committee reviewed the "Clam Bay Advisory Committee - Status Report" updated through September 25, 2009 and recommended the following changes: • Page 2 - #3 - line 1 from - "Clam Bay a County Pass..." to "Clam Bay is a County Pass..." • Page 3, Water Quality Mixing #3 - line 5 - from "runoff drainage that is having a negative..." to "runoff and drainage that may have a negative..." • Page 4 — Status - #1 — line 41 from - "This included a review..." to "This includes a review..." • Page 4 — "Future Action" — amend the budget numbers to reflect the revised budget approval (Peer Review from $50,000 to $15,000). Mr. Rogers moved to approve the Clam Bay Advisory Committee Status Report subject to the above recommendations. Second by Mr. Glah. Carried unanimously 5 -0. Gary McAlpin noted the status report will be revised, as well as any related changes to the executive summary before presentation to the Coastal Advisory Committee. X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date/Location October 28, 2009— North Collier Regional Park, 15000 Livingston Road, Exhibit Hall, Room A, Naples. October 8, 2009 161 1 A3 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:22 AM. COUNTY CLAM BAY ADVISORY Arceri, Chairman These Minutes approved by the Board /Committee on I W' `0 , as presented or as amended 4 Fiala Y/ RECEIVED Halas October 28, 2009 Henning APR 15 2010 Coyle Coletta c 1611 A 3 rioa -d of Cour..y Gommissioll r MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, October 28, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Clam Bay Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M., North Collier Regional Park in the Administration Building in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: John Arceri Vice Chairman: Tahlmann Krumm, Jr. Ronald A. Glah Noah Standridge Robert Rogers Kathy B. Worley David Roellig David Farmer Susan O'Brien ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Gail Hambright, Accountant Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorne�' - 00rres' Date: 1 Item #: Conies to: October 28, 2009 I. Call to Order 1611 A 3 Chairman Arceri called the meeting to order at 1:01 PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll Call was taken and a quorum was established. Susan O' Brien was welcomed as a new member of the Committee. David Tamasko, Jeff Tabar and Todd Demundo of PBS &J were present IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Standridge moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following changes: Item VI.1 and 2. Be continued. Item IXA. Be continued. Second by Ms. Worley. Carried unanimously 8 - 0. V. Public Comment None VI. Approval of Minutes 1. September 24, 2009 Continued. 2. October 8, 2009 Continued. VII. Chairman's Comments Chairman Arceri thanked everyone who attended the Special Meeting on October 8, 2009. VIII. Staff Reports Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management provided the following updates: 1. Status of Navigational Markers — Update and Discussion He submitted a copy of the document "State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, OGC Case No. 09 -3403, Order Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend" in reference to the Administrative Hearing requested by the Pelican Bay Foundation and noted the following: • The permit applications for the "Aids to Navigation/Informational Markers" have been separated into two requests: one for installation of the "Coast Guard Approved Navigational Markers" and the other for the installation of "Informational Signs /Markers." • Permission to install the "Aids to Navigation" has been granted by the US Coast Guard and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. • Permission to place the "Informational Markers" has not been approved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2 A3 O16121,219 • Petitioners (Mangrove Action Group, Pelican Bay Foundation) requested an Administrative Hearing regarding the "Navigation Markers." The requests have been denied to this point, with "Leave to Amend" for the Pelican Bay Foundation, one of the Petitioners. • The central issue for decision to grant the request for an Administrative Hearing is whether Pelican Bay Foundation has standing for the Request. The State of Florida and Collier County contends the waters are "Waters of the State." • Even though the controlling Agencies have granted permission to install the "Aids to Navigation," they will not be installed until all legal issues have been resolved. Mr. Rogers arrived at 1:14pm 2. Status of 10 -Year Permit — Update and Discussion Jeff Tabar, PBS &J provided the update noting the Application was submitted for the 10 -year permit and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has issued a "Request for Additional Information" (RAI). The RAI includes core sampling in the area of any proposed dredging, updated maps and other related information. The core borings have been completed and are under analysis by PBS &J and they expect to reply to the RAI within 30 days. The FDEP has 90 days to respond to the additional information once it is submitted. It is anticipated FDEP will issue a second RAI (a common practice by FDEP with applications of this nature.) Speakers Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident addressed the Council on the Aids to Navigation item noted there are different types of US Coast Guard markers approved for navigation and the Management Plan and they don't have to be the type of markers proposed. She recommends signage type markers. Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident noted the County has the right to place navigation markers but the informational signs and navigation markers do not guarantee safe passage, as at times it is difficult to navigate the Pass. Current navigation charts declare the area "un- navigable." He requested clarifications on the parameters for the dredging, for a navigable channel or protection of the Estuary. Chairman Arceri noted it has been stated on the record numerous times the parameters for the dredging will be for "flushing," not "navigation." 3. CAC Approval of Status — Update and Discussion Gary McAlpin noted the budget and Clam Bay Advisory Group Status Report was approved by the Coastal Advisory Committee and will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on November 10, 2009. 3 0468fi4 'p 3 1, Speakers Henry Price, Pelican Bay Resident noted the permit for the "Aids to Navigation" are under appeal and have not been issued (or "in hand ") as indicated by Staff. Chairman Arceri noted in discussion under "Staff Reports," Item VII. 1, Staff acknowledged the Petitioners have the right to re -file for an Administrative Hearing under a "leave to amend" order issued by the FDEP. IX. New Business 1. Ordinance Change/Membership Revision Discussion Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Discuss and if appropriate, make recommendations to the CAC and BCC on potential clam Bay Advisory Committee Ordinance changes" dated October 28, 2009. Chairman Arceri noted he has been informed members Mr. Glah, Mr. Standridge and Mr. Rogers do not wish to serve on the Committee beyond the original sunset date of December 31, 2009. Discussion occurred if the Committee should revise the composition of its membership. It was noted this would require a change in the Resolution. Chairman Arceri noted the City of Naples is participating in funding some of the activities undertaken by the CBAC (Water Quality Study, etc.) He recommended a Staff member or Governmental Official from the City of Naples be appointed to the Committee. In addition, some issues affecting the City of Naples (storm water runoff into Moorings Bay, etc.) may need to be addressed by the Committee. Mr. Roellig moved for the Committee to amend the Committees composition to include a citizen from the "City of Naples," (not just Seagate and Naples Cay). Without a second, the motion was not considered. Discussion occurred on whether it is proper for an "elected official" to serve on the Committee or if a Staff member may serve on an Advisory Board? Chairman Arceri clarified his recommendation is for Seagate and/or Naples Cay be represented, in addition, an official (Staff member) from the City of Naples be incorporated in the Committee. Mr. Glah moved for the Committee's composition to remain as provided in the existing Resolution. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carried 7 "yes" — 2 "no." Mr. Roellig and Chairman Arceri voted "no." 2. PBS &J Data Analysis and Findings Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Review and Approve the PBS &J Data and Analysis Report and Findings for the Clam Bay Estuarial System" dated October 28, 2009 and attached Report "Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis, Prepared for: Collier County Coastal Zone Management rd 01621,219 A3 Department by PBS &J, dated "Final October 2009." Included within the Report was an "Executive Summary" which provided an overview of the findings contained in the Report. Committee members noted reviewing the Report may be premature as they just recently received the Report. Chairman Arceri noted the Committee should hear a synopsis of the Report by Staff and PBS &J with public input. Committee member may provide detailed written comments or questions to be addressed by Staff. At the next meeting, the Committee may officially review the Report for approval. Gary McAlpin and PBS &J Staff provided an overview of the Executive Summary (contained within the Report), which was separated in 4 Sections. Review of the existing Water Quality Data within the Clam Bay System: • The data from the numerous water quality programs throughout the Clam Bay and Mooring Bay systems have not been placed in the STORET (State of Florida Storage and Retrieval) database, which is inconsistent with the Florida Administrative Code. • The lack of placing the data in STORET could trigger FDEP to perform its own data collection program possibly resulting in a classification of the System as an "impaired water body." • If this determination was to be made by FDEP, the County could be required to mitigate the situation. • Previous sampling by Pelican Bay Services Division indicates Clam Bay would be classified by FDEP as "Verified Impaired." • Based on the data, a draft water quality program has been included in the Report. • PBS &J strongly recommends Collier County work with FDEP to develop "Site Specific Alternative Criteria" (SPA C) for the System, which would allow the County to respond to actual water quality problems without attempting to mitigate naturally occurring impairments. David Tamasko, PBS &J noted the County should develop "SPAC" because it has been determined a set of universal State standards for water quality may not apply to all environments (i.e. standards for canals vs. mangrove habitats, streams vs. lake, etc.) A General Biological survey of Clam Bay and Moorings Bay found: • The Redox layer, an indicator of how deep Oxygen can penetrate into sediment was much deeper in average, in Moorings Bay than the Clam Bay System. • The shallower Redox layer found in the Clam Bay system is due to the existence of a fine grain sediment layer, which limits Oxygen penetration. �� A3 Octo er 8 2b� • It is unknown if the fine grain sediment layer found in the Clam Bay System is naturally occurring, or the result of man made changes. • A concern is the fine grain sands found in the Clam Bay System typically attract contaminants. • PBS &J strongly recommends the contaminant levels and the age of the sediment layer is determined for indications if the levels are increasing, and if the sediment layer is naturally occurring or a result of reduced circulation. • Historic data indicates the net water exchange between Moorings Bay and Clam Bay is uniform in both directions • Recent data collected by PBS &J in August 2009 has been analyzed and the net water exchange between Moorings Bay and Clam Bay is southerly, from Clam Bay into Moorings Bay. • The Redox layer in Moorings Bay leads to a greater composition of biological diversity than that of the Clam Bay System. Detailed discussion occurred on the findings noting a fine grain sediment layer may typically characterize a Mangrove System. Comparisons of the water quality, biological diversity, etc. of Moorings Bay and Clam Bay may be inappropriate, as the environmental characteristics of the systems are different. Concern the Report may mischaracterize Moorings Bay as "better" than Clam Bay. David Tamasko noted you would expect to find fine grain sediments in a Mangrove Community. The question is, is it more than should be expected and what are the possible sources and history of the sediment? Gary McAlpin noted the intent of the Report is to outline the findings of the data collected and make recommendations, not to determine if Moorings Bay is better than Clam Bay. Review of Previous Circulation Models Todd Demundo provided an overview of the previous circulation model for Clam Bay prepared by Humiston & Moore in 2003 and historic flow calculations by Tackney & Associate highlighting: • The work in the previous models and studies were completed in accordance with the funding and met the defined objectives at the time. • Given the assigned parameters at the time, there were several critical issues that limit the models ability to function as a new comprehensive model. • The critical issues included the boundaries of the model, only one storm water input was included in the model, the limit of the offshore tidal boundary and its calibration for tidal range only, not velocities, etc. • To prepare a new, comprehensive model, a model will need to be developed starting from scratch. Water Circulation and Flushing in the system: 0 014, 10a ' A 3 Jeff Tabar provided an overview of the specific details of the data collection phase including but not limited to location of instruments, dates of collections, circulation and flushing of the system, highlighting: • The original construction of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Seagate Drive impacted the System (closed the tidal connections to South to the Gulf of Mexico leaving Clam Pass as the only connection to the Gulf of Mexico, etc). • In response to water quality concerns, culverts were placed under Seagate Drive in 1976 to allow for tidal exchange between Moorings Bay and Clam Bay. • The shoreline of Moorings Bay has been significantly altered, while Clam Bay's watershed has been extensively developed with its shoreline remaining primarily intact. • In the late 1990's, as result of mangrove die off, a permit was obtained to conduct dredging activities in Clam Pass and Clam Bay. • The current hydrographic data utilized in developing the Report was collected over an 8 -day period in August 2009. • With respect to overall flow, in the System, the net flow is from Clam Bay, southerly into Moorings Bay. • Due to the net flow, the water ecology in Clam Bay is not strongly affected by Moorings Bay. • It is recommended to analyze potential changes and improve circulation and dissolved oxygen (DO), within the Clam Bay System, a hydrodynamic model be developed to assist in understanding the interactions between Clam Bay (Upper, Inner and Outer) Clam Pass, Moorings Bay and Doctors Pass. Mr. Farmer left at 3: OSpm Speakers Jerry Moffatt, expressed concern the Executive Summary may mislead the public that Clam Bay is in "terrible shape" and requests the environmental condition of Clam Bay and Moorings Bay be clarified in the Final Report. In addition, he suggested the culverts be removed at Seagate Drive to improve the flow southerly to the Gulf of Mexico. Mary Johnson, Pelican Bay Resident, urged the Committee to delay action on the Report, as it was recently circulated. There has not been ample time for pubic review and input. 7 161 ` Q3 ctober 28, 009 Dr. Michael Bauer, Natural Resources Director, City of Naples noted Moorings Bay has been substantially altered from its original environmental state; however the purpose of the Water Quality Study was to analyze the impacts on the System. He re- iterated the Report indicates the water quality is better in Moorings Bay than Clam Bay, and the finding of the net flow from Clam Bay southerly into Moorings Bay indicates Moorings Bay is not negatively impacting Clam Bay. Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group expressed concern the focus of the Report and related studies are Water Quality issues as opposed to a Biological and environmental habitat assessment. The designated use of the Clam Bay System is Conservation Area, habitats for wildlife, etc. She noted Clam Bay has been extensively studied and not enough attention has been given to previous studies and Reports. Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident requested the Committee not take action on the Report until the Pelican Bay Services Division has a chance to review it and comment. If there are problems with Clam Bay, the Division wants to know so appropriate action may be taken. Visual observation indicates there is an abundance of wildlife in the area with no problems in Clam Bay. Henry Price noted the study is a water quality, water - flushing study and observations indicate there is no problem in this area that needs addressing. The Report does not address the mangrove community and their state of health. Linda Roth noted the 8 days of data collection is insufficient and expressed concern the Executive Summary/Report omits valuable information. Jeanne Findlater noted the Clam Bay system is inundated with a diversity of wildlife, which continues to increase on an annual basis. Doug Finlay requested clarification on any Reports written by Ms. Worley on the water quality of Moorings Bay over the last 10 years. Ms. Worley provided an overview of the Reports written. Committee members will review the Report and submit any questions or comments in writing to Staff so they may be addressed. The Committee could not reach a consensus on a recommendation if it would be appropriate to inform the BCC that the CBAC continues to recommend funding of the Circulation Modeling for the System as Gary McAlpin noted the Committee has already requested funding for the item, and the Report does confirm the need for the Modeling Study. Gary McAlpin noted the Report is a "Draft Report" and will be forwarded to the BCC in its current form. 8 October l,609, I A 3 Some members felt forwarding the Report prior to CBAC action is inappropriate. Others felt it should be forwarded as a Draft Report to inform the BCC of the status of ongoing activities. The BCC is entitled to the information, given they funded the Study. Questions were raised if the Executive Summary should be included in the Report to the BCC with concerns raised on the comparisons between Clam Bay and Moorings Bay. Gary McAlpin re- iterated the Report provides an analysis of the data and recommendations. He suggested, if it is of concern to the Committee, the Executive Summary be omitted from the submittal to the BCC. He will note the Report has not been approved by the CBAC. Mr. Standridge moved to forward the Report in its entirety, including the Executive Summary to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Mr. Arceri. Motion carried 6 "yes" — 2 "no." Mr. Glah and Mr. Roellig voted ► ►no. ►► 3. Budget Review Based on Data Analysis and Findings Gary McAlpin submitted the Executive Summary "Recommend that the Clam Bay Advisory Committee review and adjust if necessary the budget funding request based on results of the Clam Bay Data Analysis Report and Findings" dated October 28, 2009 and "Clam Bay Advisory Committee Operational Budget and Capital Requirements — August 2009 through July 2010" dated October 28, 2009. Based on the Report, Staff recommends increasing the Sediment Toxicology item from $15,000 to $30,000 for analysis of the sediment borings as recommended in item IX.2 ( "A General Biological survey of Clam Bay and Moorings Bay') Committee discussion occurred on which items of the budget could be revised to increase the funding for the Sediment Toxicology item. Mr. Standridge moved to revise the "Clam Bay Advisory Committee Operational Budget and Capital Requirements — August 2009 through July 2010, " dated October 28, 2009 to the following: "Peer Review "from $15, 000 to $5,000, "Public Outreach "from $6,000 to $1,000; "Sediment Toxicology" from $15,000 to $30,000. (All other budget items to remain as shown). Second by Mr. Arceri. Speakers Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group expressed concern the aging test for the sediment is unnecessary, as no problem with the sediment has been identified. The focus of the Group should be protection of wildlife habitat and the funding should be prioritized accordingly. 9 1611 A3 October 28, 2009 Jerry Moffatt expressed concern in decreasing the Peer Review item as the Executive Summaries presented at the October 8, 2009 CBAC meeting contained a statement "Peer Review will be critical to the quality and success of this Management Plan." Henry Price requested the Committee consider how to address the Final Report should the results of the sediment testing be unavailable at that time. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 4. Mangrove Maintenance Sub - Committee Recommendations and Findings Continued 5. November/December Meeting Requirements — Update and Discussion The decision to hold a December Meeting will made at the next meeting. X. Old Business None XI. Announcements None XII. Committee Member Discussion None XIII. Next Meeting Date November 19, 2009 — North Collier Regional Park, 15000 Livingston Road, Administration Building, Room A, Naples There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:04 PM. COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE J01 Arceri, Chairman These Minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended_. 10 RECEIVED APR 15 2010 Board of County Comrrilssionars Hziias Her�oing 1' Coyle Coletta s� 161 January 22, 201 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNT COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - WIGGINS PASS SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 22, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Coastal Advisory Comm' tee — Wiggins Pass Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 10:30 A.M. at the Risk Management Training Room, located at 3301 Tamiami Trail E., Building D, Naples with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Robert Raymond ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Gail Hambright, Accountant A4 Misc. Corres: Dabs: O l l A C) item * 4- Copies to: 16 1 f as January 22, 2010 I. Call to Order Chairman Moreland called the meeting to order at 10:30 AM. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Also were in attendance were: Doug Fee, Naples Resident; Robert Steiger, Park Manager, Delnor- Wiggins State Park; Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida; Sally Braem, Florida Parks and Recreation; Dick Lydon, Estuary Conservation Association; Jim Fox Island Marina; Kate Crosley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Raymond moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Public Comments Speakers Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, expressed concern on the composition of the Subcommittee as it does not include the Stakeholders. The free flow of information may be compromised by the 3 minute time limit for public comment on an item. If the intention is to complete a major update of the Inlet Management Plan, (as opposed to an update to satisfy the Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) application submittal), the Subcommittee needs to be expanded to include the Stakeholders. VI. Approval of Minutes None VII. Staff Reports None VIII. New Business 1. How this Subcommittee will operate Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management provided an overview on the formation and operation of the Subcommittee noting: • The Subcommittee was formed at the direction of the County Attorney's Office to ensure it complies with County Policy. • The Committee is a Subcommittee of the Coastal Advisory Committee. • County policy does not allow Subcommittees of main Committees to be comprised of Stakeholders or citizens. • There will be public comments on individual Agenda items, limited by the time deemed necessary by the Chairman. lra r �`A4 I 611 January 22, 2010 • Individuals will be required to sign up to speak on Agenda items before the item is heard by the Subcommittee. • Any individuals not satisfied with the format should address the Coastal Advisory Committee and /or the Board of County Commissioners. • The meetings are intended to be an "information exchange" on the Wiggins Pass Improvements. • The Stakeholders notified were the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Estuary Conservation Association, Friends of Barefoot Beach, Delnor- Wiggins State Park, Vanderbilt Beach Homeowners Association, and the Boating Community. • Any interested parties may request to be placed on the "meeting email list" and receive the information relative to the Subcommittee • At the discretion of the Chairman, the Subcommittee may allow questioning by the interested parties. Chairman Moreland noted the meeting would provide some flexibility in the area of questioning by the public /Stakeholders. He formally requested all involved in the process work together to make it as successful as possible. Speakers Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, noted the Subcommittee, if it sees fit, could recommend to the Coastal Advisory Committee the inclusion of Stakeholders on the Subcommittee. Doug Fee, Naples Resident noted there have been other similar County processes which have included the public and Stakeholders providing input in a roundtable format, as opposed to a time limit to make comments on a particular agenda item required herein. He expressed concern the format of the meetings may limit public input. Robert Steiger, Park Manager Delnor- Wiggins State Park read a copy of an email from Jeff Raley, PE, Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources, Florida Park Service to Gary McAlpin —Subject RE: "Wiggins Pass CAC Sub - Committee meeting dated January 22, 2010." The email requested a copy of any "Draft Inlet Management Plan" and "1990 Inlet Management Study. " He outlined 3 key elements of protection requested for the Wiggins Pass Project: • The project's environmental and physical monitoring plans will be geared to very timely surveys and documentation of adverse erosion or habitat loss trends. Increased frequency of surveys is not as important as surveys or studies that can be ordered quickly if species data or visual inspection indicate an adverse trend. • Permit conditions will clearly spell out timely and specific response if erosion or habitat loss cross threshold levels. 3 f6ry,22JO 10a 4 Commitment will be in place to circumvent adverse trends and /or to mitigate for losses as may occur — in a reasonable time frame such as: • Channel meandering toward park lands, threatening loss of land and mangroves • Exacerbated erosion of park beaches resulting from the pass dredging, or • Other unforeseen project impacts to protected wildlife vegetation 2. Review by Steve Keehn the information package to be submitted for Permit Steve Keehn, Coastal Planning and Engineering provided a Slideshow "Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging and Navigation Improvement Project, Prepared for Collier County Coastal Zone Management and CAC Coastal - Planning & Engineering - Steve Keehn, P.E. January 22, 2010." The presentation outlined the work completed to date by the Consultants and former "Wiggins Pass Modeling Evaluation Work Group." A hard copy of the Slideshow was provided as part of the meeting record. The following was highlighted: • The County is requesting the Florida Department of Environmental Protection designate Barefoot Beach as a "Critically Eroded Beach." • If the designation is awarded, it allows for the FDEP to share in costs of maintenance dredging. • The new Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) application for dredging is designed to provide for a "dynamic dredging channel" and "periodic minor dredging maintenance." • The minor maintenance will be more cost effective than a major dredging operation, assist in lengthening the major dredging cycle and be environmentally friendly. • The new JCP application is consistent with the existing Inlet Management Plan providing navigation for a 3 -foot draft vessel. Speakers Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida — the following issues were noted by Mr. McAlpin and Mr. Keehn in answer to several of Ms. Ryan's questions: • Mr. McAlpin stated the designation of a "Critically Eroded Beach" does not require a specific Beach re- nourishment schedule or a prescribed dredging cycle. The dredging will be the subject to the conditions of the JCP. • The meeting packets will be available on the County website. • He also noted the minor dredging events may occur on the ebb shoal and the flood shoal as necessary. • Mr. Keehn mentioned the "sand dykes" constructed to assist in re- aligning the channel will be "temporary" and consist of "piles of sand." Doug Fee, Naples Resident — the following issues were noted by Mr. McAlpin and Mr. Keehn in answer to Mr. Fee's questions: 4 1611 A 4 7 January 22, 2010 • Mr. McAlpin stated the JCP application is available on line, as a CD, (or by hard copy for a fee.) • The designation of a "Critically Eroded Beach" and "JCP" are separate processes, but both requests will be included in the submittal to FDEP according to Mr. Keehn. • Mr. McAlpin & Mr. Keehn both noted the construction process for construction of the "dykes" is described in Section 5 of the JCP and the project will require equipment on the beach. • They both mentioned the proposed dredging channels are similar to the existing permit, with some minor modifications as proposed in the new JCP. • The costs of the project have not yet been determined, however it will be funded by the Tourist Development Council and funds are available. Gary McAlpin stated the next meeting will focus on Agenda items 3, 4, 5 6 listed below. Chairman Moreland requested, if possible, any questions on the items be directed to Staff in advance, so Staff can address them at the meeting. 3. Review and discuss issues relative to FDEP's requirement that Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan be updated with this permit application. Continued 4. Discuss erosion on Barefoot Beach and rebuild and repair plan and preserve designation. Continued 5. Concerns over Letter of consistency for this work and resolution process. Continued 6. Concerns about land lease requirements from the state system to do this work. Continued 7. Key Stakeholder Groups a. Friends of Barefoot b. Boating Community c. Delnor Wiggins State Park (DWSP) d. Conservancy of South West Florida e. Vanderbilt Beach Home Owners Association (VB HOA) f. Estuary Conservation Association (ECA) Continued IX. Old Business None 1611�""A� January 22, 2010 X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date/Location February 8, 2010, 9AMRisk Management Training Room, located at 3301 Tamiami Trail E., Building D, Naples There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11:59 A.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee — Wiggins Pass Subcommittee ospph . oreland, C frma'n i These minutes approved b the Board /Committee on — C' 1 C as presented 17 or as amended on RECEIVED Fiala ..._ 1611 A 4 APR 15 2010 Halas February 1, 2010 Henning �soard of Co�kndy Commissionars Coyle � Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE — CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, February 1, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Coastal Advisory Committee — Clam Bay Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. at the North Collier Regional Park in the Exhibit Hall, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Jim Burke (Vacancy) ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Gail Hambright, Tourist Tax Collector Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: Copies to: 16 1 ,• A4 February 1, 201 I. Call to Order Chairman Pires called the meeting to order at 9:07 am. 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 The Agenda was approved subject to the following changes: • Addition of item VIII.A — How the Subcommittee will Operate • Deletion of item VIII.3 — Scope of Peer Review — Discussion • Scope of Work for Biological Assessment to become item VIII.3 • Deletion of Item VIII.5 — Scope of Work — Circulation Modeling • Addition of Item VIIIA — Wanless Report — Discussion. V. Public Comments David Roellig, member of the previous Clam Bay Subcommittee noted this was the third Group assembled to address the issues associated with the Management of the Clam Bay System and expressed concern the Report prepared by PBS &J for the County is unsatisfactory and should not be used as a foundation for the Subcommittee to move forward in completing its tasks. Chairman Pires noted there is a 3- minute time limit for public speaker comments, however he will provide flexibility in the rule to ensure as much information as possible is gathered by the Subcommittee. Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, agreed with Mr. Roellig and expressed concern on the concept of speakers registering to speak on an item with a 3 limit time constraint. She recommended technical persons be allowed to sit at the "round table" and be allowed to ask questions of the consultants, etc. during their presentations. John Domenie requested the Subcommittee clarify the areas of their responsibilities including the parameters of the Studies. He outlined the differences between Moorings Bay and Clam Bay. Moorings Bay is man made, dredged for navigation, has artificial concrete walls and an artificial inlet (Doctors Pass). Clam Bay incorporates a NRPA (Natural Resource Protection Area) designated for environmental purposes, has a natural shoreline and shallow mangrove system. He requested the County leave the management of the Clam Bay System with the Pelican Bay Services Division who has maintained it for the past 10 years. Chairman Pires requested persons with comments or questions on written reports distributed for the meeting, provide them, in writing, to Staff for distribution 2 days in 2 161 1 as February 1, 2010 advance of the meeting. This will assist Staff, Subcommittee members and Consultants in providing comments or answers at Subcommittee meetings. VI. Approval of Minutes None VII. Staff Reports None VIII. New Business A. How the Subcommittee will Operate Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management noted: • The Subcommittee will operate under the rules of the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC). • There will be a 3 minute time limit for public speakers with additional time granted at the discretion of the Chairman. • Staff intends to schedule the meetings on a regular basis for the 3rd Thursday of each month and be held at the CDES (Community Development and Environmental Services) building (if possible). • The Subcommittee is comprised of 3 members with a current vacancy. 1. Boundary of Clam Bay — Discussion Gary McAlpin provided the following documents for the record: • "Publication Series NR- SP- 94 -01, Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA), August 1994" prepared for Collier County Environmental Services Division. He reviewed (page iv) of the document which describes the boundaries of the NRPA as "located next to the Gulf of Mexico, north by Vanderbilt Beach Road, east to the remaining natural areas next to the berm and Pelican Bay Development and South to Seagate Drive. • "Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area Annual Report October 1997. " The document describes the NRPA area as the area from Vanderbilt Beach Road, south to Seagate Drive, on the west by the Gulf of Mexico and on the east by the berm of the Pelican Bay Development. • "Collier County Ordinance 2008 -48" which created the previous Clam Bay Advisory Group. The Ordinance states "the Clam Bay Estuary System is a designated Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA). " 3 lb 1`­^ 4 11, February 1, 2 0 Speakers Bob Naegele, Pelican Bay noted the original Tomasko Report defined the Estuary from Wiggins Pass to 5th Avenue, which identified the watershed as opposed to the Estuary. This definition is too broad to define the "Clam Bay Estuary System (CBES)." He recommended defining the CBES as the "NRPA." He expressed concern Pelican Bay is not represented on the Coastal Advisory Committee or this Subcommittee. Mr. Burke noted the compilation of the CAC is prescribed in the Ordinance governing the CAC. Mary Johnson, Pelican Bay Resident supports the definition provided in the record documents (the NRPA) for the CBES. Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident recognized Pelican Bay's concern for protecting the boundaries of the CBES as the NRPA. She expressed concern areas outside of the NRPA affect the activities within the system and requested the Subcommittee continue to study these areas outside the NRPA and how they affect the overall quality of the CBES. Gary McAlpin provided page 1 of the "Collier County Clam Bay Advisory Committee" Mission, Functions, Powers, Duties & Work Plan ", (Coastal Advisory Committee meeting document, March 12, 2009, Item VII -8 New Business 7 of 10). Under Recommended Boundaries, it states "The Clam Bay Advisory Committee (hereafter the Committee') has defined the boundaries of the Clam Bay Estuary (hereafter the "Estuary') as generally, that wetland area south of Vanderbilt Beach Road and north of the Seagate Community. The Subcommittee recommended the following changes to the above wording: • Deletion of the word "generally" • Revise the term Seagate Community to "Seagate Drive." Mr. Burke moved to define limits of the Clam Bay Estuary System from Vanderbilt Beach Drive south to Seagate Drive, the Gulf of Mexico on the West, on the East by the berm adjacent to the west side of Pelican Bay Development. Second by Chairman Pires. Carried unanimously 2 -0. Chairman Pires noted the Subcommittee should consider defining the limits of the Clam Bay Estuary's Systems watershed at a future meeting. 2. Mission of the Clam Bay Subcommittee — Discussion Gary McAlpin provided page 1 of the document. "Collier County "Clam Bay Advisory Committee" Mission, Functions, Powers, Duties & Work Plan'; (Coastal Advisory Committee meeting document, March 12, 2009, Item VII -8 New Business 7 of 10). F. 1611� A4. 0 February 1, 2010 Under Committee Mission it states "The Committees mission is to advise, assist and make joint recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners ( "BCC') and the Coastal Advisory Committee ( "CAC') with all major issues affecting the management, use, direction, health and long term viability of the Clam Bay Estuary in accordance with the protection afforded Clam Pass and Clam Bay's NRPA and conservation designations as delineated in the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Plan and Coastal Zone Management Plan. In doing so, the Committee will formulate recommendations for review and recommend possible funding sources that may be required by such recommendations. " Speakers Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group noted the original approval of the NRPA by the BCC was defined as the Pelican Bay Conservation Area. She expressed concern a legal order issued in 1999 which required "meaningful protection" of wildlife in the NRPA is being violated given the activities proposed in the CBES by the County. She submitted meeting minutes and related backup information for the February 28, 1995 and May 18, 1999 BCC meetings for consideration by the Subcommittee Gary McAlpin stated any concerns identified in the Court Order referenced in Ms. Cravens's statement may be included in the biological assessment of the CBES. Mary Johnson, Pelican Bay Resident expressed concern the focus of the item has shifted from development of a long -term Management Plan for the CBES to the issues associated with Outer Clam Bay. She would like a better understanding on the sources of pollution from the Seagate Community, how it can be better controlled, and why is only "flushing" considered as a solution, etc. Chairman Pires noted the Mission Statement outlined above is consistent with the issues Ms. Johnson raised as it incorporates "all major issues affecting the management use, direction, health and long term viability of the Clam Bay Estuary." Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident expressed the BCC directive references the term the "entire Clam Bay Estuary System," and requested clarification if the CBES boundary incorporates the NRPA or goes all the way to Doctors Pass. Chairman Pires noted the boundaries were defined under item VIII.1 Rick Dykman, Seagate Resident clarified the CBES being described as "a natural system" as inaccurate. The area of the Ritz Carlton and Bay Colony was altered during periods of construction. He expressed concern the public's perception on the issues is the Seagate Community vs. the Pelican Bay Community. Seagate is concerned with the water quality and if there any issues 161+1 A4 February 1, 2010 within the Seagate development negatively affecting the CBES, the community would like to know and address it. His understanding regarding jurisdictions is the area is owned by the State of Florida and managed by Collier County. Mr. Burke moved to approve the Subcommittee Mission Statement as provided in the Coastal Advisory Committee meeting document, March 12, 2009, Item VII -8 New Business 7 of 10 (referenced above). Second by Chairman Pires. Carried unanimously 2 -0. 3. Scope of Work for Biological Assessment — Discussion Gary McAlpin provided the document "Additional Work Request WO# Contract 407 -4153 Upper, Inner and Lower Clam Bay Biological Study" prepared by Jeff Tabar of PBS &J dated January 22, 2010. He provided an overview of the proposal noting some data collection may be completed by other organizations or firms, but analyzed by PBS &J. Speakers Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group noted there are numerous studies and surveys that have already been completed which indicate there are significant wildlife species in the area. She submitted a document "Clam Bay /Clam Pass Estuary Preserve: A Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA) for Wildlife" which outlined a list of species identified in the NRPA. She stated the scope of work should follow the model consistent with the Everglade Restoration Plans and the South West Florida Feasibility studies. Also, be subject to a competitive bidding process. Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida recommended a decision on the item be postponed for a vote, as many individuals just received the document. The Conservancy will complete an 11 year Report on the System in late summer which includes significant data throughout the entire system. She can provide the Subcommittee a summary of the procedures and methods utilized in the Report. Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident agrees with Ms. Worley on postponing any decision on the item. She noted there are recommendations in previous Studies which should be analyzed before proceeding. Mary Johnson, Pelican Bay Resident agreed with postponing the item, so all involved have a chance to review the documents. Gary McAlpin noted the item was placed on the Agenda for informational purposes only. A cost estimate for the work has not been developed. Chairman Pires recommended the item be placed on the next Agenda and include a discussion on whether or not the Subcommittee will recommend utilizing the CCNA (Competitive Consultants Negotiations Act) process for awarding the scope of work. 4. Wanless Report Continued CI .,. 1611 February 1, 2010 Chairman Pires re- iterated his request any persons submitting documents relating to Subcommittee meetings provide them to Staff at least 2 days in advance of the meeting. Speaker Mary Johnson provided a document "Comments to the Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting of February 1, 2010" for consideration by the Subcommittee. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date/Location The next meeting will be held on March 18, 2010 at 1: 00 PM. Location to be announced.. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 10:34 A.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee — These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented V or as amended 7 A 4 "1 RECEIVED APR 15 2010 Board of Coun ?y Commissio nar Fiala Coyle Coletta 16 February 8, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WIGGINS PASS SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, February 8, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Coastal Advisory Committee — Wiggins Pass Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. at the Risk Management Training Room located at 3301 Tamiami Trail E, Building D, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Joseph A. Moreland Robert Raymond Victor Rios ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Gail Hambright, Accountant Misc. Comes: Date: Item #: Conies to: 16 111' A February 8, 2010 I. Call to Order Chairman Moreland called the meeting to order at 9:05 AM. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call A quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Add: VIII -IA. Questions Relative to VIII -1, Items 1 -4. Victor Rios moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Robert Raymond. Motion carried unanimously, 3 -0. V. Public Comments Doug Fee, Wiggins Pass Resident asked the cost of the Project. Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management responded that the cost will depend upon the Final Scope. The cost for the development of the Model and Development of the Engineering associated with procuring a permit is $132,000. The overall 10 -year plan through construction costs have been estimated at 4.5 million. Robert Stieger, Park Manager — Delnor/Wiggins Pass State Park reiterated that Jeff Riley was unable to attend the meeting due to travel restrictions. He emailed Gary McAlpin a request to be "conferenced" in for today's meeting. He stated Jeff Riley will meet with his staff to formulate a list of questions directed at Gary McAlpin. Chairman Moreland requested Robert Stieger find out what time line Jeff Riley would meet with his staff and report to the Committee and Gary McAlpin. VI. Approval of Minutes — January 22, 2010 Victor Rios moved to approve the January 22, 2010 Minutes as submitted. Second by Robert Raymond. Motion carried unanimously, 3 -0. VII. Staff Reports Gary McAlpin reported meeting with Mr. Robert Brantley and his concerns based on conversation he had with intentions to move forward on the Project. Mr. Brantley stated Florida State Park and the Department of Parks and Recreation are not on board with the Scope of the Project. Gary McAlpin responded if the Florida State Park Services did not support the Project it could slow the permit process down. Mr. Brantley expressed the possibility of going along with modifications to the Inlet Management Plan. Since that conversation, DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) has not decided their stance on the Inlet Management Plan. 1611` A4 February 8, 2010 Gary McAlpin stated the County may need to modify the technique of the permit application during the process. He expressed concern over a wholesale re -write of the application. Mr. Brantley stated DEP was looking at a 2 -year process. Gary McAlpin recommended moving forward on the permitting this year. Steve Keehn, Engineer - Coastal Planning and Engineering stated Mr. Brantley was unaware of the progress already made on the Project. The Project description was provided to DEP and they have not reviewed it. He recommended submitting the permit application to get the process started. He also stated according to the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation, if sand was not put on the beach and included in the permit, it would eliminate the need to consider turtles and would shorten the permit process. All elements required have been covered in the Inlet Management Plan. Gary McAlpin stated submitting the application would be a good vehicle to find out what DEP's comments and oppositions are. He proposed not waiting and to submit the permit application "as is" now. The permit application can be modified in the process. VIII. New Business 1. Review and discuss issues relative to FDEP's requirement that Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan be updated with this permit application. Speakers Doug Fee, Wiggins Pass Resident stated based on comments made by Gary McAlpin regarding his conversation with Mr. Brantley, he would want the Florida State Parks involved in the process, find out what DEP's issues are and what Jeff Riley's questions are prior to submitting the permit application. He noted Wiggins Pass is leased and alterations to the land are part of the Project. He suggested the Subcommittee receive guidance from Coastal Advisory Committee and DEP and voiced concern over the costs of a potential rewrite of the Inlet Management Plan. He alluded the Subcommittee was putting the "cart before the horse." Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed concern on non- structural solutions and encouraged the County to work with the State Park Services, DEP and Parks and Recreation to educate, answer questions and work on issues related to the Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan. She stated the Conservancy would like to see an open broad base of Stakeholders Group involved to include scientists and environmental specialists. She stated it would be important to get all the issues in writing. It would be hard to make decisions and not know all the facts. She recommended requesting CAC to petition the BCC to move forward rapidly to get the Inlet Management Plan updated. Chairman Moreland summarized Nicole Ryan's concerns as is it appropriate for the Subcommittee to recommend forwarding the request for a permit knowing it may or may not require a full review before any action is taken. The elements of the supporting data to address that portion of the management plan pertaining to a 16 I'll"' A 4 February 8, 2010 particular area are not all there and continue with a heavy totality. Chairman Moreland requested the minutes reflect Nicole Ryan nodded her head. Gary McAlpin stated he would not want the process to take 2 years. He currently has the authority to submit the application. Speakers Dick Lydon, Estuary Conservation Association stated he has experience with Mr. Brantley. He further stated Gary McAlpin's recommendation to submit as soon as possible makes sense. When the State receives the permit application they will be forced to address their concerns and issues. Doug Fee noted Collier County has a Land Development Code and cautioned the Subcommittee it was inappropriate to take a vote for recommendation prior to addressing the other items on the Agenda. Victor Rios moved (the Subcommittee) recommend Gary McAlpin exercise his current authority to go forward and submit the permit application. Second by Robert Raymond. Motion carried unanimously, 3 -0. Steve Keehn, Engineer summarized he would submit an engineering report with the permit application and a cover letter stating an Inlet Management Plan is being developed. It was noted the Inlet Management Plan and References would not be included. DEP will note the deficiency. A permit would not be granted until documentation is received. He will submit the Critical Eroded Area as a stand -alone document. Gary McAlpin recommended forming a separate Work Group Committee to deal with issues. hctor Rios moved Mr. McAlpin petition the CAC petition the BCC to approve a Work Group Committee to satisfy the needs of the Community and the needs of the permit application. Second by Robert Raymond. Motion carried unanimously, 3 -0. Gary McAlpin recommended the Committee move forward to petition DEP for funding of a development contract for the engineering of the Inlet Management Plan. Victor Rios moved to have Mr. McAlpin petition the BCC to fund the development contract for engineering associated with the Inlet Management Plan. Second by Robert Raymond. Motion carried unanimously, 3 -0. 2. Discuss erosion on Barefoot Beach and rebuild and repair plan and preserve designation. 16 11 '* A 4 February 8, 2010 Steve Keehn presented a slide presentation with some of the following — ➢ Flood Channel migration eroding Barefoot Beach. ➢ Sand bypassing to the north was insufficient. ➢ A long shore transport is northward. ➢ Inlet filling in significantly from the south ➢ Since 1984, too much sand was placed to the south, then to the north. ➢ Need more definitive structures to fill in sand. ➢ Future position sand ratio should be 2.6 more sand to the north then south based on historic documentation. It was noted the US Corp of Army Engineers will also review application before a permit will be granted. The shoreline has changed over the last 30 -40 years and the County loss ➢ 10 Acres of Sandy Beach ➢ 3 Acres of Shoreline Vegetation ➢ 50' of Mangroves ➢ Some Shoreline. Steve Keehn made the following recommendations. ➢ Placement of a near -shore disposal near shore ➢ Placement of a near -shore and on -shore disposal a Barefoot Beach ➢ Straighten up Inlet and create a new flood shoal on the other side of the inlet. Speaker Doug Fee commented the County has a 50 -year lease on land north and south. The lease states no alterations are allowed. He questioned if an Inlet Management Plan had ever been approved and if not why would there be a need for a re- write. Recessed at 10:35 am Reconvened at 10:40 am 3. Concerns over Letter of consistency for this work and resolution process. Gary McAlpin distributed and reviewed a summary of the Wiggins Pass Permitting Meeting held on January 22. (See attached) Approvals required by the Land Development Code for the proposed dredging project are - • Special Treatment Permit • Coastal Construction Setback Permit • Vehicle on the Beach Permit • Plus 2 other Permits that may be required — Vegetation Removal and /or Temporary Use Permit from Zoning Speaker Doug Fee commented he was happy that public meetings were going to be held and noted Land Development Code has a rigorous review. 16I�1` -A4 February 8, 2010 Staff responded they will meet all State requirements. 4. Concerns about land lease requirements from the state system to do this work. Steve Keehn, Engineer stated the DEP Permit Process in Tallahassee will review and identify if there are any issues. He will provide survey drawings and anticipates changes will be required by the State. A Wiggins Pass survey will be completed after permitting because changes may be made in the process. Speaker Doug Fee read a paragraph from the Land Lease on Deed Restrictions and asked if the County would request an Upland Lease on the south side. Gary McAlpin responded State Lands will tell the County what has to happen before, and the County will meet State Requirements. IX. Old Business — None. X. Announcements Gary McAlpin suggested the Staff work with the Stakeholders and report to the Committee with questions. He suggested the Work Group Committee be made up of the 3- Members of the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee and Representatives from the following groups to be approved by the BCC. ➢ Friends of Barefoot Beach ➢ Boating Community ➢ Delnor /Wiggins State Park (DWSP) ➢ Conservancy of Southwest Florida ➢ Vanderbilt Beach Home Owners Association (VB HOA) ➢ Estuary Conservation Association (ECA) Other suggestions made were — ➢ Environmental Engineering Staff - Expertise y Friends of Wiggins Pass ➢ FWC and FWS DEP from Fort Myers Victor Rios expressed concern over having people from a regulatory agency as that person may be bias. Nicole Ryan, Conservancy responded regulatory people (an Ecologist) would bring expertise and perspective to the table. Gary McAlpin stated the Work Group Committee purpose would be to develop an update or a new Inlet Management Plan to submit to the Subcommittee, DEP and the BCC. He recommended the Stakeholder be independent and in support of the project. Speaker Jack Kindsvater, resident and boater stated there are Stakeholders in the boating community and verbally listed; safety aspects - Fire and Police Departments, Sea Tours, . A 4 1611 February 8, 2010 Commercial Fisherman, Fishing Guides and individual boaters may be worth considering. It was decided Nicole Ryan and Gary McAlpin would work together as advisors and make recommendations for legitimate Stakeholders. A list of individual representative names will be submitted to the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee for approval prior to submitting recommendations to the BCC. The work group will tentatively hold their first meeting in May. XI. Committee Member Discussion — None. XIL Next Meeting Date - Location to be determined The next meeting of the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee will be March 8th at 9:00 AM. The only item on the agenda will be to address the membership on the Wiggins Pass Work Group Committee. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:35 am. Collier County Costal Advisory Committee — Wiggins Pass Subcommittee (Joseph Moreland, Ch rman These Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on _ V as presented 7 , or as amended 7 RECEIVED 16 111 A 5 March 18, 2010 APR 2 3 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Board of Counb Canniaflo�ers Naples, Florida March 18, 2010 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle . Coletta LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley Nick Casalanguida, Interim Administrator, CDES Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Page 1 NI'sc - eni: pair i em '_ _ 61 1 A5 1 March 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the March 18th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary will do the roll call, please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have three items on the agenda. Is there any changes anybody knows of to the agenda? (No response.) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the Planning Commission absences. We have a continuation of our March 20 -- yeah, we have a continuation of our LDC amendment meeting on March 24th. It's in the afternoon from 1:00 to 5:00 in this room. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it for that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll assume a quorum. I have a question of staff. The packages for that meeting, I hope you got them for today to give to us? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Page 2 1611,2115 We'll have them delivered tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as we get them before the weekend, if you could, that would be great. Thank you. The other meeting, I'm not kidding you guys about this next meeting, it's April I st. So everybody comes before us that day, it's April Fools Day. They won't know what we're going to do. Do we have any issues coming up on that day, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: We have a rezone and a variance, part of Port of the Islands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Depending on how we do on the 24th, we might look at that then as another continuance, if that works for timing of things. So just to kind of keep that in the back of your head. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 16, 2010 (LAMP) & FEBRUARY 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes that were electronically provided, and we need a motion to approve or deny -- or correct, I should say, for the February 16th, 2010 Immokalee Area Master Plan minutes. Is there such a motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Motion made by Ms. Caron. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Similar motion for February 18th, 2010. COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Commissioner Caron, seconded by Commissioner Homiak. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 3 16- 81q 1. 1 A 5 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries again, 9 -0. BCC recaps. Ray? Item #6 BCC REPORT — RECAPS — MARCH 9, 2010 MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on March 9th the Board of County Commissioners heard the rezone for RZ -PL -09 -469. That was the East Naples Fire Control District rezone. That was approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. Well, we're all here, that's a good thing, so I don't have anything -- that's just the good news, so we're not going to get any bad today. Consent agenda items, we don't have any. Item #9A PETITION: BD- PL2009 -918, HICKORY HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move right into the advertised public hearings. The first petition is Petition BD -PL- 2009 -918. It's the Hickory Harbor Condominium Association, Inc. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, the applicant's presentation, please. MR. TURLEY: Good morning. My name is David Turley and I'm representing the Hickory Harbor Condominium Association. I'm here before you to present a petition for an extension of 147 feet and 131 feet to the existing structures at the condominium itself. Those protrusions are beyond the 20 -foot permitted protrusion. The waterway is approximately 1,110 feet wide and this is well under the 25 percent limitation. The condominium has 51 residents, and I'm requesting the petition for 40 slips. The location of the job -- of the project is in the northwest corner of Collier County and the Hickory Shores subdevelopment. If you all have any questions, I'm here to answer them, I hope. Positively. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll give it a shot. MR. TURLEY: This is my first time, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's no problem. We're a very easy board to get along with. I shouldn't say that. Page 4 3b11:10 A5 MR. TURLEY: He smiles and I hear laughing, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions of the applicant at this time, anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few, sir -- oh, go ahead, Ms. Caron, why don't you start off. COMMISSIONER CARON: If you're in the water and you're looking back at the condominium to the right, there's an empty lot. That does not belong to the condominium; is that correct? MR. TURLEY: No, it does not. COMMISSIONER CARON: It looks like if a boat were to be placed at that location ould come out on the canal side? There seems to be a break already in the seawall there. Would that be your understanding? MR. TURLEY: It would have to come out on the canal side, yes. But the setbacks on that piece are actually 55 -- no, 35 feet actual setback. And that is more than ample for a 20, 24 -foot boat to exit. And it wouldn't interfere with that property whatsoever. The other -- if there was a dock on that other property, it would have to be situated in an area that would allow a 15 -foot setback for them as well. So we're looking at 50 feet clearance for boats entering or exiting either the -- a new dock on that vacant dock -- or the existing docking facility. COMMISSIONER CARON: So if they put a boat dock out on the wide part of this area, essentially on -- along the same shoreline as you were using, is that a possibility, or would the setbacks not -- MR. TURLEY: The setbacks probably wouldn't accommodate it, only because there is a radius there. That dock would have to be configured at such an angle to where the slip itself would be angled and wouldn't really come into play. COMMISSIONER CARON: So your new dock that you're proposing in no way is limiting what can or cannot happen -- MR. TURLEY: Absolutely not. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- on that piece of property. MR. TURLEY: Absolutely not. COMMISSIONER CARON: And if you look to the left of the property, all of the property along that northern part of the shoreline, those are all the boat dock lots, right? MR. TURLEY: Well, actually, the boat dock lots start on the other side of the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand. But they're also on this side, too. MR. TURLEY: Yes, they could be, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it where it looks like a total mangrove area, green area, are there boat dock lots in there? MR. TURLEY: Not that I could determine from the property appraiser's site. I think the only one is that is shown up there, there's one -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Is the one that you measured to, the 274 feet? MR. TURLEY: 275 feet. Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: So there are no -- to the best of your knowledge there are no -- there's no opportunity for anybody to put boat docks out on that side -- MR. TURLEY: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- where that green area is. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it shows that there's a -- let me find the drawing. In the past it looks like these docks honored a line called like a bulkhead or something line. Let me -- I can't find the drawing. MR. TURLEY: That bulkhead line was deeded by, oh, James Lorenz back in 1967, I believe. That is -- actually, once upon a time uplands, and that was dredged to build -- this water body is pretty much manmade. And that was the primary bulkhead for the development when it was created. And I couldn't exactly figure out when it was created, but it was back in the probably late Fifties, early Sixties. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it looks in the past that these docks were carefully put to not Page 5 41611.5 March 18, 2010 go over that line. But is that a line that we now ignore or what is -- MR. TURLEY: No, no, that's what -- that line was designated pretty much as a -- oh, it would -- I would consider it the 25 percent rule type situation, which I don't -- I'm not really sure exactly what the intentions were way back when that was designated, unless they intended to fill all that area, which they didn't. They managed to conserve that for -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because here, if -- I did find the drawing and it is a survey, a signed survey, actually. And it states -- it's called the bulkhead line. The marking's state -owned submerged bottomland and private submerged bottom. And it refers to a plat book description of it. So in other words this new thing is now going over that line where all the existing docks carefully -- and carefully, I mean they went right up to it, stopped at that line. So is that something we should ignore? I was going to ask staff that, but -- MR. TURLEY: Yeah, that's somewhat irrelevant as far as the development is concerned itself. Like I say, this was deeded, that bulkhead line, all that property was deeded to the state, and outside that bulkhead line is sovereign submerged lands. And that's where they ended up having to get a submerged land lease for that property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's why we're over it, is that you're now leasing it and -- MR. TURLEY: It will be leased. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you. One other thing you might know, and this is really not important, but on the surveys that this Hans Wilson has done, there's little blue arrows show and what looks like topos. Is that current? Or what is that? I mean, this is really not -- MR. TURLEY: Yes, those are water depths. Those are actual water depths. They're in one -foot increments. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I see. They're just -- it's so small that -- MR. TURLEY: I'm sorry that wasn't blown up. I had a hard time trying to read it myself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got it, never mind. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sir, one of the criteria that you have to review is consistency with the Manatee Protection Plan. In fact, it goes further than review. It says whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of 5.03.06.E.11 of this code must be demonstrated. If applicable, compliance with section must be demonstrated. Have you determined if you're applicable to that code, if you need to be consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan? MR. TURLEY: Yes, I do. The impact, the native marine habitat says five percent. The shoreline has approximately 15,000 square feet of mangroves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may be asking questions I'm not going to ask -- you may be answering questions I'm not -- why don't you just -- all I needed to know is do you believe you need to be consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan? MR. TURLEY: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Then it becomes a matter of demonstration. And if you go into that plan, there are some things that need to be demonstrated. There are three criteria that you should be aware of. One is the water depth, native marine habitat and manatee abundance. Can you show me where the water depth -- I understand the water depth in the area of your facility, but your facility is putting boats that are going to go somewhere. And I believe the nearest inlet is where they're going to go to. So I was wondering, do you have any evidence that the criteria leading to that inlet has adequate water depth? Because I haven't seen it in the packet. MR. TURLEY: No, there isn't adequate water depth at certain tides. It's a situation where that area has changed. I've been up in that area, so to speak, for the last 38 years. I live there. And I've noticed over the years fishing and working up there that -- why it changes so much, it could be from further development, Page 6 1611 A5 March 18, 2010 it could have been the Lely Barefoot project. But anyway, there are areas that are very shallow. I would say within two feet, one and a half At o feet. And that's south towards what they call -- oh, they call it Hell's Gate. But it's just adjacent to the Barefoot Beach project where they have their docks. And that's a no wake zone and it's well marked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are maps in the Manatee Protection Plan showing the water depths in the area. They're not readable at the scale that's provided in the plan, but it clearly says in the plan, if you're planning to use them staff has them on file and you can review them. So first of all, as part of the demonstration that you meet these certain level of Manatee P tion Plan acknowledgment, whether that's preferred, moderate or prohibited, I would have expected y address these three issues in some orderly manner so we could have seen, number one, the calculation for your vegetation, which I know you're trying to explain to me, but I'll get into that in a minute. Number two, you would have shown the water depths and how they apply. And number three, you would have shown the manatee carcass tally for within a five -mile radius as required by the Manatee Protection Plan. I've not seen any of those. Now, I'm not saying you didn't do them, I'm not saying that staff may not have understood them. The problem is it's not staffs decision, it's ours. And that is the kind of data that this board should be getting, and I've not seen that data. Let me explain the manatee carcass recovery data. In evaluating a parcel for a potential boat facility, a minimum sphere of influence for the boat traffic must be designated. For this plan an on -water travel distance of five miles is considered the sphere of influence. Now, I've not seen a five -mile sphere showing manatee carcass findings in that spear, nor have I seen the water depths shown in a five -mile sphere, which would probably take you out to the inlet at Wiggins Pass. I think those are critical and for you to determine what your status is going to be for your marina siting criteria, because that's a big impact. If you're preferred or moderate, your calculation is 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline. If you're protected, which I don't know if you're in that or not, your calculations could be one slip per 100 feet of shoreline. And I've seen no evidence demonstrated here today if you're not in a protected or if you are in a moderate. I know your assumption is a moderate. I certainly question staffs, and I question the -- and I will be questioning the Comprehensive Planning staffs acknowledgment that you're in moderate, because they acknowledged that without having sufficient information that they even acknowledged in their acknowledgment they didn't have. So I don't know how we got here today without all this being documented properly. Again, I'm not saying you could be wrong, I just want to see the documentation. Go ahead, you obviously have something to say. MR. TURLEY: I do have documentation past five years for Collier County manatees. And there has only been one documented in that five years of a manatee -- or carcass recovery in Little Hickory Bay. Other than that, everything else has been pretty much down towards the southern end of Collier County, Caxambas, Addison Bay, Roberts Bay, Little Marco. I have -- can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, let me -- you can bring it, you can show -- we need nine -- MR. TURLEY: I just found this late yesterday afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TURLEY: I mean, I've been searching high and low. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, I know -- I've gone to the sites that provide that information. I've had to provide that information myself, I had to assemble it myself, I've had to hire people to do it, so I know what it takes to get it done. I know how it's done. I know the radius from the point -- you draw basically a circle in that five -mile radius and you pull out all the carcass data from all the agencies you can and then put it in a tabular form and say, okay, here's why I don't qualify for that, here's why I'm not in -- and that's the kind of data I haven't seen here today. Again, I'm not saying it's going to limit you or hurt you, but I believe this board deserves a right to Page 7 ��,la.b� A 5 review that data equally as much as staff should have asked you for it if they hadn't already -- or if they've already got it, that's fine. But we needed to see it one way or the other. Well, that takes cares of the first issue that I have. The second one is water depth. You've acknowledged water depth's a problem, but I think you need to show us what that -- to the extent of what that problem is, because if affects your rating, you may not get the rating you want. But that isn't the only criteria there is in the rating, so you could come back with a mitigation to the rating which could show that there's idle speed zones and things like that that help you. I've seen none of those arguments. And I guess the reason I'm so aware of this is because I was put through this eye of the needle myself. And I didn't -- I don't see you providing it. And I know what it takes to put that together. And it certainly wasn't the staff in place today that asked that question, this was many years ago. But we're still operating under the same Manatee Protection Plan. So I'm just wondering how the different levels of request happened. Let me ask all -- oh, and the manatee sighting criteria has a paragraph in it that says for shoreline vegetation such as mangroves, no impact is defined as no greater than five percent of the native marine habitat is disturbed. For sea grass, this is no more than 100 feet of sea grasses. Now, the report that you provided -- and it's on Page 2. Actually, it's -- well, that's the staff one. Let me find -- it's on the second page of the form you filled out for the county, number six, whether or not the proposed docks facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements. Now, there you tried to -- apparently that was the one where you provided the answer. And in that answer you said you're not impacting more than 10 percent of the native marine habitat. That's number six. Staff wrote it differently in their staff report. But in your response to the questions, which I believe were submitted, I imagine, by you in your application, you identified it was less than 10 percent. Well, the Manatee Protection Plan requires less than five percent. You may be there, but I've not seen how you've done that. You started to explain it earlier, but I think we need to see the calculation. You need to show us that the shoreline is "X ". You've not impacted more than that amount of greater than five percent. There is a discrepancy between what you provided -- I mean, I'm snaking the assumption it was you, because it's in the applicant information. It's in the document that I thought staff got from the applicant. The answer there though is quite different than the answer provided by staff in the staff report. So I can only assume yours was done by you, or the application was done by you and staff did their own. That's why I need to -- I think we need for the record something to show us that you're not at 10 percent, you're at less than five, if that's what you are. MR. TURLEY: When I submitted this application, I didn't have the application for the consistency, comprehensive consistency. And when I just reviewed that, I noted that's how they gained a good portion of the information that was submitted to staff. And it is my fault for not submitting it, overlooking it. But that can be included in a separate package with more detailed information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I understand this is your first time going through the process. I certainly, though, think that if you were to bring this information in to us, it would be much more helpful to understand what you're asking for and how it fits in with everything. MR. TURLEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if you aren't consistent and if you don't show consistency with that plan to get you a moderate or preferred rating, your whole calculation goes -- is shot. MR. TURLEY: Right, right. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's where I'm concerned about. And I think that's the last comment I have to make for your behalf. We can have the staff report now, unless you have something else you want to add to it at this point. MR. TURLEY: You covered it. You hit the nail on the head. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Ashley, I guess this is yours? Page 8 16 1 1 A5 March 18, 2010 MS. CASERTA: Good morning. Ashley Caserta with the zoning section at CD This is a request for two docks, an extension, a three -slip extension to an existing ck which is the northernmost dock, and a 13 -foot facility to the south of the existing docks, as outlined in the application. The total request is for 40 slips. And staff has reviewed the request against the criteria laid out in Section 5.03.06.H of the LDC and recommends approval based on those criteria. Aside from the manatee protection issue, obviously we recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ashley, in the comprehensive planning response, I'll read it to you. It says: The application identifies less than five percent impact to native marine habitat. I'm not sure where they got that from, because the application says 10 percent. So I certainly think we need to have an answer to that. Do you know why comprehensive planning responded with a five percent number when the applicant had 10 percent in his application? MS. CASERTA: Susan Mason is here and prepared to answer that question in more detail than I am able to, so I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read the rest of it, then we can get it all at once. The calculation for a manatee use rating is not high. I don't know how they got there, because I have not seen the same -- probably the information staff has. And if staff has the information and can produce it today, it would be very helpful. No confirmation was provided for adequate water depths for a five -mile radius out to the Gulf of Mexico. Then it says: Assuming inadequate water depth, the project qualifies for a moderate rating. This rating allows for up to 10 slips for every 100 feet of shoreline. Why are we making assumptions? Why don't we just have the information. So I think it's -- you may not have gotten the information as well, so I'll let Susan proceed now at this point. Go ahead, Susan. MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason with the Environmental Services Section. I'm not sure if it was this particular applicant but the Hickory Harbor Homeowners Association did submit for a consistency determination to the comp. planning department back in 2008. As part of that packet, they did provide the information, and staff also uses information that they have on record. Regarding a couple things, I want to try to make this clear with how staff applies the Manatee Protection Plan. There are the three criteria and that would get you the three ranking. If you pass all three criteria, which is: Adequate water depth, the impacts to native vegetation and manatee use, which is actually calculated by number of manatee deaths in an area, then you get a preferred ranking. If you miss one, you're down to moderate. If you miss two or more, you're down to protected and you're very limited on what you can do with your shoreline. For the case for these residents here, they really don't need to score better than a moderate, because the Land Development Code limits them on one slip per unit. So the most they could ever get on this site by the Land Development Code is 51 units. The moderate ranking with the Manatee Protection Plan gives them up to 56 units. So they already exceed the maximum number of slips that they could have by the Manatee Protection Plan, but the limiting factor in this case is the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to slow down a little bit, Susan, because I imagine Cherie' is having a real bad morning so far between you and me. And I just realized that. So let's just slow it all down. I will too. MS. MASON: Okay, thanks. And when the applicant came in back in September of 2008 they -- staff did confirm the manatee Page 9 M��to I A 5 deaths. And the way it's calculated is all known boat - related manatee deaths for the county and all the manatee deaths within five -mile radius of the person seeking the determination. So for this case,,tbere was 149 total manatee deaths in Collier County, and this area within five miles there were six deaths. That works out to be four percent of the manatees. And what's the percentage that is the kick -in for what's considered high risk is 20 percent. So they're well below that. So they pass the manatee use portion of the Manatee Protection Plan. They did not provide the adequate depth. One of the things I did want to clarify, there are maps but they're old and they're not very legible. When it's required or requested that they demonstrate the depth, they actually have to do soundings themselves. We don't rely on historical data unless it's really something new that was -- they provide to us, then we know it to be true. Because everything around here is so much local knowledge. And apparently according to the applicant's testimony, today they wouldn't have passed that anyway. The last remaining criteria was five percent, and it's of the native habitat, which includes mangroves and also sea grasses. And as part of their application for the consistency determination, but not for this packet, they did provide information, they did the snorkeling to look for sea grasses and surveyed. They only have a -- I don't know if there's any -- I just kind of skimmed this this morning. Whatever impacts they were showing was less than the five percent. And one of the things on a -- you can see on the determination, we always put that on there on standard language, and it does give staff wiggle room, because -- and it's intended to. It says, during final construction plans, site development plan, site improvement plan review, these findings may change based on the information submitted at that time. What they gave us in 2008 passed them as a moderate. If they come in for their SDP and they show whatever mangroves they have they obliterate them, well, that would knock them down to a protected and they would no longer be able to get these additional slips. So they would either have to eliminate the impacts to low enough or provide evidence that they had adequate water depths to maintain a moderate at that point. But staff does do the determination based on the information that was submitted, and we confirm based on all the other government data that's out there on manatee deaths and anything else that's relevant. And then all we required as part of this review -- they gave us a letter. And I didn't do the review personally, but the staff people who do the letters -- and our staff people communicate if needed if we had any questions on it. The reviewer did get the entire packet of support information for the boat dock -- or excuse me, the consistency determination, and it was considered adequate. If you want that information to be provided to you for future multi -slip or commercial marinas, we can certainly do that. We haven't made that a practice in the past, but we certainly could whenever -- and for all or whenever you request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Susan, we don't get that many multi -slip facilities. The commercial process doesn't come through us normally, so we very rarely see these. But the secondary criteria number six requires demonstration. It doesn't require it to staff, it requires it to us. Now, staff needs it to evaluate what you're going to say to us. So without you getting it, they have a big problem. But I'm going to tell you right now, we deserve it and we need to get it. That's part of our decision - making process. And from now on, if it hasn't been your policy to provide it, I would expect that you would from now on. MS. MASON: Okay. And earlier we were talking to the attorney that reviews these packets and we're going to work to make sure it's part of your future packets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question. Based on what's been submitted, you could figure out whether they meet that five percent. MS. MASON: What was submitted during the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right now. MS. MASON: Oh, well, I believe in this case it would be hard for them to impact theirs, because Page 10 1611, t' March 2010 they have no sea grass beds or anything like that. There's really -- COMMISSIONER CARON: They have mangroves. MS. MASON: They do. And at this point they're not -- they're proposing less than five percent. And I don't know the detail. The thing is too, this site plan that we see for the boat dock extension or that we see for the . t r one, it may change a little bit based on permitting. They're probably seeking DEP permits, and the DEP might have them move over a little bit. And it can change slightly. And as long as it doesn't result in more impacts to mangroves than the five percent, they're still going to be okay. It may not be exactly what you see today. It normally doesn't have that level of detail. But there could be some slight tweaking based on permitting, and as long as they don't -- and it will be reconfirmed at their next submittal. When they come in for an SDP amendment or whatever process, we'll make sure they don't go up above five percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that would have taken a simple one -line calculation on the response. So the shoreline is "X ", number of mangroves lineal footage is "X ", by the protrusion of three dock walkways they're only going to be taking this much, that's less than five percent. Boom, everybody is happy, it's done, it shows that it was carried out. That's all I'm asking for. That's the kind of stuff we should be seeing. MS. MASON: That's fine. The five percent, the way staff had applied that is if 100 feet of mangroves existed and they impacted less than five feet, that would be considered less than five feet. But not necessarily the whole shoreline length. Like in this case, most of the shoreline is vacant, so we would only base on what exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you -- MS. MASON: Okay. I just want to make sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'm not saying anything different. I'm just saying we should have seen the calculations is all. MS. MASON: Okay. That's fine. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of Susan while she's up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if not, Ashley -- does anybody have any of Ashley at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ashley, I do. Primary number one talks about the docks, 40 slips. Are they limited to only use by the condo dwellers or are they allowed to lease these out? MS. CASERTA: No, these would be used by the people who live, either rent or own, a condominium unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Primary four talks about the -- whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability, but 25 percent of the width of the waterway. Can you show me on the -- I guess the overall site plan which shows the water depths where you believe the waterway is? We have in the past saw -- I guess they call it the thread, the channel submitted to us to show us how the channel lines up with the proposed dock slips to show there's no navigational issues. I didn't see that here, so I'm not sure who's considering the waterway what. MS. CASERTA: Would you mind repeating? I just want to make sure I understand what you're asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You've got to show that you've not used more than 25 percent of the waterway. MS. CASERTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's the waterway? Show me what you believe the waterway is, is what I'm asking. MS. CASERTA: It appears that this portion -- I'm not sure what the water depth is here. But in my Page 11 6448"10 20 A5 opinion, I'm not a boater, but I would think that the navigable waterway would probably be these portions here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. CASERTA: But the waterway width, as shown on the aerial submitted by the applicant, is detailed at 959 and 883 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the purpose of the primary criteria question is navigability. You can take a waterway with an island in the middle of it all over the State of Florida and say from one end of the shoreline to a shoreline past some distant island or past some distant reef or shallow shoal is the width of the waterway, but I'm not sure that's the way it's generally used. What we're used to seeing is channels, and we're looking at the width of the channel at the waterway. Because the whole purpose I believe of this criteria is to maintain navigability. And if you're not doing that because you have docks all the way out to the -- with the theory you're putting in front of us basically, you could run that dock then all the way out to that shallow island and it doesn't matter because the waterway goes all the way to the other side of the shallow island far to the west. And I'm not sure that was the intent of the question, the primary question. MS. CASERTA: I'm not sure what the water depth at either mean low tide or high is. But on -- I think it's the next page, proposed site plan sheet three of nine shows a water depth of six feet. So certainly that would still be okay for navigation. I'm not sure if the applicant could attest to water depths when it's much shallow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me go back to my original question. Is it your understanding that a waterway in this case runs from the shoreline of the docks that are being questioned all the way past the shallow area to the shoreline of the other side, to the houses in the first aerial that you showed? I mean, that gives you a thousand -foot wide waterway that's blocked by potentially any number of things in the middle. So is that really a waterway? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nick Casalanguida for the record. Are we asking what the navigable depth is to define the waterway? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm asking you what you're considering a waterway so we know if we're penetrating over 25 percent of the waterway. If you consider islands not part of a waterway and you can go to the other side, then we've got a problem in calculations all over the county. And I'm just thinking we should be looking at 25 percent of the area between the shoreline and the nearest area that isn't navigable, which would be that island. And if that's the case, the whole criteria for this dock has to be looked at differently than had been approached to us today. I mean, if you want to push the boats out into that sandbar, or whatever you want to call it, and say that's acceptable because the other side of the sandbar gives you a waterway that goes way over to those houses, I really don't think that's the right way to approach that question. MS. CASERTA: When I did the review, I honestly looked at it as an open area of water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be helpful if you would look at it again and try to determine what the waterway really needs to be for the calculation of that 25 percent, Ashley. And if you guys feel that there's enough depth there after you've seen where that depth is that it's navigable, then you need to come back and tell us that. Because right now I'm concerned about a dock going -- and it looks like it's almost 60 percent into the area that would be considered navigable. MS. CASERTA: Forgive me for asking, I would like to understand what you think the waterway width should be so that I can understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My understanding would be where a boat could travel. And you can travel in certain depths. You don't have the depths of that, whether it's an island or a sandbar in the middle. But if a boat can't travel across that sandbar, it then is limited to its travel point between the edges of the sandbar and the shoreline where the docks are. And if that's the waterway in which they are allowed to travel, it would seem to me we wouldn't want to block that. Under the criteria shown to us today, this dock could theoretically go all the way out to the sandbar and no one can cross it. So I don't think we mean that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, I understand your question, because I'm a boater as well. Page 12 'A` � L i li 18 2 10 1 That's why I asked are we talking to define that a navigable depth. Six feet of depth from my boaWan cross that entire shoreline, that entire area. It would not run aground, so it would be navigable for me. at's why I'm asking how you define depth from navigable water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know -- I don't see markers across that shoal, do you? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm looking at a second exhibit that shows the lowest contour to be approximately six feet or four feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or is that where the measurements stop? Because I don't see any points going across that shallow area. If you're telling me that entire shallow area is six feet below surface of the water, number one, I'm surprised it's showing up on an aerial in a backwater that's full of black water. And number two, I don't know what evidence you have that that carries through that way. It looks like to me they just pulled it up to that point and stopped there because maybe they didn't feel they needed to go any further. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or couldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, or couldn't -- yeah, or couldn't boat across it. I know you may not -- yes, sir, did -- MR. TURLEY: On the SLER 945, it was stated in several places. One was five foot to 12 foot average depth. And this last sheet that was signed by the professional wetland specialist, their staff biologist, it says six to 12 feet. That is a pretty flat, shallow -- five feet, let's see. I want to call it a sea depth reading, 24 to 36 inches at the time of the site visit. That is the amount of light that's able to penetrate the water, 30 inches, okay? Something in four or six feet of water, even with light shining in 24 to 30 inches, will illuminate the bottom, no matter what. I mean, it won't -- you won't exactly see the contents of the bottom, but it will illuminate the shallow area. Because all that was dredged originally around the outside. And it is deep, 10 to 12 feet deep. And that gives you the contrast from really dark water, deep water with tannin, with shallower water with tannin. I mean, it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We just don't know though. MR. TURLEY: Well, we can run back and forth and take depth soundings and present it to you. But I can assure you, they did that as well. Hans Wilson staff did that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then if they've done it and you can -- see, this is the kind of information that would be helpful for us to have. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, go ahead. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That exhibit you're seeing in front if you, if it's what it's telling me, is his boat dock proposed -- Ray, you want to zoom out a little bit, if you could. It's showing that the contour is six or five feet across that body of water, if that's the water depth. All depths reference mean low water. Bottom left -hand corner of that document, per DER Do you see that in the bottom left -hand corner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I see that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. He's showing six feet across and then it goes to five. Five is navigable for my boat. I don't know what the requirement is for all boats. But usually two to three feet of draft is typically what boats, even heavier boats draft, sometimes four. But I draft at 18 inches, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you believe that that shallow area is five feet or more below the surface of the water at mean low water? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's what that document states at the bottom left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't see any points across it. I saw the perimeter. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I didn't see any points across it, and that's what concerns me. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I can understand with the way you're interpreting that question, I would interpret it the same, is the boat dock extending into an area that I would consider navigable to reduce that? Page 13 1611 -115 March 18, 2010 And again, I don't know what that depth is. But if it's five feet, that's enough for typical boats to cross. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have had other dock proposals come before us, not for multi -slips but for singles, where there've protruded into a channel and they've ended up having to show the thread of channel so we can figure out how the relationship to where the channel is and the boat traffic is and where the dock then would protrude. That's the concern I have. Because none of that's seen here. I don't know where the thread of channel is considered. If everybody is acknowledging or saying that that island isn't an island, it's six feet, five feet below the surface and it's fully navigable, a few points from that island's center area would certainly be helpful to confirm that that five -foot contour is flat across there. And that's not what I see here to give that confirmation. In fact, by the aerials it looks more closer to the surface than what you may think, based on the backwater being as black and as dark as you normally expect them to be. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. From this exhibit you can see the eight -foot, six -foot contour lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's -- you know, if the dimensions relative to these boat docks are 151 feet, 119 feet, 167 feet respectively, I don't have a scale, but I would tell you that you've got at least 50 feet of width between the edge of the boat dock and the 10 -foot contour line. That's quite a bit of room to navigate a boat through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not the criteria I'm concerned about. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could be a thousand feet, doesn't matter. It's 25 percent of the water body. I was trying to understand from staff what the definition of water body is for their purposes in regards to this one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't been able to really get really focused on that yet. And I think that's a question that needs to be answered at some point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe it should be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe it should be water body unencumbered, because that's what we're really talking about, there's an encumbrance here, there's a -- you run aground, if you're on -- you know, that's the thesis. But I think the question is now clear, I hope for everybody. But to my mind, that is the water body, even though there's an encumbrance. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The question is clear and the intent is clear. It's the definition of that water body that I think we're trying to come up with right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's why I used the word unencumbered. That may not be the best word for it but it conveys my thought; that is, that there's a something that prohibits you from free movement. And that's your limiting factor. And so maybe that's what we need to say and qualify. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, the surveyor did an excellent job of laying this whole thing out. The fact that he didn't add any more topos there to me probably means that it's five feet all the way across the top of that. If you look, he goes up into other areas where he gets down to four feet and everything. So we're assuming that he didn't give us the data when in fact he may have given us exactly what it is, which is five feet. I'm not an expert on boat drafts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Brad, my question was the water body. And I don't know how we're defining what the water -- waterway, what the waterway width is. If you have a waterway with a -- and again, I refer to this other issue that we have with a thread of channel and you have a depth in an area that's associated with boating, where do you locate the waterway? Page 14 1611 March 18, 2010 Do you locate the waterway across one of the shallowest parts that maybe if boaters see because it appears shallow they don't cross it, is that part of the waterway? And that's what boaters are then led to believe they should be utilizing. Or is there a thread of channel which helps dictate the waterway? That's what I'm trying to find out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or is it an open body, the lowest point in the center is five feett mean water, which to me is deep water, deeper than we're used to on these boat dock extensions. So I think this is just an open body. There is no channel, there is no thread. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it has to do with what you're in. If you're in a kayak, it's an open waterway, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It may be an open waterway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you're in a 55 -foot troller, you may be dragging bottom. So you need to qualify a little bit better on that question -- not the question, the question's valid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we're assuming there's a problem that may not be. This surveyor did an excellent job of getting any nook and cranny, it goes up into smaller dimensions. I think he's telling us that look, this is five feet at mean low water. That's a good draft depth. I'm not an expert on draft depth, my draft depth is a pint. But the point is, I think this is an open body of water. I think it's measured properly. And if the guy ran out and ran it, he's going to find five feet across the top of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just think we don't know at this point and that it needs to be stated. Because if those docks get extended out further and everybody actually has to use as their channel the perimeter, then you need to have -- you need to protect that channel in front of the condo. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that's all. If everybody has to use the perimeter in order to get around in that area, then we have to protect a certain amount of area in front of the Hickory Harbor Condo. Those docks can't extend out forever just because you can measure from one shoreline to the opposite shoreline where there are houses and you can come up with a thousand feet. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, from my experience, I've been boating for five years in Collier County, a depth of five feet is navigable by most boats in that area that would use that boat. And I understand the question, I understand the comments, I understand the concern, because as a boater, I wouldn't want a channel restricted by boat docks. It makes it highly unnavigable as you're trying to enjoy boating. Fifty feet, I will tell you, is more than adequate. Bridge crossings that we have typically at 41 are 20 feet wide and two boats cross at the same time. So I don't think this boat dock extension impairs the waterway for other boaters. The criteria, I need to define that with staff, but I will tell you five feet is pretty deep. So I don't think that it would impair the waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question for the petitioner. I don't know if we're going to get to consensus of agreement here. We have a lot of questions as to lack of information. Would you suggest -- would you think of getting the information for us and coming back with this? MR. TURLEY: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think that's the way we should proceed then, because we're getting nowhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not -- it's not we're getting nowhere. I mean, I think we need to -- everybody has got to get to a level of comfort. I would certainly like to understand the definition of the waterway. Did you find a definition in the code, Ashley? MS. CASERTA: I wasn't able to find one in the definitions section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There may be one in the MPP. There may be one in a few other documents at the county. I probably have all those, so I'll look that up as well when I get time. Page 15 I 164alchl, 2010 5 a But I think that would be helpful to know what the waterway definitively is. If the waterway can be considered the entire body without that shoal, that's great. Then I don't -- but I'd also like to understand based on prior discussion this board has had concerning the thread of a channel. And we made a pretty big issue about a thread of a channel on a boat dock approaching the thread of a channel. In that particular example, the 25 percent wasn't the issue, it was the thread of the channel fell in relationship to the extension of the boat docks, regardless of the 25 percent rule, because then it became a navigability issue. So I think out of fairness to all the other people that we've had to deal with that this same issue is looked at equally on this one. So the thread of channel becomes an issue. We made it one a long time ago as a precedent. And the waterway definition I think is definitely something that needs to be concerned with. I think we need a mortality rate for manatees in writing shown to us, one, that we can verify ourselves if need be. There are sources to do that. We need to have an acknowledgment of the water depths within the radius required. Then I think the simple calculation for the impact to the mangroves included in the statement to us would be helpful to know. With that in place, if it all matches up, then we can feel more -- at least personally I would, I would feel better whatever motion is made then to either support it or not support it. I feel very uncomfortable not having this information now. I think it's to the applicant's benefit to provide the best information possible. And if you can come back and have a clean, full information making everybody comfortable, I think that's going to work for you a lot better than having some questions now, maybe not getting the vote in you need, at least with -- maybe you'll get majority, I don't know. But it's your call. You can ask to be continued until you come back to us again with more information, or you can ask for a vote today, that's up to you. Is there anything else from staff that you wanted to offer? MS. CASERTA: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TURLEY: I would believe that it would be in our best interest to go ahead and continue and get the proper documentation for a more positive vote on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would appreciate you doing that. I think that would be helpful. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In this, watching this, the testimony of providing the manatee data, it seemed like it was very difficult to get. If staff has that and staff is the one keeping log of that, wouldn't that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on record. No, you can go to the -- I think it's the Fish and Game website. I've pulled it up before, it's all there. MR. TURLEY: Yes, it's My FWC. And to the left they have categories for species. There's manatee, click on that. It's -- once I found it, it was easy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it is. You've got to interpolate it out to show the five -mile radius from wherever area you're working on, but it's all there. Okay, is there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then is there a motion to accept the request for a continuance? And I guess it would be indefinite at this point until everything gets done. Is there -- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 16 today. 16-1 "0'A 5 Marc 18, 2010 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Thank you. And sorry you've got to come back, but I think it's actually the best thing you could do MR. TURLEY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #9B PETITION: VA- PL2009 -1220, LEO F. LASHER CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our next case is Petition VA -PL- 2009 -1220, Leo F. Lasher, for a variance at 265 21st Street Southwest. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I just spoke briefly to Mr. Lasher on my way in and out of here this morning. We really didn't touch on the issue, just said hello. Okay, sir, it's all yours. MR. LASHER: Good morning. I want to keep this as simple as possible. I bought a home in the area of Golden Gate Estates and I got together with a couple of friends of mine and we built a garage, or a shed. And I hired a surveyor, an engineer to -- you know, to help me with this. I built it. And then we had some rain and stuff happened and some of the footers got washed away or something and we built this thing and we ended up nine feet short on one corner of the shed. And it's supposed to be I guess encroaching on the setbacks, correct? MS. GUNDLACH: Would you like me to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, did you -- you didn't do this intentionally then? MR. LASHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions of the applicant? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, I don't mean to be rude and probe into your personal life, but 2,100 square foot building? MR. LASHER: Okay, I'm a car collector. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. You know, looking at this -- you're going to be residing at this site? MR. LASHER: Yes, on and off. I have also a home at the beach. Page 17 1 6 jarj,w'2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this is -- I mean, it's not a homesteaded property. MR. LASHER: No, no, it's not homesteaded. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's essentially -- so this is a car collection that you're going to work on and -- MR. LASHER: Well, it's not that I'm going to work on it. I buy cars that don't have to be worked on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're not running a sales operation or anything. MR. LASHER: No, no, not at all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You sure your name is not Jay Leno? MR. LASHER: I've met Jay Leno. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since we're focusing on what you do instead of what you did, what kind of cars do you have, just out of curiosity? MR. LASHER: I have older Corvettes, Fifties, Sixties. Sometimes I get into the Seventies, depending on equipment. And Chevelles, '69, '70 Chevelle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you ever show them anywhere? MR. LASHER: Four of them are going to be -- or seven of them are going this weekend to West Palm Beach convention center. And then the Barrett Jackson the following week and a half, there will be four there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're a lucky man. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Is there any staff report? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Zoning Services Department. And this variance is for a 9.4 -foot encroachment into a 75 -foot rear setback in the Estates zoning district. And as Mr. Lasher had described to you, it's for a metal structure building, and it is located behind a residence in the Estates. Now, staff is recommending approval. This is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And if you have any questions, it would be my pleasure to answer them this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know where the thread of the channel is? MS. GUNDLACH: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You verified that this is not a commercial enterprise or potentially a commercial enterprise, he's not going to sell tickets to get in to see his pretty cars? MS. GUNDLACH: I'm frankly not sure how I would verify that. I just reviewed this as a variance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just wanted to ask the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But you did verify the weather, since that was the reason -- MS. GUNDLACH: I did. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that was the reason for the variance, so I'm assuming you did go back and check the weather and that there was in fact rain, correct? MS. GUNDLACH: Well, he built it during the beginning of the rainy season. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have testimony that it was rain, unless we -- MR. KLATZKOW: I verified it. I verified it yesterday. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any -- any other questions of staff? Page 18 161 1 '* A5 March 18, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: There are no public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the public wish to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. And go out and enjoy your cars. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Go Chevy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Item # 10 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up -- well, we have old business and then new business. I don't know of any old business. Anybody else have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than Mr. Murray, I think we're going to make the time frame we talked about. It's going to be before noon today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's wonderful. Item # l l NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The new business is a presentation by the Collier County Health Department. And there's one person left here, so I think it's her that must be making the presentation. MS. REVAY: Can you show me where I can put this? Sorry. MR. BELLOWS: Sure. You want to use the visualizer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want us to take a break for five or 10 minutes so you can -- MS. REVAY: Yes, that would be great. Page 19 16111 March 18, 2010 A5 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', that would probably work good for you now. We'll just have a break and come back and finish this up. Let's take a 10- minute break and come back at 9:42. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back from our break. The last issue on today's agenda is a presentation by the health department. And so we're ready. Go ahead, ma'am. MS. REVAY: My name is Stacy Revay from the Collier County Health Department. I'm the chair of the Smart Growth Coalition. And I told everybody from the coalition to be here at 10:00 for the presentation, so it's a little bit early, but I'll go ahead and start. Okay, so historically the Health Department has implemented policies intended to ensure, among other things, that children are immunized or wear their helmets when riding a bike. In the same way local governments with jurisdiction over many aspects of land use, food marketing, community planning, transportation, health and nutrition programs and other community issues are ideally positioned to promote behaviors that will help children and adolescents reach and maintain healthy weights. Promoting children's healthy eating and activity will require the involvement of an array of government officials including mayors and commissioners or other leaders of counties, cities or townships. Many departments including those responsible for public health, public works, transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, planning, economic development and housing will also need to be involved. So who we are. I'm the Smart Growth Coalition. And our current stakeholders, these are just naming a few: The health department, the community traffic safety team that's from the transportation department, Edison State College, Florida Gulf Coast University, commuter services. There's some citizens advocates, Collier area transit, the MPO, Collier County Parks and Rec, YMCA and Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department. The Smart Growth Coalition consists of citizens, governmental agencies, organizations and coalitions who believe growth can be better planned for a healthier, more livable and sustainable community. The coalition recognizes there's a need for a comprehensive representative group that brings many entities together to work toward a common goal and to take a larger look at how to work in a collaborative effort to create a livable, sustainable community. Some of the current issues that we're looking at include health, principles of smart growth, built environment, sprawl, transportation and making the connection between health and the built environment. The prevalence of obesity is so high that it may reduce the life expectancy of today's generation of children and diminish the overall quality of their lives. Obese children and adolescents are more likely than their lower weight counterparts to develop hypertension, high cholesterol and Type 2 diabetes when they're young. And they're more likely to be obese as adults. This is from local government actions to prevent childhood obesity, the Institute of Medicine in 2009. So health. There are three things that encompass health: Mental, physical and social. And even if you draw a box around those three circles, that might even include environmental. The World Health Organization defines health as a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infumity. In a new study conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Collier County is number one for health outcomes, morbidity and mortality; number 11 for health factors and number 17 for the physical environment, which is access to healthy foods and exposure to air pollution, ozone days, et cetera. I'm sure many of you are familiar with the smart growth principles. These are the 10 principles. There are some that I've highlighted there: To strengthen development toward existing communities, aging in place and creating a better access to services. Mixed land uses. Create walkable neighborhoods. Range of housing opportunities and choices. Preserving open space to increase physical activity. And as we see in a lot of different neighborhoods, primarily maybe even Naples Park, there are a lot of kids who are playing in the street or playing on the side of the road and their bikes are in the middle of the street. So there isn't a lot of open space for them to play or to get their physical activity that's safe. So why smart growth matters in Collier County. If we want people to get out of their cars and on their feet regularly, we need more than sidewalks. We need sidewalks that go somewhere useful, like a store, school or work place. Page 20 1611 A5 March 18, 2010 And then as we'll go -- I'll show just a couple of different aerial views and maybe discuss those a little bit. So just about 60 percent of adults and 12.5 percent of high school students in Collier County are overweight or obese. These are just statistics from 2007, and we're in 2010. So when the new statistics come out, we will most likely see a drastic increase in this. 8.8 percent have been diagnosed with diabetes. And the one that's alarming to the health department or myself at the coalition is that 41.4 percent of high school students are inactive, which means they get less than 20 minutes of activity a day, mostly because the infrastructure does not allow them to walk to and from school. If they're 16, of course they're going to want to be driving their cars, car pooling with their friends, that makes sense. But before they're that age, they're going to have to be driven to school, and most of them aren't able to walk to school because they don't live within the allowable distance. I guess a quarter of a mile is what they're saying is a walkable community. And I think that's sort of sad, because I think that most people probably could walk a mile. But the infrastructure here has not even allowed most people to walk within a mile of their home to get to a medical facility or a grocery store or a farmers market or any kind of shopping or leisure activity or open green space to play, recreation. This is an aerial view that shows segregated land uses. Residential does not connect to shopping, play, open space in any way besides single occupancy use vehicles. So as you can see on this slide, you can see that there are a couple of baseball fields and some parks. And the one that's interesting to me actually is if we look on Pine Ridge Road, there's that Target with the huge parking structure, but there really aren't any neighborhoods that would connect to Target in a safe, easy, accessible walking, biking way. Especially if you look at any of the residential that's north or, I guess -- for me it would be to the west. Well, it's probably to your east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this map, the Target is in the southwest corner, right next to the residential community of Forest Lakes. MS. REVAY: But as you can see, they would have to go all the way out and around their community to connect to it, which would probably most likely be more than a mile. And a lot of people who -- Quail Run, or what was that community called? Sorry, that's a little bit later. Here it is, yeah, Quail Run has a lot of different communities, actually, and they're over 300 -- I'm sure there's over 300 residents that reside there. And even in their complex they don't have a lot of safe sidewalks or bike lanes that lead even across the street or down the road for them to utilize any of these shopping areas. And this is another one, just residential divided by U.S. 41, which is a 45 mile an hour road. And 1 know that even driving on 41, that's about a 60 mile an hour road. People drive really fast along there. So anybody who lives over in the residential area that might want to get to the public transportation stops that might be close to the Coastland Center, it's very difficult for those individuals to cross those major highways because it does not allow them enough time to get across the road. I recently rented a wheelchair to see how long it would take me to cross the street, and I was mortified and I was totally scared. That was on my own time. And I actually had to get up and throw it because I was afraid that I was going to get hit by a car. So that was just something that I had done. Also, so -- and because of the 45 mile an hour road, it's not really conducive to safe walking. So there are a lot of great things that are here in Collier County. There's a baseball field, there's Fleischmann Park, but there aren't a lot of ways to access those things unless you do get in your car. Even though it seems that everything is -- looks like it's close in proximity, but when you actually get out there and start walking and biking in that area, it's very hard, it's very difficult, especially if you are someone who is a little bit older and you might walk a little bit slower. And we're all going to be there one day, as much as we want to deny that, maybe. Okay, so what can the Collier County Planning Commission do? Here are the eight different major issues that are in the evaluation and appraisal report. And I've been invited to be at the table so that I can help with these policies and these different things for the Page 21 1611'A5 March 18, 2010 Comprehensive Plan, which I think is amazing and I think is great and is phenomenal. So thank you very much to the Planning Department for that. Two specific issues relating to the Collier County Evaluation and Appraisal Report are number two, climate change and number three, urban development pattern. We know the Planning Commission will be assisting with evaluation of the county's past development patterns through the EAR process. Now is the time to be focused on new comprehensive planning policies that discourage sprawl by fostering alternative transportation modes which must be supported by a mix and concentration of uses in urban areas. And I know that the Eastern Lands will be building out. And sort of -- I guess even if we are able to look at the policies that we have now that are in the Comprehensive Plan or the Land Development Code, if there's anything that we can do to strengthen them and to make them so it will be more conducive to a more healthier active lifestyle in the future, I think that we're making headway. I understand that retrofitting is extremely costly and expensive, but I think that if we're planning for the future, I think that it's really important that we start -- that we start building an infrastructure that's conducive to healthy living and a healthy lifestyle, because we do have an aging population here, and as people get older they're more dependent on other people, they're more dependent on possibly their cars and using their car to go places when they would rather probably just walk because they'd probably feel safer not behind the wheel. And it's hard. It's hard to give up that dependence, and I understand that and I appreciate that. It's interesting, Dan Burden once said, the first thing somebody wants to learn is how to walk and the last thing somebody wants to lose is walking, being able to walk. So if we kind of put that in perspective, sort of tells us that really, we do like to walk and we do like to walk places and get out there. And we have a beautiful, beautiful county, we have a lot of things to offer. And if we continue to build in a sprawl development pattern, it's going to be very difficult for our aging population. Okay, so here is a community in Beaverton, Oregon. This is conducive to aging in place community. As you can see where the baseball diamond is and then there's a football field, this is where the high school is. There's a lot of communities that exist right around it. Right around it there are public swimming pools, there are assisted living facilities. In fact, this next one I like even better. So some of you may know or may not know that I am from Beaverton, Oregon, I am from Portland, Oregon, and I am not here to try to say let's make Collier County into something that it's not or to make it into something that isn't possible. But I know from growing up in this community, that I walked to my elementary school, I walked to the recreation center. My grandparents stayed at the assisted living facility that was within a quarter of a mile from my house. I walked to my junior high. There's a golf course that you can see down here on one of the corners. There was a recreation facility. And this is a great place for someone that can -- you could grow up there, you could go to the school there, there's a park, there were two if not three assisted living facilities that were close by. They had a range of housing opportunities, condos, apartments. They had some low income housing that was sprinkled around in there a little bit. It was very walkable and very accessible. And like a mile down the road there's a huge mall and it's even bigger and bigger and bigger now. And I realize that it's a different place and that their codes and their smart code was implemented back about 35 years ago, so that was sort of a long time ago. And I understand that that's not the way that we sort of started here. But maybe just something to think about. Okay, so what does a successful built environment look like? So we've done a couple of things. Cambier Park is -- and I realize that's in the city. And then Venetian Village, I'm not sure if that's in the city or not. I'm thinking it might be. That's a very walkable, bikeable area. There are condos there. You do have to make sure to watch for cars, because sometimes they're driving a little bit fast. But like I was saying before, we have done -- we have done some things in Collier County that have been very positive. The built environment includes all aspects of the environment that are modified by humans, Page 22 1611 A5 March 18 2010 14 including homes, schools, work places, parks, industrial areas and highways. So the pictures that are over on your left represent what we should possibly include in future planning. Not to say that they aren't in the plans, but that maybe they need to be integrated with future developments. And I understand that the one that has the shops and looks like a large sidewalk, but really it's sort of like a community gathering area, the bike lanes that are -- it's kind of funny to me, actually, it almost looks like McGregor to me in Lee County, but that's not where it is. But it almost looks like that to me because of the palm trees. But complete bike lanes on safe roadways and farmers markets on larger sidewalks. And we know that people like to gather in these specific places, especially the older population. The built environment in Collier County looks something like this. These are just some specific pictures. And I'd like to explain them really quick. The one picture on the corner of your -- the left -hand corner, there's a couple of ladies that are walking on the sidewalk. And a lot of people actually use this sidewalk. The thing that is interesting to me is this is on Pine Ridge. Right across the street there is an elementary school or a middle school and there are a lot of kids who ride their bikes here, but their community actually is right behind that wall. So how great would it have been maybe if we had like a gate or some kind of an access point so that they don't have to go all the way around and they're riding their bikes on Pine Ridge. When I go down Pine Ridge and I see them stopping and they've got the crossing guard there, it frightens me when I stop at that light, because a lot of people as we know, don't stop at red lights. And these kids are in danger every time they cross that street. Now, their crossing guard is there, there's people that know there's a school there. But then there's also people who are out of -- you know, here from out of town. There maybe aren't really paying attention to those sort of things. So anyways, maybe just forward thinking as far as not -- maybe not as many gated communities or communities that can connect. So that even they can go and see their friends without walking all the way around a mile and a half or riding their bike on a busy road. Then we've got Quail Run. I talked about that already. There's a lot of different communities that are in there. This is a gentlemen that's trying to cross the road. There is not a crosswalk there. There is one that's about maybe a quarter of a mile down the road, but he wants to cross there because there is something, a gas station, directly across the street. So he's running and hurrying to get to the median and hoping not to get hit by a car. Then also in Quail Run they have slow signs, there's children playing. But as you can see, there's a road without sidewalks or green space for the kids really to play. I've never really seen kids playing there, because they're -- and plus it kind of curves around a lot, so as a parent, I wouldn't want my kid to be playing on that road. Just because people do, they whip around those corners and they aren't looking. Okay, walkable and bikeable community. Barron Collier high school. There was a student I just saw that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, most of us have lived here a long time. We're probably familiar with a lot of this. The best thing that would help this board is to kind of get into the specific points of improvements that are part of our Land Development Code or part of our general planning process. I think the pictures hit home with all of us. We had it in the packet that you provided. Might just save you some time and effort if we really got into the meat of the issue and what you're suggesting the Planning Commission do specifically. And I would suggest that your attendance at the EAR meeting to be most productive. If you have an issue that helps your cause, definitely let us know what that is. But at the same time, give us a specific example of a language change in the code that could apply. Because a lot of people come forward and say well, this is nice if we would just do this, but they don't tell you how to do it within the code, what they actually mean by the language. So as a heads -up to the EAR, that would be a very productive way to approach the EAR. MS. REVAY: I actually got to go to the first EAR meeting and I did give them some specific Page 23 161 „5,0 �1 language for policies, for specific policies that are already in place. So that was really -- that was really helpful, and it was a great meeting. It was a long meeting but it was a good meeting. It was great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're going to find that most everybody is going to be receptive to what you have to say. It's something I know is an issue across the country. Now it's just a matter of what is a good way to implement it with the language and then what the fiscal cost is going to be and the time consumption to get there. So those are the big issues that I think from this board's perspective we are probably most focused on. MS. REVAY: Okay, okay, great. So let me go ahead and skip through a couple of these then. And then I realize four corners is in the city, but just lacking connectivity. So increasing connectivity will do these things. So these are sort of some of the things that I was asking for these to be implemented in some of the policies, increasing physical activity among residents and tourists. The connectivity will decrease greenhouse gas emissions, decrease the obesity epidemic and allow for multimodal transportation, which I know there is currently a master mobility plan, which I read through and met with Mike Bosi on. Also reducing the costs associated with repairing roadways. And then there's a few more in here. Increasing connectivity that is just not auto dependent. We need to create an environment where people can age in place and continue to thrive throughout their lives. Okay. And also, one of the things, actually, go back one slide here, is for emergency vehicles, one access point creates less safety in time of need. So when there's more access points, that is helpful. So that's another thing possibly that we can talk about, some of the policies, specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how often you wanted us to ask questions. But one of the things I understand you're concerned about access through the block walls that you showed there, for example, if you have better access to the sidewalks and more accesses to ambulances. The problem that we run into in Collier County, and it's not one that needs to be -- can be easily overcome, people like the security of a community. The security means you've got to minimize accesses. And even at the cost of having to walk around those, a lot of people in the communities would rather have the security of being in a safe, controlled community than the ability just to walk in and out of the community more easily. Now, I'm not saying they're right, I'm just suggesting that's an issue that needs to be overcome in order to accomplish some of the goals that you've suggested here today. So I don't know if you've thought about that or realized that in this county and others this access is restricted on purpose by a lot of these communities. It may not be the right thing, but I think that's what's behind it. MS. REVAY: And I do understand that. And I think that again, if possibly some of those houses were to overlook the road, that would create a safety on its own. That maybe there wouldn't need to be maybe as many gated communities if the infrastructure allowed for something that already created its own safe environment. Also, we've seen an increase in mental health diseases and -- with the older population, especially in gated communities. So I can try to find some -- because it creates a sort of isolation for them. So then there've dependent on whoever can come and pick them up and take them somewhere, without sort of a place to have community involvement or to thrive in their own environment. So, yeah. Okay, and then transportation, so you've seen these already. This is from the smartgrowthAmerica.org growth and transportation survey. So four reasons that public transit makes sense. And these are also some things to put in the policies. Economic benefits, provides a high return on investment, creates jobs, economic activity, gets people to work, cuts us oil imports. America sent about $12 billion less last year to foreign oil companies because of transit's fuel efficiency. Environmental benefits cuts air pollution. And then quality of life, traffic accidents and the stress of gridlock make automobile travel one of Florida's most expensive public health issues. Dangerous by Design was a report that was put out by Transportation for America. And Florida is Page 24 1611 A5 March 18, 2010 the number one in pedestrian and bicycle fatalities in the country. So that was -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Say that again, please. What did you just say? MS. REVAY: Dangerous by Design was a report that was put out by Transportation for America. And Florida is number one for pedestrian and bicycle fatalities. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I follow up with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you also have the data that relates whether Florida's the place where bicycles are used greater than any other state? In other words, is there a proportional factor involved? MS. REVAY: There might be. In fact, I can go ahead and look back in that report. I'm not completely sure about that. But I do know that because of our weather, our weather is so great here -- I mean, not in the summer, it's really rainy and hot, but other than that, there are a lot of people who bike and walk. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, speaking only for myself, I will tell you that I'm acquainted with a lot of this information, and I see this as a social engineering effort and I don't have a problem with you wanting to do that, but I do have a problem that if in the AUIR, which is a very intense activity, and it's based on factual information and detail that has to do with code compliance and growth management adherence, I would be looking for very specific things. If you're going to assert something, you have to be able to back it UP. MS. REVAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would just like to say that in Immokalee, I can point to three positive things that are happening right now that are going towards this. The first is the bus service in Immokalee is really being used a lot and it's really helping a lot of people. In this recession, a lot more people are walking and riding bicycles. And the thing that they've implemented on Main Street in Immokalee where there've -- I don't know, it's sort of like you have crossing by right where you have to respect the pedestrian crossing, that's something new that wasn't there before. And I think it's slowing down the traffic a little bit and causing maybe more motorists to respect pedestrians more. That's really positive, in addition to the increased bus service that we have out here now. And the increased sidewalks that we're getting in Immokalee, they're really being used. If you just walk down any place where there's a sidewalk, you always see, like, the sidewalks are full now of bicyclists and pedestrians. So if the county can move in general more in that direction, you know, it will be good. So I think some of the things that you're talking about, the county is starting to move in a positive direction. But I just hope that it can continue. MS. REVAY: Yes, yes, I agree with you. And as I said before, it's not really -- it's not really about retrofitting, I understand that's very costly, but as we continue to build, building for the health and safety of our community and our residents and our tourists, really, is really important I think for the future. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I make a comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would suggest to you too that if we really are concerned about the health of the future and the children and the rest, and that's a very valid point, have you invited to your coalition, have you invited the people who manufacture cell phones and who are involved in the television industry? Have you invited them to participate? Because there's a causative in the problem. They could also be a participant in the solution. This is, in my view, all of the parties, they're all good parties and it's a good idea. But it's reactive. And while it's seemingly is proactive from your point of view, it's merely reactive, because in the absence of taking away the cell phones and in the absence of taking away the media, and I don't mean it per se taking it away but modifying our use of it, you're not going to see a change in patterns. But you're doing changes that impact on people's personal lives and you're going to run up a wall about that angle and it's not going to be useful to you. So that's a thought. Page 25 16 �Vid , 2po 5 '1 MS. REVAY: Right. And, you know, one of the things, the health department, we've kind of been talking about lately is really, it is also about the education, I completely agree. And in fact I know that they're -- I think the red light cameras they put in, I think that was a step in the right direction because people aren't running as many red lights, also which creates a healthier environment for people that are using the crosswalks, especially people who are visually impaired. Also, I think that -- sorry, I just lost my train of thought on what you were saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay, not a problem. While you refocus, Nick, did you have something you wanted to -- okay, I saw you looking over, I didn't know if you had a -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: At the end if I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't you just continue with your presentation then. MS. REVAY: Okay. It will come back to me in a second here. All right. So then we talked about Naples Park a little bit. You already saw that. Okay, so here are some specific actions that possibly can be put in the policies or the Comprehensive Plan. Specific actions for increasing physical activity: Plan, build and maintain a network of sidewalks and street crossings that create a safe and comfortable walking environment. Lee County has now adopted the Complete Streets resolution per the smart growth committee in Lee County. And I know that we're not a committee, we're a coalition, and we're brand new. That creates safe comfortable walking environment that connects schools, parks and other destinations through the adoption of a pedestrian bicycle master plan, which I know is currently underway. I'm not sure sort of where we are in that. Maybe that's what Nick was going to talk about in a few minutes. Also promoting alternative modes of transportation through increasing destinations within walking and bicycling distance of residential units. Especially when we start building out in the Eastern areas of the county, this might be really important, to make sure it's in the plan. Collaborate with school district and developers to locate new schools central to residential areas. I think that's a big one. And establish joint use agreements. And I understand there are some issues with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On that slide, ma'am, I would also recommend relative to that first bullet point that you folks get yourselves involved with the school district, because they have very specific policies regarding inter- connectivity with schools, even adjacent parks. And they prohibit that activity. So you need to lobby those people, get them involved. MS. REVAY: Right. And we do, the Collier County Public Schools are involved. I also chair another coalition called the Health Promotion Coalition, and they're also on that coalition as well. So we are in the process of speaking with them about these things as well. Sprawl, we know all about this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not so sure, Stacy. MS. REVAY: You're not sure? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because if you at that -- MS. REVAY: I'm just not to -- like he was saying before, I'm trying not to go over the things that you possibly do know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That top slide, we do constantly in Collier County. And any time you see that formation of buildings, you have to realize that's, you know, what sprawl looks like. And if you look at Collier County from an aerial photograph, this is what 1 call the box of zippers, this is what Collier County looks like. And we have to be really careful, because what's happened is we've put a lot of pressure on the Estates area now because we've just sprawled right up to it. So I think -- and I'm going to also save my questions til the end, but I just didn't want you to jump off that slide and not have everybody recognize our friend on the top. MS. REVAY: Okay. These sort of communities are more car dependent, especially for kids. Maybe this first slide at the very top for kids who might live in that one cul -de -sac, if their friend lives in like three cul -de -sacs away their parents most likely are going to drive them. Because even if that is a gated community, they don't feel safe letting their kids walk that far away. Sprawl and public health. Okay, so one study found that California adults who drove the most had Page 26 161 11ch 18, 1 obesity rates 27 percent than were three times higher than those who are drove the least. That's as pretty large statistic. Every 10 additional minutes also commuting associated with a 10 percent drop in community involvement. So U.S. average is 73 minutes a day of drive time. There's a lot of other issues as well. Health, environmental impact, increased pollution, increased obesity, which is currently happening, and decrease in social capital. Okay, so some of these things that specifically relate to health -- well, sprawl. Cost to the health and well -being of Collier County residents, more sick days, more days in the hospital, unnecessary deaths and injuries from traffic accidents, reduced opportunities for physical activity. And people who live in more compact metropolitan areas suffer from significantly fewer chronic medical conditions than their counterparts in sprawling regions. For example, people who live in neighborhoods with a mix of shops and businesses within easy walking distance have 35 percent lower risk of obesity. And then the disproportionate impacts on poor and minority populations whose neighborhoods often are cut off or harmed by transportation facilities. And we're also currently working with Collier area transit to increase -- possibly to increase awareness of public transportation so that it can increase ridership. And then we'll hopefully increase the routes so that -- not to put Morton on the spot, but my gentleman over here who's part of the Smart Growth Coalition, him and his wife walk and his wife would like to access YMCA. And because they live over by the mall, it will take her an hour and 45 minutes to get there by bus, so she doesn't go to the YMCA right now, but possibly will in the future, hopefully. People who use public transportation also get their 30 to 40 minutes of recommended physical activity every day. Okay, so here are some other recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control. These also can be implemented in the policies and Comprehensive Plan: Improve access to outdoor recreational facilities and enhance infrastructure supporting bicycling and walking. As I've stated, I'm not saying to go out there right now and start building all this stuff with all of the money that we possibly right now don't have. I'm just saying that if we create an environment, if we're going to build out in the eastern area, then creating this sort of infrastructure will benefit the health of people who live there. Support locating schools within easy walking distance of residential areas. Enhance personal and traffic safety through the county and improve access to public transportation, incentivize mixed use development and geographic availability of supermarkets in underserved areas. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm sure there's going to be comments. We'll start with Brad and work our way across. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, about 10 years ago we had the community character plan which tried to bring these principals into planning, right? So that didn't quite hit it. Transportation, they started to be very concerned about it, and I think they are now with the efficiency of roadways, that might control it. But the odd thing to me is that smart growth is hanging out in the health department. So now we're down to the fact that we realized we're hurting the citizens by not building communities healthy that tend towards, by just the path of least resistance, healthy living. What is going on in the planning department for this issue? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner Schiffer, I can answer that. We're taking an active lead in it. As I left the transportation department to come into community development, the planning folks came with us. We're working on that master mobility program which we think is comprehensive in all these things that's she's showing today. Her report has been detailed, quite a bit of information. The bottom line is many petitions come through you, and we're trying to make these codes effective to say that interconnection is required, shared access is required, sidewalks, we're always bringing this up Page 27 6i ch 18, 2 k, 5 whenever these planning petitions come forward to you. The master mobility plan is intended to be part of a GMP EAR -based amendment update and then follow through with LDC cycle updates. We're in an environment right now where LDC cycle updates are stressful and they put a lot of stress on both staff, the planning commission and the board. But these types of initiatives are extremely important. And if I can ever impress upon this commission and the board to listen to these messages and listen to the EAR -based process where we can add functionality into our codes that encourage this, that's my goal. It's smart planning, and she's done a good job of putting it together. Again there's a lot of depth to it. And we're looking at adding things that you can actually tangibly see in the codes. But we encourage you to support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to -- because I think, one thing, I wouldn't mind if the health department maybe looked at some of our applications. Mark's right, I mean, the best battleground for a gate in the wall was -- there was a shopping center down, I think it was an ABC Liquor, there was a requirement for the gate and the neighbors freaked out. They didn't want the gate. Now, obviously they could buy a security system if that's the problem. But people don't want to walk. So are these things that we can now force people or start to -- and it's not just putting holes in walls to sidewalks, it's starting to cluster, starting to bring things together. It's starting to not do these two units per acre subdivisions out in the middle of just spreading and spreading and spreading. If we didn't do that, we wouldn't need that road on Vanderbilt, we'd be up much tighter to the coast where we do have big roads. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Two examples I can think of in petitions that have come across, I don't want to say recently, but at the northeast corner of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston, there is Marchesa plaza at the southeast corner but to the north of that is a residential community that wanted no connection to the commercial. Matter of fact, they wanted a wall across that. And similarly, Brooks Village, which is at the corner of Pine Ridge and Collier Boulevard, where the connectivity of the community, speaking to the neighbors, they love the fact that they can walk around the corner to the shopping center. And it was a fight at first, but now that it's open, they've embraced it and they think it's a benefit to their community. So although the culture is right now is for these gated communities and the restricted access, I think a good opportunity for us is to get some of these neighborhoods together to talk to each other as petitions come forward and say what is your experience with this after it's been open. And I think it's been beneficial when it is open to the public. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Nick, what you're saying is that the principles that Stacy's putting forth today, your department is going to actively be watching out for and incorporating in your reviews? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We are. And sometimes we're in front of this commission, we're having that debate with you, requesting the interconnection with a pedestrian walkway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, work my way down. Mr. Midney, did you want to add anything? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, a couple of things. The first one is, it's a good thing I think that the new community of Ave Maria is walkable and it is bicyclable. And it's a good example, you know, if we are going to be having development in the eastern part of the county, that's a good example to point to. And the other observation is that is seems like the poorer people get the more they're walking and using cars and the richer they get, the less they want to have interconnection. And it's sort of like, I don't know, it's backwards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, in the urban area, almost all the large tracts of land have been built or have approval to be built. So a lot of these fine ideas are not going to be implementable unless the Page 28 1611M,Ilrch 1 S, particular developer decides that that's the case. We have, however, had several things come up in front of us fairly recently with supposed mixed use but we never approve them as mixed use. They always have the option to be one or the other. And perhaps that's one way that we could tighten codes is if you're going to do a mixed use, it really legitimately has to be a mixed use project. Now, I don't know if that then stymies people from going forward with a mixed use or not. But there ought to be some incentive to actually do mixed use. I mean, I can think of two or three that have come by this board fairly recently, and they all wanted to make sure that they could protect that oh, no, we don't want to give up our right to have all commercial or all residential. But it comes forward to us as a, quote, mixed use. And that's never been pushed by staff. That's never been a consideration in a staff comment that this really should be a mixed use project. It's always been whatever they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody -- now the other side. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Stacy, if I may call you that. MS. REVAY: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In logic, you can never use the specific to prove the general or the general to prove the specific. You cite one study, there may be others that have other lower numbers. So I'm going to intentionally be seemingly against you. I'm not against you per se, but I want you to be clear, okay. You say you lived in Oregon, I believe. You grew up there. And everything that you needed was within a mile. Was that true of every child in your area throughout your city? MS. REVAY: I would say probably mostly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that there were schools intentionally built (point, point, point) just that way so that that would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see the court reporter get that click, click, click. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was in Swahili. That was in Swahili and that's why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I looked up, she looked at me and oh, oh, how are you going to record that? THE COURT REPORTER: How do you spell it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Point, point, point. My point is that -- and I served for four and three - quarter years on the smart growth community character. And I left as vice- chairman of that. I was the last standing Indian. The report was provided to the Collier County Commissioners, they accepted it. They never approved it. That doesn't mean they cannot go forward approving it. Some of the smart growth principles are now being implemented, they're being recommended. But we have constraints under the law. And my frustration will come from open -ended commentary and non - provable or asserted without any real backbone. And my frustration will come if you don't have means of offering good language recommendations. We're constrained by the law. If someone wants to utilize their property and the highest and best use is such and we say no, you can't, then there's going to be a lawsuit, and the county will find itself -- so all the policies in the world don't help unless they can really have backbone. So I don't want you to think I'm against you, I am admittedly and clearly openly frustrated by some of the things that I've seen on here because I do see them as social engineering. Maybe that's a good thing. Some of it I think is probably -- I remember when you mentioned there's a child on a street with bicycles. I'm a child of World War II. We didn't have very much. We didn't have -- I lived in Brooklyn, New York, safe streets, not on your life. We rode our bicycles, we played our ball. It is a matter of judgment. You're in another generation, you view things differently. And whether or not you can convey sufficiently to an old guy like me that what you're asserting is valid overall and not just to a particular -- because recently there was a citation about how healthy Collier County is relative to all the other countries. And there's an awful lot of people you cited that don't walk and don't do anything. So there are contradictions in your information. You have to have those clear in order for me to buy into it. MS. REVAY: Well -- and people are -- and I think that the one thing that, if I can kind of like go Page 29 161 A arch 18 201 back to is the one slide that has the physical, mental and social well - being. And it talks about Collier County is number one for health outcomes, for morbidity and mortality but number 17 for physical environment. So that breaks it up. Because at first when I looked at it also saying that Collier County is the healthiest county in Florida, I thought well, maybe I need to look at this a little bit closer. So number 17 puts us down the list as far as physical environment goes, which makes sense with the 60 percent of obese or -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What is physical environment? I don't understand this. MS. REVAY: Access to healthy foods, exposure to air pollution, ozone days, et cetera. That's from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation report that was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My God, there are McDonalds and Burger Kings all over the place -- exposure to healthy food. Yeah, okay, I gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Many of the things that I wanted to say have been covered. I just wanted to say, you can build a community to be your perfect social community, and until we become, probably maybe sooner than later, a communistic society and force people to do things a certain way, you aren't going to get kids off the computer unless the parents guide their children. Thus they aren't going to be out and walking more than a quarter mile a day. The other thing is parents don't want their kids walking more than a quarter mile because of the predators out there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, my God. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, this is -- I hear it every night on the news a kid has been picked up and, you know. So do you want your kids walking down the street. These are just two things I see that have to be overcome. You can have the most perfect community, but if you've got weirdoes and Internet, what are you going to do? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now that we're off on a tangent here -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, it's not, it's the call to reality. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Does anybody else have any other comments they'd like to make? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anybody in the public that wants to speak and address anything -- MS. REVAY: Martin, did you want to say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you're more than welcome to come up to a microphone, and I ask that you identify yourself -- or can we take a microphone to the gentleman. MR. ROSEBERG: My name is Martin Roseberg, and I serve as a volunteer on the Smart Growth Coalition. As Ms. Revay mentioned, I am a walker, I don't even own a car. And I got here by bus. And the point was raised about making practical recommendations. I wanted you all to know that I have been in touch with Gene Calvert. I understand he's in charge of the traffic lights here. And one very simple low cost thing in terms of safety -- health and safety go together, of course -- is to allow the minority, pedestrians that is, to cross our streets safely. And I spoke specifically about the time allowed for the walk signal at certain intersections. He said that there is a new federal regulation coming up that is supposed to extend that time, I certainly hope so. But very simple things like reminding our drivers that there is a state law that you are supposed to yield to pedestrians -- I've almost been run over three times, it's not pleasant, very frightening. And our drivers do not realize that there is such a thing as a pedestrian and bike riders, also. And that is something very simple that I hope the Planning Commission would at least encourage the powers that be, the appropriate staff people, to look into. And in terms of encouraging walking, I think Ms. Revay mentioned that there are communities around the country who are doing that, and the results are very good. There's this new term, new urbanism which means going back to those days. I think, and Mr. Murray, you remember in Brooklyn you did have a neighborhood, you could walk to places, you did know your neighbors. Page 30 1 F A 1 1 Marc 8 10 F-1 wof COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You just didn't go out of your neighborhood. I'm kidding. MR. ROSEBERG: The idea is that maybe there was no need to, you had everything that you needed virtually, or most of the things that you needed every day in your neighborhood. And that is something I know that is more in the long -range thinking. But I know that there is a new community, I think someone mentioned that Ave Maria is a walkable -- yes, sir, you mentioned that, that Ave Maria is a walkable community. If the community of New Cypress ever gets on the ground, I would encourage you to work with them and encourage them to make their community a walkable, what is sometimes called a livable community. They say that they're going to be an ecological community, so you have an in right there. If you want to be an ecological community, consider the human ecology and allow people to walk safely and to ride bicycles safely. So those are all the points I wanted to make at this time. And I thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, appreciate it. Is there another -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to make a comment to the gentleman. I want you to understand, sir, that although apparently I'm negative in my approaches to this, I am not negative to all of your concerns in any way. And I do appreciate everything that you've said, and those are tweaks that we need to attend to. And I'm happy that you're a part of that. And I want you to understand I favor and support that. Just for our purposes as a commission, and the amount of work that we have to do, it is very important that we have thought -out, practical and clear instructions as to what you desire and want to have implemented. And we would then work as a body to try to make that happen if it's at all feasible. MR. ROSEBERG: I fully understand. I am all for clarity and things spelled out very clearly. Yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Ma'am? MS. AVOLA: Hi. I'm Michelle Avola. I'm the Executive Director of Naples Pathways Coalition. If you've not heard of us, we are a nonprofit advocacy group working for a safe, interconnected transportation network for non - motorized travel. So walking, cycling, wheelchair, that type of thing. So obviously you know the angle that I would be coming from. And knowing that I only had a few minutes to address, I haven't come armed with a bunch of statistics for you, but just a few things to address. In talking a couple of times now with the Mayor, and he said Naples didn't plan for how it is now. They didn't have the ability to see where it was going to get to. And so now there's tourists walking in the street, there's people getting killed. The woman died last night who was hit over by the hospital on Monday. There's too many people in too short of a place, too many cars, not enough safe places for people to be able to walk, ride their bike, get where they need to go if they can't drive, if they choose not to drive. As the Planning Commission, you're planning, and there's areas that are still to be built out. There actually are improvements that can be made that don't cost millions of dollars. So I think in the things that I was hearing Stacy say was that when there's decisions to be made we really need to think long term for every single person out there, not just the typical teenager playing the Gameboy and the parents, you know, driving them the block to school and sitting in the drop -off line for half an hour and burning tons of fuel. We need to think about everybody, so we don't end up with a city like this that's a hodgepodge of there's a sidewalk here, there's nothing here. There's a bike lane that ends at a guardrail, there's closed off communities, there's communities right next to each other that, you know, they live two minutes apart but it's a 20- minute drive around. We just need to plan better. And there are still areas to be built out. So when things come before you, that's all we're asking for, is just thinking about all the users. So thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Page 31 16Lal 18,:0A5 A Your coalition, does it have plans for your paths in every area of Collier County that can be utilized by people? Have you planned that out? MS. AVOLA: We have -- no, that's not where -- where we see that there's issues and gaps to be filled, yes, we go before councils and we point those out -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you have no overall plan? MS. AVOLA: We have worked with the city and the county in the master pedestrian and cycling plan. So yes, we have been very much a part of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm trying to establish, and I just want to be very clear, you have an expectation that we should have, we have the opportunity to plan for the future. I would think then that you would also be in that same position, you would have already determined where those paths should be. MS. AVOLA: On every street, wherever a road is resurfaced or widened, it's already in the books that it needs to be made a complete street. And what that means is sidewalk on both sides, bike lanes. It's supposed to be everywhere. So it's not like we're just saying well, just here or just there. It's already in the books that they're supposed to be done correctly to be complete streets. And then there just seems to be ways to work around that. So that's why the plan is just everything needs to be done correctly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So let me understand this, if I think I got you right. You're suggesting that if one person on 55th Street Northwest, there is probably no such place, point being, though, one person decides to build and there's then a street. They're required to have a sidewalk. Are you asserting then that we as a planning group should require that the county build all the sidewalks, even though there's nobody yet willing to build a home? MS. AVOLA: I think we need to plan for the future so we're not trying to retrofit later when it costs that much more money to do it later and it impacts more people with changing right -of -way or changing the perception -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're suggesting that the county spend the money to put the sidewalks in all the way -- at that time. MS. AVOLA: To plan to do it right from the beginning, that's kind of what I -- that's what I teach my children. That's what I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have to figure out where we can get that money, okay. MS. AVOLA: Yes, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what also we have to do is, we have a lot of people that request that the roadways be narrowed. I think when they do that we should ask where are the bicycles going to go. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else -- Mr. Wolfley, did you have something you want to say? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll let my time go to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Three points if I could, Commissioners. One -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, please, if I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll count them now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have a master pathways plan that the pathway coalition has worked with us on that talks about the major pathway networks going all the way from Marco Island into Lee County, so you have an adopted pathways plan. You have an ADA transition plan that shows deficiencies of -- he's counting too, I may have a fourth. An ADA transition plan that shows $200 million in deficit in fixing our system, retrofitting right now. That's an issue. And the third one I'll leave you, is you're right, when I'd taken on this job I read the packets and they talk about does this impact the environment. And we lack in a couple sections where we should be asking ourselves does this encourage community walkability, does this encourage connectivity, does this reduce vehicle miles traveled, this project that comes before you. And I think that's what they're asking us to do is Page 32 16 Imichl8k, 5 ask those questions when those petitions come forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, thank you very much. MS. AVOLA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. And Stacy, we appreciate your presentation today. And I strongly advise you at those meetings that you do attend, come forward with suggested language so it can be chewed on. And basically nothing should be accepted by anybody until the fiscal analysis is known and the stakeholders involved all had an opportunity to view it and we weigh its consequences. Doesn't mean we're against it, it means it needs to be weighed out and thoroughly thought of, so -- MS. REVAY: Right. And there are some really great -- the last thing I'll say, just one thing. I think there are some really great policies that are in place. However, I just think that the wording is too loose and it needs a little more teeth and a little more mandating, and then I think we'll have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think Commissioner Schiffer actually summized (sic) everything very well, we should be thinking about this. And the next time we have a narrow road come through, that's a great question to ask everything single applicant coming forward. And if they know that ahead of time maybe they'll come forward with better planning. So you've had a good impact already. I appreciate very much your time today. MS. REVAY: Thank you very much, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And that is the last item on our agenda, everyone. Anybody in the public have any other comments they wish to make today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Wolfley. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We are adjourned, thank you. Page 33 161jc'115 "l- March 18, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:44 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on 4 - ((�- — 10 , as presented 1✓ or as corrected Page 34 Fiala, ---- Halas I A6 Henning- arch , 2010 Coyle Coletta _ TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD APR k d OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida March 12, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractor Licensing Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas Lykos Richard Joslin Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Robert Meister Patrick White ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor Misc. Cares: Page 1 Dabs: 6 6 11 D Copies to: m,rj§ z!i�,�" A 6 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, I'm going to call to order the meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board. Today is Friday, March 12th, 2010 at 9:03 a.m. 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 want to remind everybody to speak one person at a time and make sure you speak clearly into the microphones. We'll start with roll call, beginning on my right. MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle. MR. LANTZ: MR. JOSLIN: Kyle Lantz. Richard Joslin. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Tom Lykos. MR. WHITE: Patrick White. MR. BOYD: Mike Boyd. MR. MEISTER: Robert Meister. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Staff, any additions or deletions to the agenda? MR. JACKSON: No additions or deletions to the agenda. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. I need a motion to approve the agenda. MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR,,;WHITE: Aye. _._ Page 2 h,lb�! � A6 MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. I need approval of the minutes from the FebruarA 7th meeting. MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion that we approve the minutes from the February 17th meeting. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Okay, discussion. End of the month report. MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Mike Ossorio, Collier County Contractor Licensing Supervisor. The end of the month report is for February. And it's there if you'd like to discuss it. I have nothing further to say about it. And while we're reviewing the monthly report, I want to recognize Mr. Robert Meister. He's a certified general contractor. He's been appointed by the City Council to sit on this Contractor Licensing Board, and it was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday. And I welcome Mr. Meister to the licensing board. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Welcome. Thank you for serving. Michael, one comment. We had asked previously to have the Page 3 Malh4z!11 A6 budget alongside the actual for our monthly report. MR. OSSORIO: We're going to work on it. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. JOSLIN: One other item I'll try to add, the last meeting I believe that we as a board motioned or wanted Mr. French to come back in and give us an analysis of the fee increases, of where they were going and what was happening. He was going to give us a report. MR. OSSORIO: I believe the budget is being worked on as we speak. Just remember, the makeup of licensing, our fee -base related issues, typically our fees, you won't see a huge increase in our fees. The 40 percent would be in September, June, July and September, due to the fact that we're going to be doing our renewing. So he's going to have to account for that. So this is a long process. So I'm sure Mr. French will be here in the next couple of months and discuss those issues with you. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Do we want to discuss the remaining more progress in the workshop, or do you want to save that for the end of the meeting? MR. OSSORIO: The workshop as in for the amendment of the ordinance? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: The workshop for the board. MR. OSSORIO: We haven't come up with when we're going to do the workshop. We had our first meeting with the county attorney, Pat Neale, and it's going well. I suspect that we'll probably have a workshop in May. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: And that if it is a workshop, it will be a strictly workshop at our office. It will be open to the public, you know, open for the public. And we'll just have that workshop. We won't have any magl& 4 1,0 A6 other agendas or anything, old business or new business to discuss, other than just a quick workshop in and out of the office to discuss it, with the cooperation with CBIA, the industry itself. So tl's what we're looking at. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. Mr. White just reviewed the minutes and saw that Mr. French was going to be here in April after the first quarter, so he could do a review of the first quarter financials and come back to us in April. So thank you, Mr. White. MR. WHITE: You're welcome, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other questions or comments for Michael under the discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, moving along. New business. Mr. Rolando Alvarez. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Alvarez, you're here because you want a waiver of the examination requirements to obtain your license; is that correct? MR. ALVAREZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Ian, are you taking this? MR. JACKSON: No. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: I'll take it for you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. MR. OSSORIO: No problem. Just -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Ossorio, I'll go ahead and swear you in. Would it be all right if I swear them in for the day so I don't need to re- swear? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's fine with me. Page 5 IrkcI Z�o 0 A6 (Mr. Ossorio and Mr. Jackson were duly sworn.) MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Alvarez is a licensed company; am I correct? You have a cabinet company? MR. ALVAREZ: Yes, sir. MR. OSSORIO: So he has a cabinet and he also has a floor covering license? MR. ALVAREZ: Yes, sir. MR. OSSORIO: So he's been doing business here for quite a while. Unfortunately on the -- when you look at the ordinance, the floor covering and the cabinet installing license only requires a business procedure test. Mr. Alvarez is going for a painting license, which includes a trades test. And when you do a trades test that means you have to take the exam for a trades test. And Mr. Alvarez is here to tell you that he's taken the painting exam -- how many times? MR. ALVAREZ: Three times. MR. OSSORIO: And he has unfortunately failed three times. And he's here to talk to you about his experience as a painter and see if you could give him some kind of relief towards that exam. CHAIRMAN LYKO S : Okay, thank you. MR. OSSORIO: Am I correct? MR. ALVAREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, Mr. Alvarez, you want to give us some background on your experience and tell us why you're here today, please. MR. ALVAREZ: Yes, sir. I'm start painting since I got 18 years old. Also not here, in Europe. And then I come here and I start, you know, working in the construction. And, you know, keep painting, which is the most what I can do. And when I start try to get my painting license, you know, I fail the first time. It was about couple years ago. And the second time it was -- the first time was closed book. Page 6 Jar6 A6 ch 12; 2010 And then when they start coming to open book, I come and I failed the second time. But I keep, you know, reading, likelin my letter say. I'm not from here, and also I don't came from the sch of from here. And also the English what they use on that test, I'm not familiar with that. I'm just familiar with the construction English, you know, two -by -four, beam, stuff like that, not specific things that they say in there. I also for that reason, when I keep my painting license and also to support my family, I got to move to Georgia. And Georgia, I also have my remodeling company, which is I got here for the county what I work there. Comply with all these law. But still I move here. Also, when I start living in Georgia, I fly here to Fort Myers to get my test again. And I still fail, you know. And then the -- what I say, I got like almost 20 years doing the same thing. And like Mr. Ossorio said, it's not -- I can _do the whole business without -- like I can start your door, but I cannot paint the door. You have to hire a painter. Which is, you know, not something -- normally I could do it because I like to please the whole, you know, project. And I been working for so long time, and I keeping my -- I don't have my license. It has to be by law. I don't want to work with no license, which is ain't right. And that's why I came here. Because I knew if I go there, it's going to be the same thing, you know. You know, every time they make the -- I go into the test, it's another different, you know, words and they change the language and the same thing, pretty much. I gonna be stuck in the same hole for who knows. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you, sir. Questions for Mr. Alvarez? MR. JOSLIN: Just one -- I guess one to explain it. The problem with you taking the test is that you don't understand the language or the way they're giving the test in the language that you speak, is that the case? Page 7 16F1 A6 March 12, 2010 MR. ALVAREZ: Yes, the language, the terminology they use in there, I don't understand what they say. And then if you don't understand the whole thing, how can I answer? Because one word change the whole thing. MR. JOSLIN: Is it the problem with the English language -- MR. ALVAREZ: Yes. MR. JOSLIN: -- that you don't understand the English language? What language do you speak? MR. ALVAREZ: Spanish. MR. JOSLIN: Spanish. Mr. Ossorio, I've just got a question for you. I think a long time ago that we have a testing company that does give the test in Spanish if it's requested, isn't (sic) it? MR. OSSORIO: Yes, we have actually two testing companies. One is a nationwide testing company, Prometric, and the other one is Gainesville Independent. And Gainesville Independent is -- does offer it in Spanish. The books are in English, but the test could be in Spanish. And you have to drive to Ocala, a what, four and a half hour drive to take the exam. So that is an offer. MR. JOSLIN: I'm not saying the painting is a license or something that is -- I don't know how you say it, a Tier 1 category license, but -- for painting. But I'm just trying to find a way that he could take the test in Spanish rather than in English, if he doesn't understand the English language. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: You've taken the exam three times, sir? MR. ALVAREZ: (Nods head affirmatively.) MR. WHITE: What were your scores? Because I've looked through the packet and there's nothing in here that tells me what the grade you got was and what the passing grade is. MR. ALVAREZ: I don't have that paperwork because it's a MaJh'121 210 " A v couple years ago. But it's 70, 69, something like that. And I believe they ask for 75 percent. I don't know if they changed already. MR. WHITE: So you were close but not quite there. MR. ALVAREZ: Well, the last time was 75 percent. MR. WHITE: But your scores were close but not passing. MR. ALVAREZ: Well, sometimes not even close. In the sixties. MR. JOSLIN: At least you're honest. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, the passing grade by the ordinance is 75. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. MR. OSSORIO: I believe he's got a 50 and a 60 and maybe a 70 in there. So -- MR. JOSLIN: And this is all been taken in English, right, you've taken the test? MR. ALVAREZ: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Kvle? MR. LANTZ: I actually have two questions: One, have you gone to any other construction schools like Cam Tech or, I don't know, there's a thousand of them out there. Have you attended any of those? MR. ALVAREZ: No. MR. LANTZ: Okay. So a comment on that. I would recommend you do that. And then my other question is just a stupid technicality, but I saw that your corporation and your stocks and everything are on Real Handyman and Carpentry, Inc., but your application is Real Handyman and Finish Carpentry, Inc. I'm just wondering what the -- MR. ALVAREZ: Yeah, is once when I open the -- that business account, I open on that, because I also got the handyman license too. But when I apply, Ossorio, Mike Ossorio told me I cannot do that because I'm not a carpenter. And that way I have to make an amendment to Tallahassee to change carpentry for finish carpentry, 0 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 because I'm not licensed. MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. You know, typically, you know, when somebody comes in and says I'm going to be -- the name of my business is Michael Ossorio's Carpentry, we have a carpentry license, and he's going for a cabinet license or a finish work, so technically we just don't like that kind of verbiage in there. So he had to do an amendment to the corporation, so that's why you see a little difference. MR. LANTZ: I just saw the corporate shares and all the corporate stuff that was in our packet said carpentry, not finish carpentry. So I was just wondering what the difference is, that's all. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other questions for Mr. Alvarez or for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, so if I may summarize, Mr. Alvarez, you've got several years of experience doing painting. You also have licenses in other trades. But because of a language barrier, you cannot pass the painting exam. However, you've been informed today that you can take the test in Spanish, and there are also construction classes that you could take that would maybe familiarize you more with the terminology that you might need to understand to pass the test. Does that sound like I summarized it pretty well? MR. JOSLIN: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, if there are no other questions or comments from the board, I'm going to need a motion. Kyle? MR. LANTZ: I move we deny his request and -- MR. WHITE: Second. MR. LANTZ: -- require him to take the test and pass it. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I have a second. Any further discussion? MR. WHITE: Under discussion, Mr. Chairman, I would simply recommend to the applicant that he consider attending one of the Page 10 { 161 1 A6 March 12, 2010 schools, and also pursue taking the exam in Spanish if he feels that that is the real problem here. From my point of view I didn't see enough effort on your part to find other ways to get through the exam other than to just hav s waive it. 4t CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, I have a motion, I have a second. All those in favor of declining the request, say aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries, thank you. Okay, Gregory Westgate, qualifying a second entity. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Jackson? MR. JACKSON: Mr. Westgate currently qualifies Southern Coast Painting and is in front of the board today to qualify a second entity, Classic Painting of Naples. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Chairman, just to let you know, I've worked -- or he has worked for me a long time ago. I don't think it's going to affect my decision, but just want for the record to let you know. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you, Mr. Jerulle. And also I have a relationship with Mr. Westgate and his company, Southern Coast Painting, and I will abstain from voting on this request. Okay. Page 11 I ac b h����oQ � Mr. Westgate, explain to us why you're here, sir. MR. WESTGATE: I'm transitioning over to -- actually expanding with a partner to another aspect of painting, which is more focused on repaints and residential, opposed to new construction. I want to continue to pursue new construction and commercial work, and my partner is going to pursue a -- more of a residential repainting sector of the business. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. JERULLE: Is your partner here? MR. WESTGATE: Yes. MR. JERULLE: Could you point him out for us? MR. WESTGATE: Mr. Vallenueva. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Do you have questions of his partner? MR. JERULLE: No, just curious. Not yet, anyway. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Westgate, could you spell his last name for me, please? MR. WESTGATE: V- A- L- L- E- N- U- E -V -A. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. JOSLIN: How long has this company been in business, Mr. Westgate? MR. WESTGATE: Well, it's not current. We're in the process of completing all the documents and paperwork. MR. JOSLIN: No, you're qualifying a second entity, you said. MR. WESTGATE: Correct. MR. JOSLIN: What's the first entity? How long has it been in business? MR. WESTGATE: Since 1996. MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Ossorio, has there been any other problems with this company? Michael? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Michael? MR.OSSORIO: Yes? MR. JOSLIN: Has there been any citations or problems with this Page 12 16 11' A6 March 12, 2010 company? MR. O S S ORIO : Nothing I know of, no. MR. JOSLIN: What is your feeling on it? MR. OSSORIO: I read it and I reviewed it and it looks fine to me. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Kyle? MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious, do you have -- do you currently have workers' comp coverage, or are you working on an exemption? MR. WESTGATE: No, I'm covered with workman's comp. MR. LANTZ: And the second company will be comp. or exemption? MR. WESTGATE: Don't know. It's not been -- we're going to start off the business with Bill doing the work himself. In efforts to expand, we would hire a management company to do payroll and outsource that and take advantage of the coverage that is provided by the outsource company at that time. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Jerulle? MR. JERULLE: Mr. Chairman, as the board knows, I'm not in great favor of having one company qual -- or one person qualify two different entities, especially if those entities are the same. I guess I don't understand why you want to qualify a second entity when you have an entity that paints. It doesn't make a difference if the painter is commercial or residential, you still have a license to paint, correct? MR. WESTGATE: Yeah, but his focus is going to be predominantly on a different part of the industry than mine. MR. JERULLE: So why can't you bring him into your existing entity? MR. WESTGATE: Well, we did talk about that. And he's got more ambitions than to do such that. You know, he wants to grow and be more of an acting member than an employee. And I -- you know, he proved to be, you know, financially responsible to fund that. And Page 13 1611 "A6 March 12, 2010 he's ambitious and wants to -- wants to, you know, partner and do things right and achieve what everybody else is trying to achieve. And I thought it was a good opportunity for myself as well him -- MR. JERULLE: So then it begs the question, why not sell him part of your company and let him do that, or work out an arrangement with him to give him part of your company -- MR. WESTGATE: Yeah, we talked -- MR. JERULLE: -- to do that? MR. WESTGATE: We talked about that. MR. JERULLE: I just don't understand why you need two different -- you need to have two different separate painting companies. MR. WESTGATE: We talked about that as well. And I don't want to give up my shares of my existing company. MR. JERULLE: Okay. MR. LANTZ: What sort of role are you going to have in the new company? MR. WESTGATE: Management. MR. LANTZ: Like job site supervision management or overseeing the books management or -- MR. WESTGATE: Overseeing the books. MR. JOSLIN: If I may? CHAIRMAN LYKO S : Sir? MR. JOSLIN: I'd just like to call the board's attention to the credit application in the back of the packet. Mr. Westgate, I found it -- I've got -- well, I'm seeing five different collection accounts on you in '09. Not a sizeable amount of money on them, except for one that's a foreclosure. Can you kind of give me an idea on what's going on with that? MR. WESTGATE: And which -- where is that at? MR. JOSLIN: It's from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. Foreclosure procedure. And you're delinquent 180 days. Page 14 m1kl21olo A 6 MR. WESTGATE: That was a short sale. That's a short sale on a home that I lived in. MR. JOSLIN: What is MINTEX, Inc.? MR. WESTGATE: I'm not sure. MR. JOSLIN: I'm not sure what it means. It's a co pany of some sort. M- I- N- T -E -X, Inc. MR. WHITE: They look like they're a collection company, but the original creditor was Collier County Waste. Would that be not having paid for your solid waste pickup? MR. WESTGATE: What solid waste? MR. WHITE: Garbage. MR. WESTGATE: No, it's all in my taxes. I guess when you're delinquent on payments and you're delinquent on property tax in the situation where you've not made the payment, then the taxes are responsible of the owner, which would be the bank. You know, I don't really want to get into the logistics of how a mortgage is foreclosed on, nor that I would feel it was relevant to question me on my, you know, short sale or foreclosure process of my primary residence. MR. WHITE: Well, I appreciate your -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Excuse me, Mr. White. Mr. Neale, why don't you clarify for us. There are some guidelines for us whether we take the business credit or personal credit into consideration in these circumstances, if you'd clarify that for us, please. MR. NEALE: Right. And since his business has been in the business that he currently has, has been in business for over a year, you're to look to his business credit, not to his personal credit in determining whether he has been responsible. And you're to look primarily at construction debts, not at personal debts. So, you know, if he had a house foreclosed on and it was his own house, as long as he's running his business well and paying his Page 15 t6h11J5 1 6 arc 20 business debts, in today's economy particularly I don't think that's something that anybody should throw big rocks at him about. You know, if he's able to keep his business squared away, and particularly since both the Florida Administrative Code statute and the rules all say that it's whether they're paying their contracting debts, not their personal debts. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. JOSLIN: What's the -- one other question then. According to the business credit report I'm showing something for Chicago Municipal Company for a debt that was filed in 11/20 of '03 for $9,200? MR. WESTGATE: Yeah, that's been satisfied. MR. JOSLIN: Why is it appearing on your credit report? I don't see anything that says it's satisfied, that's why I'm asking. MR. WESTGATE: That was a business consulting company that was -- that was sent in as well. It was requested that that be sent in, the documents qualifying that that was satisfied. Is it in your packet? Because it was provided. MR. JOSLIN: No, that's why I was looking for it. MR. WESTGATE: That was provided, right, Bill? That was the MR. WHITE: There's a satisfaction release of judgment for the amount of $9,239 -- MR. WESTGATE: Yeah, that's correct. MR. WHITE: -- from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, which is Chicago. MR. WESTGATE: That's it. MR. JOSLIN: Where did you find that, Mr. White? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Joslin, it's three pages up from the credit report. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: It's in front of the business report, credit Page 16 M��2, ! oho A 6 - + report. MR. JOSLIN: Sorry. MR. WHITE: I knew I'd seen it, but -- MR. NEALE: And one other point on the Rule 61 G4 is that the consumer credit report should not disclose any unsatisfied judgments or liens against the applicant. So if there are any outstanding judgments or liens against the applicant, those can be grounds to disqualify. But this is a satisfied judgment. MR. WHITE: Is that on both the business and personal or just -- MR. NEALE: Business and personal. The specific language is -- this is 61 G4- 15.006. The financial responsibility ground on which the board shall refuse to qualify an applicant is failure to provide a current consumer credit report, which consumer credit report does not disclose any unsatisfied judgments or liens against the applicant. MR. WHITE: Just one question, Mr. Chairman, to clarify about the workers' comp, if I may? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Mr. Westgate, you indicated that your company Classic was going to file for exemptions, or not? MR. WESTGATE: Upon the approval of this we will consult with a -- with In Balance -- actually, we've consulted with them already as far as the payroll -- use the numbers of payroll service, and them providing the workmen's comp. for the employees as they're signed on. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. White, if you look on the back of the page, it says notice of election to be exempt. His partner is going to be owners (sic) of a company, obviously he's going to have to get a workers' comp exemption, be incorporated. It's either /or, workers' comp exempt with a payroll service -- MR. WESTGATE: Well, most of the work that's required, except for outside of condos, is no -- you can use an exemption for personal residences. Condos you need to be -- even if you're the Page 17 t M��' A6 1, � 10 owner, it's required you are covered. I don't -- MR. OSSORIO: That's not true. MR. WESTGATE: -- believe that they accept -- or they accept exemptions? MR. OSSORIO: No, it's up to the condo association. Some of the condo associations don't like exemptions, but there's no restriction on the exemptions. Workers Comp under 440, if you are exempt, you're exempt from commercial /residential. A lot of companies don't like exemptions because it's easy to cheat, so they like to have a payroll service or some kind of a policy. MR. WESTGATE: Right. And in the work that he is, you know, following, that we haven't needed to go to that step yet. MR. WHITE: So the point of my question was to clarify whether your intention is to file for the exemptions or to have the coverage. I'm not sure I got a clear answer either way. MR. WESTGATE: It will be done by the payroll company. But at this time the plan is to have Bill exempt from Workmen's Comp. MR. WHITE: You're saying the president, Mr. Bill Vallenueva? MR. WESTGATE: Correct. MR. WHITE: And the Notice of Election to be Exempt that you filed and is in our packet, what about that? MR. WESTGATE: I've been exempt. MR. WHITE: Okay. MR. JERULLE: I'm not sure I understand. Excuse me. You're going to be exempt from both entities? MR. WESTGATE: Yes. MR. JERULLE: And he'll be exempt from the second entity as well? MR. WESTGATE: Yeah, that's correct. MR. JOSLIN: Are you going to have employees besides yourself? Besides yourselves. MR. WESTGATE: Hopefully there'll be future growth. That's 1§h'1�2010A 6 the whole plan here. MR. JOSLIN: That's why you're going to use the payroll service then? MR. WESTGATE: That's right. MR. LANTZ: And is there another person exempt from your current company? Is it just you? MR. WESTGATE: Just me, yes. I've always been the sole owner. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other questions for Mr. Westgate or for staff? MR. JERULLE: Are you still going in the field, Greg, and painting? MR. WESTGATE: No. MR. JERULLE: I have no other questions. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Then I need a motion. MR. BOYD: I make a motion we approve it. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion to approve. I need a second. MR. MEISTER: Second. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you, Mr. Meister. I have a motion, I have a second. Any further discussion? MR. JERULLE: Yeah, I still have a problem with if he's trying to qualify a second entity that does not do painting, I would agree, most likely, if everything was in order. But to have two painting companies doing the exact same thing, it just doesn't -- I just have a hard time with it. I don't think that we're serving the public or ourselves well by doing that. So personally I have a problem with it and I'm going to vote no. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: What are your specific concerns, Terry? Page 19 MarM21 OA A6 MR. JERULLE: You have a painting company that can do -- his motive was to have one do residential and one do commercial. He can do residential and commercial now. There's nothing preventing a painting company from doing either one. So he's trying to create a second entity for a purpose that I still don't understand why. Just to create another entity. And I just think there's things that could happen. Not saying that will happen, but in my mind there's things that can happen by having two different entities when you can only -- when you still only need one. So in my mind I just disagree with it. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you for your comments. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve. I'm going to call the vote. All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those opposed? MR. JERULLE: Nay. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. THE COURT REPORTER: Could I see a show of hands? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: In favor, raise your hand, please. MR. WHITE: (Indicating.) MR. BOYD: (Indicating.) MR. MEISTER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed, raise your hand. MR. JOSLIN: (Indicating.) MR. LANTZ: (Indicating.) MR. JERULLE: (Indicating.) THE COURT REPORTER: And you're abstaining. Page 20 Marc-fi I2,I J0 l � CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm abstaining. So we had a motion to approve and we have a vote of 3 -3, which means the vote does not carry, correct? MR. NEALE: Right. MR. WESTGATE: Can I -- MR. WHITE: Make a motion -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Excuse me one second. Mr. Neale, is that correct? MR. NEALE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Based on the motion that was made and based on a tie vote, the motion does not carry -- MR. NEALE: Right. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- because it was not voted on by a majority. MR. NEALE: Correct. Mr. White I believe wants to -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. White? MR. NEALE: -- make an alternative motion. MR. WHITE: If the applicant wanted to make a comment, I'd let him go first. MR. WESTGATE: Yeah, in respect to Mr. Jerulle's, you know, disconcern (sic) with my business practice and the personal feeling behind why he doesn't understand why this individual would want to take on the responsibility of business ownership, I think that's pretty unfair in your part. You're a business owner. As a business owner, you strive to perform more so. Mr. Lykos took on a business partner, multiple business partners. So as yourself. I don't want to have a partner in my business that I've established for so long. Mr. Vallenueva is ambitious enough to consult with me, go through the process properly in order for him to be able to achieve ownership of a business and feel good about that and have passion behind that. Page 21 16112010 A6 March 12, And I have somewhat of a disgust that you can't understand as a business owner why Mr. Vallenueva wouldn't want to have the passion to achieve ownership of a business. It was as win/win for myself and Mr. Vallenueva. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Joslin -- MR. WESTGATE: That's why we did this. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Joslin, you have a comment? MR. JOSLIN: Yes. Did Mr. Vallenueva ever work for you? MR. WESTGATE: Yes, he has. MR. JOSLIN: For how long? MR. WESTGATE: Off and on for a number of years. MR. JERULLE: So if Mr. Vallenueva would like to own a business, there's nothing that we've done that would prevent him from starting and owning his own business. MR. JOSLIN: Right. MR. WESTGATE: You know, the choice is -- MR. JERULLE: There's nothing preventing him from going out and getting a painting license. MR. WESTGATE: Well, there's nothing from him -- MR. JERULLE: -- starting an LLC or an S Corporation and starting his own company. MR. WESTGATE: When conjoining with another individual that's established, there's a lot of benefit with that. MR. JERULLE: And that's what I'm saying. Make him a partner. MR. WESTGATE: I don't think that's -- you know, that's a personal choice. MR. JOSLIN: In other words, you trust him enough to put your license on the line to qualify him to be in business, but you don't trust him enough to be in your business. That's the problem I have. MR. WESTGATE: Well, it's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of Page 22 IN 11, 2010 A6 conflict. And I don't, you know, want to have a partner in my business. I grew my business, it was my business. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, Mr. estgate, thank you for your time today. If you'd like, you can contact Mr. Ossorio, find out what your other options may be. Mr. Vallenueva can contact the licensing department, find out what other options you may have. If you decide you want to apply again under different circumstances and come back in front of the board, you certainly have that option as well. MR. WESTGATE: The circumstance isn't going to change. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, the board has voted. And unless I have a motion that somebody wants to start this process all over again, I don't even know that I would even accept that motion, but you do have other options, Mr. Vallenueva has other options. MR. WESTGATE: Was it not explained? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, my point is -- MR. WESTGATE: Just because somebody has a misunderstanding for themselves the answer is well, I just don't understand why you're doing this? I mean -- MR. JOSLIN: It's not understanding, Mr. Westgate. Understand, there are three board members that denied it and there are three that approved it. I'm sorry that's the way it fell, but that's the decision that the board has made. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. White, you have a comment? MR. WHITE: No, actually, I was going to make a motion to continue it to next month for further consideration. I would like the opportunity to give the gentleman a way to present his case slightly different, come back with perhaps some more explanation and rationale as to why that might satisfy the three votes against. If that's not agreeable and there isn't a second, then it fails. But I at least wanted to give him an opportunity. And although it was a very close question in my mind, and I Page 23 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 almost voted against this as well, I have to say that I made the decision to vote in favor of it, one, because there is a process that allows him to do this. Two, he qualifies for all aspects under that process. And in my mind, although I may not agree with the philosophy or the business practice, until such time as there's demonstrated proof that he doesn't qualify or subsequent to approval and having his license demonstrate that he's not worthy to have that license, I think we have to go along with what it is that I signed up to do which is to basically follow the rules. So in this case although I didn't like the answer to some of the questions and the way that some the questions were answered, I wanted to give the gentleman an opportunity to come back next month, both with something potentially in writing in his packet and otherwise to address the concerns of my fellow board members. But again, that's a motion I put out there for that effort, and that's all I have to share at this time, Mr. Chairman. MR. WESTGATE: Bill has -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. WESTGATE: Bill has contacts that I don't have. And that as well is a large part of why, you know, we're doing this. He doesn't want to give up those contacts. He doesn't want to completely turn those contacts over to me. And he wants to grow a business and build contacts. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Westgate, Mr. Vallenueva, the board heard the case, the board has voted. Mr. White sounds like he has recommended that you assemble a package with some other information in it and perhaps come back with a different plan. You're certainly open to coming back perhaps next month with another package or another request, but at this time the board has voted, and -- MR. WHITE: Well, it appears my motion has failed for lack of a second, Mr. Chairman, but -- Page 24 461 1210io A 6 MR. NEALE: There was a motion made. I don't know if there was even a call for a second, so -- MR. WHITE: Do you want to call for a second, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I will call for a statement. W* don't you restate your motion and I'll call for a second. MR. WHITE: Motion is to continue to have the applicant return with whatever additional written materials he would like to provide for the matter to be reconsidered next month. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion. Is there a second? MR. BOYD: I'll second it, Boyd. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not -- just point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if you're going to remove yourself from this vote or not, but I certainly can't see any reason why you'd have a conflict to vote whether we would continue it or not. And I'd ask Mr. Neale to -- MR. NEALE: I agree with Mr. White, I think the Chair has to vote on this one. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. WHITE: So if you want to call the question. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I will call the vote again. All those in favor of continuation till next month. Page 25 16 11 A6 March 12, 2010 MR. MEISTER: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So -- MR. JOSLIN: Motion fails. MR. WHITE: Motion fails. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- the motion fails. Again, Mr. Westgate, you can come back to us next month or any time thereafter with another proposal for us to consider, another request for us to consider. Thank you for your time this morning. Cory Maile. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Sorry for that. Mr. Maile, if you'd please be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Maile, you are here for review of your construction experience affidavits; is that correct? MR. MAILS: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any background from staff on this? MR. OSSORIO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Maile is not uncommon. I think you've heard testimony or similar cases in the past. Mr. Maile is a homeowner that has elected to take the business procedure test to be a pool cleaning contractor. Unfortunately he's never actually worked for a pool cleaning contractor. He has owned many homes and done his own work and so he has petitioned the board to waiver the experience, or show experience to the board. MR. MAILS: Correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. Mr. Maile, why don't you give us some background information Page 26 16hl �� zo�o A 6 on yourself. MR. MAILE: Real estate investigator, real estate brok1r. I've owned three real estate investment companies and brokerage companies in Collier County. Currently I have sold all three of them and now a broker with another company. But mainly I do maintenance and manage my own properties, my own 12 or 13 properties in Collier County. I service - I'm currently serving six pools that I own, which I have been for quite a while, as well as I've been servicing the pools for the last 12 years since I came here in 1998. Prior to 1998 I was a real estate investor and broker in Minnesota, which I did the same thing, as well as -- there wasn't as many pools there; I only had two pools because of the weather. But I did service the pools while I was in management in Minnesota. Currently own Realty Net Real Estate which is the entity that houses most of my homes. And I manage that as well as do vacation rentals. I currently have six vacation rentals that I rent out on a weekly basis in Collier County, and I manage the rentals and the properties and the pools and the lawns and all that. That's my job for my properties. And I would like to expand that to properties that I don't own and service pools on properties that I do not own. So I'd like to ask the -- incorporate my 12 years of experience in managing my own properties to incorporate a business of adding a few that I don't own from friends and relatives and future business. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. Questions for Mr. Maile? MR. WHITE: None for Mr. Maile, Mr. Chairman. One for staff. What is the experience length of time that's supposed to be demonstrated? MR. OSSORIO: It's 24 months. MR. WHITE: Twenty -four months. Page 27 Ono 16hill 6 2a1A MR. MAILS: And I have completed two. I have completed the Collier County pool certification class, and I also have completed a Florida certification class that is put on by the Aquatic Training Institute, and I have completed that as well. Which is not mandatory for this, but it's just additional experience that I have. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Terry? MR. JERULLE: Mr. Ossorio, do you have a recommendation? MR. OSSORIO: I thought about this -- Ian and myself thought about this at length. And I try to be consistent with our business and how we conduct and how we recommend, but in this particular case, Mr. Maile has zone shown to me that he's owned businesses, he's owned homes. We've checked. He's been in business in this community for quite a long time. And he has taken the necessary courses, the CPO courses that will go towards his experience. Not all of it, not even half of it. So my recommendation is, is that he -- six month probation, give him a license only for residential homes, no condos. That would be my recommendation. MR. JOSLIN: And pool cleaning only? MR. OSSORIO: That's what his license he's going for is pool cleaning. MR. MAILS: Yeah, I'm only trying to get a pool cleaning license and I have no intentions of doing licenses. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We happen to have a pool guy with us. MR. JOSLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Richard. MR. JOSLIN: Unfortunately you're in luck today. The license that we're trying to give him is one of the A, B or C classes, is that what you're trying to say? So if he gets a swimming pool servicing contractor licensing, is what we're going to give him, then he's going to be able to do servicing on any residential pool plus repair. 161 March 12, 2010 A6 MR. OSSORIO: No. MR. MAILS: No, just residential cleaning and pools. MR. OSSORIO: Remember we've talked about this is the -- when you read this 489, that's different from ours. Ours is pool servicing and cleaning. We're going to clean it up in our next budget -- I mean, our next workshop. However, he's going to for pool cleaning only -- MR. MAILS: No service. MR. OSSORIO: -- and all he can do is servicing -- MR. JOSLIN: We're just going to restrict the license to just pool cleaning only? MR. MAILS: Correct. MR. JOSLIN: Is that the -- MR. WHITE: And the residential -- MR. NEALE: The new license will be just pool cleaning. MR. MAILE: No service, no -- MR. NEALE: But this one will be a restricted -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, there's two people talking. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: One person at a time. MR. NEALE: This one would be a restricted license, based on staff recommendation. But when the new ordinance is aborne, it will have the cleanup between the -- of the discrepancy between the state and the county license and it will have a straight pool cleaning license. MR. JOSLIN: Okay, that's what I -- MR. OSSORIO: For pool cleaning -- to clean pools in Collier County requires a business procedure test. There's no trades test. MR. JOSLIN: Correct. MR. OSSORIO: This is why the county staff and myself and Ian and Robert Zachary look at his experience. We look for experience, and it's 24 months. However, in light of his business, he's been in the community, he's also had many properties in town, I'd recommend that Page 29 161 1 ab March 12, 2010 since he's taken the necessary certificate courses and I recommend he go on six -month probation with a restricted to residential homes, no commercial. That's my recommendation. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Just a question. Mr. Ossorio, what are we going to do six months from now if we grant him a six -month probationary? What are we going to be looking for six months from now? MR. OSSORIO: Six months, I believe he'll petition the board again, he will tell his story of what kind of business he's doing, how's he doing, how many accounts he has and if there's been any complaints. And my assumption would be if he meets those criterias then he'll be off probation and be just a swimming pool cleaning contractor, restricted to residential pools. MR. WHITE: And there isn't the potential six months from now to make that a full license without the limitation to residential only? MR. OSSORIO: That's up to the board. MR. WHITE: I understand. But just trying to understand where you're going with it. MR. JOSLIN: What is the ATI training, Aquatic Training Institute? Where is that out of? MR. MAILS: It's just a nationwide institution to -- Collier County has their own health department test. This is more of a Florida test. So the State of Florida would -- if the Collier County didn't have their own test, the State of Florida would require this test. But Collier County has their own test as well, so I took both. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. You do understand that the Collier County Health Department is governed by the State of Florida. MR. MAILS: Well, yeah, but this -- MR. JOSLIN: It's Collier -- MR. MAILS: -- it's a national thing. But it meets all the Page 30 � w46 March -12, 201 requirements of the State of Florida as well. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Kyle? MR. LANTZ: I have -- first I have a comment. I like the way you did your packet. I just want to -- we get a lot of them that are junk. You did a really nice job spelling everything out. I appreciate that. I appreciate the fact that you took all the classes and it seems like you're ready to go. You've never worked for a pool contractor. In my opinion, that's irrelevant. I personally feel you have the experience. My question is, Michael is suggesting restricting you to residential only, no condos. Are you happy? Do you care about that? MR. MAILS: I do not care. I have no intentions of doing condos. MR. LANTZ: Okay. MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Give me one second. Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion that we approve the license for the pool cleaning and restrict it to residential pools only, and a probationary period of six months, where he'll come back before the board and bring us some kind of an update on how he's doing and the business, how it is doing. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a second from Mr. Lantz. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. Page 31 MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Congratulations, sir. Eric Baker, waiver of examination. Mr. Baker, please be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn). MR. BAKER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Good morning, sir. MR. BAKER: Fine. 1611 ab March 12, 2010 How are you today? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Good. Staff, quick background on this? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Baker has been a long -time member of the community. He's been a cabinet installer for many years. And unfortunately that he forgot to renew his certificate. And when you don't renew your certificate in a certain amount of time, testing is required. Unfortunately he's here to get -- ask for a waiver of test. Which we have heard before from other applicants. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, thank you. Mr. Baker? MR. BAKER: Well, there appears to be some circumstances involved in this that are a little different. It appears that when the occupational license renewals and the cabinet installer renewals were mailed, they were mailed together up to, what, 2008, I think. Then when I went to the Horseshoe Drive, I was told that those had been separated, that the occupational license was sent out separately from the contractor licensing renewal. And for some reason our name was left off the list. So we didn't get the renewal for the cabinet install license. So it wasn't that we invertently (sic) -- you Page 32 16 I i A6� March 12, 2010 know, didn't renew it, we didn't get a notice that it was time to renew it, because it didn't come in the same package as the occupational license. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I can tell you -- Mr. Baker, I'm sure you are being honest with me and the licensing board, but we have never commingled licensing business tax receipts and our certificates with them. We used to send them out very similar, within a month. We have not changed how we send our certificates out in years. It's always been in September. The business tax license several years ago moved it farther up into the months. June. So you'll get your business tax receipt first and then you'll get your certificate in September. But no way, shape or form, Mr. Baker's unfortunately misspoke, that we've never commingled our certificates with the business -- I wish we would, it would save money. But that is a business tax that is a tax collector, and we are -- we work for -- we do certificates. We used to be very similar in sending out renewals, so that's the difference. So maybe he's just getting confused. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. MR. BAKER: I may have my information incorrect, with the fact that they -- I thought they came together, okay, so maybe they came at the same time. (Microphone came out of holder.) MR. BAKER: Can I fix that for us? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Please do. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, Mr. Baker's been licensed for many, many years. As a matter of fact, he's been licensed so long that I don't think he ever even took the business procedure test. I believe he was grandfathered in. MR. BAKER: I don't know how this works, gentlemen, you'll have to help me. Page 33 MY 2! 2U10 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you, Ian. MR. BAKER: Oh, there it is. Any questions for staff or for Mr. Baker? (No response.) MR. BAKER: May I make some more comments? We did try to put all the information together, as was requested. We brought all of the financial information. There appeared to be an issue with our credit report. We did have a lien that was filed by the Department of Revenue for unpaid sales tax. We had an agreement with the sales tax people to pay that sales tax on a monthly installment. We took the information to Horseshoe Drive, told them that that was in process and that we were not able to satisfy the requirements until we had a release of lien from the State of Florida. We didn't get the release of lien until January of '10. And when we took it there, then we were told that the -- you know, the time frame had expired. And that's why I'm here now, to ask about the waiver of the test. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Terry? MR. JERULLE: You've been in business a long time and I have no doubt about your qualifications, but I'm just curious, why not just go take the test as opposed to coming here? It's -- MR. BAKER: Because I've never taken a test before and the word test is -- yeah, that's what I say, test? MR. JOSLIN: This tax lien you're saying is paid off now? MR. BAKER: Yeah. MR. JOSLIN: It's all done and taken care of MR. BAKER: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify Mr. Baker's statement, he's actually correct, if he didn't have the tax lien and he proceeded before January 1 st, then he would fall under the category of not retesting. Since he fell after January 1 st, he fell in a different Page 34 A6 MarC§ 12, 010 category on the renewal period and the test required. So you can see by the application year ending 2009, this is an old application. He came in to reapply and unfortunately he fell in between the January 1 st and December. He finally got the certificate what (sic) he needed to and then he fell into the retesting. MR. JERULLE: So Mr. Ossorio, he has to come in front the board, that's not a decision that you can make? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. After December -- after January 1 st, the renewal period, he doesn't have to go in front of the board, but it says that if you haven't taken the test within three years of your null and void license, then you have to retest. Unfortunately Mr. Baker, I don't think he ever took the exam; am I correct? MR. BAKER: No, I -- MR. OSSORIO: He's been unlicensed forever. MR. BAKER: -- was one of the fortunate people that were here when -- MR. JERULLE: Do you have a recommendation? MR. OSSORIO: He paid his tax lien. And if he paid it before January 1 st, he wouldn't have to retest. So he did everything I asked him to do. I recommend that we waive the test. MR. JOSLIN: Okay, I have one -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Excuse me one second. MR. JOSLIN: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Kyle? MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious, had he paid his tax lien December 29th, he'd be here and -- MR. OSSORIO: He would not be here. MR. LANTZ: He'd have a license, he'd be all set. MR. OSSORIO: He'd be fine. MR. LANTZ: So, I mean, basically it was your choice to wait until January to finish paying it, as opposed to paying it a week or two earlier. Page 35 Mi§11,110 A6 MR. BAKER: Well, actually it was, you know, us getting it in the mail from the State of Florida. I mean, the tax lien was actually paid prior to the end of the year, but of course it has to go through all of the motions at the state. Then they will then issue a release of lien. MR. JOSLIN: If I'm not missing something, but isn't it law, state law -- Mr. Neale could tell us this -- that any contractor that does contracting business doesn't pay taxes, he pays taxes when he buys the material? MR. BAKER: Well, if you're tax exempt as we are, okay, we buy materials tax exempt, we charge the customer sales tax and then we pay the state sales tax. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. I understand now. MR. BOYD: And this was probably a result of an audit, the lien? MR. BAKER: It was an audit and -- MR. BOYD: Yeah. I've been audited twice. And each time I can guarantee you, you're going to pay something. There's no question about it. MR. NEALE: I can say for my client that every client who's ever been audited by the state for sales tax ends up writing a check. MR. BOYD: Yeah. And both times I've been audited, neither one of the auditors had the same answers to any questions. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other questions of staff or Mr. Baker? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, then I need a motion. MR. WHITE: Motion to approve. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. Page 36 16112"'2A 'I MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries. Thank you, sir. MR. BAKER: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. JOSLIN: No test. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Is Leonard Allen here? Please come up, sir, be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Leonard (sic), you're here to contest a citation? MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Will you please explain why you're here. MR. ALLEN: The reason why I'm here is first off I asked for the hearing to explain the business cards that was mailed into your -- to the builder's office, which was falsifying that I'm a contractor, I suppose is what I -- how I was told. And two, I didn't -- I don't have the money to pay the ticket. It's just -- I've currently moved up north Florida to Tallahassee where I was from originally before I moved south here in Collier County. Let me explain a little bit about my company, and then I'll -- if you don't mind, then I'll tell you about the business card. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Please go ahead. MR. ALLEN: Ace Carpentry is a limited liability company, organized under the laws of the State of Florida. And it was filed in October 27th, 2006. All the fees have been paid. Page 37 MJC611� 110 A 6 I've moved back to Tallahassee due to -- I just don't know any contractors, I don't know anybody here, and it's so seasonal. It seemed like every time I would establish a job with a company, this off season would come and here I am out of work again. Well, I'm married and I have three children, and right now we're living on -- excuse me, I'm a little nervous; I'm not usually talking in front of an audience, or you gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's okay, take your time. MR. ALLEN: Okay. And we have three children, which living off only my wife's income, which isn't very much. Let's see. The business card was basically a sample card. I give it to some family members, a few friends. Me and my wife had split up there for a little while, we had some problems. And an ex- girlfriend of mine had gotten the card. Along with a couple of contractors that I have met since I've been living in Marco Island. I don't know which one of those cards made it into you guys, but I'm assuming -- I'm really leaning towards the ex- girlfriend, because she's trying to get to me in a lot of different ways. I'm just saying that because that's the way I feel anyway. You know, I know I put -- listed a few jobs or duties, occupations on there. And basically the card was printed off my computer in order to get the opinion of different people of what the card looked like and whatnot. And then the contractors that -- the couple contractors that I did let see the card and give the card to told me that no, this was -- you know, I needed to obtain other licenses and -- to have this on my business card. So -- and now I've went to Leon County. I went to make sure my business license was up to date. And now they don't require a business license, they've done away with the county business license for carpentry. All you now have to have is a limited liability exemption and then be covered, bonded by insurance to work carpentry like home repair and whatnot. So they don't require a Page 38 161 6 A March 12,40'1' 0 business license. I didn't know if you guys new that. Tallahassee doesn't require a county business license for carpentry anymore. And I'm sure. you -- I found out that you do. But I really wasn't working under my license here anyway. And it had actually fell behind, but I got it up to date. Because I'm hoping to get in touch with some of the contractors I had worked for previously in Tallahassee. I guess I'm asking for this fine to be waived due to the fact that I don't have any money to pay it. And I would have been late had I not asked for this hearing after the 10 days of being given the ticket. I'm aware that several of the occupations that were on the card were requiring an additional licensing, but -- and when I put it on there, I was not planning on doing plumbing and electric. I merely meant to pass it on to a company who did. Because I don't care -- my insurance company wouldn't care for me to go in and wire somebody's house or change receptacles and whatnot anyway, or to do their plumbing. And God knows, I don't want to go into a condo or someone's home and cause a leak. I see it every day with -- or had seen it a lot of times with working with ServPro and some of the other water restoration companies in this area, how easily you can flood out a building by leaving a toilet unhooked or whatnot. I've seen millions of dollars that insurance companies would have to pay or I guess would be -- the company would be liable, whoever caused the problem. But it was basically a sample card and it only made it to a few people. I didn't go handing it out door -to -door or take it to condos and passing out the card. It was someone trying to get revenge on me, and it was a sample card. And I am aware that things that I listed on there are requiring a different licensing. But you got one of them and I'm here and I've been fined $300 that I really don't have. I don't have the money to pay it. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Thank you for Page 39 Mlo,tio A6 your comments. Mr. Jackson? MR. JACKSON: On February 1 st our office received the business card through the mail. The envelope didn't have a return address. I believe it just contained the business card. The morning of February 3rd, I spoke with Mr. Allen by telephone, explained that I had received the card and that it's an issue. And during that conversation on the phone, Mr. Allen did mention to me that he had placed the cards at a paint store and at the farmer's market. Arranged a meeting with Mr. Allen later that morning at his home and explained the violation, explained what he can do with his Leon County business tax receipt, and issued the citation there on -site. CHAIRMAN LYKO S : Okay, thank you. Mr. Allen, is it true that you distributed the cards at the farmer's market and at a paint store? MR. ALLEN: Well, at the paint store I knew the person there. And I didn't really distribute them. That was another opinion I got, along with Cindy from Frow's (phonetic) Plumbing is someone I've met since I've been here. And basically it was not to distribute. And as far as the farmer's market, there was a friend of mine there who sells stone crabs there. And I did leave him some cards. But I haven't -- and I told Mr. Ian -- Mr. Jackson, that if needed right then and there, I would change my phone number, I didn't plan on doing any work in Collier County, and that these cards I do know need -- now I do know they require different licensing, and Collier County licensing. But Leon County doesn't require a business license, they require an LLC exemption and to be bonded by insurance. CHAIRMAN LYKO S : Okay, I understand, thank you. Any questions or comments from the board? MR. BOYD: Have you done any work in Collier County? MR. ALLEN: I have as far as with contractors on the books. Page 40 1611 A6` March 12, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: What do you mean by that? Do you mean as a subcontractor or as an employee? MR. ALLEN: As an employee. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: What companies have you worked tor as an employee? MR. ALLEN: Sunup Construction is the only contracting company I've worked for. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: What work are you doing now? MR. ALLEN: None. I'm in -- relocated in Tallahassee. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Neale, can you read us from the ordinance how -- what our options are in addressing this situation? MR. NEALE: Certainly. As soon as I get down to it here. Okay, once the citation is issued, they shall hear -- each one's a separate offense, but the board basically has the option to -- either to find the citation valid or invalid. But if the person that's issued the citation or his or her designated representative shows that it's invalid or that the violation's been corrected prior to appearing before the licensing board or designated special magistrate, the enforcement or licensing board may dismiss the citation, unless the violation is irreparable or irreversible. But that's a may, that's not a shall. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand, thank you. Any other questions or comments? MR. ALLEN: I do want to say one other thing. I apologize. I worked as an employee and I did get some checks that didn't -- that he didn't withhold some taxes from Sunup's. But again, I worked under -- I did have liability insurance, I'm exempt and have been, and I have this LLC. And Leon County didn't and still doesn't require occupational business license for carpentry anymore. They did, and I Page 41 16 11 A6 March 12, 2010 had one up until they no longer require -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: With all due respect, Mr. Allen, our concern is not what Leon County does or doesn't require. We're concerned with what happens in Collier County and our responsibility to the citizens of Collier County. MR. ALLEN: I should have checked into Collier County's licensing prior to doing any work here, I know that. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. MR. ALLEN: But I just took what I knew from Leon County. And I really haven't worked here much at all. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Michael, does Mr. Allen have any kind of an active license in Collier County now? MR. OSSORIO: None that I know of. MR. JOSLIN: I think it's -- MR. NEALE: Just one other point that I'd like to bring up in the statute is it says, if the enforcement or licensing board or designated special magistrate finds that a violation exists, then the enforcement or licensing board may order the violator to pay a civil penalty of not less than the amount set forth in the citation but not more than $1,000 per violation. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. Richard? MR. JOSLIN: I think it's pretty much clear evidence, because he's admitted that he did this. I'm not real happy about the fact that he has listed so many items on this card and how it got out. I'm telling -- I'm hearing him say that someone did it to him or sent the card out to somewhere because of the revenge or what it may be. But I think under the circumstances we're voting here or we're going to vote on whether he's guilty or not, and that's really the only thing that we can attest to. So in my opinion, I'm ready to make a motion to find that he is in violation. How he pays it is immaterial. I mean, I can't -- we can't Page 42 161 1 A6 March 12, 2010 come up with a method of payment, I don't think. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Are you going to make a motion? MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that we uphold the citation that was issued to Leonard Allen, number 5293. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor, say aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, the motion carries, the citation is upheld. MR. ALLEN: Can I -- how long do I have to pay it? I really don't have money to pay right now. Can I work out -- do you know if I can go down and work out a payment plan? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. You'll have to have that conversation with Mr. Ossorio; is that correct? MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. Mr. Allen, just stop by my office Monday morning or sometime today in the afternoon and we'll go over your plans. MR. ALLEN: Where would I -- MR. OSSORIO: At Horseshoe Drive. At 2800 North Horseshoe Drive. Just stop in and ask for Mike Ossorio. Okay? MR. ALLEN: Thanks. Thank for your gentlemen's time. Page 43 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 MR. JOSLIN: You're welcome. Is Mr. Robert James Wayne, Jr. here? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, while the gentleman is coming up, I'm going to try to -- this is not uncommon, we've had several of these before. Blue Line Corporations, he's an electrical contractor, registered. He forgot to renew his certificate, but his state registration is current. He kept all his continuing education classes; am I correct? MR. WAYNE: Yes, sir. MR. OSSORIO: My recommendation, that we approve his certificate. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, Mr. Wayne, we've heard from Mr. Ossorio. Comments? MR. WAYNE: I've got -- obviously you see the little jot down letter, the real quick letter that I wrote. Yes, I am delinquent. Yes, it has gone delinquent, obviously over a year. At the point of the economy obviously taking a downturn, I got an office job as -- in the same field as an electrical estimator. At that point there really was no need for my license at the time. Not that I wanted to go delinquent, but that was a couple -- some personal issues. Just it fell by the wayside. I'm looking to get back into the electrical business, obviously on a smaller scale. I am -- as you can see through the paperwork that I am applying for an exemption of workmen's comp. So I'm just asking for reinstatement of the license without retaking the test. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, if you look on the back page, I think it's the very last one, it says registered electrical contractor, VR13012603. It's current and active. And the only way he's going to be current and active, if he actually continues his continuing education; am I correct? MR. WAYNE: Yeah. I have -- sorry, but I've, what do you call Ma.chl �zd1a A6 it, taken care of all of the state requirements. When I talked to Mr. Ossorio before, I was basically going to take care of the state first, make sure you take care of all the fees, delinquent fees and fines and whatnot. I did that. Kept up on my continuing education, got the required liability, as well as the Workmen's Comp. It's in obviously a holding pattern until you gentlemen vote on it. MR. JERULLE: So this is -- excuse me, this is a registered, not a certified license, Michael? MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. MR. JERULLE: For electrical. MR. JOSLIN: That means just county -wise, correct, Collier County? MR. OSSORIO: That's the county license, registered with the state, that's correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And the state license is active and current? MR. OSSORIO: Yes. The last page showing that his state is current. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: How long has the county license been expired? MR. OSSORIO: Over 13 months. This is why he's -- he fell in the category of the renewing process. It became null -- his certificate became null and void. We've had cases similar to this in front of you. This is not uncommon. And the board's always elected to approve his certificate on the notion that he's kept his current registration current and his continuing education current with Tallahassee. MR. JOSLIN: You have -- a registered contractor's continuing ed. would had to been done for last year, the 14 hours, correct? Not this year. This is a state certified year. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Right, it would be done in '09. Page 45 A 6 � 6J�?� 1252010 MR. JOSLIN: So it would have been done in '09. And you -- MR. WAYNE: Yes. MR. JOSLIN: -- brought that up to code, right, you've done things that -- okay. MR. WAYNE: Also, I -- couple of the -- obviously the months, it's been 13 months, but it's been bumped. I kind of missed the cut -off period, as we discussed earlier. So obviously this isn't the first board meeting as well that I've got bumped so it appears longer than it actually is. But I'm kind of past the -- I guess the proverbial crack, so to speak, in the cut -off period, so -- MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, Mr. Wayne tried to get on the last agenda, but unfortunately the board has elected not to really add anyone to the agenda once the agenda is set. And also the agenda last month was large, so he just missed the cut -off. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other questions or comments of Mr. Wayne or staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, then I need a motion. MR. JOSLIN: Make a motion that we approved. MR. LANTZ: Second. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I have a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. Page 46 61 A6 March 12, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) MR. WAYNE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Break? Okay. It's 10:21, we'll come back at 10:30. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All right, I'm going to call the meeting to order of the Contractors Licensing Board. Next up is Mr. Todd Grup, review of building contractor license per the order of the board. Mr. Grup, would you please be sworn in. MR. GRUP: Yes, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn). MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, before Todd starts into his presentation, it's probably best if you actually look -- of course if you can find it. It's the Certificate of Detail report. You'll probably get more out of it than the application itself. It's called the Comment Listing Report. It's just before the orders of the board. Case No. 2009 -03. Looks similar to this. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yeah. And you can see Mr. Grup has been in front of this board many times. 2006/04. He was also here 5/29/2008, he had a citation. And then he was in front of the board in January. And you can see on the bottom he was supposed to pay, it was a $10,000 fine, $500 for investigation costs, and he was supposed to pay $1,750 per month. And if he wishes to obtain another license, he would have to go ahead and petition the licensing board. Mr. Grup has paid a lot of his fines. Unfortunately his old license, his carpentry license, is null and void now. But as of 2/24/2010, he did pay $4,500 for the CLB fines and the balance is 4,440. He got a citation back in 5/29/2008. His application's in front of you. Page 47 March X A 6 12 1010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, Mr. Grup, explain to us why you're here and what's going on. MR. GRUP: Yes, I was just here to try to obtain a building contractor's license. As Michael Ossorio had said, over the years I've had a couple citations working out of my scope, my license. You know, the license that I had wasn't really a big enough license for qualifications that I was able to do in the projects that I was running to. I now have completed the building contractor exam and the requirements to become a building contractor so that I can work in Collier County and, you know, make a living doing what I know how to do best. So that's really why I'm here. The last time I was here there was some fines imposed, and I talked with Mr. Ossorio to possibly try to get them reduced. I paid more than half of the fines. I'm just asking if possible if I could go back to work and earn some money so that I could pay the rest of the fines. That's really why I'm here. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: When you were here in January, Mr. Grup, what was it that you were found guilty of? MR. GRUP: Working out of the scope of my license is what I was guilty of. MR. JOSLIN: I remember I signed this order and I can't recall exactly what the reason for the large amount of the fine was for. Was there homeowners that were damaged in the process of this also? MR. GRUP: No, sir. MR. JACKSON: No homeowners were damaged. If I'm not mistaken, the amount of that fine was based upon the fact that Mr. Grup had been in front of the board for the same violation previous to that, served a probationary period. So essentially this was the second time he was in front of the board for the same violation. 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. If you actually look through that comment list, you'll see in 2006, Case No. 2006 -04 he violated 4.1.2. And you'll see in the bottom of the page guilty, 4.1.2, revoke license, pay $10,000 fine within six months. So his license was revoked. And to Mr. Grup's credit, he has been in communication with me on a monthly basis. He's been in the office, he's been candid with he me. He's paid as much as I guess he can. I've talked to his father, his father's been communicating with me as well. And his father wishes to help out with his bills and get him back on track so that he can become a building contractor. To his credit, we haven't had any complaints when he was licensed on his workmanship, only that he worked outside of the scope of his license. MR. JOSLIN: Was what the actual license? MR. GRUP: Carpenter, sir. MR. JOSLIN: You were operating with a carpentry license is what you had that was revoked? MR. GRUP: Yes, sir. MR. JOSLIN: And you were probably doing things that required a building contractor's license, is that the case? MR. GRUP: Yes, sir. MR. JOSLIN: That's what I thought. MR. OSSORIO: Just to clarify real quick, he has a cabinet license, which is a business procedure test, not a carpentry license. It was -- MR. GRUP: Cabinet millwork. MR. OSSORIO: --cabinet millwork. So he's taken the business procedure test. He hasn't taken the trades test for carpentry. I think in 2006 it was my case, it was over in Neapolitan Way, and he was in contract to do a tile roof, and he was found in violation, of course. But he's been coming to the office, Todd. He's persistent. He's Page 49 J-6 M Ma16 h 1 i 210 A been coming in the office and, you know, staying in communication with our office. He knows he's in violation, he knows his license was revoked. He knows that he has -- he didn't come up with the 1,750 per month. I think it was Joslin's recommendation that he come up with a payment plan. And he has tried, and his family's tried to help him out. So he's here today to talk about to two issues: One, that he wants to give authority to me issuing him a building license so he can register with the state. And two, somewhat either to have a reduction of fine or alleviate and let him have more time to pay it off. Those are the two issues. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Terry? MR. JERULLE: And that was my question, why is he here, for either one of those or for both of those? And I think you just answered it, Michael, he's here for both. So I'm a little confused now on whether you're asking for us to reduce the fine or give you a license so you can pay off the fine. MR. GRUP: I'd like to obtain my building contractor license so I can go back to work and pay the fine. And if possible, I'd like to possibly get them reduced, if I could, the fines. If I can't get them reduced, then possibly put it over a payment plan so that I can pay it off over maybe this next upcoming year or six months or whatever the board approves. MR. JERULLE: So the license that you're looking for is what again, can you explain? MR. OSSORIO: It's a registered building contractor. Now, there's two categories: There's, you know CBC, Certified Building Contractor, and then obviously there's a registered building contractor. And he's asking for a building license to be registered, locally licensed with our office, registered with Tallahassee. He's taken the exam. Am I correct? MR. GRUP: Yes, sir. MR. JERULLE: And the license you had prior was the cabinet? Page 50 Jr�cIz,1 0 10 A6 MR. GRUP: Yes, sir, cabinet millwork license, that's correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So you want to break this down into two parts and go at them one at a time? MR. LANTZ: Sure. MR. NEALE: I think that's probably a good -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: What's the pleasure of the board to deal with first? MR. LANTZ: The license. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: The license? I guess you got to deal with that if you're going to deal with how he's going to pay back the rest of the money. Okay, we'll deal with the license. MR. NEALE: You can do it either way. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: First -- I was not here in January, so if you don't mind I'm going to ask some questions to get some background on what's transpired in your history, okay? MR. GRUP: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: In 2006 you were cited for working outside of the scope of your license. And that was a project where you did a roof; is that correct? MR. GRUP: That was a -- it was a repair. We were replacing some broken tiles. And we were cited for repairing the broken tiles. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Did you have somebody working with you? MR. GRUP: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Was that an employee? MR. GRUP: Yes. They were workers' comp. They were on my workers' comp and payroll. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So you had -- they were on your payroll and they had workers' comp coverage. MR. GRUP: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, good. Page 51 MJ611 A6 And then in 2008 -- MR. GRUP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- you were cited again for working outside the scope of your license. What were the circumstances surrounding that? MR. GRUP: 2008? I'm not sure what the 2008 one was. I believe that's the one -- maybe Mike could shed some light on that one. I'm not sure. MR. OSSORIO: That was done in 2008 by one of my officers, Allen Kennette, and he was acting as a carpentry contractor. Allen -- MR. GRUP: That's the most recent one, right? MR. OSSORIO: In 2008. Unfortunately Mr. Todd Grup has probably escaped -- if Allen knew what he knew back in 2006, there wouldn't have been a citation, there would have been another referral back to the board. Now this is why the board in 2009 -- we knew about the 2008, we knew about 2006. This is why the board fined the maximum of $10,000 and revoked his license, which is uncharacteristic of this licensing board. I don't think we've ever -- we've probably done it before, but it's unusual we reinvoked (sic) the $10,000 and revoked his license and asked him to pay over time the 1,750. So Todd knows what he did in 2006 wasn't proper. And 2008 he knew in 2009 wasn't proper as well. So -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And Mr.. Grup, what, was it that you were guilty of doing in 2009? MR. GRUP: We were installing roof trusses on a builder, a -- the home builder permit. So the homeowner had pulled a permit for an addition on his house, and we were setting roof trusses. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, the homeowner pulled an owner/builder permit and hired Mr. Grup to go ahead and do the installing of the trusses, which would be a carpenter contractor, not a cabinet install. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And did you have employees with you at Page 52 the time? MR. GRUP: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: worker's compensation? MR. GRUP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: 16VI'lo A 6 March 12, I Were they on your payroll, covered by What else were you hired to do on that job? MR. GRUP: That's what all that we had done. I was merely just helping out a friend, quite honestly, just to get on the roof for him. They had it up to the block stage and we were just going to close it in for him, and that's all that we were going to do. Get it on there in the drive. MR. OSSORIO: I believe he was a -- I mean, this might not have any bearing on it, but I believe he was a retired something, colonel or -- MR. GRUP: Yes, he was. He was -- the gentleman was a retired colonel. I was -- based on that, I mean, I was prior military myself, so I was just trying to help out a buddy, get this thing on the roof. And at the time I thought I was doing the right thing because I was co- working with Jack McNair, who has a state license, state CBC license. But our paperwork wasn't in order. It was my workers' comp and it was my liability insurance, and -- so technically they were my employees that were working on the job, so working under Jack McNair's license. I wasn't a qualified entity, so that's where the problem resulted in not being able to do the work. We didn't have all our paperwork together correctly. So I then decided to take the exam. You guys had said well, if you take the exam and meet the requirements for the county and pay the fine, you could come back and get a license that you're qualified -- for the work that you're qualified to do, and that's what I've done. I'd like to go back to work. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, in 2006 the board pretty well made an Page 53 16 11 A6 March 12; 2010 order that if Mr. Todd Grup was ever going to get another license, they want to look at his application. So I'm only applying what the 2006 order reads. And then obviously we have to deal with these penalties, you know. MR. NEALE: Yeah, the 2006 order was Case 2006 -04. He was put on a two -year probation and a $1,000 fine, and then it was specific that the board said that if he was to apply for a new license he would have to come to the board, no matter what license it was. MR. JOSLIN: There's still a lot of issues in your credit report I'm looking at. Who do you work for now? MR. GRUP: I'm not working. MR. JOSLIN: You're not working? MR. GRUP: No. MR. JOSLIN: How are you able to come up with this money to pay these off -- to pay fines that you've already been given (sic)? MR. GRUP: I was in a car accident and had a couple surgeries, and I got a lawsuit and a settlement. And I used that money to pay the board the 4,500. That was paid in January, I believe. That's how I come up with most of the money. But there were a few payments made prior to that. I think I made around $7,000 in payments, I believe, maybe more. MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious as to what staff s recommendation is. MR. OSSORIO: Staff s philosophy is to interpret and enforce the Florida Building Code and also the ordinance as written. But I'm also a firm believer that Mr. Todd Grup has actually been in my office for almost a year now, and he's been persistent, and I believe that it's up to the licensing board. His credit is -- you know, is not good. But it probably relates to his medical issue. You know, he took some of his medical payments and paid the penalties off for the fines. I have no opinion other than Page 54 16 11 A 6 +.. March 12, 2010 he's here on his behalf. MR. JOSLIN: I somewhat feel I guess in some ways, just after your comment, Mr. Ossorio, that, you know, he has shown good faith. This. was a pretty severe fine, it was a severe penalty. And I know the issue was pretty drastic when we did it. But there was a reason why we did it. I'm just not real comfortable with the fact of now giving you a builder's contracting license. Although in some ways I'm saying to myself maybe a probationary license of some sort to give you a chance to try to pay some of this off. Reducing the fines, I don't know if I'd comfortable with that. I'm a little confused right now, to tell you the truth. MR. JERULLE: Yeah, this is a tough one. And I appreciate your comments, Mr. Ossorio, and I appreciate, Mr. Grup, that you're here and that you've been trying. But I thought I heard someone say that it was contingent him coming back, passing the test and paying the fines off before we would give him another license; is that true? MR. NEALE: Really was more just that the board wanted the opportunity to review whatever had happened in the past. It did not -- wasn't specific that he had to pay off the fines. MR. JERULLE: It wasn't -- MR. NEALE: Because the license in the 2009 matter was a straight revocation. Which once someone's had their license revoked they have to come before this board for review. MR. JERULLE: And the fact that he's taken the test and he's persistent, he's coming back, I appreciate that. And if he wants to be a contractor, I'm not sure I would have a problem with it. But I would like to see the fine paid off prior to us giving him his license, as opposed to us giving someone a license that is a repeat offender and still hasn't paid off the fine, I guess is what I'm kind of struggling with in my mind. Page 55 16 +1 A6 March 12, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I agree with you, Terry, I don't know that it's our responsibility to give him a license so he can pay his fine. Our goal is not to get the fine paid. So I don't think using the payment of the fines should be the impetus behind giving him a license. We're not here to collect money. So I think I'm kind of agreeing with you that I would rather see the fines paid off and then we're either agreeing to issue a license or not based on the merits of his abilities and his efforts to that point. And it has nothing to do with whether or not the fines are paid. I'd rather see that gone and then deal with the license issue strictly on the merits of whether or not he should have a license. And then I think when you look at his efforts you feel good about giving somebody a license under those circumstances. MR. JOSLIN: How does the board members feel about a reduction of the fine? I mean, as far as the balance that's left. MR. JERULLE: Is that -- you know, I've only been on the board a couple of years. Is there a precedence that the board has -- I mean, I don't want to be giving out fines and then allowing them to come back and reducing the fines. Is there a precedence? MR. NEALE: The board could probably reopen the prior case, reduce the fine -- you know, find the -- make a finding that the fines were reduced and then come back and look at it from -- look at the new case. MR. WHITE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman? Would the same be true in your opinion, Mr. Neale, if we were to modify the payment plan under the order? MR. NEALE: Certainly I think, you know, the payment plan could be modified. You know, you would go back, essentially reopen the case and say that, you know, pursuant to Case 2009 -03, I think is the number, the board has reviewed evidence presented at this hearing and made the decision to modify the payment plan to reduce the fines in that case, and then make that finding and then go forward with Page 56 Mlc§11Z,1o10 A6 11 another consideration of -- with a consideration of his licensure at this point. Because, you know, I do agree that there's two tracks you're looking at: One is the treatment of the fine from the previous case. The second track is his current application for licensure today, which pursuant to the 2006 order any of his licensure subsequent to the 2006 order would be subject to the review of the board. MR. WHITE: So theoretically we could, if we chose to, by reopening that order in -- let's say we were to give him a six -month payment plan, roughly $770 a month, we could do that. And we could tie a grant of his license in a probationary way to making those payments on time. MR. NEALE: And the board has done sort of a similar thing in the past. I don't have the exact case cite in front of me, but the board has set up automatic triggering mechanisms in the past where a probationary license or something was issued contingent upon the satisfaction of certain terms. If those terms were not satisfied, then without recourse to coming back to the board the license was automatically terminated or automatically lifted from probationary status, depending on what the action of the -- because then really the onus -- MR. WHITE: Which wouldn't be a bad thing. (Phonetic.) MR. NEALE: Yeah, then the onus is completely on -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. White, you need to be on your microphone, please. MR. WHITE: I'm sorry. MR. NEALE: Yeah, then the onus is completely on the respondent to perform, as opposed to placing an additional burden on the board or on staff. MR. WHITE: Just one question, gentlemen. MR. GRUP: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: If we were to consider and approve a plan to Page 57 16 11 A6 �! March 12, 2010 extend the payments, do you feel that on a month -to -month basis you'd be able to meet what would be roughly a $775 payment for those fines? MR. GRUP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yeah, I would be able to do that. Kyle? MR. LANTZ: Well, I'm just giving my opinion, I don't really have questions, but I'm severely torn on this one. His actions in the past, you know, I mean, three strikes and you're out as far as I'm concerned. You know, I mean, I can understand the first time, okay, I didn't understand. The second time -- you know, my father told me when I was a kid, you know, screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me. Kind of feels like there's a pattern. And then the third time -- I mean, if you haven't -- if you didn't learn it the first two times, I don't know if he'll ever learn the difference. But -- so that's my personal feeling against approving anything. But then the fact that he -- you know, Michael said -- Michael doesn't want to say he's doing a good job, but Michael's been saying -- you know, alleging towards that, you know, he's been coming in every month, he's been, you know, really trying, really doing whatever he can, he already took the test. You know, persistence pays off, you know. Maybe he did learn. You know, he's learning to get a building contractor's license rather than just a carpentry contractor's license. He's already taken the test and passed it. So I could go either way. I would more react towards either giving a license or reducing the fine, but definitely not both. That's just my personal opinion. I'd have no problem with the payment plan. But I think I'm leaning more towards approve a license on a pretty strict probation and possibly, you know, lengthening out the payment plan but not reducing the fine. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, we can't make any changes to the Page 58 16 111 � A f March 12, 2010 previous order of the board without reopening the case. MR. NEALE: Right. What you would do is move to reopen the case, make a new finding. We would issue a new order of the board modifying the prior order, so it really would be an amendment to the prior order. Then that finding would be made. And then the board would make a second finding upon this license. So that's the way I would -- for good order sake, I think that would be the cleanest way to do it. MR. JOSLIN: I think the whole question here is that he had six months to pay this all off and it's not all paid off. That's the real question here, right? MR. JERULLE: Twelve months, right? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Six months. MR. NEALE: I think it was six months. MR. JOSLIN: So we would have to then reopen it to extend it at all or to make up a different payment plan or however we're going to do that. He's in violation after six months. MR. NEALE: I mean, he currently is in violation. Because -- MR. JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: -- that was -- you know, that order was issued back in January of '09. So technically he was in violation of that order as of July of last year. MR. JERULLE: So he's in violation of not paying that as we speak. MR. NEALE: Right. He's currently in violation of the January, 2009 order in terms of the payments -- actually, that would have been in August, 2009, because the payments -- no, it was July, because it was to be paid within six months of the date of the hearing with equal monthly payments to begin within 30 days of the date of the hearing. He did -- the one portion that appears -- there was administrative costs of $500 to be paid within 30 days, and I think that was accomplished. Page 59 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 MR. GRUP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yeah, that was paid. MR. JOSLIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, I'm trying to get my arms around what we're going to -- what we can possibly accomplish today and what -- I think the sense is that we want to deal with this original case somehow. Are you here as a -- I'm trying to -- I mean, are we dealing with a formal request to do something with his license today? Because our agenda says review. Review the building contractor license per the order of the board. So I don't know that we have a formal request in front of us that we need to approve or deny. MR. NEALE: He has submitted an application, so I think the board has within its authority to accept that application for review and make a decision on that application. The -- making any decision on the prior order, the 2009 order, is purely at the discretion of the board at this point. MR. JERULLE: So if I were to make a motion to open up the prior issue, could it be contingent upon something, or is it just a motion to open it? MR. NEALE: It would just be a motion to reopen, and then -- MR. JERULLE: We couldn't make it contingent upon just reviewing on extending the time period for payment, it just would open up the board to vote on whatever? MR. NEALE: You could -- I mean, I think -- you could make a motion to reopen the case for the purpose of reviewing the payment of the fine. I think that would be something I would be willing to -- yeah, I could recommend to do that. MR. JERULLE: Because my thoughts are -- and I'm thinking out loud if I may, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Please do. MR. JERULLE: And I would need some help with this, but Page 60 A/ March 12, 2P IQ 1611 A6 opening this up, extending his period so that he's not in violation, and keeping the fine the same but making -- as Mr. White agreed, to making some sort of payment schedule for him to pay the fine out. And then hear his license on a different time or different day. Have him come back with a formal request after the fine were (sic) settled where we come to an agreement on the fine schedule. And then hear his plea for a license on a separate day is what I'm thinking. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Boyd? MR. BOYD: I prefer to get it all done today. And my thinking is is the guy's persevered. He's trying to do the right thing, finally. I guess he got our message when we took his license away. You know, I'd like to see us give him a probationary license, reporting to Mike, give him the monthly payment he's got to make. If he doesn't make the monthly payment, his license is suspended. Give the guy a chance to make -- you know, make some money, pay the fine, do the right thing. I mean, he's obviously, you know, trying to do the right thing. MR. WHITE: The only thing I feel differently than Mr. Boyd on is that if the monthly payments weren't timely made, that rather than his license being suspended, it would be revoked automatically. MR. BOYD: I'd go along with that. MR. LANTZ: Works for me. MR. JOSLIN: That would work for me also because of the fact we are extending it now in giving him a payment plan. So if he can't live with this payment plan then it's three strikes, like you said. This would be pretty much in your court, I mean, as far as what you're going to want to do. Can you do this? MR. GRUP: Yes, sir, I can. MR. BOYD: Just don't agree to something -- don't agree to $700 a month if you can't afford it. Agree to $500 a month if you can afford that. Don't -- you know, don't get yourself in a pickle. Because Page 61 " A 6 6 March 12, 2010 we're going to take the license, then you'll never get it back. MR. WHITE: That's why I asked him the question and he answered it now twice, so I believe him. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just for thought -- and maybe Todd and I won't agree on this. But I hate to give someone a building license knowing that there's fees out there, due to the fact that he's starting his business already in the red. My recommendation is that you look at his application, if it meets the merit of the application give the county staff approval to issue the certificate, once Mr. Todd Grup has paid his penalty. See if he can pay it. Once the fine has been paid, it could be a month, two months, six months, I can go ahead and issue the certificate under a restriction basis for six months, period. Maybe Mr. Grup will pay the penalty within a month or two. Maybe he can get some things together and pay for it, and then you can look at his application, his merit and you can restrict it, whatever you wish to do with it. But at least you're starting off fresh with a building license with no red tape or no monies owed to the county. MR. WHITE: I appreciate Mr. Ossorio's input, and maybe there's some merit to doing things in a lump sum and clean way, but I'd still prefer the idea that month -to -month if he doesn't bite off and chew and swallow the payment, he doesn't have the license. And what I was intending to do is to give him to the end of the first month to make that first payment. He would have the license essentially for 30 days to go find some work, get it under contract and make the payments. And any month that that did not happen, the license would be automatically revoked and pretty much I don't know that we'd ever see Mr. Grup again. The thing that I think pushes me in that direction is certainly his persistence. But persistence in the particular regard of getting the type of license that if he had all along none of these other problems would Page 62 March 12, 2010 be on his back today in terms of his record. 16 1 .x X16 So the real question to me only here today that's maybe the threshold question for me today is, is he otherwise qualified for the type of license he's asking for. And there hasn't been much discussion about that. But it certainly seems from the application package that he would. There's never been anything about it in any of the prior cases that said he didn't do the work that was outside of his scope properly, it was just that he was working outside the scope of the licenses he then had. So if we're comfortable with granting him the type of license because his application meets the criteria, then I think we can work out the other pieces of it to put him in a position where he essentially has the keys to his own success or the lock to his own failure. And I'm very comfortable giving people, especially ones who may have had a couple of strikes, the opportunity to recognize that you either succeed or it's game over. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Neale, is there any legal requirement or guidelines, since he is in violation of not paying the fine, of us voting on whether we can give him a license because he is in violation? MR. NEALE: Well, I think that's why we pose that you dispose of the issue of the 2009 fine first, resolve that, then provide some kind of approval on -- approval or denial on the current licensure application. Potentially contingent on payment of obligations, potentially contingent on some kind of payment plan, potentially contingent on whatever, you know, that the board has within its power to restrict or make contingent the license. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I like Michael's thought about trying to get this done quickly and not having us to keep coming back to this case over and over again because we drag it out. So I like Michael's thought in that regard. At the same time, I think it's important that the fines get paid before we give somebody a license. And if we can find a way to tie Page 63 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 that all together quickly, then I'd be for that. But if the only way we can do that is to reopen the case, as much as I hate having to bring this back in front of us or doing it now or having to bring it back next month, I don't like second - guessing a previous board's recommendations or findings. I don't like doing that. We don't know all the circumstances surrounding what happened at that time, we don't know the conversation that occurred. And I don't like second - guessing what a previous board did. Kyle? MR. LANTZ: Would you be comfortable -- I'm very torn on this. Would you be comfortable with approving his license, however it does not get approved until his fine is paid in full. If he pays it in six months, then it gets approved, if he pays it tomorrow, then it gets approved. No action from the board. As soon as he pays it, Michael can do whatever he needs to do. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I like that solution. Because then we're done with it. MR. WHITE: I certainly understand, as I said before, the clean approach to it. The problem I have with it is, is that he's sworn under oath that he isn't working and he doesn't have a present means to work because he doesn't have a license. It's almost as if he could have paid the fine already, he certainly would have, because then he'd be before us just with the request for the license. So logically it doesn't make sense to me that he'd want to do both unless he thought there was some chance we'd reduce the fines. But what he had asked for in his initial comments was to either reduce them or extend them over time because of the circumstances he's in. And I think, as I said before, we're going to tie the reopening of the former case to a monthly payment, that if it's not made on time we would essentially reinstate the findings of violation and all of the Page 64 i611 A6 March 12, 2010 monies that were then not yet paid would be due. So to me, if we reopen the case, put a payment plan on, monthly requirement, if it isn't paid at the end of the month the whole thing's due and he's in violation. We could then move to consider his license and tie the payments under a probationary period month to month, in the same way to the findings of violation if it's not paid. And furthermore never have to hear the case again unless he makes all the payments and comes back in six months and has done what he needs to do to grant him a full license. But otherwise, if he doesn't make the payments, the findings are reimposed under the prior order and his license is automatically revoked. So if he doesn't do right, we don't see him again. If he does right, we'll be back and we can evaluate how he's doing credit -wise and otherwise, as we do with any other applicant. To me we get it done today, we do it in the next 10 minutes and, you know, the staff really has a very bright line to make their decision by. MR. JOSLIN: And the other end result would be that this would be all done within six months. MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. JOSLIN: Because if we set him up on a six -month payment plan in six months his probationary license is going to be over. If he's paid this off in time, like you're speaking of, then basically he'll have a full license and all the fines are paid. MR. WHITE: Potentially, yeah. MR. JOSLIN: That's the theory now. Now, that's something that I don't think this board has ever done before that I know of I've been on this board for 10 years. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Terry? MR. JERULLE: Mr. Grup, convince me that you'll be an honorable contractor and you'll pay your fines if the board so elects. MR. GRUP: I most definitely will pay the fines and be an honorable contractor. I mean, I've done this work ever since I was 13, Page 65 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 14. So I know. And I enjoy it. And I'll do whatever I need to do to get back to work. I know that I can pay the fines. If you impose the $750 a month I would be in agreement with that. And I would -- MR. JERULLE: May I ask how you will pay those fines? MR. GRUP: Well, I would hope to secure some work if I had -- if you guys were able to issue me a license. I did have some discussions with my family that if I needed to borrow some money that we could -- you know, they would help me so that I can go back to work. My father was talking with Mike regarding that. But we -- we were hoping to possibly get the fines reduced. But if not, then I'll do whatever you guys wish and pay them off. MR. LANTZ: If the board were to request that you pay off all your fines before you got a license, would you be able to do that, get a loan from somebody or -- MR. GRUP: Yeah. Yes, sir. MR. LANTZ: I'm ready to make a motion, if anybody (sic) else is. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Lantz? MR. JOSLIN: One thing, now. In the motion make sure we know we can do -- if we're going to do anything with the reduction or extension of fines -- MR. LANTZ: That's not in my book. MR. JOSLIN: -- or payments, then you have to open this up. MR. LANTZ: I move that we approve Mr. Grup's application and allow them to do whatever needs to be done to be registered, contingent on the fact that all his fines are paid in full. The second his fines are paid in full, it automatically gets approved and moved on. I also approve that he's on a two -year probationary period with monthly reporting in to Michael to explain what's going on. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion. I need a second. MR. WHITE: I'll second. Page 66 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 Just for the purposes of clarification, what on a monthly basis would we be expecting to have Mr. Grup report to Mr. Ossorio? MR. LANTZ: Just to tell him what's going on and make sure -- he's been doing it for the last six months, it appears, just to make sure everything's -- I feel that he should have a pretty strict probation. MR. WHITE: I agree. And I'm trying to get to the precision of it. Would it be contracts he's entered into with the addresses so they could verify that proper permits were pulled, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. MR. LANTZ: I would leave that up to Michael's discretion. MR. OSSORIO: Typically when we have our meetings where people are on probation, we go over contracting 101. You know, we look at your permits, have you failed any inspections, what are you doing out there, what jobs you're on and so forth. There has been the past that the board put restriction on people, putting people on probation and making them call the office when there's -- particularly where they're going to be for their next job or when they're going to pull building permits. So I'm pretty confident that Todd will be in my office every month. He's been there every month for the last six months anyway, so what's another two years? But the fines should be paid, you're absolutely right. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. So if I can rephrase the motion, the motion is that we grant the license on the contingency of the fines being paid, and that there's a two -year probation with a monthly reporting to licensing department. MR. LANTZ: Correct. MR. JERULLE: May I ask, what happens if he gets a citation during the probation period? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, he's on probation for two years, so what does that mean? MR. JERULLE: So that means he comes back here or his license Page 67 M16�2,1 ab 0�0 goes away or -- MR. NEALE: And what would happen, since he's on probation then he's under, quote, unquote, under the supervision of the Contractor Licensing Board. And so at that point if he trips and stumbles, he's back here. And then the board can review his license at that point. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I need a second. MR. WHITE: I -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Sorry, I apologize, I did have a second. I apologize. I have a motion, I have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. Opposed? MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: One opposed. Okay, Mr. Grup, when you pay your fines, you'll have a contractor's license. And you'll be on probation for two years. MR. GRUP: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And you need to report to Michael on a monthly basis. MR. GRUP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: If you trip up in any way, a citation, if Michael thinks that there's something inappropriate going on, you'll be back in front of us. 0 •i, Marl 6, 20L MR. GRUP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay? MR. GRUP: I appreciate your time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Good luck. MR. GRUP: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, on the agenda is orders of the board. Those are the documents I signed earlier this week? MR. JACKSON: That's correct -- no, that's not correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's not correct. MR. JACKSON: These orders of the board are the continuing process for the payment of citations. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. And you have those? MR. JACKSON: We have them. Mr. Neale has them. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, I need a motion to approve my signature on those orders. MR. WHITE: So moved. MR. JOSLIN: Second. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, who was the second, Mr. Joslin? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Joslin. All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? Mr. Neale, I'll sign those at the end of Page 69 k Ab 1 Mlc§ 12, 10 10 the meeting, after the meeting. Thank you. MR. NEALE: Just so the board understands, particularly we've got a new member, what he just approved is on the citations, if they -- the citations that the staff issues, if -- there's a typical penalty of $300 per citation. If the person does not pay them, the statute in our ordinance allows the board to issue an order on that fine, which then can be recorded and it constitutes a lien on the person's property. So if these are recorded in the public records and the person goes out to sell a house or whatever, it's a lien that's going to have to be satisfied at the time of sale. And the lien can be foreclosed on. So that's a little explanation what that all is about. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. All right, old business. Adam Sandifer, review of credit report. Is Mr. Sandifer here? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sandifer was supposed to -- was on a provisional license. The board wished to see him within six months for a credit report. We've tried to contact Mr. Sandifer and we sent a letter, certified letter. We had no response. My recommendation is, is that we suspend his certificate and move on. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Does everybody understand? So we granted Mr. Sandifer a license under probation, is that correct, probationary license? MR. OSSORIO: Yes. And he needed to report back to the board within six months with a new credit. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And you contacted him? MR. OSSORIO: We tried to. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Certified mail? MR. OSSORIO: Certified mail, call -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Phone calls. MR. OSSORIO: Stopped by his house, I believe we did. Page 70 1611. March 12, 2010 Everything we possibly could. So I'd like to go ahead and just put it on = suspend him for a period of several months, until January, and then it becomes null and void. If he comes in between now and January, then we can -- you can petition the board with his new credit ,report and you can reevaluate at the time. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. NEALE: What I would suggest the board do in really an excess of caution is make a motion and vote upon the fact that Mr. Sandifer has been found in violation of his probation. So make a finding that he's in violation of his probation. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. Okay. So I need a motion. MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion that we find Mr. Adam S. Sandifer in violation of the findings of fact that was documented on August 19th, 2009. MR. WHITE: I amend that with the second to say order of the board rather than the findings. MR. JOSLIN: I'm sorry, order of the board. Yes. MR. WHITE: And additionally, that based on that we would suspend his license until January, 2011. Does the motion maker agree? MR. JOSLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. Motion maker agrees. I have a second. All those in favor? MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. Page 71 Ma.i'6,4ok MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Peter Geresdi, request for an extension to pay board fines. Mr. Geresdi? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just while he's going, this is another which we've never done before -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Michael, one second. Mr. Geresdi, if you'd please be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm sorry, Michael, go ahead. MR. OSSORIO: Obviously the licensing board took the action 2009 -15 on 12/16/2009 last year. It was a $5,000 fine. He needed to pay the fine off within 45 days. If the fine was not paid up within 45 days, his license would be suspended until January, 2011. In January, 2011 it would be null and void. I've talked to this company before, I've talked to I think his wife at length. It's not the money. They want to pay the fine. They need more time. But unfortunately the 45 days has expired, and his license is suspended, there's nothing I can do. So I recommend that the company come back in front of the board, see if he can extend the pro -- extend it for 45 days or 85 days or three or four months so the fine can be paid. That's my recommendation. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. Mr. Geresdi, you have a proposal to make to us today? MR. GERESDI: Yeah. I was able to pay $2,000, which was like 1,000 each month till today. And plus the 250, the county fee. So I have 3,000 left. Whatever days or extension I can have will help. I can do the Page 72 1 � 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 most probably 1,000, keep doing that for couple months, threAwn0re months, and then that's all I ask, basically. Y CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Kyle? MR. LANTZ: Part of your requirements were that you took some classes and some tests. Have you already done that? MR. GERESDI: Yeah, I signed up for the test, actually. It was a little thing going on with that too. I applied in December 21 st, and I got my first test date in March 20th, which is coming up. The reason was two times the paper wasn't signed by county, the -- and they sent it back. And of course they don't do anything on fax or e -mail, everything is posted. So it was like a four -week turnaround. So that's why I was not able to do it in February. So -- but I'm on. You know, I'm scheduled for March 20th, so -- MR. LANTZ: And that would still be within the 90 days that was -- MR. GERESDI: Well, that's going to pass the 90 days from December, I think. MR. NEALE: It's outside the 90 days, but -- MR. LANTZ: That would be -- MR. GERESDI: So that's another issue. MR. NEALE: -- so a month. MR. LANTZ: Then you took the workers' comp class or you haven't -- MR. GERESDI: Oh, not yet. Not yet. Not on that. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Neale, can you read the order of the board? MR. NEALE: Sure. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm sorry, it's in our packet. MR. NEALE: Yeah, it is in the packet. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Sorry. MR. NEALE: The order was to -- he's on probation for 12 months. That he was to pay a fine in the amount of $5,000 within 45 Page 73 1L A6 Mat'�h�l 1 210 days of the date of the hearing. Administrative and investigative costs in the amount of $250 to be paid within 45 days. Taken pass (sic) with grades meeting Collier County standards. The business and law exam within 90 days of the date of the hearing. Attend a two -hour workers' comp course within 90 days. And if the fines, costs, education examination requirements not performed within the required time limits, the license shall be suspended without hearing and the license on the suspension shall be held at the next regularly scheduled board meeting. If they're not completed by the next license renewal cycle, it will be revoked, so this is -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And the next renewal cycle is January, 2011. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, the renewal period ends January 1 st, 2011. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. NEALE: And this is really pursuant to part six. This is the hearing on the suspension. Because at this point his license is in suspension, according to the order of the board. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, it's pretty close to 90 days. MR. NEALE: Yeah. I mean, he's -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: He has to take all of his classes and pay all of his fines tomorrow -- Monday. MR. NEALE: Yeah, by Monday he'd have to do everything or he's out, so yeah. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. White, you have a comment or question? MR. WHITE: Just one question. And then I think maybe a proposal. Mike, within the next say roughly 30 days, would, if he took the exam on the 20th, he have the results so he'd know whether he passed or not? Page 74 16 mi lh 12, A6 2010 MR. OSSORIO: Unfortunately I believe he took the -- V signed up to take the Prometric exam. Within the Gainesville exam,' If he took our Gainesville testing, he could go up tomorrow and know the -- he can know the test results by tomorrow. So there's an avenue for him if he had to get testing. But to his defense, unfortunately one of my staff members did not sign that appropriate document so he could take the exam in an appropriate period of time, so that was on staff s fault. So I'm not going to -- MR. WHITE: I understand that. But if we were to extend the time frame to 120 days instead of 90, both for the workers' comp and for the business and law, would we have the results back -- MR. OSSORIO: Yes. MR. WHITE: -- within that time frame? MR.OSSORIO: Yes. MR. WHITE: Okay. Then, Mr. Chairman, favoring the idea of reopening the order and making a finding that there's no violation of the order so long as the respondent pays the fines within I would think 90 days, three months to pay $1,000 per month, and also that there's no vio -- that we would amend the order to grant 120 days rather than 90 days, both for the time period to take the business and law examination under paragraph four and the two -hour worker comp. class under paragraph five. And that we wouldn't consider him to be suspended so long as those three circumstances were timely met. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That was a proposal, not a motion. MR. WHITE: That was a proposal I'm just floating. MR. JERULLE: The proposal for the 90 days was from today to pay the fine? MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. JERULLE: And the proposal for the workmen's comp was 120 days backdated -- MR. WHITE: From December -- Page 75 1611 A 6 March 12, 2010 MR. JERULLE: -- backdated. MR. WHITE: December 16th, yes. MR. JERULLE: Would you be comfortable with just doing 90 days for all three going forward? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We have business and law and workers' comp. There's two separate classes. MR. JERULLE: Yes. MR. WHITE: Surely that's not a problem. I mean, 90 days from today. MR. JERULLE: To do the workmen's comp, the business law and pay the fines. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's June -- say June 30th. Yeah, that's 90 days. End of June would be 90 days. MR. WHITE: Yeah, I used my fingers. Lawyer math. That would be agreeable, yes. So if you wanted to make a motion, that -- MR. JOSLIN: Is this a payment schedule set up too, that $1,000 a month? Did you include that? MR. WHITE: That's what I was suggesting in that if the payments weren't timely made he would be again in status of a violation of the order. MR. NEALE: And just my interpretation of Mr. White's motion, and just make sure I'm clear on it, is what -- it doesn't necessarily lock him to $1,000 a month. What it says is he's got 90 more days to pay it. If he walks in on the 89th day and throws down $3,000, he's satisfied it. MR. JOSLIN: Right. Okay. MR. WHITE: Well, my intention, Mr. Neale, was to have him at least make the $1,000. He could conversely come in and pay the 3,000 within the first -- MR. NEALE: I just wanted to make sure that was clear so that we had that correct in the order, so -- Page 76 Mar ch hl , 010 MR. JOSLIN: And say okay if we set this into a motion, though, at $1,000 per -- say per month, what happens if he doesn't make the thousand dollars? MR. WHITE: He's in violation again -- MR. JOSLIN: He's back to violation. MR. WHITE: -- and he's again suspended. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Right. So you have -- MR. JOSLIN: You have two ways he could do this. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: You either give him 90 days to do everything, in which case we would postpone the suspension until the end of the 90 days, regardless of when he made the payments -- MR. JOSLIN: Right. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- or you say it's $1,000 a month, in which case his suspension could kick in at the end of -- MR. WHITE: 31 st. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- April if he doesn't pay $1,000 at the end of May, if he doesn't pay -- so it seems like that's really the issue here is (sic). Do you want to make the -- an actual payment plan or just say everything is due in 90 days? MR. WHITE: I would prefer the payment plan. Because one, his testimony was that he could pay the 1,000, and I want to hold him to his word, and I don't want to have him out there operating if he has not kept his word. And if I give him -- if we give him 90 days, then his license hasn't been suspended, we've essentially, you know, found him to not be in violation of an order that he's already in violation of. MR. JOSLIN: Right. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I like that argument. MR. NEALE: First payment by April 30th? MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. JERULLE: Is that acceptable with you? Page 77 A6 MazJ6010 , i MR. GERESDI: Sure. MR. JERULLE: Is that something that you -- MR. GERESDI: Yeah. MR. JERULLE: -- think you can do? MR. GERESDI: I can do it. MR. JERULLE: All three of those items, the workman's comp, the business and law -- MR. GERESDI: Yes. MR. JERULLE: -- and then pay the $1,000 a month? MR. GERESDI: That's fine. Great. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I see heads shaking, so I need a motion. Or I guess I see heads nodding, not shaking. MR. NEALE: Mr. White could convert that into the form of a motion. MR. WHITE: I would move at this time that we reopen Case No. 2009 -15 pertaining to license number 25371 to find that the respondent is not in violation of the order so long as payments of $1,000 per month beginning on April 30th, 2010 are made and the fine is paid in full within 90 days. Two, that the respondent is given 90 days from today to meet the requirement to take the business and law examination. And three -- MR. JOSLIN: And pass. MR. WHITE: And pass. And three, similarly, with the workers' compensation two -hour class, to take that and pass within 90 days from the date of this hearing. MR. JOSLIN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I have a second. Any further discussion? MR. WHITE: Just one thing that occurred to me in the making of the motion as to the timing of the 90 days from today and the Page 78 1611 ' A 6 March 12; 2010 completion of the payment. If we start him on April 30th and go 30 days apart, I think it's probably more than 90 days, but -- MR. NEALE: What I would suggest is that basically -- I'll play with the language, but I understand that the board's intent is basically extend it to June 30 as the time to pay, for all the thing. Time to pay, time to complete is June 30 for all of this. MR. JOSLIN: Right. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Hold on a second. Do we already have a second? Yes, we're open to discussion. MR. NEALE: Joslin's got a second. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Why don't we have it so it's all done by our June meeting? That's closer to the real 90 days. MR. WHITE: That was exactly what I -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Because if we go to June 30th, we won't know for sure if this is done until our July meeting. Now, you're only talking a couple more weeks, maybe two or three weeks, but -- MR. LANTZ: Would staff need time to get something ready for the meeting, or would -- MR. NEALE: Because if he comes running in the day before the meeting -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yeah, so let's leave it. We'll know in July. MR. NEALE: Yeah, June 30th makes it easier. MR. WHITE: And I would modify the motion to reflect whichever occurs first, the 90 days or June 30th, 2010. MR. JOSLIN: And you had the $1,000 per month -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Joslin, I'm sorry, I cannot hear you. MR. JOSLIN: I'm sorry. I said Mr. White had the $1,000 per month payment plan also indicated per month? MR. WHITE: Yes, such that if it were not timely paid, beginning April 30th, the license would be suspended because he Page 79 MIC§ 112 '1, 0 A 6 would be found in violation. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. I'll amend the second. MR. NEALE: Because the June meeting is looking at -- assuming it's on normal schedule, it's June 16th. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So we're fine the way we've got it. Okay, I have a motion, I have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Mr. Geresdi, you got 90 more days. MR. GERESDI: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, we're going to move into public hearings. Should we take a break or are we going to get through this quickly? MR. JOSLIN: Do it. MR. OSSORIO: I hope to get through this pretty quickly. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Is this actually going to be a public hearing? There's no respondent here. MR. NEALE: Well, you still have to open the public hearing -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. NEALE: -- and we'll have to put testify on that she was notified of the hearing and that she chose not to appear. (Speakers were duly sworn.) M1611,2170 ' A CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Patrick, should I read the opening statement before we start the public hearing? MR. NEALE: May as well, yeah. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. All right. So before we begin, these hearings are conducted pursuant to the procedures set out in Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -105, as amended, and Florida Statutes Chapter 489. These hearings are quasi judicial in nature. Formal Rules of Evidence shall not apply, but fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. Irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative evidence shall be excluded, but all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the courts of the State of Florida. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any evidence, but shall not be sufficient by itself to support a finding unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in civil actions in court. The rules of privilege shall be effective to the same extent that they are now or hereafter may be recognized in civil actions. Any member of the Contractors Licensing. Board may question any witness before the board. Each party to the proceedings shall have the right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits, to cross - examine witnesses, to impeach any witness, regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. The chair person or in his absence the vice chair person shall have the powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the hearing in a full, fair and impartial manner and to preserve order and decorum. The general process of the hearing is for the county to present an opening statement where it sets out the charges and in general terms how it intends to prove them. olm 1,V, A 6 The respondent then makes his or her opening statement, setting out in general terms the defenses to the charges. The county then present its case in chief, calling witnesses and presenting evidence. The respondent may cross - examine these witnesses. Once the county has closed its case in chief, then the respondent puts on his or her defense. They may call witnesses and do all the things described earlier; that is, call and exam 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 puts on his or her case, the county gets to present a rebuttal to the respondent's presentation. When the rebuttal is concluded, then each party gets to present closing statements, with the county getting a second chance to rebut after the respondent's closing arguments. The board then closes the public hearing and begins deliberations. Prior to beginning deliberations, the attorney for the board will give them a charge, much like a charge to a jury, setting out the parameters on which they base their decision. During deliberations the board can ask for additional information and clarification from the parties. The board will then decide two different issues: First, whether the respondent is guilty of the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on this matter. If the respondent is found guilty, then the board must decide the sanctions to be imposed. The board attorney at this point will advise the board of the sanctions which may be imposed and the factors to consider. The board will discuss sanctions and take a vote on those. After the two matters are decided, the chair or in his absence the Page 82 Ml�§ 12,�,�o A6 vice chair will read a summary of the order to be issued by the board. This summary will set out the basic outline of the order but will not be exactly the same language as the final order. The final order will include the full details required under state law and procedure. Okay, we'll begin and we'll have the county present their opening statement. Ian? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, this was -- obviously this was a continuation from last meeting. And I believe we're in the public hearing process. Do you want us to go ahead and go through the whole procedure again or -- MR. NEALE: At this point what I would suggest, if I may, that what the board had directed staff to do in the prior case last month was simply to report back at this point. The order actually stated that the -- that the matter's continued until the next regularly scheduled board meeting at which time the Collier County Contractors Licensing staff and the respondent shall make a report to the board and the board shall issue a decision on the matter at that time. So it was really purely a mechanism whereby you were going to receive a report from staff and the respondent, if the respondent appeared, as to the circumstances surrounding it and make a decision based on that, because you had heard the matter before. I believe that six of the board members who are here today were at the last meeting. The one board member that cannot vote on this today is Mr. Meister, because he's new and he did not have the opportunity to hear this at the prior hearing. CHAIRMAN LYKO S : Okay. MR. JOSLIN: Do we have to open up this case and enter it into evidence again? MR. NEALE: It's my view that since it was a continuation as Page 83 �,�1 A6 March�12I2010 opposed to a closing of the hearing is that you're simply -- you're just continuing on what you were doing before. So I would opine that you don't have to reopen the hearing because it was never closed. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to present our findings of Mrs. Borrego. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Jackson will present his findings. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Ian? MR. JACKSON: For the record, Ian Jackson, Contractor Licensing for Collier County. I'll remind the board that Mrs. Borrego was given the opportunity to perform this installation by obtaining her license through our office and arranging for the execution of the contract. As of this morning, I checked in our county database. There is no change in the status of the license. There is no license that was obtained by Ms. Borrego, and I would like to ask Ms. Laczi whether she has -- Ms. Laczi, have you heard anything from Ms. Borrego regarding the execution of the contract since the last board meeting? MS. LACZI: No. MR. JACKSON: Thank you. MR. OSSORIO: Ms. Laczi, may I just ask you one question. You did give Mrs. Borrego a check for $5,750; am I correct? MS. LACZI: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: Would you have known if that -- would you have written that check $5,750 if you knew that license was in a delinquent status? MS. LACZI: No, I wouldn't have. MR. OSSORIO: Would you have used that money into a money market account or a savings accounts, creating interest for your own rcl,§,!a� ab r financial gain? MS. LACZI: That money was in a money market certificate. And that's why we gave her two checks, because we didn't have enough in our checking account. So my husband had to go and transfer money. MR. OSSORIO: And she has not contacted you? MS. LACZI: No. MR. OSSORIO: No further questions. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. The respondent's not here, so the respondent can't present a defense or rebut the evidence provided today by the county. MR. WHITE: Before we move too far from the county's case, if there's nothing further that the county wants to put on, I do have a question for you, ma'am, if I may. I think I know the answer to this. Your money from either /or both of those checks has not been returned to you? MS. LACZI: No. She never contacted me. She -- I saw her last when we were here. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: The last time you saw Ms. Borrego was when -- was at last month's hearing here in front of the licensing board? MS. LACZI: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Is that the last time you've had any contact with Mr. Borrego at all? MS. LACZI: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. Ian, if you wouldn't mind -- I guess you can answer from there. If I remember right, one of the key issues to this case was that Ms. Borrego could fulfill the job. We understand that special order cabinets take time and jobs like these, there might be a delay between when a contract is signed and when the work proceeds. But that if Ms. Borrego did not come in and reinstate her license, she would be Nfflm A6 Marcl f2,12JO unable to fulfill the contract; is that correct? MR. JACKSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And she has made no attempts whatsoever with the licensing department to reinstate her license? MR. JACKSON: I believe the attempt that was made was picking up an application, either the day of the last hearing or -- I believe it was the day of the last hearing. She came to the office, picked up a new application, and have heard nothing since. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. And also for clarification, when Ms. Borrego signed the contract with Mr. and Mrs. Laczi, her license was suspended at the time; is that correct? MR. JACKSON: The status of her license at that time was delinquent. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Delinquent. MR. JACKSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. And since then it has gone null and void? MR. JACKSON: Since then, as of January 1 st of this year, it went suspended. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Suspended. Okay, thank you. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, I've got a couple of questions for the witness. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Please. MR. ZACHARY: Ma'am, you stated that you had paid Ms. Borrego the down payment for the job of over $5,000; is that correct? MS. LACZI: $5,750. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And to date there hasn't been any attempt to perform any of the work, as far as you know? MS. LACZI: No. MR. ZACHARY: And so you would consider that the percentage of the work that's been done so far is practically zero. :. MS. LACZI: None. 1611 � March 12, 2010 46 MR. ZACHARY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Boyd, question? MR. BOYD: If I remember right, she was doing business out at the Big Cypress Marketplace. Have you been out there at all to see if she's still operating? MR. JACKSON: I have not. She -- it's my understanding that she is not there, physically there on a regular basis. I believe the facility is open a couple days a week, weekends, and she may for lack of a better term, pop in periodically. MR. WHITE: I have a question for Mr. Neale, if I may, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Sure. MR. WHITE: In looking at the complaint, Mr. Neale, one of the things we talked about last month was the phrase that says the practice of contracting. And I'm just wanting to be sure that someone who's licensed is delinquent can still be contracting in the same fashion that someone's in the practice of contracting, even if they were operating outside the scope of a particular license. Because of the way that this particular rule is written, my understanding of the count is that the nature of the mismanagement here seems to be that at least if I understand the county's theory of the case, because she signed a contract while her license was in a delinquent status, one, that's still the practice of contracting, but it is doing so in a manner that is committing mismanagement or misconduct. MR. NEALE: Right. MR. WHITE: I mean, in order for us to find a violation of guilt, those elements would have to be met. The thing that wasn't in evidence last month in my mind was the notion of some financial harm. And that's I think been satisfied for me. Page 87 1611 p6 March 12, 2010 The only other piece that's out there is the potential for the contractor to perform within some time frame that was set forth in the scope of the contract. So when I look at the contract, I see that in the small print that's hard for my aging eyes to read, it's still pretty clear that there were things that were supposed to have been done by now that have not taken place within the time -- rough time frames that are set forth. They're stated in terms of four to six weeks and then two to three weeks for granite countertops. And I'm just wanting to make sure that we have a complete record here. Not only do I see that there is the financial harm, the deposits not returned, the money's lost that could have otherwise been earned on the dollars had they not been given over to the deposits. I see that there's mismanagement to the degree that the contract has not been performed. For me personally, I don't need the element that the county is looking to put forward that it's mismanagement or misconduct merely to have signed the contract. But I do need to make sure that somehow we under either of those theories have the practice of contracting that. And is it your opinion that under either or both of those the practice of contracting is taking place? MR. NEALE: I certainly feel that the practice of contacting was taking place. And particularly if you refer to 489.128 whereby it states the contracts entered into by unlicensed contractors are unenforceable; however, they are only unenforceable by the contractor themselves. Subsection three of that specifically says this section shall not affect the rights of parties other than the unlicensed contractor to enforce contract lien or bond remedies. It shall not be a defense to any claim that the contractor is unlicensed. So while the contractor may be -- may not be -- frankly the contractor put themselves in a very bad place, because by being unlicensed they can't en -- if she had not paid, she could not enforce :: 16 11 A March 12, 2010 her remedy against the homeowner. But the homeowner can enforce her remedy against the contractor. So it's a -- it was a matter of public policy, as set out in the ordinance. Further, I believe that this board could easily find that a subsection of the same ordinance 4.1.8. LB, which consists of abandonment, that this certainly could be deemed to be abandoned, because she has paid, by her own testimony, almost 50 percent of the value of the contract, received zero value. And if they don't perform to that level within 30 days of the payment, the job is considered to be abandoned. And certainly it's been more than 30 days since this board last heard it, or about 30 days. So it's certainly -- it's considered to be abandoned. So I think the short answer is yes, certainly she was practicing contracting, or at least holding herself out to do so and that the contract certainly is enforceable, even if she were not a licensed contractor. MR. WHITE: And under your reference to the abandonment provision, would it not also be committing mismanagement in the practice of contracting to abandon the project? MR. NEALE: Well, under the same section of the ordinance, just a broader reading of that same section of the ordinance, because this is 4.1.8. But 4.1.8.1. which is a subsection of 4.1.8. specifically says that one of the parts of mismanagement is this abandonment, so -- MR. WHITE: Well, you know the reason I ask you the question is because all we have under Count I is just the beginning portion of 4.1.8. We do not have 4. 1, the subsection about abandonment. MR. NEALE: And I believe the board certainly could find or could infer that the subsection 4.1.8.1.13 is incorporated in that because that's one of the things in the charge itself, it says included but not limited to any of the following. And from a logical reading of the statute, you would then drop to the subsection and then go to the section which most is applicable, which is B, which is abandonment. 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 And this is -- I would opine that this is -- certainly the board could find meets the test of abandonment and therefore it would meet the test under the charge. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Ian, does that complete your -- the presentation of your case? MR. JACKSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, does anybody have questions of staff or witness? MR. JERULLE: I have a question. Does the staff want to add abandonment to the count? We don't -- I asked the question if the staff wanted to add abandonment to the count. MR. NEALE: At this point they can't. MR. JERULLE: Oh, they cannot. MR. WHITE: And that's the reason why I wanted to go the whole route around, to make sure that although it's not specially stated, it is certainly one of the things under the rules, if the facts are there, which clearly it seems there are those facts to me, you can read into what we already do have in writing as the count that it is mismanagement or misconduct on the part of the county. MR. NEALE: The reasonable test that the board can -- you know, as reasonable people can infer that other portions -- they can look to definitions of financial mismanagement that are well supported, and certainly that's a definition of financial mismanagement that's well supported. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yeah, keep in mind that we're here to discuss and come to conclusions based on reasonableness. And I think we certainly addressed the fact that it's reasonable to continue on with that part of the ordinance and include those other parts of the -- those subsections of the ordinance in this case. Okay, thank you. Page 90 Ma1611 A A rch 10 Are there any other questions of staff or of the witness? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. The respondent is not here to reply, so we'll move on to closing statements. MR. JACKSON: Again, the county I believe has shown that there was misconduct, mismanagement committed by the contractor, causing financial harm to the homeowners here. And I'll conclude it with that. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. We have no closing statement by the respondent, so I need a motion to close the public hearing. MR. BOYD: So moved. MR. JOSLIN: Second. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, public hearing is closed. And now we need to discuss a deliberation on guilt and we need to be -- direction from Mr. Neale. MR. NEALE: Yes. In this case the board shall ascertain its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were afforded to the respondent. Page 91 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 In this particular instance I would suggest that the board make a finding that the respondent was present at the earlier portion of this hearing, the respondent chose not to appear at this hearing and make a finding that she had adequate notice of this hearing in order to ascertain that due process was afforded to the respondent. But pursuant to Section 22- 202(G)(5) of the Collier County Code, the formal Rules of Evidence as set out in Florida Statutes do not apply to this matter. The board shall exclude solely evidence presented at this hearing and the hearing last month in consideration of this matter and shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony. It shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by a reasonably prudent person in the conduct of their affairs. And this is whether or not the evidence would be admissible in a court of law or equity. Hearsay may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence in a manner such as this, but it is not sufficient to support a finding in this or any other case unless it would be admissible over objection in a civil court. The standard of proof in this type case wherein the respondent may lose her privileges to practice her profession is that the evidence presented by the complainant must prove the complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. This burden of proof on the complainant's a larger burden than the preponderance of the evidence case standards set out in civil cases. The standards and evidence are to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the complaint as Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, Section 4.1.8. And that was committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or conduct includes but is not limited to any of the following. We're to refer back to the earlier discussion as Page 92 March 17�17- A6 to how it can infer, what to go to for that definition. The standard is just as set out in the charge. And in order to support a finding that the respondent is in violation, the boardinust show facts that the violations were actually committed by the respondent, and the facts must show to a clear and convincing standard the legal conclusion that the respondent was in violation of this section. As this charge was the only one that the board may decide because it's the only one the defendant could have a -- had the opportunity to prepare a defense. So that's why it's important that we define which -- the charge and why you couldn't add on another charge. Any damages found must be directly related to those charges and it may not be for matters that may have been heard here but are not directly related. The decision made by this board shall be stated orally at this hearing and is effective upon being read by the board. The respondent, if found in violation, has certain appeal rights to this board, the courts and the State Construction Industry Licensing Board as set out in the ordinance and/or Florida Statutes and rules. If the board is unable to issue a decision immediately following the hearing because of questions of law or other matters of such a nature that a decision may not be made at this hearing, the board may withhold its decision until a subsequent meeting. Essentially that's what the board has done today. The board shall vote based upon the evidence presented on all areas, and if it finds the respondent in violation it shall adopt the Administrative Complaint. It shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the charges set out in the Administrative Complaint. Now the board should proceed with deliberations. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. Page 93 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 The first order is to deliberate on guilt with regard to the count. And once that's done, depending on our findings, we'll move into the sanctions phase. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to move that the board find in violation of Count I, as stated in the complaint. MR. JOSLIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, the board has found Maharay Borrego, d/b /a Mary's Kitchens and Interiors, Incorporated, guilty of Count I, 4.1.8. And now we move into the deliberation on sanctions. MR. NEALE: Right. And the sanctions are set out in the codified ordinance in Section 22- 203(B)(1), and in the ordinance in Section 4.3.5. The sanctions which may be imposed include a revocation of the Certificate of Competency; suspension of the Certificate of Competency; denial of issuance or renewal of the Certificate of Competency; probation of a reasonable length, not to exceed two years, during which the contractor's contracting activities shall be under the supervision of the board and/or participation in a duly Page 94 March 12, 2010 6 a accredited program of continuing education. Probation may be revoked for cause by the board at a hearing noticed to reconsider such purpose. Restitution may be ordered; a fine not to exceed $10,000 per violation; a public reprimand; a reexamination requirement; denial of the issuance of permits or requiring issuance of permits with conditions; and an award of reasonable legal and investigative costs. In imposing these sanctions, this board shall consider, one, the gravity of the violation; two, the impact of the violation; three, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; four, any previous violations committed by the violator; and five, any other evidence presented at this hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction that's appropriate for the case, given the nature of this matter. The board shall also issue a recommended penalty to the state. That may include a recommendation, for no further action or recommendation of suspension, revocation or restriction of the registration, or a fine to be levied by the state. Is this a registered license, Mike? MR.OSSORIO: No. MR. NEALE: So then there's no state requirement at this point. CHAIRMAN LYKO S : Okay, thank you. So I think we need to do restitution, I think we need to revoke the license, and I think there needs to be a fine as well. Investigative costs. I think it's the full list of sanctions. The question is to what extent. MR. BOYD: There's no license to revoke, is there? MR. NEALE: Yes, there still is, because it's in delinquent status, so-- MR. BOYD: I thought it was suspended now. MR. NEALE: It really wasn't. It's -- what, it's in delinquent status, Mike, or is it in suspension? Page 95 IF 1 A6 March 12, 2010 MR. OSSORIO: It is suspension. But it's the suspension that if she comes in, she can pay a small penalty and get the license back. MR. NEALE: It's not a suspension imposed by the board, it's a suspension by action of the ordinance. So she could -- as Mike said, she could come back in and pay and submit an application. MR. BOYD: We gave her that chance. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Excuse me one second, guys. Ms. Laczi, you're free to sit down. We've closed the public hearing. MS. LACZI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: If we need you, we'll call you back up again, okay? Does anybody have a problem with revocation of license`' (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, so that's on the table. I think restitution's appropriate for the full amount that was taken as a deposit. MR. BOYD: Plus interest. MR. WHITE: Plus interest. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Plus interest. Investigation costs. MR. JOSLIN: $15000. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Do you have a dollar amount for that? MR. JACKSON: $1,000. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. And we can impose a fine. And what are the -- what's the ranges on the fine, Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: Up to $10,000. MR. BOYD: Maximum fine. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: What else do we have? What else do we have available to us as a sanction? We have a fine, we have investigative costs, we have restitution and revocation of the license. Page 96 Ma.chil,§401 A 6 MR. NEALE: You could issue a public reprimand, have her take an exam, deny the issuance of any permits in the future. We don't have public flogging on here, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: But if we revocate her license, she's going to have to come back to get a new license_ MR. NEALE: Right. MR. JOSLIN: Automatically. MR. NEALE: And obviously she can't get any permits if she has a revoked license, so -- you know, some of them are sort of redundant. They're -- MR. WHITE: The scope of a public reprimand, what form does that take? The thinking I have simply here is that is there some way to make known to more than just the record what has taken place? MR. NEALE: It's something that I don't think the board's ever done, but certainly one thing the board has had staff do in the past is send letters to all nearby licensing bodies about this finding. Probably -- I mean, a public reprimand could be as much as -- you know, I don't know if there's still building block still goes out or, you know, something like that. It certainly could be put in there that the board has issued a public reprimand to Ms. so and so, and -- MR. JERULLE: Your thought is -- MR. NEALE: -- put it on the website even. MR. JERULLE: -- to prevent other people from using -- MR. WHITE: Well, number one, there's that specific deterrent, but there's also the idea of a more general deterrent to those folks who would consider taking this kind of action and conducting themselves in such an irresponsible and harmful fashion to others. MR. NEALE: And I would think it would be certainly -- as part of a public reprimand, and I'm just sort of winging this one because it's a first impression for me, but I would think that the county could issue a press release sent to the media that the Contractor Licensing Board has found this and has issued -- aside from finding the fines, the Page 97 3 A6 March 12, 2010 revocation or whatever, whatever the board decides on, and has issued a public reprimand to the respondent and the business then. MR. WHITE: That's exactly what I was thinking. And I'm glad to hear that there's at least the opportunity to consider it. So -- MR. JOSLIN: How would that get out? Who would -- I mean, would you be responsible or would you take the -- MR. NEALE: They could go through the public information office. MR. OSSORIO: Typically we do our own press release -- MR. JOSLIN: You do. MR. OSSORIO: -- for the licensing board. It's a form we can fill out and we can put our ad libs in it and we can send it to John Torre, the public relations director. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: If it's -- if we do a public reprimand, with the Internet these days, if somebody ever looks up her name, if there's a public reprimand, that will show up on the Internet and that's a way to get the word out and it would be there forever. MR. NEALE: And frankly, the county, I don't know if they do that, but the CDES website, it could be posted on there as well under news and notes on the CDES website. MR. BOYD: Could we send a letter to her landlord? MR. NEALE: That's -- I'm not sure about that one. I'd feel a little uncomfortable, because that gets into interfering with the business relationship that's somewhat unrelated. However -- MR. BOYD: If I owned a business like that, I certainly wouldn't want a tenant -- MR. NEALE: That's unlicensed. MR. BOYD: -- that's unlicensed and taking people's money. MR. NEALE: Yeah. Well, you know, I think the public reprimand, if it goes out in such a fashion would probably -- if they're awake, they would know that. MR. JOSLIN: Could that be just included in the motion that .,__ Ma«hl ) A I I A6 comes out, just have Michael -- MR. NEALE: You can certainly -- you know, one of the sanctions prescribed is a public reprimand so you -- MR. JOSLIN: We deal with how we put it out -- MR. NEALE: -- state that staff -- MR. JOSLIN: -- where we could put it out, anyplace we can find. MR. NEALE: Yeah, issues a public reprimand as appropriate. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. MR. JERULLE: I have another question. It's maybe a silly question, but is there anything we can do to help them recover any money through the contractors recovery fund? MR. OSSORIO: (Shakes head negatively.) MR. JOSLIN: Not a Tier 1 contractor. MR. NEALE: They're not a Tier 1. MR. JERULLE: There's nothing that as a board we can do to help them? MR. OSSORIO: No, unfortunately the State Recovery Fund is -- well, they have their own issues. But it's only for Tier 1 contractors, general building and residential. And that's only after they go to civil court and they follow the rules of engagement pertaining to the recovery fund. MR. NEALE: However, she will have -- you know, assuming the board grants that she would have an order of restitution, which if she takes into county court certainly is prima facie evidence that she should be able to recover. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: On a side note, there was another licensed contractor that pulled a permit for this job, and there was also some drawings that were done. Without knowing the exact time frames of everything, there's -- potentially somebody could file a lien for the cost incurred to do drawings and for pulling a permit. The person that pulled the permit wasn't in privity with the owner, so 16 11 A6 March 12, 2010 they'd have to file a notice to owner first. The time frame may already be too late, but there is a chance. Even if somebody went tomorrow and filed a notice to owner and tried to file a lien, the lien may not be upheld, but still, the owner's going to have to go through that stress and aggravation of dealing with that. I don't know that there's anything we can do about it, but there is a -- I mean, it wasn't a lot of money, but there is a potential for that. MR. NEALE: Well, I think the board certainly could as part of the order give -- put in the order that there's a leave to reopen this because the board, you know, has done this just today, to reopen the matter to impose additional fines and/or additional restitution, if it's shown that it's appropriate. So I think that's certainly -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I don't think that the dollar amounts are worth going through that process, but people can be vindictive and do things that don't always make sense financially. But there is a potential for that. I mean, right now there's an open permit on that house. MR. JOSLIN: Yeah, I was going to say. Is it still open, Michael, right now? MR. JACKSON: It is. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: If that permit doesn't get closed out, nobody else can open a permit on that residence. MR. JERULLE: Can we close it? MR. JACKSON: We've been in communication with that contractor. And I believe that is what's going to happen is that permit's going to be canceled by him. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I just don't want to see Mr. and Mrs. Laczi get an invoice -- MR. JACKSON: Understood. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- under permit fees and the drawings that were done. MR. JACKSON: We've been in communication with him. Page 100 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Well, I understand you've been in communication with him. MR. WHITE: Well, based on today's action, I'm assuming you're going to call and let him know. MR. JACKSON: I'll be in further communication with him. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Well, seems like we hashed this out pretty well. We just need a motion with these recommendations and then we can move forward. MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that in the Case No. 2010 -01, license number 32941, Maharay Borrego, d/b /a Mary's Kitchens and Interiors, Inc., found guilty of the charges; that her license be as of today revoked; that she be ordered to pay $5,750 in restitution; that she be ordered to pay $1,000 investigative costs to Collier County Licensing; and she be also assessed a fine of $10,000; and that she be placed on public reprimand to any extent that we can send to the media. MR. LANTZ: I'd like just a modification to that. I'd like to have interest on the restitution of 18 percent a year from the date the checks are written. MR. WHITE: Whatever statute -- MR. LANTZ: Whatever it is. MR. NEALE: Yeah. MR. JOSLIN: And interest added to the restitution, the legal fee. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, so you agree to the amendment? MR. JOSLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And you're seconding it? MR. WHITE: I'll second with those changes and ask for two other favorable ones: One, within 30 days that the rest -- that the fine be paid -- excuse me, that the fine and the $1,000 administrative costs be paid within 30 days. That's typically what we -- MR. JOSLIN: Okay, yes. That these -- all the fees be paid within a 30 -day period. Fines, restitutions and the investigative costs. Page 101 161 arch 1� 2010 A6 OR MR. JERULLE: Did you say revocation of the license? MR. JOSLIN: Revocation of the license. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Immediate. MR. JOSLIN: Immediate, effective today. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. So let me restate this to make sure we're all on the same page. I have it in a different order than you. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Public reprimand; investigative costs of $1,000 due in 30 days; fine of $10,000 due in 30 days; restitution of $5,750 plus interest at the maximum level allowed by law due within 30 days; and immediate revocation of license. MR. JOSLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Does that sound right? MR. JOSLIN: Yeah. MR. WHITE: May I ask, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So that was the motion. MR. JOSLIN: That's the motion. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Either Kyle or Patrick seconded it. You can pick one, whichever works for you. Okay, is there any further discussion? MR. LANTZ: I just have a question. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Kyle. MR. LANTZ: If 10 years from now she applies for another license, is it automatically going to have to go to the board -- MR. NEALE: Oh, yeah. MR. LANTZ: -- because it was previously revoked? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Richard will be here. MR. JOSLIN: Probably. MR. NEALE: I'll still be representing the board. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: A lot of people here now today will still be here 10 years from now, God willing. Okay. Page 102 7 A MR. ZACHARY: I'll be fishing somewhere. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors Licensing Board on March -- should I say both dates? MR. NEALE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: February 17th and continued to March 12th for consideration of the administrative complaint filed against Maharay Borrego d/b /a Mary's Kitchens and Interiors, Incorporated. License number 32941. Service of the complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, that the respondent was in attendance at the earlier portion of this hearing and had adequate notice of the continuation to today and was not present today. The board, having had at this hearing heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, thereupon issues its findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the board as follows: Maharay Borrego d/b /a Mary's Kitchens and Interiors, Incorporated, is the holder of record of license number 32941; that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida is the complainant in this matter; that the board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent; and that Maharay Borrego Page 103 16 11 ' March 12, 2010 A 6 was present at the public hearing and was not presented (sic) by counsel at the hearing on February 17th and March 12th. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -105 -- yes, sir? MR. NEALE: One thing. She was not present today, she was present in February. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: You want me to say it again there? MR. NEALE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. That she was present at the February 17th meeting and was not present at the March 12th meeting and was not represented by counsel. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance No. 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 ordinances and is the one who committed the act. That the allegations of fact as set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to Count I, 4.1.8, committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct includes but is not limited to any of the following. Are found to be supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. The conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to Count I, 4.1.8, are approved, adopted and incorporated herein to wit: The respondent violated Section 4.1.8 -- committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct includes but is not limited to any of the following -- of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the section set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity. Page 104 M1A 12 1010 A 6 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 Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of seven in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote of the board members present, the respondent has been found in violation as set forth above. Further it is hereby ordered by a vote of seven in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote of the board members present, that the following disciplinary sanctions and related order are hereby imposed upon the holder of contractor Certificate of Competency number 32941: That the county issue a public reprimand; that the respondent pays investigation cost of $1,000 within 30 days; that fines be levied in the amount of $10,000, payable within 30 days; that restitution be paid in the amount of $5,750 plus interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; and that the respondent's license be revoked immediately. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, that's a vote of six to zero. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I'm sorry. MR. NEALE: Mr. Meister did not. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So a vote of 6 -0. Any other reports? MR. OSSORIO: Wednesday, April 21st. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: That's our next meeting. MR. OSSORIO: Correct. MR. NEALE: It's my birthday. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I need a motion to adjourn. MR. JERULLE: So moved, Jerulle. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. Page 105 1611 A6 March 12, 2010 MR. MEISTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: We are adjourned. Thank you, gentlemen and ladies. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:20 p.m. COD,7I'RACTOR LICENSING BOARD MAS LYKO)S, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on qtu -71 20 j o as presented_)�_or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 106 -i �S _M r yle C :010tta VE ,A ,/ APR 14 2010 arc 3, 10 Board of County Commissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 3, 2010 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 Community Development and Environmental Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian Ray Allain James Boughton Clay Brooker (Excused) Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Dalas Disney David Dunnavant Marco Espinar Blair Foley Regan Henry George Hermanson David Hurst Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Interim Administrator, CDES Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES — Staff Liaison James French, Deputy Director /Operations Manager, CDES Bob Dunn, Director, Building Review & Permitting Phil Gramatges, Interim Director, Public Utilities Ed Riley, Fire Code Official, Fire Code Office Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Review Manager Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Mine. Comes: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee & EDC Manager [ale: p 6/11/1 -b Paul Mattausch, Director, Water Dept. t&l L-1 t Copies to: March 3, 2010 I. Call to Order 161 ROA7 The meeting was called to order at 3:00 PM by Chairman William Varian who read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting. II. Approval of Agenda Marco Espinar moved to approve the Agenda as submitted Second by James Boughton. Carried unanimously, 11 -0. III. Approval of Minutes — February 3, 2010 Meeting Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Minutes of the February 3, 2010 meeting as submitted. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 11 -0. IV. Public Speakers (None) V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Public Utilities Division Update — Phil Gramatges, Interim Director • No new items to report • No questions from the Committee C. Transportation /Planning Update — Michael Greene, Transportation Planning Manager • No new items to report Reed Jarvi noted the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge has opened and questioned why there was a sidewalk on the east side of the Bridge which he did not see referenced in the sidewalk plans (Comprehensive Plans) for a twenty -year horizon. He was concerned that additional money was spent to construct a five -foot long sidewalk. Nick Casalanguida stated it was more cost effective to spend the money now rather than in the future when costs will be higher to construct a full sidewalk. Funding was provided by the Florida Department of Transportation and was spent as the FDOT specified. (Laura DeJohn and David Hurst arrived — 3:05 PM.) B. Fire Review Update — Ed Riley, Fire Code Official • Monthly Report was submitted in the Committee's information packet • Site Plans for the new building are in final review and the application for a Building Permit will be submitted in mid -March • Will begin advertising for a General Contractor for the project (mid- March) • A Fire Alarm Contractor has been chosen and will submit his plan • Anticipated move -in date - February, 2011 D. CDES Update — Nick Casalanguida, Interim Administrator • A front -end planner will manage the Business Center (May /June) 16 Ir 1 A7 March 3, 2010 • The number of required Intake documents will be reduced within the next few weeks. • A member asked for an email providing a summary of the last Kaison meeting to be sent to DSAC members for their review. • Will implement a "secret shopper" — an independent surveyor — to assess customer service • Change in collection of Inspection fees for Site Development Permits: 50% at Project Review and 50% when construction begins • Re: "CityView" — will be meeting with team and developers to iron out problems with the system VI. Old Business A. Update: Impact Fee Study /Schedule — Amy Patterson, Impact Fee & EDC Mgr. • A schedule of "Planned Milestone Dates" was distributed to the Committee. • The first Subcommittee will review "Government Buildings" and "Law Enforcement" Impact Fee Studies. o Mario Valle, David Hurst, and Reed Jarvi volunteered to serve on the Subcommittee. • "Indexing" Report updating the numbers will be presented to the full DSAC Committee at a future meeting. o Methodology changed last year from the "Ten -Year Regression Analysis" to the "Two -Year Average." • All Impact Fees are on a 3 -year update cycle, with Indexing in the two years between formal updates. • In 2010, the Fees subject to Indexing are: Transportation, Parks (regional and community), and Correctional Facilities • Adjustment is anticipated for Transportation and Parks Impact Fees • It has been suggested to lengthen the 3 -year update cycle to a 5 -year update as the economy stabilizes. B. Update: Building Fee Post - Implementation Commitments — Bob Dunn, Building Director A question was asked concerning the recent Building Block — Plan Review Performance Standard and the options provided concerning the number of sets of plans to be submitted. o 7 plans submitted = 15 day deadline for commercial reviews and 5 -day deadline for residential reviews A new Building Block was posted on the website and the word "Optional" was removed. • The number of plans submitted determines the length of review time. • Issue: longer review times versus lower cost to submit fewer plans. There was discussion concerning the exact number of plans to be submitted. Staff will identify the number of plans required for each type of Review and inform Industry. Jamie French stated single -trade services will be addressed and minimum plan sets will be established, and the submittal process will be examined to eliminate redundancy. 1611 A7 March 3, 2010 VII. New Business A. Installation of Capped Cross - Drains at Strategic Locations on new County Road Projects — Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Review Manager • The Flood Plain Management Planning Committee requested Mr. Chrzanowski to devise a policy for installing cross - drains on new County roads that cross slews. • Possible Solution: install capped cross - drains and multiple pipes to avoid flooding downstream properties developed after a road was constructed since some roads were never piped to accommodate slews. o Least expensive option: to install capped cross - drains during construction of new roads rather than retrofit in the future. • Older swales have followed the "lay of the land" and drained areas into canals too quickly. • Contributing issues: Management of water shed and safe rehydration of the Aquifer It was suggested that a private party, i.e., developer, might be interested in installing pipes as an "out fall" for future use if the County would offer consideration ( "credits ") for the additional work. B. Water Meters on Fire Sprinklers — Chairman Varian Chairman Varian stated he had been approached by members of the Industry concerning an Ordinance to add meters to sprinkler lines. He stated the Ordinance had not been presented to DSAC for review. (DSAC's Utilities Subcommittee was disbanded in October 2006.) Paul Mattausch, Director — Water Department, explained the Utility Ordinance refers to Utility Standards, and the issue of adding meters to sprinkler lines is included in the Standards. He stated Utility Standards are updated on an as- needed basis and the updates are presented annually to the Board of County Commissioners for review and approval. He further stated approximately 10% of water produced is not billed. • Approximately 5% can be identified (water main breaks, hydrant flushing programs, fighting fires, etc.) • In 2005, the amount of water lost in the system was examined and was determined to be 13 %. • Solution: to ensure all services are metered to track unbilled usage. • In January, 2009 the Utility Standards Committee revised the Standards (placing meters on dedicated fire services), posted them on the website, and were approved by the BCC in September, 2009. • If a building is substantially changed, the meters will be retrofit to comply with the Ordinance. A question was asked concerning the cost of the meters. Mr. Mattauuch explained the typical fire line is a 4 inch service or an 8 inch service. The additional cost to install a water meter on a 4" service is $9,400 and $17,600 for an 8" service. 16J A7 Mar3010 He stated the solution provides an equitable way to determine consumptive use and only water that actually goes through the meter will be billed. A combination meter, which records both domestic usage and fire service usage, is an option. • State Statutes, utility practice, and American Waterworks Association recommendations support metering all services. He further stated inspection of cross - connection facilities has shown irrigation lage, domestic usage, and other connections to the fire service lines which are consuming water without being billed. A one percent loss (non - billed usage) equates to a $160,000 loss in water revenues. • The Water Department's costs to produce water have increased. A question was asked if the operations cost to monitor meters exceeded the amount of revenue captured. • The answer was "no. But it is cost effective to track unbilled water usage." It was suggested to assess punitive fines to systems found to be illegally obtaining water through down - stream connections rather than enact a new Ordinance. It was noted if an additional cost of $100,000 is assessed to a new development, the cost will still be passed on to the homeowners. Mr. Mattasuch stated the Water Department is concerned about the efficiency of its system and cost containment. Summary: The revisions to the Ordinance were not presented to DSAC. The Water Department is not proposing a retrofit of existing systems, but will pursue illegal consumption. It was also suggested that a thorough study, with a flow analysis, be conducted to determine other options because the proposed solution will place an additional financial burden on future construction projects by affecting the cost of doing business within Collier County. (George Hermanson left — 4:40 PM.) Ed Riley stated the Ordinance requirement for meters has been enforced only on new Permits. The Fire Marshalls' Association asked the Fire Sprinkler Committee to address their concerns with the Water Department. The meters are not as much of an issue as the loss of pressure through the reduced pressure backflow preventer, and may require buildings to install fire pumps which are expensive to maintain. It was suggested that a surcharge would be a more cost effective option. VIII. Committee Member Comments (None) M111'' A7 March 3, 0 Next Meeting Dates: April 7, 2010 — 3:00 PM May 5, 2010 — 3:00 PM June 2, 2010 — 3:00 PM July 7, 2010 — 3:00 PM August 4, 2010 — 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:47 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were as ved by the Board /Committee on Lf as presented V , or as amended RECEIVE APR 13 2010 Board of County Commissioners Co ,e-r County Community Development & Environmental Services Division Engineering & Environmental Services Fiala 2U I — Halas Henning Coyle Coletta c Floodplain Management Planning Committee Ray Smith, Chairman John Torre, Vice - Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagner Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Christa Camera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Herb Luntz Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Clarence Tears Jim Turner Carolina Valera Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Terry_ Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 1 -4 -10 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 11:14 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Carolina Valera, Rick Zyvoloski (substitute for Dan Summers), Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Stan Chrzanowski, Travis Gossard, Brooke Hollander, Christine Sutherland, Ananta Nath (substitute for Clarence Tears), Duke Vasey, Herb Luntz, Phillip Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Christa Carrera, and Robert Wiley. Absent: John Torre (Excused),), Joseph Gagner (Excused), Lew Schmidt (Excused), Bob Devlin, and Terry Smallwood. There were two members of the public and one additional staff person in attendance. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Approval of minutes for the 9 -28 -09 Special Meeting — Motion to approve by Duke Vasey; motion passed unanimously. Approval of minutes for the 10 -5 -09 Regular Meeting — Motion to approve by Duke Vasey; motion passed unanimously. 2. FMPC membership vacancy /replacement — Robert Wiley informed the Committee that we continue to have the one staff position vacancy from the Planning and Zoning, and we now have one citizen volunteer position vacancy with the declared open position previously held by Mr. Kokkinos. That citizen position is currently being advertised for filling. A discussion followed regarding the large number of excused absences by Herb Luntz. Duke Vasey recommended that Mr. Luntz resign if he is not able to attend the meetings, and Pierre Bruno concurred. Travis Gossard inquired about an attendance policy established for the Committee to which Robert Wiley said no attendance policy has been developed and put into the Committee's by -laws. Phil Brougham motioned for the development of an policy by staff for the Committee's review. He asked there be some consideral nor Page 1 of 4 DO: ASItem #: Copies t6: 0 16ii"A8 attendance requirements for staff members who may be working under different situations than the citizen volunteer members. Christine Sutherland mentioned that other committees generally have a 3- unexcused absence policy for removal. Ray Smith said he would develop a draft policy for the Committee to review at the next meeting. Mr. Herb Luntz arrived for the meeting at 9:16 a.m. A discussion followed to consider including a limitation on excused absences. Phil Brougham and Duke Vasey suggested that staff attendance be an item for consideration in the policy. Duke suggested the policy include the identification of alternates. Phil Brougham restated that his motion was for staff to prepare an attendance policy for discussion at the next meeting without presupposing on its contents, but that the suggestions discussed may be worth consideration. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Assigned Planner for the revisions to the Floodplain Management Plan — Robert Wiley explained the progress made in hiring Mike DeRuntz to work as a temporary Job Bank employee for a fixed term of time. The paperwork to do this has been signed by Joe Schmitt and is in to the Human Resources Department for further approval and signatures. Mike would be dedicated to work on the Floodplain Management Plan revisions, assuming 5 weeks full time and 6 weeks part time. NEW BUSINESS 1. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance restart status — Robert Wiley discussed the direction to work with the County Attorney Office (CAO) in drafting an ordinance using the State of Florida's latest model ordinance for coastal communities. The CAO is taking the current County ordinance, editing it using underline and strikeout technique to produce a document matching the State's model ordinance, and then Robert has to make provide the information to make it specific to Collier County. All higher regulatory criteria will be removed, including the 1 -foot of freeboard that the State has included as a desired option. Duke Vasey discussed the need for a cost benefit analysis for the various types of higher regulatory criteria that could be considered before inclusion of them within the ordinance. Duke also discussed having an ordinance that satisfies the FEMA requirements but also addresses the costs to comply with the requirements. He suggested taking out the higher regulatory issues from the model ordinance, and getting information from the building industry on what their costs would be if the higher regulatory criteria were added back into the ordinance in the future. Ray Smith recommended staying with the basic model ordinance without higher regulatory criteria due to the time constraints. Phil Brougham concurred with use of the model ordinance. Pierre Bruno discussed the costs of higher regulatory issues ultimately being passed to the purchaser, and that can have impacts on their ability to purchase. Ray directed to move forward with the base model ordinance. 2. Review of CRS Coordinator's Manual — Robert Wiley reported that with the limited budget this year, the Committee's previous direction, to get detailed CRS activities statements distributed to the various departments and directors for their evaluation of what they could do to improve the CRS scoring, will not be moving forward for now. Duke Vasey thought that if there is no interest in looking at the CRS activities for areas of improvement, each director or division chief should be required to sign a statement that there are no CRS activities that they need to be concerned about. Ray Smith and Phil Brougham stated their desire to have someone look at all the CRS activities to see what the County is already doing for which we can receive credit points. Discussions then followed on addressing the need for sufficient staffing and support with the County Manager. Duke Vasey then motioned for the Committee's founding resolution to be amended to state the Committee be chaired by one of Page 2 of 4 1611 1,, the citizen volunteer members. Phil Brougham seconded the motion with the amendment of the motion to include an attendance policy. Pierre Bruno discussed his opposition to the motion and expounded on the importance of developing a coenefit analysis for a total programmatic cost/benefit as well as an individual cost/benefit Herb Luntz then expressed an apology for missing so many meetings for health reasons, suggested the chairman and some members of the Committee meet with the County Manager to get him to better understand the role of the Committee and the Floodplain Management program, and stated his intention to vote against the motion. Stan recommended that a citizen member meet with the County Manager. Duke Vasey indicated his opinion that staff members have a conflict of interest in presenting the Committee's position to the County Manager. Phil Brougham clarified the motion under consideration was to amend the founding resolution to bring in an attendance policy and remove or modify the requirement for the chairman and vice- chairman to be staff members. The motion passed 9 -7. There was then a discussion on the motion by Stan Chrzanowski, seconded by Christine Sutherland for selecting the Committee members that will approach the County Manager. Phil Brougham preferred to not send Committee members to address the County Manager until he could respond to the previous vote on changes to the founding Resolution. The discussion led to selection of Duke Vasey, Brooke Hollander, Phil Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Stan Chrzanowski, Ray Smith and Robert Wiley to meet with the County Manager. Pierre Bruno expressed an interest in having a minority position be presented to the County Manager during that meeting since the vote was so close. Christine Sutherland said that was not proper to also present a minority position, or else, the pace of completing Committee business would become even slower. 3. Action Plan Action Item Sub - committee Progress Reports: • Action Item 6(e) — Ray Smith reported on the Action Item 6(e) sub - committee's three meetings and the findings that some of the action item requirements are already complete. A project management plan has been developed and additional meetings will be held to bring this to completion. The next sub - committee meeting is Friday, 1 -8 -10 at 3:00 p.m. in CDES Conference Room 607. • Action Item 6(b)(ii) — Mac Hatcher provided some information on updates made to the Floodplain web page. Mike DeRuntz had scheduled all the 2009 public meetings shortly after the action item was developed. • Action Item 5(f)(iii) — Stan Chrzanowski said the draft policy was developed a while ago to address placement of cross drains under roads in G.G. Estates and the potential for new flooding. To prevent this potential flooding, the policy proposes the installation of multiple smaller culverts that are plugged and gradually opened as downstream capacity is determined sufficient. Stan will write up the formal draft policy for the Committee to review and then take it to the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) through use of a resolution. Carolina advised that use of the Growth Management Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process would be a slow process. Travis Gossard recommended getting multiple divisional review and comment with the draft policy resolution. Duke Vasey discussed using the Land Development Code amendment process. • Action Item 5(d)(i) — Jerry Kurtz introduced Brandy Otero of the Stormwater Management Department. She discussed the ongoing grant applications since January 2009 for various stormwater projects. The grant review and approval process is very lengthy, and there some are still in consideration while some have been declined. She reviews the grant web sites daily for opportunities to apply. Travis Gossard asked about purchasing the repetitive loss homes and elevating, relocating or demolishing them. Page 3 of 4 1611'A8 Robert Wiley informed the Committee that FEMA grants require a willing owner to participate in the purchase, and so far the County has not received an indication of interest from the repetitive loss owners. For other forms of mitigation, FEMA grants require owner financial participation of 25% or more, and that has also been a stopping issue. The County could fully fund the purchase without use of FEMA grant funding if so desired and if local funding was available, but that is also a problem. • Action Item 6(a) — Jim Turner reported on the initial effort to use GIS to locate the mobile home parks. Problems have surfaced on the accuracy using the addresses since not all mobile home parks have individual lot addresses. Duke Vasey suggested the use of the SheriWs addressing capabilities. • Ray Smith directed that these five action items be addressed by the Committee again in three months. 4. Public Comments — Tim Nance discussed the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and flood insurance impacts within the G.G. Estates. He asked for the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance be the least restrictive as possible unless there is a significant reason for additional restrictions. Consider the cost impacts. He asked for consideration be given to standards for rural areas separate from urban coastal areas, specifically non - residential accessory structures. Hermany Ortega stated that the Committee was a hostile board. Pierre Bruno then asked that his name be removed from those meeting with the County Manager since he would be supporting the minority position on the earlier motion. Next Meeting: Monday, February 1, 2010 starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. Motion to adjo erre Bruno passed unanimously at 11:14 am. Smith, tjudiman A' 2-23- /&4 Robert Wiley, Storcoordinator Page 4 of 4 Meeting Minutes for 2 -1 -10 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 10:15 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Dan Summers, Jerry Kurtz, Dick Noonan (substitute for Jim Turner), John Torre, Mac Hatcher, Stan Chrzanowski, Travis Gossard, Christine Sutherland, Ananta Nath (substitute for Clarence Tears), Duke Vasey, Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Lew Schmidt, and Robert Wiley. Absent: Carolina Valera, Brooke Hollander (Excused), Herb Luntz, Bob Devlin, Christa Carrera, and Terry Smallwood. There were three members of the public and three additional staff in attendance. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Approval of minutes for the 1 -4 -10 Regular Meeting — Motion to approve by Pierre Bruno; motion passed unanimously. 2. FMPC membership vacancy /replacement — Robert Wiley informed the Committee that we continue to advertise (2nd round of advertising) for the one citizen volunteer position vacancy. Phil Brougham asked if the vacancy jeopardized the Committee standing, and Robert responded in the negative. 3. FMPC Membership Absence Policy (review of Section 8 of Ordinance 2001 -55) — Robert Wiley presented the DRAFT Attendance Policy. The copy of Ordinance 2001 -55 was provided by Sue Filson to inform the Committee of the attendance requirements for other existing review boards under the Board of County Commissioners. The DRAFT Attendance Policy uses Section 8 of Ord. 2001 -55 to develop the basic attendance concepts for discussion by the Committee. Phil Brougham agreed that the Committee needs to adopt an attendance policy. He was concerned about impacts to the staff members. Christine Sutherland asked about the CRS requirements for certain departments to be represented on the Committee. Duke Vasey asked about having alternate members for County staff. Stan Chrzanowski asked about the poor attendance of the representatives of the three cities, and whether or not they would be removed from the Committee. Duke Vasey suggested the municipalities be given ex- officio status on the Committee and let them determine if they want to appear at the Committee meetings. Phil Brougham motioned to shorten down w by combining the membership attendance criteria into a single statement (e.g. for "Citizen Volunteer Member" combine sub - points 1 and 2), follow suit with ParNF B Page 1 of 5 Item 9 r-;�'es to: Fiala RECEIVED Halas Henning -- 'APR 13 '�.p� Coyle ` r Qoodplain Management Planning Commi tit Board of County Commissioners Ray Smith, Chairman John Torre, Vice - Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Herb Luntz Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Clarence Tears Jim Turner Carolina Valera Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 2 -1 -10 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 10:15 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Dan Summers, Jerry Kurtz, Dick Noonan (substitute for Jim Turner), John Torre, Mac Hatcher, Stan Chrzanowski, Travis Gossard, Christine Sutherland, Ananta Nath (substitute for Clarence Tears), Duke Vasey, Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Lew Schmidt, and Robert Wiley. Absent: Carolina Valera, Brooke Hollander (Excused), Herb Luntz, Bob Devlin, Christa Carrera, and Terry Smallwood. There were three members of the public and three additional staff in attendance. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Approval of minutes for the 1 -4 -10 Regular Meeting — Motion to approve by Pierre Bruno; motion passed unanimously. 2. FMPC membership vacancy /replacement — Robert Wiley informed the Committee that we continue to advertise (2nd round of advertising) for the one citizen volunteer position vacancy. Phil Brougham asked if the vacancy jeopardized the Committee standing, and Robert responded in the negative. 3. FMPC Membership Absence Policy (review of Section 8 of Ordinance 2001 -55) — Robert Wiley presented the DRAFT Attendance Policy. The copy of Ordinance 2001 -55 was provided by Sue Filson to inform the Committee of the attendance requirements for other existing review boards under the Board of County Commissioners. The DRAFT Attendance Policy uses Section 8 of Ord. 2001 -55 to develop the basic attendance concepts for discussion by the Committee. Phil Brougham agreed that the Committee needs to adopt an attendance policy. He was concerned about impacts to the staff members. Christine Sutherland asked about the CRS requirements for certain departments to be represented on the Committee. Duke Vasey asked about having alternate members for County staff. Stan Chrzanowski asked about the poor attendance of the representatives of the three cities, and whether or not they would be removed from the Committee. Duke Vasey suggested the municipalities be given ex- officio status on the Committee and let them determine if they want to appear at the Committee meetings. Phil Brougham motioned to shorten down w by combining the membership attendance criteria into a single statement (e.g. for "Citizen Volunteer Member" combine sub - points 1 and 2), follow suit with ParNF B Page 1 of 5 Item 9 r-;�'es to: 16 ltlov- p g "Appointed County Staff Members ", and have staff bring additional language from FEMA or the CRS on requirements for mandatory department memberships back to the Committee at the next meeting. Duke Vasey agreed to second the motion for purposes of discussion and suggested the Committee simply adopt the existing Ordinance 2001 -55 as the core document and put in the differences desired by the Committee. Pierre Bruno discussed his concerns with some of the detail in Ordinance in 2001 -55 that may put the Committee in jeopardy under its current arrangement. Phil Brougham withdrew his motion. Duke Vasey withdrew his second. Pierre Bruno motioned to adopt the DRAFT Attendance Policy as written. Phil Brougham seconded the motion. Christine Sutherland asked about the requirement to provide a substitute, and Robert Wiley explained that up to this point, only appointed staff members were told to provide the name of a substitute. This DRAFT Attendance Policy would require all members to identity an alternate. Duke Vasey expressed his concern that appointed staff members identify an alternate, and they should not be able to decline attendance and participation on the Committee unless there is an identified conflict of interest. Christine Sutherland asked what would happen if a Committee member could not find an alternate to attend, and it was stated that the member would be noted as having an unexcused absence. Robert Wiley explained that as the DRAFT Attendance Policy is currently written, the attendance of an alternate is still recorded as an excused absence for the Committee member. Ananta Nath asked about having a proxy, but this was not included. Motion passed 14 -1. 4. Assigned Planner for the revisions to the Floodplain Management Plan — Discussion on this item was delayed until after the presentation and discussion by Nick Casalanguida on CDES direction under New Business Item 1. Robert Wiley explained that Mike DeRuntz is scheduled to begin work as a temporary Job Bank employee for a fixed term of time, starting Tuesday morning, if everything clears Human Resources today. Phil Brougham asked for clarification on Mike's assignment, and Robert explained that it is to clean up several deficiencies, especially in Step 7 and Step 8 of the CRS evaluation of the Floodplain Management Plan. Mike is scheduled to work for 5 weeks of full time to pull the revisions together, and then 6 weeks of part time work to take the Plan through the various review boards and committees. Phil Brougham asked if Mike has a work plan, and Robert replied that he will have one when he reports to work. Phil said the Committee would like to see that work plan (what he is going to do, how long will it take, when he will complete it with incremental target dates). Duke Vasey asked if the Committee would be able to review the incremental work products, or have to wait to receive it all at the end. Phil Brougham emphasized the Committee's desire to see incremental work products, and requested that Mike's approved work plan be distributed to the Committee. NEW BUSINESS 1. CDES Direction from Nick Casalanguida — Nick introduced himself as the newly appointed CDES Interim Administrator. He started off with some questions as he tries to realign staff and resources. • There are County staff assigned as members of the Committee, and they can't really speak to each other about some of the tasks and assignments under the Florida Sunshine rules. • There are also issues with the original goals and objectives of the Committee and whether or not these need to be revisited and re- evaluated. With the limited resources available and the Committee meeting monthly, consider meeting less often and having Page 2 of 5 1611' AB staff as non - voting advisory members. Consider getting realistic goals and expectations that we can shoot for and get done. Phil Brougham referenced a telephone conversation he had with Nick a couple weeks prior when Nick called him. Phil's first concern was the membership within the Committee and the requirement for certain staff to be members of the Committee in order for it to have stature with the FEMA/CRS program. Robert Wiley provided a response that the membership requirement is there if we want to receive the CRS points for using a committee. Phil suggested we may have options on the membership, and Robert affirmed that there are options with impacts on the possible CRS point value sought. Phil also expressed concern on staff's effectiveness and productivity, while working within the Florida Sunshine Law requirements. He identified the need for staff, irrespective of the Committee, to update the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, and the Committee had given direction to use the State of Florida model ordinance. Phil also identified the need to update the Floodplain Management Plan to address the deficiencies identified by the ISO. Hopefully the assigned planner can get that work completed. Overall, his recommendation would be for the Committee to meet once a quarter unless there is a significant need to hold additional meetings. Most importantly is to agree what the priorities are, go back to the staff administrative department head with those priorities, get a firm estimate on the manpower needed to accomplish a task on the part of the staff member, get concurrence that those hours are going to be made available, set a realistic completion date, and mission the staff to work on it. He has been very frustrated in setting priorities and not seeing things getting done. Duke Vasey spoke to extend Phil's comments a little differently. To Duke, the number of CRS points is insignificant to tie up a large amount of staff. However, he does think it important to evaluate the CRS manual to take advantage of all of the CRS activities for which the County should be receiving credit. Also, the CRS manual should be used against the AUIR. If we are funding in the AUIR programs, and we are accomplishing through current budget programs, then we have a complete action. There has not been a success in getting staff to evaluate the CRS manual to identify all of the CRS activities that we can receive immediate credit for without any expenditure of time, other than the evaluation. Duke expressed concern over the higher regulatory standards that always seem to creep into the model ordinance. He stated his problem is that he doesn't know who on staff does a cost benefit analysis, how much of staff's time it would take, and how we could ever put in a criteria on the community that we did not know what the cost would ultimately be. Nick responded that he thought these were all great ideas. Mike DeRuntz is going to be coming back as a job banker to finish up revisions to the Floodplain Management Plan. He agrees with priorities and scheduling. Let's agree where the low hanging fiuit is and what is realistic. The key is value added to the community for the work and effort expended. He agreed with Duke's point about looking at the points received for what we do in the CRS and the staff hours required to get it done. He agreed with meeting quarterly, get some realistic goals and expectations, and get the things done that bring value to the community. Ray Smith suggested putting together a work plan and approve specific target dates for completion in accordance with when FEMA is expecting certain tasks to be completed. This would provide a commitment for both staff and the Committee to achieve the targets. Nick proposed it be a draft work plan for the administrators and County Manager to review and see if they can do it. Phil Brougham added to the thought by suggesting the Committee identify the top five priorities, and include the completion of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance from the model ordinance Page 3 of 5 16 1 11� and the CRS rating point cleanups. The work plan should also identify what value there is in the completion of the prioritized task, so we would have the task, the proposed responsible department to complete the task, an estimated number of work hours to complete the task, the benefit associated with completion of the task, an assigned completion date, and an assigned staff member. Dan Summers asked that the department administrators be allowed to put a budget to the assigned tasks. There are currently no overhead dollars to absorb the work tasks in the plan. Duke Vasey responded to Nick Casalanguida's comments by saying the Committee has already asked for a review of the CRS manual by the staff. He asked for Robert Wiley to put together a report on the tasks that have not been completed, using the top five priorities, to be used as a template to show at least one director, division chief or department head to look at what is funded in the AUIR and for Utilities, what is in the 30 -year plan, which may also apply to Transportation. A quarterly meeting should be purpose -based upon the work plan and the approved year, and it should be consistent with what FEMA is asking the County to provide, the time ahead to review it, and tied to coincide with other activities that are taking place that would lend themselves to just appending that report to our request. Ray Smith discussed the timing of the start of the County's budget preparation cycle in March, so if the Committee meets quarterly, we will miss the opportunity this year. There needs to be a Committee meeting next month so the Committee can review the work plan in advance and provide feedback and comments for the administrators buy -in and the department directors can factor it into their budget. Ray discussed having Robert Wiley work with individual Committee staff members to provide feedback and do some of the legwork in hopes to bring it to their administrators for their authorization and approval before bringing it back to the Committee. Nick Casalanguida said that would need to be distributed to the administrators and County Manager at least a week before the Committee meeting to give them time to comment. He was on board for having that done. Pierre Bruno commented that increasing our CRS scoring can give the County a better rating, which can lead to a better discount for certain people on their flood insurance. Also, the County has to have a Floodplain Management Plan. No matter what else we go for, we really need to look at how much money we are really going to save for how many people. Until that cost benefit analysis is completed, the other efforts are just being batted around. Dan Summers commented on the connectivity between Emergency Management and Floodplain Management. In the FEMA world of building a disaster resistant community, there has been a good history of preventing damage from wind, but not from flooding. There is a cost benefit relationship between disaster response and disaster recovery and FEMA will leverage one against the other. Cost benefit analysis is important to look at, but he asked that we not cease the momentum to build disaster resistance, whether in wind or flooding, because the FEMA is going to put more responsibility on the community to become disaster resilient and the incentive is less reimbursement for post - disaster. Phil Brougham provided a wrap up by saying he understood the Committee would be meeting next month, there will be a draft work plan that has been presented to the appropriate department administrators in advance of the meeting so they can provide comments, the components of the work plan will be the tasks, the benefit quoted with the task, the responsible department, estimated man hours, and prospective completion date. Then after the Committee approves the work plan, start meeting quarterly. Page 4of5 1611 A9'" Ray Smith asked a question about bringing the temporary planner position on board now or wait until the Committee has reviewed and approved the work plan. Nick Casalanguida said it was better to bring the planner on board now to address the Floodplain Management Plan. Duke Vasey then asked about the appropriateness of using the Environmental Services Division on the letterhead of the Committee meeting minutes when the Committee is under the direction of the County Manager. Stan Chrzanowski discussed that the most contentious part of the original Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance was the inspections part. He stated that it had been taken out of the previous ordinance language and nothing else done with it. He asked if we were going ahead with the new ordinance without the inspections part. Robert Wiley confirmed that the State's model ordinance did not include inspections. Nick said he would be back next month when he gets the read -ahead from Robert Wiley with comments on where we stand. Meeting returned to Old Business, Agenda Item 4 2. Public Comments — Lew Schmitt asked about some previous discussions during the meeting regarding how much and how many will be impacted by the floodplain management issues. He thinks that depends upon the changes to take place with the new FEMA flood maps and asked when will we get the new FEMA maps. Robert Wiley said the staff is scheduled to receive the Preliminary DFIRMs by mid- March, and they will be going public in mid -April. From the DRAFT information the County's consultant gave to FEMA, there will be roughly 50,000 to 51,000 structures affected that will need to be evaluated for flood insurance requirements. AE or AH flood zones are expanding out into the current X and D flood zones. He also discussed the Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) options and the need for elevation certificates. In the CRS program, Collier County is rated as a Class 7 community, and as a result of the 2008 site visit, we have a draft letter indicating we will become a Class 6 community. This provides an overall savings to flood insurance policy holders of roughly 4 to 5 million dollars. As the number of flood insurance policies increases due to the expansion of the area requiring flood insurance, the total discount will also increase. Duke Vasey asked if there will be any workshops on how to apply for a LOMA. Robert discussed the proposed arrangement for the series of evening public meetings where information will be provided, including information on LOMAs. Staff will also be available to meet with groups and organizations to provide information and help them get answers to their questions. Stan Chrzanowski asked about the logistics of reviewing the thousands of potential LOMA applications. Next Meeting: Monday, March 1, 2010 starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. Motion to adjour Schmitt passed unanimously at 10:15 a.m. S C an Robert Wiley, SPff Coordinator Page 5 of 5 COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF PUBI1 §E CEsA 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 March 1, 2010 I. Call to Order II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — February 1, 2010 V. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights —Vickie Wilson B. Band Stand Lighting — Annie Alvarez C. Tree Project — Annie Alvarez D. Golden Gate Community Center 5 Year Plan — Annie Alvarez VI. New Business A. Monthly Budget — Annie Alvarez VII. Member Comments VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment APR 16- ?010 C10:3!ft t)i (.r); �!i`: '..Cr9liltR.`',SiO{1.975 Misc. Corres: The next meeting will be on April 5, 2010 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community CenterDate: < CD 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida Item #: l C ct 41 C r, t Fiala -�-- "�"'"�" Halas Coyle Coletta � A 9 F COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF P16 IS�RVIC ~S 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 5, 2010 I. Call to Order II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — March 1, 2010 V. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights —Vickie Wilson B. Band Stand Lighting — Annie Alvarez VI. New Business A. Monthly Budget — Annie Alvarez VII. Member Comments VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment The next meeting will be on May 3, 2010 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida 16 It 1rop A9 1Vfarch 1, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, March 1, 2010 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 Room "C" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Klug VICE CHAIR: Bill Arthur (Excused) Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris Kaydee Tuff (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager/Region III Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor 1 16'Llh'I. 2A9 r. I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:07 PM by Chairman, Jim Klug III. II. Attendance A quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Darrin Brooks moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Jim Klug. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of February 1, 2010 Meeting Minutes Jim Klug moved to approve the February 1, 2010 Minutes as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights — Addressed after V. B. B. Band Stand Lighting — Annie Alvarez distributed and reviewed the Final Draft of the Golden Gate Community Center Annex Building Field Lighting layout and design provided by HSA Engineers & Scientists for Advisory Board approval. (See attached) • Field locations for trees and light poles have been marked with orange paint • A purchase order has been issued for planting the donated trees. • Light poles will have receptacle outlets at the bottom. Darrin Brooks moved to approve (Annex Building Field Lighting) light plan as submitted. Second by Jim Klug. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. Staff noted the Project will go out for bid and process will take 30 days. C. Tree Project — Incorporated in V.B. A. Recreation Highlights — Vickie Wilson reported - ➢ 3 bids received to refinish the gym floor range from $26,945 to $39,500. ➢ 2 bids received for bleachers range from $20,610 to $29,106. ➢ Purchase Orders have been issued to • Bentley to install overhead exhaust fans in GGCC bathrooms. • Signature Tree to trim trees by March 15. • Blower that hooks up behind Gator ➢ 70 children attend the 5t" Grade Dance held on February 19. 2 1611 March 1, 201 Upcoming Events are - ➢ Yard Sale has been scheduled for March 13 from 8 am to Noon. Spaces are available at $10 per space. (11 out of 20 spaces are available.) ➢ Summer Camp Expo — March 20 at North Collier Park ➢ Frontier Days — March 25 through March 28 ➢ Real Guide to be distributed to Centers - March 16 Vickie Wilson announced the Center received the bid to host the Summer Series Qualifier Event on September 24, 25 and 26. The Event should attract over 300 bikers. Staff announced Julie Allen completed the Voluntary Pre - Kindergarten (VPK) Training. This is a very profitable program and it is funded by the State. Staff will apply for a Grant available to fund training expense for additional Staff to become certified. This will be a County -wide Program. Vickie Wilson also announced Greg Torres, Parks and Recreation received the "Employee of the Month" for the month of December. He was nominated by the Supervisor of Veterans Park. D. Golden Gate Community Center 5 Year Plan — Annie Alvarez distributed and reviewed the GGCC Projects in the 5 Year Plan. (See attached) ➢ 2010 -Gym Floor and Bleachers Playground - $100,000 ➢ 2011 — Playground - $60,000 ➢ 2012 — Fence Extension & Staging Area (Wheels Races) - $25,000 ➢ 2013 - Repave Parking Lot - $25,000 ➢ 2014 - Signage - $50,000 Jim Klug asked if Shade Structures were included in the Playground Budget. Staff responded the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) is offering $8000 Grant for Shade Structures. The Center will need a local dermatologist sponsor to qualify for Grant. Discussion ensued on the age and condition of the playground equipment. It was determined the playground equipment was 15 years old and has had to shut down some equipment for repair. Staff will apply for all the Grants available to help fund projects. Staff stated the GGCC Signage has been grandfathered in. If the Center changed the sign it could not be replace at the same height and size. The current signage should be maintained. The Signage Budget was for additional signage for GGCC. It was noted the electrical panel for the amphitheatre is usable. Tony Roberto will overlook. Once electrical panel is working properly it will attract more business. 3 `01- 611 .. A � March 1, 2010 Jim Klug moved to approve the (GGCQ 5-Year Plan as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. VI. New Business A. Monthly Budget — Annie Alvarez distributed and reviewed the Reserves and Carry Forward Report, March 2010 Budget to Actual Comparison BCS Drilldown Report and the GGCC FY 2010 Budget (97% Presentation). (See attachments) • Adjusted Carry Forward - $405,910 (See attached) • Interest Income on Carry Forward FY2009 - $7,936 Additional Carry Forward from savings to expense and higher revenues - $67,610. Funds are available now and require approval from BCC. Further discussion was had on the use of Additional Carry Forward Funds and future projects that may be covered with the Fund. Annie Alvarez stated the Program Leader position is scheduled to be posted. One Child Care position was filled. It was noted youths smoking cigars and some young couples have been behaving inappropriately at the playground. The smoking has become a big issue. Sheriff's Department had to be called and 4- Youths have been banned from the Park. Staff is concerned and has Greg Torres supervising the playground approximately 4 -hours per day. VII. Member Comments Peggy Harris commented on the fine job the Staff does. Darrin Brooks recommended providing more programs for high school students. Suggestions were classes in ceramics, art or photography and a "Walk" Program. Peggy Harris suggested combining a Biker Fest with the Frontier Days as a future event. She stated the Chili Cook Off does not have a sponsor. The Marines want to sponsor a BMX Show and could fill -in for the Chili Cook Off. They a non -profit and will advertise the event. VIII. Public Comments — None. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was moved and seconded to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:11 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD El 449h 1101 A i W. r s Klug I1I, Cha ffigfn These Minutes were approved by the Committee/Board on j , as presented �� or as amended H z U O U W H z W Q O a r O O o C7 N v rl dl O O O \ •• O M v M O -1 �i N U1 m Ei 1.) 0 • 1 27 N •rI r-{ U AHU O U W E� C7 z W Q r� O C7 $i O 00 O +) 4-)4-) a U) as a a� w +� P o z E1 O WI V U Q rl O E-+ E-H N 4.)zH a) rin (aUz U) N U D 1~ r-II 0 'OXX a WfA 000 k HUUW �� 0) N EW W E-i , �•� UFCFC ro � N •rl c� C7 O (d +) a) U tnzz � 014 • ri W W r, P O 1I Q Q a) NU NSW 5 -1 4-)00 0) r-I ro f:4 O:j UV 04 O N b� M H m i -i[� Ln[- ONM[�016) 61M 1016 t` N-iN o'a'f --IN �' a'M I I I I I I I I I I I �v vvNMV V000000[ -- 6101 tp'pp l6 110 I` x161 M O N 0610 v 000 Ln In 6161 v0 v[-- 6110 N.- i[ -M cc) 061 14 1•1d101`61[1- MOMO1aON- r-IL- rihi000N vMi-Ln LnvO Ln-1 NNLnLnM 0010 -0-IN 0[- H ri r-1 -i 0 r-I rl -I -I Ln Lna)NN 16 Ln[ - LnO N 100 O O N-1 O-1 Ln OOly O l0 Ln 1600 MMM10 M MM Ln Ln T LnN v NNNVMM -ILnLn -I I I I 00v00016 Ln 0-1010 O 000 I-- 000000000v O O Ln (1) O 000 Ov10 Cl) 0001000000000000061000000 M M 101 -61000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O Ln N 100 Ln N rlv M N N 1000 Ln 61000 L-00LO 00Ln Nr -i M[l v000 Or- 10610[ -00Ln M OF) CO x-100 r- M O O O O O (D N O O Ln r1 Ln0') -1 cc) 00M 100061v rl-ILn N Ln H N610 16 O1 r1I`�OLn MV -1 Ln (Y)r -1OVNv LnOLnv Cl) OIO OMN Ol 100v CC) rnH Cl) v O M- M (N G) v-I-IN v Ln -1 M v -i r- N I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0010100 M 1O 10000 N O N1�-I -I I 0161000016 Ln I 61N 160 O O0� 010 O 1600 Ln 000190 CD � OIO M[ -000M -i O O I- OOMO O Cl) Ln D O N -1 r-i 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LoLf)OOLnco LnN- IM00M160610 . . . . . . . . Ov[- LnOLnNO H q . . CD 11 . Ln µ u (d cDLn- 100[ -0-I 1-1 O ti $4 b) [- v`0 11 CD Ln -1 Ln 10 Ln 0LONNMN Nr10[ -0 LC) 6) vM a 1-0-IN � a9i [—Ln N cn UNOOq V Ln F- MM O1NMN 61 -A Ln WW��0c9 m i -i[� Ln[- ONM[�016) 61M 1016 t` N-iN o'a'f --IN �' a'M I I I I I I I I I I I �v vvNMV V000000[ -- 6101 tp'pp l6 110 I` x161 M O N 0610 v 000 Ln In 6161 v0 v[-- 6110 N.- i[ -M cc) 061 14 1•1d101`61[1- MOMO1aON- r-IL- rihi000N vMi-Ln LnvO Ln-1 NNLnLnM 0010 -0-IN 0[- H ri r-1 -i 0 r-I rl -I -I Ln Lna)NN 16 Ln[ - LnO N 100 O O N-1 O-1 Ln OOly O l0 Ln 1600 MMM10 M MM Ln Ln T LnN v NNNVMM -ILnLn -I I I I 00v00016 Ln 0-1010 O 000 I-- 000000000v O O Ln (1) O 000 Ov10 Cl) 0001000000000000061000000 M M 101 -61000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O Ln N 100 Ln N rlv M N N 1000 Ln 61000 L-00LO 00Ln Nr -i M[l v000 Or- 10610[ -00Ln M OF) CO x-100 r- M O O O O O (D N O O Ln r1 Ln0') -1 cc) 00M 100061v rl-ILn N Ln H N610 16 O1 r1I`�OLn MV -1 Ln (Y)r -1OVNv LnOLnv Cl) OIO OMN Ol 100v CC) rnH Cl) v O M- M (N G) v-I-IN v Ln -1 M v -i r- N I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0010100 M 1O 10000 N O N1�-I -I I 0161000016 Ln I 61N 160 I 0000 010 O 1600 Ln 000190 L- C•+MMN- 101000000[1)0 -161 OIO M[ -000M .--i c-i 00 OOMO 061 O -A I - I-- MN -A CD MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LoLf)OOLnco LnN- IM00M160610 . . . . . . . . Ov[- LnOLnNO . . . . O[-N19 . . . . OLnI-O . . CD 11 . Ln . . . . . . . . . v1- 01919Ln 000 -q v 00 N 61 N 19011661 M d11` -10N cDLn- 100[ -0-I 6100 -I O[�MO 061 [- v`0 11 CD Ln -1 Ln 10 Ln 0LONNMN Nr10[ -0 LC) 6) vM v10[ -I-IO -Ln 1-0-IN O 610 [—Ln N -IlO 10 (N MLn�D (Y)Mri -ALn NNLnOM -i 061 Ln F- MM O1NMN 61 -A Ln ON v 0 0Ln ll Ln-1 M Ln 010 -116 N10 NNLntnO -IN NOO N H v N M-1 0 1-1 N MMN MN-1 -1 v 1019 l0 M v r- O v aD 0 00 0� G) O O to m m 0) N N w O O1 N N N N rl N Ln M Ln Ln Ln M N -i -i ce l0lp l9 O N 6161 ri i,-10 Ln19v- 1[ -ONOLn O rlv 61 N NO-10 CN N H LD NONE -i NOL-M v 0 0Ln ll Ln-1 M Ln 010 -116 N10 I I I 0 0oOO I I I I I I I I 00000000 I I 00 I 00000 0000 000 0000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 . . O O . . . . . O O O N O . . . . O v v 0 . . . N 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 O O O O O O O N Ln N 0 M 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r-IH H H00 H(I Ln 0M 3'00 OLf) ON 0 0 10 Ln 0v v610 6161 ri i,-10 Ln19v- 1[ -ONOLn O rlv 61 [11th[ -[-61 NO-10 CN N H LD NONE -i NOL-M v 0 0Ln ll Ln-1 M Ln 010 -116 N10 koW w 10 l0 - i -i-INN N0 MLnO I`-1NM 0 1-1 'r -1 I-v 10 U-)Lo Ln Ln M r-1 Ln M v -i I I I OO O O O I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 I O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N O O v v 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O N Ln N 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri riH-10 Hr-- Ln 0MV00 CD Ln ON 0[-O IO Ln OV v610 0101 -IV-I O Ln 10v -1[-ON OLn cD -ivrn Ll)iF r-r- O1 NO -IONNV -Il9 l9NONrl NORM v C M Ln 010 -116 N19 lokoww19 -1 r1 r1NN N0 MLnO I--1NM 0 1-1 v-1 r-v l9 -i .-i Ln Ln Ln Ln M -1 Ln M v H z W U rl Oro H C,: 4J i> O \W H UH a-1 W HOz > (d LOa 14-1 -k -i rl ro O H U) W U) z W a, w N10 I- Ln OI ,ONO a• �-oLn or) Ln O LnM Ma' x110 M 61 d' O1 M N MO Mal O Nail M NN N10 N I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 000000000000 Ln 000 C. . . . . C. . . . . . . . . O( (900000000CC*) 000 00610 to O 000000 M 000 rl a' 100 N O 0000 Ln OLnN OMa'rIM,'N a'N Ln Nrl M I I I I 061 O 00 O O Ln 00000000 N 000 O I- 00 000 M 00000000 r1 O 100 . . . . C. 0. . C. . . . . . . . . . . 000100001000 N C)* OtnO. MO 61001 -,' Ln Co rl O O O O Oa' O Ln rI O N Ln 00 Ln Ol rl NriN,'Ln O CD Ln 00 00100 I I 0000100000,' 01- 001-- 0 O O O Ln O 0000 M 06100610 . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . C. OOOMOOOOOLnLnNOONO O O O N 000000 0 Ln 6100610 Ln O Ln 00 Ln Ln Oa' 1000 rI N Ln O r- c) x110 ,'�NNri rl rll9 rlLn �Ln r NN00-d O 000 M 0000000Ln011 00 LC) 00 061 1061 Oa'O N OLn V O NOOOlOOf- . O . N00 . . ,'(N . . NI- . . Ln 000 . . . . N . . COD . 00 . . . . . . . . NCO 00000000010 ,' a' 31 1000 IrI l Ln Ln O NM 00 OONa'Ln00001 -O Ln 1`00 C-- CD a'O ,'ON M M a' I` O rl ,' 1-1 N I- r-A 61 rl rl rl 00 l� Ln Ln 11 00 lO -1 Ln r-I N M M rl O O I- rl O l0 O N Ln O rl ,' N O O M M O O M rl O N O M 1� O . . I- . I` 10 . . Ln . O O . . O . . . O O . rl . rl . . . O M 00 . Ln to O rl Ln 00 OLn Ln rl a'a'N a'N to Nrl MCOCO O Ln .-i rl M m dl O I` O a' Ln to M N O O 10 N I-i N r-i M O 00 0'),-1 00 Ln N N rl 1 N N 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 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 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x1CD 00 Ln O 000061 a' O Ln ONO N Oat N 10 Ln O to Ln N 00 CC) ,' Ln O O Ln Ln Ln O a'10 Mtn Ln 000 OLn Ln rl a'a'N a'N to Nrl MCOCO rl M61LnM rl rl LnNMN x11010 ,'N Nri NNrILn rlLn co r1 -A .-A M N 00 N -i 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. . . C. . . C. . . . . 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 x-1000 Ln 0000061 ,' O Ln O Ln Ln rl a','N,'NLn Nrl M 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 . . . . . . C. . . . . C. . . . . . 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 ONO N Oa' N 10 Ln O Ln Ln N 0000,' 000000 rl M61Ll rl ri LnNMN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln O O Ln Ln Ln O,' 10 (n Ln Ln 000 x11010 ,'N Nr-I NNrILn rlLn rl rl rl MN00 N -i ib r rA9 O O: n O 0�1 v 0 w X X W N O_ O cn A w N o a N°o o n a M m mmmnmm° °mG) a a rnm ys� m C' m a 0 o c Z 03 x (A m v ^o 'mm 0 c m y —� ° 3�rn o o m 3 man °1 vi ��< m m c<� O 3 3� to <ZC)G) m F� v T m y 1 m — n v v CT m ° 3m(o r a o m Zw n m ofOnNi c CD m 'c3-{ m n m Z��- O a 7 3 .Vi.. (D :1 X G (D (CD < C. < C) G N CD Cl" n T 3 m N Q Z CD °1 (D z ON c C m CD ° O ('nn 3 m -Z CL m� O , a O m CD 0 ^CD O) fA O (O (O \G v W N O 3 ° CD CD ` N N O m (T N A to N N X X (N V O tlD (D O Oo A co N Dt O O O O O O O O (vD O O O O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 N � � E ° CD (p C O a O CO O O COJI -4 X (D SD O O O O W al O � W V O V n 3 O m 0 0o m Oo ao w N rn w m D7 N W A V V CD C-1 W OD U( Cn O A A N to (O > y A A (O j 0 W O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O n N (O O W O O O O • 0 0 0 0 0 O N O v N =� CD tOvn �< V W N 5T W tD N _(OJt OD V O Q OD OD V W CT OD A CD O W CD O O O O • 00000 (D O O O O O 0 so 0 0 0 N V O O O C Er CT (D m W m rn cr 3 c °o °o o °o SL (o CL 5� T c:r v W b9 O OD A C Q -4-_ N Dt O O O A O �OWD O 7 (O N (WO ON O M n O) CA C71 N 9 ° a W OD CO A N V O O O O O O O A 0 0 O A 0 0 c�—� 3 O O O ; �(D °o v a n n w CT FA 0 N D) ° O( N F O (7 CD Q °g 4? CL C54 v rr cn m go ('1n -mac N (yp O (D N O 7 C O CA F N O o C:) O_ 07 Of O O N 3 (ci Sr 3 O N N N 3 7 N D n d 0 m 3 16tfA9 05 m N m m N O 7 (O N Li M n O) CA C71 N 9 ° a �:2:20E n Cn W (0 A W N o N N O O < O 3 O O O ; �(D c <CD ° (D @ oa N (; La 0 N D) m p 7 (gyp �. O O 3 () m V OL d d d ( O N (� 0 n cn m go cpnna m (yp m N D) 21 N CT CS N O) CD (D fop 3 < < :3 y a a 6 C N (D (D Go Of OD �„ m D) Cn OOO 0 0 0 0 0 c (D "' 16tfA9 05 m N m m N X Li N 'O CA C71 N 9 O �:2:20E OO W (0 A W CD CD Nm Oo(pv� m pm 00 O O O O O N o ���CD0 CD5 Tl oa CD 0 N D) m p 7 X ( O _x ° V Z 0CD cn m ° C m 1 n Z fA EA N fop x :3 y a a 6 C 3 0 Go A (VO O N W O. �„ m N O Cn OOO 0 0 0 0 0 "' Z O 0 0 0 0 0 M w t» Of N c _OOD (OW Nv�N N N C CL O O O O O O O O O O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O fR ffl V VO N � V O WN J 0 OD NOA OD U7AOO I� O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o v v v o v D R M 0 o n o N y 0 0 0 0 j n 2 m M 0 CD m o 3 0 ei En N W V (WJ N s W CT W CA C71 N 9 ON O OO W (0 A W N N A OD A O O O O O O O O O N n Tl 101, O 07 CD 0 N D) m @@ o ( _x ° N N 0CD O I p < a 1 n 0) CD N x :3 y a a 6 y' O rt N N 7 3 m ooi N a 3 O O co cD cn ;uG) C M g. N d Z N 7 p a � wc�o o °1 3 cM an m (D 161 pq aC 0 0 CL (D . fD (D (D .. CD o m ° D O x N N nC) ° m o 3 a (� y p�j (C n(D m as o ? ° o ;o m CD = (A O m < N <m o O N 7 5. C (D N O (11 O W �1 OD v 0 N -' p A O O O O O O O O CD m a R 1 v i c ° c o N a 0 CD eN co Al 1 \ n S r 1 cn ;uG) C M g. N d Z N 7 p a � wc�o o °1 3 cM an m (D 161 pq f d A W W Ut O O °o ow cn o 0 n C J 0 °m n J J c d 000000000000000000000000000m�pm <o cp0m o o. 2 0 0 > m m 0 aO- d °D 3 � WNNN��- �000(O (D f0 f0mmmm V V (I� < m mmNIV V WO-40 i n O V (ON01Opt�mcn� O O y O O m a C 3 m O W W m V mmmwUmO W V c0N -�AfO W m0 m A� N y e A N m N A O 2 A r p A O p O j ^ y (D » N m f0m V mtTA W N -+OtOm V VmNAA W N j j 0 n n G O y y d o a D n a p N 3 - -� ?Nm(ON V (J C0 V mNm V tO IJmO(T�O](P N M 3 0 m m 9) O. O ,3 O Vt O fW0 c m<ONmtDN(TOD� Vtm-+A V OA V O W m Ammo -+W cn V m0}JA(T V (O� W Amm . i . . . . i i i i i . . m b c 0 V A N c 0 V A N f p V A N t 0 V O t N O V (T N N m t m m rn rn m m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m m m rn ()) W N� O OD �1 m fT A W N C O f0 m ( m � On V y y� y Z A 1 m 5 O 13 s - 0 O p W W N N N s ufD, o w N D N b � y �mT��TAOA)mm�mm m.OAIAAm_(Aii W NAO_OWDV W Nd W N�OtNp� a a N N 7 ^. N ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) W m N N m N W m N N A t p V m 0 ( (3p t 0 M °o D A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A W W W W N N N » C n D O m a O N(Tm Ot mm Utm (nmNm(nm utN N CnmAA A W W W NNN-+ 00 � � N 3 d m m m m V m m m A A W N N O W M;ua ° c3� a;2 � A N v A N V A N O V 0 N O V OWi N O m 3 m SJ ^o 2' 3 0 p m C N D V NutA W N m m Ip _R i .A 000000 - � N O f d A W W Ut O O °o ow cn o 0 n C J 0 °m C O C y S 6 O '0 0 Qa o 0 0 �. N 3 N m m � N O N ID O N d � � G 3 A y m 2 y n 0 SIN AN NN O> W V 00)0(1.0 (T O0 0 (T 0g 0 OI m V mw � O O M 0� V m W NONmm W Nip W mm W NON V AAtON V c0m m� Q O N m A A V V� V m� N fD f0 O V W m V m N m m m V O V A w V m O D � J A J � p) N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O tD 10 10 f0 t0 (0 t0 N O O O O O O O O O t0 N c0 c0 c0 c0 t0 3 m V m Ut A W N O O m V m m A W O y N } O J A 0 W W N N N O O O t0 r0 c0 c0 m m m m V V O m m w N w m W A W� W V W A W O W V W A W� N m N U N N N O N V N N N N N O N V N (T `• O t0 m W 0 W V m m V N U O Ut O m W W W N V m m O N V m i0 V N W W N -+ m A V. O Ut W V m D J J y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d N N N N N N N O O O O } N } O J N n m IK9 m< z< Am m� x T C Z 0 v 000000000000000000000000000m�pm <o cp0m o o. NNN N NNN OOOOOOOOOOtO mUtA W N� OtOm V m[TA W N -+O(Om V mNA W N --�O(O W V mNA W . .. WNNN��- �000(O (D f0 f0mmmm V V (I� < < mmNIV V WO-40 i n O V (ON01Opt�mcn� O O y O O N O V A m Ut m W A A m m V A V O O W W m V mmmwUmO W V c0N -�AfO W m0 m m O W W W W W w W W W W N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 O m f0m V mtTA W N -+OtOm V VmNAA W N j j 0 n n V m A W W N W W W A N V m O N m V O W m O O �v fA D n W W N N' 0 0 0 r0 c0 �D c0 m m O) m V V N N 3 - -� ?Nm(ON V (J C0 V mNm V tO IJmO(T�O](P N N O W W m V Ut m m W Cl)� o m m<ONmtDN(TOD� Vtm-+A V OA V O W m Ammo -+W cn V m0}JA(T V (O� W Amm . i . . . . i i i i i . . m mN c 0 V A N c 0 V A N f p V A N t 0 V O t N O V (T N N m m rn rn m m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m m m rn ()) W N� O OD �1 m fT A W N C O f0 m ( (� O Z On V y y� y Z Z m 5 O s - 0 O p W W N N N s p w N D N �mT��TAOA)mm�mm m.OAIAAm_(Aii W NAO_OWDV W Nd W N�OtNp� a a N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) W m N N m N W m N N A t p V m 0 ( (3p t 0 M 0 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A W W W W N N N » C C T y D N Ut U m (T O N N t a O N(Tm Ot mm Utm (nmNm(nm utN N CnmAA A W W W NNN-+ 00 � � N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V W O V w O V w O V W O V W cn 0 n m V m m m A A W N N O W C y N W C a;2 � A N v A N V A N O V 0 N O V OWi N O m a O N t 0 A f 0 A f 0 A w A t 0 A O u t O ONO N O V t O N W O V W O V W O '80 V W m M n C N D V NutA W N m m Ip _R i .A 000000 - -mjm r 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 Qa o 0 0 �. N 3 N m m � N O N ID O N d � � G 3 A y m 2 y n 0 SIN AN NN O> W V 00)0(1.0 (T O0 0 (T 0g 0 OI m V mw � O O M 0� V m W NONmm W Nip W mm W NON V AAtON V c0m m� Q O N m A A V V� V m� N fD f0 O V W m V m N m m m V O V A w V m O D � J A J � p) N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O tD 10 10 f0 t0 (0 t0 N O O O O O O O O O t0 N c0 c0 c0 c0 t0 3 m V m Ut A W N O O m V m m A W O y N } O J A 0 W W N N N O O O t0 r0 c0 c0 m m m m V V O m m w N w m W A W� W V W A W O W V W A W� N m N U N N N O N V N N N N N O N V N (T `• O t0 m W 0 W V m m V N U O Ut O m W W W N V m m O N V m i0 V N W W N -+ m A V. O Ut W V m D J J y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d N N N N N N N O O O O } N } O J N n m IK9 m< z< Am m� x T C Z 0 v 16I i A9 mmmmmmmmmmm p 0 0 0000 Do 0o D >>> m v v v v v m su n� m y O o v v v a) v v a) ��� co m cn m ca cQ m co cQ co co m =3 x x x x `< 3 O O m m m m m m m m m m m v ; =3 m v v v < m' fD o 0 0 0 0 rrrrrrrrrrr 3 ( m 3 33 3 O r- m m m v to sv v v v v m v v v a s W Vl CD y CD N CD y CD N CD N CD CA CD N CD (n CD CA CD (n CZ W i i i i i i cn M CA C CT U7 0 m CTi Cr ^` 0 a W W W W co W W W W W W Dm -n -V -n m ao to m O CD O m LD � CD v CD O O m O CD p . =r 0 u x r te 3 CD 'D 'D6 0 Q- = a° (n 00 p cQ cn w 3 CD cow �� m n C) N.) O A C° X0 O) °' O °) 3-0 c' mCn- CD c �� < C fl �Q = CD CD CD En = N -� � 3' x l -0 0 O CD r• O m * = in X m cn N < CD N v N 3 m 00 v a m c o N N CD CD Cn N 5 3 X x O CD 0 w v X a o CD m C a CD cr n � — 1 N O o D o m o v O O O O O O O N Cr O O O CI1 N CJt O Cr O O O O O O O O O O N W O 0) O N N O CJ� 0 0 0 0 CA j N Cn N N O 0 CC O O O O C31 Cr O CJl CTi C 0 0 0 C C O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O Cr O O O O O O O O Cn O O O O 16 1f17A9 « «< G)G)G)G)G) m< m< zzzzzzzzzzzzm zzzzzzzzzzzzz a c)c)C7C7C7C7c)C)C7c)C7C7n nnnn n cQCQCOCnco I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Q w Q w Q w Q w Q m (J1 to to N to cn W W W W W W W W W W W W W w 00000 00 00 00 00 00 0oao00 00 00 00 0ow Cn -0 _0 -n O"oM (D t v CD m o o o vm m CD c o �. v 00 OD 00000 i i i i 0 cam o m � 0 o o a,< CD 0 0 V 33 (D 'a N'- CD � 0Z � 00 i 0 O 0 00 0 0-4 U1 W r- O a� 1 C C m 3 0 y 0 N o v- o n (n v(A CD i M o Q N G) Q CD CD 7c CD A 0 77 O W o (D 3 N clL N m `� CD G) G) G) G) G) CD j 3 m 'D°'�� CD N M< m N oo CD Z z nnnnn w �° n� v cD Q v ,'�o �y CD 0 0 0 o < n Xm CD -+o CT G) � < cD m cn �z_0�3 D' cQ �, 3�'�� 3 a, �o nom CD a m m (fl 7 (D Cl) D CD �, (D p < (n v 0 CM N (° D Q= m �' CD o' a, CD c (o co Q (D �l (D -n c CD a co - (n N n p N TI => o ca Ci � m CD :1F Q CD ;o CD Q U) 0 . W Cl) w r UD S ID 3 M 0 CD n o Cn CD ,l 00 W O i U1 0 031 Cr O A 0o i M O .Q M (.)1 C) O O c O W —4 N O i O p CD CD O p (A U1 A ? O O O O Un O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ro N W O O N A O O U1 O O O Ul O O O CD O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CJ1 (NT1 O O p O CNJI p CD O O p 16t,YA9 � CD n n n n °' o �° (D rT . 3 C cn m Ul m m mCri Cif C l D o m m m m o m m o m 0) w w w w w w w w w w w ° w w w w w w w w w w w -n rn a � �t oo r -n � o = � � cn co � m X' �, N N co c v 0 a) °, —n n O�?N E =r =3 a) c ��om 'O CD CD 0000 " O 00 s m 00 O 00 � O m y CD (n a) Q (D CD N =- N CJl O 7 A O N �• N C O 3 n O CD N -n O 3 CD co 33 3 n3 ��'�a)QO� Q�Q °Z7 m �D ° Q 33 3 °3 cn cn CD D o v ��r-�m�n�°°m�m <. �_ o v °o m c (n ° 3 o 3 N o — °_ c o CD ° w-a a) r o' co 0 a�i m CD u, ° cD -n cn ni m w n `� rn = o m o 77 n x �' (° D o m =' O a) CD 0 T ,< O m n o 3 m rn m CD -n =r CD ° w n 4�- m o O O 0 N -1 .A N N N W � UOl v � CO U1 O co w O N cn _Q O O O w w co Cn � O O O O P O O O 0 O 0 O O P'l O cn O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O w 1 O O cn _O O O O O O O O O O 161 P*A9 -v -u -0 cncnwwzzZZZZZZ ���� �KKKKK O (D (D 7 7 7 (7 (7 (7()(7C7C7(] C C= C C C =_____ 0. zzzz - a - 5 �_�_'�_'�_' w O 7 T T T I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 (D (D (D (D (D (D 1 1 1 1 1 1 (u co W CC) C C C C >> 1 V V� V V V Cn CSI Cn Cn Cn cn I I 1 D 1 Cn w (n (� m a) Cn a) Cn w (n w Cn w m w N � � 1 � 1 1 () w a) w () w () w CD w ai w (A)(A) CA) (n Cn cn v, (n (n to to to to to to cn cn cn cn � � � � � � � cn (.n (.�i (.%� cn (.rI CA (A O C-n A A A w w w w Y Y Xom_mcnoo -nww * * * * * ��Doo� * * * CD C' O CD C= O N v CD CD (D (CD 3 N N lD a CD 3 Cll to O 0 = j- (n �• OD OD CO N N Z (OD (� (b n OJ O Cb (b � 00 W �(n 'y0 CD =r c=) cn (n o(n�o CD r 1 v o) u, - c m n00 C-) < CD 3 O W g ow -4 � -n t„o �` O CD (D aN �o °�,' 0 0 (D O z �'� (n mmcn X CD CD D o 0 C � O -n Cn N CD -n O (D 0 (D cn cL CD (Q = 0. (") (") O (D (D (D S 0 O N 7 N O� (_ 3 c n O CD C C7 7 7 w (n CD n �' .O-h (� :03 (n to v d 3 Q � :CJ c (� O Cn n C7 :LJ 0 CD� C7 -n � ((n -i CD o = CD (n O o 3 m y CD O O 1 1 1 - 0 0 0 � � � m � � � � � (n CD (�D j 0 !_ (� CD CD x 5' 3 � � (D �- O• (D � (n v v CD � 7t W� � w 0� Q 0 O Cll (D O- 7 CD 3 0 c _ 0 N x CD (1 0 L r- m� Q -, O n 0 (D r 90 O Q v O v, o 3 m � m o y fD Co � v CA Cn Co to (b N Cn C� j IID O co O w (o (A Cn O O �1 O w O O (� O cc: CD O O O j D) (D co D (� ° o o (� O O (� C:, O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 w m O O N w O O O O O O O O O CD O O co). O 0 0 O O O O CNJ1 Can Cn cn O O O O O O O O O O Cn N 91 O O O O O O O 161l*vo* A9 a 0 0 0 C C C CD fD l< CCQ ° ° c� ��� mm -o cr 0 cyl Cn Cn M C?1 M M M Cn CA '� iS N � Q) � V V G) O O° fD CD W w W w W W w W w (D w w (D O (D 0 C.0 0 (D 0 CD 0 (O 0 (0 0 (D 0 0 CC) 0 0 0 (0 CD X z — G) -0 -v m cn m N CD CD �. < N N m CD 0) x N � N 3 C7 CD 7c D O - Oo ao T` Q- OD OD 00 OD O O° O N G7 �T O O _� O O � � � CD n' O O O - O �? _CD c �F — CCU r0 n N ? v NN 1 0 CD r !I1 VJ 2W " �� O O OD Q v cn O= O r ao v -a Cl) (n O O N O v W m t o o 2 7 � N m �� G< n _ C/) Cn f n (n o ccn O D � 3 o CD c .D c�D (D ^^- lrJ cQ N N Cu cr a N 'o CD a CAD CD Cn cD a n n (D _ � N< N — v _ < N N p CD =T =r ° ° co cD � w 3 o m = = m ° � CD CD v 0 m 0 0 < CD Do - � CD ° CD 3 :3 CD cn �. _ o w CD 0 C7 Al W. c ° n v ° v CD =3 o m r Pw w CD ca `< ca CD CD m m � m a CD CD a N � � O O A -1 N Cn O s W O O W CO N p O O v O N O m O O v O O OD O O O w O N O CNj1 O p O p CD v N O O N c N O co O O Cn C-71 O O Cn O cn O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cp rQ co to O O C11 O O C�J1 O CD O O O O O O O 10 O O O Cn O O O O Sm ci II IL 9 9 : � , � . E ! � � t � E � - � ! � ! n - - t - t t � � t � . . � 7 - .1 E c CC E, c c c C Z C C C t c C t t c t C c c c :[f c C c r C E[., c t z t t C_ C! t t c t c C C I t c t r C1 c c c c r c Pc z r 9 c t t L C c r E C t t t C t c c c c C�c t c tie t C t C c z t c c c C c t C c t C c c c c c L c C C C C Z C;r c c c E Golden Gate Community Center 0 aiHSA R W1. ft 0 Annex Building Field Lighting ODILUER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREADON NAPLES. FLORIDA �:L7 RECEIVED APR 0 9 2010 i ;oa +d of County Commissioners e�X AGENDA Fiala Halas — Henning_._ Coyle _ Coletta COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD WILL MEET AT 9:15 AM. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010 AT THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, CONFERENCE ROOM 609, LOCATED AT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA. NOTE: 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 THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE HAPB WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. THESE MATERIALS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I. ROLL CALL /ATTENDANCE II. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 17, 2010 V. ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING & ZONING SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT: A. Nothing to report VI. OLD BUSINESS: A. Historic Brochure status VII. NEW BUSINESS: A. Status of staff investigation of possible disturbance of Calusa Mounds VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS IX. BOARD MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT Misc. Correa: Dab: 05 (1 ! D Item # 16T-( 1 Copies to: RECEIVED APR. 13 2010 j Fiala Halas — Henning ----- Coyle C Coletta hoard of County Commissioners 16 1 1 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE "' A I I ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAR. 49 2010 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE si�'AAi(II'ION ATTENDEES: Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief Kirk Colvin, Chairman Kevin Walsh, Advisory Board Member Joe Langkawel, Board Member Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Kirk Colvin opened the meeting at 6:40 p.m. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Chief's Report. B. February 2010 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve February 2010 Minutes by Joe Langkawel. a. Motion seconded by Kevin Walsh. b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Colvin. C. ICFD Weather Bug Project. 1. Weatherbug station has been installed at ICFD. 2. Camera is operating. 3. Camera view can be changed each day. 4. Lightning detection feature is not operational yet. 5. Awaiting lightning detection software needed for installation. 6. Weatherbug link was emailed to all Advisory Board Members. 7. Weatherbug link was emailed to Ann Hall for Capri distribution. Misc. Comes: D.: 05 (l b Item* 1 (o T 16I11 A11' III. NEW BUSINESS A. ICFD has been assigned a new budget analyst. B. 02/24/10 Civic Association Update. 1. County will be increasing the number of Capri hydrants beginning in June. 2. After installation is complete, ICFD can request a new ISO evaluation. 3. After installation, Capri streets will be repaved. C. The next ICFD Advisory Board meeting will be held Apr. 1, 2010. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Joe Langkawel at 7:05 p.m. 1. Motion seconded by Kevin Walsh. 2. Motion carried unanimously. Approve Date: - NAW ALWA P (" ", -iV APR 15 2W 9()ard of (,L)WAy r:uminissi {on r:> Fiala Halas Henning. Coyle Coletta c 1611 A121/ May 14, 2009 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION TASK FORCE Immokalee, Florida, June 2, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force 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 Lake Trafford Marina, 6001 Lake Trafford Road, Immokalee, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clarence S. Tears, Jr. Gary Holloway (Unexcused) Patricia Anne Goodnight Paul M. Rosofsky John M. Iglehart (Unexcused) Jon Fury Edward Olesky James Richard Bybee Rocky Scofield Nicole Ryan (Unexcused) David Bishof (Unexcused) Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Commissioner Jim Coletta (Unexcused) STAFF PRESENT: Gail Hambright, Accountant and Liaison to Board Misc. D rres: Date: Coons �0: 161 A 12 ' May 14, 2009 I. Call to Order Mr. Tears chaired the meeting and called it to order at 10:00 AM II. Roll Call Roll Call was taken with a quorum established. III. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Tears added under Committee Member Discussion to discuss if the amount of members to the board should be changed. Agenda was unanimously approved with change. IV. Public Comments None V. Approval of Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force Minutes 1. January 11, 2005; April 6,2005; May 4, 2005 Mr. Thomas recommended approval of all minutes Mr. Fury seconded. Minutes for January 11, 2005, April 6, 2005; May 4, 2005 were unanimously approved. VII. Staff Reports None VIII. New Business 1. Lake Trafford Update Mr. Tears updated the board on the progress at Lake Trafford. Due to a severe drought the contract award was cancelled. By June 10, 2009 project will start moving forward. The lake is currently in a disturbed state and they hope to get it back to its original state. The last sampling was done last winter. We are starting to see fish in the area and are currently working on a Storm Water Master Plan for Immokalee. The Dredging company will be doing 40% of the work which is planned by June 10, 2009. All bids were within $300,000 of each other. The restoration of the lake should take about 600 days. This was about the same amount of time it has taken in the past. 2. Interagency Coordination Jackie Smith with FWC -IMP updated the board Jessica Dostal with FWC just planted 50,000 bulrush to benefit fish and wildlife. These plants will not be planted to conflict with the dredge. E -mail updates will be sent out. May 14, 2009 Ib11 A 121 IX. Old Business None X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Tears addressed the issue of having a problem obtaining a quorum at meeting due to the amount of members on the committee. Discussion was held and it was determined that the membership would remain the same. XIII. Next Meeting Date October 16, 2009 — Lake Trafford Marina, 6001 Lake Trafford Road, Immokalee, Florida. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11:05 A.M. Collier County Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force Clarence S. Tears, Jr. These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on 4 P n as presented 14 or as amended 3 ? /ED 'ecel\j - APR 3 2010 ,OmmissiOsers guard Of CODA C Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta -) 9(el March 8, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 8, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that 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", 3`d Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet VICE CHAIRMAN: Michael Delate Tony Pires Jeffrey Curl Jeremy Sterk Thomas Sobczak Annisa Karim Clarence Tears Lauren Barber ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney Cindy Erb, Real Property Management Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Speci i4sctcoffw Item* copiv S 10: Copies to: March 8, 2010 1. Roll Call — Welcome to New Committee Members Chairman Poteet welcomed now member Clarence Tears and Lauren Barber to the Committee. 11. Approval of Agenda Mr. Delate moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 9-0. 111. Approval of February 8, 2010 Minutes Mr. Delate moved to approve the minutes of the February 8, 2010 meeting subject to the following change. Page, paragraph 5 from "Roosevelt Leonard noted..," to "Mr. Pires noted.. Second by ills. Karim. Carried unanimously 9-0. IV. Thank you to Rolf Anthony for Eagle Scout Project. William Koeses,, accepted a Certificate of Appreciation for Rolf Anthony, Eagle Scout for his efforts in the construction of the picnic tables .for Pepper Ranch. V. Old Business: A. Cosentino Project — Rivers Road Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator presented a Memo from her to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (CCLAAC) Members dated March 8, 2010 - Subject: Agenda, Rein V.A. — Cosentino parcel -- Rivers Road for review. She noted: Mr. Cosentino had addressed the Committee at the last meeting outlining a concern in the lower appraised value and subsequent offer to purchase his , s property than the other properties purchased in the immediate area under Program. He requested the Committee consider removing the condition for the purchase of his property that requires him to remove the solid waste debris present on site, The County has obtained aii estimate from a County approved contractor of approximately $28,000 to remove the debris. Speaker Paul Cosentino, landowner, addressed the Committee stating unknown. individuals have deposited the waste on the property over the years. Due to the lower offer value than that of adjacent properties, he requested the County grant a monetary allowance to clean up the property. He would assume the responsibility of cleaning up the property, which may be completed at a lower cost than the estimate received by the County. Discussion occurred on the potential liability to the County should the landowner be responsible to remove the debris and environmental contamination is discovered before or after the closing. It was noted a Phase I Environmental and Phase 11 (if necessary) Environmental Assessment should be completed prior to N March 8, 2010 removal of the debris. It was noted the County would pay for the Phase I Environmental. Assessment, while the cost of a Phase IT Environmental Assessment is the responsibility of the landowner. Mr. Delate moved to grant a 30 day extension to the offer tendered to Mr. Cosentino, to require A Phase I Environmental Assessment (at the expense of the County) and if necessary, aP F,,hase H tiiironmentalAsscs.v)'iient (at the expense of the landowner) be conducted on the property. The Committee recommends the County maintains the option to terminate the contract after the completion of either Environmental Assessments. The Committee also recommends the County grant a $15,000 (Fifteen ThousaudDollars) monetary allowance (above the purchase price) to.Mr. Consentino for removal of the existing debris on the property. Second by Mr. Curt. Carried unanimously 9-0. It was noted the removal of the debris should not be required until the Environmental Assessnients are completed and the owner knows whether the County, will purchase his property. B. Real Property Management Update Cindy Erb, Real Property Management provided the following updates: Winchester Head - Stark closing scheduled for March 8, 2010; no response from Ocean investment .Management Corp. Murphy accepted offer. 12M — offer not accepted. Devisse -- tentative closing on March 29, 2010. 1. Contract — Kirby (Rivers Road) Cindy Erb, provided the Executive Summary "Approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase far 1.0 acre under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $31,675 (Kirby) " dated March 8, 2010 and related contract of sale. She requested the Committee recommend approval of the contract to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.Pires moved to recommend to the Board of ounty Commissioners file approval of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase for .l. 0 acre under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $3.1,67.5 (Kirby)." Second by Ms. Karim. Carried unanimously 9-0. C. Budget Recommendations Melissa Hennig noted there is no formal update for the budget process. Staff continues to work on budget projections, Chairman Poteet recommended new Committee members meet individually with Staff for a review of the budget to aid them. in preparing for upcoming discussions on the matter. D. Caracara Prairie Reserve Conservation Bank Documents 3 1611 A 13 March 8, 2010 Melissa Hennig presented the document "Caracara Prairie Preserve Conservation Bank - CaracaraPrairie Reserve Bank Agreement" for review. Mr. Pires recommended the document clearly reflect that: The CREW :Land "Trust will not benefit from the mitigation credits sold on the parcel. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation. Commission (and others) are aware the property is subject to a cattle lease. E. Gordon River Greenway Project: 1. Standing Item General Update —Jeff Curl Conference calls continue and the rezone application is still in process. Staff does receive copies of the ODES comments on the zoning applications. Committee members requested to receive copies of these comments and Melissa Llciinig agreed to provide them when received. Chairman Poteet expressed concern there is a lack Of Communication and coordination between the various parties involved in the process. Ms. Karim requested Staff provide clarification on the commitments to the project made by Conservation Collier and the timeline for any necessary comments. In addition, at .future meeting, Margaret Bishop, Project Manager, provide an update on the project. 2. FDEP Office of Greenways and Trails, Recreational Trails Program, "Gordon River Greenway Bridge" Grant Application Packet — Melissa Hennig The document "l-,lorida Department ofFnvironinental Protection Recreational Trails Program Grant Program Grant Application Package" was submitted to the Committee for the record. V. New Business B. New Property Applications — Somers Donation Alex Sulecki submitted the document "Cycle 8 Applications for March 1010" dated March 8, 2010 for inforniation purposes. A Slideshow was presented on a new property application proposed fbr acquisition via donation. For the property to be considered further for acquisition, at least 5 Committee members must vote favorably following the presentation. Somers parcel The following highlighted. • The property is approximately 2.5 acres in size and located off Oil Well Grade Road on 66t" Ave NE. • The parcel is isolated from other acquired Conservation Collier lands. 4 161 A13 ' March 8, 2010 • The Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification Code (FLUCCS) indicate it is primarily rangeland. • The soils are mainly hydric. • The Integrated "Wildlife Habitat Ranking System (.TWHRS) ranks the parcel as an overall priority 3-4 of 10. • Other County Departments have been notified of the proposed donation, should they be interested in acquiring the parcel (Parks and Recreation, Transportation, etc.) Mr. Delate moved not to pursue acquisition of the property. Second byjUr. fires. Mr. Delate noted it is an isolated parcel and would require the Program to undertake a multi parcel acquisition approach within the area. Carried unanimousty.9-0. C. Kevin Kacer Memorial Trail System Alexandra Sulecki presented a memo from her to the Conservation Collier band, Acquisition Advisory Committee Members dated March 8, 2010 - Subject: Aj Zenda Item VII - Proposal osal to name the proposed Railhead Scrub Preserve trail system the "Kevin Kacer.MentorialTrail System "Ilor review. Alex Sulecki reported the Outreach Committee voted unanimously to name the trail system after former Committee member Kevin Kacer, who passed away suddenly in 2007, and who was a valuable contributor to the Program during his tenure. The Committee may name trail systems within the Program without obtaining the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Afr. Sterk moved to name the Railhead Scrub Preserve Trail ,�ystein the "Kevin lacer Memorial Trail System. " Second by Alr. Delate. Kim Kacer, wife of the late Kevin Kacer, was present and noted she was honored by the Committee's recognition of Mr. Kacer's service. Carried unanimously 9-0. D. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Program Alex Sulecki provided the "Advison, Committee Outstanding-Member Nomination P'orin " and "Outstanding Advisory Committee.Meinber Nomination and Selection Workfloiv Procedures and Instructions for Advisory Committee Alembersfor information puiposes. " She noted a Committee member may recognize another Committee member for their service. There is also a procedure for recognizing years of service. Mr. Pires will be receiving, the service award on March 9, 2010. 0 16 ,1 March 8, 2010 E. Coordinator Communications Alex Sulecki provided the following updates: There was an organizational meeting held on February 18, 2010 for the Pepper Ranch Hunt Program. A copy of the meeting minutes was distributed for review. A second meeting will be held on March 18, 2010 in Building W, Government Center from 5:30pm to 7:3)0 pm. The hunt will take place April 1.6 - 18 with 12 children and 17 volunteers taking part. The new parking tags were distributed to Committee members. V11. Subcommittee Membership .Alex Sulecki showed a current subcommittee membership roster and noted new inernbers are encouraged to join a Subcommittee. Ms. Barber volunteered for the Lands Evaluation and Management Subcommittee. Mr. Tears volunteered for the Ordinance, Policy and Rules Subcommittee. V111. Subcommittee Meeting Reports A. Outreach — Tony Pires, Chair The recently scheduled meeting, on February 26, 2010, did not have a quorum present and a formal meeting was not held, but discussion did take place. 'I'lle revised property owner "offer letter" was reviewed and the Gordon River Greenway Project was discussed. B. Lands Evaluation and Management — Mike Delate, Vice Chair At a previous meeting the scheduling for the Public Opening of Preserveswas discussed. The Final Pepper Ranch Management Plan will be reviewed at the March 22, 2010 Subcommittee meeting, Mr. Delate requested inenibers give consideration to the parameters for hunting on Pepper Ranch. A section on these policies will be included in the final inanagenicnt plan. C. Ord. Policy and Procedures — Annisa Karim, Chair There was a meeting held on February 26, 2010 where Land Development Code Amendments were discussed, the Geo-Caching form was reviewed. It was deten-nined ajoint Subcornmittee meeting is required between this Subcommittee and the Lands Evaluation Subcommittee (tentatively April 12, 2010, directly following the regularly scheduled CCLAAC meeting) to discuss potential Gopher Tortoise recipient sites, IX Chair Committee Member Comments None X. Public General Comments None X1. Staff Comments 6 1611 March 8, 2010 In response to a question by Mr. Delate, Alex Sulecki noted the future meeting schedule will be monthly. She noted that in past years, the Committee has taken the month of August off. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 10:27 A.M. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Bill Potect, Chairndn 1) These minutes ed by Board/Committee on 2, C i 0 as presented or as amended ... ............. RECEIVED APR 14 2010 Board of County Commissioners Fk" Hales Coyle Colette THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 12, 2009 In attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Mitchell Roberts, Chairman Copeland John Pennell, Plantation Island, Advisory Board Member Darcy Kidder, Everglades City, Advisory Board Member James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member The meeting came to order approximately at 6PM, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 16 1 1 'A141 John Pennell made a motion to approve the minutes and it was seconded by Darcy Kidder. James Simmons brought up the fact in the minutes is mentioned the attached letter and it was not inserted. He said he would like to read it. Mitchell Roberts went over the letters that were attached to the minute packet for him to sign. The minutes were approved and the chairman Mitchell Roberts signed them. OLD BUSINESS REPLY TO DOT LETTER: Mitchell Roberts and Chief McLaughlin requested that a copy of the December 8, 2008 letter should be mailed out to the board members. A copy had not been attached to the minutes sent out. Chief McLaughlin said the reply to this December 8th letter by DOT will probably be sent to Mitchell Roberts. Mitchell Roberts said he would let the Chief know if he receives a reply and that maybe they might call a special meeting. Page 1 Misc. Correa: oo: 0 rll l� Copies to: 1611A141 PORT OF THE ISLANDS UP DATE BCC MEETING 12- 16 -08: Chief McLaughlin - The department now owns the Marina Building at Port of the Islands. He had his first meeting Friday with all the Departments involved in this project and he will have a contact person at Facilities Maintenance in regards to this building. He has already started some preliminary drawings for the interior so that they can be submitted to an Architect. One of the things brought up in the meeting was that we have a limited amount of funding to do this with. We want to act as our own general contractors which there was some debate about. Skip Camp didn't think this would be a problem to do that because it is all interior renovation. He feels this way the Department can pick and choose who we want to do certain pieces of the project. So far all the contractors that he contacted have come up with prices ranging $130,000 to $170,000. John Pennell — He said it used to be in effect that you could use private instead of commercial. Chief McLaughlin — He said we own the building and can't do it that way. He said all the work is in the interior and consists of installing doors, air - conditioning, drop ceiling, electrical and plumbing. He said the individual companies were cheaper than having one contractor. The guys will be able to paint the bay so he feels they can save $8,000 to $10,000. He also has some one that can do flooring all we have to do is buy the material. He stated that by doing some of the work ourselves better quality materials could be bought due to the savings regarding the labor costs. John Pennell — He said his brother is a plumber but would that be a conflict of interest. Chief McLaughlin — He has to have all the County certificates. The floor plans have been drawn and now have to go to the architect. There will be two extra offices that we are going to finish and carpet. He is thinking about renting the space out to subsidize some of the expenses at this new station. In the future they possibly will be occupied by the sheriff's department and or EMS. They would also pay rent for the spaces. He said they are moving forward and he has a projected date of May 1. ISO RATING: Chief McLaughlin — He said they will not do a partial re- rating they have to do the whole District. They have changed their format and it is much more detailed than in the past. He feels it will take five or six months to gather the information. The packet will probably be submitted some time in June or July. Then it will probably take them three months to do their part of the process possibly bring it to September before we will hear what the new rating will be. ISO will come down to our District to verify the information, check equipment, hydrants and water flow. He feels this will be a benefit to our whole District and that the rating could go down. Page 2 1611 Al UP DATE ON STATION 66 CLEAN UP: Chief McLaughlin — The Station 66 Clean up is moving forward. The station has been put back together and one of the Departments Job Bankers will be installing tile flooring. DOI GRANT UP DATE: Chief McLaughlin — The Department of the Interior had an internal problem with the funds landing up being transferred to the wrong agency. The funding went to the Suwannee Sanctuary instead of the Panther Preserve. So we have to wait until they internally transfer those fiends or get it back down so we can use it. Chief McLaughlin - The stair stepper should be shipped soon the company had to find a used one to rebuild and had difficulty locating one because they are in high demand. Chief McLaughlin — Chief Rodriguez has $250,000 in impact fees that he has to spend or he will loose the Rinding so he is interested in purchasing a training facility to be located at station 66 turning it into a regional training center. The Department could charge any one who wanted to use the facility for the day. It would be a state of the art training center no body has a training center that size west of Ft. Lauderdale and south of Tampa. It would be huge for us, it just so happens we have the land and they have the money. EMS might become part of this also because the have 85 Firefighters and they have to train on a regular basis so this may be come a Bureau of Emergency Services project. Mitchell Roberts — He said that his only concern is that Big Cypress National Preserve may has special limits on land use. Chief McLaughlin — He said this is very preliminary but the property is commercial and Big Cypress has nothing to say about our property. This isn't a permanent building these are containers this is basically mobile units, outside of putting a concrete pad on the ground. This is not a permanent facility. Mitchell Roberts — Asked how big of an area he would need to set things up. Chief McLaughlin — He has not yet researched any of that. Two metal buildings the separation is probably 30 feet which is plenty of room. Mitchell Roberts thought this was a good idea Page 3 161!T A I FIREFIGHTER & ASSISTANT CHIEF POSITION: Chief McLaughlin — All three Firefighters passed the agility test two were tied and the person with the better physical agility time was given the position which was Michael Grala Jr. a local resident. The Assistant Chief Position is closing at the end of the week so we will be moving forward with that and see if we are going to hire one or not. UP DATE ON JOB BANKERS: Chief McLaughlin — One Job Banker has been approved Scott Jacobs and the other Paul Moyer is still pending. Both of Job Bankers also applied for the permanent Firefighter position. They were the other two finalists with Michael Grala. He has another Job Banker he is trying to get approved. He is trying to set up a pool of Job Bankers. He went on to say they can work no more than two 24 hour shift a week. They cannot work over 53 hours a week. He is using them to fill in vacation time. Chief McLaughlin — We had to reduce the overtime budget last year by $30,000 even though we needed the whole $152,000 because we use it every year. We have already used half of the overtime budget in the first quarter of this budget but lie feels we are doing a little bit better than last year. James Simmons — He noticed it was up fiom the month before. Chief McLaughlin — He said we had a Firefighter on administrative leave with out pay so we had to cover that slot and we had another vacancy due to Firefighter Mayberry's promotion to Lieutenant. The Human Resources Department would not let us fill the Firefighter position until the Lieutenant position was filled. So far since October 30" till now we had that vacancy. He made a note in the quarterly report to Mr. Summers part of the overtime usage is due to our hiring process and this is the proof of it. There is no reason why we couldn't have had a Firefighter and Lieutenant hired the same day it would have saved 5 to 6 weeks of overtime. He asked for Job Bankers in the middle of last year and was denied. He credits Mr. Summer's involvement with the Human Resources Department the reason we were able to secure Job Bankers. If we had been allowed to do that last year we could have saved about $7,000 to $22,000. James Simmons — He felt that was a sizeable amount. Chief McLaughlin — I've got to put some of the blame on the process. We can't foresee putting some one on administrative leave because of some action they have taken but I can for see redoing the time it takes to hire some one because we are at minimum manning. Page 4 ' Mitchell Roberts — He feels he should document it and if the overtime budget goes over it goes over you have a minimum manning requirement. Chief McLaughlin — He will hear fiom the County Manager if we are over budget. We lost $600,000 in reserves which we could have used to offset the overtime. We maybe a little tight at the end of the year. He said we now have $312,000 in our reserves and we will be expending $130,000 of that leaving approximately $200,000. He did have a concerned citizen approach him about the Pilt Funds. Their concern was that if the District was receiving tax money for the lands that were bought we still service I -75, campgrounds, we service all those Federal buildings, and now we are not receiving money for structural protection for any of that land. Their point was we are supplying structural protection to Federal lands of which part of the Pilt money was for that and now we are not receiving it. Mitchell Roberts — He asked how far we go down US 41. Chief McLaughlin — He said our District goes all the way to the Dade County line. We have the Jet Port, Oasis, the Visitor Center, Boys Camp and the bottom of Loop Rd. James Simmons — He asked if Miccosukee had a fire department out there. Chief McLaughlin — He said if they do we don't know about it. Mitchell Roberts — He asked is technically the reservation in the District, or no it stops there. Chief McLaughlin — He said it stops at the reservation, on the north side it is in the District but most of it is in Broward County. We go right up to the reservation on the road up to the 51 mile marker. Mitchell Roberts — So if there was a crash at the Jet Port you would have to respond. James Simmons — He wanted to know how far west the District went on US 41. Chief McLaughlin — We go to 92, actually 1282 feet east of the light. Mitchell Roberts — Our revenue is based solely on tax revenue. Chief McLaughlin — One thousand one hundred square miles of our District was taxable until the Feds came in and bought, the Pilt funds were supposed to off set the lost revenue. John Pennell — Isn't some of that Loop Road in Monroe County. Page 5 16I1A14 Chief McLaughlin — He said yes. Mitchell Roberts — We have a budget that we are making everything happen with in the budget we have. We have two avenues at this point. Raise the millage rate find Pilt funds or a way to have all these entities putting something towards us. I -75 tolls, or Big Cypress surcharge on camping, something. Chief McLaughlin — The millage rate is high enough I don't believe we can raise it. Darcy Kidder — She feels we are paying a high enough millage rate already. John Pennell -- I think somebody should pay to take care of these buildings. Mitchell Roberts — We are operating with in budget now. The new station is going to come on that is going to stretch it more. It is going to be nice but one thing more and you will have to increase the budget. Have they said anything about the Station coming on at Port of the Islands raising the budget? Chief McLaughlin — The new station means extra power bill, phone line, the expenses are minimal. Fuel costs and things to operate it are with in our budget to do it now. We certainly couldn't put up a facility at I -75 and operate it at that cost. This one we will be able to do we are with in budget. Mitchell Roberts — We still have a potential of a $200,000 reserve for the rest of the 9 months left in this fiscal year. We need to keep talking because something is going to happen that changes that. Chief McLaughlin — The first year and a half while we had those funds we purchased a lot of equipment that needed to be replaced. Hose, nozzles, bunker gear, and clothing. We've replaced a lot of things that should last at least three to four years, during this time we are in, hopefully things will turn around. We should be A We are looking at operating costs that we can't foresee. We really don't have any on the board these projects are minimal. We spent $10,000 on Station 66 we had $30,000 in the building Rind so we have some money left. His biggest concern this year is over time. He can slow some of that down by using Job Bankers until the District can afford an extra person to maintain the Departments minimum manning until that time we are going to have over time. He feels our District is a lot better off than most in Collier County. We don't have a dwindling population. In Golden Gate they have a 30% foreclosure rate people are leaving their houses no one is paying for them. They have all these empty houses and there is the possibility of squatters moving in to them which would increase the potential of structure fires. We don't have that here the people are actually paying their taxes. So we are in pretty good shape compared to other Districts. Port of the Islands has some places that have never been sold and are still empty. But over all we are in pretty good shape I don't see us having a large reduction as some of the other Districts. Page 6 161'1 Ai4 Chief McLaughlin continued - This is the second year that the property values have dropped. Now we are looking at a reduction of the millage rate at a lower taxable value and that is what is hurting everybody. Golden Gate is six million dollars in capital debt. We are ok but we are being frugal. He has met with the union and personnel bringing everything up front that should carry us through. Mitchell Roberts — When we look at additional revenues in the future. The easier ones are the insurance billings; keep pursuing I -75 toll letter back and forth because ultimately some one influential enough is going to die because of the response time is 30 minutes on I -75 and that maybe a push to putting a station out there. Just like how long it takes to get a traffic light unfortunately that might be our situation out there. Chief McLaughlin — The County Manager does not want us to supply service to I -75 with out fimding. Mitchell Roberts — Asked if there is a way legally to boycott servicing I -75 with out criminal charges. Chief McLaughlin — I -75 is a State road that we are servicing with out funding if the District did not service this area then they would have to take care of it. It comes down to pay for service. Except for morally we are not obligated to service I -75. Mitchell Roberts — If we get to a point we have a budget crunch and we are short of funds then we could send a letter to DOT advising them that in 30 days we will have to suspend service for the rest of the fiscal year on the I -75 corridor. Chief McLaughlin — He said that decision would ultimately have to made by the County Manager. Mitchell Roberts - That might be an avenue to get something sparked, 43% of the calls for December went to I -75. He wanted to know if the mile markers could be traced in reference to the calls taking place on I -75. Chief McLaughlin — He said it is very difficult to track that information. Mitchell Roberts — I know it is more paper work, but the mile marker would show the excessive miles on our vehicles. The brush truck went 1600 miles. Chief McLaughlin — That was mostly on I -75. Mitchell Roberts — Times that by twelve how long is that vehicle going to last. A new attack truck every five years. Page 7 1617 °A John Pennell — He said there is a sign on I -75 that the road is being taken care of by some body else not the State. Chief McLaughlin -- The State contracted out the road service. Mitchell Roberts — Asked the Chief to follow up on the insurance. Chief McLaughlin — He has been in contact with the County Attorney again this is an on going process. He is on top of it. Mitchell Roberts — Its good that our budget is in good shape even though we have the new Station. There still is reserves a couple of $100,000 we could effectively buy another engine if we had to. Will they let you dip into the reserves for over time? Chief McLaughlin — Yes if he had to. Mitchell Roberts — But you are going to have to show why and document every dollar. Chief McLaughlin — All our Firefighters, Job Bankers and Reservists have gone through a Pump Operator Hydraulics Class. He will have them all certified at Pump Operation. This increases the Departments level of service. NEW BUSINESS TANKER: Chief McLaughlin — This tanker is going to be 20 years old. We've had on going problems with it. We went for a grant last year and we will probably try it again this year. However, there are some things going on in the industry because they are hurting really bad. We are looking at getting a tanker on a 10 year loan. He feels the tanker needs to be replaced it is getting old and we are having on going mechanical problems with it. It is time to put the tanker in reserve. He is going to see if there are any funds in the budget or the reserves to purchase a tanker. We are looking at $30,000 a year for ten years if we can purchase this tanker. Mitchell Roberts — He commented that will the miles the District has to respond unfortunately we need fairly new equipment that is reliable. Chief McLaughlin — A tanker is major to this District and right now is our weakest link especially in our outlying areas. James Simmons — He asked how much the Department spent in repairs this last year Page 8 1611 Al Chief McLaughlin — He wasn't sure. James Simmons — He asked if it was close to $3,000. Chief McLaughlin — Said it was more than that. James Simmons — Well that would probably make you payments. Chief McLaughlin — He thought it was closer to $10,000 last year. John Pennell — He asked if the Department maintained the hydrants on Plantation Island. Chief McLaughlin- He said the Department does not maintain the hydrants they flow them and do checks that's all. John Pennell — He said some of them are so far down on the ground you can't get a wrench on them. Chief McLaughlin — There is supposed to be an 18" minimum, which is the City of Everglades responsibility. We turned in reports in every year. If ISO comes around and sees those hydrants they won't count them that's a problem. He has asked for a meeting with the mayor. He knows their budget is tight too but we have several hydrants that are still out of service from last years hydrant checks in the City of Everglades and they have to be fixed. Mitchell Roberts — He would like the vehicle reports to have the age of the vehicles maybe and index card showing that information. Chief McLaughlin -- He went through the vehicle information and told Mr. Roberts what the years of the vehicles were. The Chief went onto say that the Department now has two five ton vehicles from Forestry but we are waiting for the license plates. One of these vehicles will be converted into a water shuttle. We are no longer taking our tankers out into the woods any more that is why the current vehicle has a chaise problem. The five ton will have a 2600 gallon tank and will be able to go anywhere. The second vehicle is going to be converted into a brush truck to replace Big Bertha. The old 1955 Mack Truck will be given back to Forestry. The skid unit is going to be taken off and put on the 1992 five ton, it has automatic transmission, and the whole nine yards they are better than what we have. The personnel are going to work on the vehicles they are going to paint them. Mitchell Roberts — Moving tanks from one to the other should just be a minimal expense. Chief McLaughlin — Just brackets, bolts, plumbing, other odds and ends. Page 9 1611A14 Mitchell Roberts — Does that take away the need to replace Tanker 60 Chief McLaughlin — No, Tanker 60 will go into reserve it would be a fall back vehicle if the new one went out of service they go in for three day maintenance. When Big Cypress calls for a water tanker because they are doing an all day operation we say no but with these five tons we can say yes come and get it. For Brush fires in the Blocks the Department would now take the new five ton units instead of the tanker which will prolong the life of that vehicle. Tanker 60 would be a structural tanker and the five tons would be for the woods. Twenty six hundred gallon pesticide tanks are to be installed on the five ton units due to expense. The poly tanks are $8000 each as to $2100 each for the pesticide tanks they are baffled and will just be carrying water making the costs minimal. Mitchell Roberts — He referred to Macbeth Collins who is the Advisory Board Member representing Everglades City regarding his attendance of the Advisory Board Meetings and that the by laws state that if you miss more than two meetings the board member can be removed. Mitchell Roberts wanted to make a motion for the Chief to draft a letter questioning whether Macbeth Collins should be removed from the Advisory Board or have the Mayor appoint some one else. Chief McLaughlin — The Advisory Board would have to make a motion recommending that he be removed because of his absence then send a letter to the Board of County Commissioners recommending the removal once it is approved then that will reopen the position. Mitchell Roberts — He wants to draft a letter to the County Commissioners that says the appointee from Everglades City is not attending the Advisory Board Meetings can they have Everglades City re- appoint another representative. Chief McLaughlin — if he drafts that letter the Advisory Board Chairman would have to sign it. Mitchell Roberts — Maybe the Board could send it to Sammy. Chief McLaughlin — Said it would be their decision. Mitchell Roberts — He asked the other Advisory Board Members if they should send the letter to Sammy. Chief McLaughlin — The Board of County Commissioners gives the Mayor the preference for that position. Page 10 1611 A14"" Mitchell Roberts — Made a motion that Linda Swisher write a letter to the appropriate person in the County to say that the Everglades City position needs to be replaced and that the Advisory Board is ok with the Chairman signing the letter prior to their review at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by John Pennell and passed. Mitchell Roberts — He brought up the fact that he has to do a report by the 15th of January and in March go before the Board of County Commissioners. The report has to be submitted to the Chief so that it can be forwarded to the County. The Meeting Adjourned. •.-Mitchell Roberts, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Page 1 I R rEIVED APR 14 2010 oa rf of County commissioners THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 19, 2009 In attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Mitchell Roberts, Chairman, Copeland John Pennell, Plantation Island, Advisory Board Member James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member The meeting began at 6:08PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES: F11a1 Halas Coyle Coletta Mitchell Roberts made a motion to approve the minutes as written it was seconded by John Pennell and the motion passed. OLD BUSINESS: DOF Grant: Chief McLaughlin - The DOF Grant projects applied for are completed. One of the Brush Trucks is completed and the other is being worked on but has come to a halt because some of the equipment that was to be installed on the vehicle has been stolen. One of the items stolen was purchased through the DOF Grant. Assistant Chief Position Reduced to Captain: Chief McLaughlin —The paperwork has been processed to reduce the Assistant Chief Position to a Captain's position which saved us a little over $3,000 in the budget. Now we are in the process of opening that position up and hopefully will have the position filled by the middle of next month. It will be a 40 hour position and will save the Chief a lot of time by assisting him with the daily operations. It will also save the Department a considerable amount In overtime. For every 24 hour shift a 1/3 of that overtime will be covered by the Captain. So between that and supply job bankers for overtime we should significantly reduce overtime. He will have a dual role when needed he will fill In with daytime shift coverage. We still have not heard back yet on the two grants we applied for they are still out there. Page 1 Misc. coffee: Dais: thmt. Copies to: 1 tr' 1611'"A I Mitchell Roberts — Brought up the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Reports that were handed out. There were five for each member for the summer months and including September. Chief McLaughlin — He suggested that they take home the monthly reports to review them and then they could vote on them the next meeting. Mitchell Roberts made a motion that the May, June, July, August and September monthly Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Reports are to be taken home to review and then in the November meeting placed under old business for discussion if necessary, the motion was seconded by John Pennell and passed. NEW BUSINESS: Station 61: Chief McLaughlin — The Department has started its operations at Port of the Islands there is now seven days a week 24 hours a day coverage. Due to this new coverage the Department has received a lot of phone calls from Insurance Companies and Home Owners regarding the station and possible changes in insurance coverage. Some insurance companies are not giving the property owners a break but there is at least one Insurance Company that is giving an automatic class five to people just because of the location and the hydrants. That Companies Information has been passed on to the President of the CID to pass on this information to the homeowners at Port of the Islands. The property owners were informed to shop around for insurance because there are some companies that will honor the location of the station prior to ISO recertification and some that won't. It could be a possible savings to the home owner of $700. ALS Engine: Chief McLaughlin --The Department is going to start an ALS Engine Program November 2, 2009. Ochopee Fire Control District Personnel have been trained and equipment moved around due to this new service. EMS has given the Department a truck that has been assigned to us as a medic rescue. He explained how the program would work that at Port of the Islands that engine out there will become an advance life support fire engine capable of everything but transporting it will have a Fire Medic on it that comes over and rides on our vehicle from the EMS system. The ambulance that is here will become a medic rescue truck which is an ambulance enhanced with fire equipment on it. All the personnel in that system are certified Firefighters so there are no longer Just paramedics they are paramedic Firefighters. I give them one of our Firefighters to drive their unit and still keep two of them here. Page 2 1611 t-14 A14 Chief McLaughlin - What that does is enhances our fire response by two fire personnel because they are assigned to us by Chief Paige. So If we have a fire now we don't just have two paramedics standing we have two more Firefighters in our system that operate with us that has trained with us use our equipment and is familiar with our policy and work under our Protocol just as we work under their Protocol for medical. This enhances the service for the citizens for both the EMS and Fire side. He feels it is an excellent partnering up to give the greatest benefits at the cheapest costs to the citizens in the form of how it will be delivered. He is working with the union regarding this program. He feels it will be a huge benefit to the citizens in our District. James Simmons — He asked if they would be assigned here or at Port of the Islands. Chief McLaughlin — He said they would be assigned at both places. Mitchell Roberts — He asked what the Paramedic staffing was prior to this program. Chief McLaughlin - Two Paramedics but they weren't fire medics. Mitchell Roberts - So the same staffing and now they can assist you. Chief McLaughlin -- This increases our Firefighting staff by two because of their Firefighter certifications. Mitchell Roberts - He asked if this was the only place this is happening, Chief McLaughlin - He said no North Naples and East Naples have been in this program for a number of years. Marco Island and the City of Naples are in this program as well. Isles of Capri went with this system in 2005. Mitchell Roberts — So we are not looking at the County expecting all Firefighters to become Paramedics. Chief McLaughlin — He does not know what Jeff Page's long term goal is regarding this project. It is a cost to them they pay the Firefighter Medics more, He feels it is good for everybody. Page 3 1611 A14 Burglary at Station 66: Chief McLaughlin — He brought up the burglary at the Ochopee Fire Station and that he was not sure when it happened it was within a week of our last visit to the station. Approximately $8,000 of equipment was stolen and about $2500 of personal equipment belonging to personnel working on the vehicles. Some of the items taken were our brand new station generator, two other floor generators, and all big equipment. They stole the brand new fire pump that was going on the brush truck. They also hit Big Cypress they cut a hole through the Deep Lake Installation. He thinks they hit it the same night because they took identical items and by the tracks it looks like they had a very big truck because they dragged some things around. Personnel are putting together bars for the windows and bars for the doors to secure the building. Also Dehart has installed a motion detector Alarm System and the last part of that phase will be motion detection cameras that run through a DVD recorder. Daniel Landrum wanted space on our tower at Station 66 and since there is no internet available out there in exchange he gave us some band width for our cameras. Next Harts Electric is going to set a pole to put some lights up to light up the building front and back. He further mentioned it is a silent alarm so that will give the sheriff's office a chance to catch them. Promotion of Lt. Morris to Captain: Chief McLaughlin — We are promoting Lt. Morris to Captain he is the only person we have that fits the job description. He is fully capable of handling the job. Lieutenant Testing: Chief McLaughlin — We conducted the Lieutenant testing in house already we had four applicants so that process is finished. He has a promotional list that he will be putting out tomorrow and the top contestant will be filling Caleb's position. He said we will be going outside to fill the Firefighter position. He said no one in the County is getting a new position but we justified it because the Captain's position is about $82,000 with benefits and we calculated that we would be saving in overtime from $96,000 to $105,000 on those 8 hours during the year. Basically what we don't use in that overtime budget will pay for that position so using the job bankers to fill the 16 hours of overtime at a straight time rate we could almost eliminate our over time. Two years ago we had a $150,000 over time budget, if we can get that budget down to $20,000 or $25,000 we will be doing good. Page 4 16f1 Alh LCEC: Chief McLaughlin — Lee County Coop is going to be putting a couple of drop lines by our Fire Boat and Harts Electric will put our mast head in to power our electric there. He's waiting to hear from the City in order to proceed further. LCEC is going to run a line from across the street and put two poles down by the dock and drop a line to install a light in order to illuminate the whole corner. Hearts Electric will put a florescent light fixture to light up the dock and water area for us. The motors that are on the current electric feed will be moved higher to prevent water intrusion. That will eliminate us bringing the generators down there via the trucks Instead the captain can just drive down to the boat and get it in the water. He is moving the generators off of the trucks and converting the lights to LED Spot Lights. Currently the 5,000 watt generators are used for spot lighting on the scene. All the Department tools are battery operated and the fans are gas operated so he is going to eliminate the generators on the trucks. This frees up space for other rescue gear such as air bags which EMS purchased for the Department and they also purchased the Extendo Rafts 15' x 4' which are inflatable walk ways for canals. The real cost is the LED spot lights we may have to do a truck at a time they are a $1,000 a light. He brought up the fact that we are still waiting on the Grants in reference to the Tanker and renovation of the Port of the Islands Station. He referenced the budget and that we carried forward more funds than expected due to diligence on our part at the end of the fiscal year. We will be real thin this year as well. Dive Rescue and Public Safety Certification: Chief McLaughlin — The Department had Classes for Public Safety Diver and Dive Rescue governed by Dive Rescue International they are the standard for dive rescue services in America for mostly for the Fire Rescue Service. We had 12 of our people Public Safety Diver Certified and we have 11 Dive Rescue One Divers. This was a secondary weeklong enhanced class next to Public Safety Diver. Pretty much the whole Department and some of our Job Bankers have been trained in Public Safety Driver and Dive Rescue Recovery through Dive Rescue International at a very good cost because one of the instructors is local. There will probably be a little clip in the paper and in a magazine. We have purchased a couple of rapid diver systems we are looking at enhancing our whole water rescue recovery program which we never had. The first thing to do was the training second was to buy the equipment we are at the end of the last phase. We have all of our equipment has been purchased and we have trained on the first part of the system which is the rapid diver system you can be in the water within a minute. We are developing two policies we have water rescue rapid entry policy which is designed around this particular system and the second is our recovery system that is more for a long term search. Page 5 1611A141 Mitchell Roberts — Commented that historically Ochopee Fire Personnel did not have the equipment to recover patients from an underwater accident scene they would have to wait for a dive team and now they can. Chief McLaughlin — Agreed with him that in the past they did not have the equipment for underwater rescue. He added that most of the training for the dive rescue has been done at the pool at Port of the Island and Lake Gloria in Copeland. Mitchell Roberts — Questioned Chief McLaughlin in reference to the Rapid Rate Diver equipment. Chief McLaughlin — He described the equipment as carry a standard PSI small dive tank it is worn in the front, the mask is in a case that pops down, literally it is a completely encased system. James Simmons — Asked about Caleb Morris if he was the Assistant Chief. Chief McLaughlin - He stated that he would be a Captain the Assistant Chief position was reduced to Captain. This actually models our sister Department isles of Capri they currently have a Captain instead of an Assistant Chief, Mitchell Roberts reminded them to review their five months of Advisory Board Reports. John Pennell made a motion to adjourn the meeting it was seconded by James Simmons the motion was passed and the board moved to adjourn. Mitchell Roberts, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Page 6 r3osrd of bounty COmm�ssioners Fiala Halas Coyle Coletta THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 11, 2010 in attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Mitchell Roberts, Chairman Copeland John Pennell, Plantation Island, Advisory Board Member James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member The meeting began approximately at 613M. OLD BUSINESS: Firefighter Position 611 Ai Chief McLaughlin — The Firefighter position opened last week and we have two applicants they are both internal Job bankers. The position was closed last Friday Human Resources has been contacted and their interviews will be set up this week. He hopes that the open position will be filled with in two weeks. New Board Member Appointed Chief McLaughlin — Everglades City has appointed a new member to the Advisory Board Tod Johnson. He didn't know if he had been notified about the Advisory Board Meeting. James Simmons — He wanted to know why there was a Firefighter opening was that because of the promotion. Chief McLaughlin — Caleb moved to a 40 hour time slot that opened a Lieutenant's position and Sergio filled that so his position opened up. We created a new position so that opened that slot up. Mitchell Roberts — He wanted the Department to accommodate the new member, Tod Johnson in the event he could not make the meeting at the appointed time or date that this could be adjust in order for him to attend the meetings. The board members looked over the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Report for December 2009. Page 1 Mot CWW. (1) m f Copies to: 16 11 A14 James Simmons — He made reference to 1 -75 and that a news letter was circulating in support of it at Port of the Islands. He asked what we could do. Chief McLaughlin — Until we get a State Representative to spear head this we are stuck we need some legislative help. The former County Manager had this on his agenda but unfortunately he became ill. He was taking a strong stand on it he understood the position quite well. The bottom line is we need enough of the residents involved with the local representative to get this thing moving. We were going to do an ISO re -rate for the District this year to see if we can Improve It. He will not be able to do that after he did the pre -rate study on it once they see that 50% of our fire protection is 30 miles away we will lose our current fire protection rating. They look at your run records and how far stations are they look at how much EMS calls distract from fire protection time. Until that is a self sufficient station out there on its own we are not going for a new re -rate. It Is a hindrance to improve our insurance rating as well as a cost to the tax payers. Forty -two percent of the calls are 30 miles away and nobody's paying for it. James Simmons asked how many vehicles are sent to 1 -75. Chief McLaughlin — One unless it's an incident that requires a water tanker then we'll send our tanker with one of Immokalee's units. He purchased the smaller attack truck because it uses only 1/3 of the fuel that the engine uses. We calculated that the first year we saved $5400 in fuel so we will save $25,000 In five years. The other thing Is the wear and tear on the larger engines and the cost of tires on those vehicles is much more. The larger vehicles will run up there from time to time but it depends on the type of call and it is very rare. Mitchell Roberts had a question about the Fleet Management reports in the Advisory Report. Chief McLaughlin explained what the repairs were and that the money is allocated each year in the budget for this type of service. Mitchell Roberts remarked that one of the prior reports had show $16,000 in repairs. He said they were all low mileage vehicles. Chief McLaughlin — The Tanker had not been serviced in a while; Fleet sets up periodic services based on time not on mileage. Some of the vehicles are not used for long periods of time so they are sent in when they have been used this way we save money on the minor inspections and pay when the major inspections are done. The tanker is an old truck it is 20 years old we are trying to replace it. Every time it breaks down it costs us money that's why it is not on a first run basis. Page 2 1611414 Mitchell Roberts — The only way he could rally support to get people behind alligator alley is to let them know they pay the highest millage rate in the county and try to do some calculations do it on the millage rates to show how much less it would be. Let all the residents know they need to find a way to get their taxes lowered. Chief McLaughlin — It would not lower your millage rates. Mitchell Roberts — If they subsidized from the Alley to make up the difference the residents are paying. It is not going to be a gain to us in money but that's the only push you are going to get. Chief McLaughlin — The difference in the money would be allocated back to the Department are fuel costs would drop our maintenance costs would drop it doesn't affect anything else. Mitchell Roberts — But the millage rates are set by the county commissioners. Chief McLaughlin — If the millage rate were to drop I would have to let two Firefighters go and shut the engine down at Port of the Islands. Mitchell Roberts —Would you drop the millage rate if you were getting subsidies or Pilt, federal funds or State funding. Chief McLaughlin — We are short man power we have overtime every day we need to add three people. If Pilt money came back in I would put three more people on which would virtually alleviate my over time budget. When he started the over time budget was over $168,000 now it is down to $45,000 or $48,000. The overtime costs versus job banker costs that's time and a half versus straight time and no benefits. Huge dollar saving over thousands of hours worked $35,000 to $40,000 a year. We look at personnel costs coming down by trying to eliminate overtime and that's what the goal was. We actually looked to see how much it would be to put three firefighters on the budget to eliminate it because what we do is we still have one person off unless its sick days. Which we bring in a job banker instead of over time but if we are short shifted when we get two people off its usually a job banker and an over timer. Mitchell Roberts —To rally people they would receive the same service for less money because paying their 50% to 60% fair share last month it was 30 %. Thirty percent of the budget should go to the State. Page 3 1611 A14 Chief McLaughlin — There are no permanent residence, the issue isn't a fair share or lower the Issue is your current fire protection that you are paying for because of the lack of population and business of what we have in place demands such a millage rate to do this. What you currently have is being impacted and affected in a reduction of service by a loss of that 30% of the time to a State road that no one is reimbursing. That needs to fund itself if they want the fire protection and emergency services. The State needs to fund that they could give us the money and we could manage it but they will have to provide the facility cost the fuel cost the vehicle cost the payroll cost everything associated they need to make it a dedicated unit for that road. Therefore that 361 of fuel savings comes back to this District as a savings over time and maintenance of the vehicles and use the big catch is service because that 36% of the time 50% of the fire protection is 30 miles away it's here where it should be they are here they are not somewhere else that would affect the ISO. Mitchell Roberts -- if the Fire District went away I would still pay $400 more a year. These people here and the people at the Port would not be able to get insurance. We need to get people to contact their legislators He feels you have to get them angry and tell them they are paying the highest rates in the District for services you are not getting. Chief McLaughlin — You are paying the highest rates because that's what you have to pay because of the population to have fire protection. However, the fire protection that you are paying for 30% or 40% of the time Is 30 miles away that is the issue. Mitchell Roberts — It is also adding $12,000 to $15,000 a month in vehicle expenses. Chief McLaughlin — Exactly, that is the issue. My issue if I was a resident would be my fire truck I'm paying for needs to be here not 30 miles away because I'm paying for It not the State. Mitchell Roberts — He wanted to know as a board what they could do to resolve this. Chief McLaughlin — We are going to need legislative help and the only way to do that is to get a representative to fight for this. The Ochopee Advisory Board would have to get the residents to make phone calls to our State Representative for this area. If you could get 1,000 to 2,000 people to call regarding this issue you could probably get some action on it. Mitchell Roberts — He feels in order to get some action on this issue is money. He asked if an appointment could be set up with our local representative. Chief McLaughlin — He said our representative is out of Miami but he has an office in Naples that he comes to all the time. Page 4 1611 A14 Mitchell Roberts — He asked if the Department could check on the schedule and time the State Representative Is in Naples for the purpose of making an appointment. He said this District was formed to cover a lot of land and at this time it is a lot of land not paying taxes. Chief McLaughlin — For us the original plot of land for District I was larger at one time so we lost a piece of that money and of course the Pilt money disappeared two years ago which we had received for over 20 years. It was the in lieu of tax money for the Big Cypress buy out which they are part of our MSTU because we still provide emergency services and fire protection to all the Federal buildings they do not provide structural protection and now we are getting nothing. He doesn't know where the Pilt money went. The last time he met with the previous budget director he said our budget was big enough we didn't need it anymore. He assumed that this money was allocated by some legal action which would have percentages indicated for each recipient instead of the amount changing each year. The Chief was told that $754,000 was collected In Pilt money from the Big Cypress area. James Simmons -- But the County took the money away from us. Chief McLaughlin —Yes, They did it at the stroke of a pen, the Budget Director said your budget is big enough now you don't need that money it was there to fund you when you weren't big enough, After reading about the Pilt that money is a payment in lieu of tax and as long as you are providing a service to an area where the tax was lost you should be getting some of it. Now whatever that percentage is, there were years we got $400,000, some years $180,000 is jumped all over the place. He felt that someone somewhere would have a formula for the size of the area and what we cover and it would be the same percentage so the amount would be the same every year. But it has been up and down over the years. James Simmons — He felt they had to be persistent in order to obtain the funds. Chief McLaughlin — If the Pilt money continued to go into the Ochopee Budget the Department wouldn't have had to go after a grant to refurbish the Station at Port of the Islands the $250,000 could have been used towards that goal. The only reason Ochopee had the $800,000 to put down at the Marina at Port of the Islands for the new station was because that Pilt money was being saved for that purposed for a station at Port of the Islands. He feels the District should receive some of that funding because we still protect the federal property in that area and now we are not getting anything from them. Mitchell Roberts — The three of us here have to pay our property taxes the Federal Park and the State of Florida does not. The Chief is doing a great job and the Department is running. If Pilt funds start to come in then our part should go down and the millage should be re- adjusted. He wants to talk to the State Representative about If the State would cover their area and the Pilt money Is returned then eventually the millage rates could be readjusted because now they are paying their fair share. Page 5 16I 1 A14'' Chief McLaughlin — We would not see our millage rate change because of the alley, $30,000 of fuel does not affect the millage rate. The alley Is an issue of service not money. Now the Pilt could affect the millage rate $200,000 could drop it two or three points you could go from 4 to 3.7 or 3.6. But you need to remember if it Is a quality of service the ISO could change because the additional funding helps supply more personnel giving the immediate area more coverage. It would have to be looked into to see how much it would affect the funds received if the millage were to be dropped once the Pilt funds were received. The funds could cover the drop. He repeated that the Ailey Is not an issue of the millage rate drop if you drop the millage rate now we are so tight we will be laying people off. I need income to do that $30,000 that is a motor in a truck there are contingencies for that. The big dollar issue is the $250,000 or $300,000 that is 20% of the budget. Mitchell Roberts — So to keep the Department running as we have with the same staff is the State chip in something for the Alley and maintain the area that we have. Chief McLaughlin — The State needs to provide the money for the service for their road and the transient people. We cannot continue to provide the service out there. The cost is a piece of it but it is the lack or the loss of service to the taxpaying resident on every call. If we have four Firefighters on duty and two are responding to the Alley, 30 miles away, then there are only two here and per the State two in two out rule they cannot enter a building during a structure fire unless there are four personnel present. In fact an effective rescue cannot be done with just two personnel either this is a problem it is actually affecting how we operate. It could affect our ISO rating if we go for a re -rate. James Simmons —The Pilt funds are controlled by the County right. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, they get one check and they disperse it through the County. James Simmons —Then we have interstate 1 -75 that is really a Federal Highway. Chief McLaughlin — But it is under State management. James Simmons — It is under State management because they can raise the tolls. Chief McLaughlin —They did raise the tolls but we don't want to get into that right now. if you get with Mr. Roberts he has the information regarding that. Mitchell Roberts — He went over a letter that the Advisory Board received from the State saying that they could not raise the rates to support emergency services. But the chairman sent a letter back letting them know that at their web site they have posted that they funded additional trooper positions by raising their toll. Page 6 1611 Chief McLaughlin - They raised their toll 50 cents to pay for additional trooper positions. He said that $8,268,000 in tolls were paid at 50 cents per dollar to fund trooper positions that would be $4,000,000. He said that would pay for 197 troopers. When covering the alley our Department has to wait for a trooper to respond out of Miramar before clearing the scene. He feels the funds did not go to just hiring more troopers because they seem to still be short handed. He was only asking for 20 cents to fund EMS, Paramedics, Firefighters, vehicles and everything. He feels the money was not all spent in our area. Mitchell Roberts — He wants to re -open that with the local Representative. Chief McLaughlin — We have been waiting for the permit submitted 10 -12 -09 regarding putting in a power pole in a right of way for boat power lift. This is affecting our boat operations because currently the generators are no longer on the trucks so we have one on the back of a pickup truck that we have to haul over there. He is going to meet with the Rod and Gun Club tomorrow to ask them permission to use their right of way. They already have a pole in place we are going to put a pole in and extend the line down to ours if they are in agreement to that I will provide them with up graded service and pay for the up graded line so they can have 240 instead of 120. We will put a pole at the end of the property so we can put a drop in. He received a letter from the DEP said that Everglades City would be exempt from doing any work on the docks and that we had the full right to put power on the docks for emergency purposes for the boat. Harts Electric is going to put the permit in to the City of Everglades with that letter. This has become an issue of life safety and service. James Simmons — He wanted to know what he needed from Everglades City was it just the right of way to put a pole in. Chief McLaughlin — He needs somebody with some authority from Everglades City to say that he can put a power pole in the right of way. James Simmons — He asked what about Lee County Electric. Chief McLaughlin — He said they won't do it until he has the letter saying that Everglades City will let him do it. James Simmons — He asked him if tee County Electric had a right of way already down there. Chief McLaughlin — He said now not down here Everglades City is kind of sovereign in that. So unless the Mayor or one of his designee's signs a letter it's not going to happen and since October it has not happened he is just going to go to another property owner. Mitchell Roberts — He asked what kind of lease agreement we had on the dock. Page 7 1611 A14 Chief McLaughlin —The City of Everglades gave us the dock to use for the Fire Boat. Mitchell Roberts — Is that in writing. Chief McLaughlin — No, they just gave it to us. We've got the dock and the lifts on the dock it's all there. Mitchell Roberts — He asked if this Is in the City Council minutes that we can go back to. Chief McLaughlin — No the Mayor just said here is the dock put your boat on it. James Simmons — He said the City owns the dock. Chief McLaughlin —They own all the docks. Mitchell Roberts —Technically yes except for just a few pieces of property. Chief McLaughlin — It was greatly appreciated because before the fire boat was ineffective we couldn't keep it in the water it was causing us thousands of dollars every year. We needed to put it on a boat lift where we could put it in the water. We really appreciate the City of Everglades giving us the dock It is the best place for it. But we've had to remove the generators from the trucks because we have more equipment. The new lights do not have to run off the generators they run off batteries. So the Department has saved money by not having to gas up the generators and taking the heavy equipment off of the vehicles. The generators are being used for emergency backup. He said we are also putting in a street light because it is so dark in that area to light everything up. Mitchell Roberts — He is a little worried about the use of the property what if the next step is the Mayor says I don't want that boat there. Chief McLaughlin —Then we'll put It back on the trailer. Mitchell Roberts — For whatever reason they are not allowing the pole to be there knowing that you are requesting it so then at what point do we have legal use of that property. Chief McLaughlin — We've been under the good graces of Everglades City to provide that service out there they've been in the good graces to give us the use of that dock space. Mitchell Roberts — But it's nothing written just verbal and use it. Chief McLaughlin — He said basically yes. Page 8 1611 Al Mitchell Roberts They won't even agree to putting a power pole on the right of way. Chief McLaughlin — He is not opposed to a lease agreement with the City of Everglades. Unfortunately Mr. Johnson isn't here today who is a member of the City Council. Mitchell Roberts — If he shows up at the next meeting we will bring it up. He requested that the Fire Pole at the dock be placed in the Old Business agenda next Advisory Board Meeting. James Simmons —Getting back to I -75 is it possible to put a dollar figure on what it cost. Chief McLaughlin — He said we did the start up costs is about $900,000 with a yearly cost of about $750,000. Mitchell Roberts — Are you asking what it would cost to put a station on 1 -75 or what it costs to run calls there. James Simmons -- He wants to know what It costs right now. Chief McLaughlin - He said it is very difficult to determine that because you have to base it on how many miles did you drive what's the cost of fuel with the change up and down what trucks did you drive out there. There Is no actual way to say it cost this much money. James Simmons — He said you could probably come up with a guess. Chief McLaughlin — That's what he did with the fuel cost allocation for the justification of the vehicle. He figured the average miles traveled to the alley times the cost of diesel fuel. James Simmons — He said at least if we have a handle or a guess as to what it would cost how much a trip. Chief McLaughlin — Let me remind you it is not about dollars it is about loss of service. Ten thousand dollars is nothing to the budget. James Simmons — If those dollars could be applied to the budget it would help. Chief McLaughlin —That is minimal it Is only 15% of the big picture. James Simmons — But you have you man power too you have two men in that vehicle. Chief McLaughlin — If you take that man power cost every time two people are gone every time they go now that ads up that is several thousand dollars. Page 9 lbilaia Mitchell Roberts — If the Alley was gone would that reduce our operating personnel. Chief McLaughlin — No we would still be short regardless, we are short now. Mitchell Roberts — I've got to explain to the legislator. Chief McLaughlin —We are already short here. Mitchell Roberts — our manning would stay the same. Chief McLaughlin —The national standard for an engine is four most people are operating with three as a minimum under the life safety operation we're at two. Mitchell Roberts — But we can roll another engine to get the four. Chief McLaughlin — No, that's per truck. Per NFPA to do the job properly you need four personnel on a truck. North Naples is running four but everyone else is running three minimum. The national standard is three. Florida created six years ago the two in two out rule. If there are two firefighters in a building there has to be two Firefighters outside the building ready to go. The average hose operation takes three to four Firefighters. My whole Department on scene Is one Engine Company In North Naples to do the job. We are so far behind the curve I still need to add six people to this Department just to be average. That Is not happening because that is a third of my Department currently. If I could at least add one each shift that brings and reduces that potential up for City of Everglades by having that extra person here to run a tanker to get on scene. Still doesn't help me at the Port because every time there is a call on the Alley that truck comes here. Mitchell Roberts — The service is what aggravates me to cover a free call for someone else we lose our service that we're paying for. Chief McLaughlin — Yes that is the issue the dollars are really miniscule. The issue is the loss of service you are paying for in your taxes to hand a freebee out to the State for travelers on 1 -75 that is the issue and If they are going to travel that road they need to pay for it. We the tax payers here need not pay for service to the transient population traveling 1 -75 period. Broward County is receiving State money for their new station. He said that Broward County Fire is under the Sheriff's Department, you have an under Sheriff that is in charge of law enforcement and a Fire Chief in charge of Fire and Emergency Services. He said it is a good system. The Fire Station in Broward County falls under Sheriff funding which covers a whole umbrella of funding which benefits the fire side as well so there operating cost out there is a whole other story. Page 10 1611 A14 NEW BUSINESS Renewal Letter for Board Members Chief McLaughlin — He remarked that he had a renewal letter that we need to get to Sue Filson. You need to vote on Mr. Simmons and John Pennell's position they are reappointments. A motion was made by Chairman Mitchell Roberts to reappoint John Pennell on the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board and it was seconded by James Simmons. The motion was passed. A motion was made by Chairman Mitchell Roberts to reappoint James Simmons on the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board and It was seconded by John Pennell. The motion was passed. Mitchell Roberts read allowed the reappointment letter he signed and the memo to Sue Filson with the attendance records. These documents are attached to these minutes. Mitchell Roberts — He asked if James Simmons was to receive mileage reimbursement. Chief McLaughlin —Yes, but you have to travel over so many miles to quality he has to look into it. He gave you a package about a year ago. You have to travel at least 15 miles. Mitchell Roberts — He wanted to know if he should check into the mileage reimbursement. James Simmons — He said he did qualify. Mitchell Roberts — We are a volunteer board if we made some changes to make this a paid board would we actually have a voice when it comes to the Commission, the State Representative or DOT to get things done. Chief McLaughlin — You are talking about an Independent District the State is really frowning on Special Districts anymore. To become a Special District you would have to have a State Legislator in your corner to push that bill for you to form that Special District. We looked into this before I got here. It actually cost us an extra $330,000 to $340,000 a year. All the services we currently have, Human Resources, insurance, Risk on a group of 2,000 to 3,000 employees, we would have to supply our own insurance, our own pension, and our own HR services. We have to provide that huge amount of services that we now pay the County $80,000 a year to provide for us Finance and payroll. You would have to hire someone just to handle the administrative side of payroll tracking the legal side of reporting to the State, the board has a legal side because now you are an elected board you would have a whole new set of rules you would fall under. it sounds good but it is really complicated. Page 11 1611 A14 Chief McLaughlin — in today's economy he wouldn't recommend it. isles of Capri looked Into it and determined they were better off staying with the County. It would cost us a lot more money to go Independent. Mitchell Roberts — He figured the board fees could be a $10 stipend a meeting so it Is not really a fee therefore no one would want to be elected to make money. You might make $100 a year. Chief McLaughlin — He said East Naples Board Members get paid a salary and there are board members who are on a pension plan. There is a lot of money that comes out of their budget and North Naples for their Board Members. He knows one of their Board Members who Is retired and is receiving a healthy pension from being a member of the Board for 15 or 20 years. He would have to ask Sue Filson if the Advisory Board Members could be paid a stipend. Mitchell Roberts —The reason he is asking is because of the power of the board when it comes to negotiating with DOT or a Legislator. Chief McLaughlin — The Advisory Board works for the County Commissioners. The letter that they say a year and a half ago from Commissioner Henning it was very explicit that the Boards work for the County Commissioners and they cannot step out of that realm without the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. You are advisors to the County Commission what goes on if they don't take that up you are kind of stuck. But it doesn't mean that the Board can't go and deal in the public realm. Mitchell Roberts — Should I notify the Board of County Commissioners before I talk to the State Representative. Chief McLaughlin — He can talk to Sue Filson regarding this matter. Mitchell Roberts — He asked what the full time population of Port of the Islands was. Chief McLaughlin —The full time population is about 800 or 830 they are doing a census. James Simmons — He said it is about that. Mitchell Roberts — The area he represents the lower income are paying the highest rate and there are a lot of them between there and Everglades City that don't have voting rights anyway. To call a legislator or commissioner it Isn't going to do anything. Chief McLaughlin —The biggest chunk of the population that can have the biggest impact is Port of the Islands and Everglades City. The business owners are the most important. There are some people retired at the Port from some pretty powerful organizations. Those are the people you want to write letters, making statements and pushing the issue forward. Page 12 1611 X14 Mitchell Roberts —What if one of the Representatives shows up at a CID Meeting at Port of the Islands. Chief McLaughlin — This would be a good time to do it because they are all there now. Mitchell Roberts — Maybe plead to them that we need support once I find out a direction vie can travel. James Simmons —There is a CID Meeting coming up on the third Friday 10AM at the Motel. Mitchell Roberts — If they could get a talk with our local representative and get some direction we could set up a meeting. James Simmons — He would like to work with him on that. Mitchell Roberts — He asked James Simmons if he would like to go with him when he talks to the Representative. James Simmons — He agreed to do that. Mitchell Roberts — He asked if this would be a violation of the Sunshine Law. Chief McLaughlin — He was not sure about that you would have to look at the Sunshine Law. You might have to put a notification out that the Advisory Board is meeting with a State Representative because there are two of you one on one would be no problem. You would have advice Sue Filson to put out a public notice. John Pennell made a motion to adjourn it was seconded by lames Simmons and was passed the meeting ended. Page 13 Mitchell Roberts, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board —10 1611 Al OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD DATE: January 11, 2010 TO: Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioner FROM: Mitchell Roberts, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board RE: Re-appointment of Advisory Board Members Please be advised that at the regular meeting of the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board held on January 11, 2010 it was recommended per its members to re- appoint John Pennell and James Simmons to the Advisory Board. Also please find attached the attendance records for John Pennell and James Simmons. Thank you for your assistance concerning this matter. Sincerely, Mitchell Roberts, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board 161 41 A14 - o 'fir my Bureau of Emergency Servioes DATE: December 22, 2009 TO: Sue Filson, Executive Manager FROM: Linda Swisher, Administrative Secretary Ochopee Fire Control District RE: Attendance Records of OFCD Advisory Board Members John Pennell and James Simmons The following is a record of the meetings attended by John Pennell and James Simmons. James Simmons' attendance record as of his BCC Appointment on 10 -29 -08 to the last Advisory Board Meeting of 12 -7 -09: 11 -17 -08 —James Simmons was present 12 -08 -08 —James Simmons was present 01 -12 -09 —James Simmons was present No Meeting in February 2009 ' 03- 09 -09- James Simmons was present The Meeting for April 13, 2009 was canceled 05 -18 -09 —James Simmons was present The Advisory Board broke for the summer to reconvene In October 2009 10 -19 -09 —James Simmons was present No Meeting in November 2009 12 -07 -09 —James Simmons was present James Simmons has not missed any meetings since he was appointed to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board he has perfect attendance. Page 1 �r[sco�jc:,rt-rs�,t Och*U Re C Vo1€1<sWd -P.O. Box 70, Everglade3 City, FWda 3413$, May 4114 -FAX 2390a$4437. ti4yw4c ilergov.no 1611" A14 John Pennell's attendance record as of his last re- appointment on 11 -19 -07 to the last Advisory Board Meeting of 12 -7 -09: 12 -10 -07 —JQhn Pennell was present 01 -15 -08 —John Pennell was present 02 -19 -08 —John Pennell was present , 03 -10 -08 —John Pennell was present No Meeting in April 2008 05 -12 -08 —John Pennell was absent The Advisory Board broke for the summer to reconvene in October 2008 10 -13 -08 —John Pennell was present 11 -17 -08 —John Pennell was present 12 -08 -08 —John Pennell was present 01 -12 -09 —John Pennell was present No Meeting in February 2009 03 -09 -09 —John Pennell was present The Meeting for April 13, 2009 was canceled 05 -18 -09 —John Pennell was present The Advisory Board broke for the summer to reconvene in October 2009 10 -19 -09 —John Pennell was present No Meeting in November 2009 12 -07 -09 —John Pennell was present John,Pennell only missed one meeting during his reappointment to the Advisory Board. Page 2 ' a»arfa--- �-- �:4� --5� n , 94 ric- -1, P_0. Reff 70 F WnWa. M 4�W.da Ut19 . 7148M_ 41T4 r FAY'MSLL1S.AW vww M5 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit 161 lIA151 RECEIVED APR 16 2010 Hoard of County Commissioners NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2010 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL HOLD A PUBLIC WORKSHOP MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34108. AGENDA Fiala Halas 1. Roll Call Hennir 2. Audience Participation Coyle Colette 3. Budget Calendar 4. Review FY 2010 Operations Forecasting and Projected Outline of FY 2011 Operating Budget 5. Discuss Capital Project Future Expenses 6. Discuss Monthly Financial Report. 7. Audience Comments 8. Adjourn ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION OFFICE AT (239) 597 -1749 AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: rj "'cries to: 16 1 AAL -, ,', Lnrw t 5 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 1 A Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit APR 16 Lui0 Board of C;oun y Commissioners NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES. / Fiala AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Roll Call 2. Wilson Miller Community Improvements Plan Update 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. January 26, 2010 Community Improvements Plan Joint Workshop b. February 1, 2010 Community Improvements Plan Town Hall c. February 3, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session d. February 9, 2010 Community Improvements Plan Joint Workshop e. February 12, 2010 Community Improvements Plan Joint Workshop 5. Audience Participation 6. Administrator's Report a. Independent Peer Review Update b. Clam Bay Maintenance Permit Update c. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairwoman's Report a. Administrator's Contract Renewal b. Announcements 8. Capital Projects a. South Berm Reconstruction 9. Community Issues 10. Committee Reports and /or Requests 11. Old Business 12. New Business 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 14. Audience Comments 15. Adjournment SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES Halas - -� Henning Coyle Coletta ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION OFFICE AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETURA daft) 597 -1749. Date: 2/26/2010 11:21:07 AM Item #: Ccpies to: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Uloard o c: oun y Commissiorsrs Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2010 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL HOLD A PUBLIC WORKSHOP MEETING ON MONDAY, MARCH 8 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34108. / AGENDA Fiala Halas 1. Roll Call Henning Coyle 2. Approval of February 10, 2010 Meeting Minutes Coletta 3. Audience Participation 4. Capital Projects/Reserve Funds 5. Clam Bay Projections 6. Audience Comments 7. Adjourn ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION OFFICE AT (239) 597 -1749 AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: '4"ies to: 161 . PELICAN SAY SERVICES DIVISION APR 16 2010 �91 9 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING ��lwa nr, and jenflt Unit j0 a!12_f COttn?I Cv� to I WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2010 THE PELICAN bAY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION; WEDNESDAY, APklL %, 2010 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 5960 HAMMOCK (TAP, DRIVE, NAPLES, / AGENDA Fiala The agenda includes, but is not limited: HaiaS 1. Roll Call Henning 2. Welcome New Members COyie 3. Wilson Miller Community Improvements Plan Update COietta 4. Agenda Approval 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. February 25, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop b. March 1, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Town Hall c. March 3, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session d. March 12, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop 6. Audience Participation 7. Administrator's Report a. Governance Introduction b. Independent Peer Review Draft Scope of Work Update c. Sidewalk and Paving Repairs Update d. Monthly Financial Report 8. Chairwoman's Report a. Announcements 9. Capital Projects 10. Community Issues a. Clam Bay Estuary System I. Dredging Permit Clarification (T. Raia) ii. Maintenance Permit Issues (J. Domenie, G. Gibson, M. Levy) 11. Committee Reports and /or Requests Budget Committee (M. Levy) a. County Guidelines for FY 11 Budget Including Wages, Benefits, and Indirect Costs b. Status of FY 10 Fund 111 Contribution to Clam Bay Fund 320 c. Request for full Board concurrence to transfer FY 10 Clam Bay funds of approximately $300K not needed currently from Fund 320 to Capital Improvements Fund 322; if not feasible; then in FY 11, not to add new funds until current excess depleted d. Request for full Board concurrence to transfer anticipated FY 10 carryforward of $245,600 to Capital Improvements Fund 322 e. Feedback on any discussion between Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Hoppensteadt regarding the Foundation picking up Community Improvement Plan costs associated with: L. Moving turn on Pelican Bay Boulevard to align with North Parking Lot ii. Adding three new mid -block crossings across Pelican Bay Boulevard to access Foundation resources, i.e., 12. Old Business Commons, Sandpiper tram and path to the berm south of St. Raphael 13. New Business 14. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 15. Audience Comments 16. Adjournment SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITEDTO THREE MINUTES ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES To APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, THEY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT r VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON PU THE PPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT /l SERVICES DIVISION OFFICE AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT (239) 597 -1749. 4 THE PELICAN BAY 4/1/201D 12.55:48 PM Date: Item #: Copies to: 16I 1N15i Executive Summary Pelican Bay Independent District Introduction Objective To provide a historical perspective of the original Pelican Bay Improvement District and current alternatives for independent district status. Considerations In the mid 1970's two noteworthy independent community improvement districts were created by the Florida Legislature. The Reddy Creek and Pelican Bay Improvement Districts were created and are now known as Walt Disney World and Pelican Bay, one of Florida's premier master planned communities. Today there are over 2000 special purpose government districts in Florida that provide a vast range of community services that include: fire, drainage, road and bridge operation, mosquito control, aviation, hospital and community development districts. In 1989 the Legislature adopted the Uniform Special District Accountability Act that established the provisions by which all districts are formed and operated. This act outlines the procedures for establishment, financial reporting, taxation, operations, and elections. Attached is a copy of the original Act that created the independent Pelican Bay Improvement District which became a dependent District under the Board of County Commissioners through a prescribed transition in 1987. A primary reason for the creation of the district was to construct and operate water and waste water facilities and provide higher levels of services for landscape maintenance and lighting. During a recent meeting with the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the County Manager they expressed a desire to explore a return to independent district status. April 7, 2010 Agenda Item 7a /ND Page 1 of 3 I - r 1611"A151 Advantages Special Purpose Districts are a subdivision of the State of Florida that afford a host of benefits that include the following: • A community focus on specific services authorized by law • Independently operate, maintain and finance all assets owned by the District • Directly elect representatives who govern the affairs of the District • Engage outside auditing for accounting records that are submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services and Auditor General Special District accountability and transparency are key components of the 1989 Act. Uniform standards have been created that require detailed financial reporting, enhanced citizen participation and oversight by the State. Home Rule and direct representation through local elections require candidates to qualify for office. While supervisors may be appointed, as is the case with the Immokalee Water and Sewer District, they are more often elected (North Naples Fire and Rescue) and must reside in the community. The required number of Supervisors under the Act is five. Creation / Purpose As part of the establishment process, a statement explaining why the special district is required must be developed in accordance with Florida's Growth Management Act. Specific powers of a special act include the following: • Ad valorem, taxation / millage limitations • Bond or debt issuance • Other revenue (assessment) collection requirements • Budget approval process • Liens / foreclosure • Election procedures • Administrative duties • Method of establishment and amendments to the Charter • Define essential services • Acquire by conveyance, deed or condemnation assets or interests to undertake works of the district • Sue or be sued Executive Summary: Pelkan Bay Independent Oisbict Introduction Page 2 of 3 April 7, 2010 Agenda Item 761ND 16111151 Oversight The Florida Department of Community Affairs, Department of Financial Services and the Comptroller General have financial oversight under the State's uniform financial reporting system. The district must follow the same fiscal year, chart of accounts and established accounting principles in the conduct of its business. All accounts are required to be audited annually by an outside auditing firm. An Annual Financial Report, Audit Report and Qualified Depositors Report are required for districts with revenues or expenditures in excess of $100,000. Timing Any effort to undertake the preparation of a bill to create an independent Pelican Bay District will require the approval of the Board of County Commissioners and support of the local Legislative delegation. Unless otherwise provided by law, any current district property and debt must be transferred to the new district. This would require a memorandum of understanding or inter -local agreement and inventory of those assets (streets, landscaping entry features, storm water facilities) to be transferred. It is anticipated that any independent district may require a straw ballot in addition to the election of supervisors. The straw ballot could be held as early as the general election scheduled for November 2010 and the bill would be prepared for submittal during the 2011 Legislative session. The board will need to determine if it is interested in exploring a memorandum of understanding and authorize the legal and staff resources necessary to move forward. In addition to the County Attorney's office Special Council should be explored with a background in special district establishment. Executive Summary: Pelican Bay Independent District Introduction Prepared By: Page 3 of 3 W. Neil Wrill, PBSD Administrator Apr# 7, 2010 Agenda Item 701ND 4a tm 1'. 1 1611A15} pgLICAN BAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ACT +• CHAPTER 74 -4b2. LA"m� us cwn.w., R�ytlY�yW 61 e ° N •ayrF �g e� " e fir •isCsl�}`e9'°' '' s ww.�'��'+yg�t ,it 2 .go WN i A •'; y. �i p •y. f� y� • (y � I at y'�T✓ .� a M A +9 � O G � >♦ r� 1i ` �,°`•�•+ � M � Y � �$ � ��� � ~ O � q � N ~ RAO ' �FI 1 .s f x �O x O �4 �y ':g �• ♦� � M + p M N•�i .��ri '��'rj . Nft q 8 J 3S� M "�� �� 8•i.•� �+w • � S ux �� �f'� � e Fef �i4.Y sr *� Sri .� A x Iw awwr� 3 °s � ws � s:ip�• �g 9ANSg` gMx MOXV GIs '�.. ..p •yvi!��w � + � p4 +_�lif/J3� C� ���M� y'�•O Y "" �� ��!! w^ N y■ �1 �L YA r C a r r� w Is � �C Is l,y�ii O r r�l t3� s �:s y. +y•geS Ms 7 T;' +t�H R �,'d "' ° e. eH pdi'c 7'$diw•1Cis il: i��•+'a R evv a s 3bq s a - � s It a Y e M Jp� O -3 y yO •jai ,y AV 3 8.1 • $ E o..X �LC`.:.•�•3•A �'rte y.a A.SA $� •3 = Jam. iW � • a q ►.EaI'�5�•�. °.• �Mi g$,eEf�i .�lsw ��.5 �� w Jy $,•a : oil j Z i •.w� rl it's, ygg ! • � °y ° 4 � �. �• �y yV� 9 �' � R iii Y '� � Y Y Y r' O M � +gg ` w �Y1 R' C w w � • p /C 'C •� s � � � '��} � w � igr � � � � � '• � � �s A a yi7 •• g• � r w W C .} 1 � • :31 A W � f. � .9a j Y •'_ � t � � p �7 M y� C. » yM ii � {:j • a'i Bi .^ig �[ • A O s� � Y f�' P � + w �e�� va�1�•� � •• �� w a.�� N� ��� Q ~�� �A ��QORp$1t'9 >�[F,� --1% Ca.-K 007 ralis EXHIBIT IIH" --1% Ca.-K 007 ralis EXHIBIT IIH" 16 1 X15 A's 1 i •C Cr MC`"i F a c ��.'gi A w Y j� x �j' '�' %4r} �" "i � ry � "• 9 O •�S Y � : � Q a + .� � .� « + r e �. G � .� '�. • . �O� ; �r '•g � �RC0.wt.��Yy �:~ a �� � f��� «i�jOw �� M� is"i iii—$ �.�•r�i�!� Ulim w �• let ..E a: ar -a E �Meo$�i o q C p r s a. b' w u •- a a V r C,FS' a ws$ w w �''� °tt a � c e A E � 9 F. ' a•�N,rr.77 ;!� y^' a wLri� �«O.�p� rts w �• r w•o E E °.-. a • O ', Y� 0 0 c� S1? R + M E'~ � ay' if $ ° qsN E A o r s ow'„ • .. �i vq .° `sue is • '� L � a �, q"r�. N M A C b K H .•. l Jj Oi mA w a p +� C Z p M• .. q N . A a� a � °N�� �;' � • � � �� 9 ��� �� w Ta ...a ,g nil O « e « ' A'E • C ° E A E b ° A oil $ o •� Y Y • , M M M Y o EEo =$•• IoM .�•°�E «�$ °�° P. a E. 3 •E�s iz v4o$•ppO•j =e°•� i C. �N$•. ,fi r Ala y . a« 90 °a`gEa�� ;$ a,� � ,fie i. Y • O w , - �!� • $ r�rgHs ,.M �E•'„� .,.ors •D� ; a�.�� all... '� vim' o r° "� v 6 v w • M �y • A • a �� � 0►.. ii � V 10 �� .��3w �►8� So8���3 ,L'�E��A�o�$sw�'i���1:. •� g 3�G� « . EXH181T' "H" r-2 FI I II 1'4. i'•�+ t.� r r I I I f w AI A� :z h aX .ti r 4�"JJJ A �Y 7yFO1• w Y��•a ag rx5� H 4. M f R V �•� 6 M Hij 2 =" s � cF� .'a, N f'• O N q 6 y 0 w Y Y �t •a AL x O V A � e Ls .4 H i 4w C i � Y V h p a 7 M O N him -41 3 ffli Y • C a i � M� �"f' w� f� C� ate. A,g• C� i M V ; • Y.O r�Iri .�vV� F -3 007 mcri20 1 11.. . Be a �. $E A151 ilia I oil g � O M ° M • 6 a O ills i • q " .a1 1 " O jj y N Y " sC f� "o iq A O K y ~ JI R � �•' f � �y � N !c Y F -3 007 mcri20 1 11.. . Be a �. $E A151 ilia I oil g � O M ° M • 6 a O ills i • q " .a1 1 " w � R r dfJ b hm i LN g i a.-Is �o ers a :. `o Ks 1 Ix Es `w 11! s v - n : a° o -3 . 13il. 1 ` °3 fioP f �� if 11 so I se A rY w $ o iy • � t n ss F Irk ba ��•$ e P aa $� '17� � � M A ,4 X32 R � ° «14121.4 _ j =m to 3 �x g 21, e .J�Rs;�aa�a � 14 Zs�ss�Ra�� H 4 a ° e j.. Y 1 e 161104A a tvil r ris p�A ° °,$' a Z a R �3 fill atoll..° s 3jb - e e a gX pp vl � S« M J h FFF •"• g M F -4 0:9 007 mccJ21• 15- a • L� �s �Sw S e y ° a° 3 Ulf 3g «� �3- NU !11 �e Y ad89 aC $ -0.8.01 1 fly 11-4 gill AII34 s a w lavlg EXHiS1Y ��Hn • . is a Y • I iv J2 2 11 i ! i i-611, 3-k its El 5 �3sxa MM 0. A s $� y �► o q a Y st- vs M : f A Y M • y O Y $ a, f ° s f � •ii MMY v YQQ y M R < nap HUI 41 we 1 40 as � .� s a � • r. •f � r G M 16 V �. A Y ° •� 131 1 a tt Y o ?i.� '• °' o rr ° M 4 4 -Q a'� •� a °� ���.!�$ a � t'� pq F7� , r' F -5 aou 047 race12Z 611 Al -Rolf Mist r I 09 111VI-J, �� a '. I all -%0 d x � a S s.� all. A C d J.dl , .2 eG'a o Y «4 Saa. 3� �� • va do I p Ia I EXHIBIT "H" Y {. Y Ie y 4•�• A • �.. �Oa $M y • ° ri I 3oiir�•'r���;�s. A q Y Ste•. R7 O Pi MA 4 to O �M �• O O 8 R' •� M t O M O y w a x ►� Y • G w S p Y' �• o� a�g w' O .s o gig' x a djj° c�Q � b r�°3 aRrS:.• r a $•BMgy ��YYu� Uit �' �•� f.! y '7' O O CH • y N w �� Y N° wi .Ia• i E a e�,Q C C MC a 1 Y '1 O � ~ is � .0. • 4 • � � �' G � � r{ Fi rra o Pi;e•,x� p NA C.8 •� i • .g x.41§4 a 9 Bit II. Y g q ".g !! •••yy °l'Sa 4 r.ii A w ii I F{�r A- Bg" I I !Ate! ?XB +rryy !, �Y ��� iiA11� �•� � Y Y V a 5 0 gg w •y� a � a�Ry�x ? • 's• •"A�sr '�d .'C q 0.W 3 'O $ ��r I •v a 15 1 Z 'i• a .sill l . S eM IL y Y ••�� �? 8 8 Fie" ai.�a «�'�'��� w�'���•8 ;- eo. . � ����g •� � g��g r3 «�aa� M ° �Q6,•g � O r 7• is ^Mg $ ria g +� 8 0 'S VO F�• « aor i..a �i a R o ho WAV • r a •tea • g 01.2 gig %R RIP F— 6 exx Q" ruE1�3 EXHIBIT son&, r A` .. I 11: 11m ! J v M � � � Wo 8g3.� `• �' .S • S � � t .�•° �ri''���' e 8 •Hatt'$ • Y • w .p 16 .p gas o��s ��€ •� q � A � � � w M � A ,a .'3 � .�•.. 'r7 O � R i� ,AY, Sow'9ms'�� 1611''1 gswSY p " s us M ,� � w•� w . a�'3 • Y �Y`y1 si p� 3$ � , 8 i •• � s ; A B L p s y m .0 sao. cot v S is IN L3 1114 it." . V M "Na; 0. M 44 0 -00 To s IN c Wit c � �iJYi ii wro�Ma • w C C 9 �� � � •� e q r o E O � "� o'C iii �' AAA per'. M O. Ybi. q y� �y+a h • 8 w3• �$ • � .�M• b ` w I ell: = M }a! 0 S _p • �. f� A r O .. •r� C Yi �. � C ' $ww F -7 X33 as a Y i yi p QQw � A O • C i M M s �8 HIM 1111111 w 4 1,91IS �w ill p y{ a Vila y"��•� o f•�yit Diu a w;; mss« a► all Ills P4 • M 'O Mq� � 4w • `� 11�0� p O� v �A EXHIBIT "H" s ry J _ ~ A ~ �S' 'C QA�•"•,ii• �� p$ °�i;R• saa EA�ii q °a r qp a. 1r a w 7 � M � A � �� A � �'p o •� O Y y O C ~ � L � �, w Q� � � � � ii w ��, � � 6 Y L .R A � � � M LI r � C O p ..� � •. � 4 � Off! � � •w� M 6 � ' g is 1', of fq .6r;� °, �•�� � rR1 °-. e K � ~ ~ s:! " app •� rs�� � s e � t 1L•.t• Y Ro��A�• pA �� '�•��. v �i 'e �v �Y q A.•.p. ° a� pwOfi '^•INgO�R ; �yS�ii �a •�at� � •' � • �j 4 C M °' N^ n {. 0 M rs N- �,r�g��gw8_w��� ail .3 °. @a:'� a $lea w00 ��4 s �4 "�VO g43YA 'p�p��1����i���A���j�y����ar �•� ��". �.y, �!'eii • K i; ' O M`° C O O R 6 A Y y• Y a wY ri Fi M i1 ir• K .p IN Y Y�i y eve Z .. o wJt'l Od- • `� � �j.A+i Y•� g Y pY go Y� � •�q} Rivas � ii. y"y R � �• N • Old - 86 4 .'� �}° ° :1 � owo � x « •C 4 i. w P1 � � � •� A .Z w � � � ^ � � � ° A M � �•G r'�"''� �..0 �Nr ti O. •�•w� O �. �:+r « Y O •� ° ~ 4 q � A as. `" ~3a'.�Fa °�•o'.9R'd4 «�' M9ew$ jw�'�R ���+�i 'e� _° ,'C � �t.ANy��ovA $ � �4��yO��.A..M »�c'pp4',�►•. =i ��� «•��w 1 � R €.8 e�gY aMrB'�.��r� ,'�,q d :9 o`' p V N C' ••$ C w ,$ ��s•w ei �,�q•5$ S•'� 'i s�� °� O a A //� w.•• N 4 O %I A.1.4 I' . C A Z 17 a q a' M 9 O G .�C• CY Y M � Q dale ��� '�•,,.�;'�� a 8� �.; r � �j q e si M • K V s r r a 0 A C �'• Y ~•O ~•w �' C i °i QV= F r p •�o"E"�v L�wc��Y��•vj °w ^H � • ' 3 all Ild YO 0. M O�gl' • s $ l a JIFw j Ts 816 -0 .6i so 06 $w8 � � q ! i• � g t� �� ��• � °�� F �'� a .r� �� «�f� �•�� �$ o �,3� iC� h Y • E * O q � � ��s yy,,�� F -8 EXHIBIT Nee t3,-,x .007 PxE125 I . l • • C�a 16114 Q •s �i YQ -1 1 y • d �! A 1t e �.i�����R ^ow Ca��r4�v�`� -P �'}pFi•;�'��t�����O.Y .�o � ".•�� ••AC n a 443 e w e jil q .� H R w ♦r M .� O F x w� a TT... o �••i � M� .3 M •+ �� � � r � A Ag " gem " °� a�� o��i, � E•� p�•� �jp R� °"M � Aw f p.�:�� � � � 1. �• � � Mme. ,�� �sYM•i Aj To a a 64 _ ` R ° $ X,� Ir• x'r w••ri » " z� aka C •$ r �; e 0.£�� �.�. '� A « ^ Y• fig•• qF�$ R C � Y� � � O� � �r� �X Y� �g�1 � Y'•� b. g +. a 'C w � b `.�° r i * , ►O $ 'v w '�! M � w '� R �' • .•i � '.t tre� k R iY� a 3t' R �1 3 � �. ,�.. ..sere a3•° e �y O a '�OOq Al 4 L vO O O 4..w•.o:: �I C� O w V� i. L � O 3 �M �3NN A a w�rr��• � Y J a� 'f ��R •ir�a i w;��YYO"�.�os.•gA8 Q • Y •�{g}} D 3a w3 D �► ►Q�ri • ev '� •Y LR w w C + .�. �MVCaE•$�'r'�" ,� MIA• �•� �..* =�� a er".�i • Mid a i • ".o i of eA R.-11 a iS oh 0 e•�6B�s,eBflo R 3 o 83 ° e liftw �9 e « - T A AP i '� r•.� F -9 J149M j,�3� atlas v w-- " ?. q� ga ul ilava v v WWI I ~Yb R O� •� N�A O S� aacK 007 pct 1�'6 EXHIBIT "H" 1la 1gg.�p.��x Ash cr E M 7��~ A O C M I• p 8 ■ .0 �i w O .O /l A :. R., e...g C A r1 'O R e . w� A e ��LL= s� w� ° 4 M M - e Cp�Qi�CY "Z•"'�o.��� Ila A• � W 2.2 M 91200— aM A a E» s • a�.�� Em all �js I yrRMSa� «C R 11 rO w..w. n K Y.pY w 33�y *OA w�� � • •egg y � • Y � � y� 8 �._� M O 1" O1M ON M jar ' r A 15' .• It I I A • 1 B wit!! M A SS ° E,..1 Vag H us • 4�� O MY �l �'rr Iis oil 3% a a -.1v ED I a 'r. 40 16 M6 Rjy � o X01' w N2 :r p o IM.BbL aiiyL��as.. O 'rjMIHJrM��Ys� sm] f q� A. P. raI rV sI F -14 007 PaW VIP °IaIAa2 CIA 1.4 fill � p a s � ° Iv OV'D .. s g Is a Ids 4 Ali] s EXHIBIT "Hl' .t i i i' R Alm •si YYE ( �r MIi�t! Rt •M� Y�gM �.� 'fix � ��-•;� �sg3 its a all 1 34 t �YP. M e y $ w 1b JAI 1,30 111E g w q 5F HI 9� u Rs �,�` �• Ma s8 7 .O A Y . ��A Y.° • .. i►Q; O �N 0. MM� • s a � rsv O 0. w � =s�M� Y s $ g � !t •8 . a. s s$� 12 Xic y a 843 :o y Y 3�.. ales a Zia 3��p� P �•8•� M C So y s %q •� 's I sq s a V gs �s. M R y " M fI w C , • 15 Vt 8 , it s V i. 0 � -a � Q��� 1s. r� M •.�a�Y J so .� E; T Y _ ail 6 }g a� M All' So as 8�r '� � 3�� � 3s4�'3•� e °� �•�� -sx� Alit. �°sa 12 a a 2 F -21 lou 007 rwir'8 . 2 111 g3 � a N " a .+ A a C I wE lit!"I.2 slu M Y i •.a A� C M� Inu 9 � Y °AOE$.,eqlg p I o « o O a .r O • 0 1611 ^A15� AIV Own, y � �]1 a 0111.04-11,:1 �;sr Y aa� M wt A.J e A f.ni���.s �C• �' e ° o A � •°� 9% ! «� y Y °agt�� A3 s� a �aLr� r a3 • a y�y".� all A4 " 1A a Div ff. C y. .�i a @. ° 4 • A ... ° 4EA a Jt�t,�� .. A °o s• 1; '�s�i� NN •2t !� A�; is will 3» a =' ae.o o + .F :: C� ��� �� n A"i3� a.b' o� � w� �.�.£ »1• A` 'a o.• �� C A ° .o ° 'di W IS 0 a � Y ',g Y ° M 1: « •4 .� Q � f�,� � �� ��� LiL� • Y Y ^ r► - It aq 4 • M M q .a $ A 1: s � x Y g ° lse >'g y i 1lgal • E N • a. iS < �� E � ,.S« yw o o � � a Qt w �� a ,�.°. � •�• A « w � E � i, ,� ,� � a pp � � p •� a L+ .. 3 8 » y� • .. •�' a� � .8 M�'a A ii M EyJ .• .� O O Q M R A� � ��'•�iq'�IC O O �c•�?v`� Vv�..�i� i���� F -12 EXH3 81 T "H" ��lQF',F`s��� 4, ..ILl�ai.��it,- w•`(�•: (1f7t4i�0 . r r r i F r: 11!111 Ile j!! v o ]!ga�ptj . r � O41i� Ila ; a A . . "�. IM�aAsYN•OO� "1i 9 Ire. ���a�.8nb•E.a�e ��� ��kyR aka kY �� k ^... w �� � A� v� •�i�j R • a T� M • �� s � N E . �• v a. S •E ,S.. • -5 0 lu z IiS s�B g1;�3tiM °r Y r Al ,�EY�e YAaae�ero •� a$ E C� • e N° X35 • _ o �o �'ra a �S ee � $•Eon E�Sw L wga- °ot».$ R aE E o�s�• '0 �• M qia �►fi A� Is A BCE F�' ».'fit • �, a9 a� '� o `• M� bA�E.��3a.�E�B��E�� •EB�s��` O O is S~ :� igi .G sa ��r a d O 4 MJ 4 4 2 O .y �• ��tl � .. �?ytL° a ��•� �° R rk 7'� a k oM 8 $•So 8 E.o a�rfL i soE a rE,�NA�Pr�E ��a �«':S wo�.�'aE�GOV 0..°a big g a � r � r N � l ^ w a k M a w 6 A 1 Ile V d�..RiA•�a� a N Zg M p e � s� wii M� ■�S O.�J M N g 4 SNaI! I 1!1A 11% p ° A i o a y e a ytl pp ti .O p PLO M 15 �' H1111i "T A se , V� v i.-2 All x Y � T� ill 17 ] s P..7 1j ;b1j I �.�i�MY R� A•� iAs•oao l�iiiyyaqq F -13 EXHIBIT "H" oxx 007 ,y 13jo 8 � y ive » y O ��+i ep•w � q� p r a a 5 s $ r w •j � Y �'� O QQ .0 av � ti t.Y F,O 0.Y I_ R. .�+•r � AAy ii y� O F r oe M �x X °�B•B�•�"�x5n Y A r s yyC N `LL o Y ro u•• ••Q• •- » Y y A •� ~ A� w� d e• b a�� • o� �� ail r1�3 w e •� y 12b so w • I }j a a a 5 4 7 g •� �i Y � Y i Y� b M8 •�3�5wC �`0�.,��� �i �� »IAA» i� ~Y� � d� E •�� e►AAO;'� � �E� � �a� Q d P. d A R..• �° °ro ~ Y x 4y4y4y 0 �.i N A is ° l �• e P. is V a A .2 'a ° Y val-p 1.2 Z 8173 &1 g 11 g a !! •. I m1 °; A.R. F -14 16 11 A 1 IflaI4111A C1 I P awraR� y yy F w M Y ^• ~ .0 Y It �,•� i' ~� OO. Ra4•j.' galw r pCIA p � • � V r Y x .tiYiiA�ii•�M.�M f�f"�� g�Ci �..R d O r O ro M y .i C !. M I 'S ... a s ` �g Bog r -• yO 161 «• =•�� Qq Ila i► •s L v » •�i O a o .. Y M » �� rs �3a acs 511 fi • R .ww� C O p C .i1 A��H p � 4 K JC nN is �'�hu I �» 32 >s�a� all �? yg w 's A •iii EXHIBIT 1 I � . O M iO Y • I_ x�a�wO �• w 'R H! ulaa!11111 _1 NZ sa A 3� IV r o" WL Y • ���ss 1.2 HIM = �. � ott� ��+ �.- 1 w ga,�•� � a~°eii °w�a .161 1 A 15 0 I's 0 $ 1- a w "pNp all �. 3 a $s' s g Is �•.sa� $ w ws� t M 4a r :. RgO�� y% wQr Y rr ^ .." y ■ 4g3 NIP 14E'Y or3 i� �' .'�• ro ro MIR 331 Y flail -b-to Y •O .� R w L� M � s 1i ro $� a S w � :=1,� it j -2 r. I wwar Ilia O A�i' y ~ .p q +h O !�8•' •�I v;i e R M - o R1 M g i' e� Vail 0 ON falls A8►.$A$.aii�93AR'�"o •+.any �} 4`+.�1 ` J�ti'♦ Z 1.,` �M f All ��Yp kill i e w �9 h M I ....._._.......F-15-- .....__._ EXHIBIT "H" I= 007 rAwlV �s Al 9 $L A v e •" r 4 ^� • a r w fRl V J,� y QqS 0. �'• L+ l�MCa 1~ a _o � Y y r •i7 Zi 43 t% f� e 6 _13 .16 f c d � o� ?w a 1 � 1 Y C C w I , Y a . r tr tai /� ���mayy_ .o Y Y ►•� � �, .R. !'C awn x � Y Ayy� M_Y r �• qq V~ 3 o a E o. a oj3a $ b o - " 3% a � a `oU,aEi a s�.li a 193 :3 �,•r�Y •Mw esA .sare >$ j• � gR 'Si � 4 M ,w �+ • �` a tea > gall pe A Y w v +�• M 1 •R� 9 • � $ 43 16 • �~ a w M q� • � � 4 • }� • a 4 ..w. v a R O ii o M K A +°1 A� 1. A1151 .11, is At " 2t g � c . ]111611111 , 51 0 �•7 Ers.� ° � A� ��°� �a��g a .E a L a Ag Alif $� $A 4 �• � �, a i, e���� fig► C y° R � s � � SZ 4 •a. •� P _ a y 1.2 w r r G r yr ¢ i N A '0 M Y r a O '� Y •g. a� R •ri •C •Ti e CO Ob •aTi� r�� a• ��� 6� � A�f�/�j r a�� � ak' a Sal • F a ra ] . -I r 4 C away «oM .°.•• `.! i $� 1611.5 a t Id Jam' r Y 4 8 41 .. F -16 63cx 007 rM133 w $a Z ae Y. �a A O A 4 r a • a p JI r "�t•g will!` 89- •fgX�� Ill I EXHIBIT "H" r r F, s vt PIZ Qs 0 7� Iva•� w Y c N yAQ6 O M A O va Iv V 1.j i►M� 1� p 1.^�la4C.'.��sF�. woo=Y•i j,1 • HM Nb R °1 ~ r •« - 4 Y .. a.oi�li sR4 ».sieoai M O v •. 9 0 � too, F-C w to ►. r 1A 15 �_: 1 01; 1.2 M i l IMP 04 a 1',245 aLk. pair R -3 'rot I 1211119.5 1 �Q a 14 V a �; e� go �• q Y e w y R o .. w 1 V w�` f �~ a� .' All So b. !1 4 ^ � � � °• '� � O y•y~M r • r � -'�07 � y � � .i��wjr � i�i � � • � � � � « ,�• e � � � � � �R Y Q 9 �g w •a 4� �i �,i O-qu s; w ° ° C it C r • dsi a F` a j w °Oi$s�� e a a $��i '. a �°$s►�.° e e o'g���fy s a � Nc¢ � � w Q S =i •. ' f� �"' ; U r�i r' O � > A � �; y � 9 � }w� � �r y M ..• 11, ►AOA 4. w �� w�M�? .A $ a aA� �.. I<.s - "� II• • gy�+ i f• �^r. i Siy�p a�• O a ..L y i O aA yR 4e it M r-17 EXHIBIT "W .. -- -..._ . _...__ _.. _.. .._._._-- _..._..___._.......... _. .._..._..._.._._._. -._._ __ —.. .._�.__ i 1611 ~A15"� C f C a Y M ,i a0 d ' ,4 qq4 y " w • S � wpA ppG P. .o i� G��� •� Lr .. .7A ■ ■G� � i � '8 ", E a j R .9 yqq , $► r � � $ $ $ w � '� "g p� � ',� � p w. � ° r a � � •�, 8 •'. A *° e 9 • s Y tl y o G it Ti . �. • A A M N G3„wr� ii • p .�i � � •�� e, �•�1•.� /L� �� �.� g� y�� rs � .� sells pg :4 W1191. $,•,s x C.a�G °.�°s sae "�•�.4� v ow es°iyo e3 Gr y A A X � Y My p fie. ;«•s W > s.�_ 8 8 $ 0 8,e � rs � a• a�13 G �e °A i� o �a.Gy� a y g -`�� �� i. rd a.. s O ° h .� 4 O L: N � � � � � ° d � � .� Y .�. •yy a �+ !! M lk ,r o 16 a 40 as A�AwM ° w H � F4t-. a rM..';� ►.; F -18 eocK : 007. rxa1'5 EXHIBIT 9#Hst Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 — Rev. 1 1611'4A159 Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, that an independent peer review, of the Clam Bay Water Circulation /Flushing Modeling Program and the Clam Bay System Data Collection Analysis Report recently completed by PBS &J be performed by a recognized expert. This expert, jointly selected by Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management, will be from an academic/university background and not directly involved with any consulting firm. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted early in the development of the flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort and any future phased peer review be split between the Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management. Consideration Development of a management plan for Clam Bay will involve a number of critical sciences not usually resident in one individual expert. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, coastal engineering, marine biology, modeling, geology and coastal management to name just a few. In addition, they must be knowledgeable with state rules and regulations to be successful. This must include involvement in issues related to FDEP's existing state water quality standards, the use of the Impaired Waters Rule (lWR), and experience with the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) program. These three issues — state water quality standards, the IWR, and the TMDL program — are absolutely critical. Familiarity with all three and the implications of such are the most important issue here. if they don't know about those three programs — then they're probably not right for the peer review process. Also critical to the success of this review would be a track record in managing estuaries of a similar nature in Southwest Florida and no prior history of involvement with our community. Consultants have been ruled out due to the competitive nature of the consulting business Stand alone academics although initially recommended, lack the array of technical expertise required along with the practical track record of managing estuaries in SW Florida. For these reasons, we have reconsidered this requirement. There are three national estuary programs in SW Florida that have the technical and practical expertise to evaluate our program, guide us and make recommendations. These programs are: • Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program run by Judy Ott • Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program run by Dr. Jay Leverone • Tampa Bay Estuary Program Run by Ed Sherwood em u « Received from JGM on 3/29/30 Page 1 of 2 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Each of these programs is separate and distinct from each other. They are EPA sponsored and have developed the science necessary to develop their estuary programs. They are not associated with Collier County and are usually funded by a combination of USEPA, FDEP, local Government and the WMD. Each of these programs has also developed biological, water and overall estuary health diagnostic studies in the management of their estuary. The added benefit of working with one of these programs is that only expenses, no fees or certainly reduced fees might be possible. In researching this topic two other individuals were highly recommended. They are: • Dr. Ernie Estevez a Estuarine Ecologists with Mott Marine and • Dr. Loren Coen, the Executive Director of Sanibel- Captiva Conservation Foundation Both this individuals do not run estuaries but have extensive experience in conservation issues within the SW Florida environment. Unfortunately, Dr. Estevez has elected not to participate with us because of the political dynamics involved. Considerable concern was expressed at the last Clam Bay subcommittee meeting held on 3/17/2010 by the Pelican Bay community if these programs and individuals have had an acquaintance and working relationship with Dr. Dave Tomasko and/or PBS &J. The Pelican Bay community is concerned that as a result of any relationship, objectively would be compromised. I can only indicate that since these are all nationally recognized programs and Dr. Tomasko is a nationally recognized expert, both are known to each other. Since we want the highest degree of expertise available, I can assure you that this will probably be the case with any experts that are selected. Since the PBSD will jointly select the peer review resources, I would expect that this would be discussed and resolved during the interview process. Activities to be performed during the Peer Review Process Two items were specifically identified to be performed during peer review. They are: 1. Review, analysis and critique of the Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBS &J. 2. Review, analysis and critique of the water circulationtflushing modeling program to be performed by PBS &J. Additionally, the selected is peer review individual/firm may be used to review and critique the development of the management plan f jointly agreed to by all parties concerned. Recommendation Staff and the Clam Bay subcommittee of the CAC are recommending that these individual along with those presented by the Pelican Bay Services Division be given the opportunity to submit credentials in response to a solicitation by the Collier County purchasing department. Only pre - identified candidates will be allowed to submit proposals for evaluation. Proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. Received from JGM on 3/29/10 j Page 2 of 2 A 15° 16I11A15'1 From: Neil Dorrill To: ResnickL: McCauahtrvMary Subject: FW: Answer to questions Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:30:36 PM Backup for item 7(c) for the April meeting. Neil From: gossard_t [mailto:TravisGossard @colliergov.net] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 3:51 PM To: Neil Dorrill Cc: BlancoAlexander; WrightTodd; Vlietlohn Subject: Answer to questions Hello Mr. Dorrill, Here is the info requested any question's please give me a call. 1. Q: When will Strand Blvd. be overlayed. A: Scheduled to be paved with in the next couple of weeks Better Roads has been issued the work order. 2. Q: What is scheduled for Lely Resort Blvd. reference the Micro Surfacing. A: The area was repaired and patched on several occasions the product did not perform as expected. We will continue to monitor the area and we will resurface as necessary per the Road Condition survey. Currently it is approx. five years out before any major overlay is scheduled. It could be sooner or longer than that depending on how fast it continues to deteriorate. 3. Q: When will the Myra lanco Blvd. Asphalt sidewalk be resurfaced by Seagate. A: There are some deficiencies on this sidewalk that are scheduled to be repaired. The area is not scheduled at this time for a complete overlay. We will continue to monitor and schedule for overlay at the earliest opportunity. Thanks Travis D. Gossard Sr. Superintendent Collier Countv !toad & Bridge Maintenance Dept. Phone 239 252 -8924 Fax 239 774 -6406 travicgosca a olli rgnv.net Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet March 31, 2410 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Total Liabilities $ 47,071.31 Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved 1,715,639.09 Excess Revenues (Expenditures) 306,898.52 Total Fund Balance 2,022,537.61 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ ?,069,608.92 16 11 °" A 15"1 Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments 2,069,608.92 Interest Receivable _ Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets $ 2,069,608.92 Total Assets $ 2,069,608.92 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Uabllities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 17,922.67 Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd 29,148.64_ Total Liabilities $ 47,071.31 Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved 1,715,639.09 Excess Revenues (Expenditures) 306,898.52 Total Fund Balance 2,022,537.61 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ ?,069,608.92 16 11 °" A 15"1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget Marcg 31, 2010 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Operating Revenues: Carryforward Special Assessment - Water Management Administration Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification Charges for Services Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support Indirect Cost Reimbursement Interdepartmental Payment Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage Trash and Garbage 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 Administration. Operating Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense Engineering Fees Flood Control Interdepartmental Payment Plan Review Service Utility Division Other Contractural Services Temporary Labor Telephone Postage Trash and Garbage Electricity Motor Pool Rental Charge Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Tree Triming Clothing and Uniforms Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Other Repairs and Maintenance Other Operating Supplies 16 11'' Al Budget Actual Variance (10,000.00) 20,198.74 $ 24,301.26 $ 742,500.00 $ 670,028.25 $ (72,471.75) 1,922,500.00 1,734,940.05 (187,559.95) 1,500.00 - (1,500.00) 40,500.00 6,141.48 (34,358.52) 2,697,000.00 2,411,109.78 (29S,B90.22) $ 44,500.00 $ 20,198.74 $ 24,301.26 18,300.00 - $ 18,300.00 4,100.00 2,050.00 2,050.00 117,600.00 58,800.00 58,800.00 16,600.00 - 16,600.00 21,300.00 7,050.00 14,250.00 4,100.00 1,328.38 2,771.62 3,000.00 41.20 2,958.80 - 1,081.40 (1,081.40) 13,400.00 7,800.32 5,599.68 1,300.00 650.00 650.00 2,300.00 250.00 2,050.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 4,261.57 2,067.07 2,194.50 11100.00 16718 932,82 255,861.57 101,484,29 154,377.28 148,600.00 71,871.37 76,728.63 12,000.00 - 12,000.00 22,500.00 - 22,500.00 21,100.00 5,719.00 15,381.0 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 11000.00 - 11000.00 42,400.00 21,578.10 20,821.90 500.00 216.24 283.76 - 272.00 (272.00) 8,300.00 4,646.79 3,653.21 - 47.60 (47,60) 2,600.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 3,600.00 1,800.00 11800.00 4,500.00 2,388.12 2,111.88 2,000.00 3,692.81 (1,692.81) 27,600.00 6,240.00 21,360.00 11900,00 2,575.29 (675.29) 500.00 - 50000 98,400.00 37,405.26 60,994.74 1,500.00 1,091.00 409.00 2,500.00 2,754,90 (254.90) Water Management Administration Other Machinery and Equipment 1,000.00 _ 1,000.00 Total Water Management Administration Capital 11000.00 _ 1,000.00 Water Management Field Operations General Improvements 13,200.00 8,232,00 4,968.00 1611 'A151- Total Water Management Field Operations Operating 403,000.00 163,598.48 239,401.52 Right of Way Beautification Payroll Expense White Goods 45,600.00 20,646.63 24,953.37 IT Direct Client Support 16,900,00 - 16,900.00 Other Contractural Services 4,200.00 2,100.00 2,100.00 Telephone 28,000.00 7,562.00 20,438.00 Postage 31900.00 1,328.38 2,571.62 Rent Buildings and Equipment 3,000.00 12.40 2,987.60 Insurance - General 13,800.00 8,026.00 5,774.00 Printing, Binding and Copying 500.00 250.00 250.00 Clerk's Recording 2,600.00 2,6 00.00 Advertising 2,000.00. - 2,600.00 Office Supplies General 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 Training and Education 4,774.26 2,112.75 2,661.51 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating 128,774.2 42,038.16 86,736.10 _ Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense White Goods 806,700.00 365,391.94 441,308.06 Flood Control 3, 00 300. - 3,300.00 �' Pest Control 130,400.00 83,034.39 47,365.61 Other Contractural Services 6,500.00 _ 6,500.00 Temporary Labor 29,500.00 18,508.52 10,991.48 Travel Professional Development 211,800.00 429.02 89,259 122,370.98 Telephone 00 (259.00) Trash and Garbage 3,800.00 1,564.62 2,235.38 Water and Sewer 24,900.00 8,922.03 15,977.97 Electricity Rent Equipment 3,400.00 1,504.57 1,895.43 Motor Pool Rental Charge 81500.00 2,961.06 5,538.94 Insurance - General 800.00 216. 00 584.00 Insurance - Auto 12,200.00 6,100.00 6,100.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 9,300.00 4,650.00 4,650.00 Fuel and Lubricants 29,400.00 13,469.40 15,930.60 Licenses and Permits 47,100.00 14,761.78 32,338.22 Tree Triming 8W.00 25; 000.00 339.78 460.22 Clothing and Uniforms 31,095.00 (6,095.00) Personal Safety Equipment 12,000.00 2,900.89 9,099.11 Fertilizer and Herbicides 3,000.00 2, 12 151. 848.88 Landscape Maintenance 58,500.00 35,399.96 23,100.04 Sprinkler Maintenance 60,200.00 39,739.40 20,460.60 60.60 Painting Supplies 30000 , 8,470.57 21,529.43 Traffic Signs 11500.00 - 1,500.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 530.00 2,470.00 Other Operating Supplies 3,000 � 1,861.37 1,138.63 11,500.00 11,369.19 130.81 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating 1,536,100.00 744,629.61 791,470.39 Total Operating Expenditures 2,323,735.83 1,051,750.54 1,271,985.29 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Administration Other Machinery and Equipment 1,000.00 _ 1,000.00 Total Water Management Administration Capital 11000.00 _ 1,000.00 Water Management Field Operations General Improvements 13,200.00 8,232,00 4,968.00 1611 1 A 1'5 Total Water Management Field Operations Capital 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 Right of Way Beautification Other Machinery and Equipment 11000.00 - 1,000.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Capital 1,000.00 - 11000.00 Right of Way Beautification - Field Building Improvements 13,600.00 8,481.00 51119.00 Autos and Trucks 26,000.00 25,462.00 538.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 24,000.00 17,786.89 6,213.11 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital 63,600.00 51,729.89 11,870.11 Total Capital Expenditures 78,800.00 59,961.89 18,838.11 Total Expenditures 2,402,535.83 1,111,712.43 1,290,823.40 Operating Profit/(loss) 294,464.17 1,299,397.35 1,004,933.18 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Tax Collector Fees (82,500.00) (48,099.30) 34,400.70 Property Appraiser Fees (75,200.00) (39,949.91) 35,250.09 Revenue Reserve (140,000.00) - 140,000.00 Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditures, net (297,700.00) (88,049.21) 209,650.79 Net Profit/(Loss) (3,235.83) 1,211,348.14 1,214,583.97 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet March 31, 2010 Street lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Assets $ 295,817.36 $ 295,817.36 $ 295,817.36 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 8;280.09 $ 8,280.09 314,193.43 (26,656.16) 287,537.27 $ 295,817.36 1611 "A15 Operating Revenues: Carryforward Curent Ad Valorem Tax Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: - Street lighting Administration Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage Rent Buildings and Equipment Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies 1611A151 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget March 31, 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Budget Actual Variance (300.00) $ 285,700.00 $ 264,395.24 $ (21,304.76) 4,600.00 857.94 (3,742.06) 290A00.00 265,253.18 (25,046.82) $ 33,900.00 $ 14,871.62 $ 19,028.38 19,800.00 - $ 19,800.00 4,100.00 2,050.00 2,050.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 - 20,800.00 7,050.00 13,750.00 4,100.00 963.62 3,136.38 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 13,400.00 7,577.37 5,822.63 400.00 200.00 200.00 2,261.57 1,761.57 500.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 12,400.00 3,571.93 8,828.07 Total Street Lighting Administration Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense White Goods Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast U18,461.57 41,174.1.8 67,287.39 54,000.00 24,280.91 29,719.09 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 2,300.00 108.12 2,191.88 44,200.00 17,633.32 26,566.68 800.00 400.00 400.00 11100.00 550.00 550.00 1,300.00 2,349.92 (1,049.92) 900.00 288.17 611.83 200.00 - 200.00 500.00 - 500.00 7,300.00 - 7,300.00 12,400.00 3,571.93 8,828.07 Total Street Lighting Field Operations Operati 139,500.00 49,182.37 90,317.63 ! I I Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Other Machinery and Equipment Total Street Lighting Administration Capital Street Lighting Field Operations General Improvements Total Street Lighting Field Operations Capital - Total Capital Expenditures Total All Expenditures Operating Profit/(Loss) Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Tax Collector Fees (81800.00) (5,314.18) 3,485.82 Property Appraiser Fees (5,800.00) (1,139.90) 4,660.10 Revenue Reserve (15,000.00) - 15,000.00 (29,6W.00) (6,454.08) 23,145.92 1611 1 415 247,961.57 90,356.55 157,605.02 11000.00 - 11000.00 11000.00 - 1,000.00 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 14,200.00 8,232.00 5,968.00 262,16L57 98,588.55 163,573.02 27,838.43 166,664.63 138,826.20 Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expendift Net Profit /(Loss) (1,761.57) 160,210.55 174,051.37 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable 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 March 31, 2010 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 495,868.71 495,868.71 $ 495,868.71 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 9,264.50 9,264.50 392,850.20 93,754.01 486,604.21 $ 495,868.71 1611 "A15' 1 � � 1611'' A1' Gam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Total Clam Bay Ecosystem Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures Total Revenue /(Expenditures) Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Reserve Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditu Net Profit /(Loss) 25,000.00 21,725.00 3,275.00 350,000.6 ,0 - 350,000.00 375.000.00 21,725.00 353,275.00 545,000.00 34,234.50 510,765.50 10,700.00 94,834.29 937,396.71 (3,200.00) (1,844.49) 1,355.51 (2,100.00) (1,535.04) 564.96 (5,400.00) - 5,400.00 (10,700.00) (3,379.53) 91,454.76 7,320.47 944,717.18 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget March 31, 2009 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) FY 2010 Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 350,900.00 $ (350,900.00) Special Assessment 102,400.00 92,224.42 (10,175.58) Fund 111 102,400.00 35,000.00 (67,400.00) Interest 1,844.37 1,844.37 Total Operating Revenues 555,700.00 129,068.79 (426,631.21) Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 83,100.00 $ 6,180.00 $ 76,920.00 Flood Control Other Contractural Services _ 83,500.00 - $ 6,240.00 _ 77,260.00 Post /Freight _ Other Equipment Repairs 500.00 89.50 410.50 Minor Operating 2,400.00 - 2,400.00 Other Operating Supplies 500.00 - 500.00 Total Clam Bay Restoration 170,000.00 12,509.50 157,490.50 Gam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Total Clam Bay Ecosystem Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures Total Revenue /(Expenditures) Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Reserve Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditu Net Profit /(Loss) 25,000.00 21,725.00 3,275.00 350,000.6 ,0 - 350,000.00 375.000.00 21,725.00 353,275.00 545,000.00 34,234.50 510,765.50 10,700.00 94,834.29 937,396.71 (3,200.00) (1,844.49) 1,355.51 (2,100.00) (1,535.04) 564.96 (5,400.00) - 5,400.00 (10,700.00) (3,379.53) 91,454.76 7,320.47 944,717.18 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 1611A151 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet March 31, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets $ 2,063,671.08 .2,063,671.08 $ 2,063,671.08 Liabilities and Fund Balance 21,723.59 21,723.59 1,030,261.41 1,011,686.08 2,041,947.49 $ 2,063,671.08 Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues - Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees Interdept. Payment Other Contractural Services Licenses and Permits Total Irrigation & Landscaping 1611 A 151, Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget March 31, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) FY 2010 Budget Actual Variance Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Transfer from Fund 109 Transfer from Fund 778 Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditures, Net Profit/(Loss) $ 2,029,500.00 55,900.00 50,443.18 (5,456.82) 19,800.00 9,203.60 (10,596.40) 2,105,200.00 $ 175,000.00 $ 1,924,500.00 59,646.78 (16,053.22) 22,175.95 $ 152,824.05 112,250.08 1,812,249.92 237.85 (237.85) 2, 099,500.00 134,663.88 1,964,836.12 (1,700:00) (1,008.92) 691.08 (1,100.00) (837.97) 262.03 (2,900.00) - 2,900.00 (5.7011 W) (1.846.89) 3,853.11 (76,863.99) (76,863.99) Pelican Bay Services Division PROPOSED HICal fear 2011 Operating Budget General Funds 1611 A15q Funds water Community sheet Clam Bay Capital Total Revenue AUlagement Beautification Lights system Projects All Funds Canyforward Incwnbered Capital Carryforward $189,838 � $499,965 $87,788 $301,844 $217,700 $1,297,135 Interest Income $3,200 36 $8,600 so $1,200 $5,400 $2,116,639 $2,122,039 Plan Review Fee Income $1,500 $6 $0 $1,700 $7,700 $22,400 Interfund Transfers (Fund 111) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Assessment or Advalorem Tax Levy 5723,900 $1,934,200 $271 500 $35,000 $35 000 $0 $35,000 Total Revenue $918 438 44 765 488 $379,944 $131 300 $3,095,900 Appropriations Projections 473,339 $6 573 974 Personal Services $175,500 $872,600 $104,100 3 Administration: $1,152,200 Indirect Cost Reimbursements $108,200 $0 56,300 Other Contractual Services . $21,300 $28,000 $20,800 $114,500 Telephone - Service Contracts 5600 S" 3600 $70,100 Telephone - Direct Line $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $1,600 Postage, Freight & Ups $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 w $10,500 Rent - Buildings $11,100 $11,400 $11,100 $8,000 Rent - Equipment $2,500 $2,600 $2,500 $33,600 Insurance - General $17,900 $500 $400 $7,600 Ltforutation Tech Automation Allocation $4,I00 $4,200 $4,I00 $18,800 Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors $2,300 $2,600 $0 $12,400 Legal Advertising $2,000 $2,000 $4,900 Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. 52,000 $2,000 50 $4°000 Office Supplies - General $2,500 $3,000 �so $4,000 Other Training & Educational Exp. $1,100 $1,500 $6'300 Other Operating Supplies $1,000 $2,600 White Goods - Additional $18,300 $16,900 so $1,000 Vield Services: $35,200 Engineering 5$1,500 50 562,100 Plan Review Fees $0 $$1,100 Electrical Contractors 54 SO $7300 $1,500 Other Contractual Services $1,000 $29,500 $1,500 $83,500 $7,300 Pest Control Sa $5,000 S115,500 Tree Tramming $30,000 $35,900 $0 so $5,000 Temporary Labor $42,400 $204,500 so $65,900 Berm & Swale Maintenance $14,000 $0 p $246,900 Water Use Charges $0 $83,800 $0 $14,000 Replanting Program $8,500 $51,600 $83,800 CelluarTelophones/Radios $500 $3,200 55$0 $60,100 Trash & Dumpster Fees S8,300 $24 $0 $4,200 Water Quality Testing 522,E SO so $33,200 Insurance - Vehicles $900 399116 "W 522,600 Insurance - General $2,400 $9,000 5800 $11,700 Electricity $0 $3,400 $44,200 S12,200 Fertilizers, Herbicides, Chem $98,400 $62,000 $0 $47,600 Sptinider System Maint $0 530,000 So $160,400 Mulch Requirements SO $G0,200 $1i 530,000 Equipment Rental $0 $5,500 Wo x•200 Licenses and Permits $0 5800 $0 $5,500 Repairs & Maintenance & Fuel $9,400 $66,100 $1,700 Slim Minor Operating Supplies $0 $3 600 $5(10 $77,700 EOdi mployee orStsP $1,100 $9,400 $0 �' $5,400 $2,5011 $11,500 $10,500 Light, Bulb and Ballast $0 $0 $12,400 5500 $14,500 Personal Safety Equipment $500 $3,000 $500 $12,400 Paint supplies $0 $900 50 $4,000 Traffic Signs so $3 $800 White Goods - Additional $D $3,� $3,300 $3,000 Capital Outlay $14,200 $55,600 $14,200 $6,600 Rolled Capital Projects/Reserves $343,000 $430,000 Clam Bay Project Hardscape Imp. Project $5,400 $5,400 Lake Bank Imp. Project $2,093,863 $2,093,963 Contingency Reserve $157,113 54 03,815 SW,299 522776 $22,776 Equipment Reserve $32,725 592,150 $27,500 $220;944 5�3� Other Charges/Fees Tax Collector Property Appraiser $22,400 $22,000 $59,800 $53,100 $8,400 $1,100 $4,100 $95,800 Revenue Reserve $39.100 $101,800 55,500 $14 300 �� 52,700 $84,000 Total Appropriations 591 438 5 44 765 $ 498 $1 800 900 $1 900 $37 944 S 473 339 $6 573 974 ulvalent Residential Unit's: 7617.29 7617.29 Projected Rate: ERU or MNhtge 595.034 $253.922 0.0931 761 7.29 7617.29 7617.29 Projected Total Rate: ERU or Millage X8.96 $4.54 $17.24 Actual Rate (FY 2010) $34986 0.053! 000001 $370.79 Actual Dollar/Millage Change { i.�.9fr, 0.00002 0. $20.78 $3$0.65 $1.05 506% $0.15 0.04% -O a N M N O pd C C O m c _u d o. 1611A15 �'1 H N N W y� W W W W y im 1n y y h V N u N N N OJ y } } } } O O O u a` 0. a C C c c c c E- ° E Em c mai C E m :° O M 3 > N n O 0 E O N N Y N em-� C 'O E N Q W vWi H E co m N N u N U W W\ u 7 N\ U C CL m rn W 2 v g CU Q c r2 d j 672 0 0) E 'a 0 o `° ° v x of v c° n E a r y v CL u u y c a a L c of °° m y w c L \ E a E m 00/0 v Y° o m£ o C v '.0 o\ m 3 m e .� v.1 'o ° u ° c° +3 3 c °0 c°i L' a v m c +0/ v 5 a c r0 u" W c° W v o o c E v 3 0 .. `�-' v of o o v° Q m E m c °° Q ^ �• m° o O !� O' N C u O W 3 N ry O 9 d L O •� W+ O O c c a+ t W m W \ .I � N OO E W ° c C d V O�> .m �Q O c o g o 0 o W c u v U H C E an E v r a y W = Q 05 a o 0 o v o W W c � ° £ E °� u �n v ri u c u $ v u u a t o m oo N > W YO 0>i N 3 +L+ ° C W 'O ` f��pp N 7 N `W �l O. Z. CC O C ai C CL c m a`+ m r ° 0 C �, R' >_ ° ° w LL u E a `�° c W ., m C C N •O 0 c O O ..O d ._ :_^ m U 0 N :^ O amp W C C E C m C �+ W L N N W Q 0! N c W E m c O ei W um--� a -gi W r+ Ji W E 3 " a�i d 'O Qv Ea as •i a Q `—° ami O O ca ei O\ L-0 O T Q E X bd y `1 y C m; Y .O N 00 C W C W !_n T m > 'a'' y� O tJ N d, �+ m 0 Y d YO H .�- W E p '� cm G CO c m .LL N S W « u O N .� a p E 3 N E u— 3 y m 'O ,V W C Q! E O °� 0—ai � am-� Q •O m N t' 3 C W C i Q y aD t 4 m to m L O W C a. N O OC m E E> m C 2 O N W° m v. E _C Q^ W S m W C m E J a m m`y f0 ?• o d LL m �' W m t7 L `1 �% U a°+ g a C u p C7 a 0 in [a° 3 N\ 72 m 00 C 0 E u E m d m Y .° r aL. >i 03 u - W m+-'L m O Ovi C W �� 2 .c 0 c y c rwv o i m Y r+ 0� W e0 W W y 0 a E o�,0- 3 0 9 « E m .••r v 3 c d c moat/ \ S E w o> W 0°i E° c 3 m o u W m o 3 a E o m H° i W a v d v W .2 m N W c O y ai N O G w m t9 '�.. W .. 00 W c d W W O Q O a ` m 0. �. T oC m W 3 E Y 1 C w U m C E ° E° W E 00 a m a `a 0 3u Oc E E °uo v m o zz >? o E c c y N o Y Y ooa?i u° p a Qam �°,�m z �t°> > z zz z H 00 O z J Y J Y J Y J Y J \ S` 0 Z Y 0 Y z \ 2 z °z °z z °z g z g a m �° Z 'u u W w c`' m a W E E m `o c c s u «� E w a `T0 m U > w W -O c0 m m m Q O m rn 8 N y O1 W _ Yc'i m pc 0 u O o a N cn ;; C vWi v m 00 C C C W w 3 N S 11 `•' W N W W a.+ N C7 N y W O W +' L n aT. C L oZi N y ii L 3 m C O a W u> 3 o u N 7E > N y 3 �+ v 'o `° ONi 0 CQi C C c O W uNi •� O' N eco l7 eI C •N O O. 00 O 00 06 O O U U C C O C .-f m m W no O CL W a0+ O i m m m N a+ -o d N ++ L W u 'u W c m C -o C _ to U N a cp o W i' m a+ v W m u VI m m U 0 C 3 d m u H C C a+ O 44 U O „V, W L L J N m m m t ', O vi O L C n — a+ O OEi o 3 in o u 0 w` - c m m .m m ^ °c 0ci v W z d o °_ ° c ro W o u ° W - 3 g c e Y c O 40 m 3 m W o u d «— o 3 o E W 3 tm.1 m C G Q U Y C N L= Y W N C C 0 3 N ;a ~• y«�pp m E ti m U °+ U E c L W n>i !?�-+ W N E �_ > U c m W c U -1 C m _ U W OC W C O •O W +' m V ate+ C O d i/ V c m c m V N x H W d m LL ii li 6 60 0 'O O1 Ol G1 O 01 y T y �'1 H N N Resnidd Subject: Clam Bay Fhuhing Channel Maintenance Attechmom S: imagewlbg From: Tim Hall ( mailto :tim@turrell- associates.com] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 9:09 AM To: ResnickL Subject: FW: Clam Bay Flushing Channel Maintenance This is the confirmation from DEP that my memo to the Board regarding permitting for the flushing channels and my meeting with DEP was accurate. Regards, Tim Hall Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Marine & Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Ste. B. Naples, FL. 34135 -3732 Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 Web: www.turrell- associates.com — Original Message — From: Iglehart, Jon [ mailto :Jon.lelehart@dep.state.fl.usl Sent: Thursday, April 01, 201012:04 PM To: Tim Hall; Blair, Lucy; Gillen, Elizabeth Subject: RE: Clam Bay Flushing Channel Maintenance Tim, AM in agreement right up to the point where it is said... you never know what DEP... Perhaps something along the lines of "Although we covered the basics of an application review at our pre - application meeting, it is possible that additional issues may arise once DEP staff have the opportunity to evaluate an application. In order to avoid time consuming, and sometimes costly back and forth written communication to determine general understanding, our Firm will schedule meetings for the application submittal and subsequent requests for information if necessary. DEP committed to these communication efforts. Although the ACOE was mentioned, DEP does not have say in their process." Tks, Jon The Department of Environmental Protection values your feedback as a customer. DEP Secretary Michael W. Sole is committed to continuously assessing and improving the level and quality of services provided to you. Please take a few minutes to comment on the quality of service you received. Simply click on this link to the DEP Customer Survey <http: / /survev.dep. state. fl us / ?refemail= Jon.lelehart(a�dea state fl p. Thank you in advance for completing the survey. From: Tim Hall Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 9:23 AM To: Blair, Lucy; Gillen, Elizabeth Cc: Iglehart, Jon Subject: Clam Bay Flushing Channel Maintenance Lucy or Liz, Attached is a partial memo that I wrote to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board after our meeting regarding this project. The Board asked for me to, if possible, get your concurrence that what I am stating in the memo is an accurate representation of the discussion we had. An e-mail response would be sufficient. Thanks in advance for you time and please give me a call if you have any questions or concerns. Regards, Tim Hall Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Marine & Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL. 341043732 Phone: (239) 643 -0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 Web: www.turrell - associates.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, WORK PRODUCTAND /OR EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT (OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT), YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONING US (COLLECT) AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE AT OUR EXPENSE. 1 Of 1 4/7/2010 8:12 AM by LR CAC January 14, 2010 VIII -5d New Business 1 of, 16 11 A 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Review and approve the approach and timing for Clam Bay Peer review. OBJECTIVE: For the CAC to approve the approach and timing for Clam Bay Peer review. CONSIDERATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved peer review for the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report along with the modeling program at the December 18, 2009 BCC meeting. Selection of the review was to be a recognized expert in coastal system and water quality from academicia with no ties to consulting or Collier County. This individual was also to be jointly approved by the Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management with the PBSD contributing half of the cost of the review. A total of $13,000 has been approved by the BCC for Coastal Zone Management to spend on this peer review. Additional funds may be available if navigational markers are not installed this year and monies can.:be reallocated by approving boards. With PBSD matching funds, $26,000 at a minimum is available for peer review. The following approach to peer review is outlined for consideration: 9. Develop scope of work for peer review JGM 1/21 /2010 2. Review /approve scope/Approach CAC 2/11/2010 3. Letter of Interest Solicitation through County Purchasing 3/1/2010 Purchasing 4. Select peer review individual CZM/PBSD 3/11/2010 5. Award contract Purchasing 14/1/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is recommending approval of this item. FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from unincorporated Collier County Tax Fund 111. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There are no Growth Management Impacts resulting from this study. LEGAL CONSITIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: For the CAC to approve the approach and timing for Clam Bay Peer Review outlined in this Executive Summary. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, CZM Director • Statement m Findings Number: (CM00017V Conversion services provided by: —MCC V, • The Information and Image Managers 1925 -A NW Second Street Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 372-6039 - Fax -. (352)378 -6039 On -line: www.micrographiesinc.com 16-J, 1'h 151 _ t71 C �4r C �•r _LL _ �C E N N _ .514 VA M� gytiw�t�p UQnvEvS � %,fie Paso n►«�:,J 0 CESAJ -RD -WF APPLICATION No. 199602789(IP -CC) MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 1611 SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Finding for Above- Numbered Permit Application 1. Applicant: Collier County, Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 2. Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project Description, Changes to Project: a. Location: The proposed work is located in Clam Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, Sections 4, 5, 8, 91 32, 33, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. b. Existing Site Conditions: The Clam Bay system consists of three primary bays; Outer Clam Bay, Inner Clam Bay and Upper Clam Bay, and Clam Pass Inlet. The three bays are connected by a series of tidal creeks and all receive runoff from adjacent upland and wetland areas. Outer Clam Bay, the largest of the three bays, connects to an inner channel that connects to the Gulf of Mexico by way of Clam Pass. Typically, wherever coastlines are protected from the direct action of waves, the area between tides (intertidal zone) - supports wetland vegetation. In Clam Bay, the intertidal community is the mangrove forest. The mangrove forest at Clam Bay is structured and behaves as expected for a mangrove forest of the type found in the coastal regions of South Florida. Three species of mangroves are found in Clam Bay: red mangrove (Rhizophaora mangle) , white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), and black mangrove (Avicennia germinans). Clam Bay contains approximately 575 acres of jurisdictional area, which consist of 443 acres of mangroves, 124 acres of open water bays and channels, 1 acre of cattail marsh, and approximately 7 acres of seagrasses. The Clam Bay system is bounded on the north by Vanderbilt Beach Road, to the south by Seagate Drive, to the east by the Pelican Bay Development and to the west by the Gulf of Mexico. The development of Pelican Bay had a limited impact on the wetlands themselves (approximately 78 acres located in the Statement of Findings Page 1 May 14, 1998 A 15' "1 0 1611gy154 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application northwestern corner of the property) leaving the mangrove forest intact and preserved around the bay. Clam Bay is now designated a Natural Resource Protection Area by Collier County. Tidal range is restricted throughout the Clam Bay system. Clam Pass is a small, marginally stable inlet that has migrated north and south along the shore over the years. Historically, the bay was open to the north through Vanderbilt Lagoon and to the south by Venetian Bay. However, the northern connection was blocked by the construction of Vanderbilt Beach Road in the 1950's, and the southern connection was blocked by the construction of Seagate Drive in the 1960's. In 1976, three culverts were installed under Seagate Drive to reconnect Venetian Bay to Clam Bay. Currently, those culvert have deteriorated and resulted in a limited flow capacity. The Pass remains the primary source of tidal exchange for the Clam Bay system, but it is restricted by sediment deposits just inside the pass and along meandering tidal creeks surrounded by mangrove forest. The smaller embayments located primarily to the north of the pass are not subject to normal tidal exchange except during exceptionally high tides. The drainage basin for Clam Bay encompasses approximately 3,000 acres, of which, 2,000 acres have been developed. The development landward of the mangroves required a stormwater management system which was designed to and does spread runoff along the eastern edge of the Clam Bay estuary. Runoff into the bay occurs at the extreme northwest end of the system and continuously along the eastern edge of Clam Bay. A berm separates the developed portion of Pelican Bay from the estuary lying to the west of the development, but numerous culverts through the berm discharge water to a swale system along the eastern perimeter of Clam Bay. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), a 1978 study conducted by Tropical BioIndustries Co. and Gee and Jenson indicted that approximately 8.8 acres of black mangroves in the interior of the system had died. In 1992, an area of dead black mangroves was discovered west of Upper Clam Bay. Subsequent investigations of the mortality did not reveal the cause and red and white mangroves were seemingly unaffected by the die -off. However, excessive inundation of the pneumatophores of the black mangroves has been linked to tree mortality (Scholander, 1955; Mckee, 1993 & 1995). According to the Pelican Bay Services Division, in the early 1990's and in 1995, the majority of the black mangrove within the Upper Clam Bay had been affected by stagnant high water levels completely submerging the pneumatophores Statement of Findings Page 2 May 14, 1998 s 1611'A1 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application for 2 to 4 weeks. In 1995, significantly larger areas of mangroves (inclusive of red mangroves and some white mangroves) were dying and as of April 1996 the acreage of dead mangroves within the Clam Bay system was approximately 50 acres. In response to this die -off a number of interrelated initiatives were undertaken by both the public and private sectors in an attempt to determine the cause of the die -off, slow the die -off, and to initiate limited restoration. As a result of these initiatives a variety of related permit applications were prepared by WCI Communities, L.P., Pelican Bay Service Division, and Collier County. Department of the Army (DA) Permit 199501027(LP -CC) issued on April 3, 1996, authorized the excavation of 9,200 cubic yards of shoaled sand from Clam Pass Inlet to restore flushing to Clam Bay. This permit was sequentially reissued in March 1997 and 1998. DA Permit 199601979(LP -CC) issued on June 26, 1996, authorized the manual excavation for the re- opening of 1312 linear feet of main tidal channels within Upper Clam Bay. DA Permit 199602789(LP -CC) issued on January 28, 1997, authorized the placement of two portable hydraulic dewatering pumps and associated piping for emergency dewatering of the Bay. Q. Initial Project Description: Over the past several years, approximately fifty acres of mangroves located primarily in Upper Clam Bay have died. Collier County created a Mangrove Task Force to investigate the die -off and to develop an action plan. The proposed Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan is part of a program to stop the expansion of the mangrove die -off areas and eventually reverse the process and restore the dead mangrove areas. The applicant proposes the following -'as principal elements and benefits of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (Plan): 1. Installing a tidal flap gate system linking venetian Bay with outer Clam Bay, thereby increasing the turnover of water in outer Clam Bay. This is proposed to improve water quality for the benefit of the extensive seagrass habitat and its associated marine life, as well as provide enhanced scouring of Clam Pass as the surcharge of water that formerly oscillated between Venetian Bay and Outer Clam Bay will be forced to exit on the ebb tide through Clam Pass. 2. Deeping and widening Clam Pass to provide for a significantly enhanced tidal exchange for the Clam Bay system, as Statement of Findings Page 3 May 14, 1998 1611 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application well as provide high quality sand for "beach renourishment" and the creation of upland islands of native tree flora, which is proposed to contribute to the ecological diversity of the Clam Bay system. The dimensions of the proposed excavation cuts range, depending on the location, between 3 feet to 4 feet (MLW) in depth with a bottom width from 15 feet to 40 feet. 3. opening of the deteriorating network of interior tidal creeks and channels to both improve the tidal exchange capacity of the Clam Bay system, and contribute to enhanced water quality within the system. The restoration of the tidal exchange dynamics is proposed to permit the ingress and egress of marine life utilizing the mangrove embayments, accelerate the recovery of the mangrove habitat and restore the desirable estuarine quality of the Clam Bay system. 4. The selective cutting of 50 to 75 percent of the dead mangrove trees is proposed to.improve the aesthetic quality of the Clam Bay System, as well as permit the establishment of mangrove starter islands to help stimulate the recovery of the mangrove habitat. The proposed tree cutting will be accomplished with chain saws to cut the dead tree trunks at close to ground level and left on site. 5. The development and implementation of a revised freshwater /stormwater management system for the developed uplands lying east of Clam Bay is proposed to facilitate a reexamination of the role of fresh water in the Clam Bay system, with an anticipated result being a significantly reduced level of fresh water irrigation for Pelican Bay and a modified landscaped palette to be introduced over time. Total direct wetland impacts for the proposed-works referenced above are approximately 11.36 acres. Total area within the Clam Bay project site comprises approximately 443 acres of mangroves and 124 acres of open water bays__ d. Changes to Project: The application review resulted in the following changes to the proposed project: Adjusted the navigation standard to conform to Collier County Ordinance 96 -16 and include a material destruction provision requiring additional protection to Clam Bay. Statement of Findings Page 4 May 14, 1998 A154 1611A151 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application • Clarification of an affirmative duty by Collier County to undertake the freshwater studies and development and implementation of an action plan based on the studies. Including additional language clarifying the right of the agencies (COE & DEP) to review and approve the freshwater /stormwater study reports. • Removal of aerial spoil disposition for Cuts 1, 2, and 3 and identification of the spoil sites and protocols for those locations in upland areas behind (landward /bayward) of the dune line. • Clarification of the location and characteristics of the main channel excavation, including reduction and demonstration of minimization for impacts to seagrasses. Including a provision for mitigation of seagrass impacts if not fully recovered within a five year time period. • Relocation of beach suitable dredge material between the mean high and low water lines. Slurry material will be discharged behind the dune located in a previously approved spoil disposal site approximately 200 feet south of the pass. • Deletion of spoil islands from the Plan. • Clarification of ongoing maintenance and post implementation standards. Additional supporting data and text to augment conclusions demonstrating the need for the enhanced tidal exchange dynamics was forward to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for verification. 3. Project Purpose: a. Basic: Wetland Enhancement b. Overall: To restore hydrological and efficient tidal exchange to Clam Pass and the interior creeks and address the freshwater input into the Clam Bay system. 4. Statutory Authority: Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 5. Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained or Required and Pending: Statement of Findings Page 5 May 14, 1998 1611"A154 CESAJ -RD -WP (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application a. State water quality certification (WQC): The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is currently processing Application Number 11- 304991 -9. b. Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency /permit: There is no evidence or indication from the State of Florida that the project is inconsistent with the Florida CZM. Issuance of a DEP /WMD permit certifies that the project is consistent with the CZM plan. c. Other authorizations: No information has been received regarding any other authorizations that may be required. 6. Date of Public Notice and Summary of Comments: a. The application was received and initially reviewed on 9 April 1997. Additional information was requested on 23 April 1997, and the application was considered complete on 10 July 1997. A public notice was issued on 17 July 1997, and sent to all interested parties including appropriate State and Federal agencies. It should be noted that due to a delay by the applicant to respond to the Corps request for additional information, the DEP review process preceded the Corps public notice. Therefore, several comments were received concerning the proposed project review by the DEP prior to the DA public notice date. All comments received on this application have been reviewed and are summarized below: (1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA did not respond to the public notice. It is assumed that this is pursuant to their letter of 25 May 1994 which stated that the EPA would "...no longer routinely provide written responses to public notices for which we have no comment or no objection." However, in phone conversation on 15 September 1997, Mr. Haynes Johnson of the EPA, Wetlands Protection Section, Atlanta, indicated that he had concerns of the lack of specifics with in the Plan to address plant physiology and pathology. — &—ment or Findings Page 6 May 14, 1998 1611 "A1 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application (2) U.B. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): In an undated letter received on 14 August 1997, the FWS requested a 30 -day extension to the public notice comment period. In DA letter dated 14 August 1997, the public notice comment period was extended to 19 September 1997. In accordance with the procedural requirements of the 1992 404(q) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Part IV(3)(a), in letter dated 19 September 1997, the Service advised that the proposed work may affect aquatic resources of national importance. Specific concerns of the FWS was the loss of seagrass habitat, deposition of dredged material onto intertidal areas, proposed spray of dredge material onto mangrove wetlands, and lack of "upstream" problem solving and focus on diverting excess fresh water off of the mangrove wetlands in Upper Clam Bay. A recommendations by the FWS was to monitor the area for a one year period and submit the information to the Federal agencies for their evaluation. Pursuant to Part IV(3)(b) of the MOA, the FWS Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia, issued a determination, by letter dated 8 October 1997, that the proposed work will have substantial and unacceptable impacts on aquatic resources of national importance if permitted as specified. The Service strongly recommended a mutual resolution of the identified wetland /wildlife concerns at the field level prior to issuance /denial of the permit. (3) National Marine Fisheries service (NMFS): In letter dated 13 August 1997, the NMFS requested a 30 -day extension to the public notice comment period. In accordance with the procedural requirements of the 1992 404(q) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Part IV(3)(a), in letter dated 19 September 1997, the NMFS advised that the proposed work may affect aquatic resources of national importance. Specific concerns of NMFS was the proposed loss of 1.6 acre of seagrass habitat, lack of concrete proposals for reducing freshwater inputs that should be incorporated into the management plan ", and the questionable hydrological methodology of the Plan. Statement of Findings Page 7 May 14, 1998 1611 Al CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application Pursuant to Part IV(3)(b) of the MOA, the NMFS Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida, issued a determination, by letter dated 10 October 1997, that the proposed work will have substantial and unacceptable impacts on aquatic resources of national importance if permitted as specified. The NMFS strongly recommended a mutual resolution of the identified wetland /wildlife concerns at the field level prior to issuance /denial of the permit. (4) State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): In letter dated 22 August 1997, SHPO indicated that in their opinion, because of the project location and /or nature, the proposed project would have no effect on any sites listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of national, state, or local significance. The project is also consistent with Florida's Coastal Management Program and its historic preservation laws. (5) Congressional Inquiry: In letter dated 27 August 1997, Congressman Porter Goss requested an update on the proposed project. In DA letter dated 24 September 1997, Congressman Goss was updated on the application's status. (6) State and local agencies: City of Naples: In letter dated 8 July 1997, Mr. Jon C. Staiger, Natural Resources Manager, indicated the City's support of the proposed Plan with the exception of the proposed restriction on motorized vessels within Clam Bay. (7) organizations: The Conservancy of Southwest Florida (The Conservancy): In letter dated 6 May 1997, The Conservancy responded to the DEP review of the proposed Plan (DA application was incomplete and awaiting additional information). The Conservancy indicated concerns over the plan's lack of methodology, data, and references. Specifically, the Conservancy indicated concerns to the creation of "upland islands" and channelization of the system. The applicant responded to the Conservancy's concerns in a separate letter dated 10 July 1997. Statement of Findings Page s May 14, 1998 1611 A159 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application Save the Manatee Club: In letter dated 29 May 1997, Mr. Fran Stallings representing the Save the Manatee Club indicated that the proposed Plan was conceptually sound. The Mangrove Action Group, Inc.: In letter dated 5 June 1997, the Mangrove Action Group indicated their support for the proposed project. Seagate Property Owners Association, Inc. & Seagate Beach Club, Inc.: In letter dated 24 June 1997, members from the above referenced groups indicated that although they supported the restoration of the Clam Bay they felt that there was no need for the proposed upland islands. In addition, they indicated strong opposition to the proposed restriction of motorized vessels in the Bay. Save the Bays Association, Inc.: On 28 July 1997, a joint DEP and Corps meeting was held at the Naples City Hall at the request of Save the Bays. A summarization of this meeting was provided in the Save the Bays publication dated 29 July 1997, however, the primary concerns to the proposed Plan were maintaining boating rights in the Seagate area and avoiding negative effects at Doctors Pass from the proposed flap gates. It should also be noted that many Save the Bays publications were provided to the Corps throughout the review process concerning Save the Bays on -going review of the proposed Plan. Contessa Condominium Association: In letter dated 19 August 1997, Nancy Ertle, President of the Contessa Condominium Association, indicated their support to the Plan and requested immediate approval. Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, Inc.: In letter dated 5 September 1997, John W. Hoyt, President of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, indicated their support for the proposed Plan. Pelican Bay Advisory Board: In letter dated 9 September 1997, Rodkey Craighead, representing the Pelican Bay Advisory Board, indicated their support to the proposed Plan. statement of Findings Page 9 May 14, 1998 1611 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application (8) Individuals: It should be noted that many individuals (50 +) wrote letters in support of the various organizations stated above. Unless the individuals had specific comments other than what was indicated by their associated organizations, they were not addressed separately under this review. In letter dated 9 July 1997, Mr. Michael Williams indicated support for the proposed Plan, specifically the proposed installation of the flap gate culverts. The following individuals indicated their support for the proposed Plan through separate letters as documented in the supporting file: Richard P. Hamilton, Anthony P. Pires, Jr., Russ Mudge, Marilyn and Calvin Arnold, and Dorothy and Dick Splittorf . b. Response to the comments: The comments received in response to the public notice were coordinated with the applicant via facsimile on 8 October 1997. The applicant responded to the comments in letter dated 14 October 1997. The applicants response stated that the issue of freshwater input into Clam Bay over emphasized the freshwater component of the mangrove die -off. The critical issue was not the amount of freshwater into the system, but the systems absence of adequate tidal flushing. Although the freshwater input into the system remained a component of the Plan, the applicant stressed that the appropriate focus of the Plan was to address the flushing capacity of Clam Bay as a whole system. Furthermore, the Plan had been revised resulting in a reduction of seagrass impacts from 1.6 acres to 0.31 acre, representing less than 20% of the total excavation of the main excavation channel. The spoil islands had been eliminated and the applicants agreed to employ a cyclone separator to increase the amount of disposable beach sand. Additional revisions within the Plan reflect a direct responsibility of the applicant to address fresh water input. Statement of Findings Page 10 May 14, 1998 A15 1611 415 CESAJ -RD -WF (199642789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application Specific revisions of the Plan dated 17 October 1997, included the following: 1. Adjusting the navigation standard to conform to County Ordinance 96 -16 and include a "material destruction provision" requiring additional protection to Clam Bay. 2. Concise language that there is an affirmative duty to undertake the freshwater studies and then develop and implement a plan of action based on the studies. 3. Removal of aerial spoil disposition from Cuts 1, 2, and 3 and identifying the spoil sites and protocols for those locations. 4. Clarification of the location and characteristics of the main channel excavation, including impacts on seagrasses. 5. Deletion of spoil islands from the Plan. 6. Additional data and text to augment the conclusions relative to the need for the enhanced tidal exchange dynamics. c. Additional Coordination of Project Revisions: The applicant provided a copy of the revised Plan and coordination letter dated 17 October 1997, to the agencies for comment. d. Agency Response: NMFS: In phone conversation on 3 November 1997, John Iliff of the NMFS Miami _office indicated that they would still maintain their objections based on the Plan's' impacts to seagrasses and lack of action on the freshwater input into Clam Bay. FWS: In letter dated 9 December 1997, the FWS indicated that although the Plan revisions incorporated significant changes, they maintain their objections to the proposed Plan. The FWS indicated that the revisions did not address the upstream problems associated with excess fresh water entering into Clam Bay. Corps: The applicant was requested to provide hydrological data and modeling to the DEP for review and verification of the proposed dynamics of the Plan. On 9 February 1998, the applicant provided the requested hydrographic modeling data to the Corps and DEP for evaluation. In an email dated 2 March 1998, Richard Bray Statement of Findings Page 11 May 14, 1998 1611 " Al _ 1 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application of the DEP, indicated that the DEPIs review complete on 24 February 1998 and that he recommendation towards issuance of the permit. March 1998, the applicant provided a copy of Technology & Management, Inc. indicating a modeling data. 7. Alternatives: of the project was would be making a In addition, on 3 letter from Applied peer review of the a. Avoidance (No action, uplands, availability of other sites), geographic alternatives: The purpose of the proposed project is a wetland enhancement plan, and as such, is a wetland dependent activity. Therefore, consideration of uplands and availability of other sites is not relevant. However, consideration to no action alternative was considered. The applicant has demonstrated that there is currently degradation of the existing black mangrove system with negative effects on white and red mangroves located at Upper Clam Bay (the northern portion of Clam Bay). In addition, portions of the proposed Plan are to address the chronic siltation of the Clam Pass inlet (the middle of Clam Bay) and deteriorating culverts located at Outer Clam Bay (the southern portion of Clam Bay). Due to the interrelationship of the different portions of the Clam Bay system, the no- action alternative would not allow for a comprehensive review and solutions to the project area as a whole. To address one issue without the other issues may even be considered as a piece -meal action and as such an incomplete project plan. b. Minimization (modified project designs, etc.): The original application included proposed impacts to 11.6 acres of wetlands, including 1.6 acres of; seagrasses. During the application review process, and in full consideration to agencies comments, the proposed project minimized the -seagrass impacts to 0.31 acre, eliminated the deposition of dredged material to create upland spoil islands, and minimized impacts to mangroves by redepositing the dredged material unsuitable for beach renourishment onto upland sites landward of the dune system. C. Compensatory Mitigation (wetland enhancement, creation, etc.): Although the project purpose of the Plan is wetland enhancement, the proposed project would have approximately 0.31 acre of direct seagrass impacts. It is proposed by the applicant that the Plan will enhance seagrass habitat through improvement in water quality and tidal exchange and provide additional seagrasses within the Clam Bay system to exceed the initial 0.31 acre impact. statement of Findings Page 12 May 14, 1998 1611" A I CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application If within five years from the date of the construction activities, seagrasses in Clam Bay have not recovered the 0.31 acre loss, the applicant agrees to mitigate for the total 0.31 acre seagrass impact. This mitigation will be accessed and in accordance with the Habitat Equivalency Analysis as proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (HEA.doc Nov95). d. Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis: The Clam Bay system consists of a mangrove ecosystem with several ecotones. The mangrove system is degrading due to a combination of factors, the most evident is loss of tidal prism. The surrounding developmental impacts to the natural system have severed the historic circulation of the bay by severing the northern connection to the Gulf of Mexico with the construction of Vanderbilt Beach Road, addition of freshwater input into the bay (both surface water and storm water run off) from upland development, and reduced the southern connection to the bay by the construction of Seagate Drive. The loss of the two historical connections, north and south within the bay, have impaired the natural ability of the bay system to maintain the flushing capacity necessary to keep Clam Pass Inlet from silting in due to the Gulf front migration of beach sand. It is this combination of effects that have caused prolong inundation of freshwater events to levels detrimental to the black mangrove physiology. The Upper Clam Bay portion of the mangrove system has been previously evaluated and accepted as compensatory mitigation for impacts to the mangroves from the surrounding development. The current conditions of the culverts under Seagate Drive are deteriorating and in need of replacement. The applicant has not only demonstrated the Plan's compliance with Avoidance Alternative criteria, but the no- action alternative would result in a non- compliance of permit actions for two or more portions of the Clam Bay ecosystem. The applicant has provided a Hydroqraphic Summary of the Clam Pass System dated February 1998, prepared by Tackney & Associates, Inc. to demonstrate the necessity and validity of the proposed dredging activity within the Plan. This data was submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for analysis. The resultant conclusion by the DEP was that the proposed project was viable and practicable. In addition, the data was peer reviewed by Applied Technology & Management, Incorporate (ATM), at the request of the applicant's agent, Mr. Ted R. Brown. In letter dated 3 March 1998, ATM concluded that the data and report support the conclusions stated by Tackney & Associates, Inc. It is the Statement of Findings Page 13 May 14, 1998 1611" A� CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application contention by the applicant, that in order for the Plan to be effective, the dredge design (volume and flow) is an integral part of the overall dynamics of the enhancement to the whole system. Therefore, although the applicant has field verified the location of the channel to be dredged to avoid as much of the seagrass habitat as possible, further minimization of seagrass impacts is not viable without affecting the dynamics of the Plan. The proposed channel was staked in the field and a field visit by Ms. Ilene Barnett from the Fort Myers DEP office and the undersigned Team Leader, concluded that the proposed channel is indeed the least damaging, practicable alternative. Due to the overall benefit to be realized to the aquatic ecosystem from the proposed enhancement plan, no mitigation is required for the proposed project with the exception of possible seagrass habitat loss. The primary objective of the Plan is for the reestablishment of the mangrove system. It would be a secondary benefit of the Plan to water clarity by the tidal exchange that is proposed to enhance seagrass habitat. As an additional assurance that the proposed project does not have an adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem, the applicant will provide compensatory mitigation for the 0.31 acre of proposed seagrass impact if reestablishment of those seagrasses lost as a result of the Plan's implementation has not occurred in five years from the date of the commencement of the proposed works. Furthermore, and in accordance with NMFS, the evaluation of the compensatory mitigation will be accomplished pursuant to NOAA's Habitat Equivalency Analysis. 8. Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation: a. Factual Determinations (230.11}: (1) Physical Substrate (230.11(a)): Physical Compatibility: dredge material varies from a relatively clean sand (beach quality sand) to dark organic fines. (230.11(b)): (2) Water C`rculation, Fluctuation, and Salinity (a) - Current patterns. Analysis of the tidal data by Tackney & Associates, Inc. indicates that average water surface elevations in the Inner and tipper Clam Bays are both super - elevated above the average Gulf water surface elevation by approximately 0.2 Statement of Findings Page 14 May 14, 1998 1611 A154, CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application feet. This indicates that the tidal range in Inner and Upper Clam Bays is muted and that the system is receiving significant additional water through runoff and restricted capacity to drain additional inflow. (b) - Circulation: Tidal range is restricted throughout the Clam Bay system. Clam Pass is a small, marginally stable inlet that has historically migrated north and south. The Pass remains the primary source of tidal exchange for the Clam Bay system. The smaller embayments located primarily to the north of the pass are not subject to normal tidal exchange except during exceptionally high tides. At the southern most portion of the bay, three 24" culverts were installed at the Seagate crossing, allowing flow in and out of the southern portions of Outer Clam Bay. However, Tackney notes that slightly less than one quarter of the tidal prism of Outer Clam Bay is from the Seagate culverts. There is a stormwater management system which was designed to spread runoff along the eastern edge of the Clam Bay estuary. Runoff into the bay occurs at the extreme northwest end of the system and continuously along the eastern edge of Clam Bay. A berm separates the developed portion of Pelican Bay from the estuary lying to the west of the development, but numerous culverts through the berm discharge fresh water to a Swale system along the eastern perimeter of Clam Bay. The stormwater management system, as presently designed, holds for discharge to Clam Bay approximately 3800 acre feet of water. (c) - Salinity* The effective rainfall equivalent for the Clam Bay watershed is approximately 80" plus a year. This combined with the low tidal prism within Upper and Inner Clam Bay has reduced the salinity within the upper portion of the systems substantially. However, due to the lack of tidal prism effecting the flushing component of Upper Clam Bay, stagnant isolated depressions become hypersaline due to the remaining salinity within the sediment. (d) - Municipal and private water supplies: Irrigation water for Pelican Bay is obtained from the Pelican Bay Waste Water Treatment System (0.68 MGD) , Pelican Bay off -site well field (1.02 MGD) and Collier County °s North Naples wastewater Treatment Facility (1.43 MGD). Statement of Findings Page 15 May 14, 1998 1611 'A151 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application (3) Suspended Particulate /Turbidity (230.11(c)): It is anticipated that the proposed project will use best management practices for turbidity controls as regulated by the DEP. However, the applicant has proposed that the spoil disposition site will be diked and turbidity screens will be placed at the two points of connection into the main channel of Clam Pass. (4) Contaminant Availability (230.11(d)): There are no known sources of contaminants within the project area. (5) Aquatic Ecosystem Effects (230.11(e)): (a) - Structure of ecosystem: Clam Bay is an intertidal community composed primarily of mangrove forest. (b) - Ecosystem functions: Tidal flushing allows nutrients to be distributed within the mangrove forest and provides for the transportation of dead leaves, twigs, etc. As these materials decay, they become food for marine life. It is the mangrove detritus which is consumed by the many organisms at the base of the food chain and which in turn create the next trophic level necessary to support fish and other aquatic specie populations that characterize the mangrove forest community. (c) - Recreational and commercial fisheries: There is no direct relationship to commercial fisheries, however the system is a supporting community for many commercial and sport fish species. These include penaeid shrimp, blue crab, spotted seatrout, flounder, snook, tarpon, and pompano. The bay does provided limited recreational fishing activities. (d) - Threatened or endangered species: The project has been coordinated with the FWS. The MIS has determined that the project will not have any adverse impacts on T &E species. However, it should be noted that the site does contain wading bird habitat and sea turtle nesting grounds. Any proposed project impacts to the sea turtle nesting areaz will be restricted and conditioned as not to occur during, anc /or affect, the sea turtle nesting season. Statement of Findings Page 16 May 14, 1998 1611A15 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application (6) Proposed Disposal Site (230.11(f)): Containment: Excavation of organic fines from Cut 4A will be discharged to a spoil disposal site located behind the dune line adjacent to the entrance to Clam Bay. This area presently consist of predominately clean sand which will be excavated to a depth of -1 foot NGVD to accommodate approximately 1500 to 2000 cubic yards of organic fines. Excavated beach sand from the spoil disposal site will be used for beach renourishment. If additional disposal areas are required for the organic fines, then the PBSD in consultation with the FDEP and the Corps will locate such additional areas in uplands behind the dune line. Beach Renourishment: It is anticipated that approximately 16,000 to 19,000 cubic yards of beach quality sand from the proposed project will be used for beach renourishment and placed between the mean high water and the mean low water area of the beach to allow for wave dispersal along the beach. if (7) Cumulative Effects (230.11(g)): It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse cum` v1ative if'ects from the proposed project. (8) Secondary Effects (230.11(h)): The possibility of secondary effects from use of motorized vessels within the bay was raised during the application review. The original Plan proposed to restrict the use of motorized vessels within the bay, but public outcry for historic riparian rights for access to the bay caused a revision in the Plan to remove this restriction. However, existing regulation by Collier County limits motorized vessel throughout the bay to idle speed and no wake. In addition the proposed Plan will implement a provision for evaluation of boat traffic and any adverse impacts to the Bay. The proposed Plan should not produce any significant changes in navigation of the bay or adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. b. Restrictions on discharges (230.10): (1) AlternativeF (See paragraph 7,: (a) The activ.ty -s located n a special aquatic site (wetlands, sanctuaries _nd refuges, mudf -ats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, riffle and poo! complexes, etc.) yes -X- no Statement of Findings Page 17 May 14, 1998 1611 A15 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application (b) The activity needs to be located in a special aquatic site to fulfill its basic purpose. yes-X- no (c) It has been demonstrated in paragraph 7 above that there are no practicable nor less damaging alternatives which would satisfy the project's overall purpose. yes_X_ no (2) other program requirements: (a) The proposed activity violates applicable state water quality standards or section 307 prohibitions or effluent standards. yes no—X- (b) The proposed activity jeopardizes the continued existence of federally listed threatened or endangered species or affects their critical habitat. yes no—X- (c) The proposed activity violates the requirements of a federally designated marine sanctuary. yes no—X- (3) The activity will cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the United States, including adverse effects on human health; life stages of aquatic organisms; ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability; and recreational, esthetic, and economic values, yes no_X_ (4) Appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to minimize potential adverse -impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem. yes —X— no c. Findings (230.12): The proposed site for discharge of dredged or fill material complies with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. Statement of Findings Page 18 May 14, 1998 1 A15 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application 9. Public Interest Review: a. All public interest factors have been reviewed. The following public interest factors are considered relevant to this proposal. Both cumulative and secondary impacts on the public interest were considered. (1) Conservation: Clam Bay is designated a Natural Resource Protection Area by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. This area consist of approximately 540 acres of mangroves and some 30 acres of open water bays. Upper Clam Bay has been previously recorded within a conservation easement with Pelican Bay Services Division as the grantor and South Florida Water Management District as the grantee. The proposed Plan would provide for the enhancement of the existing system. (2) Economics (33CFR320.4(q)). The Management Plan is to be funded initially by an assessment of the Pelican Bay resident base under the direction of the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) and by a matched contribution of $1,000,000 from WCI Communities and by Collier County. Funding priority and availability will change yearly. It will be, therefore, appropriate during the annual planning exercise to closely evaluate funding availability and determine sources for both immediate and long term needs. (3) Aesthetics. The current conditions have an adverse impact on the aesthetics of the area. Although there is some regrowth and recruitment of herbaceous species, the overview is that of a dead /dying mangrove forest. Pelican Bay development is an up -scale residential community that utilizes the Clam Bay mangrove forest and the Gulf of Mexico as its primary aesthetics. The proposed Plan would improve the aesthetics of the system to the surrounding area. (4) General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p)). As previously stated, the existing mangrove system is stressed and declining in function a= mangroves are dying. In addition, as the mangrove system decays,. the lack of flushing within portions of the Bay create adverse water quality conditions, which in -turn create stressful conditions on the remaining healthier mangroves. These conditions are perpetuated by freshwater Input during stormwater events creating long term inu^dation of the system. Statement of Findings Page 19 May 14, 1898 1611 A15 M- CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application (5) Wetlands (33CFR320.4 (b)) . As previously stated Clam Bay consists primarily of an intertidal mangrove forest. Three species of mangroves are found in Clam Bay: red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), and black mangrove (Avicennia germinans). The Clam Bay system can be broken down into three interrelating bays; Outer Clam Bay, Inner Clam Bay and Upper Clam Bay. Clam Pass Inlet, the only direct connection to the Gulf of Mexico, is located between Outer Clam Bay and Inner Clam Bay. Upper Clam Bay is located at the northern portion of the system and is the area of concern for the continual decline of the black mangrove basins. Currently 50 acres within Upper Clam Bay have been adversely affected and consist of dead mangrove trees (mostly of black mangrove, but the mortality is inclusive of red and white mangroves as well) and a transitional highmarsh community of saltwort (Batis maritima) and glasswort (salicornia virginica). Although there is some mangrove mortality extending into Inner Clam Bay, the system as a whole is still fairly undisturbed. However, in a 1997 field visit attended by members of the Corps, FWS, NMFS, DEP, and EPA, it was noted that the clarity of the water within the interior channels of Inner Clam Bay was less than expected and not viable for seagrass habitat. Outer Clam Bay is the largest of the bays and is also more directly influenced by the Gulf via Clam Pass Inlet. In addition, Outer Clam Bay is connected to Venetian Bay via three 24" culverts under Seagate Drive. This fiyste7 appears to lie the more stable of the three bays, and in Fact, ?gas recently experienced seagrass recruitment in the northern portion of,Outer Clam Bay and into Clam Pass Inlet. Clam Pass is the critical and only link to Clam Bay by the Gulf of Mexico. The pass is an unimproved, marginally stable tidal inlet. In the past 20 years, t.,e pass has closed on at least six occasions, three in the last; three years. The reason that the pass has closed so often is that the tidal prism of the inlet is inadequate to scour out sediment carried into the pass by wave generated longshore transport. Currently, much of the inlet channel has silted in, an< the pass appears to be approaching closure. Due to the �:c% of the n:'et, the tides in the upper reaches of Cic.:' Y�.A ?ri.'t� ar- . Var- 'able. Runoff from rainfall further reduf_7 �k °'he .art -,r_or range and during ° Tackney's field study, ota_"� rainal. of approximately 4 inches in Statement of Findings Page 20 May 14, 1998 1611"b15" CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application three days was sufficient to flood Upper Clam Bay to such an extent that the tidal fluctuation was completely eliminated. Typically, incoming water into a mangrove wetland brings with it nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and marginally lower salt concentrations. Conversely, the outgoing water leaving a mangrove wetland removes metabolic waste products (e.g., carbon dioxide, toxic sulfides) and excess salt. However, in the absence of tidal influence, metabolic wastes accumulate in the sediment and it eventually turns toxic and anoxic. Consequentially, in the absence of surface water circulation or tidal activity, mangroves slowly die due to deleterious changes in the sediment. In addition, long periods of inundation in Upper Clam Bay of freshwater suffocated the root systems of black mangroves causing stress of the tree and eventual mortality. It is with this concept that the applicant has linked the increased mortality of the black mangroves in Upper Clam Bay with the decrease in capacity of Clam Pass. The applicant further points out that this critical process has nothing to do with the salinity, or absence thereof, or with the presence or absence of surface and subsurface water, but rather, the tidal prism of the system. The proposed Plan provides for a systematic approach to augment and reverse various adverse conditions within the Clam Bay ecosystem. The proposed Plan's purpose is to increase the tidal prism of the whole system and redressing she freshwater input into the system. The proposed Plan will eahance the existing conditions of the wetlands and thereby provide an increase in wetland function. (6) Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e)): There are no historic and cultural resources affected by the project. (7) Fish and wilC.l:fe values (33CFR320.4(c)).. Both the National Marine Fishers Service (NMFS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have reviewed the proposed Plan, inclusive of several site visits. The NMFS indicated that the original proposed Plan would have adverse impact cn fishery resources. Specifically, the project would eliminate an estimated 1.6 acres of Cuban shoal grass and 0.7 acre of red me.n rove habitat. # 7S emphasized that both seagrass beds and mancro% provicie nursery, forage and refuge habitat to a wide v.rie: of commerc1-11y and recreationally important marine fish a c', sne (fish. No written comments have been received from NMFS concern .ng -- e revi.sicn to the Plan. Statement of Findings Page 21 May 14, 1998 1611 A154 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application The FWS recommended that the applicant implement the components of the original Plan that consisted of the tidal flap gates under Seagate Drive, the interior tidal creeks, deepen and widen Clam Pass, use of the portable pumps, selective removal of dead mangrove material from the affected areas, and development and implementation of a public awareness program. However, FWS objected to the components of the original Plan that consisted of the excavation of the interior channel connecting Clam Pass with Outer Clam Bay, deposition of dredge material onto intertidal areas, and the spraying of dredge material onto the mangrove wetlands. In addition, the FWS indicated that, in their opinion, the Plan did not significantly address freshwater input into the bay. (8) Flood hazards N /A. (9) Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(1)): N /A. (10) Land use. The proposed Plan is in compliance with local zoning and land use. (11) Navigation (33CFR320.4(o)): There is some concern that the dredging within Clam Pass and outer Clam Bay may increase navigational use through the Pass by property owners in the Seagate Community. There are approximately 80 single family residential home sites located wi-hir tnis community that have waterfront access. The original Plan proposed to restrict the use of motorized vessels within the bay, but public outcry for historic riparian rights for access to the bay caused a revision in the Plan to remove this restriction. However, existing regulation by Collier County limits o_or> ed vessel throughout the bay to idle speed and no wake. In add t,.;.on, the popos ec Plan will implement a . - - - - -- _ proyision for evaluation of �a zc anci any adverse impacts to the Bay. The proposed Pawn should not produce any s n�fic —___ chancres in navigation of the bay. (12) Shore egos on and accretion: Although the Plan will provide for bead A t ?,-our''s rent, t,e : e should be no adverse impact or substantial e fec*-M on shore erosion and accretion. (13) Recreat on Tae proposed ?'an will not change the current recreational usn oft" the bay; however, the Plan does contain a Recreational Conpl.)ner. that UYiIl address appropriate notification, signace : ^g of the ..gay, Statement of Findings Page 22 May 14, 1998 1611 "A1 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application (14) Water supply (33CFR320.4(m)): N/A (15) Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d)): A specific component of the Plan is for the development and implementation of a best management practices program to assist in modulating irrigation requirements for the developed areas of Pelican Bay. Review and studies proposed by the Plan, may involve additional water quality provisions to be added to the existing stormwater management system. In addition, it is proposed that water quality within Clam Bay will be improved through the enhancement of the deteriorating mangrove system by increasing the flushing component of Clam Bay. It is anticipated that this will also promote seagrass growth within the system. (16) Energy needs (33CFR320.4(n.)): N/A (17) Safety: N/A (18) Food and fiber production: N/A (19) Mineral needs: N/A (20) Considerations of property ownership: The application review accumulated over 65 individual letters from adjacent property owners tc wlar Bay. In addition, 8 organizations that represent constituents within the area also responded to the public notice. All of the above showed an overwhelming support to the proposed Plan, however, some concerns over the Plan's initial restrictions on motorized vessels acid creation of upland spoil islands were raised. As a response to the concerns by the public, the applicant revised the proposed Plan to resolve the concerns over navigation and removes upland spoil i471ands from the Plan. In addition, as Clam Bay has been declared by Collier County as a Natural Resource Protection Area, tfte proposed project is considered as being not contrary to the public interest. c. Describe the rela,tivi for the proposed str .- _auras Public interest pro�e.c° ar f benefits to the local 1, bay, the project bere general. Statement of Findings Page 23 extent of the public and private need or work. she ;project is primarily a al aouq h Cher dill be some secondary o "rs "hro cr --he enhancement of the °a be rep., ized by the public in May 14, 1998 1611 "A151 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application d. Describe the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the purposed work where there are unresolved conflicts as to resource use: Both the FWS and NMFS indicated concerns that the proposed Plan does not demonstrate the necessity of the dredging of the connection between Outer Clam Bay and Clam Pass. In addition, a component of the Plan is to delay addressing freshwater input into the Clam Bay system until after a three year study. It is the contention of the FWS and NMFS that the freshwater component should be resolved prior to the dredging of Outer Clam Bay and associated connection to Clam Pass. It is the position of the applicant that the primary element to the enhancement of the bay system is the restoration of a tidal prism throughout the bay system. In addition, the applicant has stated that the Pelican Bay Services Division has a limited control over the freshwater usage within the watershed and without supporting data and voluntary assistance, it is not practicable to address the freshwater component of the bay system at this time. Further delays in addressing a proactive approach to the failing dynamics of the Clam Bay system would result in the following: 1. continual frequent maintenance dredging of Clam Pass. 2. continual degradation of the stressed mangroves within Upper Calm Bay. 3. continual deterioration of the Seagate Drive culverts and resulting compliance action to assure their maintenance. 4. lack of availabe finding for future enhancement activities. It is the conclusion of the Corps that eased on all supporting documentation that the :jenetfits of the proposed works outweigh the concerns raised by the resource agencies on conflicts to the resource use. In addition, the applicant's hydographic modeling supporting the proposed dredging activities has been independently peer reviewed and verified °n another review by the DEP. e. Describe the extent ar:' pe.rmanence o3.. the beneficial and /or detrimental effects w:ich the proposed woM3ti is likely to have on the public and pr va,�Q �M to wh4-c~ the area is suited: Detrimental impacts ar ex -_e_ted to be n:_n1mal. The beneficial effects associated wm r: u, ect wou�d be P ­,anent. f. Threatened or e;dar ;erg species: The proposed project has been coordinated w_"--_h -otter 19 September 1997, the Statement of Findings Page 24 May 14, 1998 1611"A154 0 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application FWS concluded that the proposed project in not likely to adversely affect manatees. In addition, with special conditions limiting some of the activities to timeframes outside of the sea turtle nesting season, tilling the renourished areas to a depth of 29 inches, and avoid discharge of material onto native vegetation, the FWS determined that the project is not likely to adversely affect Pea turtles and their nests. Therefore, the proposed project will not jeopardize the continued existence or critical habitat of any threatened or endangered species. g. Corps wetland policy: The proposed wetland alteration is necessary to realize the project purpose and should result in minimal adverse environmental impacts. The benefits of the project would outweigh the minimal detrimental impacts. Therefore the project is in accordance with the Corps wetland policy. h. Cumulative and secondary Impacts: There should be no adverse cumulative or secondary impacts caused by the project other than those already addressed in Paragraph 8.a.(7) &(8). i. Corps analysis of comments and responses: It was the primary concerns of MMFS that (1) the overall plan presented to restore mangrove habitat in Inner and Upper clam Bays will result in adverse impacts to seagrass habitat in Outer Clam Bay and (2) does not specifically address a significant contributing factor to the mangrove d-.e -off i.e., chronic freshwater inputs into c " >m Say. In addition, initiai con-- r-ns of the FWS were the loss of seagrass habitat, dt� posit' n o, dredged material onto intertidal areas, proposed spray of drgd e material onto mangrove wetlands, and lack of "upstream" pro lei solving anc -focus on diverting excess fresh water off o:" tze mangrove we -lands in Upper Clam Bay. A recommendation by tae FWS was to monitor the area for a one year period and subm t _lie : nformatior° .o the Federal agencies for their eva_'..0 �t ,,)n. In letter dated 9 December 1997, the FWS indicated that t ;ei ° remaining concerns were that the Plan does not address excess fresh water entering into Clam Bay. Specifically, the _rWS a.ndl' - -ated that the mortar ity of the mangrove system is due -o excess not the lack of tidal flushing. The applicant has * rov t r ,,entaticr :v several environmental professionals on ~ie ^._ c., r o_f reed tidal fleshing on Statement of Findings Page 25 May 14, 1998 1611 A15^ f CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application mangroves. The applicant has also provided information on the limited affects of fresh water on mangroves. Conclusion of the evidence provided by the applicant, which was coordinated directly by the applicant to the resource agencies, indicates that the primary fresh water component responsible for the mangrove die -off, is the temporal effect of the duration of inundation on the mangrove system. Furthermore, the applicant has demonstrated that the existing conditions within the system have reduce the tidal prism and flushing capacity of Clam Bay. The applicant has provided documentation of hydrological modeling to support the proposed Plan's restoration of tidal flushing through the Clam Bay system, inclusive of effects within Upper Clam Bay. This documentation has been ver.fied by the DEP and peer reviewed by ATM, an independent environmental consultant. The conclusion by the DEP and ATM was that the applicant has demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed works and their benefit to the overall bay system. The current design of the Seagate Drive culvert replacement proposal was originally requested by the EPA during the placement of culverts under Seagate Drive in 1976. The current conditions of the culverts would conclude that replacement is necessary in order to maintain the permitted design. The proposed Plan, not only provides for the replacement of the culverts, but also upgrades the culverts to the original requested design which was not practicable at the time of the - nst.a.11ation in 1976. Neither the FWS nor tie NIYM S had any remaining negative comments concerning the prop�,ec '- larC s enhar:cemen..- of the interior tidal creeks and it effec- -I've.ne.ss o„ the mangrove system. The necessity of this proposed e^ 'Iantener � ::s further ";e:ronstrated by the Clam Bay Restoration rr ek epert 1, F ,ruary 1997 Time Zero Monitoring Report prcc'A:-_e n;� _ewis ,Env' - o.nmental Services, Inc. dated 28 February 1 -°7. h The concerns by bath the FWS and NP?FS on the Plan's Stormwater /Freshwater :vtzna,ement oor.;ponert are noted. However, the applicant has provIdeci Fltstantial documentation and data to demonstrate the intern and %°_.ability of t ^e proposed Plan. In addition, the apple c ..: - as d .c.ated thn4- iv not practicable to either require r7t; Qe.- c'uP tc , n,- ncwns, nor to wait until adequate studies ^.;eve Zee _ conr)lcted make changes to the existing freshwater sloe w tie:.? r - nagement syU -.ems. It should be further ,; :� tie tr ;tee and stormwater management systems are x c . per r tte ,.tells , Statement of Finainq Page 26 May 14, 1399 1611 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application In DA letter dated 27 April, 1998, in accordance to Section 404(q) of the Clean Water Act, FWS and NMFS were provided copies of the draft DA permit and documentation for their review. In letter dated 6 May 1998, NMFS indicated their decision not to request higher level review. In letter dated l9 May, 1998, FWS indicated their decision not to request a higher level review. 10. Determinations: a. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) : Having reviewed the information provided by the applicant and all interested parties and an assessment of the environmental impacts, I find that this permit action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. b. Compliance with 404(b)(l) Guidelines: Having completed the evaluation in paragraph 8 above, I have determined that the proposed discharge complies with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. c. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review: The proposed permit action has been analyzed for conformity applicability pursuant to regulations implementing Section 176(c) of the Clear. Air Act. It has been determined that the activities proposes under this per;r. t will not exceed de minimis levels of direct eir, ss: -ons of a c '� teria pollutant or its precursors and are exempted by 40 CFR Part 93.153. Any later indirect emissions are generally rot with'n the Corps, continuing program responsibility and generally cannot be practicably controlled by the Corps. sor these reasons a conformity determination is not rec— .aired for this "perm'_� action. Statement of Findings Page 27 May 14, 1998 A 15 Government in the Sunshine Office of the County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney The Sunshine Law gives the public access to meetings of "any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision" AND * Allows the public to observe each preliminary step leading to the final decision. ♦ Prevents the Board from creating closed committees that narrow the Board's decisions. o Applies to Board appointed committees. 16 I A 151 Sunshine Law ► Protects the public from "closed door" decision making and provides a right of access to governmental meetings. (F.S. § 286.011 ("Sunshine Law') and Fl. Constitution Art. t, Sec. 24) What Is Florida's Government-in-the - Sunshine Law? • Enacted in 1967 • Found in Chapter 286, Florida Statutes • Establishes a basic right of access to most meetings of boards, commissions and other governing bodies of state and local governmental agencies or authorities .g The Three Basic Requirements of the Sunshine Law, § 286.011, Florida Statutes ova Meetings of public boards commissions or committees ( "boards') must be open to the public. Reasonable notice of such meetings must be alven. Minutes of the meeting must be taken. .1 I Meetings of public boards, commissions or committees ( "boards ") must be open to the public. Decision Making Committees become part of the Board's decision making process AND • Choose alternatives and direction; narrow or eliminate options for the Board's consideration. • Make decisions by voting. • Make recommendation to the Board directly or through staff. • Create bylaws. The Sunshine Law applies when -- +► Two or more members of a governing board (such as the BCC) discuss a matter that may foreseeably come before the governing board. 161 Iqk 15R Committee type determines the applicability of these laws There are two types of committees: 1. Decisions Making Committees 2. Fact finding /Focus Group Committees Fact Finding Groups provide a source of community input and factual resources AND • Have no characteristics of a Decision making committee. • Do not need bylaws. • Provide individual input, data and factual findings to staff, as part of staff's development in its advisement to the Board. • Do not take votes. • Maintain a brainstorming focus. E -Mails E -mails of factual background information from one board member to other board members are permitted if there is no exchange of board members' comments or responses on subjects requiring board action. The a -mails become a public record. 2 ADVISORY BOARD GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC RECORDS AND EMAILS • While you are serving on an advisory board, correspondence and emails to or from anyone, on any computer (private or government owned l, relating to County business is a public record. • Public records must be maintained pursuant to State guidelines. You may save them on the computer, a disk, or as a hard copy. If leaving your position on an advisory board, please provide a copy of all public records in your possession to the County Staff Liaison. • One -way communications by email should be directed to the County Staff Liaison. Pursuant to the Sunshine Law, no two -way communications between members (except during publicly noticed meetings) is permitted. • If you choose to communicate with members of the public concerning County business via email, please be aware that your name and email address, as well as the name and email address of the public person, becomes a public record. Written Correspondence A board member may send documents on matters coming before the board for official action to other board members, PROVIDED there are no responses from, or interaction related to documents among, the board members prior to the public meeting. The written correspondence becomes a public record. Meetings Must be Open to the Public The public must be allowed to attend meetings; however, there is no obligation to allow the public to participate. The location: • Must be accessible • Sufficient size for turnout • Facility cannot discriminate based on age, race, etc. • Public access not unreasonably restricted • Be within Collier County with few exceptions 161 IVA 151 The Sunshine Law does not apply when -- • Committees or groups appointed to engage only in fact - finding activities. • Board created focus groups or other such committees that: Only provide individual input, data and facts as part of staff's development in its advisement to the Board. Do not narrow options. The Sunshine Law is broa i construed Exemptions are narrowly construed II Reasonable notice of such meetings must be given. # The public must be given reasonable and timely notice so they can decide whether to attend. What is "reasonable" or "timely" depends on the circumstance. It does not necessarily require a newspaper advertisement; contact the County Attorney Office for guidance. 3 Inspection Trips Members of a public board or commission may conduct inspection trips. • If discussion relating to the business of the board will occur between board members during an inspection trip, SUNSHINE LAW APPLIES • All requirements of § 286.011, F.S. must be met. The Sunshine Law and Staff • When a staff member is appointed to a board, the staff member loses his or her identity as staff while working on the board and the Sunshine law applies to the board. • It is the nature of the act performed, not the makeup of the board or the proximity of the act to the final decision, which determines whether a board composed of staff is subject to the Sunshine Law. 1611 "A15, III Minutes of the meeting are required. Written minutes must be taken and made available promptly. • Sound recordings may also be used, but only in addition to written minutes. • Minutes may be a brief summary of meeting's events. • Minutes are public records. • Minutes must record the votes. Electronic Meetings Local Governments Absent member may participate by telephone conference if: • Absence is due to extraordinary circumstances • A quorum of local board must be physically present Sunshine Law Applications • Does nol apply to members of different boards • Applies to non - voting members as well as voting members • Social events are fine - but do not discuss County business • Does Dot apply to private organizations, such as homeowners' associations • Does not apply to a meeting between a Commissioner and a private citizen • Does not apply to staff so long as staff is in a fact- finding mode • Applies to staff once staff become part of the decision - making process ...AHEN THE MOONS WHEN tl_ecrEOcFFiciACS Swww Swr.EPS ACROSS HAVE SECRET MCCTiNSS THE EARTRb SURFACE­. f- OADUGT43 -04F, pEppLES ® d' L S GALiLEO EcptAitJ A85ERCE OF SONSHINF. Inspection Trips Members of a public board or commission may conduct inspection trips. • If discussion relating to the business of the board will occur between board members during an inspection trip, SUNSHINE LAW APPLIES • All requirements of § 286.011, F.S. must be met. The Sunshine Law and Staff • When a staff member is appointed to a board, the staff member loses his or her identity as staff while working on the board and the Sunshine law applies to the board. • It is the nature of the act performed, not the makeup of the board or the proximity of the act to the final decision, which determines whether a board composed of staff is subject to the Sunshine Law. 1611 "A15, III Minutes of the meeting are required. Written minutes must be taken and made available promptly. • Sound recordings may also be used, but only in addition to written minutes. • Minutes may be a brief summary of meeting's events. • Minutes are public records. • Minutes must record the votes. Electronic Meetings Local Governments Absent member may participate by telephone conference if: • Absence is due to extraordinary circumstances • A quorum of local board must be physically present Sunshine Law Applications • Does nol apply to members of different boards • Applies to non - voting members as well as voting members • Social events are fine - but do not discuss County business • Does Dot apply to private organizations, such as homeowners' associations • Does not apply to a meeting between a Commissioner and a private citizen • Does not apply to staff so long as staff is in a fact- finding mode • Applies to staff once staff become part of the decision - making process Validity of Action Taken in Violation of The Sunshine Law /Subsequent Corrective Action • Section 286.011, F. S., provides that no resolution, rule, regulation or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at an open meeting. • Recognizing that the Sunshine Law should be construed so as to frustrate all evasive devices, the courts have held that action taken in violation of the law is void ab initio. • Within /imitations, some case law exists holding that Sunshine Law violations can be cured by independent, final action taken completely in the Sunshine. L A Penalty Example ":Nti. .na;.,Nm wanC+.>au.z: Ys pa`n e.ewa.r.an.wvv�avi. wfneMn', m!ti•oe .w...LY .� ser' Sentenced to Jail for Sunshine Law Violations: Suspended Escambia County Commissioner W.D. Childers was sentenced to 60 days in jail for discussing redistricting in a " telephone conversation while fellow commissioner listened on a speaker phone, and pleaded no contest for talking with two fellow commissioners about county building projects in front of a staffer. Questions ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? 1611A1514 What are the Consequences if a Public Board or Commission Fails to Comply with the Sunshine Law? Criminal Penalties: • It is a second degree misdemeanor to knowingly violate the Sunshine law. • Punishable with a fine of up to $500 and /or.up to 60 days imprisonment. Other Penalties Include: • Removal from position. • Payment of attorney's fees Incurred by the challenging party, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. a.% The Headlines We Don't Want! "Judge Finds Marco Councilor Guilty of Sunshine Law Violation!!" Nepl.DeHy Ne Y7/08 "Planning Member's Lunch Clouds Florida in Sunshine Law" N.pl. Daily News 711/07 Grand Jury OKs City Sunshine Law Investigation 71Iw7 Jub —ill. News "A Times -Union Investigation Finds Evidence of Florida Sunshine Law Violations" Fl—de Times.uni- 6/14,07 PUBLIC RECORDS Office of the County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney 5 The State of Florida Strongly Favors Open Access to Public Records C� The public's right to inspect or copy any public record is established in the Florida Constitution. The legislature enacted Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes setting the policy for the state. t� Florida courts have routinely held that the Public Records Act is to be liberally construed in favor of open access to public records. Public Records Law Public Records include: All documents, paper, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of physical form or means of transmission made or received pursuant to law in connection with transaction of official business by the agency. (Chapter 119, Florida Statutes) What Public Records are Exempt From Disclosure? Common exemptions are: 0 Records prepared for litigation proceedings or in anticipation f of legal proceedings Social Security numbers of Ll employees or former employees R Sealed bids or proposals 1611 A15 The Definition of Public Records Open to Inspection to Any Person is Very Broad. A public record encompasses all materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business which are used to ., perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge, regardless of whether such materials are in final form. The Public Records Law applies to: Records developed by the Board, Board- Appointed Committees, and employees �l All Types of records including written communications, letters, notes and e -mails Numerous exemptions are identified in §119.07, Florida Statutes, and other statutes Public Records Requests Can be made verbally or in writing by any person The Board or Board - Appointed Committee: 0 Has a "reasonable" time to respond M Can charge for the cost of retrieving records if the amount requested is voluminous 0 Can charge 15 cents per page The Public Records Law does not require: C, The retention of records (this is covered by the State's records retention policy) ® The creation of records or the provision of records in the format requested p An explanation of the records 0 Restrictions Placed on Access to Public Records 0 The restrictions a public entity may place on access to public records for reasons of administrative convenience, cost or other factors are narrow and limited. PENALTIES R 4 F A violation of the Public Records Act carries both civil and criminal penalties! Tools for Social Networking: Facebook Twitter Instant Messaging You Tube 1611 _A 15' 7 ti 7 You Tube YOU - , A Dlglty LlMry d Nah $Me corerrtmnrt pYwj,i110t1G : mI F3 am ►r Facebook & the Sunshine Law (continued) Attorney General Opinion 09 -19 warns, °while there would not appear to be a prohibition against a board or commission member posting comments on the city's Facebook page, members of the board or commission must not engage in an exchange or discussion of matters that foreseeably will come before the board or commission for official action." Facebook & the Public Records Act (continued) AGO 09 -19 (continued) Thus, the determination in any given instance as to whether information constitutes a public record will depend on whether such information was made or received in connection with the transaction of official business by the city." 16 11'p1j.54 Facebook & the Sunshine Law These new technological communication tools present "unique challenges in following the intent and the letter of the laws regulating public meetings and communications of local government." Harry A. Stewart, Esq. Fort Lauderdale City Attorney 5/14/2009 Facebook & the Public Records Act AGO 09 -19 "It is the nature of the record created rather than the means by which it is created which determines whether it is a public record. The placement of information on the city's Facebook page would appear to communicate knowledge. Public Records While business related posts or comments made on Facebook are a public record (pursuant to AGO 09 -19), the difficulty comes in saving the records and then trying to locate them later if a request for the records is made by the public. The amount of storage necessary is substantial and retrieving a specific record later is almost impossible. Standards of Conduct for Social Networking Your County's Social Computing Guidelines: - Know the County Conduct Guidelines. - Be who you are. - Be thoughtful about how you present yourself In online social networks. - Speak in the first person. - Use a disclaimer. - Respect copyright and fair use laws. - Protect confidential and proprietary Information. - Proteotthe County's clients, business partners and suppliers. - Respect your audience and your coworkers. - Add value. - Don't pick fights. - Be the first to respond to your own mistakes. - Use your bestjudgment. - Don't forget your day job. Resources /Contacts OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Scott R. Teach, Deputy County Attorney Colleen M. Greene, Assistant County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail, 81h Floor Naples, FL 34112 Phone: (239) 252 -8400 Fax: (239) 252 -6300 Three Areas of Ethics Laws Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, Part III Collier County Ordinance No. 2003 -53, as amended Collier County Manager Administrative Procedures CMA #5311 1611 "A15, Questions ?? ? ? ?? ? ? ??? ?? a Ethics Laws County Attorney Office Colleen M. Greene Assistant County Attorney 54&a4k Chapter 112, Florida Statutes Applies to all advisory board members, elected officials, and County employees. Collier County Ordinance No. 03 -53, as amended Applies to all advisory board members, elected officials and County employees (more stringent than Ch. 112, Fla. Stat ). CMA #5311 Applies to all County employees. Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees Conflict or Conflict of Interest A situation in which regard for a private interest tends to lead to a disregard of a public duty or interest. (§ 112.312(8), Fla. Stat.) Standards of Conduct Soliciting and Accepting Gifts. May not solicit or accept anything of value that Is based on an understanding that their vote, official action, or Judgment would be influenced by such a gift. Accepting Unauthorized Compensation. May not accept any compensation, payment, or thing of value that is given to influence a vote or other official action. Misusing Public Position. May not corruptly use his/her official position to obtain a special privilege for himself /herself or others. Disclosing or Using Certain Information. May not disclose or use information not available to the public and obtained by reason of his /her public positions for the personal benefit of himself /herself or others. 1611 I Florida Statutes Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees Code of Ethics Protects against conflict of interest and establishes standards for the conduct of elected officials and government employees in situations where conflicts may exist. (Chapter 112, Part III, Florida Statutes and the Florida Constitution, Article II, Section Florida Code of Ethics Addresses: • Standards of Conduct • Voting Conflict • Financial Disclosure Applies to: a County Commissioners © Board Appointed Committees a Board Employees •:•Prohibits certain actions or conduct 4-Requires certain disclosures be made to the public Additional Standards of Conduct • Doing business with one's agency. A public officer or employee acting in a private capacity shall not attempt to do business with the County/agency where he /she serves as a public officer or employee. Applies to private business in which officer, employee, spouse or child has a material interest. (Specific exemptions apply.) • Engaging in conflicting Employment or Contractual Relationship. A public official may not be employed or contract with any business entity regulated by or doing business with his or her public agency. (Specific exemptions apply.) (May be waived by full Board.) A15 10 Voting Conflicts of Interest Requires no County, municipal, or other Local Public Officer (including members of Board appointed committees) shall vote in an official capacity upon any measure which would inure to the special private gain or loss of themselves, any principal or entity by whom they are retained, other than an agency as defined in § 112.312(2), Fla. Stat., or to any relative or business associate. (Specific exemptions apply.) Penalties Violation of Statute Civil penalties, fine or removal from office County Ethics Ordinance ■ No, thank you! Public officials are prohibited from accepting any gift or any other thing of monetary value from anyone that has an interest that may be substantially affected by the performance or non - performance of duties of a public official. 1611 Requires that public officers, including members of advisory committees: @ Must announce the nature of the conflict before the vote; abstain from voting; and file a memorandum of voting conflict. @ May not participate in the discussion without first disclosing the nature of their interest in the matter (either in writing prior to the meeting, or orally as soon as they become aware that a conflict exists). a May not participate in an attempt to influence the decision. II County Ethics Ordinance Ordinance No. 2003 -53, as amended * Legislative intent * Lobbyist Registration * Gifts from Lobbyists * Gift Definition Exceptions * County managerial employee post employment restrictions County Ethics Ordinance Limited Exceptions Apply! ■ Gifts from relatives. • Unsolicited advertising or promotional materials. • Gifts for participation in a seminar. • Award of nominal commercial value. • Food or beverage offered to all attendees at a business meeting (the $4.00 rule). When in doubt, please ask! A15 11 PENALTIES for violating County Ethics Ordinance 1611 III County Manager Administrative Procedures Code of Ethics /Standards of Conduct CMA #5311 F s� �t *.*Prohibited receipt of gifts or items of value by County Employees -.-Violation may result in disciplinary action up to and including discharge Resources /Contacts OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Scott R. Teach, Deputy County Attorney Colleen M. Greene, Assistant County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail, 81h Floor Naples, FL 34112 Phone: (239) 252 -8400 Fax: (239) 252 -0225 u dons/Concerns Rzarding Sunshine Law Public Records, lTics Ex�PaTe IItsc osure ai rs 12 ff. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit 16 11 � ,AR;R 16 2010 Fiala Halas Coyle Coletta NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD AT HAMMUt'K OAK CENTER, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 ON TUESDAY. APRIL 13. 2010 at 1:OOPM 1. Roll Call 2. Approve Minutes of 3/08/2010 Meeting 3. Audience Participation 4. County Budget Guidelines —Wages, Benefits, Indirect Cost 5. Clam Bay Funding and Projections 6. Capital Project Funding 7. Final Budget Review and Recommendation to full Board 8. Surplus Funds 9. Audience Comments 10.Adjoum ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY ,NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS 'IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION OFFICE AT (239) 597 -1749 AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: Collies° ColtM4- Pelican Bay Se1lrices DI.63ios Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Budget General Funds Capital Projects Funds 15I i'1115A -t awr ionnnnln V Street Clain Bad Capital Total 1lauaanenren# Beoutfir7cation Lynn.$ 61 -03 Projects All Fronds Revenue Caaryfonward 5259.93 SE7.7'.S 5301 _oU-4 S2i1,207 SI,293,635 Incumbered Capital Ca pforvvard Su S4 $G $5, $2.116,639 :2,122,039 interestlecome .6.3,200 3 ,0`00 $1,?0G $1,700 $7,700 522,400 Plan Review Fee Income 31.500 S0 S(1 SO s0 $1,500 lnicrfimd Transfus (Fund 111) r0 Iib I'3 535,000 $0 $35,000 Asaessutent or Advakxem Ta .Levy 5725 000 $1,933.700 5272.500 i- 535.000 $I29 500 700 Total Revenue $919,535 $2-443,265 5361,485: $378,91 1 $2,468,039 S6571274 Appropriations Projections Personal Semites 3175,5G0 - 5370,100 S104,100 $1,149,700 Administration: bx1irect Cost Reimbursunents 5108,2110 S(3 S6,300 $114,500 Other Contractual Services 521,300 $2£,606 S20.80L `.°10,10(+ Telephone - Service Contracts $6w $400 5600 $1,60u Telephone - Direct Line $3,500 93,500 $3,500 $10,500 Postage, Freight & Ups 53,000 $3,000 $2,000 00 Rcrt- Bwldhw $11,106 $11,400 $11,100 $3333,,6600 Rent - Equtu vad $2,500 S2.600 S2.500 57,600 Insurance - Gcoc ai S16,00a MUD $300 s. , S16,900 Information Tech Automation Allocation .55,000 S5,200 SiAm $15,200 Printing or Binding - t"ide Vendors $2,300 $2,600 $0 54,900 Loge) Adverts $2,000 32,000 S0 54,000 Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. 54,0011 £4 0110 FO W000 Office Supplies - General $2,500 $3,000 6800 $7 � Other Training & Educational Exp. $1,100 $1,500 $o $1,600 Other O�� so so 51,000 sl,000 White Gooch - Additional Field Services: $18,300 $16,900 s0 $35,200 $12,000 so $0 $62,100 $74,100 Plan Review Fees $1,5011 50 so $1,500 Electrical Contractors so 50 57,300 57,300 Other Contractual Services S1,000 $29,500 51,500 $93,500 $115,500 Pest Control s0 55,000 s0 $5,000 Tree Trim mg SX000 $35,900 1;11 $65,900 Temporary Labor $42,400 5204.500 s0 $246,900 Berm & Swale Maintenance $14,000 s0 S+0 $14,000 Water Use Cluuges N 383,500 30 $93,800 Rq&nftProgram $8,500 S51,600 s0 $60,100 Celluar TeleOwnesMadios $500 53,200 $500 $4,200 Trash & Duwvd r Fees 58,300 $21,900 s0 $33,200 Water Qty Tag 122,605 $o SU So 522,600 Insurance ance - Vehides $90D $SL900 $900 $11,700 Durance - General $2,400 $9,000 Sm $12,200 Electricity $0 $3,400 541,200 $47,600 Ferdl¢ara, Herbicides, Chem $98.400 $62,000 30 $160,400 Strrutkler System Mont 50 $3Q000 50 S3Q000 Mulch Regrarernents so $60,203 S0 $ Equ tRental s0 $5,500 $0 $5,200 $5,500 Licenses and Permits SO 5800 Sli $800 Repairs & Maintenance & Fuel $9,400 $66,100 $1,700 $500 $77,700 minor Supplies s0 $3,000 s0 $2.400 $5,400 EmpioyeeUndom►s OAT $1,100 $9,400 ^0 $10,500 Operafim Supplies Light, Bulb and Ballast $_'?,500 s0 $11,500 s0 s0 $12,400 31500 Personal sanity Equipnnent $Soo $3,000 $Soo $14,500 54,400 Paird agvhw S0 s800 s0 $a,000 Traffic Sips s0 $3,000 s0 $ White Goods - Additional $0 $3,300 $3,300 $3,000 CapttalOutlay $14,200 558,600 $14,200 s0 $338,000 $6,600 S425,000 ROW Capital Projects/Reserves Clam say Project 3 $5,400 S5,400 Har&CaW hDP- Project Lake Bank Imp. Project $z 093,863 $2 093,863 2 1/2 Mo. Reserve for Operations $157,113 $403,815 $60,288 $220,944 $22,776 522,763 Equipment Resew $32,725 $92,150 $27,500 $842,160 $152,375 Other Charges/Fees Tax Collector Property Appraiser $22,400 $59,800 58,400 51,100 $4,000 $95,700 Revenue Reserve $22,000 200 $53,1E' a $101900 55,600 $700 $2,600 $84,00(1 Total Appropriations 5919 538 265 514 $361488 $1,300 537 800 $16-4900 944 039 571 274 ulvakat Residential UniFs: 7617.29 7617.29 7617.29 7617.29 7617.2 Jed Rate: ERU or 111 NW 595.178 SM-98S 0.8533 ±,1.59 517.110 Projected Total Rate: ERU or AMIage $349.17 O.0w $21.60 Actual Rate (FY 201®) $349.96 0.0531 $26 .8 $370.76 Actual 1)bWr/Miklage Choate 0.00021 5370.65 n ,} A 50.82 50.12 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 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 A Insurance - General Rent Equipment Printing (Outside) Legal Advertising Interdept. Payments Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Computer Sottware Other Educational Sub - total: Additional - Public Relations Sub - total: Total Administrative: 16 I� 1'�q 15" Received Anticipated Total FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Expended MarJSept. Received Budget Actual Bud Year- To-Date 2010 Expended Budget $661,400 $638,15 $742,500 $629,614 $80,000 $709,614 0 $14,600 $16,20 $11,800 $340 $3,200 $3,540 fS729 $1,500 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,532 $0 $81 s0 $81 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $131,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 5808,500 5661 $755 5630 583,200 $713,R5 $38,900 $21,690 $28,000 $9,692 $18,308 $28,000 $28,000 $200 $0 $200 $0 $200 $200 $0 $13,013 $0 $0 s0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 So $0 $4,435 $0 $0 $0 s0 s0 $0 $3,100 $1,555 $2,200 $713 $1,487 $2,200 $2,200 $4,065 $2,136 $3,200 $955 $2,245 $3,200 $3,300 $8,700 $8,700 $10,600 $0 $10,600 $10,600 $7,500 $300 $300 $100 s0 $100 $100 $100 5200 $19 $200 $0 $200 $200 $100 $59,900 $47,413 $44,500 $11,360 $33,140 $44,500 $41,200 $108,600 $108,600 $117,600 $58,800 $58,800 $117,600 $108,200 $37,100 $20,789 $21,300 54,700 $16,600 $21,300 $21,300 $600 $336 $600 $0 $350 $350 $600 $5,000 $2,343 $3,500 $930 $1,500 $2,430 $3,500 $5,700 $2,690 $3,000 $41 $2,700 $2,741 $3,000 $11,100 $11,343 $11,100 $6,245 $5,000 $11,245 $11,100 $4,100 $0 $4,100 $2,050 $2,050 $4,100 $5,000 $1,300 $980 $17,900 $0 $17,900 $17,900 $16,000 $2,300 $2,072 $2,300 $0 $2,300 $2,300 $2,500 $2,300 $1,056 $2,300 $250 $800 $1,050 $2,300 $3,000 $1,153 $2,000 $0 $1,200 $1,200 $2,000 $20,600 $20,600 $0 So $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 s0 $3,000 $3,000 $4,000 $2,500 $664 $4,261 $2,067 $1,200 $3,267 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,100 $1,374 $1100 $103 $500 $603 $1,100 $207,300 $174,000 $193,061 $75,186 $113,900 $189,086 $183,100 $0 $0 $18,300 $0 $0 $0 $18,300 $207,300 $174,000 $211,361 $75,186 $113,900 $189,086 $201,400 $267,200 $221413 L $255861 $86,546 $147,040 $233,586 $24 600 41812010 Z1 Collier County 1b1 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries FY 2009 Budget $76,200 FY 2009 Actual $80,670 Y 2010 Received Expended Year -To -Date Anticipated MarJSept. 2010 Total Received Ez nded $12,000 rBudget $79,400 $27,467 $51,933 $79,400 $1,500 ER 457 Contributions $700 $165 $700 $19 $681 $700 ffRud Reserve For Salary Adjustment $11,646 $0 $0 $0 $0 S0 $0 Overtime $16,400 $16,500 $15,400 $6,157 $9,243 $15,400 $42,400 Social Security Matching $7,400 $7,041 $7,300 $2,442 $4,858 $7,300 $14,000 Regular Retirement $10,054 $9,571 $11,000 $7,032 $3,968 $11,000 $14,700 Health Insurance $26,200 $26,200 $31,700 $0 $31,700 $31,700 $17,400 Life Insurance $500 $500 $200 $0 $200 $200 $300 Worker's Compensation $3,500 $1,133 $2,900 $0 $2,900 $2,9oo $2,500 Sub - total: $152,600 $141,780 $148,600 $43,117 $105,483 $148,600 $134,300 Engineering Fees $12,000 $10,270 $12,000 $0 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 Plan Review Fees $1,500 $750 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Other Contractual Services $51,800 $28,959 $1,000 $272 $500 $772 $1,000 Tree Trimming $0 $0 $27,600 $2,496 $27,000 $29,496 $30,000 Temporary Labor $42,400 $42,000 $42,400 $14,287 $28,000 $42,287 $42,400 Swale Maintenance $14,000 $13,500 $14,000 $0 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 Water Quality Testing(Ind Pay) $14,700 $18,087 $21,100 $1,974 $19,500 $21,474 $22,600 Telephones (Includes Cellular) $1,000 $678 $500 $144 $300 $444 $500 Trash & Garbage Disposal $12,300 $9,790 $8,300 $3,331 $5,500 $8,831 $8,300 Insurance - General $2,500 $2,500 $2,600 $0 $2,600 $2,600 $2,400 Insurance - Auto $4,600 $4,600 $3,600 $0 $3,600 $3,600 $900 Autos Trucks RM $500 S0 $0 $0 $0 so $900 Motor Pool $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 Labor - Fleet Maint (ISF) $1,000 $996 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Fleet Maint Parts $3,000 $637 $4,500 $1,834 $2,500 $4,334 $600 Fleet Non. Maint ISF Parts $200 $662 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Boat R&M $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 Other Equip. R&M $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $1,000 $1'000 $1,500 Uniform Purchase & Rental $1,900 $1,869 $1,900 $1,765 $500 $2,265 $1,100 Fertilizer, Herbicides, Chem $111,100 $79,009 $98,400 $32,602 $64,000 $96,602 $98,400 Replanting Program Fuel & Lubricants - Outside $0 $0 $0 SO $8,500 $0 $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 Fuel & Lubricants - Inside $3,300 $1,736 $0 $2,000 $0 $713 $0 $1,500 $0 $2,213 $0 $3,200 Other Operating Supplies Personal Safety Equipment $13,500 $0 $20,966 $2,500 $1,530 $1,000 $2,530 $2,500 Sub - total: $293,300 $0 $237,009 1 $500 $254,400 $0 $60,948 $500 $192,500 $500 S253.44R $500 mn Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Capital Outlay Building Improvements Improvements General (Mm. Fa Other /Off. Mach. & Equip./ Truc Sub - total: Total Field Services: Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) Current Year Transfer from Fund 133 Current Year Transfer to Fund 322 Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2011 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/10) Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer from Fund 133 (Uninsured Assets) Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Canyforward Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) 4/8/?010 16114A1 FY 2009 Budget FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Bud Received Expended Year- To-Date Anticipated MarJSept. 2010 Total Received Expended Proposed FY 2011 Bud $13,200 $2,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $20,445 $34,200 $13,125 $34,100 $13,200 $1000 $8,232 $0 $3,000 $0 $11,232 $0 $13,200 $1,000 $67,845 $49,325 $14,200 $8,232 $3,000 $11,232 $14,200 $513,745 $428,114 $417,200 $112,297 $300 983 $413280 $404,500 $20,500 $20,700 $34,800 $12,65 $11,663 $23,000 $22,400 $39,000 $12,655 $11,185 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,655 $11,185 $0 $22,400 $22,000 $38,200 $76 000 $24 17 $84 400 $232840 $0 $23,9400 $82,600 $856945 $673,844 $757 461 $222 683 $448,023 $ $42,529 $516,000 $0 52 4 $242,113 $0 $o Sub -total Reserved for Operations: 5157,113 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/10) Adj, to 25% of Replacement $32,725 Fiscal Year 2011 Additions ' $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfers to Carryforward S0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: 532,725 25% Total Equipment Replacement Cost of Replacem Cost Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30,2011 (Projected) 5189,838 3 Colfier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Assessments Interest Income Miscellaneous Reimburse P/Y Expend. Catryforward Total Reveam 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: Info Technology Automation All Other Contractual Sm. Telephone Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Buildings Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Data Proc. Eq. R&M Printing & Binding Legal Advertising Reimb. For Prior Year Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Copying Charges Minor Office Eqpt. Other Operating Supplies Training & Education Sub - total: Additional- Public Relations, Leg; Sub - total: Total Administrative: 418,2010 16 I 11A 11 4 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Expended Mar./Sept. Received FY 2011 Budget Actual Bud et Year- To-Datf 2010 Expended Bud et $1,600,000 $1,543,941 $1,922,500 $1,630,925 $200,000 $1,830,925 $1,934,700 $33,300 $39,68 $28,700 $871 $7,700 $8,571 $8,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $291,600 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 $1924,900 $1,583,863 $1,941200 $1631796 $207,700 $1839496 $1947,300 $40,200 $18,822 $28,900 $9,986 $18,914 $28,900 $28,900 $200 $200 $0 $200 $200 $0 $o $13,4 $0 $0 S0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,553 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200 $4,225 $2,200 $735 $1,465 $2,200 $2,200 $1,847 $1,854 $3,300 $984 $2,316 $3,300 $3,400 $8,700 $8,7 $10,600 $0 $10,600 $10,600 $7,700 $300 $3 $100 $0 $100 $100 $100 $100 - $300 $0 $300 $300 $100 $59,100 $47,225 $45,600 $11,705 $33,895 $45,600 $42,400 $4,200 $4,200 $2,100 $2,100 $4,200 $5,200 $46,600 $27,742 $28,000 $5,212 $23,000 $28,212 $28,000 $400 $33 $400 $0 $260 $260 $400 $5,000 $2,343 $3,500 $930 $1,700 $2,630 $3,500 $5,500 $3 $3,000 $12 $2,900 $2,912 $3,000 $11,400 $11, $11,400 $5,534 $5,700 $11,234 $11,400 $2,400 $2,09 $2,400 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,600 $500 $37 $500 $0 $o $0 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,600 $2,600 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $2,600 $3,000 $75 $2,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 S0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $4,000 $3,000 $711 $4,774 $2,029 $900 $2,929 $3,000 $o $1,1 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 S0 $o $0 $0 $0 S0 $o $0 $0 $4,500 $265 $1,500 $0 $800 $800 $1,500 $91,100 $47,888 $66,274 $15,817 $44,360 $60,177 $67,700 $0 so $16,900 $0 $0 $0 $16,900 $91,100 $47,888 $83,174 $15,817 $44,360 $60,177 $84,600 $150,200 $95,113 $128,774 $27,522 P8,2 5105 777 $127,000 4 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Overtime Reserve For Salary Adjust Social Security Retirement - Regular Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: Engineering Fees Water Use Charges Replanting Program Other Contractual Services Tree Trimming Pest Control Temporary Labor Motor Pool Rental Cellular Telephone Postage, Freight & UPS Electricity/Utilities Trash & Garbage Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Insurance - Vehicle Sprinkler System Maint. Landscaping Maint. Auto & Truck R&M Fleet Maint ISF Labor Fleet Maint ISF Parts Fleet Maint Non -ISF Parts Hurricane Wilma Expenditures Other Equip. R&M Licenses & Permits Uniform Purchases & Rental Fert. Herbicides & Chem. Fuel & Lubricants - Outside Fuel & Lubricants - ISF Minor Operating Equip. Other Operating Supplies Personal Safety Equipment Paint Supplies Traffic Signs Books & Publications Other Training/Educational Sub - total: Additional - Mulch Requirements Sub - total: Total Field Services: 16I1115 FY 2009 Bud et FY 2009 Actual FY 2010 Bud et Received Expended Year- To-Dati Anticipated MarJSept. 2010 Total Received Expended Proposed FY 2011 Budget $427,100 $436,891 $444,200 $155,004 - $289,196 $444,200 $442,600 $2,200 $1,17 $2,200 $220 $1,980 $2,200 $2,200 $110,200 $109,18 $102,600 $36,331 $66,269 $102,600 $103,000 $49,376 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,500 $39,803 $41,900 $13,860 $28,040 $41,900 $41,900 $57,324 $53,78 $63,100 $18,846 $44,254 $63,100 $96,200 $%,2 $116,100 $0 $116,100 $116,100 ,600 $1 500 $3,400 $3, $1,600 $0 $1,600 $1,600 ,100 $24,900 -$1,32 $35,000 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $38,800 $813,200 $739,105 $806,700 $224,261 $582,439 $806,700 $827,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $82,100 $83,722 $83,800 $33,764 $47,500 $81,264 $83,800 $46,600 $40,98 $46,600 $28,266 $25,000 $53,266 $51,600 $31,300 $37,30 $29,500 $14,660 $12,000 $26,660 $29,500 $25,000 $27,55 $25,000 $31,095 $7,500 $38,595 $35,900 $6,500 $6,475 $6,500 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $226,000 $200,233 $211,800 $58,899 $140,000 $198,899 $204,500 $800 $55 $800 $216 $300 $516 $700 $4,000 $3,33 $3,800 $1,040 $2,100 $3,140 $3,200 SO $0 S0 S0 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,45 $3,400 $1,119 $1,900 $3,019 $3,400 $37,000 $16,3 $24,900 $6,324 $16,000 $22,324 $24,900 $8,500 $5,16 $8,500 $2,516 $3,000 $5,516 $5,500 $8,400 $6,28 $12,200 $0 $12,200 $12,200 $9,000 $11,300 $11,3 $9,300 $0 $9,300 $9,300 $9,900 $30,000 $32,2 $30,000 $5,188 $25,000 $30,188 $30,000 $63,500 $55,42 $60,200 ,- $28,753 $32,000 $60,753 $60,200 $100 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $12,200 $12,204 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,500 $11,300 $9,131 $29,400 $11,819 $17,500 $29,319 $9,600 $900 $899 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $10,088 $0 $0 $o $0 $2,000 $800 $800 $340 $400 $740 5800 $12,000 $11, $12,000 $2,371 $7,100 $9,471 $9,400 $48,500 $61,861 $58,500 $28,355 $35,000 $63,355 $62,000 $100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $52,000 $31,81 $47,100 $10,305 $25,000 $35,305 $44,100 $3,000 $1,73 $3,000 $1,155 $1,800 $2,955 $3,000 $11,500 $33,143 $11,500 $7,630 $7,500 $15,130 $11,500 $3,000 $ $3,000 $532 $2,000 $2,532 $3,000 $1,500 $87 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $800 $3,000 $3,62 $3,000 $530 $2,000 $2,530 $3,000 $0 S0 S0 S0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $259 $0 $259 $0 $744,900 $705,986 $726,100 $275,136 $438,600 $713,736 $716,000 0 $744,900 $705,986 $3,300 RX $0 $275,136 $0 $43&600 $0 $713736 1 $3,300 719,300 $1,558,100 $1445 091 $1 536 100 E199097 $1021039 $1.520,436 $_ 000 5 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 Budget to Actual Expenditures Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements General Autos & Trucks Other Mach. & Equip. Total Capitol Outlay: Other Fees & Charges Property Appraiser Tax Collector Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: 4/812010 161 1'1115' Net Income $88,335 Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2009 Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) Y 2010 Expended Mar,/Sept. Received FY 2011 Budget $578,015 ud Year- To-Dati 2010 Expended Budget $13,600 J$5 $13,600 $1,618 $11,481 $13,099 $13,600 $0 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,000 $26,000 $25,462 $0 $25,462 $28,000 $1,000 $25,000 $16,080 $9,000 $25,080 $17,000 $36,600 $35,394 $64,600 $43,160 $20,481 $63,641 $58,600 $46,300 $25, $52,800 $28,764 $o $28,764 $53,100 $49,500 $30,981 $59,500 $32,543 $0 $32,543 $59,800 $84,200 $101,000 $0 50 $0 $101,800 $180,000 $56,941 $213,300 $61,307 $0 $61,307 $214,700 $1924,900 5163 539 $1,94 774 $631 386 $1,119,775 $1, 751 161 $1947,300 Net Income $88,335 Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) $1,204,100 Current Year Transfer From Fund 133 S0 Current Year Transfer to Fund 322.,. Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) 5674,165 Distribution of Projected Fund Balance Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/10) $578,015 Transfer from Fund 133 (Uninsured Assets) $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Canyforward $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $403,815 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement: (Opening Balance 10 /01 /10) $96,150 Fiscal Year 2011 Additions $40,000 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfers to Carryforward Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay 592,150 Total Fund Balance - September 30,2011 (projected) $495,965 6 Cashier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 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 Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Building Rent - Equipment Reimburse PN Expend. Insurance - General Info Technology Automation Alle Office Supplies Copying Charges Minor Office Equipment Other Operating Supplies Sub - total: Additional- Public Relation Sub - total: Total Administrative: 16114A1 7 Received Anticipated Total Pposed FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Expended Marisept. Received 011 Budget Actual Bud Year- To-Date 2010 Expended d t $298,700 $281,81 $285,700 $236,458 $32,500 $268,958 $272,500 $6,200 $8,488 $4,600 $170 $1,200 $1,370 $1,200 s0 $281 $0 $39 $0 $39 $0 $0 $300 $0 $0 s0 $0 $304,900 $290587 $290,000 $236,667 $33,700 $270,367 $273,700 $38,900 $18,260 $28,000 $9,692 $18,308 $28,000 $28,000 $200 $200 $0 $200 $200 $0 $0 $14,076 $0 so so $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 so $2,235 $0 $0 s0 $0 $0 $3,100 $1,313 $2,100 $713 $1,387 $2,100 $2,200 $1,765 $73 $3,200 $955 $2,245 $3,200 $3,300 $100 -$5 $200 so $200 $200 $100 $0 $ s0 s0 s0 $0 $7,500 $100 $1 $200 s0 $200 0 $100 $46,400 $34,435 $33,900 $11,360 $22,540 0 $41,200 $12,100 $12,1 $6,700 $3,350 $3,350 0 $6,300 $36,600 $20,7 $20,800 $4,700 $16,000 0 $20,800 $600 $28 $600 $300 0 $600 $3,500 $835 $3,500 $675 $200 5 $3,500 $2,000 $2,000 s0 $500 0 $2,000 $11,100 $11,343 $11,100 $5,173 $5,800 ]27 $11,100 $2,300 $1,643 $2,300 s0 $2,000 $2,500 s0 $ $0 s0 $0 s0 $400 $30 $400 $o 5400 $400 $4,100 $4,100 $2,050 $2,050 $5,000 $500 $23 $2,262 $1,762 $400 $800 s0 $ s0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 s0 $0 $0 s0 $0 $1,000 $0 $400 $400 $1000 $74,200 $47,456 $54,762 $17,710 $31,400 $49,110 $54,000 $0 $ $19,800 s0 s0 s0 $0 $74,200 $47,456 $74,562 $17,710 $31,400 $49,110 $54,000 $120600 681,891 $108 462 629,070 $53,940 $83,0101 $95,200 7 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 & Fiscal Year 2009 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 Telephone Direct Cellular Phones Electricity Auto Insurance Insurance Fleet Maintenance Electrical Contractor Light Bulbs Ballast Other Supplies Equipment Repari Personnel Safety Equipment Sub - total: Additional- 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: 1611"A1 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Expended MarJSept. Received 2011 Bud et Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2010 Expended Bud et $38,800 $41,75 $40,500 $13,995 $26,505 $40,500 $40,500 $200 $165 $200 $19 $181 $200 $200 $4,300 $4,40 $4,000 $1,590 $2,410 $4,000 $4,000 $2,224 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,400 $3,341 $3,400 $1,127 $2,273 $3,400 $3,400 $4,776 $4,54 $4,600 $1,535 $3,065 $4,600 $5,300 $o $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $1,400 $21 $1,300 $0 $1,300 $1,300 $1,100 $0 $4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,100 $54,482 $54,000 $18,266 $35,734 $54,000 $62,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $81 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $2 $800 $72 $200 $272 $500 $44,200 $40,105 $44,200 $13,461 $30,000 $43,461 $44,200 $1,300 $1,3 $1,100 $0 $1,100 $1,100 $900 $700 $528 $800 $0 $800 $800 $800 $1,800 $1,383 $2,200 $1,289 $800 $2,089 $1,700 $12,200 $9,972 $7,300 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,300 $20,400 $9,563 $12,400 $2,609 $9,500 $12,109 $12,400 $200 $2, $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $ $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 $85,100 $69,601 $71,000 $17,431 $50,400 $67,831 $69,800 $0 $14,500 $0 $0 $0 $3,300 $85,100 $69,601 $85,500 $17,431 $50,400 $67,831 $140 200 $124,0183 $139500 $35,697 $86,134 $121831 =$73 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,200 $5,480 $13,200 $0 $11,232 $11,232 $13,200 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $14,200 $5,480 $14,200 $0 $12,232 $12,232 $14,200 $14,200 $5,4801 $14,200 $0 $1 232 $12,232 $14.200 $8,100 $ $8,800 $4,756 $0 $4,756 $8,400 $5,300 $ $5,800 $1,140 $0 $1,140 $5,600 $14,900 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $14,300 $28,300 $0 $29,600 $5,896 $0 $5,896 $28,300 $28 300 $ $$29 600 $5,896 $0 $5 896 $28,300 $303,300 $211454 291,762 $70 663 $152,306 $22Z%9-1 $273,700 16111A15 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2009 Net Income from Operations $47,398 Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) $310,400 Current Year Transfers To Fund 322 Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) $171,388 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2011 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10 /01 /10) $143,888 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer from Fund 110 $0 Fiscal Year 2011Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $60,288 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equip. Replacement: (Opening Balance 10- 01 -10) $27,500 Fiscal Year 2011 Additions $o Fiscal Year 2011 Transfers to Carryforward $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $27,500 Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2011 (Projected) $87,788 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Revenue Projections Canyforward Interest Income Transfer from TDC Transfers from Fund I I 1 Assessment Levy Appropriation Projection Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance (511001) Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Water Quality Testing Program Repairs & Maintenance Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Clam Bay Capital Projects (511051) Engineering Consultant Services Other Contractual Services Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve $80,900 $1,700 $0 $35,000 $35,000 Total Available Funds: $152,600 $62,100 $83,500 $0 $500 $2 400 $500 Total Operating Expenditures $149,000 $0 $0 Total Ecosystem Enhancements $0 $1,100 $700 $1,800 Total Other Fees & Charges: $3,600 10 Total Appropriations: $152,600 16I1'A1 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 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 Water Quality Repairs & Maintenance Postage Frt Minor Operating Eqpt. Computer Software Other Operating Supplies Total Operations Ecosystem Enhancements (183805) Engineering Other Contractual Total Capital Projects Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser 'Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees and Charges Total Appropriations Adopted FY 2009 Budget Adopted FY 2010 Budget Received Expended Year- To-Date Anticipated Mar./Sept 2010 Total Received Expended Proposed FY 2011 Budget $106,100 S0 $350,9W $102400 so $90,620 $0 $6,600 $o $97,220 $o $80,900 $35,000 $0 $11,000 $214,000 $0 $0 $o $102400 $0 $1,046 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $1,046 $0 $35,000 $0 $1,700 $35,000 5331300 $555,700 $91,666 $41,600 1133,266 $152,600 $125,600 $87,100 $2,900 $900 $o $1,000 $0 $7,500 $83,100 $83,500 $0 $500 $o UAW $0 $500 $3,300 $6,240 $0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $106,300 $46,760 $0 $500 $o $1,000 $0 $500 $109,600 $53,000 $0 $500 $o $1000 $0 $500 $62,100 $83,500 $500 $2,400 $500 5225,000 $170,000 $9,540 $I 060 $164,600 $149,000 WOW $15,000 $25,000 $350,000 $13,175 $o $2,500 $25,000 S15,675 $25,000 $o $0 595,000 $375,000 $13;175 527,500 540,675 $0 $300 $2,200 $5,600 53,200 $2,100 $5,400 $1,812 $1,535 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,812 51,535 $0 $1,100 $700 $1,800 511,100 $10,700 $3,347 10 $3,347 $3,600 1331,100 1 $555,700 $26,062 1182,560 !&08 62Z 5152,600 11 161115; Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 Net Income ($75,356) Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) $382,600 Current Year Transfer to Fund 322 $0 Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) 307,244 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2011 Opening Balance (10/01110) $307,244 Reserved for Previously Budgeted Program/Projects Transfer to Carryforward S80,900 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $220,944 Total Fund Balance - September 30,2011 (projected) $220,944 12 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2011 Capital Projects Fund M igation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Revenue Summary Carryforward $214,200 Interest Income $7,700 Assessment Levy $129,500 Total Available Funds: $351,400 Appropriation Projection $0 Capital Projects $0 Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements $0 Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (500661) - �p " Engineering $0 Other Contractual Services $338,000 Landscape Materials $o Mulch Requirements $o Other Operating Supplies $0 Total Improvements S338 ,000 Lake Bank Enhancements (510261) Engineering $o Other Contractual Services $o Total Improvements $0 Pelican Bay Hardscape Improvements (510281) Engineering $0 Other Contractual Services $0 Other Operating Supplies $0 Total Improvements - �p " Tax Collector $4,000 Property Appraiser $2,600 Revenue Reserve $6_ ,800_ Total Other Fees & Charges: _ $13,400 Equivalent Residential Units 7617.29 Projected ERU Rate: $17.00 13 Total Appropriations: $351,400 41812010 16114 All 4!8/2010 Collier County 16119151, Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2011 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, 2010 Received Anticipated Total Variance Budget Amended Expended Mar. /Sept. Received Over FY 2010 Budget tear -To-%t 2010 Expended (Under) Revenue: Assessment Levy $55,900 $49,566 $3,500 $53,066 $2,834 Interestlncome $19,800 $429 $5,500 $5,929 $13,871 Transfer from Other Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous Income $o $o $o $0 $0 Developer Contribution $0 $0 $o $0 $o Carryforward of Rolled Erx $0 $0_ $0 $0 $0 Canyforward $2,029,500 $0 $o $0 $2,029,500 Total Revenue $2,105,200 $49,995 $9,000 $58,995 $2,046,205 Appropriations: Pelican Bay Handscape Renovations (5011661) Engineering Fees $170,218 $42,227 $65,355 $107,582 $62,636 Other Contractual Services $2,036,227 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $2,031,227 Landscape Materials $o $0 so $o $0 Maintenance Landscaping $o $0 $o $0 $0 Other Operating Supplies $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,206,445 $42227 $70,355 $112,582 $2,093,863 Lake Bank Enhancement (510261) Engineering Fees 5500 $0 $0 $0 $500 Other Contractual Services $90,225 $67,949 $0 $67,949 $22,276 Sprinider System Maintens $0 $o $0 $o $0 Maintenance Landscaping $o $o $o $o $o Landscape Materials $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,725 $67,949 $0 $67,949 $22,776 Total Operating Expenses $2,297,170 $110,176 $70,355 $180,531 $2,116,639 14 418120'10 ibis A15q Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2011 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, 2010 Received Anticipated Total Variance Budget Expended MarJSept. Received Over FY 2010 Year -To-Dat 2010 Expended (Under) Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector $14,000 $991 $0 $991 513,009 Property Appraiser 513,800 $837 $0 5837 $12,963 Revenue Reserve $23,9W $0 $0 $0 S23,900 Total Other Fees & Chgs. $51,700 51,828 $0 $1,828 $49,872 Total Appropriations $2,348,870 $112,004 $70,355 $182,359 52,166,511 Net Income ($123,364) Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) $1,023,000 Current Year Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320 51,088,371 Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) S1,988,007 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2011 Reserved for Capital Outlay Irr. & Landscaping Analysis (Opening Balance 10/01110) $1,988,007 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfers from Funds 109, 320,778 $342,800 Incumbered Carryforward- Previously Budgeted Programs/Proyru Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Carryforward $214,168 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: SO Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2010 (Projected) SO 15 pN� as W h 8 O � W 1-1 iH O ONO pOp 00 OOt�i� 0 e0 v CD v> O0D °o oo °O o o ' 0 0 N O A y9 A O O O O 619 o 0 ~ 0a0 OD O 0 C C i b9 A exi 69 w 5 A QGO O0 � ad G N O a W J c. O A b9 O v rt W � � o 0 O ra co M14 Q � a rL " m �. 0 O ti O O0 ~ m lrOD al Ae Q W o rr 0 0 0 0 G w 64 co 00 fin a W � OD %* W N N pU m N N C ..i OA to -.,. 69 60 O n bH ►+ G 40 60 w at A N O d b o � O O pN� as W h 8 O � W 1-1 iH O ONO pOp 00 OOt�i� 0 e0 v CD v> O0D °o oo °O o o ' 0 0 N O A y9 A O O O O 619 o 0 ~ 0a0 OD O J LV 00 O W to b9 00 O p OND O � O ONO a fA o w oODD o 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 5n W O J IJ C> A O _ A I �I0 0 O O O C C i b9 A exi 69 w 5 A QGO O0 � ►+ G N O a W J c. O b9 O v W � � o 0 O ra M14 Q � /1 lg�J O Q �. 0 O ago O0 E3 al Ae Q W p a 0 0 0 0 G w 64 co d a � CD m � a G m L � d b o � 000 ~ A C a brs vs ^ ►" ra N � N � , . 69 .G► N O J T O G W J LV 00 O W to b9 00 O p OND O � O ONO a fA o w oODD o 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 5n W O J IJ C> A O _ A I �I0 0 O O O N 000 O O O O J (il W at N U �O �" tJ O O O v O n O g N b b9 A Fes+ 69 D O A QGO O0 � ►+ G N O a W J c. O b9 O v W N 000 O O O O J (il W at N U �O �" tJ O O O v O n O g 1613A15 C � to C n � � a C � � e C vs � O D O QGO O0 � G O c. W d Cl ra ago O0 E3 r� Ae e a 0 0 0 0 G w 64 co d tth CD G O Co p. G m L G d b 000 C a brs vs ^ ►" ra G. W 000 W A to N O J T O G W G R O � d O O 0* v 1613A15 C � to C n � � a C � � e C vs � 1611qA151 61pedow is the information on SUrplus property sale pr(-.jcee.ds t , orthe past three years- FY 2007' * 109. $4'120 Cv .2000 None FY 2009 * -109 $2560 16 1 11h,15`1'1`---- J,a, yR Fiala ✓ Halas Pelican Bay Improvement Plan Henning Work Group Meeting Agenda Coyle April 14, 2010 Coletta 8:30 to 9:00 Open Business Items —Work Group Discussions • Community Town Hall Meeting Recap o Review Bike Lanes Addition to the Boulevards • Clay Brick Cross Walk Pavement Images • Bay Colony • Sarasota 9:00 to 9:30 Demonstration Improvement Plan Area — Buy -in and Implementation • Demonstration Plan Areas - Second Review • Demonstration Plans Opinion of Cost 9:30 to 10:30 Improvement Plans Area and Associated Budgets Review • South Community Berm • Central Community Berm • North Community Berm • Commons Option 5 • Street Lighting Update 10:30 to 11:00 Review Initial Work Group Feedback on Task Priority Assignments • Preliminary Work Group Feedback • Email Correspondences 11:00 to 11:45 Presentation of Draft Master Plan Report and Appendix • Report Chapters 1 through 5 Content • Appendix Content 11:45 to Noon Wrap up 4/13/2010 - 217008 - Ver: 1 - KMANGAN N0103-086-003- -0 • Review Handouts for Chapters 1, 2 & 3 of the Master Plan Report Misc. Correa: Date: Item #: Copies to: am ill www naplespathways -org Naples Pathways Coalition 1611"15 Why join? To enjoy creating a community with safe streets, sidewalks, and greenways so that pedestrians and cyclists can safely commute, recreate, and enjoy our unique outdoor environment. Being part of this process enables you to join great folks committed to having fun in the outdoors. What have we done? • Public programs and national speakers on walking, cycling safety, cycling for fun, and the Rails -to- Trails movement. • NPC events include The Turkey Ride, The Bicycle Brunch, the CAN Ride and The Everglades Ride. • Initial bike safety certification program by the Florida Bicycle Association. • We have supported The City of Naples in the quest to develop sidewalks and a City Pathways Plan and current plans for its first bike /pedestrian coordinator, developed a City Bike Map with the Chamber. • We have supported the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization's efforts to develop a Comprehensive Pathways Plan with over 500 miles of new sidewalks, bike lanes, and greenways throughout Naples and Collier County. • We have participated in planning for the Florida Power & Light Greenway and the Gordon River Greenway projects which will soon become a reality. • Help City and County officials become more aware of the "Push for Pathways" in our community. • Finalized IRS- 501(C) 3 to achieve status as a non - profit organization which will allow us to qualify for funding from a variety of philanthropic sources. Our Tax ID # is 20- 2833245. • Instrumental in achieving a redirection of FDOT annual funds, increasing the pathway box fund from $500,000 per year to $2 million. This is the amount set aside for putting in sidewalks and bikes lanes as needed, on a retrofit basis. • Worked with the Naples Police Department and Emergency Services to put on Bike Safety Rodeos for kids in the community. • Started an on -going program with the Naples Police Department called Lights for Cyclists At Risk (CABs) where we install lights on bikes of cyclists in need who commute to or from work after dark. • Awarded a grant that will provide 2 years of technical expertise to bring the River of Grass Greenway, an off -road multi -use trail from Collier County to Miami -Dade County from a dream to a reality! • Received the Walter Keller Architectural Awareness Award from the American Institute of Architechts for our contribution to the improvement of the built environment in Collier County. Plans for the future? • More fun activities including both walking and cycling events. • Develop and deliver more bicycling education and safety programs for children. • Provide more safety equipment and education for low- income residents. • Remain a proactive voice of the citizens who expect safe and commutable pedestrian pathways • Continue public speaking engagements to citizen groups throughout our community. • Move forward on the River of Grass Greenway. Your membership helps us: • Create a variety of NPC sponsored events, booths, and promotions. • Cover necessary administrative expenses. • Design and produce helpful outreach materials. • Maintain a user - friendly web site. • Recruit new members to help support our mission. • Initiate grant writing efforts to secure necessary additional funding. NAP�E� COILITION Who We Are—, The Naples Pathway Coalition is a non -profit group of local citi- zens advocating a fully integrated and safe pedestrian, bicycle and other non - motorized transportation network throughout Naples and Collier County. Why Join... So you can help create a complete system of safe streets, side- walks, pathways and greenways within Naples and Collier County. With your support, pedestrians, bicyclists and other forms of non - motorized transportation can safely commute, recreate and enjoy our great outdoors Yes, I would like to Join.,. Name/Business Email Phone Address Total enclosed $ 1611' A15' To: Pelican Bay Joint Working Group Subject: Rationale for Bike Lanes in Pelican Bay From: Frank Jamerson, Ph.D. resident 24 years Calvin Grayson, 18 years, former Sec. KY Dept. Transportation 1. The Department of Transportation announced a Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Regulations and Recommendations signed March 11, 2010 that encourages transportation agencies to provide facilities to foster increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians. 2. Research nationwide shows that streets with bicycle lanes have the lowest bicycle fatality rate. (A Pelican Bay bicyclist was killed several years ago while riding on a sidewalk and hit by a car exiting a community.) 3. A bicyclist is more likely to use a bike lane when it is available. A bike lane restricts the bicyclist to the four foot bike lane. Vehicles need to provide a three foot space when passing a bicycle. That is accommodated easily with two 10 foot vehicle lane and a 4 foot bike lane on Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Boulevard. Cars are 5.5 feet wide, SUVs up to 7 feet wide, bicycles are 2.5 feet wide. (Information from Florida Bicycle Assn. www.florida bicycle. ora_.) 4. The Naples Pathway Coalition works with Collier County and Naples officials to promote the extension of bicycling lanes and pedestrian walkways. A similar organization, bikewalklee.org is active in Lee County. 5. Pelican Bay needs to keep up with the national movement to promote bicycling and walking. This will lead to Pelican Bay resident's improved health and reduce our dependency on foreign oil that is harming USA financial integrity. April 13, 2010 Attached: DOT Policy /Naples Pathway Coalition/Naples Master Plan 1611 'A15° United States Department of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations Signed on March 11, 2010 and announced March 15, 2010 Purpose The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) is providing this Policy Statement to reflect the Department's support for the development of fully integrated active transportation networks. The establishment of well - connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component for livable communities, and their design should be a part of Federal -aid project developments. Walking and bicycling foster safer, more livable, family- friendly communities; promote physical activity and health; and reduce vehicle emissions and fuel use. Legislation and regulations exist that require inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian policies and projects into transportation plans and project development. Accordingly, transportation agencies should plan, fund, and implement improvements to their walking and bicycling networks, including linkages to transit. In addition, DOT encourages transportation agencies to go beyond the minimum requirements, and proactively provide convenient, safe, and context- sensitive facilities that foster increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, and utilize universal design characteristics when appropriate. Transportation programs and facilities should accommodate people of all ages and abilities, including people too young to drive, people who cannot drive, and people who choose not to drive. Recommended Actions Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes: The primary goal of a transportation system is to safely and efficiently move people and goods. Walking and bicycling are efficient transportation modes for most short trips and, where convenient intermodal systems exist, these nonmotonzed trips can easily be linked with transit to significantly increase trip distance. Because of the benefits they provide, transportation agencies should give the same priority to walking and bicycling as is given to other transportation modes. Walking and bicycling should not be an afterthought in roadway design. 1611' A15 Naples Pathway. Coalition What's new in the County! Naples Pathways Coalition is pleased to report that Norm Feder, Transportation Service Administrator, and Nick Casolanguida, Transportation Planning Director have "committed the transportation division to providing the residents of Collier County a first class network of sidewalks, bike lanes and multi -use paths ". Collier County Transportation working with the FOOT and Land Developers achieved a lot in the last year. This is a list of the pathways that have come together. Bike Lanes This year several great new bike lanes openedl We now have bike lanes on Vanderbilt Beach Road from US 41 to Collier Boulevard (951). Vanderbilt Beach Road's completion ties northern Collier County together, intersecting bike lanes on US 41, Livingston Rd, Oaks multi- use trail, Vineyards Blvd, the Logan Blvd Greenway and Collier Boulevard. Collier Boulevard has new bike lanes from Golden Gate Blvd to Immokalee Road. The best part is the interconnection with Collier Blvd connecting Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road bike lanes and to Golden Gate Boulevard bike lanes. In July, the Collier Boulevard bike lanes, from US 41 to Davis Boulevard will be back in action. Vanderbilt Drive south of Wiggins Pass Road has new multi -use pathway bridges and under construction a wider bike friendly bridge over the Cocohatchee River. Lee County Pedestrian/Bicycle organization www.bikewalklee.org 16 11 in 15� City of Naples Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Resolution No. 07 -11621 adopted by the City Council on May 2, 2007 Bicycle Master Plan Recommendations [D Phase I - Restriping and signing: As indicated in Resolution No. 07- 11621, emphasis has been placed on properly signing and marking existing paved shoulders which currently meet the adequate width to be designated as bike lanes. Additional focus has been placed on restriping bike lanes that did not meet recommended design standards. In addition, opportunities for providing signage, such as "Share the Road" signs, in constrained corridors have also been identified. E] Phase H- Preliminary Action on Gulf Shore Blvd. "Share the Road" signs throughout the Gulf Shore Blvd. corridor and the creation of a bicycle sustainability map that identifies bicycle facilities across the City. E] Phase III- Bike Lanes in Gulf Shore Blvd. /Crayton Rd. Corridor: Construction of bicycle lanes on Gulf Shore Blvd. South, Crayton Rd., and 20th Ave. South. Ten -Year Implementation Program As shown in Table 2, the cost of the Bicycle Master Plan improvements totals approximately $3.8 million, or $380,000 annually over ten years. The City should: n Establish a policy /performance measure to monitor progress on an annual basis. (For example, the City shall increase the amount of bicycle facilities per year by 10 %). EJ Develop an annual report to describe progress made and make it available to the City Council and general public. Pedestrian Master Plan Recommendations School Improvements: The schools within the City of Naples were examined and areas for improved connectivity and safety were identified for Lake Park Elementary, Seagate Elementary, Gulfview Middle School, Naples High School, and St. Ann's School. The improvements established include constructing missing sidewalk gaps and improving signage for all schools as well as installing signalized mid -block crossings for Gulfview Middle School. Sidewalk Facilities: The following projects have been identified to form the backbone of the sidewalk improvement program within the City of Naples: E] Construct a 5' foot sidewalk on the west side of Gulf Shore Blvd. from 5th Avenue South to the Naples Pier Sidewalk gaps on collector roadways that are less than two blocks E] Primary sidewalk connections in the Gulf Shore Blvd. /Crayton Rd. corridors Ten -Year Implementation Program As shown in Table 1, the cost of the Pedestrian Master Plan improvements totals approximately $2.2 million, or $220,000 annually over ten years. The City should: E] Establish a policy /performance measure to monitor progress on an annual basis. (For example, the City shall increase the amount of sidewalk facilities per year by 10 %). E] Develop an annual report to describe progress made and make it available to the City Council and general public. Background 1611 A The purpose of this refined master plan effort is to advance certain outdoor public area Strategic Master Plan initiatives outlined in earlier studies commissioned by the Pelican Bay Foundation and prepare a Community - Wide Improvement Master Plan. Under the guidance of the Pelican Bay Strategic Planning Committee and in association with the Pelican Bay a^ Services Division, both Owners and operators of these public area lands, this set of improvement plans and M initiatives outlines community -wide improvements and associated opinions of costs for future implementation a of projects throughout the Pelican Bay Community. The guiding principles for project identification and development set forth in the Strategic Master Plan are as follows: • Safety and Security in the Community • Preservation of Property Values within the Community • Promote the Quality of Life in Pelican Bay O CL These studies and proposed improvements have been developed through an intense six month on -site working session. This has included multiple public educational meetings and a number of progress reviews with the E. ro workgroup formed by the Pelican Bay Strategic Planning Committee and the Pelican Bay Services Division co Board. c ra While these two groups are both represented by residents of the Pelican Bay Community, their charges are V a) more often separate and unique from one and other rather than collaborative in design and decision making as this exercise has been. Lands that both entities control are part of this study, and the common interest of both in the guiding principles above and their unique duties on the committee /board they serve has formed this workgroup and provided comprehensive direction to these results. The following eleven elements were studied and have been addressed in the plans that follow: 1. Traffic 2. Pathways 3. Lighting 4. Landscape 5. US -41 Berm 6. Community Berm 7. Tram Stations 8. Signage 9. Parks 10. New Technologies 11. Public Art Landscape Improvement Study Area Background Text 72] X v LA ns a C ca a +r C W E v O L E �a m c V a 1611 'A 151 While these elements have been studied individually, more often than not, one element can not be addressed in the community without having to consider two or three other elements at the same time. As this is the nature of community and community development, any one improvement project is often times a complexion of many elements. However, we have endeavored to view and present projects and the opinions of cost in a flexible and phased manner. We understand that many items beyond the control of the Community Leadership may affect the ability to move projects ahead or delay them where necessary at any given time in the future. Furthermore, we understand that projects may need to be completed one piece at a time and the implementation plans represented here allow for this need too. This report is presented in a methodical order that represents the data collection, formative design studies, preliminary conclusions and finally the implementation plans and associated opinions of cost. Implementation plans are almost always presented comprehensively by geographic area or as a typical solution. Some elements are not as readily represented as such and community -wide systems that require their own master plan for the element such as lighting are developed with this recognition in mind. Project Area Map The Improvement Study Area is shown on the adjacent map and aerial of the Pelican Bay Community. Pelican Bay Foundation lands, facilities and amenities are shown in green colors and symbols on this exhibit. The street ROW'S (right -of -ways) are owned by Collier County and managed by the Pelican Bay Service Division. The US 41 berm is a continuous and cohesive earthen landscaped berm that separates US 41 from the community with the exception of where Pelican Bay roadway interrupt the berm and intersect with US 41 at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. Where not in an area of Foundation property, the berm continues to exist under the control of the specific home - owners association that is adjacent to it. The Community entry signage is shown here as a red asterisk and is one of the elements of this study. Landscape Improvement Study Area I Background Text C ��rrr 0 a I a � �b 1 o i a 1 1 1 1 l \ 1 t t I 1 1 1 l xm ♦ NO 31V9V3S 7 v w Landscape Improvement Study Area I Community Plan How I..L I..L W ^E W O ^L ].L E\ M� W V N 25 1_ 4 ai Ln ra a C +r a E C) 0 Q E m ra L) a� a MS. � . � Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 1611 I A In order to create an integral study of improvements and a phased implementation plan each element of the community was required to be viewed in both its individual needs and the contributing role it had on any one improvement solution. Throughout this design process, site reconnaissance was required on a regular and ongoing basis. This allowed for the complexity of the site improvement issues to unfold with time, permitted us to observe the different use habits of the residents in the community at different times of the day and evening hours and allowed for a variety of observations that mirrored the complexity of the community wide needs. The following further outlines the conclusions of community needs based on the site reconnaissance, public discussions and observations of this effort. • Increase safety and security throughout the community in lighting, landscaping, pathways, technology and traffic design applications. • Restate and reinforce the community's commitment to being a safe, walkable and mobile community through the separation of uses where the automobile /truck and the pedestrian activities will often vie for common space in the boulevards and facility areas. • Quality enhancement of lifestyle may be found in use of quality, long lived materials; by providing enhanced access and mobility to the community amenities and facilities; by providing a secure environment for its residents; and ensuring that probative life cycle costs do not burden the contemplated improvement. • Provide consistent application of improvements across the community in the use of materials and design solutions. • Maintain the community's strong ties with the natural environment as these continue to be green and sustainable relationships established before it was quantified and fashionable to be green. • Introduce new and forward looking sustainable practices where possible. Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview Traffic Analysis 1611 Al The wide boulevards of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive provide for traffic calming opportunities and better pedestrian /automobile relationships to be developed in the Community. There is a lack of consistency in the application of pedestrian /traffic design and traffic signage improvements throughout the community. Traffic volumes ebb and flow throughout the day and the four corners of the community are each a commercial land use. Specialty and evening events at the Philharmonic are immediately intensive on the local roadways and intersections. Inconsistency in the striping and markings of the cross walks throughout the community is prominent and evident. Mid -block cross walks are limited along Pelican Bay Boulevard and absent for almost two miles in the length where destination amenities and facilities of the Community on the west side of the road are not served by cross walk facilities. Cross walks do not exist at Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard where the pathways lead you into the roadways at this intersection. Driver recognition of improvements and the reinforcement of driver expectation of these improvements will take some time however given the strong commitment to a walkable and safe community, the roadway improvements may be the most important functional issue and aesthetic issue to begin to interject into the community. The following are long term goals for Traffic in the Community: • Add midblock crossings to provide identifiable pedestrian crossing and build driver expectations along the length of the boulevards that these facilities exist on a regular basis. • Build crosswalks where existing pathways lead from the road side to curb cuts at the edges of travel lanes and no cross walk exists. • Improve sight lines within the roadway areas and medians in order to better observe other traffic and the pedestrian facilities. • Eliminate obstructive landscape and median grades in favor of pedestrian and driver sight lines. • Build cross walks from brick materials that contrast with the asphalt that surround them. • Add a wide band of split face pavers from curb line to curb line that form a framework for the cross walk finish and pattern. • Use of reflective pavement markings (RPM'S) in both boulevards skip striping and at median end nosings as required by the Collier County departments and State are recommended in the roadway facilities. • Total traffic solution plans must include adjustments to lighting and signage; curb lines, pathways, landscape and sight line recommendations throughout the length of the roadways. • Continue to work with the Collier County Sherriff Department in street improvement applications. • The Collier County Transportation Department encourages consideration of use within the auspices of the Neighborhood Traff ic Management Plans traffic calming techniques such as roundabouts, connectivity to the County pathways (in the County wide pathways master plan as a missing link) and transportation systems on SR -41, signing and advanced warning techniques or devices and lane width reductions to include bike lanes as exhibited on other boulevard type roadways within the County at Vineyards Boulevard and Bayshore Drive — we understand that Pelican Bay Boulevard was at one time lined for narrower travel lanes and included a bike lane Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview v a cB a c a� E a O E �a m C ra Y a) CL Pathways Analysis ibl i'A15^ The pathways are an original design element that date to the inception and creation of the Pelican Bay Community. While the community is large in land area, the five foot pathways that connect the developed community of almost 6,500 homes and the variety of uses placed on the pathways render some of these areas as undersized at this time. Interestingly enough, the wider 8 foot path portion of the system we found was the dead end pathway on the north side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the intersection at US -41 to Ridgewood Drive. Residents and guests jog, bike, roller blade and participate in a variety of walking activities with friends and pets on the pathway system throughout the day. Given that it is well known use demographic that the number one recreation activity for the last twenty years or more has been walking in communities like Pelican Bay and that the interest in personal health and exercise is as strong as ever, these facilities should be planned for phased widened in order to best serve the wide interests of the residents. The following are long term goals for the Community Pathways: • Pathways widths should be a maximum of 8 feet wide and no less than 5 feet wide throughout the community. • ADA issues must be addressed in the community pathway systems; improvements to be made are most often found at intersections or in cross slopes of the pathways. • The pathways are to be brought current to today's public development standards and codes that did not exist at the time of their original installation. • Promotion of pervious options (sand set pavers /pervious asphalt sections) for storm water percolation in drive and walkway areas should always be considered. • Dimension and space for dedicated bike ways and bike lanes within the existing roadways of the community exists and should be preserved for future implementation for mobility, alternative transportation and traffic calming purposes. • Pathway systems need to provide unique interest, resting, learning and social opportunities as they are used; examples of this includes distance markings in the paths, botanical and common names of plants along the way, public artwork, shaded bench locations to include trash receptacles, dog litter stations, bike racks, overlooks to long views of golf or community, emergency call stations. • Expand and mark known jogging trails by name and distance for community mapping and distribution for Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 16I i A15,11 all Foundation Association users and guests. • Coordinate way finding signage and bollard lighting improvements with the pathway improvements. • Pathways run into the back of elevated curb and gutters creating at step at street intersection rather than a sloped ramp to cross walk condition, widen the recessed concrete curb and gutter to allow for full width of passage of the pathway. • Textured ADA warning landings are worn out at pathway and street connections • Remove overhanging tree limbs adjacent to the paths that create a potential hazard for bikers and walkers a • Remove material differential and tree root trip hazards; replace materials for flush conditions and root _ prune and install root barriers per Collier County codes. a. c a, E O CL E M M M v v a_ Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview W a r� a C r� a C W E a O Q E m u v Lighting Analysis A 151 Lighting changes will provide the most dramatic effect within the Community. They will define how Pelican Bay is used after dusk and how the community is perceived in the day time and evening hours. This element has the best opportunity to be understood from a cost benefit payback scenario. It can not be overstated that lighting is a primary element of functional and aesthetic concern within the community. The following are long term goals for the Lighting in the Community: • Replace the mercury ballast driven, Metal Halide lamps in the street lighting system with sustainable and more efficient lighting technologies. • Improve light level delivery to the roadways and path systems by adding lights, trimming landscapes, relocating fixtures and replacing the existing technology. • Improve landscape lighting for pathways and plant materials in the community. • Current and future technologies for lighting in the community are to consider solar power sources and LED (light emitting diodes) technologies. • Landscape lighting at the community's entries that better illuminate signage and landscape features is recommended. • A purposeful higher delivery of lighting levels at traffic calming locations and mid -block pedestrian cross walks is suggested. • Light pole relocation or redistribution in some areas may in fact better distribute light and remove conflicts of lights from mature vegetation. • Light poles should be considered as an aesthetic as well as functional choice throughout the community including the addition of banner arms, outdoor power for maintenance or holiday decorations. • Light pole aesthetics should emulate the fluted sign post detail of the existing street signs. (Establishing a family color for street furnishings at this time is important, the patina green color of the sign posts and mailboxes is an apparent choice — an alternative and classic color to move to for all street elements would be black requiring repainting of the sign posts and mail boxes in the future.) Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview Landscape Analysis 161 IftAl The landscape, canopy cover, natural preserves, bays and beach amenities of the Pelican Bay community are a tremendous asset. These are one of the community's strongest selling points and often the remembered experience of those who visit and live within Pelican Bay. This remains a strong natural asset and a visual cue to the relationship of this community with its natural surroundings. The following are long term guiding principles for the Landscape and Irrigation in the Community: • Establish a street landscape plan that develops the landscape in a layered fashion with the tallest material to the background. • Replace sod and sod area spray irrigation along preserves, along portions of the lake edges and in the last 200 feet of the road median nosings. • Establish a predominantly native plant material plant list for common use by the Foundation and the Pelican Bay Services Division in their operations and maintenance activities. • Replace or trim landscape that interrupts sight lines in park and traffic areas for purposes of visual inspection, a CPTED principle and the recognition of traffic operations at intersections. • Add or replace missing street trees in the residential neighborhoods where lengths of roadway and sidewalk are not landscaped with Canopy trees. • Promote Best Management Practices for watering, fertilization and maintenance practices. • Establish succession landscape planting programs with coordinated Irrigation system delivery improvements. • Plant materials should be drought tolerant when established, grow in the coastal and near coastal environment of the community and where possible, native plants should be considered for use first before non - native plants. • We recommend a site walk once a week into different areas of the community to observe community maintenance and operations needs on foot. • Landscape, lighting and pathways that lead into the community are the first impression of the community, they should be designed to and maintained at exceptional standards. • Replace sod under Sabal Palm clusters at median nosings with low growing groundcover and review palm clusters for replacement due to sight visibility conflicts. • Develop canopy tree clusters with color and new tree and palm materials to include massings of shrub beds in the boulevards. • Coordination of Landscape and maintenance activities with HOA Associations is a must. • Introduce limited palette of accent trees for selective enhancement of roadway /pathway experiences including: Poinciana, Geiger Trees, Gumbo Limbo, Cassia, Pink Tabebuia, Holly and Cypress. • Review the Potential for addition of littoral /phyto planting along lake edges. Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview a� a 4 C N E N O Q E M c n3 V 41 a C aJ ra a a +r 0 E C) 0 E r6 m cB v v a ■ US -41 Berm Analysis 16 111 A 15' The US -41 berm provides provides two solutions along its length to security and sound attenuation issues; landscape massing is a common response with openings and hiding areas within it and a five foot concrete board slated fence is used along about 30 percent of its length which is easily mounted and in some disrepair in areas.. The berm height relative to the US -41 roadway and development inside the community rises and falls with the development grades and contours of both. When the project was originally conceived and built, US -41 was an important and local two lane roadway; while it was the primary roadway connection to Ft. Myers and the balance of the west coast of Florida, its traffic volumes and relative relationship to the community was very different. Given the booming growth of the area since the projects inception and the known Collier County master plans to add a public pathway along US -41 in the right -of -way in the future, additional support to its intended security and sound qualities is recommended. The following are long term guiding principles for the US -41 Berm improvements in the Community: • Provide continuous application of berm physical security and community edge wall solutions along the US- 41 berm to return into the community entry areas along the road rights of ways for a distance from 150 to 300 feet depending on each entry condition. • Include private association lands along the US -41 edge within the community for common solutions of enhanced berm landscape and physical wall improvements. • Provide landscape enhancements at the community entries and the berm so to eliminate hiding places in the voids of the landscape massing as found in many areas of this edge including the north side of the Pelican Bay Boulevard South entry area. • Fence lines and walls up to a minimum of 8 feet in height are recommended for consideration for security purposes — continue to monitor the LDC amendments currently in review for development code additions of security and highway noise abatement walls. • Include fountains, lake water features, low volume remote music or other white noise technologies in the parks and lakes along the SR -41 berm to effect sound attenuation and a more inviting park environment. • CPTED principles of safety and security should always be considered primary design and improvement program elements of community security and noise abatement from US -41. • Community education of reporting undesirable and security incidents along the US -41 berm is critical to long term community success and understanding of safety and security measures. Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 1 16 111 At Community Y Berm Analysis The Community Berm and Boardwalks may be the most used of the facilities and have at peek times the highest concentration of residential users on them. Improvements throughout the two mile length of the berm must consider carefully use patterns and beach access to include an improvement areas proximity and crossings of Clam Bay to the Beach and the adjacency to preserve and water management areas and the habitat, flora and fauna encountered. Beyond this, interruption of F &B services, trash hauling and emergency access to the beach facilities should be maintained at all times. The following are long term guiding principles for the Community Berm improvements: • Improvements should endeavor not to require environmental permitting or mitigation for their efforts and therefore should stay within the built footprint, require limited Nationwide permitting and /or stay within the standing permit requirements entitled Pelican Bay. • Continuous operational needs and characteristics should be part of the phased improvement planning for any additions to the community berm. • All improvements shall occur within the foot print of the berm and boardwalk structures as they exist today and be sympathetic to not cause influence to wetland or preserve areas to the greatest extent possible. • Coordinate improvements to the extent possible to support the infrastructure of the berm relative to water management and where possible, hide undesirable views to infrastructure or other water management devices. • Landscape solutions should reduce berm side slope maintenance requirements and return and blend edges naturally back to the surrounding environment. Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 17, 00-1 v cB CL C cB a c E a, 0 L E m V QJ 0- "0► ft4oift 12 v tA ra a C a v E a O E a c6 m c V a CL 1611'" A154 • Use of sustainable, naturally resistant or recycled products in this area is highly encouraged. • Consider the addition of a recognized southern berm access point, tram services will be reviewed along with the expansion of this point for pedestrian access and tram service. • Berm pathway widening is not encouraged as the existing width assists with controlled speeds and contributes to the good neighbor, considerate use of the path and boardwalks in this system. • Pedestrian only zones that include rest areas and overlooks should be added to this facility. • Reducing the visual prominence and "hiding" storm water control structures is encouraged by including the structures in the rest areas and overlook improvements and the accompanying landscape improvements of the berm. • Provide additional exotic vegetation maintenance along east side of berm / pathway. • Install only native plantings on the berm for added interest in the user experience, encourage shore birds and wading birds to inhabit the area and to conceal rip -rap and water management structures. • Construct cantilevered look -out platforms that do not impact the preserve or the Mangrove forested wetland areas. • Add educational bird signage at existing look -out on south boardwalk area where numerous shore birds/ wading birds are typically observed. • Add educational signage regarding benefits of native vegetation. • Install bird houses and osprey platforms to attract inhabitant birds. • Reduce the amount of sod and replace non - native and ornamental plant material with native plant material within berm areas. Note: Modifications made to the berm, may require that the slopes adjacent to the preserve area are planted with 100 % native vegetation (in order to meet setbacks per Section 3.05.07.H.3 of the County Land Development Code). The Pelican Bay Improvement Water Management Plan shows an 8' drainage swale along the west side of the berm. The area east of the berm is not considered a preserve but a detention area. Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview Tram Stations Analysis 161 VA 1 The tram stations are in as much an opportunity to develop short term social centers as they are for the movement and transport to and from the beach and beachfront restaurant facilities. These facilities should be unified in their architectural character and use of site furnishings, have the physical room to accept embarking and disembarking passengers, and continue to serve as points of Community news and events. Along with the resident card system controls, these stations avail a higher level of security and safety technology applications as well with the addition of emergency call buttons and other security elements as they not only serve as trail heads but are often in close proximity to the major pathways and streets of the community. The following are long term guiding principles for the Community Tram Station improvements: • Name the Tram locations using unique and individual names representative of the Community and in association with a near -by natural namesake rather than simply station numbers. (Because Sand Piper is well known, it may not be desirable to change this name and consider shore -bird and wading- bird names for each of the stations, for example: Osprey, Blue Heron, Egret, Ibis). • The North Tram Station site has been improved with very good results. Tram station improvements of additional roof cover to the north, a quality selection of site furnishings and Community message boards is recommended. • The Commons provides a unique opportunity for improvement in moving the tram services away from the back of house and loading dock activities and include the addition of dedicated pathways for pedestrians across the site. • Reallocation of Foundation office uses may allow long term reorganization of the site around the tennis facility and separate guest/resident traffic from service and employee traffic. • Relocation of the trash compactors, dumpsters, tennis clay shed and tank farm structures may also allow for the reuse of these upland areas • Architectural compatibility between Tram Station structures and the Commons building is recommended including the use of standing seam metal roofing as outlined in the Sustainability Report produced by Twenty- Fifty. • Station roofing appears to be at its life cycle limits; replace roofing, repair wood rot and other degradation of soffits, trusses or exposed beams and repaint. • Community berm observation and seating areas should reflect the architectural character of the Tram Station improvements in finish and furnishings. • The addition of native trees and palms at the Tram Stations marks the trail head as a prominent location in the community boardwalk system. Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 1dr/g,"14 v ra a ro a. v E O Q. E m c V W CL r� r� 14 144A v N C a +r C 0 E a� 0 E m C V N loft 1 Signage Analysis 16111 A15 The signage of the community is limited in its use which can be positive so as to not add visual clutter to the environment by over signing. However it is often hard to read, and it dates the community and can be improved. The entry monumentation is a first impression of the community and while understated in nature, its colors, texture of materials, scale of elements that make up the sign and general appearance relates little to the balance of the community signage. Improvements that provide a consistent background and graphic image, a family hierarchy of signs and legible message for each sign face is important. The following are long term guiding principles for the Community Signage improvements: • Material and color modifications of the existing community entry and identity signs is recommended to provide a timeless and understated elegance to the entry areas — this should be done in concert with landscape, traffic, lighting and security improvements as a unified solution. • The size and area requirements of the signage by Collier County code is considered sufficient at this time to create a signage package for the community and its tenants where their brands are included so as to provide a quality and consistent backdrop for both Community identity and brands. • Establish design guidelines or covenants that identity entry monuments, way finding, regulatory signage, banners, flags and commercial advertisement of the community. • The continued use of the fluted sign posts and sign backer boards is encouraged in the community traffic regulatory needs. Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview Parks Analysis 16I1'A15 One of the greatest assets next to the beach within Pelican Bay is the open spaces and natural areas of the community. The open spaces and parks are peaceful and have a variety of natural landscape settings that invite wildlife into the community and offer a context of respite. There are a number of CPTED principles that are violated by the current conditions of the parks and we encourage park upgrades to specifically address the issues of safety and security as well as consider the programming of the parks uses for future flexibility of the users. The following are long term guiding principles for the Parks and open spaces of the Community, • Parks should include elements of passive and active recreation; these areas should not conflict with one and other. • Adhere to and implement CPTED principles in park renovations and ongoing operations and maintenance for passive territorial inspection of these common community lands. • Consider future programming of the park areas to include Wi -Fi access for internet and intranet community interaction, interactive play areas for children and general social and recreational interaction in the park areas. • Add two dog parks, one north and one south in the community. • Add Art to the parks and open spaces in the community. • Park areas should be able to support programmed community classes in art, drawing, photography, outdoor yoga, community fresh cut flower garden, gardening and horticultural classes, etc. • Parks and open spaces should be inviting to wildlife to animate and live in the community. • Add water fountains and features to provide interest, white noise and improve water quality within the lakes of the parks. • Include play equipment for a variety of physical activities for children of multiple ages. • Provide mile markers on park walkways to enable users to track miles traveled. • Add informative signage identifying plants, natural settings, flora and fauna of the community - consider expanding informative community sessions to interactive cell phone recordings or other digital recording technologies available to personal electronic devices. Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 6 15 0 "M v tA ca m �a a v E a 0 Q E ra m c r� u v ■,fin • New Technologies Analysis 161 VA151 NO aJ N r6 t a C a C v E v 0 E m U N d r� New technologies will continue to evolve quickly to meet life's needs and the demands of any one person, household or community. Pelican Bay's application of new technologies in the community for life quality, safety and security improvements will continue to grow themselves through time. The choice of new street lighting and the potential use of LED and solar power in the community, the use of emergency call stations and camera security elements at key pathway locations and on the community perimeter have been considered. We have met with the Collier County Sherriff's office to understand their own observations and needs where the community may be the beneficiary of new technology applications. A connective network of monitoring by either Pelican Bay through the use of membership card access to control unwanted use of private facilities or in conjunction with the County Emergency Services may provide a safer and more secure environment. l � �'h Concealed security camera can contribute to theming and security. Motion- sensitive lighting can define pedestrian paths at night, appropriately adjusting illumination as needed. WELCOME TO _• °� Digital display screens can provide captive audiences at tram stations with the most current news and special events. More often than not, when it comes to community security, the need apparent is a very basic one in that residents need to report suspicious activities to the Collier County Sheriffs office. We have been told of a number of incidents and concerns based on personal observations of residents of unwanted or suspicious activity that went unreported to the Sheriffs office. The CCSO was very receptive in meeting with us a number of times in the north substation and in the field, sharing file data and their own observations of Community reports of a variety of incidents and perceived needs. A community wide reminder of the need and benefits to reporting these types of activities is recommended. Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview Public Art Analysis 1611, Al Recognizing the natural and the embellished environments we live in provide a sense of pride and a source of enjoyment for residents in their communities. When public art is included over time to Pelican Bay's Improvement Planning areas, this will continue to add to the quality of life and quality of place the Community enjoys. The following are long term guiding principles for the addition of Public Art in the Community: Establish a Pelican Bay Heritage Landscape and Public Arts Board from within the community to celebrate art in public places and art in the natural and landscaped environment of the community. Consider the addition of outside Committee member(s) with the development of an outreach or extension relationship as part of the program, for example, with the Naples Botanical Garden or the Von Liebig Arts Center /Naples Art Association or the United Arts Council of Collier County. Landscape Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview a s a r� a v E 0 E m V N n O O iA m v 1 0 E 3 rD N O C �r 3' SEAGATE DR. o�O LAUREL OAK DR._* O 0 n 1 ❑- i I ❑n ❑rn I PELICAN 8AV BVLD, I � a I !/ L -� ------ - - - - -- i L I lJ ❑ I n ll I I I � I 10 I I ll I I n I I l' - - - - -I 0 0 0 0 0 0 �` %:F61 -� � I 0 I I I I 0 I I I I I I O I I 0 I ❑ I "GULF PARKDR. I � I 1 MATCHLINE lJ �- U � r f Z w I I � GULF PARK DR. �o 2 ❑n i T ' i � 4 , a ` i I I I �- t I I I I I I ! . I � I t I rim 9 A 15 OG�I�az-0 O 3 n o m F A i Z p m m � v _ 9 � m p � c O Z o m 0 m n A O F n D m 1 r 1 _ © ®� 9 m D a Z v GG D J C A r t1 O m 2g z3 G1 s Ra S m W Y< m p n A N � O O L1 �D i n x 0 3 O nAD zoe�z- �^ =y�OGo< OO C z a z a m m % 8 � 1 I ^ I I I � ? I I � I � I I , ( I , 1 � I ( I I 1 � I I v 1 01 I I I �I .. WilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 09m- n 0 0 LA N N "O fll z 0 r+ (J I-- - - - - -- ,- --------- - - - - -; I I I GULF PARK DR } I I MATCHLINE U 0 Q U 0 4. 0 U 0 0 ta L L uI- -- -- - -7� U I P I u U I I U I I c 1 0 � I I � I U U � I I r7l] 0 I1 GULF PARK DR. I N I p I 4 --------------- VANDERBILT BEACH BLVD. I L ♦� I I ` ♦1 - -11 \ \ I� I , I I I 1 S? L r-------- -- ; �1 1 1 I 1 1 1 It L i I I I � I I •' I I I I � I I I I � I I � I I % I I 1 a° 2 Oq Ty p0 yr FQ q II/IS097MIIIe% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 ■ 16111 gym+. ��„ /��'9�• �. _ ti � .— !J < 0 � I ,R� f, 2 z _L 20 ° �rS z $ -- wa j 3a �t=P 3� j goa z v ? �a g o QoW W�> I{ W W W I � litl ` H K V l zW RLL �z N ioi ,� "` • 1� fir. y 0 pz .. zx 4 0 z 3Z� °a 0oa y`' ti Oz� �L ESM a o ozW tax i � ° w x m ° ' f p . 0 - ° v'Li 47 > z zz- - s �W� \ as V O _ =LL a x i Sa � (( -`j ` 3a N N G' H a Z z N a� W Q �u _ 1 s° 00 Z ga V ZO00� E F Landscape Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions Pelican Bay Boulevard South Community Entry 161 1"nA15 z ° °Qw3 :F1 =~OY >QZ s�[O ° O�Q Z y' O p a w ~ Q H Ozx�z = K 7 30Z - ¢_l7} Zo z Gay � t1 ZZ Via • z w LU = F w i . Z Z Nxp LL O a vi s w Landscape Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions Gulf Park Drive Community Entry LL�w ZgZ 7 w 7 O N V d Z p p = a iz ¢> 3zo ` >� >a Z� w Q ��� J a Q "� l J 0i 1 r p pO¢ ci � :- r -' Q z i °m >�> Q V tg�a u' ra O �z O °O -a N z wG X w � � J - t J l LU e g° V' ./ � r s C ¢a w 3 z og z Q Q pQy� �l U °ow M 3 o ov 1 ; O Q �NO H p w z ¢x Za Im 2 r z 29 z ° °Qw3 :F1 =~OY >QZ s�[O ° O�Q Z y' O p a w ~ Q H Ozx�z = K 7 30Z - ¢_l7} Zo z Gay � t1 ZZ Via LU = F w Z Z O a vi Landscape Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions Gulf Park Drive Community Entry z ° °Qw3 �zN> =~OY QZ s�[O ° O�Q Z y' O p a Z 01 Q V fl AV,1A)p g� Z W 0 1 ooz Gag �d F V Z w 3a Z Z 7 n V Q Z = Q m W > ! C x V L t: Q F 3� Lt, •sn "- i i I , M O O Q Q� w p 3 K ~O 7 / Z N h Y 5¢ a o�0 000 "LIZ Z p� Q g o > >YJ s °dm3 _ 1I 161 ll Z p Q o a > ° zay OQFmQ ax X s w 3 O w Y ~ y Z ° S 6!° ap �� W �a ~xa 3j> lx7LL °ter z >pJzz zWZJo O °� =aa W iuZi ZYM has 3�m �_ °o �o3a3 oaa U Fga ° Z W 3° s��� a pEg�a Q m ° Z Z Q W J LL � LU W Q Z in Uj U J LU z AV,1A)p g� Z W 0 1 ooz Gag �d F V Z w 3a Z Z 7 n V Q Z = Q m W > ! C x V L t: Q F 3� Lt, •sn "- i i I , M O O Q Q� w p 3 K ~O 7 / Z N h Y 5¢ a o�0 000 "LIZ Z p� Q g o > >YJ s °dm3 _ 1I 161 ll Landscape Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Pelican Bay North Community Entry J � z Q F U ~ y Z ° \ z QOz O � W iuZi ZYM has z z 8a oaa U Q m ° Z Z Q W H W S W � i I Landscape Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Pelican Bay North Community Entry �. OF E 0 m US Landscape Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions North Tram Station Area 11 A15' Ul 0 I A Landscape Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions St. Raphael Beachwalk 1� 0 -0 a. E O Q E M C v v a. r� 4 • C N E v 0 L Q a ra m c ca u a a m z N w a o z� no r pe0 zLL r Y J V O 11Z w z w a z O 1 Z W r c C 16.1 1"A154 ° a ° z a � �w a o zw z xr zZ z e z I 7 ° ° z �r O vx a r z � OF- ¢ oc a Z Z° Z X — V O z " ; U t a w a Z pees a z r uzZ 3 ti z 0 o 0 3 ° _ xpru � O O vri r . � 3 Q iOZO Landscape Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions Sandpiper Tram Stations Improvement Study Area Plan & Existing Images FM- � -§ \� / §^ 2 z §B§ k§ ° ( \§ u8 k- ;a §z °.. !9? - CH §k8 j& \(\ §�( d \() /} §}§ 2 \0 !d2§\ 2 -m ((§ 202 £&\ O W4 2 §� E£- ; � ^ � � � 0 z} \� § ; a %§§H kk ( \V ® }§;� !«§ ^ � � � \� .> \ ; j� \� § \ \k\ Landscape ImpC vem entStudy Area I Proposed Conditions A. The Commons 26 FPM • a Qj 0 r� m U N 0_ 0 h2d Y N � Z z �z z3Q °Qz �x V pz� GZZ m Qo c ox3o8 vii ~o a Z s OQ~ rjNw �z Q� p Z Q Z ��v~i p V Y N VwK Slaw CLL? O m Z �Im -V J Qw� H V Q LLs� V Q LLV Z Zl7 Q .z O� j w zg w ? g0 0 VQ >Q { V Z 5 m o�= �F3 ,xZ z o �u t-w> QF h2d �lZ_7 r=-m °O�� l7QO oIm 3 aoo m Qo c ox3o8 =zo zF z� ZSQ V r X Z w z SoZ3Z J Qw� o °p �GQw°�a �mv °° ows �z oz� m ozSz mza a o�3 N z o o F ° v Z2 o z O Z O 200 m 0 m Landscape Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions B. The Commons 611 z t I a _ I m a LW l d j fi 'A 15 ❑7 a 1611 Z 0 Q W J W Z _0 Q H N Q H Landscape Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions C. The Commons /G, M _ g � � D E $ > 0 0- t � n m E n u $ � NAft � � ■� � � , ■\ � \\ g7�7 } \}\ )//\ [iil-�l § (� \ }/ \ } � ( k. k (/ g« § ! _! Aw \;; k�k! k \)\ §g§§ � § \� § §[$ 002° R - §\ \2 ;2(§ j\ §§ )/2\ )\ S % \ \ y� \ \. � Landscape ImpC vem entStudy Area | Proposed Conditions Ridgewood m± ©3 \§ 1611 A & \b 1 \ \\ } \C, _ \G\ \/} )!q k( ! ! \[ �� \t � 0 t2 \E (C) , \ 900 § UO /!( ^ § - - i [/ ]2! 2¥\ $ � Landscape ImpC vem entStudy Area | Proposed Conditions Ridgewood m± ©3 \§ ( /)\ § k 2 \ \\ } \C, \/} )!q § ® ! ! \[ , ` El 16! 1 Al Z Qt - Z ¢ xaza 3Z tzOc -LL ,i 10, Mme� � zd� �arx 1 Z » O VI Q Z EMO OQO CO acN f-1-NO 0 a UQFW -Z > Z� oa wa �ozN d V ago V� m�„ w= 3W :5 Z- z W z a- ~ ¢ (•J LU H Q O Z O 0 a' Q Z D p 0 00 o o + iz�WO�aQ s a J Z z N p 0 O W W x W 0 N �aoW 3FQO Zz Z Z zg p p Z V W Z. - �¢O\`� < mW Ogg z wOQ� 0=°l7 - Or ¢ 3y � Z F pg 3 0z 0 00 OZN¢ aD ag =Z iLL Q z �Wa p a� o �z2 dye - xaza 3Z tzOc ,i 10, Mme� � zd� �arx 1 Z » O VI CO acN f-1-NO 0 a UQFW -Z > Z� oa wa �ozN m�„ w= 3W :5 Z- z W z a- ~ ¢ (•J LU H Q O Z O 0 a' Q Z D p 0 00 o o x W 0 N �aoW 3FQO Zz Z Z zg p p - �¢O\`� z wOQ� 0=°l7 - Or 3y � Z F pg 0z aD iLL Q z �Wa p a� o �z2 Z m w F a¢ ia c i z °� \... j¢ °aw 03u Z0 \1t - W O230v 5 °afW$w0. Z W «° O 191 .w3�f'�?¢�173� Landscape Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions Gulf Park Drive & Rldgewood Drive Intersection �"D \k(- \( �k)\ a 2 §2§ (\ ( /)( la�2 \k$! /§ ((o[§U2 « / \ x ca �§( %22 0 \k/ @!q 2- \\ } � I §2§ }(\\ )$ §§ ; <§ � \o V/ �\ 16 11 A 154 ( \ \� \� } \/ \ / \-`E };k § \2)\ 'a 7 kdNvD pa §k(� \Ez \k §�) ) °`rR£E,a «,!!a !!- !�!m§ §! � Landscape ImpC vem entStudy Area I Proposed Conditions Pelican Bay Boulevard & Gulf Park Drive Intersection M a a g a 0 z 0 z a a a a 0 z 0 Fill W Q zw zz JJ z o� z �o Oz Cr Y� 3D aD z O� a� �r 0 CL W W J d Cr Z~ z z z LU Q 2 Ow 0g t- a 1, � f= 4 N I- . x � Y w 3U z ox m a� z� W W Qo � w LL j � a m W boo O w F O a a Ln 0 Q a N � a X w � 0 0 W Z 4 iA co Ln -) acc mx W N r z QQa p O V1 l.} V1 Q wviLl Hw � � w w ozgz��w .0 wOO�z w Z z w m l7 Z z a W W z O W w J J a w m �uu 0 a z W z W �ZG <�w F- a wpm z ?�o °a 1611 ^A a z a l7 Z Y a W 2 a J J a 0 z 0 H D 0 a w w 0 V W V a x a U x w Y 0 ow Q_z- =g V) boo w K x O Lea a l7 QH Z J w O W z Zfoz aoa Landscape Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Oakmont Park Area Perimeter Sound / Security Improvement Study Area I Perimeter Wall Study Naples Grande & Serendipity A-z I E� O 0� Ln QJ i.Q 0 u > C C_ 7c C X E O O � u � > a Ln 'Q O V C N 41 a Ln Ln O Q C � C U - Q ro L N -0 r6 Z v O a- E �6 C O ro _> rp N v > O Ln N O n a� O rZ v v 'v -0 a) O M v sz O-0 v ro M > C O O vi UJ Ln ' – Vl r ova, `v z � � O v � N � O � .C. a) Qj C +, O C -0 N O Z3 ; v 7 0) O _0 v v N > > L + Ln v v aj +� 0) C) > X N + C) U N N - 5" IM 161 I"A I Before After Headwall at Crayton Road lake leading to channel along Heron Point Drive — Addition of headwall screening, grate cover for safety and lake littoral planting IT Before After Swale along Heron Point Drive looking west — Add channel diversions and littoral plants to further filter runoff — Engineering review should be conducted for water flow and holding capacity Landscape Improvement Study Area I Befeore and After UP v �a a. C ro a C W E a� 0 Q E a r� m C V N 0 1611 A151 Before After Myra Janco Daniels Blvd. at connection to Waterside Shops looking north — Establishment of territorial reinforcement and enhance entry aesthetics F E� Before After Pathway along west side of Myra Janco Daniels Blvd. looking south — Open views to pathway and add low level lighting for safety and security Landscape Improvement Study Area I Before and After F F 1611A15 Before After Entry columns at intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive 0 Before After Ridgewood Drive streetscape — Additional street trees within gaps will add to aesthetics, environment, pathway shade, and has traffic calming effect Landscape Improvement Study Area I Befeore and After 35 a� a a v E a� 0 CL E a m V N d 36 1111,11, a v E a� 0 a E fa m c� Y v a No NIQ 1661 "A 1514 Before Public R.O.W. median endings After — Review existing tree locations for sight visibility; replace sod with low, drought tolerant groundcovers; accentuate prominent locations with flowering trees and low color plantings F-11 Before After Utility screening along Pelican Bay Boulevard — Viburnum hedge is replaced with thinner 'green screen' wall (vines on wire mesh grid) allowing for widening of pathway; utilities are screened with fence gates while allowing access Landscape Improvement Study Area I Before and After I Fj I 1611115 Before After Green Tree Drive streetscape — Add canopy trees along north end of street for pathway shade and unity with canopy streetscape along southern end a Before Oakmont Parkway hedge After — Street trees will add to aesthetics, environment and break up hedge view Landscape Improvement Study Area I Befeore and After 37 l a� Ln a C �a a C a E v 0 Q E ra m c� u a� a. S m ) G I cli ) � 7E O % IL @ 0 � A _ ) c 0 .U) m B_ = c = T) o fL D f 0 LL E LL \ \ % _0 3 0 \ ` C 'Lj IL IL � / � / _ LL E m 14- r) � n � E @ g { ) 16 1 l'' A I o o. o o o o j ƒ / o / J \ )) o \ \ ( 3 - \ / { k \ � \ � \ / - 2 % o \ 7 \ \ \ \ o \ _ i ) { \ \ o i§ «-@ a / } �E � \7 + � ` , } E \ ) ) « 2 ] ( 7 : - - a - o g 2 J( ± / \ _! o / \ \ \ o o { E \ ED o u \ \ « z2a 2 \ / J o / / 16 1 l'' A I v 0 N 0 m a LL m a 0 m m a M O N LL m a O cl cn U) m W a O N Q N L LL CL m a O U) U m CL 0 U o N O O LL LL m + a U U � m O m a C � o N LL a L. MM� I�1 cz U I..L d C d � m -o � m m J 1611 Fifo A I E o o cri N O N ° EA ° ° � ° N O N � O m m O m O o O V m O N m N O co 0 ° m � N O O r v o° ro ro co O O 0 + � 3 _ � m EA N Y L "O T U N m T Y t6 tf1 `� Q U m m c C U N rC `o v >. 4 m E E s 3 m w o m v° 0 m ❑ am E c E o T E a a-Oi E m p E U d 3 Um m E U) E � > m �_ L m ° E ->O m m co U L N m a Y m _m O m U m U 0 ED L c c E ~ ° _ m ° U E a L m E r m E m o _ a+ U Z m U co o n 1611 Fifo A I E Pelican Bay - Demonstration Project Opinion of Probable Costs 2611"A151"' Site Work, Landscape and Lighting - St Raphael Beach Walk, Community Berm and Beachwalk Mid -block Crosswalk WilsonMiller - April 9, 2010 Raphael Demolition $1:1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 3,680 SF $0.49 $1,803.20 iSitework 12 EA $200.00 $1,700 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Furnishings - Bench @ 6.0' 2 EA $850.00 $1,700.00 !Landscape X 1 $ • :4 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 3,680 SF $3.00 $11,040.00 Topsoil (6" Depth) 70 CY $40.00 $2,800.00 Irrigation 3,680 SF $0.80 $2,944.00 Lighting Quantity Unit Unit Cost $41,160 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location 18 EA $1,400.00 $25,200.00 Conduit and Conductor 1,200 LF $13.30 $15,960.00 1- • Permit 128 SF $14.00 $: 111 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 SUBTOTAL: $69,447 Community Berm Landscape $5,650 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 3 EA $300.00 $900.00 Palms 12 EA $200.00 $2,400.00 Shrubs / Groundcovers 200 SF $3.00 $600.00 Low Groundcovers 1,000 SF $1.75 $1,750.00 Rest Areas :1 X 1 $1,287 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 1 EA $800.00 $800.00 Accent Paving 60 SF $8.00 $480.00 Viewing Platforms $12,877 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00 Trash Cans 1 EA $525.00 $525.00 Trellis Structure 128 SF $70.00 $8,960.00 Cantilevered Boardwalk Platform 128 SF $14.00 $1,792.00 Interpretive • • • 1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Educational Wildlife Signage (Post and Plaque) 14 EA $280.00 $3,92000 16 I 'esinn / Permit Fee Estimates S5.30C Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal) Engineering and Survey 1 LS $1,800.00 $1,800.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 SUBTOTAL: SF $12.80 1 $29,027 Demolition .:: Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 1,433 SF $0.49 $702.17 Demolition - Curb 30 LF $6.00 $180.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Clay - Brick Pavers 630 SF $9.25 $5,827.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 797 SF $12.80 $10,201.60 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 30 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 70 LF $10.50 $735.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 89 SY $6.50 $578.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 50 LF $4.06 $203.00 Sitework - Add Cobble Paver Bands 1 LS $5,100.00 $5,100.00 Landscape • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 910 SF $5.50 $5,005.00 Landscape - Irrigation 910 SF $0.80 $728.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 17 CY $40.00 $680.00 Design - - 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Permitting 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 SUBTOTAL: $49,579 TOTAL: $148,053 15% CONTINGENCY: $22,208 GRAND TOTAL: $170,261 Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. 1611 At5l' Pelican Bay - Demonstration Project Opinion of Probable Costs: Intersection - Pelican Bay Blvd & Gulf Park Drive Clay Brick Paver Crosswalks, Landscape and Lighting WilsonMiller - April 8, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt Roadway to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 415 SY $8.00 $3,320.00 Demolition - Asphalt Sidewalk @ 5.0'w 295 SY $8.00 $2,360.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 23,214 SF $0.49 $11,374.86 Demolition - Selective Clearing - Palm (remove and grind stup to 6" below grade) 40 EA $300.00 $12,000.00 Demolition - Curb 180 LF $6.00 $1,080.00 Demolition - Light Pole 2 EA $850.00 $1,700.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Concrete - Clay Brick Pavers 3,728 SF $9.25 $34,484.00 Concrete - Ribbon Curb 90 LF $15.00 $1,350.00 Asphalt - Sidewalk @ 8.0'w 472 SY $32.00 $15,104.00 Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 3,728 SF $12.80 $47,718.40 Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 82 LF $10.50 $861.00 Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 415 SY $6.50 $2,697.50 Roadway - Asphalt 4 TN $200.00 $800.00 Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 160 EA $3.34 $534.40 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 720 LF $2.01 $1,447.20 $133,551 Landscape litem Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees - Large 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Trees - Small 15 EA $600.00 $9,000.00 Shrubs, Groundcovers, Mulch 15,467 SF $5.50 $85,068.50 Sod 7,747 SF $0.35 $2,711.45 Topsoil (6" Depth) 430 CY $40.00 $17,200.00 Irrigation 23,214 SF $0.80 $18,571.20 • • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Omega LED Boulevard - 2 Fixtures, Dual Arm Fitting and 30.0' Pole 3 EA $8,840.00 $26,520.00 Conduit and Conductor 300 LF $13.30 $3,990.00 TOTAL: $301,373 15% CONTIGENCY: $45,206 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $386,578 Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. " Additional cost to upgrade asphalt field to sand set clay paver field with ribbon curb: $142,733.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 3 - Street Lighting : New Poles & Fixtures with Arms 1611 A15" Community entries and single - family neighborhoods to single decorative fixtures & poles. Boulevards to decorative fixtures & poles. WilsonMiller - April 12, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 20 EA $150.00 $3,000.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 8 EA $75.00 $600.00 Light Fixture - Existing 368 EA $75.00 $27,600.00 Light Pole - Remove 235 EA $150.00 $35,250.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 182 EA $2,800.00 $509,600.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - All Community Entries / Residential 196 EA $2,650.00 $519,400.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) for Omega 91 EA $975.00 $88,725.00 Light Pole for Omega - Hapco 30.0' ht Decorative (Includes conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 91 EA $2,265.00 $206,115.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes Single bracket, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 126 EA $2,880.00 $362,880.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes Dual brackets, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 35 EA $3,590.00 $125,650.00 Additional Conduit and Conductor for Relocated Poles (Includes horizontal drilling) 22 EA $1,600.00 $35,200.00 TOTAL: $1,914,020 15% CONTINGENCY: $287,103 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $2,281,123 ' Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. 1. Add /deduct for Omega MH Fixture = $1800 ea. 2. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. 3. 4/12/10 - Minor reduction in demolition numbers based on discussions with contractor to remove & replace poles with all other infrastructure in place. Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level Opinion of Probable Costs: Community Berm Site Work and Landscape - North Berm (North Tram Station to Sandpiper) WilsonMiller - April 11, 2010 1611 "A15q Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 39,640 SF $0.49 $19,423.60 Demolition - Asphalt Pathway @ 10.0'w 5,067 SY $8.00 $40.536.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Earthwork - Remedial grading at water control structures 2,600 SF $4.00 $10,400.00 Sitework - Asphalt Pathway @ 11 w 406 TN $200.00 $81,200.00 Sitework - Erosion and Sediment Control - Silt Fence, Polypropylene, 3.0'h 4,560 LF $1.30 $5,928.00 Sitework - Osprey Nest Platform and Pole 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotafl Trees 19 EA $500.00 $9,500.00 Palms 88 EA $200.00 $17,600.00 Shrubs/ Groundcovers 3,000 SF $3.00 $9,000.00 Low Groundcovers 36,640 SF $1.75 $64,120.00 Littoral Planting 5,775 SF $2.00 $11,550.00 Rest Areas :1 x 4 $5,124 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 1 EA $800.00 $800.00 Accent Paving 60 SF $8.00 $480.00 Viewing Platforms $12,877 : • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00 Trash Cans 1 EA $525.00 $525.00 Trellis Structure 128 SF $70.00 $8,960.00 Cantilevered Boardwalk Platform 128 SF $14.00 $1,792.00 Interpretive • ,•- Item Educational Wildlife Signage (Post and Plaque) Quantity 10 Unit EA Unit Cost $280.00 $2,800 Subtotal $2,800.00 TOTAL: $317,809 Design 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts - Nationwide 13 permit application) 1 1 1 LS LS LS $21,500.00 $6,500.00 $4,500.00 $21,500.00 $6,500.00 $4,500.00 15% CONTINGENCY: $47,671 GRAND TOTAL: $397,980 Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level Opinion of Probable Costs: Community Berm Site Work and Landscape - Central Berm (Sandpiper to The Commons) WilsonMiller- April 11, 2010 1611 "A15" )emolition S29.447, Iltem Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 19,020 SF $0.49 $9,319.80 Demolition - Asphalt Pathway @ 10.0'w 2,516 SY $8.00 $20,128.00 'Sitework $48 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Earthwork - Remedial grading at water control structures 800 SF $4.00 $3,200.00 Sitework - Asphalt Pathway @ 10.0' w 202 TN $200.00 $40,400.00 Sitework - Erosion and Sediment Control - Silt Fence, Polypropylene, 3.0'h 2,264 LF $1.30 $2,943.20 Sitework - Osprey Nest Platform and Pole 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Landscape $62,360 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 8 EA $500.00 $4,000.00 Palms 34 EA $200.00 $6,800.00 Shrubs/ Groundcovers 1,500 SF $3.00 $4,500.00 Low Groundcovers 17,520 SF $1.75 $30,660.00 Littoral Planting 8,200 SF $2.00 $16,400.00 Rest Areas :1 x 2 $2,561 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 1 EA $800.00 $800.00 Accent Paving 60 SF $8.00 $480.00 'Viewing Platforms 1 so Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost ubtota Benches 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00 Trash Cans 1 EA $525.00 $525.00 Trellis Structure 128 SF $70.00 $8,960.00 Cantilevered Boardwalk Platform 128 SF $14.00 $1,792.00 Interpretive Signage $1,680 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Educational Wildlife Signage (Post and Plaquel 6 EA $280.00 $1,680.00 TOTAL: $144,591 Design / Permit Fee Estimates 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $9,500.00 $9,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $4,200.00 $4,200.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts - Nationwide 13 permit application) 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 15% CONTINGENCY: $21,689 GRAND TOTAL: $183,480 Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 161.1 Opinion of Probable Costs: Community Berm Site Work and Landscape - South Berm (The Commons to Naples Grande) WilsonMiller - April 11, 2010 415' demolition 5"45.91 c (Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 13,615 SF $0.49 $6,671.35 Demolition - Asphalt Pathway @ 10.0'w Sitework 4,906 SY $8.00 $39,248.00 • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Earthwork - Remedial grading at water control structures 2,800 SF $4.00 $11,200.00 Sitework -Asphalt Pathway @ 10.0' w 393 TN $200.00 $78,600.00 Sitework - Erosion and Sediment Control - Silt Fence, Polypropylene, 3.0' h 4,416 LF $1.30 $5,740.80 Landscape $46,226 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 7 EA $500.00 $3,500.00 Palms 48 EA $200.00 $9,600.00 Shrubs/ Groundcovers 1,440 SF $3.00 $4,320.00 Low Groundcovers 12,175 SF $1.75 $21,306.25 Littoral Planting 3,750 SF $2.00 $7,500.00 Rest Areas :1 x 3 $3,840 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 1 EA $800.00 $800.00 Accent Paving 60 SF $8.00 $480.00 Viewing Platforms $12,877 x 0 $0 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost ubtotal Benches 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00 Trash Cans 1 EA $525.00 $525.00 Trellis Structure 128 SF $70.00 $8,960.00 Cantilevered Boardwalk Platform 128 SF $14.00 $1,792.00 Interpretive ' :11 jtem Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Educational Wildlife Signage (Post and Plaque) 10 EA $280.00 $2,800.00 TOTAL: $194,326 , Design 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $15,500.00 $15,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $3,600.00 $3,600.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts - Nationwide 13 permit application) 1 LS $3,200.00 $3,200.00 15% CONTINGENCY: $29,149 GRAND TOTAL: $245,775 Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. r m ��< Iz� 7 � S �S /r in° O rn m T� V Z �'•- MATCHLINE �r 7 �a 6•' Y Yi i i oQOo 1611 A15" o� it ® ®3 O a v�D r.x m y % ° _' 3 v N a .�. .'". a S. C 3 m c � lo 0 3 3 '�° 3 a m ° ' 3 !D a a i a a w z el t� s� D i Dap 1 � 9 •• MATCHLINE .I Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs The Commons - Option 5 (Service Consolidation) WilsonMiller - April 13, 2010 1611 " Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt - Caripath 289 SY $8.00 $2,312.00 Demolition - Asphalt - Roadway 445 SY $8.00 $3,560.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 12,840 SF $0.49 $6,291.60 Demolition - Concrete Pavement 192 SY $12.00 $2,304.00 Demolition - Curb - Type 'D' 400 LF $6.00 $2,400.00 Demolition - Entry Sign 1 LS $1,800.00 $1,800.00 Demolition - Rip Rap (Dry Retention) 6 CY $56.00 $336.00 Demolition - Tram Station Structure 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - Asphalt - Cartpath 27 TN $200.00 $5,400.00 Sitework - Asphalt - Roadway 42 TN $200.00 $8,400.00 Sitework - Boardwalk (Pedestrian - Wood / Raised) 125 LF $86.00 $10,750.00 Sitework - Boardwalk Bridge (Heavy Timber / Raised) 640 SF $80.50 $51,520.00 Sitework - Card Access 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk 747 SY $32.00 $23,904.00 Sitework - Concrete - Pavers 2,762 SF $9.25 $25,548.50 Sitework - Concrete - Pipe 280 LF $95.00 $26,600.00 Sitework - Concrete Stairs (CIP) (5.0'w - 3 to 5 Risers @ 6 ") 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Curb - Ribbon 320 LF $15.00 $4,800.00 Sitework - Curb - Type 'D' 604 LF $25.00 $15,100.00 Sitework - Emergency Call Station (Includes camera, conduit and conductor up to 200LF) 1 EA $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Sitework - Entry Sign 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Sitework - Fence - 4.5' Ornamental Aluminum 495 LF $60.00 $29,700.00 Sitework - Retaining Wall (CIP) 60 LF $118.00 $7,080.00 Sitework - Rip Rap (Dry Retention) 10 CY $53.00 $530.00 Sitework - Tram Station Structure 1,035 SF $70.00 $72,450.00 Sitework - Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED 16 EA $1,400.00 $22,400.00 Sitework - Conduit and Conductor for Bollards 100 LF $13.50 $1,350.00 Sitework - Service Vehicular Gate 1 EA $1,800.00 $1,800.00 Sitework - Stormwater Management Allowance 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 Sitework - 8" Limerock Base 865 SY $6.50 $5,622.50 !kRCHITFCTIIIRAL IMPRnVFMFNTS 5126.000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal) Employee Entrance Stairs (Incl. Demolition) 600 SF $65.00 $39,000.00 Trash Enclosure Yard, Screen Wall, Gates, Slab 1 EA $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Propane Tank Yard, Screen Wall, Gates, Slab 1 EA $8,000.00 $8,000.00 12'x 24' Pre - Fabricated Storage Building 1 EA $14,000.00 $14,000.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 30 EA $300.00 $9,000.00 Palms 22 EA $200.00 $4,400.00 Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcovers / Mulch 19,659 SF $5.50 $108,124.50 Irrigation 19,659 SF $0.80 $15,727.20 'SITE FURNITURE $ ;Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 4 EA $800.00 $3,200.00 Bike Racks 2 EA $600.00 $1,200.00 Trash Cans 2 EA $525.00 $1,050.00 Community Information Kiosk 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Tram GPS Location Kiosk 1 EA $0.00 $0.00 A15 TOTAL: GRAND Options as recommended by TwentyFifty Sustainability Report: Commons Building Roof (Metal) includes Demolition 9,000 SF $6.00 $54,000.00 Tennis Center Roof (Metal) includes Demolition 1,600 SF $6.00 $9,600.00 1611 A 15 , Design _ :•„ Subtotal Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Engineering and Survey 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 TOTAL: GRAND Options as recommended by TwentyFifty Sustainability Report: Commons Building Roof (Metal) includes Demolition 9,000 SF $6.00 $54,000.00 Tennis Center Roof (Metal) includes Demolition 1,600 SF $6.00 $9,600.00 i Z O F- W J W Z O F. Q C� L Q LL % LLL / r LL Jw L 'Z JC .w _0 )2 jo J �C "U )Q �m �w .cn .Z) :p :2 L. �O z' ZI -6- CL F- Fi I I A15" ,� f l h I 1611 MINUTES OF THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD FEBRUARY 10, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board having conducted business herein Collier County, met February 10, 2010, 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, with the following members present: Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Members Gerald Moffatt, Chairman Geoff Gibson Michael Levy, Co- Chairman John laizzo Keith Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Kyle Lukas7, Field Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Calendar 4. Review of Fiscal Year 2010 Operations Forecasting and Projected Outline 5. Discuss Capital Project Future Expenses 6. Discuss Monthly Financial Report 7. Audience Comments 8. Adjourn ROLL CALL All Budget Subcommittee members were present and quorum established. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION There was no one in the audience, hence, no discussion. FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET CALENDAR The County has not determined the schedule for the Fiscal Year 2011 budget calendar. In general, in late February, the Commissioners approve the County's budget policy. In mid -April, the Services Division Board submits a preliminary budget to the County Manager. In April and May, the County Manager reviews and tweaks the preliminary budget. In June, the Commissioners' hold a budget workshop. In July, the Commissioners set the tentative budget and millage rate. Finally, at a public meeting in September, the Commissioners adopt the budget. Mr. Moffatt said last year in early June, the Services Division Board submitted a budget to the County Manager before the full Board approved Mr. Levy said they should get their preliminary budget to the full Board for ample discussion and approval earlier than last year. The Board should address how to fund the Community Improvements Plan projects. ISI IA 15 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes 1611 A151 g Y g February 10, 2010 Mr. Donill said the Budget Committee should stay on track of the County's budget policy calendar and present the preliminary budget to the full Board on April 7. If necessary, the full Board could revisit on May 5. They should concern themselves with the capital budget and mid -year financials, which is a good barometer as to how they are doing. CAPITAL PROJECT FUTURE EXPENSES Mr. Dallas asked how specific they had to budget capital funds. Mr. Dorrill said his understanding is community improvements plan spending that would happen sooner, rather than later covers three areas: crosswalk safety improvements; intersection safety improvements; and pedestrian and bicycle pathways improvements. They should estimate figures for site development plans and permitting. They do not need to budget the big money for "fluff' projects now. Mr. Moffatt said he does not believe they need to wont' about the fiscal year 2011 capital project budget because the projects will implement over many years. Mr. Levy said they might consider alternatives, such as raising the assessment, or establishing a reserve, but they do not have enough information yet to determine the capital budget. In addition, over the past several years, their budget has been decreasing. Mr. Dallas said in March they should receive estimates for interim crosswalk and intersection improvements, but the numbers will be ballpark and fluctuate. Mr. Iaizzo said permitting could take three to six months, and interim improvements under consideration for the fiscal year 2011 budget are projects that will fit the timeline. Mr. Levy said funding will be over a number of years and it would take time to save unless they want to do a special assessment. Mr. Iaizzo said they have revenue to spend. Mr. Levy said there is $2.1 million in capital. He asked Mr. Dorrill if the capital funds would carry forward. Mr. Dorrill said yes. Mr. Levy said they would need to plan carefully and do what they need to do to avoid a special assessment or increase. REVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2010 OPERATIONS FORECASTING AND PROJECTED OUTLINE Mr. Dallas said he did not like the idea of special assessments. They should work out what they can do and when. Mr. Donill said considering the current economy, it does not make sense to go into debt. Mr. Dallas agreed. Nothing on the list was that urgent. 1081 I 1611 A 15' Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes February 10, 2010 Mr. Levy asked Mr. Dorrill if the County has any ground rules they must follow. Mr. Dorrill said the County Manager and Budget office would issue a fiscal year 2011 budget policy with general parameters and forecasts. He believes there will be a budget shortfall in the countywide assessed value. The Board of County Commissioners will establish fiscal year 2011 budget policy, make necessary changes to, for example, staffing and services, and set the millage accordingly. Mr. Moffatt said there are at least half a dozen line items that come from the County, such as indirect cost reimbursements to the Tax Collector, and Property Appraiser. They have no input for indirect costs. benefits. Mr. laum suggested they look into getting proposals from new vendors and outsourcing to detennine cost saving Mr. Levy said the changes Mr. Iaizzo is suggesting are fundamental and for several years, the budget has stayed level. He added that fiscal year 2010 is the lower than 2008 and 2009. Mr. Iaizzo said they should be thinking about the future and to not research savings that they could make is foolish. They outsource ten employees every day to maintain the landscaping. Mr. Levy said this could change the entire operation. Mr. Moffatt said this is probably a full board policy decision. He asked Mr. Lukasz how many full -time employees and temporary laborers he has. Mr. Lukasz said he has twelve fiill -time employees plus temporary labor. He would have to look into the exact numbers and report back because the number varies anywhere from six to ten depending upon the time of year. Summertime, they need more temporary labor to mow. A County bid for personnel services determines the temporary hourly labor rate. Mr. Dallas believes it is a bad idea to change the current operation. Mr. Moffatt explained he is familiar with the outsourcing process for landscaping and it only works well for the first six months, then the quality drops and the search for a new firm begins. His association has changed landscaping maintenance firms every year for the past four or five years. The cost benefit is not worth the effort. Mr. Gibson asked if segments of work are worth looking into for savings, such as tree trimming. Mr. Dorrill said a reasonable first phase approach would be to evaluate specialty contractors used, particular if they are capital intensive. It may be beneficial to outsource the service, rather than purchase capital equipment and pay for operating expenses. Many of his clients do this. He guarantees they would receive low bids and poor service. This is a policy decision that the full Board could discuss at the April 7 meeting. 1082 1 161 1A151 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes February 10, 2010 Mr. Moffatt asked about the line item for tree trimming of $30,000 and what does it cover. Mr. Lukasz said that line item is to outsource tree trimming of tall Sabal palms. Labor must climb the palms to reach and trim. He did research the possibility of purchasing equipment versus hiring temporary labor and it is more cost effective to hire temporary labor. They have exceeded the tree- trimming budget already for 2010. It can cost $1,500 to $2,000 per day. Mr. Gibson said trees occlude two thirds of the community's streetlights and they need to chop off the tops. Mr. Lukasz said yes, but rather than butcher the trees they are proceeding by hiring temporary labor to trim the trees until Wilson Miller makes recommendations through the Community Improvements Plan and the Board approves. Mr. Iaizzo said the bottom line is they need to look for areas where they can save money. Mr. Levy asked what the proposed fiscal year 2011 budget of $18,300 line item, "Water Management, Additional Public Relations" is. Mr. Moffatt said it is a publication contingency reserve of approximately $60,000. Last year when preparing this years' budget, the Committee discussed taking the item out, but decided not to in case they need it. Mr. Lukasz said the Board might decide they want to produce additional public relations material. Mr. Gibson said they might need the fiords to communicate information regarding the Community Improvements Plan. Mr. Dorrill said funding for the Community Improvements Plan would come from capital. They might want to label the publication contingency line item an operating contingency, as it is intended. If the Board decides to spend the contingency or reserve funds, they would process a budget amendment and place in the appropriate line item. They use a revenue reserve to net out the discounts people receive when they pay their assessment early. He would discuss with the County's budget officer. Mr. Moffatt said public relations fimding related to the Community Improvements Plan could come out of the capital fund because it is likely to a larger amount. Mr. Levy asked Mr. Lukasz why under "water management, other fees and charges, tax collector and property appraiser" they budgeted twice as much for fiscal year 2011 than for 2010 even though the assessments are the same. Mr. Lukasz said those numbers are generated by the Budget office based on a percentage of the assessment. They are preliminary and the Budget office would provide. Mr. Moffatt said yes, many line items are carried over from the previous years' budget until they receive more information. Mr. Dallas said many projected line item totals are almost identical to what was budgeted and if it is accurate. Mr. Lukasz said historically they do come in under what is projected and the budgeted amount is a conservative estimate 1083 I Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes 6 I 1 February 10, 2010 until they have more information. They prepare a forecast in March when they have five months of actual expenditures. Mr. Moffatt said it is still very early in the process. Under "water management, water quality testing," he asked what "ind pay" is. Mr. Lukasz said for water quality testing they use a County lab, so it is an indirect payment or "ind pay." Mr. Moffatt said the interest income assumption is unreasonably high. Mr. Dorrill said that according to the water management actual income, they are receiving approximately $300 interest income monthly. As the actual number is and would be much lower by thousands, they should adjust the budget to reflect actual interest income. Mr. Iaizzo asked for clarification regarding temporary labor and rates. Mr. Lukasz said a full -time employee usually spends 1000/9 of their time in one area, i.e., water management. Generally, they use a temporary labor employee on a full-time basis to perform water management responsibilities. Occasionally, they will hire one temporary labor employee to perform community beautification responsibilities. Mr. Moffatt asked Mr. Lukasz if hiring temporary full -time labor costs less than hiring a full -time County employee. Mr. Lukasz said yes especially considering benefits. Mr. Dorrill asked what the Florida Retirement System or FRS contribution is. Mr. Lukasz said it is between nine and ten percent. Mr. Dorrill said he estimates the Services Division is paying at least twelve percent of gross pay for the employer's contribution to the FRS. Mr. Lukasz said the employer pays another $10,000 per employee for health insurance. The Services Division pays temporary labor at an hourly rate. Mr. Moffatt believes the County's actual indirect charges will be higher than Fiscal Year 2010 rates. It will be challenging to keep the Fiscal Year 2011 assessment flat, but that is the intent. Mr. Dorrill said some line items may decrease, but midyear, they would have a better idea of what their legitimate projected receipts and expenses would be. Mr. Levy referred to the Clam Bay fund handout. It shows they budgeted $183,800 for operations, maintenance and monitoring. They budgeted $170,000, but expect to spend $154,000 this year, and $145,000 next year. Based on what they expected to receive from the County's Fund 111, the Fiscal Year 2010 b udgeted "inter-fund transfer" was $102,400. He suggests for Fiscal Year 2011, they put a number that is half of what they expect to receive from the assessment, i.e., if assessment is 1084 1 1 ,L6t 2 A15 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes February 10, 2010 $160,000, then they should budget receiving $80,000. Mr. Dorrill said not to keep numbers artificially high because the County could say they need those fimds for another County department or project and take it away. Mr. Moffatt asked Mr. Dorrill when they might receive the Fiscal Year 2010 Fund 111 monies. Mr. Dorrill said he would schedule a meeting with the new Budget Director, Mark Isackson to discuss. Mr. Moffatt asked, "On the expense side, do we have enough for Tim Hall?" Mr. Lukasz said yes. To pay Mr. Hall for a procedure manual and permit application to be complete in Fiscal Year 2010, they budgeted $170,000. Expending the funds in Fiscal Year 2010, they could reduce the Fiscal Year 2011 Clam Bay fund budget by $25,000 to $145,000. They pay Mr. Hall only through the Clam Bay fund. Mr. Dorrill explained that Mr. Hall was the Services Division preferred coastal engineering and consultant firm. For civil engineering work, they would contract with a different engineering firm. Mr. Gibson asked Mr. Dorrill about the administrative office lease. Are they still considering consolidating administration and field offices? Mr. Dorrill said they met with the County's Public Utilities department to formalize the Services Division's use of the existing operating "field" facility because there is no formal agreement currently, and there never was. The building would need renovating to configure administrative offices. He believes it would probably be more cost effective to negotiate a better lease at the current location, or other suitable office space in Pelican Bay before the lease expires this year. He would explore all Possibilities and present what is in their best interests. GOVERNANCE DISCUSSION Mr. Dorrill said there appears to be some interest in the Services Division becoming an independent district and plans to have a governance discussion on April 7. To become independent, first, they would need support from the residents. They do not need a 100% community vote to become a Florida Statute 189 independent district, but a vote of 50% + 1. Second, the County could not object. Third, the Florida Legislature would require evidence of above. He added they would not get control over their water district and utilities. Mr. Gibson said Mrs. Cora Obley was very outspoken at the February 3 meeting against becoming independent. Mr. Moffatt said a comparison of incorporation should be included. In addition, he would hike to see a short one -page report of reserve funds and capital projects budget and revenue and expense activity for the year. Mr. Levy said there has not been an increase in the assessment in several years. Eventually they would need to raise it 1085 .. Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Di►ision Board Meeting Minutes 1611 151 February 10, 2010 Mr. Dorrill said they should consider that the unit count was higher in the past because the count included units not built. The unit count is calculated by a derived benefit formula based on eqm- silent dwellings. The Commissioners typically follow this Board's recommendation for assessments, but one never knows. Regardless of whether they raise or lower the assessment, they must mail a letter notifying unit owners. The full Board could discuss hiring new contractors to provide landscaping and water management services on April 7. Aggressive contract administration is, necessary for quality services. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were not any audience comments. ADJOURN There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned 4 Gerald Moffatt. C 1086 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/3/201011:32:19 AM 16I APR 16 2010 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD & PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION STRWH Qsunty commission3m PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN JOINT WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 25, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee conducted a joint public workshop meeting, Thursday, February 25,8-.30 AM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Members Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman Michael Levy Keith Dallas, Vice Chairman Gerald A. Moffatt Tom Cravens Theodore Raia, Jr. absent Geoffrey S. Gibson Hunter H. Hansen absent John Iaizzo Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Members Bob Uek, Chairman Rose Mary Everett Ronnie Bellone, Co -Vice Chair Noreen Murray Merlin Lickhalter, Co -Vice Chair Ralph Ohlers Carson Beadle Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Pelican Bay Foundation Staff Jim Hoppensteadt, President Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Suzanne Minadeo, Executive Assistant Wilson Miller Team Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect, Wilson Miller Steve Sammons, Sr. Associate and Landscape Architect, Wilson Miller ROLL CALL Fiala Halas Henning_ Coyle —� Coletta With the exception of Dr. Raia and Mr. Hansen, all Pelican Bay Services Division Board members were present. All members of the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee were present. Present from Wilson Miller were Mr. Mangan and Mr. Sammons. CROSSWALK RECOMMENDATIONS & FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY DISCUSSION Ms. Bellone introduced today's crosswalks improvements discussion and intent to determine the timeline for vetting recommendations to the community. Mr. Dallas moderated the midblock crosswalk recommendations with pricing discussion. Mr. Mangan explained the intention is for consistency, but improvements they recommend would also depend upon location and safety factors. To decide which locations to improve and what concepts they liked best, the Board and Committee took a Misc. Corres: straw vote. Safety and aesthetics were driving factors. Top three locations for improvements were North Tram Date: station midblock crosswalk, the Commons midblock crosswalk, and three-way intersection of Pelican ay Ef Item #: Copies to: Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee 161 1 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop February 25, 2010 Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. In addition to the traffic standard, brick pavers, and pavers with cobblestones were favorite designs. Mr. Levy and Mr. Moffatt advised members to be realistic about costs, and recommended standard design plus pavers only. No one liked the high friction surface. NORTH TRAM STATION Regarding the crossing at the North Tram station, Wilson Miller provided the costs for moving the median and landscaping. Mr. Mangan said the reason landscaping was expensive is because many large trees need relocating or removal, and sod. He did not recommend relocating the crosswalk. He explained crosswalks should not divert pedestrians from their destination and the design was a good idea until they realized there were unintended consequences in regards to safety and inconvenience. The crosswalk is in the best location now. Members took a straw vote and consensus they liked best was to modify the u -turn lane by filling it in and making it a part of the median, thus widening the crossing and increasing pedestrian safety, pending costs that Wilson Miller would provide on March 1. THE COMMONS Recommendations for the Commons midblock crossing included a tier for solar powered flashing lights with activation by pedestrian, or sensor in roadway, or both, similar to the crosswalk at Myra Janco Daniels, but not on all the time. Mr. Mangan said the flashing lights are supplemental to standards and likes them because they provide a higher level of visibility, increasing pedestrian safety, especially at a midblock crossing. Suggestions made included developing a concept of community responsibility so that drivers would stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, rather than they install flashing lights. Mr. Lickhalter asked why the Services Division decided to install flashing lights at Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. Madam Chair Womble explained a main reason was safety for children walking to and from school, and for visibility at night by many Philharmonic patrons. Consensus was there are no statistics or quantitative studies done to justify the extravagance of the Myra Janco Daniels crossing, or to provide reason to install flashing lights at the North Tram station. Members did not decide whether the lights should be electric or solar powered, but consensus was not to install lighting now, but to install a conduit during initial construction, should they decide later. 79 -t Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee 16114 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop February 25, 2010 Several liked idea of moving the crosswalk at the Commons, but Mr. Mangan did not recommend. They need to consider the driveways at the north and south entrances. Closing a u -turn lane would not make 4r safer. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND GULF PARK DRIVE Recommendations made for Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive three -way stop intersection were mostly aesthetic. The consensus was to install brick pavers and cobblestones but this would be expensive and if implemented, it would be many years away. The other suggestion made was not take any action because it was not a safety priority and secondary intersection. PRIORITIES AND COMMUNICATION priority. Members discussed how to prioritize recommendations and Mr. Moffatt and Mr. Levy said safety is the top Mr. Cravens said they should address the North Tram Station crosswalk first. Mr. Mangan said they could implement a consistent temporary solution that complies with standards and provides a high level of safety by next season. Members liked the idea of pavers, but pavers would take longer to install and not address the safety issues until much later. They discussed installing piano striping as a more temporary solution, but a counter argument was why spend money on one solution that would be redone shortly thereafter. Members were not happy about the timing. Realistically, implementation would not be as quickly as was understood. Mr. Mangan said from today's discussion, they would formulate a priority list. Generally, decisions made in April can implement in November. Mr. Lickhalter said not all projects are County ones and the Foundation can implement faster. Mr. Cravens said they would need to inform the community too, which will add further delay. Mr. Lickhalter asked how the Services Division would communicate. Madam Chair Womble explained the Services Division communicates by holding public meetings. Mr. Lickhalter said the Pelican Bay Post advertises and is more effective. Mr. Mangan said minimal and standard elements, such as signage, could be implemented first and supplemental enhancements done later. �, A 15"i Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee 1611 A 151 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop February 25, 2010 Mr. Uek stressed the importance of explaining the reasoning behind a project. Mr. Moffatt stressed the importance of explaining the cost. Mr. Levy and Ms. Bellone stressed they should not compromise safety. Mr. Cravens said in order to move forward, they would need to know what they are doing first and tl;en present it to the community with pricing. Ms. Murray said the members should communicate to the community the Board and Committee's final recommendations, not the choices like provided today for additional parameters and cost. She expressed concern that although they made every opportunity to inform the community, the response has been poor. Mr. Mangan said the intent is to keep the community apprised. NORTH TRAM STATION INTERIM SOLUTION: SIGNAGE & STRIPING Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division ordered signage that they cannot return for installation at the North Tram station crossing. It costs an additional $700 to add the striping. Mr. Lickhalter said they should consider whether to install non - essential elements that they plan to redo in the future. Consensus was to add the striping as part of the interim solution because of the minimal cost. CROSSWALKS Mr. Mangan said they would need to prioritize crosswalk improvements. He suggested implementing in phases starting with the one most in need and that the entire community benefits. Consensus was that the North Tram station midblock crosswalk was most important, followed by the Commons midblock crosswalk, then Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive intersection. LIGHTING Wilson Miller distributed costs for lighting improvements with options. The Services Division is responsible for lighting maintenance. The difference between metal halide fixtures and LED fixtures are upfront costs. LED fixtures cost more initially, but have an operational cost benefit that could save 25 - 35% energy use over the course of thirteen years. If the goal were to "go green," LED would be the "green" choice. Metal halide lighting is more costly to operate and maintain. Wilson Miller stressed that neither type of lighting is "better." It is a matter of choice. The bottom line is they need lighting. There was concern expressed regarding additional electrical work and sufficient power. EM Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee 16 I 1 IA 15 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop February 25, 2010 Bollards would require new electrical work. Mr. Mangan recommended they not move existing pole lighting. Moving them might create additional problems, such as light shining into residences. Wilson Miller would schedule an evening to review bollard prototypes at St. Raphael. The March 1 workshop was rescheduled to begin earlier at 8:30 a.m., rather than 9:00 a.m. i Ms. Resnick would send a revised public notice to the County's Communications office. Consensus was they would need to schedule an additional workshop between March 1 and March 31. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m. Mary A&e Womble, Chairwoman RE Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/8/2010 9:58:13 AM I I 1611 A15° Wlsomiller February 25, 2010 Community Improvements Plan Joint Workshop Meeting Minutes North Tram Station Crosswalk - High visibility striping and signage at north tram station crosswalk should happen within next two weeks — cost expressed to be between 5,000 and 6,000 dollars with the striping to be approximately 700 to 800 dollars of the total cost. - Desired choices for crosswalk material were given by all members present (choices being thermoplastic striping only, high friction decorative surface material, pavers with concrete bands and pavers with paver cobble bands) • First choice was pavers with concrete band • Second choice was pavers with cobble paver bands • Third choice was thermoplastic striping only • Fourth choice was decorative surface material (no votes) - Red light flashing option can be delayed — conduit can be put in place for future wiring if desired - WilsonMiller will research locations of existing high friction decorative surface material applications - Desired choices for the median opening alternatives were given by all members present (choices being relocating opening to present tram station parking entrance, filling in existing opening with no relocation and leaving opening as is • First choice was filling in existing opening with no relocation • Second choice was to relocate the opening to parking entrance • Third choice was leaving opening as is o WilsonMiller would recommend relocating opening to parking entrance, the groups second choice - WilsonMiller will create a cost estimate and diagram for the "filling in" option for further discussion of opening alternatives as well as location of actual crosswalk Life Cycle costs will continually be reviewed in material alternatives _200 Bailey Lam 5ui €e 206 Maples„ Florida 34105 800.649.4336 2W,64U,4f -40 1- 2-14.,643.5716 WilsonMiller com 161 The Commons Crosswalk and Pelican Bay Boulevard/ Gulf Park Drive Intersection 14 A 15i - Discussion was held on the median opening for the north Commons drive o Confusion when turning north as to where north bound lanes are o Stacking within median opening can get backed up o Can opening be reduced for more precise direction o Asphalt at the edge of curb lines could be painted yellow on median nosings with addition of reflective pavement markings (RPM's) added to the asphalt around the nosings for a higher level of visibility o RPM's in lieu of painted lines could be added along the interior tire tracking movement for driver awareness of turning movement to desired travel lanes - Crosswalk and intersection paving at Pelican Bay Boulevard/ Gulf Park Drive intersection was reviewed, but led to a further discussion on material decisions and continuity/ safety throughout the community - WilsonMiller will review all crosswalks for cost comparisons between options of high visibility striping, pavers, and pavers with cobble bands - WilsonMiller will review landscaping cost estimates with Kyle for comparison of square foot prices Improvement planning decisions determined by the work group for community improvement implementation are planned to be presented to the community residents prior to installation - Pelican Bay Post, regularly scheduled meetings - Clear presentation to residents in terms of budgets, safety and aesthetics Additional studies from WilsonMiller were distributed for review — these studies included street and pathway lighting, roadway landscape, US 41 berm, Commons and community berm Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 1 - Street Lighting : Maintenance Program of Current Conditions Existing concrete poles and fixtures - maintenance of current conditions. WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 1611 IA 151 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing (Palm and stump removal) 26 EA $1,200.00 $31,200.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 41 EA $150.00 $6,150.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) S EA $75.00 $600.00 Light Pole - Remove and Relocate Existing 20 EA $230.00 $4,600.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Pole - Install Existing (Includes conduit, conductor, and pullbox within 30.0' of original location) 20 EA $850.00 $17,000.00 TOTAL: $59,550 15% CONTINGENCY: $8,933 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $1.500.00 $1500.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $73,483 'Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 2 - Street Lighting : Original Poles with New Fixtures & Arms Add 4.0' arms and decorative fixtures to existing concrete poles. WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 1611A15'� Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 20 EA $150.00 $3,000.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 8 EA $75.00 $600.00 Light Fixture - Existing 368 EA $160.00 $58,880.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 206 EA $2,800.00 $576,800.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Residential / Secondary Community Entries 162 EA $2,650.00 $429,300.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Single) 102 EA $850.00 $86,700.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) 133 EA $975.00 $129,675.00 TOTAL: $1,284,955 15% CONTINGENCY: $192,743 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $45,000.00 $45,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 GRAND TOTAL: EA 1 $1,526,198 ' Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. 1. Add/deduct for Omega MH Fixture = $1800 ea. 2. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. Delican Bay Boulevard 45 )emnlitinn $28.38C Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotall Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 8 EA $150.00 $1,200.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 4 EA $75.00 $300.00 Light Fixture - Existing 168 EA $160.00 $26,880.00 Sitework 19 EA $975.00 00 Gulf Park Drive Subtotal: 131 Item Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotill Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 168 EA $2,800.00 $470,400.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Residential / Secondary Community Entries 0 EA $2,650.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Single) 0 EA $850.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) 84 EA $975.00 $81,900.00 Pelican Bay Boulevard Subtotal: $580,680 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotall Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 4 EA $150.00 $600.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 4 EA $75.00 $300.00 Light Fixture - Existing 38 EA $160.00 $6,080.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal] Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 38 EA $2,800.00 $106,400.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Residential / Secondary Community Entries 0 EA $2,650.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Single) 0 EA $850.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) 19 EA $975.00 $18,525.00 Gulf Park Drive Subtotal: 131 1611 p151 kern Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 3 EA $150.00 $450.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 0 EA $75.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Existing 25 EA $160.00 $4,000.00 Item Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 0 EA $2,800.00 $0.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Residential / Secondary Community Entries 25 EA $2,650.00 $66,250.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Single) 19 EA $850.00 $16,150.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) 3 EA $975.00 $2,925.00 Rid ewood Drive Subtotal: 5255 270 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) Light Fixture - Existing 3 0 72 EA EA EA $150.00 $75.00 $160.00 $450.00 $0.00 $11,520.00 $243.300 Sitework Item Location Quantity nrt Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Residential / Secondary Community Entries Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Single) Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) 0 72 48 12 EA EA EA EA $2,800.00 $2,650.00 $850.00 $975.00 $0.00 $190,800.00 $40,800.00 $11,700.00 Oakmont Nei hborhood Subtotal: 5255 270 i Secondary Community Entries iDemolition 18o, $10,700 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost ubtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) Light Fixture - Existing 2 0 65 EA EA EA $150.00 $75.00 $160.00 $300.00 $0.00 $10,400.00 ',216.625 Sitework Item Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Residential / Secondary Community Entries Light Fixture - Ann Fitting (Single) Light Fixture - Ann Fitting (Dual) 0 65 35 15 EA EA EA EA $2,800.00 $2,650.00 $850.00 $975.00 $0.00 $172,250.00 $29,750.00 $14,625.00 1 c�l,4v o N ,X. r O Cv -4 end ir rx !-'V bz I 7� �CE vfi n7 V N 10 15 N �W .0 `55 ryaa V) LLJ LLJ CL LLL z (D ;5 =iwo wC t�!-:j L 161 115 14 H 0 6 ,Z lz `55 ryaa V) LLJ LLJ CL LLL z (D ;5 =iwo wC t�!-:j L 161 115 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 A 151, Option 3 - Street Lighting : New Poles & Fixtures with Arms Community entries and single - family neighborhoods to single decorative fixtures & poles. Boulevards to decorative fixtures & poles. WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 20 EA $150.00 $3,000.00 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm Trimming) 8 EA $75.00 $600.00 Light Fixture - Existing 368 EA $160.00 $58,880.00 Light Pole - Remove 235 EA $200.00 $47,000.00 SITEWORK $1,847,570 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Light Fixture - Omega Type (LED) - Boulevard 182 EA $2,800.00 $509,600.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - All Community Entries / Residential 196 EA $2,650.00 $519,400.00 Light Fixture - Arm Fitting (Dual) for Omega 91 EA $975.00 $88,725.00 Light Pole for Omega - Hapco 30.0' ht Decorative (Includes conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 91 EA $2,265.00 $206,115.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes Single bracket, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 126 EA $2,880.00 $362,880.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes Dual brackets, conduit, conductor, and pullbox) 35 EA $3,590.00 $125,650.00 Additional Conduit and Conductor for Relocated Poles (Includes horizontal drilling) 22 EA $1,600.00 $35,200.00 TOTAL: $1,957,050 15% CONTINGENCY: $293,558 Design - :1 111 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture 1 1 LS LS $75,000.00 $0.00 $75,000.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $2,330,608 ' Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. 1. Add /deduct for Omega MH Fixture = $1800 ea. 2. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. LFl Lu -:40 1 1611Y15 0 ""'ll ov Igo I z 2 1 14 aczs ip 0 gx Poll ea »roa 3Y19 RX -coo 05 OR. dw to WE ON LFl Lu -:40 1 1611Y15 0 ""'ll ov Igo I z 2 1 14 G2 gg 0 gx LFl Lu -:40 1 1611Y15 0 ""'ll ov I z 2 1 14 G2 gg 0 gx LFl Lu -:40 1 1611Y15 16I 1 A151 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 4 - Street Lighting : Lighting at Outside Edges of Street ROW All community boulevard street lights shift to ROW with decorative fixtures & poles. All single - family neighborhood & community entry street lights. WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Selective Clearing (Tree Trimming) 40 EA $150.00 $6,000.00 Light Fixture - Existing 368 EA $160.00 $58,880.00 Light Pole - Remove 235 EA $200.00 $47,000.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Conduit and Conductor for Poles 42,510 LF $13.50 $573,885.00 Light Fixture - Euro Type (LED) - Boulevards, Entries and Residential 378 EA $2,650.00 $1,001,700.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes dual brackets) 35 EA $3,190.00 $111,650.00 Light Pole for Euro - Sternberg 16.0' ht Decorative (Includes single bracket) 308 EA $2,480.00 $763,840.00 Roadway - Horizontal Drilling to 100.0' 14 EA $2,360.00 $33,040.00 Transformer, Meter, Point of Connection 1 LS $70,000.00 $70,000.00 Trenching - Common Earth 42,510 LF $3.00 $127,530.00 TOTAL: $2,793,525 15% CONTINGENCY: $419,029 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $185,000.00 $185,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $3,409,554 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. " Final design power requirements to be reviewed by an Engineer - costs may vary on necessary power requirements /loads, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers. 1. Add /deduct for Euro MH Fixture = $1650 ea. o� Wg • 161 o zz up I A151 OCT err Or off sexy r va 20 me mw_ Y's ap 31(:x ;"Co n(i Dot ma mx or M P� -0(19 D(I 05 ,OCE CE in ON Ct W 3 111 Wg • 161 o zz up I A151 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 16 11-1 A 1541 Option 1 - Pathway Lighting : On- demand LED to immediate need, dark areas only Gardco pathway bollard additions in suggested locations to subsidize low light levels. WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 WMOLITION $26.46C Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotall Demolition - Existing Bollards O. 147 EA $180.00 $26,460.00 $448,400 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trenching - Common Earth Conduit and Conductor for Bollards Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Replace Existing Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location Transformer, Meter, Point of Connection 5,200 5,200 147 87 1 LF LF EA EA LS $3.00 $13.50 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $35,000.00 $15,600.00 $70,200.00 $205,800.00 $121,800.00 $35,000.00 TOTAL: $474,860 15% CONTINGENCY: $71,229 Design / Permit Fee Estimates $65,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $57,000.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 $57,000.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $611,089 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. " As required by an Engineer - power requirements, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers shall be based upon final design and may adjust costs 0 161111 A151 Z7 LU Sys 7 CD LU zlz) Ln Lu 0 Of fl- z 161 11 A'15'' Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 2 - Pathway Lighting : Standard MH to dark areas only Sternberg pathway bollard additions in suggested locations to subsidize low light levels. WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 IFMnll ITION $26.46C [Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotall Demolition - Existing Bollards 147 EA $180.00 $26.460.00 1SITEWORK 1 LS $0.00 $385,220 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trenching - Common Earth 5,200 LF $3.00 $15,600.00 Conduit and Conductor for Bollards 5,200 LF $13.50 $70,200.00 Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 70w MH (60.0' OC) - Replace Existing 147 EA $1,130.00 $166,110.00 Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 70w MH (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location 87 EA $1,130.00 $98,310.00 Transformer. Meter. Point of Connection 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 TOTAL: $411,680 15% CONTINGENCY: $61,752 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $57,000.00 $57,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $538,432 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. " As required by an Engineer - power requirements, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers shall be based upon final design and may adjust costs .. 1611 A1� Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 3 - Pathway Lighting : On- demand LED to one side of boulevards Gardco pathway bollard additions along west side of PBB and north side of GPD in addition to low light level area additions. WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Existing Bollards SITEWORK 147 EA $180.00 $26,460.00 • •1: Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trenching - Common Earth Conduit and Conductor for Bollards Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Replace Existing Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location Transformer, Meter, Point of Connection 21,255 21,255 147 356 1 LF LF EA EA LS $3.00 $13.50 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $105,000.00 $63,765.00 $286,942.50 $205,800.00 $498,400.00 $105,000.00 TOTAL: $1,186,368 15% CONTINGENCY: $177,955 Design P- $105,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $96,000.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 $96,000.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $1,469,323 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. " As required by an Engineer - power requirements, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers shall be based upon final design and may adjust costs. 16 I' 1'1A 15'i Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 4 - Pathway Lighting : Standard MH to one side of boulevards Sternberg pathway bollard additions along west side of PBB and north side of GPD in addition to low light level area additions. WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Existing Bollards 147 EA 5180.00 $26,460.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trenching - Common Earth 21,255 LF $3.00 $63,765.00 Conduit and Conductor for Bollards 21,255 LF $13.50 $286,942.50 Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 70w MH (60.0' OC) - Replace Existing 147 EA $1,130.00 $166,110.00 Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 70w MH (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location 356 EA $1,130.00 $402,280.00 Transformer, Meter, Point of Connection 1 LS $105,000.00 $105,000.00 TOTAL: $1,050,558 15% CONTINGENCY: $157,584 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $96,000.00 $96,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $9,000.00 $9,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $1,313,141 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. " As required by an Engineer - power requirements, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers shall be based upon final design and may adjust costs. o 5 o z a s 3 ° a w s �sz w s�o o�W s�S =�1 S i LA woo ,a o d �0 O 4 0 ' e 0 0 Q I QL z wsilQ w -_Q JQ viE LLJ I- � W "L z A 15'4 ffi QL z wsilQ w -_Q JQ viE LLJ I- � W "L z A 15'4 a J XaQ �g m0s Z2 z=Ew 3 V1�03=0v� omi� °n3m�7 LU Z M WZp O�yJJ - 'o, N Z � w W i �17paZ S �O g7U2 gv� ��r S „cEE g�Eg K u? m y1E J�uv =� � a 33 mZ J f^ W OO ~ z z a mopOWOU Q OC app�� OU > zowf o —gag g w W z 0- = M 6 , a jNP t� pF W'aim0 3; > oz sr.. U° oo�.. Q? t=7t=70aZ d p 7 7 U LL :! �; we. S I 1.. w oIjE e E $ yE�3� 3n m� �E� nyn s� = °x E El E"=" =3'FE v ='y3B r ^T =v v6 A��'g`3F HIV o e m> .. $ic B'S"Yyy. 4 yv ° Aa1.8 ms's 8 E .. W 'o Fi�`Sv W�YsFa �F 0 E3 U 8= r ~o =082 m_es= 1-2. n Ey v 11. laBExt Wptx�-W 9 ;t r_ - E ' 3 o E a o€ tll C5S 161 11. A 151 �c$pE r 3 c g c r H, ; ] n 12 y9 � E oL 3r S I .141 ZEp H- °PE° z� = =8•n; E°v� 7�g � � � o �z L yc _ �� i 4 yJq q C _ t � 9aE 7g 2 ff wsa�og wBB z�o phi tap e� �_ ge q .y �y8 S8� xg` Y; m e5� $< N$n $gv rocs =e.N8 .l yp,x v E�L =°c nr� gn Zmv�>o 0 PE j C x °,cy =sn�o W Z> III NCO a7�_G W a�J 16111 A15" Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs: Roadway Median Landscape WilsonMiller - February 22, 2010 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 8,156 SF $0.49 Subtotal Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 5,859 SF $0.49 $2,870.91 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm - include stump removal) 7 EA $200.00 $1,400.00 Sitework - Tree 3 EA $300.00 $900.00 Sitework - Irrigation Retrofit 5,859 SF $0.80 $4,687.20 Sitework - Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcover / Mulch 5,859 SF $5.50 $32,224.50 Sitework - Topsoil (6" depth) 109 CY $40.00 $4,360.00 Sitework - Root Barrier (18" Rigid Panels) 470 LF $6.50 $3,055.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 8,156 SF $0.49 $3,996.44 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm - include stump removal) 16 EA $200.00 $3,200.00 Sitework - Tree 6 EA $300.00 $1,800.00 Sitework - Irrigation Retrofit 8,156 SF $0.80 $6,524.80 Sitework - Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcover / Mulch 8,156 SF $5.50 $44,858.00 Sitework - Topsoil (6" depth) 151 CY $40.00 $6,040.00 Sitework - Root Barrier (18" Rigid Panels) 370 LF $6.50 $2,405.00 Roadway St• • 14 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 11,242 F $0.49 $5,508.58 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm - include stump removal) 15 EA $200.00 $3,000.00 Sitework - Large Palm Sitework - Large Tree Sitework - Tree Sitework - Irrigation Retrofit Sitework - Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcover / Mulch Sitework - Topsoil (6" depth) Sitework - Root Barrier (18" Rigid Panels) 10 2 26 15,687 11,242 208 470 EA EA EA SF SF CY LF $1,200.00 $600.00 $300.00 $0.80 $5.50 $40.00 $6.50 $12,000.00 $1,200.00 $7,800.00 $12,549.60 $61,831.00 $8,320.00 $3,055.00 AVERAGE COST PER LINEAL FOOT: $115 LINEAL FOOTAGE OF LANDSCAPE MEDIAN AREA: 18,388 TOTAL: $2,111,085 15% CONTINGENCY: $316,663 GRAND TOTAL: $2,427,748 Planting estimates for median landscape only in Pelican Bay Boulevard (14,831 LF) and Gulf Park Drive (3,557 LF). " Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts 17 161 A 1 Em � 1sv't ?11 E� lb'Sfl Z I a d q,ecs8 x asp A9 o 0 0 Q g z 8 8 Q Q 1 I H ■ w I N� 1 H 'aw X 1 Z � Z °m Z N J Eu 6 Q > V ! _ ° lbq�yW OWJIbO W a Rol a i /2 LA � o / 2 2 � a l/1 m z w O m / � W o� J / R / O V a o W O W CIA z Q W / u / LA w Q � �y w z >o ° o� a� s 'a0�V 8 ma / voz. docg© 16 111A151 S • i m Q W Q 0 H N V) 0 H 0 Z 0 V W LA 0 CL 0 cc CL Q V O Z R �0 gQ W d _ 0 Q m z Q J W. CL t/1 H z W z 50 W >p 0 p Q C� w G F- H — H w W w Q ~ Vp V) Z OQ zLA �a w �a z —o zQ Z � =00 a Vin 11A15, R/ O O-_ o� 0 ®C o � M 0 / D I � � o� p U o 0 0 0 0 � o Q 0 O o 0 0 0 O O o j 0 o a O o p O O D� o D � 0 0 � D i i iil °A15 � 2 I-- 0 z Q m a v J W d z�, Luz O 0 0° �a a-Lu 2� —F- Ww LU QLA Von MQ kAI gI w Q �z _o b�r 8 Joy il.:Oi W , y W `W N W xP 3 U c m E A m 5 16I11A151 "O O O. i Q ytj Z-p W L J 2 Q V m a H m r = z V p V ^O V O Gj E C Z m r T Q w� m CI L. cL m f0 0 m c o O V1 N m N J V, > N N W O W 7 S o p> E O c > w O m m O N d O m E' m E OM V eL Z p O-O 7 rw m `mv z °w aE o m;o+ •N w l7 a,V N N m p uNi E �_°c m C> ,w' 0 3 E LLE z'cvxcCE_Vmar,• zo V I l v n N C V V W W a• 3D U 2 L 1 0 0 0 C F- W V O K J • • • l7 • • • • • • • • • • • • • Q • • AR ai c o c .c •c z m�oz z c 'n cc ai ^, m a Z m T 7 OIC N y a T O 7 C "O 7 H C v L d m -0— yd. CL C .�mm Y0 E OC.� zmEOv0 >m^ amo �� wmQ Ag a, .W 'E v >OL ° o ^o,�� m rna E o mB �a as c m v"?'o t7•- c -- LU > En"'o o m�'a„vc'aw Lu a o CL CL 3 ado !a:,: d 3 c "° amm_m F`nM «won Wr'� ao�y fO m C Z o rn a `y m m ._ v ram a N 7 vo >A Z �H- no^�°�s'ami wc`om^n�$Eacin L m Q O x 0 CC M p 7 O �i , 7 7 2 0 d a V? p 0 >' 7 y y z pp CY V Co Co V Vpv, QQ V V V ilv =t- H V LA • • . Q m u C V L! 'm r EL R O CL O m m C L a O } � c 0 n m `m a n ao � V � z D • • E E E n 0 v a E : 3 a � m O V y y^N E me LL m m C V A ma E R 3:E pc°1m Y."3Ea pE =3m £om m a m >. m [p `0pa m Ed coo m xv Nv m o rn� °rLL cEL m ?j m �. m Y O m 0 m m V _ •'-^ c ''cam uL rn- o m O N- O m a N C O v C> y y •= •� y C N a0+ O O O v, m5.m E '^ o R o'N N maE.Aw �`X Ca �XX �'C OJ ,�OY7 Q m C r Q C m a� •C O u E O T- d y C a N L '�n W N J O'C m a d E H °" l7mia°CVmi QiL pV- =m 'L f= g � d 0 E c_ E WE h C E z N Z N J w w J z zz aq J a Oq Z Y `y QA /N d'- cr- v Q z_ J W 0 F- u z W z> g° Q w Z<a V Z z ��g OC O W m z Q C� G 0 Q W D 0 m Q m z V J CL W cr 0 W z a 0 0 W 0 m 'a m z v CL W LL a z Q 0 W F- 0 z > J 0 m Q m z Q U d C W LL Q z _Q C� L 0 Q J D O Q m z U CL W Q z a 0 0 a J 0 m a m z V a LP, 161 itj A151 W 0 u 0 z 0 Q N 0 w p W N H 0 �r z z Q cNc W G 0 a J J W Q 0Q Z 0W F Q � 0 z W 0 N W W F- m } C 0 = O in Z p Z �.i Q Cm W G > J 0 00 2D Z) 0 tD cr W 0 0>> O� J LLJ N W Q h F- a 0 a v o^ m m 2z J N 00 mz DQ 0m � W 0 > 0 z� 00 Fz 0 1 V I z w 2 W �O�/ I/.�.I. I..V W w LL. CL Q Q c U Ln a Q W zo QLL. �m z —ate 2�-A ga V LU MQ O a W Z< m MUz s z <o w U J z Lu aCLCL i Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1 6 111 A 1 1 Option 1 - U.S. 41 Berm : Addition of Vegetation Only WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing SITEWORK 0 SF $0.49 $0.00 $76,175 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 47,450 1 SIF LS $1.50 $5,000.00 $71,175,00 $5,000.00 TOTAL: $76,175 15% CONTINGENCY: $11,426 Design / Permit Fee Estimates 00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $0.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $95,101 . Assumes 6500 SF of shrubs per 1000 LF of berm length (7300 LF total) excluding existing wall portions. Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 16 'A 15#1 41 Berm A dd Height to Earth Berm Option 2 U.S. er i e g WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 50,050 SF $0.49 $24,524.50 EARTHWORK at Ridgewood Park Lake $171,771 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Earthwork and Grading - Berm (Includes fill) 572 CY $50.00 $28,600.00 Earthwork and Grading - Lake Edge 388 SY $4.00 $1,552.00 Earthwork and Grading - Littoral Shelf 760 SY $4.00 $3,040.00 Earthwork and Grading - RipRap Channel Zone 1,000 SY $2.00 $2,000.00 Retaining Wall - Concrete @ 6.0' ht 270 LF $165.00 $44,550.00 Retaining Wall - Concrete @ 8.0' ht 290 LF $214.00 $62,060.00 Retaining Wall - Wood 250 LF $115.00 $28,750.00 RipRap Channel 23 CY $53.00 $1,219.00 ISITEWORK $ Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Tree 75 EA $400.00 $30,000.00 Shrubs / Mulch 50,050 SF $1.50 $75,075.00 Irrigation Retrofit 1 LS $17,500.00 $17,500.00 TOTAL: $318,871 15% CONTINGENCY: $47,831 Permit : ••• Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture 1 1 LS LS $38,000.00 $15,000.00 $38,000.00 $15,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $424,701 anza rmrne �a - O , J N J M = Q 7 = J ur ix = J ]z Z 7O H Q 7 � J �2 0 . z a 3 D w e Q > o a ck,w ko W _ } x m z z o o 7 cc m � ^ x � z. F C J L � O K w i Q z ' v Z Q z Q z 161 1 '4151 z O Q 2 C� W = Q w 2Q Of 0 W M C W F— J � w rzm co ze sd oy d�� i V ^ t !E !E s� II -- ;' ax�varmna �a - O , J N J M = Q 7 = J ur ix = J ]z Z 7O H Q 7 � J �2 0 . z a 3 D w e Q > o a ck,w ko W _ } x m z z o o 7 cc m � ^ x � z. F C J L � O K w i Q z ' v Z Q z Q z 161 1 '4151 z O Q 2 C� W = Q w 2Q Of 0 W M C W F— J � w rzm co ze sd oy d�� Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 3 - U.S. 41 Berm: Fence / Wall Options WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 16I11A15� Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 24,000 SF $0.49 $11,760.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence 8,000 LF $65.00 $520,000.00 Shrubs / Mulch 1 LS $26,500.00 $26,500.00 Irrigation Retrofit 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 TOTAL: LF LS LS $55.00 $26,500.00 $20,000.00 1 $578,260 $498,260 15% CONTINGENCY: $86,739 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: LF LS LS $55.00 $26,500.00 $20,000.00 1 $680,499 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing SITEWORK 24,000 SF $0.49 $11,760.00 $486,500 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 8,000 1 1 LF LS LS $55.00 $26,500.00 $20,000.00 $440,000.00 $26,500.00 $20,000.00 TOTAL: $498,260 15% CONTINGENCY: $74,739 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $588,499 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 24,000 SF $0.49 $11,760.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht EPS Panel Wall 8,000 LF $100.00 $800,000.00 Shrubs / Mulch 1 LS $26,500.00 $26,500.00 Irrigation Retrofit 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 TOTAL: Quantity Unit Unit Cost $858,260 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 24,000 SF $0.49 $11,760.00 15% CONTINGENCY: $98,739 Design / Permit -- Estimates $128,739 D- Quantity Unit Unit Cost 00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 LS $20,000.00 1 $1,002,499 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 24,000 SF $0.49 $11,760.00 iSITEWORK $98,739 Design / Permit -- Estimates $646,500 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence 8,000 LF $75.00 $600,000.00 Shrubs / Mulch 1 LS $26,500.00 $26,500.00 Irrigation Retrofit 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 TOTAL: $658,260 15% CONTINGENCY: $98,739 Design / Permit -- Estimates $15,500 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $772,499 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 24,000 SF $0.49 $11,760.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Ebsting 8,000 LF $65.00 $520,000.00 Shrubs / Mulch 1 LS $26,500.00 $26,500.00 Irrigation Retrofit 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 TOTAL: $578,260 15% CONTINGENCY: $86,739 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 Permitting 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: Quantity Unit Unit Cost 1 $680,499 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 24,000 SF $0.49 $11.760.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht EPS Panel Wall 8,000 LF $120.00 $960,000.00 Shrubs / Mulch 1 LS $26,500.00 $26,500.00 Irrigation Retrofit 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 TOTAL: $1,018,260 15% CONTINGENCY: $152,739 Estimates i Design / Permit Fee $ Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $1,186,499 1611 � ►� Ell I �-1 O Qa W o} 0 J� JN W }wm zV- swL/li 0- LL. 7i 15 "� � L R zS� TTI 1 1 ^ 1 i 1 1 t 1 1 i j 1 r t t, i a 1 'gfj 4 1 ice' 1 's, 1 g I m t'� i 1611 � ►� Ell I �-1 O Qa W o} 0 J� JN W }wm zV- swL/li 0- LL. 7i 15 "� 0 V C O V 3 c c _ E v � c o �p V c .3 v v d v v c_ � N R N X C O_ CL E w p tN ,01 a N w N L X O1� J N L N_ C O v 3 h L O O E n H u r n 0 N 4/ M O N E C d V � O N L X W L E O 61 `� T N V c N 3 a v v00 00 V (q O lJ � 3 N L O_ v V L cr 60 Q � 1611 3 V) w 0 UJ -,2 ? � a6i aFi U s C) O rlJ w di b9 v -- m m 3 3 O L L > O1 Ol N .a O1 i L -r- M> lb 00 Q � O O O O vow u � v v inn V in in N � 7 L C � � E V V M 4! d � w N L L Ol Ol p O N 0 L L � lD 00 0 i � Ui 3 v d C O L E U1 N N 3 v a c C O U N C d N Q Q w m U gZz w 15 a N v L a •3 � � V vo V m C O N N V a L tp OZ E N � V > N•] It R 001 00 U-0 v c o� c Q a, a V R -00 c cr N N L V Q! Lr- m 0 v� v 7 6! �j 30 m v 372 Y N V L O V- :5 o N c c O C_ u 5 7 E E .a' E N L OV to N T R m C O V a N 3 a m O a c v E V C L N O m N Q z V O 10 ai .5 C rn 0 0 a a C -� a) N N O C � > L � N w � O m ST CL U1 N .a `va Yj 30 � v 3� Y N V L O O O1 C � C O V C Y 0 C L E .D)E N L OV W � N m Y Y C O O v O O d N N Q a 3 u, u, a in 'o I da ♦r+ 0 @) @) C m m E 3 3 N L L U 0) cm CAN N C L -r- " 10 60 W � Q C7 QZ U J W I A15-14, 161 Ill A 15 w w Na Lno J N Q Q w } m z =� gLU t/1 amp, m E pvf C >OroN O � � 10 •vN'� � `Lw L•�� N N �! V.> N C QS N m N L 10 716 _O Na N 41 7 p o E a, rn� V vC�3 o 0 V O �Y 0 L C --u-0 p1.V a -� O a1 fl- o, 70 � ov C E "O c N G1 p O_ L 7 N C NL v E C'u N p Q N C+L+'p N C N N r E m -6'CL O � ��,, •� C l`p V � Ol�,� fp L aJ'O.�M�H�oa1NE pain 7� rT6 C = 7 tip -4, y 7O N pO —�LL�NO J L,NE CNN�N�NO GJ N OI L C1.N N.i -12111- N o m _o OC N N�N_�-p�N N dQ.O 2;S N 7 °C ^ooa —° M zR O -f;NN�+L+r N C f0 O C N co m Ln M it C 7 O N y.. O V aj V t U C N � N V Y N O N m E.vva o� ti.E TL 2 v 3 c c v c v o QO E ma o N N N V ECEN E v ` /0 C y. -. 0�0-2 y -p to NL 7 aiO13" Eomv O Ln NL N C N7 v H O ovoo N L c �Ec in c o E m o-� �'c 0 L o o c I - N C V O N+�+In C •�' N al O 7 d7- .O.0 dy X00 C— C_'O 1� 7 rR ai L N m L J VI^'in�Y,N M.0 7 O al �� m °' No aCi >o y m II y n.0 v o m C •�MElli 6 Y �•E m��..1 L �QLIp � 7 N O NoL MLA -O CC O.0 �+R H N O p_.`LY O N v O 16 OF-.- ` ,�N N v Old a.Z.' o ,� JC++O.-N C 0�0 C N v _T ai 7 d N C a' C _c - a 3 >. �, N .O N 1 �'O >'C'v. V 1p L -O E .r d c L o V C> �+ LVI N N V o R NL V±+.Y C in 7 A (6 i J i/s N"O a)'C 1p ra N.� 7 CL CL k $'L _O >,L P 0 p�voYva�E o`op 8 8 �as0'zc mMw O o0== 70 O oQ t= �1E =l1=1 o �� vLi.�•Q O O N p .� 76 7 0 U�1 O O o a! -O C C -O OJ LrE l N w OE N C C 072 C o ^ S v L '2 1L CL) V C Nv v Q1L N >-O C 'V] C uLL O E L rN c N l oL O 3g °fin 0a cu ; D N vo - �CN N2 N '.J PCI NC d OE L C jO CV W v ° O C v ° o QC =aa a _ ° a C W 0 w a a F « 3 Y -4-- O M N a3 vN j N N tl) C 16 N !p _Q fp C plc LO'6>O a- �vVis >_ >C ow N .Q �j,VC� F- rn E m -p o� T° a,:°• Y o A 71 I= a Lp o_ -0 C 4Z�` N -0 161 i 1 aNC � I O � 1 W 0 O N N 0 "6 a � w a+ O a0 ysS7 b O S. > OE�f ,E C O P a !o H ° rp V .SD :m� I W'°SC °� I °fin 1 o tiWq OYp C y O � y'fiV W F O ✓ w . plc F- N 161 O LU Q Q Q Zo w t; Q LU }7Q Lmi Z: V g0 aV7� 1`A15 � E x N c Z rn 0 a E 0 c a O LT 0 3 t c c 0 Y O a x N m N V o a' Z E 3- r c O A b V V cg Ew v av W N L � rn� 2 u v �a O a � H N C yJ L v E 0- `m �c C N N N N � N = N O E E O C VI -O i 1 aNC � I � 1 a � i P i i H ° :m� I W'°SC °� I °fin 1 o tiWq T7,6- F w o plc v °z� °mm 1 i�8o 1 iz u a sro,`J_ Y a j � W wz °AEU 2 U o o z to n ILO dU O LU Q Q Q Zo w t; Q LU }7Q Lmi Z: V g0 aV7� 1`A15 � E x N c Z rn 0 a E 0 c a O LT 0 3 t c c 0 Y O a x N m N V o a' Z E 3- r c O A b V V cg Ew v av W N L � rn� 2 u v �a O a � H N C yJ L v E 0- `m �c C N N N N � N = N O E E O C VI -O t v m N 3 m Lri M E W N a w � >W a x s 0 O O . vcY3� u, >� a� ° a •o_a E v z c a 3 ~- -000�oa va ) -0; ��� ra r:C �-O V TC -LL N Vf EQL N O 0 3 C V - N 0.+�' C S'a E O1 v o= r.i v H a, EON N 7L — V a-' O N v H vim. O a! O §,2 V N �..' O� V N C aL-� a) N NL N OI.d Ul -0 v aL.+ N V C V N > O r V C a/-O O V v1 N V >T VI �aL N Ql.�'p14 '++ O�VI O'5 �� .0o c-0 c Y Nc C �a�iEw�.°i, °-o� -aoc �� N N.0 L1 �O Ow > N wE N +d' 3 � Na d V1CQLCNvfm Cip is C !a v X N Q C1M LL C E C C Q ra roo �o v `0 c L v O m 0 v ai (a ro >i C NV O � N H O ' V•O� N '> � w�C n YO Y � aO No N —a17 mV —3� ac i H N S t6 M-0 > W �d Y. �8 y VW V � m w O pr N M. •v a4i W 'a G o h m � pm p •d � � N N C v.• U. ra «b pp � C 'y 4 C v W -O �a o _d N p v 'C am p � by V N ON O p 'ii � ro 0 Y1 N b N y Lo 'W y x M E F T Ol c c O C E 0 E a 3 1611 o< LU Q Q Zo Lu �Ln Q w L %Q JJ mz- sZ:),q �Oi aV) D c �c Y O a x c g. v 0 � rn m � N V Z L L t � C O q % V C � � w Q 'O T C N L � m 2 � L d ` LL Q F d O � � qC d "I L i a+ O E •` O -p R c N A j N In C O 6 O c � �c A151 Pelican Bay Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 161 1 IA151 Y 9 P P The Commons WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 Item___ Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Asphalt - Cartpath 352 SY _ $8.00 $2,816.00 Asphalt - Roadway 412 SY $8.00 $3,296.00 Clearing and Grubbing 1,005 SF $0.49 $492.45 Concrete Pavement 192 SY $12.00 $2,304.00 Curb - Type 'D' 135 LF $6.00 $810.00 Entry Sign 1 LS $1,800.00 $1,800.00 Rip Rap (Dry Retention) 6 CY $56.00 $336.00 Tram Station Structure 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Asphalt - Cartpath 36 TN $200.00 $7,200.00 Asphalt - Roadway 17 TN $200.00 $3,400.00 Boardwalk (Wood / Raised) 125 LF $86.00 $10,750.00 Card Access 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Concrete - Sidewalk 565 SY $32.00 $18,080.00 Concrete - Pavers 4,182 SF $8.00 $33,456.00 Concrete - Pipe 280 LF $95.00 $26,600.00 Concrete Stairs (CIP) (5.0'w - 3 to 5 Risers @ 6 ") 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Curb - Ribbon 2,193 LF $15.00 $32,895.00 Curb - Type 'D' 180 LF $25.00 $4,500.00 Emergency Call Station (Includes camera, conduit and conductor up to 200LF) 1 EA $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Entry Sign 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Fence - 4.0' Ornamental Aluminum 300 LF $60.00 $18,000.00 Retaining Wall (CIP) 60 LF $118.00 $7,080.00 Rip Rap (Dry Retention) 10 CY $53.00 $530.00 Tram Station Structure 528 SF $70.00 $36,960.00 Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED 16 EA $1,400.00 $22,400.00 Conduit and Conductor for Bollards 100 LF $13.50 $1,350.00 ARCHITECTURAL IMPROVEMENTS $112,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Employee Entrance Stairs (Incl. Demolition) 600 SF $65.00 $39,000.00 Trash Enclosure Yard, Screen Wall, Gates, Slab 1 EA $65,000.00 $65,000.00 Propane Tank Yard, Screen Wall, Gates, Slab 1 EA $8,000.00 $8,000.00 PLANTING $45,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees 12 EA $300.00 $3,600.00 Palms 18 EA $200.00 $3,600.00 Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcovers / Mulch 6,000 SF $5.50 $33,000.00 Irrigation 6,000 SF $0.80 $4,800.00 Iti emw Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal, Benches 4 EA $800.00 $3,200.00 Bike Racks 2 EA $600.00 $1,200.00 Trash Cans 2 EA $525.00 $1,050.00 Community Information Kiosk 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Tram GPS Location Kiosk 1 EA $0.00 $0.00 16111 A'151 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Pole Light Relocation 3 EA $1,800.00 $5,400.00 Accent Lighting 15 EA $500.00 $7,500.00 TOTAL: $453,105 15% CONTINGENCY: $67,966 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $576,071 Options as recommended by TwentyFifty Sustainability Report: Commons Building Roof (Metal) includes Demolition 9,000 SF $6.00 $54,000.00 Tennis Center Roof (Metal) includes Demolition 1,600 SF $6.00 $9,600.00 1611 A151 Z } z N Z c� G Q E) H D] W Is7 W Un Q VII Z w J � J w z0� O? 2Z� 20 O;� -w2 ;2a a��© Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Quantity 16 f Subtotal North North Tram Station 4 EA $800.00 $3,200.00 Bike Racks - February 25, 2010 EA $600.00 $600.00 Trash Cans 2 DEMOLITION $525.00 $1,050.00 Community Information Kiosk 1 ,,Subtotal $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Tram GPS Location Kiosk 1 EA Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Asphalt - Roadway _ 173 SY $8.00 $1,384.00 Clearing and Grubbing 340 SF $0.49 $166.60 Concrete Pavement 22 SY $12.00 $264.00 Type'D' Curb 73 LF $6.00 $438.00 SITEWORK $48,485 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Asphalt - Roadway 13 TN S200.00 $2,600.00 Concrete Pavers - Tactile 175 SF $6.00 $1,050.00 Curb - Type'D' 150 LF $25.00 $3,750.00 High Friction Surfacing 200 SF $8.50 $1,700.00 Tram Station Structure 320 SF $70.00 $22,400.00 Concrete Slab (4" re- inforced on grade) 165 SF $9.00 $1,485.00 Card Access 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Emergency Call Station (Includes camera, conduit and conductor up to 2001F) 1 EA $12,000.00 $12,000.00 IMPROVEMENTS ARCHITECTURAL .1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Roof Metal (Includes Demolition as Required) 760 SF $6.00 $4.560.00 PLANTING Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost :• Subtotal Trees 6 EA $300.00 $1,800.00 Palms 2 EA $200.00 $400.00 Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcovers / Mulch 220 EA $5.50 $1,210.00 Irrigation 220 EA $0.80 $176.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 4 EA $800.00 $3,200.00 Bike Racks 1 EA $600.00 $600.00 Trash Cans 2 EA $525.00 $1,050.00 Community Information Kiosk 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Tram GPS Location Kiosk 1 EA $0.00 $0.00 Item Accent Lighting Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8 EA $500.00 $4,000.00 NORTH TRAM STATION TOTAL: $77,734 15% CONTINGENCY: $11,660 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $144,394 �J 11 Z� � 3 2 3 ie. Z b 9 1611 z f..L W Lim z ^� W V I W J o o cr- a ON m�N VOQ e J azIci 151 jil A 1� Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1 6 1 -1 Community Berm WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 M Unit Unit Cost alum= Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trees _ 60 EA $300.00 $18,000.00 Palms 170 EA $200.00 $34,000.00 Shrubs / Groundcovers 14,800 SF $5.50 $81,400.00 Low Groundcovers 36,000 SF $1.75 $63,000.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal'' Benches 1 EA $800.00 $800.00 Accent Paving 60 SF $8.00 $480.00 VIEWING PLATFORMS $12,877 LS • $77,262 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Benches 2 EA $800.00 $1,600.00 Trash Cans 1 EA $525.00 $525.00 Trellis Structure 128 SF $70.00 $8,960.00 Cantilevered Boardwalk Platform 128 SF $14.00 $1,792.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Educational Wildlife Signage (Post and Plaque) 14 EA $280.00 $3,920.00 COMMUNITY BERM TOTAL: $298,062 15% CONTINGENCY: $44,709 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $382,771 Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 1' 6 1 I'l .. A 15 " Opinion of Probable Costs: Community Berm Pathway WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Su ota btl Asphalt -Walkway/ Path @ 10.0' Existing 8,556 SY $8.00 $68,444.44 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Asphalt - Walkway / Path @ 12.0'w 821 TN $200.00 $164,266.67 Concrete Retaining Curb 7,700 LF $57.00 $438,900.00 TOTAL: $28,000.00 $671,611 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 15% CONTINGENCY: 1 LS $100,742 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $28,000.00 $28,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 GRAND TOTAL: $806,853 ------------ ---------------------------- 3NIlH�1VW 'a a G v Cc N N C cA. 333 °,� Gl E NL a E« A" m c o o '- j E i o a w ux+ a i a 0® # *I ■ • • i i• I; d, 1611"? � amp i Q \� Z CL. F- oQ W LU O c� G m Lu co J Z } Q z 3NIlH�PdW Q m�5� ' V�5 •.. CLOU 151, 0 c rn T d O m r d � m • O d2o o� X611 p15"'! I Z ry JCL 0 Z Z2 gW m J Z mU_52 L) O a V. m � z o �o 5 o ? 0 � = o z 3 � Z ry JCL 0 Z Z2 gW m J Z mU_52 L) O a V. } J O Z O a } t n u h N PEY a O Z l7 a w J V) 03 a v 'o -a N L T V 2 a ai v N O 0 N C R � U/ 3 Ol— 0 O L mN =' v a 0 c E 0 a av /0 7 a a > Z g K a N W N CL O cr cr W O x a Q s l7 cr cr O U O w J a a s > a L L _ Ol Ol -6 > 0 > a y W V �n LL O MC O N J LL Y O 6 O Y � z L x `O W a v a m 1611-1 a le L N � V 2 c � O L Y L L 0) O O a`-`,o c CL -O T C `t H � m L � V 2 C _ f0 S] � L L L 0 0 0 0 o, a ai a 0 .r- 0 � a '0 a °- C a m c 0 � o L Y =m t Q s L V L d O N L 7 O -�! -O O -O Z C H R � C Y dN 4.0 W I— W J Q z Q ^J Q z_ J W Q DC LU '. d. Q W r � G S— ¢ry m�1 a u02 s J II n. ` 15'1 Pelican Bag - Schevnatpc Design Leveil A"'I 5 Opinion of Probable Costs.' Crosswalk s North Tram Station Tier 01 - Thermoplastic &,; ping - io Wlecrian E` cd �.ce#ion 1NilsonMiller - February 19, 21 io Qemolition �eunu - ra�rn rcemova! ror lncr ®aeQG smlDitmr 'I� - $2Dtt ritl g2 B{� DO Demolition- Signage i LS` $1,200.04 $1,2 ©0.00 Thermoplastic striping - Remcva %6? LF Y2 05, $336.36 Site Work 84 y t'cs[ r _u -'.'nl _ $1,150.00 $0.00 Roadway - Retro- reflective pavament ra-i°ers 2, F-A $3.34 $66.80 - I' hermooia5ticbthpl ng,'S'lU,'Whtte,'Sdili- 11 "Wiatn 260 LF $2.01 $ Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 522.60 48 LF $4.06 $522.88 TOTAL.: $5,121 15% CONTINGENCY: $768 zk3,'tuu uu $3,500.00 Permitting rchitecture 1 LS $250.00 $250.00 Permitting r is �l;SuifStS �r,ssrssts GRAND TOTAL: c $11 139 'Price SOurC rn 9C' Hictnrie Piort Rae F— newer moh —�..., 77 iar_a- __� _ _ �_ _ _ _ __ . _ __ _ _ ! 0010ns6 Flashing L9ght- Motion s=asing Nit:. =- a!arpans! OPftmal Flashing Lrght -Push E! is?vj,'sa_ X4,000.00 sr a e' 24,000.00 Pelican Say - -c6 'c Design Level 161 l A151 Opinion ofV Probable Costs: Crosswalk - Noirth Tra-rn -S-ira-�qDn Tier 02 - Decorative sur:,e uiatsri%< Nva usmear _ �r I , I jff at 'Demolition Demolition - Signage WAWOU Thermoplastic Striping - Remove 7 Zs— $1,200.00 162 LF $;2.13 $336.96 itework Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post tjourt -- zt•ou $5,457.00 Roadway - Retro-reflactp/q pa✓smsnt MeKers 0 $1,150M $U0 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, Vvh�q, ft1jd -17 Vrjd� Z M.80 Thermoplastic Striping, ST D, Im nite, Q--j - 24—jN,;dt 162 Szol $325.62 4-3 L.F $4rGe $194.88 TOTAL: $10,3811 LI5% CONTIGENCY: --T $1,557-1 Landscape Architecture 1 93,503.00 Permitting LS 5250.0 $250.00 LS $1,500.00 $1,500,00 TOTAL: - Pnra 4n wit�n� D—i-- 1 $17,1881 Item Optional Plashing Light- Moton sensing �,jj-j sc.•Rr pnqj optzgnal F-ashing Light - push Buadon %rel solar, Panel $34,000.00 $29,000.00 Pelican Bay - Scheinnatic Dissigni Level 161111 A151 OViniMA Of P'k-Obahte CMR.Swalk - Noah TISM 'Statior, Tier 03 - Brick Paver Crcswnalk end Concrete Rib!han Curb-ND P0, ad an U."eA-hons WilsonMiller - February 19, 2310 Demolition IItem OuPaRtIty Unit unit cost Su - btatall Demo ition - Asphalt toV'Thick (Ircluddss krrrarock i—se 7a '27 $3.00 $856.00 Demolition - Palm Removal for increasa'd 7� 1 — 1 13.03 S 20 $2.800.00 Demolition - Signage St,200.055 $1,200.00 ,S,tework $18,026 Iitem Quanifty Unit Unit Cast Su RRI concrete - Brick Pavers 603 Sc $5.50 $4,416.50 Concrete -Stab (Up wW thick reir 46's SF $12,326.40 EA $1,150.00 $0.00 Roadway - 8' Umcrwk Bass 107 SY $6.50 $695.50 Road „sy - Retro-Tsflsct�vs pavemerri markam 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid -12” Width (&il I!F 4*N"r 49ps.dil Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 $22,882 115% CONTIGENCY: $3,432 Design / Permit Fee Estimates S5.250 N—SM Unit Unit cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey LS $3,70-000 $3,500.00 Landscape Architecture t US $250.00 $250.00 p0imittincb LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 IGRAND TOTAL: $31,5641 Optional Flashing Light- Motion sensing with solar panel $34,000.00 Optional Flashing Light- Push BtMDn wl solar pans] $29,000.00 Pelican Say ® Schematic Design Level 1 6 1 IIA151 Opinion of Proms ° C -v Tram � , 3, Tier 04- - Well- Paver Fisk! and Collbufe P and - NO ions 1tWSORMIler - February 19, 2010 Demolition 55.288 at k e rj�cce kmcivass 1= -- m ass M %I 16' $G.Cu $1,288.00 Demolition -Palm Removal for increased is3b;Itg 14 $200.00 $2,800.00 Demolition - Signage $1,200.00 $1,200.00 • vvia Concrete - Cobble Pavers $ Sr $5.50 $4,416.50 Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 4c ^3 SP .00 $9.00 $4,347.00 Regulatory Signage - Decorat va Pcst recur, t 4,4.13 SF $12.80 $$4,406.40 Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 0 EFL $1,150.00 $0.00 Roadway - Retre- refl =cYtie t�avemer : : *. markets 16 20 S'{ Sr.F r $1,040.00 Thermoplastic St'; i "s, S-1- D, t ate, ec. lid - 92° til' :fih EF, $3.01 $66.80 Th9rmop as` c S ^ `-g, STD, Vii is, Solid - 24' VVidth 48 4th $2.01 $325.62 LF LF $4.06 $194.88 TOTAL: $34,085 15% CONTIGENCY:�� Landscaes Arch'.!- Ire Permitting _S $250.00 $250.00 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 (GRAND TOTAL: $444481 Pri—A He o 7 OP t qat Flashing Light - Motion sensing w1;R salar pane? 3, Gaza'F%asgingL°tgh*-- FvshBt;It: 'sc�la, 0 Ole nai Qs aratiae $s non Ce [Aaterial (app1 -rM4 W asOM- Sic Bsr Parzels (646Ss Ca $5.5403 =} s- $34,000.00 $29,000.00 $T,208.00 16111 A45'' Pelican Bay ® Schematic Dasi f t L ayst Opinion of Probable Costs: Cf° ssvj iia - The Commons Tier 01 - Thermoplastic Striping nrith Madan Modifications WiIsonMilier - February 19, 2010 'DemoYffion , Ite m Quanti Unit Uni3.Qnst Sut�in Demolition - Clearing and Gnabb:zg 2-a Ss $0.4'R $133.77 Demolition - Curb 4° L= 5s.03 $240.00 Demolition - Palm removal for incised EA $200.00 $1,000.00 lSitework S1 7:259 Item Q Unit Unit cost Subtotal Concrete - ADA Comp!iaret Rams Asssnnti! 2 EA $545.Ou $1,080.00 Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 24 SY $32.00 $768.00 Concrete - Type'A' Curb 44 LF $10.50 $462.00 Roadway - 8" Limerock Bass 15 S'' $6.50 $97.50 Regulatory Signage - Decorative PaV Mount 12 EA $1,150.00 $13,800.00 Roadway - Asphalt (2 ") 1 TPd $200.00 $200.00 Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid -12' Mcithi 260 L= $201 $522.60 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, Whtte, Solid -2j" 11,1tc?iq Landscape 62 LF $4.06 $251.72 Item QuantIty Unit Untt Cost Subtotal Shrubs, Grasses, Groundroaars, klukn 13- S. $775 726.00 Topsoil (61) Irrigation cY $=,o.00 $120.00 132 SF $0.80 $105.60 TOTAL: $19,584 150A CONTIGENCY: $2,838 Permit -Design Land Architecture % LS ,�.uu Permitting $500.00 $500.00 LS $'e,500.00 $1,500.00 ®ptioaai Flashing Eight - Motion sensing crti? solar pane: CpOorrat Piasirr;tg Erght- Pus': Button i =c` sc= sFpErs' $34,000.00 $29,000.00 Topsoil $726.00 Irrigation $43.GG 132 SF $0.80 $105.60 [TOTAL: 1 $26,253 2=6 3 GENCY: $3 938 L-&—Pe Alchitecture LQ' IF6'=).uU $3,500.00 Pernttling 1 LS 1$50EIM $500.00 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Optional Flashing Light - Motion sensing with solar panel Optional Flashing Light - Push But Mnwf solar panel $34,000.00 $29,000.00 161 A151 Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level Opinion of Probable Costs: Crosswalk - The Coi-,Mnnons Tier 02 - Decorative surface m-ateria',vt4th Medan Mcldfcatcns VVilsonk-Biter - February 19, 2310 Demolition IS1,374 EM: Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Quantity Unit Unit Cost - Subtotal -Curb 0.7 I $133.77 Demolition - Palm removal for increased vfslt:-;:KV LF $8.00 $240.00 E;\ $200M $1,000.00 Sitework S23928 Item Decorative Surface Material (apphad ta aspha.-I) Qq�& Unit unit cost — �U�0!al Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Asss--I`y SF TS-72 $6,1910.50 Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 2 EA: S54S.00 $1,090.00 Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 24 SY S32.015 $76&00 Roadway - &'Limerock Base 44 LF $1113.50 $462-00 Reg Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mourd 15 SY W.50 $97.50 Roadway - Asphalt (2'j 12 EA $1,150.00 $13,800.00 Roadway - Retro -refiectwe pavement mark�ars I TN $200.00 $200.00 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, SaNd - IT 7a 140 EA $3.34 $66.80 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, While, Solid - ZV Width LF $101 $281.40 ez LF $4.06 $251.72 Topsoil $726.00 Irrigation $43.GG 132 SF $0.80 $105.60 [TOTAL: 1 $26,253 2=6 3 GENCY: $3 938 L-&—Pe Alchitecture LQ' IF6'=).uU $3,500.00 Pernttling 1 LS 1$50EIM $500.00 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Optional Flashing Light - Motion sensing with solar panel Optional Flashing Light - Push But Mnwf solar panel $34,000.00 $29,000.00 16111 A15 ol Pelican Says - Schernat c Dss.ign Leve! Opinion of Probable os : ro - k - The Tier 03 - Brick Parer Crosswalk, with �" %ftda-jr 3100dijqcatons VlfilsonMiller - February 19, 2010 s- • • 640 SF $5.50 ➢I,V $3,520.0520Z0 Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 24 SY $32.00 $768.00 Item t a;�1ie Unit Unit Coat Subtotal Demolition - Asphalt to RI Thick (lrc ,d s s _v € b as i- g= 7, air V3.09 o Demolition - Clearing andGrasbl?2 12 EA $1,150.00 $ 1,. 0 600 Demolition - Curb 2r SF 1$0.42 $$133.77 Demolition - Palm Removal lor;ncreasadvjsib ;icy 4.5 5 LP =A $6.05 $24000 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12 "14'L'idth 140 LF $200.00 $1,000.00 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Widti% Concrete -Brick Pavers 640 SF $5.50 ➢I,V $3,520.0520Z0 Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 24 SY $32.00 $768.00 Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick rein €arced) 812 S= $12.80 $10,393.60 Concrete - Type W Curb 44 LF $10.50 $462.00 Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post .Mount 12 EA $1,150.00 $13,800.00 Roadway - 8" Limerock Bass 91 SY $6,30 $591.50 Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 20 EA $3.34 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12 "14'L'idth 140 LF $201 $66.80 $281.40 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Widti% 62 LF $4.06 $251.72 Landscape Architecture — T'N,UVu.UU 0 LS &W0.00 $0.00 4�mttinre 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Optional Ftashing Light- Motion sensing with solar pans] Optional Flashing Light- Push B!Atzrn ti3; solar panel $34,000.00 $29,000.00 Ism Qu !Unit unit Cost Subtotal Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcove�, MuEch T37 ".00 Topsoil (o ") 3 Cy -A MIND $7200 $120.00 Irrigation t32 S $0.80 $105.60 TOTAL: $34,646 15% CONTIGENCY: $5,197 D- • Permit Landscape Architecture — T'N,UVu.UU 0 LS &W0.00 $0.00 4�mttinre 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Optional Ftashing Light- Motion sensing with solar pans] Optional Flashing Light- Push B!Atzrn ti3; solar panel $34,000.00 $29,000.00 Pelican Bay m Scbadi atic Design Level Opinion Of Probable Costs: Crossuvak e The Cc=rnsnOns Tier 04. - Brick Paver Field env Coby,s Pays,- Bea -rds UVilsorlsimmer - F'ebru@r 19, 2010 - rwW Demolition - Clearing and Grubting Demolition - Curb Demolition - Palm Removal for increased vis'b,;;t; 16' 11 A151 273 4 Dl. 4e 40 43.00 u EA 42-010 a $133.77 $240.00 $1,000.00 vv .. dte- rwH- omp€€an€Ka:rkamessrno:r Concrete - Brick Pavers 2 Fri ;5.07 $1,090.00 Concrete - Cobble Pavers Bfira SF $5.50 $4,400.00 Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0'' 522 SF $. oc $4,698-00 Concrete - Slab {Up to 8" thick reinforced) 24 1,433 SY S= $32.00 $12.80 $768.00 Concrete - Type 'A' Curb $18,726.40 Regulatory Signage - Decorati,re Post Mount 44 LF $10.50 $462.00 Roadway - 8" Limerock Bass P2 $1,150.00 $13,800.00 Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers r Er 51' $6.50 $1,059.50 Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid -12" VTidth 2€: EA $3.34 $66,80 Thermoplastic Striping, STD. Whits, SoNd - 24u 100,dLh 140 LF $201 $281.40 62 LF $4.06 $251.72 Topsoil (S) Irrigation 3 CY $40.00 6120.00 132 SF $0.80 $105.60 TOTAL: $49,025 75I CONTIGENCY: V,354 Landscape Architecture 0 LS Permitting $500.00 $0.00 LS $1,507.00 $1,500.00 ns Qp4ioaaaE Flashing LWht- Motion ssnsing w th solar pans ". $34,000.00 6ptuonFE FuashEng Lrght- Push Button vet setar pan a' $29,000.00 Optional Decoretive, Surface Material (Applied to Asphalt)-St—,p BarPanels {138fiSF (qi $^.57iSFj $ €1,730.00 161 11A � PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD & PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION STRATEQIC P>< R 11 6VG COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN JOINT WORKSHO)�an o� County ro mistAon.ors MARCH 1, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee conducted a joint public workshop, Monday, March 1 at 8:30 AM at the Community Center at pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Members Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman Michael Levy Keith Dallas, Vice Chairman Gerald A. Moffatt Tom Cravens Theodore Raia, Jr. Geoffrey S. Gibson Hunter H. Hansen absent John Iaizzo absent Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Members Bob Uek, Chairman Rose Mary Everett Ronnie Bellone, Co -Vice Chair Noreen Murray Merlin Lickhalter, Co-Vice Chair Ralph Ohlers Carson Beadle Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Pelican Bay Foundation Staff Jim Hoppensteadt, President Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Suzanne Minadeo, Executive Assistant Wilson Miller Team Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect Steve Sammons, Sr. Associate and Landscape Architect Jeff Pent', Transportation Planner RO LIB CALL Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta —M9Z With the exception of Mr. Iaizzo and Mr. Hansen, all Pelican Bay Services Division Board members were present. All members of the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee were present. Mr. Mangan, Mr. Sammons, and Mr. Perry were present from Wilson Miller. PATHWAYS Mr. Dallas moderated discussion of widening pathways to eight feet along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard. Consensus was leaning toward constructing pathways with asphalt versus cement. Mr. Moffatt asked whether bicyclists preferred to ride on the street or along pathways. Ms. Murray said she viewed widening pathways to make it better for pedestrians. She understands that bicyclists ride on the pathways and does not believe riding patterns would change if they designated a bicycle lane in the roadway and would not benefit the community as a whole. Ms. Bellone said when they compare Pelican Bay Boulevard to the Vineyards, they Vineyards has less -outside, traffic Parked along the roadway, i.e., car carriers. Misc, Corres: Date: Item #: Copies to: 16114 Al l .5 Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop March 1, 2010 Dr. Raia said he did not think designated bicycle lanes would make a difference. Ten feet wide lanes or narrower lanes would slow traffic and have a traffic calming effect. Mr. Gibson said designated bicycle lanes were considered several years ago and the community was not interested. Mr. Lickhalter said they had a "test" lane installed and removed shortly thereafter several years ago. He talked to the County's Alternative Transportation Modes manager and there is no documentation in their files as to why the "test" bicycle lane was removed. Madam Chair Womble said the Pelican Bay Services Division's minutes from several years ago documents why. The Board at the time voted to remove the "test" bicycle lane because audience reaction at meetings over several months was negative. Mr. Levy said he rides a bicycle leisurely and did not like the "test" bicycle lane. People who ride on the pathways would continue to ride on the pathways and he likes the idea of widening pathways to eight feet. Mr. Cravens agrees. He said they are using the Vineyards as a comparison and asked if there was data to reflect whether there is more traffic on Pelican Bay Boulevard than the Vineyards. Mr. Mangan said they have traffic related incident data for Pelican Bay Boulevard and Vineyards. Reducing the width of car lanes would have a traffic calming effect and slow down traffic. Giving bicyclists a dedicated lane would not necessarily cause those who ride on the pathways to ride in the roadway. Mr. Lickhalter asked Mr. Perry if they implement traffic - calming measures, would this keep motorists from using Pelican Bay Boulevard as a cut through. Mr. Perry said slower traffic would not act as a deterrent because most people probably drive Pelican Bay Boulevard for its "comfort factor." They probably would not see a difference in terms of automobile volume if they reduced the lane width. Member consensus was to implement eight feet wide pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard in certain "chunks" ofthe heavily traveled areas. Dr. Raia said consideration to reduce the automobile lanes from twelve to ten feet and designate a four feet wide bicycle lane would need to be vetted seriously. Mr. Beadle said he agrees with Mr. Levy. Mr. Dallas asked for consensus to widen pathways to eight feet. Member consensus was to widen pathways to eight feet. Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee 161 14A151 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop March 1, 2010 Mr. Cravens said if they are considering widening pathways to eight feet, they should obtain usage data on pathways. Some areas are used heavily. Mr. Dallas said they had discussed widening the pathways to eight feet along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard. He suggested implementing along the most traveled sections, which could possibly be from the Commons to the Community Center. Mr. Beadle said the pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Community Center to the North Tram station to the berm get used heavily. Mr. Dallas agreed, but said that area is also the most problematic. Ms. Bellone suggested dividing the most heavily traveled areas into "chunks" and prioritize accordingly. Madam Chair Womble said there are heavy usage areas along Pelican Bay Boulevard around a two -mile section along the Club side of the Golf Course. The route starts at the Philharmonic to Gulf Park Drive, continuing east on Gulf Park Drive, then south on Ridgewood Drive back to the corner of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood to the Philharmonic. That area is traveled heavily between 5:30 am. and 10:30 am. every day. Mr. Cravens said they do not have any hard data on usage. Mr. Mangan said they priced the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard to widen pathways to eight feet. Generally, main roadways probably warrant widening to eight feet, not secondary roads. Secondary roads could stay at five feet wide. The destinations are "west side" oriented. Ms. Murray said the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard is parallel to the berm and maybe they should consider doing the areas not parallel to the berm because given the choice, most people would prefer to walk along the berm. Mr. Levy asked why they would not widen the pathways along the entire west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard. Ms. Bellone said, "Money." Ms. Murray said the point is well taken. Their job is to come up with the pieces of the plan, then prioritize. They need prioritize pathways before they prioritize "chunks" of the pathways. A straw vote was taken. Member consensus was to widen pathways along the entire west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard. They could prioritize "chunks" later. Mr. Beadle referred to Madam Chair Womble's comment regarding widening pathways in other heavily traveled areas and said they should not take those areas "off the table," but to consider in the future. Mr. Levy said Gulf Park Drive and other areas should definitely be on the list of pathways to widen in the future. i 161 If A 15' Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop March 1, 2010 Mr. Gibson said he thinks once the community sees what they have done along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard, they will want the same in other areas. LIGHTING Mr. Dallas moderated the discussion of lighting. Mr. Mangan distributed photos of an enhanced lighting pole with extended arms. Dr. Raia said FPL leases lights and FPL owns the lights and maintains them. He asked if they have looked into the option of leasing lights. Mr. Mangan said he was aware that FPL gives the option of leasing lights to its customers. Mr. Lickhalter said the option to lease lights from FPL would be a financial decision. Mr. Mangan said he would obtain more information about leasing lights from FPL. MAINTENANCE Mr. Dallas said the first recommendation made was regarding maintenance. Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division maintains the streetlights. Wilson Miller identified areas where light is being blocked by landscaping and the field crew has trimmed trees where possible. Mr. Mangan said there are twenty poles that they recommend relocating, some in residential areas, and some along Pelican Bay Boulevard. Mr. Lukasz said relocating poles are not included in maintenance. Dr. Raia asked what was wrong with the current poles. Mr. Dallas said some people feel strongly that the poles are unattractive. Mr. Beadle and Mr. Uek agreed that aesthetics was not the issue as much as safety, security and light delivery. FIXTURES Mr. Lukasz said replacing fixtures would require retrofitting. The current fixtures have life expectancy of about ten more years out of twenty. Mr. Mangan said the new technology is energy effective. Electricity is at capacity on North Pelican Bay Boulevard and reducing energy consumption is a long -term goal. Consensus was to replace fixtures on streetlights along Pelican Bay Boulevard. No timeline to implement was decided. POLES Dr. Raia asked what they recommend to solve the problem of landscaping blocking the delivery of light. . Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee IA151 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop March 1, 2010 Mr. Mangan said street light poles with extended arms would reduce landscaping maintenance and provide better lighting delivery. Replacing existing poles is an aesthetics issue because the current poles are rated very high and good for another twenty years. New poles being recommended are decorative and would be colored to match appropriately. If they decide to go forward, poles and fixtures should be replaced at the same time with phased implementation over a period of five to seven years. Ms. Everett said they should consider aesthetics strongly. Members took a straw vote and consensus was to replace fixtures and existing poles. New poles would implement single or double extended arms. They would phase implementation along main thoroughfares first and then address side streets. Second best would be to replace fixtures and extend arms on existing poles. BOLLARDS Mr. Mangan recommends lighting the darkest areas first for safety and security. Both metal halide and LED bulbs are effective in delivering light. The bollard that looks like "R2D2" provides "on- demand" LED lighting. Other bollards do not have a motion detector sensor, but are more aesthetically pleasing and utilize traditional metal halide bulbs. Whether or not they decide to install bollards, Wilson Miller recommends installing conduits during construction in case they decide to go forward in the future. They recommend bollards at St. Raphael, the north side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from North Pointe to U.S. 41, then from North Pointe to Vanderbilt Beach. Members asked how would bollards benefit the community and would they increase operational costs. Mr. Mangan said both types of bollards provide safety, security, and deliver light. Choice is a matter of aesthetics. Members took a straw vote and consensus was to use bollards minimally in recommended areas and install conduits in other recommended areas for future use. Members wanted to see both types of bollards in operation, side by side before making a decision. Second best would be to use bollards in recommended areas after replacing existing poles, fixtures, and extending arms. Third best would be to do nothing. Mr. Mangan would set up bollard prototypes at St. Raphael at a time and place to be determined. Ms. Resnick would provide notice. U.S. 41 BERM Mr. Mangan recommended a boundary be placed along the U.S. 41 berm for safety, security and noise abatement. Choices included creating a boundary with vegetation only along the entire area, or only along a limited area (770 feet) where there is no boundary now; installing six or eight feet boundaries made of an aluminum picket fence, concrete, or EPS panel wall, covered by landscaping along the U.S. 41 side. All choices are good for safety and security. A solid wall would reduce decibel 16I 11 A 151 Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop March 1, 2010 levels, but not absorb sound transmission. Some of the land is on private property, but the Foundation owns the majority. Commercial property is not included. The County's master plan shows the County installing pathways along the U.S. 41 berm, so security may become more of a concern in the filture. He distributed the Collier County Sheriffs Pelican Bay incident report map. Not all incidents are reported. Generally, theft was a result of unlocked cars and burglaries from homes were by contractors working in the home. Any boundary along the U.S. 41 berm would reduce opportunities for crime. Consensus was to construct an eight feet high boundary however, members requested more details about concrete and EPS material. Mr. Mangan said a wall can redirect sound minimally and they would bring details about construction materials to next workshop. CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS WITH PRICING AND RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS Wilson Miller distributed a prioritized list of crosswalk improvement options and locations with recommendations with pricing based on last meeting's member consensus. Of note is the design to relocate the curb line so that the turning movements along Pelican Bay Boulevard match up with the North Tram station parking lot entrance. The crosswalk would remain in the same location. Removing landscaping north of the existing crosswalk would increase the line of sight of the crosswalk to approximately 430 feet from both the north and south on Pelican Bay Boulevard. Mr. Mangan does not recommend relocating the crosswalk. Relocating the crosswalk would inconvenience Pebble Creek residents, removes pedestrians farther from their destination and increases the time pedestrians are in the roadway. Members decided to discuss crosswalk improvements and priorities at the next workshop on March 12 at 8:30 am. There was no fiuther discussion and the meeting adjourned at 12:04 p.m. ,'hne Womble, Chairwoman .., Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/9/2010 3:19:40 PM IV I fX6, \v ' Or �� , i "rte � f:�l' ; i/ - `��I ��. r �: '•; - r.. t y • t - r, �- � F mot+ Lf •. bit. - v act ow s A d�w.�..w.•.... r� },» Y �91R fr j f irf f } n I > V" Z < sm o,- A, z 0 011-- 0 LL. z M u z ��o 5 2 �-2 =:LLJ Z=70 7 �r uj L Lj Lu fL w cL r. m-k ie UO uj cL AK J Ln z 0 011-- 0 LL. z M u z ��o 5 2 �-2 =:LLJ Z=70 Pelican Bay I 100% Base Data Report - Phase One Wo ii jj A 15 COW' ' County Sheri Crimes/incidents - Pelican Bay - Grid 1201 w Comstat CO-Mes 01 /01 /2008 - 02/16/2010 1 10, 1 1 0 Legend • CONVEYANCE BURGLARY 0 DWELLING BURGLARY 0 GRANDTHEFTAUTO • STRUCTURE BURGLARY INNER CLAM BAY CLAM PASS Prepared by: 3117 12/18/2010 %Pass Clam Clam Pass ..ark Pa Clam, Pass Park VP Clam Pass Park OUTER CLAM BAY'` Clam Pass Park Clam Pass Park 1S ti SEA GATE ELEM ENTARY N GULF SHORE BCH ACC North Guff Shore Access 2. 1., Prepared by: 3117 12/18/2010 , � ,� IIIII rimes /Incid is Pelican Bay - Grid 1201 - Comstat and Traffic 01/01/2008 - 02/16/2010 Prepared by: 3117 12/18/2010 1 6 -1 A otvoce r 1 151- Cafflar County Sheriff's Crimes/incidents ® Pelican Bay - Grid 1201 - Sus Haul Person 01/01/2008 ® 02116/2010 _7 Vanderbilt Beach Pelican Bay Community park 1,A I WARBLER LAKE LAKE CARDINAL:" N6i 21-- J INNER CLAM BAY MOCKINGBIRD LAKE CLAM PASS MIDDLE Clam Pass P&.,k. Clam Pass �Park e. Clam Pass Park Clam Pass Park SOUTH LAKE OUTER CLAM BAY Legend • SUSPICIOUS PERSON Clam Pass Park Class Pa rk SEA GATE ELEMENTARY. N GULF SHORE 4CHAqC F. North Guff Shor"Ccess,- 20 1 Prepared by: 3117 12/18/2010 Cf-,(�)Hlor Countr Shvroffz �Akj'-1 A 1 51, Cri'mosAncidents - Pelican Bay - Grid 1201 - Thefts 01 /01 /2008 - 02/1 Am i n FIX Legend GRAND THEFr • PETITTHEFr I Vanderbilt Beach PefiC6 INNER CLAM BAY immunity Park F. �WARBLER LAKE Qn-- 4L MOCKINGBIRD k CLAM PASS MIDDLE LAKE 1 16 Clam Pass Park Clam Pass Park Clam Pass Park Clam Pass Park SOUTH LAKE OUTER CLAM BAY Clam Pass Park Clam Pass Par* SEA GATE ELEMENTARY ' N GULF SNORE /North Gulf Shore Acce SS- Prepared by: 3117 12/18/2010 Ii Crimes/Incidents - Pelican Bay - Grid 1201 01/01/2008 - 02/16/2nin Legend DIJI DWLSR 0 MOVING TRAFFIC VIOLATION • TRAFFIC OFFENSE - DUI 0 TRAFFICACCIDENT --0 I A151 M ri� t I WARBLER LA I I o. MOCKINGBIRD Clam Pass Park Clam Pass Pass Park Clam Pass Par* Clam ss Pa Park OUTER CLAM BAY Clam Pass Park Clam Pass Park ", A GATE ELEMENTARY_ J 'I I , . , SE. N GULF SHORE BCH ACC,. I low_ North Gulf Shor*e ACcess Prepared by: 3117 12/18/2010 jrkkt' -cA 151 Collier County Sh ff D (�"- Crimes/incidents - Pelican Bay - Grid 1201 - Violence 01/01/2008 - 02/lWn7 n V,'d6rbilt Beach tl INNER CLAM BAY CLAM PASS U &. Clam Pass-PIP-ark Clam Pass Park Legend Clam Pass Park 0 AGO ASSAULT • Clam Pass Park ASSAULT OUTER CLAM BAY • BATTERY • DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE • RAWV LAKE CARDIN, 1 I MOCKINGBIRD MIDDLE LAKE SO{ UTH LAKE Clam, Pass Park Clam Pass s Park SEA GATE ELEMENTARY N GULF SHORE BCH ACC ===-----, North Gulf Shore Acceis.. 69 Prepared by: 3117 12/18/2010 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 161 1'A15"1 U I - rellcan tray Blvd. @ Ridgewood Drive 3 Direction $19,276 $69,591 $114,173 02 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Myra J. Daniels Blvd. 2 Direction $15,019 $41,360 $63,339 03 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Crayton Road 2 Direction $15,036 $47,118 $79,116 04 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Glenview Place Mid -Block $19,213 $35,666 $46,101 05 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ The Commons Mid -Block $19,309 $33,101 $46,682 06 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Gulf Park Drive 4 Direction $92,506 $154,216 $280,348 07 - Gulf Park Drive @ Ridgewood Drive 2 Direction $16,859 $47,688 $80,344 08 - Gulf Park Drive @ Green Tree Drive 2 Direction $19,149 $49,964 $79,812 09 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Sandpiper Parking Mid -Block $23,983 $36,291 $46,091 10 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Beachwalk Pathway Mid -Block $23,220 $36,417 $46,798 11 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Tram Station Mid -Block $3,591 $17,042 $31,579 12 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Pointe Drive 2 Direction $14,863 $48,161 $80,947 13 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Hammock Oak Drive 2 Direction $15,057 $46,613 $77,231 14 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Oakmont Parkway 3 Direction $16,535 $67,072 $118,551 Subtotal: lGrand Total: ` Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. " Prices are a comparison of finishes only and do not include design or permitting fees. Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 6 Crosswalks - Summary A 151 01 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Ridgewood Drive WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 Option 1 - Striping Only S19,276 Demolition - Curb G °V or $0.49 $122.50 Demolition - Sidewalk 10 LF $6.00 $60.00 Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 2 SY $12.00 $24 .00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 480 LF $2.08 $$24 $998.40 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 4 4 EA 45.0 $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 2,177 SY $ $896.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 LF $10.50 .500 $105.00 $100.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 10 EA $1,1 $1 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 2 20 EA $150. $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 6 0 LF $2.01 $1,$66.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 36 LF $4.01 $146.16 Landscape - Irrigation 2 SF $5.50 $1,146.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24' Width 230 SF $0.80 $184.00 !Option 2 - Brick Pavers 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 36 SF $0.80 $184 .00 $184.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing JU4 SY $8.00 $2,432.00 Demolition - Curb 250 SF $0.49 $122.50 Demolition - Sidewalk 10 LF $6.00 $60.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 SY $12.00 $24.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 2,177 SF $5.50 $11,973.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 28 SY $32.00 $896,00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 2,728 SF $12.80 $34,931.20 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 LF $10.50 $105.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 10 EA 150. 00 $1,150. $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 30 4 0 SY $ $1,976.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 2 SY $3.34 $66 .80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24' Width 6 0 LF $2.0EA 1 $1,$66 .60 Landscape - Irrigation 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 36 SF $0.80 $184 .00 $184.00 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 230 SF $5.50 $ Option 3 - Brick and Cobble Paving 230 SF $5.50 $1,265.00 S1 14.173 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing b4u SY $8.00 $4,320.00 Demolition - Curb 250 SF $0.49 $122.50 Demolition - Sidewalk 10 LF $6.00 $60.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 2 SY $12.00 $24.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 2,177 SF $5.50 $11,973.50 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 1,554 SF $9.00 $13,986,00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 28 SY $32.00 $896.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 4,852 SF $12.80 $62,105.60 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 10 LF $10.50 $105.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8' Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 540 SY $6.50 $3,510.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 EA $3.34 $66,80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 860 LF $2.01 $1,728.60 Landscape - Irrigation 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 230 SF $0.80 $184.00 230 SF $5.50 $1,265.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 Crosswalks - Summary 02 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Myra J. Daniels Blvd. WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 --imon - i nermopias[uc smpmg (rtemove) Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width - 196 4 10 20 430 0 ---• LF EA EA EA LF LF — $2.08 $545.00 $1,150.00 $3.34 $2.01 $4.06 v W%WLa $407.68 $2,180.00 $11,500.00 $66.80 $864.30 $0.00 1 Item Demolition Asphalt to 4 Thick (Includes limerock base to 8) Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 304 SY $8.00 $2,432.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,070 SF $5.50 $5,885.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 1,383 SF $12.80 $17,702.40 Sitework - Roadway - 8'LimerockBase 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 154 SY $6.50 $1,001.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 295 LF $2.01 $592.95 • Item Demolition -Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8') Quantity Unit Unit Cost SuYt�tal Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 304 SY $8.00 $2,432.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 1.383 SF $5.50 $7,606,50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 500 SF $9.00 $4,500.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 2,548 SF $12.80 $32,614.40 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 284 SY $6.50 $1,846.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 295 LF $2.01 $592.95 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 16111 A 151 Crosswalks - Summary 03 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Crayton Road WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 Sitework - Concrete -ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 280 LF $2.08 $582.40 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 3 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 1,765 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 2 0 2 EA A $3.34 $66 .80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 5 0 L $2.01 $1,$66.50 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Umerock Base 36 LF $4.01 $146.16 Option 2 - Brick Pavers 355 SY $6.50 $2,307.50 Rem 20 EA $3.34 • Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 197 SY $8.00 $1,576.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,387 SF $5.50 $7,628.50 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 1,765 SF $12.80 $22,592.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 197 SY $6.50 $1,280.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 345 LF $2.01 $693.45 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly J5S SY $8•00 $2,840.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 1,765 SF $5.50 $9,707.50 Sitework - Concrete - Stab (Up to 8' thick reinforced) 1,036 SF $9.00 $9,324.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 3,195 SF $12.80 $40,896.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Umerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 355 SY $6.50 $2,307.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 345 LF $2.01 $693.45 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary 04 - Pelican Bay Blvd. C Glenview Place WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 161 i ' A151 Demolition - Curb bob SF $0.49 $335.65 Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 36 LF $6.00 $216.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 20 LF $2.08 $41.60 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 27 SY $32.00 $864.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 40 LF $10.50 $420.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 260 LF $2.01 $522.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 62 LF $4.06 $251.72 Landscape - Irrigation 550 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 550 SF $0.60 $440.00 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 11 CY $40.00 $440.00 Demolition - Curb ti65 SF $0.49 $335.65 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 81) 36 LF $6.00 $216.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 100 SY $8.00 $800.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 688 SF $5.50 $3,839,00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 895 SF $12.80 $11,456.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 27 SY $32.00 $864.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 40 LF $10.50 $420.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 100 SY $6.50 $650.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 135 LF $2.01 $271.35 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 62 LF $4.06 $251,72 Lands Landscape - Irrigation 550 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 550 SF $5.50 $440.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 11 CY $408 00 $440.00 Option 3 - Brick and Cobble Paving 11 CY $40.00 $440.00 S46.1 • Demolition - Curb 685 SF $0.49 $335.65 Demolition - Asphalt to 4' Thick (Includes limeroc k base to 8 ") 36 LF $6.00 $216.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 145 SY $8.00 $1,160.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 895 SF $5.50 $4,922.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 392 SF $9.00 $3,528.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 1,299 SF $12.80 $16,627.20 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 27 SY $32.00 $864.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 40 LF $10.50 $420.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway etro - reflective y pavement markers 145 SY $6.50 $942.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 135 LF $2.01 $271.35 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 62 LF $4•06 $251.72 Landscape - Irrigation 550 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 550 SF $0.80 $440.00 11 CY $40.00 $440.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary 05 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ The Commons WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 1 A 151, Demolition - Curb O00 SF $0.49 $335.65 Demolition •Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) 36 LF $6.00 $216.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 20 LF $2.08 $416 . 0 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 2 2 EA $545.00 .6 $1,$410 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 634 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 40 LF $10.50 .500 $420.00 $420.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 10 EA $1,1 $1 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 EA $150. $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24' Width 260 6 LF $2.01 $$66.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 62 LF $4.06 $251 $251 .72 Landscape - Irrigation 20 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6' Depth) 5 55 0 SF $0.80 $440.00 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 11 CY $40.00 $440.00 'Option 2 - Brick Pavers 550 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6' Depth) 550 SF $0.80 $440.00 Demolition - Curb 060 SF $0.49 $335.65 Demolition - Asphalt to 4' Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 36 LF $6.00 $216.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 90 SY $8.00 $720,00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 0 EA $545.00 $0,00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 634 SF $5.50 $3,487.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 811 SF $12.80 $10,380.80 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 30 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 40 LF $10.50 $420.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8'LimerockBase 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 90 SY $6.50 $585.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24' Width 136 LF $2.01 $273.36 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 62 LF $4.06 $251,72 Landscape - Irrigation 550 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6' Depth) 550 SF $0.80 $440.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6' Depth) 11 CY $40.00 $440.00 Demolition - Curb W5 SF $0.49 $335.65 Demolition - Asphalt to 4' Thick (includes limerock base to 8 ") 36 LF $6.00 $216.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 150 SY $8.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 811 SF $5.50 $4,460.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8' thick reinforced) 425 SF $9.00 $3,825.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 1,344 SF $12.80 $17,203.20 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 30 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 40 LF $10.50 $420.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8' Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 150 SY $6.50 $975.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 136 LF $2.01 $273.36 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 62 LF $4.06 $251.72 Landscape - Irrigation 550 SF $5.50 $3,025.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6' Depth) 550 SF $0.80 $440.00 11 CY $40.00 $440.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 161 f A 151 Crosswalks - Summary 06 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Gulf Park Drive WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 Option 1 - Striping Only $92,5 7 Demolition - Curb a,ocu 5r $0.49 $6,673.80 Demolition - Sidewalk 160 LF $6.00 $960.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 30 SY $12.00 $360.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete -Type 'A' Curb 8 SY $32.00 $256.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 140 LF 10.5 $10.5 0 $1,470.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt (2 ") 84 SY $15.00 $546.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width Landscape - Trees 6 0 6 0 EA LF $3.34 $2.01 $200 .40 $ $200 .40 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 15 EA $300.00 $4,500.00 Landscape- Sod 9,780 SF $5.50 $53,790.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 3,840 SF $0.35 $1,344.00 Landscape - Irrigation 181 CY $40.00 $7,240.00 Landscape - Trees 13,620 SF $0.80 $10,896.00 Option 15 EA $300.00 $4,500.00 Landscape- Sod 9,780 SF $5.50 $53,790.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 111V 5Y $8.00 $2,552.00 Demolition - Curb 13,620 SF $0.49 $6,673.80 Demolition - Sidewalk 160 LF $6.00 $960,00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 30 SY $12.00 $360.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Ribbon Curb 2,309 SF $5.50 $12,699.50 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 560 LF $15.00 $8,400.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 8 SY $32.00 $256.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 2,871 SF $12.80 $36,748.80 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 140 LF $10.50 $1,470.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 403 SY $6.50 $2,619.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 60 EA $3.34 $200.40 Landscape - Trees 560 LF $2.01 $1,125.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 15 EA $300.00 $4,500.00 Landscape- Sod 9,780 SF $5.50 $53,790.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 3,840 SF $0.35 $1,344.00 Landscape - Irrigation 3,840 SF $00.0 $7,240.00 Irrigation 13,6 SF $40.00 $10,896.00 13,620 SF $0.80 $10,896.00 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 1,497 SY $8,00 $11,976.00 Demolition - Curb 13,620 SF $0.49 $6,673.80 Demolition - Sidewalk 160 LF $6.00 $960.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 30 SY $12.00 $360,00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 7.875 SF $5.50 $43,312.50 Sitework - Concrete - Ribbon Curb 4,177 SF $9.00 $37,593.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 1,405 LF $15.00 $21,075.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 8 SY $32.00 $256.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 5,031 SF $12.80 $64,396.80 Sitework - Roadway - 8' Limerock Base 140 LF $10.50 $1,470.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 1,495 SY $6.50 $9,717.50 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 60 EA $3.34 $200.40 Trees 1,098 LF $2.01 $2,206.98 Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 15 EA $300.00 $4,500.00 Sod 9,780 SF $5.50 $53,790.00 Topsoil (6" Depth) 3,840 SF $0.35 $1,344.00 Irrigation 181 CY $40.00 $7,240.00 13,620 SF $0.80 $10,896.00 161 1 -1 A ,' 15 r Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary 07 - Gulf Park Drive @ Ridgewood Drive WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 'Option 1 - Striping Only S16,859 Demolition -Curb ""' Jr •w �V a y11U.2S Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 35 LF $6.00 $210.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 10 SY $8.0 0 $80 .00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 3 EA $$8.000 $1,$80.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 4 4 SY $32.00 $128.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 26 LF $.5 $10.50 $273.00 $273.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 10 EA $1,150.00 $1 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 1 1 TN $20 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 10 SY $6.50 $130.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 EA $3.34 $30,80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 540 LF $2.01 $1,085.40 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Irrigation 180 SF $5.50 $990.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 180 SF $0.80 $144.00 Landscape - Irrigation 4 CY $40.00 $160.00 • • • Pavers 180 SF $0.80 $144.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 4 CY $40.00 .. • Demolition - Curb ""' Jr ZOVAU $11 U.25 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") 35 LF $6.00 $210,00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 10 SY $8.00 $80.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 3 EA $545.00 $1 ,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,396 SF $5.50 $1,678.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 1,772 SF $12.80 $22,681.60 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 4 4 SY $32.00 $128.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 4 4 LF $10.50 $273.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8' Limerock Base 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 208 SY $6.50 $1,352.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66,80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24' Width 166 LF $2.01 $333.66 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Irrigation 160 SF $5.50 $990.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 180 SF $0.80 $144.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 4 CY $40.00 $160.00 Option 3 - Brick and Cobble Paving 4 CY $40.00 $160.00 S80,344 Demolition - Curb ""' ar *U.49 $259.70 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 81) 70 LF $6.00 $420.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 38 SY $8.00 $304.00 $304.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 3 3 EA $$8.000 $ Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 1, SF $5550 $9,746.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,010 SF $9.0 0 9.0 $9,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 3218 , SF $ 0 $41,190.40 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 4 4 SY $32.00 $128.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount LF $10.50 $273.00 $273.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 10 EA $$10.500 $1 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 1 TN $2150.0 $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 51 7 SY $6.50 $ Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24' Width LF $2 .01 $333.66 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 36 36 LF $2 .06 $146.16 Landscape - Irrigation SF $5.50 $990.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 180 SF $0.80 $144.00 4 CY $40.00 $160.00 ��`4rifti Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 16' Crosswalks - Summary 08 - Gulf Park Drive @ Green Tree Drive WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 Option 1 - Striping Only 4• Demolition - Curb - Jr- 4i0.49 $186.20 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ') 55 LF $6.00 $330.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 163 SY $8.00 $1,304.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 3 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 1,385 SY $32.00 $384.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 35 LF $10.50 $367.50 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 18 SY $6.50 $117.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 2 20 EA $150. $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 5 0 LF $2.01 $1,$66.50 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 36 LF $4.01 $146.16 $146.50 Landscape - Irrigation 336 SF $5.50 $ Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 255 SF $0.80 $204.00 Landscape - Irrigation 5 CY $40.00 $200.00 Demolition - Curb 3au SF $0.49 $186.20 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8') 55 LF $6.00 $330.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 150 SY $8.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,385 SF $5.50 $7,617.50 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 1,755 SF $12.80 $22,464.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 12 SY $32.00 $384,00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 35 LF $10.50 $367.50 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway etro - reflective y pavement markers 213 SY $6.50 $1,384.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12° Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 336 LF $2.01 $675.36 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Irrigation 255 SF $5.50 $1,402.50 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 255 SF 0.80 $1,402.50 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 255 CY $4 $200,00 5 CY $40.00 $200.00 • Demolition - Curb 380 SF $0.49 $186,20 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8') 55 LF $6.00 $330.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 150 SY $8.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 1,755 SF $5.50 $9,652.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,030 SF $9.00 $9,270.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 3,126 SF $12.80 $40,012.80 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 12 SY $32.00 $384,00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 35 LF $10.50 $367.50 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 366 SY $6.50 $2,379.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 336 LF $2.01 $675.36 Landscape - Shnibs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Landscape - Irrigation 255 SF $5.50 $1,402.50 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 255 SF $0.80 $204.00 5 CY $40.00 $200.00 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 Crosswalks - Summary 09 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Sandpiper Parking WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 'Option 1 - Striping Only S23,983 Demolition r- -Curb Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 50 LF ��.�� $6.00 aauo.r5 $300.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 14 SY $32.00 $ggg,00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 72 LF $10.50 $756.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8' Limerock Base 3 TN $200.00 $600 .00 $600.50 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 305 SY $6.50 $ Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 260 LF $2.01 $522.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 48 LF $4.06 $194,88 Landscape - Irrigation 850 SF $5.50 $4,675.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 8 6 $0.80 SF $2.01 $321.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 48 CY $40.00 $640.00 Option 2 - Brick Pavers 8 50 SF $5.50 $4,675.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6' Depth) 850 SF $5.50 $4,675.00 Demolition - Curb ',uro or WAV $526.75 Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 1) 50 LF $6.00 $300.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 90 SY $8.0 0 $72 0.00 $720.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 2 EA $$8.000 $ Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 631 SF $5.5 5.5 0 $3 ,470.50 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 806 SF $12.80 $$3,316.80 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 14 SY $32.00 $448.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 72 LF $10.50 $756.00 $756.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8' Limerock Base 10 EA $$10.500 $1 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 90 SY $150. $585.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 48 LF $4,06 $194,88 Landscape - Irrigation 8 50 SF $5.50 $4,675.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6' Depth) 850 SF $5.50 $4,675.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6° Depth) CY SF $400 $640.00 'Option 3 - Brick and Cobble Paving 16 CY $40.00 $640.00 • Demolition - Curb ',uro 5t• $0.49 $526.75 Demolition - Asphalt to 4' Thick (Includes limerock base to 81) 50 LF $6.00 $300.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 90 SY $8.0 0 $72 $72 0.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 2 EA $$8.000 $ 0.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 806 SF $5.50 $4,433.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 352 SF $ 9.0 9.0 0 ,168.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 1,225 2 SF $12.80 $$3$3 ,680.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb SY $32.00 $448.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 72 LF LF $10.50 $756.00 $756.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8' Limerock Base 10 0 $$10.500 $1 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 1 SY $6.50 $890.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 Lands Landscape - Irrigation 850 SF $5.50 $4,675.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6° Depth) 850 SF $0.80 $680.00 16 CY $40.00 $640.00 1611 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level O p sts Opinion of Probable Co A 151 Crosswalks - Summary 10 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Beachwalk Pathway WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 'Option 1 - Striping Only • Demolition - Curb 'O° 'r $U.49 $702.17 Sitework - Concrete -ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 30 LF $6.00 $180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 2 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type'A' Curb 630 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 70 LF $10.50 $735.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 3 TN $200.00 $600.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 38 SY $6.50 $247.00 $247.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 10 EA $1,150.00 $1 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 EA $150. $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 260 LA $2.01 $$66.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 5 50 LF $4.06 $203.60 $205.00 Landscape - Irrigation 0 SF $5.50 $ Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 910 SF $0.80 $728.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 17 CY $40.00 $680.00 Option 2 - Brick Pavers 17 CY $40.00 $680.00 17 CY $40.00 $680.00 Demolition - Curb ' 4dJ bF $0.49 $702.17 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 30 LF $6.00 $180.00 Sitework - Concrete -Brick Pavers 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 630 SF 5.5 $5.5 0 $3 ,465.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 797 SF $12.80 $$3 ,201.60 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 30 SY $32.00 $960.60 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 70 LF $10.5.5 0 $735 .00 $735 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 10 EA $1,1 00 $1 .00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 89 SY $6.50 $578.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 50 LF $4.06 $203.00 Landscape - Irrigation 910 SF $5.50 $5,005.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 910 SF $0.80 $728,00 Landscape - Topsoil (6' Depth) 17 CY $40.00 $680.00 Demolition - Curb 1,4aj 5F $0.49 _$702.17 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 30 LF $6.00 $180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 797 SF $5.50 $4,383.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8' thick reinforced) 354 SF $9.00 $3,186.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 1,261 SF $12.80 $16,140.80 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 30 SY $32.00 $960.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 70 LF $10.50 $735.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8' Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 141 SY $6.50 $916.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24' Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 50 LF $4.06 $203.00 Landscape - Irrigation 910 SF $5.50 $5,005.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6' Depth) 910 SF $0.80 $728.00 17 CY $40.00 $680.00 A Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary 11 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Tram Station with No Median Adjustments WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 1611 "A 151 Demolition - Thermoplastic Striping (Remove) Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width • • • : Pavers I 592 0 0 0 480 48 LS LF EA EA EA LF LF $1,200.00 $2.08 $545.00 $1,150.00 $3.34 $2.01 $4.06 $1,200.00 $1,231.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $964.80 $194.88 Item Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Signage 90 SY $8,00 $7P0.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 0 EA $545.00 $0.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8' thick reinforced) 642 SF $5.50 $3,531.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 819 SF $12.80 $10,483.20 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 0 EA $1,150.00 $0,00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro-reflective pavement markers 91 SY $6.50 $591.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 0 EA $3.34 $0,00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24' Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 LNIGUGIMNIMMI W119 tons Item Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Signage 162 SY $8.00 $1,296.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 0 EA $545.00 $0,00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 819 SF $5.50 $4,504.50 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 483 SF $9.00 $4,347.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage 9 rY 9 9e -Decorative Post Mount 1,458 SF $12.80 $18,662.40 Sitework - Roadway - 8` Limerock Base 0 EA $1,150.00 $0.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 162 SY $6.50 $1,053.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 0 EA $3.34 $0.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 48 LF $4.06 $194.88 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary 11a - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Tram Station with Existing Turn Lane and Median Fill WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 Option 1 - Stri• • • Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Tree Removal (Includes stump) Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump) Demolition - Curb Demolition - Sidewalk Demolition - Signage Demolition - Thermo p Striping i n9 (Remove) Sitework - Concrete -ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch Landsca pe - Irrigation Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) •• • Pavers Vau 7'820 3 20 870 10 1 160 2 10 1,035 10 B2 7 40 260 72 12,950 12,950 240 JY SF EA EA LF SY LS LF EA SY LF EA SY TN EA LF LF SF SF CY $8.00 $0.49 $550.00 $200.00 $6.00 $12.00 $1,200.00 $2.08 $545.00 $32.00 $10.50 $1,150.00 $6.50 $200.00 $3.34 $2.01 $4.06 $5.50 $0.80 $40.00 $5,040.00 $3,831.80 $1,650.00 $4,000.00 $5,220.00 $120.00 $1,200.00 $332.80 $1,090.00 $320.00 $10,867.50 $11,500.00 $533.00 $1,400.00 $133.60 $522.60 $292,32 $71,225.00 $10,360.00 $9,600.00 Item Demolition - Asphalt to 4" Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ") Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 690 SY $8.00 $5,520.00 Demolition - Tree Removal (Includes stump) 7,820 SF $0.49 $3,831.80 Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump) 3 EA $550.00 $1,650.00 Demolition - Curb 20 EA $200.00 $4,000.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Signage 10 SY $12.00 $120.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 620 SF $5.50 $3,410.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 10 SY $32.00 $320.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 790 SF $12.80 $10,112.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 1,035 LF $10.50 $10,867.50 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 142 SY $6.50 $923.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 3 TN $200.00 $600.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 40 EA $3.34 $133.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 72 LF $4.06 $292.32 Lands Landscape - Irrigation 12,950 SF $5.50 $71,225.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6" Depth) 12 SIF $0.80 $10,360.00 050 CY $40.00 $9,600.00 i kem Demolition - Asphalt to 4' Thick (Includes limerock base to 8 ') Ouantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 690 SY $8.00 $5,520.00 Demolition - Tree Removal (Includes stump) 7,820 SF $0.49 $3,831.80 Demolition - Palm Removal (Includes stump) 3 EA $550.00 $1,650.00 Demolition - Curb 20 EA $200.00 $4,000.00 Demolition - Sidewalk 870 LF $6.00 $5,220.00 Demolition - Signage 10 SY $12.00 $120.00 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 2 EA $545.00 $1,090.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 790 SF $5.50 $4,345.00 Sitework - Concrete - Sidewalk (5.0') 485 SF $9.00 $4,365.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 10 SY $32.00 $320.00 Sitework - Concrete - Type 'A' Curb 1,455 SF $12.80 $18,624.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 1,035 LF $10.50 $10,867.50 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Asphalt 162 SY $6.50 $1,053.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 1 TN $200.00 $200.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 40 EA $3.34 $133.60 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 160 LF $2.01 $321.60 Landscape - Shrubs, Grasses, Groundcovers, Mulch 72 LF $4.06 $292.32 Landscape - Irrigation 12,950 SF $5.50 $71,225.00 Landscape - Topsoil (6' Depth) 12,950 SF $0.80 $10,360.00 240 CY $40.00 $9,600.00 I . 1611A 15 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Crosswalks - Summary 12 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Pointe Drive WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 Option 1 - Striping Only 514.863 ucmuimoo - i nermoprasuc amping (rkemove) Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 168 LF $2.08 $349.44. Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 3 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 1, EA 150. 00 $1,150. $11,500.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 2 EA $ $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 8 0 LF $2.0 1 $1,165.80 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 202 LF $4.01 $146.16 Option 20 20 EA $3.34 $66 .80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width LF $2.01 $$66 .58 Imebase o Sitework - Concrete -ADA Compliant Ramp As sembly 202 SY $8.00 $1,616.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 3 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1, SF 5.5 $5.50 $1,620,00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 81 1,816 SF SF $ 0 $$7,244.80 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base $$12.800 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 202 SY $150. $1,313.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 20 EA $3.34 $66 .80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width LF $2.01 $$66 .58 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 'Option 3 - Brick and Cobble Paving S80.947 Rem Demolition - Asphalt to 4' Thick (Includes limerock base to 8') Quer Unit Unit Subtotal Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 363 SY .00- $8.00 $2,904.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 1,816 SF $5.50 $9,988.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,090 SF $9.00 $9,810.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 3,267 SF $12.80 $41,817.60 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 363 SY $6.50 $2,359.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 358 LF $2.01 $719,58 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 1 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1 6 1 I 1 A 15 e Crosswalks - Summary 13 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Hammock Oak Drive WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 Option 1 - Stri• • Only $15,057 -m 1 - mernnupiasuc ompmg trremove) Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 300 LF $2.08 ---- - 0 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 3 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 1,363 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 2 EA $150. $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24' Width 4 0 LF $2.01 $1,$66.40 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 1 9 LF $4.01 $146.16 i es p Ass base o Sitework - Concrete -ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 194 SY - - -- $8.00 .,.. -- --o $1,552.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,363 SF $5.50 5.5 $1,496.50 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 1,740 SF SF $ 0 .800 $22,272.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8' Limerock Base 0 10 $1,1 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 1 9 SY $150. $1,261.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 2 EA $3.34 $66$66 .80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24' Width 0 LF $2.01 $ .40 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Rem Demolition Asphalt to 4 Thick (Includes k base to B) Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - Concrete -ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 343 SY $8.00 $2, 744.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 3 3 EA $545.00 $1,635.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 1, SF $5.50 $9,570.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8' thick reinforced) 1,023 SF $9.00 $9,207.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 3,082 SF $12.80 $39,449.60 Sitework - Roadway - 8' Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 343 SY $6.50 $2,229.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24' Width 340 LF $2.01 $683.40 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable 16111 A 151 p p able Costs Crosswalks - Summary 14 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Oakmont Parkway WilsonMiller - February 26, 2010 'Option 1 - Striping Only vomvnu�n - i nerrnopiasuc ampmg (r+emove) Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 420 LF $2.08 x $873.60 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 4 4 EA $545.00 $2,180,00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12" Width 20 EA $3.34 $ 66.80 $68.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 880 LF $2.01 $1, Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 309 SY 1 $8.00 $2,472 00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 2,190 SF $5.50 $12,045.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 2,780 SF $12.80 $35,584.00 Sitework - Roadway - 8" Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 309 SY $6.50 $2,008.50 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 532 LF $2.01 $1,069.32 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 Sitework - Concrete - ADA Compliant Ramp Assembly 5s0 SY $8.00 $4,480.00 Sitework - Concrete - Brick Pavers 4 EA $545.00 $2,180.00 Sitework - Concrete - Cobble Pavers 2,780 SF $5.50 $15,290.00 Sitework - Concrete - Slab (Up to 8" thick reinforced) 1,745 SF $9.00 $15,705.00 Sitework - Regulatory Signage - Decorative Post Mount 5,037 SF $12.80 $64,473.60 Sitework - Roadway - 8' Limerock Base 10 EA $1,150.00 $11,500.00 Sitework - Roadway - Retro- reflective pavement markers 560 SY $6.50 $3,640.00 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 12' Width 20 EA $3.34 $66.80 Sitework - Thermoplastic Striping, STD, White, Solid - 24" Width 532 LF $2.01 $1,069.32 36 LF $4.06 $146.16 161111 A tr PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board May Anne Womble, Chairwoman Michael Levy Keith Dallas, Vice Chairman Gerald A. Moffatt Tom Cravens Theodore Raia, Jr. Geoffrey S. Gibson Hunter H. Hansen John Iaizzo Pelican Bay Services Division Stall' Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Wilson Miller Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Wilson Miller Community Improvement Plan Update 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. January 26, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop b. February 1, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Town Hall C. February 3, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session d. February 9, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop e. February 12, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop 5. Audience Participation 6. Administrator's Report a. Independent Peer Review Update b. Clam Bay Maintenance Permit Update C. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairwoman's Report a. Administrator's Contract Renewal b. Announcements 8. Capital Projects a. South Berm Reconstruction 9. Community Issues 10. Committee Reports and/or Requests 11. Old Business 12. New Business 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 14. Audience Comments 15. Adjournment ROLL CALL All Pelican Bay Services Division Board members and candidates were present. 8337 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 A 1 March 3, 2010 WILSON MUER COMMUNITY W—ROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE Mr. Mangan provided a Community Improvement Plan update. Striping and signage work began today at the North Tram station midblock crosswalk. They will schedule an evening this week or next to display bollard lighting at the St. Raphael pathways. The next community site walk will be March 18. The location(s) would be determined and notice provided. They may run two tours at two separate locations simultaneously. Mr. Levy said they discussed landscaping elements that would improve visibility at crosswalks and better lighting delivery along pathways. He asked if they are addressing other visibility issues at other areas. Mr. Mangan said they are addressing landscaping in the medians and roadways, and anywhere landscaping impedes the line of sight, i.e., driveway exiting the Commons, and other locations. Mr. Levy said they should identify other areas where landscaping impedes visibility, so Pelican Bay Services Division can address those areas in a timely fashion. Mr. Mangan agreed and those elements would become a priority. Madam Chair Womble referred to the pathways along Ridgewood where roots were pushing up the concrete. She asked Mr. Lukasz if they would be in repair by March 18 for the community site walk. Mr. Lukasz said he would contact the County's Transportation department and provide report. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN AUDIENCE COMMENTS Madam Chair Womble asked if anyone in the audience had comments. Mr. Steve Seidel, resident of Pelican Bay at San Marino referred to the work in progress at the North Tram station crosswalk. He asked Mr. Mangan if they were installing a flashing light because he believes striping and signage would not be effective. Mr. Mangan said the flashing light is an option for the final solution. Currently, they are installing 2010 uniform traffic standard requirements for signage and striping only that would improve pedestrian visibility in the roadway. They plan to bring all crosswalks into compliance with 2010 standards. Features beyond the standard are optional. The Board and Committee have not made decisions regarding optional features and locations to install them. Madam Chair Womble said installing the signage and striping is the first step toward making the North Tram station midblock crosswalk safer. The Board and Committee have been discussing improving all crosswalks, throughout the community uniformly by bringing them into compliance with 2010 traffic standards. 8338 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 A 151 March 3, 2010 AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Levy referred to a comment Mr. Hall made at the February 3 meeting regarding mangrove restoration and maintenance and operating under a "reduced scope." He asked if Mr. Hall could provide an explanation today. Madam Chair Womble asked Mr. Hall if he could discuss and Mr. Hall said yes. Dr. Raia asked when the Board would be discussing Pelican Bay governance issues. Madam Chair Womble said they would discuss governance after the new Board is in place on April 7. She said the County Attorney would be giving a Sunshine law presentation on April 7 at 3 p.m. following the 1 p.m. meeting. Mr. Cravens made a oration, seconded by Mr. Iaizzo to approve today's agenda. The Board voted on the motion and arch qWroved unanimo APPROVAL OF MEETING MINMS APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 26.2010 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD AND FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMTEE CON D JM IlVIPROVEMENT PLAN JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES E vens made a modon, seconded by Mr. Levy to approve the January 26, 2010 Pelican ices Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Community anent Plan joint workshop meeting minutes, The Board voted on the nation and the roved wuw mo APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 1 2010 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD AND FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLANNING COA—UM TEE COMMUNM MVROVEMEjNT PLAN JOINT WORKSHOP METING NUNUTES Mr. Cravens made a notion, seconded by Mr. Dallas to approve the February 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Plowing Commrtitee Community Improvmwd Plan joint workshop meedag minutes. The Board voted on the nation and the minutes roved unarnbno APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 12010 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Mr. Cravens made a nation, seconded b3' Mr. Levy to approve the February 3, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minnutm The Board voted on the motion and Ike minutes APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 9 2010 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD AND FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PL_A -KING COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES Mr. Cravens made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hansen to approve the February 9, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundadon Strategic Planning Committee Community Improvement Plan joint workshop mOedxg minutes. The Board voted on the motion and the 8339 w 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 A 1 March 3, 2010 APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 12 2010 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD AND FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE JOINT WORKSHOP MINUTES Mr. Cravens made a motion, seconded by Mr. Jaiao to approve the February 12, 2ojo Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Commnittee Community Improvement Plan joint workshop mewing m bmtes. The Board voted on the nwiion and the minute roved Mr. Iaizzo asked if they might make one motion to approve all minutes at once in the future. Madam Chair Womble queried Mr. Dorrill and the Board. There were no protestations. In the February 3 and February 12 minutes, there were Scrivener's errors to correct and she would provide to Ms. Resnick. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. Cal Grayson, Pelican Bay resident and career transportation official asked when they would be improving the pathways on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. The patchwork is ineffective and increases pedestrian safety hazards. Mr. Lukasz said pathway repairs are the County's Transportation department responsibility. They monitor and repair them and the patchwork is due to budget restraints. According to the maintenance management schedule, there are no plans to replace this pathway. Mr. Dorrill is meeting with the Director of the County's Road Maintenance department, Mr. John Vliet on March 16 and will convey Mr. Grayson's concerns. Madam Chair Womble said more than ten years ago, as a teacher at Seagate, she and her students would walk the Myra Janco Daniels Parkway pathway on their way to the Philharmonic. Because of safety concerns, one assignment she gave students was to contact the County to find out when they would be replacing or repairing the pathway. Dr. Raia asked if the Transportation department or Services Division was responsible for pathways repair. Madam Chair Womble said the Services Division would be responsible for improvements above standards. Dr. Raia suggested making this pathway a priority to widen to eight feet as part of the improvement plan. Madam Chair Womble said they could look into including this pathway in the plan. The easement may be a problem. St. Williams' owns the property. The main goal is not to repair, but redo completely. Mrs. Marcia Cravens spoke as President of the Mangrove Action Group. She recommended that the Services Division withdraw from the agreement made with Coastal Zone Management department to jointly select and fiord an independent peer review of the PBS & J Clam Bay water quality report. It will not vindicate the Services Division from criticism of their water quality testing program. She hopes that the work they have charged Mr. Hall with will clear up any misunderstanding, and requests that the Services Division not to put any additional cost and effort toward this. It does not appear Coastal Zone Management department invited this Board participate in development of the scope. The 8340 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes A 15 March 3, 2010 Wanless report commissioned by the Mangrove Action Group is available to them, "which by all accounts is an excellent peer review." Regarding the mangroves, she did not have opportunity to distribute to this Board, PBS & J's "request for additional work" report. In summary, PBS & J is requesting additional work from the county to perform a complete assessment of the mangrove forest in Clam Bay. They state their reason to request for additional work is due to the Services Division not monitoring the entire mangrove forest, only the die -off areas. Mrs. Cravens spoke as a resident of Pelican Bay. She said the Pelican Bay Services Division Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit's purpose is serve Pelican Bay unit owners and ensure that the non -ad valorem assessment is expended efficiently and responsibly. She suggested the Board be more involved with the Administrator's contract, scope, and advertise annually to ensure fees and services are competitive. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW UPDATE Mr. Dorrill said he received an email from Mr. McAlpin stating he would like to present the independent peer review scope to the Coastal Advisory Committee's new Clam Bay Subcommittee and the Services Division at the same time. Mr. McAlpin estimated they could schedule a joint workshop between the Services Division and the Coastal Advisory Committee's new Clam Bay Subcommittee in early April. The instant Mr. Dorrill receives the scope, he will provide. Mr. Cravens said before Mr. Dorrill became the Administrator, the Board voted on a motion to receive copies of ali communications. He said he feels, "completely out of the loop" and wants to know what is going on with the independent peer review. Mr. Dorrill said he was not aware of this policy and from his observations, "if we get to the point where we share every email then those emails solicits responses that become additional communications that I would have to share and that could get quickly out of hand." Regarding communication with Mr. McAlpin, he would be happy to provide. Mr. Hansen said although he respects other Board members' opinions, the Services Division hired Mr. Dorrill for his knowledge, expertise, and recommendations and he relies on that. He does not wish to receive copies of all communication. He suggested separate email distribution lists. Madam Chair Womble said in this particular issue, not much has been happening. Mr. McAlpin informed Mr. Dorrill and Ms. Resnick yesterday that he would not have the scope ready prior to this meeting as promised. "There really is not much to report except that it has not happened." Mr. McAlpin also would like to review the scope with the Coastal Advisory Committee and new Clam Bay Subcommittee prior to scheduling a joint meeting. Generally, if 8341 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611""" A March 3, 2010 something does come up, Mr. Dorrill has been very good about contacting the office and asking that they distribute the information to the Board. Staff should forward important information, but it was not necessary to send types of communication such as, "No, we don't have a date yet." Mr. Moffatt said he agreed with Mr. Cravens. Staff should keep the Board apprised. Madam Chair Womble said this case seemed to be a matter of timing, otherwise the Board probably would have been informed. It made sense for Mr. Dorrill to provide the Board with an update at this meeting. Ms. Resnick provided a recap of a conversation she had with Mr. McAlpin earlier today. She attempted to schedule a joint workshop with the Coastal Advisory Committee. Mr. McAlpin conveyed that the Services Division Board would not meet with the full Committee, but with their new Clam Bay Subcommittee following Mr. John Arceri's Coastal Advisory Committee appointment by the Board of County Commissioners on March 9 and the Subcommittee's first meeting on March 18. Mr. McAlpin plans to discuss the scope with the Subcommittee and the possibility of scheduling a joint meeting to vet the draft scope for early April and report the verdict to the Services Division. Madam Chair Womble affirmed her understanding of Ms. Resnick's comments. Mr. McAlpin and the Coastal Advisory Committee's Clam Bay Subcommittee would meet on March 18 and following this meeting, Mr. McAlpin would provide the Services Division with more information about the scope and scheduling a joint workshop. Mr. Iaizzo said, "So have we determined that nothing was denied to this Board of any importance." Madam Chair Womble said staff did not deny this Board of any information. Dr. Raia said he agreed with Mr. Moffatt and Mr. Cravens and would lice to receive all pertinent issues correspondence and anything that requires this Board's approval. Mr. Dorrill said he agreed with Mr. Hansen. He does not wish to receive copies of every email. He suggested that Board members who want all routine correspondence of pertinent issues, as well as communications between staff and Mr. McAlpm, to inform Ms. McCaughtry. Staff would forward as soon as possible. He explained the intent of the agenda item "Miscellaneous Correspondence" is to share pertinent information with this Board. He has some "miscellaneous correspondence" to distribute today regarding his next item, the Clam Bay maintenance permit. He further explained that his primary contact is Madam Chair Womble and at her discretion, the office distributes the information. Dr. Raia said for the record that he would like staff to inform him of any communications between Mr. Dorrill and Mr. McAlpm and any information regarding the peer review. 8342 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes A151 March 3, 2010 Mrs. Obiey said from her understanding the agreement to jointly fund, select and perform a peer review is between the Services Division and Coastal Zone Management, not the Coastal Advisory Committee. Madam Chair Womble said, "It was not a singular" or solely with Mr. McAlpin. Dr. Raia said, "I do want to compliment Mr. Dorrill for apparently arranging a joint meeting between the two Boards because this would give us equal standing to we would be able to present ourselves with something more than a three minute sound bite." Mr. Cravens said from his understanding, Mr. McAlpin did not want the Services Division to meet with the full Coastal Advisory Committee, "Is that correct, Lisa?" Ms. Resnick clarified that Mr. McAlpin said he would first like the Services Division to meet jointly with the Coastal Advisory Committee's Clam Bay Subcommittee. Dr. Raia said all members of the Clam Bay Subcommittee are members of the Coastal Advisory Committee. Mr. Dorrill requested that any Board members who would lice to receive all communications to register their interest with Ms. McCaughtry. If it appears Mr. McAlpin is "stonewalling," he would speak with Ms. Marla Ramsey, Public Services Division Administrator and remind her of their conversation concerning the independent peer review process moving forward. They had agreed the intent was to have a draft scope in March, so they could actually have a consultant review the PBS & J report and the Services Division work before the end of the spring. If any stakeholders, such as the Mangrove Action Group have any verbiage they would like considered as a part of the scope of services, they should get that information to him quickly. Madam Chair Womble said the Services Division did receive peer reviewer recommendations. How should those individuals apply for consideration and when? services. Mr. Dorrill said anyone at any time could register online to be on the County's notification list for professional Mr. Cravens asked for clarification of whether the Coastal Zone Management department's Director, Mr. McAlpm would be developing the scope of service to provide to the Services Division. Mr. Dorrill said from his understanding, beyond the boilerplate Purchasing department language, the Coastal Zone Management department would develop the scope. They would share the scope with the Services Division Board in advance of a joint meeting to review, comment, and modify. Originally, the joint meeting was to be with the Coastal Advisory Committee however, they desire to schedule the joint meeting with their new Clam Bay Subcommittee. Mr. Levy asked if the Mangrove Action Group could make changes at that time. 8343 r „ Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 e A 154 March 3, 2010 Mr. Dorrill said if the Mangrove Action Group would like to provide specific technical language or parameters in advance of receiving the scope then he would provide the information to the Purchasing cent. Mr. Iaizzo asked if Services Division could collaborate with the Mangrove Action Group and "bring them on board so to speak in a modest effort to control, oversee or get a real handle on this job as a co- sponsor. We need all the support we can get." Mrs. Cravens said in the past, she has attempted to work with Mr. McAlpin, but her comments, suggestions, and requests ignored. "He is a very dominant force and will ensure that his views and his recommendations are the only ones that go forward" She added it would not be an open process, but constrained in ways to engender a particular outcome. She does not want to put the Mangrove Action Group in such a position. Mr. iaizzo said they could "echo" the Mangrove Action Group's position because it gives the Services Division a solid foundation. Mrs. Cravens said she appreciated Mr. laizzo's comments. CLAM BAY MAINTENANCE PERMIT UPDATE Mr. Dorrill distributed Mr. Hall's memorandurn providing a recap of his meeting with the Department of Environmental Protection. The purpose of the meeting was to get a clear understanding of whether the Services Division's ongoing Clam Bay restoration and maintenance of the channels work requires a permit and what the permit requirements would be. In summary, the Services Division can no longer broadcast the channel sediment or spoils without a permit. Without a permit, they are required to remove the spoils from the bottom of the channels by whatever means. Maintenance up until this point was covered under the original ten -year Clam Bay restoration permit. To ensure that no one "could accuse you, your staff or your agents for doing unpedmitted work in a mangrove lion area, at your direction we have followed up with the Department of Environmental Protection and they are requiring a permit to continue maintenance of the channels. Mr. Hall said one of the maintenance activities allowed under the original ten -year Chun Bay restoration permit is to broadcast the spoils to the side, which is what they continue to do. In order to continue maintaining the channels as they have in the past, i.e., broadcasting the spoils, they must apply for a permit. The Department of Environmental Protection provided information as to what needs to be included in the permit application in order for them to review it. Mr. Dorrill said unless the Board directs otherwise, he is proceeding to evaluate retaining Turrell, Hall, & Associates to receive the necessary environmental resources permit to continue to maintain the channels in Clam Bay as they have in the past. 8344 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 March 3,1010 ~` Madam Chair Womble said the Board's direction stands. Mr. Hall said the Department of Environmental Protection would send a letter thirty days following receipt of the application outlining unique requests for information requirements or prohibitive costs. Submitting a permit application does not obligate the Services Division and have the ability to withdraw. Mr. Dorrill asked Mr. Hall to summarize the maintenance process, schedule, and firequency. If the permitting process lingers, can they still perform the maintenance? Mr. Hall said given where they are right now, the review time frame and expected response time, he does not believe they will receive the permit in time do perform this year's maintenance. In the past, they monitored the area in March or early April to determine where and how much maintenance was needed They performed maintenance once per year at the start of the rainy season, typically in April or May. Mr. Dorrill asked Mr. Hall if he knew how much maintenance would they need this year. Mr. Hail said in the past he would spend two days per month in the mangroves, looking at different aspects of the system, and areas of concern expressed by residents. Over the past year, due to the reduced scope and budget, he has not been spending any additional time in the field. There has not been any ground trooping or field verification of which channels need flushing cuts or maintenance. Mr. Dorrill suggested Mr. Hall spend some time in the field well in advance of the rainy season to evaluate what needs to be done. Mr. Hall said there are two ways to handle that and one is to go out in the field to find out where and how much maintenance they would require. Depending on the need they see in terms of maintenance, they might be able to apply for emergency relief to clear the essential areas. If they are not in dire need, as long as they do not remove the spoils from the channels, they are not in violation, so they could open up blockages within the actual footprint of the channels to allow water to flow. Mr. Dorrill urged Mr. Hall to make it a priority to ground troop the system and share any problem areas, so if needed they could apply for emergency relief concurrent with filing a new Clam Bay maintenance permit application. Mr. Hall said he could comply. He will forward his memorandum to the Department of Environmental Protection and request confirmation for accuracy and mutual understanding. Mr. Dorrill said that would be fine and a gesture of professional courtesy. Dr. Raia asked what work the permit would allow. 8345 � Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 161 V March 3, 2010 Mr. Hall said the permit is for maintenance, but it has a construction phase and an operational phase. The construction phase is for the first time they perform the maintenance. The permit then converts to an operational phase, which allows the Services Division to perform maintenance work in perpetuity. Special conditions may apply when maintenance is done, however, the permit does not obligate the Services Division to perform maintenance work, should they decide for whatever reason not to do it. The permit is similar to a water management district permit, i.e., a swale does not need to be dug out every year, but the operational phase permit allows the activity when it needs to be done. Mr. Dorrill said the Board could make a motion to give Mr. Donill the authority to move forward with the permit application to perform necessary flushing of the channels and associated maintenance in Clam Bay. Questions arose regarding the budget and paying Mr. Hall for his services Mr. Hall said the cost would be approximately $24, 000 - $27,000 to prepare and process a permit with the Department of Environmental Protection. This number is substantially lower than the $ 15,000 - $150,000 range he provided to Mr. Lukasz when preparing the budget. They would have a better idea if there would be any additional costs after they apply for the permit. Mr. Moffatt made a motion to provide Mr. Dorrill with the administrative authority to do what is required to move forward with the Department of Environmental Protection permit application that would allow Turrell, Hall & Associates to perform necessary flushing of the channels and associated maintenance in Clam Bay, as well as incur the costs of the permit. There was no further discussion. The Board voted on the motion and approved unanimously. Mr. Moffatt made a modon and secoude+d to provide Mr. Dordil wA* the adrrridstsntive anaerity to do what 6 regalred to comae for w r d with the DeparbneW of FxvinvnmtWd Protector permit applicadon dkat world allow Hall do Axsoriatra toper orm xewaryg ofd channels and assorlate+d mwhWexance In Clam Bay, as well as bscar the costs of Akepermit Ike Board voted on fire noodox aW aswroved aanahnam& MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Domll presented the five month ending financial statements ending with February. Expenses appear to be in order with the adopted budget however, year to date revenue is awaiting receipt of approximately $200,000 in unpaid assessments. They have received approximately $1.7 million in assessment revenue. Any payments received after April will be delinquent. The Tax Collector will sell delinquent taxes at an auction in June or July. As a result, the Services Division would then receive payment of the assessment. Mr. Levy referred to the 5% revenue reserve. 8346 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 161 I'l A 151 March 3, 2010 Mr. Dorrill said yes. The revenue reserve's purpose is to reflect that people take advantage of discounts available. It does not include the fees charged by the Talc Collector and Property Appraiser. He requested the Board accept the financial report into the record. He is meeting with Mr. Mark Isackson, the County's senior budget analyst and County Manager's Pelican Bay liaison tomorrow, March 4 to discuss the Services Division's need for Fund 111 monies. The Clam Bay maintenance should provide justification to receive money from the County's general fund for doing work on property owned by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRWOMAN'S REPORT ADMINISTRATOR'S CONTRACT RENEWAL Mr. Moffatt made a motion to renew Mr. Dorrill's contract but first he asked what the fee would be if they renewed. Currently they are paying $42,300 annually. Madam Chair Womble said that is for the first year only. Mr. Dorrill said the Purchasing department changed their policy. The only guaranteed contract is year one. They must authorize separate extensions on a yearly basis. If for some reason, the Board does not choose to renew his contract, the Purchasing department will need at least three months to take the Services Division through the competitive bidding process, same as last year. Madam Chair Womble said it took three months last year For the record, they did have a competition for an administrator when they dropped Sevem Trent. According to the agreement 09 -5174 for Management Services, after the first year, Mr. Don -HI'S contract increases to $55,400 for subsequent years, or beyond the first year. Mr. Cravens said Mr. Dorrill gave them a three -month discount during the first year. Madam Chair Womble said yes. She recalled that Mr. Dorrill wanted the contract, so he gave the incentive. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to renew Mr. Don ill's contract. Mr. Moffatt made a motion to renew Mr. DorrN's contrary seconded by Mr. Hi arises and Ike Board voted nNam nrow* to renew Mr. Dorriff's conbnactfor one year and a fee of tS 4ft ANNOUNCEMENTS Madam Chair Womble thanked the Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee for their dedication to the Community Improvement Plan. Members have spent a great deal of time wading through an enormous amount of information and addressing safety and security issues. On March 8, the Budget Subcommittee will meet at 1 p.m. at the Community Center. On March 8 at 5 p.m., all ballots for the Pelican Bay Services Division Board election are due to the Clerk. 8347 w Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 16111 March 3, 201U Mr. Cravens pointed out that all Board candidates were present. Madam Chair Womble welcomed the candidates individually. On March 10 at noon at the Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, the Clerk and County Attorney will count the ballots. On March 12 at 8:30 am. at the Community Center, the Services Division Board and Strategic Planning Committee will hold a Community Improvement Plan joint workshop. On March 18 at 8:30 am., Wilson Miller will host a community site walk. The location will be determined. On Monday, March 22 at S p.m., Foundation Board ballots and proxy ballots are due. On Wednesday, March 24, at 3 pm., the tabulation receipt will be given to the Foundation's Elections Committee. On Monday, March 29 at 9 am. is the election and annual meeting of the Foundation Board Wednesday, March 31 at 2 p.m. at the Community Center, the Services Division Board and Strategic Planning Committee will hold another Community Improvement Plan joint workshop. They are addressing and prioritizing community improvement plans and apprising the community mainly through Town Hall meetings and the Pelican Bay Post. She encouraged Community Improvement Plan meeting attendance. Tonight, March 3 at 7 at the Community Center they are holding a District 2 Commissioner candidate forum. There are three candidates and she urged the audience to become informed. The election is especially important to those who care about the environment, mangroves and Clam Bay. Mr. Iaizzo asked if the Services Division Board could endorse a District 2 Commissioner candidate. Madam Chair Womble said no because this Board is an advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners and it would be impolitic. Mr. Dorrill said he did not believe there was anything in the ordinance to prohibit it. Mr. Cravens said, "But if we pick the wrong one." Madam Chair Womble said, "That's what the term `impolitic' means." Mr. Levy said he hopes the new Commissioner will be supportive of Pelican Bay. Madam Chair Womble said, "The beauty of this is that time are no Sunshine laws between you and your friends unless they are on this Board, so go forth." Mr. Moffatt asked if future town hall meetings to vet Community Improvement Plan projects are scheduled. Madam Chair Womble said they should have made decisions of which projects to vet to community by the end of March. The next Community Improvement Plan town hall meeting is April S at 2 p.m. at the Community Center. The meetings will be advertised on the Services Division and Foundation websites. Sunshine law requires the Services Division to provide public notice of all meetings. 8348 r Pelican Se 1611 A 151 Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes March 3, 2010 Mr. Moffatt said the Services Division has capital funds available for Community Improvement Plan projects and once they decide what they would like to implement, they would allocate in the budget. Mr. Levy said over and above the amount of capital funding available, the Budget subcommittee would have to discuss amongst themselves and make recommendations to bring to the full Board. Mr. Dallas said he does not see outstanding Community Improvement Plan decisions interfering with them determining the budget. Mr. Moffatt said they have a Budget Subcommittee meeting on Monday and they would not be in a position at that time to be allocating dollars. Based on what they have been discussing, they would need to increase funds by 100' %. Mr. Dallas said they could discuss what projects they want to spend money on, but not come to any conclusions. Mr. Levy said they could start by making recommendations as to how to spend the money that they have. Mr. Moffatt said they have the issue of timing. They may not spend a lot in Fiscal Year 2011. Mr. iaizzo said there are capital projects that they would have to put on hold, but some capital projects may need addressing. Mr. Moffatt asked what time does the Foundation's Annual meeting start. Madam Chair Womble said 9:00 am. on March 29. CAPITAL PROJECTS SOUTH BERM RECONSTRUCTION Mr. Lukasz said Hole Montes completed their study of the south berm. Analysis of the south berm and -soil borings revealed noticeable settlement in areas beneath outfall pipes caused by a peat layer removed during construction. Due to the subsurface soil conditions, differential settlement occurred. Significant additional settlement is not expected. Hole Montes' analysis of the adjacent swales and retention areas relate to drainage performance indicating that while the system is still functioning properly, they recommend excavation of approximately 500 feet of the west swale to address several areas of erosion. A summary of their report is included in the agenda. Mr. Levy said they budgeted $350,000 for south berm reconstruction in Fiscal Year 2010. Mr. Moffatt and Mr. Levy asked how much the excavation would cost. Mr. Lukasz said there was a policy change regarding paving, so any overlay project would be the Foundation's responsibility. The Services Division's responsibility would be to clean out 500 linear feet of the swale to prevent further erosion along the west side of the berm. The Hole Montes analysis report was approximately $15,000 and 8349 1611 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes A15 March 3, 2010 implementation of their recommendations for excavating the swales would cost approximately $20,000. The total cost would be approximately $35,000 of the budgeted $350,000. Mr. Dorrill asked if the cost included any riprap work on either side. Mr. Lukasz said yes, the $35,000 total cost includes any riprap work, i.e., geo-textile tubing and sod. Mr. Levy suggested for Monday's Budget Subcommittee meeting that staff make a recommendation of how much money to leave in the Clam Bay capital fund for firture projects. Mr. Lukasz said there is approximately $380,000 in the Clam Bay fund. Mr. Levy said they should discuss how much to leave in the Clam Bay fund and how much to remove. He assumes they would have to share the money with the County because they contributed Fund 111 monies to it. Mr. Dorrill clarified that although the Services Division or County owns the berm itself, the Foundation owns the asphalt tramway and would be responsible for repaving. Dr. Raia asked if the pathway from Glencove to the berm was the Services Division's responsibility because it is in very poor condition. He questioned the Hole Montes report where it states, "at the top of the berm there is a ten feet wide walking and bicycle path." Mr. Lukasz said he placed a purchase order to repair the Glencove pathways in areas where the roots are pushing up the concrete and confirmed that at the top of the berm there is a ten feet wide walking and bicycle path. COMMUNITY ISSUES No discussion. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND /OR REQUESTS Mr. Cravens said there are several subcommittees including the Safety and Clam Bay subcommittees. He asked if any of them were active besides the Budget subcommittee. Madam Chair Womble said Mr. Cravens is correct. The Services Division Board and Strategic Planning Committee, via the Community Improvement Planning project have inherited the Safety subcommittee's responsibilities. Because of the Safety subcommittee's efforts last year, they are addressing the North Tram station midblock crosswalk's safety issues. The Clam Bay subcommittee is not active. At the Commissioners and County Manager's direction, the full Board is involved with Clam Bay issues as much as is allowable. Mr. Hall is taking care of the mangroves. Mr. Cravens said he thought the Commissioners said they were going to be involved in mangrove maintenance. Madam Chair Womble said that is true. The Clam Bay subcommittee is not active because the full Board should be informed and address Clam Bay issues. OLD BUSINESS No discussion. 8350 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 "� A 15 March 3.2010 NEW BUSINESS Dr. Raia referred to a letter distributed to the Board written by Mr. Naegele, Chairman of the Foundation addressed to Mr. McAlpin. The letter regards the County's proposed plans to construct new bathrooms and a concession stand at Vanderbilt Beach. The Foundation does not approve of the preliminary conceptual design and Dr. Raia endorses the Foundation's position. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE ONGOING PROJECTS STATUS SHEET Mr. Dorrill said the Ongoing Projects Status sheet is for the Board's review and there was no discussion. Madam Chair Womble referred to Mr. Dorrill's meeting on Thursday, March 4 with Mr. Mark Isackson. She asked him what he believes the County's position is in regards to fund 111. Mr. Dorrill said he believes the County's general position is based on identified needs and in the County's opinion, the Services Division is overfunded. He hopes the County will release some general fund 111 monies to the Services Division, but he believes the County is going to want some money in return as well. He said the County's assessed value could fall another 15% this year. He does not believe the Commissioners want to raise the millage rate during an election year and the County is in search of general revenue funds. To remain millage neutral, the County would need to cut $2 million from the general fund budget. Mr. Dorrill's intent is to hold on to general funds they already have. He plans to stress they have ongoing water quality, tidal, and channel maintenance projects that warrant entitlement to the County's general fund I I 1 monies. Mr. Levy said the Commissioners approved the budget with the fund 111 money in it. Mr. Dorrill said yes it was, but the County budget staff acknowledged that "rather than try to fight and deal with that issue at the public budget hearing" they would readdress at the end of the first quarter of the new fiscal year. Mr. Cravens asked if they could commit to spending some of that money before Mr. Dorrill meets with the County budget staff. Mr. Levy said they do not have the money. Mr. Dorrill said he believes they have committed the funds by directing the Administrator earlier today to proceed with the permit application. He would convey to the County that the Services Division has three ongoing Clam Bay maintenance projects that provide justification to receive fund 111 monies. 8351 Pefficam Bay Savbm DWdm Board Regular Mleding Minow 161 A15­1 Mara% me 1 Mrs. cravens said she is concerned about the use of the County's general fund 111. She regueasled that the Services Division use the non ad- valorem assessment funds that they already have m their possession to fund Chan Bay mainlenaooe projects They should not request additional money from the Comity's general find. Mr. Moffatt asked if Mrs Cravens was sing they refuse the County's flied 11 I monies and take it out of their budget. Mrs. Cravens said the Services Division has necessary funds to pay for Clans Bay mamlenance projects. Property owners pay a non ad-valorem t to the Services Division to provide Chain Bay maintenance services and those finds should be spent as the property owners intended. Dr. Raia said the County should pay for all of it because they own the property and they should get credit for Mrs. Chmus agreed and said that is the point she is trying to make. Pelican Bay has been paying since the IWWs. She does not agree with the County's assertion that they pay for Clam Bay maintenance becorse the money is actually coming from the Services Division's non ad- valorem ass t. Mr. Levy said the $ 102,400 fmd 111 money they are to receive from the County repium s 3% of their overall ran ad- valorem assessment. The find would not last f ram and Clam Bay mam/tuanoe is ongoing. The amount the County provides from fiord 1 I 1 varies firm year to year. Mrs. Cravens recommended that the Services Division Board clearly eaeph»n that the Chun Bay male neon is pad SOX from the County's general fmd 111 and 50% form the non ad- valorem Mr. Bob Nae gels referred to the Coaomurrity hmpeovement Phu Ae is impressed with the work being done by the Board and Strategic Planing Committee. Notable is that they have the fmds and a phi to spend what is necessary to improve shy and security o r % mmitywide. Mr. Dorafill said the next Services Division Board meeting a April 7 at 1 pm. m this room. VI' M/M M. CMW=S =a&a a moms to Mqsw>S Secan"Sy Dr. lak wd Se �warid arreleai aka► �ravw ararraiuratalj! at 3Ne, 8352 MbwEe!s by Lisa a I 1 4/15,/20110123756 PM 16I 1'15'1 BUDGET SUBCOINIVIITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH S. 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board having conducted business herein Collier County, met March 8, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, with the following members present: Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Members Michael Levy, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson Gerald A. Moffatt John Iaizzo Keith J. Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of February 10, 2010 Meeting Minutes 3. Audience Participation 4. Capital Projects/Reserve Funds 5. Clam Bay Projections 6. Audience Comments 7. Adjourn ROLL CALL Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant All Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board members were present. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 10, 2010 MEETING MINI TES Mr. Iaizzo made a motion to approve the February 10, 2010 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes. Mr. Dallas seconded the motion. Mr. Moffatt clarified page 1082 to reflect the outsourcing process for "landscaping." Mr. Levy asked Mr. Lukasz to clarify what the minutes reported he said on page 1085 regarding the Clam Bay operational budget. Mr. Lukasz said the Fiscal Year 2011 Clam Bay operational budget of $145,000 is less than the Fiscal Year 2010 budget of $170,000 because they would pay Mr. Hall for a water quality procedure manual and Clam Bay maintenance permit application in Fiscal Year 2010. The Subcommittee members voted on the motion and the minutes were approved as amended unanimously. Mr. Iaizzo made a motion to approve Ake February 10, 2010 Budget Subcomm We meedag minutes as amended Mr. Dallas seconded tike motion. Tlie Subcommmittee m►eimbers voted on tke nation and tke mumutes war as amended u 1087 V-.1, 161 VA151 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 8, 2010 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None CAPITAL PROJECIVRESERVE FUNDS & CLAM BAY PROJECTIONS Mr. Dorrill referred to the Major Capital Equipment Replacement Schedule. Major capital equipment includes vehicles and landscaping grounds maintenance equipment. Staff has a plan and schedule to replace major capital equipment. He suggested they discuss and begin preparing a major capital improvements preliminary budget to present to the full Board. Mr. Levy referred to the Capital Improvements Fund 322. $2,116,639 is available for capital expenditures. Mr. Lukasz said regarding the Capital Improvements Fund 322, $2,116,639 is the amount budgeted for lake bank enhancements and hardscape improvement projects. There is an additional $245,568 in reserve. Mr. Levy confirmed that $2,116,639 is actually budgeted for projects. The $245,568 reserve is additional carry forward. He recommended they transfer the $245,568 reserve to the Capital Improvements Fund 322. Mr. Dallas said the $345,000 in Fund 320 is for the south berm analysis. Mr. Moffatt said the south berm analysis cost $35,000, so there is a little over $300,000 remaining. Mr. Dorrill said they could process an inter fund transfer to apply the Clam Bay Fund 320 carry forward to Capital Improvements Fund 322. It would require this full Board's and Board of County Commissioners approval at a public hearing. From his understanding, the only funds that could not be processed by an inter fiord transfer would be street lighting funds because they are collected by an ad valorem assessment. Mr. Levy said in the past, they have transferred street lighting carry forward to the Capital Improvement Fund 322. Last year, the Services Division was told because the County was providing General Fund 111 monies to Clam Bay Fund 320, the Services Division was prohibited from transferring carryforward from the Clam Bay Fund 320 to the Capital Improvements Fund 322. Mr. Dorrill met with Mr. Mark Isackson, Senior Budget Analyst and the County Manager's Pelican Bay Liaison to discuss the Services Division's share of the County's General Fund 111. The County will transfer approximately $35,000 or one- third of the $102,400 assessment from Fund 111 to the Services Division immediately. He informed Mr. Isackson that as they approach the end of the third quarter, they would determine if additional funding is necessary for this year. Based on the amount they have budgeted for Clam Bay projects in Clam Bay Fund 320, they are over - funded, so they may get resistance from the County if they request additional money. They could request a separate budget amendment prior to the Fiscal Year 2011 budget approval process to transfer the $ 245,568 reserves to the Capital Improvements Fund 322. 1: :, '61T'�A15� Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 8, 2010 Mr. Gibson asked if they did not use the funds, would they lose the funds. Mr. Levy explained that if they do not use the funds, the other option is to use funds already in Clam Bay Fund 320 and not deposit any additional funds until they spend what is there. Mr. Gibson asked if a hurricane hits this summer, do they have funds or where do they obtain funds for repairs. Mr. Dorrill said they are eligible for reimbursement from FEMA for debris removal and associated labor costs. He explained that landscaping replacement costs are not insurable or recoverable costs and funding would most likely come from future assessments. Charlie. Mr. Levy asked if they have capital funds available, could they use them for immediate expenses. Mr. Dorrill said yes. Mr. Lukasz said FEMA reimbursed them for debris removal and labor costs associated with both hurricanes Wilma and Mr. Levy said it took approximately two years to receive their Hurricane Wilma FEMA reimbursement. He asked Mr. Dorrill if he discussed the Services Division receiving Fund 111 money for Fiscal Year 2011. Mr. Dorrill said the County intends to provide Fund 111 money on a proportionate share basis and from his understanding, the amount received was higher in the past, closer to fifty percent. Recently, the amount received has been "at least one-third" of the assessment. Mr. Levy said in the past they would receive two- thirds of the amount, but this year they were intending to receive fifty percent of the assessment. Mr. Lukasz said prior to last year, the County would fully fund the monitoring and maintenance portion ofthe budget unless dredging was involved and this usually ran approximately $175,000. Last year they said they would match what the Pelican Bay Services Division assessed, or $102,400. Mr. Dorrill said the County intends to provide Fund 11 I monies to the Services Division on the same proportionate share basis. There is no indication that they would not. He added that in the past, they received Tourist Development tax money, but going forward they would not. Mr. Lukasz said they received approximately $11,000 from Tourist Development. Mr. Levy said they received Tourist Development funds, but they were restricted for specific purposes that the Services Division did not have a current use therefore they returned the $11,000 to Tourist Development. Mr. Dallas asked where the funding came from to replace the street light poles and lamps several years ago. 1089 1611'p1,5'� Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 8, 2010 Mr. Lukasz said a combination of funding paid for the pole and lamp replacement project. One portion came from the street lighting reserve fund and another portion came from the Capital Improvements Fund 322. Mr. Levy said they used funds from two different cost centers. Mr. Moffatt referred to the reserve schedule. He said the capital expenditures reserve summary was inaccurate showing $1,500 for Fiscal Year 2011 when it should be $44,000 to purchase mowers and a truck. Ms. McCaughtry explained the corrected updated summary reflects $44,000 as community beautification operating funds reserved for Fiscal Year 2011 to purchase capital equipment. Mr. Lukasz said in order to stay within the 25% replacement cost for capital equipment, they budgeted $44,000 in Fiscal Year 2011 to purchase replacement equipment, i.e., mowers and a truck. Mr. Levy said they should maintain the Fiscal Year 2010 assessment of $370.64 for Fiscal Year 2011 and budget what is necessary to maintain the same assessment into the Capital Improvements Fund 322. They should also show the transfer the $245,568 as reserve carryforward to the Capital Improvements Fund 322. Mr. Dorrill said any cost of living increase would offset that fund. Unless the County was to increase the amount that the employer pays for employee benefits, or if group health or life insurance increases, but he highly doubts there would be any cost of living increase. Mr. Levy asked if any offset would also apply to indirect costs. Mr. Dorrill said yes. Mr. Levy said that until they receive numbers from the County, the amounts they plug into the preliminary budget would be estimates. Mr. Dorrill said yes, the numbers are preliminary, but show a balance based on the current year's assessment. Mr. Moffatt asked when the County would provide the numbers. Mr. Lukasz said the County told them they would receive the budget information "any day." Ms. McCaughtry said the County would provide a "budget package" with all the relevant information. Mr. Levy said the preliminary budget was due to the County Manager by mid April last year. How would they meet that deadline without information from the County? Would they send the County a preliminary budget without full Board approval? Mr. Dorrill said, "I would hope not." Mr. Lukasz said the County's "drop dead" date to receive the Services Division's budget and is usually June 1, so the County has time to print the budget material for the Board of County Commissioners budget workshop held in mid June. 1090 1611 'pi5'1 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 8, 2010 Mr. Dorrill said the County expects their assessed value to decrease by 12% or approximately $20 million. Mr. Moffatt said it was amazing that the assessed value could drop that much more. Mr. Dallas said there was a lag in reporting the assessed value Mr. Levy said the drop is a result of all the foreclosures. Mr. Moffatt and Mr. Dallas agreed that next year the assessed value would probably stabilize. Mr. Dorrill said commercial and industrial property encompasses approximately 10% of the County's assessed value and the value would probably be down again next year. Mr. Moffatt said they should recommend to the full Board that they transfer the $245,568 reserve from to the Capital Improvements Fund 322. Mr. Levy asked if they should leave money in the Clam Bay Fund 320 to have a "safety net." Mr. Moffatt and Mr. Gibson agreed that there is a risk by leaving money in the Clam Bay Fund 320 because the County could take it and suggested that if a need arises, they should appropriate fimds at that time. Mr. Iaizzo asked Mr. Dorrill to clarify if the County could take the Services Division's Clam Bay Funds. Mr. Dorrill said if the County needed it, they could take it, however they would have to "book it as a loan." He has asked the Purchasing department to look into the sum total of surplus property sold over the past five years that the Services Division's assessment might have paid. They may be able to obtain some funds from that source. Mr. Levy said they should transfer $300,000 out of the Clam Bay Fund 320. Mr. Dorrill said Mr. Isackson explained that County staff believes they "made a mistake by lulling the Board into a state that every satellite library serves a regional purpose." County stars position is that there are only two regional libraries. One regional library is on Orange Blossom, and the other is Lely Cultural Parkway. There will be further cutbacks to neighborhood libraries and parks. He and Madam Chair Womble met with Mr. David Treckees about Mr. Trecker's suggestion that they amend the Services Division ordinance to include funding library operations. Mr. Dorrill and Madam Chair Womble said, "Absolutely not" because there would be no end to it, as well as difficulties collecting money from neighboring communities outside of the Pelican Bay unit. Mr. Iaizzo said, "The County is shoving off' libraries located in residential areas and asking the community to pay to operate them. 1091 1611 Al, 5:14, Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 8, 2010 Mr. Dorrill said in the late 1990's the County was "intoxicated by impact fees" and spent capital funds as if it was "Monopoly" money. They built facilities without understanding the fact that within a matter of years, it would cost more to own and operate those facilities than it would be to build them. They own more assets than they can afford to maintain. Mr. Moffatt made two recommendations for the full Board. The first was to move $245,568 from reserves into the Capital Improvements Fund 322. Second, they should transfer $300,000 carryforward from the Clam Bay Fund 320 to the Capital Improvements Fund 322. Mr. Dorrill said they would continue to receive County General Fund I I 1 monies for the annual Clam Bay program proportionate to half of the cost. Mr. Levy referred to the Community Improvement Plan initial projects cost estimates sheet he distributed. He made suggestions for initial projects to budget. The projects included improving crosswalks, moving the Pelican Bay Boulevard turn to align with the driveway of the parking lot of the North Tram station, widen pathways to eight feet on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard, and correcting lighting deficiencies. Cost information is from Wilson Miller handouts. Mr. Lukasz said they are trimming trees blocking streetlights as part of their maintenance responsibility. Mr. Levy asked Mr. Dorrill if the Foundation could be fiscally responsible for some projects, such as improvements to the North Tram station parking lot. In addition, three crosswalks they are considering improving are to access Foundation property. Mr. Dorrill said the Foundation Board would have to approve taking fiscal responsibility of common property or off -site enhancement to common property. The U.S. 41 bean is on Foundation property, so the Foundation is responsible to pay for the boundary wall. Mr. Iaizzo asked if once the Wilson Miller Community Improvements planning study is complete, can they go back and determine which entity is responsible for a project and then determine amongst themselves how to implement. Mr. Levy said they could present possible projects they might consider sharing fiscal responsibility with the Foundation to the full Board and if the full Board agrees, they should approach the Foundation. Mr. Dorrill said that would be appropriate. They should give Mr. Hoppensteadt a heads up before presenting the idea to the fiill Board. Mr. Dallas said as a citizen, he approached the Foundation about cost sharing some projects. Mr. Levy said his suggestions do not include enhancements such as pavers at the North Tram station crossing. Mr. Gibson said regarding the North Tram station crossing, the signs in the street are there temporarily until they might implement a final solution. 1092 161 q g Y Bud et Subcommittee of the Pelican Ba Services Division Board Meeting Menu A11541 ta March 8, 2010 Mr. Dorrill agreed with Mr. Gibson. Mr. Gibson said they should consider approaching the full Board to vote to remove the "second sign." Mr. Dallas asked if the signs in the street are required. Mr. Lukasz said they were in Wilson Miller's plans. The Subcommittee's consensus was that the signs cause driver confusion and if they had seen them in the plans, they would not have approved the installation. Mr. Dallas asked if they considered leasing streetlights. Mr. Dorrill said yes, it is a municipal lease. As a financing mechanism for a client, he leased streetlights and geo- textile tubing for lake bank enhancements. Mr. Iaizzo asked if leasing is cost effective. Mr. Dorrill said yes. Generally, the interest rate is 5% - 6 %. Mr. Dallas asked how long does a lease last. Mr. Dorrill said a typical lease is for six to seven years. Mr. Dallas said leasing would free up funds. Mr. Levy said over the longer term, looking at pathways, they are dark and need lighting, but the bollards are very expensive. Mr. Dorrill said it is always possible to special assess those residents interested in enhanced specialty lighting. He does not believe roundabouts are "getting any traction in the community" either. Mr. Gibson suggested pavers and cobblestones at crossings, but first, they need to determine what projects they are going to implement. Mr. Iaizzo said they should keep in mind maintenance costs. Mr. Gibson said pavers and cobblestones last a long time and are easy to maintain. Mr. Dorrill said pavers very easy to maintain and he believes the community would support that project. They need to be realistic about costs. Some projects are extremely expensive. Mr. Moffatt asked Mr. Levy to clarify the crosswalk improvements projects he is referring. Mr. Levy said the Community Improvement Plan workshop consensus was for brick pavers and cobblestones. Mr. Moffatt said $500,000 more to do cobblestones. Wilson Miller recommended installing crosswalks across two sides at certain intersections. Gulf Park and Pelican Bay Boulevard have four. No decision made. 1093 1611 A 151 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 8, 2010 Mr. Gibson said in his experience working with architects is they give nice package numbers, but when they get estimates from outside contractors, the cost could increase dramatically. He suggested they get estimates from local contractors. Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Lukasz said Wilson Miller's unit costs appear accurate. Mr. Moffatt said there are twenty -seven crosswalks at fourteen locations and costs do not include designs or permits. Mr. Levy said the costs do not include design and permits, so they are not real totals. Mr. Dorrill said they could obtain design and permitting cost information from Wilson Miller. Mr. Levy said regarding pathway lighting of dark areas, no communities have complained. The largest stretch of dark area is along North Pointe Drive. Several years ago, they were asked to put lights along on Vanderbilt Beach Drive for Breakwater. Another dark area was along Bridgeway, but it turned out the residents wanted a crosswalk to get to the Philharmonic, so they built the crosswalk instead. Roadway median landscaping is expensive and they should delay implementation. Mr. Dallas asked if upgrading landscaping was something the Services Division could do. Mr. Lukasz said they have some funds in the budget to perform maintenance of some portions. They will address some lower elevation landscaping along the medians at the bull nose. Mr. Levy said landscaping costs are included in the crosswalk projects. Mr. Dallas said yes, but it was very expensive. Mr. Dorrill said generally, they would remove some of the mature Sabal Palms and replace with specialty vegetation. Mr. Lukasz said they were also planning to remove the Sabal Palms for better visibility and other high maintenance vegetation. Wilson Miller recommended drip irrigation and they would need to modify the sprinkler heads. They would bring in some contractors to do some of the work, but use as much in -house labor as possible. Mr. Gibson said at the golf course, irrigation is limited to use about half a million gallons of water daily. They need one million gallons to keep the course green. The community wastes about two million gallons daily through irrigation inefficiency. Mr. Dorrill said they could gauge public sentiment and do a pilot project. If well received, they could then go forward with a three to five year project using as much in -house labor as possible. Mr. Levy said regarding streetlights the Committee consensus was toward replacing poles. He suggested they wait and implement over time. Mr. Dallas agreed and said they should implement along Pelican Bay Boulevard first. 1094 6! 1 A 1 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 8, 2010 Mr. Levy said he could understand installing improved streetlights and poles in some of the neighborhoods, but not on Pelican Bay Boulevard. Mr. Dallas said he has heard many comments that Pelican Bay Boulevard is unattractive. Mr. Gibson agreed and said Pelican Marsh has very attractive lighting and poles on their main streets. Mr. Moffatt asked Mr. Lukasz how much they would need to increase the ad valorem assessment to build a reserve fund. Mr. Lukasz said they calculated how much they would need to raise the millage to save $250,000,$500,000, and $1,000,000. To raise $500,000, they would need to raise the assessment to $46.47. Mr. Moffatt said they could stagger the assessment to raise $500,000 over three years. Mr. Dallas said the millage rate is 0.0538. The assessment would be based on how fast they would like to accumulate the money. It could be a dramatic increase. Mr. Levy said they have been carrying forward the ad valorem assessment and transferring into the Capital Improvements Fund 322. They would have to address the ad valorem assessment as separate. Mr. Dorrill said the ad valorem assessment appears as a separate line item from the non ad valorem assessment on the Property Appraiser's Truth in Millage or TRIM notice. The ad valorem assessment for street lighting is a small number. Mr. Levy said the grand totals on the sheet include paver crosswalks, pavers plus cobblestones, and lights with and without new poles. The cost difference between the standard striping and signage and the enhancements is great. Mr. Dorrill said for April 7 Board meeting they would ask Wilson Miller to put together a sheet similar to Mr. Levy's to show where they are heading. Mr. Levy said they have the costs covered to implement the initial projects he suggested. Mr. Dorrill said streetlights could be leased, and then they could spend their real cash on crosswalks with pavers and cobblestones. The County probably has a master lease program in place. Staff would confirm the County's budget schedule, have Mr. Levy's sheet reformatted to show options for staggering the ad valorem assessment to spread across five or six years, and look into leasing lights. Mr. Dallas asked what the difference is between Clam Bay projects and water management projects. Mr. Lukasz said water management projects essentially maintain the storm water system and retention lakes. Mr. Dorrill said water management includes a huge drainage component, as well as water quality enhancements to clean the water. Mr. Levy asked where the water drains. 1095 1611'A151 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 8, 2010 Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Lukasz explained that the water drains to the onsite retention lakes until it hits the control elevation. The overflow heads to the major water collection system and then to the spreader swales. Mr. Levy asked if the Moorings have a similar water management system, referring to Moorings Bay along Crayton Road, south of Seagate Drive, not Moorings Park, the retirement community along Goodlette -Frank Road. Mr. Dorrill said yes. The Moorings utilizes a different drainage basin, but it is similar. The water drains to the nearest canal that in this case is under Pine Ridge Road across Airport- Pulling Road, and heads straight to Naples Bay. Final discharge water drains from Naples Bay to the Gordon River, and finally to the Gulf of Mexico. The City of Naples has water drainage problems. Since they installed it sixty years ago, the City's wastewater treatment plant only partially treats sewage effluent that flows straight into the Gordon River. The City needs to dilute the impaired water and they possibly want to dilute it through Clam Bay. Mr. Levy said they spend $800,000 per year on water management. Mr. Gibson asked how Pelican Bay's water management system compares to Pelican Marsh's water management system. Mr. Dorrill said Pelican Marsh's water management system is similar to Pelican Bay's with three drainage basins. The main drainage basin is the Cocohatchee River. Smaller drainage basins are the Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road canals. Pelican Bay's water management system has an enhanced water treatment process and Pelican Marsh's design and pretreatment parameters are similar. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 2:34 p.m. s ichael Levy, Chairman 1096 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 4/13/2010 3 :21:03 PM ivakut Residential Uars: 761729 7617.29 Collier County 7$too 7$601.70.0 29 7617 jeeled Rata~ F.RU or Milkage $99.193 5252.977 Pelican Bay Services Division 161 11151 jested Total Rate: ERU or Nnage $352.17 Fiscal Year 2011 $362.45 Actual Rate (FY 2010) $349.86 0.0531 0.0000 Operating Budget $370.65 dual Dolladhlifiage Cbmp $2.31 0.00069 General Fuads Capital Projects Funds 0.66% Water Community Street Close Bay Uoiaeaned G p ita ToW Management Beautification Lights Security System Assets Projects All Funds Revenue Carryfonvard $0 542,500 $0 $0 $o $0 $42,500 Transfer from TDC 50 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $o Interest Income 53,300 $8,500 $1,300 $500 $0 $7,700 521,300 Plan Review Fee Income $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $1,500 Interfund Transfers (Fund 111) $0 50 $0 $78,300 $0 $0 $78,300 Assessment or Advalorem Tax Levy $755,600 $1 27 000 $28:9,400 $78,300 $0 $O S3,0506300 Total Revenue 1 $760,400 $1,939,500 $290,700 $157,100 $0 $7,700 $3,155,400 Appropriation Projections Personal Services $193,100 $952,300 $87,900 $1,133,300 Administration: Indirect Cost Reimbursements S117,600 $0 $6,700 $124,300 Other contractual Services 521,300 $28,000 $20,800 $70,100 Telephone - Service Contracts 5600 $400 $600 $1,600 Telephone - Direct Line $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $10,500 Postage, Freight & UPS $3,000 $3,000 52,000 S8,000 Rent - Buildings $11,100 $11,400 $11,100 $33,600 Rent - Equipment $2,500 $2,600 $2,500 $7,600 Insurance -General $17,900 $500 5400 $18,800 Information Tech Automation Allocation $4,100 $4,200 S4,100 $12,400 Printing or Binding - Outside vendors $2,300 $2,600 $0 $4,9W Legal Advertising $2,000 $2,000 So $4,W0 Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. 52,000 $2,000 $0 $4,000 Office Supplies - General $2,500 $3,000 5800 $6,300 Other Training & Educational Exp. $1,100 $000 so S2,600 Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 White Goods - Additional $18,300 $16,900 $19,800 $55,000 Field Services: Engineering $12,000 $0 $0 $62,100 $74,100 Plan Review Fees $1,500 $0 $0 $1,500 Electrical Contractors so $0 $7,300 $7,300 Other Contractual Services $1,000 $29,500 $1,500 $83,500 $115,500 Pest Control $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 Tree Trimming $30,000 $35,900 so $65,900 Temporary Labor $42,400 $204,500 $0 $246,900 Berm & Swale Maintenance $14,000 $0 $0 $14,000 Water Use Charges $u $83,800 $0 $93,800 Replanting Program $8,500 $51,600 $0 $60,100 Celluar Telephones/Radios $500 $3,200 $500 $4200 Trash & Dumpst r Fees $8,300 $24,900 so $33,200 Water Quality Testing $22,600 $0 so so $22,600 Insurance - Vehicles $3,600 $9,300 $1,100 S14,000 Insurance - General $2,600 $12,200 5800 $15,600 Electricity $0 $3,400 $44,200 547,600 Fcrtiliznrs, Herbicides, Chem $98,400 $62,000 $0 $160,400 Sprialder System Maint $0 $30,000 SO $30,000 Mulch Requirements $0 $60,200 $0 $60,200 Equipment Rental $0 $5,500 $0 $5,500 Licenses and Permits so 5800 so $800 Repairs & Maintenance & Fuel $8,000 $77,300 $2,400 $500 $88,200 Minor Operating Supplies $0 $3,000 $0 $2,400 $5,400 Employee Uniforms $1,100 S9,400 $0 $10,500 Other Operating Supplies $2,500 $11,500 $0 $500 $14,500 Light, Bulb and Ballast $0 $0 $12,400 $12,400 Personal Safety Equipment $500 $3,000 $500 $4,000 Paint supplies $0 $800 S0 $900 Traffic Signs 5o $3,000 SO $3,000 White Goods - Additional $0 $3,300 $14,500 $17,900 capital Ontiay $14,200 $58,600 $14,200 $0 $0 $97,000 Other Chargen/Few Expenditure Reserve so Tax Collector $23,400 $59,600 $9,000 52,400 so $0 $94,400 PrWertyAPpmL- $22,600 $52,900 $5,900 $1,600 So $0 $93,000 Revenue Reserve S39 00 $101400 $15-200 54100 $0 $0 $160500 Total Appropriations 5760,400 1,939 500 $290,700 $157100 50 $O 147 700 ivakut Residential Uars: 761729 7617.29 7$too 7$601.70.0 29 7617 jeeled Rata~ F.RU or Milkage $99.193 5252.977 0.0538 O 0000 51028 jested Total Rate: ERU or Nnage $352.17 0.0538 $1028 $362.45 Actual Rate (FY 2010) $349.86 0.0531 0.0000 520.78 $370.65 dual Dolladhlifiage Cbmp $2.31 0.00069 (S10.50) (S8.I9) 0.66% 100.00% -Sam% -221• O O V o `16 a � ad _ w y qt H N � _ N NO M O CC C V �1 00 N1 a O H O O O 4L H H V a H H O N _ O _" � fI4 .may O H H CC H ar H v 1r � y N 7 H a�� H w UrNiaO ^ H Y �hg �%, � U w N O 8 � V ONO iv t+1 H n LL 0. Y �iQu. F coos 41 ! ..r Z N I N L U. O � a _ r � " 3 °f4. m O s G g i �= 4 4�' ° a g C G CS do H h qq h s• H ale, N n M P H Q H y H H �O c Oop 00 = y �D �! r H vi co H h H W) _ n O - M H � 00 = iii H f h H H O N _ O _" � fI4 .may O H v H ar H v H y N H H h s• H ale, N n M P H Q H y H H �O c Oop 00 = y �D �! r H vi co H h H W) _ n O - M 00 = iii H f h H H O vtVl O _" � fI4 .may O H v H ar H v r N H H H w ^ H Y � a � U w N NC. N r G y y a, -a N L .-� 0. Y �iQu. F ! N N I N L U. $ o °a � a _ no °� o " 3 °f4. m O s G g i �= 4 4�' J% u L O C G CS C(3 qq gg 0 V 40. 8l� ° ° 161111 n M 00 = iii H f h H H O H H v H 0 H v r N w H O � a � U w v H H f/! P N N M�MM� 69 e7 v 00 = iii H f h �ppp fA H v cr H 0 H v r w O � a � U w v NC. N r G y y a, -a N L �iQu. F N I N L i Cr o � d O Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Clam Bav Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Revenue Projections Carryforward Interest Income Transfer from TDC Transfers from Fund 11 1 Assessment Levy Appropriation Projection Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance (511061) Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Water Quality Testing Program Repairs dt Maintenance Ivfrnor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Clam Bay Capital Projects (511051) F;nginecring Consultant Services Other Contractual Services Other Fees Br Charges: Tax Collector Properly Appraiser Revenue Reserve 16111 AIS" so 5500 so 578,300 $78,300 Total Availloble Funds: 5157.100 562,100 583,500 so 5500 52,400 5500 Total Operating Egwndl/ures S t49 000 so s0 Total L+cos.MM Eahencements so 52,400 S1,600 54,100 Total Other Fees & Charges: 58,100 Total Appropriations: 5157,100 Collier County Pelican Bay Sel-vices Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement or Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010 Revenue: Canvforward Assevsment Lny 1 ranster from Fund 322 Interest Income rm Funding lnterfund Transfers (Fund 111) Carrvforward of Encumbrances Total Revenue Appropriations: Operations (183800) Fnginccring (hhcr Contractual Water Quality Repairs & Maintenance Postage Fri Minor Opera►ing Eqpt. Computer Software Other Operating Supplies Total Operations Ecosystem Enhancements (183805) Engineering Offier Contractual Total Capital Projects Other Rees & Charges "tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees and Charges Total Appropriations 1611"'A 154 Adopted Adopted Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2009 FY 2010 Espeaded Mar./Sept Received FY 2011 Budget Budget Year-To-Dak 2010 Expended Budget 5350,900 so $106,100 $102,400 590,620 $6,600 S97 ,220 578,300 $0 $0 $o $Q 5o so so 51,046 $0 $1,046 $500 511.000 So So S0 so $214.000 $102,400 $0 $102,400 S 102,400 $78300 $0 50 $0 so $0 $331,100 Ss 700 5916" 510910" 66 6 $157100 5125,600 583,100 S3,300 579,800 583,100 562,100 587,100 583,500 56,240 576,500 582,740 583,500 S2,900 So so $0 $0 5900 $500 $o $500 5500 $500 $o $0 $o so 5o 51.000 S2,400 so 5500 5500 52,400 so so so so so 57,500 $500 so 5250 $250 $500 $225,000 $170000 59,540 S157,5S0 5167,090 $149,000 580,000 $25,000 $13,175 52,500 S15,675 5o $15,000 $350,000 $0 $25,000 $25.000 so "S,000 I S37S,000 S13,175 S27-s00 S46,675 S8 S3 i00 $3,200 S1,812 so $1,812 52,400 52,200 52,100 S1,535 $0 $1,535 S1,600 $5,600 55.400 Sn so $0 $4,100 Sl 510,700 53,347 so 53.347 $8,100 EmAlas S SS5, 70Y 062 5185,050 $211,112 5157,100 1611 A15R Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 Net Income Fund Balance October 1, 2009 (Actual) ($10,446) 5382,600 Current Year Transfer from Fund 133 S0 Fund Balance September 30, 2010 (Projected) 372,144 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2011 Opening Balance (I"I /10) $372,154 Reserved f'or Previously Budgeted Program /Projects Transfer to Carryforward S0 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: 537,829 Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2011 (Projected) 537,829 16114154 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2011 Capital Projects Fund In•igation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) bnprovements Revenue Summary C amforwaW Interest hicome Assessment I..evv $0 $7,700 $0 Total Available Funds: $7.700 Appropriation Projection Capital Projects Inigation System & Cotwmunity landscape ( Including Handscape) Improvements Pelican Bay Handscape Renovations (500661) Engineering s0 Other Contractual Services so Landscape Materials s0 Mulch Requirements SO Other Operating Supplies s0 Total imprDvements 96 Lake Bank Enhancements (510261) Engineering $0 Other Contractual Services s0 Total bnprovemeats s0 Pelican Bay Hardacape Improvements (510281) Engineering s0 Other Contractual Services SO Other Operating Supplies so Total Improvements 'Fax Collector SO Property Appraiser $0 Revenue Reserve SO Total Other Fen & Charges: s0 Total Appropriations: SO Equivalent Residential Units 7617.29 Projected ERU Rate: S0.00 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FV 2011 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiiscal Veer Ending Septemher 30, 2010 Received Anticipated Total Variance Budget Amended Expended Mar./Sept. Received Over FY 2010 Budget ; ear -To-Dal 2010 Expended (Under) Revenue: SSW SO SO SO 5500 Assessment Levy $55,900 549,566 53,500 $53,056 52,834 Interest Income 519,800 5429 55,500 55,929 $13,871 1 ransfer from Other Funds S0 SO SO 50 SO Miscellaneous Income 50 SO 50 SO SO Developer Contribution SO S0 50 SO S0 Carryforward of Rolled Ern SO SO SO SO SO Carryforward S2,929,500 SO SO $0 52,029,5W Total Revenue 52,1051200 549,995 $9,000 558,995 52,046,205 Appropriations: SSW SO SO SO 5500 Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (50066 1) 890,225 $67.949 SO $67,949 Engineering Fees 5170,218 542,227 565,355 5107,582 $62,636 Other Contractual Services S2,036,227 SO $5,000 $5,000 $2,031,227 Landacape Materials 50 SO SO 50 Sri Maintenance Landscaping S0 SO SO 50 SO Other Grating Supplies w SO SO SO SO 522,776 52 206,445 542,227 $70.355 $112,582 52,093,863 Lake Bank Enhancement (510261) Engineering Foes SSW SO SO SO 5500 Other Contrnotual Services 890,225 $67.949 SO $67,949 S22,276 Sprinkler System Maintena So SO 50 $0 SO Maintenance Landscaping s0 50 S0 so SO Landscape Materials SO SO SO 50 SQ Other Operating Supplies $0 SO SO SO SO 590,725 567,949 SO 567,949 522,776 Total Operating Expenses S2,M,170 5110,176 570,355 5180,531 52,116,639 1611 A151 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FV 2011 16114-1-154 Capital Projects Farad hrigatioo System & Camnunity Landscape ( Including Har•dscape) Improvements Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Focal Year Ending September 30, 2010 Received Anticipated Total Variance Budget Expended MarJSept Received Over FY 2010 Year -To-Vat 2010 Expended (Under) Other Fees & Charges Tax Coilcctor 514,000 5991 SO 5991 513,009 Property Appraiser S13,800 5837 $0 5837 S)2,%3 Revenue Reserve $23,900 SO so So 523,900 Total Other Fens & Chgs. $51,700 51,828 So 51,828 549,872 Total Appropriations S2,348,870 3112,084 S79,355 5182,1" 52,166,511 Net Income (S 123,364 ) I-und Balance October 1, 2009 (Achral) 51,023,000 Current Year Transfer from Fund 109, 778 51,088,371 Fund Balance Septamber• 30, 2010 (Projected) 51,98$,007 Fund Balance Abocations - Fuca! Year 2011 Reserved for Capital Outlay Ire & Landscaping Analysis (Opening Balance 10/01/10) 51,988,007 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfers from Funds 109, 320,778 S374,21Y0 Reserved for Prewmaly, Budgded Programs/Projects Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Carryforward SO Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay 5245,568 Total Fund Balance - Sepftn ber 30, 2010 (Projected) 5245,568 1611 A15� PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD & PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN JOINT WORKSHOP MINUTES MARCH 12, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee conducted a joint public workshop, Friday, March 12 at 8:30 AM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Members Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman Michael Levy Keith J. Dallas, Vice Chairman Gerald A. Moffatt Tom Cravens Theodore Raia Geoffrey S. Gibson Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Members Ronnie Bellone, Co-Vice Chair Noreen Murray Merlin Lickhalter, Co -Vice Chair Ralph Ohlers Carson Beadle Mary Anne Womble Rose Mary Everett Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Pelican Bay Foundation Staff Jim Hoppensteadt, President Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Suzanne Minadeo, Executive Assistant Wilson Miller Team Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect, Wilson Miller Steve Sammons, Sr. Associate and Landscape Architect, Wilson Miller Jeff Perry, Transportation Planner, Wilson Miller ROLL CALL RECEIVE® APR 16 2010 Roard of County Commissioners Fiala Halas Henning I Coyle _ Coletta With the exception of Mr. John Iaizw and Mr. Hunter Hansen, all Board members were present. With the exception of Mr. Bob Uek, all Strategic Planning Committee members were present. Board candidate, Mr. John Chandler was also present. AGENDA Mr. Dallas said the next joint workshop is March 31 and a community town hall meeting on April 5. This leaves two more opportunities to discuss and make decisions about which projects to present to the community before the April 14 "wrap up." He urged the group to stay focused today, so they may continue moving forward. Ms. Bellone distributed and reviewed the agenda. Items included reviewing prior decisions, distributing a "straw man" document for members to complete, then tally, review and discuss. The purpose of the "straw man" is to obtain consensus of the timing for implementation of projects under consideration, i.e., pathways, crosswalks, and lighting. Because the "straw man" is a recap of what they understand the group decided at prior workshops, there may be discrepancies and is not set in stone. They would allow forty-five minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss what they should present at the Pelican Bay Foundation's annual meeting on March 29 regarding the Community Improvement Plan. Misc. Corres: Date: 89 Item #: Copies to: Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee 1611 154 Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop Minutes March 12, 2010 CROSSWALKS The group discussed preferences for crosswalk construction materials and pros and cons of fire colored brick pavers versus concrete pavers. Fire colored brick pavers would increase cost but have a higher visibility. Concrete pavers cannot be stained because the resulting color would be inconsistent. Concrete pavers can be sealed and must be done every few years. Both have the same durability or lifeline. Consensus was to construct crosswalks with brick pavers or brick pavers with cobblestones. One vote was for thermoplastic striping. Consensus of locations to "test" and implement crosswalks immediately included the Commons, St. Raphael, the North Tram station, and lastly, Hammock Oak. They could implement crosswalks at other locations over a five -year period. At prior workshops, consensus was to install electrical conduits at all crosswalks because the cost is minimal initially and not to install flashing lights unless other measures proven ineffective. Regarding the North Tram station crosswalk, Wilson Miller recommended closing the median, eliminating the turnaround, with a new cut to align with the parking lot driveway, contrary to consensus of members to do so without a new cut. PATHWAYS Regarding pathways, initial consensus was to implement widening pathways to eight feet wide, along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard in sections. Consensus was to implement the section from the Commons to Bay Colony immediately. Second preference was to widen pathways and implement over a five -year period the segment north of Bay Colony and last, the segment south of the Commons. No decision made regarding preferred construction material. U.S. 41 BOUNDARY According to Wilson Miller, any solid, uninterrupted boundary would improve safety and security. Perceived noise affects property values, so if it is important to the community to reduce U.S. 41 noise, then a solid wall is a legitimate consideration. Sound abatement is minimal regardless of the solid wall construction material used. The panel wall has foam insulation covered with concrete. Overall noise would not increase and a small reduction in decibel level may be perceived as beneficial. The panel wall is easier to install than a concrete wall, but is $500,000 more expensive. Consensus was to construct a solid concrete wall, eight feet high starting from Pelican Bay Boulevard south going north along U.S. 41 implemented immediately. Appropriate landscaping would camouflage. Remaining sections could implement over five to ten years. Other considerations were costs, easements, permitting, and how to fund privately owned property boundary construction. all 161 11, A15'" Pelican Bay Services Division Board and Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Community Improvement Plan Joint Workshop Minutes March 12, 2010 LIGHTING Consensus was to replace metal halide fixtures with LED fixtures, and replace street light poles with extended arms, also. Regarding timing, they should replace in phases first along Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive over a period of one to five years. The remainder they should replace over a five to ten year period. BOLLARDS According to Wilson Miller, the pathways at St. Raphael have an immediate need for lighting. They recommended installing bollards that look like "R2132 that has LED lighting activated by sensor. Consensus was to install the "R2D2" bollard with LED fixtures and sensor activation at St. Raphael immediately and defer any other bollard decisions until the traditional design catches up with the technology. THE COMMONS Consensus was to reconfigure the Commons parking lot to separate pedestrian activities from vehicle traffic immediately or over a one to five year period. Under immediate consideration is to relocate the tram station and construct a pedestrian walkway. All other decisions for more elaborate plans deferred. MARCH 29 PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION ANNUAL MEETING Mr. Hoppensteadt said the members should apprise the community of the Community Improvement Plan process only. The group has not made enough progress to answer the questions that the community would probably ask. They could publish plans in the Pelican Bay Post later, asking for community comments and feedback on member decisions. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at noon. M70/1", "PRinZ15" 'Z" i n 91 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/29/201012:46:55 PM 9 m n o El 0 0 N En pi rt (D El) O °' a (D 11 C a (D �s r 0 O �-► a (D •1 eL r� C .� (D (; o CD 0 o lAD O 0 O rt r ! CD � � O o' CL M CIQ co m m ao cD 0 n -0 E� O O rt rL M O m 0 00 °OQ CD OQ tirt m� n � O � � o a� x Q- o GQ m g N CD � rt 10 . ao n Dj .O n m ((D CL N OQQ o El .O O CrQ o `C O' O cD 0 O.. s (D eN-r O N OQ O O (D � n � (D lD -1 - x,-6.1- 1 A t 9 O O O c �-05 0 o r* 0 _.a O M 5E;- R:n CL q C. CD (D rt 0� o+ 0 ::r U>i i a t]. rt (IQ .-. o a O o `rtD w lD O O' fD r* I_D i G + U, C) a- CD 23 o -. CD Q. f�/1 pOj fD N, �C vi ON N C Q N CD O O N N O O � o N fD rt w O �m 0 A y fD O r- 0 0 O c� o N ry, o O O O (/] N 0 N fD o CD o. CD (D N Eg O O (D ,y O ,O rt O (DD rt fD � o y rt O C C o rt N � rt (D 0 i -j CD V) �. Pt ►� H � � C� C N � CD CD CD fro ocv ►O CD H CD CD C N N C is. C N o frtD C (D o �* o 0 o m '' c O C O o A p7 rt N O o o n :7 9 w O ►+� rt CD � b O fD N N N .p G. r m cn O N W N V CD -s �. CD o. 00 00 00 N a (D r o 0 IQ (D �t i -j CD V) �. Pt ►� H � � C� C N � CD CD CD fro ocv ►O CD H CD CD C N N C is. o su rL s O N r A y O O O W y N O O O O Vrtl r E rK in E 10 (D.. o A ,¢1v Z ° O y rtoxtz t. d O o m D w V ►-► ~' O O `� � cD � 0 0 A O O Ai (D ^•Y rri O r O 0 OFQ cD SU O (AD W 0 El El y N � o' O O O cn O In O cD �s C/1 cD (D � � 3 O W .-: V OD 00 A fD y r 0 0 0 A o 0 G � VI � A O c� CD UQ 0 rt x O (D y (D rt (CD 0 'A. O y w O tl. O m .O O y A O C G. cr (D O (A (D m ao 0 0 ss. N rt (D Q.. rt fD 1611 A151 r-r 4 o 0 Q, ao O � (D 0 � O y� O N CD su �o y n su y artt o ° o Vf � 0 (D of �1. ro CA �- Y rt O rD O rt y O O G7 Ln 0 y o Vl CD cr N (CD 01 O O N O O O O N in. fD O O QQ O ..d rt N rt O m (D fD cD 00 I O 0 'O A rt fD i1. rt lD b C n Sv ►� o �e CD o ° ° "' f'f O 'L3 CD 00 CD Z rt En e••h a. `C su Ul s O N O O O W O y N O O O O N o r o o Z ° O y m V ►-► ~' O O `� � cD O (D ^•Y r O 0 OFQ cD 1611 A151 r-r 4 o 0 Q, ao O � (D 0 � O y� O N CD su �o y n su y artt o ° o Vf � 0 (D of �1. ro CA �- Y rt O rD O rt y O O G7 Ln 0 y o Vl CD cr N (CD 01 O O N O O O O N in. fD O O QQ O ..d rt N rt O m (D fD cD 00 I O 0 'O A rt fD i1. rt lD b C n Sv ►� o �e CD o ° ° "' f'f O 'L3 CD 00 CD Z rt En e••h a. `C �t O O Cfl 0 K CD rn 0 -i 1611 �-3 a°a O = El O O O El O CD (D r7 , "% o i cn o 0 (D o • e f-+ CD w En O w CA N N O w ti CA iD ON r•f O 1� N O O rn 'A 1 51 ° w w � o w 3� o✓ CD CD ti CD tz w —3 C b 'C] O O 06) lz •-- CD CD y N H rF A "7 O tn y � � y o a' Co cD O C O CD n to O O y rol Q, n y w Q. ~ CD .O �s fD m .y O O n CD W w W O O Ln (A b CD w "d tz m W �C '•S 1-, O o N O p• En O c,C � "cJ O O 'o CD OCS (D e-r C `C - n -s 0 CA r~1 FQ �w o �~�'� < c �Mw C o z ° 1 CD E. ° w 0. n n C• � „� E o ° 'O � ° C7 � �• r0r ° n x� 0 �•i ^Y m ° ° O ro w p C ►wi X ^mss 7G cD � ° y � W �w0- r, G1sy O ���y ,.dm C70 w A W bc7 CA .� w N F ► f-� 1--► F•� i-� Ln 1•-� fT .P CD Ln O w %0 %0 %0 %D %D 1.0 %0 U7 %o .P CJl CD ti P c�D L�. m "f r 0 0 m I �-3 a°a O = El O O O El O CD (D r7 , "% o i cn o 0 (D o • e f-+ CD w En O w CA N N O w ti CA iD ON r•f O 1� N O O rn 'A 1 51 ° w w � o w 3� o✓ CD CD ti CD tz w —3 C b 'C] O O 06) lz •-- CD CD y N H rF A "7 O tn y � � y o a' Co cD O C O CD n to O O y rol Q, n y w Q. ~ CD .O �s fD m .y O O n CD W w W O O Ln (A b CD w "d tz m W �C '•S 1-, O o N O p• En O c,C � "cJ O O 'o CD OCS (D e-r C `C A 51 161 1 --- r* ,� � �- d � N �* •-� � 'Irl o o i F o0 o . �. a. �. o cr o P. � fD � o o IWD m r* x a� O O v aq (D N �• 0 N O O JQ N -- COD • (DD IID v CAD A, f9D 0 � , CD IOD CD 1: CD 0 '1 ( PI ID C CCD C r* W d rt Off" r•r n rt "C3 .... " .O v "Y 'C3 O "O Q ... cD �. y cD CL ... O 1.01 0 r CD�DS o 5 ., CD C o C o G CD D C O � O O PC CD p, . p rt V CD Cr a b O fD CD rt ° O ` O O O rf CD O � N "s N( e r CD . cp CD 0 En C+ r+ G. AO s 0 CD O aq O'' 0 (D ¢. � CD O fv cn fD CA O „� "C� CD n d ... Q- aQ CD fD cD N «_ 'C3 r�r ° O w m O C fD 0 n� (D (7 e0-t ID C� ` ccDD d CD 'C O vii O "� G. n .ADS rA � CD `C r•r c�D "� �' CD (�D aq O n f D f`�'D Fi tD y aq Oq CD CD ar 06) o `�° rn o r° �• c vpi °tn o O cD (D f1v a r 0 m o (D CrQ cD oa - o ". or ° w x QO CD �. (D (D C W CD 0. aq CD - 3 O O O a O CD CD o O CD "TJ rT O 0 C ¢ fD fD �. "� ;D, CD `� 0 Al n N f�9 p rr cD 4r+ :3 n 2) O ¢, (D '� S�• cD tD Cp < �. �O�, C a aq O su &I �. O cD p p. p � �. " i0 0 p Ln -i � r•r 0- rt rr O ,+ CD cC ,O '3' — ... fD r�•r a00 O. ° Q � ?' O• aq U7 cD ((DD CCD O� CD 6 O !� Or ('D rh CCD sm sm. p c<D O C 6 W CD CD (D• f pj rt aq aq MA fD '-j CD r CD 03 o cn ►•�� u� cn ao O n �• o o p Q- 7ACp vi Q.o G a ..r, O Q C 1611. ' A 1�iA co = C o� `° oO� ch to 0, EAT A cD 0 on CD CrQ CD Ln CD CD 0 ..3 �Oi ryr O• 00 O fD A 0 '� A (D C CQ (DD `G "� p� A O C►�Q• CQ O "o '� o f(D O ;D CD (D (IQ «7 «7 fD N fD• :S .�.i O rT f�D N W CD fD �. y '•� tD fD 0 O. O rO-r rO•r c� `� a OQ CQ O rt 0. w rC•r x COD C+ C+ o o O 0 tD rw-r 0 O0 p • • .O O F� r-r r A� CC ■-r, CD "O fD O rt (D m G O O O 0 O• "� CrJ L].• fD ;fl., rA rr r .`�.: On rr ►-• CQ r.., `C O .� G. t�D COq �• a `. �. „�"",, COD O v 00 m pj W h rAr O O C-+ 0 N El O fD O n• fD y fD cn �3. 0 fD G CD rY 0 A N p w O O O O cD is o .nj 0. O o:� to/l :� SD (D 0- OQ gr "CSC `G O oUQQ �y o Pv �O "" to + su rA Q fD W O O =1 M cG O . CD C CD t� r0-r p, CDr -- ,BCD v0 CD 0 c o O y 0 . 0 O 0 O 0 O CQ N r � `C E; CO , Q O _ CD O cD CQ• fD CD rY CD 0 O O CD M. Q= 0 cD � O n O o El CD y O N CD C' v� CD ,O•n O n y 0 CD CD CD 00 C `G �' "�� Vii 06) "0� ►-+ CD 0s r0-r OCOQ` C O ?• r+ I 0 CD 0 C 4 r-r �" (D O 0 o M `� C CD a� o x 00 o w � C o C r, o It% 0 CCD 03 0 11 rt (DD W G7 O m C O. 0' O \ CD N N 0 \ N O � O � O 1611 IA151 PHILIPS Notes: Job: 0 GARDCO Type: LED BOLLARD BRM830/831 /833 DOME TOP LOUVER FEATURING BRM834/835/837 BEVEL TOP LOUVER MOTION RESPONSE GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Gardco's dome top and bevel top LED Louver Bollards provide uniform illumination, superior spacings and solid vandal resistance. Rugged extruded and cast construction with silicone seals and gasketing assure years of trouble free service. The BRM830 and BRM834 are complete assemblies with an aluminum base. BRM831and BRM835 head only units affix to custom architectural elements. BRM833 and BRM837 luminaires include a concrete base assembly. Gardco's patent - pending stack- louver LED technology and Motion Response provide maximized light output and maximum energy savings. Dome Top Bevel Top • .1 I PREFIX HEIGHT LED CONTROL LED SELECTION LIGHTED COVERAGE VOLTAGE FINISH Enter the order code into the appropriate box above. Note: Gardco reserves the right to refuse a configuration. Not all combinations and configurations are valid. Refer to notes below for exclusions and limitations. For questions or concerns, please consult the factory. • LED Louvered Bollard Dome Top I Bevel Top BRM830 BRM834 with Cast Aluminum Base 42" 36" BRM8311 BRM835' Head Only 11" BRM833 BRM837 with Natural Concrete Base 42" BRM833B BRM837B with Beige Concrete Base 42" BRM833G I BRM837G I with Grey Concrete Base 42" 1. Not Available in 277V or 347V. I CONTROL MR Motion Response LEDs stay on Low Level (8 watts) when no motion is present. LEDs increase to full light output (41 watts) when motion detected. CWL Constant Wattage Full Light Output Full light output only (41 watts). No motion sensor included. (Note: A variation of LED wattage ( +/- 8 %) may occur due to LED manufacturer's forward volt specification and ambient temperature.) COVERAGE LIGHTED 360 360° lighted louvers 180 180° lighted louvers (Provides reduced backside light.) LED SELECTION cool white CW Cool White 6500 °K - 75 CRI Neutral White NW Neutral White 4,300 °K - 75 CRI Colors Consul- factory LA Amber for lead times LR Red on LEDs other LG Green than CW and LB Blue NW. Motion Response (MR) Bollards 120-240 Accepts 120V through 240V, 50hz to 60hz input. 2772' 3472.3 CWL Bollards UNIV Accepts 120V through 277V, 50hz to 60hz input. Voltage Notes: 2 Motion Response (MR) bollards in 277V and all bollards in 347V require and include a step -down transformer in bollard. 3 Not available in BRM831 or BRM835. 34723 I I BRP Bronze Paint LGP Light Granite Paint OC Optional Color Paint BLP Black Paint DGP Dark Granite Paint Specify RAL designation ex: OC- RAL7024 WP White Paint LSP Light Sandstone Paint SC Special Color Paint NP Natural Aluminum Paint DSP Dark Sandstone Paint Specify. Must supply color chip VP Verde Green Paint RBP Red Brick Paint Philips Gardeo 1611 Clovis Barker Road San Marcos, TX 78666 (800) 227-0768 (512) 753 -1000 FAX: (512) 753 -7855 www.sitelighting.com ® Copyright 2010 Philips Group. All Rights Reserved. International Copyright Secured. Philips Gardco reserves the right to change materials or modify the design of its product without notification as part of the company's continuing product improvement program. G20P003Po210 LED Bevel Top Louver Bollard General Information I SiteLighting.com - Architectural 0... Page 1 of 4 1, 6'1 A15 SiteLighting.com: Architectural Outdoor Lighting Solutions featuring Gardco and Emco Luminaires and Poles Outdoor Lighting Products and Information for the Professional Lighting Designer • Go to Search Box (Access Key; "s "). • Go to Full Site Navigation. • Go to Accessibility Page (Access Key: "a "). 11 LED Bevel Top Louver Bollard The Philips Gardco 830 Series LED Bollard with Demand Response combines refined aesthetics, exceptional light output and maximum energy savings to create the most sophisticated and versatile LED walkway lighting product available today. It begins, of course, with impeccable form - a simple, seamless design that eases into any location, yet retains the rugged strength, all- weather sealing and vandal resistance necessary for the punishing environments where bollards are used. What truly sets the 830 Series apart, however, is its incredible energy - efficient LED Bollard technology exclusively from Philips Gardco. The patent - pending system uses stacked modular louvers to control glare and uniformly distribute LED light in patterns of 180 or 360 degrees. Most impressively, the Demand Response component uses motion - sensing technology to switch between low light and high light modes. This revolutionary feature ensures that low light levels are used when maximum light is unnecessary, resulting in energy savings of up to 90 percent. Light Emitting Diodes (LED) produce more light per watt than other light sources, resulting in significant energy savings even before the bi -level Demand Response system is taken into account. Additionally, the placement of the LEDs near the edge of the stacked louvers increases luminaire efficiency by up to 100% versus conventional light sources placed behind the louvers. LEDs are http:/ /sitelighting.com/Products.cfm? Brand = gar &ProLine= gbol &Stvle= brm834 3/12/2010 LED Bevel Top Louver Bollard General Information I SiteLighting.com - Architectural 0... Pa e2 of 4 1611915 available in several colors, and have a typical lifespan of 50,000 to 60,000 hours. One benefit of bi- leveling LEDs is that the longevity increases due to the reduced temperature. Since the LEDs are not driven by high current, the expected life will increase. . In Follow us on Facebook . Follow us on Twitter . ® Subscribe to RSS . Privacy Policy . Contact Us • Home • Products • Literature • Photometry • TechTalk • Sales • About Us • Basic Product Information • Submittal Data Sheet • Product Brochure • Detailed Specifications • Ordering Matrix • Green Team Product • Installation Sheets • Video • About LEDs PHILIPS ()p GARDCO Friday, March 12, 2010 Search In im® BR160/162/163 BR800 BRM800 BRM820/821/823 Philips Gardco • Emco Lighting • 1611 Clovis Barker Road, San Marcos, TX 78666 • (512) 753 -1000 • (800) 227 -0758 • Fax: (512) 753 -7855 http:/ /sitelighting.com/Products.cfm? Brand = gar &ProLine =gbol &Style= brm834 3/12/2010 STC Ratings Page 1 of 2 1611 A 151 STCrafi*ngs.com Welcome to STCratings.com, a collaborative arm of A_ c_oustics..com_ . This site aligns with our goals of promoting the importance of acoustics and acoustic - related issues across a variety of related industries. A common acoustic issue in virtually any space is sound transmission. Sound transmission can be both airborne and /or structure borne vibration. (Structure borne vibration is assessed by a different standard, Impact Insulation Class - IIC, and is not addressed in this text). Airborne sound travels through the air and can transmit through a material, assembly or partition. Sound can also pass under doorways, through ventilation, over, under, around, and through obstructions. When sound reaches a room where it is unwanted, it becomes noise. Noise such as that from automobiles, trains and airplanes can transmit through the exterior structure of a building. In the same way, noise from mechanical equipment or speech can transmit from one room within a building to an adjacent space. Sound transmission can cause noise control, confidentiality, and privacy issues. Sound from a noisy environment such as a mechanical equipment room or an area with loud activities or music can transmit through a partition into a quieter space. This will cause unwanted noise within the quieter space. This is not only an annoyance; in several cases it can cause the quieter space to become unusable for its intended purpose. Several spaces require confidentiality. Offices of counselors, lawyers, or human resource departments cannot function in a space where sound will transmit through the surrounding walls and into an adjacent space. In most other office situations if confidentiality is not an issue, privacy is. If sound transmission is not properly controlled, the space or environment will not provide privacy for its users. Transmission Loss is a measurement of a partition's ability to block sound at a given frequency, or the number of decibels that sound of a given frequency is reduced in passing through a partition. Measuring Transmission Loss over a range of 16 different frequencies between 125 -4000 Hz, is the basis for determining a partitions Sound Transmission Class. The Sound Transmission Class (STC) is a single- number rating of a material's or an assembly's ability to resist airborne sound transfer at the frequencies 125 -4000 Hz. In general, a higher STC rating blocks more noise from transmitting through a partition. STC is highly dependant on the construction of the partition. A partition's STC can be increased by: Adding mass Increasing or adding air space Adding absorptive material within the partition A partition is given an STC rating by measuring its Transmission Loss over a range of 16 different frequencies between 125 -4000 Hz. 125 -4000 Hz is consistent with the frequency range of speech. The STC rating does not assess the low frequency sound transfer. Special consideration must be given to spaces where the noise transfer concern is other than speech, such as mechanical equipment or music. Even with a high STC rating, any penetration, air -gap, or "flanking" path can seriously degrade the isolation quality of a wall. Flanking paths are the means for sound to transfer from one space to another other than through the wall. Sound can flank over, under, or around a wall. Sound can also travel through common ductwork, plumbing or corridors. Noise will travel between spaces at the weakest points. There is no reason to spend money or effort to improve the walls until all the weak points are controlled. Rules of Thumb Recommended Ratings Weaknesses - What You Should Know The difference between STC and NRC STC Ratings_ for Various Wall Assemblies STC Ratings for Masonry Walls http: / /www.stcratings.com/ 3/11/2010 STC Ratings Page 2 of 2 1611'A15^ Adding Mass The weight or thickness of a partition is the major factor in its ability to block sound. For example, a thick concrete wall will block more sound than a thin gypsum /2x4 wall. Mass is commonly added to existing walls by adding additional layers of gypsum. When the mass of a barrier is doubled, the isolation quality (or STC rating) increases by approximately 5 dB, which is clearly noticeable. back to top Increasing or Adding Air Space An air space within a partition can also help to increase sound isolation. This, in effect creates two independent walls. However, the STC will be much less than the sum of the STC for the individual walls. The airspace can be increased or added to an existing partition. A common way to add an airspace is with resilient channels and a layer of gypsum. An airspace of 1 t /2" will improve the STC by approximately 3 dB. An air space of 3" will improve the STC by approximately 6 dB. An airspace of 6" will improve the STC by approximately 8 dB. back to top Adding Absorptive Material in the Partition Sound absorptive material can be installed inside of a partition's air space to further increase its STC rating. Installing insulation within a wall or floor /ceiling cavity will improve the STC rating by about 4 -6 dB, which is clearly noticeable. It is important to note that often times, specialty insulations do not perform any better than standard batt insulation. back to top Copyright © 2004 Acoustics.com http: / /www.stcratings.conV 3/11/2010 Concrete Technology I Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): Sound Transmission Ratings... Page 1 of 1 r 1611 PCA SITES PCA FESDURCE5 Ptw edby rer CrvO, $le Type Keywords Here FIND PWd I PEA Home I Bookstore 1 Cement 6 Concrete Rasres I Nensroom I Government Affairs I Member Sign in I About PCA A 151 'KCW Frequently Asked Questions Concrete Technology Home Cement & Concrete Technology Home > FAQs> STC Cement Basics Q: What are the Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for concrete and masonry walls? Concrete Design & Production A: The actual Sound Transmission Class (STC) for your wall will depend on the type of wall the finish and the Concrete Construction PCA Research Durability Tech Support Stay Informed Resources CTT Newsletter FAQs Penland Cerrixit Association 5420 Old Orchard Rd. Stmkie. It 6DO77 847.966.6200 PH x42.9668189 F% mfoocemenf orq weight of the wall per square foot of surface area. STC ratings for partition materials may range from 40 to more than 60 with higher values providing less sound transmission. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) requires a minimum STC of 46 to limit sound transmission from unit to unit in multi - family dwellings. See the table below for details. For example, a 4 in. masonry wall at 18 Ib /ft2 would be rated at 40, while the same thickness of wall with a weight of 27 Ib /ft2 would have a rating of 45. An example of a painted wall (both sides) weighing 22 Ib /ft2 is rated at 43. Table 3. STC Values for Wallis Walt Description of wall weight, Feponed psf STC Both sides plain 18 40 Both sides plain 27 45 Both sides painted 22 43 4-in: thick concrete masonry units Both sides 'h-in. plaster 3o 48 Both sides IiHn. plaster 42 50 Both sides',rin. gypsum wallboard 26 47 Both sides 'Ih in. gypsum wallboard 32 48 Both sides Wain 21 44 Both sides painted 28 46 Both sides painted 39 48 6 -in. -thick concrete masonry units Both sides hdn, plaster 31 46 Both skies grin. Waster 54 52 Both sides %-in. gypsum wallboard 35 49 One Side Y24n. gypsum wallboard, 27 53 Other side painted Both sides plain 30 45 Both sides plain 53 52 Both skies painted 30 46 Both sides painted, cores grouted 73 55 8 -in -thick concrete masonry units and reinforced One side plaster, other side plain 38 52 Both sides plaster 67 56 Both sides plaster, cores grouted 79 56 and reinforcw Composite wall, 4 -in. brick 4-in- concrete masonry units, block side ill 53 plastered 8-in.-thick concrete mawrxy units, one side Yr-in, gypsum wallboard 40 56 84n. thick concrete masonry units, both sides :5=kn. gypsum wallboard, 77 60 cores grouted and reinforced Composite wall, 4-in. brick. 4 -in. concrete masonry units, 1*4n. gypsum 60 56 wallboard on block side 9-in.-thick brick wall, both sides U in. plaster 100 52 Double wall of 41h4n. brick separated by 2 -in. air cavity, no ties. Y,-in. 100 54 plaster on exposed surfaces 4- In.- thick concrete masonry units, both sides K-in sanded gypsum 36 46 plaster 6-in. -thick cast concrete, both sides yr-tn, plaster so 53 t in. - 25.4 mm; 1 or . c DB kg1 W source: iJ1J,J PCA offers the following resources on acoustic properties of concrete and masonry for a variety of wall and floor assemblies: 1) Acoustics of Concrete in Buildings, IS159 2) Sound Transmission Loss Through Concrete and Masonry Walls, RD066 Careers I Sitemap I Disclaimer I Privacy Policy I © 2010 Portland Cement Association - All Rights Reserved htty: / /www.cement.or2 /tech/faci stc.asi) 3/11/2010 161 'A 150q Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 1 a - Pathway Lighting : On- demand LED to immediate need, dark areas only Gardco pathway bollard additions in suggested locations to subsidize low light levels. WilsonMiller - March 12, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Existing Bollards 147 EA $180.00 $26,460.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trenching - Common Earth 6,661 LF $3.00 $19,983.00 Conduit and Conductor for Bollards 6,661 LF $13.50 $89,923.50 Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Replace Existing 147 EA $1,400.00 $205,800.00 Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location 112 EA $1,400.00 $156,800.00 Transformer, Meter, Point of Connection 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00 TOTAL: $533,967 15% CONTINGENCY: $80,095 Design I Permit Fee Estimates 000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $57,000.00 $57,000.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 Permitting 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $679,061 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. " As required by an Engineer - power requirements, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers shall be based upon final design and may adjust costs Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 161 Option 1 b - Pathway Lighting :Standard MH to immediate need, dark areas only A 1� Sternberg pathway bollard additions in suggested locations to subsidize low light levels. WilsonMiller - March 12, 2010 DEMOLITION $26,460 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Existing Bollards • 147 EA $180.00 $26,460.00 ', Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trenching - Common Earth Conduit and Conductor for Bollards Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 70w MH (60.0' OC) - Replace Existing Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 70w MH (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location Transformer, Meter, Point of Connection 6,661 6,661 147 112 1 LF LF EA EA LS $3.00 $13.50 $1,130.00 $1,130.00 $35,000.00 $19,983.00 $89,923.50 $166,110.00 $126,560.00 $35,000.00 TOTAL: $464,037 15% CONTINGENCY: $69,605 D' • $65,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $57,000.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 $57,000.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $598,642 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. As required by an Engineer - power requirements, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers shall be based upon final design and may adjust costs o o z 2' O I 161 1 ii iV tip, LPJ Z KT LU 7— V-1 LW j U-i > 0 A z 151 !:III Iq tip, LPJ Z KT LU 7— V-1 LW j U-i > 0 A z 151 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 161 1 Option 2a - Pathway Lighting : On- demand LED to one side of boulevards Gardco pathway bollard additions along west side of PBB and north side of GPD in addition to low light level area additions. WilsonMiller - March 12, 2010 DEMOLITION $2• 4•1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Existing Bollards SITEWORK 147 EA $180.00 $26,460.00 $1,185,161 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trenching - Common Earth Conduit and Conductor for Bollards Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Replace Existing Bollard Fixture - Gardco LED (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location Transformer, Meter, Point of Connection 21,937 21,937 147 366 1 LF LF EA EA LS $3.00 $13.50 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $105,000.00 $65,811.00 $296,149.50 $205,800.00 $512,400.00 $105,000.00 TOTAL: $1,211,621 15% CONTINGENCY: $181,743 Design $105,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $96,000.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 $96,000.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $1,498,364 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. As required by an Engineer - power requirements, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers shall be based upon final design and may adjust costs Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 1611 A 154" Option 2b - Pathway Lighting : Standard MH to one side of boulevards Sternberg pathway bollard additions along west side of PBB and north side of GPD in addition to low light level area additions. WilsonMiller - March 12, 2010 DEMOLITION $2• 4.1 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Existing Bollards SITEWORK 147 EA $180.00 $26,460.00 $1,046,651 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Trenching - Common Earth Conduit and Conductor for Bollards Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 70w MH (60.0' OC) - Replace Existing Bollard Fixture - Sternberg 70w MH (60.0' OC) - Proposed Location Transformer, Meter, Point of Connection 21,937 21,937 147 366 1 LF LF EA EA LS $3.00 $13.50 $1,130.00 $1,130.00 $105,000.00 $65,811 .00 $296,149.50 $166,110.00 $413,580.00 $105,000.00 TOTAL: $1,073,111 15% CONTINGENCY: $160,967 D' • $105,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $96,000.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 $96,000.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $1,339,077 Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. " As required by an Engineer - power requirements, conduit and conductor sizes, and transformers shall be based upon final design and may adjust costs Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 3 - U.S. 41 Berm : Fence / Wall Options - Foundation Property Wilson iller -March 12, 2010 1611 A15" Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall SITEWORK 21,000 2,300 SF LF $0.49 $14.00 $10,290.00 $32,200.00 $502,500 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 7,000 1 1 100 LF LS LS LF $65.00 $23,500.00 $18,000.00 $60.00 $455,000.00 $23,500.00 $18,000.00 $6,000.00 TOTAL: $544,990 15% CONTINGENCY: $81,749 Design 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $642,239 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing SITEWORK 18,000 SF $0.49 $8,820.00 $374,000 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 6,000 1 1 100 LF LS LS LF $55.00 $20,000.00 $18,000.00 $60.00 $330.000.00 $20,000.00 $18,000.00 $6,000.00 TOTAL: $382,820 15% CONTINGENCY: $57,423 1- ' 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $455,743 16I'1`A15 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall SITEWORK 28,000 2,300 SF LF $0.49 $14.00 $13,720.00 $32,200.00 $752,500 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht EPS Panel Wall Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 7,000 1 1 100 LF LS LS LF $100.00 $26,500.00 $20,000.00 $60.00 $700,000.00 $26,500.00 $20,000.00 $6,000.00 TOTAL: $798,420 15% CONTINGENCY: $119,763 '' • 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $933,683 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall 21,000 2,300 SF LF $0.49 $14.00 $10,290.00 $32,200.00 $572,500 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 7,000 1 1 100 LF LS LS LF $75.00 $23,500.00 $18,000.00 $60.00 $525,000.00 $23,500.00 $18,000.00 $6,000.00 TOTAL: $614,990 15% CONTINGENCY: $92,249 D" 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $722,739 1611A15" Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall SITEWORK 21,000 2,300 SF LF $0.49 $14.00 $10,290.00 $32,200.00 $504,500 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 7,000 1 1 100 LF LS LS LF $65.00 $23,500.00 $20,000.00 $6000 $455,000.00 $23,500.00 $20,000.00 $6.000.00 TOTAL: $546,990 15% CONTINGENCY: $82,049 D" ' 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 1 $644,539 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall SITEWORK 28,000 2,300 SF LF $0.49 $14.00 $13,720.00 $32,200.00 $892,500 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht EPS Panel Wall Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit Drainage Channel (12" RCP) 7,000 1 1 100 LF LS LS LF $120.00 $26,500.00 $20,000.00 $60.00 $840,000.00 $26,500.00 $20,000.00 $6,000.00 TOTAL: $938,420 15% CONTINGENCY: $140,763 Design / Permit Fee Estimates 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $1,094,683 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 3 - U.S. 41 Berm : Fence / Wall Options - Private Property WilsonMiller - March 12, 2010 1 A15" Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall SITEWORK 9,900 1,400 SF LF $0.49 $14.00 $4,851.00 $19,600.00 $234,000 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence Shrubs /Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $65.00 $11,000.00 $8,500.00 $214,500.00 $11,000.00 $8,500.00 TOTAL: $258,451 15% CONTINGENCY: $38,768 D- 111 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $309,219 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing ,SITEWORK 5,700 SF $0.49 $2,793.00 $115,900 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 1,900 1 1 LF LS LS $55.00 $6,400.00 $5,000.00 $104,500.00 $6,400.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL: $118,693 15% CONTINGENCY: $17,804 .Design • 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $145,997 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 13,200 SF $0.49 $6,468.00 Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall 1,400 LF $14.00 $19,600.00 SITEWORK Quantity Unit Unit Cost $350,500 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 6.0' ht EPS Panel Wall Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $100.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 $330,000.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 TOTAL: 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $75.00 $11,000.00 $8,500.00 $376,568 TOTAL: $304,051 15% CONTINGENCY: $56,485 Design 111 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 1 1 LS LS LS $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $445,053 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall SITEWORK 9,900 2,300 SF LF $0.49 $14.00 $4,851.00 $32,200.00 $267,000 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $75.00 $11,000.00 $8,500.00 $247,500.00 $11,000.00 $8,500.00 TOTAL: $304,051 15% CONTINGENCY: $45,608 Design / Permit Fee Estimates 111 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $361,659 go i• • w Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 9,900 SF $0.49 $4,851.00 Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall 2,300 LF $14.00 $32,200.00 SITEWORK Quantity Unit Unit Cost $235,000 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing Shrubs / Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $65.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 $214,500.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 TOTAL: 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $120.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 $272,051 TOTAL: $455,168 15% CONTINGENCY: $40,808 D' • $12,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 1 1 LS LS LS $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 1 $324,859 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing Demolition - Existing Cement Board Wall SITEWORK 13,200 2,300 SF LF $0.49 $14.00 $6,468.00 $32,200.00 $416,500 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 8.0' ht EPS Panel Wall Shrubs /Mulch Irrigation Retrofit 3,300 1 1 LF LS LS $120.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 $396,000.00 $11,000.00 $9,500.00 TOTAL: $455,168 15% CONTINGENCY: $68,275 _Design / Permit Fee Estimates $12,000 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey Landscape Architecture Permitting 1 1 1 LS LS LS $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $535,443 1611 A15 Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs Option 3 - U.S. 41 Berm: Fence / Wall Options Summary Sheet WilsonMiller - March 12, 2010 Item Foundation Property Private Property Total Option A - 6.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence $642,239 $309,219 $951,457 Option B - 6.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing $455,743 $145,997 $601,740 Option C - 6.0' ht EPS Panel Wall $933,683 $445,053 $1,378,736 Option D - 8.0' ht Aluminum Picket Fence $722,739 $361,659 $1,084,397 Option E - 8.0' ht Concrete Wall Panel to Match Existing $644,539 $324,859 $969,397 Option F - 8.0' ht EPS Panel Wall $1,094,683 $535,443 $1,630,126 Notes: 1. Existing fence on private property assumed to be removed and proposed fence /wall installed. 2. Design and permitting may decrease with economy of scale through combined Foundation and private property based upon construction phasing. Z-1 7,Tt' o� G 2 00 O _ 16l1 -4t AW *.k gw Li Lrj fm CD LU zui .JI I I _j cc -'r° mm Z �C o g asp w JXaQ �g mew: zS 0 a in�o3 =o OC Z m W Z OO UiJ. M 4 8gQ V W Z 2 LU = >F= � ° -aa2LL gyI, js� c e � Bey$ =��EE �HE�a w Iw o-EC Ot co „id 3 m tr F. a J o t; Z mpOwO Q cc -0 i x.ggw- DSkmZ M3 d° zg �Nw�Kb 6 � 0 3 oavo aoa w1003�°o°� o . & oz ore.. � 0 =3:3 r ;!. Wen .7. R o Ec E2� 'e gec y� s 9'E F vn NAB `s8�§ 0.8 a": BE e 0.2 A ° ry8i e y � Eo� e�i�Eo `LR7�tiL v w 1'Er u .8 fs5. �°cE n E g E"3 ELF, fi s E = u E S $A ` ~o 3 F y m e M c N z" °tea U Yo -i - _ �y -Exe wmr�9� Kw °'c e Y$ �g -@ am—A ° O> eB �g�or E�$o' u -c$Oe tE i3 � €gs� c'�C °cE E c° zt 3 80 rq °fig °P3 LLi �8mg ° c E E m y�� Aga t �S_ df o q o '?....� c E'er' ° w m o o L mP" E t y °E Ec zo sy� E� ooh' °R! W E fii o- �e tsc F 8I' -_ xy xE o _E- �� c_�f NN� °� W 6 K c tl> a d p ti v S c n n ° m- T' m m j q m y 8 E ES ,z„a - caSo S mIc m or el t o Id 16111 A15` H a e � Q cW� $9 d .c� m �QY y$ a L -7 �'s v v oE'L zyx3o° nY aC Frb'33 C E u{ flRl zgg ��- LL Q C� q _ V1 -� F— Z LU uj O m. 11 kD J a ��.J 1 1 I � 1 1 1 1 1 t s# 1 1 # 1 A� �i 8 A � 0 0 # ml �gz � ° A i 0 0 A o o loo a 11 1 A p 02$ w B v Q Z O t Am a 1 �x o t yl / 1 l 1 t f 1 t t i Ii 7; 1i U ' t x N � QrI W i r •,. `rte"` r # r .,�r .3 p Z H ;F� o s '��dAM "; }� b r" "' �•. � i W iW .f� � m o o Wa IL n mi { { {I 1 1 I � 1 1 1 1 1 t s# 1 1 # 1 A� �i 8 A � 0 0 # ml �gz � ° A i 0 0 A o o loo a 11 1 A p 02$ w B v Q Z O t Am 1 1 t yl / t f 1 t t Ii 7; 1i U ' t N � QrI W !W� H ;F� o s • "# o o Wa IL n mi { { {I LL a o N °WW ?g° _ a 11 11 p Z 1611,A15" m Z O E 0 Q fY Q 0 O QQ w OU Q J{ } of Jp JD x Q N w aWm cou- Qzl;T UWN J d�� J v L N � 3 r. v a m N V'V c �a � � T v � c E a al N v N 7 — y d r a 0 O C C E m V1 a Ol_ N 11 V a N v v o1 OLN$ >P + p O Q J d J l0 v C L R 3 m „ C C a3 a1 V —y al a � R N N � 3 'o a � o c T C a_ N 7 V m v a+ a w o` c v E � w c s w m T N 7 C N O � C 7 7 C � E 7 j ra V N N Q > C � � a O o '> F. O Oi Q O a a c m c O v dt m x c 7 O v rn N O T B 0 a CL L H c O C t L O ol � s d l0 C � � al a � a, V \J Q N — ` � 3 01 > l0 c O o m w a1 `m > v rn _c c N n X 111 a1 p O Vf v O N E m a � L 21 c a) l0 16ri`m15 cn L C U cu a) N � a a Y V N U '- a) aL+ N > C a c 3 m ai c N E o c y c A c o w v O1 N � a1 01 C � c T N _vr L 0 11 O o p a`, 7 � a/ m X a O Q W E C N C m E ra O w O O O W w V 7 N /�� L N — L/ _ 1] 'N O1 N 'X L O t N OU > N L �F+ m . Q- d JCO a c c O m v at v � Of U/ c C vV Y 'X V � Y a — C N 7 3 ° _ a1 v m c1 C �� C C v E m a) O 3 'o c a o O C O c — E � m U.I V O 0 N '> c O O C v E v c � T H N O N c 7 7 C � E 7 a V > N Q .> C v O o '> �. ar O 0 c O .a c L 3 O O N C w CL 17 'D 17' 'D C H'f T V /�� L/ a, — m 3 u � L' r > CO C O- o v rn m` > v O1 C C W H d X 111 N n O w v N N N a N L E C L 2 w Q LLJ L' mU, gZICT LU vi aLL.� 1N N 6 R o +4 +I 44 / N O r Y at 1 A1�5" I. e W U- U- m U v: w a Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Quantity 161 1 Subtotal Opinion of Probable Costs. Boulevard ROW Landscape SF $0.49 WilsonMiller - March 12, 2010 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm - include stump removal) 15 EA $200.00 $3,000.00 Roadway Study Area - 1 $43,298 @ 480 LF $90 LF Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal 26 Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 5,859 SF $0.49 $2,870.91 SF Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm - include stump removal) 7 EA $200.00 $1,400.00 $3.00 Sitework - Tree 3 EA $300.00 $900.00 $8,320.00 Sitework - Irrigation Retrofit 5,859 SF $0.80 $4,687.20 Sitework - ROW Shrubs / Groundcover / Mulch * ** Sitework - Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcover / Mulch 5,859 SF $3.00 $17,577.00 Sitework - Topsoil (6" depth) 109 CY $40.00 $4,360.00 Sitework - Root Barrier (18" Rigid Panels) 470 LF $6.50 $3,055.00 Sitework - ROW Shrubs / Groundcover / Mulch * ** 480 LF $17.60 $8,448.00 Roadway Study Area - 2 $57,234 500 LF $114 /LF Flt-em/ Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 8,156 SF $0.49 $3,996.44 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm - include stump removal) 16 EA $200.00 $3,200.00 Sitework - Tree 6 EA $300.00 $1,800.00 Sitework - Irrigation Retrofit 8,156 SF $0.80 $6,524.80 Sitework - Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcover / Mulch 8,156 SF $3.00 $24,468.00 Sitework - Topsoil (6" depth) 151 CY $40.00 $6,040.00 Sitework - Root Barrier (18" Rigid Panels) 370 LF $6.50 $2,405.00 Sitework - ROW Shrubs / Groundcover / Mulch * ** 500 LF $17.60 $8,800.00 Item / Location Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Demolition - Clearing and Grubbing 11,242 SF $0.49 $b,bOb.58 Demolition - Selective Clearing (Palm - include stump removal) 15 EA $200.00 $3,000.00 Sitework - Large Palm 10 EA $1,200.00 $12,000.00 Sitework - Large Tree 2 EA $600.00 $1,200.00 Sitework - Tree 26 EA $300.00 $7,800.00 Sitework - Irrigation Retrofit 15,687 SF $0.80 $12,549.60 Sitework - Shrubs / Grasses / Groundcover / Mulch 11,242 SF $3.00 $33,726.00 Sitework - Topsoil (6" depth) 208 CY $40.00 $8,320.00 Sitework - Root Barrier (18" Rigid Panels) 470 LF $6.50 $3,055.00 Sitework - ROW Shrubs / Groundcover / Mulch * ** 1,112 LF $17.60 $19,571.20 AVERAGE COST PER LINEAL FOOT: $100 LINEAL FOOTAGE OF LANDSCAPE MEDIAN AREA: 18,388 TOTAL: $1,842,805 15% CONTINGENCY: $276,421 ' 11 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 Landscape Architecture 1 Permitting 1 LS $2,500.00 LS $120,000.00 LS $10,000.00 $2,500.00 $120,000.00 $10,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $2,251,726 Planting estimates for median landscape only in Pelican Bay Boulevard (14,831 LF) and Gulf Park Drive (3,557 LF). Existing site conditions at time of installation may cause additional expenses. Pricing above reflects reasonable field conditions without utility conflicts. Assumes 35% of ROW sides with sod mitigation averaging 5.0' width from back of curb to pathway edge. Additional Street Tree Option Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Park Drive 12 EA $600.00 $7,200.00 ton Road 14 EA $600.00 $8,400.00 -wood Drive 18 EA $600.00 $10,800.00 n Tree Drive 24 EA $600.00 $14,400.00 oy Lt ,sn 7; I Qz � m IWJ ' V Q _ l ° 1bM )f8dW)lb z Q Q J u Z O 2 )O m me V 4 Q 0 F =u 161: Z 3 0 N z O �m z� C V I (N ca r V) w ull Q un z _o F- 0 z O V 0 'W V 1 0^ a_ O� i/=� I..V G CLL tA Vz 02 g° LU LU Q 0 LA i g0 °z A15" LU J � 'e .. O N .E ._ 'E 4 ° W o o s o o _ Q kD F i Z S 8 F a o is W X 001 Al Z 3 0 N z O �m z� C V I (N ca r V) w ull Q un z _o F- 0 z O V 0 'W V 1 0^ a_ O� i/=� I..V G CLL tA Vz 02 g° LU LU Q 0 LA i g0 °z A15" 1611 -A1 M Q W Q 0 D Ln tA z O F- 0 z O V 0 w LA O a- 0 w CL Q� Vz (n CW 0 C g° Q W �CL Qog co 60Z acct 16 11 A15' Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs: Boulevard ROW Landscape (Phase 01) Phase 01 - ROW and Median Landscape Improvements WilsonMiller -March 12, 2010 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - ROW and Median Landscape 1,510 LF $100.00 $151,000.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - ROW and Median Landscape 1,675 LF $100.00 $167,500.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - ROW and Median Landscape 1,364 LF $100.00 $136,400.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - ROW and Median Landscape 477 LF $100.00 $47,700.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sitework - ROW and Median Landscape 1 896 LF $100.00 $189,600.00 TOTAL: $692,200 15% CONTIGENCY: $103,830 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Engineering and Survey 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $42,000.00 $42,000.00 Permitting 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $845,530" Price Sources: Historic Project File Cost Data, RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Data 2010, FDOT Statewide Item Average Unit Cost 2009. 161 1 O Q m Z Q J W CL V) ZUn W z 5O w� >r-, O° Qr-Q CL w cr- w LU LU Q— w Q~ n V �n ° OQ ZQ gw Q Z _ pi ZQ Z22 JOo wu A 15" 1611 p15 0 z Q m z Q U J w a. V) F-- N w Z 50 wF- >0 O° I=w Q CL —L ww a. oc Q~ ULn a O¢ zQ gw �a Z —0 Z- 5 Q. �0 J O eV o a v `o V Ln Q� O � OC .Y O .? J � LL E[�l �o v ai L to ar s m ar a! m v� L 10 V Ol m.v^ Q j C C O O O V o p m -0 Q C m m m o vv LL E V V) N • • • T C m m0 O O Vf � aJ W > V v C !a O f0 c Z< E V 3 > o oa E C m V N amOv� Q � < Q �w w m W Q z Z V O v z _c N O^ S m .O ii_Jm e Z a c y -y a N a�L o a o = V O o VLL > a a LL N L y w N _m � 3 W v� L > 0 m 3: � - N - f .L. m > m u � L o m m m a z= '�'OC E �V V V L tp - O O -6 C a) O o v a, — � E E O� 0 �� - E3�`- ama��.E �a,V aj m E m fl_ O O Y O O O Q W L E O .V .- m rp in V O O V1 m �'0 3 E N m.- �— >a O LA o o� m..0 o.QO 5 QT -C Qt m z o `> 'mss° 'L= c x E EE C m m- z 2 0 V VwwC7 l7 °1�GaCKr W V O K J Q • • • • • • • • • • • • • Q • • v J _= T E O H m O C .t al m Q O v a _c m T E O v O m w L L'G' Tm m V n O a } �a >sE 1 4 m O.5 V v O V ° m m Z � E v a, n o0Q m O X L i M Z V � V 7 7— O a n Q U m m V V i a...... v s o = a,._ u ' z m oO O ?� 0 Oz rn�.c z 5=00 v M a, o 2 z gv�oCL Im m 7Ea O, ^v 0 C v > V Eao_21 — -a, �Q cm Q) E O m al [l`:iN Olm W C v d 3� m w C Y Oly } H v M. m O al 7 z mcLsEc V _o c m V mmO.m.' -°mmE Q @'H Va `•R X 0 J V? 0 0 >` O axi d GQG Q V V V 2 0 —� t . • • . • • CL u C m � V m H Es a 2 i L za O- m of M c w n v W m ac O c ai } V = O M CL C Q 0 in V z E q E E n 0 v L E _ a _ E y+ Ea m D v cc m OT o v o C > N v n m N m E �Y v E CL m v m w O > 4 m a cc n E m a o E Ti6 E a V m - L ai y � m 0 o m x N x 1 C J L -r- CL r- C/ • a o m -0 ai E v v 3: m �• m a"m> a^ E 'L rEo uv C O O jjX O 0 Q O L j E m v W r O y m m M L V O m °COL 2'c32v_ y O v C O T E w .'0 m Y Q V E E V o m V 2 d H a t v` a 0 E c E w E �E � V L u LU ^^J I.L. z w - a a oq Z Q m LL CL Q z_ LU a_ } LU e a- V cz C)2 Z> uj Q 0 z J a CL Q W 1d m�v N ZQo e v Z ° z aocg A15" w cr O m z W F- LL a z _a cW G F- O z J O m Y a Z V CL OC LU uia Z _a ci L 0 J O a m Z s a LLI a a 0 J O m Q g CL W O a O Z O Z a N 0 wO W yt F- Cl ur Z za c�c W G Od J J co LL a Oa Z O W �- u 0g a °cr 01 L7 Z w O J w w H m } DC CL O v= Q Z V Z a cm W G i J 0 Oo 2� Dw LL O?� z0 F- V W ate°` L' "J a O z oM- m m J N Oo CO z 2a Z� � w OO Z v O� Fz 00 °ate MA 1 Ul z W W /0/�// LV — w W Q Q° Z Ln Q O w zo aLL. J m �Z — Z zQ= D° A o; s UJo a0Q z mll� m u;: [ _ o �J z w L.LJ � w l A15 6 114, 201 RECEIVED 0 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE ��car�c�unty APR 13 201 201 7on4ra COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, March 5, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that 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 ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervi&&rres: Michele McGonagle, Administrative Secrete Item 0: 7opies to: 1611 1 March 5, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The Hearing was called to order at 9:01 AM by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson. The Special Magistrate noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) for a Resolution by Stipulation; the goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:10 AM RECONVENED: 9:21 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item V (B), "Hearings, " the following case was WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #6, Case #CEPM 20100000031 — BCC vs. Zonia Lambert Tr. (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County: • Agenda #1, Case #SO 162753 — CEEX 20100001700 — BCC vs. Robert Patterson • Agenda #2, Case #PR 043474 — CEEX 20100000807 — BCC vs. Patricia Booth • Agenda 0, Case #PR 044060 — CEEX20100002017 — BCC vs. Joan Rae Schneiter • Agenda #4, Case #PRB 000603 — CEEX20100001762 BCC vs. Ronald Hagerman (c) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda 0, Case #CENA 20090014230 — BCC vs. Eduardo & Maria Rodriguez • Agenda #5, Case #CEV 20090013006 — BCC vs. Jean - Joseph Beauharnais • Agenda #6, Case #CEV 20090013007 — BCC vs. Jean - Joseph Beauharnais • Agenda #7, Case #CENA 20090013008 — BCC vs. Jean - Joseph Beauharnais (d) Under Item X, "Next Meeting Date, " the date was changed from March 17, 2010 to April 2, 2010. 2 161,1181 March 5, 2010 The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 19, 2010 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on February 19, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines: None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 2. Case # CESD 20090010144 — BCC vs. Mario & Yuridia Rojas The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor Kitchell Snow. Respondent, Mario Rojas, was present and represented his wife, Yuridia Rojas. Violations: Building and Land Alteration Permits. Collier County Land Development Code 2004 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(A) Shed on left rear side of property not permitted Folio No: 51040320003 Violation address: 1208 Tyler Avenue, Immokalee The Respondent stated he had permission to represent his wife and they reside at 1208 Tyler Avenue, Immokalee, Florida 34142. Supervisor Snow stated the violation was abated as of December 14, 2009. Fines have accrued at the rate of $150 per day for the period from December 6, 2009 through December 14, 2009 (9 days) for a total fine amount of $1,350.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.70 have been paid. The total amount to date is $1,350.00. The Respondent stated the demolition of the shed was completed on December 5, 2009 which was a Saturday. He was unable to obtain a 3 -digit code to request a final inspection which is required under the Permit. Ma , 2010 Supervisor Snow confirmed there was a delay in conducting the inspection, and stated the Respondents worked diligently to obtain the Permit and correct the violation. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines due to compliance. 4. Case #CEPM 20090015533 — BCC vs. Jean Claude Martel The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. The Respondent was present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Sections 22 -231, Subsections 1 and 2 No water in occupied dwelling unit Folio No: 61839320000 Violation address: 3190 Karen Drive The Respondent resides at 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. Investigator Keegan stated the violation was abated as of October 6, 2009. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.96 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $117.96. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. The Special Magistrate explained to the Respondent the County will not begin foreclosure proceedings for approximately 90 days and encouraged him to pay the Operational Costs within that time frame. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 5. Case #CEPM 20090017229 — BCC vs. Palm Lake, LLC The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 -231, Subs. 4, 8, 9, 12I, 12K, 120, 12P, 19 and 20 Mobile home being used for rental purposes that is maintained in poor condition Folio No: 61842240009 Violation address: 3131 Tamiami Trail, Lot #3, Naples, Florida 34112 The Notice of Hearing sent via Certified Mail and delivered to the Respondent on 1611 1 March 5, 2010 February 26, 2010. Investigator Mucha introduced the following photographs which were admitted into evidence: County's Composite "A" — 21 photographs taken on November 6, 2009 County's Composite "B" — 3 photographs taken on March 4, 2010 He explained the Respondent, Palm Lake, LLC, owns the land, but the structure is owned by Mr. Martinez who is unemployed and unable to make repairs. The violations have not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to hire a licensed General Contractor to apply for and obtain either a Collier County Building Permit to repair the damage cited in the Residential Property Maintenance Inspection Report dated November 6, 2009, or a Collier County Demolition Permit to remove the structure, together with all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion on or before June S, 2010, 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. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.91 on or before April S, 2010. The Respondent is to notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.91 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case # CEV 20090004289 — BCC vs. Stan & Nancy Spence The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Patrick Baldwin. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A); Unlicensed jeep on residentially zoned property Folio No: 00740240007 Violation address: 139 Andrea Lane, Naples 161111J81 � March 5, 2010 The Notice of Hearing was personally served on the Respondent, Stan Spence, on February 22, 2010. Investigator Baldwin stated the violation has not been abated as of March 5, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $50 per day for the period from December 6, 2009 through March 5, 2010 (90 days) for a total fine amount of $4,500.00. Fines will continue to accrue until abatement. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.61 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $4,617.61 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $4,617.61 and noted fines will continue to accrue. C. Emergency Cases: None VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order 1. Case #2007060546 — BCC vs. Leticia F. Covella Violation: Collier County Ordinance 2004 -58, Section 7(2), Rental Registration Ordinance Failing to register rental property with the County Folio No.: 36010600008 Violation Address: 4748 32nd Avenue SW, Naples, Florida Supervisor Waldron stated the case had been brought forward in error because rental registration was not necessary. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion to Rescind. VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. - ImW I i 161181 March 5, 2010 The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE: March 17,2010** at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F, "3rd Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. NOTE: "The Hearing Date was changed to April 2, 2010 (as amended under Item II, "Approval of Agenda. ") There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 10:11 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING (>rena Ga son, Special Magistrate The Minutes wer approved by the Special Magistrate on 10 , as presented V, or as amended 81 201 k°* MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, April 2, 2010 p P LET IT BE REMEMBERED that 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 ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Michele McGonagle, Administrative Secretary Fiala Misc. Corres: Halal Henning Date: Coyle Item #: �Z Coletta Copies to: 16 I i 19 1 ' 'A p ri12 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:00 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Special Magistrate Garretson gave hearing Rules and Regulations. The Special Magistrate noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) for a Resolution by Stipulation; the goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:15 AM RECONVENED: 9:33 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item V (B), "Hearings, " the following cases were DISMISSED by the County due to payment: • Agenda #3, Case #SO 168213 — CEEX 20100001740 — BCC vs. Joseph Galmish • Agenda #5, Case #SO 166757 — CEEX 20100001985 — BCC vs. Kenneth Garside • Agenda #6, Case #PR 042243 — CEEX 20100002659 — BCC vs. Elaine Osbond • Agenda #8, Case #PR 044141— CEEX 20100003143 — BCC vs. Naples Hilton (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED at the request of the Deputy: • Agenda #4, Case #SO 138051— CEEX 20100002664 — BCC vs. Richard Boster (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings, " the following case was WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #12, Case #CEPM 20090014601— BCC vs. Clifford C. Neuse (d) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #4, Case #CEPM 20090017256 — BCC vs. Ulises Puentes, Platinum Home Investiment Corp. • Agenda #7, Case #CEPM 20090005155 — BCC vs. Andrew Miller & Lauren Gilbert The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. nriBl April 2, 2010 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 5, 2010 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on March 5, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Extension of Time: 1. Case #CESD 20080015162 — BCC vs. Rosalio & Juanita Aauayo The Hearing was requested by Respondent, Juanita Aguayo, who was present. Maria Aguayo, the Respondent's daughter, served as translator. Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor Kitchell Snow was present on behalf of Investigator Weldon Walker, Jr. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Adoption and Amendment of the Florida Building Code, Section 22- 26(B)(104.1.3.5) Construction/remodeling being done to shed on property without Permits. Folio No.: 65070520005 Violation Address: 516 Palmetto Avenue, Immokalee The Respondent resides at 516 Palmetto Avenue, Immokalee, Florida. The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent, Rosalio Aguayo, is deceased and acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's letter requesting an Extension of Time. Investigator Snow stated a Demolition Permit was issued to the Respondent and the County had no objection to granting an additional sixty (60) day extension. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time. The Respondent will have until June 2, 2010 to complete demolition of the shed. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: None B. Hearings: 7. Case #PU 4624 — CEEX 20100002220 — BCC vs. G. L. Homes The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was represented by William Fenno, Director of Land Development. Collier County Public Utilities Ordinance Enforcement Investigator Michael Andresky was present. Joe Thomas, Manager, Collier County's Water Department, appeared as a witness. 1611 B I "! April 2, 2010 Violations: Code of Laws & Ordinances 1997 -33, Section 6.A.6 Observed a backflow assembly laying on the ground. No owner may alter the Backflow Prevention Assembly without approval. Folio No: 00288200004 Violation address: 6617 Marbella Lane, Lot #272, Naples, Florida Mr. Fenno's mailing address is 6678 Marbella Lane, Naples, Florida 34105.. Investigator Andresky found the violation on February 11, 2010. He stated service was given to Tamara Wolf, Project Manager/Vice President of G.L. Homes, on March 15, 2010. He introduced the following Exhibits which were admitted into evidence: • County's Composite "A"— 3 photographs taken on February 11, 2010 • County's "B" — a copy of Work Order #114341 (one page) Mr. Fenno stated the lots were originally approved for townhouses but were subdivided to accommodate single - family homes. The problem was the County began to install water meters/backflows in front of three homes that were under construction. He further stated the previously installed meters (for the townhouses) were being removed by Haleakala Construction on behalf of G. L. Homes and new meters were to be installed in the correct locations to provide stable service for the single - family homes. He introduced a copy of emails between himself, Todd Denney of Haleakala Construction, and Joe Thomas which was marked as Respondent's Exhibit " #1" and admitted into evidence. Mr. Fenno contended the County's Utilities Division rushed to install meters before checking the change of location. Joe Thomas, Manager, Collier County Water Department, stated Work Orders are in place for installation of all meters within a subdivision over the course of the project. Meters are installed as soon as a Permit board is posted at the site. G. L. Homes was advised to contact the County's Utility Billing to revise the meter installation requests. He stated the Notice of Violation was served because the meters that were installed, whether or not they were to be removed in the future, were to have been protected by the Contractor as required by the Ordinance. The Special Magistrate stated Mr. Fenno did not present any evidence to contradict the evidence presented by the County. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $100.00 as well as an administrative fee of $5.00. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on or before May 2, 2010. April 2, 2010 Total Amount Due: $155.00 1611 B1 � 10. Case #CEPM 20100000031— BCC vs. Zonia Lambert Tr. The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present. Julio Lambert, the Respondent's son, was also present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22- 231(2) Dwelling that is being occupied with City of Naples water and sewer connection shut off. The occupants of the dwelling are using an unapproved well water system. Folio No.: 74413960006 Violation Address: 3450 Cherokee Street, Naples, FL 34112 Mr. Lambert resides at 3450 Cherokee Street, Naples, Florida 34112. He stated the Trust was set up for the benefit of his sons and himself. His sister, who resides in Panama, is the Trustee of the Trust and his mother resides in a nursing home. The Trust's only asset is the house. The Notice of Violation was served on January 13, 2010 and Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse. Investigator Mucha stated the case involved a Health, Safety and Welfare issue. The Special Magistrate allowed the case to proceed. The Special Magistrate stated the copy of the Quit Claim Deed submitted only verified that Zonia Lambert conveyed the house into the Revocable Living Trust. Because Mr. Lambert did not provide a copy of the Trust document or prove he had authority, the Special Magistrate determined he would not be permitted to represent the Trust but could appear as a witness. The Investigator introduced a copy of the Account History (provided by the City of Naples) for the property detailing the outstanding bills totaling over $1,600 which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. Mr. Lambert stated he contacted the City of Naples when he became injured and set up a payment plan, which he has been unable to maintain because his Workers' Compensation benefit payments have been delayed. He further stated the City's representatives told him as long as paid the sewer fee, he could use the well water. Investigator Mucha stated he had previously spoken with Mr. Lambert's sister to notify her of other problems at the property. He further stated the water service was shut off on March 28, 2008. An anonymous complaint, made on January 5, 2010, claimed water was obtained from a neighbor's property. He conducted a site visit on January 13, 2010 and was informed by Mr. Lambert's 1611 B1 April 2, 2010 son that the motor for the well had been stolen and the system was no longer operational. He gave a copy of the Notice of Violation to Mr. Lambert's son and advised him the water connection must be restored. The Notice of Violation was sent, via certified mail, to the Trust. Mr. Lambert stated he and his sons moved into the property in January 2009. He reiterated he was informed it was "legal" for him to use the well. He is attempting to obtain assistance in order to pay the outstanding bill. He has been using well water for the house. The Special Magistrate stated while the Trust is responsible for the property, the Ordinance had been violated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to restore water and sewer service with active and valid accounts with the City of Naples Utilities, or vacate the premises until water and sewer service is restored, on or before Friday, April 9, 2010, or a fine of $500.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation (vacating the premises) and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.73 on or before May 2, 2010. The Respondent is to notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.73 RECESS: 10:52 AM RECONVENED: 11:08 AM 1. Case #SO 172140 — CEEX 20100000102 — BCC vs. Sonda Schubiner The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Sheriff's Office Deputy Kenneth Robins was present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130 -67 Parked blocking striped access. Handicapped space. Violation address: Vanderbilt Beach turn - around - Gulfshore & Vanderbilt Beach Supervisor Waldron stated the Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on 1611 B1 April 2, 2010 February 24, 2010 to Michigan and then forwarded to a Naples address for delivery on March 9, 2010. She stated the case has been noticed several times. Deputy Robins introduced a photograph of the vehicle which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $250.00 as well as an administrative fee of $5.00. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on or before May 2, 2010. Total Amount Due: $305.00 2. Case #SO 168259 — CEEX 20090017150 — BCC vs. Olaf Christoph The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Sheriff's Office Deputy Lawrence Keller who was present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130 -67 Handicapped space. No visible permit. Violation address: Waterside Barnes & Noble, 5377 Tamiami Trail North Supervisor Waldron stated the case has been noticed several times. The Notice of Hearing was sent via international Certified Mail to Germany on February 24, 2010. The USPS indicated the document left the United States on March 2, 2010. Deputy Keller stated the Citation was issued on October 26, 2009. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $250.00 as well as an administrative fee of $5.00. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on or before May 2, 2010. Total Amount Due: $305.00 14. Case #CEPM 20090007445 — BCC vs. Zack & Gretchen Moen The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present. The Respondents were also present. Violations: Collier County Property Maintenance Code 2004 -58, Section 12 The left rear corner of the property was burned in a house fire. Folio No.: 37923600000 16 11 Tril 0,1 Violation Address: 4645 14th Avenue SW, Naples, FL The Respondents reside at 4625 30th Place SW, Naples, Florida. Investigator Mucha introduced three photographs of the property, taken on June 8, 2009, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and four photographs, taken on April 1, 2010, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "B" and admitted into evidence. He stated the structure was declared to be a Dangerous Building by the County on November 6, 2009. It has been boarded and is secure. He further stated a Lis Pendens was filed against the property and it was referred to the County's Foreclosure Team. The Respondents have continued to mow the lawn and remove fallen trees because they intend to completely repair the structure. The Respondents stated there is a dispute with the insurance company because the mortgage company did not pay the insurance premiums to the insurance company. The case is in litigation and they requested additional time to settle the issue. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondents' Request for a Continuance and ordered the Respondents to provide updates to the Investigator who will determine when the case is to be placed on the docket. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 3. Case #CEPM 20090011797 — BCC vs. Paul & Linda Christopher The County was represented by Code Enforcement Supervisor Jeff Letoumeau on behalf of Investigator Ron Martindale. The Respondents were not present. Marco Scola, president of Independent Brokers Realty, was present and represented Regions Bank, the current owner of the property. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22- 231(15) Failure to maintain private swimming pool Folio No: 51978032049 Violation address: 14647 Indigo Lakes Circle, Naples Mr. Scola's business address is 953 N. Collier Blvd., Marco Island, Florida 34145, and stated the property has been sold. The closing date is scheduled for April 16, 2010. His company listed the property for Regions Bank. Supervisor Letourneau stated County abated the violation on February 3, 2010. 1611 BI April 2 2010 Fines have accrued at the rate of $250 per day for the period from December 15, 2009 through February 3, 2010 (51 days) for a total fine amount of $10,200.00. The Operational Costs of $112.23 have been paid. The abatement costs incurred by the County of $795.00 have been paid. The total amount due to date is $10,200.00 Mr. Stola requested dismissal of the fines and stated the Bank had no previous knowledge of the prior proceedings against the property. Supervisor Letourneau stated the County would not object since its costs were paid. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 6. Case #CEPM 20090012930 — BCC vs. Karen A. Faiola The County was represented by Code Enforcement Supervisor Jeff Letourneau and Investigator Carmelo Gomez. The Respondent was present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section (19) Shed infested with bees Folio No: 36516480007 Violation address: 4120 291h Place SW, Naples The Respondent resides at 4120 29th Place SW, Naples, Florida 34116. Supervisor Letourneau stated the County abated the violations on December 1, 2009. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250 per day for the period from October 24, 2009 through December 1, 2009 (39 days) for a total fine amount of $9,750.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.87 have not been paid. The abatement costs due to the County of $342.00 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $10,209.87 The Respondent stated she hired a company in February, and the bees were completely removed from the shed. She stated the County's Contractor never asked for access to the locked shed. Any spraying done by the Contractor around the shed was not effective since the queen was not removed until the Respondent's company accessed the shed's floor boards and removed the hive and three buckets of honey cones. She introduced five photographs of the shed, taken on February 17, 2010, which were marked as Respondent's Composite Exhibit " #1" and admitted into evidence. She asked for an explanation of the charges and was told there was a charge for re- sodding around the shed. The Respondent stated no re- sodding had been done, and there was no evidence of earth being disturbed. She disputed the accuracy of the bills. 1611 4 j April 2, 2010 Supervisor Letourneau introduced the contractor's invoices for work performed on November 18, 2009 and November 30, 2009, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He referred the Special Magistrate to Page 3 of the Minutes of October 16, 2009 (initial Hearing). The Special Magistrate stated she would take "Judicial Notice" of the document. Investigator Gomez conducted a site visit on October 26, 2009 and the bee infestation was evident. The County's Contractors were hired on November 18, 2009 and sprayed for bees. They returned on November 30, 2009 for an "exclusion," i.e., to remove the bees. The Investigator stated he returned to the property on December 1, 2009 and did not see any evidence of bees. He did not inspect the shed's interior during any site visit. The Respondent's Contractor informed her that bees would go underground in cold weather giving the appearance the infestation had been eradicated. She stated she is at home during the day and would have given access to the shed if asked by the County's contractor. She would not have hired a company in February 2010 if the problem had been corrected by the County's contractor in November 2009. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fine but, due to mitigating circumstances, reduced the total amount to $117.87. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 11. Case #CEROW 20090016239 — BCC vs. Timothy & Beatrice Frank The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Reggie Smith who was present. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 110 Roads and Bridges, Article II, Construction in Right -of -Way, Division 1 Generally, Section 110 -31(A) Ficus bushes planted in Right -of -Way Folio No: 529534400006 Violation address: 2308 Kings Lake Blvd., Naples Investigator Smith stated the Notice of Violation was personally served to Timothy Frank on November 30, 2009. Supervisor Waldron stated the Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on March 19, 2010 and was signed for on March 20, 2010. The property and the Courthouse were posted on March 22, 2010. to 1611 *; April 2, 2010 Investigator Smith introduced the following Exhibits which were marked and admitted into evidence: • County's "A" — one photograph taken on October 14, 2009 • County's "B" — one photograph taken on November 20, 2009 • County's "C" — one photograph taken on April 1, 2010 The bushes at the Respondents' property were measured to be between 5 and 6 feet high and posed a Health and Safety hazard (visibility to drivers). While some bushes were trimmed and others were relocated, the violation has not been completely abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either obtain a Right -of -Way Permit, if possible, from the Collier County Department of Transportation, or to remove the bushes to a location outside the right -of -way (no Permit required) on or before April S, 2010, or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondents. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.29 on or before May 2, 2010. The Respondents are to notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.29 13. Case #CEPM 20090005325 — BCC vs. Susan Shrover The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22 -231, Subsections 12I, 12B, and 12C Missing windows, exterior wall damage, and roof damage Folio No: 63402960002 Violation address: 4728 Capri Drive, Naples, FL The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on March 19, 2010 and was delivered on March 20, 2010. The property and the Courthouse were posted on March 15, 2010. 16I 1 Bl F1 April 2, 2010 Investigator Musse introduced the following Exhibits which were marked and admitted into evidence: • County's Composite "A" — four photographs taken on May 11, 2009 • County's Composite "B" — six photographs taken on August 18, 2009 • County's Composite "C" — four photographs taken on April 1, 2009 The Investigator spoke with the Respondent's son who stated he intended to repair the problems, but did not have the funds. The violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to obtain the proper permits to repair all damages noted on the Property Maintenance Checklist, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion on or before April 9, 2010, or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.64 on or before May 2, 2010. The Respondent is to notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.64 C. Emergency Cases: None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case #CEPM 20090004672 — BCC vs. Jose & Sara Carrasco The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Carol Sykora. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 -243 A vacant house under construction with broken windows or no windows or doors, allowing access to the interior Folio No: 62258560000 Violation address: 5314 Texas Avenue, Naples 12 1611 Z April 2, 010 The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on March 19, 2010 and was forwarded on March 24, 2010. The property and the Courthouse were posted on March 15, 2010. Investigator Sykora stated Part "B" of the Order issued on September 18, 2009 was abated by the County by boarding the property on October 12, 2009. Part "C" of the Order (repair or demolish) has not been abated. For Part "B," fines have accrued at the rate of $100 per day for the period from September 20, 2009 through October 12, 2009 (14 days) for a total fine amount of $1,400.00. For Part "C," fines have accrued at the rate of $100 per day for the period from December 19, 2009 through April 2, 2010 (105 days) for a total fine amount of $10,500.00. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.78 have not been paid. The abatement costs incurred by the County of $3,275.00 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $15,292.78. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $15,292.78 and noted fines will continue to accrue until Part "C" of the previously issued Order has been abated. 2. Case #CEPM 20090015884 — BCC vs. George Lambert The County was represented by Code Enforcement Supervisor Jeff Letourneau on behalf of Investigator Ron Martindale. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22- 261(103.11.2) Private swimming pool without safety fence or enclosure Folio No: 37987440002 Violation address: 3580 White Blvd, Naples The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on March 19, 2010. The property and the Courthouse were posted on March 15, 2010. Supervisor Letourneau stated the Respondent has not abated either Part "B" or Part "C" of the Order issued on October 16, 2009 For Part "B" (install temporary barrier), fines have accrued at the rate of $200 per day for the period from October 20, 2009 through April 2, 2010 (165 days) for a total fine amount of $33,000.00. 13 16 B. April 2, 2010 For Part "C" (install permanent barrier), fines have accrued at the rate of $200 per day for the period from November 17, 2009 through April 2, 2010 (137 days) for a total fine amount of $27,400.00. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.70 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $60,517.70. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $60,517.70 and noted fines will continue to accrue. 5. Case #CEPM 20090002451— BCC vs. Arnold Frank c/o Exeter Holding, LTD. The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Heinz Box. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article Il, Florida Building Code, Section 22- 26(103.11.1) Unsecured, unsafe building or structure Folio No.: 67342280000 Violation Address: 171 Carica Road, Naples The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on March 19, 2010 and was signed for on March 22, 2010. The property and the Courthouse were posted on March 11, 2410. Investigator Box stated the violation was abated by the County on October 12, 2009. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250 per day for the period from September 12, 2009 through October 12, 2009 (31 days) for a total fine amount of $7,750.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.61 have not been paid. The abatement costs incurred by the County of $7,254.00 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $15,121.61. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of 515,121,61. VII. OLD BUSINESS: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. None 14 16 I BIril 2, 2010 B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases referenced in the 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 HEARING DATE: April 16, 2010 at 9: 00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F, "3rd Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. RECESS: 12:24 PM RECONVENED: 1:02 PM V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 9. Case #CEEX 20100003234 — BCC vs. Janet Bilotti The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present and represented by her attorney, Michael McDonald. The County was represented by Assistant County Attorney Colleen Greene and Domestic Animal Services Animal Control Officer Bonnie Kubicsek. Violations: Florida Statutes Chapter 767 and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances 2008 -51, Chapter 10, Subsections 3 and 4 Dangerous dog Violation Address: Parkview Lane and Parkshore Court The Special Magistrate stated she does not rule on Florida Statutes but only on the applicable sections of the County's Ordinance which references Florida Statutes. She noted the proceeding was a Trial de Novo and was televised over the County's cable channel as well as recorded. She stated the Hearing would be conducted as a Court proceeding, all testimony would be taken under oath, and this was the first case to be heard under the revised Special Magistrate Ordinance. Neither attorney elected to make an Opening Statement. The County presented its case: Frank Szot, the victim, resides at 630 Fountainhead Way, Naples, Florida, had prepared a written statement of the incident (dated February 14, 2010) which the 15 16 � i2, O10 Special Magistrate reviewed. The Special Magistrate stated the document would not be admitted into evidence as an Exhibit but will be considered as a demonstrative document and included as a part of the record. Attorney McDonald objected to any portions of Mr. Szot's statement which were hearsay. The Special Magistrate explained while the Ordinance which governs the Special Magistrate Hearings allows hearsay testimony to be presented, she is precluded from ruling on hearsay. She further stated portions of Mr. Szot's narrative will be considered as direct testimony. The incident occurred on Monday, November 9, 2009 at 8:30 PM (undisputed). Assistant Attorney Greene stated Mr. and Mrs. Szot will testify to the damages sustained by their dog because information was not included in the narrative. The dog received subsequent care by a local Veteranian and the family incurred bills for the treatement. The Veteranian's treatment was offered as confirmation of the injuries which the victim claimed his dog had sustained. Mr. Szot stated the lacerations sustained by his dog ( "Peanut ") were deep and required surgery, instead of sutures. "Peanut" was kept overnight by the Veteranian. Attorney McDonald objected to any testimony from Mr. Szot concerning what he was told by his Veteranian The Special Magistrate stated Mr. McDonald's objection will be noted as an ongoing objection. He further objected to any rendering of expert opinion by the witness as to the medical conclusions of the Veteranian. The Special Magistrate sustained Attorney McDonald's objection. She stated she wanted to know only where the lascerations were located on Peanut's body, not the diagnostic details. Mr. Szot described the locations of the injuries. "Peanut" died one week after the incident. He stated his goal was not to have the Respondent's dog put down, but to ensure the provisions of the Ordinance were enforced to require the Respondent's dog to be walked only when it is muzzled and to safely restrict the dog to its yard to prevent it from running loose, i.e., off property. Cross - examination of Mr. Szot by Attorney McDonald. He directed the following questions to Mr. Szot: • What was "Peanut's" age at the time of death? o 14 years • Did he ever own any other dogs during the 14 -year period he owned Peanut? o Yes • Did "Peanut" every growl at other dogs during his 14 -year lifetime? 16 161 1 Al Aprin, 2 0 • "Peanut" growled only when he was a young dog and barked only when someone rang the door bell • "Peanut" did not growl at either a person or another animal when walked Attorney Greene objected to the relevance of the questions. Attorney McDonald stated the purpose of the questions was to determine the character and nature of "Sadie," and if she was correctly labeled as a dangerous dog or if the situation was triggered by circumstances. The Special Magistrate stated she would allow some latitude, but preferred presentation of the specifics of the case rather than historic data. Cross - examination of Mr. Szot (continued): • When was Mrs. Bilotti first seen on the night of the incident? o She approached at a right angle to Mr. Szot, approximately 20 to 25 feet from the corner and Mr. Szot was about the same • When did you see her dog? o A second or so later • What was the distance between Mrs. Bilotti and "Sadie "? o Approximately six to eight feet • Did Mrs. Bilotti's dog, "Sadie," stand and growl at you? o It did not "stand" -- it kept moving • How did it move? • In a crouched position toward the corner • "Sadie" saw "Peanut" as they approached the corner • What did you do? o Mr. Szot stated he kept walking, looking toward Mrs. Bilotti, expecting her to look up and see him but she did not — she was distracted by her phone. Then it was too late to pull "Peanut" back because "Sadie" was on him • Had Mr. Szot ever seen "Sadie" before the night of the incident? o No • Did he have any evidence of his own knowledge that "Sadie" has ever harmed anyone else? Attorney Greene objected. Attorney McDonald restated the question to Mr. Szot. • From your own knowledge, have you ever seen any activity regarding "Sadie" to indicate aggressive behavior? o He stated he had never seen "Sadie" before the night of the incident Continuation of the County's case: Mrs. Joan Szot was called to testify. Attorney McDonald stated he would object if the testimony to be presented was cummulative. 1611 BZ April 2, 2010 The Special Magistrate asked Mrs. Szot if she could confirm the contents of her husband's written statement which she did. Attorney Greene stated Mrs. Szot's testimony would be the same as her husband's. It was decided her testimony was not necessary since it would not add any new information. Attorney McDonald elected not to cross- exmaine the County's witness. Officer Bonnie Kubicsek was called to testify concerning her initial determination declaring the dog as dangerous. Attorney McDonald objected, stating only a Special Magistrate could make such a legal determination. The Special Magistrate explained the Ordinance required an intial determination to be made by an Animal Control Officer, and she would review the determination within a Trial de Novo. The objection was noted, but was overruled. Officer Kubicsek confirmed her status as an Animal Control Officer for Collier County's Domestic Animal Services, and stated her mailing address was 7610 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34104. She testified: • A call was received in November 2009 and was answered by Officer Harrelson who was no longer employed by DAS • Her responsibility is to review all dangerous dog cases after an initial investigation was conducted by the investigating officer • The severity of the injuries sustained by "Peanut" was the reason "Sadie" was declared to be dangerous • The criteria for "serious injury" was outlined in the Ordinance Cross - examination of Officer Kubicsek by Attorney McDonald. Did you make an independent evaluation of "Sadie" other than reviewing the initial report? o She stated she reviews all cases that come through DAS including the officer's report and sworn statements of witnesses. I made a determination after consulting the County's Ordinance and the State's Statutues. • Your determination was based upon one incident? o Correct • Do you have any direct knowledge of any other incidents involving "Sadie "? o No • Have you ever seen "Sadie "? o Yes — the dog was seen at the DAS' offices with her owner • What did the dog do? o She was sitting on the floor of the office • Did the dog growl at you or attack you? o No 18 161'1 B1 April 2, 2010 • Did the dog threaten you? Attorney Greene objected to the relevance of the last question. The case was concerned only with the incident of November 9, 2009 and the actions of "Sadie" toward "Peanut" at that time. The Attorneys disagreed concerning the necessity to establish the character of "Sadie." Attorney Greene stated the only considerations should be the language of the Ordinance and whether or not to declare the dog as dangerous based on the incident investigated by Domestic Animal Services. The Special Magistrate requested Attorney Greene to refer to the specific section of the Ordianance. Section 14 -35, "Dangerous or vicious dogs; definitions and procedures," of Collier County Ordinance 2007 -23, as amended, states: "(a) Definitions. (1) Dangerous or vicious dog means any dog that according to the records of the appropriate authority: b. Has severely injured or killed a domestic animal while off the owner's property; (3) Severe injury means any injury that results in broken bones, multiple bites, or disfiguring lacerations requiring sutures or reconstructive surgery." Attorney Greene stated the County's Ordinance does not have a provision regarding the propensity of the dog to behave badly or well. The Ordinance requires a finding, based on the incident at issue, that the dog is in violation of the Ordinance. Attorney McDonald stated the Ordinance was passed after the incident occurred and his client had no option other than to proceed under the new procedures. The Special Magistrate clarified the Ordinance was in place prior to the incident while the Amendment occurred after the incident. The only change was to give the Special Magistrate jurisdiction to conduct a Trial de Novo to review the initial determination made by Domestic Animal Services and decide if a dog should be labeled as dangerous. Attorney McDonald stated the Ordinance, if interrupted as suggested by the County's Attorney, was "nonsense" because every dog that has ever growled or barked at another dog can now be classified as dangerous and required to be muzzled. Every dog that has ever defended its owner from an intruder or an attacker is now a dangerous dog. He further stated the issue should not be whether the dog, itself, is dangerous as evidenced by a one -time incident. If a dog defends its owner during an attack, it should not be declared dangerous because it was protecting its owner. He suggested the Ordinance is unconstiutionally vague. 19 1611 B 1 April 2, 2010 Attorney Greene responded the provision for defintion of a dangerous dog and the factors to be considered in declaring a dog to be dangerous were taken directly from Florida's Statutes (Chapter 767). The Special Magistrate stated she cannot rule on the Constitutionality of an issue, and applies the provisions of the Ordinance as it stands until it is overturned. Cross - examination of Officer Kubicsek (continued): • At what point in time was the dog, "Sadie," required to be muzzled? o The dog was declared to be dangerous on January 8, 2010, approximately two months after the incident • Why was the dog allowed to "menance the population" for two months? Attorney Greene objected to the question as argumentative. Officer Kubicsek explained an investigation letter is sent to the owner informing him/her of the restrictions to be followed to keep the dog confined. The dog is to be muzzled until the investigation is completed. The dog was declared dangerous on January 8, 2010 but is still being walked without a muzzle using a retractable leash. • Is the definition of a "muzzle" in the Ordinance? o It is a device that prevents a dog from biting while allowing it to breathe /pant, and cannot cause any injury to the dog while being worn. Re- direct by Attorney Greene: • In your opinion as the supervising Animal Control Investigator, did the dog meet the initial qualifications of the Ordinance to be declared as dangerous? Attorney McDonald objected on the grounds that it was a question of law to be decided by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate sustained the objection and narrowed the question — did the dog meet the requirements within the purview of what the Officer was required to do under the Ordinance? Attorney Greene agreed stating Officer Kubicsek was the officer in charge of making the initial determination of the dog. Attorney McDonald objected as outside the scope and said the question had already been asked and answered. The Special Magistrate stated the question could be answered as "Yes" or "No." • Officer Kubicsek responded "yes." The Respondent's case was presented: Jeannie Bates was called to testify, and her address is 2496 Kirkwood Avenue, Naples, Florida 34112. 20 F Ms. Bates is employed through the SW Florida Professional Dog Trainers Alliance which is in partnership with the Humane Society of Naples. She stated the Alliance provides canine training and behavioral services at the shelter. She has been training professionally with the Humane Society for the past five years and is a member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, a professional member of the International Association of Canine Professionals, and a Certified Evaluator for Delta Society and the American Kennel Club. She also sees private clients on a weekly basis. Examination of Ms. Bates by Attorney McDonald: • Have you ever encountered "Sadie," Mrs. Bilotti's dog? o Yes • Under what circumatances? o The dog has been enrolled in group training classes at the Kirkwood Avenue Center. "Sadie" has attended 8 classes. • Have you been directly engaged with "Sadie" during those classes? o Yes. She came shortly after the incident. A behaviorial assessment was performed and the dog was not deemed to be a menace or dangerous. "Sadie" has been enrolled in basic training in the group classes which are approximately one hour for each session and attended by 5 to 9 dogs. What is done during the group classes? o Basic obedience training. "Sadie" was very well behaved. Did you observe "Sadie" interact with other dogs? o No signs of aggression toward other dogs. Attorney Greene objected to the relevance of the dog training officer's testimony. The issue was to assess "Sadie's" chacteristics only on November 9th, the day of the incident, when the dog attacked the dog, "Peanut," causing lacerations. "Sadie's" previous history was not relevant. Attorney McDonald stated he was required to make a record regardless of the Special Magistrate's ultimate interpretation of the Ordinance. His suggested interpretation of the Ordinance is to determine whether or not the dog is overall a dangerous dog and not based on one occasion. The Special Magistrate stated she would allow some latitude and overruled Attorney Greene's objection subject to Attorney McDonald not going "too far afield." She asked for clarification of the date when "Sadie" first attended classes at the Kirkwood Center. (Response) • "Sadie" began classes approximately ten weeks ago or after the incident. Examination of Ms. Bates by Attorney McDonald (continued): • Did "Sadie" show affection toward any of the other dogs? o Her behavior was totally neutral. Had her behavior been different, she would have been placed in a special class for growly dogs 21 April 2, 2010 Jmw;- 6 J • Was "Sadie" aggressive toward human beings? 16 9 1 o No • Do you have an opinion as to whether or not "Sadie" is a dangerous dog? o She stated they conduct temperament - -- Attorney Greene objected to the opinion testimony because the witness was not qualified to render an opinion. This is an interpretation of the application of the County's Ordinance. The objection was sustained. Attorney McDonald asked to proffer for the record. o Temperament testing is done for the Humane Society and "Sadie" was tested for ten problem areas — everything from dominance through hyper prey drive - -- The Special Magistrate stated she anticipated by "proffer" that Attorney McDonald would summarize rather than ask the witness to give her specific testimony. He responded that the testimony was too complex to be summarized. The Special Magistrate asked the witness to present a brief explanation. The witness reiterated the dog passed all ten elements of the temperament test which is standarized and nationally accepted Cross - examination of Ms. Bates by Attorney Greene: • When did "Sadie" pass the ten elements of the test? o Approximately 10 weeks ago when she started attending the program. When asked about when "Sadie" started the program, the witness could not remember the exact date, only that it was after the date of the incident with "Peanut." • What was the reason given by Mrs. Bilotti for bringing her dog into the Center for a behavioral assessment? o She menetioned "Sadie" had been involved in an incident with another dog and wanted to know if she was handling her dog appropriately. • Were you aware of any other incidents involving "Sadie" other than the November 9, 2009 incident? o No Continuantion of the Respondent's case: Mrs. Bilotti was called as a witness and testified her residence is 656 Parkview Lane, Naples, Florida. She stated "Sadie" was rescued by her son approximately 3 '/2 years ago and she inherited the dog during Thanksgiving 2008 when her son moved to California. Examination of Mrs. Bilotti by Attorney McDonald: • Since "Sadie" has resided with you, has she ever been involved in an altercation with another dog? o Only when someone approached the witness — as her protector — or if 22 161, 1 _.A° Ap 2, 010 another dog was coming at her. One other time, an unleashed dog ran at "Sadie" from across the street. • During that incident, did "Sadie" bite the other dog? o No The witness was asked to described the incident of November 9, 2009 and stated she considered the incident to have been a dog fight — not a dog attack. She stated she rarely walked her dog late at night. She was reading a text message on her phone and, as she looked up, saw a man approaching and was frightened. She jumped a bit and her dog reacted. She stated "Peanut" did growl and the dogs began to fight. She was too far away then but knows now not to use a retractable leash. She further stated Dr. Szot did nothing to separate the dogs until she did so and fell on the asphalt breaking her toe. She recalled Dr. Szot walked away with his dog on the leash. Examination of Mrs. Bilotti (continued): • Did you hear "Peanut" growl before "Sadie" growled? o Yes — "Sadie" doesn't growl • Could you see the other dog? o She only saw the figure of a man and was frightened • Could you see the dog as it growled? o She could tell it was a small dog • What happened when "Sadie" went over? o She heard two dogs "arguing" — fighting. She has learned through the training that dogs do fight. • Were you able to see? o No — I separated the dogs and they [Dr. Szot and "Peanut "] walked off. The witness stated she paid $1,800 in Vet bills for "Peanut." • Was "Sadie" protecting you? o Yes Attorney McDonald formally requested a Trier of Fact View of the dog, "Sadie" (i.e., the Special Magistrate to examine the dog). Attorney Greene objected to moving the venue to the parking lot in view of the initial determination already made by Domestic Animal Services. The Special Magistrate declined to move the proceedings to the parking lot but offered to walk by the Respondent's car at the conclusion of the Trial. She requested to see a photograph of the dog, "Sadie." Attorney McDonald stated the notebook he provided contained photographs. Cross - examination of Mrs. Bilotti by Attorney Greene: • What type of dog is "Sadie ?" o She is a mixture of greyhound and some other type of hound — possibly Sharpei. • Do you know her age? 23 16VJ 8 1 ri .ri12, 2010 o It has been approximated by different Vets as about six. • What is the approximate weight of the dog? o About 40 pounds. • Did you see the two dogs interacting in the altercation that you described? o I saw two dogs fighting. • Did you see the lacerations on "Peanut ?" o Dr. Szot walked away with his dog on the leash. • Do you dispute that your dog, "Sadie," caused lascerations to "Peanut ?" o I've been told that is correct and I paid the Vet's bills, but I can't answer that under oath because I don't know. • As evidence of your good will, you paid the costs of "Peanut's" Vet bills? o Yes, and for when they decided to put the dog down. • Are you aware of an incident with a dog owner named Diane Dewaive, a resident on Gulf Shore Avenue? o No — I don't know that name. • She used to live across the street from you and you are not aware of her? o No, I don't know them. Re- direct by Attorney McDonald: The previous growling incident occurred with a dog across the street? o Yes, but I don't know their names — it could be them, they were renting and only lived there a short while. When the dogs were fighting, the little dog was biting "Sadie" as well? o The little dog was definitely the aggressor. Attorney McDonald stated the notebook he presented to the Special Magistrate contained affidavits from approximately 25 indivdivals and offered them in lieu of testimony. Attorney Greene renewed her objection regarding relevance. Attorney McDonald stated the affidavits and photographs of "Sadie" were being offered as evidence. The Special Magistrate offered both sides to admit photographs of the dogs. Attorney Greene further objected to admission of the notebook's contents because she did not have an opportunity to review the documents since it was handed to her just after the proceedings began. The Special Magistrate stated if Attorney Greene discovered something, after the Hearing concluded, that was objectionable, she would have the ability to advise Mr. McDonald and both attorneys could submit emails containing their comments concerning the affidavits. Attorney Greene requested to provide Mr. and Mrs. Szot with an opportunity to provide character affidavits for their dog, "Peanut." Attorney McDonald did not object. The Special Magistrate stated both attorneys will be given one week to submit their documentation to her. Attorney McDonald requested an opportunity to submit a Memorandum of Law. 24 Z61181 April 2, 2010 The Special Magistrate stated she would allow Attorney Greene to respond to any Memorandum submitted by Attorney McDonald and confirmed that photographs may be submitted by each side. [The Transcriptionist was requested to identify the exhibits by number. Refer to "Identification of Respondent's Exhibit" on Page 26.] Attorney Greene will submit the Szot's photographs along with their affidavits and she will provide a copy to Attorney McDonald. The Special Magistrate stated submission of evidence will be left open until Friday, April 9, 2010, and her Opinion will be written within thirty days. Attorney Greene did not object to the stated time frame but requested the Respondent keep her dog in compliance with the requirements of the County's Ordinance and confirmed the initial determination will stand until the Special Magistrate has ruled. The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent's testimony that she was no longer using a retractable leash and requested that Officer Kubicsek state the requirements. Officer Kubicsek stated: When the dog is walked, it must be on a leash and wearing a "basket" muzzle. If the dog is outside in a yard that is not fenced, it must be kept in a 6 x 6 enclosure, i.e., with a top, bottom, and four sides. If the yard is fenced, the dog may be walked outside without a muzzle as long as the owner is present. The Special Magistrate reviewed the above - referenced conditions and asked if the Respondent had any questions. The Respondent indicated she understood the restrictions. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 2:14 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING nda Garretson, 9pecial Magistrate The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on1 as presented ✓ , or as amended 25 Exhibit List Countv's Exhibit: 161 qj 2, 2010 Document Description Narrative statement of incident (November 9, 2009) (5 pages) Signed by: Frank A. and Joan K. Szot (Affirmed by Frank A. Szot, but not notarized) Dated: February 14, 2010 Marked: County's Composite Exhibit "A" Respondent's Exhibits: 18 pages of photographs of Respondent's dog, "Sadie," shown with adults, children, and other dogs in various locations. Some photographs contained descriptive captions, but dates were not identified Marked: Respondent's Composite Exhibit "1" One -page Affidavit of Christina Forbes dated February 14, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: Christina Forbes did not sign the Affidavit, and the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat by signing the document as both Affiant and Notary Public.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "2" Statement by Michael Salke (Scrivener's Note: The document was not dated or notarized.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "Y' Medical Reports from Animal Dermatology and Allergy for office visits on January 12, 2009 and January 26, 2009 (2 pages each) Signed by: Glen Burkett, BV Sc. Marked: Respondent's Composite Exhibit 114" Medical Report: skin test results from Animal Dermatology and Allergy for exam date of January 26, 2009 (2 pages) Marked: Respondent's Composite Exhibit "5" One -page Affidavit of Christine Knudsen dated February 16, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: Christine Knudsen did not sign the Affidavit, and the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat by signing the document as both Affiant and Notary Public.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "6" One -page Affidavit of Janet Bilotti dated January 25, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "7" One -page Affidavit of Lisa S. Hogan dated February 2, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "8" 26 16P1 B1 April 2, 2010 Respondent's Exhibits (continued) Document Description One -page Affidavit of Christopher Melfi dated February 3, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: The Jurat was incorrectly completed by the Notary.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 119" Two -page Affidavit of Stephen Swiecicki dated January 26, 2010 Marked: Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1110" One -page Affidavit of Al Buschauer dated January 21, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "11" One -page Affidavit of Barry A. Meltzer dated January 25, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1112" One -page Affidavit of Louis A. Rizzo dated January 24, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1113" One -page Affidavit of Katelyn Witsell dated January 28, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1114" One -page Affidavit of Richard W. Shaffer, II dated January 26, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "15" One -page Affidavit of Jack Clemence dated January 23, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1116" One -page Affidavit of Ann B. Melfi dated February 1, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1117" One -page Affidavit of Anne L. Fitzgerald dated January 26, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1118" One -page Affidavit of Gisselle Calleja dated January 21, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1119" 27 1611 Al " April 2, 2010 Respondent's Exhibits (continued) Document Description One -page Affidavit of Pam Durkin dated January 22, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "20" One -page Affidavit of Earl Harrison dated February 2, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1121" One -page Affidavit of Gregory E. Wallace dated January 25, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1122" One -page Affidavit of Bill Martin dated January 25, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1123" One -page Affidavit of Rick Bowerman dated January 25, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1124" One -page Affidavit of Tatum Purslow dated January 25, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "25" One -page Affidavit of Peter Cullen dated January 26, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "26" One -page Affidavit of Chris L. Carlson dated January 27, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1127" One -page Affidavit of Robert Shockley dated January 22, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1128" One -page Affidavit of Sheryl Hilburn dated January 26, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: The Affidavit was missing information.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "29" One -page Affidavit of Joseph A. Daniels dated January 27, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1130" 28 April 2, 2010 Respondent's Exhibits (continued) Document Description One -page Affidavit of Rev. Eugene Bilotti dated January 25, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "31" One -page Affidavit of William C. Simpson, III (Scrivener's Note: The Affidavit was not dated. The Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1132" One -page Affidavit of Judy Cunningham dated January 24, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "33" One -page Affidavit of Meghan Murphy -Goode dated February 1, 2010 Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "34" One -page Affidavit of Patrick Joseph Goode, 11 dated January 25, 2010 Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1135" One -page Affidavit of Lorraine C. Davis dated January 21, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "36" One -page Affidavit of Neal Bobba dated January 27, 2010 Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "37" One -page Affidavit of Jay Murphy dated January 21, 2010 Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "38" One -page Affidavit of David H. Collins dated January 21, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "39" One -page Affidavit of Christina Heller dated January 21, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "40" One -page Affidavit of Richard C. Ainsworth dated January 26, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "41" One -page Affidavit of Ronnie Hilburn dated January 29, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: The Affidavit was dated 01/29/10 but was notarized on 01/28/10.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "42" 29 1611 B1 " April 2, 2010 Respondent's Exhibits (continued) Document Description One -page Affidavit of Paul L. Bovio dated January 21, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "43" One -page Affidavit of Denise Collins (Scrivener's Note: The Affidavit was not dated.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "44" One -page Affidavit of Denise A. Russo dated January 22, 2010 Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1145" One -page Affidavit of Jean M. Durkin dated January 21, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1146" One -page Affidavit of Mayra Y. Maya dated January 25, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "47" One -page Affidavit of Sean Murphy dated January 25, 2010 Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1148" One -page Affidavit of Jon Spencer dated January 25, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "49" One -page Affidavit of Michael Szugyi dated January 21, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "50" One -page Affidavit of Kim Oplt dated January 22, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "51" One -page Affidavit of Jeff Oplt dated January 21, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "52" One -page Affidavit of Gary Skelly (Scrivener's Note: The Affidavit was not dated completely and the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1153" 30 Respondent's Exhibits (continued) Document Description One -page Affidavit of Dena D. Baker, DVM, dated January 29, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "54" One -page Affidavit of Luis Colon dated January 27, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "55" One -page Affidavit of Lawrence A. Goodson dated February 23, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "56" One -page Affidavit of Cheryl M. Tarnowicz dated March 4, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1157" One -page Affidavit of Glenn Jenkins dated February 18, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit 1158" JURAT (format): STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Sworn to (or Affirmed) and subscribed before me this (name ofperson making statement). (Notary Seal) 16 l► 1 IBI April 2, 2010 day of 20, by NOTARY PUBLIC Print Notary Name: Personally known: OR Produced Identification: Type of Identification produced: (Refer to "GOVERNOR'S REFERENCE MANUAL FOR NOTARIES," State of Florida, Page 30) 31 1611 BZ .. ""'p�VdtiVED APR 13 2010 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUW Y county commissioners. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE INTERSECTION SAFETY PROGRAM Fiala Halas Naples, Florida, March 1, 2010 Coyle Colette LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program, 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 ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Lt. Harold Minch, Collier County Deputy 2646 Sgt. Chris Gonzalez, Collier County Deputy Sheriff L40 D Cpl. Mike Peabody, Collier County Depu� 161 JR2 March 1, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The Hearing was called to order at 9:00 AM by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson. Special Magistrate Garretson noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) and view the video recording; the goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:07 AM RECONVENED: 9:19 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item IV (A), "Hearings, " the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #1, Notice #1360900180354 — BCC vs. Sonja Benson • Agenda #3, Notice #1360900160133 — BCC vs. Sandra Angela Burns • Agenda #6, Notice #1360900157345 — BCC vs. Woodrow W. Diaz • Agenda #11, Notice #1360900179703 — BCC vs. Cheryl Jo and William Preston Foster • Agenda #31, Notice #1360900168292 — BCC vs. Lucille H. and Jerome F. McMahon • Agenda #32, Notice #1360900156545 — BCC vs. Frank W. and Renee M. Noel • Agenda #33, Notice #1360900161230 — BCC vs. Pelican Marsh Community Development District • Agenda #36, Notice #1360900148963 — BCC vs. Helmut Schroeder (b) Under Item IV (A), "Hearings, " the following cases were DISMISSED by the County: • Agenda #13, Notice #1360900153468 — BCC vs. Maribella Diaz Hernandez • Agenda #28, Notice #1360900172146 — BCC vs. Daniel Lynn Leaman The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 1, 2010: The Minutes of the Intersection Safety Program Hearing held on February 1, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. 1611 82 March 1, 2010 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hearings: 2. Notice #1350900159283 — BCC vs. Amy Joy Biggs The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Sgt. Chris Gonzalez. The Respondent resides at 4410 Fifth Avenue SW, Naples, Florida 34119, and verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: December 9, 2009 Time: 11:22 AM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road The Respondent moved to dismiss the Citation against her based on Constitutional rights, and stated the State Legislature preempted the authority of Collier County to enact the Ordinance. The Special Magistrate DENIED the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss because she does not rule on Constitutionality issues. The Respondent was advised of her right to an appeal and was referred to the copy of the Ordinance available at the Hearing. The Respondent stated she had been informed the County did not have the jurisdiction to enact the "Code" because it violated the State's laws. The Respondent decided she wished to proceed with the Hearing and would not appeal the Special Magistrate's decision. The Special Magistrate verified the Respondent was withdrawing her Motion to Dismiss and asked the Respondent if she understood that, by proceeding with the Hearing, she was waiving any objection to the Constitutionality of the Ordinance. The Respondent stated she waived her objection. Sgt. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated the Respondent's vehicle approached the intersection and proceeded through under a red light without stopping. The Respondent stated her car was a smaller vehicle that sits below most SUV's and trucks on the road which required her to pull into the intersection in order to see on- coming traffic without obstruction. The Special Magistrate agreed the Respondent's view was blocked by the vehicle next to her. The Respondent claimed to have paused to check on- coming traffic before proceeding. 1611 132 March 1, 2010 The Special Magistrate stated the Ordinance does not allow an exception for "pauses," and drivers are required to come to a full stop before proceeding into an intersection. The Ordinance does not permit a "subjective standard," and must be applied fairly. The Respondent stated the cameras remove the human ability to assess a situation fairly. Sgt. Gonzalez stated the videos are reviewed by the Collier County Sheriff's Office before a Citation is issued, and concurred he would have issued a Citation had he been at the scene. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent to be in violation of the Ordinance. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 17. Notice #1360900136604 — BCC vs. Theodore Robert Hofferber The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was represented by his attorney, Jack Colgrove. The County was represented by Sgt. Chris Gonzalez. The Respondent stated he resides at 7512 San Miguel Way, Naples, Florida. Date of Violation: November 21, 2009 Time: 3:47 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US- 41 /Tamiami Trail N. Sgt. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. Attorney Colgrove moved to dismiss the charge against his client based upon the fact that the Florida State Legislature preempted the authority of Collier County to have enacted the Ordinance. The Special Magistrate reminded the Attorney she does not rule on the Constitutionality of the law. She stated she determines if a violation has occurred and applies the law as long as it is "good law" [not overturned]. Mr. Colgrove again moved to dismiss the Citation on the grounds of unconstitutionality and preempted authority. He stated the Respondent will appeal. The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent has declined to go forward with the Hearing. 16 I, 1 b? March 1, 2010 Mr. Cogrove reiterated the Respondent has chosen to take an Appeal and does not waive his rights. 18. Notice #1361000027982 — BCC vs. Gloria C. Karlin The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Sgt. Chris Gonzalez. The Respondent resides at 5004 Maxwell Circle, Naples, Florida 34105, and stated she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: January 25, 2010 Time: 2:04 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road The Respondent stated it took receipt of only one Notice of Violation to change her driving behavior. She was upset about the untimely manner in which she received her first violation notice. She has received seven Citations for the same violation at the same intersection. Sgt. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the light was red when the vehicle was at the stop bar at the intersection and still red when it was in the intersection. The Respondent stated she did not receive the first notice of violation until January 28`" and paid the fine immediately. A timeline was established for the various Citations: (1) Agenda #20 - Notice #1360900170850: occurred on 12/17/09, issued on 12/23/09 (2) Agenda #21 - Notice #1360900177178: occurred on 12/21/09, issued on 12/29/09 (3) Agenda #19 - Notice #1360900180230: occurred on 12/23/09, issued on 12/29/09 (4) Agenda #24 - Notice #1361000002498: occurred on 12/31/09, issued on 01/06/10 (5) Agenda #23 - Notice #1361000016084: occurred on 01/12/10, issued on 01115110 (6) Agenda #22 - Notice #1361000024484: occurred on 01/16/10, issued on 01/26/10 (7) Agenda #18 - Notice #1361000027982: occurred on 01/25/10, issued on 01/28/10 The Respondent stated she drives through the intersection approximately four to five times a day and has had no further violations. She was informed by the Sheriff s Office that the purpose of the program was to change driving behavior and not to generate revenue, and stated the first fine paid should be sufficient. The Special Magistrate stated the purpose of the Ordinance is enforcement of the law. The Respondent stated the subsequent notices she received were all delinquent. She stated she had been receiving notices for Certified Mail that did not identify the sender. 1611, f March 1, 2 1 She called the hotline in Arizona to ask if the notices were sent via Certified Mail and was told "no." She received what she believed to be the first notice and paid it and then received six more. Supervisor Jeri Waldron stated the County will withdraw Agenda Item #20 since the fine was paid. She verified all notices were initially sent via Certified Mail but the second notices were sent via regular mail because the initial notices were not retrieved from the Post Office. The Respondent produced the original Postal delivery notice, #7180 6324 6610 0087 4928, dated January 28th, which did not identify the sender. She stated, between her two jobs, she works from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM and it is difficult for her to go to the Post Office. The Special Magistrate viewed the remaining videos in the following order: • Agenda #24 - Notice #1361000002498 • Agenda #23 - Notice #1361000016084 • Agenda #22 - Notice #1361000024484 • Agenda #21 - Notice #1360900177178 • Agenda #19 - Notice #1360900180230 • Agenda #18 - Notice #1361000027982 The Respondent was found to be in violation of the above - referenced Citations. The Special Magistrate stated the requirements of the Ordinance regarding service of the Notice of Violation were met and noted the Respondent did not regularly pick up Certified Mail by her own choice. The Respondent stated the Phoenix hotline told her the Notices were not sent via Certified Mail and she did not receive any Notices until January 29, 2010. The Special Magistrate stated she could not assess a first -time offense fine due to the number of violations. She further stated the violations that occurred in December could have been caught in the holiday mail (Agenda #19- Notice #1360900180230, Agenda #21 Notice #1360900177178, and Agenda #24- Notice #1361000002498), and she would not assess fines for those Citations. But she would assess fines for the remaining Citations: • Agenda #23 -Notice #1361000016084, which occurred on 01/12/10, • Agenda #22 -Notice #1361000024484, which occurred on 01/16/10 and • Agenda #18 -Notice #1361000027982, which occurred on 01/25/10. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation in the following Citations: Agenda #19 - Notice #1360900180230, Agenda #23 - Notice #1361000016084, and Agenda #24 - Notice #1361000002498. 1611 March 1, 0 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation in the following Citations: Agenda #21- Notice #1360900177178, Agenda #22 - Notice #1361000024484, and Agenda #18 - Notice #1361000027982, and was ordered to pay a fine of $75.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00 for Agenda #21, a fine of $100.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00 for Agenda #22, and a fine of $100.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00 for Agenda #18. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $425.00 The Special Magistrate noted U.S. Postal Service delivery notice, #7180 6324 6610 0087 4928, dated January 28, 2010, was admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit "A." 26. Notice #1360900139020 — BCC vs. Dale A. and Kathleen J. Kurth The Hearing was requested by Respondent, Dale A. Kurth, who was present and also represented his wife, Kathleen J. Kurth. The County was represented by Sgt. Chris Gonzalez and Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondents reside at 28004 Westbrook Drive, Bonita Springs, Florida, and Mr. Kurth verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: November 18, 2009 Time: 7:49 AM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Sgt. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent contended he did stop, and viewed the on- coming traffic before he went through the intersection. Lt. Minch stated the vehicle did slow down but did not make a complete stop. The Respondent asked if the issue was where to stop versus actually stopping. He stated his vehicle stopped. Lt. Minch stated the State Statute and the County Ordinance require a vehicle to stop at the stop bar (the first white line) before proceeding into an intersection. The Special Magistrate stated the video did not show there was anything blocking the Respondent's vision. The Respondent stated there was a sign at the intersection which stated "Right on Red after Stop" but did not state the stop must be made at the stop bar. In order to view on- coming traffic, he pulled into the intersection before he completed the right -hand turn. The Special Magistrate stated the vehicle did not come to a complete stop. The Respondent stated he will appeal the decision. 161 1 82 March 1, 2010 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 27. Notice #1360900168714 — BCC vs. Daniel Lynn Leaman The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Sgt. Chris Gonzalez. The Respondent resides at 5637 Whisperwood Blvd, #610, Naples, Florida 34110, and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: December 16, 2009 Time: 1:08 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road Sgt. Gonzalez presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the traffic signal was red as the Respondent's vehicle proceeded through the intersection. The Respondent stated his daughter is 21 years of age and this was her first series of violations. He stated he received three Notices but he did not find out until January 6, 2010. He paid the first violation which was dated December 12, 2009. Supervisor Jen Waldron noted Agenda #28 - Notice #1360900172146 was dismissed at the request of the Deputy Sheriff. The Special Magistrate called the Respondent's daughter, Cassandra Leaman, to testify. Ms. Leaman stated she was the driver of the automobile and stated she slowed as she made the turn, but has since learned she must stop before entering an intersection. She stated she has stopped every time since she received the notice. The Special Magistrate noted there was a truck blocking Ms. Leaman's view which contributed to her decision to enter the intersection. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. RECESS: 10:39 AM RECONVENED: 10:54 AM Supervisor Waldron announced the County WITHDREW the following cases: 161 1' March 1, 201 P2 • Agenda #4, Notice #1360900161362 — BCC vs. John Christian and Linda Ann Marie Burton • Agenda #5, Notice #1360900170769 — BCC vs. Frank F. and Shirley M. DeCaro • Agenda #7, Notice #1360900175842 — BCC vs. Russell Clifford Doeringer • Agenda #29, Notice #1360900088318 — BCC vs. Daniel Martens • Agenda #34, Notice #1360900176295 — BCC vs. Judith Duncan Price 8. Notice #1360900130961— BCC vs. Brian Alexander and Jennifer Sue Feinstein The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondents were not present. Date of Violation: November 17, 2009 Time: 4:36 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle approached, entered, and proceeded through the intersection under a red light. The Special Magistrate noted pumping the brakes is not a full stop and determined a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondents are allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 9. Notice #1360900141554 — BCC vs. Brian Alexander and Jennifer Sue Feinstein The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondents were not present. Date of Violation: November 24, 2009 Time: 5:37 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the red light. The Special Magistrate stated the Respondents were found to be in violation for a second time. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found 36I 192 March 1, 2010 GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $75.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondents are allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $125.00 10. Notice #1360900162931— BCC vs. Zuleika Aimee Feliz The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: December 12, 2009 Time: 1:31 AM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Livingston Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle approached the intersection under a red light and did not stop. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 12. Notice #1360900184513 — BCC vs. Joseph E. Harrington The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: December 26, 2009 Time: 5:30 PM Location: Intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Blvd. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the red light. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 10 16ff B2 March 1, 2010 14. Notice #13609000144616 — BCC vs. Pierre Richard Hilaire The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: November 27, 2009 Time: 1:42 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light which had been red for 34 seconds. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $75.00 (second offense) plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $125.00 15. Notice #1360900149078 — BCC vs. Pierre Richard Hilare The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondents were not present. Date of Violation: December 1, 2009 Time: 3:23 PM Location: Intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Blvd. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the clearly visible red light. The Special Magistrate noted this was a third offense and stated a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $100.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondents are allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $150.00 16. Notice #1360900113058 — BCC vs. Eugene Joseph Hinspeter The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. m 161192 March 1, 2010 Date of Violation: November 7, 2009 Time: 10:22 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and US 41 /Tamiami Trail N. Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light which had been illuminated for 15 seconds. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to pay. Total Amount Due: $112.50 25. Notice #1360900156396 — BCC vs. Elie Khoury The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: December 7, 2009 Time: 11:55 AM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle did not stop at the light which had been red for 52 seconds. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 30. Notice #1360900133387 — BCC vs. Jeannie McGearty The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: November 19, 2009 Time: 8:50 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and US 41 /Tamiami Trail N. 12 16 1 1 g2 March 1, 2010 Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle approached the traffic signal under a clearly visible red light and did not stop. The Special Magistrate noted this was a second offense and stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $75.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $125.00 35. Notice #1360900139558 — BCC vs. Jasmine Lawanda Roach The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: November 18, 2009 Time: 6:44 AM Location: Intersection of Pine Road and Airport Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the vehicle drove straight through the intersection at 45 miles per hour. The Special Magistrate stated, based on the evidence presented, a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 37. Notice #1360900184448 — BCC vs. Sean P. Sipe The County was represented by Lt. Harold Minch. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: December 26, 2009 Time: 5:07 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Lt. Minch presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate and stated the Respondent's vehicle entered and exited the intersection under a clearly visible red light. 13 1611 ch 1, 82 ^ The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent was in violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Motion to Rescind Previously- Issued Order: 1 Agenda #1, Notice #1360900067650 — BCC vs. Jerald Dean Thomas Supervisor Waldron stated payment was made prior to the Order being issued. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion. VI. NEXT HEARING DATE: April 5, 2010 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3 Floor, Naples, Florida There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by order of the Special Magistrate at 11:10 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE enda Garret , Special Magistrate The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on Nm� as presented ✓ , or as amended 14