Loading...
Item 3A AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 September 3, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission FROM: Jim Hanso qty anager SUBJECT: Follow -u eport Complaint About Irrigation; At the last city commission meeting, a citizen complained about the City's irrigation systems running on the Atlantic Boulevard medians for "seven days per week ". The irrigation system had been running for six days per week to water in quite a number of plants that had been recently replaced in the medians. Use of irrigation water is allowed seven days per week for the first 30 days after a major replanting effort and every other day for the next 30 days. Citizens suspecting a malfunction in any public watering system should report that directly to the City's Public Works Department at 247 -5834 rather than wait for a city commission meeting so that they can be repaired more quickly if there is a problem. Water Loss; During a recent budget workshop, the City Commission had a lengthy discussion about the amount of water loss reported. Water losses for Atlantic Beach on a 12 month average have ranged from 10% to about 13% over several years, but have been increasing in recent months up to the most high in August of 16 %. Included in the draft budget for the upcoming fiscal year are funds for an accelerated meter replacement program. It was reported in an article from the August, 2010 issue of Waterworld Magazine that the average amount of water loss (referred to as "non- revenue water) for utilities throughout the nation is about 22 %. They further state "a well run utility will keep this figure in the low teens while utilities with older infrastructure, lacking routine leak detection and meter testing programs, may approach 40% or higher." While the City of Atlantic Beach should increase the water meter replacement program, this report is confirmation that the utility staff have been prudent stewards of both our water resources and revenue. Allegations; Allegations were made at the last Commission meeting about the truthfulness of statements made by the City Manager and City Attorney. A written report denying those allegations about the City Manager and stating the related facts has been distributed to commission members and a copy is attached to this report. The City Attorney has provided a separate written report about allegations relating to him. AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 August 31, 2010 MEMORANDUM To: Commissioner Carolyn Woods From: Jim Hanso C ► A % 1 Subject: Allegations made at Ci , Commission Meeting You made allegations at the City Commission Meeting on August 23 that both the City Attorney and I had said things at commission meetings that `just weren't right", that some of my statements were "bogus" and "there are other things like this that got said and each one lowered my trust level quite a bit." A verbatim transcript of your comments is attached. This memo is to reply to your allegations and set the record straight. While several vague allegations were made at the meeting and some were made about others, it appears that two were directed at me. One was about the City's requirement to pay mitigation costs for tree removal to the City of Jacksonville and the other was about denying the Commission the ability to be involved in the choice of sewer line routes. Allegation about Tree Mitigation. Your specific comment in the August 23 meeting was "The City Manager had gotten an e-mail, a confirmation that, and this is old news, we talked about this, a developer would. I'm sorry that's the second ? ?, that the only permit that they would give us for taking down trees was what needed to come down and put in and yet he encouraged us to approve the contract to pay for $140,000 of tree mitigation which was just bogus, just bogus." You are correct that this came up before. This is the same allegation that you raised in the City Commission Meeting on May 10, 2010. I responded in writing in my Follow -up Report made at the next meeting on May 24, 2010. To summarize; the City's engineers had spoken with Jacksonville staff in charge of their tree mitigation program on numerous occasions about our project. Jacksonville staff had made it abundantly clear that the City of Atlantic Beach would be required to pay the mitigation if the trees were removed. The $140,000 figure was an estimate from our engineers of the mitigation cost to be paid to Jacksonville. My report at the May meeting included a number of e-mails that I had received from our engineers where they summarized their discussions with the Jacksonville staff. One of those e-mails even included a response from the Jacksonville staff that unequivocally stated that Atlantic Beach would be AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 required to pay the mitigation costs. Those e-mails contained the names and telephone numbers of both engineers and Jacksonville staff that you could have contacted to verify the information. A copy of that report is attached. Our engineers have since had continuing discussions with the City of Jacksonville about the need to get a tree permit to remove a few trees along the golf course property that are outside the Atlantic Beach city limits on another segment of this sewer line. It was made clear again by Jacksonville staff that the City of Atlantic Beach is required to comply with all of their rules for tree mitigation. Allegation about Sewer Line Route. "I was told that the Commission would decide on the route that we were going to use. There were 16 choices and before it came up to the Commission, I was presented with a contract, a negotiated contract, to use one particular route." You are the only person that recalls that statement being made or otherwise having any expectation that the City Commission would be involved in choosing the sewer line route after the presentation made by the engineers in December of 2008 where they presented the Commission with a list of 16 alternatives and specifically pointed out the least cost route a portion of which was to be located on property just to the west of the Oceanwalk Subdivision. I have discussed this question since the August 23 meeting with the other commissioners who were present, our engineers and the city staff. None of them have any recollection of the commission being left out of the process. After contracts with the engineers were approved to design the sewer line to meet the new TMDL standards, the first order of business was to get the necessary easements. From that time until the report made to the commission at the meeting on July 27, 2009 that recommended acceptance of the easements, the Mayor and Commissioners were individually briefed on multiple occasions about the status of the sewer line easements being obtained. While you did not show up for several of our scheduled meetings, you did attend some during that time period including one on April 23, 2009 where my notes indicated that we discussed an item titled "Route for sewer force main through property of Michael Sones north of Selva Marina Drive." The other commissioners clearly remember being briefed on this issue on several occasions. While you were aware that the easements were being obtained, you made no mention of any expectation that the commissioners would be involved in choosing routes or that there would be any criteria for selection other than the lowest cost for the City until the routes were presented for approval by the commission in July of 2009. After that, there was a considerable amount of public input concerning the sewer routes which resulted in alternate routes being studied through the Oceanwalk Subdivision and Fleet Landing. The City Commission chose the original route west of the Oceanwalk Subdivision at the meeting on September 14, 2009. 2 AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 Open Records Request. Your allegations made in the August 23` meeting did not include anything about open records. However, this seems a good opportunity to comment on your allegations on this subject as well. First, your right to request open records under the state law is very clear and unquestioned. City staff has worked diligently to complete your numerous open records requests quickly. We have often taken both City time and personal time, including nights and weekends, to meet your demands for timeliness. You have complained several times about the cost charged to you for these open records. You should understand that several of these have taken far more time and effort to put together than you were charged. You have made numerous record requests to me, to other staff and to our engineers not only for virtually every record and report related to this TMDL project over several years, but also for copies of the personal schedules for myself and several others, records of meetings with other commissioners and for other information. We have produced for you literally thousands of documents since the beginning of this year. Again, all these records are open and available to you under state law and I take no issue with that. However, the tone of your requests has clearly implied that you think we are trying to hide something or keep you from obtaining certain information. Assuming that you have reviewed all of the documents that we have produced, the only conclusion that you can draw from all of this is that THERE IS NO SMOKING GUN. The only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that both the staff and engineers have worked diligently since the beginning of this project with one objective in mind; to get the job done at the lowest cost for the community. We have had several professional engineers involved, several staff members and attorneys for both the City and the properties through which easements were obtained. This project has spanned years. It is virtually impossible for that many people to have been involved for that long in a project to be able to cover up any illegal, immoral or inappropriate actions. We are all just trying to do the best job we can for Atlantic Beach. I have worked in city management for over 34 years and take great pride in doing a job in a professional and honest manner. You are the first elected official who has accused me of dishonesty. In spite of that, I remain ready and willing to work with you in the future to provide whatever information and records you need to successfully fulfill your duties as a City Commissioner. cc: Mayor Borno Commissioner John Fletcher Commissioner Paul Parsons Commissioner Jonathan Daugherty Alan Jensen, City Attorney Donna Bartle, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 Commissioner Woods (verbatim) Since Jonathan asked, I'm going to take a moment. He asked an honest question and I want to give him an honest answer. I have had a lot of problems with this whole project. When it started, I didn't have any problems. I didn't have any reason to doubt anything about it at all. But, as time went on there were discrepancies and things I was told and I'll just gloss over a couple of those. I don't want to drag them through the mud anymore than we have to. I'd have to say the first red flag was when I was told that the Commission would decide on the route that we were going to use. There were 16 choices and before it came up to the Commission, I was presented with a contract, a negotiated contract to use one particular route. That was a red flag for me. How did that happen? If the Commission didn't set the policy that we were going to go down that. And a lot of discussion ensued over that path, who owned the property, who doesn't own the property, still a question up for debate. Things were said at Commission meetings that just weren't right, by the City Attorney, City Manager, other people. I can see you want me to uh. (Mr. Hansen — Yea, I would like to hear the details. Mr. Jensen — I would too.) Well, the City Attorney, in particular, when I asked if the City had any insurance, any protection if we went on the property and did anything, you told me that the Estates of Atlantic Beach property or title insurance, or their insurance, would cover us. And that's just not true. (Jensen — I never said that.) You did say it. (Jensen — I never said that title insurance would cover. .) I asked (Jensen .. liability for us going on their property) let me (Jensen - I would never say that) I asked if we would be covered if we went on that property and it ended up that the Estates didn't own it. And you said their insurance would cover us. (Jensen — Would cover what, liability for the City?) Would cover us, yes. (Jensen — if somebody got hurt on the property?) Excuse me, I think I have the floor. (Jensen — I'm just asking you to clarify, because you are not making in sense to me.) Well, it um, the Beaches Leader printed a letter to the Editor from an attorney in town that took real issue with that and it's in the minutes, it's in the, I don't know if we have recordings of that meeting or not. The City Manager had gotten an email, a confirmation that, and this is old news, we've talked about this, a developer would. I'm sorry that's the second ? ?, that the only permit that they would give us for taking down trees was what needed to come down to put in and yet he encouraged us to approve the contract to pay for $140,000 of tree mitigation, which was just bogus, just bogus. And there are other things like this that got said and each one lowered my trust level quite a bit. So, yes, I have really scrutinized this and I have lost a lot of faith in some of the people I sit up here with and I would like to regain that faith. And that's part of the reason why I think these videotaping these meetings is so important. I don't think the misleading statements would have been said if people knew there was a camera looking at them, despite your aversion to being filmed. I think it keeps all of honest. You know you get, sometimes it's just, it comes out and you don't really mean it. Sometimes it is intentional to mislead. We had, you went through a huge debate about the contract and what was in the contract and what wasn't in the contract and there's a clause in the contract that says there are no other agreements, it says exactly what it says is what it is and people at this dais with us up here kept saying it's what the intention was, not what the contract says. Things like that AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 really made me questions everything, probably a lot more than I should of, or that needed to be. But once you start to lose that basic trust that you are getting complete honest answers, you look a little bit harder and I am going to request that we put, I appreciated the report on the videotaping tonight and I would like it to be questioned at the next meeting. that we can vote on and I would like us to consider everything, not just the cost. There's a lot of people that don't make these meetings, that can't get here at 6:00. We've discussed that. That's another pro for the community. There's a lot of PR value in having these meetings taped and having them online. We've already discussed Mr. Greene's talking about people trying to move into town and things that deter people. John's concemed about on -site storage being a concern because it's a cost. Well, this kind of videotaping and having, being progressive encourages the right people to come to our town and live here and if you are just going to look at it from a vanity point of view, you are missing the boat. But anyway, I wanted to answer that question because I know it's been hard on a lot of you to sit here and listen to all my questions and I appreciate the tolerance and the patience and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to explain why I have been so tenacious. City Attorney Jensen (verbatim) I would like to address a couple of points, Carolyn. You accuse me of making false statements up here and I have never done that. I may make mistakes, I have never made a false statement up here. You try, and this was part of the problem we had in that entire process. When people listen to part of something and don't understand it or don't try to understand it. And there are people talking about the intent of the contract, like you mentioned, or there was a letter to the editor talking about the spirit of the contract and attributing that to me. What I said and was said by several other people, was if there is ambiguity in a contract, the first thing a judge will do in interpreting that contract is look at the intent of the parties who entered the contract, not the intention of the contract. So that's misunderstanding. And I appreciate your desire to get complete, honest answers up here. I tried to get those out of you for several meetings. You refused, you wouldn't answer, you are the one who made false statements in your letter to Angela Corey, you are the one who had false statements and letters to the editor and guest editorials and did you come out and defend them or rebut them or justify them or come up with evidence to support them. No, you exercised, you got a lawyer and you exercised your right to remain silent. I guess that's your right, you don't have to answer, you can make statements without answering. You are the one that we would like complete honest answers from, and those have been sent to you in writing several times by me. I have never gotten an answer from you. You have just refused to respond to these false statements. You got the same letters from Mr. (Woods — That is just not true.) It certainly is. (Woods — No, that's just not true.) Well, it, now you are not telling the truth again. You sat up here and lied to me about a statement that you claimed was made to you by the State Attorney's office regarding (Woods — no) your letter being a public record (Woods — no, that is not a lie) Yea, it was. (Woods — that was what I was told.) No, you weren't. I talked to the people you talked to and that's not what they told you. (Woods AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 — no you didn't.) Yes, I did. (Woods — you did not talk to the person that told the lawyer that was asking the question for me. That answered. You talked, no, Alan, I) You said you (Woods —I told.) You said you were told, I said who told you, you said we'll get back to that later and I'll tell you later and you never told us. That's your words. (Woods — Warren Anderson made that call for me.) And who did he talk to? (Woods — he talked to, I would have to look at it, um, I would have to look back at my notes, but it was not um) It was not Rich Komando. (Woods — No) I know, I know who it was and I talked to them too. (Woods, well that's what I was told.) And they didn't tell you or anyone else, according to them. (Woods, so you are saying the lawyer I asked lied to me.) I am saying you sat here at a meeting and I asked you who told you that and you said the State Attorney's office told me that. I said, who at the State Attorney's office told you that and you said I will have to get back to you on that. So no one told you, if that correct. (Woods — my attorney told me. The attorney that I asked.) Well, that's different from what you said at the time, but regardless, all the other questions that were provided to you, in writing (Woods — and the answer is the same,) No response. (Woods - they were concerns from citizens that I was asked) Well, I'm just telling you. I submitted to you in writing. (Woods — and Alan, you were threatening me.) I never threatened you. (Woods — and the Estates of Atlantic Beach were threatening me with all kinds of law suits. You're just going to start blabbing anything without any counsel) I never threatened you at all. (Woods — I don't think you would do that if you were being threatened with a law suit like that.) I didn't threaten you with a law suit. (Woods — and for what, for asking questions ?) You did more than ask questions, you , made flat out statements that were wrong. (Woods — did you read the letter, I backed up every single thing I put in that letter.) No you didn't. I read the letter, I had to get it from the, from Tallahassee because you wouldn't provide it after you said you would. Ok. (Woods — Yes, but ) And I read it and there are many false statements in that letter that you have never substantiated. (Woods - they were not false statements, they were questions. ) (Fletcher — two land swaps, Carolyn.) Two land swaps is just one example. (Woods — that was the one that I got wrong.) (Fletcher — That was the biggest one that mattered.) (Woods — I did not preface that with the word, did, and I have explained that, I have explained that right here.) You haven't answered many, many questions that were posed to you about the statements you made and you still haven't answered them. I've got probably at least a half a dozen emails that I have sent to you asking you specific questions, you have never once responded. (Woods — that's just not true, I have responded with what I have repeated here.) I would appreciate you getting those responses to me then. (Woods — I have responded here .) No, you haven't. (Woods — what do you want, you want) I don't have them all here. (Woods — well, neither do I, but the point is) I will be glad to give them, bring them to the next meeting and give them to you. (Woods — my letter to the State attorneys was very specific.) And it contained a lot of inaccuracies. (Woods — they were questions.) They were more than just questions, they were false statements. (Woods — no) Yes, plenty of them, plenty of them. (Woods — no) Complete honest answers is what we all deserve from all of our officials and we haven't gotten that from you. (Woods - Well, I don't feel I've gotten it from you and I feel I've given you honest answers.) Well, you haven't given AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 me any answers. (Woods — I have given you plenty of answers.) Why, then did you hire a lawyer and who said she's not going to answer any of your questions? (Woods — I think that was paraphrased a little bit) No, that's exactly. That was in Gray Thomas' letter. (Woods — Quote, why did I have to hire an attorney?) I don't know. (Woods — because I was being threatened and you were aiding the people that were threatening me.) Well, that's false totally. (Woods — no that's not false.) Prove that. (Woods — did you see, look at) Prove that. (Woods — you sat up here and interrogated me instead of saying what you would expect an attorney to say and help you with the answers. You were interrogating me. That's not helping me.) 1 was asking you to explain your statements. (Woods — and I did. ) No you didn't. (Woods - And you didn't like the answers and you kept going.) You walked out of the meeting. You refused to answer them. (Woods — that's right) Because you wouldn't answer them. Right? (Woods — why?) Why? Because they were false and you wouldn't admit it. (Woods — no, you were interrogating me.) I was asking you questions. (Woods — that's the same thing.) It wasn't an interrogation. (Woods — yes, it was.) It was questions. (Woods — and we do have a tape of that.) Good. (Woods — So I'm sure this is not what Jonathan meant to get into when he asked me this question.) (Clyde Bradley stood up and spoke but it was not audible.) (Woods — Yes.) (Bradley — you have been through this a few times already. You guys sit around and talk about her after she left the meeting and ? ? ?? reading her mails like she was a damn nut, ok. [Remainder was inaudible]) (Woods — you guys are ) I'm just trying to get truthful answers out of her that we haven't gotten yet. (Woods — you're out of) (Borno — We're not in an open discussion about this whole thing, the City Attorney had the floor. Everybody had the floor, it is an exchange between the two up . here and, are you finished yet ?) I'm finished. AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 May 18, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission FROM: Jim Hanson City Manager SUBJECT: Follow-up Report Staff Report on possible development; at the last commission meeting, a Commissioner asked about a staff report dated August 10, 2004 from Sonya Doerr outlining possible development that could occur on undeveloped property in Jacksonville adjacent to Atlantic Beach (presently known as The Estates). The specific question was "why is the City taking up staff time and resources to do developers presentation; why the developer did not come and address the Commission himself, as most do; why did the City vet this information before presenting it to the Commission ?" The report resulted from a request made at the previous commission meeting on August 9, 2004 when Mayor Meserve reported that he had received a letter from Attorney Paul Harden proposing to annex and develop the property. Commissioner Waters requested that staff put together information concerning annexation, and possible uses for the property under the current (Jacksonville) zoning. A copy of that portion of the minutes from the August 9, 2004 meeting is attached. Also attached is a copy of the August 10, 2004 staff report from Sonya Doerr. City of Jacksonville Requirements for Tree Mitigation; it was also alleged in the last commission meeting that the City of Atlantic Beach would not be required to pay mitigation for any trees removed in the proposed street right -of -way of The Estates and related to the sewer line project. This statement is not correct. Atlantic Beach would be subject to tree mitigation payments to Jacksonville for this project if any trees were to be removed. Engineers working for the City of Atlantic Beach contacted Jacksonville officials starting in 2008 and had continuing correspondence with them as late as March of 2010. An e-mail from John Collins, engineer working on behRlf of the City, dated May 12, 2010 is attached along with a string of previous e-mails showing that the City of Jacksonville staff interpreted their rules to require that Atlantic Beach would be subject to tree mitigation. AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 From: John Collins To: Hanson, Jim; cc: Kaluzniak, Donna; "Gordon "; Subject: FW: City R/W protected tree removal - Atlantic Beach Project • Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:37:10 PM Hi Jim: Per your request - could the design team provide a brief historical summary of when it was determined that the COAB TMDL Sewer Piping Project would be subject to COJ tree mitigation - i.e. portions that are located in Duval County? The planning & design team (HDR or JCEA) evaluated as many as 16 TMDL sewer piping routes to relocate wastewater from Buccaneer WWTP (the phase out) to AB . WWTP. In our evaluation of at least one of the routes - the use of the old Sherry Road ROW and Selva Marina ROW (extension) was considered (old ROW was the undeveloped area west of Oceanwalk Subdivision located in Duval County) and it was determined that the piping project would be subject to COJ Tree Mitigation. The history is • Fall of 2008 the design team was finalizing Technical Memo #2 & the cost of the alternative routes. Design team established a tree mitigation cost for the undeveloped area adjacent to Oceanwalk because previous city efforts to install pipes in same area required COJ tree mitigation (approximately 1990 by city records). • Fall of 2009 - HDR met with City.of Jacksonville to discuss COJ Tree Mitigation requirements on a municipal project - COAB TMDL sewer pipe project (see HDR email below) • March 2010 - JCEA requested that Bernard Walsh, LA - employed on COAB pipe project by JCEA - to verify current COJ Tree Mitigation rules and mitigation costs. (see Walsh email below) John Collins, PE J. Collins Engineering Associates, LLC 11516 -3 San Jose Blvd. Jacksonville, FL 32223 904- 262 -4121 904 - 716 -6282 (cell) HDR Email • AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 Wed 9/9/2009 5:05 PM • Jim, Billy Burke and I met with Kim Stewart and John Larson of COJ concerning our approach to estimating the mitigation costs. Mr. Larson indicated that he has had several conversations with area residents concerning the clearing. They concurred that our approach was acceptable and that if a COJ street could be put in the proposed easement at the same time preserving trees that would be the best thing. In fact, they have some new design guidelines and options that.may help with developer with preserving trees as he develops. Kim did agree that if the pipe line was directional drilled across the property, then the only mitigation that would be considered is what trees had to be removed to accommodate the equipment. So that everyone understands, please allow me to clarify that HDR did not do a complete roadway design: Our approach was to make a solid attemptto provide • an estimate for mitigation if a 30 foot wide alignment was pushed through the • property, avoiding trees. This alignment should be adequate to design a roadway with the character that The Estates would want. Gordon Grimes, PE Senior Project Manager HDR. ONE 1.Many Solutions • 200 West Forsyth Street 1 Suite'8001 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 • Direct 904.598.89481 Fax 904.598.89881 Walsh Email • • • From: Davis, Paul [mailto:PDavis @coj.net] • Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:00 AM To: walshandwalsh @bellsouth.net • Subject: FW: City R/W protected tree removal Note: The city will require tree protection that is. based on locating the barricade one foot away from the tree for each one inch caliper, so the survey should pick up every tree in the easement plus any those is large enough and close enough to warrant a barricade. • Paul M Davis, AICP, ASLA City Planner ill, FL Landscape Architect Reg. No. LA0000936 • AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 • City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Ed Ball Building, 214 North Hogan Street, Room 3024 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone (904) 255 -7822 Email pdavis@coj.net From Davis, Paul Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 10:25 AM To: 'BERNARD I. WALSH RLA' Subject: RE: City R/W protected tree removal Yes. They are protected and replacement is 1:1 based on inches. Paul M Davis, A%CP, ASLA City Planner 111, FL Landscape Architect Reg. No. LA0000936 City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Ed Ball Building, 214 North Hogan Street, Room 3024 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone (904) 255 -7822 Email pdavis@coj.net From: BERNARD L WALSH RLA [ mall to:walshandwalsh ©bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:22 AM To: Davis, Paul Subject: RE: City R/W protected tree removal Paul, The project we are working on is a proposed 18 lot residential development located within the City limits of Jacksonville. The property is located immediately west of the city limits of Atlantic Beach. Our Client is Atlantic Beach Utilities. The protected trees and Cabbage Palms have been surveyed and evaluated by a Certified Arborist. We are currently preparing alternate roadway alignments to minimize specimen tree removal. . There is a significant number of Cabbage Palms. Are Cabbage Palms projected? If so, we will have to mitigate. Your response would be appreciated. Bernard Walsh AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 From: Davis, Paul jmailto:PDavis @coj.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 10:05 AM To: BERNARD L WALSH RLA Subject: RE: City R/W protected tree removal • Trees equal to or greater than 6 inches are protected. • Trees located on a property boundary are owned jointly by both property owners and should be shown and protected. • Tree protection barricades should be shown on the plan as one foot from the tree for every inch caliper. • Mitigation payments to the tree fund are not a owner /contractor option; it is allowed only when there is no practical way to mitigate through on -site mitigation ' plantings. • Current mitigation cost is $103 per inch. $44 per inch for palms and pines. • All protected trees and an existing tree condition /disposition list should be shown on the plans. • All trees greater than 11.5 inches must be mitigated with "shade trees. Trees 6 -11 inches non -shade trees may be used. Paul M Davis, AICP, ASLA • City Planner 111, FL Landscape Architect Reg. No. LA0000936 . City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Ed Ball Building, 214 North Hogan Street, Room 3024 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone (904) 255 -7822 Email pdavis @coj.net From: BERNARD L WALSH RLA [ mailto :walshandwalsh @bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 9:53 AM . To: Davis, Paul Subject: FW: City R/W protected tree removal Paul, if you can answer my question that 1 sent to Kim, it would be appreciated. Bernard Walsh • From: BERNARD L WALSH RLA [ mailto :walshandwalsh @belisouth.net] AGENDA ITEM # 3A SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 9:39 AM To: Stewart, Kimberly Subject: City 11/W protected tree removal Kim, • I am working on a new 50' R.O.W. roadway and utility extension through a heavily wooded Oak Hammock. I believe trees, pines and palms over 6" caliper or protected. Also, what Is the current city tree mitigation cost per inch for trees and Long Leaf Pines. Your clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Bernard PS We have finally moved to St. Augustine and our new address.and contact information is listed below. It took us 2 years to sale our home of 37 years in Mandarin WALSH &WALSH Landscape Architecture and Interior Design, Inc. LC- 0000340 BERNARD WALSH _ ......... I Landscape Architect / Planner .:.,' 904) 826 -3326 Work 904) 612 -1%3 (9p4) 6 12-99 71 waishandwalshObelisouth.net 4041 Coastal Highvwtay fit. Augustine, FL 32084 OFFICE LOCATION: The data provided In this e-mail is for information purposes only for the recipient and Ls subject to change without notice.