CCPC Minutes 09/27/2013 AUIRFILED #43 September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
,.x,,,44 Y,F1ORIDc.
2013 NOV 14 PM 3� 4 OLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
CLERK OF
COURTS Naples, Florida, September 27, 2013
Of
gIC 1REl-1EMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Govermnent Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Mike Rosen
Karen Homiak
Diane Ebert
Barry Klein
Philip Brougham
ABSENT: Paul Midney
Mike Bosi, Director of Planning and Zoning
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
Heidi Ashton- Cicko, County Attorney's Office
Tom Eastman, School District Representative
Page 1 of 88
AUIR 2013
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27,
2013, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE SPECIAL MEETING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE SPECIAL MEETING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES,
CATEGORY A, CATEGORY B; CATEGORY C.
A. AUIR OVERVIEW — MIKE BOSI
B. ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT — CHIEF McLAUGHLIN
C. OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT —CHIEF McLAUGHLIN
D. COUNTY ROADS — NICK CASALANGUIDA/REED JARVI
E. DRAINAGE CANALS AND STRUCTURES — JERRY KURTZ /STEVE PRESTON
F. POTABLE WATER SYSTEM —KRIS VANLENGEN
G. SEWER TREATMENT & COLLECTOR SYSTEMS — KRIS VANLENGEN
H. SOLID WASTE — KRIS VANLENGEN
I. PUBLIC SCHOOLS — AMY TAYLOR
J. PARKS AND FACILITIES —BARRY WILLIAMS
K. COUNTY JAIL — CHIEF GREG SMITH
L. LAW ENFORCEMENT — CHIEF GREG SMITH
M. LIBRARY — MARILYN MATTHES
N. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES — DAN SUMMERS /WALTER KOPKA
O. GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS — SKIP CAMPMANK JONES
P. COASTAL ZONE BEACH & INLET MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT — GARY MCALPIN
3. PUBLIC COMMENT — The Chairman will open the agenda for Public Comment after each of the categories noted above.
4. ADJOURN
FAComprehensivee /AUIR/2013 AUIR/Agenda/CCK /September 2013 /mk
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
PROCEEDINGS
MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we had to see who got to that one first, and I thought you ought to,
Mike. So thank you.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Friday, September 27th, meeting of the Collier County
Planning Commission.
Please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And this is a special meeting to review the AUIR. But before
we get into that, we're going to go through some regular agenda items. The first one is the roll call. Will the
secretary please do the roll call.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Rosen?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is absent.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here.
Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
COMNIISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Brougham?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have a quorum.
** *And the first item up today will be a review of the language changes to the Buckley amendment
that was put through last week. This isn't a consent hearing. It's just an acknowledgment that the language is
written correctly.
So with that, I guess there was some -- Commissioner Brougham pointed out one correction that was
needed.
And, Tim, you want to brief us on that?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Brougham raised the issue of, on the drive- through establishments having a maximum of three
drive - through lanes for all drive - through establishments as opposed to just banks. That is consistent with my
recollection of the discussion.
And so the language that has been provided to the court reporter and entered into the record today, I
believe, reflects that by stating under what would be new Item L, and this is just a modification to the
language staff provided you for this morning's hearing that states, and no drive- through establishments shall
have more than three drive- through lanes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have any objection to
the change?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the applicant obviously doesn't.
Michele, could you just acknowledge you're comfortable with the change or not.
MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca, comprehensive planning staff. If the Planning
Commission is comfortable with the change, we'll move that forward to the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that works for everybody here. Thank you.
MS. MOSCA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, one more acknowledgment I'd like on the record. During the
discussion last week, you presented various data and analysis to support your position, some of which had not
Page 2 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
reached staff yet. And I know that there's been a workout to get that data analysis -- that was presented to us
in verbal form, but in support of your position. Will you be getting that to staff today?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes. I handed Ms. Mosca a hard copy this morning stamped "draft" for her
review, and will be providing an electronic copy today to her.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you very much. That's the last loose end.
Everybody's okay with it, then. It's not an item for vote, but we'll just acknowledge that we're good
to go with the correction noted.
There's no other comments from the Planning Commission, and that will get us into next regular
agenda item. I shouldn't say "regular." It's special agenda.
Good morning, Corby. You were late with the Buckley handout. You had Michele running around
trying to make copies, just to let you know, so --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: He says better her than me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's a good point.
MR. SCHMIDT: So much for the atomic watch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the atomic watch isn't Collier County time, so we have to --
** *The next item up and the focus of today's meeting is the AUIR. And we have Category A and B
and a new Category C. Mike's going to make a general presentation, after which we had scheduled an order
that I assume, Mike, you wanted to follow as best we could today. It's a little different. It's not all -- it's not in
order of -- rather, it's a category. It's just as -- I guess convenient to the departments that needed to attend.
MR. BOSI: Correct, Chair. Mike Bosi, director of planning and zoning with Collier County.
As we were discussing a little bit before the meeting, Chair, there may be a need to jump around in
terms of the divisions and AUIR sections that were going. So to all the county staffers who are watching and
waiting for their turn, it probably would be advisable for you to come down within the next 10 to 15 minutes,
because you don't know when your section's going to be here. Just a little heads -up before I get into the
overview.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BOSI: I think, Chair, you had mentioned that you had -- were looking to at least not hear at
least the Transportation Element, which is traditionally one of our first elements that we get into, not to hear
that until a little later till -- or around 10 o'clock.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. BOSI: So we maybe --you know, we maybe jumping around based upon that and based upon
the availability also of Chief McLaughlin for the Ochopee Fire District as well, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let me explain the transportation. We are here to -- at the convenience
-- for the convenience of the public, and very rarely do we have any members of the public want to attend the
AUIR, but I got a call last night, actually this morning on the way in, from one of the members of the public
who would like to talk about a transportation issue that has occurred in Golden Gate Estates.
And so I told -- he thought he could get here by 10 o'clock. I told him we'd at least hold off until 10
on transportation on the chance we got to it early because we had several other items ahead of it. But I found
out this morning, those other items now are going to be delayed.
So with that in mind, we'll go right into the introduction that Mike's got for us, and then we'll find out
which Category A -- or which categories we go into after that.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi, again, planning services director.
1 have a short presentation. Most of you are familiar with the purpose and the premise of the AUIR
and the CIE. And I'm just going to give a refresher overview of how it started, what we're looking to cover,
the importance of it, what drives the AUIR and, ultimately, what we're looking for the Planning Commission
in terns of a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
To anyone who is listening in the general public, this is the second to last step before the final
adoption. We have the AULR before the Planning Commission and recormnendation is made. And then the
November 12th meeting the Board of County Commissioners will hear the AUIR and accept the
recommendation from the Planning Commission and make a final decision related to the projects contained
within the AUIR.
Page 3 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
AUK it's an acronym, Annual Update and Inventory Report. It's an annual one -year snapshot in
time of the projected needs and required improvements for all infrastructure and service providing
departments /divisions based upon projected population increases against BCC - adopted level -of- service
standards. It should be noted that this snapshot changes as the change in the demand evolves.
Every year we're before the bodies to update the Board of County Commissioners, update the
Planning Commission, in terms of the needs of infrastructure expansions to be able to handle the demands of
expected populations that were -- that we expect over the five -year and 10 -year period.
What's included within the AUK the facilities, the infrastructure providers, we have two categories.
One category is the Category A, and those make up our hard concurrency facilities, and then we have
Category B where they're non- concurrency categories, but we still maintain the levels of service, and we want
to make sure that we're attending to those levels of service, so they're included as well.
Your Category A, as you can see, are roads, drainage, potable water, wastewater, solid waste, parks
and recreation, and schools; and then on Category B, we have jails, law enforcement, libraries, emergency
medical services, government buildings, and the two dependent fire districts, Ochopee and Isle of Capri.
Question is how do we project our growth? How do we -- where do we gain our population
projections that drive the projects within the AUIR? Policy 1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element states
that population estimates and projections shall be based upon the most recent population bulletin from the
University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research, BEBR, based upon the medium range
growth rates provided.
And then we also have a seasonal population, as everyone knows. Between November, December,
and through April, we have an influx of seasonal population, and that seasonal population is basically that
mid -range population number that we gain from BEBR with a 20 percent increase to account for the
increased demand that our seasonal population places upon our infrastructure.
And how much do we build? We took one of the more straightforward components of the AUIR,
libraries, to provide an example. It's our new population that we receive from BEBR against our levels of
service, and that is determined what the capital improvement that we need (sic). Library buildings are a good
example. Within the AUIR, the library component is expecting, over the five -year period, 40,421 people
projected.
Our levels of service for libraries that we maintain, the Board of County Commissioners says for
every person within this county, we will maintain .33 square feet of library building. So, basically, the
equation is simply a mathematical expression. It's the population against our levels of service, and that
provides what's the additional square feet that that would be required.
There's another reason for the AUIR. It helps establish the rational nexus between the utilization of
impact fees in both categories, and in Category B the AUIR serves as the -- serves as the check to make sure
that the levels -- the levels of service and the impact fees that have been established are being maintained and
the impact fees that are being collected are being directed appropriately to the appropriate capital expansion.
The AUIR start -- is based upon or has called for -- Section 6.02 of the LDC requires that public
services and facilities meet or exceed the standards established in the CIE required by State Statute 163.317,
and are available when needed for development.
What does that mean? It means that every PUD request that the Planning Commission would hear
and, ultimately, the board would approve that leads to an SDP or a plat, when that plat or an SDP is
submitted, that concurrency, that there's going to be enough adequate capacity to handle the demand that that
new plat or that new SDP is going to exert upon the system.
Those new dwelling units will utilize the library, will utilize our roads, will utilize the EMS, the fire,
all the different components, and we have to make sure that the facilities expand based upon those new
demands that are being associated with each new housing that's associated with either that SDP or a plat.
It really is the program that makes sure or ensures that the quality of place that Collier County has
developed is maintained.
The -- and Section 6.02.02 requires that the AUIR is heard annually every year. And it originated in
1994. And one of the things -- this is probably -- I started in '06 as a project manager on the AUIR, so it's
been seven years since I've been associated with it, and one of the things that -- one of the things that I've
Page 4 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
learned over the years is Collier County is very unique in the sense that the levels of service for libraries, the
levels of service for jails, the levels of service for law enforcement, for our dependent fire districts for some
of the facilities that are contained within the area, we're one of the only counties that publicly vets these types
of issues, that allows the public to come in and make comments as to whether they feel that we're doing a
good job, if we're doing a poor job, if there's enough, if there's adequate facilities to handle the demands that
they expect.
In that respect, I think it was -- it helps general - purpose county government fulfill the obligation to
open the dialogue with our citizens over the quality of place that results from the capital improvements that
are contained within the AUIR.
The AUIR is the blueprint for concurrency. What I mentioned about making sure that there was
adequate demand for every new plat or every new SDP, it's the blueprint for concurrency, and it's the
document that we utilize to prepare our Capital hnprovement Element.
Our Capital Improvement Element is our Category A facilities, makes up concurrency, is required by
our Growth Management Plan. The Capital Improvement Element is an element of the Growth Management
Plan.
In 2010 we combined the efforts. We -- there was a disconnect in time, and because of that it created
some differences between what the AUIR was being adopted in the fall and what -- and the CIE that was
being adopted in the spring. There were slight differences because of -- as I had mentioned, the snapshot
changes whenever you're taking -- what is the projected demand. And it changes from a six -month period to
a year period. So we've combined them to make it a little bit more consistent.
Both of -- both of the AUIR and the CIE, their primary focus is level of service and making sure that
those levels of service are maintained to be able to extend the future populations that we expect.
This next slide provides an opportunity to see where the University of Florida Bureau of Economic
and Business Research has projected our population.
If you look at 2008, that was the last year where there was still remnants of the boom years where the
population that we were expecting was 2.4 percent annually; 12 percent over the five -year period. And,
believe it or not, that was low compared to some of the population projections that we were receiving in'05
and '06.
And then from 2009 to the current year, 2013, you notice that we're under that 2 percent annual
population increase, right at 1.96. If you look -- if you look through the five past years, it's an average of
about 1.8, 1.85 annual increase in population. And that seems to be based upon the trend analysis, based
upon what the University of Florida, you know, demographers are looking at. Right around that 2 percent is
the expected population that we're starting to see as our norm.
Yes, Commissioner Brougham?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What are the actuals? How do you track actuals here versus the
estimate? How accurate is the estimate, I guess, is my question.
MR. BOSI: Well, I guess it depends on any one given year. Now, if you would have tracked the
estimate from 2008 and compared it against the actual, it would have been overstated, because in 2008 they
were still using some of the trend analyses from 2005, 2006, and 2007 to build their estimates, and it had led
to an overestimation of what our population was.
And one of the things that happened during the 2010 census is the 2010 census provided a reset. It
was actually -- you know, the Census Bureau, through their efforts, were able to make a determination that
the permanent population in Collier County was about 25,000 people less than what they were -- than what
we had previously estimated.
What that had done is allowed us to have a little bit of slack in the system, meaning we had more
facilities than what our population was demanding, so there wasn't as many -- there wasn't as many capital
improvement projects proposed in 2011/2012. And in this AUIR you'll see that that trend is still maintained,
that there's only a number of facilities that are being proposed within this.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If I may, that BEBR average, was that a straight moving
average, or did it give more weight to the latest years than the earlier years, or has that been adjusted since?
MR. BOSI: And I'm not as intimately familiar with their methodology, but I do know it utilizes
Page 5 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
regression analysis. So anytime you're using regression analysis, you're using past performance to dictate
future results and --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's just a question of how much weight you give to the most
current actual.
MR. BOSI: Well, the closer it is to today's reality, to today's date, those numbers obviously do
weight -- are weighed more, because those are the more recent trends that we're going to be utilizing, so yes.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thank you.
MR. BOSI: Here's an interesting two slides I just provided. These are the residential COs that were
issued in 2012. The total COs that were -- the total units associated was 1,184, number of certificates of
occupancy was 904 for 2012. And you can see where the general new buildings are being provided within
the county.
And then if you look to the next slide -- and you'll see a similar pattern in terms of where the growth
is being concentrated. A similar pattern East Trail. The Immokalee corridor tends to be the most active in
terms of the COs and the new dwelling units that are coming out.
And in 2013, showing you, I think, the pace of our economic recovery. 2013, the number of COs
issued was 1,155, roughly a 200 to 210 CO increase from the prior year, which is about a 20 percent increase,
and the number of dwelling units, curiously though, wasn't quite as many. So what that means is there was
more single - family homes that were being issued compared to multi- families.
Today in the AUIR, as I mentioned, you will see there's -- transportation, drainage, and parks are the
only facilities with projects in the first two years, law enforcement and EMS have projects allocated in Year
3, and then for the other respective components of the AUK there's no other improvements within the
five -year window. And each section will get into the specifics of the proposed capital improvements.
What we're looking for is a recommendation from the Planning Commission to accept and approve
the attached document as the 2013 Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities, give the BCC
direction by separate motion and vote on the Category A and B facilities relative to the projects and revenue
sources within the Category A -- and within the Category A facilities, set forth to include it within the Fiscal
Year'] 3N 4 schedule of capital improvements, and provide a recommendation for the school district's CEP to
be included within the schedule of capital improvements.
And as a sidenote, one of the questions that we will be talking to the Board of County
Commissioners about was maintaining school concurrency. The school district informally has indicated that
maintaining school concurrency moving into the future hasn't passed a cost - benefit analysis, meaning that the
maintaining of school concurrency is something that the school district is looking -- they're debating right
now whether to maintain it or whether we're going to eliminate school concurrency from the Capital
Improvement Element. And we still are waiting on a final decision from the school board which we'll take to
the Board of County Commissioners.
Just last year the Board of County Commissioners had indicated to staff, because school concurrency
is implemented and maintained by the school district, it most certainly is their discretion and their decision, so
we defer to the district in terms of how they want to move forward on the issue.
And with that, that concludes the overview presentation.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One thing that I've been very interested in over the last two or
three years is the level -of- service standards, how those standards are set, how they're maintained, how they're
improved.
From my point of view, in many of the Category A categories, if you will, the level -of- service
standard is very, very simplistic. It's a straight equation, as you point out. It's totally based upon the
population growth. It pays little to no heed upon utilization statistics, the condition of the infrastructure that's
being addressed, et cetera.
Can you talk about what plans the county has, if any, to address -- or a process — and put a process in
place to address improving levels -of- service standards to consider condition, to consider actual utilization of
the infrastructure that's already been built.
Page 6 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AU1R meeting)
Let me just -- one more sentence. There are some exceptions to that. I note in transportation, for my
point of view, they very well outline the utilization and condition of the roadways and so forth. And so that is
a key example to one area, you know, that takes those other considerations into effect. There are certain other
areas that just totally ignore it currently.
So what plans do you have to address, improve, modify level of service to be more effective and/or
to take into consideration utilization and condition of the infrastructure?
MR. BOSI: The -- as you point out the transportation component of the AUIR does -- it utilizes trip
counts. The actual utilization of the roads is the primary driver in terns of identification of the needed new
facilities. Public utilities utilizes demand number as well. It's not -- it's not as direct as the transportation
methodology. And I will defer to public utilities staff, if they -- if you'd like to get into a little bit more
discussion in terms of how they utilize the actual demand upon the system, but that is incorporated within the
capital improvement programming.
And on those two facilities, we really have no -- we have no direction. We have no plans to modify.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I think they're fine.
MR. BOSI: Yeah. The area where it may be more simplistic than what you would -- that maybe
would satisfy your desire is individual on parks. And we've been through this a number of times, and we all --
and we've looked at all the different jurisdictions in the state, and acreages per population is the simple and
the most common way that those facilities and the levels of service have been established.
We've looked for other ways. We've actually provided some utilization rates within our facilities just
to help -- to help broaden the discussion.
But when it comes down to it the level of the service for parks is still traditionally based and the
most appropriate way that we can find, even through -- even asking our impact fee consultant to look at
maybe an alternative method; the reports have always come back that acreage per population is --
The area where I think we have the most opportunity and the largest effort is in terns of improving
the levels of service, and how we determine the levels of service is within drainage and stormwater. Those
are the areas where we have had a history of having a hard time to identify the quantification of not only the
quality of how we treat our stormwater, but the quantity of how we move this stormwater through the system.
The completion of the basin studies have helped us establish some good baselines. And moving
forward, there is a concerted effort amongst county staff and the Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners to improve upon those levels -of- service standards and find out how we can make a
more meaningful, a more practical and, more importantly, a more effective methodology for how we measure
those.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I've been privileged to have some of those -- an early peek
at some of those initiatives, and I'm going to bring that up or ask Corby to bring it up as we get to stormwater.
But, thank you. But just to pursue that a bit more, if we look at libraries just on the surface -- and
that's an area where it's population -- you know, some number of square feet per thousand of population
dictates levels -of- service standards, but libraries today are not the same as libraries 10 years ago.
You know, you have all this new technology that's coming into the library system which is, in fact,
causing the people to go, not to the library, but to their desktop to check out electronics.
And where is the recognition of that in the libraries' levels? I mean, I'm getting ahead of myself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I was going to say, we might want to reserve some of that for the
specific discussion. I notice library people -- the department people are here, so --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We can reserve it. I was looking at a more global look at our --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Approaching.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- addressing, evaluating the effectiveness of our
level -of- service standards across all of the areas. Is there a county process in place?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think part of the response might be also that we have in most of the
categories -- and we'll go through them all one by one, we have an operations and a maintenance allocation.
And in libraries in particular, they have two allocations for continued maintenance to retain level of service.
One is removing old books and replacing them by new books. And I think it was 28,515 items per year, and
the other one was kinds of media, which was about 28,000. So together they've got about 56,000 in
Page 7 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
operations and maintenance just to replace to maintain the level of service.
And then the new ones coming on are the ones based on the square -foot increases that are required
by population, and that may help explain how we -- I think part of your question was, how do we retain the
level of service? How do we make sure its always there, and I think it's twofold. We do it by maintenance of
the existing structures, and we do it by upgrading based on the increased population.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And hopefully we're going to do it by acknowledging things like
the influx of new technology --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- which don't, then, require that many square feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's exactly what we heard in a presentation a few years back
when we asked that question, and the library was very forthright in giving us the explanation and the tallies.
And, honestly, you hit on one that will be interesting discussion today, because there are some things in the
library presentation that do need to be questioned in regards to that issue.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think it will be better when we get to it.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: My question was more of a global nature, but --
MR. BOSI: And just to --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Sort of like maybe we could --
MR. BOSI: -- give you a little bit of comfort, the good thing about that is in libraries and square
footage for libraries is probably an appropriate one to look at and to analyze to see if its still the most
appropriate way.
The good thing is, we're not scheduled for a new library for at least another 10 years, so we've got
some time to work on it.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Part of our charge, as I read it, sitting as a planning commission
reviewing this AUIR, is not only to have a discussion of levels of service in the projects, but to continent
upon the appropriateness of the level of service --
MR. BOSI: Most certainly.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- which we will do as we move through the individual
elements.
MR. BOSI: Most certainly. And any other questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is of the introduction, before we get into specifics.
Mike, I've got two. And I know the process, but I would like it clear for everybody new on the
commission and also the public.
What comes first, the budget or the AUIR?
MR. BOSI: Well --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Good one, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's like the chicken or the egg.
MR. BOSI: Are you talking about calendar year or fiscal year`? Because the fiscal year, the
AUIR/CIE comes first, because we adopt that in November, and the budget is started in June and finalized in
September.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Starts October 1 st.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is that the dates on this AUIR for the year of'13 to'14, we're
looking at items that theoretically, then, have already been budgeted; is that true?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means the board voted on that budget. They approved the
items that were in the budget. So are we contradicting the board's approval by looking at an AUIR and
questioning the Capital Improvement Elements today?
MR. BOSI: No, because the board's basing their budget based upon last year's AUIR. The second
year, the Year 2, this is going -- it gets rolled into Year 1. When they finalize their budget, they know that it
has -- they have to have allocation for the projects that were in Year 2. That's why I mentioned -- the Year 1
Page 8 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AU1R meeting)
and Year 2 are the most important years of the AUIR/CIE because the board looks at those, staff looks at
those and recognizes that those are projects that are being translated to hitting the ground, and revenue has to
be available.
So when the board makes their budgetary decisions, it's based upon the understanding that Year 2 is
rolling into Year 1. That's going to be in the AUIR that shows up at their hearing in November.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other question is the school concurrency. Now, I know the
school board, you said, is probably going to consider what to do with it. Has anybody approached them to
ask a simple question: What is to be gained by removing school concurrency from our GMP elements? I
mean, ifs the most practical way to approach unified growth and coordination with the other county
departments. Why would any politician think that is a good thing to remove?
And -- I mean, I'm just wondering why we even are broaching that subject. They should encourage
unified access to their documents as well as ours and encourage the GMP to be coordinated with them for all
levels of level of service so we don't have what we had previously, which was sometimes you might call it
in- fighting between who's first, is it the roads or the school? And if the school wants to go before the roads
are scheduled, we had these little battles going on.
We are tending to try to avoid that with the system we finally put in place because of the correct
thing sent down by Tallahassee, which is rare, to include them in the concurrency picture, and I would like to
suggest we send a strong message to the school board to please consider staying there for the benefit of all of
us; not just their department, but all Collier County together.
MR. BOSI: Well, I wouldn't attempt to speak for the school board. I do know, with the discussion
with staff, that one thing aside from the school concurrency that we maintain -- we maintain a very tight
relationship with the school board in terms of our school working group, the information exchange, Mr.
Eastman's sitting as a nonvoting member of the CCPC.
And I think if you get into the discussion with school board staff or the school board themselves,
maybe it's the construct of how school concurrency is set up. Maybe it has a little bit to do with the
motivation to no longer maintain it. But, like I said, I can only speak from the perspective from -- as a county
staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But there would be nothing restricting this board, if we felt that it
was an important enough issue, to request that they stay part of the AUIR and the GMP process. I mean, I
think it's an advantage to both parties. Do you?
MR. BOSI: As you know, the Planning Commission has the discretion to take that position,
absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Tom, would you like to respond?
MR. EASTMAN: Yes. Commissioner Strain, the school district is -- prior to school concurrency,
we had an interlocal coordination agreement, and we are interested in continuing to have the relationship with
the county where we share information about projects and our budget and soon. It's just the concurrency
aspect itself that we're looking into from a cost - benefit analysis of maintaining that. And Tallahassee did give
us the option to discontinue the program, so that's something that we're looking into.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what kind of cost benefits do you see discontinuing it versus keeping
it? I mean, the only additional cost that we might have in regarding the way its tied in in the presentation is
the materials that are being produced as part of the GMP process and your presence on this board to which,
by the way, I think is vital. I think that your presence here when the issues come up are critical.
So I don't know why we'd want to do away with any of that. It's all positive stuff. And the cost is
minuscule compared to the budget that they utilize.
MR. EASTMAN: Well, most all of what you said would continue even if school concurrency were
discontinued.
But what the additional cost that would be would be maintaining the program itself, maintaining the
level -of- service reviews, so on and so forth. I mean, we really haven't had -- concurrency, as you know, is a
governor on development, and we really haven't stopped a developer from moving forward -- the school
district is ready with capacity -- nor does the school district in its history or culture want to stop a developer
Page 9 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
from moving forward. We'd rather be in a position where we have the capacity ready to go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that capacity is determined by the process we currently have in
place. If we take it away, there's -- I don't see -- I just don't see where the benefit is to the public or
concurrency in doing it, and I would express that strongly.
MR. EASTMAN: And, again, I think that your fear was — it was set forward by Chuck Mohlke.
And we assured Chuck that we would continue the coordination. So a lot of what you think may go away
would, in reality, be maintained.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what happened in the busy times of our early 2000s, we were going
like gangbusters here in Collier County. Everything was exploding, and we were realizing that there was
potential to lose ground in regards to school concurrency. As a result, Tallahassee developed this rather
intricate process to determine if there's enough capacity in the schools for students produced by the
residential, and the coordinating method will be the GMP and the process you're into now.
And right now, we went through a recession and things are slower, and we have a lot of excess
capacity out there, but that doesn't mean it's not going to turn around again. And when it comes back, it
would be nice to have the system we've got now in place to keep the checks and balances in place, and that's
the message I'm trying to suggest we need to retain.
And I don't mean to belabor the point, Tom, but I just would like to see us consider keeping it, and
the school board as well. I think it's vital to the process and an overall picture.
MR. EASTMAN: Exactly. And what I think, the value that you're seeing largely comes from the
intergovernmental coordination agreement, and that's our intention to maintain that.
The relationship and information sharing between the school district and the county has gotten
nothing but better over the course of the last few years, and we'd like to continue that. It's really the more
formal aspects and the obligations of concurrency that we're thinking about.
So we would still maintain an interlocal government coordination agreement, and it would have
many of the benefits that you're discussing about information sharing, project sharing, and that would still all
be in place, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's not nearly as transparent as what we have now. It's behind the
scenes; the intergovernmental agreement was rarely, if ever, exposed to the public. This process basically
recognizes the need for cooperation of these two large agencies. I mean, and --
MR. EASTMAN: Well, I don't agree with that. Anything that we do for budget purposes or planning
of schools or anything, it's all done publicly. Everything — every project and every dollar that's spent is done
publicly, and its -- that wouldn't change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I didn't say it wasn't done publicly. It's not as transparent as the process
we have today. That's the difference.
Once you initiate that interlocal agreement, its done. It gets stuck on a log somewhere and very
rarely resurfaces.
And this forum, every year it resurfaces. Every year everybody gets re- apprised of where the schools
are, where the systems are, staff is forced to study it against the road systems and infrastructure systems that
are needed for each site that you guys have projected far into the future. That's more active and more
transparent because it's done on a reoccurring basis than an agreement that's done one time and tucked away.
That's what I was alluding to, so.
And, I mean, it's just thoughts, and we'll probably get into it when we get into that element of the
AUIR, so.
Mike, thank you for the indulgement. I think that -- Peter Gaddy was the gentleman that talked to me
this morning about the transportation. He's here, so we don't need to hold up and wait for that any longer.
So whatever order you want to bring forward these things this morning, I would certainly want to
accommodate staff that are here as fast as we possibly can.
MR. BOSI: Well, I would suggest let's hit the road with D on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just tell me -- well, I'll pull it back up. D is county roads. Well,
that's a good one to start with. Okay. Who's the -- Reed?
MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi, Collier County transportation planning manager.
Page 10 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
I'll be going over the AUIR for the roads and bridges today. And Mike, I think, is going to help --
yeah, l think versus last year where I went through page by page. Maybe if we just have -- if you have
questions on a particular page, we can talk about it, unless you want me to go page by page, because we're
going to have to -- I think I went, like, 20 or 30 minutes last year, and I seemed to bore people.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed, we're never bored. Let's -- we usually take five pages at a time, so
let's start with that first few pages of the AUIR on roads. Does anybody have any questions?
My first question isn't until Page 7. So does anybody have anything before that?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I didn't look at my pages that way.
MR. JARVI: The first page I have that has new data is Page 5. Is that the same as you,
Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- right. Does anybody have any questions on the first part of the
AUIR?
Well, I'll start it out. Reed, if you go to the Attachment B, transportation existing conditions report,
2013.
MR. JARVI: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a -- under considerations, the third bullet and about two- thirds of
the way down there is a sentence that says, the prior aggressive program to add capacity, allowed existing
system mileage to be rebuilt, the mileage to be maintained throughout the construction cycle by the
contractor.
Can you explain what you meant by that sentence and what it means in the costs relative to this year's
AUIR?
MR. JARVI: Well, what it means -- and actually it's been in there for the last several years, because
what we're talking about is from -- by the aggressive program we had in the early to mid 2000s to just
recently, actually we didn't have to maintain the roads as much because we were building new roads.
So rather than maintaining a two -lane road, we would be building a new four -lane or six -lane road,
so we never got maintenance costs, so that's talking about the aggressive capacity project that we didn't have
to do the maintenance for.
But at the same time, it talks about -- it really kept it up for the concurrency, too. So it's kind of a
twofold statement that we were aggressively pursuing the building of roads for keeping the concurrency
system or keeping the road system concurrent with the needs.
Now, that has fallen off in the last several years because the population, as everybody knows, has
gone down. But it's still a true statement that our prior aggressive program caught us up to speed, basically.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if a contractor was building a new road in a location, he'd be asked to
maintain a road in another location?
MR. JARVI: No, no. We have separate maintenance and construction divisions or -- yeah,
divisions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess what I'm trying to find out is how the construction cycle by the
contractor helped offset the maintenance of the road system other than the one he was creating. I know he
has to maintain the road he creates, but that wasn't in the system to begin with.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Commissioners, if you want to turn to Attachment D. It's on Page
10. It will help explain it a little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to go right to the most troublesome one right off the bat, huh?
Okay.
you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You were forewarned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to warm me up for that one.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You were forewarned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, thank you for your presence here today. It's rare we get to see
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your Honor, I wouldn't miss being in front of you, so --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Your Honor?
Page 11 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you look below the line, or I'd say below the box where we get into
operating improvement programs, you see dollars in there for striping and marking, enhanced resurfacing,
you know, the prices or the dollars range from about 600,000 a year to 1.8 to 2.5.
If you look in the outer years under 60077, enhanced resurfacing, you see 1.4 in Year '14, and then it
jumps to 1.8, and 2 and 2.5 and 2.2.
What was happening was is your gas tax and general fund didn't have to be applied towards
maintaining those 11 roads when they're all under construction. You took them out of, basically, the
maintenance cycle.
So the aggressive construction program said, okay, that frees up a lot of money from the existing
maintenance program. But as that aggressive construction program starts to die down, you're going to have to
have a lot more money going back into resurfacing and maintaining. So it's going to rob from potential
capacity enhancements in the future.
So that statement basically says, back when we were being very aggressive, we were allowed to put
even more money towards capital expansion, because a lot of these roads weren't in our maintenance
inventory. The contractor was maintaining; they were brand new. When you look at those line items, they're
increasing, because now they're going to come back in.
Livingston Road, for instance, it's almost going to be 10, 11 years old. When we go to resurface
Livingston Road, that's going to take quite a bit of money. So that was the statement that's in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I kind of expected that to be the explanation, but it leads to another
question. So, then, what you're saying is you tried to build a new road so that when the contractor finishes the
maintenance, there's enough rooftops in the area through tax -- for the tax base to support the O &M on the
road that was thus newly created after the contractor leaves it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You would hope you get your same percentage of tax base. That's the
problem the last couple of years. We went from $30 million down to 14 -, from general fund distribution
purposes.
So we're not getting the same proportion of tax base that we did five or six years ago. You know, the
county's aggressive program to reduce debt and to not incur more debt and rebalance the books and build
reserves meant it came mostly out of the transportation budget.
I wish I brought you the slide. But if you had Page 6, which it shows pie charts, if you go back a
couple years, that pie's been progressively getting smaller. And that portion of the pie that's been General
Fund has been taking a real big hit.
So to answer your question, if I was getting the same ratio General Fund per -- you know, per capita,
I'd be fine, but I'm not. So that's where we're going to run into problems. I'm not getting that same ratio of
General Fund to do maintenance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the loss of the maintenance funds can come from -- can happen,
basically, or the lack of sufficient maintenance funds to pay for a road segment can happen one of two ways.
One, if the road's overbuilt and the rooftops weren't there to begin with or, two, a reduction in ad valorem to a
point where it doesn't support the operation and maintenance that are needed any longer?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You got it. And then that takes my gas tax, which I can use for
maintenance, starts reallocating more towards maintenance rather than, you know, preparing for the future
growth.
You know, one of the things we're going to talk about is Mike put up that slide that showed the new
rooftops. You know, we'll get into it in the other page. And I'll let Reed handle it; I'll step back.
But you're going to start to see projected deficiencies coming online again in the outer years. And
they're obvious. We're starting to get phone calls already on some of the roads.
If you're taking more money of that pie and putting it towards maintenance, you'll have less money to
apply towards capital expansion.
And so right now we're -- you know, that impact fee's segregated only for capital expansion. But we
went from a $59 million big year to now we're expecting 4- or $5 million a year. That's a huge reduction in
revenues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know who wants to answer this. Do you guys have any questions, or
Page 12 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
do you want me to continue with mine?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The Attachment C shows a series of road segments that have
changes in, let's say, volume, demand. I notice that in Golden Gate, the Golden Gate Boulevard -- and the
reason this is so sensitive, you guys are out there now building bridges and that segment east of Wilson is
pretty time consuming for people to sit there all day long, but it's not shown as increased or decreased, which
means it would almost appear as though, well, it's okay, we don't need to do anything with it. But that's based
on your projections of where you're going to spend your money. That's not the case, because that road is
slated to be widened.
Now, in contrast to some other roads like Oil Well Road where it shows a 20 -- greater than a 20
percent increase in 2012, if you're looking at that you'd think, well, this is more justification why we need to
make sure that road is increased to the standards needed to take care of the capacity.
But isn't that — first of all, I know that road's already been improved, but isn't the increase there most
likely due to the increase in construction in, like, Arthrex and the other facilities? Because Ave Maria's
moving pretty fast now. Would that be a way to explain the increases along hmmokalee Road and potentially
that segment of Oil Well Road?
MR. JARVI: Let me talk to your first point about Golden Gate Boulevard first. What's happening at
Golden Gate Boulevard is it's at or just before or just above capacity. So it-- there's no real growth that can
occur on the road, because it is congested.
So you can't -- this is purely a traffic count graphic. It says there's more traffic count, or vehicles per
hour, this year than last year.
So in relation to Golden Gate Boulevard, it's roughly the same, which is, like, at capacity. So we are
still proceeding to expand that. There's no way that you can put more vehicles on there to a significant
amount.
So that says that there's no significant increase or decrease on Golden Gate Boulevard. It's roughly
the same as it has been, and it's been that way for -- I'd have to look back, but three, four, five years. It's
roughly at capacity or just over, depending on any which -- every -- any particular year.
On Oil Well, specifically, what that's showing is Oil Well has -- yes, its some of the growth that's
happening out there. Really, Arthrex probably didn't get into this count system yet, because that's coming on
now, but there is some growth out there.
But, primarily, this is because the numbers on Oil Well are so small. Like, last year there were 120
peak hour trips, and this year there's 170. Well, that's a big increase, but it's nowhere near capacity. You
know, it's a 50- vehicle increase of -- I'd have to look -- 45 percent or so increase, but it's -- the capacity's at,
like, 2,000. So it's like -- you know, it's nowhere near capacity. There's just -- it's just a low number that
jumps out at you, because it's easy to increase.
The more -- you know, the more urbanized roads or the more traveled roads, Immokalee Road, stuff,
they go up and down a little bit here, a little bit there depending on what's going on, but they're -- they have a
substantial amount of traffic on them already, so they don't tend to go really big, although they can from year
to year, and it depends on, you know, when the counts were done, and -- I mean, we adjust for when the
counts are done. But any given year it can go up and down and, you know -- that's just the way it is. It's just
data right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the use of Attachment C is more to see where the trends are for
traffic moving than to where a road may need to be improved, because part of the reason a road's increase
may be is a result of the road improvement.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
MR. JARVI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah.
MR. JARVI: Yeah, this is purely data. It shows -- we compare the data, and it goes up, it goes
down. It really doesn't tell you that this is where we need to concentrate dollars at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes, slightly different subject. But on Page 10, Exhibit D, under
Page 13 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AU1R meeting)
operation improvements and programs, bridge repairs and improvements. And I see the projected
expenditures out over the five years.
Do you have any exhibit or can you talk about the program whereby you inspect bridges, that you've
listed the bridges, you rate their condition slash -- are they due to be replaced or not, which should drive into
this funding then? I don't see anything having to do with the condition of our bridge inventory.
MR. JARVI: Yeah. Pll start it, but Nick may -- but, basically, every two years we do a monitoring
of the bridges, and there's a structural rating and a deficiency rating done for all 150 bridges, or whatever
there are in Collier County, a whole bunch, and that then is put on a program of priority, and this is for
rehabbing or redoing or replacing bridges. This is not new -- brand new bridges.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, I understand that.
MR. JARVI: There's a different program for brand new bridges.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I had understood it was bridge repair /improvements, and I was
just looking for --
MR. JARVI: Yeah. That report is done year -- excuse me, biyearly, biannually. Every two years,
whatever that is, and then they -- the bridge people prioritize that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner Brougham, I'll send you a copy. There's a five -year
breakdown. It tells you what bridges we're working on and why. Some people say we have 108 or 125, some
of them are culverts/bridges, depending on what the district qualifies them. But yeah, there's a breakdown by
the five -year program, which ones we're working on why.
Each one -- and we went systematically. We took the FDOT two -year report, took the dangerous
bridges first and said, okay, now let's do a second tier report. From that report, we went to a third tier report
because some said, okay, just repair some of these.
And then we looked at the cost of repair versus cost of replacement. But I will send you a copy of
the five -year bridge program. It will give you a map location of where they are and what work is being done
to them.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is that just one component, Nick, of a larger effort or initiative
with respect to infrastructure, aging --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- and so forth?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We did a whole binder. You know, we did it by letter grade two years
ago, and now we're switching to a red, yellow, green format. The board's having a workshop on Tuesday.
The only area we don't -- we're going to get into stormwater. The only way I don't think we've done a good
job yet is to tackle the stormwater asset management. But all critical infrastructures, including stormwater
weirs and control structures, bridges, road signals, those are all covered. I mean, I can definitively say to the
board or this commission, asset management's good there.
Get into the third tier, we get into ditch culverts, things like that, and we don't have a clear good
inventory or rating there. And, you know, that's a function of finances.
Again, five years ago -- and we'll talk about that in stonnwater -- $13 million budget is down to 6 -.
It's just -- it's a huge difference.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You're asking for more money for that, obviously, though,
right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, we're going to talk to the board. It was an equivalent .15 mills by
resolution, and then there was -- you know, they resolved it down to. 1, so --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed, on Attachment D, a couple questions. The intersection of U.S. 41
and 951, isn't that -- now, 951 all the way from somewhere -- from its beginning to its end is broken up into
pieces between the county ownership and state ownership, and then 41 is state.
So we've got 2.7 million in for improvements to that intersection. Are we improving a piece of it that
we own or a piece of it that the state owns?
MR. JARVI: We are improving --
Page 14 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Both.
MR. JARVI: Yeah, it's both really, but mainly it's the north/south component, taking out the skew a
little bit, and we're widening it, basically moving the roads north and south wider so it's set up for a future
grade separation at some point in time. That -- by nature of the beast, you have to also address the 41 lengths
of it, and the south part, south of 41, is state also.
So it's a combination county money, money from the DOT, and actually some developer money.
And I think that's it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: BZA.
MR. JARVI: The three different pots of money have come together to have this project. And I don't
know the percentages, but it's roughly half of state money?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Twelve to $13 million of state money, $8 million of DCA or impact fee
money that's been put in this. It's going to the board the next meeting. It's a $20 million project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's only 2.7 million on this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just in that year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're not doing anything else until after 2018.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no. It's prefunded. If you look at other attachment --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- Attachment J, Page 19, it talks about money that's carried forward for
other projects. But I'll tell you that that's the last pot of money going to this job in this fiscal year. You're
talking $17.7 million as of 8/1/13. So you add that to the 2.7, you get to that $20 million construction project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it -- okay. So how much of that 20 million are you going to spend in
the next five years?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: All of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All of it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't it all show up on here? Is it -- why wouldn't it show all up
all of it show up on Exhibit D?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, because, I think we -- if my memory serves me right,
Commissioner Strain, you asked for Attachment J a couple years back, which was to show the money that
was still waiting in abeyance to be used but not in this five -year program to be collected.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that explains one of my questions concerning the
carryforward.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I understand how its coming together.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that same Exhibit D -- and, Nick, you're aware -- I mean, I know you're
aware -- it's in your office next week on the meeting on that Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson intersection.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you know that's become a questionable issue in Golden Gate Estates,
and there's a lot of citizens involved in that meeting. I'm concerned about acknowledging the expenditures on
this AUIR for that intersection and the continuation of Golden Gate Boulevard, not saying we don't want to
spend the money, but I'd like to see the outcome of that meeting discussed before we lock something into the
vote on the AUIR for this particular element, or just leave this of an item of concern for the Board of County
Commissioners to take a closer look at as a result of the meeting that you've arranged.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm concerned is, first of all, you show the extension of the
Boulevard going east not starting till 20 -- actually, the construction I don't think's going to start till, what,
2018?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. That's not -- when we say -- it's not -- the intersection alone isn't
the $10 million. Depending on how that meeting outcomes and the traffic study we do, the goal would be to
Page 15 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
do the intersection and try and get to one of those two bridges that we just completed. So its the intersection
and several miles of the Boulevard.
And your problem -- that's where your problem area is. You start to get in better shape as you get to
Everglades and DeSoto, obviously; the farther out you go, the less traffic starts to converge as you come
down the Boulevard.
So I don't want this to confuse you to say six projects, 60040(B), Golden Gate Boulevard, Wilson,
East DeSoto intersection is just an intersection project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what it says.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's -- and beyond. If you look to Attachment H, that blue line where the
yellow dot is for that -- I'm sorry. The blue dot and the blue line on Golden Gate Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Our goal is to do the intersection and go halfway or as far as we can to the
east on that blue line, so maybe about halfway through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, again, that exhibit doesn't say that either. In fact, it shows a circle with
an arrow pointing to it. It says, intersection improvement construction 2014 to 2015 which corresponds to the
two numbers that are on the Exhibit D for that intersection, and then the -- it doesn't show a -- doesn't show it
going down the blue. It says that one's 2016 right -of -way acquisition ongoing, which means construction in
2018.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let us clarify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's meant to go several miles to the east with that intersection project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that mean, then, you can physically take a portion of that number to
whatever reality that comes out to be from -- on Exhibit D and move it out of the 60040(B) and move it into
60040? Because if you're going to do that construction at an earlier time, it would seem to me showing it on
this schedule would be helpful.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, we could do that
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's an adjustment we can make as a clarification, because six — my
short-term eyes -- my close eyes are much better than my far eyes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got those bi -specs on. I figured you must be —
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's for far away.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you need two pair of glasses.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's so I can see you winking at me. Golden Gate Boulevard/Wilson
east of DeSoto intersection right now shows $10.7 million, and there's additional money in there already in
the account. So roughly around 15 million that we're planning to spend. Let's make sure we clarify that to
rephrase it to say intersection and roadway improvements to the east, project limits to be determined.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I think that's an important clarification that's needed, especially
with the concerns from the citizens that you're going to be meeting with on Monday.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. The intersection alone, my guess, is going to be 2- to $3 million. I
don't think the intersection itself will be anywhere close to $10 million. It better not be. I'm guessing the
intersection itself will be 2- to 3 million, and hopefully we'll have around 12 million, 12- to 14 million, to go
east.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, you know, there is some concern, and I believe you're going to hear it
Monday, concerning the actual need to make the improvements to the extent that are being requested along
that intersection.
So, again, this whole one needs to be -- in my -- from my perspective needs to be somewhat tentative
till we get the public input that is obviously being set up to get.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Page 16 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: If you have any extra money, the intersection of Immokalee Road and
951 is at an F. It is horrible. And at this point we're adding another 1,124 homes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in here. Yeah, they've got some improvement money in here, I noticed.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Ma'am, on --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a Diane Ebert intersection.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It is. It's --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. There's a million dollars committed from the county. It's roughly a
$4 million project, and the developers right now, we've met several times with them. They're going to chip
in. We're actually going to do the job, because we went through this exercise. The county's going to make it
their own capital project, but the board's going to have to approve a DCA.
When we did the budget, I explained to the Board of Commissioners, I gave them an exhibit, I
showed them what we plan to do with the intersection, and I said our contribution will be roughly a million.
They'll put in roughly 2.7 to 3.4 million, mid we will do the project.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because at this point on a Sunday afternoon at 1 o'clock, people
coming, going west on Immokalee Road trying to turn on 951 are waiting three stoplights.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And because of the fact of Pebblebrooke, you've changed a lot of those
in and outs, and people living in Pebblebrooke Estates, just before you get to the shopping center, must come
out, can only make a right -hand turn.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: U -turn.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it's a U -turn.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And now we have more people from CVS in that area just thinking
they can make the right -hand turn, and there's -- it's not good. And also on here it shows some widening
projects. You're already at six lanes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What are you talking about, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: All right. Let's take the one on Immokalee Road that is future for
2016. And you have it at a study point on Page 16, Attachment H.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. The study itself isn't just to do an improvement. The study is to
say, let's -- right now we put tube counts down, which is a -- I don't want to say -- it's a raw way of doing a
traffic analysis. To say once it gets close we do a detailed study. We'll do a driveway analysis, we'll do what
-- you know, because, you know, just throwing tube counts down gives you a varied 50,000 -foot view of the
traffic.
When we talk about a detailed study, we'll commission a study that will look at both ends of the road,
all the driveways, and where the issues are on that road that can be improved. It might be just closing a
U -turn bay or adding a U -turn bay that takes some of the traffic off.
But once you get close to failure, we stop doing tube counts and we go to, you know, three -days
turning- movement counts with a consultant coming in and saying, okay, here are all the things we can do on
that strip of road to make it better, not just a raw tube count that we look at.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because you're already at six lanes. You can't go -- you cannot enlarge
that any more. But part of the traffic problem on Immokalee and 951 is because you have closed off
driveways or exit points.
And I know if it were up to the county, there would be no driveways or exits on Immokalee Road. It
would just be from -- all the way to 1 -75, but that can't happen.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not realistic.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I also notice on Logan -- because I live in the area -- what they're
doing to -- if they live out in the Estates, they come Immokalee Road -- no. They come Vanderbilt Beach if
they need to, but then they'll come Logan and make a right -hand turn and get back on Immokalee. They said
Page 17 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
it's shorter to go that way than to go all the way to 951 and back up and make the right -hand turn.
So you have people that live in the area. And Logan is only one lane each way. So -- and I know it's
-- but in your -- I'm just noticing a lot more.
The other thing I was going to ask on this maintenance portion of it, you are leaving with the
developer -- because, I suppose, the county does not have the money for maintenance at this point, as you
suggested -- in the developer's hands as long as possible.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I sat and figured out how long you're going to leave Logan
Boulevard north. It will be 20 years that the people have to take care of it? Because its already been there
12, 13 years. You don't want to accept the road. See, you don't -- yeah, that's true, right. And you don't want
to accept the road even though the developer that's building it was ready to put the final finish on from one
driveway down to Immokalee Road and do his improvement until it's all the way to Vanderbilt Beach Road,
which is six, seven years away.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Bonita Beach Road. Is that what you meant?
COMIVIISSIONER EBERT: Well, Logan going to Bonita Beach Road.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. We've accepted Logan from Vanderbilt to Immokalee, and then from
Immokalee north to a certain point's ours. Then from a --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You have accepted it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. And then from --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A portion of it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think from your driveway, Olde Cypress to the north is the developer's,
and we will not accept that until it becomes one year after it becomes a public connection to Bonita Beach
Road, because right now it just serves as a dead -end to them, you know.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because I called the county, and they said, no, we haven't
accepted that road yet. So just --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Clarification. Yeah, which part, is probably what you're asking about.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: This may be jumping. I have a question on Page 16.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. That's fine. I've probably got about only -- I'm down to about 90
questions left, so -- but you guys -- that's why --jump in when you need to.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We're holding you up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's just transportation. We rarely get to see Nick here. When we
have him here, we need to ask him anything we can.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thoroughly massage Nick.
On Attachment H, Nick, I notice that you're projecting a small segment of Collier Boulevard
southbound from 41 for failure in 2017. There's that little blue area. Place that little blue area realistically. Is
that Wal -Mart? Is that --
MR. JARVI: Yes. That's the Wal -Mart where the six -laning ends to Manatee Road. There are --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That is a little strip.
MR. JARVI: It's about a mile plus a bridge.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Why do you project just that little section to fail versus the entire
roadway southbound to Marco?
MR. JARVI: From the traffic perspective, that's the -- kind of the chokepoint. Once you get south of
Manatee Road, the road, although it's still four lanes, it doesn't have as much side friction driveway, so it has
a little higher capacity. So that place is the concurrency chokepoint, so to speak.
So what we are saying is that has a potential to fail. It is being --I'll just say it's being addressed by
the MPO, but it hasn't been scheduled by any means. We are -- as part of the intersection improvements, they
are repaving it and doing some minor intersection improvements, signals and turn lanes and stuff.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All the way down to Manatee?
MR. JARVI: To Manatee. That's -- it's a repaving program that's from the DOT. It's not a capacity
Page 18 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
improvement. There are still going to be four lanes, but they're adding some, I think, shoulders and closing
an access or two, left turns. And I don't know the total part of it, but it's --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I could be very wrong in this, but I seem to recall a couple years
ago there was some degree of publicity about improving 951 from -- basically from Manatee all the way
down. I don't remember the specifics. Maybe you could refresh me. And what happened to that?
MR. JARVI: There was a --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You were going to expand it, put some shoulders on the
roadways and so forth.
MR. JARVI: I know some of what he's talking about.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They were looking at -- the MPO was looking at putting in a needs plan
and funding it but what's showing up is that once you get past Manatee and you get into that open stretch.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Marco doesn't have a lot of growth left.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So you're looking at a cost -to- benefit saying, if it's getting close to
capacity --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The only thing you have left there is Copper Cove, Fiddler's
Creek, and Main Sail.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You got it, right. And Fiddler's Creek splits, as you know.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So they're looking at, you know, yeah, it could potentially be a need, but
you know, when you get to a cost -to- benefit of you've got a -- Marco being almost done to the point of built
out, you're not going to get much more growth.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So there's really nothing on the horizon --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: — on that five -mile stretch or whatever?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not right now.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, fine. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Mike?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Fast question of clarification. On Attachment No. D, the line item for
countywide pathway sidewalks, et cetera, is left blank. Is there no program the next five years for any
pathways or sidewalks, or is that included in another line item?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's right above it. We had two different accounts, and we got away from
that.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Oh, I see.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So there's a quarter million dollars in that. It was, at one point in time, I-
or $2 million. The MPO prioritizes several million dollars a year towards pathways as well, too, so we get $5
million in box funds from federal money, federal and state money. It was going all to roads, and then the
PAC had lobbied the MPO to put about $2 million of that towards pathways.
So we reduced ours from a local level, and we got an increase at the federal and state level. So they
allocated about $2 million.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. Next fast question of clarification. At the very bottom of the
revenues you show a refund of impact fees. What is that based on?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's projects that don't go forward, so we always leave a little bit in
there that people have paid their impact fees and the project dies, that we would refund them, you know, for
an adjustment that's there.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay, thank you.
MR. JARVI: Or if they've paid for 1,000 homes, only built 800, and they're closed out, there's just
certain trips for -- trip where -- thresholds for trip that they get refunds, and it's -- generally it's in the
ordinance over several years.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Right. In order to get the refund, then they have to -- they have to
Page 19 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
actually close out their PUD and give up that density?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a little different. I think in the ordinance it's -- and the DCAs were
written a little different. I think Amy's trying to get a little consistency. I don't know if she's still here. She
left.
MS. TAYLOR: I'm here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, Amy Patterson. Okay.
Some DCAs say that you transfer them to another project within the district, some say once you're
done, you're entitled to a refund, and some say you're entitled to a refund only if the board says we can give
you the money at that time. So they're all a little different, but we put a little in there, and that's what it's for.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Gotcha. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One real quick one, Nick. Why do you show in your inventory
pathway -- or in your program pathways versus parks and rec? Parks and rec also has some consideration for
-- in terms of level of service for pathways.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We show them as part of the arterial construction, what we call the
countywide bike pathway network. We've got a plan with the Lee County DOT -- MPO, I should say. It's a
regional pathway network, so part of this money is meant to -- as Ms. Ebert has noticed, we put a pathway on
Immokalee Road. And Collier Boulevard, there's a pathway designed, you know, as part of the capital
project in there as well, too.
Now, not that the money's being mixed, but it's part of your O &M, so that 250- goes towards
expansion and repairs of pathways that's in there. It's a breakdown, I mean, and it does get allocated
separately or differently than a parks pathway.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Rich King Memorial Greenway is a linear park. Some of these other
things are adjacent to a county road, so that's the kind of separation --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And that tranquility pathway, whatever that is, is not counted
either. I was just curious, because you're looking at pathways in the parks program; you're looking at
pathways here, so --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If we built all the pathways we did and transferred them to park for
maintenance, they'd be broke. It's a lot of --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: They're broke already.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it would definitely be devastating if all the county greenways were
taken over to them.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Exhibit E, your impact refunds, I -- that was one of my
questions, and Mike touched on part of it. You not only showed -- you show an amount for this year, which
is 250,000. And the economy and development is increasing and getting better. More homes are being built
all over this county. In fact, I would think, way too many in some regards as far as the market's absorptions
go.
But you show a continued almost doubling of impact fee refunds for the next four years after this
year. What was the basis for putting that value in there? I mean, why do you think you're going to hit that
higher mark after we're coming out of a recession and things are turning around?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've got some projects that are closing out, so those projects, if the
developer has no place to go with the impact fees and the DCAs were written that way, we've put a little more
in there to cover those. So as those projects close out, they may be entitled to some impact fee refunds. And
we get that number working with Amy, so, you know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they have a DCA, they didn't pay the impact fees. They are getting
credits for the nnpact — for their contributions against the impact fees that they would have paid, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. Some of them actually paid cash. They actually wrote a check to the
county. And so, remember, we cut our impact fees 50 percent.
Page 20 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So if you paid at the time, you know, 100 percent of your impact fees and
now you build in a period where the impact fee rates are cut -- use $10 million for round numbers. Someone
gave us $10 million prepaid impact fees or, Logan Boulevard, they got an impact fee credit of $10 million.
Now they build all their homes when the impact fee rates are half or two- thirds of what they were. When
they're done with their development, they're going to say, well, we've got an impact fee credit ledger that
shows $2.5 million left over, you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then when the decision's made to do a DCA to allow a project to
move forward, we're basing it on their pro rata share of contribution regardless of how we got to the number.
The fact they made the contribution, we're telling them, we're going to credit your contribution against impact
fees.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how are we meeting the intent of the DCA if we turn around and give
them a refund on that monetary value that they were required to contribute to complete the -- meet the needs
of the DCA to do their development?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you put in the DCA a clause that said this is a -- that's -- this is the
snapshot. It's not going to change, you are agreeing to do this now -- what's that?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: There she is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's an impact fee refund question. But -- and that hasn't been done.
So you always have that huge fluctuation we had from 2004 to today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, on the flip -side, do you have a statement in the DCA that says,
if you can't use all the impact fee refunds -- credits generated by this DCA, you get the money back?
Because why would we even consider doing that? That's like taking money away from the intent of the
document.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, if we've got the benefit of the road in advance -- you're all talking
about time, value, and money, and they don't necessarily all correlate and correspond. So you could have got
the benefit of the road way in advance of that capacity being added.
Logan Boulevard's a great example. That road is now in use today for -- you know, without all that
capacity being in place. We're getting the benefit of that road today from them. So, you know, there's a time,
value, money from their perspective as well, too.
So it's a Catch -22, because if impact fees goes up, we get more money at the time they pay their
building permits. So if they put 10 million in impact fee credits, when they build, if the impact fees went
higher, they have to make up that difference. But if they go down, we pay back the difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it. But, regardless, the DCA's based on the 10 million.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the impact fees go up, you don't increase the value of the DCA saying
now you've got to pay 12 million because your impact fees went up $2 million. You leave 10 million in that
DCA, because that's the amount of contribution that rightfully is supposed to provide, monetarily, to
complete the intent of the DCA.
So how do we -- so who's -- the difference, the difference, the Delta, between what we're refunding
and what is required to complete the improvements in the original DCA, like your consortium, how do we
balance that out, then, if we're giving away refunds for some of that money if it's required by DCA? I'm not
sure how we -- I'm puzzled how we got to that philosophy.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That dollar amount was based on the impact fees rated and calculated at
that point in time, so the value of what the credits were at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying DCAs are based on impact fee credits from the adjoining
properties regardless of the value of the construction needed to complete the DCA? Then the DCA could,
theoretically, never have enough money in it to be complete.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, no, no. The value of the DCA is not related directly to the
construction project. I mean, the intersection project at 951 and 41 is a $20 million project. We received $8
million of DCA money prepaid to accelerate that project. So you're mixing -- we're mixing apples and
Page 21 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
oranges to a certain extent.
The value that they pay is based on units and the rate at that time. So in other words, if the rate is
$1,000 per unit and they want to vest, you know, a thousand units, do the math, that's what they write the
check for. When they pull the building permits, they reconcile that money. But that time -- that payment is
based on what the value is at that time.
Now, we don't -- they pay more if the rates go up, and we give them a refund if the rates went down
and they didn't use all the credits that they have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the unit value on a contribution to a DCA by any particular project is
based on the amount of impact fees that unit would contribute, not on the impact the unit contributes to the
system?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is based on -- the rate's calculated based on that but not the construction
project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on the way the impact fee calculations are done we,
theoretically, say that house is going to create an X amount of impact on the system; therefore, the impact fee
will be based on that impact --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and, therefore, those impact fees get rolled up into a DCA.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The problem I have is, our DCAs are looked at as a value to perform
to get the intersection to meet the needs of the development. If they get a reduction in impact fees because
we feel it's the right thing to do to spur economic development in the county, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a
reduction of the intensity of that home's impact on that intersection.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you do an arbitrary reduction, if you do a calculated reduction, it's
different. If you just said, we're going to cut rates 50 percent on impact fees, then you're right. But if you're
doing a calculated reduction, it's a little bit different.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What have we done, calculated or otherwise?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Calculated. All of our reductions have been calculated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we now have decided that the impacts of homes contributing to a DCA
are less than they were for some DCAs at the time they were initially calculated for the construction that was
needed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And that's based on the cost of construction that varies as well,
too. So if my construction prices continue to -- you know, if they went down, continue to go down, then I'm
getting more value from those dollars. If my construction prices go up, then I'm getting less value for those
dollars. That's why its constantly recalculated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You establish a DCA. You establish the amount each contributed
developer puts in. He bases it on impact fee.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The rate at the time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does that mean a DCA's contributions per developer increase if we
increase impact fees?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They could, because they've reserved their capacity with the DCA. They
said we're going to give you -- 951's a great example. We're going to give you $8 million to put towards the
intersection; it's a $20 million job.
Without that money and the state money, we would not have done that project. They couldn't have
gone forward. So it was a real good, you know, public /private partnership; DOT, county, developers.
Five years goes by. They're starting to build their homes, and let's say impact fee rates go up. That
DCA vested them, but when they pull the building permit, they go to the rate table and say, okay, I've got X
amount of DCA credits that I paid you; the rates went up. I have to give you more money, because now that
impact is coming online, and this is the rate at that time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even though they have an agreement with the county for a value, that
Page 22 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
value doesn't mean it necessarily stays what it is in the agreement. It fluctuates pursuant to the impact fee
basis.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, but the value that they received is vested. They locked in the ability
to go forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that, but --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So not the value. So it's only like a down payment. We've given you
enough to say you guys can go build the road, and we'll reconcile a building permit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting, because I do not see how the public wins on that one. But I'll
have to -- I'm going to pull up a DCA and try to read that language to better understand it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, no. I can explain it, I think, really well. For instance, the 951/41
intersection, for -- the public really wins on that. We're getting the benefit of their money way up front, $8
million.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we're not using it, so it doesn't mean anything to us.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no flyover there, though.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, but the intersection capacity improvement Pm doing takes you to
2025 to cover their impact. So I'm taking their $8 million, and I was lucky enough to get some grants and
work to get grants with DOT, doing a $20 million project that we would not do if not for them prepaying.
They could not build for five years. We're using their money. The road will be in place. So we're
getting the time, value, money from their contribution.
So in that respect it was a really good deal for us. That Target put 2 to $3 million, I think, in impact
fee monies that was a major contributor; that Target may not come online for two or three more years, but
that road will be in place way ahead of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate it.
MR. JARVI: Also, there are several DCAs that aren't the way you're talking about that are just
strictly "build something." So there's -- DCAs are a contract, so they can be many different forms and
formats, and some of them have impact -- as Nick mentioned, impact fee credits in the DCA, if there is such.
Some of them are silent and they go to the ordinance. They're all different. We're trying to get them more
uniform, but they aren't there yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't realize a contract, as you call it, had that kind of flexibility
built into it, but I'll -- you know, it is interesting.
MR. JARVI: It's basically a contract.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another question on that particular page. The carryforward, I know we
touched on it. What is that $12 million in carryforward?
MR. JARVI: I mean, simplistically, it's the money left over from last year, because we have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what project didn't you spend -- you didn't spend enough money last
year is what you're telling me.
MR. JARVI: No, our projects are multi -year projects, so it takes several years to get the money to
spend them. For instance, the 951/41, we got the $8 million four years ago, something like that. And the
numbers come in. And so it's the -- basically, it's money left in the checkbook from last year to put in next
year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're projecting nothing -- no carryforwards going foward, just this
year?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, you don't see it -- on the above, there's a symbol called A. And
when you look at the key at the bottom, it's advanced construction. This is Attachment D.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm on E. Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So Attachment D, when you look up at the top table, you will see Golden
Gate Boulevard, Wilson, and DeSoto intersection and beyond; let me make that clarification.
It says ADR. So that's design and right -of -way and advanced construction. Because you see in Year
15, I'm finishing the design in the right -of -way, and I'm going into construction.
And then you look in outer years for the same project, just one line up, in Year 18 we show $4.9
Page 23 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
million with an A next to it. That's advanced construction. So you're accumulating money that you're going
to roll because you can't accumulate enough money in one given year to do that project in that year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. I mean, I figured it was something like that. Just wanted the
clarification.
On the next table, which I'm not — it's the trip bank and traffic counts; it's the one that's written in
extremely small print.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I wrote there I can't read these, 12 and 13.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's hard to read it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's done on purpose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was done on purpose?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Could we get an 11 by 13?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to write that down.
MR. JARVI: I need two glasses for these. Oh, geez.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have an existing failure on Line 36.1, which is the Collier Boulevard,
Tamiami Trail, Wal -Mart driveway. I'm assuming this is the one -- because it says intersection construction
by 'I 3P 14, which kind of means now. Is that just for the intersection, or is that that -- because it says
Wal -Mart driveway.
MR. JARVI: It's the intersection improvements we've talked about that go down to roughly the
Wal -Mart -- excuse me, the Wal-Mart driveway --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. JARVI: -- for limits. And then, as I said, that's -- then it's three -- our resurfacing through south
of there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the Wal -Mart -- that intersection with the Wal -Mart
driveway is working fine. That's why I wanted to make sure.
MR. JARVI: No, that's just a point of --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Reference.
MR. JARVI: — reference between that segment and the next segment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this says "state," so the state is funding that section?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Exhibit G?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Two for the price of one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got vested trips. How do we allocate vested trips for units that are --
we had a lot of vacancies, and that's a mess right now. We've had vacancies. We had, what, 1,100 in Golden
Gate Estates alone. When we consider our road expansions, do we include the new construction coming on,
because your map showed where the building permits were? And I notice there are none in Golden Gate
Estates in that — in 2012, the COs. There's a few in 2013.
So do those add to the road system and you keep the road system concurrent to all the vacant homes
that we know are out there? How do you -- how does that balance?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The answer's no, and that's the problem with the vacancy rates that I've
been talking about for two or three years. You know, Mike and I have discussed it in -- you know, ad
nauseam in the last couple of AUIRs and CIEs. And one commissioner said, well, its going to be your fault
either way, but -- I said, I understand. 1 get that. That's the way the job works.
But you look at a development like Positano Place on Livingston. You know, the whole thing was
closed out and CO'ed. So if there was a trip bank for those units, we pull out the trip bank and say it's now
background traffic. But in reality, for the recession, it was probably one -third vacant.
When those units come back online, we'll have no way, other than picking them up by tube counts, to
reconcile them to the trip bank. It's just going to -- what we expect is that when the economy, as it's heating
up right now, you're going to see that map where it shows the 20 percent increase in the Estates. It will start
to jump up again.
And you'll go, well, wait a minute. We didn't pull that many building permits. And is it just
construction traffic? No, it's the vacant units that are starting to get gobbled up, and people are really living in
Page 24 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
these things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I was afraid of I just kind of wanted to make sure I
understood how you guys were looking at it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're afraid of it, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure I -- anybody else have any before --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Before we go to break, on Page -- if we just go back to Page 10
for a second. What does B stand for? I didn't see it down in the key.
MR. JARVI: Page 10 is the -- Attachment E?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Page 10 on the Golden Gate /Wilson, you have a B after it, and I don't
see it down in the key. What does the B stand for? It says --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a subproject. We're going to a dot structure rather than a B. It's in the
same account, 60040. It's an accounting function. The B is a separate project. We're going to go to a dot
structure, so it will be 60040.1, .2. It just means it's a different account.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And we can either go to Page 9 or Page 10, Attachment H. I
notice that on Vanderbilt Beach Road or -- excuse me -- yeah, on Vanderbilt Beach Road, that you have
projected study to six lanes. Why are you going to study this when you already have the property there to
expand it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not to study it to do the design. It's to study it to detennine what
exactly is the failure, what's causing it. In other words, if it's just the intersection, maybe you only improve
the --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, it's the road. But you have the whole center section, so you can do
the six lanes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: On that section of Vanderbilt, once you get past the galleria, which we've
ah -eady six -laned, there is almost no -- it's no development. It's like you point out, a rural road.
So when you get a -- you know, I -75 when it was four lanes worked wonderfully well because there
was no driveways. So you really were going to look at it and say, do we really want to widen it to six lanes
when, really, there's no friction there.
Once you merge, there's, I think, one driveway on the north side. The benefit might be just to go to
the Goodlette intersection and expand that and leave the middle part as four lanes. There might not be a lot of
value to go into six lanes, because there's no friction there.
So we'll do a detailed study to say what provides the most bang for your buck in that improvement.
Adjust the intersection, go back a thousand feet. Well, since we've done that, maybe there's only 1,200 feet
between connecting the two six lanes. Might be valuable just --to just continue and make it six lanes all the
way through. That's what we'll do. That's the study we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because I notice the people driving on there, because I also use
that road a lot, that it goes from three lanes quick down to, kind of, two, and people are -- you know, they pull
in ahead of you. But then when you come to the Goodlette -Frank, I notice that the left turn lane is now going
back further and further, and this isn't even season yet. I noticed the increase there.
So that's all I was asking about. Because I -- traffic is very important, and so are the -- you know, the
pathways, because people love those.
But on these different sections here, I was asking because of the fact that I know that you already
have the capacity to put the six lanes in.
MR. JARVI: Also, so you know, the studies we're doing also look at what the -- we've done a more
generalized level of service for these roads and doing a specific level of service for that segment, and that
may change the answer, too.
But I think we need to look at all that type stuff and see what the right answer is for the various ones
that are projected to be failures.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's take a, well, 12- minute break and come back at 10:45. We'll
Page 25 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
give the court reporter time for a break, and we'll finish up with any more questions. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Where is he? Mark, where are you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike and the mike. Okay. Well, we'll have to catch up with that next time
around.
Let's see, Mike's -- what department does he have? How many questions would I have in that?
Okay. We left off enjoying a conversation with Nick on the Transportation Element. And I don't
know if we had any more from this panel on that. Does anybody have any remaining questions?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You 've got a speaker.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And we're going to have that speaker right -- well, there's two
questions I've got. Actually, there is one. You already answered one.
The failures within or around the East Naples TCEA. For example, you have a segment -- and this is
on Exhibit H. You have a segment that's got a projected failure of 2022, and it's in the TCEA. And you've
got -- and that's along Tamiami Trail East. And you've got a segment along Rattlesnake Hammock Road
where it approaches Tamiami Trail East, and it says project failure of 2014, consider adding to the TCEA.
Well, if you add another one to a TCEA that's already got a projected failure date, what are you
going to do to that?
MR. JARVI: Well, the TCEA has certain rules in it that development can go forward if you do
certain things. And the Rattlesnake Hammock section is a four -lane section, and I think there were some
agreements made years ago. But if you look at it, you basically can't expand it, I mean, without, like, taking
down condos and things, which just probably isn't ever going to happen. So we're not going to get six lanes
on that section of Rattlesnake Hammock, which would be your alternative.
So there is -- one of the alternatives, since it is adjacent to the TCEA, could be to put it within the
TCEA because then it -- there are certain alternatives that a developer has to go through to get a project
approved. This is an alternative to look at it. That's what that is.
The one on 41 comes in and out. Over the last several years it's been real close to failing, not failing,
just failing, back and forth, so that's what it's looking at, and it's looking at 2022. That's a straight math. What
we did is take today's numbers and increase them by 2 percent, and 2022 is where the number came out.
So that's -- that's in the second five years. And you probably have heard Nick talk many times on
funding being, if it's out 10 years, it's not real. It's, you know, somebody's plan on a piece of paper, but it's not
real until it gets into the couple years. And this is almost the same, because this is -- we've projected a
straight line, 2 percent growth, and that's where it hits.
We could get one - and -a -half percent, we could get 3 percent. We don't -- I mean, we haven't
evaluated it. So this is basically the warning page. This is, warning, there may be a problem there. These are
potential solutions that we're going to be looking at over the next couple years, and we'll be monitoring the
situation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But my question -- well, first of all, the segment of Tamiami Trail
East that you have said has been going in and out of failure or --
MR. JARVI: Close to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- projections, well, it's going to be probably more in than out from here
forward, because that's where Sabal Bay is, and it's going to be opening up with a whole pile of new homes.
The piece that you're considering adding, if I understand the TCEA correctly, it takes the particular
geographic area and all the road systems and accumulates their potential together and that they've -- instead
of functioning as one failed system, the whole system's got to fail before you can stop development from
adding into the system, the bigger picture.
MR. JARVI: What you're describing is the TCMA, the management area, not the exception area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. JARVI: The exception area is, basically, there's no alternatives, so you don't have that grid that
you have to do -- your averaging -type idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
Page 26 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. JARVI: Like 41, there's no alternative to 41. There's not a parallel road that could take the
traffic from 41. So there's an exception area if it goes -- it's generally very geographically constrained, and
Mike might remember more of it. And, like, 90 percent built. There's some constraints to where you can do
it. It has to be mostly built out, and those are areas that, basically, you can't get there from here. You can't
get any -- you put anything more on there, and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you don't have an accumulation of totals, then, by adding
some more segments or geographic area to the TCEA, then you probably aren't, then, taking away anything
from the remaining areas of the TCEA. I mean, it's not degrading them any further? Because my concern
was by adding something that was about to fail in the upcoming year to another segment that was going to
fail in a few years, you might accelerate the failure of the overall system.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The dilemma you run into when you're in a constrained area, as Mr. Jarvi
pointed out, is you've got a concurrency, which so far the state has said you can have local option
concurrency, and we're going forward. If it does fail and you get a redevelopment project that adds one trip
to that and it's not a TCEA, you're supposed to tell them you can't go. You know, you have to stop.
As Reed pointed out, once it gets to about 90 percent developed in an area, you're basically saying --
and the goal of the TCEA is to do alternatives.
Okay. So you can't widen the road, and we want you to redevelop and develop in that area and just
do the infrll and finish it. What else could you do? Could you buy bus passes for your employees? Could
you put a bus shelter up?
And with the TCEA, they give you a list of options that have yet to be refined a little bit further. But
the idea is it's a primarily developed area, we don't want to be saying no to infrll parcels or redevelopment
parcels, but we also want people to recognize that you've got to do something different in this area, make it
more bike /pedestrian friendly -- and I'm remembering to slow down -- add bus stops, buy bus passes, things
like that. Bike racks to put up, offer telecommuting. That's what the TCEA kind of does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Or gridlock.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions before we go to public meeting -- or public
speakers?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And anybody in the public wishing to speak on this item, please come
forward and identify yourself for the -- and use one of the mikes. Either one.
MR. GADDY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the plan (sic) commission. Peter Gaddy
on behalf of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association.
And what I'd like to ask the plan commission to do this morning is Id like the plan commission to
continue the item regarding the intersection at Golden Gate and Wilson and the four -laning of Golden Gate
Boulevard east of Wilson Boulevard.
And I'd like to go into a little bit of the background to tell you a little bit about some of the issues so
that you understand the reason for that request.
Golden Gate Boulevard east of Wilson was first identified as a failing road in the 2005 AUIR. Ever
since then Golden Gate Boulevard east of Wilson has been at or below an F level of service. And it's really
worse than that, because the capacity of that road is really overrated in the county reports, because it's listed
as an arterial with a capacity of 1,100 peak hour cars. And, in fact, it's a collector arterial because of the
number of cross streets and the number of driveways located on it. So the capacity's really not as advertised.
On the other hand, we have an intersection at the corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson
Boulevard which is a fine intersection and is not at failure. It has protected left turns.
To add more confusion to the mix, we have an intersection at Everglades and Golden Gate
Boulevard which is in failure. In addition to that, in the rest of this plan we're adding two additional
intersections at 8th and 16th, and the effect of those -- of whether or not those interchanges will be viable is
another question which needs to be determined.
Now, the fact of the matter is, we -- I met with a number of people and the commissioner for the
district and Mr. Casalanguida in June of this year, and at that meeting it was agreed that no decision would be
Page 27 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
made until the traffic studies were done to determine the exact condition and the remaining useful life of the
existing interchange or intersection.
At the meeting it was decided that the county would undertake traffic counts, but those were deferred
because there are two bridge construction projects which could potentially alter the results of the traffic
counts.
This is an issue that everyone in the community is very concerned about. There's almost unanimous
support for not improving the interchange at this point in time and deferring that to some future date when it
is, in fact, needed, and take care of the failing section of the roadway.
I spoke to Commissioner Nance about this this morning, and he regrets that he could not be here this
morning, because he has grave reservations about putting in the intersection improvements as scheduled in
the AUIR.
In addition to that the commissioner for the district and transportation staff and approximately 10
member leaders from the community have a meeting scheduled for Monday, at which time this issue was
going to be vetted.
So I think that it would be appropriate to continue this item, and I would ask the plan commission to
continue that.
There's one piece of information which I think was a little misrepresented to you by Mr.
Casalanguida, and that was that the $11 million not only did the intersection, but the $11 million did part of
the roadway. Well, what it does is it does a couple hundred yards of a four -mile stretch.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's not true, Peter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let him finish. We'll get your input in just a minute.
MR. GADDY: The intersection improvements which are contemplated by this B item includes dual
left and dual right turn lanes in all four directions. That's a huge improvement when we're not even at
capacity with the intersection at this point in time.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir.
Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. For the record, couple hundred yards, Peter, is 600 feet, and I said
the two bridges, so we're way off what I put on the record to what you just said. I said the intersection and
potentially going to the first or second bridge which -- a couple hundred yards versus two miles.
But let me help you out, because I'm looking forward to the meeting on Monday. If what Mr.
Gaddy's trying to accomplish is to not identify just the intersection and pull that out, if you pull the project out
of the AUIR, I can't do a project, because I can't -- I can't do a project if it's not in the CIE.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think I had a better solution than that. First of all, that meeting that's
scheduled, I think, is going to be very determining in how this goes forward.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Especially if the commissioner from the district is at that meeting as well,
and which I just heard that news.
So I would suggest that in our recommendation for the Transportation Element of this AUIR that we
hold off on recommending approval of the inclusion of the Golden Gate Boulevard intersection until after the
further review of the community is completed, and that further review is after the meeting on Monday, and
then let the Board of County Commissioners decide at that point, with the input from that meeting, on how to
go forward with it. And that's -- so that's one idea.
And the second one is that the intersection as -- I mean, the extension of the Boulevard that we are
now talking about that's part of the intersection improvement --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- be shown on Maps H and shown -- and correctly reallocated in Exhibit
D. So there's no more confusion as to what's the intersection and how far it's going, we can actually have the
maps to back that up. And then what remains is basically an issue involving just the intersection, and that
issue is going to be resolved or discussed at various meetings in the future.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I could even help you out to go one step further that should take all of this
Page 28 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AU1R meeting)
away.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Get rid of the intersection and just call it Golden Gate Boulevard. And
we'll -- because intersections are part of a mainline. We were focusing on the intersection. So if you look at
that Exhibit D where we have 60040(B), and it's called Golden Gate Boulevard, Wilson to DeSoto, call it
Phase 1 and get rid of the word "intersection." We'll take the bubble out and call it intersection improvement,
and then we will put a line break on that blue line and say Phase I and Phase 2 limits to be determined by
design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only problem there, Nick, is elsewhere in the same document you
refer to specific intersections, and so people will know by reading it, then, you intend to improve the
intersection. On here, if we take it out and just say Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson east to DeSoto --
SPEAKER:
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're still saying you're going to do the intersection, but no one knows it
because it doesn't say intersection like the rest of the inclusions do.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, that's -- whatever improvement we get out of this meeting and
eventually a design from a consultant, eventually gets vetted to the Board of County Commissioners. The
only reason we brought up the intersection is because we're saying we're going to focus there and then work
east. If it's the community's desire to say leave the intersection alone, that's fine. By taking out the word
"intersection" and just saying from Golden Gate to -- Phase 1 to somewhere in between Golden Gate and
Everglades as Phase 1, then the board will ultimately decide what that improvement is, but you're not
hamstringing Mr. Gaddy's desire to took at that or my -- or you're not hamstringing county staff to come up
with some sort of interim improvement that doesn't include the intersection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, I mean, that's one way, and I don't disagree with you, but I would tend
to think we'd want to leave it in as two separate so everybody knows specifically what they're talking about.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, two phases.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you want to call Phase 1 the intersection on Golden Gate Boulevard
and Wilson. But I think the intersection part of it, to the extent that you're planning -- and I've seen your
plans -- is going to -- is being considered it needs to be a separate line item with a separate value so
everybody knows that's the focus, and that might reduce the -- maybe some of the concerns if that focus is
narrowed so that we're only looking at that issue. We're not talking about going east as much. In a way, it
might be an advantage.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm okay either way because --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- you know, ultimately, the plans that are on the books right now include
the intersection and a widening all the way to Everglades. So there's one set of unified 60 percent plans right
now that have an intersection improvement and widening all the way to Everglades. And the commitment
we made to the commissioner from the district and to Mr. Gaddy and the group is that when the bridges were
done, we'd do the study, we'd make a recommendation based on that study, we'd vet it with the Estates folks,
and I think they have a traffic engineer who lives there, Mr. Banks. He'll be on part of the review team that's
doing the review, and we would certainly take their recommendations and -- with ours to the board, and
whatever the decision was, we would be perfectly fine with. So I think there's plenty of room for us to review
it however you want.
I wouldn't pull it out, because if you adopt the CIE without that component in there, I can't spend
money on it, any money.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this board is tasked with making recommendations to the BCC.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, in reality, you could go forward without our recommendation. So
what I'm going to suggest is that we simply recommend that this issue of the intersection and the extension of
the Boulevard out east be -- not be recommended by this board right now, but that the board refine their
decision based on the community meetings that are going to occur between now and the board meeting.
Page 29 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I feel very uncomfortable knowing the concerns that are out there
to suggest that this is the right way to go. And most of the concerns I've heard, Nick, are on -- everybody's
saying Golden Gate Boulevard needs to be four -laned, so -- but that isn't the question here. The question
seems to be more focused on the interchange -- the intersection.
And I think that's why its -- I think it's necessary to leave them both separate so that the focus of that
discussion, if it is the intersection, that's the one you're dealing with, and everybody still acknowledges that
boulevard still needs to go forward. And the more money you put into the Boulevard is probably preferred
and less money in the intersection.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Let me clear it up, so I want to make sure the record doesn't get
confused.
The goal right now is we've got a 60 percent design plan. We've acquired some pond sites for the
widening of the mainline, not the intersection. As a matter of fact, the pond site for the intersection hasn't
been acquired yet. So the mainline ponds have been acquired already, the properties.
The goal right now after the bridges were done is to complete a traffic study, to do it by standards
that are done across the country. We'll do a typical traffic study, we'll project the traffic. We'll do the scope
with some input from the citizens. When we're done, we'll come up with the results of the study and present
it to the citizens and the commissioner from the district.
If it says to do the intersection, we'll talk about it with them. We'll make a recommendation to the
board. If it says not to and we can get away with deferring that for a while, staff is perfectly comfortable if
that is going to work.
But I want to tell you, if the study comes back and says you've got to do something to that
intersection, we'll have that cost -to- benefit analysis with the community and the commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I think, based on what you just said, its an acknowledgment that
we -- putting this on here as a definitive right now is questionable, and we should defer it until we've got the
more data that's needed.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But I did not say 200 yards. I said almost two miles, and that's a big
difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that, you know -- that's a separate debate that this board doesn't need
to get into.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we understand the two issues.
And, Mr. Gaddy, did you have anything else you wanted to say?
MR. GADDY: No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So whether or not we take these off the list the way they are now, it's
still going to the community, have their meeting, and the commissioners are going to make the final decision
anyway?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Regardless of whether we leave it or take -- because I'm not really
comfortable with taking anything off a list like this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't -- well, I mean, that's your choice, but if you were living in
the community and you -- this was going in an area where you might be uncomfortable with, you might see
the value of that to the people out there.
But I live there, and I can tell you that intersection is not nearly as important as the four -laning of the
Boulevard going east. And so I would hope that the priorities are in that. And if the intersection
improvements have to be done to work around that to some extent, that may be considered, but I don't know
if that's the -- needs to be the primary focus, and that's something the committee's going to be talking about
and the citizens.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, we're all on the same page.
Page 30 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. I think maybe this would help. How about we highlight that in
what's going to the board, and what the Planning Commission says is that this would -- you want the board to
discuss it and hear from some of the citizen input before the board adopting it, but I don't know that taking it
off makes any sense. You're just saying --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wasn't going to take it off. I was just going to recommend that this
not be included until after the community consensus is reached with your department to whatever extent it
can be before the Board of County Commissioners and leave the decision up to the board based on the
community input.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So you want us to highlight it in yellow and just say not to, you know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- I can't speak for the rest of these board members --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but I will not recommend approval with the intersection of Golden Gate
Boulevard and Wilson on here as it is listed today.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically, my concern is that it has -- there needs to be more vetting
through the community. And we know meetings are being set up. We know that there's other people
involved. We know the district commissioner is concerned about it from the testimony we heard here today.
Based on that, I definitely think that needs to be highlighted as a consideration after these meetings
occur and not one that I would think should be recommended to go forward as it is stated here today on this
document.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Would it be a good idea -- and rm going to try and offer a solution that
gets where everybody needs to be. On 60040(B) take out the word "intersection" and call it Golden Gate,
Wilson east to TBD, and then the one above it, TBD to -- to Desoto.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- why would you want to take the word "intersection" out?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because it's -- I think we went out of our way to highlight it. It doesn't
have to be in there. And I think if they have discomfort with it, I'm fine with it because it's basically saying
I'm going to start at Wilson with whatever improvement the community and the board approves and go east
as far as the money will carry me in Phase 1, and then from -- Phase 2 will be from wherever I finish to the
next phase as money allows.
So that doesn't -- that takes the whole intersection out of the debate, and we'll discuss that with them.
I'm actually more agreeable to what he's trying to do than people understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fm not thinking you're disagreeable. I just think it's an issue that came up
that hasn't been resolved for today's meeting, and that's what I'm trying to get to is let it get time to be
resolved before --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. By doing that, you don't hamstring what you're doing or what Peter
is trying to accomplish or what I'm trying to accomplish. I think you just say the project starts at Wilson and
will end at TBD based on the money, then TBD to the next phase; hopefully to Everglades.
MR. GADDY: Mr. Chairman, could I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead.
MR. GADDY: Whenever you have these types of conflicts in these complicated documents, maybe
the simplest way to handle it is to just put a little note, you know, either an asterisk or some other sort of
notation to the effect of what -- just what the chainnan just a minute or so ago explained is that the decision
regarding the allocation of funds and whether or not to go forward with the intersection is going to depend on
community input and also the traffic studies which need to be done. So that would be my suggestion.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's -- if I may?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I was going to suggest something, essentially, along that same
lines. I don't know why we couldn't approve and forward this to the Board of County Commissioners with
the stipulation on those two projects that further definition is to be defined prior to the Board of County
Commissioners' hearing and depending upon the input provided by the citizens and meetings between now
Page 31 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
and then, rather than suspend the whole item.
And we're all saying, we need to spend some money there, and the money that's going to be spent is
going to be basically determined by a traffic study and input and meetings from the citizens.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And so you have a project with monies that has been forwarded
with the stipulation as to how you're going to specifically spend it is going to be dependent upon those two
pieces of input and the decision by Board of Commissioners.
MR, CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You know, rather than hang up the whole element here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't proposing even closely to hang up the whole element. Oh, no, no. I
was suggesting we recommend approval of the element with the exception of a hold on the Golden Gate
intersection and improvements until after review with the community prior to the presentation to the BCC.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, I heard that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's all I --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I understand what you were recommending. I was
recommending something different. I wasn't recommending a hold on anything. To recommend going
forward with the stipulation that the definition of how that money is going to be spent on Golden Gate
Boulevard will be determined by meetings with the community, a traffic study, and then further discussion by
the Board of County Commissioners rather than putting a hold on that -- those two lines and then having it
come back to us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what I was -- I wasn't trying to make that -- I'm sorry if I
misstated.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Then I give up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm just sorry if I misinterpreted -- misinformed. I wasn't going there.
First of all, it shouldn't come back to us at all. There's no possibility that should happen.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second thing is, by putting a hold on it, I simply mean that its not
going to be part of the recommendation for approval until it -- because it's going to be subject to the
community involvement that's going to occur between now and the BCC meeting, and let the BCC, based on
that reporting, decide what they want to decide on it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm fine with that. Either way, it doesn't make a difference to me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I just want to be sure that he has project money. What you said
earlier is if this is not approved or not -- or is pulled or something, then you don't have project money.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, if its not in the CIE, technically I can't acquire right -of -way by law.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So I think we're all trying to get to the same point, which is okay. Either
way you want to do it if -- the chainnan is saying -- he's not saying don't approve it. He's saying put this
aside and let the board make the final decision on this. Fine.
My suggestion was just take out the word "intersection" and go either way. We're going to get to the
same result, because when we get to the board, I'll make the same comment is, you've got to show something
in the CIE to spend money on it. You know, there will be testimony, I'm sure, from Peter and output from --
input and output from the community meeting, we'll make a recommendation. Probably the recommendation
I'm making here is what I'll tell the board, because we're still going to have to go through some design. It will
take probably six months to a year.
And by taking out the specificity, the board will have the ability to approve that design at a later time.
The specificity that's making Peter and the group nervous is the "intersection." Pm okay either way, because
we'll get there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Peter, do you think that matters to your organization?
MR. GADDY: We support both projects, Mr. Chairman. The question is how to prioritize. And the
county does not and has never had a good system for setting priorities for road developments. I've seen some
Page 32 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
of the ridiculous mistakes that have been made in the last 10 years, you know, prove that out.
I mean, you talked about Oil Well earlier today and the traffic counts. Well, traffic counts are so
small that the tiniest little bump can give you a 20 percent increase. I mean, we're talking about a facility that
is operating at one -tenth of one percent of its capacity; whereas, we've had Golden Gate Boulevard for the
last nine years operating at 110 to 120 percent of its capacity. So there's something wrong here and something
that needs to be fixed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that the solution offered by Nick then works as long as
we -- if we combine those into phasing and take out the word "intersection," then the phasing can be worked
out as it goes forward with the various committees and/or the district commissioner.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that will accomplish the goal, and then we can get to a point where we
can recommend approval with those changes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. I'm fine with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Are you?
MR. GADDY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, he said yeah.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So we're -- altogether we're going to recommend approval with
the changes that you just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. We're going to recommend approval with language changes so that
60040 and 60040(B) become phases to the Golden Gate Boulevard extension from Wilson east to DeSoto.
Part of that phasing will be the intersection improvements to whatever extent is worked out between the
citizens and the district commissioner and Nick's office, and that should get everybody where we need to go.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that works.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then you're going to reflect those changes on Map H in Exhibit
D?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. I will -- we'll pull out the highlight of the intersection on
Map Attachment H, and we'll just -- we'll put a squiggly line on the blue line breaking it up and say TBD, the
project limits to be determined, and we'll say from Wilson to TBD, and TBD to DeSoto, and we'll extend that
line. It will be a phased project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that gets us there, and that leaves the door open for discussions.
MR. GADDY: Nick, can I ask you if you would send a draft of that to the affected parties, draft of
that amendment.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll have it Monday at the meeting already done.
MR. GADDY: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is everybody on the Planning Commission on board then?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh -huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion -- I believe -- is there any other public speakers on
transportation? This will undoubtedly be the longest one we have today, hopefully.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Don't count on it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if Nick wasn't here, it would be short but, you know --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. I should have stayed home.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, is there a recommendation of approval with the suggested
changes from this committee?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry made such a move. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak.
Discussion?
Page 33 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Thank you, all.
Okay. Mike, where do you want to go next?
MR. BOSI: Well, let's follow the logical order of the -- or the agenda order, which would be
stormwater, drainage.
MR. EASTMAN: Chair, Mr. Chainnan?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. EASTMAN: Due to time constraints, Amy and I both have meetings this afternoon. Is it
possible that we could do the school district budget and capital plan?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only if you agree to stay in the system.
MR. EASTMAN: Certainly beyond my authority.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Chairman, I also have to run to a meeting, Commissioner, at noon. So if
stormwater's not too long, Mr. Kurtz was out the last two weekends. He came sick the last two days. He's
been working about 70 hours a week with flooding, so I said I'd cover.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What time do you have to leave?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have to leave in 20 minutes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What time do you got to leave, Tom?
MR. EASTMAN: After Nick is perfect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's do stormwater next. So we need to take 21 minutes of his
time.
Okay. Nick, instead of an elaborate presentation, which I know you probably have on the tip of your
tongue, why don't we just simply ask questions. How's that sound?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That would be fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would expedite the process.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on this board have any questions? Phil?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, boy.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Nick knows what my questions are, but I'll just preface it and
then Im going to ask Corby to put up something. Well, it's already going up.
I had some issues, some other planning commissioners did last year, with stormwater management in
terns of how the level -of- service standard was, A, defined and, B, applied, and it has to do with the 1989
standard and it had to do with subjectivity instead of objectivity. It had to do a lot with how they prioritized
based upon a Watershed Management Plan, et cetera, et cetera.
And I'm not going to rehash all of that. Suffice to say that I did -- I did sit down with Jerry Kurtz and
Bill Lorenz about a month ago, and we had a very good meeting. And out of that meeting I think, Nick, you
have some things that you can sort of level set what your plans for improvement are in terns of improving
the level -of- service standard for stonnwater and approximately when we can see those result in a revised
AUIR.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wasn't privy to the meeting, but I'll let you know what I've told them in,
kind of, my discussions with stonnwater.
Probably one of the areas we lack probably the depth and the knowledge in terns of the system has
Page 34 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
always been stonmwater, the fact that we have multiple systems in multiple communities designed to various,
you know, storm events. Golden Gate Estates doesn't meet the 25 -year storm; some of the older
communities, Palm River, Golden Gate City.
So setting a level of service is going to be a challenge, and I think it's going to have to be done by
region based on existing conditions.
So one of the things we're going to work on over the next 12 to 18 months is reclassifying the whole
stormwater system. So we're going to assign a project manager and a GIS team. We've already done most of
the identification of the units or the structures that are there, but we're going to break it down by basins and
not functional drainage -- both by functional drainage basins and by -- because, you know, Golden Gate
Estates has several basins -- but contiguous, I would call it, level -of- service areas.
So, you know, if you set level of service the same across the whole county, you can see where you'd
have a problem. A brand new development, whether it's a public road versus Golden Gate Estates, with the
same level of service, it's not going to work. So I think that's our goal to do that.
Now, the challenge, Commissioner Brougham, is obviously the funding. Probably going back five
years, county received about $15 million in stormwater funds. The resolution that I believe County Manager
Mudd brought to the board was the equivalent of .15 of General Fund millage.
It's been, since, knocked down to .1, and then the corresponding taxable value decrease has us with a
budget of about $6 million a year.
And when you look at the infrastructure maintenance project on Page 25, most of the money's going
to go toward O &M and asset management.
So capital stuff was identified in the watershed management plans. When you look at watershed
management projects, we were lucky to get some money from the district to start that project a little bit. But
the amount of money that's required to accomplish those -- I think, as we come back next year, you're going
to see those get drained down and more money going into O &M.
From the county manager's perspective, he recognizes what we've talked about with FEMA and
improving things, that we're going to have to find a way to re-fund stormwater. So, for us, asset management
coming first, probably setting level -of- service standards by area, because it's not one size fits all.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: When you say "by area," Jerry and I talked about by water -- or
excuse me -- by watershed area or areas identified in the Watershed Management Plan, and then there's been
mention of basins, and that gets very confusing. And where does one differentiate from the other? But you're
going to tie it to some geographical, measurable --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- area of land that would then be measured, quantified,
evaluated, which would drive, then, to either O &M project money or, in some cases, capital money if you
need significant new capacity to handle storrwater.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think capital expansion, that will drive it. O &M is a function of the age
of the system, and it's -- so it won't be as much of a -- you folks don't review level of service in terms of asset
management. We do that separately.
So i think on the infrastructure and maintenance side, which will be a large part of it, we show it in
the budget because its part of the funding that you review. That's going to gobble up more and more. But
you're not going to see that as planning commission. You never have, unless you wanted to.
But in terms of capital expenditures, what I told Jerry and Bill was your Watershed Management
Plan did a pretty good job of defining it, and since you don't have enough money even to do the top five, you
barely have enough to just start the first one, I'm not that worried about having projects to -- for you folks to
deliberate on.
But where it's going to come forward is, if we do what I would call a combination of O &M and
capital enhancements where like, let's say, Golden Gate Estates was one, if we were to re -point all the swales
and set some ditch blocks and try and redo that, to prioritize that you are going to have to set a level of
service. You have to know where to go first without someone saying, well, I'm the loudest voice. Come to
me first. No, there's going to have to be a technical method to depict an area that has to go first.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. And maybe it's not the purview of the Planning
Page 35 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
Commission, but if the county ignores the O &M to the extent that we don't take care of aging and dilapidated
infrastructure then, obviously, pretty soon we're going to have failures all over the place and more flooding,
and one thing is going to bead the other.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So I would really like to look forward to having a perspective of
both of those vectors coming into, you know, a future AUIR saying, you know, this is really where the
priorities are. Here's how we got there. And if we -- if we come up with funding deficiencies, then I think
that's good to highlight the fact that this is a priority need here, folks, and we don't have available funding,
and here's the funding we need your support in asking for as we go forward to the BCC.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, let's don't — I mean, Jeffry is very aware of all the heat
that happens with this rain, and some of what we're seeing is as a result of our past history, in my opinion, on
that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think it would be a bad idea. We did a workshop one time with the
Planning Commission on roads. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea. I think the board, when we talk about asset
management on Tuesday, to maybe schedule something, you know, time permitting, to talk about a workshop
with -- a public workshop with the Planning Commission about stormwater level of service, because we have
a couple different ideas, and it may be a good way to vet it publicly and get a good answer.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would like to see that.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Have some suggestions there, too.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And if I might, Corby put up on the board those three different
staff-initiated GMP initiatives. If you want to just briefly state the purpose of those.
MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioners, for the record, Corby Schmidt, principal planner with the
department.
And what you see on your screens are three of the entries from a listing approved by the county
board last week and had been proposed by staff, worked on for a number of months. At least one of these
was first written about this time last year. These are all related to stormwater management. First one vaguely
referring to stormwater management plans and looking forward to any amendments that we would consider
based on language changes, watersheds, basins to more clearly define those types of things, whatever else
may come up.
The second, we already knew at the time of the EAR -based amendments that the listing of basins in
the documents were abbreviated or incomplete. We'll finish those listings.
And the third one was the important one we thought with concerns over the definition or explanation
of levels of service for stormwater management. The Watershed Management Plan also looks at clarifying
those definitions and the application of them.
So these three things are just part of what you'll see with staff - proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments in the future.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm assuming, Corby, that that third bullet, the ultimate outcome
of that or the objective of that is to develop a modernized level -of- service standard that is based upon current
data, not 1989 data, and based on objectively evaluated data rather than subjectively evaluated, while we're
either good or bad or A or B or E or F.
MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's not stated, but it was stated in our meetings and
discussions. And I hope that's the outcome of that, because the whole -- the whole purpose here is to get a
level -of- service standard that we can, A, understand and, B, have an objective evaluation that drives to
priorities that goes into this AUIR.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm good.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me just add — I think Mike pointed it out. Water quality and quantity.
And I don't think we want to bring in recharge into the AUIR, but that -- you get a benefit. That's the third
Page 36 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
benefit you get. If you're water quality and you're doing water quantity and you maintain it in a certain area,
you get the recharge benefit. But those are the two areas we're going to focus on, quality and quantity.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I'd be interested in when you have that workshop.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: As a member of the public.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, I've just got one. The -- and you and I talked about it in the
past, the amount of water that had been building up east of the Fakaunion Canal in Golden Gate Estates.
I went out two different weekends as a result of public concerns out there and checked the weirs and
talked with Big Cypress Basin. They acknowledged that there may be something they can do with the south
weir on 20th Southeast to possibly lower it, because there is some stacking that was going on and with the
weir at 26th Northeast, between the two, but also at the same time, with those weirs at the stages they are at,
some of the swales couldn't drain. I mean, the weir was at the same -- the water's being held up at the base of
some of the swales.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you could see that by driving down the roads. But in many cases the
swales out there were not maintained. There was some very mature Brazilian pepper growing right in the
middle of one of the swales; water was backed up on that one back across the whole side and over DeSoto
going east.
And I was wondering where in this -- on your pages, where in the stormwater does the maintenance
of those swales come in, and when can the -- when would you be looking at areas like I'm suggesting that are
east of the Fakaunion Canal and out in that area?
I know some work's being done as we speak because everybody, once they were made aware of it,
realized that there was quite a bit of water backing up out there.
But I -- for example, I saw under one item -- and it's on Page 25, that the -- you have a separate item
for system capacity projects. One is called Naples Park swales, coordinate with utilities.
Is that doing what needs to be done in Golden Gate but we're doing it in Naples Park and not Golden
Gate?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: To a certain extent, because you've got to take advantage of the timing.
With Naples Park, they're replacing some -- I don't know if it's asbestos concrete pipe, but they're
doing the waterlines that go underneath the swales.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So if they're out there, you want to take advantage of setting the grades at
the same time they're ripping up the driveways. So you don't want to come back there later after they've done
it and say, okay, we've set these culverts at the wrong grades.
So as they move forward in Naples Park with water improvements, we need to make sure that we're
making the drainage fixes at the same time.
But the reason you don't see it in here is because I just don't have the money for it. I think when you
go back to the transportation section -- and I want to see if 1 get it right. 60077 is a catch -all fund. And I'll
have to give you a copy of my budget on Page 10, but it's not in there. We've got a swale maintenance
component that's in 60077, and the whole fund is modulus. You get 3 to $4 million, and I can parcel it off
depending on need. So some of that goes to the swale maintenance.
But that's the problem with this budget, sir, what you see with this five -year forecast is I simply just
don't have enough funds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you haven't got it in at least stormwater, so you do have funds -- and
just that -- maybe that's another thing we ought to consider. Wouldn't we want to put all that in stormwater,
or is there some reason road needs to keep stormwater issues under their --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's in the general road fund and ancillary -- and the way I wrote it
up in the budget -- and ancillary drainage systems, they're part of the road. So if they're going out to fix a
Page 37 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
road in the Estates and at the same time notice the swales are done, the road and bridge crews do all the work
together. But there's just simply not enough money. Again, from 15 million down to 6 -.
You know, when I met with the county manager and even some of the board members, you know, I
said, I know we're coming out of this thing and the millage is going to stay the same and taxable values go
up, we're going to have to revisit this .1 going back to .15, because those swales in the Estates and the rest of
the county are woefully undermaintained.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do have one improvement I'll point out to you, the 28th Street bridge,
over the Miller Canal. That's a five- barrel bridge. And when you say five- barrel bridge, it's basically
corrugated steel pipe, and we're pulling that out with a grant from the district.
The county's put in $250,000, and they're going to put in $500,000 to start diverting water away from
Naples Bay and being able to increase the discharge rates in Golden Gate Estates so that that canal can carry
more water. That bridge that was there was a restricter to the amount of water they could send south to the
Picayune Strand area. So that should help the Estates as well, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions of the stormwater?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to speak on stormwater?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation from the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll recommend we forward with approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- Commissioner Brougham, seconded by Commissioner Ebert.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners. It's been a while since I've seen you, and I
apologize to the court reporter. I've got to learn to slow down again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, enjoy your afternoon, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *And now the next one up will be schools, right?
Yeah, come on up, Amy.
MR. BOSI: According to your direction, Chair, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just -- i know they said they need to get out of here rather quickly, so
we'll try our best to accommodate that.
MR. EASTMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions from the Planning Commission on the school
information?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, during the break I was talking with Amy, and I stand corrected on the
need to maybe correct or modify some of the conditions under which the school board operates within our
GMP and our concurrency elements.
And they informed me, or Amy informed me that part of the problem was the formula that the state
Page 38 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
uses is not sophisticated enough to take in the uniqueness of Collier County, and there's other particular parts
of the program.
And under that basis, I think there are some needs -- there would be room for improvement, but I
would hope that they would always consider this process as part of a good thing to keep the public infonned
and to make sure there's a record that they've made presentations to everybody, including county staff, that
they are seeking improvements in different areas to -- on which to relocate their schools.
So for that reason, I think that coordination is excellent. I realize that inner - department documents
do work, but they don't pop up in the public yearly like this process does, and I think that's a good thing. So
hopefully we'll still retain that and still make the needed corrections for your department, Amy. So thank you
for enlightening me to your needs.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tom's shaking his head yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tom.
MR. EASTMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And keeping your presence on this board is real vital. You've been an
asset. I know that not every project is one that you need to jump in on, but when you do, it's effective, and so
I would -- hopefully we can see that be retained as well.
So with that in mind, if there's no -- no other questions?
Anybody from the public wish to speak on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody's rushing up to the microphone.
Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I make a motion to approve, Mr. Chainnan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Made by --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mike, seconded by Diane.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
MS. TAYLOR: Great.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you guys get off in time for your afternoon.
MS. TAYLOR: Yes, thank you very much.
MR. EASTMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, both. Appreciate it.
Okay. Mike, where would you like to go now?
MR. BOSI: * * *I think Mr. Chmelik and Mr. Van Lengen are sitting there and hoping it's utilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the difference there is they've got, I'm assuming, potable water and
storm -- and sanitary sewer. What about solid waste?
MR. CHMELIK: Available as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope we can get through all three of those by lunch, guys. You still might
-- come on up.
MR. BOSI: And just for the -- there are no improvements in either or any of those proposed
sections.
Page 39 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So we'll start with -- for this board, is it okay if we start with your
potable water system, Chris?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Absolutely. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Chris Van Lengen, principal planner with the planning and project
management department of the public utilities division. That's a mouthful. So now that I've gotten through
that, the rest of this will be easy.
It's definitely a privilege to be here, and I want to thank Mike and Corby for their help throughout the
process. Its been really helpful. And I'm not going to repeat a lot of what they said.
Our Category A facilities, water, wastewater, solid waste, these are three of your seven components
in Category A.
The level of service for these categories -- I just want to make some general comments about all three
of these at once, and then I'll get right on to water. But they're based solely on plant capacity in the case of
water and wastewater, just so everybody knows. This is somewhat of a blunt instrument. It doesn't measure
all aspects of the system.
By plant capacity is where we focus on level -of- service standard, and in solid waste it's capacity of
the landfill.
And what we do is measure -- we use this AUIR, and it's a very valuable tool for us every single
year. We measure concurrency this way.
It is a tool for concurrency and, to some extent, because of the CIE, for capital planning, but really
our capital planning is much more directed by our master plan process. And our master plan process is
ongoing.
Our last complete master plan was done in 2008. We're beginning a new cycle right now, so we're in
the process of developing a new master plan.
With respect to -- Commissioner Brougham, I'm sorry, just left. Maybe I'll save that comment till we
get to water, because I wanted to address one of his concerns.
This is one concurrency check that we have. We measure things in a whole lot of different ways.
Another concurrency measurement we use internally, which we do more than once a year, is called
checkbook concurrency. We do that for our own benefit, and it measures concurrency based on approved --
board approved developments that are approved but unbuilt at this point along with historical demand trends
and really a three -day demand cycle.
So we're able to view our concurrency from that perspective as well, and we call that checkbook
concurrency. And there are other requirements for our capital planning, some of which are regulatory in
nature. FDEP, for example, requires that we have a new plant in the permitting process at least five years
before we reach 75 percent capacity.
Now, there are exceptions to that, and I won't go through all that, but there are a lot of different levels
in which we measure capital improvements, concurrency, and so forth.
I believe Mike mentioned the population estimates. We do all of these facilities based on peak
population, and that's the median BEBR times 120 percent.
Just a note, this year on water and wastewater -- and we'll get into it probably right away on water.
But the populations this year compared to last year are somewhat smaller, and the reason is that we're
measuring populations actually served. That is to say we're looking at the district. We're not taking the entire
district population. We're using those populations that are served or likely to be served within the next 10
years, and we've identified those. We've GIS'ed them, and thanks to comprehensive planning, they've done a
very difficult and helpful analysis on the population in those areas.
So with that, I can jump right into water and just a couple of introductory comments, if I may.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. VAN LENGEN: The water level of service is 170 gallons per capita per day. That's just
simply a capacity requirement coming from our plants. And for the benefit of Commissioner Brougham, yes,
we want to look at the level -of- service standards, and we will look at the levels -of- service standards.
We last changed that in 19 -- excuse me -- in 2008 as a result of the master planning process. It had
Page 40 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
been 185. That dropped to 170.
I don't want to predict, but there was a lot of speculation that it may drop again because of the
conservation culture that we have and improvements in irrigation practices.
So I think that for purposes of this AUK we have to use 170. That's in your Comp Plan. The
process will be, once we go through the master planning process, to the extent that we change the
level -of- service standard, that will come back to you through a Comp Plan amendment, and so at that point
we can share with you the analysis in terms of how we got there.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do you evaluate that on a regular timed basis or as you feel it's
necessary to take another look? I mean, is it just every five years or --
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yeah. The last one was five years ago. I'm not sure prior to that how many
years in between. Going forward, we look forward to doing it much more often. We're trying to -- we're
going to try to achieve every two to three years.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That would be excellent.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- or are you done?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, just one more thing that --what you're seeing illustrated in the water is
a totally integrated system. We've integrated an analysis that includes Orangetree Utilities this year because
that transition is scheduled to occur no later than 2014. And that's captured on Page 30 by the indication of
an additional .75 MGD coming online at that time. It also shows that it can be decommissioned at any time,
which just simply means we're illustrating a point at which it could be decommissioned but, in reality, what
we want to do is connect that to our existing water system in a holistic way before we do anything. Then we
measure flows, demands, capacities. And at some point, depending on a variety of factors, we may
decommission that plan. We don't have any timetable for doing so.
The -- Page 30 also shows -- and let me flip there so I can -- the northeast water treatment plant
comes online in 2030. According to these population numbers and this level -of- service standard, that would
be the time when additional potable water would be required.
Again, there may be options to that. As our master plan comes out, there may be other treatment
trains that come out in other locations. If the level -of- service standard changes, that might push out in time,
but this is how we illustrate it at this point in time in 2030.
So the map that you see -- and that's on Page W5 I have here; that's Page 33 in your book -- that does
show -- that shows the population that we serve in blue. The gray area is that area that we do not serve or do
not plan to serve within a 10 -year period. They're still within the district. They could technically request to
tie into our system should they wish to. But the blue area represents all but 8 percent of the total population
and about 54 percent of the land mass area, so there are just a lot of areas that are either undevelopable or
primarily -- and it was carved out quite a while ago, those areas of the urban Estates and some other locations
that are not included.
That basically concludes my introductory remarks other than to say that the water is concurrent under
Section 163 and the local Comprehensive Plan and LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, did you have something?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah, clarification. Did you say that might or there's thought of
decommissioning the Orangetree plant?
MR. VAN LENGEN: At some point in time, and we don't know exactly when that would be. What
we need to do is integrate the Orangetree plant with our system. We'll actually be connecting it to our entire
system so that it would be connected, for example, to the north water plant. And through that mechanism,
we'll be able to establish flows. All of those customers will become customers of the Collier County
Water /Sewer District at that time.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I ask the question because there were some thoughts years ago of using
the Orangetree plant to extend eastward for future eastward expansion into the Rural Land Stewardship Area.
Is that still not a viable thought?
MR. VAN LENGEN: As it stands now, I think the easy answer is that based on its capacity of .6
MGD, it would be a trickle, I think, in terms of the potential development in that eastern development area.
Page 41 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. And is there any thought -- I didn't see it in your presentation
here -- of going to any higher form of technology such as reverse osmosis which I think the district, South
Florida Water Management District, is asking a lot of developers to do with independent plants?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes. And we are also in the process of developing a 10 -year water supply
plan which is required by the state, and it really shows our consistency with the lower west coast water supply
plan, and that's certainly one of their goals. And Collier County's really been a leader in that area. We do
have reverse osmosis and we do use brackish water to a greater extent than almost every other county.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. Are you using any deep -well injection now?
MR. VAN LENGEN: We do. We use deep -well injection to dispose of some of the processed
material.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: The brine?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Has that process or that technology moved forward any to save money
for the county and make it more useful? In other words, the brine, from my knowledge of it, basically is 5
percent salt and 95 percent water that you're pumping back into the ground. Has anything moved forward
technology -wise to separate that and only have to dispose of the salt or maybe even use the salt on a
commercial basis?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yeah, I guess I probably can't answer the question to that. Perhaps Tom
might want to address that.
MR. CHMELIK: Certainly. Tom Chmelik, for the record, public utilities. Sir, to answer your
question, we are always evaluating new emerging technologies that might be available. What we're using
now is the most cost - effective means of disposal; however, we have projects for both of our water plants to be
looking at new process changes.
Currently right now, there's a couple of emerging technologies that we are looking at, so --
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I'm glad to hear that, because deep -well injection is rather expensive,
isn't it? Millions of dollars to set up a deep -well injection?
MR. CHMELIK: The well is quite expensive, yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yes. All right. Thank you.
MR. CHMELIK: But we have four wells currently right now, and they're relatively new.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Thanks.
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Chris, the Orangetree plant that's supposed to come online six
months, April, is this true, from what the last time --
MR. VAN LENGEN: We don't have a date at this point in time. We know it will be 2014, we know
we're in transition, and we know that it's -- the transition details are being worked out so that its both an
amenable and a smooth transition. I can't give you any greater details because right now our counsel is
talking to their counsel, and so there are nuances that we may not be aware of
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I had heard it was coming on April. That's what we were told.
So I was wondering if you were working with them at this point trying to get stuff squared away.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Absolutely, absolutely. We're in the transition phase right now, and we are
working very closely with them to get things squared away.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So we don't really know if it's going to be April? Because I
know of projects that are coming along on Immokalee Road. I think I asked you last time.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that's why --
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- April stuck in my mind.
And the -- on Page 31, the new northeast regional, would that be on Oil Well Road? Is that what I'm
thinking? Because I was thinking that at some point they wanted to kind of do a Collier County north facility
up there. Is that where this treatment plant would be?
Page 42 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes. It's part of the Orangetree PUD. It was entitled quite some time ago
under, I think, a 2005 ordinance.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MR. VAN LENGEN: It's a fairly large tract of land that will include not only the northeast regional
recycle center but also ultimately -- and a park site is reserved there, but ultimately there is a great deal of
acreage set aside for facilities for both water and wastewater, and those facilities have been through the
design phase.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MR. VAN LENGEN: So they're really kind of shelf ready in a certain kind of way.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you're also going to do solid waste up there?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, we're going to do recycling.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Recycling.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Interesting. Okay. Very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything on the water portion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chris, the Orangetree plant, is the interconnection between that plant and
the — I guess, the east, or the plant to -- any plant to the west where you -- for potable water, is that already in
place?
MR. VAN LENGEN: There's a transmission line in place. We would need additional booster
pumps. We would need secondary treatment. We need one additional segment of transmission to get right to
the plant. But we're, I want to say, maybe a year or two away.
MR. CHMELIK: Tom Chmelik, again. I can elaborate on that. Actually, we have designs that are
on the way right now almost complete for an interconnection just north of Oil Well Road and with
Immokalee Road, so just north of that intersection. There are Orangetree pipes that are crossing Immokalee.
We've got pipes on Immokalee. The connection will be there. And there will be further infrastructure to aid
in that connection, but that's the transition point. And once the transition occurs, we'll construct that design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The footnote that you have on Page 30 says the Orangetree Utility Water
Treatment Plant may be decommissioned any time after transition. So does that mean transition from the
current owner to the county will not occur until after all the infrastructure in place to decommission that plant
is done? So you're looking at a year or two from now?
MR. CHMELIK: Well, I think the transition will occur ahead of time, and the facilities at
Orangetree will be operated as they exist at this moment; however, we will construct the interconnection that
was described. And then once that's connected, operating, and we're satisfactory with the operations and
performance, then we would look at the decommissioning that was mentioned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unlike the other portions of the AUIR where we actually see your
revenues, expenditures, and level -of- service facilities against the overall picture, where do you have the
money built in to complete those transmission lines, those interconnection lines?
MR. CHMELIK: Actually, I'd just like to correct that we just need to make a connection at that
point. There are -- the lines are there, and those funds are available in our budget in a project called the
northeast reliability and interconnection. And that's part of our capital plan that was approved by the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your -- why don't we see your financials at the AUIR level? I mean,
everybody else produces a standard form which we can understand how your revenues are figured, how your
expenditures are figured, how your system is put together, and it's pretty open and forthright, and we see
volumes of money going back and forth. I'm just wondering why yours isn't like that.
Mike, do you have a reason?
MR. BOSI: I can't -- I mean, there's partial disclosure within the CIE pages related to the revenues
and expenditures for their capital projects. But the mannerisms that it has historically been presented in the
AUIR has omitted that or hasn't contained that type of financials.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've been here for the history, and I know the history. It was another
director who didn't want to give us that information. Is that the mindset of the current director?
Page 43 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. BOSI: I'm not sure if that's the mindset. I think it was just following the past practice.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe by next year we could look at a picture to understand your financial
-- well, in the same summary manner that's provided to us for all the other elements for the AUIR?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Sure. We'll take a look at that. So you're looking at more -- you're desiring
more detail than what you're seeing now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Financially, yes. I mean, if you see the summaries for every -- of the other
elements, it's just a -- it's a short summary page that just shows it's all balanced out, and it's just a matter of
kind of -- it's a checkbook for the public.
MR. VAN LENGEN: I mean, I'm concerned that you don't have in your book what we have in ours,
but I could be mistaken.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, maybe I don't.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Is it possibly that its located in a different spot?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put on the overhead what you have?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Show us yours; we'll show you ours.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The capital improvements they have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't have that.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Wastewater, potable water. There's more here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a different format. I don't remember seeing it but it may be in
the appendix.
MR. BOSI: That's Page 88 of your book.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 88.
MR. BOSI: Part of the CIE submittal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the CIE. That's why I didn't see it in the -- can we -- okay. But let's get
back to the format we've used for everybody else. Is there a reason we can't look at that format being
utilized? I mean, even law enforcement, EMS, every other department in the county uses it right now that I
know of, and -- could we take a look at that for next year?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes. I don't see any problem with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since I'll be here next year, rll be able to ask you the same question. So
maybe we could do that. That would be helpful, thank you.
On your map, which is the -- Page 33, two questions, and one is, you have a lot of gray area that is
swamp. Just out of curiosity, why do you include that in your service area? Like Rookery Bay, I can tell
you, I don't think those guys are going to let you run pipes into the Rookery Bay for the developments. But
why does the map have so much gray area in areas that -- in some areas where you know you can't put
development?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, you know, I imagine that it's an historical event that I probably can't
adequately address other than to say that through the years we've exempted much of those areas from the
system in the sense that they're exempt from impact fees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. VAN LENGEN: So given those exempt areas, in a way they're in but they're not in.
So I'm not sure -- we could certainly make a map that would look a little more like Swiss cheese, but
I'm not sure -- you could tell me whether it adds to the information that you desire and whether we should do
that. Pm not sure what the pros and cons are of doing that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just, if you were a developer trying to figure out if we're in your service
area but you're in the middle of a swamp in Rookery Bay, you might think, well, that might be land I could
some day develop because I'm in -- within their service area, and you're not. I mean, basically you can't
service them.
Obviously, someone would have to do more due diligence than that if they had a piece of property. I
just think it's kind of odd that there's a lot of property. I'm not sure there's a value to claiming more property
in a service area. Maybe bigger is better and you guys are saying this is all of our service area. I just don't
Page 44 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
know. I was curious, because it didn't reflect reality, as I understand.
MR. VAN LENGEN: It's an interesting thought and one I'd like to carry back and float, so I
appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then the other -- one other small -- and this one is one I know from
more personal experience. On your East Tamiami Trail, on your map, you go down, and where the --
Sections 18 and 19, where the Trail crosses Section 18, it goes on to pick up Section 17 and picks the sections
before it up, but it leaves out 18 and 19.1 know for a fact those are DRI.
And I'm just wondering, if its not blue, what does that mean? Because your pipes go right through
it. So wouldn't that need to be blue? And it's the Fiddler's Creek project. And I know that those two parcels
are part of the DRI and the master plan for Fiddler's Creek. So I know they're within your service area.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Assuming you're correct, and I will, we may have made an error there. What
happens, though, if we pick up an area where there's virtually no population, even though there will be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. VAN LENGEN: -- the error is a visual one, because when we do our analysis on population, if
there's no population there to begin with, it really won't affect the timing of any facilities within our
population base. On the other hand, your point is a good one, and if there is an error there, we'll certainly take
a look at it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not sure what your criteria is. I know that it's an agricultural field
now, but it is a DRI, and there's a packing house there. I'm not sure you even service the packing house. And
so some of those things are going to be going away in the near future, but they are -- they're between the two
blue areas, and I know they're part of an approved master plan, so --
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yeah. We'll take a look at that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a point for your future -- it's nothing necessarily that's going to cause
any problems today.
So anybody else have any questions on the water?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Chris, also on that map, on the boundaries, on your blue boundaries,
you show water district boundaries to the west. Why -- I see white areas there. Who serves all the white
areas?
MR. VAN LENGEN: The largest white area in the middle there, is that what you're talking about?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, yeah, and then it goes up to Bonita Beach Road. And I notice
there's -- like, 16 is not shown and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're talking about the City of Naples, their water district, and the
City of Golden Gate has the Florida -- city's water district.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So --
MR. VAN LENGEN: We have a private utility, we have the City of Naples, and we have Golden
Gate Estates, which are well and septic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you're saying the city goes all the way up to Bonita Beach
Road?
MR. VAN LENGEN: They service all the way up there through an interlocal agreement.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Through an interlocal agreement.
MR. VAN LENGEN: They provide water all the way up there, so --
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay, but that --okay. I was just wondering because of the boundary,
and I'm thinking, we're not quite to our boundary there.
Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on water?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to speak on the water issue?
(No response.)
Page 45 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None? Is there a motion to recommend approval from this board?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll recommend approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Okay. With that, we are going to take a break for lunch, because it's going to be a long afternoon.
So we'll come back at 1 o'clock and resume where we left off, and that will be -- sanitary sewer will probably
be next.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike Bosi, where are you? Is Mike Bosi here?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is he on the phone?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, looks like somebody else is late today.
Welcome back from lunch. And just before lunch, I was approached by Barry with parks. And he
said, you know, I'm tired of listening to Chris, can I go ahead of him? And I said, well, you better ask Chris.
* * *So, Chris, there was a request if Barry could slip in ahead of you to get his parks and rec done.
You don't mind?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Bang's not here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Barry's here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Barry's right there.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: There he is. He's hiding.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, thank you. I don't recall I said that about Chris, but, hey.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's not the way to start, Barry.
MR. WILLIAMS: No, that's not the way to make friends.
Barry Williams, parks and recreation director. We have before you our recommendations regarding
the community and regional parklands. And just to go over those briefly -- and he had a couple sore points, if
I could.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. WILLIAMS: Just, you know, one thing Al mention is the unit costs. And over the years we've
certainly had a lot of discussion about that. The unit cost is going down. There is an impact fee study that's
occurring now that will be ready this fall. We anticipate that number to continue to drop to reflect the -- just
the cost of what we've been paying for land.
Again, part of the issue there for us has been in the past where we've paid for lands on the coast, but
those days are few and far between now. So we anticipate that dollar to go down.
One point to make is that, you know, it's -- that's not what we pay for land when we do purchase
land. We pay the market's rates, whatever those might be. So if we're buying land in one part of Collier
County versus another, that -- certainly those prices vary.
A couple other points, just as a highlight. You know, we are looking to divest ourselves from Randall
curve. That's a 47 -acre parcel that we have and we've had in our inventory for several years. It's actually on
the wrong side of the street for us in terns of -- at Immokalee Road. It's not a good location for us to develop
Page 46 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
a community park.
We've talked to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust about them taking the land back, and we're
working through the process that's involved in that, and we anticipate this coming year for those lands to
actually be returned to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust in their inventory of lands.
We are approaching them as well about considerations for funding that they might have for Big
Corkscrew Island Park, which is one that is in the plans as well.
One -- another point I'll make is just in terms of Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. We are
working closely with transportation and are partners with public utilities. That is a major project with a lot of
moving parts, and so we're working very carefully with Dr. Yilmaz and his team to ensure, as that park comes
along, that we're doing it in a way that makes most sense for all.
We did have a project associated with that park that we've kind of taken a step back, and we're
looking at the property. If you're familiar with that property, it's a 90 -acre lake associated with the land that
we intend to purchase from public utilities, and we're kind of looking at the feasibility of that lake.
Initially our thoughts were to develop it as a recreational amenity. And with that, Big Corkscrew
Island Regional Park would be, in fact, a regional park. But we're looking at that lake amenity to see if it
makes sense, and there may be another use of that property.
The lake, if you're familiar with it, it does have a lot of cattails. It's not the healthiest. It's a borrow
pit, in essence, and so we just want to make sure that we're doing right as we move forward with that.
You also see a commitment from, or actually a settlement associated with South Florida Water
Management for $3 million, and we're continuing to work with our partners in Growth Management
Division. Mr. Casalanguida has been working very closely with the community group in coming up with
some options in terms of using those funds, but I did want to make that point as well.
In terms of adding lands, we did have a couple of things that we want to point out. One is the -- a bit
of land that we have had in our inventory, and just through our looking at our records and determining that
wasn't included in the inventory, we've added 1.34 acres associated with properties that the parks department
owns in and around Danford.
And if you're familiar with the Bayview boat dock -- excuse me, pardon me — the Bayview boat
ramp, there are a number of properties that we own on Danford, and at one point the plan was to develop
those properties so that we could increase parking there.
What we've found in the process of working with the community is that a number of homes have
been built in that area, very nice homes. You know, in terms of the area being an opportunity to purchase
properties, it's looking more that, you know, that that area's going through a -- kind of -- a lot of people are
finding that a nice place to live, so we're kind of re- evaluating our plans in terms of what we do with that.
We were able to expand the parking at Bayview boat ramp, although a bit muddy, and we're working
through some of the details with that. But we're hoping that that's going to meet the need there, and so we'll
re- evaluate the need for those lands in the future.
But for right now, as a matter of kind of getting the books right, we wanted to identify those lands
and add them into our regional park inventory.
With that, certainly, if you have questions, I'm happy to answer, and I've got our staff that prepared
the AUIR, Ms. Ilonka Washburn, who's our operations manager, and Ms. Shannon Peters, who's our
operations coordinator with the department. So they're here as well to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. Can you put up the chart on Page 69, please, Mike.
MR. BOSI: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The financial chart.
Just -- there. Just a comment/question. Down under revenues, proposed added value through
commitments, leases, and government transfers, $8,845,300 under revenues, and it just looked strange to me
that that's categorized as a revenue when it's not actually money coining in that you can spend to pay bills.
It's something else, and I'm not sure what the something else is.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well -- and I think the characterization added value. It's, again, using the unit
cost per acre. The acreage is multiplied by that, and it gives you the, quote, added value of what that transfer
Page 47 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
would amount to.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What transfer?
MR. WILLIAMS: In that instance -- maybe we can find it. You're looking at a transfer of the 47
acres associated with Randall curve.
MR. BOSI: Page 76.
MR. WILLIAMS: And you've got to remember a couple things, I think. One is that these 47 acres
were actually gifted to us by the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust. We're identifying the 47 acres. We didn't
pay 8 million some dollars for those 47 acres. They gave it to us. That value was determined at that point
based on that unit cost.
When we return it, we also identify that unit cost. We're not going to see $8 million when we return
this, you know, to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Has that transaction happened?
MR. WILLIAMS: It has not.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh, it has not. So that's why it's not in inventory in terns of
dollars?
MR. WILLIAMS: We're looking to move it out of our inventory in the coming year.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Now I'm even more confused. It's not in inventory, but you're
going to --
MR. WILLIAMS: It is in our inventory.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh, it is?
MR. WILLIAMS: We're making moves to move it back and give it back to the Golden Gate Estates
Land Trust.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But yet the value of that 47 acres is accounted for under
revenues.
MR. WILLIAMS: It is.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You can't spend that.
MR. WILLIAMS: We cannot, and we won't -- and, again, we're not going to get $8 million when
we give those 47 acres back. But in the way that the AUIR is characterized for parks, again, the 47 acres is
multiplied by the unit cost.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I got that.
MR WILLIAMS: And we get that $8 million, so that's how --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So if I pull 8,848,300 out of 40,224,398, I've got 31,379,638 in
actual monies anticipated to go against expenditures of 37,050,596, if you follow that.
MR. WILLIAMS: I do.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Correct me if I'm wrong.
MR. BOSI: The $19 million that they're showing within the value of acquisitions, that's not an actual
cost. That's just a number of acreages that are going to be acquired based against a unit cost.
So there's no real -- it's not real money in the sense, but you have to show value associated with the
acreages. So as much as it's unsatisfying to the Planning Commission to be displayed in this manner, there
has to be --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I can't speak for all of these guys. It's just very --
MR. BOSI: After eight years of working through the parks section --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm not the only one.
MR. BOSI: -- it's always been one of the issues in terms of, this is much as -- an exercise within
accounting as well as capital improvement programming, and it's not always -- it's not always satisfying the
way that the land values have to be represented in terms of cost.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, who tells us we have to represent it this way? Why is that
mandated, dictated? Why can't --
MR. BOSI: Because you have to show a value associated with an acreage cost.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the impact fee studies weigh in on it a lot, the values in the impact fee
studies.
Page 48 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. BOSI: The impact fees do have an influence, but you have to have a value. And the most
appropriate value --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. I don't have a problem with that. Show it on the balance
sheet.
MR. BOSI: The most -- well, that is -- it gets down -- it's drilled down in that way during the
budgetary exercise.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. Here's where I'm having some issues. We look at roads, for
example, and you see projects and you see a cost associated with the product. You see revenue coming in,
whether it's from impact fees of the General Fund to fund those projects and so, you know, it makes sense.
Here's your projects. Here's the priorities, here's the cost. Here's the revenue against that. And it -- you
know, it's arithmetic. I'm looking at this, and I don't see any arithmetic at all.
MR. BOSI: There's arithmetic. It's arithmetic against a number of acreages. It's requiring 112 acres.
They multiply that 112 acres against a unit cost and --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I got that.
MR. BOSI: -- it's the only way that we can represent --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I got that. My question is, who mandates this presentation on
park and rec?
MR. BOSI: We have to show a value. We have to show -- we have to show you an estimated
revenue or a value associated with any activity, and that unit cost is what the impact fee has determined is the
average acreage cost based upon all the assets in the system.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So is that -- this is through Amy? Is that what you're saying? The
impact fee?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at the --
MR. BOSI: The impact fee is coordinated by Amy. She doesn't conduct the studies, but she is the
project manager.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Let me just canyon for a minute, then I'll cede the floor.
The only real money that I see coming in, by my definition, is impact fees and
interest/miscellaneous. I mean, that's where I look and see real money coming in. The only real money I see
going out on this page is debt service payments on bonds, correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And all the rest of it is just funny business?
MR. WILLIAMS: It's funny business.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Good, thanks.
MR. WILLIAMS: Not funny business, but --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I mean, it's like somebody dictates a fonnat here that --
MR. WILLIAMS: We've characterized it over the years as placeholders. And you mentioned
"funny business." It's not a -- I think Mike says it right. It's not a very satisfying methodology in terns of --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Let's change it.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- the focus. Well, the focus is on the acres. The acres -- the amount of acres that
we're bringing on per thousand is really what we're trying to measure ourselves and plan for, and that's the
accepted standard within the parks and rec industry.
When we looked a couple years ago statewide at this, this is the common denominator. I think -- and
you've brought up -- and if I may say, Mr. Brougham is on our Parks and Rec Advisory Board, and one of the
concerns that he has had over the years has been our ability to characterize and capture maintenance, ongoing
maintenance costs that are associated with the properties that we own. And we've had a number of
discussions about that.
We do think that there are other divisions, departments within the county manager's agency that do a
better job of that for other reasons, and we're actually trying to work in that spirit. The asset management is
probably the most -- the best opportunity for us to get more in that mode where we're actually not just looking
at the lands but the facilities on the lands. That's the piece.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's great. And just my final comment, and I know I won't
Page 49 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
win this one either. But level -of- service standard for parks is pure acres per thousand of population. It
doesn't speak to what kind of acres we should have or what those acres should be turned into. It doesn't speak
to how well our past investment in certain facilities on those acres are utilized or not utilized at all or should
be reconverted to something else, go from a playground to a softball field or playground to a bocce court or
whatever.
So if we stay this course and all we ever do for the future as our population increases is acquire more
acres, it doesn't speak at all, in my opinion, to what those acres should be used for.
And 1 know you have other things. You have tons of backup that can be used and facilitated into
what we ought to be doing with those acres. We can recharacterize them, rebuild them, et cetera, et cetera, to
keep pace with the demographics in our county. But pure acres doesn't get it.
And I know you -- I won't put words in your mouth.
MR. WILLIAMS: No, I just --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I know you don't fight with that concept either.
MR. WILLIAMS: One comment to make, too, is that as part of this process several years ago it was
determined that the parks and rec department needed a master plan for the development of parks. And for
many years we didn't have such. And we were able to get one approved by the board in 2010. I think, you
know, there were some limitations to that master plan. Kind of what you're describing, I think, that planning
process is something that we need to continue to emphasize and put in play, in particular is changes of what
people want from a parks department or community or trying to assess that.
And I agree with you that just simply looking at the acres that we have, and the inventory's
insufficient. So that is something that has some input.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Go ahead.
MR. BOSI: And that is why we put -- at the back in the appendix, we also put the design guidelines
in terms of how many soccer fields or ballfields or recreational -- different types of recreational facilities that
we have in our inventory compared against some of the state standards.
We also had the utilization rates of those fields that are provided to give you a little bit better -- and I
understand its not --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I looked at it.
MR. BOSI: But a little bit more understanding of what's out there and how those facilities are being
utilized in terms of on a day -to -day basis. And it's not -- it's not the main part of the AUIR. It's a supplemental
to kind of give a little bit more of that picture.
And I know, speaking with Barry, anytime that they do have a new facility that comes online, there's
an extended outreach with the community in terms of the type of facilities that are being sought within that
individual park.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On a go- forward basis?
MR. BOSI: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Not on a look - backwards basis.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And one other question -- I keep saying that. One other
question is, in other sections in this AUIR -- I'll cite roads -- we have O &M, we have maintenance shown to
current facilities. We don't show anything about maintenance of facilities here. Why not?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we do look at maintenance of facilities. We do keep a rolling five -year
capital plan identifying those projects. We need to be more sophisticated in it. I think, again, going back to
the asset - management module that's being rolled out through public utilities, we're a partner in that. It's a lot
more complex asset management than what we're doing. And having a system that supports that certainly is
needed. I think as that develops, in talking to Mike at the break, I mean, it's likely that you will see that.
As we are able to build that into our parks department, that's something that we can bring forward in
the AUIR process.
You know, we're not the first one out of the box with it, though. I know that -- and we're looking at
kind of a simpler system now in order to prepare ourselves for taking on that responsibility with the public
utilities as that rolls to us. But there are some opportunities there for us to do a better job with that, I think.
Page 50 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thank you, Barry. Thank you, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry, just a couple of questions. The inventory acres for community
parks, 591.54, back in 2009, that was a number that was used. Actually 2008. 2009 it dropped down to
544.54, and in 2010 it went backup, and its been --remained at 591.54. That change between '08 and '09,
and then '09 back to'l0 was when we -- I believe we started with the Randall curve.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, it look like we've put it in once, took it out once, put it in again, and
now we're taking it out again. Is that kind of the story?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's follow the pea, I think here. It is. And just -- back in 2008 when we
were looking at recharacterizing these 47 acres, we had them in community park acres, and we were -- our
intent at that time was to take the acres, divest ourselves from them, hopefully get money, and put those acres
into a regional, Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park.
When we saw we couldn't do that, we put it back in the community park inventory, and now we're in
a position where we're going back, where we're divesting ourselves with no expectation that we're going to
convert those 47 acres to 47 acres of regional parkland. So it's very confusing, and my apologies for that.
But it's -- we had a little "follow the pea" action going with that one, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was -- the original Golden Gate Land Cormnittee, when it fist
started back in the -- it might have been the'80s, I was one of the original members. And back then Brenda
Garret (sic), who is a magistrate for Code Enforcement, was the county attorney back then, or assistant
county attorney. So this goes back; we're going back 20 or 30 years.
But I vaguely remember that we had restrictions on all the properties that we dealt with. And there
were reverter clauses in there. My concern is, if you give it back to the Avatar -- well, we call it the Avatar
Advisory Board. Now it's whatever it is -- I'm not sure what they're going to be able to do with it, because we
had strict limitations on what we could actually use that property for, and that's why that big chunk was
thought to be a regional park. But if you guys don't make it a regional park, I'd hate to see that property lost
to --
MR. WILLIAMS: It wouldn't be lost. The land trust would still have it to be used under the
conditions that the land trust has established.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WILLIAMS: And back in 2008, too, there was discussions that we were having with
transportation and the school board about potentially their using that property for some purpose of theirs and
us getting the funding for it. So, you know, that kind of went away; that idea went away.
I don't think it's lost. I think we realize that we don't want to build a park there. It doesn't make sense
for a variety of reasons. Giving it back will give them that opportunity, as they market those properties and
they're able to sell those properties, you know, to get those revenues.
Whether they're going to do so very quickly or not, I know that's the question, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just hope they find a use that doesn't -- that meets the standards they have
to abide by. Unfortunately there was some restrictions on those properties.
On the last -- I only had a couple questions. Another one is you picked up about 12 acres of
inventory acres and regional parks this year. Do you know what that was for? You used to have 112.18 -- or
-- yeah, 1,112.18 acres for 2011 and 2012, and 2013 you're 1,125.51, so you're slightly over 12.
MR. WILLIAMS: Isle of Capri Paddlecraft Park. Isle of Capri Paddlecraft Park was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was involved with that, but you actually -- you don't own that,
though. That's just --
MR. WILLIAMS: We have a lease agreement with the state to manage the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: And it is a Collier County park. It is -- with that lease agreement, it allows us to
include it in our regional park AUIR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 1 -- a long time ago a certain person on your park and recs board told
Page 51 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
me they were thinking of putting meters out there to charge people to launch kayaks. Did you ever do that?
MR. WILLIAMS: Now, who said that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, but it was a disgraceful act, I'll tell you right now. Kayakers,
we do not pollute. We don't do anything wrong. We don't put a burden on the citizens. All we want to do is
launch kayaks.
MR. WILLIAMS: We've lowered -- the Board of County Commissioners lowered the fee from $8
to $4.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's even more -- that's still not -- that shouldn't even happen, but
anyway.
MR. WILLIAMS: There is an iron ranger, which is just a donation box that, one, if they launch,
they're given the ability to, with the honor system, deposit $4 for us for every launch that they make. So we
do have that in place. We're not ticketing or checking -- you don't have to prove that you've paid that launch,
but it is -- you know, it is part of the board- approved launch fees, and so we are charging that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's unfortunate, but anyway.
MR. WILLIAMS: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't know the restrictions for that 47 acres, but if you give it back to
the Golden Gate Land Trust, could they then sell that 47 acres to a developer or something?
MR. WILLIAMS: We think they can, but that is part of -- as Mr. Strain mentioned, the real estate
services department within the county is working with Avatar and going through the due diligence necessary
to make sure that if we do this, we're not going to do more harm.
We do think that they do have the ability, is our understanding, though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One other question. I don't know if you know, but I'm sure Mike
does. What are the total acreages of Collier County; do you know? The whole county.
MR. BOSI: I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. I could tell you that 67 percent of the county
is either in state or federal protection.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Somebody has this, though, because you're right, I would love
to figure out what the total acreage of Collier County is. And I added up all these on Page 81, which is
935,000 or 935,554. And, plus, we always have tons of acreages in development projects that must be kept in
acreage, too. So it would be just interesting to see how much is really in preserve when we get through with
everything compared to what people actually live in. And I was just wondering if you knew the total of the
county, but we'll find that out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any more questions of parks?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any members of the public wishing to speak on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval on parks?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mike, seconded by Barry.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
Page 52 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Barry. Appreciate it.
MR. WILLIAMS: Chris, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Chris, I guess we're going to move into sewer and water or -- no,
wastewater collection, sanitary sewer, whatever you guys want to name it this week.
MR. VAN LENGEN: We like to call it wastewater. Thank you. Chris Van Lengen, principal
planner, public utilities division.
Wastewater has a level of service of 120 gallons per person per capita per day. That is the north
standard. We also have a separate center in the south of 100 gallons per capita per day. Like the water, it's
based on peak season population, and it's based on the area served within the district.
This analysis, unlike the water, covers three separate service areas. That would include the south,
north, and northeast areas, and that's partly because of the scope of conveyance of those materials. Unlike
water, it's not as easily conveyed, although there is an interconnection existing and future interconnections
planned, so those conveyances will go from north to south, just not quite as easily.
So we feel it's better to analyze our level -of- service standard and concurrency in these three different
ways.
Rushing through in one sentence, I can tell you that in the south county service area there are no new
capacity requirements, likewise, in the north county service area, and likewise in the northeast service area.
Like water, northeast will connect with the existing facility at Orangetree. And it doesn't illustrate
any decommissioning there. The idea certainly is to keep that going as long as possible and certainly use it as
an opportunity to have a reliability that wouldn't otherwise exist.
So we have capacity from two different directions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Question. Why the difference in capacity requirements between
the two areas?
MR. VAN LENGEN: I think that's based on our master plan from 2008. That's going to be studied
once again. It's based on historical data. And so, historically, less per capita has been used in the south
district than in the north district, so it's measured differently. And it may --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So it's based upon use -- it's based upon usage statistics?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Usage statistics that get translated into the comprehensive plan probably
during the EAR -based amendment cycle.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I'm just curious as to what would really drive that
difference. I mean, you'd think, on average, population uses or requires the same capacity. I mean, unless
lifestyles are different or --
MR. BOSI: Well, you have -- a lot of times you have different variables within the type of a housing
structure, square footage of housing structures, occupancy of housing structures.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That would change between south and the north?
MR. BOSI: It would change from -- various regions of the county can have different demographics,
a lot of different characteristics within the individual household size.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But we didn't see that in potable, that I recall.
MR. BOSI: Potable water is one system.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I know. Oh, these are two systems measured --
MR. VAN LENGEN: We're measuring them separately, so we give them separate levels of service.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on sanitary sewer? Mike?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yes, two questions. Actually, it's a two -part question. One is financial;
one is technical.
Effluent or IQ water or whatever you call that is your revenue shown in your financial models on
your revenue for effluent sales?
Page 53 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. VAN LENGEN: We don't show it here because it's not part of our level of service that I'm
aware of. I mean, it would be in the composite. It's part of the composite going forward, but its not broken
out separately.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: But it is shown, though?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: It is accounted for, I mean?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes, indeed. And we could share that with you. If you're interested, we
could, obviously, get you that information.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Sure. And the second part of that question is priority for the sales of
effluent, how is that determined?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, that's another historical question, and perhaps Tom might be able to fill
in a little bit, that we have contracts with a number of people, and we're trying to fulfill the tenns of those
contracts, and we're there most of the time. But it's difficult to move forward until we achieve a greater
resource and sourcing of IQ supplemental water.
Tom, do you want to add to that?
MR. CHMELIK: Tom Chmelik, for the record. Actually, you explained that very well, and there
really isn't much to add. We still need to be able to fulfill our current contractual agreements that we have,
and we need to do that reliably, and then once that's done, we would look at going beyond that point.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Well, let me ask you a question, because I didn't understand your
answer. When you say that you have contractual obligations, you know, for sales --
MR. CHMELIK: Yes,
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: -- how are those contracts prioritized? How do you give those out?
How do you award those contracts?
MR. CHMELIK: Well, they were -- actually, recently in the last few months they came to the board.
There was a re- approval. And we can get you some information and a summary on that but they go back
several years in the past. There haven't been any new contracts or new allocations, so to speak.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. And I guess most of those are golf courses?
MR. CHMELIK: Well, there's golf courses, there's medians, there's bulk users, there are individual
users. There's a mix.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. The next technical -- or last question. On the wastewater side
and your sludge disposal -- and I asked the technical question previously in the potable water, and this is kind
of in the same vein on the environmental side. Are you still trucking sludge to landfills?
MR. CHMELIK: We are trucking sludge to the Okeechobee landfill. That's our most cost effective
solution at this time; however, we are looking at other emerging technologies to deal with biosolids.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: When you say you're looking at them, is there current ongoing studies
that you're paying for, or is it in- house?
MR. CHMELIK: There have been a number of activities, and I'll direct that question to Dan
Rodriguez, our director of solid and hazardous waste.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon, Planning Commission. For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your
solid and hazardous waste management department director.
We currently look at the local private markets to help us manage our solid waste stream. Biosolids is
one of those markets. And because of the nature of the biosolids, the danger in managing it and the FDEP
requirements, it's hard to find a good company to come in here and say, we'll build a plant to process those
biosolids and get a beneficial use.
We've been approached several times every year, companies want to come in, build a composting
facility similar to what they're doing in Lee County, Charlotte County, but to get them to put up the money
that it takes and to go through the permitting, that seems to be the gray area.
With that said, there are more and more opportunities coming forward with technology and with the
board's approval of resource recovery park to find that right partner to bring that biosolids solution here.
But for the time being, the best solution is to partner with a company that has guaranteed disposable.
That's over 25,000 tons of biosolids needs to be disposed on demand, because the minute we don't have a
Page 54 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
disposal capacity for that, we shut down plants.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Sure. Now, that's -- I guess that's being trucked to landfill, so to
speak?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: It's going to one landfill, the Okeechobee Landfill, that's managed by Waste
Management. And two years ago the Board of County Commissioners approved a 10 -year contract for that
guaranteed disposal at a fixed rate tied to the CPI; however, there is language in there that allows us to -- with
a 30 -day notice, to partner with someone else or go out with a competitive bid and find that.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: A big issue is the heavy metals and things like that, I would imagine?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah, okay. Well, I certainly do -- this is my personal comment --
hope you do look at the technology in the future, because I think that paying to truck it, you know, dozens of
miles or hundreds of miles to a landfill is -- plus the fact that you're taking sludge, which is filled with heavy
metals, and being dumped into a landfill is not environmentally sensitive, so that's my two cents on that issue.
Thank you.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. And we appreciate your support. I have direction from my
administrator and the county manager to find a local solution in partnering with the right company.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chris, the decommissioning of the Orangetree utility plant, I'm assuming
you're not going to do that until the interconnection's in between the facilities?
MR. VAN LENGEN: That's correct. It would never occur before that point in time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's, in fact, the footnote, again, and it just says it can be
decommissioned at any time. It really can't be decommissioned at any time. It can only be decommissioned
after it's interconnected.
MR. VAN LENGEN: I appreciate that We can improve that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the effluent, last I understood -- because I know I was involved in
some projects that are on your list. You have a waiting list first -come, first- serve, when available, and that's
how I understood the process to be. Has that changed any?
MR. VAN LENGEN: It hasn't changed any. And one of the issues is the waiting list is going to just
keep waiting, because we're really not able at this point in time to produce a greater volume.
As population increases, volume will increase, and we can be sure we can supply all of the materials
to our existing customers and then add additional customers. But we've not added customers in a number of
years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe — don't you deep -well inject some of the effluent?
MR. VAN LENGEN: We have ASR wells.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. VAN LENGEN: And we developed one that's in the testing phase right now. We're about to
embark on the second one. And we have five in total planned, and those ASR wells would store that effluent
from the wet season to be able to use in the dry season.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now, you're doing that because you're producing more in the wet
season, but if you were to open it up to more customers, would you still need to do that?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, if we had customers who needed it in the wet season and not in the dry
season, but the problem is the customers are going to want an annual contract. So it's difficult to supply in an
efficient way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The only thing I was commenting on, you put a lot of money into
the deep -well injection or the ASRs, but there are some projects out there that could use the material, but the
pipes to get them to those projects are not in place for effluent which, I believe, is a whole different piping
system. And I didn't know if you were planning to expand your effluent piping system or you're satisfied
with just deep -well injecting.
MR. VAN LENGEN: A great question, and another element of our master planning process this
Page 55 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
year will be the IQ distribution system and the IQ system in general. So we'll be taking a close look at that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
And, Mike, if you had a project that you're involved with, you might want to get on those lists just
because it is -- those lists have been keep tallied for years.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Well, I was on that list, and that's why I asked the question, because
we had -- when we developed Island Walk and Village Walk on Vanderbilt Beach Road, we had to install — I
think it was a 24 -inch transmission made for effluent, big old pink pipes that were never hooked up,
connected to anything, never used, probably aren't used today, and that was 1997, T, somewhere around
there. So I was always curious as to the prioritizing of who gets the effluent.
And probably the question, Mark, that you asked, Mr. Chairman, is a good one; if you were going to
have a system like that and ask that those transmission lines, effluent transmission lines be installed, I would
hope that there's plans to use them.
MR. VAN LENGEN: And we appreciate that feedback, and we're looking for ways to do exactly
that.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, in lieu of ASR, you could look at those projects that do want to
use the effluent, especially if they've gone to the trouble to put in dual master systems for the distribution
within the project. Usually they're large enough to have a lot of on -site lakes, and its not unreasonable to
expect them or to request them to line one of their lakes for effluent storage during the wet season. I mean,
that's another opportunity, but --
MR. VAN LENGEN: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anyway. Anything else, anybody on sanitary sewer?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody from the public wish to speak on the sanitary sewer issue? If
not -- and you call it wastewater.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Wastewater.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wastewater. Well, it's called by different names over the years, but let's
call it wastewater today, then.
Is there a motion by this commission regarding a recommendation on the wastewater?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll move for approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give it to Phil this time. Seconded by Mike.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
** *Okay. Let's move onto-- was it solid waste, Chris?
MR. VAN LENGEN: Solid waste. Concurrency based on two things. One is the 10 -year required
total capacity of the landfill itself, and the other is a two -year line cell capacity requirement.
The peak season is used, but here we're talking about the entire county, including all municipalities;
City of Naples, City of Marco, City of Everglades.
And last year in your AUIR you would have seen the capacity, the total landfill capacity going out to
Page 56 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
2067. This year it's 2070, so we have an additional three years. And I think we can attribute that to continued
gains in recycling and diversion.
That is also kind of evidenced by the downward trend on Page 52, Column 3. Last year you would
have seen .52 tons per capita. This year it's .5 1, and that's what we carry forward, and that would achieve
those additional years.
Not too much to say about the line cell capacity. Our corporate partner, Waste Management, is way
ahead of the game on that. They've provided several years of line cell capacity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I certainly, like last year, have to commend your department on solid --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- waste. You guys are doing a great job.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, Dan gave me the benefit of -- one time of touring that facility, and
20 or 30 years ago you wouldn't go out there without a gas mask, the odor was so bad. And this time it was
just perfect. There was nothing wrong. It was run right, and you did a great job. It's been quite -- of course,
the funny thing is, you're putting time frame off, and now we're at 2070, which is good, but as we look at
replanning the eastern half of Collier County, 951 eastward, just for the sake of travel time and fuel efficiency
and time for employees to be driving back and forth, we ought to start still looking hard at a location out in
the east where we're going to have another site. And they take what, 10, 15, 20 years to permit anyway.
So -- and if we could get it -- if we could get one found while we're starting to work towards that and
save the travel time and start building that up in expectation of this one tapering off or leave this one on
longer for the urban area and having a remote one for the rural area, we'd save a lot of money in time and
traffic. And I just don't know if anybody's looked at that or how you're getting involved, but it would be
something to start considering on these plans instead of just one.
MR. VAN LENGEN: And it is an item we've considered over the years, and we keep our eyes out
for appropriate locations. I know that real estate services, for example, helps us a great deal, and they keep
their eyes and ears open for that as well.
There are alternatives to getting 500 to 1,000 acres for a landfill, which is what it would take and, as
you say, 15 to 20 years to permit. And that would include, perhaps, a transfer station that might move some
of those materials out of the county as we do currently at the Immokalee transfer station which, by the way,
has additional capacity to be able to continue to transfer under a contract outside the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, if we -- if we had a hard time finding an ATV park for 500 acres,
I can imagine the time we're going to have finding a solid waste disposal site for the same amount of acreage.
And at some point in time the eastern part of Collier County will exceed the population of the urban
area. And when that happens and that population builds out, it would be nice to have looked at a place out
there before the population moves in and says, well, now that we've moved here, we don't want it here.
Because that's just what will happen. It happens with airports and everything else.
But anyways, just a suggestion.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Excellent, excellent feedback, and I believe that's certainly on Director
Rodriguez's radar, but good to have the reinforcement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if there's ever any replanning done for the eastern part of county,
hopefully your department will be thoroughly involved.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be a handy thing.
Anybody else have any questions of solid waste?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mike.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: On that note, Mr. Chairman, and for the rest of my colleagues and the
board, that the county has been looking, believe me. We have had discussions with Dan and other people
years ago when we were trying to bring forth the town of Big Cypress, which was next to Ave Maria. And
the staff -- in staff s defense, it's who wants to have a, you know, landfill next to their project. That's the
issue.
Page 57 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
We always suggested the Hendry Correctional Institute. That's a great place for it, you ]mow, right
next door. And I wasn't kidding either, because maybe there's some partnership with Hendry County, you
know, and Glades County for a site out there, as you suggested, Mr. Chairman, to the eastern lands, but it's a
tough nut to crack, you know, to find out who wants the landfill next to it. You're absolutely correct.
However, we put on an alternative energy symposium last year as a part of the Urban Land Institute,
which I'm a member of, with Alternative Energy Solutions, and Lee County's waste -to- energy made a
presentation. And I'm sure, Dan, you're familiar with Lee County's facility. I'm sure it's quite expensive, but
it appears now, years later, to be quite effective.
And rm not asking you to defend them or not defend Lee County. But I like the idea that their
waste, you know, goes to a plant that produces energy, and it's not inundating more landfills.
I think you have a lot of cells available in your existing landfill for our call -- from our conversations
on Town of Big Cypress. But still, Mr. Chairman's right. We've got to plan for the expansion to the east.
But I would hope -- and, again, you look at technology and can do something to turn that waste into
energy or some other type of resource. I know there's a cost involved in it, but it's something that we really
need to do. We can't keep on polluting the ground that -- you know, with that waste and those chemicals that
are included in those landfills.
They're really terrible, the methane gas that they produce. You're right, it's noxious. It's tough to get
rid of
Years ago, driving on the east coast -- and I lived there 23 years ago -- they had the one on I -95 that
was obnoxious. There's one in Palm Beach Gardens, you know, along Haverhill Road that was obnoxious.
You know, it's just tough to do that. And to plan for that in advance, I think, is really poor planning. And I'm
not saying you're poor planning, but I'm saying, I'd like to see, personal point of view, the use of more
technology to turn that into energy as opposed to polluting our ground waters.
Thank you for the time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a recommendation by the Planning Commission on solid
waste?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll make a recommendation we approve it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen -- seconded by Ms. Homiak, made by Diane.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Chris, I think that wraps it up for you, right?
MR. VAN LENGEN: It does. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Could we get the guy with the gun to come up next?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
Page 58 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I'm just kidding.
MR. BOSI: Its next on our agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. He's going to do jails and law enforcement, I bet; both, maybe.
CHIEF SMITH: Sorry for that. I was leaning forward on some of the technology you guys wanted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you going to start with, sir, jails?
CHIEF SMITH: Sure, we can start with jails.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
CHIEF SMITH: For the record, I'm Greg Smith, the chief of administration for the Collier County
Sheriffs Office, here today to answer any questions you may have that I'm capable of answering regarding
this year's submission of the AUIR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Best kind of presentation, right to the point.
Does anybody have any questions on the jail section of our presentation?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: The efficient disposal of prisoners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we can legally do that.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: The new gun range? No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, do we have any? One question I have, sir, is your -- in 2011 you
needed 1,344 units. In 2012, the need was 1,304. I know -- I'm son-y, available. In 2012, the available was
1,304, and this year it's back up to 1,344. How'd we lose and then regain those 40 units?
CHIEF SMITH: Good catch, because I've got the same questions.
Mike, can you help me out with that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's Mike's fault?
CHIEF SMITH: Well, you know, the county prepares this report. It's not a function of the Sheriffs
Office. We're just here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
CHIEF SMITH: But, yeah, I think what happened was in'11 we reduced the capacity on hand
because of the sprung structures became unserviceable, so we took those out of inventory, but when we did
the books this year, someone may have grabbed the wrong page, because now all of a sudden they're back in
inventory. But they're gone now. So we probably need to make that adjustment.
MR. BOSI: That sounds like the most reasonable answer to this. Because we did -- it was -- the
sprung structures were removed based upon the direction from the SO office and, obviously, we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Missed it.
MR. BOSI: -- made an error.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the available units — the available units in the 2013 AUIR needs to be
reduced to 1,304; is that agreeable?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your required units went up by 45. Is that strictly a function of
population?
CHIEF SMITH: Yeah,1 think that's population linkage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the impact fees, you're -- in 2013, you're looking at over 4 million
in impact fees, but your projected impact fees -- I mean, your past impact fees were 2 million each period.
And I'm just wondering, are we going to -- do you think we're going to see that many more impact fees?
CHIEF SMITH: I can't speak to that, but I'm sure that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, because we had a reduction in impact fee. I was just wondering how
we -- as long as that number's -- you -all are comfortable with that.
MS. USHER: Hi. I'm Susan Usher from the Office of Management and Budget. I sort of helped
with the revenue side of it. The -- as you know, we're coming out of a recession. We are seeing more
activity. These are five -year projections, and basically how I prepare these projections every year is,
whatever I put in the budget -- for this year, whatever I put in the budget for Fiscal Year'14,1 grow that
revenue by the population growth.
So because we're anticipating more in impact fees, because we're pulling out of the recession, we see
a lot more activity, that's why you see such a large jump. Because when we were in -- when this was a year
Page 59 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
ago, in'13, we had budgeted only 500,000 for Fiscal Year'13. And when you grow 500,000 over five years
with a population growth, you end up with 2 million, whatever number you had mentioned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. USHER: And this year, for'14, I have projected 830,000. And I grew that number for five
years by population growth. That's why you're now up to 4 million -- $4.3 million.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just wanted to make sure and understand how you got to it. I don't disagree
with you.
MS. USHER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It makes it clear.
MS. USHER: Okay. But it just — every year I had to go through the same calculation, but I'm
dropping in new numbers, and then I'm just growing it by population growth.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's as reasonable as it can be at this time. Everything's a guess until we
get into the actual year, so thank you.
MS. USHER: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's -- I assume the same applies to your calculations for law
enforcement as well?
MS. USHER: Yes, sir. For all the -- for the next few pages, yes, for all of them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you.
Anybody else have any questions of jails?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a question but, you know, putting aside my
humorous comments -- or I think they're humorous -- previously, when you go to Page 110 and you take a
look at locations that are shown, the Naples Jail and the Immokalee Jail, we have had lots of conversations in
the past with -- gosh, I'm going to forget his last name -- Lieutenant Jim -- boy, oh, boy. I can't remember --
I'm sorry. I apologize for not remembering his last name.
But we did have discussions about -- when you see the Hendry County line there, and right on 846, I
believe, is where the Hendry County Correctional Facility is. Am I correct? Is that -- sir, does that ring a bell
to you? I just want to make sure I'm giving my colleagues --
CHIEF SMITH: I know where the decommission state prison is located, yeah.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah. That's a good location, you know, to, again, partner possibly.
And we're talking about planning for the future and our AUIR and things like that. That would be a good
location also, because just like a waste facility or solid waste facility, nobody wants them, you know, in their
backyard, and I don't blame them. And the same thing with a prison or a jail.
And I would ask that maybe sometime in the future if you're looking at new facilities for those types,
you may look into partnering with our fellow counties on facilities that are out there in the eastern lands and
away from developed areas.
CHIEF SMITH: Okay. Would you like me to respond to that?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: No.
CHIEF SMITH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mike, I was just going to say, I just read something in the paper where
somebody else is looking at that facility.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: It could be. You never know.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Was I -- so you noticed that, too, Karen, somebody else is looking at
that? I don't know what the purpose, but —
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: For a speculation jail?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Different use probably.
CHIEF SMITH: You know, there is a difference between a jail and a prison.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Sure.
CHIEF SMITH: And there's reasons why jails are located in urban centers and why prisons are
Page 60 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
located in rural. Because jails they have yet to be found guilty of the crime, most of the guys that are in there,
so they need to be near the courthouse, they need to be near the lawyers, they need to be near the bondsmen,
and they need to be centrally located to their families who are still providing support to those individuals that
are facing those trials. So that's really why your jails are usually in the middle of town and prisons are on the
outside.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Makes sense. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything on jails?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to speak on this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion from the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak,
COMMISSIONER EBERT: P11 second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Ebert.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Thank you, sir.
***We'll move into law enforcement.
CHIEF SMITH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess we'll just go right into the questions. How's that sound?
CHIEF SMITH: Absolutely fine with me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on the law enforcement element of the AUIR?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we start with Page 113. In the preamble, after you get past
the line that says unit costs, there's a statement that says, using the unincorporated area peak season and the
Everglades City populations, the following is set forth. And we go through the available inventory and
required inventory.
On the double asterisks after the available and required inventory, I understand that they only should
be after the available inventory, so the double asterisks after "officers required" under No. 733, those double
asterisks are not supposed to be there, Mike; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll make that correction. And, by the way, on the jails one, we're
going to make that adjustment. Even though we recommended approval, it was with the knowledge that that
adjustment was going to be made.
MR. BOSI: Understood, Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sentence I read about the population being unincorporated peak season
in the Everglades City populations, it seems then to indicate we weren't including the cities of Naples and
Marco Island but, yet, the last time I thought we had a substation down on Marco Island.
CHIEF SMITH: We have a facility that the sheriff has for marine operations on Marco Island.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, are they included, though, since they're within the city? Are
Page 61 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
they included in the available inventory? Do we include those deputies in our available- inventory
calculations?
CHIEF SMITH: We don't have the deputies located there; just the equipment, just the boats.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We used to have a substation there. Is that --
CHIEF SMITH: We used to have a substation there. When Marco Island decided they wanted their
own police force, we pulled our manpower out and put them in the Estates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they did that by hiring our sheriff, huh?
CHIEF SMITH: I think the sheriff was already on board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was he? Okay. That was a good move.
CHIEF SMITH: It's kind of why we need an Orangetree substation now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, that would be a good thing, too.
In the -- on Page 114, we have a table, and there's a statement at the bottom that says the construction
of the Orangetree substation and sheriffs operation building are programmed with these years per the law
enforcement land but construction is tentative at best. Just out of curiosity, what does that mean, tentative? I
mean, I know what it means, but --
CHIEF SMITH: I think it recognizes that we're dealing with the county on the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't get permitting, is that what --
CHIEF SMITH: Water or sewer or something.
MR. BOSI: It's not permitting. It's revenue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's revenue.
MR. BOSI: The underlying issue that we come back to on every single one of these programs is
revenue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, the only program that seems to be suffering from shortfalls and
revenue seems to be law enforcement and EMS. I think the rest are pretty well balanced by now, aren't they?
MR. BOSI: Well, they're balanced, but are they -- in terms of — a good example would be drainage.
You had mentioned the area east of the Fakahatchee Canal, and Nick had mentioned, we only have $6
million of revenue. We need additional revenue to widen the scope of the program.
In relationship to the Orangetree replacement, the Board of County Commissioners has indicated that
they are -- they're desirous to advance the revenue to perform the work to give a permanent station at
Orangetree. It's just a matter now of facilities, getting the actual cost and the design of those facilities and the
Board of County Commissioners making the revenue available, and that's why we utilized the word
"tentative" within this description.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But how do you think that you're going to be able to push the
envelope to get more revenue when you show an AUIR that shows you don't need the revenue, as an
example, in the stormwater? I mean, we understand the needs for the stormwater additions as we described
and as you just described, but the only -- and i -- maybe the way I should have phrased my beginning
statement is the only two categories, if I recall, from this AUIR that show a need by the statistics presented to
us is law enforcement and EMS.
But you really have a need in stormwater. But shouldn't we somehow articulate that so we know
where our priorities should be going, or how do you --
MR. BOSI: Well, I think the administrator had indicated that they're really trying to push to get that
1.5 millage rate that was allocated originally to stormwater back to that .15. It's currently at.]. And that has
limited the scope and the breadth of the projects that are available.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If I may on that. The thing that I think is missing, and I think
maybe we didn't emphasize it enough today, and using stormwater, is to incorporate those kinds of very
specific recommendations as we move forward with these approvals to the board so that they clearly get the
message that we're concerned where there are areas that are not adequately funded.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with that.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane.
Page 62 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sir?
CHIEF SMITH: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you --just a quick question. For your police, do they have to live
within the county?
CHIEF SMITH: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: They do not?
CHIEF SMITH: No. They're sheriffs officers, though; not police.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So they can live in any county?
CHIEF SMITH: I suppose they could live inn any county, but they work in this one, so I would hope
they'd be close.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Just a question.
CHIEF SMITH: We have probably 100 of our members that live in Lee County. We did have, I
think, six members that lived in Broward, but I think most of them have -- since the economy's recovering,
have taken jobs over in Broward County again and have left our employ.
I don't think we have any that -- we have at least two that Pm aware of that live in Charlotte County,
but, you know -- so they can live wherever they want, but they're only authorized to take law enforcement
action, absent an impending emergency, in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you.
CHIEF SMITH: And, of course, you know the difference between a sheriffs office and police is
police has a city jurisdiction and sheriffs office can perform law enforcement services anywhere in the
county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The table on Page 115, or the graph -- and I don't know, maybe Mike
created this thing. It shows basically our square -- our inventory available, which is, the square foot of the
buildings to house your personnel remains flat through the year 2021, it looks like, and then kicks up with a
new operations building.
And while the whole time that it remains flat, population keeps increasing. So it would seem to me
that you have a constant need to have more personnel.
But I think, Mike, was it our conversation where you were telling me that you can make do with
what you have until 2021 or --
MR. BOSI: Well, I had said every year Chief Smith comes here and says they analyze the needs of
the organization based upon the demand that the system's placing upon it. And as they see those demands
starting to increase or decrease, those conversations with facilities, with the county manager's organization as
to additional space needs, as the system dictates, that those conversations are ongoing.
So even though that -- the next improvement is the Orangetree station within 2015 -- but the majority
of the square footage will be made up with the sheriffs operating building pushed out to 2021, that doesn't
guarantee that in two years or three years from now if the system has dictated an additional demand and
additional need for square footage, that that conversation may change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, what I was getting at is we show a bigger spread, departing from
the quantity of square footage needed every year going into the future. So we do the Orangetree, that's going
to bump it up for 2015, but then it's going to get wider and wider, and the separation between the need and
what's in place is going to get huge by the year 2020.
And I'm just thinking ahead of efficiency and things that we need to do and prioritize. And if we
don't have a safe place to live, that's probably going to be a top priority.
So, anyway, the recommendation on this one, if it's affirmed today, which I think it would be, they
would start the Orangetree substation, then, according to this AUIR? Is that what the -- is that how the theory
goes, or is it still subject to a prioritization of budgeting, or is the budgeting going to match the AUIR?
MR. BOSI: Well, the budgeting -- the anticipation is we're putting this in Year 3. The last -- the last
-- the prior year it was in Year 6.
The Board of County Commissioners, in February, directed us to move forward in identifying the
specifics to get the Orangetree permanent station completed. We've moved it to Year 3 within this AUIR.
That's a signal to the Board of County Commissioners during next year's budgeting -- because they had
Page 63 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
allocated $200,000 to Skip Camp and Hank Jones in the facilities -- for the EMS issue as well as the
Orangetree location issue to start the due diligence process, and the anticipation is next year's budget would
allow for those expenditures to move forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. And, Chief, I've got kind of a different kind of question. You have
two districts -- well, you've several, six districts, but two of them in particular had increases in calls for
service, and one was the one in Immokalee, which was a couple thousand units, and the Estates was
substantial. It was 5,000 units, but it's a larger percentage because it was a smaller number to begin with.
Just out of curiosity, what is the Estates -- what's causing the Estates to tick up like that so much?
CHIEF SMITH: Most of it is self - directed or self - dispatched activity. We have more officers in the
area now, so when they see something, they will log that in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
CHIEF SMITH: And the call comes into dispatch, and it's logged as a call for service, but it's really
self - initiated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to know. Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions of law enforcement?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the public wish to comment on law enforcement?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion from this board?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mike.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Thank you, Chief.
CHIEF SMITH: Thank you.
** *And let's see. Libraries are next. The lady's been very patient to wait there all this day.
MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthes, library director.
And we have no anticipated construction for the next 10 years. And assuming adequate budget
support through -- for books and some growing impact fee funds, we can continue to buy books for the
system. And materials, I might say, are included. It's 1.87 items per capita that includes any AV or print
materials.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions of the library?
Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. I'd just like your comments -- I don't know if you were
here earlier --
MS. MATTHES: I did.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: — when I was talking about libraries and technology. What are
your feelings concerning the continued and expanding use of technology going forward versus the
level -of- service standard which has to do with building and hard -copy materials?
Page 64 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MS. MATTHES: Sure. Technology has given us many opportunities and many challenges. We're
struggling at the moment with how publishers deal with downloadable digital materials for libraries.
Last year when I was here, there were several publishers who would not sell to libraries and, in the
meantime, they starting to sell to libraries. But we have -- I'm talking digital materials.
They're selling a metered access. One company makes us re -buy a title after its checked out 52
times. A new publisher into our now market is doing the same thing after 12 circulations. Publishers are
really afraid of the digital age, afraid of being cut out by companies like Amazon or direct publishing without
a publisher. And so I understand; we all understand that there's concerns.
And we -- you know, we're just trying to keep up with the market, keep up with the demand, and
provide as many materials as we can for our public.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But in terms -- specifically in terms of level -of- service standard,
which has to do with square footage and items, you know.
MS. MATTHES: Square footage -- sure. Square footage -- yeah, we have two levels of service.
And the square footage, if you go into several of our libraries during the day, you won't find a chair to sit on.
Our headquarters library and our East Naples branch library are two of the busiest with foot traffic. People
go in there and study and work and read all day.
The same is true to a lesser extent at some of our other libraries. Golden Gate has a huge usage in the
after - school hours. There are so many schools within walking distance of that facility.
Libraries really are changing a lot because of the technology. Yes, we're still making the print books
and now the digital books available to the public, but we're also looking at helping people connect with
information, not just the physical book or the digital book, but helping them find their way to information.
And we do that through some programs and classes. This last year we had a federal grant to help
people learn how to use computers so they'd have a better chance at getting a job.
So libraries are still doing those things, and they're probably trying to do them to a greater extent than
before. So the jury, I would say, is still out. Do we still need the floor space, the physical space? Sure.
Our collections, I see down the road taking less physical space, but adding more computers for the
public to use and more help in using those computers. At this point, you can just probably look around at
your circle of friends, and some are really high tech and others definitely will never be high tech, and the —
all of our government services are really forcing people to use technology more than they have had to in the
past.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Would or do you have any recommendations for consideration
as to modification in your level -of- service standard in future years?
MS. MATTHES: At this point, no, but I understand we're about to look at the impact fees for Collier
County -- for libraries again.
I'm also talking with librarians throughout the state of Florida and through -- under the leadership of
the State Library of Florida, and we're really talking about what kinds of things libraries need to be doing and
how we count those things. And, certainly, as we look at digital usage -- and those digital titles do include --
are counted in our circulation and are counted in our collections to date.
But there's other products available and coming available, and how do we count those. And I think
we're going to be looking at that within the next year.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's encouraging, because everybody knows technology is
leaping over itself --
MS. MATTHES: Oh, of course.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- continuously, and that's not going to stop.
MS. MATT14ES: No.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And that's, over tune, going to somewhat obsolete the hard copy
and so forth that we've traditionally associated -- not eliminate. I mean obsolete.
MS. MATTHES: Sure. And I understand and I agree.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And the level -of- service standard needs to evolve so that the
proper investment is made in the technology required in our libraries to accommodate the demands for
technology from the public.
Page 65 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MS. MATTHES: Exactly. Our circulation this year probably will be around 2,700,000 - -'600- to
'700,000. And of that, we have about 15,000 items a month are digital checkouts, and that's kind of a small
proportion to date. We also have --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Excuse me. Do you think that's because of availability of the
resource on the part of the libraries or lack of demand on the —
MS. MATTHES: It's a combination of both. We try to buy for the demand.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MS. MATTHES: Certainly, if we bought multiple copies, a large number of multiple copies on
digital, we could -- people would check them out.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MS. MATTHES: But we've tried to buy what people are asking for and needing. And if we bought
more quantities, sure, people -- more people would be checking them out faster. And we've tried to really
limit it to what we think -- and people have asked for, and we have a pretty active suggest -to- purchase
program, and people suggest anything from picture books to DVDs on a daily basis.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. And the final point, the only point I'm trying to make
here is, again, that I would encourage libraries, as other areas of the county, to keep pace with what the real
demand is and changing and modifying our level of service over time to realistically speak to that demand
and get away from this linear formula that says so many square foot per person or so many acres per
thousand, because that's so surfacy, in my opinion. You're not really -- you're not really measuring and
responding to what people are demanding.
MS. MATTHES: Sure. And we try to look at standards that other libraries use in Florida of similar
populations, just as other departments compare themselves to other certain counties. We do, too.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We could be another leader in the state.
MS. MATT14ES: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We could be a leader in the state with some little innovation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Mike?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah. I think that you're -- in the library systems you're experiencing
some of the same similar issues that some of the private booksellers are experiencing as well.
MS. MATTHES: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah. All kinds of bookstores are closing down, and Barnes and
Noble is retracting a little bit, you know, things like that which is, you know, personal opinion, I think it's
unfortunate.
Have you ever given any consideration to -- and I have to apologize. I've never been to the facility,
your headquarter facility on Orange Blossom. I've passed by it, but I've never been inside of it. When it was
first built and opened up, it said there would be some cafe -type facilities inside there. Are there?
MS. MATTHES: We tried that twice.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay.
MS. MATTHES: We had a vendor who went broke trying to do it, and a second vendor came in and
tried to do it, and the same thing happened. Whether people -- there was a small market. I think both vendors
tried to have too extensive a menu and be too much like a cafe instead of --
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Place for a cup of coffee?
MS. MATTHES: Yeah, exactly. And we haven't -- we tried going out for bids a third time, and
nobody was interested.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. Thank you.
MS. MATTHES: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the reconsiderations I heard discussed -- and some of the topic was
referred to as in the hard -copy section, but you're -- certainly your level of service on a square -foot basis
needs to be revisited. I don't know if libraries need the square footage they have nowadays with the
electronic age upon us like it is. But I think I heard you say that's going to be looked at, so --
Page 66 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MS. MATTHES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAW: On your -- in your -- one of your summaries under Page 126, it's the library
collections.
MS. MATTHES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You show the available inventory at 693.
MS. MATTHES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Required inventory at 834, the difference being 141 with an expenditure of
3,658,298.
MS. MATTIIES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the bottom under notes, you have two items. You said that annually you
have a growth of 28,315 books and that you lose 4 to 5 percent that's no longer usable due to age and must be
replaced. Now, is that an additional 28,000, so you're looking at 56,315?
MS. MATTHES: Approximately, sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you take that number and multiply it times the 25 -- well,
let's put it this way. Either you're looking at the replacement cost of 25.84, and if you take the 141,575
proposed in the AUIR for the items that you need over the next five years, it doesn't give you many items
compared to the pricing that's in those notes down below. How does that correlate?
MS. MATTHES: I'll look at it and see what --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you get --
MS. MATTHES: We'll check it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you please, because --
MS. MATTHES: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you look at the cost that you have to replace and you divide the $25,
roughly, into 141,575 items, and you multiple times the 141 -, you get a much bigger number. And so I'm not
sure you -- I'm not sure that the multiplication comes out right.
MS. MATTHES: We'll check it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your building inventory, I see where you've got them all spread
across the county, but we have a new surge in one area called Ave Maria. And just out of curiosity, l see
there's nothing planned for there, and there probably isn't going to be for a long period of time. Do they have
access to that university library that's there; do you know?
MS. MATTHES: They do, but it's really, truly, a university library. They do not have public library
materials.
Most of the people are coming to the Immokalee branch library, and our circulation really has
increased, especially for parents with young children; they're really taking advantage of reading programs for
their kids. And so the usage of Immokalee is coming up. And some of them still also go to the Estates
branch library.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, it would be nice to have a more -- a cormnunity library
there, but I see the -- we've over -- we've got so much built so far ahead, we're not likely going to be putting
anything out there for quite some time.
On your circulation and door counts, I notice that this year they went down again. They've been
steadily going down.
MS. MATTHES: They have been.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. MA'17HES: We think a lot of reasons. And it's also somewhat typical of libraries in Florida. In
talking with other library directors, I find them noticing the same thing. But if you went back to before the
recession, we're pretty close -- or we're closer to those figures than before the recession, and when -- in 2007
and 2008, we had a huge surge because the people were starting to lose jobs, and they were coming to the
library for services, and they've either moved on out of the county or they're starting back to work in two or
three jobs to fill up instead of the one good job that they used to have, so we are noticing that also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll notice under your circulation, the circulation for employee peaked in
2009 with 35 -, I think, -284. And right now, over the last three years, it's been dropping; it's down to 32,817
Page 67 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
this year. Does that mean you retained employees but they each had to do less, or you laid off employees?
Or how do you correlate the number of employees per the circulation per employee?
MS. MATTHES: We just count the number of full -time permanent employees and divide it into the
circulation to get a circulation per employee just as a curiosity. If we do that for other -- to compare ourselves
with other counties, we find that our figures, even though they're going down, are still much higher than our
neighboring counties.
If our number is 30 -, 32,000 per employee, we see 16- to 20,000 in, say, Lee County.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all the questions I've got.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to speak on this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion from the Planning Commission on libraries and
collections?
COMNIISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll move to forward with approval the county libraries.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Brougham, seconded by Mike.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Thank you, miss.
MS. MATTHES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay. We have one, two -- we've got -- we have three or four left.
Mike, we'll take -- we'll probably get another one in before I go for break. What do you want to
pick?
MR. BOSI: We'll just continue following the agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the fire departments? Are they -- any of the fire departments
going to come in today or not?
MR. BOSI: I had heard over lunch that Chief McLaughlin, who was going to be the sole
representative, will not be able to attend, so Corby and I will have to handle the questions.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: We'll make you last.
MR. BOSI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, actually, we should make them right now. I mean, they're not going to
be able to say much, so we can get those done before lunch (sic). We've got three left.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You mean before break.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We can play stump the band now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Why don't we do Isle of Capri Fire so Mike has something
constructive to do here while he's listening to us.
** *Isle of Capri Fire is currently undergoing some transitions, so I'm not sure how much there is to
cover, but --
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, planning services director. The 137 -- Page 137 is the beginning of the Isle
of Capri or -- I'm song. That's EMS.
Page 68 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One seventy-one.
MR. BOSI: Thank you.
As been in the last three individual AUIRs, there are no planned improvements for Isle of Capri. The
next wave of improvement would be related to the Mainsail Drive, the additional building.
But until that is moving forward, it's on hold. And, as you know, there are some other discussions
going on with the East Naples at the Board of County Commissioners level that may have a ramification and
an impact upon how this is presented in the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're not doing -- going to go forward with much anyway at this
point.
Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, I'm not going to comment on where we are with that, but I
would agree there's nothing planned.
Just a question, though. Under level -of- service standard, approximately one unit/four minutes
response time, one -and -a -half mile radius from station. Why is that restricted to one - and -a -half miles from
the station rather than the entire Isles of Capri fire district? I mean --
MR. BOSI: The response time is from the individual station. Anything that falls within that
one- and -a -half miles falls within their guidelines.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I didn't phrase my question correctly.
MR. BOSI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would think that level -of- service standards should be for the
entire fire district served from that fire station, but yet its limited to one - and -a -half miles from that fire
station, which doesn't get them to Fiddler's Creek, for example.
MR. BOSI: And I think that's the purpose of this graphic. It's to show there's a number of structures
within that acceptable range. There's also a number of the structures that are outside of the acceptable range.
To maintain the level of service, ideally, all of the structures would be within a one -mile concentric circle of
the station.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. So they are currently not meeting their level of service --
MR. BOSI: No.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- by any stretch?
MR. BOSI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but — and that's what bothered me with this whole graphic. It's
disingenuous to expect us to accept that graphic as it states, because Fiddler's Creek is definitely served right
up the street by a mile- and -a -half with the East Naples Fire Department. They have an interlocal that is well
within the response time, and that's how each department overlaps one another when they have adjoining
jurisdictions.
So, really, it isn't a matter of whether Isles of Capri can run off that twisted road that goes onto the
island to get to an outside facility. East Naples would be sitting there taking care of it before then. That's
what the interlocals are for.
So I saw that, too, and I thought, well, that's misleading if you don't know the county. And I know
you know where it all is, Phil, but I mean, other people looking at this graphic may not realize that there are
coverages; the coverage is there. It just isn't shown the way it should be on this. So I'm not sure there's much
to do about it, but --
Anybody else have any questions on Isle of Capri?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from -- nobody out there, okay.
Is there a motion from this board?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved to recommend approval of the Isle of Capri fire district.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen, made by Mike.
Page 69 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
** *And we will finish up with Ochopee and take a break.
Mike, do you have an elaborate presentation about Ochopee?
MR. BOSI: No, other than I'm just — I'm disappointed that Chief McLaughlin wasn't able to be here.
He had -- when we met with the county manager briefing back at the end of August, he had some very
exciting and encouraging things to share with Corby and I related to — the Port of the Islands station is
moving forward, based upon the Board of County Commissioners' action to allocate the necessary revenue to
construct that station, and they're very encouraged by the discussion with the Department of Transportation
for a facility on Alligator Alley, meaning the DOT is going to build the facility and provide them space to be
able to occupy.
So the cost to the district will be for equipment and staffing, but the location will be provided. And
the percentage of calls that originate on Alligator Alley, which Ochopee has to respond to -- and its a 20 -mile
drive minimum just to get to the alley -- will be eliminated, so therefore there should be some cost
efficiencies that are going to be provided by that opportunity with the DOT.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, see, he didn't need to be here to say that. You did a great job.
MR. BOSI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've covered.
Anybody have any questions on the Ochopee Fire?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the audience want to comment on this?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I didn't see anybody out there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I know, I don't either, but the agenda said I'd ask every single time, so
I've got to do what the agenda says.
Okay. With that, we'll take a motion. Karen.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen; seconded by Diane.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Now we'll take a break in a minute or two, but we're going to come back and do EMS and then
Page 70 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
government buildings, and then we'll do the new one, which is Category C and the appendix, and Gary's last.
Sorry about that.
And, by the way, before we break, Heidi did not change her figure over here to the right. That is our
new land use attorney, Scott Stone, and welcome to the county, Scott. He's come from Tallahassee, and we're
looking forward to working with him closely. He might be sitting in a lot of our meetings, hopefully.
So it's good to see you, Scott, and before the day's over, we'll ask you something you didn't
anticipate.
Okay. With that, let's take a break and come back at 2:40 and resume.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike.
** *The next up is -- and, sir, are you representing EMS or government buildings?
MR. KOPKA: EMS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I haven't seen you before, so I'm sony I didn't recognize you.
MR. KOPKA: Good afternoon. For the record, Walter Kopka, chief of Emergency Medical
Services. I have a short presentation that shouldn't take you too far into your happy hour.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We've had happy hour all day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I started earlier this morning with Nick.
MR. KOPKA: I'm sad I didn't come earlier to join you, whatever that was.
I'll review just a couple things and then certainly answer any questions that you may have in
reference to emergency medical services.
First, our level of service is based on one unit, which is vehicle equipment station space for 16,400
population, and that is based on a peak population as well as we consider advanced life support, travel time of
eight minutes or less in the urban area, and 12 minutes or less in the rural area.
I'll certainly entertain any questions you have about EMS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good. You observed today that we like short presentations. That's
great.
MR. KOPKA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If I could. And it doesn't perhaps pertain directly to this, but
there has been recent discussions, we're probably going to have future discussions, as far as what you folks go
through to understand where to best position your EMS ambulances.
MR. KOPKA: That's a great question. It's based on call volume in that area as well as travel time in
that area as well as geographic elements of the area. For example, an island which may not have other access
to it may be considered an element to where to place a vehicle. Obviously, response times, travel times, call
volume as well.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: How often do you take a look at that? I mean, I understand, you
know, the call volume, but that's going to tend to, you know, fluctuate in terms of geographics and
demographics and all that kind of thing. How often do you revisit that?
MR. KOPKA: Yes, sir. We look at that at least twice a year. We look at that during the AUIR
process, and then we look at it again during our use of our seasonal ambulances. We put seasonal
ambulances, and we look at our last two or three years of volume of where they were placed and where they
best served the public when we've got those seasonal ambulances.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And it may be contained in here, but I'm not bright enough to
find it. Based upon all those statistics, you have adequate ambulances, vehicles, today to maintain your level
of service.
MR. KOPKA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I'm not talking about positioning as much as you have an
adequate inventory of both the vehicles and the personnel to obviously staff the vehicles.
MR. KOPKA: Yes, sir, because the goal of eight minutes or less in the urban area is met 90 percent
of the time, and that's our goal, and the rural area it's at 89 percent, which is obviously very close to that 90
Page 71 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
percent mark.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have EMS?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Couple questions, sir.
MR. KOPKA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 137, which is your summary page, your five -year surplus and deficit
is shown as a .7 unit value cost of a negative 1,048,415. But down below under revenues, you have a
combined shortage of revenue of a little over 3 million. So to fund your program, you need the combined
shortage of revenues; is that correct?
MR. KOPKA: You're looking at 3 million? Which line item?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- okay. See where it says -- under revenues it says surplus or,
parenthetical, deficit revenues. And in the two columns you showed 2,660,411, 495,640. You add those
together, it comes up to 3,156,051. That's more of a deficit than is being called out under the value cost up
top.
And I'm just wondering, what is it you need, the value cost up top or the revenue deficit you have
down below.
MR. KOPKA: If I understand the question correctly, what we have here are the two different items.
We have just the station construction, or —and/or the ambulance and equipment. So the -- if we add just an
ambulance and equipment, that's the deficit. If we're adding the stations as well, that's the deficit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But to meet your level -of- service standard, you need both, don't you?
Go ahead, Mike.
MR. BOSI: Let me -- the top line that shows .7 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. BOSI: — they're saying they're not -- at the end of the five -year period, they're adding two
stations. That's still going to leave them with a deficit. So no matter how much those two stations cost,
whether it's adding construction or just adding the equipment to get those two units, you still have to add that
million dollars, because there's going to be a deficit at the end of the five -year period. They're not going to be
meeting their levels of service.
So they would need to add .7 3 of a station to get to adequately meet their level -of- service
standard.
So whatever expenditure they have that they're proposing, they're -- at the end of the five -year period,
they're still a million dollars in deficit to meet the levels of service.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand that. Yeah, that part I was following.
I'm trying to figure out how much they're looking at from countywide -- the ad valorem base in order
to support what they need to get through the five years, and it looks like its $3 million, 3. 1, based on the
additional revenues required for loss reduction. That's all I'm trying get to; is that right?
MR. BOSI: The amount that's going to be provided or contributed from the general revenue fund is
the line right above your total revenues, the one --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I saw that one, too. So that's 2.4, 2.5. Then what's the value of
showing the surplus or deficit revenues down below and the additional revenues required for loss reduc -- I'm
trying to figure out what number they're trying to use.
MR. BOSI: Here's -- the two columns aren't to be added together. These are either /or scenarios.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you get a station, you don't put an ambulance in it?
MR. KOPKA: Well, what we can do is we can double up on ambulances in current stations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've got to be big enough, though, to accommodate two stations - -1
mean, two ambulances.
MR. KOPKA: Correct -- two ambulances, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the deficit you're showing under revenue, surplus are definite
revenues, even though you're showing a deficit revenue of 2,660,411 under stations, you don't need it?
MR. KOPKA: Well, if you read further into the AUIR, when we've done studies placing
Page 72 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
ambulances, doubling them up at other stations, that's not the best for nnproving response times or operations.
We're better off to have a station in the target zone where there's a deficit as opposed to just putting up an
ambulance and doubling up at a station.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me phrase the whole thing a different way.
MR. KOPKA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If someone were to ask any one of us, well, how much does EMS need to
get by to cover what they -- what the level of service requires financially for the next five years, what answer
would we give them?
MR. KOPKA: It would be the 2.660411.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we need the -- we would say they need a station or stations, but
they don't need any equipment?
MR. KOPKA: That number includes the ambulance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why do you have the second column?
MR. BOSI: This was -- the second column was directed at -- the Board of County Commission was
recognizing we're in a revenue situation that we -- there wasn't plentiful revenue. And some of the
discussions with EMS was, how can we move -- can we move forward without constructing stations but just
adding ambulance and units to be able to cover the areas of -- that we need -- that we have some deficiencies
in our response times.
So what Walter and Artie did under the direction of Dan and the county manager was said, here's two
different scenarios. Your traditional scenario is your construct a permanent station, and those permanent
stations have the added costs for equipment already incorporated within those.
The second column is only if they were going to add those units, and then those units would be
floating, because there's no station associated with them. So they gave the board two different options as
towards how they could potentially tackle the deficit and cover some of the holes within the response times.
That's why there's two -- that's why there's two scenarios that are put forward. It's really two options
for the Board of Commissioners for them to address the issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm --
MR. KOPKA: Maybe we can better define --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- trying to figure this out, but --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sounds like we need a tax raise.
MR. KOPKA: Maybe we can better define that station, construction and station, construction and
unit or as a unit?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you notice your unit costs up on top? It says 1 million seven for new
vehicle and equipment and 1 million for new collated (sic) vehicle equipment. What 1 would think that's
trying to say is that the difference between those two numbers is what your land cost is, your station cost,
which then gives a different number than the numbers that you show under revenues as needed for station
and/or equipment.
MR. KOPKA: A co- located station also has expenses with it as well, whether it's rent or other costs
associated with it. So it's not just a vehicle. There's still costs associated with that co-located station.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's hard to figure out what it is you're asking to have from the ad
valorem base, and that's where I'm having trouble. Let me go on to something simpler.
Go ahead. Corby?
MR. SCIIMIDT: Mr. Chairman, we can work with these facilities people and look for some
clarification. We agree that by the time you reach the end of Page 138, there's some clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I'm going to be questioning --
MR. SCHMIDT: But you shouldn't have to read all the way to the end to be clear, so we can work
on that first page.
MR. BOSI: And if you look at the proposed AUIR for 2013/14, 2017/18, there's a total of 2,744,000.
I believe that is the cost of -- if you look at Page 145, 145 is your unit cost. I believe that's with one owned
station and one --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there's a footnote that helps that, too, yeah.
Page 73 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. BOSI: So that is -- that's what would be the cost of the proposed -- of the proposed two- station
proposal, and the combination of unpact, general canyforward and then loans from the General Fund are
what makes how they get to the revenue necessary to satisfy those individual costs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But most of the summaries balance out. So what you do is you start with
the need, and then by the time you get down to the expenditures and revenues, you see where you're going to
draw your funds from to meet the need. That's not what this one's telling us. I can't get there.
M.R. BOSI: What -- it's meant to tell the Board of County Commissioners that their budgeted
contribution from the general revenue fund to EMS is going to have to increase if we're going to be able to
construct the two proposals that are being put forward within this AUIR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean -- good luck.
The top of Page 138 notes, while an ambulance and equipment is shown as an option above, this
method was field tested for six months. It was determined there was minimal improvement to the targeted
zone, while the adjacent zones experienced significant adverse impact.
The challenge being is there's no near station — where is the target zone? What did you use for a
target zone, just out of curiosity?
MR. KOPKA: North Naples, and what this was — this involved one of our seasonal ambulances
which was on the border of a North Naples zone and, again, determined that there was some impact on that
zone but had a domino effect on other zones in the area as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this was a real -life experience? I mean, so we actually had an adverse
impact on another area because of an experiment we were doing with one?
MR. KOPKA: Well, we do, because when we place our seasonal ambulances, we try to put them as
close as possible to the target zone. And, again, we don't have stations available on every street comer, so we
have a limit of stations to pick from. So we picked a station that was close to the target zone in order to try to
affect that, improve that. But what it did was bordering zones had other impacts to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if you had those kind of experiences in North Naples, which seems
to me saturated with stations, I can imagine it would be even worse in other areas of the county. Interesting. I
didn't know you picked that location.
In the bottom paragraph of that page, there's a reference to peak population and how you -- response
tunes indicating immediate need for both zones. But then it says that there's a pending ALS agreement with
East Naples Fire Department that will impact the response times.
The reason I looked at that is because you have a map that is further down, and it's on -- well, I don't
even know what -- Page 146, yeah.
MR. KOPKA: 146, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: East Naples has kind of joined Golden Gate Fire Department, but on this
map there is no 24 -hour participation by ALS. It's only shown in East Naples. Is going -- is Golden Gate
going to be benefitting from that ALS 24 -hour participation or not, under the combined efforts of both
departments now?
MR. KOPKA: That's certainly a possibility. When this AUIR was put together, that had not come to
fruition at that time. But as of this time, the interlocal agreement is just with East Naples. How East Naples
and Golden Gate merge, consolidate, I don't know at this time how that will affect that agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the criteria for that capability, does it differ between East Naples and
Golden Gate? The training of personnel or whatever else is required to get those agreements, the minimum
standards for those agreements?
MR. KOPKA: Well, we don't have an agreement with Golden Gate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know. But what I'm suggesting is if it can come to pass that Golden
Gate and East Naples successfully merge, will the standards still be acceptable that those kind of agreements
could exist in Golden Gate?
MR. KOPKA: Sure, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I have.
Does anybody else have anything?
(No response.)
Page 74 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AU1R meeting)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public? Which there's nobody left. I can't blame them
a bit.
And I don't have a problem, necessarily, with what you're suggesting. I just don't understand it
because of the first page.
So, Mike, whatever motion's made, I mean, I'm going to go and vote with the majority. But I just --
you know, if the question comes up, I just don't understand it, so --
MR. KOPKA: We'll work on that, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any -- is there a recommendation from this panel?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ms. Homiak.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Ebert.
Discussion? Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. Can we approve with -- under the condition or with the
condition that --
MR. BOSI: Just tell us to clarify.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- clarification is required to better understand the intent of this
AUIR?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, I'd certainly like to see that.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with the motion maker and the second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, Pin looking at this. It says, cost per station with the vehicles.
And if you double it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that first page was what the problem was, and that's your summary
page, and that summary page should be a summary, and it was a little confusing, at least for me, so --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Clarification is always a good thing.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It is, it is.
CHA RMAN STRAIN: EMS and -- sir, it's all yours.
MR. JONES: * * *I'm government buildings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're govermnent building, I'm sorry. Just -- we got done with EMS.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do you want to talk about EMS?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you want to talk about government buildings, jump in.
MR. JONES: Yeah, the good news is I have a very brief report. We're not building anything for the
next seven years.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thanks, Hank.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Can't get it better than that.
Any questions on government buildings?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You're not building anything, but I read recently where the
Page 75 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
Supervisor of Elections is out of space and was petitioning Skip's department, facilities department, to find
space. How is that going? I mean, you're not going to build anything, so that implies if you need space
you're going to be leasing space.
MR. JONES: Yes, correct. They're looking for predominantly storage space. So we're looking at
commercial storage space for lease to house some of his equipment and data.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Footnote question on Page 157, second note, the unit cost utilized is based
upon actual project cost for representative projects divided by the total square footage.
When you actually build the building, again, will you update your representative project costs? I
mean, you won't have any to update from actual, so where do you get your sources for your estimated costs?
MR. JONES: That's a very good question, and on previous AUIR discussions we've talked about
what was the effect of the recession on building costs, and now we need to talk about what's the effect of the
recovery on the costs. And we -- although in government buildings we don't, but we also serve to construct
the libraries and these other parks and rec facilities, and we've seen some interesting trends there in two
respects, both increase in cost per square foot for community centers and other parks and rec type facilities,
and, in fact, some of the other construction facilities.
And the second thing we're seeing is a shortage of bidders, lack of interest in the commercial sector
that the county's not getting as many — at least my department's not getting as many responses to our request
for quotes.
So the recession is kind of over in terms of general contractors. The prices are going up, and they've
got other profitable work to do as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what that kind of directs us to is when you do come back each year
and you actually have something that's going to happen --
MR. JONES: But we're going to use --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that footnote needs to be updated to tell us where you're getting your
numbers from. So right now it's kind of a moot point.
MR. JONES: That's correct. When that time comes, we'll be looking at all recent experiences not
only within the general government category but across county category and update the figures. And bearing
in mind that our -- for government buildings, which are predominantly office structures, that cost per square
foot tends to be higher than for community centers and some of the other facilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if you could go to Page 161, because this AUIR basically says
there's nothing -- expenditures in the next five years, but on Page 161, the fifth bracket -- bracketed section
down it says Building "N" and parking deck, you're going to spend $6 million on those facilities in 2017. Are
those dated wrong?
MR. JONES: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. JONES: Wait a minute. Let's see. Seventeen? You're looking at Page 161?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And, of course, the -- I was going to say next the one below it, too,
says you've got Heritage Bay and Ave Maria -- well, Ave Maria's just to be D, but --
MR. JONES: I think that's the -- that's the design portion of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. JONES: When -- as we get closer to this time period if -- assuming the forecast doesn't go out
further, then we'd be looking at starting the preliminary designs for those structures. At that case, that was a
rough estimate of what the design costs only would be, and the site procurement, site development plans, et
cetera.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But those are part of your square -foot costs, aren't they?
MR. JONES: Total project square foot, but not -- I don't think that -- yes, I guess it is; yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They need to be in your -- I mean, this AUIR would have to change
then, Mike.
Page 76 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. BOSI: No, because the way that we show the project, we show the project physically being
available within the year. That's physically not going to be available within the year. We do it -- and
remember, this is -- part of it is for concurrency. And the revenue expenditure that they're providing in 2017
will have to be allocated within the future AUIR that shows those projects coming online. But we show them
on the graph. That's when they're available for — they're available within the system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but if the AUIR is supposed to be a way to set the CIE for the
upcoming year -- for the upcoming five years, and it shows zero expenditures, how do you get this money
into the CIE to get the project going and built?
MR. BOSI: I believe this would be part of your second five -year program.
MR. JONES: Yes.
MR. BOSI: It's in the second five years, and that's -- the design of those facilities, revenue is going
to be allocated. But, remember, this isn't a revenue document. This is to make sure that the facilities are
emerging.
Now, these facilities aren't going to emerge until an outyear in the second five years. So that's --
they're not showing within this first five -year graph availability even though they're spending money on the
design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, why are we showing road designs in the early years? I mean,
none of it's making -- that doesn't make any sense. We're showing road design early and even right -of -way
acquisition, but the road's not available.
MR. BOSI: We are showing road -- we are showing the allocation of expenditures within this
document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But those values in roads are in the road categories as values that are
affected by the -- in the AUIR. In this particular one, we've got $12,800,000 that's coming 2017 -- well, no,
not all of it -- 2017 and then some in 2022, so we've got 6 million in 2017 that isn't showing up in the AUIR,
but it's got to be spent within that five -year time frame. How would the -- how would the people approving
the budget know they're going to have that $6 million hit?
MR. BOSI: I believe that the $6 million would be allocated within the budgetary documents that the
board would be asked to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is what the AUIR is supposed to set for.
MR. BOSI: The AUIR sets the stage --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. BOSI: -- that this expenditure is coming down the road. And in 2016 -- or 2017 you could
expect $6 million to be requested from the O &M for these type of activities related to the BCC building and
the parking deck.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Proposed AUIR Fiscal Year 2013 to 2018, zero. And so, again, for
simplicity and standardization of what we've been experiencing today, we would think there are zero
expenditures needed for government buildings through the Year 2018.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Eighteen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's not what this says. I mean, it says that, but that's not what the
backup says. I'm just --well, Mike, again, I'm puzzled by --
MR. BOSI: And I understand what you're saying is, within the financial summary there's not the $6
million that's being -- that's being expended for the two projects that are out in the second five -year window,
which does show up on 159, and that shows you we add them to the inventory when they're available to be
utilized.
What you're saying is we should probably show the expenditure of the design phases for these
buildings within the budgetary, and we can note that, and we can start that practice. Transportation does that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 think it would be helpful.
MR. BOSI: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When everybody approves this, they know they're -- I mean, the way we're
presented, we only have two items in the AUIR that are going to require ad valorem expenditures, and that is
law enforcement and EMS. But, really, we have another one, this one that just didn't show up this way.
Page 77 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. BOSI: And, yes. And we can adequately show that as an expenditure in the revenue and
expenditure for the capital improvement as programmed in the Year 2020 and 20 --
MR. JONES: Seventeen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that would be a good thing to do.
MR. BOSI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, I would think that a goal should be that all of -- the
AUIR ought to have standard format for every area so that we get the same treatment, the same level of detail
from each area, and then we could eliminate a lot of this confusion. If we have the same format, the same
type of data presented, the same summary sheet.
MR. BOSI: And we don't. We don't have the same summary sheet.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I know. I'm saying --
MR. BOSI: I mean, if you look at transportation -- because transportation has the different
methodology for the level -of- service standard, and the transportation has a series of attachments compared to
public utilities, that has a different site modification compared to parks and rec. Parks and rec migrates more
towards the Category B facility having that standardized methodology. I agree, there are some anomalies in
terms of --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And we can have different appendix detail for each of them as
required. But I would think the face plate should have the same look and feel and the same level of detail.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN. Okay. Well, I mean, you're going to make that clarification for this year.
And next year we'll take a look and --
MR. BOSI: Yeah. I am going to try to get public utilities and transportation to modify how they're
doing things.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Tow the line. Tell them.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Otherwise the carpet's coming out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And on Page 164, the last sentence, I just need to understand what we're
doing here. It says, removed from inventory per impact fee consultant's recommendation, which I'm
wondering, okay, what is it -- what was the reasoning for removing all those areas? And there's a parking
garage and a few other -- why were those removed from the impact -- why did the impact fee consultant
decide those weren't government buildings?
MR. BOSI: Chair, I'm glad that you asked that question. Amy Patterson has been available for the
entire day in anticipation of that question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at least I guessed that one right. Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Amy Patterson, impact fee manager.
It actually was our outside legal counsel that required or requested that those facilities be removed
from the inventory. This actually started back right after the adoption of the government buildings impact
fees.
He went through and scoured the inventory for those buildings that should not have -- the square
footages affect the fee, essentially, and he didn't feel that those were buildings that should be included and,
therefore, putting upward pressure on the fee.
This was -- this fee originally was subject to a lawsuit when it -- right after its adoption, and so we
went through quite a bit of legal vetting at that time, and that was the impact fee consultant's
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's substantial square footage.
MS. PATTERSON: It is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what happens, if you take it out of the picture, then it shows that we
have a less amount of square footage available for government buildings, which means we always need more
when, in essence, we have a bunch we're using we can't count. Is that a synopsis of --
MS. PATTERSON: Well, some of those wouldn't have been counted -- while their values would
have been included in the inventory, they're not -- the parking garages, particularly, are not things that add to
the available inventory because they don't house people, so --
Page 78 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. The CDES main building? I mean, that's --
MS. PATTERSON: No. CDES main building cannot be included as part of the impact fee impact
because it was paid for by another funding source. That's paid for by -- so otherwise we could put it in and
credit it out. It was easier just to take it out completely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I knew you'd say that. But my concern is that it's a building that meets
the needs of the government, and if we don't readjust or recalculate our multiplier for the population served,
then we're still going to have a higher value constantly shown for impact -- which will pump up impact fees
falsely because we don't need as much space, because we have the space; we just can't include it.
MS. PATTERSON: These can be used for the purposes of level of service. They just can't be used
for the purposes of the impact fee inventory. So there's a difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How does the impact fee inventory total volume calculate into the
equation that establishes the impact fee?
MS. PATTERSON: Well, you would take the value of the inventory divided by the population with
credits, et cetera. I'm really making it simple, but —
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. It's a good day to make things simple.
MS. PATTERSON: Yeah. The value of your inventory divided by your population is going to give
you, essentially, a cost per person. So the higher the value of the inventory divided by the population, the
higher the fee, essentially, could go.
Very simple, not taking into account outside factors like credits, which adjust the fee up or down,
you shrink the credits, the fee goes up. if you increase the credits, the fee goes down.
So I'm taking credits -- I'm just purely talking about the effect of the inventory. The more valuable
your inventory, essentially, the higher your fee, but for other mitigating factors.
So this brought the fee down. When we took these buildings out, it drove the fee down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I realize that, but that may not be the right thing to do.
MS. PATTERSON: Well, it -- unfortunately in this case we have an expert counsel related to -- we
hire specifically for impact fee matters who -- it was his direction to remove those facilities, so its kind of
hard to tell him no when he --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I trying to understand his reasoning.
MS. PATTERSON. I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we've got total volume, and I'm looking at volume, not --
MS. PATTERSON: It depends on what --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- cost. But if we need — if a certain volume is required to meet the
population, by taking that out we've reduced the --
MS. PATTERSON: Right, but he didn't — I believe the reason why -- and 1 can get you further
clarification on this --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, just when you get a chance.
MS. PATTERSON: -- is that he didn't feel that these added to the type of square footage that was
government buildings. I mean, an animal control facility, things like that are not -- they're not adding
government building office space. They may be adding kennels or they're --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what about the tax collector?
MS. PATTERSON: Snack bar.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The tax collector's certainly --
MS. PATTERSON: I don't know. What -- we had a detailed conversation about this when all of
these buildings -- when these inventories moved around, so I can get you all that backup if you're -- if you're
interested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I am. I'm kind of curious as to how we got there.
MS. PATTERSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then next year maybe we can have more questions.
That's all I've got on government buildings. And then I think the clarification that we talked about
would certainly help.
So with that in mind, do we have anybody else, any comments?
Page 79 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I have a fast question --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: -- of the gentleman. You mentioned before that there's a lack of
contractors to bid on government facilities. Did you mention that?
MR. JONES: No lack of contractors to bid. It's -- a lot of them are receiving requests to bid, and
they're coming to the meetings, but then when finally the bid date -- due date comes by, there's only a limited
number of respondents.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Did you ever ask them post -bid why?
MR. JONES: Yes. Their answers range all over the board from, well, we've got other more
profitable opportunities to they're just not interested in doing that particular job.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: When you — well, I can probably understand that because I did build
government buildings years ago back in the'80s or so as a general contractor. And there was a government
factor that was put in, you know, when you're bidding jobs — and I've done schools, hospitals, fire stations
years ago -- because of the bureaucracy involved in getting paid. Does that make sense to you?
MR. JONES: Very much so.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. Well, I mean, that's what I experienced.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Hit the nail on the head right there, I think.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah. So let me ask you a question. There have been so many
municipalities that I ve run into in the past on the east coast to get around that to get more competitive, you
know, pricings, and just a suggestion for conversation today, they have hired outside construction managers
to handle the bidding for them and the process of the management of the job itself, the construction job, and
their price or their cost for construction management versus what I'll call the government factor, you know, in
the cost of construction, was negated, you know, by the fact that they actually were able to get out there and
get the lowest price in the bids.
So their fee put in, in short, was not a factor. You know, it was consumed by the lower prices, which
is a good thing, which is, I think, what you're looking for, eventually. And --
MR. JONES: I don't think that solves the problem of actually getting a check in the mail.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Well, I mean, that's an issue, I guess, you have to take up with finance
or whoever issues the check, because that's always the issue with working a government job is you can't get
paid. And I'm stating that for the record. You need to kind of take a look at that with your finance
department, because its not fair to pay higher fees for an office building, as an example, when there's a
private office building right next door paying a lesser fee per square footage. It makes no sense.
My thoughts. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on government buildings?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any members of the public that want to talk on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We talked about a couple things that maybe the next time we would
include some kind of reference to the fact there are some expenditures needed to get through the AUIR
period, and that we'll clarify -- and Amy's going to send some information clarifying why those buildings
were removed.
So with that in mind, is there a recommendation from this panel?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak made a motion to approve. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane Ebert.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Page 80 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Thank you, all.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Here comes Sandy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Now, I think this is the last --Mike, we're on the last one, if I'm not
mistaken, other than the appendices, and this is category -- this is coastal zone areas. It's a new element to our
AUIR, so it's a whole new experience.
And so, Gary, if -- we need some patience with this one because I need to -- from my perspective, it's
important for me to understand how you established your standards, and so I have a note against each one.
How'd you get there? Why don't we just start there.
MR. McALPIN: Okay, good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the record, I'm Gary McAlpin, and I'm with Coastal Zone Management.
The beach standards, we came -- we have been working with Florida Department of Enviromnental
Protection. And unlike many of the processes and groups that you work with, we are highly regulated.
We went through and we looked at what we could practically obtain in terms of a minimum beach
standard that we could maintain from a fixed benchmark. Recognizing that we -- when we renourish, we try
to add advanced renourishment. If we have a 100 -foot beach shoreline, the DEP sets that because of near
shore hard bottom that's off the coast. So we're limited in terms of how much we could renourish the beach
by the near shore hard bottom. Near shore hard bottom on the west coast of Florida is a code word for coral,
okay. So we get smaller reliefs, but they are -- it is a coral- related activity, it's a coral - related environment
and we cannot -- the issue is we cannot -- when we renourish, the sand could not migrate onto the coral
segments of the Collier County coast.
So that's why we have be a 85 -foot dry beach width that we have established for Park Shore and a
100 -foot dry beach width that we've established for Vanderbilt Beach and the City of Naples, because the
coral sits further in for Pelican -- excuse me -- for Park Shore than it does for the other two beach segments.
Now, that's just not the -- what we do when we renourish. If you look at when we renourish, about
one -third of the beach is what you see. Two - thirds is under the water.
So when we look for the life of the beach, what DEP will allow us to do is calculate the erosion rates
that we've experienced plus advanced renourishment. And advanced renourishment is additional sand that
we put on the beaches which would allow us, after a certain design period, be it six years -- and that's our
current standard — to still have an approximate 100 -foot beach width.
So working with DEP in 2005/2006, from work that had been done in 1999 when we started keeping
monitoring information -- we monitor the beaches every year -- we established a 100 -foot dry beach width
that would always be there after the design length of the project was exceeded or was used up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that's your first standard. And what I'd like to do is after you get done
explaining each standard, if there's anything that we need as more documentation, you can supply it after the
fact.
MR. McALPIN: I could provide that. And this is -- it's not -- it's a little bit complicated sometimes
to understand the concept. It's not as it's based on science, but it's also based on judgment and Mother Nature
to a certain extent. So when we talk a six -year standard, that's our goal.
We typically -- currently we have exceeded our six -year standard, but sometimes, based on
hurricanes and storms, Mr. Chair, we do not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, from comprehensive planning's perspective, this is going to be
an addition to the AUIR every year going forward?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in order to avoid the same questions year after year after year, at
Page 81 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
least from my perspective, could you send us the maps that you use to set the coral locations and dictate the
bid of the beach?
MR. McALPIN: Sure. We'd be happy to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there was another question; go on to number two.
MR. McALPIN: And just let me comment, Mr. Chair. Every year we have to -- or, depending upon
the permit, we have to go and survey those coral -- those leading edge of the coral, and we have to verify that
we have not had any coverage of sand on that. So it's very -- it is a very regulated process that we deal with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. That will make it easier to lock in then. That's great.
MR. McALPIN: Typically we have 8.6 miles of renourished beaches, engineered beaches. That
typically correlates quickly or correlates with good correlation to what the state of Florida considered
critically eroded beaches.
So they have gone through and performed studies on our coastline, and we have approximately 8
miles of critically eroded beaches of which there's been 8.6 miles that we have renourished or engineered in
the past.
Marco south beach is different from the main beaches that we have within Collier County. We tend
to have renourished that beach on a five- plus -year cycle. We renourish Marco south beaches when the area
south of the seawall all the way at Cape Romano is exposed. Typically this is the main access we have for
the south for Marco.
We have Tigertail to the north, but most of the activities on the south beach -- and that's really our
trigger when we renourish that and it has been leading up to a five -year period of time.
We renourish the beaches using TDC funds. All of our beaches use TDC funds. We do inlets. We
maintain the inlets at the same time. We have five major inlets or not -- they're not necessarily major by other
standards within the state of Florida, but we have five inlets that we deal with: Wiggins, Clam, Doctors,
Caxambas, and Capri.
We mine those inlets for beach - quality sand. We use that sand, and we put it on the down -drift
beaches. That's how we could use TDC funds to maintain the inlets and also renourish the beaches.
The guidelines that we use is that the beaches need to conform to the state's policy for critically
eroded. They also need to be conformed to their state's policy for beach access, public beach access before
they're funded.
We do beach maintenance and cleaning as needed on a continual basis. We are required by permit to
deal with regulatory compliance items. Same quality, physical, and biological monitoring that we conduct
every year. From the physical and biological monitoring, we know how we are performing relative to our
designs, and dune vegetation, maintenance, and repairs.
So those are the standards. We typically deal with those on an ongoing basis, on an as- needed basis
from where we are, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Couple questions.
MR. McALPIN: Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Back up to 5 -- yeah, Item No. 5, six -year beach design life
guideline, and you kind of skipped over that. And I look at that versus No. 3, Marco renourishment every
five years. What is a beach design life guideline?
MR. McALPIN: Six years, well, we could design our beaches to different lengths of time frame.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Excuse me. How do you design a beach? The beaches are
designed by God.
MR. McALPIN: Well, they're designed by God, you're absolutely right, but they're helped by man a
little bit, too.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Help me understand.
MR. McALPIN: So what we typically do is we used a 100- or 85 -foot standards that we have. We're
measuring and monitoring those beaches on a yearly basis. When we get to a point where we are severely
past the 85- or 100 -foot width on the beach, we look at a beach renourishment at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, I understand that.
Page 82 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. McALPIN: And what we design for is the amount of sand that would take to renourish back to
the standards, 90 -- or 85 or 100, plus, if it's a six -year design, how much additional sand we would have to
place on the beach so that at the end of six years it would come back to the 100 -foot or 85 -foot standard.
Now, that additional six years of sand, advanced renourishment, if you would, is determined by the
annual erosion rates that we have been gathering since 1982.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And when you say additional sand, that's depth. I mean, it's
inches of sand or feet of sand or whatever?
MR. McALPIN: Well, it's volume of sand.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Volume.
MR. McALPIN: Let's use volume of sand, which translates into width of beach.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. And then on Item No. 6, you state, must be designated as
critically eroded by Florida DEP. How often do they do that?
MR. McALPIN: They update that on a periodic basis. The last time I think it was updated was
probably two years ago. We were able to get Barefoot Beach, the southern end of Barefoot Beach,
incorporated into that.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So we request them to come and look at something?
MR. McALPIN: We develop data, we request it, and they work on it. It took us probably five years
to get Barefoot Beach southern end designated as critically eroded.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Mike.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah. Gary, what is the historic width of these beaches, not the width
that you're designing to? But back into history, are they 100 feet, 85 feet, or are they really 65 feet?
MR. McALPIN: Mike, that really depends upon what your framework and the point that you're
looking at. If you look back to our first beach renourishment that was probably in the late 1990s, we put 1.2
million cubic yards of sand, and there was no beach width, okay.
Then the next major beach renourishment was in 2005. We established a standard of 100 foot at that
point in time, and we put 663,000 cubic yards on the beaches at that point in time.
If you would follow that to 2013, what we were proposing to the Board of County Commissioners
was for 360,000 cubic yards of sand, and that would, again, bring you back to a six -year design basis.
So what you see is that when we started this, the historical -- Naples is in a situation that the beaches
have not been wide, okay, and DEP will not allow us to renourish to the widths we would like to because of
the coverage on the hard bottom.
So right now, to the extent that we can, we have a template, and the template would allow us to do up
to a 10 -year beach renourishment, which would allow us to put 10 years of advanced renourishment on the
beach.
Outside of that we cannot do anything more than that.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: You know, if you look at aerial photos dating back to the'40s and'50s,
you know, when the Naples area was a -- I think it was a -- well, Page Field in Fort Myers -- yeah, Fort
Myers and Naples Airport down here were training stations, if I recall.
And I've seen a lot of those, and the beaches were rather small, you know, back in those days. And 1
-- it's okay if we artificially make them bigger, you know, because it's for tourism and things like that. I
understand that.
But the -- you know, the constant going back every five or 10 years for millions of dollars and this
controversy that we're running into now with trucking versus dredging, I think -- is that what the controversy
is?
MR. McALPIN: Well, there is controversy relative to that item, currently, but there's controversy all
the time.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I understand that. There was controversy back, I think, in the last -- or
two renourishments ago when they were dredging up rocks from an area that wasn't supposed to be dredged
up, is that right, you know?
MR. McALPIN: There was -- I had -- in the end of the'90s, there was an issue with rocks on the
Page 83 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
beach that had been --
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yeah, yeah, I recall that.
So my question is, to try to keep the costs down, you know, in the future but still make it, you know,
a very palatable beach to go to and desirable for tourists and for residents, there's been discussion about beach
groins, you know, and things like that, to keep the sand from shifting too much. Is that science now as
opposed to Mother Nature make any sense?
MR. McALPIN: Oh, there is science associated with the groins on the beach, but there's also
regulatory policy that we can't -- that we can't deviate from because we'll never have permits which will -- we
will never be granted permits which will allow us to do this.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: So you're saying --
MR. McALPIN: The state policy right now -- excuse me.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Go ahead.
MR. McALPIN: The state policy right now is for natural beaches, unincumbered natural beaches
that are -- do not have erosion control structures associated with them.
So although it's not impossible, it's very, very difficult, depending upon your situation, to permit
erosion control structures on the beaches.
DEP's position is they want to maintain as much natural beaches as they can. So you've got to look
at it from two perspectives. Yes, you have a historical width of the beach, and our objective is to maximize
the time between renourishment cycles and minimize the cost. You do that typically on dredging operations
with large dredges so that you could -- large dredging time frame so that you could maximize time between
them and amortize your one -time mobilization costs. If you're going to go to truck haul, its much less
important.
So to answer your question is, the goal is always to maintain the beaches at the most economical
way. I think that ground is shifting a little bit for us right now in terms of truck haul and in terms of the cost
of major beach renourislmnents.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: And I've -- and thank you very much. And I've lost what's been
happening on the Internet, because everything on the Internet's true, correct? I've lost what's happening
today. Are we trucking?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane.
MR. McALPIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Could you -- permits. It seems like the county is always waiting for
pen-nits on this. Being they are difficult to get through DEP, through the state, is there a way that we could
have a permit that lasts for 10 years and -- because no one ever knows when we're getting a Charley or, you
know, other thing.
Is there something this county can do to go to the state and get a pen-nit that would be good for, let's
say, 10 years?
MR. McALPIN: That's a good question, and typically the permit that we do have right now is a
10 -year permit, so we have a 10 -year permit for the project. And what that does is it ties in all your
environmental conditions.
However, what we have to do is every time we want to renourish, every time we want to add to that,
we have to get a site - specific notice to proceed from the agencies, and they modify the permit relative to
exactly what you're doing.
So in this particular case, in 2005/2006 we got a permit. It was for dredging, the using of dredging.
Now we had to go back and we had to modify that permit to be a truck haul permit, we had to modify the
quantities, because that authorized 600 and -- it authorized X amount of quantities. Now we had to be
360,000 quantities.
So we have to, essentially, site - specific design, and they're going to want that site - specific design on
the notice to proceed.
Page 84 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
So although you do get a 10 -year permit, you have to always go back, and they want to look at -- and
they want to know exactly what you're doing for this release, if you would, against that permit. And that's the
fight we have with them, and that's the activity that takes so long.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are they slow to respond to the county?
MR. McALPIN: Well, let me tell you what has happened this past year. Typically, it would take us
to get a non -major modification to a permit, it's about 10 -- nine months to a year. This time it took us nine
months to get a non -major modification to the pen-nit. That modification to the permit has been challenged in
a 120 hearing, and we've -- it's taken us -- so we're in the process of about a month right now going through
an appeal on a 120 hearing, which is an administrative appeal. They're challenging DEP's issue to issue the
permit, and they want an administrative law judge to hear to weigh in whether DEP can issue a permit.
So permitting is very -- it's very controversial. You know, this is very controversial in terms of
working with the public.
And permitting is getting more difficult, because not only do we have DEP. We have the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, we have Fish and Wildlife, we have Fish and Wildlife Conservation, we have Fish and
Wildlife Service, we have National Marine Fisheries, and each one of these agencies have overlapping
jurisdictions and have to approve and sign off on what we're doing. So that's why it takes so long in the
permitting process, and so that's the issue that we're dealing with.
This last permit that we've got for 250,000 cubic yards of truck haul right now is going to wind up
costing us approximately $800,000, and that is a significant amount of time and, more importantly, a
significant amount of effort. We are very highly regulated.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Who's challenging the permit?
MR. McALPIN: A local Collier County resident.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Bob Krasowski and his wife.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Gary?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gary, this is called the beaches and inlets. I mean, it's Category C facility,
coastal zone areas, and its titled beach and inlets. But in the breakdown of expenditures -- and I don't know if
this is possible -- it doesn't tell us what the expenditures -- I mean, it tells -- the 36 million, 187, your table
just says project program commitments. Is there any way to differentiate inlet management versus beach --
inlet expenditures versus beach expenditures?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, Mr. Chair, I have that document. I could provide it to you, or we could put it
on the visualizer, if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd rather suggest it be broken out in the expenditures column on the
summary page; that way everybody readily looking at it knows how much we've spent on it.
MR. McALPIN: I would be happy to. I think that we had provided that information, and for the
lack of — for the sake of consistency, it was agglomerated that way. But I can provide that data; we have
provided it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that would be helpful. The -- it also says you're using the
adopted beaches and waterways master plan.
Can you send that to us?
MR. McALPIN: Be happy to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think, then, my concerns would be to get the backup data for
number one, which is the coral location; number four, which is the -- looks like your summary reports; get the
beaches and waterways master plan; and then break out the beaches and inlets costs.
I think if we had that information and had those costs broken out, it would make this element more
complete for the future and to whatever extent needed now.
MR. McALPIN: I could -- those -- that information is very -- is available and could be provided to
you next week.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Work for you, Mike?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Page 85 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I'm sorry. You meant that Mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. Either Mike's okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Either Mike. All three Mikes.
MR. BOSI: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other questions from this board on the Coastal
Management Element?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any members of the public wishing to speak? And I see nobody out
there.
So subject to the clarifications, documents, and items we just asked for, is there a motion to
recommend for approval?
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Motion —
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion we recommend for approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. Seconded by Mike.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carves.
Thank you.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my machine talking to me. I don't know how to turn it off. This lady
just pops on here and starts talking all the time.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, Siri.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it? I haven't figured out how to shut her down yet.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You can't. She's a woman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Phil.
MR. BOSI: I think we're near the end, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think so. That's dangerous. Dangerous territory.
Does anybody have any questions from the appendix?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm going through mine real quick to see if I had anything come up,
but I don't think I do. So, no, it's pretty clean.
I think that's the last thing.
Mike, is there anything we've missed?
MR. BOSI: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, this is the last part of the agenda then. And before we leave
today, I want to comment on Barry and Phil. I want to thank you both for your years of effort you've put in
and time, especially in the thoroughness in which you've both looked at things and especially the approach to
different agenda items that all of us may not have seen. And what's nice is with -- the diversity of this board
has always provided a wide range of different ways of looking at it. Ways that I wouldn't have seen. And
Diane sees it differently and, Phil, you see it differently, Bang -- every one of us sees it from a different
perspective. And both of you have provided an unbelievable experience for the board, so thank you.
And Mike is trying to interrupt me for something.
Page 86 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
MR. BOSI: Oh, I'm sorry. And I would echo that sentiment as well.
There's one thing I did overlook as well and Corby points out that we do need a recommendation
from the Planning Corrunission to forward the CIE Schedule of Capital Improvements to the BCC with a
recorrunendation to adopt. Because we did all the sections, but I forgot we did not cover the CIE portion, as
Corby pointed out.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll move with a recommendation to adopt.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All of those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody disagree?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're there.
Okay. And as I was saying, guys, thank you very much for your time.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. And I just want to express my enjoyment and learning
experiences from participating here for two years, and I know you're going to have a -- some of these folks
are going to be on the newly - constituted board, and we're going to have new members. And I would
encourage every board member to ask questions whether -- I don't care where they come from, how silly they
may sound, because one question can lead to a lot of learning for a lot of different individuals, so I would
encourage that very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: And, Mark, I am blessed to be part of this committee and your
leadership. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Barry. We appreciate it very much.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: We appreciate it, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss you both.
And with that, I guess we are -- there's no public comment unless, Heidi, you want to say something.
You're the only -- last one here, but you're not a member of the public, so you don't get to talk. It doesn't say
Heidi.
Does anybody have anything? If not, we'll -- motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded -- made by Phil, seconded by Karen.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye,
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you, all.
Page 87 of 88
September 27, 2013 (Special CCPC /AUIR meeting)
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chair at 3:40 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MAI STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
i
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on j I - I-_, as presented t---' or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC.,
BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 88 of 88