Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/26/2014 S CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,September 26,2014 AU1R/CIE LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building"F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlette Roman ABSENT: Mike Rosen Brian Doyle ALSO PRESENT: 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 73 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 2014 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES(AUIR) THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2014, 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 TEN (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 (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE SPECIAL MEETING. IF APPLICABLE, 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. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES, CATEGORY A,CATEGORY B;CATEGORY C. A. AUIR OVERVIEW—MIKE BOSI B. ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE DISTRICT—CHIEF McLAUGHLIN C. OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL&RESCUE DISTRICT—CHIEF McLAUGHLIN D. ARTERIAL&COLLECTOR ROADS&BRIDGES—NICK CASALANGUIDA/REED JARVI E. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM—JERRY KURTZ F. POTABLE WATER SYSTEM—KRIS VAN LENGEN G. WASTEWATER COLLECTION&TREATMENT SYSTEM—KRIS VAN LENGEN H. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES—KRIS VAN LENGEN L PUBLIC SCHOOLS—AMY TAYLOR J. PARKS&RECREATION FACILITIES—BARRY WILLIAMS K. JAIL&CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES—CHIEF GREG SMITI I L. LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES—CHIEF GREG SMITH M. LIBRARY BUILDINGS&COLLECTIONS—MARILYN MATTHES N. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES—DAN SUMMERS/WALTER KOPKA O. GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS—SKIP CAMP/HANK JONES P. COASTAL ZONE BEACHES&INLETS—GARY McALPIN Q. 2014 UPDATE TO THE CIE SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS—MIKE BOSI R. AUIR SUMMARY&CLOSING STATEMENTS—MIKE BOSI 3. PUBLIC COMMENT—The Chairman will open the agenda for Public Comment after each of the categories noted above. 4. ADJOURN F:\Comprehensive/AUIR/2014 AUIR/Agenda/CCPC/September 2014/mk 1 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 PROCEEDINGS MR.BOSI: Chair,you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks,Mike,for the live mikes. Welcome everyone to the Friday,September 26th meeting of the Collier County special Planning Commission meeting on the AUIR,which is the Annual Update and Inventory Report/CIE,which is the-- MR.BOSI: We can't hear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR.BOSI: We can't really hear the speaker system. Let me talk go to— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want us to hold up until you get this fixed? MR.BOSI: One second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: CIE is the Capital Improvement Element. At least let's do the Pledge of Allegiance.Everybody please rise for the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. There have been a couple changes to the agenda. Actually,I didn't even see the agenda till 10 minutes ago. Emergency Medical Services was number—well,it was Letter N on the list,and that will move up to after the overview presented by Mike Bosi,and then we'll go back into the original agenda then,which will be Isles of Capri and Ochopee Fire. So with that,Mike,if you want to continue with your presentation,or start your presentation,we'll be good to go. MR.BOSI: Good morning. Mike Bosi,Director of planning and zoning. Today we're here for the Annual Update and Inventory Report. Before I get into that,I have a PowerPoint presentation to be able to provide an overview of exactly what the acronym AUIR—which is Annual Update and Inventory Report--stands for,as well as the CIE is the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. A couple different changes to announce. And as we go through each section that has changes,Corby Schmidt,principal planner with Comprehensive Planning,will pass out some modified sheets. A note,Pages 83,84,and 85 of the public utilities section for solid waste were incorrectly included within the books. They're duplicative slides of previous years that should not have been included within there. There will be an update to the stormwater summary page as well as an update to the coastal zone section. And the government buildings have been updated to include two projects that were initiated or directed by the Board of County Commissioners over the past 12 months,the first being 31,500 square feet, Supervisor of Elections building,as well as the 6,500 square feet Immokalee animal shelter. Those have been added to the government buildings section as projects that were initiated by the Board of County Commissioners over the last 12 months. If anyone was paying attention to the last year's AUIR,those projects were not indicated within there, so those were very new,and they've been added to incapsulate the direction that the Board of County Commissioners had provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,I don't mean to interrupt you,but I do. The agenda that was given to me a little bit ago was missing the roll call.So will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sure. Good morning. Mr.Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Rosen's absent. Ms.Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. Page 2 of 73 CCPC/AUIR'CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Mr.Doyle is absent. And,Ms.Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And both Mr.Rosen and Brian have excused absences. Sony for the interruption,Mike. Go right ahead. MR.BOSI: No worries. So the Annual Update and Inventory Report is--it's the annual one-year snapshot in time of project needs and required improvements from all infrastructure and service providing departments based upon projected population increases against the BCC adopted levels of service standard. It should be noted this is a snapshot,and it changes as the demand equations evolve. Basically what that's saying is the Board of County Commissioners for this county has adopted levels of service standards in terms of how much library space,how much park space,how much road capacity that we have,the public utility provisions. We have standards for all of those,and those standards are based upon population. And those populations—as we add new populations,we have to maintain the standards that the community has deemed as appropriate. And this is the--this is our annual update to make sure that we're doing our job and making sure that we're providing the levels of service that the community has deemed as appropriate for itself What's included within the AUIR,the CIE,it's two different categories. The first categories are Category A facilities,and those are your concurrency facilities. What that means is individuals who are seeking building permits,individuals who are seeking new construction has to satisfy the Category A facilities to make sure that those--that those infrastructure or those services are available before those development orders can be issued. Those are roads,drainage,potable water,wastewater,solid waste,parks and recreation,and schools. And then we have a second category,and those are Category B. Those are our non-concurrency facilities;jails,law enforcement,libraries,EMS,government buildings,and our two dependent fire districts, Ochopee and Isle of Capri. How do we project growth within the county?Policy 1.2 of our CIE says 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,which we refer to as BEBR. The seasonal population we utilize in the BEBR is the medium range. BEBR has three different levels of projections;low,medium,high based upon historical trends that the counties--the BEBR will come to an understanding as to what's the most appropriate. This county in 2008 shifted from a high BEBR to a medium BEBR range. So we received the medium BEBR range population projections. We also have a seasonal adjustment because as everyone who's experienced a full year of activity within Collier County knows that our winter months are seasonal months that are busier. So our infrastructure and our services are taxed at a higher rate. We have to account for that additional demand being placed upon those services. So we utilize a 20 percent increase to adjust for that seasonal population to make sure that the infrastructure that is available can accommodate the additional demand that goes along with our visitors and our seasonal residents. As I explained at the very beginning,you know,how much do we build of any one commodity,and it's the new population. It's a math equation.And I know most—and Mr.Chrzanowski,as a professional engineer,he enjoys this. This is the math portion. We get out of the gray area that sometimes planning existed(sic),and we get to specific math. And it's our new population times our level-of-service standard, and that equals what our capital improvement program is,and it's a straightforward equation. Library provides a good example. If we're expecting 34,221 people over the next five years and our level of service,and it is.33 square feet,multiply the number of people times .33 and you have the additional required square footage within the library components that is required to satisfy that additional demand that our new residents will place upon the system. Page 3 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 And what that does is ensures that the quality of place that an individual was attracted to Collier will be maintained. If you moved into Collier because of the amenities that were provided,we're committed as a county to make sure that those amenities are not degraded or lowered because of our new populations. The new populations are added as the systems are expanded. There's another reason for the AUIR,and it establishes the rational nexus between the utilisation of impact fees within both categories. Within Collier County,the financing strategy for how we will provide for those infrastructure expansions,impact fees are a primary component of how we make sure that we have the revenue necessary to provide for whatever capital expansion that it is. And it's an approximation on revenue projected over the capital period to determine the county's ability to construct an adopted level of service,meaning each one of these sections will look at it in a five-year window. Here's the improvements that are required to maintain the level of service,and we also have to make sure that we can identify the revenue sources needed to provide for those capital improvements to make sure that--to make sure that they are constructed,to make sure that we do have the mechanism to be able to have those capital expansions. And another--another aspect related specifically to the AUIR/CIE is those capital expansions and those impact fees have to be utilized on growth-related projects. You cannot use impact fees to cure past deficiencies. They can only maintain the level of service that you've attained at the time that the impact fees are established. Whose idea was this? And one of the things is,this county is unique. It's one of the only--there are 67 counties in the State of Florida. We are the only county that,on an annual basis,speaks--goes and speaks to our Planning Commission,the general public,and the Board of County Commissioners,not only about the Capital Improvement programming for our Category A or our concurrency facilities but also our Category B facilities. And,really,it's a unique opportunity,and the county has said we value--we value the sense of place that we've established,and we want to make sure,on an annual basis,that we talk about all the facilities that make up the built environment of Collier County,the infrastructure and service providers. And it's codified within 6.02 of the LDC,and it's required that the county's going to provide that public facilities and services meet or exceed the standards established in this CIE required by Florida Statute 163.317 and are available when needed for the development. Section 6.02.02 of the LDC requires the AUIR,and it was--it started in 1994. So we've been doing this now for 20 years. And in the 20-year period of time,no other Florida county has decided to follow our lead,but I think this--ifs critically important that we maintain this type of—this type of engagement with the general public,with the Planning Commission,to make sure that our quality of life and the sense of place that we've developed within Collier County is maintained moving forward. The AUIR is a blueprint for concurrency and traditionally was the preparatory document for the update for the CIE. We used to do the AUIR in the fall,and then we would have the CIE in the springtime. But there was--it was a unique nature. And when I said it's a snapshot in time,the revenue projections,the population projections in the fall,there would always be a slight divergence,there would always be some sort of delta between what was presented in the fall for the AUIR and then what was being adopted in the springtime for the CIE. We recognize that--we recognized the--sort of the inconsistency. And we said,to be more straightforward,to have it a more logical approach,let's have this as one project,one activity combined in two,and we've done that since 2010. And the reason why it's appropriate,because both are primarily focused dealing upon level of service and maintaining the level of service that Collier County has deemed appropriate. This slide here provides you a look at the past five years or six years of BEBR population projections. And as I said,the BEBR population projections are the drivers of our capital expansions. If you'll look from 2009 to 2014,we've always had an annualized growth rate of just--of under 2 percent. 2009 was the height,still,of the economic recession,and it was about a 1.44 percent annual increase. And in 2014,of the last six years,is the most aggressive BEBR has seen within our population Page 4 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 growth,and I think that is a reflection of the continuing macro and micro economic recovery that is taking place within this local market but also within the national market. The next couple slides I have really provide a spatial distribution for where those new COs have been issued. If you look,each one of those--each one of those red dots represent a grouping or an issuance of building permits or dwelling units. In 2012,what this is saying,there was a total—certificates of occupancy was 904,and the total dwelling units were 1,184. And this slide just shows you where within the individual PUDs,the planned unit developments,that the majority of those COs were issued. And in 2013,the certificates of occupancy had increased to 1,155 and increased to 1,260 dwelling units. So from 2012 to 2013 we saw an increase within the COs that have been issued. And as you can see, there starts to become a consistent pattern towards where those COs are issued;the East Trail and hnmokalee,east of 951 you'll see are two of the more primary hotspots for where development has been transpiring within the urbanized area. And,again,this is a slide that allocates by PUD where those COs have been issued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do the different colors represent,Mike;do you know? I mean,you've got some in turquoise and some in yellow. Just curious. MR.BOSI: I'm not quite sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't know if it was relevant to what you were trying to show us. Thank you. MR.BOSI: And this is the latest of the COs that we--have been issued. It's 2014. Again,you see an increase. It's 1,448 COs issued for a total 1,683 dwelling units. So was the last year that we have a full year accounting for,2014.It's a continuing of the increase within the COs that have been issued,and I think it's a reflection of the healing of the real estate market within Collier. And it's a similar pattern within those distributions of where,spatially,we've been issuing those COs. And,again,I'm not--I'm not quite sure what the--why the turquoise was segmented out those for individual purposes. I'll speak with BethAnn to find that information out. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: DRIs and PUDs. MR.BOSI: Once,again,we have the allocation of those COs per planned unit development,and it gives a good idea of where the majority of the hotspots sort of are within the county. Within your CIE or--within your CIE,within your AUIR,there's a number of components or-- transportation,drainage,and parks are the Category A facilities that have projects in the first two years. And the first two years are really the years where it's a go,where the long planning process for how you bring an improvement to fruition starts to become in focus,and there's almost--that's the point of no turning back,so to speak,but it also is relevant to the concurrency management,those improvements to be able to satisfy the concurrency management system,those improvements that are in a Year 1 --that are in the first and second year can be counted towards concurrency,and you can move forward with DOs based upon those improvements and the extra capacity that those improvements are going to provide for any one system. And then on the Category B facility,law enforcement and EMS are the two categories that have projects within the first two years. And there's no other improvements in the five-year window. And that gives me a good opportunity--I didn't really speak to it. What--the majority of the--of the infrastructures provided--it's not the majority,but a good number of them aren't having to initiate any capital improvement programs,and that relates--it relates to the 2010 census and it relates to,you know,the recession in the—that we experienced from 2006 to 2009. And in 2010 when the Census Bureau did their decennial census,they reset our population. We had an expectation of 355,000 people. Well, it carne back,it was for only 325,000 people that we actually had. So there was a 30,000 person recalibration of what our population was. And what that 30,000 people or 30,000 people less provided for was that we had capacity within our system.We--the need for the next level of capital improvements were pushed out to year 6,to 7,and to 8,that we would not need the--we would not need those next rounds to a later year. As the years have passed and as the calendar has turned,we find ourselves pressing on 2015,and you're starting to see the infrastructure providers saying that those projects are migrating to those first five Page 5 of 73 II CCPC/AU R/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 years,and that next wave of improvement is starting is to come around. And I think Mr.Casalanguida will have a presentation that's only going to augment the need to start to really identify what the revenue sources are going to be and where those next needed areas of improvement are going to be to provide the capacity we need there—we need for this county to continue to start growing or continue to grow. The recommendations that we're asking is that--find that based upon the AUIR that there's adequate facilities available as defined within the Chapter 6.02.02 of the LDC to support development for issuance of DOs for 2015; Provide a motion that there's sufficient road network capacity in the transportation concurrency management database for continued operation of real-time declining balanced ledgers to support development orders,and that's--basically,there's concurrency within our transportation system; Approve an ordinance--or recommend to approve to the board an ordinance related to the Capital Improvement Element to update the five-year improvement for the 2014/15-2018/2019 scheduled capital improvement over this five-year period; And,also,provide a motion for the school district's capital improvement,CIP,to be included by reference within the schedule of capital improvements. The Public School Facility Element is a Category A facility. The school district has no new schools proposed within this five-year window,but we still, procedurally,need to include that reference within the recommendation. And that is the overview of the--of the program and the purpose of today's meeting. And as,kind of --to put a final cap,this is--you know,one of the things during the economic recession that we paid a tremendous amount of attention to was the need for economic development, and this is a component of it. This most certainly is. The infrastructure and services that are provided within this county have a great deal to do with the locational decisions,not only for our residents,but for the businesses. The ease of movement within the county,the availability of services has a direct component to the attractiveness of this local market in terms of providing a competitive advantage for Collier compared to some of our closer competitors,but some of the other locations within the State of Florida. So maintaining that quality of place,maintaining the level of service is not only important to the residents who live here but to the businesses who seek to operate and who seek to move into this—this market for the opportunities that it provides. Any questions within the overview? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,one thing you said that I don't know why I didn't remember it from prior years,but I need a refresher as to why.Collier County,apparently,is the only county or municipality in the State of Florida that does an AUIR. And I'm looking in the room,we have 19 people here funded by the taxpayers,one of which is probably more than all their rates together. I think Nick's in the room now. And on top of that,I know what it takes for each department to accumulate this data and how many times they're going to have to--how many hours they spend on it,plus they're going to have to repeat,and probably even more intense,presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. Be that as it may,it turns out it's real expensive. So what are the other counties doing that doesn't require an AUIR but somehow they're getting through this--through the process that might be something we should look at for consideration in saving money. MR.BOSI: Well,they're—they do not have an AUIR. They have the Capital Improvements Element. The state,the DEO,the Department of Economic Opportunity,the former Department of Community Affairs,the head--the head planning agency for the State of Florida,requires that any municipality,any county,has to update,on an annual basis,their Capital Improvement Element. So they have a CIE. They have--that component is within any jurisdiction. It's the AUIR part,the other,the non-concurrency facilities that we have made a priority of,and we said that it is important for us to talk to the community about. The other communities are only required and only perform the CIE or the capital improvement update on the annual basis. So they have this program. It's just not as comprehensive as we have it within Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,as comprehensive as we think we are,when we have elements and Page 6 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 analyses for some of these departments that aren't—can't correlate to how the department does things,the document that comes out is not that realistic. I mean,for example,let's take law enforcement. You and I have spoken about this.And I think when we--the question at issue later on today,we'll get the comment,well,this has no correlation to the way we do things,and we have enough officers even though it says we're 70 short. So we're putting a lot of staff through an exercise that doesn't seem to really need to be if we can do it in a different manner,and 99.9 percent of the counties and municipalities in the State of Florida--in fact,all but us--don't do this. So has anybody considered doing away with this and looking at saving some money on this process? Because all departments go through a budget process,and in that budget process all their numbers are there and comparisons and comparables to prior years,both proposed and actual,are all there. We would--I mean,if we're going to go through that exercise anyway,have you seen a driven need that somebody is thinking we've got to have this in our system? MR. BOSI: There's not a driven need other than the requirement from our Land Development Code. And it's a matter,I guess,of transparency and opportunity. And I say that regards--in terms of providing the public opportunities to speak upon these issues that have a direct affect upon the--how their daily lives are influenced. By the lack of public in attendance over the past couple years,you could--I imagine you could infer that there's not a pressing need from the public standpoint to participate within these programs other than providing those opportunities for the public to be able to make comments. I mean,we do have a check and balance that's provided for within the impact fee relationship,but I think that those could be maintained without an AUIR/CIE. We can probably drop the AUIR portion,but that would be a policy decision by the Board of County Commissioners,and they would have to be framed,I think,correctly or appropriately to make sure that that level of transparency that we have within our Capital Improvement Program is still maintained but in some manner we alter in terms of the overall program and the comprehensive nature of the program. It sounds like there could be an opportunity to say,drop the Category B facilities,as most other counties do in other jurisdictions,and only concentrate on the Category A facilities,but that would be something that staff would react to a direction from either the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners to--based upon the rationale that—or the determination that this body would make or the Board of County Commissioners would make that the cost associated with providing the AUIR no longer-- does not justify the expenses associated with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see,I'm seeing this as more of a redundancy. You've got budget hearings.You've got a detailed budget book that's hundreds of pages thick,contains all the data,information, improvements,capital elements,and all that. I--from a taxpayer's perspective,Pm wondering why this additional cost. And,I mean,I know a lot of times we try to introduce new laws,and the first thing the county attorney does is suggests,well,let's see what other counties have done,and that's a good philosophy to adopt, because if they've already spent the effort to figure something out,maybe we can learn from that first. Well,it looks like we're the only one doing this,and maybe there's a good reason why the others don't see the need to do it. And I might suggest before this is over today that we look into that,because I'd rather not see departments having to come here,waste their time--I shouldn't say waste their time--do things that are already done in another level,such as the budget hearings and things like that. MR.BOSI: Well,I guess the other comment I would have for that is this establishes a foundation for what that future budget's going to be. This really—this is the population,this is--we concentrate on the population and distribution of population and distribution of COs,and that conversation and the identification of the capital improvement projects that are related to those population growths will be the ones that show up within their budget without this presentation.They show up in their budget without the—I guess,without the opportunity to discuss why they showed up in the budget in terms of this type of detailed discussion related to the population increases. But I most certainly understand your point,and if we are--and we are the unique community that talks much more comprehensively about all of our Capital Improvement programming,and specifically the-- Page 7 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 because we're going to have to do the A--I mean,our Category A facilities.Even if the decision was to drop the AUIR,we'd still have this presentation. It's just law enforcement,the—or the independent fire districts, libraries,government buildings wouldn't be in this building(sic),but we'd still have roads,we'd still have public utilities,we'd still have stormwater,parks,and the school district would still have to go through this process. So if there would be a suggestion,it would probably be paring it down to only concentrate on the Category A concurrency,because it is a statutory requirement that we update our CIE on the annual basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Mike. MR.BOSI: Oh,you're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just a question. I notice your population increases are tracked to a hundredth of a percent year after year. I was wondering how you do that considering that when you made the adjustment for the census,you adjusted by about 10 percent. That seems like,you know--and I notice a lot of the figures in here are accurate to eight significant figures. And Pm reminded of an old engineering joke about people of questionable mentality using instruments of doubtable reliability to produce numbers of infinitesimal accuracy. But,you know,I'm looking at a lot of numbers here that are really accurate or really precise. How accurate are they? MR.BOSI: The population,those aren't accurate. Those are projections. And that's one-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A hundredth of a percent? MR.BOSI: No,listen. And this is--within this--within--and it's within—okay--within any modeling effort. Whenever you're trying to make a determination about a future condition,there is a number of factors known and unknown that will determine what the end result of that modeling effort is. And when you--whether it's a two-year projection,a five-year projection, 10-year projection or looking out as our long-range transportation plan does and tries to say what's in 2014,what the population range is,here's the potential improvements that we'll have to have related to those population ranges. It's a range.And it's sort of like an--it's very relevant to the residents of this county. When you look at those hurricane projections,when it's five years--when it's five days out,that cone of influence is pretty wide,and it could capture an area from Naples down to Sarasota. But as it gets closer, as you know,that range narrows. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But I'm looking at one page out of many. MR.BOSI: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I'm looking at a number,and every one--and there's got to be 30 numbers in this column,and they're all accurate,like 1,814,386. Why not just 1.8 million? You know,it's doubtful that you're accurate to so many significant--it's,you know,just--being an engineer,ever since calculators came into use,people look at 10 digits on the calculator and think that that's the number it actually means. It drives me nuts,but I'm--you know,if this is what you guys want to turn out,I'm fine. MR.BOSI: And these are supposed--these are a representation of--if the population comes in at this specific level,here's the specific cost associated with that improvement. And we do this every year. And what I say is every year the equation changes. And that comment right there is exactly why we took a process that used to start in the fall and would end in the spring--and there was differences between the two documents. And the engineering types,and the nonengineering types,would say,why the heck if it was--if you had 1.8.5 million in September,why is it 1.9.4 million in March? Well,then we'd have to go into the explanation that the population said--the population projections have altered slightly. The revenue projections have altered slightly. A number of different things that would influence that decimal point that we provided for has changed,so that decimal point has changed. So these are approximations. These are all--these are--these are meant to be approximations,and we can't— COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Seven significant figures is not an approximation. That's a very precise number. And the odds of you ever hitting that number are like hitting the Lotto. I mean,just-- Page 8 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 okay. Mike,Pm sorry--Pm sorry I brought it up. MR.BOSI: No. It's absolutely--it provides a good example of some of the--this is not an--and I've also said to the Planning Commission,we have to give you a context. Please don't treat this as a strict accounting document,because projections are the basis of everything within here. And because it's a projection, it's an estimation and it cannot,with 100 percent certainty,say that will be the future that we have in five years. So it's something I don't think I can verbally convey to you that's going to make you satisfied with the level of potential inaccuracy. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Have you ever heard of the concept of rounding off? MR.BOSI: Yes,yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thank you. MR.BOSI: And some divisions,some departments have a better concept and understanding of that as well. And there's some—some of the numbers are very specific,I grant you that. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But,Mike,just for the benefit of this board,we'll proceed through these various elements and take a vote on each one when we get finished with each one as a recommendation to the board. And the first two or three in collection would be the two fire districts and the Emergency Medical Services. It's up to you which order you want to take those three in. And,Mike,there would be the--I know they're all collectively kind of together,so-- MR.BOSI: Well,Chief McL--and I spoke with Dan Summers. Chief McLaughlin has been detained,has not been--won't be able to be here,so— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is he under arrest? MR.BOSI: No. A different definition of the term detained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. MR.BOSI: And I will--I can—and I plan on going over the two dependent fire districts,and then Chief Kopka will be here for EMS as well,if that's okay with the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. And would you tell us each time you start on an element what page you want us to start with. I believe it's 203 if you want to go to Isle of Capri first. MR.BOSI: Yes. 203,as you guys said,is the Isle of Capri fire district and rescue district. Within--or Page 207 provides the sununary sheet,and you can see that there are no proposed additions to the facilities. The next facility we have also identified was the facility on Mainsail Drive. That improvement won't be triggered until some of the other towers move forward. And there's also a number of different issues that have surrounded the Isle of Capri,whether it was going to be incorporated within the East Naples Fire District,as well,has been one of the issues we continue to work through. But the overall summary is there are no needed improvements as of now for the Isle of Capri,and they're--as such,they're proposing none within this AUIR. And I guess any questions related to the district I'll try to answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the only thing I'd like you to do is could you explain to the rest of the board what you explained to me yesterday about the Ochopee's benefit from that new situation on 1-75. I thought that was interesting just for public information as well. MR.BOSI: And the next section is 2000--or Page 213,it's Ochopee Fire District. Quite a success story over the past AUIR to this AUIR. In 2013 we identified Port of the Islands as a need--a permanent station at Port of the Islands as a needed facility as well as a facility on 1-75. One of the reasons I-75 was such a critical need was the location of Ochopee fire station compared towards--whereas 75 is it's a 20-mile drive just to get on 75. Well,Ochopee's district covers the majority of 75 heading towards the east. So they're obligated to provide rescue service. So if there was an accident and incident on 75,it was 20 miles just to get onto 75,and then whatever the distance was to get down towards where the incident occurred. Page 9 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 It was problematic from a cost standpoint,from a wear and tear on the equipment but,more importantly,from a lifesaving perspective,from a public,health,safety perspective. The state DOT helped solve the problem.Through aggressive conversation with Dan Summers,with Chief McLaughlin,with our EMS folks,with our local representation,we were able to find a spot within Mile Marker 63. It's a new rest stop facility,and adjacent to the rest stop facility is a structure that will house the Ochopee Fire District. I spoke with Dan Summers. They're hoping late November,early December to occupy and start providing service for that facility. So in less than a year--and we also were able to start--and we're almost finalized construction or we may be done with the Port of the Island permitted station as well. So within a year Chief McLaughlin in his district was able to identify the two pressing needs that he had in terms of capital improvements projects,and he's satisfied those. So what that means is Ochopee,for the near future,should be satisfied for the capital improvement programs,and they can concentrate and put their efforts,focused upon saving the lives and protecting the property that's within the individual district. But the Mile Marker 63 station is going to provide a tremendous benefit not only in cost but also in terms of time to incident. They're going to be able to shave off 20 to 25 minutes just in terms of the response times,and that's hugely important to the traveling public. Based upon that,the Ochopee summary page has been updated to reflect those two improvements. And,as I said,within the forthcoming foreseeable future,their capital improvement needs have been satisfied with those two improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from the Planning Commission on any of--the Isle of Capri or the Ochopee Fire? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none,is there a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to accept the AUIR for the Isles of Capri and Ochopee Fire and Rescue Control Districts? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will make that recommendation. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane,seconded by Charlette. Did I get that right? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes,you did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. ***Next item up is Emergency Medical Services. MS.BUTCHER: Good morning. Tabitha Butcher,assistant chief of Collier County EMS. And I am here to present our projections for our upcoming growth units in the next five years. As you know,we do add units based on population,but EMS always strives to meet response times that the public looks at. We do have response-time goals of eight minutes or less 90 percent of the time in the urban area, 12 minutes or less 90 percent of the time in the rural areas. We do strive to meet those goals. Countywide,as a system,we do meet those goals,the 90 percent time response times. And we did have certain areas throughout the county that we were not meeting those goals. That was brought to the BCC in January of this year,and they did actually approve to add some resources so that we could address those response time deficiencies in some of our zones. So if you take a look at Page 171,which is our summary of the projections that we have,we have Page 10 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 addressed a few of those additions that were approved by the board. Some of those went into effect in February of this year while others went into effect in April of this year. If you take a look at that first line on that summary page for the year 2013P14,that Subdistrict 1 there under the 25.5,we actually added the ambulance,put that into service April 1st of this year,which will be the unit that will be added in'147'15 at Vanderbilt and Logan. We do have an additional unit planned for the year'17/18,which will be going in at Hacienda Lakes out off Collier Boulevard,so that is our five-year projections. And then from'19 through'24,we actually have three more units projected. So if you have any questions,I would be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got just a couple. You have a deficit. Is there a reason why we couldn't consider raising your impact fees to make up for that deficit instead of pulling so much from the General Fund? MR.BOSI: The impact fees--and Mike Bosi again. The impact fees are set by our consultant based upon the owned inventory at the time that the impact fee study has been completed. We have--and they'll make the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners,and they'll provide them an opportunity to charge 100 percent of what their allowable impact fee is. The board can make a decision to choose that 100 percent or anywhere in between,or below that,but we can only charge our impact fees based upon the assets that we have at the time of the impact fee study. So it's up--it's a discretionary aspect of the board as to whether they want to charge 100 percent of our allowable chargeable fee,but we could not raise it above what the level has been identified in the impact fee study,and it's based upon what--the assets we have at the time that that study was performed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I realize that,and I probably asked the question wrong then. Are we charging 100 percent of the allowable impact fees we're allowed to charge for this element? MR.BOSI: Amy Patterson,our impact fee manager,will be able to provide that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson,for the record. This fee is at 100 percent of its legal limit.The particular issue with the EMS impact fee is it's affected by the number of lease stations that can't be counted as a part of the inventory because they're not owned by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe then you'll know this answer. It says,a loan from countywide capital projects(General Fund). So if the EMS service borrows money from the General Fund, what revenue source do they use to pay it back with,and how long does it take to get there? MS.PATTERSON: Now I'm going to look backwards for Susan. Yeah,just--while she's coining up,the EMS impact fee is currently under study. So any modifications that may be made,including if there's an increase of fees that is calculated by the consultant,will be going to the board in the near future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When the economy went into the tank and we were trying to initiate new business,there was a reduction in impact fees.Was it only in one category,or was it in all categories? MS.PATTERSON: No. The reduction in impact fees was a calculated reduction rather than an arbitrary one,so it was driven by costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did the EMS fees get calculated,reduction-- MS.PATTERSON: They did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we're not charging 100 percent of our allowable amount? MS.PATTERSON: We're charging 100 percent of the maximum legal limit,which is affected by cost. So now when costs start to come back up,that would be reflected in the fee. But when the costs of land and equipment and things went down,we couldn't charge the higher fee. We had to charge based on the actual cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the actual cost on a square-foot basis for,say,construction of a station or the purchase of the unit,if it went down,the impact fees on a ratio to that reduction had to go down as well? MS.PATTERSON: That's correct. Page 11 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now are they going up in reflection to what's currently happening in the market? Because the numbers are going through the roof. And I'm sure Nick's going to tell us that when he talks about transportation. MS.PATTERSON: And particularly with the land-driven fees,you're really seeing those increases. We'll know--again,because we're under study,we're going to know better how the costs of construction particularly affect EMS,prices of equipment and land. Any portion of their fee that's driven by land will be reflected in those new land costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the impact fees,in essence,for EMS can go up,and if they do, how will that be reflected against the deficit shown on the summary sheet? MS.PA I-1 Do you want to ask the question--do you want the answer— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,anybody that knows the answer will be fine with me. MS.PATTERSON: Any increase in impact fees goes towards paying down debt. And if there were, theoretically,any extra,it would go towards paying for new stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the deficit will be reduced once you recalculate the impact fees? MS.PATTERSON: To the extent that the impact fees can be put towards that,correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,see,this county used to pride itself on saying growth pays for growth to the best extent possible. MS.PATTERSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realized when we changed that we felt the necessity to spur new--more growth because of the economic downturn,well,we're way,way,way past that now. This county is flying off the charts in regards to growth. We have more growth on the books than we could ever even imagine. If it all hit us at one time,we'd be in extremely dire trouble. So I would hope that those kind of calculations and changes happen fast so we can start utilizing some of that capital to offset the cost to the taxpayers for new growth like we used to do. MS. PAITERSON: And,again,just to reiterate is that there's a unique situation with EMS where the impact fees can't overcome the entire hurdle simply because we can't count everything that they utilize for the purposes of impact fees. For the purposes of level of service is fine,but for the purposes of the impact fee calculation,we can't use the value of those leased situations to bolster the impact fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question just for clarification,please. What limits that? You mentioned the leased facilities,and I was listening to your point that you were making to the chairman. But is that a legal limitation? MS.PATTERSON: It's a legal limitation. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Was there a rationale behind that? I'm just curious,because EMS serves people,I mean,you know,not buildings. MS. PATTERSON: Right. But different than the level of service is that we would be unduly burdening new development for making them assume a cost of something that the county didn't pay for to begin with. Somebody else did. So it has to--it's a nexus relationship to us not being able to overburden growth. They can't pay more than their proportionate share. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I can't agree with the chairman more on this issue. It seems to be problematic either in the measures that are being used or how we're calculating it,but it's not keeping up,and our population certainly is,I think,using this service more and more. So I don't know what the solution is, but we should look for one. MS.PA ITERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,maybe that loan from countywide capital projects,if one of you could explain that question and how that's paid back and what its paid back with,that may help us understand how that--how impact fees could be affected with that. MS.USHER: That loan got generated because there is debt on the books,and our first priority is to always pay debt. We grab the impact fees that we have,and if the impact fees are not enough,then we generate these loans from the General Fund. So what you're seeing is the piece for the next five years,the estimated piece that we're going to need Page 12 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 from the General Fund to help pay for the debt that already has been incurred by EMS related to bonds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And 1 understand all that. But what money is--where do you get the money from? Because it's labeled a loan. So that means the loan's got to be paid off. So where does that money come from to pay that off? MS.USHER: Impact fees. Eventually impact fees will be used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to find out. So you can accrue a cost that can be--yet be paid off of impact fees in the future. That's what I was kind of-- MS.USHER: But like I said,there is bonded debt out there,and they have specific dates when they have to be paid at specific amounts. We have no choice to make those payments. I grab whatever impact fees I can get,and then if there's still a deficiency,I have to make up with it in the General Fund. And that is that loan that you see there. And as soon as the impact fees come in more than the debt service payments, then I can start paying back the General Fund what we've borrowed from them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. That's just what I was hoping to hear. Thank you. MS.USHER: I'm Susan Usher. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Susan. Anybody have any other questions with the EMS section of the AUIR? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend accepting this to the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: P11 second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen,seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. MS.BUTCHER: Mike and Corby,I would just like to thank you guys for your assistance with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike,can we go back in order now;is that going to work? MR.BOSI: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay,good. Because this is the entertaining section of our whole AUIR.It's arterial and collector roads,and it's presented by Nick Casalanguida,which that in itself is a unique circumstance for this board anymore,so--he used to like this board. He'd show up at every meeting. He'd walk us through issues,and then he disappeared. So it's good to see him back. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And this is the one he promised me I'd enjoy from another meeting, so-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: I'm a lucky guy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pin just surprised to see you have so much time just to come here and sit around today. We should have done this one last so you could have relaxed all day. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I'll leave after I get chastised from this board,so 1'11 be sure. I've got a partner in crime here,Mr.Jarvi,who's going to take over after I go through a brief presentation. For the record,Nick Casalanguida,growth management division administrator. Page 13 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 Thank you,Mr.Chairman,for your kind words earlier. I appreciate that. It's good to know that you're watching. Just a little memory and down--trip down memory lane,I guess,from what we discussed. Pll try and speak slowly because I know I'm going to be getting the look--why you have the AUIR/CIE in front of the Planning Commission,especially with some of the Category A that Mike talked about. When things were not growing that slow,I think the discussion you brought up would probably be a good idea. What drives this AUIR/CIE,especially as public forum,is because remember at one point in time this is the reason why we would shut down roads for concurrency. This is the reason why projects that were being discussed and debated would come up,and this was the real point where people had a chance to talk about it,Vanderbilt Beach Road,other projects like that.So I think we're heading back into that phase again, as you alluded to,Mr. Chainnan. So I think AUIR/CIE is important because really what we tell the development community and the citizens,what roads are failing,what stormwater issues they have, and the developers as well get a chance to comment when we start saying this is going to be a problem that's going to affect you. When things are slow,I agree with you. When we're picking up,this is a great opportunity to get that message out,because I think in the next couple years we're going to be in that same position we were in that 2005 and 2007 period. I've asked Reed to work with one of our consultants and put together a little PowerPoint.As you know,your AU1R/CIE takes growth in terms of roads and kind of runs a 2 percent growth rate on the roads and kind of looks to see what's going to happen. You've all discussed that things are a lot hotter than what your AUIR/CIE snapshot is really telling you. Now,I'm not going to say the sky is falling because I've got 12 to 15 major developments going to open up sales centers,if they haven't already,and I don't know how well they're going to do--hit their takedown numbers,but they're all saying they're going to be pretty aggressive. So if they hit 100 percent numbers in the next five to 10 years,this will give you a highlight of what we're up against,so this is important. So your first graphic you're going to see is Immokalee Road and Collier where--the blue on the left is heading towards I-75,and the red on the right is going towards Oil Well/Ave Maria/Orangetree area,and Collier to the south. So as this auto plays,you're going to see significant amount of developments populate around the area that we've recently approved,and by no means is this everything,but it's an idea to give you a feel for what is in the area. And Reed was kind enough to work with the consultant to give you kind of a wrap-up at the bottom. So you've got a service volume,which is what the road carries in the first column,and you've got your background traffic,and you subtract the two and you start to get--and you add your trip bank to the background traffic and you subtract those two from the first column,it gives you a remaining capacity. So right now on those three segments you've got a remaining capacity in your AUIR/CIE of 880, 1,200,and 1,216 respectively. Now,what happens when all these developments come online? The numbers get really skewed. You lose—you go negative on Immokalee west of Collier to the tune of 1,200 trips,and Immokalee east of Collier to the tune of 390 trips. So will that happen within five to eight years? I can't tell you that because I don't know the takedown schedule of these developments. This is a really hot corridor. Heritage Bay was the first large project that actually met their 10-year buildout numbers pretty aggressively. GL Homes,which is probably one of the more successful builders in the community,has said they'll meet their numbers in takedown numbers,so I'm going off what they're telling me. We have WCI in the area,Neal Properties,so some other builders as well,too. So if what happens happens in the next five to 10 years,you're going to have some issues there. So we've identified some fixes that we're working on,some short term,some long term. Intersection improvements right now are being completed to 60 percent plans. It's not going to give you that much more capacity. We're going to add a turn lane westbound and fix the north leg of the intersection. Page 14 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 Tree Farm,Woodcrest,the little L shape there,from Immokalee/Collier will be almost completed. Well,it will be completed in the next two years. Not to all the standards we'd like,but were going to do it kind of piecemeal working with the developers. And then Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. For us to really save Immokalee Road when this thing builds up,were going to have to start focusing that on. And I know that's been a topic of discussion going forward. So in this year's budget that was approved,we start the process in January. So this is a secuous (phonetic)process with the AUIR/CIE. We started this CIE budgeting for a five-year program in January. It gets adopted by the board in July,fmalized in September. We--it comes to our pocketbook October 1st. Now we're in the AUIR/CIE process. So within four months I'm going to start the budget process all over again,believe it or not. I don't have any funding for Vanderbilt Beach Road right-of-way right now in the current budget. I will be asking the board in January to start to put maybe towards--a half a million dollars towards right-of-way acquisition towards this project. Why I bring it up now is because if the Planning Commission sees what I see,I would hope that they'll feel that that's a good idea to start buying the right-of-way. Now,I'm not ready to go into design nor am I ready to go into construction,but I'd like to get the right-of-way going,because it's roughly seven years from,you know,concept to the road opening up,and that takes us outside this window. The other area that we have that's pretty interesting,a lot going on--and we recently had a discussion--and,Ms.Roman,we talked about Wilson/Benfield. Golden Gate Parkway to the north,your Davis Boulevard/951 intersection,and your Rattlesnake Hammock Road/951 intersection. So you can see the developments that are in the area,and it will auto populate. Willow Run that you recently approved,San Marino,Hacienda,Sierra Meadows,Lely to the south,and then you've got the Benderson properties. And believe me,there's more than we're showing. This was something just to give you a feel. So you know that this area's pretty hopping. So,again,I asked Reed to work with our staff and the consultant to say right now our AUIR/CIE shows you have remaining capacity. Well,when you slide things over to the right and you say if all these things develop at their rate,I look for the big numbers. I don't look for a couple hundred,because that doesn't worry me. I look for the 1,200 numbers. Collier Boulevard/Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock,it was under by 1,200 trips,exactly what I mentioned at the Willow Run project. So right now we're working on Wilson extension. And if this pointer shows up--I don't know if you can see it. We just acquired this property east of CityGate. This was the acquisition for$5 million which was the melon property. We were waiting to do an alignment study,because we didn't know how that was going to work out. We've set the alignment with Hacienda,and we've provided two alternatives with Willow Run. I don't know what's going to happen in between.Everything else is pretty much set. What I'll ask probably the board at the next budget cycle to do is to set aside approximately a half a million dollars to do the overpass and alignment study in here so the people that live there have some assurity and I don't go through what we went through with Willow Run again. I'd like to define that alignment and get it ready to go even though it's not going to be for a while. Your other point that's got a lot going on--and there are several of them—is your 951/41 location. And there's quite a bit going on right now because we are working with DOT in our own project in that area. But you've recently seen many approvals in that area: Naples Reserve;Winding Cypress;Fiddler's Creek is still going on;and Artesia's coming back online at the southwest corner called Land's End. So quite a bit going on in that location as well,too. Again,Collier Boulevard south. Now,this is a tricky location because you don't have many opportunities to bypass this intersection to do anything different. Right now we are doing the intersection improvements at the intersection,and we've set it up to be at grade with grade separated in the future,so I think we're in good shape there,and DOT is taking care of the six-lane. Page 15 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 Ideally,saving that intersection is going to be a priority. I don't know that--if we'll ever be successful with Benfield down in this location.I don't plan on asking for any money at this point in time. I'll wait to see what develops going on.But that's another intersection I'm a little worried about. Now,in this location,which is--top left of your screen is Rattlesnake Hammock and U.S.41.This is a transportation concurrency exception area. It's basically where the board,and I think the Planning Commission—because you both had to see it--approved that this is not going to have any solution in the near-or long-term future. You basically said you recognize this is going to be a congested area. And every time a development comes in,they provide offsets,and they're very minimal.They try to do bike/ped facilities,encourage CAT ridership,things like that. Well,you're familiar with the projects at the southeast because we just talked about--in the northwest there are two major projects,Isles of Collier/Sabal Bay and Treviso Bay. And so what happens when these all build out? You can see that that's another area where you're in excess of a thousand trips over capacity in that location. Again,I'm not showing any improvements to the west,and I think the board's aware of that. That is going to be the area that's significantly congested. What I think will happen is the projects to the south, instead of going up Tamiami Trail,will go up 951 and use Rattlesnake to Santa Barbara to try to avoid this area at some point in time. Your last area,and absolutely not the least of our concerns,is the Golden Gate Estates area with everything we know with Ave Maria and Big Cypress about to submit fairly soon. This gives you a feel for some of the projects. And I didn't put in Big Cypress because Pm not quite sure what it's going to be yet. I know it's tens of thousands of units and several hundred thousand,if not million,square feet of commercial. Several roads start to go under,and when you throw in Big Cypress on here,I guarantee those numbers will be in the thousands. Now,again,this is not to alarm anybody,because this is going to be five, 10, 15 years before things happen. So some of the projects we're working on: We are right now going through a study with the State of Florida Department of Transportation for the Randall curve,two bridges going in on 8th and 16th,and the Golden Gate Boulevard is going in phases from Wilson heading east all the way out to Everglades and eventually DeSoto. So there are projects out there,but this will be one location where,I guarantee you,within a couple months,when Big Cypress submits,we'll be looking at this very differently. Now,right now we're scheduled to do a project here as soon as they're done with the PD&E and funding becomes available. But Randall's set to be six lanes. Interestingly,we've had some discussions where we talked about putting an S loop in. Since Oil Well has already been built to six lanes,down to two lanes and back to six lanes,and there's a lot of capacity there,we want to consider treating Randall like we did the Boulevard,a four-lane open median project rather than a six-lane,and I think that would do a lot to alleviate the residents'concerns but still get your benefit here. So this presentation was intended to give you a feel for what's coming. And I don't--you don't want to be an alarmist,but right now our impact fees are probably at 80 cents on the dollar. Amy's scheduled to release that impact fee study in another month or two. We have a bid opening today for Collier Boulevard/951,Golden Gate to Green,and we'll be opening up Golden Gate Boulevard about eight weeks later. Those costs will tell us really what we're up against to the recent economic change. So I think those numbers are going up. Every project we've seen has been about 20,30 percent above engineer's estimate. So what does that tell us going forward is kind of a repeat of that 2004 to 2008 period. Our revenues are behind,do I need expenditures? We're playing catch-up on the impact fees. And if we don't start to turn some of these projects on,at least get them ready in some early phases,we're going to be behind the curve again if these developers are on par to kind of,you know,get a feel. So,again,you get to do this every year as part of AUIR/CIE because you get to get that snapshot what actually was built,what did we project,and make recommendations to the board for the budget cycle. Page 16 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 And I think the board looked to your guidance in the past to kind of say,we're concerned about these areas, you know,pay attention to them,and you gave them a little bit of comfort that you kind of scrutinized what our recommendations were. So that's my presentation. I'lI take any questions that you have. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh,boy,do I have questions. Are you going to put a building moratorium on? MR.CASALANGUIDA: No,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are you going to take 951 and go through and take it up to Bonita Beach Road? MR.CASALANGUIDA: I would love to. It's in our long-range plan,but it's not funded in five years and not contemplated in 20 years. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And you did read the paper about NCH is going to put a free-standing emergency room up at Immokalee and 951? MR.CASALANGUIDA: I think that's fantastic.We're going to work on that intersection-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,no,no. I understand that to a certain degree. But in reading the newspaper,the population growth,within four years a third of the population of Collier County is going to be within a five-mile radius of that intersection,that includes Mark and I,and we're very concerned. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I am too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not. Don't lump me in there. I don't know where you're going with this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,that's a five-mile radius. I mean,it includes a--right now,and it's not even season. People are saying,you've got to be kidding. And we don't even have that other 40 acres on the south side,southeast side of Immokalee Road? MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Which will be--and I can imagine--Nick,we have to do something more with roads. I've lived there for 10 years as we did Immokalee Road. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not complaining. They did a great job. But we--you can't even get in and out of Pebblebrooke at this point at 951. You can't even make a turn on Sunday going south at,like, 1 o'clock in the afternoon. You wait a couple signals. And I'm going,this is Sunday. MR.CASALANGUIDA: We're in agreement,ma'am.And I think Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt has plenty of capacity. So I've got to start pulling people off Immokalee. And I've got to do it farther east than Immokalee and Collier. So I've got to give people reasons,who are coming down Immokalee Road or in the Estates,to get—to not go to that north leg. Now,there is an interchange at I-75,but I will tell you,I avoid Immokalee in the morning if I'm-- you know,with the schools that are there,in the evening. I go down Vanderbilt. So I either take Logan-- and that's what will happen when you start to build that network to the east. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well--and I notice people are--here's what they do. They take Vanderbilt to Logan then go north and turn east on Immokalee;tons of traffic that way. And you know I'm a big pathways and roads person to begin with. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We are back to the 2000 level as far as building and everything. And now I even know--like you said,you have developments coming up. I mean,there's another one on 951 just,what,a couple--not even a mile south from Immokalee Road,another 400 units or so. And if we're going to get all this population within a four-year area,what can we do? MR.CASALANGUIDA: Well,we are doing some things with that Immokalee intersection improvement,Tree Parm/Woodcrest. I'm telling you,I'm recommending that we start to turn Vanderbilt back on. I really wouldn't be doing my job if I said let's go into design and construction,because I haven't seen that materialize yet. If these builders all open model sales centers and they say 250 take-downs a year and they're only Page 17 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 doing 25,then I've jumped the gun. So we're not waiting for the AUIR/CIE. Where we've done a good job is we point-plot all the COs that are issued,as Mike kind of showed you in one of the graphics,and that's Jamie's team,to let me know where the COs are coming online,and I regularly meet with these builders to ask them,how's your development pattern going. But I probably need to start acquiring that right-of-way. Once the right-of-way's acquired to go into design,it will take me two years to get permits and then construction two years,roughly,after that to Wilson. So if we get it started,I can turn it on fairly quickly if I see things are happening that way. So I'm suggesting that we just start buying the right-of-way,voluntary,you know,put in a half a million dollars, contact these people and see if they're willing to sell,and then go from there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: How much of the Vanderbilt have you acquired? MR.CASALANGUIDA: All the major large pieces have been acquired,the ones that require full takes. Those were taken care of. But I've got a significant chunk between the Golden Gate main canal bend and Wilson between 10th and 12th,a lot of backlog lines. Those individual acquirements will have to take place,acquisitions. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because we just okayed something for 800 units right on Vanderbilt Beach Road also. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Your school is also saying 2023 --and,Tom--I don't know if he left the room,but that high school I think--Mike's nodding his head. And we've got a regional park there,so it's not like this alignment is not considering everything that's going to go there as well,too. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I had a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Charlette. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. On your very first slide when you were looking at taking a closer look at a project that moves east on Vanderbilt Beach Road-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: --I might have missed what north/south connection you were looking at in the future. MR.CASALANGUIDA: This is the first slide where we have Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And this one,yes. And you mentioned the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Right here. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: --and that that would take some of the load off of Immokalee,but I didn't catch what your north/south--or if there was a north/south off Vanderbilt Beach. MR.CASALANGUIDA: There's several--well,to the east there's Wilson,which isn't showing. It's to the right of your screen about--same size as you're shown here. Then you've got Woodcrest and Tree Farm. And Massey's semi-private to the public,which we'd have to fix. So you'd have a grid system in here. And then as soon as you jump over,you've got Logan Boulevard,as Commissioner Ebert talked about,and then Livingston/Airport. So what I will think will happen,based on traffic patterns that you've seen already start to develop,is folks who are in the estates to the northeast will start to jump down and use Vanderbilt to come in as this becomes very congested. So you'll have three choices,three to the west of Collier,two,one here,and then Wilson to jump in-- to jump on that. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you so much. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And also,if you go to,like,one of your next slides where you're showing the trips--with that gray bar on the bottom,yeah. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yep. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Great. This is what I want to make sure I understand. When you're looking at the developments that are proposed on a particular road--it doesn't matter which one we pick-- and in each development we're doing a traffic analysis of that impact that that development has. Page 18 of 73 CCPC/AUIRJCIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: When you're looking at it from the impacted link perspective,how are you capturing those trips from those traffic analysis reports for each development? I'm trying to understand how it all fits together. MR.CASALANGUIDA: It's a good question. So you get a project—and I'll go back and just give you one example. You just recently approved Willow Run over here,so their driveway connection is here.They'll do a traffic study that you'll see in your package,and it will say it generates--Willow Run says 385 peak-hour trips. Some are in, some are out,so we will look at the highest in the peak direction,and that will be added to that link. So you get a schematic that says some trips are coming in,some trips are going out from each direction based on these peak-hour trips,and then we take the peak direction,which I think it's northbound here,and then we'll match that to the trip,and that will go into the trip bank. So we take the worst case and the worst direction that we monitor,and that's the one we use. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. So if you go to the list at the bottom of your slide,you know, the one that pops up,and you've got the trip bank. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: This is a snapshot in time right now,is that correct;where we are right now? MR.CASALANGUIDA: It is,and you do not--and that snapshot is not included in the zoning that you approved. It only includes the plats and SDPs that we approve administratively. So that's why I say what you approved is in that--is in this trip bank 100 percent column,over here;what we approve administratively is in the trip bank over here. These that you approved,when they turn into SDPs and plats,will jump to this column,and then they'll jump to background traffic when they're built out and we measure them. So they're jumping columns, and they true themselves out to the reality and background traffic. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. That makes sense.And then the one other question that you had,I think--that I had reference what you said about the development hitting their target and their take-down schedule. So let's say that we approve a development and it's in that trip bank with 100 percent,are you calculating full buildout in that once we approve it,that that's at buildout,or are we waiting for that development to actually sell at 100 percent? MR.CASALANGUIDA: Actually to permit at each phase. So I'm not putting it in--I'm calculating at buildout for the purposes outside of what you see. I look at it for a long-range transportation plan. I include all those trips in. But this is kind of a hybrid of what--the presentation you received between the AUIR and a long-range transportation plan. So I've taken the interim period and said probably five to 10 years out from today,that remaining capacity that you see to the right will start to become real,depending on their takedown numbers. And that gets trued up. And it's important,I think,for both you and the public to understand. You only review at zoning consistency,not concurrency. You look at our five-year program and you say,is this project consistent with the roads where we project them to be in five years. When an applicant comes in to pull an SDP or plat,we look at a snapshot and say,do we actually have the capacity? If we do,we let them go forward. If we don't,we say no,and then what Commissioner Ebert alerted to,we declare,in essence,a moratorium;you're not allowed to build on the road until we have an improvement scheduled there. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. MR.CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,Reed's going to be the sacrificial lamb for your presentation because he's going to answer the questions basically from the AUIR document. MR.JARVI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You only want to kind of make a brief presentation and run,right? So I Page 19 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 don't know who to address all the other questions I'm going to ask. MR.CASALANGUIDA: It would be Mr.Jarvi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought you were going to say. But can I ask two of you? MR.CASALANGUIDA: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Remember he said"please." We get a lot of projects that come through for rezones,and I cannot think of a time really that we haven't had them come through,and all we show--they're asking less than the potential density that was allowed by the growth management plan. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most of them had this outrageous calculation. They could have put 2,000 units;they're only asking for 400 or some number like that. And under that basis,my assumption,then,is that our whole package,everything the county was comprehensively planning for,was based around what could have been there. The fact someone's asking for less is an indication this is better than what we could have expected. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that leads me back to Benfield corridor. If everything we've been doing betters the situation of what we could expect it,then we should never have needed Benfield corridor,so why do we need it? MR.CASALANGUIDA: It's not a loaded question.It's a good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not--didn't mean it to be loaded question. I'm trying to understand. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Your question deals more with the long-range transportation plan and the comprehensive land-use package. I think Mike,when we did the east of 951 buildout,said we showed it didn't work. But what they say is,well,you kind of keep making adjustments. And what the development community will tell you is,well,we'll work with you along the way because we know you can't fund it based your long-range transportation plan,so we'll give you some right-of--way,and we'll give you some dirt,and we'll make it work with you so that you can do that. You're asking me right now if you approved everything at maximum density per the land use map, land use element,what would happen? The system would break down. You would not have enough based on the transportation plan to accommodate that land use plan,so there's a disconnect there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,why wasn't the transportation plan set up to handle the Comprehensive Plan from the beginning;do you know? MR.CASALANGUIDA: Because by your state and federal guidelines,I can't put on that network more than what I can physically calculate based on current revenues and projected revenues that are within reason,although I know I'm going to get other benefits from some of the developers when they come online. But I can't put that in that program. They don't allow me to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we knew that the population that was generated by the allowances in the Comprehensive Plan could be far,far greater than what we currently have been approving--now everybody--not everybody--a lot of people of may think that we've approved too much development,too much density,too much intensity. But in actuality,I can't think of a project where this board hasn't seen a statement in the executive summaries that says this project is actually asking for less than they're entitled to. And based on what they were entitled to,though,is what I perceived this county planning for. So anything less than that should be a betterment. And since they mostly are improvements over what they-- what the plan could have allowed them to ask for,how do we keep ending up needing more and more and more roads when the roads should have been sufficient from the get-go? MR.CASALANGUIDA: You don't have a countywide buildout plan. Even your comprehensive land use plans have never been taken to buildout. The best you have is a 20-year transportation plan that tries to mirror the Comprehensive Plan. And if you do a straight-line projection with all the units that could have been approved,like you just discussed,and the road network that's in the 20-year look transportation plan,they don't meet. So you're constantly making adjustments. And then--but when they do say to you,well,you know, we're going less than what we could,and we're asking for your approval,you can still say,well,we don't Page 20 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 think it's compatible based on transportation. It should be less density.There's not enough roads in our Long-range transportation plan to accommodate your development. And then when you get people coming in and saying don't build Benfield,even though it's on the transportation plan,that's where you start to run into problems. I think if you do build Benfield and some of the other improvements,which some of you won't like, you're going to look at 951 and Davis,DOT's looking at fly-overs there like the east coast,not to that extent but,you know,some of the designs we've seen have been big spaghetti-loop ramps that are,you know,40,50 feet in the air. You start to make that blend back and forth. So you're always kind of trying to correct as you get closer to the reality of your AUIR/CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--and you said that when these projects come in and we think the density might be too high compared to what the road could handle,we could recommend a lower density. You know,that's really hard to overcome when the experts and professionals we rely on are recommending approval. And you don't get--we don't get projects where you've recommended denial. So how do I--how do I,as a board member--and especially if we ended up in court on a Bert Harris claim with an owner who said,no,I'm entitled--I'm entitled to this density that the staff,your professionals,said this is what should be approved. This is what should go there. And we--who are mostly novices in regards to transportation and things like that,we say,oh,we don't have to pay attention to that. We believe it's just too much. It doesn't work,Nick. MR.CASALANGUIDA: No. Well,it does because what they've said to you is approve this project because in the next five years you have capacity,and that's the window that you're governed by. In the long term,if you build the roads that we've discussed,the Benfields,the Vanderbilts,it wilI work. It's when,you kind of get that divergence and said,well,no,we don't want Benfield. I mean,I've had people on this Planning Commission say we don't think Benfield's buildable.I tell you I think it is,and I think you need to do it. That's a different discussion. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Related question.Where are the environmentalists? I would have expected them to be here saying that exact thing. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I don't know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Didn't they know about this? You assume they did. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I assume they do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From at least my perspective on the board,Benfield really is a policy decision by the Board of County Commissioners. If they want to expend the time and effort and money and they believe in any of the issues you brought up,then that's fine. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as far as needing it is what I was concerned. I keep not realizing how we get there,and I'm still troubled by that,but I'll move on because I could dwell on that for--all morning. I have two other questions that I want to ask of you before you-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --you depart. We had this period a few years back where the argument was we reduced impact fees. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What elements did we reduce it in? MR.CASALANGUIDA: We didn't reduce them in roads arbitrarily. You haven't raised them to probably the greatest level we could. But Amy will probably have to answer which ones were reduced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,were they higher than what they are today in roads? MR.CASALANGUIDA: At peak,yes. CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Okay. So we have latitude to raise the road impact fees to a level that might provide some of this assistance,because you guys have got a huge amount of money you're dealing with,$65 million from the General Fund,which some of that,could it be offset if we had put impact fees back up to a higher level,or considered that? MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's a discussion point that I'll probably have with the board when we do the AUIR/CIE presentation is to say you're starting to get behind the curve again. Your impact fees are Page 21 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 calculated based on cost and trips. And is it the board's policy to get them to charge the maximum allowable impact fee? If it is,then we're going to bring that study forward to show you what that number should be. And then the question that's a policy statement,do you want impact fees to pay for growth,or do you want General Fund or another funding source to pay for growth? That's one of those where I get--I lose skin on both knees on that argument. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I notice most of the improvements in the roads,new improvements that are needed,are east and,they're more or less the rural area. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if we do increase impact fees,the benefit to the rural area would probably see a lot of that road construction financed by impact fees. MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I made a mistake.I've got two more questions. I thought I only had one;a total of three. Big Cypress,you've heard the rumors it's going to be coming online. That's a—when it was anticipated before,it was twice the size of Ave Maria,and they had numerous connections and things. I'm assuming you're going to--or someone's going to attempt a DCA with them for the road impacts, like we did on Ave Maria. MR.CASALANGUIDA: It will be to that size.You'll have to have some agreement with them, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can this board get a commitment from you that we will get the DCA as part of the submittal so we can chew on that? We didn't get that opportunity in Ave Maria,and it was a huge mistake,in my opinion. MR.CASALANGUIDA: From me you'll get that commitment. It's up to the developer whether he's willing to--but I think he'll want to just to get in front of this board to be able to approve it. I would believe that this is going to be a very transparent project. The numbers I'm hearing are 13,000 units and 3 million square feet,approximately. It's pretty big. Now,they're talking about— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's smaller than it was. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. So--yes. From me,I'll definitely bring what agreements we have going forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my last question,the discussion we had earlier about the need for an AU R,and since we're the only county in the whole world,apparently,doing this--it could be the state,but since this is the only state that has the Florida AUIR,I'd think it fits the whole world. Would it cause any heartburn from you as an administrator if we did a CIE and did away with all the other parts of the AUIR if that was a suggestion? MR.CASALANGUIDA: I would think you--I'm in agreement with Mike. I think some of your Category A's you want to hear—you want to see the snapshot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I said the CIE does gives you the Category A stuff. MR.CASALANGUIDA: But the CIE is just the capital portions side of it. Your AUIR is your Update and Inventory Report. I think that tells you what condition you're in. My recommendation--I'm the one who suggested combining them, if Mike remembers. I said,why are we doing this separately? Let's just do them together,one meeting. This is the benefit you get. You actually get to see the proposed capital project,and you get to see the reason why we're proposing that capital project. My recommendation is you take the stuff that makes you nervous and you keep it in part of your AUIR/CIE in front of the Planning Commission,which is probably roads,utilities,stormwater. I think beaches are pretty innocuous in the sense that it's a pretty ongoing elliptical program. It just does the same thing over and over again. It renourishes,and it's based on funding. But stuff where--you have to make decisions on,with roads and stormwater and utilities,I think are important that you get to see why we're recommending certain capital projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--and my question mostly comes from the Category B facilities. Page 22 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 Some of them,the way we've tried to button hole them into a program that doesn't fit with their program-- with their programs. It just makes a lot of work effort just to throw something on paper I'm not understanding. I can't see why we need to do it. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I agree with you wholeheartedly. I kind of had that discussion a little bit with Mike. But I think you want to see the stuff that makes you nervous,which is,you know,development-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Growth. MR.CASALANGUIDA: --growth,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm done making you nervous. Anybody else want to take a shot? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question. At what point do you determine whether,let's say, a roadway is going to be raised? Now,you talked about flyovers. I understand that's a functionality type of decision. But,for example,Benfield,our favorite,if you raise it versus,you know,plowing it right on top of the land. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: At what point do you make a decision like that? Is that purely financial,I guess? MR.CASALANGUIDA: Well,it's both. It's design and financial. I mean,you do a cost-to-benefit in terms of do you raise it,do you culvert it,do you bridge it,and then you're meeting with the agencies,and they're going to tell you they want so much wildlife functionality into it,how much water flow they want back and forth. So I've had this discussion with the Conservancy a couple days ago. You've got to look at cost-to-benefit. I'm looking at Goodland Road.I could resurface it right now and raise it up a foot or two at a fairly cheap cost. If I go up and wider,I get into the mangroves,and they're going to want certain things to happen. So it's a cost-to-benefit analysis that's done during design. And you try and figure out what's the right mix between raising something or your design versus your cost. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I'd like to make a comment about the AUIR and the CIE process. I mean,this is my first time going through this process as a commissioner. But when you laid out the timeline,I appreciate this process in the sense that I get the context by which budget decisions are made on the priorities,and it's helpful,I think. And maybe what could be recommended is a way to communicate this process in plain English so that the community would understand what's happening at this session and may make a decision to attend and participate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You haven't been on the previous ones. There was strong emphasis to do that. In fact,there were private meetings with some of the--many of the stakeholder groups,including CBIA. I sat in a room and pleaded with them to assign committees to look at each AUIR to help us understand it,help us to understand it for the impact fees. We've talked to the community. We've gone out many times over the years trying to get someone in this room to even comment on it,and now you see what you see. The reason is is it is—you just can't do it as a snapshot. You just can't see it one day or just touch it as a moment in time. You've got to dedicate time to it. And to be honest with you,the private sector,unless they're being paid,it's kind of hard to dedicate that time because it takes away from their jobs. I understand that,but I don't know,Charlette,how we could ever see that happen,which is part of why I'm suggesting we may want to look--and when we get into the Category B and you see how some of those don't correlate to the way the department's actually run,there may not--some of that we just may save some taxpayers'time on that. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. And I'm not disagreeing with your points that you raised about what portion is it that's most important to focus on,but I think the context is important. I've been in budget meetings with priorities and decisions and things,and it just seems like a list that you're checking off which one you want to put the dollars towards. Page 23 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 I'm just saying for me it was helpful that there's context here about how these decisions are made and what was looked at and what was ranked in the decision. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to just--before you depart,I appreciate your presentation and updating us on things like Benfield corridor,but Stan brought up a good point that he didn't see the environmental community here concerned about the discussion on Benfield corridor,and that's because in this AUIR in front of us,if we recommend approval of it,we're not recommending a dime be spent on Benfield corridor. MR.CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So there's nothing here. It's just a—something that maybe could happen in the future,but there is nothing in this program that's in front of us today either approving or not approving Benfield corridor,but Nick was including it in a presentation just to give us the relevance of that corridor,I believe. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to ask for budget in the next budget cycle for both Vanderbilt and Benfield. And its to say,look,this is what I think is happening. I'm letting everybody know. In closing,in context,this gives you a feel,you know. And you can keep this PowerPoint. We'll make sure you get copies. But now you're going to be approving more projects coming online. We--I talked to Mike,and we haven't had a chance to have a staff meeting about it,and John and Reed. Four years ago we would have welcomed any project in Collier County. Just please do something; build a house,you know. We want to get the economy going again. I can't believe that we're four years from that time period and we're saying,okay,now we need to look at this again a little conservatively. You know,I'm going to have a discussion with staff. We're going to be a little more critical in our review now in these locations based on what we're seeing because,if everything comes online,we're going to have some issues going forward. So we've got to start asking some harder questions on approvals of projects, and that's just the way the economy's presented itself to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I heard the word "buildout"put forth. Is there a projected buildout population for Collier County based on the limited amount of land there is and the allowable density you're going to put on that land? MR.CASALANGUIDA: We've talked numbers in the 900,000 to,I mean,a million-plus range,and it's-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A million. Oh,I thought we were talking 2 million at one time. MR.CASALANGUIDA: No. MR.BOSI: It's the cone,about 900,000 to about 1.1 million is anywhere--is the projected range. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: At which point we put a trench across I-75 or what? Okay. I was just curious what the number is now. MR.BOSI: Well,just to give you,in terms of--you know,why in terms of—from a business perspective this market,looking into the future,is such an attractive business decision and Iocation is between Collier County,at 800,000 to 1.1 million,and Lee County at 1.6 million to 1.9 million,we're close to 200-- 2.5 million people just in this two-county area at buildout population. If you start thinking about--with the population of Lee County about 670,000 right now,us about 330,000,that only--that puts us right at about a million. That's 1.5 million people projected over the next 50 to 60 years that will be moving to these two county areas. I think that's why you see so much opportunity and future opportunity for businesses wanting to relocate down towards the--within this portion of the state. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just wondering how many panthers that will be. That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that takes us past Nick's section,and we'll take a break to 10:45 and come back and resume with transportation with Reed. Thank you. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. Page 24 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 (A brief recess was had.) MR.BOSI: You have a live mike,Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody. If you'd please take your seats. And Nick didn't leave,so I guess he wants the rest of the questions. But he's wandering out now.In fact,very quickly to the back of the room. Okay. Reed. MR.JARVI: Reed Jarvi,transportation planning manager. And since there's no more questions,I'll just sit down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There might be a few. MR. BOSI: Torn,why are you laughing,of all people? I'm going to do,I guess,a quick presentation on what we've done this year different than last year and highlight some things. But from what I can tell this morning,you probably have more questions than wanting to go page by page unless you really-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just probably open it up for questions as a whole. We don't need to go page by page. So whenever you're finished and want that to happen,we'll be ready to move on. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You need to tell us where you're starting,though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page— MR.JARVI: Page 5,Mike says. Unfortunately,the group I have doesn't have any page numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page--the official header for roads and county roads is on Page 3,so the summary page is Page 4. MR.JARVI: Okay. Basically,the summary page is--and there's a--the next page which has some pie charts shows that we are changing somewhat the mix of where the revenues are coming from. Gas taxes, as you may know,or you can probably imagine,are pretty much level to even decreasing sometimes somewhat because,you know,we have more efficient cars now. We have more people,more people driving, but the cars are more efficient,so they're at least--you know,they're level. We're not increasing like we have,you know,several years ago. The grants have gone down somewhat,but they're kind of situational. Sometimes we get grants. Sometimes we don't. The main thing for this cycle for grants is three years ago,four years ago we had a large grant for the Davis Boulevard/Collier Boulevard area;$20 million-plus and,you know,we've been gradually paying that--or using that up. It started at--three years ago it was,like,$18 million. This year there's,like, a million six left,so it's just--we're just spending it. So we apply for grants periodically. We--this--we did apply for a grant for Golden Gate Boulevard this last year. It was not accepted.This is a similar grant that Lee County got in the summertime. It took them three times to get it. So we're going to--we'll apply again next year.And we get--apply for these grants two,three times a year,and some of them we get,some of them we don't. So the General Fund is somewhat increasing.That's to make up,because we are trying to do some things that Nick talked about earlier,trying to move things along and get funding started. Going through the--I guess it would be--that's Page 4. Page 5 is Attachment B,Mike? MR.BOSI: Page 7. MR.JARVI: Page 7 is just kind of some general information. As you might imagine,the traffic counts are up. In general,the last year they were up a little bit,year before they were down. They--you know,with the recession,they were certainly down. The segments in general are up. I think it's 3.--yeah,7.1 percent is the main amounts. So the traffic is coming back. I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't know,you know,other than there's a number attached to it. But everybody says that the traffic counts are higher than they have been,and that's what we're showing. We constantly have new traffic count stations and do things,so it's kind of hard to compare raw numbers to raw numbers because,you know,we might have 140 stations one year and 145 the next year. So the raw numbers don't work real well,but we average the actual increases or decreases. Attachment C,which is Page-- Page 25 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 MR.BOSI: Nine. MR.JARVI: --9,which is just a graphic of that saying,you know,the red areas are the increases, the green areas are the decreases,the black areas are--what we call--it's not insignificant,but it is between plus 5 percent or minus 5 percent growth. So you see that in the urban area,in general,it's 5 percent plus-or-minus, and then there's some areas that are higher growth. East Trail--a lot of these,like the East Trail,the numbers are so small that when you have a—you know,you have a 200--you have 250 trips on the road and you put another 50,you've increased it 20 percent. It's not really a significant increase in number of trips,but the percentage is real high, so the more rural areas,like Oil Well Road,East Trail,tend to look exaggerated,that there is a high growth, but the numbers are still small. Getting into Attachment D,that's the CEI.That's where we have--Nick was mentioning that this last year we took out all the information--or,excuse me,all of the right-of-way buy program from Vanderbilt Beach Road for this year,and he's going to be requesting to put it back in next year,so we start that process. And the top part of this is basically the road programs we have which,right now,Collier Boulevard, Green to Golden Gate,is scheduled to be opened,I think it was today,and it's now moved to Tuesday,but the bid's going to be open shortly for that six-laning,and then Golden Gate's like--Golden Gate Boulevard from east of Wilson out to 16th is scheduled eight weeks or so from now.Those are the next two projects. And then we have a bunch of roads that you see there. Those are pretty much--the second half of that top is the DCA commitments,Tree Farm Road,Pristine Road,Logan,and some others that are related to DCAs or some funding source other than county funding. We need to put those in our CIE to just keep track of them. Let's see,Attachment E is a road financing update that just shows the five-year program,and then we get into--what I always call the meat of it,because this is the stuff we use all the time,which is the tables. And this year we did it different than we have done in the past in that we started about this time last year after our AUIR and started purging the network. It hadn't been purged in a while or it hadn't been calibrated. There were projects that were put into a program several years ago called Cardisoft that was kind of a black box. And at the time they went into the program,and they'd spit out a number and,say,Airport Road had 55 trips on there,and we'd go,what are the 55 trips,and we couldn't tell because it's in this black box. So we took--we went through and took all the SDP,site development plans,and plats of the last 10 years,give or take,and went through by number and said,Olde Cypress,Tract 5,built. All right.It's in the background. It doesn't need to be in--doesn't need to be in the trip bank. It's already built. And we went through those and literally spent probably about six months going through those,and reams of paper trying to make the trip bank as accurate as we could. You know,did we catch everything? Probably not,but we are much more accurate,I'm convinced, than we were last year at this time for the trip bank information. So we took that—so,the trip banks,if you compared this year to last year,in general,significantly less,because we've taken out all the stuff that was--has been sitting in there for years and just hadn't been scrubbed. Now,what we have done is we've gone back to the—when the concurrency system was originally developed back in 2000/2001,the idea was for projects that were vested--and the easiest--the example I have was Fiddler's Creek because it was vested as a DRI 20 years ago or 15,a long time ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eighty-four. MR.JARVI: Eighty-four,thank you. I knew somebody on the board would know that. But a Iong time ago it was vested,and it has,I think it was,like 7,000 units or something,so it's a lot. And at the time 951 was a two-lane road,41 was a two-lane road. And we said,well,if we put all of the Fiddler's Creek on there,it will kill the roads for the next 20 years,so we can't do that. And what was determined is to put on one-seventh of the road--excuse me,one-seventh of the traffic. So we've gone back to that philosophy and taken those projects that are vested,Fiddler's Creek, Sabal Bay,Hacienda,Mirasol,various ones,the larger projects,and basically taken one-seventh of those projects and put them on there,and then you'll see that in the middle of the table. And it says one-seventh.That's the Page 26 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 one-seventh trip bank. So there's a trip bank from the SDPs,and then there's a trip bank from the vested units,the vested projects. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question on that. And you did well addressing the one-seventh portion,but I'm a little unclear. Is it one-seventh of the total units for that development,or what is the one-seventh? I'm unclear on that. MR.JARVI: It would be the one-seventh of the total units. If--like we did with Mirasol,which was zero built when we did this. I mean,I think they're probably still zero build. They probably have,I mean,some sales units or something,but--so--and they're 11 -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Twelve hundred. MR.JARVI: Twelve hundred. We took one-seventh of that traffic and put it on there and did a quick TIS-type distribution put on there.And we wanted to get a good idea of what the problems would be. This kind of led up to where Nick went through his presentation. And we also then looked--in the far right-hand side we did the same idea with 100 percent of those, those particular trips. This is different from the presentation Nick did,and so if you try to compare the numbers,they are going to be different because they're done different. That was purely a planning exercise. This is more--this is the AUIR exercise,which is a more precise exercise. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Is it the same--this 100 percent trip bank,is that the same as what I thought I understood Nick to say,that those are the projects that have been approved? MR.JARVI: This is 100 percent of the vested trips,the vested projects. What Nick was talking about,those are projects that have been approved.They're not necessarily vested. There's a difference between vesting and--you know,they have to go through a vesting process. Like I said,Fiddler's Creek,by nature of it being a DRI back in 1984,was determined to be vested. There's other projects that are not vested. They didn't do anything. They didn't do anything exceptional to be vested. There are site development plans and plats are vested when they pay one third of their—currently the rule is when they pay one-third of their impact fees. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Maybe I should ask,what does the definition of vested mean? MR.JARVI: Vested meaning we can't stop them,basically. They can build their units. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR.JARVI: Sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we'd go forward with questions-- MR.JARVI: Okay. CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: --then. I think you kind of got through the pages. Anybody have any questions of Reed? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Reed,I do have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: You talked about--or Nick talked about 41 down on the southern end where Treviso Bay—where all of these new—the road cannot be widened any wider,correct? So,in other words,what you're saying is,it will always be very congested,and there's nothing Collier County can do about that? MR.JARVI: Well,from a policy perspective,we're not widening it any--I mean,literally,you could put more lanes on there,but our policy is that we won't go farther than six lanes wide,so that's a true statement. So,in general,the answer to your question is yes. There are things we can do from a transportation demand standpoint,you know,increasing CAT ridership,try to do more modal splits,but those are--you know,historically,those are ones and twos and threes percent.They're not something that's going to lop off 50 percent of the traffic. They're going to knock off a couple percent. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So in that area,we should really not be increasing sizes of pieces of land. We should be trying to reduce it or do less building? MR.JARVI: Well,that would be a policy direction that you could do. I mean,what we have done in our Comprehensive Plan is we've talked about the transportation concurrency exception areas,which Page 27 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 allows people to move ahead with doing some of the transportation demand strategies. It doesn't stop people from moving ahead. But what you're saying probably wouldn't be a bad answer. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think you touched on the grants. I just want to make a note, they've been going each five-year report. First one being in 2013,then 2014,then starting in 2015,which is this year's. We've lost 10 million in grants,it looks like,per year. Do you see that trend continuing? MR.JARVI: I actually see it probably changing. I think--and this is my opinion. But from what I'm reading,the governor's office is talking about adding,increasing to the--increasing the transportation budget,and I don't see them personally doing it as a--you know,we have more money because each year-- so I see them doing grants. But I think we're going to get smaller grants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have someone in your department that does grant writing? MR.JARVI: Not a grant writer. We follow grants in our department,and the county has grant people. But we're going to try to,as--with the reorganization,we have some time freeing up,we're going to try to do more on that aspect of it and start searching those out more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 7,in the third bullet you've got a sentence in the middle of the paragraph. I'll just read it so you haven't got to look it up. Is says,historical funding for O&M has not addressed industry standards for anticipated life cycles which are six to eight years for urban roadways and 12 to 15 years for rural roadways. So what does that mean,historical funding for O&M has not addressed industry standards for anticipated life cycles? MR.JARVI: Yes. This is something--and,unfortunately,Nick is much better at than this I, because he's on the O&M side,and I'm not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. MR.JARVI: But I have heard the discussion before. But basically it's saying,is if you take all our O&M responsibilities for all the roads,basically the maintenance--maintaining the roads and maintaining the bridges and replacing them when you need to,you will see numbers that you don't want to see,because they're really high. That the impact fees—it can be argued that the impact fees do or don't cover the capital costs of improvements for capacity purposes,but our O&M costs are what really is going to hurt us in the long term. The example I give all the time is landscaping. Everybody wants to see the landscaped medians. And the landscaping costs 100 percent to put a landscaping in,but the O&M of the landscaping is based roughly a third a year. So after,you know,two,three,six years,you've doubled the cost of what you just put in. And so the O&M costs become the driving factor in the future. And if you look at places up north where they don't have the growth we do,you know,in the Midwest and stuff,you know,they're the ones that have the crumbling infrastructure from a pothole standpoint,because their money is basically--that they get from the state and the feds generally goes to O&M,where our stuff,because we're building new things all the time,we quite often don't get the O&M. You know,we've got--we need to resurface a four-lane road,but before we resurface it,we make a six-lane road,so you never see the O&M. So O&M is not keeping up, basically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand the O&M is funded by rooftops. At least,that's what I was told at one point. Basically it's your General Fund that the taxpayers-- MR.JARVI: General Fund or gas tax. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if you build a road too early and the rooftops aren't there to support it,then you're going to have trouble getting enough tax base to sufficiently cover the O&M on that road,and the life cycles that you--and which could be creative of our problem. I guess that leads me to--my next concern is,when you try to put a road in like Vanderbilt Beach extension,that's going through an area that's very sparsely populated because the density is real low. How do you justify the O&M costs for that road as the future goes on? MR.JARVI: Well,I mean,that's where Nick was talking about that,you know,we don't want to go put the road in at this point in time,but we want to prepare to put the road in. It's not necessarily needed Page 28 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 today,but we're anticipating it will be needed in the future. And if it's needed from a capacity standpoint, then we need it for the capacity--at least from a road perspective,we need it for the traveling public. And if there aren't--if the rooftops are--you know,that are paying for that are$50 a year to pay for that O&M and there's not—there's half as many as there needs to be,then maybe the answer is$100,and that's a tax issue. And I realize it's,you know,nothing that we really want to talk about,but it is--you know, it's a reality. It's--if it costs X dollars,you divide it by Y number of bodies,and that's how you get the tax amount. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because one of the issues with Oil Well Road has been that that road putting in,especially the six-lane sections that aren't even being used further east,went in before the rooftops were there to support the O&M,and we're still going to have to fund the O&M because their life cycle's still going to deteriorate. MR.JARVI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to--hopefully don't--we can avoid that in the future,but we'll have to see when-- MR.JARVI: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --Big Cypress comes in. Attachment C,I noticed,as you indicated,the increases around Immokalee Road and Camp Keais Road and Oil Well Road and even DeSoto,and while they're increases,they're small in comparison to others, well,that's that hub of activity around Ave Maria,and I'm assuming the workers for Arthrex and the construction going on—because that town's starting to take hold,and there's a lot of construction out there. MR.JARVI: This would have just been maybe the beginning of this,because this is dated information because it's first quarter this year and last year. So,you know,most of that has been more of the bulk of 2014. This is mostly from 2013 data,just by the way--nature of the beast how we calculate it. But it would be what you're saying,but I just don't think this really shows it yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last comment I have to make is those tables that you added to the back that you like as one of the most useful ones to you-all,when you highlight the line in black,it doesn't read very well. MR.JARVI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe on the next AUIR,you could use a different color or a lighter gray or something. MR.JARVI: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we've got entire pages completely blocked out. We can't read what the numbers were and what you were attempting to present. MR.JARVI: Actually,those are lines where there was one road and they've been broken into two and three,and they're supposed to be taken out because they're,like,old data. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. Because I can see some of them have red ink underneath the black,but it's still so blacked out it can't be read. Okay. Well,that's the last--oh,no. Wait a minute. On your--I'm sorry. Your projected Collier County deficient roads,Attachment H-- MR.JARVI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --you show capacity enhancement project for Rattlesnake Hammock extension by others,2014. Who did that enhance for of what? I mean,that's a--I mean,that's maybe a public road,but it's simply an entry to a private development. MR.JARVI: Yes,sir. It was looked at as it's going to be part of the Benfield corridor,whether it's just a Benfield corridor through Rattlesnake--excuse me--Hacienda Lakes or the future. So it was looked at,that's the first piece for future,and it--probably,in retrospect,it isn't really labeled as correct as it could be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then how--and this goes to Diane's question earlier that she mentioned. You have Santa Barbara Boulevard going north,and you don't show Collier Boulevard going north. Is there any plans to do Collier Boulevard,or is it just going to be Santa Barbara? Page 29 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 MR.JARVI: They're both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.JARVI: The Santa Barbara,which is Logan,the--I guess it's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,yeah,it changes to Logan. MR.JARVI: Logan up that way. It is on the AUIR--on the CIE because it's being funded by GL Homes. There's also a FDOT trip grant that--associated with that,so it's in the funded stage in the five-year program. The 951,or CoIIier Boulevard,extension is in the long-range plan as a need but not as a--that's a 20-year plan,but not as a financially feasible,so it's--it's still there on the plan,but we don't have it in the five-, 10-or even 20-year program right now because it's not financially feasible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that extension of Logan up through the Parklands,or whatever it's going through to the north,do you,as a transportation review,evaluate a road as better or worse based on the 90-degree turns it has to entail? Because if I was driving north on Logan and I had to maneuver around those two nineties just to get through and get up there,I wouldn't use that road very much. Pd go to the one with a straight shot that gives me--even though it says 40,we can still do 60. So I'd take one of those straight roads to make it real simple. Why did we allow that to happen if it could potentially reduce the amount of traffic the road should be used for, if that's the case? MR.JARVI: Two things. This is a representation,and they aren't 90--they actually turn,but they are wider curves than this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're pretty intense curves. MR JARVI: But they were defined by the settlement the Parklands had with the environmental groups that that's what the corridor was. I don't--I wasn't involved,but that's the answer I was told that they --that's the answer. Now,just so you know,Logan is scheduled to be and will always be a two-lane road. So north of Immokalee Road it's going to be a two-lane road. Collier Boulevard,when it does come up, it's going to intersect Logan basically where—at the county line,and it will be a four-lane road,and then from the county line north to Bonita Beach Road currently is a two-lane road in a four-lane corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if Logan had been a more substantial road,would we still have needed Collier Boulevard to be extended? MR.JARVI: I think the answer is yes,but,you know,we don't know because that was decided 10, 15 years ago that Logan would never go beyond a two-lane road,so that gets—you know,at some point in time somebody probably looked at it,but I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just curious. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: On your impact fee revenue schedule on Page 11,I notice you're forecasting it to go down. MR.JARVI: Oh,from'15 to'16? Is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,all the way across,all the way through'19. MR.JARVI: I don't know if,Amy,you remember this part of it. What--the discussion I remember was that they're going to be bringing in 665 hundred--excuse me--6.5 million a year,and they looked at that in the future,and that this was this last year plus other information,plus other dollars,or do you remember exactly? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'm just trying to understand the downward trend. MS.PATTERSON: Yeah. Amy Patterson,for the record. Included in the current fiscal year and in the upcoming fiscal year are some developer contribution agreements,upfront payments,cash payments that are not reoccurring,so we wouldn't forecast those out into future years,not to say that as they enter into new developer contribution agreements that sometimes have an upfront cash component that it won't in the future affect those numbers,but right now we can only account for what we have or what we know we're going to Page 30 of 73 CCPC/AUIRJCIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 be getting. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any more questions of transportation? Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I have a quick question. MR.JARVI: Sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: With Lee County,are we getting them involved? I mean,we should be getting them involved with these connections. How are they responding? I mean,have you contacted them? MR.JARVI: I actually--for Logan Boulevard,I have a meeting with the City of Bonita on Tuesday. So we are meeting with City of Bonita to start talking about Logan Boulevard,which their portion is called Bella Road,and how they want to do that portion and,you know,who's leading in that,but that gets us to Bonita Beach Road. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That gets you to Bonita Beach Road. MR.JARVI: Lee County,in general,has not been overly receptive to the continuation of either Logan Boulevard or Collier Boulevard because their board--I think it was their MPO--actually took it out, took anything north of Bonita Beach Road out of their plan. And so until they put it back in,there's nothing for them to look at. And we've talked to them last year. We have two joint MPO board meetings--or twice a year we have a joint MPO board meeting,and each year,or each meeting for the last two years,including this next one,we say,we need to look at this again. We need to keep doing this,because we are convinced in Collier County that it is needed for a backdoor to the airport,to the university,et cetera. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. When is their next MPO meeting? MR.JARVI: It's coming up,the joint one's coming up. I think our MPO meeting is the 10th,and I think its the 17th is the joint one. I can get that to you,but I just don't know when that is. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed,thank you. MR.JARVI: Yes,sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it. We're probably looking--probably? We do need a motion for this one. And I don't know--the only thing I made a note of was potentially we recommend to the board to take another look at the value of the impact fees that they've levied on roads to help offset some of the General Fund costs. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than that,I mean,most everything was pretty straightforward. And I appreciate the presentation. Is there a motion that anybody would like to make? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I'll move to approve with the stipulation,the comment you made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About the impact fees? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: About the impact fees. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 31 of 73 CCPC/AU 1RICIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. ***Next item up is stormwater management. MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,you're not stormwater management? MR. SCHMIDT: It's a team thing. Before Jerry approaches,I've got some handouts for this one, and I'll explain the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While you're doing that,Jerry,I had an interesting conversation with a citizen by the name of Terri Lewis this morning who was talking about the rains coming down,and she described your system as those canal thingies out in front of her house,and I'm sure she meant swales that are all part of the system that you're dealing with. So we'll have to have some questions on that. MR. SCHMIDT: As Mike mentioned earlier,there are a number of pages that are swap-outs that some of you received earlier through email and some that are also handouts. This is one of those that--late forthcoming,I believe. It's a handout only. And the only real changes appear on,I believe,it's your Page 25 on the table,your numbered one existing revenue sources. Some of those individual figures in the right-hand column I have changed,and now they match what's on Page 27. You have both pages in front of you. Page 27 was already accurate,and the version that was distributed earlier. And the total numbers don't change. The rest of the page has not changed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's a nice book.What should I do with it when the meetings over? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff usually likes to use those the best they can to pass onto the board,so-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Don't go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm not even going to ask what that was about. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Should I put the pages into the book and give it back to you guys when the meeting's over,or are you going to do this again with the board? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can stick them in the front flap. That might be the way to do it. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. Well, I'd rather have them slotted in in the front. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR.KURTZ: Good morning. Jerry Kurtz,for the record,stormwater planning manager. I don't have a presentation for you,but I could talk through the changes between this year and last year,if you'd like, or just answer your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just ask questions,because I think all of us read—read the information,and we might save everybody a lot of time on some of these issues that are not as large as transportation. So with that in mind,does anybody have any questions from the stormwater management submittal? Or I can start out with some questions while the rest of you look it over and go from there. Jerry,you have one--and some of these questions I'd asked of staff,so I understand a little bit about it,but I'm asking it again for this board's benefit. Your Naples Park swales that's done in coordination with the utilities,is it a utility project or stormwater project? And the reason Tm asking is because should the funding--because utilities is going to go in and disrupt the swales that are there,those canal thingies,as I've heard them called,should that really be reconstructed and repaired by utilities,or is it really--because that's an enterprise system. They make their money,and they pay for their funds off of what they draw from customers. So they've got,from what I can tell,really nice budgets. I'm sure I'm gearing him up for coming up and talking to us about that. But since you don't have such a really nice budget,and most of your money comes out of the General Fund,are we paying something out of the General Fund that utilities would like to pay? MR.KURTZ: I don't believe so. What we're looking at there is when they come in with their Page 32 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CTE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 project,they're going to be having to reconstruct portions of the areas where we have pipe under driveways, under roads,so they would certainly cover the reconstruction costs from the impacts they would have. But if we have side-by-side pipes,and a lot of areas we do,we're looking to take advantage of that, so that will drop our costs. We'll kind of ride along on their coattails. They'll pay for new driveways and new roads,and we'll piggyback in there with them,and we'll get some new stormwater pipes put in and just disturb the neighborhood wants. So,in a sense,their capital program would drive a certain component of our program to look at that opportunity and to get that—that cost benefit. So I think the funding will be pretty separated,and that's the coordination part,and that's what we're looking at now in Naples Park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they weren't going to do their program,you would still have to do yours.It might just be done at a different time? MR.KURTZ: A different time and for a higher cost. It's quite an opportunity for us. We want to take advantage of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Griffm Road,you have an outfall going there. Now,that's in an area that's existed for a long time. I know it's an old estate lot area. It's got some larger lots in there,but it also has a new project going in alongside of it that has,you know,done a lot of stormwater work within the project. It's called Artesia. MR.KURTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the outfall for Griffin Road being done because of any impact from that development Artesia? MR.KURTZ: Boy,that's a great question. I would say we're having some issues right now with that project. They're--they have to divert the stormwater from Barefoot Williams Road around the project, and I think we've figured out what was originally proposed,constructed isn't all working that well. So they're in there right now,and they've modified their permit to correct those things. So I think when those corrections get made—and they're getting made right now--I could say that the project had no impact on the flows in the area. So now that that's getting resolved--Griffin,this project as proposed,would be more of an enhancement to treat. It's more of a water-quality improvement than an outfall improvement. It's going to have some outfall improvements components to it,but primarily it will be a water-quality improvement project for the Rookery Bay watershed. It absolutely will--what we're trying to do is lower the stage,the peak stage a little bit along that ditch along Barefoot Williams Road.It's very high,and with the older developments,the trailer parks up there on the north end,we're trying to get that hydraulic flow to work and take care of the older low lying as well as —you know,we don't really have to worry about Artesia and--they're up,they're modern,they're fully designed. So it's another one of these challenges;take care of the lowest people in that neighborhood and accommodate the new folks,I guess,in town. But,I guess,primarily,roundabout,it's not because of Artesia. It's really because of Griffin Road,Price Street,and some of the other older neighborhoods in the north part of that watershed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I ask is because when we approve new projects or recommend approval,there's always a concern when the public shows up that they're being flooded. And I didn't know if that had been the case here and that was their reasoning. I'm good--it's glad(sic)to hear that that's not the case,so I appreciate that. I don't know if anybody--Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're sending out water to the west now,water that used to go south? MR.KURTZ: This project would be--well,actually there's an outfall there now. It does go to the west. It's there now. It's not in any legal standing. There are no easements. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That was fairly overgrown five years ago. MR.KURTZ: It was overgrown. We went in,kind of volunteered to do a cleanout in there. We found out we didn't really have legal rights to be doing it,but it definitely needed to be done. We went ahead and did it. We got into a little issue with-- Page 33 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The land belongs to DEP or Rookery Bay. MR.KURTZ: Yes,yeah. So part of the Griffin Road project would be to get drainage easements, legal easements over that area,and they did find out also there's an issue with Griffm Road being a private road,because we want to go down both Griffin and Price west of Barefoot,improve their roadside swales, and guide the water. And,again,all this stuff exists. We're just going to improve it and make it more efficient to move water through there and then create a nice filter marsh on the state property so the water gets filtered and then flows into the Rookery Bay watershed. So we feel it's a great project. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's a good idea.Those people will be happy. MR.KURTZ: But--it's going to be a pricey one,but the benefits are—there's a multitude of benefits,and it's actually—I'm calling it a fourth LASIP outfall. It will be an extension that's right next to LASIP. And we've had so much success there,this only makes sense. And I do feel this project's are very,very good candidate for grants. So that's what we're--that's what we're going to proceed with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Jerry,in some of the discussion that you had in your sheets,you mentioned that the--you had an input from--external stakeholders were used to help recommend projects to the AUIR five-year plan. Who were the external stakeholders,just a sampling? Were they agencies or citizens? That's kind of what I'm getting at. MR.KURTZ: More agencies. More--Rookery Bay has become a huge partner with us after years of kind of--that not being the case. Now we're--I go down there on a regular basis,so Rookery Bay primarily,Big Cypress Basin, Southwest Florida Water Management District,the City of Naples,and some of the--like the Conservancy and Nancy's group;those are kind of the primary people,initially. Then we would branch out to citizen groups and associations and that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the plan elements,the potential project database,you say the staff has developed a comprehensive stormwater needs database that contains all potential future stormwater improvement projects. Is that the list that you attached as Exhibit C? A few pages past that page.It's--I'm on Page 33,and that list I'm referring to is on Page--starts on Page 36. It basically tells the systems and the condition rating of each one. MR.KURTZ: I'm still not following. We're talking about projects or the system? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page--let's start with Page 33,and you have,halfway down the page,an underlined two words. It says"plan elements."And you have a bullet,potential project database.Staff has developed a comprehensive stormwater needs database that contains all potential-- MR.KURTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the list. What is—did we get that list,or is that another list? MR.KURTZ: No,no. You don't have that list.You do have a small sampling of that list. That's the project descriptions in the previous pages. So you have,basically,what is it,about 21 of those projects in that comprehensive database. That database of projects is everything that ever was conceived for a potential improvement project included. There's some pretty conceptual projects for restoration from the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study. It's a—it's meant to have everything in there,but a lot of those are way,way far out as far as being considered and funded eventually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,do you get any funding from impact fees? MR.KURTZ: No,we don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see that in the revenue stream. Is there a reason you don't? MR.KURTZ: I don't think--I've been here 15 years. I don't ever remember any discussion about a stormwater impact fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know of any law against creating a stormwater impact fee? MR.KURTZ: No,I don't,but I can tell you that the latest funding mechanism that's building a lot of steam,and has been for a while,is a stormwater utility,like what the City of Naples has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the reason that's important is you've got a list somewhere that has it-- actually a giant amount of projects on it,apparently. Page 34 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 First of all,if that list is in an electronic database,I'd certainly appreciate you sending copies to each one of us. MR.KURTZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that that list might be something you might want to consider in support of your AUIR,because if this panel were to consider making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to study the potential of an impact fee revenue source for your department,it might be worthwhile for them to see the massive amount of work you've got in your hands to do and can't do it because the funding isn't there. And I'm just suggesting--I'd like to know where those projects are and how much they are,and then I'll--so if you could send that electronically to the seven of us,we'd probably appreciate that. MR.KURTZ: Sure,absolutely. And I'm not sure all the projects have a conceptual cost estimate attached with them. Some of them,I'm pretty sure,don't,but we'll give you what we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,your funding,basically,is coming from the General Fund,though— MR.KURTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --right? So you can only do the projects to the extent of the General Fund. And if you need more money,the General Fund has to be tapped larger and greater,which means the impacts on that come from the tax--property owners in Collier County. MR KURTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And back to growth paying for growth,it might be something we should consider. MR.KURTZ: Oh,well,as I said,the most equitable--the most--considered most equitable funding source for a stormwater program is the utility,and it's based on amount of impervious surface and the amount of runoff. It's kind of like a user fee more than an--I guess it could be similar to an impact,if you consider--if you have a property that generates a lot of runoff,greater impact. But it--the utility would go--cover all--everything,existing and proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,I mean,either way,I think it might be something that we might want to consider as part of our recommendation to go forward. I think your department's rather important,and there isn't a project that comes forward that,if there's a member of the public here,we don't hear a concern over stormwater. MR.KURTZ: Well,it's--we kind of go with the ebb and flow of the rains,you know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Only with the flooding. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? MR.KURTZ: And,you know,as wet as it is right now,it's not really considered to be a very wet year. We're running about average,so-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think an impact fee might be a hard row to hoe because the way projects are designed,they're designed not to have any impact at all,right? MR.KURTZ: Yeah. That's why our presumption up to now is,if you're building something new,it should have no impact because you're following all the guidelines of water-management design. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So how do you judge the impact of a stormwater project that holds all their water in and releases it at a rate that,you know,is historically discharged,so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,that's why I asked the question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The utility is a great idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well,that's—I'm just suggesting we recommend something-- looking at some kind of alternative revenue source,because his revenue sources are all General Fund then. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They've been talking about a stormwater utility since John Bolt was a boy. MR.KURTZ: Yeah. When we tried to get a stormwater utility going,it was,early on,probably very progressive. Now there are 13 of 67 counties that have it,so that's 19 percent. So it's a lot--it's coming on a lot more. Now,cities,it's a lot easier,and there are dozens of cities that have it throughout the state; I want to say a hundred maybe. And--but it's easier to do a stormwater utility in a city because you're working with a Page 35 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 tighter,more homogeneous area. To--you know,to set up a stormwater utility for a county is going to take several years and several million,I would say,to do it. But it is considered by the stonnwater professionals to be the most equitable way to fund the stormwater program. You just have to have a great need--funding need to justify the cost to set one up. Usually it's followed by--like,in Lee County,who is now hit with these B maps,these 30-year plans to improve water quality that are imposed by the state,I would be willing to guess they're looking hard at establishing a stormwater utility right now,as well when Sarasota pushed theirs through,they had come off of a horrendous year for flooding up there. So usually it takes a pretty extreme event to justify going after it. And it's very controversial as far as when you're looking at things like schools. Public infrastructure,should everybody pay equally? Should there be--you know,that's the--that's when you get into the real high level of detail and study that has to be done;churches,you know,agriculture. It's easy to look at a house. And they have this thing called equivalent residential units. It's easy to establish the average house, lot,the runoff generated from a typical house at your ERU,your equivalent residential unit,and then you have to take that and equate it to everything else,businesses,schools. It gets pretty intense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if this idea has been kicking around since John Bolt was a young boy, which would be some time,who's the one leading the charge from your department on this? Because they're not doing a really good job. Is there a way that you can somehow light the fire under this issue--as an issue, because you're talking considerable amount of money,and you're talking about a lot of unfunded items that maybe getting you to a critical stage. And Pm just wondering why we don't look at that harder. MR.KURTZ: We are. We look at it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark,they look at it the year or two after we get bad flooding. And then it's like--the memory is like,ah,it's not that bad this year. We don't need this. MR.KURTZ: It really is. It's a challenge because with a road system you get that demand that comes in regularly right on time starting in another month from now. So you--your system gets maxed out every year annually. With stormwater,it could be five,six,seven years before the system gets really hit with, you know,a huge design storm,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Amy wants to help. MS.PAITERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson,again,for the record. If it's going to become part of your recommendation that we explore alternative revenue sources for stormwater,then we'll move this along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that was the intent. MS.PATTERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think,to help yourselves,when you put a package for the AUIR together to say there's a master list out there but not include it doesn't help you. So I think the amount of pages and data that that would take up would add an impact to your needs, and I think-- MR.KURTZ: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that we need to be on top of it,not behind it. MS. PATl'ERSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ooh,I like that,Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you,Jerry. A person moved in--I'm talking about the swales,and I'm going to say Logan Boulevard because there is--toward Pine Ridge Road,Someone moved in,and he said every--when it rains heavy it floods his home. And I was looking at those swales. And they don't look like they're maintained very well. Who is to maintain those swales? It looks like the culverts have got stuff in them. It just looks unkept. MR.KURTZ: The road maintenance department does,I feel,a pretty good job maintaining the swales. There's,you know,probably--I don't know the number—miles and miles and miles of swales. Swales are a--swales are a hard,heavy maintenance item as well as--picture everybody's driveway has to Page 36 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 have a pipe underneath it;however,a swale is a beautiful treatment facility,and it's subtle. A lot of swales--and some of the swales that work the best are only two feet deep,a foot-and-a-half deep,but the chemistry and biology that's going on in that overgrassed area that nobody can mow this time of year,it's actually cleaning the water. And the fact that some of the water's sitting in the swale,it's allowing it to percolate,which is critical. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,yeah. That part I understand. I just want to know who is to maintain it when you see this. This person asked--and I live on a preserve,and I am just so thrilled right now that we have water in that preserve. And along Immokalee Road you will see the birds in there with the outfall. And we were in a drought for so many years. It's normal this time. I wish we were a little higher,but MR.KURTZ: It's a--you know,that's kind of a perceived level-of-service issue. The road maintenance department keeps them open,and if a particular culvert's plugged,they will come out and run the jet through it for flood control. But when you're talking about the weed growth and the standing water and,as well,a lot of the roadside swales,we do encourage the property owner to maintain that if they--you know,if they can,if they would,so you do have a lot of that going on. That's why you see some of them really,really looking good and some not so looking good. But one that looks really bad and has a perception of causing flooding is not necessarily the case. They're high maintenance items,but they are very,very effective. I have a"save the swales"campaign going on right now. I'm just kidding,but I fight to--a lot of people want to make those swales go away. And especially in neighborhoods like Logan where,literally,the only water management system in a neighborhood like that is the roadside swale,a lot of people want to pipe it,put in a pipe at their cost and make that go away. The amount of treatment capacity,as well as conveyance capacity,you get from a piped-in swale,nowhere close to an open swale. So I personally fight to keep as many swales open as we have,knowing they're kind of an eyesore sometimes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But I was just wondering—they asked who maintains those. So I thought I would ask you so the general public would know. MR.KURTZ: Road maintenance department,generally. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,thank you. MR.KURTZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything on stormwater? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Jerry,thank you. MR.KURTZ: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll need to make a motion to the Board of County Commissioners. I'd suggest that we may want to include the following: Consider alternative revenue sources and include the overall comprehensive stormwater needs database list as part of the AUIR,so-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Charlette. Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. Page 37 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you,Jerry. MR.KURTZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to move into the utility departments,both--we're going to-- now,here's the situation. We've got to take lunch at some point. And so I can tell you,the only thing we're going to get through if--hopefully all of it--is the utility department's issues,which are the stormwater management system,the portable water system--potable water system,I'm sorry,and wastewater collection and treatment system. We're going to attempt to get that done before lunch,then we'll take an hour lunch. So anybody else waiting for anything else,I can tell you it's not going to happen before lunch. The earliest we would leave for lunch would be 12 o'clock,and we take an hour. We might leave a little later if we're close to getting through the utilities department. So,with that in mind,we'll go forward.Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: ***Just to re-mention what Mike had indicated earlier,there are three pages in your books regarding the public utilities,Pages 83,'4,and 85 that are essentially removed and should be ignored. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kris,the order in the book is with potable water first. Is that one you can start with,or is that-- MR.VAN LENGEN: I think so,yes. Thank you,sir. And,Mr.Chairman,I think I would probably prefer to do it one at a time. I think maybe last year we did them at least two together. But if we do them one at a time,I would just give a very brief introduction to each. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be appreciated. MR.VAN LENGEN: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys aren't making substantial improvements or any improvements, from what I can see. There's probably some questions,but I don't think we need to go into the depth if we're not doing any capital improvement. MR.VAN LENGEN: Thank you. And for the record,Kris Van Lengen,principal planner with public utilities. And with me today is Dan Rodriguez,director of your solid and hazardous waste department, as well as Joe Ballone,director of financial operations. The one thing that's new this year is the summary page,and I appreciate your comments in past years to include the summary pages. We haven't had that previously,so it's a nice snapshot and easy to look at for each individual element. As well--and we're starting with water. I would just draw your attention to the map at Page 54. We listened to you last year. We determined that there were some areas that were very remote coastal areas that should be removed,and we removed those as well as adding certain other areas that should have been added. Again,the idea of the served area is really what we're talking about here. And the served area reflects those areas that we actually serve and intend to serve within the next 10 years within our existing district. Those areas that are served areas are studied by the comprehensive planning department,and they apply their population analysis to those served areas. So they do the population projections just on that area so that we're not looking at capacity that's unnecessary capacity going forward as in the past. It's about 92 percent of the population base. So,essentially,in terms of population within the district,we're talking about 92 percent of the population there. The biggest change with water--and this is really my remark in terms of water is that we've changed the level-of-service standard from 170,which was established in 2007/2008,and is now at 150,because that's the recommendation we--that's contained in our current master plan. That master plan is developed in 2014. We'll be going to the board within a few months. And it's the result of about a year-and-a-half of study,consultant input,and so forth. The lower level-of-service standard really reflects less consumption over a period of years.We Page 38 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 looked at 10 years. We looked at five years.We think that 150 is probably the most realistic figure to use at this point in time. We'll be looking again at that number in the next master plan update within a couple of years. With that,I would just say that we find that,given our present facilities currently in place--and, again,level of service for water relates to the water treatment plant;it doesn't really relate to other facilities. So based on that level of service,we're showing you that we do not need new treatment trains or new plants within the next 10-year period. And I complete that and open it for your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question on the Orangetree. Has Collier County taken over Orangetree yet? MR.VAN LENGEN: Thank you for that question.The answer is--and I've discussed this with our County Attorney's Office. We are back in litigation. The County Attorney's Office cannot comment on it for that reason,and staff cannot comment on it for that reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.VAN LENGEN: My apologies. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,it's fine. But I know the building that's going to go on in that area, so it's a big concern. MR.VAN LENGEN: I appreciate your concern, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kris,on your Page 50,which is the--it says introduction,so--you have three items listed under introduction. The first one says concurrency is shown in 10 years rather than 20 years. That's fine. How long,though,does it take you guys to get a plant online? MR.VAN LENGEN: Well,a brand new plant,I think an industry standard is around eight to nine years,and that's typically what we look at for a brand new regional type of plant similar to what we have now,and that would be as if we had no real estate that's already been sited and we hadn't begun any other work on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there some way on the AUIR then,because you know you need that kind of lead time,you could put a milestone mark in whatever particular year you need to think about starting to be prepared for permitting and building,constructing,and designing the next plant so we know what's coming up even though—because you cut your window down from 20 to 10 years. MR VAN LENGEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so we can't see as far ahead as we used to. And part of the checks and balances would always be to make sure that we're thinking ahead. And then I'm going to have the same suggestion for the solid waste plant,too,solid waste facilities. But is that something you could consider for your next AUIR? MR.VAN LENGEN: I think so. We do have a fairly blunt instrument. And if you look at Page 51, it's Column 9 that talks about retained and deficit constructed system capacity target values. And really what that means is if the remaining constructed system capacity in Column 8 goes below.9 MGD,then we better have something ready to go online the very next year. The maximum means we're going,like,eight or nine years out if--and that's--again,that's the industry standard. It's very blunt,and I can refine that a little bit for you. But we better start thinking,if it goes down to 9.5,then we need to have something under design and acquisition at that point in time. And then from there it's about eight years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So we'd have to--someone would have to understand what that means,then extrapolate out what the retained deficiency column would predict to be at that time,and then go back in and show where the constructed capacity would need to be plugged in and the year,and that's fine. But then from that you'd have to back up eight or nine years to start your program where you're showing when you start to--you have to start getting prepared for that plant you want to have actually be in the ground and operating nine years from now or eight years from now. MR.VAN LENGEN: Sure. And if that were the case right now,that we need something--well, let's say two years from now we need something in nine years,and two years will show up on here as Page 39 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 something that will be needed in Year 9 or 10.However,I understand your point. Maybe you want a little bit more lead time in looking at it. But just to put a finer point on that,eight years,again,as an industry standard. If we look at regional type of plant,such as we have been planning in the northeast area,that would take less than eight or nine years. It would probably take closer to five years,because we've already begun the design,which is still very viable. In fact,its virtually complete. It would just need to be revised in some respects. We already have the siting and the location,so that's more of a five-year type of window. Also,if we were going to a decentralized model,we may need less time also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine. So whether the time is four years,three years,nine years,I think a milestone placement on the schedule would be helpful just in planning,not just for us,but I think the Board of County Commissioners. It would be handy for them to know,well,nine years down the road we've got to make sure we start thinking ahead and keeping it in the back of their head,even though it doesn't show up on these schedules. MR.VAN LENGEN: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just a suggestion. I did notice your reduction in capacity from 170 to 150 helped,because you did have a plant scheduled for 2023,and that's been put off. And I'm assuming that's more due to the reduction in capacity per person than it is for anything else,because it gave you a lot more lead time,a lot more out-time. MR.VAN LENGEN: It does. If you look at our master plan that's under review,it pushes it out to about 2030 when we would need additional treatment trains,not a new plant but additional capacity at an existing plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I also noticed in your revenue and cost and your projects you have a debt service,you've got expansion,which is zero because we don't need any right now;you have replacement and rehabilitation,which is the bulk of your money,and then departmental capital. How do you build up for that plant you may need in 20--what,nine years down the road,say 2027 or'28? Can you build up reserve so we can--instead of relying so much on bonding,reduce the bonding capabilities and have more accumulated reserve,or is that just not feasible? MR.VAN LENGEN: I may defer that question to Mr.Joe Ballone. I think he may have a more accurate answer than I could provide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.BALLONE: Good morning. For the record,Joe Ballone,the finance director for public utilities. We are slowly building reserves on the capital side,particularly in the impact fee funds,which is-- which are the funds that we would need to build the additional capacity. Right now impact fees are actually paying for debt service,which it wasn't before. We're actually doing that now again. And as we proceed through the next few years,collecting impact fees,we will build the reserves— pay off the debt and build the reserves such that when we do need the facilities,we'll have the funds available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you started out by saying we are starting to build reserves? I didn't see any on these charts for the next five years.Did I miss it? MR.BALLONE: They're not on the charts.Those are related to the--just the capital investment itself,the Capital Improvement Element.We do have reserves on the operating side,we have reserves on the capital side,and we have reserves in the debt funds as well. All the--all the funds within the Collier County Water/Sewer District do have reserves in accordance with the budget policy that the board approved in February. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Couldn't you show those on these tables that you're showing? I expected the total amount that you were showing is about 30 million for potable water was the revenue and costs allocated to your department. Now you're saying there's more funds than that involved? MR.BALLONE: There are more funds that actually fund the operating section. This is only capital element. We have--for--user fees will fund operations,and there are reserves for operations. They'll fund Page 40 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 debt service,operating debt service. Those have reserves,according to bond stipulations. And then we have the transfers to the capital funds,which also have reserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the capital reserves,shouldn't they be shown in the AUIR? MR.BALLONE: We do have them. The budget documents that the board approved show the reserves and the rate study that we just had approved include the reserves in accordance with the board policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think it would be helpful to show those reserves as potential projects and then the revenue that they're derived from so we know that you are benefiting from the impact fees even though you're not spending the money because you're not producing any new projects,but they will be utilized for projects in the future. I think that would be helpful to see on this-- MR.BALLONE: We can build that schedule to show the reserves and the corresponding revenue that supports those reserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it. MR.BALLONE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me see if I have--I think that,Kris,that's the last question. Does anybody else have any questions on the panel? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have something. Kris,when you're talking about planning for new plants,and you're talking if you have them already designed and sited then you have a shorter turnaround time,do we own the land for future sites or-- MR.VAN LENGEN: We own the land for northeast. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. So we wouldn't have to acquire any real estate for any future plants at some point? MR.VAN LENGEN: Not for that one in particular. There may be a reason to have alternate types of facilities and alternate types of acquisitions,and that's something we'll continue to look at. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Now,do we build that into the planning horizon for those new plants? MR.VAN LENGEN: Oh,yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So it would take more,possibly,than eight or nine years? MR.VAN LENGEN: No. The eight or nine years would include that particular function. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. MR.VAN LENGEN: That's sort of the industry standard,and that's what we go by for building a brand new regional type of plant. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And,Kris,one more question. You've heard probably mentioned a couple times this morning the Big Cypress project. MR.VAN LENGEN: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a large project,and it's going to go out in the rural area. I would hope that your department is actively involved in reviewing that with the comprehensive and planning department. I'm not sure how they're going to impact your potential plant out there. I know Ave Maria at one time was going to do that,and then they built their own,so I'm not sure what Big Cypress is going to do,but your input would certainly be-- MR VAN LENGEN: Sure,thank you. We are continuing--or beginning conversations,because until fairly recently I think we heard thirdhand information. Maybe you'd call it a rumor. Within the last few months we've had conversations, and we continue to have conversations with comprehensive planning. It is the intention of our division to be ready,willing,and able to serve areas to the east. Much like we did with the rural fringe after the enactment of the special act in 2003,we included the rural fringe as areas within our district. We would propose to do the same. And so with BCC approval,we think it's appropriate that we serve areas such as Big Cypress in the Rural Land Stewardship Area,and I think there would be economies of scale in doing so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And yesterday or the day before there was a notification for a preapp over at the development services offices for another SRA that is being--that may be--that is apparently going to Page 41 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 apply to come in,and it's for a project on the edge of--surrounded on three sides by Golden Gate Estates just north of Oil Well Road. So that's another one that we—I mean,it's 645 acres. I have no idea what they're intending to put there yet,but they--the intention,apparently,for the preapp is to consider it as an SRA area. That will be something you guys may want to look at closely. MR.VAN LENGEN: And we consider it a very good match. The whole point of the studies that led to rural fringe,that led to the SRA towns and villages,was that it's clustered development,and that's the whole point of cluster—not the whole point,but one of the big points of cluster development other than the environmental advantages is also the provision of utilities. And so we want to be there,we expect to be there,and we'll plan to be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. Anybody else on the potable water? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not,if we want to consider a recommendation,I would suggest that we may want to include to--add lead times for the milestones for when projects are coming up that need to be noted on the schedules,and then add a--add the reserves for a capital project as a line item to the AUIR as well. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I agree with that,and I will make a motion to include those two items and to move this forward. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Charlette,seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. We can go to lunch for now for an hour and come back and finish up the utilities,or we can try to get through the utilities,which probably would take a half an hour or more. Arid do you—does your department have any preferences? Does it matter to you guys whether you take a lunch now and come back,or-- MR.VAN LENGEN: We'd love to just get right through,but that's totally up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What do you guys want to do? It will take us about 30 minutes to 45 minutes;is that okay? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,the other people were coming back later. I don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I just want to make sure we're along the same page. That's fine. Okay. Well,then let's move onto wastewater. MR.VAN LENGEN: And by way of introduction,I don't have a lot of information to add on wastewater to add to what you have before you.It's similar to water in a lot of ways other than the fact that we have two service areas rather than one,because transmission of wastewater is a little more limited than water itself. So we showed it in two separate service areas. Again,neither service area shows a need for additional facilities or capacity in either service area over the next 10 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody? Kris,my questions on this one were mirrored by the first one,and I would suggest the same recommendations that we made on the first one be applied to this one as well. Both the lead times and the additional line items for reserves for capital projects would sure provide a clearer picture. Page 42 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 So if someone here wants to make a motion to that effect,to move it forward,we'd be good to go. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: rll make the motion with those two provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chartette. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Now,the last one for right now is the solid waste disposal facilities. MR.VAN LENGEN: And solid waste,as you know,covers the entire county,including the municipalities,not just a district but the entire county. And concurrency for solid waste is measured in two different ways. They're both landfill related. One is permitted landfill capacity,a minimum of 10 years,and the other is lined cell capacity of the landfill,a minimum of two years. You'll see on Page 78,the permitted capacity goes well beyond 10 years and,in fact,extends more than 50 years,to 2069,for a total permitting capacity. On the—Page 82,the lined cell capacity,you can see that it goes well beyond the two-year period. We have Cell 87 that was recently completed;Cell 88,which is programmed for 2018. And those will be--that will provide about five additional years of capacity,so well beyond the two-year requirement. Those would be my introductory comments,and we'd love to entertain your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question. My question has to do with recycling. We had a 60 percent recycling in 2013,and we are looking at that rate to increase in the years in the future.What facilities do we need to plan for in order to address that additional recycling capability? MR.VAN LENGEN: Well,one facility that's been funded and in the works for quite some time is the northeast recycling center,and I believe that comes online--when,Dan,in--next fall? MR.RODRIGUEZ: Yes,with board approval. MR.VAN LENGEN: With board approval by next fall,and that will certainly provide a regional benefit to Estates areas and areas further east than currently is available,so we think that will make a big difference. Other initiatives include credits that we would get through FDEP. As we did dill with the landfill gas-to-energy we may also get with a biosolid solution,and that's something that we'll be working on going forward. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. So for right now,the plant that's coming online next year is really the one that's in the five-year window,or--that you're planning on right now. MR.VAN LENGEN: It's a recycling dropoff center,so it's not so much of a plant,but yes,and that would be in the five-year window. It's not--the reason it's not listed on our CIE is that it's not related to landfill capacity,which is,strictly speaking,our level-of-service standard. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. But it's an important component of that solid waste. MR.VAN LENGEN: I agree,yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Kris,where do they take--where do they take recyclables? Where is that taken? MR.VAN LENGEN: Oh,what a great question.It's--it goes on a fairly long trip. It starts curbside. Page 43 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 It goes to--through the Waste Management system and all the way over to Pembroke Pines at the present time. It goes through their plant for separation and treatment. It comes out of their plant,takes another transportation trip depending on where the recycle purchasing markets really are. Right now,from what I understand,China is one of the major buyers of these recyclable goods,so they may go on a very long journey. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And--so the cost of recycling is--I mean,yes,the long trip. And I remember just not too long ago we reminded the residents within our community that Mr.Rodriguez does not want you to use plastic bags,he wants you to use paper in the recycling and just loose,really,is what they prefer. Makes a big difference. But I was wondering--because Collier—Lee County,I believe,bums a lot of their stuff,and they do theirs completely different than we do.But--so we take it over to Pembroke Pines then? MR.VAN LENGEN: That's right. And Waste Management takes it over. It's their material at that point in time under our collections contract. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.VAN LENGEN: So they own the material,they deal with it,they dispose of it,so they take the risk of getting a--the amount of revenue from those materials to cover their costs of dealing with them. Some types of materials are winners. Some are losers,depending on what you're talking about.And, of course,from time to time,those commodities vary. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kris,the tons per capita disposal rate under the—Page 75,Table 1,which is your 10 years,in 2012,we had dropped from 52 to 51,it went backup to 52 in 2013,we're back to 53 in 2014,then we're predicted to go back down and stabilize at 52. With the increase in recycling that we have,why is the disposal rate gone up? I mean,wouldn't the fact we're doing more recycling show a lesser disposable rate,or is it supposed to--is the recycling part of the disposal? MR.VAN LENGEN: No. The recycling is not part of the disposal rate. That rate is related strictly to the volume of material that goes to the landfill. So why does it go upon a per-capita basis? It's a good question and a fair one,and I think both the economy recovering is a big part of it. Tourism recovering is a big part of it. I think tourism was up 4 percent in 2014 over 2013.2014,by the way,is an estimation because our data call for this project is in June. So we take the information we had. It was a robust tourist season this year,even though there was— 4 percent in terms of total visitors,they were counted. There was about an 11 percent jump in actual expenditures during that year. So it's just a much more robust economy. I think a little bit of uptick might be anticipated.And then the downtick you see starting in 2015 is simply a mathematical equation that equals the last three-year average. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the table on Page—actually,the graph on Page 78,that shows in 2012 that the vertical expansion kicks in to 200 feet,and that gives you a much greater capacity on the books. But if you go down four pages to the graph on Page 82,there's a jump in capacity in 2020. And I'm just wondering if the two are supposed to relate. One is for the same thing,I think,isn't it? MR.VAN LENGEN: I appreciate your confusion there. It is,in a way-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You appreciate my confusion? MR.VAN LENGEN: I do,I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do I. MR.VAN LENGEN: Because others have made the same comment,and we've had it this year for a few--this way for a few years. And at your direction,we'd be happy to change the format. The idea of the graph that's on Page 78 is to show site optimization,partially through vertical expansion. It's really 178 feet. We call it 200,but that would include other appurtenances,so we wouldn't go beyond 178. And that just shows total capacity for the landfill. Page 44 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 But when you jump to the graph on Page 82,we're really looking at here's what happens year to year as lined cells come in,and those are the years that you see going up to 2019,and that's the important part to this. And maybe we should just show that. I think the alternative that was in here erroneously two pages later shows it in that format. And we thought about that,doing it that way,but we didn't really--this was from 2013 data,so it's not--it's not accurate. And so it was not intended to be in here. But the point of the increase,the jump,as you would call it,on Page 82,is to just show this is the amount following the last planned cell lining that we would need further cells to be accommodated. So that's really the thinking behind doing it that way. If it's confusing,I appreciate that,and we can definitely change it to a different type of format. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think it's more confusing the way I was looking at this. And I thought,wow,I wonder what he's anticipating in 2020 that you're going to get that's going to give you that additional capacity. And I would think it would be clearer if you were consistent between the two graphs. MR.VAN LENGEN: Yeah. MR.RODRIGUEZ: Good morning,Planning Commission. For the record,Dan Rodriguez,your solid--your public utilities,solid,and hazardous waste department director. As the cells continue to develop at the landfill,there is one very large cell that will be created,and that's where you create a fill valley between the existing cells at the landfill,and that fill valley will create hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of disposal capacity,larger than what we're building now. We're building two-year,five-year cell increments,but as those fill in,you create this large fill valley in the center of the landfill,and that's where you're probably seeing that largest projection. And also--we're also adding in,as Kris stated,the vertical expansion that would come after that. Kind of combining the two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the fill valley is what you're working your way up to,but the lined cell capacity isn't based on the creation of the fill valley. It's based on the expansion to the 200-foot height,which occurs in 2012(sic). So I think that may provide better consistency between your graphs because your fill valley is just going to be created whether you're at 50 feet or 200 feet but,really,your capacity went up when you got the award to go to 200 feet,right? MR.RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. The capacity increased because of the permit availability; however,in order to go 178 feet,you must fill in that fill valley-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.RODRIGUEZ: --to have a stable floor,absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see,your lines on your chart say on the left,lined cell capacity balance, millions of tons. You had that balance the day you got the 200 feet. MR.RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think your charts would be more accurate if you reflected that time frame instead of when you think you're going to fill up that center piece and that's going to give you the addition. That's going to happen anyway. MR RODRIGUEZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So,I mean,that would be my suggestion to make it clearer. MR.RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then one other thing I'd like to add is the other thing that I mentioned. Last we talked on this issue—and it was years ago,and you know we've been--you've been coming before this board for a long time on the AUIR--we talked about the lead time it would take to produce a new dispose--solid waste disposal location or facility,whatever we want to do,and nobody wants them. Everybody--and at the time we did the RLSA,I remember we were talking--why don't we look at making that a requirement to fmd a location out there,but it never really happened. I would suggest that we put another milestone on this chart like we have in the others,that we need to start thinking about where our next location's going to be for solid waste in the time frame it takes to produce one of these solid waste facilities. And I thought it took decades,not just a few years. It was a rather complicated process because of everybody involved. Page 45 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 Is that something you would feel comfortable at least kind of highlighting in a bullet point--or just a dot on this graph showing when we ought to start thinking about it? MR.RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. We could include the planning phase and acquisition of property-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.RODRIGUEZ: —for further expansion of the landfill. As you know,we--thanks to the board support and directions,we acquired the property adjacent to the landfill,and that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,but Nick's going to put a road down the middle of that,so you're never going to see it. MR.RODRIGUEZ: We can share the facility,right? But speaking to your point,there has not been a permitted landfill site in the State of Florida,I think we're now up to 28 years. I used to say 25,but 28 years,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR.RODRIGUEZ: But the real drive is the board's integrated solid waste management strategy, because over the last 12 years since initial adoption and then further updates,we've been--Collier County produces about a million tons of waste per year,and the majority of that is managed by the private sector, whether it's commercial C&D material,horticultural waste,it actually never comes to the landfill. Only about 209,000 tons comes to the landfill,so that's where that 60 percent recycling rate comes from. What do we need to do with our landfill? Of the 208,000(sic)tons that still go to the landfill,about 60 percent is still recyclables.We've got a lot of work to do with our businesses here in Collier County,so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting. MR.RODRIGUEZ: In addition to that,technology continues to advance. Collier County was one of the first to bring in single-stream recycling. And where that material is processed,automation continues to advance. So we anticipate as we--as the time progresses,technology will catch up to us and eventually get to one container and separate that. I believe this community is committed to recycling. We know the Board of County Commissioners, as all of us,are. And it's unheard of to be at 60 percent recycling. That's traditional recycling. In Collier County we don't burn our recyclables. They're actually reused,and we're sticking with the state's goal of getting to 75 percent recycling by 2020. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fantastic. Yeah,a lot--I think your recycling program is tremendous. I mean,it's a really good program. I fill my bin up more than I fill the other one up,so that's a complete,you know-- MR.RODRIGUEZ: And we appreciate the Planning Commission's support,because you helped us through the permitting process for the PUD for the resource recovery park,and we're happy to say that we've taken down and cleared 40 acres or—to start to bring in additional partnerships that we can move more of those recyclables out of our waste stream. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Dan,I noticed when I went to the dropoff place up north that I see a lot of televisions right now,tons and tons of televisions up there that are being recycled. Those are all taken over to Pembroke also? MR.RODRIGUEZ: No. Those are actually handled--because electronics,as heavy metals and other contaminates,they're considered hazardous waste,and that's a good-news story. Last year Collier County collected over 1,600,000 pounds of hazardous waste,including electronics. This next year we're forecasted to get to 2.7 million pounds,which is tremendous. Most communities do not collect or have a comprehensive or robust hazardous waste collection program. They just let it go in their green container and turn their backs. That's the other reason for the high recycling rate,because it does get pulled out. And a lot of the oils,different materials get recycled that can be recycled,and the hazardous waste,herbicides,pesticides, things like that that cannot be recycled,get incinerated at facilities north of Florida. So that's an excellent program. And the electronics continue to come in,and we appreciate the support from the community. Page 46 of 73 CCPC/AUIRJCIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well,I notice when you went to the new container with the yellow lid,it was unbelievable the amount of people that started recycling,when they could put everything in there and the neighbors just couldn't see it rather than in the little box they would carry out. So,I mean,it's been tremendous. I absolutely love the program that Collier County has. MR.RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. And the credit also goes to our administrator,Dr.Yilmaz,who helped to lay the foundation for that with the board's direction and support. Of course,our county manager has committed to ensuring that we control our destiny by recycling,and it's sustainable. Most communities,they have five, 10 years left of capacity,and they're held hostage to a contract with an incinerator or an unknown. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.RODRIGUEZ: Great,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one more question,Kris,and it's on your topic,but it's not from your element. It's from the CIE on Page 117 of your book. And that is a--that is your element's entry into the CIE. And I have--there's two boxes on the bottom of that page,and I'll read the box on the right that I've got a question about. It says,pursuant to the landfill operating agreement with Waste Management,Inc.,of Florida, landfill cell construction is scheduled and guaranteed by Waste Management over the life of the Collier County Landfill. Collier County Landfill expansion costs are paid by Waste Management through agreed upon Collier County Landfill tipping fees,and it goes on from there. Now,you're showing a buildout that goes into,what,60--2060 sometime. So we're 30 or 40 years down the road. The reading of that page seems to indicate that we have a contract with Waste Management for that length of time,because that's the only way they could guarantee that length of time. Is that what we have? MR.VAN LENGEN: That's actually correct.With the landfill operating contract,it is a"life of the landfill"length of time for that particular contract. Now,we have another important contract,which is the collections contract,and that's on a different time frame. That expires in 2020,I believe,with a seven-year renewal. So they're two different contracts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's a written contract with Waste Management that says they've got that landfill for the life of the landfill? MR.VAN LENGEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we wanted to competitively bid the collections,whoever came in to do that,if it wasn't Waste Management,would be up against having to deal with them at the landfill? MR.VAN LENGEN: Well,we control the gate,so—and we control the rates,so the landfill itself is on a cost basis with a CPI increase that's a percentage of CPI. So they wouldn't really control--they wouldn't have any leverage over the collections side of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.VAN LENGEN: So we would still be able to competitively bid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was interesting to see a 40-year guarantee or more based on the time frames,especially—I didn't know government could issue contracts for that length of time. We still own the underlying land though,right,as a county? MR VAN LENGEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Interesting. With that,that's the last question I have.Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's none other--if we're looking for a motion,I would suggest we ask that we add the milestone note for solid waste as well and request that the graphs show consistency when the new height was benefited to the landfill as far as capacity goes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll make a motion with those two provisions included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Charlette. Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --Stan. Page 47 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. • CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you very much,guys. I appreciate your time today. And with that,we'll take a one-hour lunch--well,less than an hour. We'll take a--we'll come back 12:15,a couple minutes shy of an hour— 1:15,I'm sorry. Let's resume at 1:15 and finish up. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR.BOSI: Sorry,Chair. I was discussing important matters with the impact fee manager-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. MR.BOSI: --related to your earlier motions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back from our lunch break. And we left off finishing up with the utility systems,and we're going to move into public schools by Amy Taylor,who's not here,so this should be a really short one. But Pm sure,Tom,you're going to fill in for her. MR.EASTMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.EASTMAN: Yes,once again,the school district has no new sites in its five-year capital plan. This year we do have an addition,and it's in Immokalee. It's at the Immokalee Middle School.And this is a --I think a 16-to 18-room classroom building,and it's to accommodate the sixth graders in the entire Immokalee community going back to the middle school. Some years ago they were retained at the elementaries,not grade-wise,but just location-wise,and now they're going to be full participants in the middle school with all sports activities available to them and all curriculum activities available at the middle school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just curious,do you use the county's population figures, or do you have your own way of figuring how many kids you're going to have and—and I know for a long time you built a lot of schools,and then the population went down. Where are you at with that? MR.EASTMAN: The answer is yes,we use both.We work hand in hand with the county. We use the same BEBR numbers. But we also use our historic numbers of the community to get kind of a read on which types of developments produce kids. So it's a combination as far as that goes. And we went through a big building phase,and we also went through a class size reduction phase. Currently we have capacity,and I think the next steps could potentially involve attendance boundary rezones because,as you can see,we have no new facilities. But,obviously,that's not a forever position. And we, obviously,will need to conduct--or construct new facilities as the demand creates the need for those. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thanks,Tom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: On your boundary,Tom,when do you figure you're going to start using some of this? I mean,how do we know,like—I'm just going to use Gulf Coast High School. How close is it to filling out? And how with all the new building that's heading that area--and you have to know years in advance to start planning. And I know you have property around there. Where do you feel--the next schools,do you feel,will be out east? MR.EASTMAN: We do it each and every year,and we don't have a new school planned in the five years. But I do think that--I do think there's some need potentially along the 951 corridor with the Hacienda Page 48 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 Lakes and the Lely Elementary. And,really,as Nick was giving his presentation talking about the hot areas in terms of congestion on the county roads,those are two of the hot areas for school situations. You hit the nail on the head with the Gulf Coast attendance zone and the developments along that area,and then it's also down in the 951 corridor. Those are our areas of particular focus looking forward. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Tom-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Charlette. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: --I had a question to follow up on what you were already commenting on. What do you use to determine what developments or areas are attracting families and kids? You said that you take a look at other factors besides the population from the BEBR. What are some of those other factors? MR.EASTMAN: It's fairly straightforward. I mean,an extreme and obvious example is,an age-restricted community 55 and above is obviously not a strong kid producer. And then if you look at sort of high-end development where homes are exceeding$500,000 for a single-family home,that's usually less of a kid producer for student demand. If you're looking at an apartment complex,that's sort of a high kid production increasing the demand for public school seats. And it's really not that difficult to follow or understand. It's—generally speaking,most people have children in their younger years of life,and that's when they have less money. And then in their older years of life when they have more money and they can afford something more high-end or expensive,their kids are out of the house. So--I mean,it's really along those lines.But that medium price single-family home,that does produce kids. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,some of the rules,I believe,have changed in the way the state has required us to consider and look at schools as an element;is that correct? MR.BOSI: Yes. In 2011,the Community Planning Act,both schools,parks,roads have been made optional elements of the Growth Management Plan. So the schools,roads,parks,ifs up to the local government as to whether they want to continue to include those as part of their concurrency management system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we currently have a mutual agreement with the schools for review of their projects like we used to have,or has that gone by the wayside? MR.BOSI: The--and that's referred to as a School Board Review or the SBR. The SBR has--the date has passed. We still utilize the template and fonnat for how we exchange information on some of the projects that would have a bearing upon the school district. But for the passage of time,we actually--we're outside of that individual window for when that was --the SBR was established. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why it hasn't been reviewed? MR.BOSI: My--the only--we haven't encountered a problem, and we've worked individually. My administrator,Nick Casalanguida,and Mr.Eastman and folks over at the school district have worked individually on the issues that have come up,but we--and I can't give you 100 percent explanation as to why we haven't updated that SBR or the agreement with the school district. MR.EASTMAN: The reviews are continuing. For example,with respect to the addition that I just spoke of in Immokalee,we have submitted the review plans to the county. And before we put a shovel in the ground or proceed with the project,we do obtain the county's approval of the review. So it's ongoing review process in coordination with the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And why are you doing that if it's not required? MR.EASTMAN: We're doing it because it's good practice and policy. And when--a school site Page 49 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 definitely impacts the county in obvious ways. For example,traffic circulation or when we would be tapping into the utility system or from a drainage perspective,and those are--that's just good coordination. And so we--we can't escape a review in its entirety. The state statute does demand a cursory review in terms of compatibility and health and safety,and we're just kind of working within that framework,as Mike had mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what good is the expired SBR then? MR.EASTMAN: I don't think it's any good other than setting a context for the different parameters of review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's unenforceable at this point because it's expired? MR.EASTMAN: That's correct. And what is enforceable and what is the current framework is the background set by the Florida Statutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Mike,this AUIR has 15 or 16 elements sections,for lack of a better term. Are all these the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners? MR.BOSI: No. There are a number of components for the provision in the services act underneath Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Budget-wise? MR.BOSI: Budget-wise--budget-wise,for the construction of the capital of their facilities,but not for the budget into their operating activities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the capital facilities for schools are the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners'budget? MR.BOSI: No. The capital facilities for law enforcement,for jails-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,I know. MR.BOSI: —Supervisor of Elections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what I'm trying to get at is,out of all of our 15 or 16 elements here,the only one that's not budgeted by the Board of County Commissioners is the school system,correct? MR.BOSI: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So--and they've already passed their budget,I believe. MR.BOSI: I believe they—yes,they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe there's a lot more to their capital improvement program than five summaries pages that they've given us to review for an AUIR element. MR.BOSI: It's over 200 and some odd pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what value is it for us to have to review this,for them to have to produce it,for the board to have to consider it,for everybody to agree--say,even recommend it when we have no idea what it involves because it isn't all here,number one,and,number two,they've already passed it anyway and,number three,we don't have any influence on the school board and what they do? So why are we messing with it? Why don't we just eliminate it as an element of the AUIR and life goes on like the statutes dictate? MR.BOSI: That's always an option available to the Board of County Commissioners and the school district if they decide to. MR.EASTMAN: Well,part of the review--I think it's important to distinguish between apples and oranges. When you talk about the SBR review,that is--let's say it's an apple,and that is the review of us building a particular facility. When you talk about the review of our budget,that could go in line with our currently active concurrency agreement which requires the county to look at our budget and look at the projects that are coming down the road to make certain that if there is a county infrastructure that's necessary,that would be online as well. That's all according to the Florida Statutes. So we do have an active concurrency agreement which demands that there's coordination between the county and the school district,and we have an expired SBR agreement which relates to the construction of new facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my discussion about the SBR agreement and how that is surviving, Page 50 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 even after the expiration,is merely to show that everything we have going on right now is going on outside and beyond anything that has to do with what we do with this element for the school board. The school board's not listening to us. I mean,you're going to go back and say we don't like the way you've improved this school,you need to move it to two years out? No. So I don't know why we're wasting our time with this element. I can't see it,especially if it's not required by statute any longer. I'm just suggesting we may not want to waste any time with it. MR.EASTMAN: And your point's well taken,and it's really an excellent point,and I think what you're getting to at the heart of the matter is whether school concurrency should continue or not. School--the coordination between the school district and the county should definitely continue,but the requirement for school concurrency would alleviate this requirement. We would be outside of concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,pros and cons to removing this? Any suggestions in that regard? MR.BOSI: Well,I would have to echo Tom's statement in the sense that even if we were to remove school concurrency,the communication and the dialogue and the exchange of long-range plan,short-range plan will still be nice--still believe will still continue with the school district just because of the recognition of the infrastructure requirements and the coordination that's needed to ensure the safety and the safe passage and--for the individuals to be able to—to get to the schools in a safe and efficient manner. But the removal of the school concurrency I don't believe would be a tremendous detriment to the overall health,safety,welfare and the ability to plan long term for the schools that are needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The five pages that are in this AUIR,since you're the comprehensive planning manager,do they carry any relevance to you in your planning? MR.BOSI: They carry relevance in the sense that there is no school capacity,there are no school projects for expansion contained for--of new schools,and the recognition of the one—the one project that they are other than--other than just the recognition of where the projects are.That's really the value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you have that outside--if this wasn't a part of the AUIR,is anything going to be lost that you would need or your department would need for planning? MR.BOSI: No,I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,I'm--we've been reviewing this for,I don't know,a few years now,and every time it's kind of one of these hopeless things to review. We can't have any impact on it. It's a done deal when it gets to us.And to understand how the school system operates is kind of like understanding how Collier County Government operates. It's one massive entity. And I don't know many people that can really sink their teeth into both entities. It's difficult enough to follow Collier County Government's multiple programs rather than jumping into the school board's mess,so-- MR.BOSI: And I would say that this Planning Commission has recommended in the past years to the Board of County Commissioners to eliminate school concurrency. The Board of County Commissioners have always said that school concurrency,the implementation of school concurrency ultimately lies within the decision of the school board,so they've deferred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I understand that there was a movement to get the school board to weigh in on that,but it's never been taken to their level. And I'm not sure—maybe Tom can tell us if there's any life to that. MR.EASTMAN: You're correct,again. We've discussed at the staff working group level--and to understand what that is,that's the planners from the various cities and the county getting together with our planner and other administrators to talk about the--what you're discussing,the pros and cons of eliminating school concurrency now that it's no longer a statutory mandate,but it's an optional program. And where we are with that is we have not vetted that at the senior administration level or made a presentation to the school board to get official direction. But that's a good--eventually a good idea to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--so if we,in our summary,recommended to the Board of County Commissioners to consider contacting the school board to determine if there are any benefits from continually including them in this process,in the AUIR process,that might open the door for that discussion, or help? MR.EASTMAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Well,anyway,that's--I'm just thinking out loud. Page 51 of 73 CCPC/AUIR'CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 Anybody else? MR.EASTMAN: As Mike mentioned,it has been the position of the County Commissioners to leave that in the discretion of the school district.But,sure,it could help to move things along for a consideration and a final decision, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Diane,did you have something you wanted-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I was just going to say,it would be--we don't have anything to do with it,but yet it's the largest thing on our tax bill is the schools. MR.EASTMAN: Yeah,but that's also governed by an elected body,so you're correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the--no other discussion. Is there anybody wanting to make a motion on this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I--just for whoever is the motion maker,during discussion,I would suggest that we include a request to the school board to determine if there are any benefits--to consider the benefits from being included or excluded from the AUIR. So--but that's up to the individual motion maker. Does anybody want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will make the motion with the caveat that you said,to put to the BCC whether we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Whether we--to approach the school board-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --to see if there's a necessity for remaining in the AUIR? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Diane,seconded by Charlette. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. ***Next item up is parks and recreational facilities. MR.WILLIAMS: Hi,good afternoon. Barry Williams,parks and recreation director. Commissioners,just a brief overview. In terms of the activity that we're looking at this year,a lot of similarities. Again,just to refresh your memories,what we do in terms of level of service for park land is we look at the acres per thousand people for community and regional parks. That excludes a lot of other things, neighborhood parks,Conservation Collier lands,all those lands. We're looking at those active recreational type amenities or park land when we're talking about this. So we're recommending that our level of service stay the same. The significant changes within the next five years include--there is an item that's been on this for several years now. It's the 47 acres related to Randall curve,and there have been a number of different directions that we've considered over the years,but we are in a position where we're looking to give those 47 acres back to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust. We do have some departments,though,that have expressed some interest in terms of development of those acres. Of course,that would be consistent with the wishes of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust. But, you know,from our vantage point,we are looking to not use those 47 acres as community park land. The other two significant things regarding changes in the five-year window is regional park land. Page 52 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 We do look for acquisition of 62 acres,roughly. These are acres that are associated with our building Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. Currently,these lands are owned and in the inventory of public utilities. And what we would be doing is purchasing those lands for the development of that park. So we're seeing that project moving forward this year. We actually have a public meeting scheduled for September 30th where we're trying to get the stakeholders involved in some discussion about our original plans that we had in 2005 for that park.Now it's 2014. We just want to make sure that what we planned for that park is still consistent with what the community's looking for. So that project is moving forward,and we will secure those acres next year with public utilities. The other thing that is associated with regional park land is a plan that's been in our five-year window for many years,and that is to actively manage 50 acres at Pepper Ranch. If you're not familiar with that project,that's been a campground that's been developed at that location. There's a lodge,and ifs about a --and we're using it as a trailhead as far as entry into Pepper Ranch. So the parks and rec department,while Conservation Collier's a component of the parks and rec, we're looking to basically take those 50 acres and move them to the park side of the house and manage those as active recreation. So with that,certainly,if you have any questions,I'm here to answer,but those are pretty much your highlights for parks and rec for this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions?Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just out of curiosity,on the revenue side,do you have any idea how much of your total revenue comes from kayak fees,kayak launch fees? MR.WILLIAMS: I don't. I can tell you a couple things. We do charge kayak fees at our boat launch facilities. We do charge$4 per launch. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,is that for--like,if I come in with a truck with three kayaks on it,what do I pay? MR.WILLIAMS: We'd want to try to charge you$12. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They do some places,and some places they do not. MR.WILLIAMS: Well,we do have a couple of locations that are undeveloped. Clam Pass is one where--and,actually,we're borrowing the land from Pelican Bay,you know,in terms of the access to Clam Pass there. We don't charge at that location. We have some other rough kayak launches. We have one in Margood where,you know,you can put in there,and we're not charging. Gordon River Greenway,which is a park that's going to open in the next month,has a kayak launch into the Gordon River. We're not charging at that location. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If you launch at Bayview Park,you can launch across the riprap into the bay. Do you have to pay? MR.WILLIAMS: Theoretically,you would be paying our$4 launch. We would look for that$4 slip in your car,on your-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Even though you don't know--I drive a pick-up. I park the pick-up,T take my kayak somewhere. You don't know that I have launched a kayak or three or four or what? MR.WILLIAMS: We've got people that look specifically for you in our park. No. It is--I would say we have some inconsistencies. I would say-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You have inconsistencies in how you charge the fees,and I'll tell you that from personal experience. Some places I get charged for the vehicle even if I have two or three kayaks,and some places they want to charge for the number of kayaks. MR.WILLIAMS: It should be--it should be by launch. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: In your Bayview Park,the way that thing is set up,you put in your$4,and it doesn't do anything. And then you ask for your$4 back,and it tells you it's not going to give you your money back. It gives you a ticket that says you only gave it$4. MR.WILLIAMS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And then you put that on your windshield and hope that the Page 53 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 guy understands what the ticket says. There should be something that says I launched a kayak and,you know, I paid$4. MR.WILLIAMS: I would agree--I would agree with you. Something more sophisticated than what we have would be helpful,absolutely. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It would be,yeah.And another question. How do you— like, I'm looking at Clam Pass. You say it's 35 acres of park,but yet there's a massive kayak and paddleboard use of that area that's much more than 35 acres. Why don't you--or Isles of Capri.You've got nine acres,but the total recreational area coming out of Isles of Capri,that little park you built-- MR.WILLIAMS: True. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --is a couple hundred acres. How do you compute—why don't you take that into account because that is recreational land? People launch their kayaks and go miles. MR. WILLIAMS: A couple of thoughts. You know,one is there is in--and has been pointed out by this board,there's a number of state and federal conservation lands that are in Collier County. In fact,I've heard statistics as large as 75 percent of the county is made up of those types of lands. What we're counting with our AUIR for park lands relates to those acres that are under our control and ownership. So I do agree that there's recreational components in the land mass that you're describing and actually the water recreation. We just don't count it as part of what we own and count towards requirements of the AUIR. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're doing a good job anyway. MR.WILLIAMS: Oh,I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Even though you charge me four bucks— MR.WILLIAMS: Well-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --and a guy with twin 250 Johnsons pays eight bucks. Go figure. MR.WILLIAMS: I appreciate your comments,I do. We've heard this-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So does Leo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,and a van full of 10 kids,with all the litter,the trash,the things they bring to the beach,they do a lot more harm and damage and cost for your upkeep than a kayaker who pulls up to the same parking spot and slides his unit into the water and paddles away quietly.I don't understand your reasoning behind the user fees for kayaks,but it's wrong. MR.WILLIAMS: Just real briefly. And we use user fees mainly to offset operating expenses related to the parks department. So,for the most part,our park's budget,as it's approved,we get about 40 cents from every dollar from user fees. So the user fees help offset those costs. If--and I just had this conversation this morning about somebody who didn't think we should charge user fees for athletics fields. And you could subsidize all of these 100 percent. You could not charge user fees and subsidize the parks department and let every taxpayer pay for those operating costs,but the board's philosophy has been to offset some of the operating costs. What it does allow you to do is it allows you to use your General Fund revenue for more--for other things,the life-safety issues that the government involves themselves in. Parks is certainly important,but when you kind of compare us to ambulances and firemen,we understand. The user fees help us to continue to provide a level of service for folks where it's not a total drain on the General Fund. So I totally--I'm open to discussions about reducing any of our fees if there's a desire to change that formula. But we're just carrying out the board-approved user fee schedule that's,you know,provided for for the parks department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--but that was slid on in an agenda item that wasn't really noticed to the public. It was--you just walked on with that one and included it in a lump sum with a whole bunch of others pages. That's how--I don't know if the board really focused on that as another one of your charges, because it was done with a pile of other stuff,like many things are. MR.WILLIAMS: We've actually reduced that fee. And,again,we took from users that felt--kind of your point of view that the impact on a--from a kayaker is less than somebody with those twin engines,so Page 54 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 we reduced the fee from$8 to$4 a couple years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The impact from a kayaker on your parks is zero. You don't have to do anything.We just pull up and use the same parking space that the people that use the beach do. I'm just disappointed we've progressed to that level where we've got to have selective users fees,because I don't see users fees on some of the recreational activities that are costing millions and millions of dollars to the taxpayers in this county,and that namely is bicycles. We have bicycle lanes all over the county that cost us millions in right-of-way,and they have-- actually are more of a life-safety issue than kayaks in parks could ever be,but we don't charge them. So if we're going to charge a user fee for one,we should charge it for all. And that's the part of it that bothers me the most is we don't--the state systems where I have had to go,the state system charges a user fee to enter the park,and everybody pays the same. That's great. And if we did that in our park system,I'd be happy with that because now I know everybody's treating fairly--treated equally,but I don't see that with kayakers or canoeists. I don't think it's the same. But that's a whole'nother issue,I guess,and not as relevant to the AUIR,so let's--I'll move back into the AUIR questions once we get done with anybody else. But every year I'll bring that discussion up. MR.WILLIAMS: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randall curve. I was asked to attend one of the GAC meetings to talk to them about the value of Randall curve. And I understood where their value ranges are based on what it's allocated to be,and it's not--from their perspective,I mean,if they didn't entitle the property with its restrictions on it,it couldn't be sold for an awful lot. Maybe the 47 acres might pick them up a half a million dollars, something in that range. If they could entitle it,they could triple or quadruple that easy,but that's a harder thing to do,and that's a legal issue because it involves things like contract zoning. You have it on your books at 8.3 million.Now,the--what they want to do with that property is use it to generate as much revenue as they can to give back to you to use for the Corkscrew Regional Park. If it's worth 8.3 million to you,why don't you get with them,figure out the most that they could possibly attain from an entitlement on that property,which can be done with a simple appraisal by our own real estate department,and then allocate that amount separately as a separate allocation to the regional park? That qualifies their need. You get the property that you can then swap out with any other departments that need it.From what you say some do,or if one of the other departments could look at this scenario and suggest the same thing rather than try to sell it on the open market. I'm just thinking,with that kind of value,why are we quibbling over this trying to sell it privately when you-all can benefit from the net value of the land? MR.WILLIAMS: Well,my first response is that the land is not worth$8 million. It is a dollar amount that we've associated with the acreage based on the index of our impact fees. And so,you know, market value would be what would determine the price of that property if it went for sale. I think that we're open to creativity on these 47 acres. I think the land itself was meant to benefit the Estates and benefit them in terms of creating a park. So how we can take that 47 acres and somehow bring that to a park amenity,I'm all for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well— MR.WILLIAMS: If we sell it--we sell the property,you know,we would have to work closely with Golden Gate Estates Land Trust because they've given us that property for the sole purpose of a park. So we couldn't--we can't be arbitrary or determine on our own what we would need to do. But,you know,part of our thought and our discussions with them has been this thought of returning the acres to them,and if they have those acres back in their inventory,could we get some benefit from that, you know,for example,Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. There's a lot of discussion about that,though,in terms of whether that's--you know,one of the things that we've found in the last couple of years,impact fees are starting to improve.We've got about$7.3 million that we have available through the Board of County Commissioners to begin working on Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. We think that we need about$15 million to build that park. We had an estimate a couple years ago Page 55 of'73 CCPC/AUIRJCIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 of about 11 to 13 million. But with inflation and whatnot,that number may be a little larger. Part of what we're dealing with,too,is that we want to see what people want out there for that park. I mean,what we designed in 2005,as I mentioned--2014,what are people looking for? We've had a couple public discussions about that. I think it didn't get quieter than when I mentioned that we were having a disc golf course at one of the civic association meetings. I could have heard crickets; that was the reaction I got. So I think we got some elements in there that we need to refresh and look at a little differently. When we were thinking of a disc golf course in 2005,I'm not sure that's what folks are looking for in '14. To go back to your original point,though,I think that the 47 acres,how we can dispose of it and make a benefit for park land,we're certainly open to that. It won't be for$8 million,though. I'm pretty sure of that. We haven't done appraisals on the land,but I would think that would be higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't suggesting eight million. I was just noting that's what you showed on your books. First of all,there's an--the warranty deed on that property--the deed on that property was amended,and the reverter clause was modified to allow that park land to be sold so long as money generated from it was put specifically towards the other park area. Now--or another park area. So there's no reason that if you were to work out something where they could see the benefit from the entitlement that they didn't need to get because the other county departments needed that property and those values were equivalent to what they could have gotten with their entitlements,they saved a lot of time. And their entitlements aren't going to be in the multiple millions. It might be a million and a half,something like that,by the time you get done looking at what you could do with that property. There would be a win-win for everybody,because you'd save a lot of effort trying to sell this on the open market and going through things that probably aren't going to help the value that much. MR.WILLIAMS: I do appreciate your point,and it is something that we would take into consideration. We do want to get it off the books,and that is a--what you described is accurate,and it would be a very good way for us to get what we could from the property to put into a park that people are really looking for,so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I have another question. I noticed that in your summary of park lands both in the text and in the acreage,I didn't see the acreage in Ave Maria,that's parks.There's 49.79 acres out there that's community park. Why didn't you include that? MR.WILLIAMS: That's a good point. I think there are a couple of things. One,as I understand it --I may need clarification--I do believe there were impact fee credits that were given for those parks that were developed as part of Ave Maria. We haven't traditionally counted those parks. They do make them available to the public,though,we know that,and--but it's not been--and it may be something I need to research a little bit more. We've not,historically,kept them as part of our inventory. We definitely could identify them, though. Just whether we would count them toward our required inventory would be the question I need to explore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I don't know how you can't require them if they're required by the Land Development--they're the only land use in Collier County that when it gets zoned it's required to have 200 square feet per unit per park. And Ave Maria has exactly that. They have a--well,just less--just barely less than 50-acre community park. It's labeled a community park in the LDC,and you're supposed to be including community parks in your summary. Now,you've got Ave Maria with 50 acres,and you've got Big Cypress which,if it's twice the size of Ave Maria,that's 100 acres there. I don't know why we wouldn't include these. And you include their population for your calculations,so out of rights you should include their parks. It's not like it's a private country club. MR. WILLIAMS: I would say you're probably right. And given what you're saying,let us look at that. We haven't historically kept them.Again,there had been a question at times whether those parks were available to the public,you know,in terms of whether that community would only allow those people that live in that community access to the park. Page 56 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 I don't know that that's necessarily the case,and what we've known over the last few years is the public has been able to use the park. So I think you've got a legitimate point. We used to have Big Cypress,remember,a DRI,and the park lands associated with that project in our AUIR until that project died,so it's very consistent with what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're both SRAs. And there's another SRA coming on the books besides those two. So by the time you get done--and they all have populations that are in their gross population calculation. So if they provide their own community parks that are dedicated community parks by the LDC,I'm not sure why we wouldn't want to count them. It would help everybody out. MR. WILLIAMS: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's another issue.The regional parks,if you take a look at your 2.7 acres per 1,000 population,that calculates out to 281 square feet per unit,and your community parks,at 1.2 acres per 1,000 population,that comes out to 125 square feet per unit. At Ave Maria,and in any SRA created in that RLSA,we require them to set aside 200 square feet per unit. So they actually got larger parks at a greater square footage than we have in our community park,so they're somewhere between their—an average between a regional and community park by square footage is 201. They're at 200. So they've got good-sized park systems out there. So I would suggest when we make any recommendation,that we include the consideration of Ave Maria--of SRA parks as part of your-- MR.WILLIAMS: Our issue would be simply is the public allowed to use the park if it's beyond just the people that live in Ave Maria and the public's able to use those parks,then I totally agree with you. If for some reason,though,that those parks are limited to those people that live in Ave Maria,that may be something where we need to look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then take the Ave Maria population off the books then,because they have their own community park. I mean,it's not like it's a residential country club. It's a community park. And as long as it's defined that,and it's required to in our Land Development Code,it makes no sense not to include it. Mike? MR.BOSI: And Amy had pointed out if we did make that decision,we would have to stop charging the residents within Ave Maria impact fees for parks. And I think the scenario is,they provided those parks outside of the parks system. They--those folks are still charged impact fees for community and regional parks,and at some point in time the park system will say a park system is needed within close proximity to that geographic area if the demand ever warrants it,but those parks that were provided by--in Ave Maria are not part of the park system,were provided by that private development and aren't included in our system because we didn't purchase the land,we didn't construct the facilities on there. And those lands aren't part of --I don't think the parks--the underlying ownership of the park is not Collier County. It's privately provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I know,but it's provided only because we required it in the Land Development Code. MR.BOSI: No. They made that choice to provide their own individual parks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I brought it with me,Mike. MR.BOSI: Did they? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Got to put it on the overhead. I figured somebody might question it. Then the first column on the--second column on the left is the requirements for towns,and so they have to put 200 square foot per development unit,and that's all I'm saying. And if they're not getting impact fee credits,then that's not right for them;they should. They shouldn't be paying twice for community parks,but they should be paying for regional parks. MS. PATTERSON: And they are. MR.BOSI: They're paying for regional and community. They're paying twice for community parks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's not fair.Anyway--and you're just here to verify that they are paying twice? MS.PATTERSON: They are paying twice. For community parks,they're paying their community parks impact fee and they are,in fact,providing parks. For regional it's different because-- Page 57 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I agree with you.Regional is a separate issue,because they're only required by the SRA rules to provide community parks. I definitely think we ought to look into this,and that's probably going to be part of the consideration going forward. MS.PATTERSON: We have been working on this a little bit,so I'll get with Mike,and we can-- and Barry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that would be a good thing. Thank you. We have more SRAs coming up now,so it's not going to be something that isn't going to have to come up for discussion in the next round,so-- MR.WILLIAMS: True. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only questions I had at this time other than I don't like your--I don't like your position on kayaking,but that's okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Sony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that,we'll--is there--first of all,I've made three notes. We should look into the SRA requirement for community parks that are required by the LDC,and then consider how they should be counted,either as an impact fee credit or as a park,and both--or as a park in the system,and second,that the 47-acre Randall curve property be considered as an enhancement for a deal to keep that park and somehow provide the funds needed for what the--what the committee is looking. 1 know that's kind of rough,but I think you get the point. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark,I'm going to ask you a question. Are you saying that the 47 acres on the curve of Randall,that some other department within Collier County could use those lands? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Here's what's going on. The committee technically owns the property.It was provided by GAC to enhance Golden Gate Estates. They're required to use that land in relationship to some park. If they sell it,the money has to go to a park within the--that will benefit the Estates area. Right now the parks department really doesn't need it. There are other departments that may need it, and the committee is trying to figure out how can we get more from it in a way that's—with an entitlement than just selling it as a deed-restricted parks land,because that's not worth much. It's worth maybe a half million for 47 acres. At least that's the number that one of them had mentioned to me;whereas,if they can entitle it as,like,a PUD,the raw land then becomes triple or quadruple in value. Well,that still doesn't equate to as much as that land value would mean to some of the departments here at the county. So rather than put one committee--the GAC committee through exercises to show how they can get a little more out of the land,end up taking the money and putting it back into the park system, why don't we simply see if the internal departments can move enough money over with--internally in their budgets to get to a value that is better than they could get if they tried to sell the property out on the open street,and that way the land is kept in the county for the various needs it needs,and we don't--and we end up benefiting the same way from it in regards to how we create a park in Golden Gate Estates. That's all. I think it just would save everybody a lot of effort and probably would generate a better value from a budget perspective than trying to sell the property as restricted as it is. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Absolutely. I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's the two points I wanted to make is take a closer look at the SRA community parks and how they're handled and how that 47 Randall curve acres could be handle. So if someone wants to make a motion. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll make the motion,but I thought you separated the SRA requirement into two parts with not only the SRA requirement but how it was--how they were counted as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I meant,yeah. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figure the discussion here,I think staff understands the two issues.One is how it's counted;second is how we handle the impact fees,whether they should be credited or not,because Page 58 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 they are required community parks. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Right. So with that clarification and the acreage for the park parcel that we already have,I'll make the motion to move this forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is that without the kayak fees? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,it's not the kayak fees. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's part of the motion. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Or it's with added bicycle fees. I haven't figured out what they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'm not really in favor of the fees. I'm just showing it as a discrepancy that doesn't make sense,you know. And we've got the so-expensive operations going on with no fees,and then-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I expect you to get letters from the bicyclists after this meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they're organized.That's why they never have fees. ***I guess the next item up would be jail and correctional facilities;it's on Page 131. I'm not sure what that's--that's what it's listed as where it starts. CHIEF SMITH: Good afternoon. For the record,Greg Smith,chief of administration for the Collier County Sheriffs Office. Like yourselves,I have been presented with the AUIR. I familiarized myself with it,and I'll help you by answering any questions you might have as regards to sheriffs operations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You like coming here every year and doing this? CHIEF SMITH: I don't mind it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think there's a value in it? CHIEF SMITH: I do,but I have to qualify that statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. CHIEF SMITH: It really has nothing to do with the AUIR process where I find the value. Where I find the value is that the sheriff constituency again gets to look into our operations and gets to validate what we're doing. We get to share some of the things that we're doing with regards to forward forecasting and those needs that we see on the horizon for us in the community. It gives us a chance to collaborate with my good friend,Mike Bosi,over here and the other elements of county government that otherwise we wouldn't be doing if we weren't doing this kind of exercise. So from that standpoint,I think it has a lot of value. From the standpoint of do we need them ratifying what we're doing as a constitutional officer,not so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,you just convinced me that we should just leave it like it is, and I was hoping you're--not that I dislike seeing you here,but to me it seemed irrelevant that you are here because the--a lot of this stuff doesn't really relate directly to the way you judge and count your facilities and how you need them,especially in the law enforcement one that's coming up next. I mean,we're saying you're short 70 officers,but I don't believe you are. But that's just because of the way we calculate it. Page 59 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 So I was trying to save your department the effort of having to go through this process every year. But if you think it's needed,I'm fine with that. CHIEF SMITH: Well, let me assuage your fears.It really doesn't take that much. We're doing this stuff anyway,this planning,this forecasting. We simply supply what we do to Mike in his department,then they include it in their report. So it's no extra work. We'd be doing this anyway,and we're just--basically just wrapping it in one comprehensive report that then someone can pick up and look at,and they can see all phases of county government and how they interact with regard to facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions on jails? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Well,I have a question. Since,Mr. Chairman,you brought up this shortage of 70 officers a couple times today,and-- CHIEF SMITH: Not in jails. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Not in jails? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's on the next one. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. I'll hold it then. CHIEF SMITH: Law enforcement-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: They're not in jail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on jails? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,we'll vote on these both at the same time,but let's go to law enforcement next. So now your question is more relevant. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. The shortage of 70 officers that the chairman has brought up twice,before we--we're in the discussion item now. It begged the question from me,do we have an incorrect level of service standard or a measure,or why would something show up on paper if,in fact, it doesn't reflect as accurately as it could ground truth for the number of officers that you have? CHIEF SMITH: Okay. I'm going to take a lot of time to answer your question. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay,good. CHIEF SMITH: But hopefully I do eventually.If I don't,just pull me back in,because I have a tendency to get in the weeds a little bit. But let's talk about the 70-officer deficiency for a second. When you look at the calls for service over the last five years,and especially since the economic downturn,you see them trimming down and the optimal probably staying flat. So you don't see a whole lot of increased activity. What happened was we,along with all aspects of county government,had to retool,so to speak,our budgets and reprioritize and basically try to find ways to deliver the same levels of service at greatly reduced budgets. Now,that wasn't just the sheriff and other constitutionals. That was invariably ever phase of county government. We could,as an independent constitutional officer,have said,we're going to maintain what we're doing;ifs up to you,county government,to go find the dollars. But we didn't. What we did was we worked with the county government,with the county manager,with the County Commission,and tried to find a way to deliver service,cut our budget,and still keep a safe community. We did that by allowing the natural attrition that occurs on a yearly basis within our agency to cycle through without backfilling it. So what happened in the course of that three,four,or five years was we had men and women who were retiring,who were moving out of state because,you know,the wife or the husband was connected to some kind of employment that,when the economic downturn occurred,forced them out of the area. We didn't backfill. So over that three-or four-year cycle,we got down to about 125 vacancies. What we did, operationally,was move around some substations,move around some other operational elements so that we could still provide calls for service without having to fill those vacancies. By doing so we were able to go back to the county and say,hey,listen,we're going to be either just outside or within your budget guidance for this year,but understand that these vacancies,we don't want to take them off the books because we don't want to have to come back later when population increases and have you,again,certify that,yes,those Page 60 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 vacancies are warranted. What we'd rather do is move them over to another category called"authorized but not funded." So we have these authorized but not funded positions,and they're not funded because we understand that there's just so much money with regard to ad valorem stream,especially,to go around. So what we have to do to meet budget guidance and to work with the county manager and his staff is just make the conscious effort that we're not going to fill those positions until we see an upswing in calls for service,till we see the crime rate start to go up a little bit,and until the population returns to the area that allows the county a bigger ad valorem stream;therefore,they can then re-fund the Sheriffs Office,and we can build back to where we're going to be. But for right now,we are starting to feel a little strained with what we're doing;you know,the men and women are starting to get a little taxed,and we're going to have to start laying in some of those other components. But,certainly,this—the budget that was just presented and passed for this year gives us the ability to effectually deal with the levels of service that were reflected in the AUIR. Did that even come close? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. I understood--I think I understood your excellent explanation in the fact that its easier to keep positions on the books but vacant than it is to fill them and then look for the money to fund those positions. I think I understand what you're trying to explain. So what's throwing that calculation--if we do a straight line calculation,then you should have 70 more officers,right,based upon the population? CHIEF SMITH: That's correct,if you go by this level of service. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: By straight line,where you're doing more of a qualitative cut on what you actually need to provide the community public safety. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. And this is one of those things that Mr.Strain points out that--you know, that divergence in what exactly is going on here,because budgeting is not based on the AUIR with regard to the sheriffs budget. You know,we're—you know,when the county manager sets the budget policy--and I could be wrong about this,but I don't think he looks at an AUIR and says,this is what we've got here,so here's what I think we should have. He issues that guidance based on what he knows is going to come in on the ad valorem revenue side of the house distributed out over all of the constitutionals and the other departments within county government and says,guys,try to hit this number,because this number is either--flat and won't require a millage adjustment. So in order to do that,then we have to go back and say,okay,here are the priorities.Here's what we've got to do. So that's how it's done. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm going to ask you a different question completely. With the vote coming up in November for medical marijuana,how is Collier County Jails,Collier County Sheriffs Office-- are you doing any planning on this at all? CHIEF SMITH: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well,it's important. I'm listening to what's happening out in Colorado,and I'm going,wow,you know. So I was just--can you explain what you have been,kind of, doing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I will tell you that we do a lot of futures forecasting. We have a futures committee that looks at,you know,different things that are on the horizon,not just the medical marijuana but some other things as well. Everything from reintegration strategies,prosecution strategies from the federal government,because you're very insightful because every one of those things has an effect not only on law enforcement activity,but corrections populations and medical,you know,facilities and everything else. So,yeah,you should be looking at those things. Page 61 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 So,you know,we're taking some of the lessons learned from Colorado. We're studying what's been going on there. Of course,a lot of the things that you see happening in Colorado right now are related to the legalization of marijuana,not restricted to medical use;although,like yourself,I would sit here and be very skeptical,but that's probably my nature. So,yeah. But we are looking at some things. I think the sheriff wants to approach the board in the next couple of weeks about a possible zoning restriction ordinance. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I notice the city was doing it. And immigration,too. The illegal--I know they sent quite a few to Florida.I don't know how many to Collier County. But this is also part of your forward looking as to how you're going to handle this? CHIEF SMITH: Right. When you look at the corrections facilities portion of the AUIR,you see that we're nowhere near capacity,and that wasn't the case five years ago. And I think your tenure on the commission goes back that far,doesn't it?How long have you been on the commission? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just four years. CHIEF SMITH: Okay. So back then we were near capacity. So you see that downward swing,and a lot of that had to do with our participate in the 287(g)program where we were able to place federal detainers and do some deport hearings and move them out to Florida City Krome Ave Detention. That has slowed radically over the last five years because of the difference in philosophies.We don't know if that will turn around or when. It seems that there--you know,that's not getting the efforts that we once saw as far as enforcement from the feds,and we are dependent completely upon them and their enforcement philosophy with regard to that program. So where we used to see 30,minimum of 25 a week going out,now it's down to a dozen,so-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know you had a very good program before. CHIEF SMITH: And we still do. We still have the program. We still swing when we're in the batter's box,but,you know,we're getting less pitches now. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple. The identification of a future need,you mentioned the forensic science building. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good idea. I'm wondering where it shows up in your AUIR, in the --you have a--you have 59,000 square feet slated for 2023. Is that part of that? CHIEF SMITH: Mike,where did we put that? MR.BOSI: The 2023 is for the administration building and which is identified within the law enforcement master plan. The identification of future needs that's showing up here related to the forensic building,that is the Sheriffs Office first official initiation to let Skip,his folks know,general purpose county government know that this is a need that the Sheriffs Department has recognized that we need to actively start to plan to find the facility and find the square footage for where that--where that forensic building could be located or how--where that square footage could be provided. It's really the start to say to facilities,all right,we have to start the process of identifying a budgeting of the capital improvement programming so it doesn't show up within a programmed year within this facility because it's--this is the first time this concept or this need has been voiced within the AUIR. I imagine within the next AUIR that we will have started to have those dialogues with the SO's office,from facilities,and that we'll have a much better read as to when we're going to be able to program that next facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,based on this AUIR,it's not planned within the next 10 years. Are you planning a new--an earlier date than that? I would hope you are. MR.BOSI: No. As I said,this is--this--that narrative is there to start the process to kind of light the--to signal this is a need that we have. And next,I hand this off,so to speak,to Skip's office,and Skip starts the discussion with the Sheriffs Office in terms of where their preference would be for location,where those opportunities may be within our inventories or future land acquisitions. And it's really just to start the Page 62 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 process. Next year I'm confident we will have a programmed year and a little bit more specifics as to how that could be provided for the SO office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To put it in the AUIR as soon as possible would be at least a planning tool that everybody can see is coming up. So you want to wait another year to do that. I just thought you could do it sooner rather than later,and then even if it's shown seven years out and next year you move it to two years out,at least everybody knew it was on the books. That was my only suggestion. I think it's a good idea and one long past due,so I'd encourage it to happen sooner than later. In your 2014 law enforcement buildings,existing and leased,two questions. I noticed you have a Marco sheriffs substation and the District 7 Everglades substation. Do you have a City of Naples substation? CHIEF SMITH: No,we do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And City of Naples has a police department. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does the City of Marco. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Everglades does not. So the Everglades substation makes sense from that perspective. We're probably the only law enforcement agency down there other than,I mean,state or federal agencies. And I'm--does the City of Everglades reimburse the county for any of the expenditures for the Sheriffs Department,or does it reimburse the Sheriffs Department,let's say,for any of the costs for you guys being down there? CHIEF SMITH: They do not because they are in the--what's considered the unincorporated area even though they are incorporated as a city. But they do not have a police department. And I don't think that they're on a reimbursement schedule,as was Marco Island before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's what I was going to say. So Marco Island is on a reimbursement schedule? CHIEF SMITH: They were,but then they formed their own police department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't wee sell the substation and save the--and move the manpower back to the county? CHIEF SMITH: Because we would still be responsible to enforce law in the City of Everglades. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm talking about Marco Island,I'm sorry. CHIEF SMITH: Oh,Marco Island. The only purpose that we still have that facility on Marco Island is to run our marine out of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that--I guess that justifies the cost then. I'm just--because we don't have a facility like that in the City of Naples. So how do we run--the marine unit for the north part of the county is run from where then? CHIEF SMITH: We have dock space up there,but it's run out of either the special ops building or in the south part of the county,which is Marco Island and everything south of there,and we also have an interlocal agreement with Monroe County that we help patrol their waters. So that's run out of Marco Island. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be less expensive just to get dock space in Marco like we have in Naples then and then-- CHIEF SMITH: Well,it would,but you wouldn't have the attended office to go with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 1 just saw the—saw it on there. I couldn't figure it out,because I knew Marco had its own--in fact,our sheriff--our former sheriff went down to Marco quite some time ago, so I knew that was accurate. That's all the questions I have. CHIEF SMITH: We look at that on a year to year,and--as we do in all of our facilities,and to this point judge that we really do need that within our operations. But to show you how dynamic it all is,you know,things have radically changed with regard to the District 7 substation,because what we were doing was subleasing it from the FHP for a dollar a year,under the old agreement,if you remember,when the Colliers had the land swap where the National Park Service Page 63 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 traded land in Phoenix,Arizona. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That was a long time ago. CHIEF SMITH: It was. This parcel that this substation sits on was part of that land swap. The 75-year in perpetuity lease has expired. The National Parks Service is now our tenant--or our landlord, rather. We are their tenants. They have come in and have a whole lot of requirements with regard to the building and the adjacent lands. They're much more restrictive than what the state was. They want us to do--they gave us a whole laundry list of things that we've got to do to stay tenants. Moreover,they have notified us that they intend to charge fair market value as far as the lease goes, which may be a game changer. So,you know,I've been working over the last—this just transpired over the last month,so Skip Camp and myself are scrambling around trying to find a solution. And you may very well see in next year's AUIR a need certification for a District 7 substation for the sheriff CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well— CHIEF SMITH: Either that or we're going to walk down this road with the park service for who knows how long,so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's hard to evict a tenant anymore in the State of Florida. Maybe you just need to sit there and ignore them. CHIEF SMITH: Have you paid any attention to what's going on out in New Mexico-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. CHIEF SMITH: --where the federal government has basically told law enforcement to stay out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,is that right? CHIEF SMITH: Yeah. So it's quite an atmosphere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Different administration. CHIEF SMITH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take the first one. Is there a motion to approve the jail correctional facilities AUIR? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen. Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN S IRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. The next one is law enforcement facilities.I'd like to suggest that we emphasize to the board in our recommendation that we show the forensic building as soon as possible in the AUIR. I think that's certainly a good use of taxpayers'money more than most others,so I'm all for it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ill make a motion to approve with that recommendation. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen,seconded by Diane. Page 64 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. CHIEF SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess we'll see you again next year since you like coming here so much. CHIEF SMITH: And let me thank you and the rest of the Planning Commission for taking the time to do this,because I realize you do that without remuneration,and sometimes you might be scratching your head and thinking to yourself,why are we doing this? But I will tell you there is a greater public good,and I just want to thank you for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. ***Okay. We'll move on to library buildings collections. We'll take a break at 2:45. That will be consistent with the timing. MS. MATTHES: Good afternoon. Marilyn Matthes,library director. The library has no construction planned for the next 10 years at least. Our objective is to maintain collections and pay debt service in that time period. Does anybody have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of libraries? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But,you know,I learned an interesting lesson over the last couple of months. I had gotten a tablet and I have a computer,and I fry to do everything electronically. And I don't know,after a while I got tired of reading books online--on electronic media,and I've dropped back to hardcover books.What a relief. I didn't know how much I missed it,so-- MS.MATTHES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that hardcovers--after people switch back and forth,they may realize how valuable hardcover books are. But,anyway,maybe that's a sign of getting old. I'm not sure what it is. MS.MATTHES: No. We hear that a lot from any age;teenagers as well as adults. It's--some people don't care. Whatever is more convenient is what they're going to read on. And for me,hardback are more convenient for me,so I'm still there. But a lot of people--our electronic usage is accelerating a lot. It still continues to increase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's a good means to read stuff on the fly or news— MS.MATTHES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --or short stuff,but if you want to relax,I've been finding that it's much easier to read a hardcover book than it is to read a tablet. So,anyway,that's a sidenote. If there's no other— COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,ma'am. MS.MATTHES: Yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Under miscellaneous income,is that where you are capturing your used book sales? MS.MATTHES: Yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. Page 65 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 • CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make it-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move to recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan made the motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Well,that was short and sweet. Thank you. MS.MATTHES: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And she's going"I sat here all day." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Well,the next one is government buildings. Skip Camp. And this one has a--some change sheets,I believe. MR.JONES: Good afternoon,Commissioners.Hank Jones,facilities management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hank,I didn't know you were going to speak. Sorry about that. MR.JONES: That's okay. You have the change sheets there,which reflect--we had--previous to the change sheets we had no construction in the next five years. Surprisingly we added two items.One is the new board-approved supervisor of elections office,and the other is a Fiscal Year'17 new animal shelter in Immokalee to replace the existing sheds that are there now. And those are the only immediate five-year plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple. One is the parking garage over here. It was--the first floor was--half of it was converted to a CAT facility. How have you reallocated that square footage? MR.JONES: Actually,the--it wasn't half.It was about a quarter of the first floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I can't fit under there anymore,so I don't go in the building anymore, so I never saw what you did. MR.JONES: And--actually,the part of the museum parking lot that the buses were using,when we turned that back to museum,that was actually in excess of the property we took up in the parking garage. So it was a net—actually a net gain of the parking area on the campus here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But since you're dealing with structures,did you have to make any adjustment to your structure calculations that are called out on your owned facilities,Page 200,in regards to how the CAT facility now took up part of that structure? I didn't see it,and I just didn't know if that was something you may want to do or not;do you need to? MR.JONES: Pd have to think about that a second. I believe we did. Well,first of all,the parking garage is only reflected in number of parking spaces in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.JONES: The CAT facility,I believe--we had a lot of discussion about whether a bus terminal was an office space or not. MR.BOSI: And here's the clarification,and it cuts to the heart of the discussion. CAT facilities are not part of your impact fee--your transportation impact fee allocations in terms of where a project can go. Impact fees for transportation cannot be spent on public transit.We do not have--we have not established an Page 66 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 impact fee for that. So all the CAT facilities have to come from a general--have to come from a general revenue fund or a dedicated source outside of the—of the transportation impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,I guess where I'm trying to go,Mike,is if you look on the Page 200,you'll see a--eighth line up from the bottom it says,courthouse annex parking deck,which I assume is that one over there;410,302 square feet. Some of that,I believe,is used for CAT facilities,which now you're telling me shouldn't even be there because it's part--it's an impact fee where-- MR.BOSI: No. I'm telling you it's part of general government space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So do we need to separately--does it need to be included in this list? Is it okay to include CAT facilities in this list since this is a list of items that are benefiting from the impact fees for government facilities,I would assume? MR.BOSI: It would be considered part of the--it would be eligible to be qualified as a general government building because we don't have a specific impact fee for it. So to segment it out doesn't provide any benefit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to get to. Now,the other thing is you've got five different structures,four in the box,and in the middle it says, owned facilities not included in the twenty-one eleven impact fee study. So I see those,a snack bar,the CDES extension--the main building,the Airport place tax collector. Why are those not included in impact fee studies? I know some of them are fee generated,but are they all fee generated? MR.CAMP: For the record,Skip Camp.Those--and Amy will clarify this. But those were the items that the consultant did not feel totally comfortable with. They've been in there year after year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know,I probably ask the same question year after year,but sometimes I forget,so I'm trying to get--and these are mostly new board members. A couple of us have been here,but not everybody. MS.PATTERSON: Yeah. Amy Patterson,for the record. They're either out because they're fee generated,or they're out because outside counsel asked for them to be removed because they don't add to the overall--what he believes should be included for overall general governmental space.We treat parking garages differently for the same reason,where their square footage isn't counted but their value is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.PATTERSON: These are just out either at the direction of either legal counsel or outside consultants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,in 2010 the CDES parking garage was omitted but apparently it went back in in 2011 because it's not omitted in 2011,or is it? MS.PATTERSON: No. It shouldn't be in there.What's the star say? What's the star refer to? Remove from inventory per impact fee consultant's recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the CDES parking garage is under owned facilities,value included in the 2010 impact fee study. MS.PATTERSON: But it has a star saying it's been removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not included,right.But then the one above says,owned facilities not included in the 2011 impact fee studies. So shouldn't that be up there if it's not included? MS.PA 1'1'ERSON: Yeah. We just need to probably--we're actually in the middle of another study,so we'll have--next year you'll get to see another list,but we need to clean and coordinate all of our lists,clearly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand it,and that's fine. MS.PA'FIERSON: CDES--nothing at CDES is included as part of the general governmental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought from last year,but thank you. MS.PATTERSON: Yep,you're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the Iast question I have. Anybody else have any? Page 67 of 73 CCPC/AUIRJCIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Skip,I didn't want you to come over for nothing. What about this forensic lab? Can you get that on there as new building? MR.CAMP: Yeah. I actually was kind of chomping at the bit a little bit. This year we'll work with the Sheriffs Office for the programming,which will kind of tell us when the need will be set. That's part of the programming element.There will be conversations. The first thing we did is try to find the--a reasonable comparison,which we did. The county manager,the sheriff,and I actually went to Lee County. That requirement will meet their needs,so we had some idea of the cost of the property,the cost of the facility,but now we'll actually get down to the programming,which will include when they actually need it. And we'll be doing that this year,so the chairman is absolutely correct,we will see that in this next--in the next cycle. And,by the way,I also use the traditional books but in larger print. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's happening,too. That's probably why I like them so well. Okay. If there's no other comments,is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you,gentlemen. ***The next item up is the coastal zone beaches and inlets. This has a new one to go with it too,I believe,right? MR.BOSI: Yes,there's revised sections to that. And I forgot to--I was remiss in my introduction. I did not include the Category C facilities,and we have one Category C facility,and that is coastal zone. That was included for the first time in the AUIR last year from a board directive,and this is the second year for this facility to be included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Mike. Thanks,Corby. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Do these replace specific pages or-- MR. SCHMIDT: They do,and I'll get to that.Or Mike has them in front of him as well. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: I know I'm off mike,but these two pages replace-- MR BOSI: Page 227 is where it starts,the replacement starts. It starts with the summary page on 227,the pages that were--the summary page that we just passed out will replace it starting there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PERRYMAN: Good afternoon,Commissioners.For the record,I'm Clint Perryman,coastal zone management project manager. I'm actually here standing on behalf of my boss,Gary McAlpin,which is currently on a conference call or conference part of this particular meeting. I'm here to address whatever questions I can pursuant to projects. I'm not going to address any policy issues,because I'm not involved in the policy staging of the budget. So whatever questions you may have, Page 68 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 I'm here to attempt to answer those questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you're not getting away that easy. Can you tell me--and,again,if you're not part of this,just let me know. Your revenue looks like it's only tourist development tax revenue. Are there no funds taken from the general funds to support your department? MR.PERRYMAN: That's correct. We operate strictly under 195. There is some funding that we do use under 111,and that's dealing with our waterways and marker--channel marker program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if that is under your department and it's not paid for by tourist tax funds,it should still be on your summary page and showing additional revenue and projects. So it's not there,and I would suggest that that get added. So that's one of the points I want to make,and then I'll just make a note of it. And the other questions--there's a new word I'm not used to,and I`ve been reading a lot,and I didn't find this one. It's Footnote 2 on your summary page,and it's--it says a reserve in the amount of 13.2 million has been established for potential federal and state reimbursements. The status of the reserve relative to de-obligation is subject to change. That's the first one. What does de-obligation mean;do you know? MR.PERRYMAN: Well,that's with FEMA. When they de-obligate funding,they take it back. Basically that's what it means. They de-obligate— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,so you've got to refund it? MR. PERRYMAN: Well,actually,to de-obligate means to take it back. We were obligated through FEMA,I believe,the$13 million,and they de-obligated those funds taking them back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MR.PERRYMAN: Well,I think FEMA's taken funds from all over the state. I think it's going broke for the most part,but I can't get into the policy specifics. We are in the process of appealing FEMA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my next question,yes. Because it said,some movement has been made relative to appeals,and that's the appeal you're referring to then? MR.PERRYMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they can give us money,and then somewhere down the road they can take it back? MR.PERRYMAN: That's the federal government. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many years ago did this happen? MR.PERRYMAN: I believe-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Four or five? MR.PERRYMAN: --just recently-- MS.PATTERSON: At least. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So that was that bit that happened when I still was at the county and they were arguing-- MR.PERRYMAN: 2011,I think;2011. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. They're still trying to get that money back? MR.PERRYMAN: They're still trying to get that money back,yes. We're optimistic that we will, you know,prevail;it's just a long,drawn-out process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope you do. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you just tell them you already spent it? MR.PERRYMAN: Well,that's easier said than done. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That was beach renourishment money,right? MR.PERRYMAN: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They reimbursed you to renourish a beach because the beach is protection against future,and then they decided that it wasn't— MR.PERRYMAN: As a matter of tropical storms,FEMA came in,and actually they approved the Page 69 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 funding as a matter of the storms,actually gave us the money,and we moved forward,and then,of course, they asked for it back. They've not only de-obligated money from Collier County but other counties throughout the state. You know,FEMA's been spending a lot of money throughout the nation,and when they believe that they're running short,they have got to take it back,I guess. I don't know all the policies. I don't get involved in all that. That's a little bit above my pay grade,if you will. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I have a question regarding--Page 230 is the page that I'm on-- regarding your fund projections. I see an item here about midway down,90033,which is biological and shore bird monitoring. And I see that there's funding for it beginning in 2016. Can you talk a little bit about that,please,what that is? MR.PERRYMAN: 2016. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I see 2016. MR.PERRYMAN: It's a pro forma. It's a projection that we are--we're projecting this budget in the future because we have to provide-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I understand,but what's the actual activity that you're going to be involved with? What's that to fund regarding biological and shore bird monitoring? Can you comment on that? MR.PERRYMAN: Well,it's required in terms of our permits that we have to seek from DEP. Throughout the projects we have to have the monitoring. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. I understand what it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clint,on your standards for sustainability,number one refers to a 2000 beach width benchmark. That,in your website--well,first of all,last year,the first year,you reference that as a 2005 beach width benchmark,and on the website that you-all have,there's a 2014 model that's used. Should this reference the latest information,or is it supposed to reference the older information? MR.PERRYMAN: We--well,we're going to need to update the website to be current with this particular width. I mean,it's based on our post construction survey is probably why-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the width is not my question. It's the benchmark date. You're using the 2003 beach width benchmark model,and your website has a 2014 model. I'm just wondering if you should use the newer website as a reference to your standards as it's improved. That's my only comment. MR.PERRYMAN: So noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: P11 let you guys take a look at that if it needs— MR.PERRYMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your prior--last year's standards for sustainability had a reference to a chapter in Florida Statutes,62B36,that's been dropped. I don't know if it's been moved somewhere else,as a lot of statutes have,but it provided for public access as required for renourishment,at least I think it does because I can't find it now. Which brings into the question public access.I looked at your beach models,your 2014 beach width benchmark,and it's measured from not just the sand but into the dunes,into vegetation,and it's measured 100 feet out from there,and your benchmark line is inside many,many property lines. Well--then the question was,well,do we have easements there to use the beach and to renourishment it? And I was told yes,and then after doing some phone calls yesterday,I got a complete listing of all your easements,and you certainly do have a lot of easements,so I was pleased to see that. But the problem I had was the Board of County Commissioners,back in 2010--and 111 read what Commissioner Fiala said,at least the part of it that's relevant. She says,so I would suggest,rather than the motion as it stands to delay it any further,especially with people out of town and so forth,I would prefer we move ahead to get these things done with the understanding that we also move ahead immediately in obtaining,and at some point in time—and maybe we could get a--say,by the end of the year—approval from all these condominiums that it will remain public access in perpetuity,and we should continue to Page 70 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 continue that effort along all the beaches. But right now I think it's a shame to delay it any further. At this point they're talking about just a couple of units,and they're trying to get--because it was badly eroded,and they wanted to get it fixed. Well,then I went and got a reading from the County Attorney's Office,a memo that they wrote in 2010 regarding,the board is questioning whether the county may condition renourishments at these locations or similar locations in the future based on a guarantee from the private party to maintain the beaches as public beaches or,more specifically,to maintain the same level of public beach access,which currently exists today. In my opinion,we may condition the expenditure of this agreement in the form of a public beach access easement. Then it went in to provide a couple of examples from Palm Beach County and Pinellas County,and they actually sent us copies of their easements. And then--Pm done here in a minute--I actually got a copy of the beach restoration easement that was sent to me. And it says on it,this is not a public dedication,and then it goes into use. And then--it's a long paragraph. But it's only for restoration,and it's specifically not going to provide the access. It's only for the purposes of restoration. So I was wondering,have we ever looked at these easements that we have gotten signed? And there's dozens and dozens of them from all the property owners. Do they meet the intent of what the board had asked for in 2010,or did,somewhere along the line,something change? Now,I didn't discover this until I got some of the documents on Tuesday or Wednesday. And I know there's not been enough time by your department to respond to it all,but I think that ought to be responded to by the time you get to the Board of County Commissioners. So if there's--if we don't have the right access easements,and they had directed us to do so,we need to tell them why we don't,or maybe they changed that policy somewhere from 2010 till now and I just don't have a copy of it. So somehow we need to figure that out. That's why--I know you probably don't know anything about this. MR.PERRYMAN: Well,I mean,I do know about easements,that--the only easements that Pm familiar with between Bluebill Avenue to Vanderbilt Beach Drive,there's about eight existing easements. I believe they've been in existence for perhaps two decades. I believe these particular easements are controlled by parks and recreation. It goes from Gulf Shore Drive over to the beach,through the Dunes. These are the only accesses that I am familiar with in terms of Collier County. As far as Naples,it may be other access points you might be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,this is actually--what happens is,with your benchmark line,it's way up in the Dunes. The property that people buy when they own beachfront,they actually buy out to the midpoint of the high tide of the beach. So if you go to the assessor's map,you'll see all the property lines going well out past your benchmark line. But you measure the width of the beach and the area you restore from the benchmark line. So what,in essence,you're doing is restoring private property. And the point is,that's acceptable as long as the public can access it,because if they can't and we're using tax dollars to restore personal property, that may have been a concern somewhere along the line,and it seems inconsistent,at least the easement that I got seems inconsistent with the board direction in 2010. All I'm asking is that that be revisited and researched so that when it gets to the Board of County Commissioners it can be straightened out if it needs to be. And it may have been fixed in the years since 2010,but in the limited time we had to get ready for today,I've not seen the documents. MR.PERRYMAN: We'll make a note of that to address it moving forward,but I'm not privy with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,that's fine. You caught everyone on short notice. And,I'm sorry,I didn't get a chance to get into it until Tuesday,so-- MR.PERRYMAN: I know that we don't use,you know,public money for private beaches unless,of course,it's a reimbursement. I know that statutorily--as far as TDC funds for private,I don't--I'm not familiar with any kind of policy that might exceed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,I'm sure just by pointing it out it will get resolved before it Page 71 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting"September 26,2014 goes to the board. Then one other comment. I noticed that you have an overall budget of about--well,TDC fund budget of about$27 million. Six million of that is active projects and programs,which is about 25 percent. Seventy-five percent of your budget is in some form of reserve. I just thought that was kind of odd. And I understand that 13 million of that 75 percent is for the potential reimbursement to FEMA,but you've got a lot of money in reserves.You've got 50 percent. That will leave a little over 50 percent of your budget is reserve --is a reserve budget. I'm not sure if that's normal. I'm just pointing it out as--I don't know if there's an explanation for it, but it's a lot of reserve.You've got a lot of working capital there that's tied up in continuous reserves over long periods of time,so--anyway,those are my comments. I don't have any more. MR.PERRYMAN: I can't address these specific policies-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you can't. MR.PERRYMAN: --as far as that's concerned,but I do know that we manage to try and protect future catastrophic storms,and we have to keep so much on reserves as a matter of policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree. I just thought it was--I haven't seen one with that kind of change yet. Does anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,Clint. I think we're probably going to wrap it up then. I'd like to suggest,if there's a recommendation for approval,that we do two things,that we request that the General Fund revenues and expenses be added to the summary table at least for next year,if it can't be done in time this year,and that there's a--the Board of County Commissioners be provided with an explanation of how the public use easements evolved and what we've ended up with to make sure it's consistent with what they had hoped for or had directed,let's put it that way. Does anybody want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll make a motion with the provisions to add the general revenue and also to provide the explanation as stated by the chair as we move this forward. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you,Clint. MR PERRYMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Michael,that takes us-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: To him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: —to you,I guess,yeah.We're done. Did you have anything else that you wanted to-- MR.BOSI: No,just sincere appreciation for the time,attention,and the questions asked and the understanding from the Planning Commission on some of the missteps from Corby and I in terms of,you know,maybe omitting and not having the most up to date on all of them. But we'll strive to be better next time. But,once again,I wanted to show appreciation for the time spent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,thank you all. It's been a good day. I think with--many of the people here are new. I mean,Stan's not new to the county,but he's new to the AUIR process from this board's prospective,so is Charlette. So I think that worked out good. Page 72 of 73 CCPC/AUIR/CIE"Special Meeting" September 26,2014 Thank you all. And with that,is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Don't we need a—so the CIE,our votes are included to accept those? MR.BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're good. Okay. If there's no--anybody from the public want to comment? There's nobody here,so I guess that's not going to be needed at this point,so that's--the last item on the agenda is to adjourn. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll move to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --Stan. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:48 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION f l E I �i MARK STRAIN,CH IRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on I 1 -114 ,as presented 1.7 or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 73 of 73