Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/20/2002 W (AUIR)December 20, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES (AUIR) Naples, FL, December 20, 2002 LET 1T BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 am in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Board Members: Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning Fred Coyle Frank Halas County Staff: Joe Schmitt Jim Mudd Marjorie Student Stan Litzenger Norm Feder Don Scott Leo Ochs Tom Widdes Page 1 December 20, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) County Commission Boardroom Building "F", 3rd Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 9:00 AM MINUTES December 20, 2002 -Mr. Coletta called the meeting to order at 9:08am. I. Attendance: Board Members: Jim Coletta, Donna Fiala, Tom Henning, Fred Coyle, Frank Halas County Staff: Joe Schmitt, Jim Mudd, Marjorie Student, Stan Litzenger, Norm Feder, Don Scott, Leo Ochs, Tom Widdes II. Overview of objectives -The commission was provided with an Executive Summary. -Stan Litzenger, Comprehensive Manager, explained that the AUIR workshop is mandated in the LDC and called for in the Comprehensive Plan as well. The commission would review a summary report on the conditions of the facilities for the past year. Staff requested that the commission make a finding after each report, stating that they have received the AUIR report on the facilities, and that they provide direction to staff in this workshop for the next twelve months in regards to the Public Facilities Category A, until they review the next AUIR. -Mr. Halas asked what "CIE" stood for. Mr. Litzenger stated that it was "the Capital Improvement Element of the Comprehensive Plan". -Mr. Litzenger explained that page 2 of the summary was a list of all the proposed projects and proposed revenues for each facility type that would be outlined in the Page 2 December 20, 2002 workshop. The total sum was $983 million. All the listed revenues are available to the BCC and they have not been rejected by referendum. -Mr. Mudd stated that it was important for the commissioners to pay attention to this material, so that there are no surprises in the future. He explained that last year they began depicting some of the information graphically so that the commissioners can clearly see where they stand on the particular cases where they may come into difficulty. -Donna Fiala stated that she believes they do pay close attention, but at times the information is folded into the reports and since they are not fluent in all of the areas, they do not always know what questions to ask. She asked that these areas be pointed out to the commission for further discussion. Mr. Mudd replied that they would do so and encouraged ideas on how to better clarify the information for the following years. He added that this was one of the most important workshops in the year. -Mr. Coletta stated that the graphs and the charts were tremendously helpful. -Mr. Litzenger added that at the end of the workshop, the staff would ask for some broad policy direction on what to do in the following years, and they will point out the items that they will have to bring back to the BCC for specific action as a result of the direction given today. III. Category A Facilities -Mr. Litzenger explained that these are the items identified in the Comprehensive Plan or the concurrency facilities, the ones that the commission is required, under Florida Statute, to maintain the adopted level of service standards or alternatively do something else. Page 5 discusses County Arterial and Collector Roads. The summary identifies the level of service standard for roadways; variable "D" to "E'. It also identifies that the Lane Mile Cost Average, including right of way, is $3.1 million. Under Existing Revenue Sources, they identified the current revenues for CIE FY 03-07, gas taxes, impact fees, carry forward, grants/reimbursements, and the general fund transfer. The increase in impact fees will result in -$155 million in cash flow over this five year planning period. -Mr. Halas asked if it was correct that $658 million was the projected amount of road expenditures from where they stand today until 9/30/07. Mr. Litzenger stated that this was correct. Mr. Mudd added that Page 2 included a "roll up" that stated the five year capital expenditure would be $983,510,036 which is the entire program in the process. Page 3 December 20, 2002 -Mr. Litzenger referred back to Page 5, explaining that the general fund transfer is a policy where they transferred $5.9 million in road program support and included an additional $4.2 million transfers in each of the following four fiscal years. Under proposed revenues, he pointed out that the road program is a balance based on the intent or policy direction to transfer an additional $79.9 million dollars over a five year period into road funds from the general fund, the commercial paper program (in the amount of $62 million), and revenue bond issues in the amount of $192 million. The summary sheet on the road scenario was listed on Page 16. Mr. Feder added that they will return to the BCC in January 2003 or February 2003 for that bond referendum. -Mr. Halas asked if the proposed revenues - general fund was ad valorum taxes. Mr. Feder stated that it was. He explained that while they are pledging their gas tax for the bonding, that they are actually paying this back, based on the board's direction, by increased assessed value. This is instead of using the gas tax, which would create a shortage in future years. Mr. Halas asked if they were essentially "borrowing" the money. Mr. Feder replied no, and explained that basically the ad valorum has increased each year because of increased assessed value, even at the same milage rate, and a portion of this increase last year was specifically dedicated to paying off the bonds pledged against the gas tax, but paid off by ad valorum or property taxes. This is based on the increased assessed value proceeds each year. This has to be administered by the board each year. Mr. Litzenger added that Page 16 listed a milage equivalent analysis to indicate the impact of the bonding program and the substitution of the ad valorum for the programs that are pledged for bonds. Mr. Mudd referred to the ½ penny referendum, explaining that there was a $258 million shortfall, and the voters in this county stated that they wanted to take it out of ad valorum rather than increasing the sales tax. This is part of that ad valorum piece. Mr. Halas stated that he believed the voters felt that impact fees should pay for growth, and this states that ad valorum taxes are paying for it. Mr. Mudd stated that this was incorrect, because you still have a $258 million shortfall, and the impact fees have already doubled for growth. He added that they cannot use "growth dollars" to make up the shortfall, they attempted to let the taxpayers know this, but the taxpayers did not want a sales tax. The only other alternative for the shortfall is the ad valorum. They are trying to do this over an aggressive bonding approach, so that they can leverage it out. They are also using "new monies from growth". Mr. Feder reiterated the statements of Mr. Mudd, and added that the impact fees have doubled so "new growth Page 4 December 20, 2002 is paying for growth". Mr. Halas asked if they were increasing ad valorum taxes. Mr. Mudd stated that if they keep the milage rate neutral, then the increased appraisal values each year and the new construction monies from taxes will offset the shortfall over a series of years. -Mr. Coyle commented that the problem was that the construction of roads was ignored for 8-10 years and, consequently, there is a backlog of road construction. He explained that, by law, current impact fees cannot be used to solve the backlog, so there has to be another source of funding. He added that the other issue is that if they slow down growth, then they cannot exactly predict how much the impact fee revenue will be increasing. He asked staff for an indication in their "logic" of how they are going to keep this level. Mr. Feder referred to Page 15, which states that the five year work program is based on current dollars, therefore the impact fee increases over time, which will equate to the increased cost. Mr. Coyle stated that he understood why they were doing this, but it requires very detailed inspections of this on an annual basis. Mr. Feder stated that he would be returning with a work program every year for the review of the BCC. Mr. Coyle added that the rate of inflation on construction, might not increase at the same rate as the inflation on impact fees. He also stated, that they hoped, if they could reduce the cost of construction, then it would provide substantial additional funding opportunities. Mr. Feder replied that the two are tied together. Mr. Coyle stated that his point was that if they could find a more efficient way to get right of way, then they would substantially reduce the cost of construction regardless of the inflation index is. He was looking at ways to achieve efficiency. -Mr. Litzenger made a comment on the projection of impact fees throughout this report, stating that they are generally level and conservative. Mr. Coyle pointed out to Mr. Halas that this will not result or require an increase in ad valorum property taxes. Mr. Feder stated that historically the increased assessed values have provided enough to offset the ad valorum requirements. -Mr. Henning stated that last year the BCC gave the direction to keep the milage rate neutral. He asked that they re-affirm this in this meeting. The commissioners all agreed with this. Mr. Coyle added that the term revenue-neutral means no increase in milage rates. -Mr. Litzenger referred to Page 6, which list the transportation existing conditions report, stating that they would point out some of the areas they will be facing deficiencies. Mr. Page 5 December 20, 2002 Mudd went back to Page 5 and referred to the proposed revenues, stating that none of these items have occurred yet. The revenue bonds being taken out are with the assumption that all gas taxes that they have to date will remain in effect throughout the bond issue period. He stated that he wanted to make sure this was clear, since the gas taxes are bonded into this. Mr. Halas asked what gas tax they were referring to. Michael Swaskosky, budget director, stated that there is a 6-cent local option that expires in 2015 and the 9-cent gas tax, which currently would expire in 2010. He explained that the bonds are twenty-year bonds, and if a portion of the revenue stream drops off in ten or fifteen years, then they cannot pledge this on a twenty-year bond. Mr. Coyle asked what gas tax issue will be coming before them. Mr. Mudd stated that the 12 cents for gas taxes are being pledged for the 20-year bonds. Mr. Coletta explained that without this gas tax, they would have to mm to an alternate source, which would be ad valorum. Mr. Mudd added that when they bring the bond approval before the BCC, they will have this outlined and described in the executive summary. He noted that he heard the commissioners say "milage neutral", but the referendum for Green Space says up to ¼ mil. It was clarified that this was true, but listed as a separate line item. -Mr. Coyle asked if the gas tax revenue income listed on page 16 was inclusive of all gas taxes. Mr. Feder stated that it was. Mr. Coyle then asked what the inflation rate was based on. Michael Swaskosky stated that it was based on 3%, which is conservative. Mr. Coyle agreed this was conservative, and the traffic increases have grown in excess of 11% over the prior year. He felt this provided them with another opportunity in the coming year to not depend on ad valorum taxes. Mr. Coletta added that road construction will not continue forever, which will allow for future re-organization. -Mr. Litzenger noted that the $658 million road program they presented also included -80 million in debt service for the bonds they discussed. Therefore, the debt service is factored in to the total cost. Mr. Coletta added that the debt service is not a negative, but it is sharing the cost with the future, who will also be using it. -Mr. Feder pointed out that in the analysis on Page 6, they utilized traffic counts for 2002. He added that they are utilizing the 10 months, pulling out February and March data, which is consistent with recent GMP and LDC revisions. They also provided information on what the implications would be if they did not pursue this. Under observations, he noted that "Of the 186 traffic count stations collected in the year 2001 traffic count program, the average increase in traffic volume was 11.34o/0." Page 6 December 20, 2002 -Mr. Halas asked how they arrived at this percentage, stating that he was surprised it was not higher due to the statistical information listed. Mr. Feder stated that the statistics shown on page 6, refer to greater than, but as an example, 89 of the stations show an increase greater than 10%, which means in the range10.2% or 11%, not in the range of 20%. Mr. Halas asked if 11.34% was the actual number. Mr. Feder stated that it was the overall average. Mr. Scott explained that this was the 2001 counts. Mr. Feder stated that the 165 stations that showed an increase, showed an increase in the prior year as well. This shows that the system is expanding, and 11.34% is the average of the overall system. -Donna Fiala asked if interconnect activity reduction would reduce this. Mr. Feder stated that it would. -Mr. Feder referred to Page 7 and stated that there was a major jump in the population in 2001. He added that the most significant part of this page is the percent system utilization, which shows that they are close to 70% of the overall user capacity consumed at this point, for the entire system. They are hoping to get this number down to the high 50's or the low 60's. -Mr. Coyle asked when they expect to have the 2002 figures. Mr. Feder stated that the counts and applications are in, and they will probably come out by March 2003. -Mr. Feder explained that Pages 10, 11, and on show the analysis of each roadway segment. Page 7 & 8 list the roadway links that are currently deficient or projected to be deficient within the next five years and the programmed and proposed solutions to solve these deficiencies. -Mr. Feder ran through the list of current deficient and projected deficient roadways with the commissioners: (1-13 are currently deficient) 1) Davis Boulevard - Radio Road to CR951/175 to Davis - planning moratorium is due to come off as soon as the LDC 3.15 and the GMP revisions are finalized. They are in the process of developing an interim CST project. If they cannot move forward with the interim project, then they would have to return before the BCC to re-establish a moratorium, but they do not feel this will happen. 2) Golden Gate Parkway - Airport Road to Santa Barbara Blvd - Construction programmed for 2003 3) Golden Gate Parkway - Santa Barbara to 951 - recommend designation of this as a constrained facility based on the policy of constrained. They would be able to use Green Page 7 December 20, 2002 Blvd as an alternative to expanding the lanes in this section. (This is the section "right through" Golden Gate City.) 4) Goodlette-Frank Road - Vanderbilt Beach Rd. to Pine Ridge Rd. - under construction 5) Goodlette-Frank Road - Pine Ridge to Golden Gate Parkway - construction programmed for 2004 6) SR 951 - Marco Island Bridge - recommending that it be shown as policy constrained, the state has the design improvements 7) Immokalee Road - US 41 to I75 - construction programmed 2004 8) Immokalee Road - CR 951 to Oil Well Rd. - construction programmed 2003, currently working through environmental issues with the Environmental Protection Agency 9) 175 - Pine Ridge Road to Lee County Line - not included in concurrency 10) Logan Blvd - Pine Ridge Rd. to Green Blvd - construction programmed 2005, moved out from 2004 due to design considerations 11) Pine Ridge Rd. - Shirley Street to Airport Rd. - Access Management Improvements this year. 12) Vanderbilt Beach Rd. - Gulfshore Dr. to US41/constrained - currently under moratorium, the policy constraint will exceed the 10% capacity, they recommend ASI and will come before the BCC about this and the removal of the moratorium. 13) Vanderbilt Beach Rd. - Airport Road to Logan Blvd. - construction programmed for 2003 -Mr. Feder stopped to explain that those were all the existing deficiencies. He stated that while the commissioners did not have to specifically take action on the future deficiencies, he did want to make them aware of the situation, since they will have to work with them relative to the five year work program. -Mr. Mudd referred back to Vanderbilt Beach Rd. and explained to the commission that it was policy directed. Mr. Mudd used the visualizer to show a map of the area. He explained that it is now past the point of 110%. When you get to this point, it is no longer considered a policy issue, it is placed under Moratorium. In order to get it out of moratorium there must be a solution within one year. -Mr. Halas asked where the traffic would be diverted to. Mr. Feder stated that it is not a matter of where he puts the traffic, but he must figure out how to produce a reduction in traffic or move it more efficiently. Page 8 December 20, 2002 -Mr. Henning stated the commissioners should be concemed about this area in case there is an evacuation in emergency situations, such as a hurricane evacuation. He added that they are looking at improvements in this area and he felt that part of the improvements should be improvements to Vanderbilt Drive. Mr. Feder stated that this could take a number of different forms and in the future they will return with options for the BCC. Mr. Feder then reviewed the upcoming deficiencies: -He pointed out that a few of the Roads listed had an asterisk beside them. The asterisk signifies that these road segments would be an existing deficiency if they had stayed with the 100th highest hour (12 month) analysis. 14) Davis Blvd. - Airport Road to County Barn - deficient in 2003 - design programmed 2006 - they did not have to address as a constrained corridor, because it is not currently over 100%. This is a state facility and they are working with the state, attempting to bring this one forward. It may come before the BCC at a later point. 15) *Immokalee Road- I75 to CR951 - deficient in 2003 - 1-75 Ramp Project under CST, this will Improve LOS. 16) *Radio Road - Livingston to Santa Barbara Blvd. - deficient in 2003 - Access Management Improvements were done to the first segment, this is access management on Livingston to Santa Barbara Blvd, scheduled for 2004. 17) *Santa Barbara Blvd. - Green Blvd. To Golden Gate Parkway - deficient in 2003 - construction programmed 2005 -Donna Fiala asked why state roads were listed, since the county does not have to pay for their improvements. Mr. Feder stated that we still regulate and control the land use around them and set the level of service for everything other than the interstate or intrastate. These roadways are in our concurrency program, but the state puts the dollars into them. He added that they still work with the state on these roads and that they need to understand that they are making the decisions on these roads regarding the areas around them. 18) *Tamiami Trail North (US41) - Immokalee Rd. to Vanderbilt Beach Rd. - deficient in 2003 - recommend policy constrained/Livingston and Goodlette Projects. 19) *Tamiami Trail North (US41) - Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Parkway - deficient in 2003 - recommend policy constrained/Livingston and Goodlette Projects. Page 9 December 20, 2002 -Mr. Litzenger added that when they are discussing constrained, they are talking about the constrained policies and issues that they are currently bringing forward in the new LDC 3.15, which will be adopted in January 2003. -Mr. Mudd added that in 2003, the state will resurface 41 from the Gordon Bridge up to Creech. This will cause some congestion issues in the following year. 20) Davis Boulevard - County Barn Road to Santa Barbara Blvd. - deficient in 2004 - design programmed 2006 21) Collier Blvd. (CR951) - Immokalee Rd. to Golden Gate Blvd. - deficient in 2004 - construction programmed 2005 22) Rattlesnake Hammock - Polly Avenue to CR951 - deficient in 2004 - construction programmed 2003 23) Santa Barbara Blvd. - Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Rd. - deficient in 2004 - construction programmed 2005 24) Vanderbilt Beach Rd. - Logan Blvd. To CR951 - deficient in 2004 - construction programmed 2003 25) County Barn Rd. - Davis Blvd. To Rattlesnake Hammock - deficient in 2005 - construction programmed 2004 26) Davis Blvd - Santa Barbara Blvd. To Radio Rd. - deficient in 2005 - FDOT program ROW, #1 priority 27) *SR 951 - US41 to Manatee Rd - deficient in 2005 - US 41 project under construction, will improve 951 intersection 28) Collier Blvd (CR951) - Davis Blvd. To Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. - deficient in 2006 - construction programmed 2006 29) Tamiami Trail North (US41) - Gulf Park Drive to Pine Ridge Rd. - deficient in 2006 - policy constrained/Livingston and Goodlette Projects 30) Collier Blvd (CR951) - Golden Gate Blvd. To Pine Ridge Rd. - deficient in 2007 - construction programmed 2007 -Mr. Feder pointed out that as they get into the outer years and start to catch up with the work program, they are beginning construction in the year the roads come into deficiency. 31) Collier Blvd. (CR951)- -Mr. Feder referred to Page 15, which outlines the five year work program up for adoption, and stated that this will bring construction online with the year of deficiency. Page 10 December 20, 2002 This program list present day costs, this does balance to $658 million Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. to US 41 - deficient in 2007 - construction programmed 2006. The program shows FY03 to FY07. The program is fairly consistent. There is a change from the common four years; the section of Immokalee between US41 and I75 is set for construction in 2004, not 2003. The reason for this was due to design changes that could reduce the impact of the facility on the neighborhood and reduce the right of way costs. They are in this process currently. He added that they were persuaded to have three of their east-west facilities under construction at the same time; Immokalee, Vanderbilt Beach, and Golden Gate Parkway. They chose to stagger this in order to help the overall circulation for the roadwork in the area. There is a delay on Santa Barbara/Logan as well. They are continuing to look at design alternatives and considerations. They have added the extension of Santa Barbara and have hopes of coming before the BCC shortly with new concepts. -Mr. Coletta asked how much road the $33 million in FY05 will buy for project #60165 - Immokalee Rd. He also asked where this would be going. Mr. Feder replied that this is design work. This is as close as production would allow. They are trying to track as quickly as they can and ask for reimbursement from the state. Mr. Coletta stated that in future years they may want to look at the upcoming university in this area to pay their impact fees early in order to offset some of the state money coming in. Mr. Feder stated that they cannot move the project any faster if they want state money, since the state must approve the design work. He added that they are moving as quickly as possible and trying to keep the project eligible for federal dollars as well. Mr. Coletta asked about the timeframe for the corridor study/Lee county line. Mr. Feder stated that Lee County is managing the study and we are parmering in on it with them. Mr. Scott stated that it is underway and Lee County is projecting that it will be complete in two years, because of environmental concerns. Mr. Coletta asked if they were still moving forward on the study for a road from Wilson to 951. Mr. Scott stated that they are and explained that they spoke with the developer on the study, but they have not got back with him on this point yet. -Donna Fiala asked if it would be more efficient for travel if they put in Polly Lane before widening County Barn on the Santa Barbara Expressway. Mr. Feder replied that the design is done for County Barn and most of the right of way is ready to go to construction. They do not have the design or the right of way for Polly Ln. In order to Page 11 December 20, 2002 do Polly Ln first, they would have to significantly delay County Bam. Donna Fiala asked how they were doing with the Stormwater management on County Barn. Mr. Feder informed her that they have a significant component in the stormwater management for the area that is tied into the overall Lely issue and they hope that this will not slow down due to particulars. They have committed some significant features as part of the County Barn Rd. Project to assist Lely. -Mr. Henning stated that Mr. Feder has been working very diligently on Collier Blvd. And that he has done a great job working with the developer in Lely. He felt that Donna Fiala would be very happy with this, later in the year. Donna Fiala asked to hear an update on this in the future. Mr. Feder stated that they hope to come back to the BCC shortly with this update and some decisions to be made regarding other issues in the areas. -Mr. Feder encouraged them to consider that the only way to exceed in the five year program is to plan and execute the plans. He stated that they have delivered with few delays and he hopes to continue with this trend. They also recommended a couple of advancements in the project, the design is to get a project under way when it is needed instead of later. -Mr. Coyle asked to be updated on the Davis and Commercial intersection. Mr. Feder stated that they are not going to re-align streets in this area. They had discussions with the city in an effort to do so, but the property acquisition was problematic and there were concerns in the neighborhood about traffic volume. They are enhancing the turn off of Davis onto Commercial, as well they are reducing some of the ability for left tums into some of the side streets to discourage the cut-through traffic. He summarized that they are not re-aligning, but modifying the medians to assist the commercial movement and to reduce some of the left turns and cut through traffic. -Mr. Mudd referred to Page 7 and 8. He reminded the commissioners that the next reading of the LDC 3.15 will be in January and this is the first increment of real-time concurrency and transportation. He stated if they saw an existing deficient or a year deficient, and more than one year on fix, then there will be an issue when they turn to real time concurrent in the LDC next year. He explained that Mr. Feder will have work to do in order for the interim corrections before he can get a design done. He asked the commissioners to notice these projects and be aware that these issues will come about in the future. He added that there is a rumor that if Collier County became real time Page 12 December 20, 2002 concurrent, then Collier County would be brought to "its knees". He explained that these figures show this is not true, but there are a few segments that would have some problems. Mr. Feder noted that the first two years of the program, reduce the nature of this list with the issues that Mr. Mudd pointed out. He also encouraged them to notice where the deficiencies start to come online in 2004, 2005, and 2006. -Mr. Coletta stated he was anxious to have checkbook concurrency in place and added that he would have no problem having a moratorium put in place when the roads become efficient. -Mr. Litzenger explained that at the end of each public facility presentation, he needed to ask the board for policy direction specific to their findings as a result of the presentation. He asked that in the road portion, the board give policy direction to include the projects identified on Attachment C, with the revenues identified on Attachment D in the forthcoming Capital Improvement Update and Amendment. He added, with the understanding fully that in the circumstance that they would add a capital road or any other road facility and issue capital development orders based on that improvement, that it would require a comprehensive plan amendment in order to remove the project. -Marjorie Student stated that direction could be given at the workshop, as long as, the action is taken at an actual meeting. -The board gave the direction to do so. -Mr. Litzenger added that they have come to the board under the LDC with the area of significant influence around the Vanderbilt Beach Rd. segment. He asked for direction to come back to the BCC with an ordinance to establish this area of significant influence. -The board gave direction to do so. -Mr. Feder referred to Page 7 and 8, and asked for the direction of the board that they concur with the recommendation for constrained segments listed in this area. -Mr. Coyle stated that he had skepticism on two segments, but he would go along as long as they provided the data to support it. -The board gave direction to do so. At 10:20am, a fifteen minute recess was taken. IV. Drainage Canals and Structures (Category A) Page 13 December 20, 2002 -Mr. Litzenger stated that they had a veteran staff member present who was on vacation time and asked that they jump ahead to drainage canals and structures. The board agreed. -Page 32: Mr. Litzenger summarized that the level of service standards are 25 year, 3 day storm for new development and the existing development has an existing service level. He stated that the program before the board does not have an concurrency issues in the five year planning timeframe, but it is a proposed program of $47 million to enhance and increase the level of service standard that they currently experience in the various parts of the county. -Robert Wiley, Stormwater Management, stated that they did a stormwater management masterplan in 1989, where they developed a level of service definition for A, B, C, & D. D puts water in the homes, C puts water up against the outside of homes, B is in the edge of the roadways, and A is banks and canals. He added that Collier County has few areas with the A or B level of service. He asked that they keep in mind that they have an inverted level of service in the Eastern part of the county, so that they can reserve the wetlands. He stated that there is no issue of concurrency here, because of the way that they define level of service. The projects listed are proposed projects to bring the county up to the desired level of service, but this is not the adopted level of service. What they are recommending, was put together by the Citizen's Advisory Committee. Their goal was to achieve a 25 year, 3 day storm level of service for the urban area, with a ten year storm level in the estates, and 1 year level of service in the Eastern part of the county. -Mr. Litzenger referred to Page 33, and showed a breakdown of the projects and the money appropriated in the current budget. The issue was whether or not to include the improvement projects outlined by Mr. Wiley in the updated CIE and identify some proposed revenue sources, which may be used to fund the projects. These include ad valorum taxes, MSTU' s, grants and funds from the SWFL management district and the Big Cypress Basin Board, and contributions by the City of Naples; all of which would be proportional, based on benefit, and done through a process in the development of these projects. -Mr. Feder stated that Lely represented 1/3 of these projects, and there was also the Gordon River Extension Basin. He asked that a overview of these two projects be given to the board. Mr. Wiley stated that the Lely project is very substantial portion of the cost. They have been working on this for 3-4 years and they are reading to go back to the Water Management District to submit additional information as requested. He added that Page 14 December 20, 2002 it looks very favorable currently, but they are still at an impasse with the Army Corps. The Army Corps reviewers are in favor of the project, but are frustrated with the lack of response from EPA and Fish and Wildlife Services. He added that they will be going back with the responses and "force the issue with them". If things go well with the Water Management District, they anticipate a permit for this project soon. They will have a decision to make at the time of approval, to put the permit on hold while they ride out the Army Corps direction or they can get the permit and start at the day of issuance. -Donna Fiala asked if they could help by writing to state legislatures to move this item forward. Mr. Wiley stated that they are not the only ones facing this problem and they are seeing the Army Corps struggling with the same. The big issue deals with the EPA's concern that water quality requirements are being approved by the state permit, and then the Corps accepts the water quality, and EPA sees a decrease in water quality. EPA is now coming in and questioning the states authority. Once a definite approval comes in from the Water Management District, and the Corps remains silent, then they will ask for the help of the BCC. Mr. Feder added that it is not really a problem with the Corps, but a problem with the EPA. He stated that they have the same issue on Immokalee Rd fro 951 to 43rd. They have worked with the Corps and felt that they had everything ready to go, only to find EPA's expression of concern. They are currently trying to reach the EPA and show that they are improving the area of concern. He added that with Alico Rd. they worked with EPA for three years on the provisions. While they work with EPA, they should consider that it may come before the BCC for recommendations on how the BCC could help. Mr. Mudd added that SFL Water Management District is the 401 piece, which is the water quality piece for this permit. He explained that SFL Water Management District gets their regulatory authority through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, who gives their regulatory authority to the EPA. The Corps of Engineers gets their regulatory authority through the EPA. Therefore, once the SWFL Water Management gives approval, then Mr. Mudd believes the EPA will "lighten its grip" and they will be able to satisfy the concerns of the 401. -Mr. Halas asked if it was correct that they were discussing the drainage of the canals into the Gordon River or the Cocahatchee. Mr. Feder stated that in some cases the drainage is into the canal themselves. Mr. Halas asked if they were concerned with mn-off nutrients permeating into the canals and they were discussing the construction of a weir to hold the water back until the nutrients settle out and then if flows over the weir and travels down. Page 15 December 20, 2002 Mr. Wiley stated that the concept was correct, but nutrients do not settle out, they have to be assimilated by some methodology. Mr. Halas asked if they filter them out by a sand apparatus. Mr. Wiley replied that the best way to remove nutrients is to have wetland vegetation take them up, which creates extensive canal maintenance of the exotics. -Mr. Coyle asked if they approved this, without the definition of the supplemental revenue sources, then what would be the practical affect to the 10 year shortfall. Mr. Litzenger stated that if they chose to do this, they would have to define some specific revenue sources. Mr. Coyle asked if they approved it, did it obligate them to the revenue sources listed. Mr. Litzenger stated that it did not and clarified that this would be an issue to declare a "higher" level of service standard, which means that from the standpoint of concurrency, they are not bound to it. Mr. Feder added that the board may want to give direction for an evaluation of funding mechanisms to deliver this high a level of service, as opposed to adoption without awareness of the sources. -Mr. Coletta stated that they took the Golden Gate Estates Area out of the drainage program last year, and asked about the serious problems currently occurring and if this is where the miscellaneous money was going. Mr. Litzenger stated that there were no provisions for Golden Gate Estates included in this. Mr. Coletta asked if this wasn't an oversight. Mr. Feder stated that it was if they wanted to provide the higher level of service. He added that they are doing a number of things to the maintenance crews, which will continue, but the problem is that they are placed in. They will address both of these in the future. He explained that this is a valid project and the BCC could give staff direction to put this in and staff will look for a source to fund it. -Mr. Henning stated that this was the perfect opportunity for an MSTU. He questioned whether or not stormwater drainage should be a Category A. It was clarified that this is a mandatory, statutory, Category A. -Mr. Litzenger explained that this program has been a "band-aide". He added that Mr. Henning hit on it when he referred it to an MSTU, there are no funding sources, impact fees, and it is not a stormwater issue as the City of Naples has. He stated that they are strongly talking to Big Cypress Basin to help them in this process, and possibly taking over the entire stormwater management of Collier county. -Mr. Coletta stated that there is a problem that has to be dealt with, but they are discussing ditches that were previously paid for and need maintenance and cleaning in Golden Gate. Mr. Feder stated that the BCC gave them authorization to do this in the last Page 16 December 20, 2002 cycle, they have hired a crew, and are going out to do maintenance. It is not showed on the list, because it is ongoing maintenance. Mr. Henning asked how the Golden Gate Estates residents paid for their ditches. Mr. Coletta stated that Avitar put in certain roads, and the money came from the particular fund that Avitar put aside. He added that the residents have been paying taxes to have this maintained for many years now. Mr. Henning asked if he was talking about the fund debt settlement from the county government and the developer that failed. Mr. Coletta stated that this was correct and that it has been exhausted. -Mr. Litzenger made a recommendation for the board's direction. He recommended that they make a finding that they have adequate facilities relative to drainage. Also direction to include the $47 million in proposed projects, which will be seen in approximately six months, and their budget proposal to be brought forward and included in the decision making at this time. He added that they could give the direction not to include the proposed projects. -Mr. Coyle felt that they should give the direction to do these projects and explore the supplemental funding, assuming that they may not be able to get all the funding desired, therefore prioritizing the projects. -Mr. Halas asked if staff could make a map of the basins and how and where interconnectivity occurs. Mr. Litzenger stated that he has a map that depicts this and he will show the BCC. -Mr. Henning stated that they should work with Big Cypress Basin and look into the possibility of them taking over the stormwater management. He added that they should look into the possibility of creating MSTU's for funding and the contributions of the City of Naples possibilities. -Mr. Halas stated that the map will help prioritize. -Mr. Feder stated that they would do more research into all the areas mentioned, bring the projects back with more detail, and the map as well. V. Parks and Recreation -Mr. Litzenger stated that they have a standard facilities summary form for the facilities to be discussed in the rest of this section. He explained that this identifies the level of service standard and an evaluation will be put on the facilities at times, which is on the Page 17 December 20, 2002 gross inventory, which provides an "average" cost. They try to put a dollar value on units and costs per capita. The charts consistently speak of "planned facilities in the CIE", which means what is proposed for the direction of the BCC. He reviewed Page 18, which listed three level of standards for parks: 1) Recreation facilities (category A) -The summary shows that they do not have a level of service standard for recreation facilities, but -$38 million proposed for planned capital parks and improvements in the coming five years, including the regional park. Park impact fees will provide the cash flow for both current appropriations to pay for these facilities and also for revenues to support bonds to issue and support these facilities. The recommendation is: that the BCC direct staff to include "Proposed CIE FY03-07 projects in the next Annual CIE Update and Amendment. "Available inventory" reflects the valuation of current inventory of the facility types on page 21 of this AUIR. -Donna Fiala asked what the allocations under Manatee were for. Marla Ramsey, stated that they have $165,000 to do a dog park and a masterplan at this location. The masterplan was approved in November. They then took the plan and broke it down into phases of development, the first phase is the dog park. -Mr. Henning stated that he believed it was appropriate to give the recommended direction. He stated that it was obvious that the available inventory reflects the current inventory of the facility type; as shown on Page 21. -Mr. Coyle asked if everything was paid for out of the listed fund with no money from the general fund. He was informed that this was correct. -Mr. Halas asked how close they were on the estimates for the population county wide (permanent, listed on Page 19). Mr. Litzenger stated that these are the official annual Planning Department population projections. Mr. Mudd referred to FY05-FY06, which showed the trends were close to the estimates of the planners. He averaged that this was -20,000 people per year from now until 2006, which is a 20% growth rate. 2) Community Park Land (Category A) -Mr. Litzenger referred to Page 23, which listed the level of service standard to be 1.2882 acres per 1000 population in the unincorporated area. The current inventory and planned acquisitions of additional lands, outlined on Page 29, shows that they are within the adopted level of standard for the current fiscal year and the coming five years. Page 18 December 20, 2002 -Mr. Henning proposed that they give the direction to staff to include the "Proposed CIE FY03-07" projects in the next Annual CIE Update and Amendment. -The commissioners agreed with this direction. 3) Regional Park Land -Mr. Litzenger reviewed that the summary, which showed that they have very "comfortable" regional park land; Page 26 and 28. Page 28 shows the graphically view of when they would be deficient in 2012. He added that when they buy the OrangeTree for the water/sewer plant, they will have the opportunity to also add some acreage here for the regional parks. This will decrease the possibility of deficiency in 2012. -Donna Fiala asked if there were any projections for future parks in East Naples. Marla Ramsey stated that Manatee is coming online, this is a 60 acre parcel that will have soccer fields, ball fields, Dog Park, etc... -Mr. Henning stated that they should recognize and include some passive recreation the will be included in the future, into the count of the annual inventory report. Mr. Coletta added that they will be moving in the GreenSpace provision, which will have an access provided to it, and they could probably figure some of this money into it as well. Mr. Mudd stated that they would take a look at the passive issues and come back with a recommendation. -The commissioners stated that they were all in the agreement to move on with the recommendations. VI. Potable Water System (Category A) -Mr. Litzenger referred to Page 34 of the report. The level of service standard is 185GPD/Caapita. Currently there is adequate treatment capacity. There are two planned expansions, one is currently coming online and the other is listed in the five year plan. The revenues to fund these projects are in place; impact and user fees. There are no issues with concurrency in the five year plan. He asked for the recommendation to include these projects, also in the masterplan, in the coming CIE. -The commissioners agreed to give this direction. -Mr. Halas asked how close they were to the level of service standard. Mr. Deloney stated that they were very close and that this was a good baseline to be at. Page 19 December 20, 2002 -Mr. Mudd noted that two years ago with the inverted scales they were seeing 205-210. When they did the masterplan they asked the consultant and the public utilities to move to the 185 level. He stated that they want to move towards the national average, which is -154. The unincorporated side is doing the best on driving this number down. He explained that a study is currently being done that will look at inverting the scale even steeper in order to try and drive down the usage rate. He added that the lower they get, the less facilities they need to build and fund; which will allow the distribution lines to last even longer. -Mr. Halas asked how they were doing with the available inventory versus peak season of this year. Mr. Deloney replied that they are currently on the "cusp", but they will make it. He added that he has specifics he can share that will show that they are on target. Mr. Mudd referred to Page 35, which showed what we need and what we have, the results showed that it was too close to call, but it was factored on "reliability". He then turned to Page 36, which showed that they need the 8 million gallon capacity to come online. They have had slowdowns in the contract, which means it will not be coming online in this season. Because of this, Mr. Deloney, with the board's permission, has put money into the well fields and the system to make sure that the reliability was as close as capacity as possible for this year in order to get through the high season. He stated that the problem last year was not a capacity issue, but dealt with the raw water supply. Mr. Coletta stated that they are moving away from this problem. Mr. Litzenger stated that this was absolutely correct. -Mr. Coletta suggested that they should come up with an agreement that would come into effect in 2003 or 2004 that promises the public that they will not run out of water. Mr. Litzenger stated that under normal circumstances, he would agree that this was a good idea, but they cannot foresee natural disasters that may pose a threat. Mr. Coletta stated that there will be times of natural disasters were rationing is needed, but that was not the same as running out of water. -Mr. Coyle stated that it was extremely important to give the public some concrete examples of things the staff has done over the past year to solve this problem. He asked that they remember that although they have a capacity of 32 gallons per day, their utilization came close to this last year and they had to impose a moratorium. His point was that in about six months they will have a 27% increase in capacity online. He added that this past spring there were not enough wells, and they have drilled more wells since, Page 20 December 20, 2002 which provides additional sources to draw raw water from. County staff has drilled the wells much deeper, taking brackish water, and treating it through an reverse osmosis process which upgrades it to -12 million gallons. Mr. Mudd stated this was correct and referred to Page 6, which showed that the first increment came online this spring with 8 million and the other 12 million are brought on later. Mr. Coyle added that this means they aren't placing a burden on their existing aquifers and that rather than taking salt water out the gulf, they are taking brackish water out of deep wells and treating it, (which is cheaper and provides a more pure form of water). He feels that the staff has done a good job in working with these issues, but he wants the public to also know that things will be tight this year. -Mr. Deloney stated that there would be three documents on the commissioner's desks after the meeting. One document is the assessment of the impact fee study for this year, and the two companion documents layout the details that will move them from a reactionary system to a more reliable one that smoothes out the system all the way to 2030. He added that it may not be perfect, but they are aiming for the best level of service and reliability. He feels that the plan reflects the boards input and past historical concerns of the county. -Mr. Henning stated that it should be a goal to educate the public in the coming year on where the county stands in regards to water resources. Mr. Coletta added that the people in District 5 are drawing from the Hawthorne Aquifer so that they do not drawn down the Tamiami Aquifer any more than it already has, so that it will be available for all users. -The commissioners gave direction to move on and proceed as is currently being done. VII. Sewer Treatment and Collection -Mr. Litzenger referred to Page 37, stating that they have a North county level of service standard at 145GPD/Capita treatment capacity. On Page 39, the current plan that increases in capacity over the next five years is adequate and has extra cushion for the South facility. The revenue streams are impact fees and rate structures that are in place. There are no noted problems for level of service standards in the North Plant, which also augment the capabilities of the South plant. -Mr. Mudd referred to Page 38, surplus or deficient, and stated that they have done a lot to manage these AUIR to show a "real snapshot" of this. He had the commissioners look Page 21 December 20, 2002 at the last column, millions of gallons available, compared to required millions of gallons. He informed them that they are going to talk to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to see if they can push out the next five million gallon increment. The reason behind this is that they feel it is "overkill", but they are going to get the 2005 increment in before they talk to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in order to show that they are "a county of their word". He stated that this report not only lays out the information, but shows that they have some areas requiring action in order to make smart decisions for the county. -Mr. Halas asked if the gallon-age was peak or average. Mr. Deloney replied that what is reflected deals with flows, they work with maximum month flows in regards to how they handle it; you take the maximum and peak it with some type of factoring, for the AUIR purposes this is how they show it. When looking at the masterplan, they generally speak within maximum flows. -Jim Mudd added that they had a conversation at last years AUIR about this and the error in how they determined capability. They used to give the AUIR when construction started, not when it was finished; this is where the false readings came out. Based on this error and the direction of the commissioners last year, they decided not to do this and to only show when that particular park or plant comes online, this is now where they count on capacity, and it is the only true way to give an accurate picture of availability. -Mr. Litzenger then referred to the South County plan listed on Page 40. He explained that there is a slight dip in the level of service and capacity standard. The level of service standard for the South County is 100GPD/Capita. The current deficit in the South County can be remedied in the short term by north and south interconnections to the two plants. He added that the concurrency issue is satisfied with the construction and the interconnect between the two plants. Mr. Deloney added that in 2003 they have an interconnect capability of-l.1 million gallon per day. In 2004 this will jump to 1.6 million gallon per day and shortly after this jump, there should be another interconnect, which will all an interconnect between the North and South plant at -4.8 million gallon per day. Through the current -1.1 million gallon per day they will be able to cover the deficit for this year. -Donna Fiala asked if they began to purchase land and plan for another water treatment plant in this area. Mr. Deloney stated that the specific area and the expansions planned will cover until 2011. The masterplan also plans 5 plants for an in-state system in Collier Page 22 December 20, 2002 County. This is intended to serve the existing water/sewer district and the expanded district that took in the Rural Fringe. He clarified that the answer to Donna Fiala's question was yes. Donna Fiala asked where it would be. Mr. Deloney stated the next one they are looking at would be east of 951 for the next of the southeastern water reclamation plant. Donna Fiala asked if it would be located in a neighborhood. Mr. Deloney stated that it would not. Mr. Mudd added that when it is put in, they will not put it in a neighborhood, but that does not stop others from deciding to build around it. Mr. Deloney stated that he is required to purchase additional buffer lands when they build a plant. -Mr. Halas asked if the south plant would be standing on its own two feet by FY04. Mr. Deloney stated that he needs to make sure that the transmission network, that is critical to this, is in place. His assessment was that once they got the plant up and "burned in", 2006 would be the very latest. Mr. Halas asked if they had a problem with the south or north plant, would they be independent enough to transfer the flow to the plant with the problem, by 2004. Mr. Deloney stated that was correct. Mr. Mudd clarified that they have ample capability at the north plant, when they put the 6.5 maximum capability in the last time. They have also put four aeration flows in the south plant, but the problem is that the utilities have reversed due to the increase in construction in the south of Naples. He added, that when the interconnect is complete, they will no longer need to look at north and south plants, because they will have an integrated system. Mr. Deloney added that the 72 million invested into this plant, will help increase the reliability greatly. -Mr. Henning stated that his concern was that, in regards to purchasing more lands for buffer zones, he would like to be more conservative on this. He explained that if it is a platted land, then as a good neighbor, they should buffer, but if it is an agricultural land, then he does not see as much of a need for buffer. He added that he has no sympathy for those who choose to move in next to a sewer plant and believes that it should be posted so everyone is aware where it is before they purchase land. -Mr. Schmitt interjected that during the last LDC cycle, the BCC approved a permitted use for some of the utility activities and the placement of them throughout the county. Based on this, staff committed to ensure that they would use proper landscaping and buffering that were required of all other developers as well. Therefore they will have to buffer as well along aghcultural land in accordance with the LDC. -The commissioners gave staff the direction to continue on as they are currently doing so. Page 23 December 20, 2002 VIII. Solid Waste (Category A) -Mr. Mudd stated that the commission is going to receive an award in January 2003 for the best odor control system in a landfill in the United States of America. He added that this was done in cooperation with a Citizen's group that was very active and volunteered a lot of time and effort to locate and minimize the odor. It also has a great deal to do with the cooperation of County Staff and Waste Management. He stated that they will try and recognize these citizens in the presentation on January 14, 2003; Mr. Henning will be recognized as one of the individuals. -Donna Fiala added that she doesn't receive complaints anymore, which means the problem has been solved, and the individuals who worked to solve this problem should note this as a second accomplishment. -Mr. Mudd stated that the BCC will be making some decisions in January or February of 2003 regarding the long term plan for solid waste in Collier County. Today they received the permit for new line cell construction for Waste Management, which will be started on December 3, 2002. Mr. Deloney added that the permit they received reflects the certainty of their ability in a permitting capacity to move out another fifteen years of landfill capacity. This is outlined on Page 45. -Mr. Coletta asked if he was talking about new line capacity where the present chipping operation is or if he was talking about new line capacity where they are moving the mulch too. Mr. Mudd replied no and clarified that everything he was talking about was on the footprint of the existing landfill. -Mr. Mudd referred to Page 47, he pointed out that the trend was for the annual tonnage to increase, but in 2001-02 there was a decrease due to the recycling program. Recycling will increase the lifespan of the landfill. Mr. Deloney added that currently their low is -500,000-600,000 tons and they are diverting about 50% of this with recycling programs. -Mr. Halas stated that he would like to see the county staff come up with some form of recycling education for promotional purposes. He also believes that they need to address the commercial aspect, and get them online with recycling as well. He asked if they were considering any type of charges for not recycling. Mr. Deloney replied that they will improve what they have done in the past, but they currently have staff and an extensive outreach program to encourage recycling both residentially and commercially. Mr. Mudd Page 24 December 20, 2002 added that in 2004 they will have a new RFP out for a collection contract. One of the things that will change, is that people will be charged based on the size of their garbage container, pay less for less garbage. He noted that the recycling rate increases during season, when the Northerners come into town. He added that they did have $40,000 PR budget to make residents aware of the change from recycling 6 items to 29 items. They will still continue to push this issue. -Mr. Deloney stated that they would be back in January 2003 before the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce to discuss commercial recycling. He stated that they will come back before the BCC in May 2003 to provide an update on where they are with commercial recycling. -Donna Fiala asked if they will offer larger recycling cans and if they will handle plastics and Styrofoam in the future. Mr. Deloney stated that they will look at it, but he could not give a definite answer at the time. He added that some customers have requested 2® bins and they have provided them with additional bins. Mr. Mudd added that there was a provision in the supplemental agreement with Waste Management, that stated they would provide so people could place multiple bins on the cart and easily move them to the pickup location. George Hermos, stated that they will select a fairly diverse, demographic area and target multiple neighborhoods. They will ask to enhance the collection pilot project, which is intended to address the questions of Donna Fiala. The information and the findings will then help to shape the county wide implementation. -Donna Fiala asked if they could use recycled tires for mulch in their playgrounds and parks. Mr. Mudd stated that in previous years the state provided the county with a $50,000 to use recycled tires for this purpose. He added that they have been quite successful in this. -Mr. Litzenger summarized that they have both of their level of service standards with a two year line - cell capacity and also the 10 years of permissible land use space is under control. Based on this, he believes the finding is that the program is sufficient. -Mr. Mudd noted, (Page 48), that in FY07 they come out of the deficit due to the long range decision that could be made in January 2003, but they stay in the deficit if there is no change. He explained that without the board's decision for a long term plan, they would have to go back to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and ask for an adjustment to the height of the hill. The height of the hill would have to go from about 108 feet to 160 feet, which is why the long term issue decision is so important. Page 25 December 20, 2002 At 12:15PM, a fifteen minute recess was taken. IX. County Jail (Category B) -Mr. Litzenger stated that this is outlined on Page 47. The level of service standard is 2.4 beds per 1000 population. They recently added an addition on in Immokalee, which added an additional 22 beds. The expansion of the Naples Prison will add another 240 beds and the construction contracting is underway. They are in good standing and no particular issues are apparent. -Mr. Mudd added that when the facilities are being built, they are adding a third floor so that the possibility of expansion exists if needed. -Mr. Henning suggested that the BCC direct staff to include the FY03 jail expansion project in the next Annual CIE Update and amendment. -The commissioners were in agreement on this direction. Library Buildings (Category B) -Mr. Litzenger stated, (Page 53), that there were two levels of service standards, one of which is square foot per capita. The North Naples Library has recently opened, an expansion is planned on the Golden Gate Library in the next five years, and an expansion of a $40,000 youth facility is planned for the South Regional Library in 07-08. The revenue sources are adequate to cover these plans and no issues are present about concurrency. -There were no questions by the Commissioners Library Collection (Category B) -Mr. Litzenger stated, (Page 56), that the level of service standard was attempting to reach national standards. The revenue stream is based on the library impact fee, which is believed to be adequate to increase the collections to meet their goals. They do not see any difficulty with meeting this level of service standard. -Mr. Henning suggested that they direct staff to include the "Proposed CIE FY03-07" projects in the next Annual CIE Update and Amendment, as well as directing staffto include the "Proposed CIE FY03-07" book collections additions as well. -The commissioners agreed. Page 26 December 20, 2002 Emergency Medical Services (Category B) -Mr. Litzenger stated, (Page 59), that the level of service standard is 0.000068 units per capita (approximately 1 unit/15,000 population). The standard is actually predicated on the goal of the response time of less than six minutes in the urban area. They propose to change from the current weighted average population base to county wide permanent. They are approaching this with a new category relative to ~/2 units, which is a unit put up for 12 hours during the peak time. The EMS impact fees provide the revenue stream to provide the additional facilities and units, this does not include staffing. -Mr. Henning directed staffto include the changes in the weighted average and how they base this. He additionally directed staff to include the "Proposed CIE FY03-07" projects in the next Annual CIE Update and Amendment. -The commissioners agreed on this direction. -Mr. Mudd added that the 6 minutes in the urban areas for response rates is two minutes lower than the national average. He went on to explain that the first person is on the scene is not always the EMS, so they are now putting defibulator machines in the sheriff cars and other related services and are training the individuals, anyone who could be a first responder, to use these machines. -Mr. Henning added that since JeffPaige, head of EMS, came on board, Mr. Paige has pushed cross training. This not only saves lives, but tax dollars as well. Donna Fiala agreed and added that she has heard many good things about the cross training. -Mr. Mudd stated that he will come forward sometime next spring with the fire chiefs, to discuss their attempt to make the EMS, Fire, and Rescue service standardized. -Mr. Litzenger asked for a motion and a finding. He asked that the BCC accept the attached document as 2002 AUIR update of facilities, give staff direction, (which has been done already in this meeting), by separation motion and vote on Category "A" and Category "B" facilities relative to staff recommendations, and that the BCC find upon analysis, review and actions taken based on the 2002 AUIR that adequate Category "A" public facilities will be available, as defined by the Collier County Concurrency Management System, as implemented by Division 3.15 of the LDC, to support development order issuance until presentation of the 2003 AUIR in approximately 12 months. Page 27 December 20, 2002 -Mr. Coletta made the motion as stated. It was seconded by Donna Fiala. All were in favor, the motion passed, 5-0. XIII. Adjournment - Adjournment was at 12:35PM. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS These minutes approved by the Board on ~/q~n,.t , as presented ,.~ or as corrected ~' ' Page 28