Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/17/2004 W (AUIR) December 17, 2004 Collier County Board of County Commissioners and Collier County Planning Commission Joint Workshop 2004 Annual Update & Inventory Report on Public Facilities Board Meeting Room E, 3rd Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112 9 o'clock, December 17, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, with the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a WORKSHOP in Board Meeting Room E third floor, Administration Building, of the Government Complex, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Board of County Commissioners: Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Fred Coyle, Vice-Chairman, District 4 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Planning Commission: Mark Strain, Vice-Chairman Kenneth Abernathy Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney Robert Murray Bradley Schiffer Robert Vigliotti 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT WORKSHOP ~ Workshop Agenda December 17, 2004 9:00 a.m. Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chairman, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 Russell A. Budd, Chairman, Planning Commission Mark Strain, Vice Chairman, Planning Commission Kenneth Abernathy, Planning Commission Dwight Richardson, Planning Commission Lindy Adelstein, Planning Commission Bradley Schiffer, Planning Commission Paul Midney, Planning Commission Robert Murray, Planning Commission George Evans, Planning Commission NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 03-53 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. Page 1 December 17,2004 ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE BOARD CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. AUIR - Presentation of the 2004 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities as required by the Collier County Land Development Code. 3. ADJOURN Page 2 December 17, 2004 December 17, 2004 The Board of County Commissioners workshop was called to order by Chairman Donna Fiala on Friday, December 17, 2004 at 9:01 am. Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Director: Staff is here to present the required AUIR to the Board of County Commissioners. This is an informational process to give you the status of the Category A facilities, the concurrency driven facilities and also the Category B facilities, which are traditionally kept as level of service facilities and in their capital improvements element because we collect impact fees on those. We will present a brief synopsis of the current condition of their inventory, those which are planned within a five year time frame as well as any difficulties in which we would ask for direction in the coming year. I would also like to point out that this is just a staff report. You are not taking any legislative action. If there is a point where you will need to take action that will be addressed at a regular meeting seSSIOn. We come to you each year with this report to provide you with good news and, where there is not totally good news, provide you with solutions. This year we have not identified any significant problems. Throughout your report you will find facility service forms. We are required to provide the information as units per capita and costs per unit. In cases where there are different values, we have taken a composite. Therefore, there are some situations where the information is not identical. At the end of the presentation the County Manager will ask you to make four findings located on the Executive Summary in order to complete the 2004 AUIR process. 1. Accept and approve the attached document as the 2004 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities. 2. Give Staff direction by separate motion and vote on Category "A" and "B" facilities relative to staff recommendations for projects and revenue sources for inclusion in the FY05 Schedule of Capital Improvements of the Annual CIE Update and Amendment. 3. Find upon analysis, review, actions taken and directions given, based on the 2004 AUIR that adequate Solid Waste, Drainages, Parks, Potable Water and Sewer public facilities will be available, as defined by the Collier County Concurrency Management System, as implemented by Chapter 6.02.02 of the LDC, to support development order issuance until presentation of the 2005 AUIR. 4. Find upon analysis, review, actions taken, and directions given, that there is sufficient road network capacity in the Transportation Concurrency Management Database for continued operation of the real-time declining balance ledger to support development order issuance until the FY05 end of third quarter status report. Mr. Strain: I have just one question regarding the Table of Contents. In 2003 we had a line item and some back up documents on $285 million in facilities entitled "Beach Access." That has been dropped from this year's table of contents and there is no reference which I can find in there. I am wondering where the $285 million is. 2 December 17, 2004 Mr. Litsinger: Beach access facilities are accounted for within the Parks Inventories and acreages. Last year we thought of listing a separate category for beach access facilities. A policy decision was made to not do that. Mr. Strain: At some point someone may want to verify that the $285 million was absorbed into the new values of the existing park facilities. It has increased, but not by that much. Joe Schmitt, Administrator Community Development and Environmental Services: There was a policy decision in regards to identifying that as a separate category and the decision was made by this board not to identify it as a separate category. Those numbers were just projections of what would be required and would have to be budgeted if in fact itwas deemed to be a category as an essential public service. Mr. Strain: I have the form in front of me from 2003. The available inventory on September 30, 2003 was $285,498,000. The proposed inventory for fiscal years 2004 through 2014 was $134,150,000. It looks like, at the time, we had $285 million in inventory as beach access. Mr. Litsinger: I believe Ms. Ramsey from Parks and Recreation will be able to address this during her presentation. Ms. Student: I wanted to ask the chair how you wish to handle any public speakers. It would seem logical that they were invited to speak after each presentation. Chairman Fiala: Yes, we will first let the speaker come up and then we will ask our questions in order to move things along. Mr. Litsinger: We have in course a transportation existing conditions report; you will hear more of this from Norm Feder and Don Scott of Transportation. We have also identified potential deficient road links as well as the five year capital improvement plan and the revenue streams which you have approved. The transportation database is also included which indicates the concurrency status and the five year plan. The AUIR process has changed from previous years. Today you will not be finding a status as to transportation concurrency overall for the following year. You will be finding an update of the transportation concurrency checkbook system until the return of the third quarter report by Mr. Feder in about 3 months. All of the other facilities of a concurrency nature that we present today, we will be asking you for a finding of concurrency for the next 12 month period. COUNTY ROADS Norm Feder, Transportation: I will go over the financial and then ask Don Scott to review the technical. On page 5, we have $683,286,000 overall program. It is fully funded, there is no surplus. Your revenue stream to fund that is gas taxes, impact fees, carry forward, grants/reimbursements, general fund transfer, revenue bond issues and commercial paper. The carry forward seems high but 3 December 17, 2004 the payout curve for projects takes some time, about 24 months. We were fortunate in obtaining some grants from the state. On page 10, you can see the details of the summary figures. Of particular interest is how much the impact fee revenue has increased. This is due to the actions that were taken by the Board of County Commissioners to establish 50% of the impact fees due at the time the final Platt are planned, the other 50% to come within three years. That process has enabled us to move on what has been and what will continue to be an aggressive program. The rest is pretty straight forward. I would like to call your attention to the ad valorem construction schedule indicates that additional ad valorem is required. I have pointed out that this board has taken an effort to make sure that we don't have a major spike in that. We do have checkbook concurrency, the issue we discussed for some time. We spent two years working with the department of community affairs to establish the checkbook system. We are looking at the traffic that is out there. Transportation does things on a link by link basis. We looked at PUD monitoring and looked back at each project as it progressed. We had some issues with vested units that will not be built out because the total land area has been consumed; we are in the process of looking at the past two years of actual development. Mr. Strain: Last year you had a category for pay as you go, this year it is not there. Mr. Feder: The board took action to put that into reserve to take away that spike; it is now pretty much shown in what you see as the payback. The pay as you go is shown in additional ad valorem. Don Scott, Transportation Planning: Page six essentially talks about the conditions over the last year. One of the things noted is the 100th finest hour after February and March; this is based on the 250th finest hour. There are 221 traffic counts; the average increase is 4.69%. We will be adding a lot of roadways to the concurrency system that are not included here today; they will also be added into the database for next year. Oil well Now that we have the checkbook concurrency, I have added more columns. We have the ten month service volume, peak hour service volume, peak hour directional volume, the trip bank, the total volume and the remaining capacity for each of those segments. We have the trip bank on each of the segments based on vested developments and what has come in since this has been implemented, March 15, 2004. This is a little bit different than last year. There is almost a daily update to these numbers. Weare working out the last details, but this is available on the web site. Mr. Scott refers to the booklet to point out some information about certain projects. We have analyzed the expected deficiencies in the next five years. We have some existing problems that are being resolved by construction. State Road 951 south of County Road 41 is noted. This is the state segment that is holding up the Wal-Mart basically because oflack of capacity from Davis down to 41. At the moment we are determining the cost of the design, they will pay for the design. 4 December 17, 2004 US 41 from county road 951 to county road 92, it is noted that we advanced 1.8 million to FDOT to speed that project up. We will get paid back for that. It is either next year or the year after that we will be out of capacity on that link. Unfortunately there is no solution other than widening the road. Even with this progression, we are looking at a 5 to 7 year project. Golden Gate Boulevard from Wilson to Everglades, the traffic count went up about 25% last year. I believe it has a lot to do with the Immokalee Road construction and people just coming down there to use Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard. I have scheduled design for 2006, right of way for 2009 with construction being 2010 or 2011. Depending on the growth, we may meet the time frame but may not. Ifwe have extra money we would probably want to move that up, if we can. Davis Boulevard still needs to be widened to 6 lanes. It has been programmed from FDOT for 2010. Page 9 is the work program. We have a lot in the first two years and then it slows down over the next three years. We will get more definitive over the next year for the long term program. Mr. Murray: On US 41, from 951 to St. Andrews, I could not find the landscaping project. Also, where it refers to new traffic signals, are developer credits included? Mr. Scott: As part of the PUD process we try to offset as much as possible from the developers. Mr. Feder: Also the landscaping is in the landscaping master plan; this is concentrating more on the capacity. We did not lose that landscaping project. Commissioner Coyle: I would like to ask for additional information in the future. It would be helpful for me to further understand the relationship between the total trip bank reports and the attachment E chart and the accrued, but un-built, inventory. It would be helpful for us to begin to estimate how our efforts to reduce the approved but un-built inventory will actually affect the trip bank itself. Mr. Scott: I will tell you what we have done in one area specifically. With US 41, south of county road 951, we looked at the 250 units built in Le1y last year and looked at what Fiddler's Creek actually built. For instance there were a certain number of trips that were vested, which were 300. The actual count went up by about 80 last year. Weare looking at doing a two year average for the last two years, take that to the next year and do that every year for the vested side of it. I think that will be a better picture of what is actually coming online. Commissioner Coyle: To make this easier, I would like to have this in the aggregate initially. Then as you begin to refine the process of correlating, actual, vested construction with traffic counts, we could get that segment by segment. Mr. Scott: We actually have that by development and by links; it's just not here in this data right now. Mr. Feder: I will point out that we will be happy to provide that in both forms. We will continue to pursue the development's removal of un-built units on a voluntary basis. Also, we are looking at the prospect of using a 99 year build out in the system to eliminate those that haven't been built in the 5 December 17, 2004 last five years and have no prospect of being built. We want to correctly state it, but not over or under state it. PUIBLIC SPEAKERS Daniel McMahon: I am here to address the interchange of Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard. I feel the situation has become critical. In the evenings, it can take anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes just to get through the intersection for the stop sign. Ifthere are any problems, it can take up to an hour. I don't know of any intersection that has such a back up. Of the Sheriffs Department is there in the evening to direct traffic. I feel like waiting until 2010 or much beyond the near future is much too long. The area from Miller Canal to Golden Gate Boulevard is approximately 1 mile and there is no shoulder in that area. In the events of emergencies, the emergency vehicles have to drive up the oncoming lane, but there is no place to even pull off of the road. I feel like there is a simple solution for the interim which is Everglades and I-75. I know this was planned originally but stopped to protect the environment and stop development out there. However, I believe that most of all the lands have been purchased and protected. To open up that exit would help northern Golden gate Estates as well as the restoration of the Southern Golden Gate Estates. Mr. Feder: I would like to point out that at the intersection of Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard, while we obviously don't want to wait until 2010 for improvement, we are trying to work with signalization. We are working on the right of way to make some of the geometrical improvements needed. We do recognize that we need to widen Golden Gate Boulevard. We also need to get the Immoka1ee project done so the diverted the traffic returns back to that road. Regarding the I _ 75 interchange, this is one of the most crucial things that we are trying to work on right now. I wouldn't consider this a simple process. We do have some changing conditions. Because ofthe restoration, everything south of the interstate is no longer an issue; it is only the lands to the north. Weare already starting the process to encourage folks to rethink that issue. It is probably not going to be simple, but it is something I think we need to pursue. Jim Mudd, County Manager: When we talked about the roads and some kind of payment for the roads because it is county roads, the Florida DEP basically said that they would try to help us get that interchange at I-75 as long as it stopped there and did not move down south. The intersection design is fairly simple, but it would definitely help us. I do believe that this is a critical piece. Jeff Curl: I live off of DeSoto. I disagree that the current construction on Immoka1ee Road is contributing to the increased traffic. The main issue is that Golden Gate Boulevard itself is really the only road in and out ofthe area for people that are south ofImmokalee. The interchange at 1-75 is an excellent proposal also because of hurricane evacuation. In the morning, the children at the bus stops have no curbing or lighting to protect them. The issues point to moving the expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard up above where it is currently in the plan. Commissioner Coletta: I asked both of these speakers to come. I receive numerous e-mails on this very subject. We have made some progress as far as the interchange goes. There are two things we may be able to do soon. One would be a working light that may favor westbound traffic in the morning and eastbound traffic in the evening. The other thing would be an extra turn lane to accommodate the extra traffic and give them a place to stack up. I realize that trying to come up 6 ~. ~.,-~,--..------._.~.'^'..__." ~ December 17, 2004 with money in the short term is not really going to work, but 2009 or 2010 is really very far away. A moratorium will not help out there because single family lots are exempt. I'm sure a small amount of the 25% increase is coming from the Immokalee construction, but there is a lot of construction out there and it is very likely from people that are moving out there. They are still moving out there despite the traffic situation. The good news is that both MPOs, from Collier and Lee Counties, agree that the interchange is a needed facility. So now it is up on DOT's radar screen. I need this group to keep this in mind at all times. I'm sure Oil Well road will also move up in schedule due to continued development as well as Avé Maria. I invite any of you to join me out there one morning to see what is happening at the corner of Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard. Mr. Strain: Golden Gate Boulevard between Wilson and 951 is jammed up all of the time and I don't see that on any of your projections. Mr. Scott: That would be looking at Vanderbilt which would extend Vanderbilt out to Wilson or further out. The study for that is starting shortly. Also, as part of the eight pack expansion we are looking at Green and Landfill as well. Mr. Strain: Golden Gate Parkway, from Santa Barbara to 951, was a constrained area in 2003 under TCMA, but now it looks like you have planned construction for it, why has that changed? Mr. Scott: That has not changed, that was a mistake that should have been corrected. It should be Collier, from Golden Gate Boulevard. Mr. Strain: I have one more question regarding the traffic counts. It states that traffic counts are based on factoring the first quarter, peak season counts, to average annual daily traffic. Last year it was based on the four traffic counts factored to the average annual daily counts. Why has that changed and what did that change impact? Mr. Scott: We started changing that essentially because, not only is it difficult to get all four quarters, but if you are too early in January and then late in the second quarter, you've then missed the season. If you look at the way its set up May 1 sl or October 1 st are average days. What we have done is try to look at just the peak season. Mr. Strain: Don't we currently have, as part of our formula for concurrency, 10 months out of 12? How does this dovetail that if you are using the peak season here, but omitting it there? Mr. Scott: It doesn't. I'm still looking at what my count is for an average. It's the capacity that's based on 100th through 250th finest hour. Commissioner Halas: I have also received e-mail about Immoka1ee and Randall. I know the county has done some improvements to that intersection but there is still a problem. Are there going to be any improvements to that in the near future? Mr. Scott: Part ofthe problem for Oil Well and Randall right now is the widening ofImmokalee and not having the turn lanes to go with it. Beyond that, Oil Well has been programmed for design and right of way, as part of that we are looking for a connection down to Randall. That may be 7 "._~_.,_.,..,.__.._.__,.."_._...,,,~_~,,"",",.,ù~.,._,.c....._" December 17, 2004 moved up based on the development of Avé Maria. We are probably looking at four lanes for Oil Well and possibly four to six lanes on Randall with a connection to Oil Well. Weare still looking at the connection but the combination of those two improvements would solve some of the problem out there. Mr. Midney: A couple of months ago the CCPC asked the Board of County Commissioners to change the present formula for grading our roads from a 10 month to a 12 month system. Some members of our commission have felt uncomfortable with the present formula, because traffic congestion is more than a two month phenomenon. The traffic congestion has become a quality of life issue, a safety issue and, in Immoka1ee, a decrease in skilled labor because we have seen many people who are unwilling to commute from Naples. This is affecting access to quality professionals in the education and medical fields as well as other professions. Ifthere is really just two months of traffic and the rest of the year is normal, than that would be an unnecessary expense. I feel a 12 month system would be more accurate to our needs. I would ask that the Board of County Commissioners reconsider that decision. Commissioner Coyle: The concurrency system that we have had has been for about 6 or 7 months. It is just now getting under way. We can try to make a determination based upon the capabilities of that system to permit us to manage for the future. I think the question we need to ask is if the system we have now is better than the system we had before. I think we wanted to get something into effect so we can evaluate its ability to achieve concurrency based on what we had before. We can then make adjustments from there. The problem we have is that we fought for two years to get this particular system in; it has to go to Tallahassee. I would like to pursue your concern so we can understand how to achieve better performance. One of the things to consider is the cost evaluation. If the strain on the roads is beginning to occur for a longer period of time our concurrency system will take that into consideration. All we did with this system is to eliminate the obvious peaks. Mr. Midney: Isn't the twelve month system a nationally accepted type of norm? Don't other localities also have peaks and valleys? Commissioner Coyle: It is certainly true that happens but not many other communities have the type oftourist surge that we have here. If you build for the peak population, is that wise use of taxpayer funds? I would suggest no. Where do we best use taxpayer money to accommodate the traffic that we are experiencing? The toughest thing for a county like ours is trying to build infrastructure for a fluctuating population. Mr. Mudd: The key here is that we are going from a 5 year system to a 2 year system. We used to go the 100th hour for all twelve months. We wanted something that is more current so that when a development comes on you have the ability as a Board of County Commissioners to look at what capacity is left in a timely fashion and you are taking actions on those roads in a shorter period of time. The state disagreed with the board's more aggressive approach of one-year and a compromise of two years was made. Commissioner Coyle: We had to accept that but we did something to get around that, we started collecting impact fees much earlier in the process so we receive them in sufficient time to construct. I would request if you have specific recommendations on how we could improve the current system, 8 __"'O",_..~,<";~"',""_,."_,,,_·._-"·-·'~_··'·- ..- December 17, 2004 I would appreciate a clear description of the problem and a proposed solution with an understanding of the restrictions of the DCA. Mr. Midney: I would say that expanding the road system using the 12 month system would be more adequate. Commissioner Coyle: Ifit does expand over the year, aren't we picking that up during the 10 month period? Mr. Strain: Could we look at a weighted average? Commissioner Coyle: If the assumption is correct that the peak is for a relatively short period of time, it will not make much difference if you use the weighted average because you are going to be weighing 10 months against 2 at a very small peak. If it begins to level out then the 10 months which you have been collecting will in fact rise and go to the extreme, ifit went to the level of the peak, you would be getting the same effect as you do with the 12 month. Chairman Fiala: I don't think we are going to solve this here. I think we should revisit this in a workshop in the future when you have more details on your proposal. Commissioner Coyle: Rather than bring it back at a workshop, can we ask the CCPC to bring specific recommendations and expected outcomes in the future. Commissioner Henning: There is a difference between Immoka1ee and the urban Naples area as far as the residents and peaks in population. As a planning commissioner, don't put impediments on land use that is really truly needed. For example, in Immoka1ee, you need middle income housing and different housing types and jobs. In the fringe ofthe urban area we need jobs and affordable housing. That's what we do for smart growth. Chairman Fiala: I think Commissioner Coyle had a good idea for the CCPC to discuss this and then bring it back. Commissioner Halas: Weare experiencing a growth rate of 8,000 to 10,000 people per year. My concern is that, with the expansion of our roads and as we continue to have growth, will the level of service on our 6 lanes, for example, become inadequate? Mr. Scott: Obviously as you get to six lanes, and the demand keeps rising, it will fail. Over the next year I have plans for parallel roadways that should help. Of course, you can also go to overpasses, but is that necessarily where you want to go? Weare going to do more interconnections that can take some demand off of the roadway. SCOOT will make the signal system more efficient. Mr. Feder: As an example, we are not even at six lanes at 41 and 951. If you look at just the development out there, there are no alternatives to those roadways. Eventually, if you continue to build out beyond the capacity of the land, you will have issues. We are also looking at the feasibility of providing other corridors; we have to consider the environmental as well as several other factors. One area we are focusing on is east of 951. If we do not start to change the ways it is developing 9 , _.,_.~,~,,,.~~.,,,,,,,,_.~___,,,__d"_~~>"_~" ·h·~ December 17, 2004 and we don't start addressing the demands that are there now, we are not going to be able to handle the growth in the urban area if it is a "bedroom community," so to speak, east of 951. We need to focus on that area. Mr. Adelstein: We have the same problem all around. The roads are too busy. We cannot expand some roads much further. SCOOT is a way of moving traffic without extending roads. I would say that if we can get that open and get it into certain areas; you will at least get 5% more. Chairman Fiala: Usually these traffic jams occur during rush hour when people are trying to get to and from work. If people could live closer to their places of employment they would not impact the roads as much. As we look at continued development, we need to consider some type of workforce housing. For example, with US 41, it seems to be operating pretty well; it doesn't really have many obstructions. What do you do with a road like that? Mr. Scott: At least on paper, the reason why it is failing is because the vested trips are included in there. Chairman Fiala: Regarding the interchange for Everglades Boulevard, everyone seemed to agree that we need that. Is there something we can do to resubmit our request to FDOT in a more expeditious manner? Mr. Feder: During your joint meeting with Lee County, one of the issues that were raised was support for an interchange there. Continued support through Metropolitan Planning can ensure that FDOT hears that concern. The final analysis is the Federal Highway Administration. We probably should work with the state to try to get some study and analysis to show that there would not be major impacts to the main line if you established an interchange there and controlled the access for some period of time. One of the major issues they look at is no interruption or disruption to the mainline flow. Although we have some minor support from the DEP, we have to communicate to the other environmental groups the impact of the other roadways that would be required if we were not to make that interchange. Chairman Fiala: I would suggest that we really move in that direction. We have all focused on planning for the future. We need to put essential roads, such as this, on the fast track. Regarding the different stations for the traffic counts, is there a way for me to receive an itemized list of the stations? Mr. Scott: I can provide a report on that. Chairman Fiala: Regarding vested development, if they are already vested but not built so that we just use the one year build out figures so other developments can be approved, what happens to the level of service that is reached but then the vested properties are still building? Mr. Scott: We look at it in many ways, not only the one year model but the five year and ten year as well. There's an issue with the vested units that are never going to be built versus the vested that are going to be built. Weare trying to develop a system to eliminate the ones that will never be built while keeping those that are going to be built. 10 December 17, 2004 Chairman Fiala: Do they use those vested units as TDRs or something similar? Mr. Scott: Now that we have a concurrency management system, there is a market for that. Chairman Fiala: So it is harder to get them to release that, because they see each un-built unit as dollars. Commissioner Halas: I think with regard to the vested units, the developers are looking down the road, maybe ten years from now, when they are going to have redevelopment in the community. We have seen that recently with Pelican Bay. Commissioner Coyle: That is a danger but fortunately Ms. Student's proposed ordinance will solve most of that. Ms. Student: I would like to also point out that Pelican Bay was a DRI that predated the comp plan and the new comp plan laws. By state statute, DRIs such as that have enjoyed some vested status. Mostly these are turned over to the association and the association does not have an interest to develop. Mr. Feder: We are not taking any presumed vested units off until they are removed voluntarily or until we pass an ordinance. We are considering how quickly they are developing. If they are not developing we are trying to take that into account. Mr. Murray: If the county has benefited from the gas tax income, how do we project that out? Also, I was not clear on the debt service being equal to the net construction dollars. Mr. Feder: Regarding the gas tax, we are presuming the continued 11 cents application based on the extension by the board. We do not have an expanding basis for it. Weare trying to pursue indexing, such as the state does, but have not had the opportunity from the legislature as of yet. Mr. Schiffer: Next year, can you add an attachment that predicts the roads we are going to need to get us through the population growth? Mr. Scott: Sure, and that is part of what the MPO is in the process right now. DRAINAGE & STRUCTURES Mr. Feder: I'm starting on page 16 in everyone's booklet. Our system in the county is compromised of primary, secondary and tertiary systems. The primary is predominantly addressed by Big Cypress Basin. The secondary is the canal system. The storm water ordinance is being brought back in February. We spent quite a few years analyzing the problem and with the assistance of the board in providing a dedicated funding source as well as the opportunity to pursue grants we will be able to increase our efforts. One of the projects will be taking advantage of the Fleischmann property north of Golden Gate Parkway to create a retention system and greatly impact the quality of the water going into Naples Bay. 11 December 17, 2004 We now have the water management permit and are making great progress on the Corps permit for the project in Lely. We are making great progress in alleviating the flooding situation between Goodlette and 41 on Golden Gate Parkway. Another major project we have is Gateway Triangle. Mr. Mudd: One correction, we will have to come back to the board with an ordinance within the next couple of months to officially establish that storm water utility management section. Chairman Fiala: Regarding Lake Kelly, Ijust heard that, even though we had plans to purchase that exotic infected swampy area, someone else has bought it. What happens to our storm water management problem there? Mr. Feder: That's one of the problems, now that we have a dedicated source we will be able to identify those lands and maybe purchase them before they go into a development stage. We did do some piping in the area and will continue to look for opportunities in that area. Mr. Mudd: The only thing you have there is that we are aggressively going after those exotics in the canal. The landowner will now have that responsibility. Ricardo Valera, Director of Storm Water Management: We have done some maintenance work in the outfall of Lake Kelly, removing vegetation and debris. In addition, there are limitations that prohibit development within an outfall route. Mr. Strain: On page 16, regarding the existing revenue sources, last year South Florida was providing us with almost $6 million and now we have $1.7 million. I was wondering why that happened. Also, last year we had $5 million under supplemental revenue sources from the City of Naples and now we have none. Mr. Valera: The reason why we removed the City of Naples is because we haven't received any money from them. It was promised funds that have not come through. I would have to get back to you regarding the funding from South Florida. Mr. Feder: In fact we have worked with Bog Cypress Basin and they have committed funding to several projects including Lely, the Gordon River Basin as well as Gateway. As we move forward you will see additional funding from that source. Mr. Strain: On page 17, there are two projects that had a significant change from last year's AUIR. The first one is the Gordon River Master Plan, last year it had roughly $29 million and this year it is shown as roughly $4 million. That's a substantial drop and I was curious as to why. The Naples Outfall as well had a substantial drop from roughly $21 million to $100,000 this year. Mr. Valera: There have been revisions to the budget and also to the size of the projects. Some revisions will be forthcoming. For instance, the Gordon River Master Plan has been broken off into small projects. Among them is the water quality park that we are gearing up for right now. These little improvements cost a fraction of the overall money that was allocated last year. We are just breaking it off into small pieces. 12 December 17, 2004 Mr. Feder: What you now have is what the board actually established ina dedicated funding source. We have taken a program that identified broad master plan improvements, not funded. We are now listing projects that we can deliver. Mr. Mudd: When the board dedicated .15 mils to this effort, it is a dedication; it is not locked in stone. Nor can the board, without referendum, bond any of those particular dollars with a guaranteed payback. So with storm water's particular case, they have to break down their massive projects down into digestible doses so they can do those in increments. It really is a pay as you go program. Commissioner Coyle: Mr. Strain, I'm sure you are just verifying that we d.o not short any of these programs. Some of the things that have to reflect our planning are changes in circumstances. In this case they are to the better. With respect to the Gordon River Master Plan, the potential for the acquisition of the Fleishman property provides opportunity to do things that will improve water quality. The Big Cypress Basin has indicated that they will provide $5 million just for that project. Knowing those circumstances, it is probably not appropriate to duplicate those costs in our budget here. Weare tending to view these things cumulatively. Considering the funding from the state, as well the Big Cypress Basin, hopefully the money we have budgeted will be adequate to achieve the final goal. Commissioner Halas: One of the problems I have in my district is the Naples Bay area. We were unable to obtain funds for the Corps of Engineers study so I am hoping with the storm water authority; it will address those issues too. WATER/WASTE WATER Jim Deloney, Public Utilities Administrator: The Public Utilities Division is responsible for the administration and reporting of the water, waste water and solid waste components of the update inventory report. As part of the division's continuous review and appropriate revision of the water and waste water master plans and our integrated solid waste management strategies, the division has validated the AUIR levels of service standards. As each component is discussed, I ask that you keep in mind that the major capital projects necessary to support these levels of standards require a minimum of 8 years from the point that we make the decision to that project's commissioning. This is important as we review today's charts to verify that we have made the appropriate decisions at the right time to verify that we have the infrastructure in place for the public health, safety and welfare of Collier County. Paul Matosh, Director of the Water Department: We have no current consent orders that we are operating under. We have current compliance with all of our permits except for one and that is one that you see weekly from me, the Tamiami Well Field. Finally, we are meeting our customers' demand. I will be referring to pages 18 through 20. There are no proposed changes to the level of service standards. The Master Plan outlines certain expansions to peak water treatment capacities that are in the current AUIR planning window and are shown in the graph on page 20. 13 .-,...--,---,"".-""'."- December 17, 2004 · 9 million gallon per day reverse osmosis water treatment plant · Expansion of the potable water aquifer storage and recovery well field located on Manatee Road from 1 million gallons per day to 5 million gallons per day · A 12 million gallons per day expansion, inclusive of well field expansion to the new 8 million gallons per day treatment plant that was placed into production this month · A New 10 gallon per day NE county water treatment plant and the associated well field that is slated for 2009. That is contractual obligation to provide service to Orange Tree by 2012. · A 10 gallons per day expansion to that same facility, scheduled for 2013. Mr. Strain: Since you pointed out the graph it brings up an issue. Your $12 million plant, shown in 2008, puts you well above the required capacity curve. If you were to delay that plant for two years you would still have a surplus and you would save the taxpayers money for the construction and two years of operations. Mr. Matosh: When we look at water treatment plant construction capacity, we have to look at reliable capacity, the eight year planning window and the required "burn-in" period. Mr. Deloney: In AUIR we looked at constructed capacity. That does not indicate reliability, operational challenges and the unpredictability of well field capacity. In my view, we are not overshooting the target. We use the best estimates for the population's needs that we have available to us. We have some issues with that type of forecasting and we are working with you to make sure we are following the right direction. Given the experiences that we have had to date, it would not be my recommendation to change this. The eight year decision provides the greatest challenge; we have to consider the design, permitting, real estate acquisition, land use zoning and then construction and burning-in. You want 0 build just in time, but also factor in some time for when you encounter challenges. Compliance for water is in three measures. First is when you turn on a faucet it has to be compliant in quality and quantity. The second is that we have to provide a certain level of service based on the increases due to development, much like the checkbook concurrency explained earlier by Mr. Feder. Third, through AUIR we have to plan for numerous years in the future. Mr. Strain: Thank you. I have one other question. Last year, you had $165 million in available inventory, this year it is $119 million. Tom Wides, Operations Director of Public Utilities: Each year, over the last three years, we have continued to review our project master plans and have continued to move projects in and out as we have seen opportunities to do so. As we do that, and we move in the purchases of land or move out any projects, that is going to affect the inventory numbers on a very gross basis. Mr. Strain: My question regards available inventory, not anything in planning. Mr. Wides: My best answer would be that we will look at this and get back to you. Mr. Strain: When you do your bonding, are the assessed values that we currently have in place considered, as in inventory? 14 December 17, 2004 Mr. Wittis: The real trigger for the bonding capacity is the depreciated plant value and the coverage from our revenue. Our current bond rating is AA; we will be having that re-eva1uated in the spring. Commissioner Coyle: I would thin that it would be a good idea to give us information on the plans to interconnect the facilities. The ability to back up another part of the system cannot be looked at cumulatively throughout the system as some areas will not be interconnected to others. The other point is that, as you plan for facilities based on development, what do you do if the development does not occur in that area at the anticipated rate? Then you would have to make up that capacity elsewhere. Mr. Deloney: That is true, particularly of waste water, which cannot be interconnected because of the distances of the facilities. There is only so much of that system you can interconnect. We can move water based on pipe sizes and pressures. Our current master plan calls for a water plant in the south area, we have a study right now to see if we need that plant. We will need the capacity, but maybe we will not need that plant. Commissioner Halas: I understand where you are coming from. I sure don't want to relive the experience that we had in 2000. I rather have some extra capacity rather than lack of capacity. With the accelerated cost of building materials it may actually save taxpayers money to have the plants built two years in advance. WASTEWATER Joe Cheetam, Director of Wastewater: The County's water reclamation facilities are in full compliance with the Florida DEP, operating permits. In addition we have met and are on schedule with all components of the 2001 FDEP consent order. The waste water facilities this year were essentially 100% reliable. We are poised again to have a successful year in 2005. The existing level of service standard is 145 gallons per capita per day for the north service district and 100 gallons per capita per day for the south service district. We will continue to monitor our level of service each year and continue to update. Mr. Cheetam refers to following documents to illustrate planned facilities and expansions as well as the required and available capacities of the system. The waste water treatment system is more than just the capacity of the treatment facilities. More components are necessary to provide reliable waste water treatment to our customers. For example, raw waste water and reuse water interconnects to allow waste water or reuse to be piped from one facility to another as needed for operations in case a unit of process goes off line. The FDEP is schedule to review our existing consent order in approximately 2007 to determine whether is can be lifted. To meet the conditions of the 2001 FDEP consent order and to ensure our customers that we will not have any more consent orders is our department's number one priority. As we strive to exceed our customers' expectations, the waste water department has implemented several quality systems. 15 December 17, 2004 Mr. Mudd: As far as the capacity of the south plant, we made the determination to complete all phases rather than drag it out because we wanted to avoid disrupting that entire neighborhood for a long period of time. Mr. Strain: The surplus that is shown on the sewer treatment systems are well within reasons Mr. Schiffer: Why is the load less in the south area than in the north area? Mr. Mudd: Good questions, more restaurants, Joe has taken almost all of the grease that comes out of JC drain fields up on the north end and it gives you higher BOD content. If there was anybody that was going to come in with port-a-potty waste it would go to the north end. There is also the FOG (Fats, Oils & Greases) program in the north end and over history we have found that we have had a lot more of that type of waste. Mr. Cheetam: We also have more tourist activity in that area and they tend to utilize more water and garbage disposal use. Mr. Deloney: Also, as we see the FOG program succeed, thanks to the strong ordinance passed by the board, we may be able to lower the level of service accordingly. SOLID WASTE Dr. George Yilmaz, Solid Waste: (Dr. Yomez will be referring to pages 27 - 32.) Our program provides environmentally sound and cost-effective solid waste management services for all customers in Collier County. The goal, as directed by the board, is to map out an effective long range strategy that provides solid waste services for a period of 20 to as high as 50 years. There are two growth management requirements: two year lined cell capacity operational for compliance and concurrency and ten year, unlined landfill disposal capacity for long term readiness and concurrency. I am pleased to report that we are in compliance with short and long term growth management requirements as a result of your continuous and diligent integrated solid waste management actions and policy decisions that you have made. Furthermore, we know the decision points for the long term continued compliance process. Mr. Strain: Can you tell me why you have used the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research for your population estimates and projections? The other departments have used the county. Mr. Wides: The County's source for the population estimates is essentially from the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. So, although they are coming through the county, they are from the University of Florida' s Bureau of Economic and Business Research system. 16 .... _'~----".'''.'' . December 17, 2004 Mr. Schiffer: I would think that by year 24 of the plan, we will be out of capacity, what do we have planned? Mr. Deloney: The charts you see in front of you look back in our experience base of managing and demand for the last five years that were much different than what we have today. The board has given us direction to plan for that future use and we are looking at diversion, reuse and an aggressive recycling strategy. We have some projections for the impact of that over the next five years that push forward the dates you have in front of you today as much as five or six years. In addition to our aggressive recycling programs we are going to look at new technology that will enable us to push those dates out even further. PARKS AND RECREATION Marla Ramsey, Interim Public Services Administrator: There are three levels of service that the division of Parks and Recreation provides. The first is the recreation facilities. Our current level of service standard is $240 per capita throughout the system. Some of the major facilities that we are looking at putting online are the Manatee Community Park, Orange Tree Community Park, Good1and-Margood Facility, Good1and Boat Park Facility and a Golden Gate Estates Regional Park. If you look at the graph on page 35, you will see that we are in compliance with out standard. All of our facilities are rated upon the amount of what it would cost to purchase them today. We also look at the types of facilities and have standards associated for different features. The Community Park Lands level of service standard is 1.2882 acres per 1,000 of population in the unincorporated area. Weare in compliance as we stand over the next five years. The regional park land standard is 2.9412 acres per 1,000 people. We have listed the various regional parks. You will notice that there is a big dip in the regional acres planned. The reason is that when we were negotiating for the Everglades project we lost Jane's Scenic Drive which was 140 acres. You will see that we recovered some of the lost acres is that recently the Paul PUD have graciously donated the lake of 90 acres out in that facility. Also, we have been talking with the fairgrounds and, although we do not have a commitment from them, we have included that acreage with hopes that we can work out a management plan and bring that in as a park. We have also provided a comprehensive listing of all the park facilities with acreages and features available at all of the parks. Mr. Murray: Regarding East Naples Community Park, I know that there is an issue regarding the soccer fields versus the skate park. Is there a plan to retain the skate park? 17 December 17, 2004 Ms. Ramsey: We took a recommendation that we retain and operate the skate park and bring it under our inventory and management to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board this week. We hope to bring that to the board to request additional funding to make that happen. Mr. Schiffer: Most ofthis is based on population, is this spread out fairly well? Ms. Ramsey: We worked with the Community Character Plan to look at the areas that we were already serving as well as the areas where we need to provide some additional services. The Orange Tree and Golden Gate Estates areas were both lacking and we have plans to put facilities on line in both areas. We also have lands that are in inventory that have not been developed; as the population grows we will look to bring them online. Mr. Strain: Last year your available inventory included beach access in the amount of $285 million. Can you tell me where that $285 million is in this report? I feel that we need to verify exactly where this amount is. There was an additional category that was valued at $285 million, while the other categories remained the same. Ms. Ramsey: We brought forward as a category B, a level of service for beaches and boat ramps. We did that to get an impact fee that would help us provide additional facilities. In order to provide legal substance we need to be able to show in some plan the estimate of what the land is worth. We never removed that land from the regional parks in category A. We felt that we could justify the beach acreage costing more per acre because that is what the land would be worth if purchased today. Mr. Mudd: Mr. Strain, I understand your question and we will look into it. Commissioner Coletta: Can you tell me why the land we own at Pelican Bay, that the county wants to use for access eventually, wouldn't be considered beach access? Ms. Ramsey: This is preserve land still under the management of the department of natural resources. The acreages that we have listed are acreages that we can actually access and use for recreational purposes. Commissioner Coletta: We haven't resolved the access issue yet, I think it would be a great statement if we had that listed. I for one, think it should be part of our inventory for Parks and Recreation. Commissioner Halas: I think that will go all the way to the Supreme Court to obtain access. Ms. Ramsey: I can look into that. Commissioner Henning: You really cannot count on it if you can't use it. Commissioner Coletta: We have other potential facilities listed; I thought it may be appropriate to list that as a potential facility as well. 18 December 17,2004 Chairman Fiala: I have been encouraging a remote control park over at Manatee in lieu of soccer fields. I noticed you were purchasing 60 acres at Six Ls, is that for soccer fields? Ms. Ramsey: That is not actually a purchase; we have been working with a developer there to try to set aside 60 acres. Unfortunately, they will not be large pieces. Mr. Mudd: Six L Farms is considering selling their property. It is in a receiving area. They are in the process of working with an architectural and engineering firm to design what their particular acreage will look like. Along with that, Mr. Deloney is talking to them about the water treatment needs that may be there. Weare trying to get in early in the process before they develop out there. Mr. Schmitt guided the board in the appropriate motion that was needed. Commissioner Henning: I move that we find upon analysis, review, actions taken and directions given, based on the 2004 AUIR that adequate Solid Waste, Drainages, Parks, Potable Water and Sewer public facilities will be available, as defined by the Collier County Concurrency Management System, as implemented by Chapter 6.02.02 of the LDC, to support development order issuance until presentation of the 2005 AUIR. Commissioner Coletta seconds. Motion passes unanimously. Mr. Mudd: During the presentation on roads, there was a problem on one road segment, US 41 from 951 to 92. Mr. Scott recommended that the board drop the level of service on that particular road segment from level of service C to level of service D. I would ask that you either confirm or we will address it in 2005. Mr. Scott: It projected to be a problem this year. I would bring it back as part of the GMP amendment also. Ms. Student: We are here today for the AUIR, but the board can give direction to the staff to bring this back in the appropriate format to lower the level of service standard. Commissioner Coyle: I move that we bring it back in the appropriate format to make a recommendation. Commissioner Halas seconds. Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner Henning voted against the motion. Mr. Schmitt: I would also recommend that we move on recommendation #4. Commissioner Henning moves to find upon analysis, review, actions taken, and directions given, that there is sufficient road network capacity in the Transportation Concurrency Management Database for continued operation of the real-time declining balance ledger to support development order issuance until the FY05 end of third quarter status report. 19 -""'_."-".__..~.'^ " December 17,2004 Commissioner Coyle seconds. Motion carries unanimously. Jason Sweat, Planning: We are moving forward to the County Jail Facility. I know we have a representative from the Sheriffs Department here that I would ask to provide an overview. We did not have a presentation. I could open it up to questions or perhaps Crystal can give a brief overview of the expansion or level of service. Mr. Strain: Who actually prepared this paperwork? Mr. Sweat: County staff compiles the information provided by the various departments around the county. Crystal Kinzel, Sheriff's Department: I am a little surprised about making the presentation because we do have a few comments that we have expressed to the county's department. We do have a couple of issues regarding the level of service. They are meeting in January to go over the court and jail facilities. All of the level of service that was established was in fact a prior study group from years past. The 2.4 level of service that was adopted was recommended to be 2.6 in 1997, that increase was not adopted. Currently we are at a 3.1 in the last thirty days of actual experience versus the level of service standard that was 2.4. What is in the paperwork was prepared by county staff by we are here to answer any questions you may have about population. Mr. Sweat: The level of service standard that we are currently using, the 2.4 beds per 1000 capita, is at issue right now. We are looking at past studies that were not adopted by the, then, Board of County Commissioners 9 or 10 years ago. We have agreed to go back and review this. What we have right now has changed very little in the past few years with the AUIR. We think there are some incorrect figures in surplus and deficiencies. We will be going back this year with a recommendation and an analysis to come up with a more accurate level of service. Mr. Strain: In the summary provided by the Sheriffs office, 1451 available beds includes 76 beds that are part of tents, 2 per tent, the unit cost is $62,421. I'm not sure you would count double-bunk tents at $124,000. Mr. Sweat: You are absolutely correct and I think we did not have an accurate figure at that time and that was the best number that we could come up with. Mr. Strain: The Sheriffs Department also reported that there were 980 inmates in the jail system today. On your sheet we are showing 808 beds for 03-04 and 857 beds in 04-05. We have more than that now by over 100. I understand that you are going to redo this chart. Are you going to redo it based on the reality today? Mr. Sweat: Absolutely, we are going to reanalyze everything and provide accurate information. 20 ,_._,"...___.._.,.~.",____,,,,,,,,'_,,,,..e~ December 17, 2004 Commissioner Coyle: How can we possibly make a decision on a concurrency motion if we do not have accurate information? It seems to me that the most we can do is make a determination if the current jail status meets the requirements. Ms. Student: The Category B facilities are non-concurrency so what you vote on is really for your upcoming budget. I think that the motion could be somehow crafted to reflect whatever the change that staff needs to put on the record. Mr. Schmitt: I think it is obvious that the capacity that we have is certainly not reflected. Mr. Mudd: I think he has 100 inmates more than capacity at this current time. This upcoming committee is important to decrease jail population in the future because not only will you find things that are hardened in structures but I think you will find changes in policy and procedure that will lessen the amount of inmates for the long term. Commissioner Coyle: I think we need to understand that as we go through these procedures. That is why I am looking for a way to deal with this on a short term basis and re-evaluate it later. Can we do that? Mr. Mudd: I believe at this time, monetarily wise you are bringing on a 558 bunk jail right now and it is in the process of construction. Commissioner Halas: What is your best guess for the level of service we are anticipating? Mr. Mudd: Before you answer that question, I believe it goes back to the policy and procedure issue that we just talked about. We will not know that until we get through this committee. Mr. Adelstein: What is a non-rated bed? Skip Camp, Facilities Management Director: A non-rated bed is temporary types of beds, such as medical, holding cells and things like that. Chairman Fiala: I guess the request is for better figures. LIBRARIES Ms. Ramsey: There are two levels of service in the library system. The square footage per capita is .33 square feet per capita. You will see that two more facilities are listed in the next ten years. One is the expansion to the Golden Gate City Library and the other is the South Regional Library. The second standard is based on the amount of books we have. The current standard level of service is 1.6-1.8. This is still progressive. We are at about 1.6 books per capita right now and are moving to 1.8. Mr. Murray: In terms of books a unit is valued at $25.00; does that include all types of books? 21 ,~~<~...~,.___w December 17, 2004 Ms. Ramsey: That is an average and does not include paperback books; all paperback books that you see in the library are donated. Mr. Strain: Looking at the attached chart, regarding the surplus of 30,000 square feet. If you allow that surplus to drop to 11,000 square feet, you could put off the 2005 expansion. That would save taxpayer money. Commissioner Henning: That will probably be extended anyway, due to circumstances. Commissioner Coyle: There is an argument that says, in many cases, it is better to build now due to the rising cost of construction. Do you think that the cost of construction is rising that rapidly? Mr. Strain: It is rising very rapidly here because it is hard to find workers. However the expenditure with interest and the added cost of operations I don't think would exceed the construction increases. Mr. Murray: We declare the area of South Naples, without boundaries, how do you know when your weighted per capita reaches a certain point? We should have been collecting impact fees to go forward and I also do not see any evidence of requests for grant money. I am concerned that we are not going to be able to serve this population. Commissioner Coyle: I have the same concern and it applies throughout the analysis here. Mr. Murray: I could make this case for the parks, people who come here is season use the parks as well. Commissioner Coletta: The problem with libraries is that people use them in a given area. They will not usually travel to reach another library if they are underserved. We have reached a level of service in Immokalee. The next area that I am concerned about is Golden Gate City. I think it is the most utilized per square foot library in the whole area. Ifwe hold off because there is a system wide surplus then the people in Golden Gate City may be at a disadvantage. Ms. Ramsey: Because of the way the Golden Gate City library is situated on the site, in order to make an addition to it we will have to remove the existing structure and replace it; we are unable to add on. The problem with that is that the impact fees will only pay for the additional square footage requires and ad valorem would have to pay for the balance of the costs. We do not have the funding in place at this time. As we look forward we do not have funds to build libraries so to speak. Weare working on a plan, but we are not there yet. The Friends group is working on fundraising to come up with part of the Golden Gate City cost and we are giving them this season to see if they can do that. Mr. Mudd: Also, there's a dry retention pond that sits in the back that is quite large. Perhaps our engineers can look at that to make it a deeper pond with a fountain for circulation instead of having such a wide area for retention and that could free up some area for the addition. 22 December 17, 2004 Chairman Fiala: Can you also tell me the square footage for the East Naples Library? Ms. Ramsey: I think that is about 7,000 square feet as well. Chairman Fiala: I think it is less, but it is the only one that serves the 110 square miles. I think it' s wonderful that you are expanding but right now we have a huge population that is very underserved. Ms. Ramsey: The Edison College has approached us about a joint library. They want a 60,000 square foot facility but they do not have any money. We have paused to see what we can do with them, perhaps they could take on operating costs or purchase books. Chairman Fiala: What then happens to the 20 acres if you join with Edison College? Ms. Ramsey: Right now there are also plans for a government complex. Mr. Mudd: I don't know how good this deal is with Edison. Chairman Fiala: I don't know that we can count on Edison and I would hate to see this library held up any further because of that. EMS Jeff Page, EMS: You will see that, for next year, we are requesting a growth unit. This will be the first we are requesting for a couple of years, but the stats definitely reflect the need. I would like to add that this is based on us coming back to the board on the next few months to revision the COPCN to exclude the word "stretcher" out of the COPCN ordinance and that would allow us to free up "growth units" for very basic type calls. We do have 4-5 of those a day and it is actually overkill to use a life support unit for those. Mr. Mudd: Commissioners, if you remember correctly this is from when we had the licensing issues from a number of outside ambulance services and we said we would talk to the board about what we needed to change and let the non-emergency calls be handled entirely by the outside ambulance services. Mr. Strain: Last year, you show a $3.5 million positive value. This year, you show quite a few negatives and end up with a deficit of $300,000. How did this happen? Mr. Page: That is really a question I would have to defer to Mike. What I can tell you is that one of the things that changed is how we respond to the types of calls. Mr. Strain: Another comment is that they have a 0.4 surplus and I would think that if we needed a surplus anywhere it would be here. Commissioner Coyle: This appears to me to be an endemic problem and I suspect that it originates from our accounting or budget department because it is clear that the individual departments do not 23 December 17, 2004 get involved with valuing their facilities and depreciating them. I suspect that we will probably have to change procedures. Mr. Page: What happens is that I will plug in the number of what the expected call volume will be and that number comes up. It is part of the calculation. GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS Mr. Sweat: We will be starting government buildings on page 60. We have a 1.9 square footage per capita for a level of service. On page 61, we have listed some square feet that we have planned for a capital improvement projects. We have broken those projects down on page 62 through fiscal year 2016. Mr. Murray: Mr. Mudd mentioned the potential for government buildings at Cultural Drive. I am wondering if that should be included here. Mr. Mudd: That is not there and it isn't in our Master Plan at this particular time. Right now we are trying to figure out what we are going to do on Heritage Bay at this time and Mr. Camp has a focus group looking through what the needs are. I have to determine if Edison is going to donate land for the library and if not, the library is going on the 20 acres. Mr. Murray: I am speaking not of the library but of the county broadening it's opportunities for service and I was just hoping that it would be somewhere on here. Mr. Schmitt asks the commission to vote on the following items: . Accept and approve the attached document as the 2004 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities. . Give Staff direction by separate motion and vote on Category "A" and "B" facilities relative to staff recommendations for projects and revenue sources for inclusion in the FY05 Schedule of Capital Improvements of the Annual CIE Update and Amendment. We have done Category A. Based on that we did note that we will review and provide an added on analysis for the level of service for the jail and base that on the discussions we had today. We will also answer the questions regarding EMS. We will also resolve questions for Parks and Recreation regarding the available inventory. We will also note the recommendation for the CCPC to return to this board with a recommendation on the policy of 10 versus 12 month criteria for evaluating transportation concurrency. Commissioner Henning moves to take action on these items with emphasis on the provision of acceptable answers to the unanswered questions that have come out of this process. Ms. Student: I think Mr. Schmitt stated that we already did category A. This motion has to do, not with finding concurrency, but making sure that the projects and revenue sources are in the schedule of capital improvements for the annual CIE updates and amendments. So Category A needs to be in your motion. 24 .....------~" ~ December 17, 2004 Commissioner Henning amends his motion to reflect Ms. Student's request. Commissioner Coyle: I'll second it with the provision that the present value of all facilities in all sections where we discussed it will be review to make sure it is accurate. The motion only included Parks and Recreation; I think we should do that for all the categories. Mr. Abernathy: Regarding the recommendation that we review this 10 month versus 12 month analysis, I spoke with Mr. Feder during the break and he said he could run a parallel set of numbers for 12. Maybe if there isn't much of a difference we can just do that and settle this whole thing. Mr. Scott: We did run some numbers last year and there wasn't a big difference, about 4%. I could analyze the entire program and bring it back to the commission but there wasn't a big difference. Commissioner Coyle: 4% is a lot, that's $28 million. Ifit causes us to increase our capital projects for roads within a specific period of time, that is a lot of money. Mr. Scott: That's true, but it does not just determine costs. Commissioner Coyle: If, by changing this, you move roads into a different category of service we will have to increase our level of service by mandate. This is why I am concerned. Ms. Student: I would recommend that the board vote on the motions that are on the floor with regard to AUIR and then we make a second motion to bring this item back. Commissioner Henning agrees to the amendment. Motion carries unanimously. Commissioner Coyle: With respect to the second motion, what is the desire ofthe CCPC? Mr. Strain: I'm not sure it would hurt to obtain the data. Mr. Murray: It is a good thing. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County of Collier, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 PM. 25 ....,~-- ., _._..-.~",.-..~.,.". December 17, 2004 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/AUIR WORKSHOP ~d~~ DONN , airman ',~nBST~I' , ., ..' ". . -,« ,,,YD\NIGtIT'E/BROCK, CLERK ,'; ./..~.!,., ..' " 'j' "ì " '~hCt· ~-~O,( ~;:~·'~;t~.s't-·as ~ Ct\l1'-' , . Thes~ ~1~t~~~~r:~~bY the Board on I-I \- dOOS , as presented corrected ~ or as 26